Marin County’s hidden conservatives *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Aug 03 2008 at 8:43 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
It was Aristotle who first stated that man is a social animal. He was right. Humans define themselves by their allegiance to their family, their community and their country. The ancient desert rule condemning a thief to lose his hand (an idea that Mohammed co-opted), was not intended simply to cause physical pain and suffering. Instead, in a society without cutlery, amputation meant that the thief had to use the same hand for both eating and personal hygiene. This revolting combination turned the one-handed thief into a social pariah — and it was this change in status that was the true punishment imposed against him.
In America, we can break the social compact in many ways, all of them less extreme than having our hands cut off. We can cheat, abuse our spouses and children, shoplift, forget to bathe, or admit to liking Liberace. Most Americans, however, pride themselves on their tolerance and will let all of these failures go by without the ultimate social weapons of abuse and ostracism. In many of these same ostensibly tolerant places, though, there is one sin that is unforgivable, so much so that it cannot be excused away by pointing to a bad childhood, socioeconomic handicaps or charming eccentricity. That sin is being politically conservative. I live in one of those communities.
For those who don’t know it, Marin County is located due north of San Francisco (on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge). It’s a gorgeously situated community, bounded on one side by the San Francisco Bay and on the other side by the Pacific Ocean. Drive a little ways further north and you’ll find yourself in the world-famous Napa Valley. Not only is the Marin geography lovely, so is the climate, with temperatures ranging from winter lows in the 50s to summer highs in the 70s (barring a few heat waves).
Approximately 85% of Marin’s land has been protected from development in one way or another, a policy that deprives the poor of housing, but that satisfies the aesthetic needs of the wealthy. Speaking of wealth, according to the 2000 census, Marin had the highest per capital income in the country (a status quo pretty much unchanged as of the last tax year).
Although one might think that, with Marin’s wealth, it would be rather like the old style white-shoe conservative communities one finds in the Northeast or South, that assumption would be wrong. Instead, Marin is peopled with the same elites who have been flocking to Obama all America — and that’s despite the fact that there’s no University of note here.
Just to give you an idea of Marin’s politics, Lynn Woolsey is Marin’s choice for the House of Representatives and ultra-liberal California Senator Barbara Boxer hails from Marin. In the State Senate, Marin’s representative is Carole Migden, who lives to oppose the War (and who will probably be replaced by Mark Leno, who makes Migden look stodgy politically).
In the 2004 election, only San Francisco County and Alameda County (home to Berkeley), cast more Democratic votes than Marin did. This didn’t come as any surprise to those who know that a mere 21.3% of Marin’s registered voters are Republicans. Indeed, of the many little towns that make up Marin, just one (Belvedere) has more Republicans than Democrats, and that by only an 8 person margin. Republicans aren’t just a mere minority, they’re a minority vastly outweighed by the majority.
Given that liberals are in the catbird seat, and given their much-vaunted tolerance, one might think that they’d be kind to, indeed solicitous of, the few Republicans in the midst. Sadly, however, that’s not the case. As regular readers know, I’ve chosen to keep my political life separate from the day-to-day aspects of my life. I simply can’t (and don’t want to) run the risk of tainting my carpools, my neighborhood barbecues, my kids’ comfort level at school, the camaraderie of the sports teams with which we’re involved, etc., by exposing myself to the obloquy that is routinely heaped on conservatives here — and this is a hostility that increases as elections draw near, of course.
During the 2004 elections, people who were unaware of my political inclinations announced in front of me that “Bush is the worst President ever,” “Republicans are stupid,” “Republicans are evil,” “Bush is stupid,” “Republicans are corrupt,” “Republicans are fascists” and “Bush should be impeached.” Children ran up to me on the sidewalk chanting “Bush is evil, Bush is evil” — so you know what their parents were saying at the dinner table. In this election cycle, one of my children announced after school that she was voting for Barack Obama “since every one is because he’s black.” I quickly scotched that line of reasoning.
I know I should be speaking out when I hear statements such as these, but the sad fact is that I like these people. Barring their monomaniacal animosity towards Bush and the Republicans, they’re otherwise very nice: they’re hard workers, loving parents, good neighbors and helpful and reliable friends. Being the social creature that I am, I don’t want with one word (”Republican”) to turn these friendships upside down and inside out. (I’m not the only one with this problem.) I don’t want to be on the receiving end of some hideous Jekyll to Hyde transformation, so I just keep my mouth shut.
Those people I know who have spoken aloud their new conservative political views have been horrified by the animosity turned against them by formerly friendly neighbors and colleagues. My in-laws who are, like me, 9/11 neocons (down in Los Angeles) have stared open-mouthed at colleagues who use staff meetings to revile Bush and the Republicans — all to the cheers and huzzahs of the other staff members. (Indeed, what they describe sounds remarkably like Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate.) On the occasions when they’ve suggested that maybe, just maybe, Bush isn’t the Antichrist, they’ve found themselves shunned by these same colleagues.
My relatives aren’t in the film industry, but this same kind of aggressive pressure to conform goes double there. Conservatives have been reduced to creating an underground organization called the Party of Abe, membership in which is so dangerous it practically has secret handshakes and false names. The paranoia in the film industry is so extreme that it can result in scenarios that read like badly scripted movies. When David Zucker was casting his upcoming movie American Carol, which takes on the Left’s lunacy about terrorism, he wanted Kevin Farley (Chris Farley’s brother) in the lead role, as a Michael Moore-esque character. In the beginning, their negotiations were a landmine of unspoken assumptions:
Zucker and Sokoloff met Farley in April 2007. Zucker described his new film with words he had chosen carefully. “I figured he was like everyone else in Hollywood–a Democrat,” Zucker recalls. “And we knew that this was not a Democrat movie.” It would be a satirical look at the war on terror, he told Farley, and explained that he and Sokoloff were political “moderates.”
Farley hadn’t seen any of Zucker’s ads and assumed he was like everyone else in Hollywood–a Democrat. So he answered with some strategic ambiguity of his own. “I consider myself a centrist,” he said, worried that they might press him more about his political views.
Zucker gave Farley the script and, concerned that Farley’s agent would advise him against accepting the role because of the film’s politics, told the actor not to show it to anyone. Farley, best known for his recurring role in a series of Hertz commercials, read the script and called back the next day to accept.
When he met Zucker and Sokoloff on the set as shooting on the film began, he told them that he, too, had long considered himself a conservative. “I couldn’t believe it,” says Sokoloff. “We were afraid that he would not want to be involved in something that was so directly taking on the left and that he would not want to play the Michael Moore character.”
