Across The Political Divide

I recently read something rather bizarre - that apparently while speaking to someone, you can tell their political persuasion merely by looking at something else while speaking. Apparently, the leftist will follow your gaze to see what you're looking at while the conservative will carry on unfazed.

Probably dodgy pop psychology at its finest. But it resonates with something that has been crossing my mind a lot lately - that a left-of-centre mindset and a right-of-centre mindset are merely incompatible mindsets that most people, some 'swing voters' in the centre notwithstanding, more or less subscribe to wholesale. That entire political philosophies can, in many cases, spring fully formed as a result of basic, fundamental approaches to the individual's place in society - approaches that are probably formed at a very young age and are more or less immutable, the rightward drift associated with aging notwithstanding.

Or let's look at it this way: when a leftist exasperatedly exclaims, 'I can't understand conservatives at all!', that's probably not mere hubris: it's probably the truth. Because complex political philosophies spring from simple perspectives on life, there probably is a fundamental disconnect between 'how lefties think' and 'how righties think'. Never the twain shall meet, except of course for those centrists, God love them, who can be persuaded one way or another.

If this is true, the implication would seem to be to 'draw battle lines' - most starkly of course in the resolutely bipartisan United States of America, where lately partisans on both sides are inclined to view politics as a battle between good and evil.

You could argue, though, that the opposite should happen: that one result of an incompatibility of ideology could be to put down weapons and learn to embrace difference. After all, if we have no chance at all of 'converting' a certain segment of the population - not due to stubbornness but merely due to this 'difference in mindset' - then we would do well to learn to accept them, to figure out how to accommodate 'both sides' to the extent possible. After all, 'they know not what they do' - people on both sides of the line are driven by a sense of righteousness that they believe fully in their hearts: it's not a lack of empathy that prevents them from walking a mile in the other side's shoes so much as a simple inability to make their minds grasp the fundamentals of the other side's philosophy.

I consider myself a perfect example of this. Conservative politics seem absolutely crazy to me - really. I've given a lot of thought to them and I can't for the life of me understand why people embrace them. And yet they do - intelligent, honest, decent people somehow manage to come to radically different conclusions about man's relationship to man and the importance of the individual in society than me. I get frustrated that people seem unable to see the world as it appears so crystal clear to me, and I gnash my teeth at what seems like a usurping of power whenever enough of the populace cast their lot with conservatives that they are able to form a government at one level or another.

Which, of course, is ridiculous: our winner-takes-all system of government not only is entirely the wrong system if people's political outlooks are more or less encoded within them in stone but additionally is probably the root cause behind the adversarial way we view politics.

Political outlook can't be 'genetic': people's politics change with time, and with geography too, in that some places are resolutely left-of-centre and others incurably right-of-centre. So there is a 'learned', environmental aspect to it. And it stands to reason that people can be swayed - gradually, over time. But it seems that the best way to sway someone's mind is by engaging with them, not by shouting at them over an insurmountable gulf.

After all, there's nothing wrong with conservatives or with progressives: they merely are who they are.

Anti-Marriage-Equality Activists Make No Sense At All

Some three years ago I had a blog that I called "Makes No Sense At All", named after the Hüsker Dü song. The point of it was to give me an occasional soap-box from which to give into Andy Rooney tendencies and just grumble and complain about whatever took my fancy. I didn't carry on with it too long, and it was read by, like, a maximum of five people who were not GoogleBots. So since it's just sat there moribund, collecting digital dust down the years. I decided I might as well close down the old blog and syndicate its contents here, in weekly installations. I've eliminated a few blog entries that seem too anachronistic by now, but the blogs that I have included I've not edited at all. So enjoy watching me at my grumpiest... Makes No Sense at All.

Originally published 22 May 2008.

Ah, the contemporary conservative... it's such an interesting position to be in, grabbing onto the back of a train, digging your heels in the ground, being pulled forward - like it or not - anyway, effectively doing nothing more than slowing down the train's progress. And annoying the conductor...

