X-Treme Politics
July 27, 2006 on 7:09 pm | In Main, National |
As is often the case on Wednesday afternoons, when weekly deadlines have passed and I have a chance to catch my breath, I got to thinking. We are in the middle of a political season whose battles are too often being fought at a fevered pitch. What inspires such passion among people in the arena of political and philosophical principles? Why do so many candidates, supporters and pundits go over-the-top when describing the beliefs, tactics and motives of the opposition?
The obvious answer is that it’s a reflection of a desire to be heard among the din that passes for political discourse these days. After all, a thoughtful and fair analysis of your opponent’s views seldom gets you face time on TV or a link on someone’s blog. And such a tactic is next to useless if your nemesis refuses to abide by the same rules. Then a harsh attack provokes a mean response and the whole process becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. But there is another level on which meaness breeds passion and I think I’ve found it.
In 1968, I was 11 years old and living on the South Side of Chicago only a few months after the conclusion of that now-infamous Democratic National Convention. Why were the activists who demonstrated (some violently) only a few blocks from my neighborhood so passionate about what they believed? And what did they believe beyond the idea that the Vietnam War should stop? I kept hearing words like liberal and conservative bandied about. What on earth did those words mean?
So I asked a close relative whom I admired (I am withholding the name and specific relation out of respect). S/he told me (and I remember this as if it were only yesterday), “Conservatives don’t want to help anyone. They only care about themselves.” I also heard this relative say at various times that most Republicans were racists and narrow-minded. Being a pre-teen of limited worldliness, I blithely went about my business for the next 10 years or so thinking Republicans only cared about making themselves and their white friends richer while the rest of us were destined to lead lives as pawns in the conservative march to keep us down.
Only later in life did I realize that not only was that analysis inaccurate, it was the vilest kind of slur born out of wholesale ignorance. Sure, there were some greedy conservatives out there, but for every grasping GOP swine there were several Republicans who were among the kindest and most philanthropic citizens I had ever met. They just weren’t sure it was the government’s job to fix all the ills of society. Does that mean they don’t want to help you?
And as for the racist label, I later watched videotape of that same Democratic convention showing Chicago Mayor Richard Daley shouting anti-Semitic epithets at Sen. Abraham Ribicoff, who would become my senator when we moved to Kent, Conn., the following year. Only a few years ago I learned that Sen. Robert Byrd, an admired Democratic congressional leader, was in his 20s an “Exalted Cyclops” for the Ku Klux Klan.
And don’t even get me started on narrow-minded. For every jingoistic John Bircher, I can find you a liberal who calls Rudy Giuliani a fascist and gay marriage opponents bigots. I know lefties who can’t even sit in the same room with a pro-lifer, to say nothing of rubbing elbows with a creationist. I’ve seen hidebound extremists on both sides, but have met dozens of people on the left who are among the most intolerant I have crossed paths with. And I’ve talked to a lot of people over the years all across the country.
My point is that extreme rhetoric and false caricatures can actually hurt the cause. That’s what happened in my case. After learning the truth, I determined that I would never trust that relative’s views again and so veered steadily away from the left and became a passionate centrist (is it possible to be one of those?). And I have friends who have told me similar stories about events and conversations that have shaped their beliefs. But don’t expect the madness to end anytime soon. Both the left and the right caricature the other side. Hey, it’s a lot less work than thoughtful analysis.
11 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
I can make guesses about why other people behave the way they do, but who knows if I’m right. I can however speak quite accurately on my own position (and whether you want to assume other people might agree with me or not is up to you).
But basically I see your statements as
condemning those at the far ends of the political spectrum (but especially on the left) for stating things in a way that you think might offend some.
To me it’s a foregone conclusion that the right is WRONG. The war in Iraq was a way of catering to the people who put Bush in power (big oil, etc…). The only thing that’s given me any kind of iota of hope recently is the Supreme Court decision rebuking the procedures under which prisoners are held/tried at Guantanamo.
If you want to know why there’s so much vitriol in the dialog, my personal answer is that there are things I feel very strongly about (and I think that our actions as a nation are doing immeasurable harm to the way citizens of other countries will continue to view us for years and even decades to come).