Zucker’s and Farley’s delicate dance would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that ordinary Hollywood types aren’t shy about stating that people with the wrong political persuasion should not be employed. A perfect example came when Jeffrey Wells (a well-known Hollywood cybergossip) commented on Jon Voight’s op-ed criticizing the Left:
I’ll always admire and respect Voight’s better performances (Luke in Coming Home, Reynolds in Enemy of the State, Ed in Deliverance, Howard Cosell in Ali, Manny in Runaway Train, FDR in Pearl Harbor, Jack in Desert Bloom, Paul Serone in Anaconda). And he’s obviously entitled to say and write whatever he wants. But it’s only natural that industry-based Obama supporters will henceforth regard him askance. Honestly? If I were a producer and I had to make a casting decision about hiring Voight or some older actor who hadn’t pissed me off with an idiotic Washington Times op-ed piece, I might very well say to myself, “Voight? Let him eat cake.”
Wells later delivered a non-apology apology in which he wondered why everyone got so upset that he merely expressed his personal opinion, especially since he has no actual hiring or firing power over Voight. Maybe everyone got upset because Wells’ opinion — that people should be discriminated against on a systematic basis because they support the “wrong” party in a two-party system — is both really bad one and one that people close to the industry feel comfortable voicing aloud.
In Hollywood, everything is writ large, whether it’s rampant Progressivism or a growing subterranean conservative movement. In Marin, though, I’m seeing the same thing played out on a less dramatic scale, with more and more secret conservatives inching about on the outskirts. This fact struck me forcibly last week when I finally pried myself away from my keyboard and did something more active to advance John McCain’s candidacy — I attended the first formal meeting of the local Republican party.
Contrary to my expectations, the meeting was not held in some $25 million dollar Belvedere mansion (’cause remember that, in Belvedere, there are eight more Republicans than Democrats). Instead, it was held in a perfectly ordinary (although very charming) home a few blocks from my own house. By Marin standards, it was solid middle class.
With about 25 of us clustered about the living room, the local chair called the meeting to order, and asked us to begin by identifying ourselves. One after another, people stated their names and their City. Everything stopped, though, when a young woman, maybe 25, spoke her name very softly and added that “I’m a secret Republican.” With that single statement, the stories started.
One of the attendees, who had been asked to make phone calls on behalf of McCain, said that he spoke to one lady who said, “Don’t call me again. I’m going to vote Republican, but I can’t let anybody know. It’s got to stay a secret.” Another person recalled a party he attended a few months ago. When he mentioned, discreetly, that he was a Republican, a young lady sidled up to him and whispered, “I’m conservative too, but don’t let anyone know. I also have two friends here. I’ll point them out to you. They’re also secret conservatives.” Incidentally, I was unable to interview either of the people who told these anecdotes because both were afraid that any more details might give away their identities and harm them professionally. (Clearly, in their lines of work, they need two resumes, one for public consumption and one that is their secret one.)
The people who told these stories were white — and they were still afraid to voice their political views. Things get even worse when you move into the two demographics that have a particularly strong affiliation with the Democratic party: African-Americans and Hispanics. People in these groups who are conservative are viewed, not merely as evil or stupid, but as true class traitors. If it’s difficult for a white woman or man to admit to that he worries about Obama and intends to vote for McCain, imagine the strength of character, and the willingness to accept pariah-status that you need if you’re an African-American or Hispanic voter who has a political yearning to be conservative. As it happens, at my local McCain meeting, there was one Hispanic and one African-American, both of whom are deeply committed to conservative values. Again, neither wanted to see his or her name, or any identifying information, used in this post.
Once upon a time, I would have added Jews to the list of groups too strongly affiliated with the Democratic party to allow for any deviation from the party line. However, I think that Obama is proving so frightening to many Jews who support Israel that they are become bolder and more willing to break with party Orthodoxy. (Not to mention the fact that they’ve seen the Left make common cause with the same Islamists who call Jews pigs and apes, and who urge their annihilation.) While they once looked askance at the few conservatives within their midst, they are now approaching them, not only with respectful curiosity, but with a genuine desire to learn why it won’t run counter to Mosaic law for a Jew to vote Republican.
I’m not writing this post merely to complain about my own situation, or to observe that there are others like me. I hope to write it as a battle call for other crypto-conservatives scattered throughout the United States in true blue communities: You are not alone! And if you need numbers to prove it, as opposed to the anecdotal evidence I offer here, in 2004, despite the fact that only 30,992 registered voters in Marin were Republican, 34,378 people voted Republican. In other words, a good chunk of Marin’s voters – whether Independents, Decline to States, or even Democrats — were voting Republican the last time around, and that was with a much less polarizing Democratic candidate than Obama.
I have a proposal for all of you reading this who live in hostile Blue territory and feel isolated in your conservative political views. The next time you’re at a party, or chit chatting in a park, or standing in line at a store, if the person to whom you’re talking seems like an intelligent, common-sensical type, throw in a reference to Adam Smith. If your conversational partner jumps on that reference, opining that Smith was a great economic philosopher, you’ve just discovered that you’re not alone.
Even if you chose, however, to keep your political affiliations secret — whether because you’re afraid for your job, worried about your friendships, or are just deeply private — please hie yourself to the polls on November 4, 2008, and cast your vote for John McCain. I have a strong suspicion that there’ll be an awful lot of unexpected votes for McCain, not because people are too racist to voice their true political viewpoints to the pollsters, but because they are too intimidated by the Progressives around them to do so.
Lastly, if you live in Marin, get involved with the Marin for McCain organization. I can promise you that we’ll respect your conservative secrets — especially since so many of us have a few of our own. (And if you live somewhere other than Marin, look up your local Republican organization. I bet you’ll be pleasant surprised by the people you meet there.)
UPDATE: Thinking about it, I wonder if this urge to keep ones identity secret isn’t more common amongst women than men. In my experience, women are more likely to seek conciliatory relationships than men, and are more likely to be demoralized, rather than invigorated, by a direct confrontation. What do you think? Am I being sexist or is this election’s secret army (assuming there is one), going to boast an unusually large number of women?
UPDATE II: Although not quite on point, the service that Amazon allegedly provided for Nancy Pelosi’s book – a service that it apparently does not provide for conservative authors — gives one a good idea of how stalwart your average conservative has to be against the slings and arrows of outrageous liberals.
Email This Post To A Friend
77 Responses to “Marin County’s hidden conservatives *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I recall reading an article way back that said that Beverly Hills had voted for Bush at a greater percentage than anticipated. So, hope springs eternal.
My edging away from the leftist precipice began during my dropout year at Berkeley during the Vietnam War, where I saw firsthand the arrogant dogmatic attitudes of many on the left.
