Politics Redux

[shadowkat]

Was reminded of a few things tonight. Spoke with a friend who told me that he did not think Rock Star Sarah was going to win this election. Because when it came down to it, we vote for the President not the Vice President. And Sarah and McCain to date still have not mentioned anything regarding how they will fix our economy, which let's face it is the number one topic for 80% of Americans. Food prices have gone up, mortages are up, fuel is up, education is up, everything but the value of our property, our cars, and our jobs has risen. Middle Class Americans are using food stamps. And over 85,000 jobs were lost this past month. And all Sarah and John talk about is Iraq? He also reminded me that it is not Sarah Palin who upsets me, it is her policies and her views. The fact that I do not agree that the Bible should be read literally or interpreted literally. (I don't. It is my problem with 80% of the Christian Religions - the fact that they believe the Bible is a "biblical record of factual information handed to us directly from God" - while I believe the Bible is an anthology made up of fables, morality tales, historical records, poems, stories, and songs passed down orally and written by men to explain their beliefs, figure out the world, philosophy, and comment on what was happening - often via metaphors. To read it literally to me is a bit like watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer and seeing that as the Gospel, and believing vampires really exist. I do not believe that the Bible should be interpreted literally and that attempting to follow it's dictates literally only leads to hypocrisey and destruction and horrible things - because it contradicts itself in places and like any written work, is complicated.) I despise her world view not her. It's an important thing to remember - that we don't hate a person, we just disagree with how they see the world, for it is the opposite of how we do.

He told me that while he did not think McCain would win this, that the polls are the popular vote not the electoral vote where Obama is still leading, he is afraid there is an outside chance that Obama may lose primarily because he is African-American or Black. There are quite a few working class middle Americans out there from small towns, who no matter how bad things get, how poor they are, would never in a million years vote for an African-American ('Negro') for President. I pray this isn't true, but I read this morning in the paper, how NY's first African-American Governor, David Patterson, saw racism implicit not advert, but implicit in Sarah Palin's speechs and between the lines. And yes, I see it too. Sarah is like a lot of small town white Americans - who have lived in one place their entire lives and never interacted with a diverse group of people - she's Archie Bunker from All in the Family. Say what you will about Norman Lear but he nailed middle American white bigotry and it has not disappeared.

That said? This election is a positive one. It is the first time in US History that two women, and a black man ran as viable candidates for President. Not only that, they got more attention than the White Guys. That's major. It gives me hope that maybe we are beginning to move away from the old boys club. Regardless of the outcome - the fact that a woman and a black man ran as viable candidates - and one of them will either be President or in line for President of the US, when just a few decades ago neither had the right to vote - is something to celebrate and worth remembering.


Anywho - got this from another friend via email tonight:

Eve Ensler, the American playwright, performer, feminist and activist best known for "The Vagina Monologues", wrote the following about Sarah Palin.

___________________________________


Drill, Drill, Drill

I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it's their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears.

I don't like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop violence against them. It is hard to write about Sarah Palin. This is why the Sarah Palin choice was all the more insidious and cynical. The people who made this choice count on the goodness and solidarity of Feminists.

But everything Sarah Palin believes in and practices is antithetical to Feminism which for me is part of one story -- connected to saving the earth, ending racism, empowering women, giving young girls options, opening our minds, deepening tolerance, and ending violence and war.

I believe that the McCain/Palin ticket is one of the most dangerous choices of my lifetime, and should this country chose those candidates the fall-out may be so great, the destruction so vast in so many areas that America may never recover. But what is equally disturbing is the impact that duo would have on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, this is not a joke. In my lifetime I have seen the clownish, the inept, the bizarre be elected to the presidency with regularity.

Sarah Palin does not believe in evolution. I take this as a metaphor. In her world and the world of Fundamentalists nothing changes or gets better or evolves. She does not believe in global warming. The melting of the arctic, the storms that are destroying our cities, the pollution and rise of cancers, are all part of God's plan. She is fighting to take the polar bears off the endangered species list. The earth, in Palin's view, is here to be taken and plundered. The wolves and the bears are here to be shot and plundered. The oil is here to be taken and plundered. Iraq is here to be taken and plundered. As she said herself of the Iraqi war, "It was a task from God."

Sarah Palin does not believe in abortion. She does not believe women who are raped and incested and ripped open against their will should have a right to determine whether they have their rapist's baby or not.

