The Lounge
So I just spent the last half hour in the "lounge" reminding myself why I'm conservative. I listened to discussions regarding everything from Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan; Bush, elections, and his daughters; state regent issues; etc. At no time whatsoever did I hear anything that remotely sounded like a logical point or argument. Most of it was stolen election, breaking the rules, impeachment for lying, yada yada yada. At various points I wondered about asking about their good friend Bill, but just bit my tongue. So the conclusion I've come to: I'm conservative because no one on the other side of the aisle can convince me that they're left. I mean right.
posted by the jake at 10:11 AM
5 Comments:
Your thoughts reminded me of reading the following post and exchange between Cal and Tracy.
http://t-racer.blogspot.com/2005/10/walmart-and-its-quest-for-world.html
After reading this I realized that I could have heard the exact same complaint from any left leaning person and the exact same reply from a right leaning person. This isn't bad in itself, I think (because something could be true no matter how many people express it), but in the context of people who I know are friends it made me realize how far away from the actual things that compel our opinons our political discourse is. Neither said anything that came remotely close to persuading the other. Instead, it was just an exchange of 'statements,' 'facts,' or 'ideas' that merely identified oneself. It was like an exchange of currency, but currencies of different countries. Thus, naturally, it came nowhere remotely close to helping grafting the other into their system of thought - i.e. reaching an agreement. Therefore, it sometimes seems like discussing the "issues" categorically goes nowhere.
After this I began to notice that none of the criticisms of Bush or of the Iraq thing even approach why I voted for him or why I thought Iraq was an okay thing to do. Also, I noticed that I have rarely if ever felt a need to defend Bush or my vote for him. This is not because I am so hideously hardend but because I've never heard anythings said that disputes the reasons I've had despite all the criticisms floating around out there.
I've read an article about the "logic of identification" that describes this dynamic and hypothesizes about its contemporary origins in a remarkably effective way. This is because it's general enough to apply to pretty much any political situation I can think of without over generalizing. It was written back in the days of this Bill you mention. I'll need to give you a copy sometime. It addresses the stuff you and I have mentioned here, but not directly enough that I could expound on it here without excessive length.
Sorry. That address was a bit long to paste into a lil' comment window. The post on Tracy's blog was on October 30, 2005 - Walmart and it's quest for world domination.
And for erundur: I thought the Bill who commented on immigration on this blog used some good logic and he's on the same side of the aisle. The answer is not to say both sides are just as illogical generally or even frequently. This is not to say there are not any "conservatives" or "republicans" who are complete nut jobs. It is merely to say that I think what I think is right and what I hear from left leaning folk is wrong. That I think I view the world correctly and they view it incorrectly. Certainly some will feel this is a personal attack, to state that I think I am right. However, I am unashamed to say this and do so knowing it does not categorically make me arrogant. In fact, I've found that often those who have been the most offended by my confidence have later respected me the most. It is an insidious form of disrespect to the other to not stand behind oneself.
More than anything, what I wanted to get across were the reactions that general feelings of contempt and anger can bring out.
When I look at the liberal side, I see a lot of (read: not everybody but quite a few) people who merely spew vitriol and who's chief argument is that Karl Rove is a Nazi.
When I look at the conservative side, (rather listen--Hannity, Rush) I usually hear them trying to be reasonable, asking their spouting-off callers why they think Bush and Rove are Nazis.
The way many liberals react to something they don't like (again, not all) is by name calling and pie throwing. The way many conservatives react (in light of something they despise, like gay marriage) is to fix the problem through legal means.
I'm sure there are many counter-examples to both of these, and I'm sure my particular leaning gives my glasses a little bit of a tint. But for the most part, this is what I see.
Now I'm off to educate the future.
First, let me praface this with a sincere apology for shaking up the Dr. Pepper when you so politely asked for it. I'm very sorry, Jake.
Now, let me rip to to shreds.
"The way many liberals react to something they don't like (again, not all) is by name calling and pie throwing. The way many conservatives react (in light of something they despise, like gay marriage) is to fix the problem through legal means."
I think it's rather unfair to lable reactions as generally liberal or conservative. Isn't it sinful human reaction to lash out when we're offended or threatened? I think it has nothing to do with political affiliation.
It's been my experience that many people will respond as above described regardless of the subject, if irked. Perhaps it's the tone and situation in which the conversation is happening.
Anyone with any political conviction, race, religion, sexual orientation or personal grooming preference can give you justifyable, logical reasons for what they believe and do.
And I think you're stinky!
erika
Erika:
Whoa, hold up there!
"I think it's rather unfair to lable reactions as generally liberal or conservative."
If Jake were doing this he would have had to say or imply the following: to react by name calling and pie throwing is liberal while to react by trying to fix the problem through legal means is conservative. He said nothing of the sort.
You seem to be identifying with a vague "fairness" and nice "tone." However, to do it you seem to have changed Jake's message a bit. I would love to hear a response to what he said instead of a vague appeal to fairness. Such a vague appeal implies he said something he did not.
Post a Comment
<< Home