I was always out of step at Berkeley (which I attended in the late 1970s). I did realize then that I bitterly resented the lock step mentality that tried to force all thinking into the same toothpaste tube. I didn’t realize, however, that this arrogant rigidity wasn’t just a Berkeley thing, but was a byproduct of Leftist thinking.
Hi BW,
After reading your post, I had the itch to look over my shoulder to see if anyone was going to ask “Ver are your papers?”.
Scary.
I think that the Obama candidacy, and the Islamofascist movement, and even the energy crisis in America will finally energize closet conservatives everywhere. And also help create conservatives out of previously reflexive liberals. And this is at least in part because Obama, and the growth of Islamofascism, and the absurd American energy situation is due to Liberal policies.
Kyle-Anne Shiver makes the same statement in her piece in the American Thinker of Aug 1. We can all talk about the absurdity playing out in front of us. And the talking points are like ripe red tomatoes just asking to be picked.
Urge a young black to become a doctor instead of a social worker.
Describe the honor killings that are already happening in the US.
Mention that drilling offshore will reduce the total amount of beach oil pollution by reducing the natural seepage of oil from the submarine pools.
Got to go. My garden needs tending.
Al
[...] on A mindset is a difficult thing to change — but not for the reasons you thinkBookworm Room » Marin County’s hidden conservatives on A mindset is a difficult thing to change — but not for the reasons you thinkVince P - [...]
Hey, BW
In the last line of the third-from-last paragraph of your post, you say “…intimated by the Progressives…”
Should that have been: intimidated? Progressives are much better at intimidating, than at intimating anything.
I’ve thought about this sort of thing in connection with the founding fathers…
I watch a fair amount of the History Channel, especially on weekends when there is _nothing_ else on tv. They ran a series about the Masons, and postulated that there was some evidence that the founding fathers were members, and that their values were similar to those of the Masons. As a Catholic, the Masons are a prohibited group. I don’t know much about them. The program discussed the fact that they take an oath of loyalty that is very serious - maybe almost to the point of “violate this oath and you will die”.
Now to be honest, I don’t know. I’m not even sure I care. But when you think about the times, the difficulty of communication, the difficulty of transportation and the _consequences_ of conspiring against the Crown…how could you be sure of your associates? It makes sense to me that the Masons could have been the means of the trust. Individual organizations in various locations, but a single unifying concept and a lifelong loyalty to the organization…not quite a religion, but close.
Anyway…what you’re experiencing must be close to what they must have experienced…except they probably had the death penalty attached. You don’t. Not yet, anyway. Social shunning - definitely. Shunning that might well result in loss of a means to earn a living? That too.
I’m not suggesting you join the Masons … but it sounds like you need a secret organization that’s pretty close to it! Infiltration is always a threat…you need _security_!
Thanks, Jack. I only proofread the darn thing about a million times (because it’s rather long), and I still managed to let a type slip past. Aargh!
The prohibition against Catholics being Masons is long gone, Sue. Hard to believe the History Channel’s still peddling that one. John XXIII, Paul VI, and JP II were themselves all members of practically every “secret” - or even just “secretive” group there is.
I don’t know why you shut down your daughter, BW: she’s absolutely correct. There is no other reason to vote for him. It’s just chi-chi to do so, kind of like owning the smallest Chihuahua. Especially in your part of the country.
Liberalism is a kind of illness, as you’ve noticed. It turns your nice Stepford neighbors (snappy cars, I’m sure; great clothes; blinding white teeth; terrific make-up and sprayed-on tans; wonderful friends; reliable car-poolers; perfect this; perfect that; terrific everything - yup. As a cynic I wonder about the brain…) into snarling beasts when they encounter something with the temerity to question the world-view to which they subscribe. (They don’t think about it, they don’t arrive there by any process of actual thought, mind you: they just subscribe to it.)
It’s an illness not just for the insane defensiveness and actual hate it fosters, but for the underlying reason that spawns those reactions. Which is simple: since the beginning of time, every place it’s been tried, liberalism’s been a howling failure. Generally with horrid consequences.
And continued multi-generational allegiance to an “ism” that has a long history of nothing but failure is hard to maintain. After a while your end of the stick gets heavy as hell, and it becomes tough to keep it up. If you think at all, I mean. (Which is why they don’t: in pure self-defense.)
But liberalism is easy, it doesn’t actually require any input from brain cells. Follow your feelings (and of course other people’s “pain”), forget the process of forming a thought, and you too can be a good liberal. It’s easy. That’s why children are always liberals. As Churchill once remarked, when young we’re all liberal and that’s fine - but if you haven’t become conservative by the time you’ve become an adult, then your development was arrested, you haven’t learned anything and there’s something wrong with you.
Seems to be true of an astonishing number of west coasters.
>>The prohibition against Catholics being Masons is long gone, Sue.>>
You may be right - I haven’t cared enough about it to research it. I remember being taught that in years _way_ past, but it was always a men’s organization so it didn’t matter anyway. I understand that they admit women these days, but I suspect women are probably very minimal. I _did_ wonder why it was prohibited - I think it was on the basis that it was secret and required loyalty oaths…but I don’t really know.
And I’m not sure that the History Channel said anything about the Catholic church prohibiting membership in the Masons…it just came from _my_ background, I think.
Women still can’t join the Masonic Lodge, though there is the Order of the Eastern Star that has a connection, which is open to women.
I suppose a significant reason why the Catholic church and Christians in general are not supportive of the Masons is their ideology.
One must merely subscribe to the belief in a higher power, the architect of the Universe. All paths to God are equal.
Some of the Mason’s rituals were incorporated in the rituals of Mormonism as Joseph Smith was a Mason.
I’m sure most Mason’s don’t take these rituals seriously– including the one signifying having your throat cut is you reveal the secrets of the organization.
Good post. Although I am in a red state, as a professor at a large university in a relatively small town I am definitely in a very blue zone both at work and in the neighborhood where I live (the Obama 08 signs have mushroomed out of control). So I watch my words carefully.
As to the last point: you may be right about women in general, but in practical terms, if one works in an extremely PC environment, like a university, displaying any disdain, or even skepticism, for the dominant narrative will get a male labeled with the “sexist” or “misogynist” stamp. In a university setting, that can cost you dearly in pay and promotion.
This post and its comments are so extremely sad. People who hide who they are to keep their possessions, jobs, power, and friends are to be pitied. People who think everyone who’s for Obama is a leftist, socialist, liberal are, too. People who think conservatives are the only ones who think are silly. Some of us are just Democrats, who actually think a change from the past eight years would be a good thing. And if you put a McCain sign in your yard, we won’t do anything at all, except maybe post to a blog.