It's always the same with conservatives: new ideas are presented, the conservative reflexively condemns it, a pointless and time-wasting struggle ensues, progressives win, the conservatives eventually accept the new position and pretend that they always supported it.

It's only a few decades since the American Supreme Court forbade Anti-Miscegenation laws. Those, for those who don't know, were laws that existed in a good many states banning marriages between the races. In several states of the US, it was illegal as late at 1967 for a black person to marry a white person.

I put the date in italics, because it came to me as a surprise and hopefully will come to you as a surprise too. The simple basic reality that no government could possibly have the right in good conscience to forbid marriages based on skin colour is so firmly entrenched now that, outside of radical fringe and hate groups, you wouldn't find anyone seriously taking issue with it. Ask any member of the Republican Party in the USA and (unless they're being candid) they'll tell you how much they support the freedom and human rights of 'mixed' couples.

Forty years. A blink of an eye.

Why did it take so long for those laws to be repealed? It was those damned train-draggers, digging their heels in and fighting progress just for the sake of fighting it. Instead of showing contrition and humility and admitting that they were wrong, the conservative approach is to be shamed into accepting the new reality, and then pretending that they always did.

So last week the Supreme Court of California voted to overturn its ban on same-sex marriages - a decision that unfortunately at present we're obliged to regard as a 'breakthrough' and a 'landmark' (even though it's shameful that it's taken this long). It's great to see, even though the journey is far from complete. As can be expected, the knee-jerk reaction from 'social conservatives' has already begun: the screaming, the haranguing, the beside-the-point Godtalk...

Just as surely, we can alread start writing the history books for, oh, 2048 (just a guess). We can right now talk about the anti-progressives who so vehemently protested something that, by then, has become completely accepted.

And conservatives in 2048 will, of course, through gritted teeth pretend to have always supported same-sex marriages. Anybody publically denouncing the rights of all people to marry regardless of gender will be seen as representative of a radical fringe.

And the reason it'll take that long? No good reason whatsoever. Just conservatives doing what they do best: getting in the way...

The Death (and Resurrection) of the Modern Conservative

There's a phrase I hear every now and then, that 'the modern conservative is a dying breed'. You might think that my answer to this would be 'good riddance', but it's not. My answer would be closer to 'of course they are'. By definition really, a conservative is an endangered species, a product created with built-in planned obsolescence. On the other hand, the conservative has a phoenix-like quality of rebirth. The conservative merely is reborn, well, differently.

Inevitably, throughout history, whenever the concept of progress, or a specific example of it, has entered the public consciousness, public opinion splits into two. Probably by nature those who instinctively support progress are called 'progressives' and those who instinctively fear it are called 'conservatives'. Arguments ensue in the public arena, with the conservatives fighting progress tooth and nail and the progressives frustrated by their successes.

But here's the thing - while conservatives are usually successful enough at slowing down progress, they are dismal failures at stopping it completely. Without exception, progress wins. Progress carries the day - across the grand scheme of things, I mean. Setbacks can keep the tide in check for even a full generation or more - which is frustrating as hell - but they never actually manage the trick of turning the tide. It just never happens.

So what happens, then, is that once progress happens, the conservative recognises a battle lost and moves on to adopt a new batlle - or rather, as the progressive agenda marks one victory by launching a new step forward, conservatives cut their losses and move on to resist the further progress.

Last generation's conservative is this generation's bigot. Conservatives fought tooth and nail as progressives worked diligently to create a fairer world for women, and a fairer world for religious minorities, and then a fairer word for ethnic minorities, and now a fairer world for gay people and one for recent immigrants. Every generation has had its conservatives, and opinions about the equality of women or of black people that were considered mainstream conservatism in their era would now be considered unacceptable even by most conservatives.

So they lost. These fossils, the 'conservatives' of previous generations, lost their battles. Their imprint on society has been nil, except to slow down the pace of progress. Modern conservatives will try to establish themselves as inheritors of a historical conservative movement - as the curators of history, of tradition, etc. - but when directly asked the extent to which they consider themselves the continuation of sexists, anti-semites, racists and other scum of the past, they will deny it. They will accuse you of distorting their intent in order to vilify them. But quite obviously they are the inheritors of that legacy.

