I make no secret of my left-wing leanings, but I am a fairly frequent reader of some conservative websites, including the National Review. This comment from the often funny, often pompous (pot, meet kettle) Mark Steyn intrigued me: A cold civil war? Steyn quotes author William Gibson, and right-wing blogger Hyacinth Girl, who writes:
Every generation says that the politics of the current generation is more contentious than in “their day,” and though we’ve been through a lot as a country–a civil war, two world wars, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and a vicious attack on our homeland–I’ve never before seen such a willingness by one side to tear this country down. A willingness to lie, cheat, and steal this election, reprehensible actions that are absolved by the high priests of modern liberalism, as they are done in the service of the “greater good.” I find myself continually taken aback by how many people claim to be disgusted with this country, desiring that it be remade in the image of a dying Europe.
This country is now, as Steyn has said numerous times, a “50/50 nation.” We are increasingly divided, in a way that is reminiscent of the country my parents inhabited in the late ’60’s, which I’m sure is no coincidence, given the work “educators” like Bill Ayers have been doing for the past several years. I’m not convinced we’ll see a return to the civil unrest of the ’60’s, but I can’t see this country coming together again on much of anything. If 9/11 failed to unite us–it divided us sharply along previously unobtrusive fault lines, surprising many, myself included–then I’m not sure what would. Throughout this election, I’ve expressed my enthusiasm for smaller government and fewer taxes, and I couldn’t comprehend how this did not appeal to everyone. I’m becoming increasingly aware of a growing attitude amongst my countrymen for a more intrusive government, a populace willing to pay higher taxes so long as they don’t have to take care of themselves. Apparently, roughly half of this country feels this way. And I can’t see how that side will “come over” to the side of self-reliance (though I’m not so sure that “we’re” for that anymore either).
So are we witnessing the beginning of a cultural and political standoff? A “cold civil war,” as is has so eloquently been phrased? If so, what the hell are we going to do about it?
I’m not going to get into an argument over the absurdity of Hyacinth Girl’s charges about “stealing” the election. If Obama wins, I do suspect that many on the right will begin to sound very much like the late great Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, intimating that the election was indeed “stolen.” That will give us three consecutive elections in which many on the side that lost the presidency came away convinced that they were “done in” by thievery and not the weaknesses of their own particular candidate. It’s a depressing thought.
What I’m interested in is the notion of a “quiet” or a “cold” civil war. I think Steyn and Hyacinth are on to something, even if I quibble with the latter’s implication that it has “never been this bad.” As a historian by training and profession, I tend to think that knowledge of Clio’s secrets is inversely proportional to how unique one imagines the current situation to be. Those who claim “things have never, ever been this bad” are almost invariably revealing their own ignorance.
On the other hand, it’s hard to dispute that we’re in one — of many — periods of cultural strife. On hot-button social issues (abortion, guns, gay marriage); on military affairs (Iraq); and on the question of America’s role in the world (uniquely elect or called to humility in a community of equals), we are obviously a divided people if not a divided nation. Those divisions seem stronger, of course, because of how close that division is, demographically speaking. Most of us whose memory goes back more than a few decades remember landslide elections rather than the nailbiting affairs of this new century. The country was “divided” in 1964, 1972, and 1984 as well, over many issues — but that didn’t translate into close elections. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan had their vociferous detractors, but in various ways they were able to assemble massive coalitions to carry them to easy victories. By the standards of the last few years, even Bill Clinton’s relatively small wins in 1992 and ‘96 over George HW Bush and Bob Dole seem easy and foreordained.
I think Barack Obama will probably (not certainly, but probably) pull out this election. It will not be a landslide, either in the popular vote or in the electoral college. And if trends hold, he will take office immensely distrusted (and perhaps hated) by at least 40% of the American public. But given the conditions under which the likes of, say, Rutherford B. Hayes assumed the presidency, I still don’t see the need to claim that we are more divided than at any other time in our history. For most of us, however, we are more divided than at any time in living memory — and while that’s obviously a very different thing, it’s still understandably troubling.