She obviously does not believe in sex education or birth control. I imagine her daughter was practicing abstinence and we know how many babies that makes.

Sarah Palin does not much believe in thinking. From what I gather she has tried to ban books from the library, has a tendency to dispense with people who think independently. She cannot tolerate an environment of ambiguity and difference. This is a woman who could and might very well be the next president of the United States . She would govern one of the most diverse populations on the earth.

Sarah believes in guns. She has her own custom Austrian hunting rifle. She has been known to kill 40 caribou at a clip. She has shot hundreds of wolves from the air.

Sarah believes in God. That is of course her right, her private right. But when God and Guns come together in the public sector, when war is declared in God's name, when the rights of women are denied in his name, that is the end of separation of church and state and the undoing of everything America has ever tried to be.

I write to my sisters. I write because I believe we hold this election in our hands. This vote is a vote that will determine the future not just of the U.S. , but of the planet. It will determine whether we create policies to save the earth or make it forever uninhabitable for humans. It will determine whether we move towards dialogue and diplomacy in the world or whether we escalate violence through invasion, undermining and attack. It will determine whether we go for oil, strip mining, coal burning or invest our money in alternatives that will free us from dependency and destruction. It will determine if money gets spent on education and healthcare or whether we build more and more methods of killing. It will determine whether America is a free open tolerant society or a closed place of fear, fundamentalism and aggression.

If the Polar Bears don't move you to go and do everything in your power to get Obama elected then consider the chant that filled the hall after Palin spoke at the RNC, "Drill Drill Drill." I think of teeth when I think of drills. I think of rape. I think of destruction. I think of domination. I think of military exercises that force mindless repetition, emptying the brain of analysis, doubt, ambiguity or dissent. I think of pain.

Do we want a future of drilling? More holes in the ozone, in the floor of the sea, more holes in our thinking, in the trust between nations and peoples, more holes in the fabric of this precious thing we call life?


Eve Ensler


September 5, 2008

Comments

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

The problem with your political analysis is that it is entirely insular. You identify with your party and Obama to such an extent that you can't even see that people might have a legitimate reason to vote for McCain/Palin - so therefore if they do vote for them, it has to be for racist reasons. Because you, yourself, see no other reason to do it - but that's your projection. Here, read Camille Paglia on Palin. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/)

Plus, the idea that the governor of a state is Archie Bunker and has not interacted with a diverse group of people in her life - it just seems entirely off base to me. Here's another liberal discussing reasons she sees that people identify with and admire Palin. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/main.jhtml?xml=/portal/2008/09/11/ftpalin111.xml) I don't entirely agree with it, but it seems far more to the point.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Have you read my other posts? The one in which I stated all the links? Or the one with the fact checking?

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I read them.

But I was referring to the logic in the post I commented on. Though I see, now that it's morning, that my reference to "political analysis" is easy to misconstrue. And you might have thought I was speaking more widely than that. I should have used a more specific referent.

Thank for responding, in return some clarifications

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the clarification and thank you for responding to my post. Which from my perspective, was a courageous thing to do - since as you are no doubt aware 90% of my flist is liberal. Some far more liberal than I.

I am sorry I was unable to respond to you earlier - work prohibits it and the small/quick responses I do make were made either first thing this morning or at lunch.

You are of course owed a response. Especially since, I think you misinterpreted some of the things I said or rather the meaning behind them. Also, and this unfortunately is the nature of corresponding on the internet - we have a tendency to make assumptions about others based primarily on what we see in their posts. Which is the reason I asked if you had read my other posts on the topic.

I want to make it crystal clear that I nor the man I was speaking to last night, who happens to be my father who is 72 years of age, believe that "every" person who votes for McCain is doing so because they cannot handle a black man in the Presidency. This is of course ridiculous, not to mention illogical. Nor do I believe I said that in the post above but, I can see how you may have interpreted it that way. I have a friend who is African-American and is most likely voting for John McCain or she was in January, not sure what she's doing now. She did not vote for Bush, Jr. And she loved Bush, Sr. for much the same reasons she loves McCain, I suspect. And in law school, I was friends with another extreemly conservative African-American, who similarily supported Bob Dole. So, you see, not as insular in my own party as you may think. In fact, in my lifetime - I've know and interacted with more Republicans and Conservatives than Liberal Democrats. As have my parents. About 80% of my extended family is Republican.