I received an opinion phone call last week.
“Where do you see yourself, Liberal, Conservative, Other?”
Me: None of your business.
“Who did you vote for in the last election, All Democrats, Most Democrats, Split, Most Republican, All Republican?”
Me: It was a secret ballot so none of your business.
Yes, I do hide what I believe from most since I have had family and bosses who wanted to pressure my views. And I live in the Midwest.
And if you put a McCain sign in your yard, we won’t do anything at all, except maybe post to a blog.
Helen I wish more were like you then. I work at UC Berkeley and live in Alameda County where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 4:1. I hate to disillusion you but I’ve had my car keyed, had animal feces smeared on my political bumper stickers, and I even had a co-worker try to get me fired because she didn’t like my politics.
Like Bookworm, I no longer wear my conservative politics on my sleeve or display them on my car or front lawn. I will not, however, debase myself by telling people what they want to hear–if someone asks for my political and social views, I give it to them straight. Consequently, I have coworkers and neighbors who will no longer even say “hello” to me.
Happily, I can say that I do not know any Republicans who practice such shunning and incivility. It seems to always be the “tolerant” folks who want to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
“People who hide who they are to keep their possessions, jobs…”
Uhmmm, Helen… With all due respect, those “possessions” include the beds my kids sleep on, the desks they study at, the bikes they ride, the table at which they eat, etc, etc. That job provides the food, the savings for college, the sports that train their bodies, the heat and water, etc. I think it would be more pitiful for someone to risk his family’s welfare just to speak his mind.
And maybe a change from the last eight years would be a good thing, but shouldn’t the details of the change be considered?
You’re not alone, Kalifornia. I just learned that one of the people I met at the Marin for McCain meeting, who had a big McCain sign on his car, had his car vandalized the other day. It could be coincidence, but the fact is that vandalism in Marin is extremely rare.
BW I do believe there is a spell checker in wordpress and for a fact there is an add-on in Firefox that will check the spelling in all blogs or when you are typing whatever.Give me a couple of hours to find this info and then I’ll try and insert the info in here somewhere.
Of course you will have to download and then update these things but then you won’t have to proof read what you have written. Maybe it can be set up to spell check automatically. Not sure.
My problem, Mike, is that I usually spell things correctly. I just mix up words entirely, such as intimidate and intimate — both fine words, but with radically different meanings. I also have problems with words that have the same internal sounds, such as cheese and tea (long “e”s in both of them). At my house, don’t be surprised if I offer you a cup of cheese (or if I spell “offer” as “ever,” since those words seem to tickle the same synapses in my brain too).
And as a client of mine never ceases to remind me, I sometimes leave out really important words, such as “not.”
By the way, apropos the word “not,” there is a famous Bible known as the Adulterers Bible, since the unfortunate publishers left out the word “not” in the adultery commandment. I say “unfortunate,” since the publishers were heavily fined, driving them out of business.
>>This post and its comments are so extremely sad.>>
Agreed. This is America. What Book and Kalifornia have said shouldn’t be _able_ to be said - at least not truthfully.
>>People who hide who they are to keep their possessions, jobs, power, and friends are to be pitied.>>
You’re blaming those who feel they _have_ to hide? What about those who persecute them? That’s ok?
Mike - spell check won’t work. Intimate and intimidate are both correctly spelled. Spell check programs won’t correct a word incorrectly used if it’s spelled correctly.
>>I say “unfortunate,” since the publishers were heavily fined, driving them out of business.>>
Fined by whom? For what reason? (ok…I understand misprint, but _fined_?
The British government, since the King (head of state) is also head of the Church of England.
Suek I believe you are correct but there is also a dictionary that is an add-on for FF and that can be downloaded also. Right now as I am typing this there is a red line underneath the word dictionary which is the correct spelling. I should be able to highlight that by left clicking the mouse and dragging over the first use if dictionary and correct it.Nope it didn’t work as far as correcting the word but just let me know it was mis-spelled.Looks like I need to download the dictionary add-on for FF.
Oh after this is posted you won’t see the mispelled word with the red underline.
Happily, I can say that I do not know any Republicans who practice such shunning and incivility. It seems to always be the “tolerant” folks who want to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them” — kalifornia
I’d say that there are at least as many “wingnuts” as “moonbats.” Have people already forgotten the shooting in TN?
From Andrew Sullivan.com:
“According to the News-Sentinel, Knoxville police department investigator Steve Still wrote in the search warrant that Jim David Adkisson, the man who was arrested in the rampage, went to the church “because of its liberal teachings and his belief that all liberals should be killed because they were ruining the country, and that he felt that the Democrats had tied his country’s hands in the war on terror and they had ruined every institution in America with the aid of major media outlets.”
Adkisson, who had served in the military, said “that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement he would then target those that had voted them in office,” the search warrant states. Among the items seized from Adkisson’s house were three books: “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television commentator Bill O’Reilly; “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” by radio personality Michael Savage; and “Let Freedom Ring,” by political pundit Sean Hannity.”
Extremism comes in all political flavors.
Here’s an interesting bit - only relevant due to the last paragraph.
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2008/08/document-expert-discovers-another.html
>>Extremism comes in all political flavors.>>
True. But you’re comparing a genuine extremist - who is willing to kill people - with the general run of the population who are willing to shun people who don’t agree with them. Are you really considering those who will shun others and commit acts of vandalism on the same level as a person willing to kill? If so, what does that say about liberals in general?
Ozzie,
In addition to what suek wrote, I would add that what you are offering is a “Proof by example” quantificational logical fallacy. It is similar to using Timothy McVeigh as proof that terrorism is “common” to all movements, not specifically Islamicism. While strictly speaking it is true (with some serious stretching), in the face of daily reality it is irrelevant. In some cases the “events” that are used to realtivize an argument aren’t even true, ala TNR.
Although there may be an example of Campus Republicans getting ugly (I don’t know of one), how often does one read about them destroying protest symbols (anti-abortion “cemeteries”), shouting down or attacking liberal speakers, harassing peaceful protesters (people with pro-Israel signs or anti-AA bake sales, etc. or any other attempts to shun/silence their opponents?
There may have been some conservative kids wearing black hoods while tearing up the streets of Seattle a few years back, but they would probably have been given away by the Polos and Dockers.
Are you really considering those who will shun others and commit acts of vandalism on the same level as a person willing to kill? If so, what does that say about liberals in general? - suek
I’m saying that extremists come in all political flavors, and that attempting to paint liberals or conservatives as being less or more tolerant is flawed.
But now that you mention it, pro-life extremists also kill doctors who perform abortions.