I’m one of those people who would like the United States to be more like Europe, if by Europe you mean a society in which one finds single-payer health care and a far more intense environmental consciousness. I’ve got a European passport as well as an American one, and through my family and my many lengthy visits, I’ve seen how the social fabric holds together in countries like Great Britain and Austria. (Those are the two with which I am most familiar.) And though neither country is close to perfect by any stretch of the imagination, citizens in both nations (especially in my father’s native Austria) show a satisfying and to my mind sensible willingness to pay high taxes in order to receive excellent and reliable public services. I’ve seen my nieces and nephews born on the NHS; I’ve seen the care given to elderly relatives in Vienna (compared to the sort I see in many nursing homes here in Southern California.). I have no fear of social democracy, the soft socialism of Western Europe. I’ve lived in it, marinated in it, traveled through out it, and I’ve seen it work.
Obviously, Hyacinth Girl wants something different. And she’s probably troubled by same-sex marriage, while I am thrilled to see the slow but inexorable spread of equality through the land. And so the real question is this: if we are in a “quiet civil war” over issues economic and sexual, military and cultural, what then do we do about it? Do we become more and more shrill and partisan, more and more inclined to doubt the intelligence, decency, and trustworthiness of those on the other side? Do we continue to see politics as a zero-sum game, where each “army” pushes for an annihilating victory? Do we huddle in our churches or our coffee shops, in our university towns and our exurbs, looking to raise our children and do our shopping only in the presence of the like-minded? God forbid.
I want to wage war, and I want to do it civilly. I’m not going to pretend that issues like health care, environmental protection, and marriage equality don’t matter to me. I’m not going to do what many polite and earnest people try and do, which is paper over very real differences for the sake of everyone “getting along.” Emotional repression and false proclamations of unity are not a recipe for a healthy family or a healthy nation. As any marital therapist will tell you, conflict can be healthy — and indeed, some sort of fighting is often essential for helping a relationship grow. The key, as the counselors will tell you, is learning to “fight fair” and learning to “fight with love.” The trick is living in that difficult middle ground between dehumanizing your opponent (or your spouse) on the one hand, and ignoring the very real issues for the sake of a false harmony on the other.
With 22 days until this pivotal election, I pledge to do my imperfect best to fight civilly. I am not going to abandon my commitment to progressive economic principles, to full legal and cultural equality for my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, to the cause of granting rights to animals. I’m going to give my time and money and voice to these causes; I’m going to pray like I’ve rarely prayed before for what I honestly believe is the “right” outcome to the decisions which will be made on November 4. But I know that with grace — and a willingness to see the anxiety, the hope, and the basic decency in those who disagree with me — I am confident I can fight this civil war civilly until election day and beyond.
In response to her own suggestion that we are in a time of great division, Hyacinth Girl asks, “What the hell are we going to do about it?” It’s a good question. We can start by ackowledging that the problem is real, that the problem is not unique to our generation, and that quiet civil wars are never resolved by either the temptation to dehumanize the opponent or the by the polite refusal to acknowledge that a conflict exists in the first place.
We can pledge to fight civilly by pledging to listen. And folks, listening involves more than merely staying quiet while one’s opponents talk, waiting for the next opportunity to unleash our own self-righteous invective. We need to hear each other, and hear the subtext as well as well as the content of what is being said. When we find ourselves disagreeing with someone, we must ask two questions about them (to ourselves, not out loud, not yet): What is this person afraid of? What do they long for most? And as we contemplate the answers to those questions, we need to ask the same of ourselves. What do we fear most? What do we long for? No, recognizing the universality of anxiety and hope is not going to be enough to resolve our conflicts over gay marriage, the Iraq war, immigration and health care. But recognizing the personhood of the one with whom we are arguing (or the personhood of the face we shout at on the television) is a key first step to learning to fight fairly, civilly, righteously.