Nor do I believe that you are racist for supporting the McCain/Palin ticket. The people I was talking about I'm not sure you have met, but I have, are not from urban areas, and have lived their entire lives in the same place. Those who have traveled - have visited friends or traveled with friends to places on organized tours - they have not interacted with the locals. Several are members of my own family and quite a few I went to high school and law school with, and they have never to my knowledge known a black person outside of the guy that raped and murdered their cousin or mugged their parents or was the poor and somewhat messy family that kept to themselves next door. This of course has caused them to have somewhat "narrow" view of the world around them. A woman, my own grandmother, whom I love beyond imagining, is, I'm sorry to say, racist. She is like Archie Bunker and at 90 she is not going to change. Her next door neighbor, a lovely woman, who I adore and still calls her - is also racist. And yes, they are products of their upbringing and environement. This is a fact.

What you do not know about me is I spent 17 years of my life in Kansas, and 4 in Colorado Springs, plus 11 in West Chester County, PA - living amongst fairly conservative people, the majority of which do and always have been part of the Republican Party. They were from all walks of life. I have known dirt poor, lower middle class, middle class, upper middle, to rich. I went to a conservative law school - and was close friends with a gun dealer. In College, I went to a Reagan rally with a supporter of Reagan who had tears in her eyes when she saw him in person. She was one of my close friends and her father died in a private plane crash - she was incredibly wealthy and very prejudiced not necessarily racist, but certainly prejudiced, as was a woman who was gay and pro-life and incredibly conservative, but not racist in the least.

My parents live in Hilton Head, SC - which is mainly populated by conservative right-wing Republicans from Long Island, NY.
In short, I am hardly insular.

Pagilla & Palin

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

fresne actually did an excellent job of responding to this. But, I want to provide my own take. Because discourse is important even on topics that make emotions boil and at times feel impossible to discuss rationally.

I disagree with Pagilla. The leafy suburbs of Philadelphia are hardly mainstream America. It is what my family, who live in PA, scoffingly would call Main Line Philly. In short - Pagilla lives in PA's version of Scarsdale and WestChester, NY. Rich people. Extreemly rich people. Who are not worrying about foreclosures, lost jobs, and food stamps.

I have family in PA, who live in Allen Town, Palmerton, Chester County, and unlike Pagilla, I've lived in places that are a bit more like Wassilla, Alaska. And well, I spent my childhood in Chester County, PA.

Re Palin: Have you checked the population of Alaska recently? It is 790,000. The population of the town in which Palin grew up? Anywhere between 9,000 and 5,000. To put this into perspective, this is about the same size as a lot of NY Schools. NYC has 8 million. The Philadephia Suburbs have a lot more people than Wassila. Philly is a big city. It's a lot bigger than Kansas City and Topeka. And Main Line Philly has about the same population as well WestChester, NY. It's a lot bigger than say Beacon, NY - where my brother lives. A small working class town in the Hudson River Valler that is slowly becoming gentrified.

Palin has readily admitted that she has not been outside her own state very often. I have seen more of the world and interacted with more people than this woman has. And that by itself, scares me. It should scare you. Why? Because of what you accused me of above - being so inside my own party, so insular, that I can't see any other point of view. Those remarks actually describe Sarah Palin far better than they describe me or anyone who has posted in my lj or on lj that I have seen to date. Sarah from what I've read, got married at 18, eloped, had five kids, joined City Council, became Mayor, became Governor and ran a small business. She obtained a communications degree - have you met communications majors? One of my close friends in law school was one, amazing at litigation. She knew how to present herself, how to spin things. As you know from watching Obama, who also presents himself well - except I see substance there and unlike Palin or McCain - Obama is not as insular. He has worked with the urban inner city kids, lived in Indonesia, been to Kenya to visit family, and worked both in the State Senate and the US Senate - seeing first hand the difference between State and Federal Government - and there is a BIG difference. He has also traveled extensively, around the world, around the US, interacting with a diverse group of people. Sarah has not. Biden, on the other hand, certainly has - Biden has met with world leaders, negotiated deals with world leaders, and formed foreign policy. Biden has lived in small town in Delawar and worked in DC. He has also campaigned for President and ran a campaign, which is not an easy thing to do.

My question to you regarding Palin and it is a valid one, considering McCain is 72 years of age, do you really think this woman can do a treaty with China? Or with Russia? OR discuss the intricacies of nuclear war? Do you trust her on that level? I don't. The idea of Sarah Palin as President or VP to me is an asburd joke that I might see on South Park or a parody or a Disney Movie. The fact it is not a joke and could become reality scares me. I wish McCain chose Lieberman or Condelez-Rice, both of whom, I could live with. Palin gives me nightmares.