And I'm not trying to imply that modern conservatives are sexist, anti-semitic or racist. I genuinely believe that many or perhaps most in the mainstream are not. I know that these prejudices still exist and are still openly flaunted somewhere out there in the body politic, so one might say 'why not call today's nutbars the inheritors of that historic legacy?' Well I do, but only to a limited extent, because these people are no longer in the mainstream - because progressives have successfully redrawn the map - and so they don't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. Today's conservatives, fighting against for example equality for LGBT people, are the inheritors of that sad legacy of previous generations because they insist on denying the very basic, and easily comprehensible, fact that right is right, slowing down progress to the benefit of nobody at all.

This is why Ann Coulter (who unlike much of the conservative mainstream very clearly is sexist, anti-semitic and racist) could address a group of gay people, taunting, 'marriage is not a civil right; you're not black'. Coulter presents it in stark terms, but the majority conservative opinion does appear to be that extending equality to black people is a good idea but extending equality to gay people is not.

So, due to their successes, marriage equality is still a work-in-progress in the USA and in much of the world. The thing that's frustrating is this: the conservatives will lose. There is absolutely no question about it. The countries of the world and states of the American untion that have legalised marriage equality will never repeal those laws. The list of jurisdictions where marriage is a recognised right will only grow; it will never shrink. Sooner or later marriage rights for gay people - and basic social acceptance for gay people and LGBT people as a whole - will be universal and will be an uncontroversially accepted fact of life. Homophobes will remain, but they'll be on the sidelines, universally condemned as bigots.

And there will still be conservatives, yet these will have accepted equality of sexuality and will get upset at anyone who draws a connection between them and the conservatives of 2011, the ones who spouted nonsense like the following: "Anyone listening to this show that believes homosexuality is a normal lifestyle has been brainwashed. It's very dangerous if we start accepting lower and lower forms of behavior as the normal." (This was said by Sean Hannity, in 1989 - which is a long time ago, but the man is still very much a prominent conservative name today.) Future conservatives will accuse future progressives of hate-mongering for lumping them in with the Hannitys and the Coulters of today. But they will be the same breed. And they will be fighting tooth-and-nail against whatever form of progress is in the headlines then. And they will lose, again. Sooner or later. This is how society works.

So is the modern conservative a dying breed? On the one hand, yes. And in fact, thank God yes. But on the other hand, like Dracula, they just keep coming back again and again and again...

The Party of Freedom

Image via Wikipedia
So it has come to pass that the Party of Freedom, the party so concerned about individual rights that it has fought socialised medicine tooth and nail, the party who claims the President is out to destroy all Americans' civil liberties, the party that gives so much importance to the US Military's attempts to bring 'freedom' to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan... this party has bravely stood up for what they believe in and told the people of the USA that only heterosexual Americans (and liars) have the right to defend the USA in time of war.


The deceitful nature of the Republican Party just continues to be more and more obvious as time passes. They (and 'Tea Party' 'activists' are 'them' just as much as the party administration) can make all the noise they want about the importance of freedom, but when it comes to preserving the status quo and to preserving whatever privilege their traditional voting base can maintain, suddenly the government's ability to keep anyone different in their place becomes paramount. Suddenly they're as statist as a Stalinist.

They call the GOP "the party of 'No'." These days it's tough to disagree with that. I never thought I'd miss Ronald Reagan, but in the 1980s the Republicans appeared at least to stand for something. I may not have agreed with their ideology, but at least I can acknowledge they had one.