Extremism blinds people.
“There may have been some conservative kids wearing black hoods while tearing up the streets of Seattle a few years back, but they would probably have been given away by the Polos and Dockers. - Brad
Wasn’t one of the Columbine killers a military brat?
People who say that liberalism is a mental disorder overlook the fact that conservatives can also be crazy - sometimes violently so.
Nice footwork you do there, Ozzie. Step, glide, spin..hop hop hop…!
Ok…so another one not to take seriously.
Yeah, you’re pretty much comparing apples and oranges, Ozzie.
I’ll agree that extremism tends to blind people, but I’ll also buy into the idea that in your basic day-to-day neighborhood discourse the right side is a hell of a lot more civil to the left side than vice versa - leaving aside the nuts.
You can take that right up the ladder, too. John McCain is famous for reaching and stepping across the aisle to try to work with the liberals in the senate - when the hell did Harry Reid ever step across said aisle? Or Barrack Obama, come to that? Or Boxer? Or Feensteen? Or Schumer? Or any of them?
A few years back during the dislocations of the democrat party’s inherited right to run the congress going away (pesky voters!) the republicans - in an act of stupendous idiocy - talked seriously about “power-sharing” in the senate. Pretty much the same thing as saying: “here’s my back, stick a knife in it.” When in the history of the republic did the democrats ever even DISCUSS such an offer, let alone try to realize it?
Nobody has a monopoly on nuts, but there is nothing flawed about pointing out the reality that the liberal side is pretty steeped in incivility. They believe in one thing and one thing only: power accruing to them.
Ozzie:
But now that you mention it, pro-life extremists also kill doctors who perform abortions.
Ozzie, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
The last murder of an abortion provider occurred in 1998, the last attempted murder in 2000, and the last bombing of an abortion clinic occurred in 2001. This according to the National Abortion Federation, hardly an organization to undercount such incidents.
It is also of note that the cases you cited involved murder. Is it not possible to compare like to like? Such as: how are Obama supporters treated in Lubbock or Salt Lake? Do they get their cars keyed? Or in your neighborhood?
The issue is comparing apples to oranges. Until you entered the discussion, murder as a response to political differences was not on the agenda. The agenda was rather incivility, shunning, and vandalism as a response to political differences. Did you bring up the issue of murder because you are unable to find any Republican on Democrat examples of incivility, shunning, and vandalism?
The point is that currently the left appears to be less civil than the right in its treatment of those who disagree with it. As documentary evidence in support of that hypothesis, there have been some studies – as old Case said, you can look it up- which count the incidence of obscenities in right wing versus left wing blogs. Much more obscenity on the left.
It’s pretty amusing to read people’s ideas about Freemasonry. Tiresias, it’s is still excommunicable for a Catholic to becomes a Freemason, as most recently established by the declaration Quaesitum est.
Sue, the actual central Masonic organization, the “Blue Lodge”, is still men only; there are a number of other Masonic organizations, such as Amaranth and Eastern Star, that are either co-ed or dominated by women. The oaths are blood-curdling, but the Masons haven’t actually drawn, quartered, and scattered the remains of an oath breaker in, oh, months at least. Contrary to some of the stories, Freemasons are not Satanists, although strictly a Satanist could be a Freemason — the only requirements are a belief in Deity and in some kind of life after death, so I suppose a Satanist would qualify. Most Freemasons are, however, merely Protestants.
The supposed anti-Catholicism of the Freemasons is primarily a reaction against the Freemasons’ insistence on religious freedom and freedom of conscience; this doesn’t sound like much to us, but was taken very badly, for example, by the Francoists in Spain. In fact it was taken so badly that the Guardia Civil garrotted an entire Lodge in Barcelona during the Civil War. But the Freemasons don’t forbid Catholics membership.
It’s not merely a rumor that some of the Founding Fathers were Freemasons: for example, it’s very well documented at Benjamin Franklin and George Washington, among others, were Freemasons. Washington was Grand Master of the Virgina Grand (ie, state) Lodge; the Washington Masonic Memorial has a lot of his Masonic regalia and other artifacts. Bookie is absolutely right that the Lodge made it possible for people to have a bond of trust that allowed them to maintain secret connections; this happened in the US, but was even more so true during the French Revolution.
A lot of other people during the Enlightenment were Masons as well, including Beethoven, Mozart, and Salieri. Mozart wrote music specifically for the Masonic Lodges, and the libretto of die Zauberflöte is recognizable based around the central myths of Freemasonry. Kipling was also a Mason, and wrote several things that called on it, including “The Man Who Would Be King” and a poem, “The Mother Lodge”, which talks about the lodge in India during the Raj:
We’d Bola Nath, Accountant,
An’ Saul the Aden Jew,
An’ Din Mohammed, draughtsman
Of the Survey Office too;
There was Babu Chuckerbutty,
An’ Amir Singh the Sikh,
An’ Castro from the fittin’-sheds,
The Roman Catholick!
Argh. Books, I seem to have been spam-filtered again, probably for links. There’s a long post on Freemasonry hiding in there.
Gee….Ozzie! How about a bit of perspective?
Yes, there are members of various religions - not just Islam - who are willing to kill for their beliefs. So, your narrow point is an unexceptional one, and granted. People who claim the name of “Christian” have murdered and believed themselves justified for doing so - the anti-abortion radical who shoots the abortionist is an example, as is the fellow in Israel who killed Rabin (I think that’s the correct victim).
But, let’s get real — is the % of Christians or Jews who fall into this category even CLOSE to the record being established by Islam? Either Islam fosters extremists to a greater degree than the other great monotheist religions, or Christian extremists are “crazy” at a lower rate than
Islamic ones…or SOMEthing. The point is that what we see in Islam has NO equivalence in either Judaism or Christianity today.
The same point is being made by several posters about liberal v. conservative social groupings. There are probably some conservatives who would shun me and refuse to let their kids play with mine, and vandalize my car because I think John McCain isn’t very conservative, or if (heaven forfend) I expressed a willingness to vote for Obama, but the % of conservatives who take this attitude and act in this way appears to be FAR lower than that of leftists we have dealt with. If you want to argue with that, and bring some data or even personal experience, have at it!
But enough of the “conservatives can also be crazy” stuff. We all concede that - no one is arguing with that point.
Here is an apples to apples comparison of incidence of obscenities on right wing versus left wing blogs.
Apples to apples, Ozzie, not apples to cudgels. While the study has its flaws- note the discussion about Powerline- this shows the general trend.
I too am a Marin County Conservative. I am amazed by the lack of critical thinking of my friends. Liberalism is truely a mental disorder.