I feel strongly that to *not* speak out strongly and clearly (and sometimes allow my frustration to help chose my words) would be a very unpatriotic thing to do. I care very much for this country, and desperately want to get it on a better track. If I (and people who agree with me) eventually succeed at helping to create this sea change, I would not expect those on the right to be “polite” about their complaints. I hope that at that time, I’d be able to honestly evaluate their criticisms (rather than paying so much attention to whether their complaints were framed politely). In short, to me what matters is “what you say” and the “how you say it” is much less important.
Comment by d — July 27, 2006 #
Dear “d”,
Thanks for your comment. I can offer the same critique of the right if you like. I only use rejecting the harshness of the left in my childhood as an example of how it shaped my centrist worldview as an adult.
I certainly am not questioning anyone’s right to speak out forcefully. But your last sentence is precisely to my point. “How you say it” can have the effect of turning people off and rejecting ‘what you say,” so tone (not necessarily ‘politeness’) is important.
Just ask people on the far right such as Falwell and Robertson who have made that mistake. Many Christians I know sypathize with some of the religious right’s views, but cringe at their shrillness and tune them out, so the movement is less successful than it would have otherwise have been.
Comment by Terry — July 27, 2006 #
Terry:
Throughout the Bush presidency, my liberal friends and relatives have wailed that the Republican Party has been hijacked by the extreme right. They can point to some evidence that suggests as much.
But yesterday I read in the Courant that Joe Lieberman’s gay and pro-choice supporters are now working vigorously against him — apparently because he only votes the way they want him to 90 to 95 percent of the time. Imagine that, step out of line once or twice and it’s off with your head! And these are the people who are always preaching tolerance. I guess tolerance only extends in one direction.
I know, Terry, that you consider Lieberman arrogant (I won’t quibble on that point), but I get ill at the idea of casting a vote that will prove rewarding to the left-wing extremists backing Ned Lamont.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, what’s a passionate centrist to do?
I enjoy your blog. As I always tell you, keep up the good work.
Comment by Steve Barlow — July 28, 2006 #
Terry:
As a child growing up in Northwest Connecticut, I was part of a family of Democrats! Imagine,in the early 50’s, a family of Democrats in Northwest Connecticut. My grandmother, Mildred Dennis, was one of the first, if not the first, woman on the Connecticut State Democratic Committee. Abe Ribicoff, Ella Grasso, the original Seanator Dodd, Tom, were all guests and friends of my grandmother. She had heated debates with her Republican friends, but, after the differences, they would all get together and still remain friends. The diatribes between political rivals was as heated then as it is now, it has just become personal now. If you are against the war in Iraq now,there is no tolerance for someone who might be in favor of it. Tolerance, that is what we are missing in almost every aspect of life today. No one seems to be able to tolerate someone of a different political, ethnic, or religous view. What people today don’t seem to understand, is that agreement is not a given, but please, at least try to be tolerant of ones views! It seems everyone now has a take it or leave it stance on every view. There is a time for ultimatums, but only as a last resort, not on every single issue that creates debate. An exchange of views and ideas is a good thing, total rejection of ideas at first glance is not. Lets all learn to be more tolerant again!!
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 28, 2006 #
On being a “passionate centrist”…
This would certainly seem to be possible. But the passion would seem to be in finding a concensus, not in driving policy forward from inception.
Of course, deliberative bodies are designed to find consensus. Legislation is derived from the compromise and horse trading that finally settles on law.
So the question is… What impact does the “passionate centrist” have on that process. Facilitator? Honest broker?
Today, the “passionate centrists” in the Senate seem to be Northeast Republicans… Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, or Red State Democrats like Ben Nelson or Max Baucus. They represent states with evenly divided electorates and so naturally fill this role.
As one who voted against Specter (pretty centrist, if not passionately) in his primary fight against the more right leaning Tumey, I can’t say centrists help much with my preferred agenda. But they are a fact of life given contemporary political demographics.
But just remember, the centrist is driven by the extremes. As the left or right gains power, the centrist moves to find the political “center”. The centrist only leads after the political table has been set, the issues are up for debate, and a facilitator is required.
But to get us to that point, we need the “passionate partisans” to prepare the field of battle.
Comment by Jake — July 30, 2006 #
Dear Terry,
You’ve opened a worthwhile and interesting discussion — thank you. I have a story to relate that may be of interest.
Last week, for reasons I won’t go into here, I sent out a “passionate” e-mail plea to friends and acquaintances asking them to sign a petition calling on Israel to stop bombing Lebanon. In response, I received several e-mails, including one from my own brother, harshly criticizing my position.