Re: Pagilla & Palin

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

Extreemly rich people. Who are not worrying about foreclosures, lost jobs, and food stamps.

Paglia's not extremely rich, or even rich - she's a professor - middle class at best.

Re Palin: Have you checked the population of Alaska recently? It is 790,000. The population of the town in which Palin grew up? Anywhere between 9,000 and 5,000.

I certainly know the population of Wasilla by this point. It's been all over the news. Hard to miss.

I have seen more of the world and interacted with more people than this woman has.

You may have seen more - but interacted with more - how could you possible know that, given her current CV? That's just an assumption on your part. For instance, I went to a large NYC high school - but that doesn't mean I interacted with everyone there. Political people are, for the most part, by nature extroverts who interact with many people all across the board.

And that by itself, scares me. It should scare you. Why?

Thanks for the advice, but it doesn't.

BTW, isn't the transmission of this meme the politics of fear - only, you know, it's the right and their agenda that's scary. All parts of what Paglia defined as the left's current manichaeism. (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index2.html)

As you know from watching Obama, who also presents himself well - except I see substance there and unlike Palin or McCain - Obama is not as insular.

I find him fairly insular - he's all about the rhetoric about crossing political lines - but he never does it. Unlike McCain, who has a track record of disturbing his own side intensely for doing so. As far as I can make out, with Obama, it's all talk. Moreover, I think he's spent the last years hiding his actual ideas and political proclivities from the public, because what he really thinks would prove too unpopular.

I wish McCain chose Lieberman or Condelez-Rice, both of whom, I could live with.

Why would he? He would have lost decisively. It would have been a very poor strategic decision. Not generally considered an admirable practical trait. Even if it was high minded.

Personally, I wouldn't have minded Lieberman, but I'm fairly sick of Rice by this point. I don't think her diplomacy is particularly effective. Moreover, she's been in high office for 8 years already and has expressed no desire for the position. There's also a reason there's such a high turnover in high government posts, and that's because the job is exhausting.

My question to you regarding Palin and it is a valid one, considering McCain is 72 years of age, do you really think this woman can do a treaty with China? Or with Russia?

First of all, I'm not fixated on the Dem talking point that McCain is going to drop dead the minute he's elected. The man is an energizer bunny of energy. I was reading an article in Slate, I think, recently, about how Lindsey Graham was running around on the campaign trail with him, and Graham, the younger man, was exhausted by it, but not McCain. Secondly, in the off chance that McCain does die, some years after he's been in office, she'll have had plenty more experience. Thirdly, no one goes in alone to negotiate a treaty. You have a huge staff of advisers at your disposal who do the footwork for you. Fourthly, since I'm in more political agreement with her instincts than either Obama's or Biden's, I'd be far more worried about them negotiating a treaty with Russia or China. IMO, one reason Putin attacked Georgia now is that Bush is a lame duck and he thought that Obama was a sure thing for President. And he's not at all intimidated by Obama, who is a dove.

Palin gives me nightmares.

Apparently you are not alone - the people at Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2200015/") are right there with you.

Reminds me of the fact that during the weeks after the 2000 election, shrinks in NYC (and LA, too, I imagine) were booked solidly with people having anxiety attacks.

Re: Thank for responding, in return some clarifications

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the recontextualization. Though I still disagree with your father's point, as initially stated, that if McCain wins, it will because racists put him over the top.

Or as you put it initially:

He told me... he is afraid there is an outside chance that Obama may lose primarily because he is African-American or Black. There are quite a few working class middle Americans out there from small towns, who no matter how bad things get, how poor they are, would never in a million years vote for an African-American ('Negro') for President.

Just wanted to point out that I never accused you of being insular - I was talking about the logic of your argument. Your analysis, etc., not you.

Re: Thank for responding, in return some clarifications

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I deleted the last response, because it occurred to me that at this point, the best approach is to simply agree to disagree.

I don't believe further discussion is going to help. Neither of us will change our minds - since we are not undecided.

I should probably tell you that Pagila is NOT a good choice - even though she supports Obama, she is actually considered a bit ...unreliable and sort of silly by a lot of people. Be sort of like quoting Madonna, who I honestly respect a lot more than Pagila. I can see why you thought otherwise, just saying it did not help your analysis.