I know I should be speaking out when I hear statements such as these, but the sad fact is that I like these people.
You have to realize something, Book. You are part of an insurgency, since the majority often always holds the power of “occupier”. As an insurgency or member of such, you need to stay quiet and blend in. You cannot make too many waves, lest you be crushed.
After all the Leftist googa and Democrat politics and accussations about America’s all tech bullying powers, why shouldn’t you use their very tactics against them and for your own and your family’s interest?
Barring their monomaniacal animosity towards Bush and the Republicans, they’re otherwise very nice:
When you can funnel all your hate and dissatisfaction on one lone figure, you don’t have to be angry at yourself or every day life.
My in-laws who are, like me, 9/11 neocons (down in Los Angeles)
So you changed, your parents didn’t, your husband didn’t change, yet your husband’s relations changed? Amazing.
Zucker’s and Farley’s delicate dance would be funny if it weren’t for the fact that ordinary Hollywood types aren’t shy about stating that people with the wrong political persuasion should not be employed.
The justification for revolution and freedom fighters has always been “the oppressors have blacklisted us and kept us down, we shall rise up and bring equality to our brethren”.
In reality, Book, what tends to happen is that after the revolution, a new class of elites and aristocrats gain power and they are as harsh, if not harsher, than their predecessors. Look at the Iranian Revolution if you want an example. The Cuban Revolution. The French Revolution. The Communist Revolution. Shall I go on?
Is it any real surprise that it was Democrats that blacklisted people, including the Democrats in the House on unAmerican activities, which was attributed to McCarthy, a senator?
(Not to mention the fact that they’ve seen the Left make common cause with the same Islamists who call Jews pigs and apes, and who urge their annihilation.)
you can thank Bush’s boldness for that. Without his actions, such things would unlikely have come to light as glaringly obvious as they have.
What do you think?
Depends on what their job is. If it is academia… well just look at Harvard’s former President, Larry Summers. Confrontation didn’t make him very comfortable, now did it.
Adkisson, who had served in the military, said “that because he could not get to the leaders of the liberal movement he would then target those that had voted them in office,” the search warrant states. Among the items seized from Adkisson’s house were three books: “The O’Reilly Factor,” by television commentator Bill O’Reilly; “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder,” by radio personality Michael Savage; and “Let Freedom Ring,” by political pundit Sean Hannity.”
You people wanted to disarm folks. You disarmed youselves first. Now you think it is our fault for telling you that “thanks for drawing all the murderers and psychos when you are for banning guns”.
Like Bookworm, I no longer wear my conservative politics on my sleeve or display them on my car or front lawn. I will not, however, debase myself by telling people what they want to hear–if someone asks for my political and social views, I give it to them straight. Consequently, I have coworkers and neighbors who will no longer even say “hello” to me.
You people have the position of underdogs. Just like all underdogs in history, you survive and win only on the basis of superior planning, cunning, strategy, and tactics. You will never outmatch the brute force strength of the majority, the occupation.
Many people who don’t study Leftist Revolutionary literature and ideology don’t see it like this. I, however, cannot prevent myself from seeing it in such a fashion.
My problem, Mike, is that I usually spell things correctly. I just mix up words entirely, such as intimidate and intimate — both fine words, but with radically different meanings. I also have problems with words that have the same internal sounds, such as cheese and tea (long “e”s in both of them). At my house, don’t be surprised if I offer you a cup of cheese (or if I spell “offer” as “ever,” since those words seem to tickle the same synapses in my brain too).
If I am thinking much faster than I am writing, then I often leave out words like “not” and “and”. not and now are particularly interchangeable.
I don’t often seem to mispell things any more, however. If I doubt that I have spelled it correctly, I often check the dictionary or just right click. Few words are so esoteric and rarely used by me, that I have to do such things, however.
It seems to always be the “tolerant” folks who want to silence anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
That’d be natural. If you believe yourselves righteous and powerful, what need you have for introspection, wisdom, and restraint? It is the minority, the people who have to work to better themselves, those who know that they harbor evil within and witness evil without, who take particular care when sounding too self-righteous.
And out of all parties, the Democrats believe themselves particularly righteous and good. The facts, however, don’t back that up.
I’m saying that extremists come in all political flavors, and that attempting to paint liberals or conservatives as being less or more tolerant is flawed.
Which also conveniently applies to the JIhadists over culture profiling.
Hi Ozzie,
Check out any of the blogs in the Watcher’s Council list and then kick over to Daily Kos. Listen to Rush Limbaugh and then listen to just about any liberal radio host (or, you could just read Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot, or whatever that juvenile rant was called). No side has a monopoly on incivility, but the liberals are working hard to corner the market. Sadly, you and Helen are a small, civil minority within your own political point of view.
Charlie - you are considered to be in a state of sin, you are denied communion: you are not excommunicated. Same as if you are divorced: no communion, but not consigned automatically to perdition, either.
I’m sure Ratzinger would like it if you were, and he certainly managed to blast away the easier relationship developing between Masons and Church in the wake of Vatican II, but he doesn’t get to write quite all the rules. (Yet. I suspect he’s working on it.)
No pope has inveighed against the Masons in quite a while, though certainly several did. And, as noted, Ratzinger may do so again, but if he does he’ll be the first one in a while.
Sadly, you and Helen are a small, civil minority within your own political point of view. -D.Q
I’m not a Democrat and I don’t really see myself as a liberal.
I’ve been on the receiving end of “leftist” ire, so I’m not arguing that people on “the left” can be downright awful. I dont think they have the market cornered, however. (People on the “Right” have gone to the trouble to actually threaten me when I’ve said things they’ve disiked, so it seems I’m an equal opportunity offender)
And I hear you about the Daily Kos. But ever watch Bill O’Reilly tell his guests to shut up? And whatever Nancy Grace’s politics might be, she’s a grade-A bully.
It seems to me that extremists of all stripes are the ones causing the problems.
Your world is a very weird one when Bill O’Reilly is the extremist.
Bill O’Reilly an extremist? You must be using a dictionary left behind by the space aliens in BW’s previous topic.
Overbearing, yes, rude– it IS the no spin zone, but extremist– no wonder there’s no dialogue, we can’t get past the words to discuss ideas.
There are no words, only propaganda and propaganda actions.
Overbearing, yes, rude– it IS the no spin zone, but extremist– no wonder there’s no dialogue, we can’t get past the words to discuss ideas. - Brian E.
I guess this is an example of the civil discourse on the right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIVnwYGU9Qo
People can’t get past Bill O’Reilly telling them to “shut up!”
Hey Ozzie,
Bill O’Reilly is an extremist? I thought being an extremist meant you had to have extreme views?