Today? Well, you might be wondering what they actually do support, what they actually do believe in. But if you are wondering, don't ask. You'll get no answers. And you may have some ideas about how to bring American conservatism away from its current poisonous head-in-the-sand contraryism and back into a party with something to say. But if you do, don't tell. No one will listen to you anyway.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Tea Party Candidates are like Ronald Reagan (gaypatriot.net)
• The March to the Far Right (time.com)
• The GOP struggles vainly to change the topic before midterms (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Standing for Freedom and Democracy (socyberty.com)

Park51: a (violent verb) in the (body part) to all Americans

A quick observation. I've been fascinated with the right-wing response to the Park51 project. One thing I just noticed today, that I can't believe I hadn't noticed previously, was the shockingly large number of metaphors being floated around regarding Park51 that use the same logic: a verb of violence (stab, slap, poke, punch) to a body part (face, eye, heart, nose). It's frankly bizarre. Some examples:

• Sarah Palin calls it a 'stab in the heart' (link)
• Pamela Geller calls it a 'stab in the eye' (link)
• Rick Scott calls it a 'slap in the face' (link)
• The son of a 9/11 victim calls it a 'kick in the face' (link)
• This person calls it a 'kick in the teeth' (link)
• Raheel Raza is paraphrased as calling it a 'poke in the eye' (link)
• Carl Paladino is possibly paraphrased as calling it a 'jab in the eye' (link)
• There's a comment here calling it a 'thumb in the eye' (link)
• Alternately, 'finger in our eye' (link)
• A comment here sees it as a 'kick in the ass' (link)
• Naturally, a comment here sees it as a 'kick to the balls' (link)
• Or, if you prefer, 'spitting in the face' (link)
• Maybe, as this site accuses Obama of doing, 'spitting in the eye' (link)
• I wish it really was Palin who came up with 'dagger in the heart', but I doubt it (link)
• Someone here worries it will cause a 'jab in the hearts' (link)
• This one is nice: 'flipping the bird in America's face' (link)
• Ron Johnson ups the ante with 'poke a stick in our eye' (link)
• Some blogger comes up with the awesome 'poke around in the sensitive hearts of people's wounds', which is refudiate-worthy (link)
• A comment here comes up with the awesome grammar of 'pissing us in the face' (link)
• Seeing a comment here come up with 'a punch in the face after a kick in the rear' leaves me so flabbergasted and awestruck that I have to end here. (link)

Cordoba House and the Never-Ending Stream of Bigoted Nonsense

Image by permanently scatterbrained via Flickr
People who oppose plans to build a mosque in Manhattan are, we all can agree, completely off their rocker, right? I mean there isn't even a teensy little bit of wiggle room, right? This is merely an ongoing attempt to demonise all Muslims, to paint all Muslims with the same brush: as terrorists, as enemies of the state and as 'outsiders'.


I honestly didn't believe this idea would catch fire. I try to be generous in spirit and say, 'the majority of American conservatives are not reactionary bigots who oppose things for their own sake and secretly want religious homogeneity in the USA'. I try to think that nobody outside of a fringe would honestly be ridiculous enough to claim that putting a mosque in the same neighbourhood as the former site of the World Trade Center (I hate the phrase 'ground zero', by the way) would be considered a 'slap in the face'.

But no. It really is as ridiculous as this. It really is as ridiculous as Obama needing to remind Americans that they have a constitution, as Democrats opposing the mosque and Republicans supporting the right to build a mosque, but no one actually coming out and supporting the mosque. As ridiculous as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League saying the mosque should be built elsewhere. As preposterous as people getting all upset about Imam Rauf's comment to 60 Minutes that American policies were an 'accessory' to the crime of 9/11 - a comment that just seems to me to be common sense and not in any way pro-terrorist or anti-American.

But... but no. Instead we have legions of raving lunatics talking about respect for the families of the victims of 9/11, an argument that seems almost comical in its absurdity, were it not so sad and pathetic. And no, the image accompanying this article doesn't have anything to do with Cordoba House. It's just another example of what annoys me so much about the American Right.