[fresne.livejournal.com]

The Paglia article is indeed interesting. And yet, all the essays I've heard on "new feminism" (re: Palin), seem to depend on my identifying with her because she’s... a woman. That's she's just like us. That all women share a common life experience. That the country is better than the City. That she carries a baby in one arm and a rifle in the other.

We do and we don't. We are and we aren't. There are legitimate reasons for everything.
Every point of view of Palin's that I disagree with are ones she shares with my 76 year old father. He's a pioneer. She's pioneer. The pioneering life is hard. You dry your clothes by freezing them in the winter. You eat the same thing every day. I get it. Most people would just use the dryer sitting next to the washing machine, but I get it.

I've seen a lot of articles telling me why I should elide over my discomfort over things like, "pro-life stand? Creationism taught in schools? Book banning? Gay conversions? The Iraq war as God's plan? Zionism as a prelude to the apocalypse?". I only needed to go to youtube and search for "Palin+Iraq+God's plan" to know that I have an issue with her.

You see, in the Paglia article what I found particularly interesting was the assertion that the young feminists of today should read military history rather than women's studies courses.

I've never taken women's studies. I have studied military history. My major influence being Sir Basil-Liddel Hart's seminal work "On Strategy", with a certain dollop of T.E. Lawrence.
So when I read an essayist go on to compare Palin with (again) frontier women, I wonder if Palin understand the strategic benefits of treating your enemies justly. Will she understand that when we fight a war that we create the peace that follows, and all to often the war that will follow that peace.

Oh, wait... the point seems to have been that Palin knows how to win an election.

I keep reading essays that tell me I'm anti-Palin because she's Pro-Life. That is not accurate. It's probably that I have issues with my father, but I like to think that it's that like shadowcat I have problems with Bible=Thought of God. Not because a person can't think like that. But because I don't want my leaders thinking with rigidity. I've seen where rigidity of thought leads to bulling on ahead when what is needed is indirect strategy.

When I hear that someone is a fundamentalist, I know how that person thinks. That there are right and wrong answers. That there are experts who have defined the right answers. That life is linear and stasis is good. I'm happy to say there's a growing trend among young fundamentalist to see the world as a trust from God, but Palin isn't a part of that movement.

I also know that I don't share a common life experience with Palin because we perceive something so fundamental as language differently. I've yet to see an essay, which gives me something to hold onto other than, "Pioneer woman go."

As to Archie Bunker, well her interactions with one of the non-white populations in Alaska has not been favorable, but terribly pioneer.
She fishes, she's against native subsistence fishing (State ofAlaska v. Norton, 3:05-cv-0158-HRH (D. Ak).)
She hunts, she against subsistence hunting ((State of Alaska v. Fleagle, No. 07-35723 (9th Cir.).),
Whether she has ties or not to the Succesionist Alaska party, she’s against Native soverenty (Native Village of Tanana v. State of Alaska, 3AN-04-12194 CI; Native Kaltag Tribal Council v. DHHS, No. 3:06-cv-00211-TMB (D. Ak.), pending on appeal No 08-35343 (9th Cir.)),
And native language assistance for polling (Nick v. Bethel, No. 3:07-cv-0098-TMB (D. Ak.)

I’d go on, but I feel like I’ve taken up to much of shadowcat’s journal already.

[(Anonymous)]

Go, Fresne! I wish there were somewhere to publish this so that it could be read by the people who need to read it. Like Paglia.

Why am I not surprised that she likes Palin?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Go ahead. Long responses are permitted in my journal. Especially considering how long my own often are and my posts.

Unfortunately work prohibits me from responding in depth myself. But I agree with your response and you did a better job of stating what I was attempting to state above.

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

You dry your clothes by freezing them in the winter. LOL, but I imagine she had a dryer even before becoming governor.

So when I read an essayist go on to compare Palin with (again) frontier women, I wonder if Palin understand the strategic benefits of treating your enemies justly. Will she understand that when we fight a war that we create the peace that follows, and all to often the war that will follow that peace.

This seems so basic to me that I wonder it's a question. Unfortunately, though, I've become inured to this kind of thinking. And it does address the reason I thought that the Paglia article was apt in the first place. The other related point is that, as a serious Obama supporter, she is also a fairly intelligent observer of the right - in its own terms. That is to say, in terms that the right can recognize. As opposed to defining it only in the left's terms - terms which currently are characterized by loathing, condescension and the belief that the other side is both evil and stupid. Which is why, IMO, the left so often misperceives the right. And why I thought shadowkat's arguments was insular to begin with, (though she has since entirely re-contextualized what she was talking about.)