What interest me here is not that people would disagree, but HOW they did. My position (to the extent people knew it) was not exactly called into question; rather, it was assumed that “if I believe A, then I MUST ‘logically’ believe B.” “B” being (in so many words): “I must support the terrorists.” “I must wish for the destruction of Israel.”
Not only were these charges false, they quickly descended into much worse accusations, if you can believe it. Yet always with this refrain: “Logically, you MUST believe etc. etc.” or “Your views are extremist; ours are logical and reasoned.” I must say in my defense that I never made assumptions about my critics’ motivations, and did my best to stick to the evidence and philosophy backing my position.
I’m not sure what my larger point is here. It’s not at all to imply that the “right” has any monopoly on this kind of ad hominem attack (and my respondents weren’t even close to right-wing!). I do think we have to watch out for wolves in sheep’s clothing, by which I mean — paradoxically — I tend to side with those who favor impassioned argument over “civility.” I’d rather someone strongly defend their position than sit back and say, “I’m cool, you’re not.” Personally, I’d rather stare down a real wolf. I’m even friends with some.
The Congress-men and -women on opposite sides of the political spectrum may, at the end of the day, sleep well knowing that they have maintained the veneer of “civility” with their colleagues. Good for them. Dare I suggest it could also be because neither side has lifted a finger to change the status quo?
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — July 31, 2006 #
Fred,
I, too, saw your petition and though I disagree, never thought you were a terrorist-symp. Jumping to conclusions has become a sport in this nation of ours.
I have a friend here in town who is a dyed-in-the-wool Dem from New Jersey but drives a Beemer (or Bimmer, as BMW aficionados like to call them), so people tell him they assume he is a Republican. I have had people tell me they assume I am a Dem b’c I drive a Subaru (fortunately no one questions my motives in driving one!).
I agree with you about staring down the wolf and knowing whom you are dealing with rather than the passive-aggressive centrist. Come to think of it, centrist may not be a good word to describe me (or many others I know).
I recall Rush Limbaugh saying centrists have no passion and that perhaps they don’t really know what they believe and they just want to be liked. The thing about not controlling the debate or setting the agenda, as Jake writes, is mostly true. I think perhaps centrist is a misnomer for me, but I use the label only b’c of a lack of anything else.
Perhaps ‘hybrid’ would be better b’c I don’t care if anyone likes me and I have some views that are not considered moderate: such as school pro-voucher, pro-growth, anti-class warfare, which puts me at odds w/ my friends on the left), Anti Iraq war, strong on civil liberties and gay rights, which does not endear me to the right. But inasmuch as my views do not typically tilt toward any one party, the ability to set trends and control the debate is limited, yes. I can’t vote against Lieberman in the Aug. 8 primary, for example, b’c I’m unaffiliated.
If anyone can come up with a better word for it, I am open to suggestion.
For the record, I think a request/demand to halt the bombing is reasonable, provided it applies to both sides.
Thanks for your comment, Fred.
Comment by Terry — July 31, 2006 #
Terry,
I like your style — your independence and principled stand on the issues, even if I disagree on some.
Ah, but you do seem to like labels — if I may presume. I didn’t know being on the left meant being for “class warfare,” whatever that means! How about “being for a more fair and equitable distribution of resources”? There are ways to attempt to define the debate, ne-c’est ce pas? But that’s for another day, perhaps.
I always thought Subaru was the offical car of the Northwest Corner, if not all of New England! Funnily, I happen to agree with a friend of ours who drives something only a hair smaller than a Hummer that, as an issue, one’s choice of vehicle is a red herring, if there ever was one.
Cheers,
–Fred–
Comment by Fred Baumgarten — August 1, 2006 #
I am the close relative refered to in the blog. I have been grossly misquoted. I am an old left-winger and proud of it but I do not malign Republicans. Many of my best friends are and have been Republicans. Anyone who was there and aware in the 1960’s knows that there were as many or more racists in the Democratic than the Republican party. The quotes are not “taken out of context” as the all too familiar phrase goes. They are simply inaccurate.
Terry’s Dad
Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 4, 2006 #
I meant to say that I never malign Republicans in general. Individually, I find many who are worthy of it.
Comment by Tom Cowgill — August 4, 2006 #
Terry - While labels can be misleading, we do live in a world that begs for them. I would label you a critical-thinking independent.
You’ve clearly come by that honestly and with no small effort. Thank you.
Janet
Comment by Janet Manko — August 8, 2006 #