Here’s my prayer for the next 22 days — and yes, the days beyond as we continue to fight our cold civil war:
God, I struggle to discern your will for my life and for our world. I am doing what I believe you have called me to do. But I know, Lord, that my thoughts are not your thoughts — guard me against the temptation to confuse my own prejudices with your divine will! Where I am wrong, show me. And since I know it is Your most excellent habit to show me my errors through encounters with other humans (you haven’t sent a burning bush my way lately), help me to be open, always open, to the possibility that my opponent is your agent in disguise, speaking to me words I need to hear.
My God, you are a God of justice and mercy — and everlasting surprises. Help me to discern justice and fight for it with mercy and grace and humility, and strengthen in me the capacity to be surprised, over and over again, by the means and the persons through whom Your will is made known. Above all, Lord, remind me each day that every living thing in creation is a reflection of you and contains, however imperfectly, your light - and when I hate or rage, remind me that to hate another living thing is to hate you. Amen.
We are in a culture war, folks. As a progressive Christian gender studies professor and animal rights activist, I make no secret of the side I’ve chosen. But I know that the God I serve cares both about the cause for which I fight and the means with which I fight it. And I am determined to do my best to fight this cultural war openly, honestly, tirelessly — and civilly.
I suck at history - I know, I know, doomed to repeat it, and all that.
I wonder what you think about how much media has affected our perceptions or in fact caused divisiveness itself? For example, in the last election, I didn’t participate in an online community like feministing.com in following pertinent issues.
That was just my first response; I will have to give the rest of the article some thought, but I appreciate the post.
I think even when trying to put a gentle spin on it, the war metaphor is a problem. using the war metaphor reinforces bitterness, winner take all, and an ends justifies the means attitude. i secretly wish people would reframe the willing culture warriors as what you usually would call a person who warred against their country. Traitor.
OBTW I do admit that wouldn’t tone down the hear of the argument.but it would be a start at a push back on a corrupt divisive concept.
I, for one, am in favor of an amicable divorce right now, rather than watching this country disintegrate into a secular version of the American Episcopal church.
Disclosure - my votes for president have been Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Marrou, Browne, Browne, Badnarik. Not sure this year - I may vote McCain because Obama is so dangerous. Barr is another opportunistic Republican (Like Ron Paul) trying to use the Libertarian party to revive a fading political career.
In any event, I didn’t LIKE Klinton, but referred to him, through however gritted teeth, as “President Clinton.” “My guy” hasn’t won since 1998. (And even if I vote for Right-wing Liberal McCain, he will most assuredly be a “lesser evil” vote, and not “my guy.” With any luck a placeholder with a sufficiently opposed congress whose administration will be notable for Clintonian ineffectiveness and legislative stagnation)
If Barack Obama wins, I will not be according him such respect.
It is evident to me he is the president of his far-left base. Fine. He’ll be YOUR president. Not mine. And ya’ll on the left have taught me this over the past 8 years. The levels of silent approbation for the deranged vitriol for the past 8 years is shameful.
But I guess that’s how we do political business these days. I’m open to changing the rules - you go first and show me the rules we’re playing by now with an opposition president. I’ve had none of my right-leaning friends wash their hands of me for not voting their way - but I have had a sh*tload of left-leaning former friends decide that because I didn’t vote for Gore, or Kerry - even though I didn’t vote for Bush in either case - that we couldn’t be friends anymore.
So, until then - no.
The one in office is responsible for all that occurs on his watch - no matter how short that watch is.
Every shortcoming is his fault - he’s in office.
Every death of a serviceman is because he sent them to be killed.
Every crime committed by anyone in the government - no matter how removed - is because of the “culture of corruption” of his administration.
And so on.
And so forth.
I’m not at all interested in the “listening” that far too often is “Let’s keep talking until I get my way.” Go your own way. Live your own life. Have your own paradise. Leave me to mine, and leave me alone. I don’t want your help, concern, or anything but to get to perdition out of my way and let me stand or fall on my own.
I have no fear that ten years from now I’ll be scratching my head going “Maybe I was wrong, and they were right.” Do you fear that? No? Then what’s the problem with letting me - or us - walk away? Ya’ll sometimes sound like an abusive spouse screaming, “Oh, no you don’t walk out on me!”