This is the passage in the Paglia I was thinking of, in particular:

The witch-trial hysteria of the past two incendiary weeks unfortunately reveals a disturbing trend in the Democratic Party, which has worsened over the past decade. Democrats are quick to attack the religiosity of Republicans, but Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion. Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant? Conservatives are demonized, with the universe polarized into a Manichaean battle of us versus them, good versus evil. Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.

Then there is also this passage from an article I read today in the NYTimes that also underlines what I'm talking about here:

For those of us (http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/no-laughing-matter/) who can’t tap into those yearnings, it seems the Palin faithful are blind – to the contradictions between her stated positions and the truth of the policies she espouses, to the contradictions between her ideology and their interests. But Jonathan Haidt, an associate professor of moral psychology at the University of Virginia, argues in an essay this month, “What Makes People Vote Republican?”, (http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html) that it’s liberals, in fact, who are dangerously blind.

Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.

It's a well known secret in my circle, the subject of much discussion, that conservatives are more gifted at thinking like liberals than the reverse. Which makes it ironic that Haidt, a liberal, had to conduct research to discover it. But, at least, he did discover it. The linked article is interesting as well, even though I don't entirely agree with it. But, then, that's no surprise, as I'm not the target audience.

Oh, wait... the point seems to have been that Palin knows how to win an election.

And this point differs from Obama choosing Biden how? He chose someone whom he thought would bolster his weaknesses before the electorate (and who didn't threaten or overshadow him) - though it ended up being extremely shortsighted in many other respects. Obviously, in politics, you choose someone who will help you win an electoral advantage. That's basic strategy. In those terms, Obama chose poorly.

con't...

[fresne.livejournal.com]

LOL, but I imagine she had a dryer even before becoming governor.

Well, and the funny thing about that is that I try not to use my dryer in the summer. Or when I want to save money. It's like an instinct. Money problems=cut spending. But then I am a Californian, who grew up during the drought. It brings a perspective that comes of an environment where sometimes there is less and there's not much you can do about it.

This seems so basic to me that I wonder it's a question.

Let me qualify here that are plenty of Conservatives, who understand this concept. To his great credit, McCain quite rightly pushed for legislation against torture, but that the U.S. had to actually make such legislation points out that what I describe is not basic.

There's the whole monotonous Liberal litany of current war-ness, which I won't weary us both by repeating, but the example I find most interesting was the failure of the US to support the government of Afghanistan once they had driven out the Russians (and then sort of did it again now). Focused effort and thought to the consequences of neglect (on any political parties part) could have gone a profoundly long way toward alleviating our current problems.

From the choices that they have made, I'd say McCain gets that principle and that Palin doesn't. And by Palin doesn't, I've already articulated some of my thinking, there's more, but seriously there is a point where it's all just Angel vs. Spike.

I would however argue that the terms in which one sees the opposition are an integral part of a position. A quick trip to realclearpolitics has me wading in positions. I'm told that conservatives are racist (some are, some aren't - heck I am.), that liberals are elitist (some are, some aren't – I am. I read Dante. I watched Buffy. I crossed them both) and I'm reminded of a disagreement that my father and I often have. I should perhaps clarify that we talk for about an hour a week and exchange several emails a day. So, we have plenty of space for disagreement.

He holds that to understand how a word read the dictionary. I sort of agree, but think that certain words are emotionally charged by the individual.

Thus I know that just as I am sensitized to notice slurs against me, dad is sensitized to slurs against himself.

There is an impulse, which is at the root of this discussion, to see ones self as good and the enemy as evil: Nazi’s/Hitler. Personally I'd like to see a moratorium on WWII references. Yes, it was a big war; it was not the only war.

On the other hand, my father would like to put a moratorium to my referencing the Crusades. Middle Eastern, Albigensian, Tuetonic or otherwise.

And as often as religion comes up in politics, I am reminded of something my youth minister said, "Never put a religious bumper sticker on your car, because eventually you'll cut someone off - you're human, it'll happen - and you'll be cutting that person off as a Christian and that's not the right message to send."

