I’m glad I’d mentally prepared myself for the results of the Massachusetts Senate race. Just writing this blog post the other night helped me.
I tend to take politics very personally. Because I’m gay and Jewish, I loathe the Republican Party. The Republican Party encourages the beliefs of a huge swath of Protestant Christians who think I’m sub-human because I’m gay, and who think — even though they claim to have great respect for the Jewish people as the forebearers of Christianity — that I deserve to be punished in eternal Hellfire because I don’t believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I cannot vote for a political party that encourages such hate and intolerance, no more than I could vote for a southern Democrat if I were a black man in Mississippi in the 1950s (if I were even permitted to vote).
So when voters elect a Republican, my instinct is to see it as a personal attack on me.
But plenty of voters don’t mean their votes as an attack on me. First, there are those who are Republican because they agree with the party’s economic and political philosophies. I disagree with those philosophies, but these are not issues that touch the core of my identity — that touch who I am as a human being.
Second, there are the independents — those who tend to sway elections and don’t vote for a particular philosophy at all, but are just finicky; when the economy sucks, they vote for whoever is out of power. I understand that most voters aren’t political junkies, that they’re either too busy raising kids and going to work or looking for a job, or that they just find this stuff less interesting than I do and only get their news in soundbites. They care about their financial security; they’re not concerned about gays getting married or converting other people to Christianity. They may even be tolerant atheists. They just want the economy to get better.
I tend to see politics as a team sport: if my team loses, then I have lost, and everyone will make fun of me and hate me. But politics is not actually a team sport. Some politicians are better than others, and some of them even mean well, but in the end, they’re all just politicians. They don’t know me, and they’re not my good friends or relatives. I’m still going to support Democrats and vote for them and want them to win, but I’m not going to pretend that they’re “my team.” I’m not going to stop following politics, but I’m going to try to follow it with a colder eye.
I’m going to try to be less personally invested in all of this.
except that the Republican political philosophies and agenda do touch who you are as a person. They are aimed as destroying who you and I are as persons. They do not want persons like us exist.
By economic and political philosophies I mean their views about taxation and the federal government’s proper role in the economy. Those have nothing to do with my sexual orientation or my religion, both of which are very personal to me. My economic status, on the other hand, could change throughout my life and has little to do with my identity. I know that you as a Marxist might disagree. :)
Nazism, vehement ideological radicalism aimed at innate personal traits, is certainly something to worry about, get angry about, and fight wherever it might fester and take hold; But, i wouldn’t even think of losing sleep over some macro manifestation of it — as is the victory of Senator Brown.
I’d lose sleep over being passed over for a promotion because of my being Jewish, gay, what-have-you. I’d get emotionally upset because they wouldn’t let me on the train during my morning commute because i was this or that nationality, belonged to a lower economic-strata, or didn’t have the right style jacket. But, over an election? an editorial? some talking-head at a round-table? … nope, no way.
Life is way too short for that type of mind-set or reaction.
Drink a few beers, or some a few bowls and do yourself a favor and sit down and watch a whole segment of the 700 Club and learn to be more fascinated, and less enraged.
Emotions can be a mind-killer if left unchecked.
I think this is a great post. Of course, I’d think that because I get let off the hook. :-)
I’m a Republican, in brief, because I believe the private sector can generally do things better and more efficiently than the public sector. I believe that individuals, in general, should determine how their economic resources are best used. Of course, this is balanced out by a belief that “to whom much is given, much is expected” and I believe private charity is exceptionally important, but I also believe this is a Republican belief. I could go on. All of these things can, and should, be debated. But they are, at their core, personal beliefs. I wrote a long e-mail to a former social studies teacher in 2008 explaining why I was a Republican. I thought about reposting it, since it was longer and got into more depth. But this will suffice for now.
I think Rob Adams’ post was thoughtful as well. I had a temper until 9th grade, but the stress gave me so many stomach problems that I just stopped getting angry. My wife has never seen me angry- it’s like I’m not even capable of it. Of course, I still internalize far too much stress.
However, I think it is healthy to view the Democrats as your “team” because it brings you into that community. Being in an intellectual community, even though politics sometimes doesn’t seem like a community or intellectual, means that you engage the ideas, proposals, and issues of the day. That’s politics. And if you want your issues addressed, whatever they might be, you should root for your team. And I’ll root for mine. The best thing for the country is to have as many people as possible engaged in political discourse, even when it seems an uphill battle.
And I’ve never watched a whole segment of the 700 Club, but I have listened to entire episodes of “Focus on the Family” and they made me realize James Dobson is much more than a caricature. So that was interesting. And it would have been even better if I’d had a beer or two, and probably even MORE interesting if Rob Adams had been listening with me.
You bring up a good point, FI:
The belief that individuals can decide better how resources are to be used than the government depends on “too whom much is given, much is expected.”
Unfortunately, that does not play out in reality.
Private charity is very important. In Judaism, it is an obligation. But likewise it depends on the good will of individuals to choose to part with their personal wealth to help others.
Instead, in the real world, to whom much is given, even more is demanded.” The “haves” are more interested in taking than giving back.
In what way is “The 700 Club” fascinating?
Like a car wreck?
Please do continue to share, both of you, how enlightened and superior you are.
I haven’t watched the 700 Club, but I’d have to believe that it’s fascinating in the way that going on a safari would be fascinating.
I can tell you that I was surprised that I listened to a couple of episodes of Focus on the Family and that there was a lot of really practical, really useful parenting advice. (Of course, since I think Dobson is a child pyschologist, that shouldn’t surprise me, but it did.) For example: heard a show about how it’s important for kids to believe in things like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny- it’s important to developing a child’s imagination, etc. The importance of letting your kids vent their anger and frustration at you as a parent, as long as they do it in a respectful way. (In other words, let kids be angry at you – and say it- as long as they start with a “Dad, I’m really angry with you because of A, B, C, and that made me feel angry, etc etc”). How this teaches the importance of dialogue, venting strong feelings in a proper way, that they will be heard on concerns big and small etc.
Now, of course, there are the political and morality based shows, as well, but I had just assumed they were all focused on that.
Oh, I’m sure they’re not all evil. The 700 Club and FOTF probably would be on the air so long if it were all hate all the time (although the persistence of Rush and Beck would seem to challenge that assumption).
Still, a pretty flower can grow on poisoned ground.
I enjoy watching shows akin to the 700 Club because i find the reasoning of those who think so differently than myself interesting. I’m probably more fascinated than angry because i don’t feel personally attacked. They’re not infringing on my rights, my well being, or those things/people that i value by their ideological expressions — even if those politics, if widely accepted, could do so.
But, more importantly, i watch shows like that, and listen to folks like that, because i hold a lot value on understanding the position and reasoning of those with whom i so vehemently disagree.
I think i might have learned a lot about the danger of heavily mixing Politics & Emotions when i lived in Israel (in a then kaytusha/hang-glider visited Hula Valley and a knife-stabbing-savvy East Jerusalem) and jaunting around Jordan and Egypt’s poorer more radical venues. I saw the bile and grief that emotion-laced politics brought upon those who dabbled in such, everything from bad relationships to (yes) trouble sleeping to poor businesses to classrooms that failed to teach.
The exchange of ideas, and thus learning, between polar opposites and even close political neighbors can’t very well happen when emotions are injected.
That presumes that any kind of exchange of ideas or learning is possible with Robertson and his ilk. What evidence do you have to suggest such a thing?