I think, at the core, conservatives still think truth matters. Liberals, especially of the Saul Alinsky mold, believe that only power matters.
Bill O’Reilly is an extremist? I thought being an extremist meant you had to have extreme views? - Brian
He thinks he’s right and shouts down those who disagree with him. And, yes, I believe the notion that everything is a matter of liberals vs conservative, right vs left, is extreme.
“I think, at the core, conservatives still think truth matters. Liberals, especially of the Saul Alinsky mold, believe that only power matters.”
Do you really believe that? There is no truth when everything is filtered through a “left vs right” prism. Everything becomes tainted by ideology.
Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal even tried to turn the latest Batman movie into a propaganda piece. Though most Americans were savvy enough to point and laugh.
comment on UPDATE:
I don’t think you’re being sexist at all. It’s the history of women (in this country and elsewhere) to hide behind their husbands, to depend on them financially, and thus to give in to their politics, etc. Some habits are hard to break, when circumstances change. Maybe they shouldn’t be broken. Women do tend to protect themselves and their children.. Somehow I get the feeling that’s what you’re doing, Bookworm: Protecting yourself and your children, not Mr. Bookworm. I can’t say as I blame you for that.
Too bad people who read this and agree won’t make the leap to understanding poor people and black people (who are sometimes but not always one and the same). They, too, are in some destructive ruts and could use a bit of understanding (and maybe a little help.)
And don’t even try to tell me it isn’t difficult to try to live two lives. That tears a hole in the soul. And no one’s telling Bookworm to “pull herself up by her bootstraps.”
Your question implies there is no objective truth. I would disagree with that. How I implement the truth, put it into practice is colored by practical considerations. For example, I don’t believe that government welfare is good for the individual, because of the damage it does to the human spirit. But I do support unemployment insurance and short term social aid (the safety net). Where I disagree with “liberals” is the extent of the safety net.
I have become a conservative as I have understood truth.
Beliefs are truth put into action.
In my world view– ultimate Truth= “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, ….
That was a statement by Jesus.
Your question implies there is no objective truth- Brian
I didnt say that. Science deals in objective truth.
But since most truth is subjective, it’s not Truth at all.
To me, the Truth is what God sees when he looks at a situation and the search for Truth is the noblist of endeavors. When I read something I tend to ask, “Is that true?” which is why most broad statements sound ridiculous.
Brian: “In my world view– ultimate Truth= “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through me. -John 14:6″
That isnt objective either. Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims dont see it this way, so how can it be the TRUTH?
To me, objective truth = Gravity exists, the earth is round, etc.
Helen (#49), that is exactly right, and is one of the main points of my post. I put the feminine perspective in an update, but you’ll notice that I put the African-American and Hispanic point in the body of the post. And as you recall, my opening was that man is a social animal — and some (wo)men are more social than others. Ostracism is a terrible crime. Recall that in Europe in the olden days, banishment or outlawry were horrific punishments, even though they seemed merciful compared to outright execution. For many, being cut off from civilized society resulted in death of the spirit or the body.
There’s a reason they’re called “left” and “right”….
Left is out in left field, and right is right.
Ozzie,
You are confusing facts with truth. There was a famous guy in Jerusalem who was similarly confused:
“I [Jesus] came into the world for this: to bear witness to the truth.” “Truth?” asks Pilate, “what is that?” Jn 18:37-38
Or, Superman who “stands for Truth, Justice and the American Way.”
There is a poem that begins “I would be true, for there are those who trust me …”
Truth thus is more like light than gravity.
Ozzie,
Maybe BW will start a topic titled “What is Truth” or “Can We Know the Truth.
It’s odd, but the plight of the Jews throughout history, in my mind, affirms the special place they have before God as His chosen people.
“I am a Jew. I glory in belonging to that pursuasion, which even its opponents, whether Christian or Mohammedian, allow to be of divine origin; of that pursuasion on which Christianity itself was originally founded and must ultimately rest; which has preserved its faith secure and undefiled for near 3,000 years; whose votaries have never murdered each other in religious wars or cherished the theological hatred so general, so unextinguishable among those who revile them. A pursuasion whose patient followers have endured for ages the pious cruelties of pagans and Christians, and persevered in the unoffending practice of their rites and ceremonies, amidst poverties and privations, amidst pains, penalties, confiscations, banishments, tortures, and deaths, beyond the example of any other sect which the page of history has ever recorded.” - Benjamin Nones, August 11, 1800
Their treatment has certainly been unique, envy perhaps?
You are confusing facts with truth. There was a famous guy in Jerusalem who was similarly confused: - Ellie
“I [Jesus] came into the world for this: to bear witness to the truth.” “Truth?” asks Pilate, “what is that?” Jn 18:37-38
People often evoke Jesus to prove that they are in possession of the truth.
Unfortunately, there are conflicting accounts.
Can Buddhists possess the truth? Can Jews? And what’s with all the Catholic-bashing from other Christian sects?
Unfortunately, there are conflicting accounts.
just because they aren’t making war on each other doesn’t mean they need people to make them do so.
It’s not like you believe in such religions for it to matter, Oz.
Submitted 08/07/08…
While we await the installation of the new Watcher, rotating Council Members have taken on the job of hosting. Many thanks to this week’s host, The Razor. Strategic Objectives in Afghanistan - The Glittering Eye questions whether Sen. Obama has though…
Live Not By Lies: A Pledge for the Present Moment…
In the past week or so there’s been a resurgence in the discussion of how one conducts one’s political life when one holds conservative beliefs while living deep within rabid liberal enclaves, enclaves that can punish one’s livelihood, social life …
Time For Closet Republicans To Come Out Of The Closet…
Neo-neocon writes about the Republican/conservative “underground” in places like California’s Marin County, where being a conservative can be the kiss of death for your business , career, and social life. While the ever more intolerant hypocritical…
Tiresias, read the damned link:
Ozzie,
My question to you was “what is truth?” Forget the Jesus part; focus on the Superman part.
Forget the “American Way” part.
What is “truth” what is “justice” (and are they linked in some way?)
Ozzie,
My question to you was “what is truth?” Forget the Jesus part; focus on the Superman part.
Forget the “American Way” part. — Ellie
To me, Truth is what God sees when he views a situation.
It’s very difficult for people to know the Truth, but seeking the Truth is the noblest of endeavors.
And yes, I believe that since God is just, Truth and Justice are intertwined.
One of my favorite quotes is from Thomas Jefferson, who said “I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever. . . ” regarding slavery.
Jefferson, of course, owned slaves.