So, yes, as Liberals, it'd be nice if we could refrain from demonizing people. It'd be nice if fellow Christians would refrain demonizing other people. It would be nice if people with "Mean people suck" bumper stickers wouldn't cut me off. It happens.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you for commenting and for your responses. Much appreciated.

[fresne.livejournal.com]

Paglia: Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant?
Since everyone has gotten that way. Liberals. Conservatives. We're all like small monkey's up trees throwing poo. One reason I favor Obama is I want my government to get some work done. We'll see.

Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view.

In my experience that's more of a sort of. Although, I'd be curious what selection set they analyzed. As dad, the trail lawyer, often told me (and then learned to regret it), statistics can be made to lie and experts are prostitutes (then mom made him answer my natural next question, "What's a prostitute?").

There are conservatives who have contempt/anger for the liberal point of view. There are liberals who have contempt/anger for the conservative point of view. Again, a trip to realclearpolitics or pick a generalized news outlet, has pundits on both sides flinging.

These positions have increased in vehemence over the last twenty years. There are people who have control over their emotions to exploit the resulting anger.

Not that I want to use literary references to discuss a point (history being superior and if I never hear about that one Trek episode again, I'll be a pig in clover - a monkey pig, with wings, but no lipstick), but it seems apt to say that in Julius Caesar, when Marc Anthony stands over Caesar’s corpse, it is a very effective rhetorical technique for Shakespeare to have him say that he comes to bury Caesar, not to praise him. When really, he's there to bury the Stabby McStabbys. The inherent danger being if you aren't really good at this technique, the speaker can come off weak or spend too much time in grass level details.

Mind you, it's also an effective technique to start out with "That MacBeth guy sucketh." It gets people riled up. However, people who aren't convinced tend to smile, nod, and back away slowly. The more shrill and desperate, the faster people run.

Obviously, in politics, you choose someone who will help you win an electoral advantage. That's basic strategy. In those terms, Obama chose poorly.

Well, I'd say yes and no. There are multiple things that go on in the VP choice. There is adding an emotional connection to win the election. For example, Johnson helped Kennedy with the southern vote. Quayle helped Bush Sr. soften his image. Clearly Palin enables McCain to connect to his base in a way he wasn't able to before, and garners him some support from women (although I'd be curious to see some more analysis of where age/class/geography falls on that statistic) who have felt disaffected from Republicans & Democrats.

The second has a focus on what that person will do to help the President once they're in office. For example, Bush Sr. gave Reagan international level patina to a state level official. If McCain had been interested in my vote, then he'd have picked someone with a strong financial background.
My take is that if Obama's eye had been solely on winning the election, he'd have picked Clinton. I'm inclined to think that's like yoking two kings to a ticket. Great for the election, not so great for running a country. Biden was a choice more geared to someone like me. Given the t.v. ratings for every show I've ever liked, we'll see if Biden was a good strategy or not.

So, I imagine, that your first instinct is probably correct…which she saw the opposition.

Fair enough. I do apologize if clearly enough articulate that I do believe that everyone has their opinion, which is shaped by their own unique life experiences and is perfectly valid. Huzah to the US where we can have this discussion.

That's also why I responded to you with a particular focus on why the articles that you linked to, like the other similarly written articles that I've read, miss the mark on articulating why I (everything is about me, unless it’s about you) should like Palin, and instead berate me because I don't.

And I apologize for the long response, I’d write something shorter if I had more time.

[abrakadabrah.livejournal.com]

I keep reading essays that tell me I'm anti-Palin because she's Pro-Life. That is not accurate. It's probably that I have issues with my father, but I like to think that it's that like shadowcat I have problems with Bible=Thought of God. Not because a person can't think like that. But because I don't want my leaders thinking with rigidity. I've seen where rigidity of thought leads to bulling on ahead when what is needed is indirect strategy.

In my view, political disposition most often comes down to individual temperament and trigger points. Or as Rebecca Goldstein puts it, mattering maps. The intellectual gloss is secondary and is a matter of art rather than nature. So, I imagine, that your first instinct is probably correct. And that's precisely why, when I responded to shadowkat originally, I wasn't trying to convince her (or anyone else) to shift her position, which, in any case, at this point would be futile. My point was limited to commenting about the terms in which she saw the opposition.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

What I'm getting from your responses here, and I'm not sure you are aware of them, that you've pigeoned holed the liberals as "left" and pigeoned holed the conservatives as "right". Leaving no room for those of us, like myself, who happen to be neither extreme.

