In the Oct. 4 "New Yorker," Rebecca Mead (left) begins an article about Delaware's GOP candidate for U.S. Senate, Christine O'Donnell (for whom I wouldn't vote, incidentally), and other Tea Party conservatives with a long paragraph about Great Britain's Official Monster Raving Loony Party. "One [candidate] promised to stick juvenile delinquents together with Super Glue," Mead writes, "and one...campaigned on an anti-gravity platform." Mead explicitly puts O'Donnell in this category and lists the reasons: She wears a beehive hairdo at times, went through a Goth phase, is an evangelical Christian who opposes premarital sex and homosexuality, and defaulted on a mortgage.It troubles me when people call those with whom they disagree crazy. The Soviet Union took the concept to its logical extreme by imprisoning dissidents in mental hospitals. "The New Yorker" just thought it was being funny. But its Googleicious attack on O'Donnell didn't contribute anything to the reader's understanding of her popularity. Calling somebody nuts in tendentious 15-sentence paragraphs is the Upper East Side equivalent of Tea Party signs attacking President Obama. Whether written on a MacBook or poster board from Michael's, they contribute in equal measure to everybody's favorite subject (besides their rivals' moral unworthiness, of course): Declining civility.
3 comments:
Im fairness to Ms O'Donnel, she went through a goth phase in high school,a time for phases. Also in HS, she attended a lecture on witchcraft.....never claimed to be a witch. As a young adult, the IRS sent her a demand letter in error and later retracted it. More importantly, she's a fiscal coservative whereas her opponent is on the other end of the spectrum. We're seeing a lot of dirty tricks and allegations from the liberals.....they certainly can't run on their records.
I don’t comment on specific races or candidates. I am interested in how members of the public engage on political matters. On the left and the right, supporters sometimes undermine the side they support. There are many reasons why I stopped identifying as a conservative in 1989. Over-reliance on victimology and attacking “elites” is one of them. Such tactics signal to me that the speaker on the right doesn’t believe in personal responsibility (eveything is the fault of a big “they”) and disdains professionalism and expertise. But I also shake my head at the rhetoric some liberals use, as in the column you cited. Neither side is immune to poor tactical choices by advocates, choices which to me just signal, my values can't stand on their own.
David Brooks described the differences between liberals and conservatives in a column in 2004 (“It’s Not Just a Personality Clash, It’s a Clash of Visions”). Put that way, it’s understandable how in this great, big country, people form their views based on where they live, how they make their living, and experiences they’ve had personally and professionally. If everyone discussed differences as Brooks does, we’d have an easier time choosing sides and working together to solve problems. People wouldn't be so afraid of their fellow Americans.
However, there’s a whole industry out there that is invested in making both the right and the left seem incredibly scary and alien and foreign to people on the opposite side of the spectrum. Various factors (too many to enumerate) lead most presidents to govern from the center-right or the center-left, not as extremists. Presidents tend to govern as patriotic pragmatists, although with an eye towards politics.
But for both Democrats and Republicans, the real drag often comes from people who are not running for office. People whose rhetoric makes it sound as if they want to make it illegal to disagree with them. Or as if they want to use governmental power to regulate strongly those areas of individual behavior to which they want to apply control. To listen to them is to conclude that, except for pure libertarians who sometimes vote with conservatives, the right is no more opposed to “regulation” than the left.
So what to make of it all? You have to read between the lines to discern who simply exaggerates for mockery (always a staple in politics) and who really means it. The “you must do as I say or I will call you evil and dangerous” vibe sometimes makes it seem as if the activists have no coping skills. OR struggle with the idea of democracy. It’s a strange tactic. Imagine acting that way in the office with one’s diverse colleagues and members of a staff or management team (eyeroll) ) Demonization would never work in the workplace, or at least the type in which I’ve worked. Or in most families with which I’m familiar. But somehow, we’re supposed to pivot and abandon all the motivators that work for us at the office and with family and respond to hectoring and browbeating or to mockery in the political sphere. The “make myself feel good by demonizing or mocking you” ranting can skew public perceptions of both the left and the right.
That said, facing attacks from the other side provides those under attack with a chance to show what they are made of. Far too few supporters of candidates in either party use those opportunities well in in the present age, where the model seems to be whiney, poor little us, no one never ever is responsible for their own actions.
I don’t comment on specific races. I am interested in how members of the public engage on political matters. On the left and the right, supporters sometimes undermine the side they support. There are many reasons why I stopped identifying as a conservative in 1989. Over-reliance on victimology and attacking “elites” is one of them. (Unlike what such speakers imply, I believe in personal responsibility and professional expertise.) But I also shake my head at the rhetoric some liberals use, as in the column you cited. Neither side is immune to poor tactical choices by advocates, which often signal at their heart, “my values can’t withstand scrutiny on their own.”
David Brooks described the differences between liberals and conservatives in a column in 2004 (“It’s Not Just a Personality Clash, It’s a Clash of Visions”). Put that way, it’s understandable how in this great, big country, people form their views based on where they live, how they make their living, and experiences they’ve had personally and professionally. If more voters were able to discuss differences as Brooks does, they’d have an easier time choosing sides and solving problems. Various factors (too many to enumerate) lead most presidents to govern from the center-right or the center-left. Presidents, from the first to the present one, tend to govern as patriotic pragmatists.
However, there’s a whole industry out there invested in making both the right and the left seem incredibly scary and alien and foreign to people on the opposite side of the spectrum. It keeps people in a state of perpetual middle or high school, inhibiting development of political maturity. For both Democrats and Republicans, the real drag on the both parties often are thoses on the far left or far right whose rhetoric makes it sound as if they want to make it illegal to disagree with them. Or as if they want to use governmental power to regulate strongly those areas of individual behavior to which they want to apply control. (I don’t see the right as more opposed to “regulation” than the left. Only some libertarians seem to oppose regulation, period.)
The “make myself feel good by demonizing you” ranting tells me more about core values than party platforms. Or does it? Perhaps it simply skews public perceptions of both the left and the right. You have to read between the lines to discern who just is using mockery (always a staple in politics) and who really means it. The “you must do as I say or I will call you evil and dangerous” vibe sometimes makes it seem as if the speakers have no coping skills. Demonization or mockery would never work in resolvinbg workplace or family issues. But somehow, we’re supposed to pivot and abandon all the motivators that work for us at the office and at home and respond to browbeating or to mockery in the political sphere.
That said, facing attacks from the other side provides those under attack with a chance to show what they are made of. Far too few use those opportunities well in our whiney, poor little me, I’m never ever responsible for my own actions age.
Post a Comment