People, stuck in their own experiences, times and viewpoints, have a hard time seeing the Truth and an even harder time living by it.
Ozzie,
Excellent! First you have to realize that “truth” exists. I feel for the generations who were educated in an era of “relativism,” who deny that there is such a thing as “truth.”
Ellie
Hmmm. Thought I recognized the country in your header image. I’ve lived in Petaluma for the last 38 years and certainly recognize your predicament, Bookroom. When I moved here in 1970 I was young and liberal. Indeed, I originally registered to vote in the Peace & Freedom party. (Thought it would help me meet girls. Discovered that I didn’t WANT to meet the ones in P&F soon enough.) Over the years I’ve re-registered as a Democrat, then years ago as a Republican. The comment attributed to Reagan that he “didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me”, applies to me as well.
Suffice to say, I grew up.
Petaluma however, seems to have tacked the opposite direction. What was a typical small, agricultural town with values similar to those of Flagstaff, AZ, where I grew up, has become a remarkably liberal town. I’m typing this in a neighborhood festooned with Obama bumper stickers. (One’s on my neighbor’s recycle bin in fact.)
Your post spoke rather eloquently to me. I don’t have political bumper stickers on my car or my home, and while I’m hardly shy about politics when asked, I do not advertise the fact that I’m conservative. Most simply assume I’m a liberal like themselves since it’s inconceivable that I wouldn’t be.
I also own and shoot firearms, lately in competition. But I don’t wear the IDPA ball cap anywhere but the range as it has a big black image of a semiauto pistol on it. So it appears I’m applying the same rules here too. No (silly) 2nd Amendment stickers on the door, because I just don’t need the grief.
Thanks Bookworm, for a very good post. I’m still sitting here thinking about it and probably will for some time. I have your blog bookmarked now, so I’ll be back.
I’m in much deeper than you are I guess. The best I can hope to get away with is a Nader/Gonzales sign in my window, anything to support the cause.
But I do get a lot of pleasure out of carefully peeling back a layer of sanity from my unsuspecting social interactors. Yes, like “Oh, you’re familiar with the idea that making one nation wealthy will likely make its neighboring nations wealthy too?” Or, “Yeah, I know what you mean about the stiffling effects the unions have on education.” ahhhh bliss.
Watcher’s Council Results…
The Watcher’s Council has spoken this week. Full results of the vote can be found here. Council: Votes Title 2.64 Joshuapundit: Winning in Afghanistan 1.98 Wolf Howling: PartIII: Why Exploit Our Domestic Resources 1.65 R…
It is sad that so many Conservatives feel the need to hide their beliefs, living like Marranos fleeing the Inquisition. This would be a fascinating sociology dissertation-but would never grace the halls of UC Berkeley.
I know I am more open-minded now as a Conservative than I ever was as a Liberal. I accepted certain positions, was certain I had more moral virtue, reacted emotionally, and was poorly informed. For example, as an undergrad at UCB I was distraught and nearly cried when I heard Reagan was running for president. I laughed at his film festival, “ha, someone who wants to be president made a movie with a chimpanzee. What a moron”. He was bad, I knew it. Problem was, even then I knew that I did not know any of his positions or past actions. I judged, based on prejudice and family and social pressure. Ditto the one I voted for- just followed the party line. A free thinker? Not.
I judged others too. I was appalled by smart people I knew who held Conservative views. I couldn’t hear them. It was a process of years, and it started with me learning and understandning the issues. Now I can explain why I think the way do. rarely is there a Liberal who wants to hear it.
I know many people who are unaware that the positions they support are conservative. I have been tempted to reply to an acquaintance who sent me an article, “Are you aware that Krauthammer (article’s author) is a leading conservative thinker and that the reason that you had to send his article is because there is no one in the party which you religiously support who is willing to say the same thing?” But, what’s the point? She despises Bush, still has a Kerry bumpersticker on her car ( and what does that mean? I believe it is a sign of Bush protest but also a sign of lack of support for Nobama).
It is sad, Helen, that I would not be willing to dissent in a staff meeting where my tolerant co-workers would categorize me and verbally attack me. Why bother? In a small gathering I might, depending upon who was there, but Helen, if people do not feel safe expressing their views to their progressive colleagues and friends, something is seriously wrong. I am tired of Conservatives being portrayed as the equivalent of the KKK. The tolerant left will tolerate no dissension. Irony.
Professors regularly ranted against Bush during the last election cycle before class would start (and sometimes during class), just assuming we grad students were behind them. Woe to the one “out of the closet” conservative who was called on the carpet each time to answer for anything any Republican has ever done that the prof didn’t agree with (nope, that wasn’t me, I hadn’t become conservative yet, but even so, such behavior made me very uncomfortable).
So now I drive around my university town–to the organic market, the Whole Foods, and the recycling center–with my pro-life bumper stickers and my organic food cloth bags, and just to further just stump people, I let them know I’m a vegetarian (yet, at the same time fervently praying that my profs won’t find out about my extra-curricular activism before my qualifying exams, and cringing when my colleagues would ask for rides). The pro-life stuff might be fobbed off on my being a Catholic (obviously brainwashed, since “thinking people” wouldn’t actually believe stuff like absolute truth), but do I dare put a McCain sticker on my car or a sign in my window? I’ll keep my car un-keyed, thank you.
To become truly inclusive, we must include those who exclude others and, maybe even, us. Otherwise, we’re still part of the “we-they” problem, having done nothing but changed sides.
Helen, I don’t have the foggiest idea what you said.
She’s saying that you shouldn’t reject those who reject you. That the only way to achieve unity is to incorporate even those who disagree with you. That otherwise you have polarization, and dissension.
Sounds rather amoebic to me. You can consume poison, but if it stays within your system, it will still kill you. What does it profit a man if he achieves unity but suffers the loss of his soul??
Thank you, suek. Honestly, amoeba is what came to mind. A sort of undifferentiated plasma of like minds. How can you include those who exclude you or don’t have any strong opinions one way or the other about you but who wish to be excluded? Some people simply prefer being left alone.
McCainiacs thinking outside of the box…
In 1980 (and again in 1984), Ronald Reagan won in significant part because traditionally Democratic voters abandoned their party to vote for him. Those same “Reagan Democrats” have shown up frequently in the news today. Indeed, McCain is specifically…
This is an old topic, but Seraphic Secret has a recent post about this:
Secret Confessions of a Hollywood Movie Star
that is a definite read.
And he was way ahead of the curve writing this article in 2005:
“Help! I’m a Hollywood Republican”
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=627B40F1-F7F6-4C15-B190-045C40A1B21F
[...] bookwormroom.com/2008/08/03/marins-co… [...]