Related articles by Zemanta

• "Poll: 64% Oppose Ground Zero Mosque" and related posts (blogsforvictory.com)
• Imam At Center Of 'Ground Zero Mosque' Controversy Assisted Bush-Era State Department With Outreach To Muslims (huffingtonpost.com)
• Obama's Finest Moment? (powerlineblog.com)
• Fox News Hosts Agree With Obama's Defense Of Ground Zero Mosque: 'He Has To Stand Up For Our Constitution' (huffingtonpost.com)

American Conservatives

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

I think I just have to face the simple fact that I'm never going to understand American conservatism. It just seems to me that there's an underlying dichotomy - I'm trying hard not to use the word 'hypocrisy' - that just doesn't make any sense.

I'm referring, at the moment, to the Tea Party. It appears to try to present itself as a movement in favour of small government, in favour of lower taxes, and, of course, in favour of freedomfreedomfreedom, that oh-so-powerful word the American Right bandy about at every given opportunity.

If it were just that, the Tea Party wouldn't deserve the derision it often recieves. When elements of the Tea Party made an effort to distance themselves from the Bush years, when they've said that overspending is a bad thing whichever party does it... well, they may not have a policy I agree with, but at least they seem to have one.


But where the American Right mystifies me is where fiscal conservatism meets social conservatism: I'm not so clear on what the two have to do with each other. Social conservatism is a frankly scary concept to me: based, as far as I can tell, on the notion that one's personal morals and values should be the law of the land. You needn't really look for a coherent moral vision from a social conservative: whatever bits of morality they cleave to are hardened into 'principle' and turned into the subject matter of theoretical laws.

Laws. The government using its power. This is where is all falls apart for me. If you're comfortable deriding as 'socialism' the idea that the government could, say, put environmental regulations on free enterprise or limit access to weapons, why are you suddenly comfortable entrusting the government to make laws forbidding, say, gay marriage? I know they'll claim that they're just trying to preserve the existing laws, but surely in one's quest for freedomfreedomfreedom, the current state of laws should be of no significance, right? After all, I don't think they'll stop calling for the repeal of Obamacare based on the notion that it's now the status quo.

This is where their position to me becomes untenable. Giving the police power to demand ID of foreign nationals is a policy that Tea Party supporters as a whole tend to embrace, but the simple fact is it ought to be anathema to everything they claim to stand for. They ought to deride it as the 'Big Brother' government impinging on the rights of ordinary people. Yet they don't. I sometimes get the feeling that Tea Party members practically beg people to label them as racist and/or xenophobic, so I'm trying to avoid doing so. But it's tough not to feel that the Tea Party would feel differently toward the laws in Arizona if they actually thought that they themselves might be stopped by police there. But clearly they don't feel that they have to worry about that.

The freedoms that appear to be important to the American right are, in fact, only a scant few freedoms. It would seem that what really gets them upset is the idea that the government would attempt to interfere with the free market. Freedom is an economic term, it would appear - though obviously the right to bear arms is also a big one with them. I don't know if I'd consider that a social freedom. But the idea that people ought to live the lifestyle of their own choosing has no resonance within the American right. Certainly 'flying the freak flag' is anathema to the American right. These are the people that have no problem closing down a high school prom rather than letting a same-sex couple attend.  If somebody attended a Tea Party demonstration wearing, say, a leather bondage outfit, it's tough to imagine the people there saying, "Now here's someone embracing their God-given freedom!" Freedom would suddenly seem like licentiousness, and would scandalise and anger them. They might even say "there ought to be a law."

Because when it comes right down to it, the American right are not anarchists. They believe in the government and in its ability to make laws that affect society. Ultimately what it means to be an American conservative is to embrace laws, and aspects of the government, that fit with your way of thinking, and to decry as a socialist affront to freedom whichever ones don't.

Related articles by Zemanta

• How Obama Changed the Right (themoderatevoice.com)
• The GOP base with a different name is still the GOP base (washingtonmonthly.com)
• Is 'Leave me the Hell Alone' Conservatism on the Rise in the GOP? (themoderatevoice.com)
• Al Franken's Wonderful Speech on 'Conservative' Legal Degeneracy (beliefnet.com)
• Gallup: The Tea Party Is Just The Republican Party (oliverwillis.com)
• The Tea Party And Demographics (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)