The Republican Party has drifted so far to the right, that it is bordering on facism. And made "religion" a rallying point. And by religion - I mean Christianity and Judeoism. McCain has even stated somewhat erroneously that our country was founded on Judiac and Christian principles. Not entirely true.
The people who wrote the Constitution were implicit in a clear separation of Church and State.

Not all conservatives feel this way of course. But those in "power" such as Bush, and his administration certainly do.
So your arguments to my ears at least sound incredibly one-sided and somewhat insular. By stating one is "liberal" or one is "conservative" - you are forgetting those who are neither. I'm a moderate. As were the Clintons by the way, and Obama. They do not want a socialist or communist system. They do not wish to make all companies public. Obama does not want to force people to take the government's health care, so much as make it an option. If anything the Democratic Party has become increasingly moderate, in the center and not "liberal". Have you actually met a true liberal? My kidbrother is "liberal" under the definition that you are using. He has voted for Ralph Nader in the last three elections or not at all. He despises both parties and does not see much difference between them. And one guy I know - really hated Hillary, felt she was "too conservative".

I've heard two views, both equally irrational.

The Far Right: Iraq was responsible for the Attack on the WTC - we know this because they were happy about it. (This of course ignores factual information - that states Hussein hated Osama Bin Laden and they were two warring sects. )

The Far Left: That the US government did it so we could to war with Iraq and help Israel and Israel was involved.

Two crazy points of view. Neither true.
What scares me, right now, is that for the last eight years, we have been governed by people who buy the far right pov.

My question to you, is what happened to the center? The middle road between these two dangerous extremes? It exists in me.
In Obama. In Biden. I do not see it in Palin and McCain.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I read the article by Camille Paglia that your first poster linked, and it blew my mind...
the twisting of position that the Religious Fundamentalists/New Conservatives do really seems to negate all logic and reason IMO. I am an ideologue because I don't want someone else to change my country to suit their religious views? I'm being "judgmental and intolerant" because I feel that a woman believes in creationism and wants to teach 'intelligent design' in the public schools is unfit for the Presidency? WTF?

I do consider that the choice of the next Supreme Court Justices will determine whether we are going to dismantle the Bill of Rights (except, of course for the sacrosanct Right to Bear Arms), or whether we will restore the Constitution, Rule of Law, and individual/minority freedom to this country.

But of course I also really believe it is the economy, stupid. And that McCain's following the economic plans of the last 8 years, and Palin's proven record of wild unconsidered action as both a Mayor (taking millions in earmarks, but STILL leaving the small town burdened by millions in debt when she left to become Governor) and as Governor (claiming to be against 'the bridge to nowhere' when she took the money, had in fact wanted it) shows that she will be just like the current administrations deficit spending. This country can be plunged into economy depression in as little as 4 years, and these two are the ones to do it!

Sorry for the rant, at least I didn't put it in directly as a reply to abrakadabrah

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

No apologies necessary. And thank you for the response.

I'd considered taking the post down, because I was afraid it was being misinterpreted, your response and fresne's changed my mind.

[embers-log.livejournal.com]

I loved your post, and I appreciated reading Eve Ensler's essay (she is a wonderful writer), so I don't think anything there could be misinterpreted.

I've been on an emotional roller coaster, worried about the election, but I do believe that Barack Obama is running a smart ground game and is doing a good job to help secure a future with out Bill of Rights intact. I can't imagine anyone I would rather have choosing new Supreme Court Justices than this professor of Constitutional law!
*knock on wood*

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you. Been on a bit of an emotional roller coaster myself of late.

I was okay, until McCain chose Palin and I read up on her. I think I could have handled Romney or Lieberman (who I'm told he wanted).
I'm not sure what is scaring me more right now, Palin or how people are reacting to her.
It's reassurring to know that I'm not alone in that reaction.

My father told me last night that I need to let this play out. It will change. People will grow bored of the "rock star" and start to think about the issues. And a lot can happen between now and the election. A lot is happening. The economy is getting progressively worse. We have all sorts of problems overseas. There is more corruption uncovered in DC - related to oil. And...Hurrican Ike, a Category 4 Hurricane, is barrelling towards Houston, TX...

We'll just have to wait and see.

[ann1962]

Nice post.

For me feminism opens doors, allows me more, or my daughter (or son) more of what they want in life. I do not get the impression that is Palin's view. At least not from what I have heard. Her world view is very small, not one in which I would want to live.