Yes, I am concerned about the needy, but I reserve the right to weed out the freeloaders who won’t work.
I prefer to teach someone to fish then to give them fish - that way they stand on their own, without being beholden to me, and resenting me for it.
The best way to balance the budget is to spend no more than you take in. This may not be easy, but it is that simple.
I think everyone has the right to be both wrong and stupid. And as far as consequences go, stupid is supposed to hurt.
I mistrust to the deepest bone in my body anyone who decides that they are the keepers of my own good.
Giving power and money to government is like giving booze and car keys to teenagers.
Government is always force. No matter how innocuous and reasonable you think a law may be, no matter how trivial (Let’s say - seatbelt laws for example) Ultimately they are enforced by a cop, with a gun, who will shoot you if you don’t comply.
Abortion, gay marriage, whatever you want - ALL of these are issues because by giving the government the ability to rule on it, you give them authority over it, which is both the power to forbid or make compulsory. This is precisely why for many the Roe v. Wade issue is the litmus test (Whether acknowledged or not) because the court decided it had authority over it, and now, what the SCOTUS giveth, the SCOTUS may taketh away. And in all these cases, on all these issues, ultimately both sides want to force their particular interpretation of morality down the other side’s throat rather than have the guts to live their own lives and just walk away from those who disapprove of their choices.
Frankly, I’ve anticipated a far left victory for a long time, and I’ve executed the John Galt option in my life, which I won’t go into in any detail here. Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand. Look it up.
We’ve gotten to the point, in any event, where if I win, you will chafe. And vice-versa. If this were a marriage, you’d be preaching about the “good divorce.”
It’s time for it, methinks. It’s over. Before people start killing each other.
And if you don’t think that’s where it’s going, you are the epitome of a “Wishful thinker,” exceeded only by those who really think that Blue America could win such a war with Red America.
“My guy” hasn’t won since 1998.
Make that 1988
I’m a TA for a Medical Ethics class this semester, at a Catholic university seen by many local conservatives (including the particular professor I’m assisting — a former classmate of Bill Bennett) as one of the major fronts in the culture war. We’ve been talking about abortion for the last two-and-a-half weeks, and the overall thesis of the professor’s lectures has been that a middle ground in the abortion debate is not just politically untentable, but nearly philosophically incoherent. Later, when we talk about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, he’ll give a lecture on John Paul II’s `culture of death’ argument.
I, on the other hand, am a leftwing secular humanist who believes (or maybe I should say, hopes) that people with radically different views about the good human life can find ways to live together, and possibly even agree on a great deal. So while my professor uses his lectures to pound the drums of the culture war, I use my weekly discussion sections to extol the democratic virtues (shades of Tocqueville) of charitable criticism, trying to understand the other side’s point of view even if you can’t embrace it, and looking for ways to live together.
But — and now I’m finally getting to your post — I don’t believe there’s a dichotomy between firmly holding one’s deepest ethico-political values and the democratic virtues of the last sentence. I don’t think the only alternatives are fighting (either cold or hot) or capitulation. Indeed, I would say that the `war’ metaphor — with its sharp division between two hostile sides, and a goal of complete surrender on the part of one’s opponent — is fundamentally inappropriate for thinking through these problems. If you think of `la condition démocratique’ as a war, then you end up with the tensions and anxieties of the culture warriors (of both the right and the left).
The alternative is to think of a democracy as an ongoing conversation. The political philosophers who have most influenced me — Iris Marion Young, Jürgen Habermas, John Dewey, Alexis de Tocqueville — all thought of democracy as a thoughtful conversation about our deepest values, not a struggle between what Young called `interest groups’. Indeed, it’s through this conversation with others of a very different point of view that we come to form our own distinctive ideas about the good life. By listening to my (overwhelmingly) pro-life students criticise the pro-choice arguments that I find convincing, for example, I form a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of my view, and refinements seem to be inching me (and those in my class who are willing to listen to me) towards the middle, not the extremes. (I’ll save the details for another thread.)
This, I think, is where you end up, on a practical level. But at that point, thinking of the activity you are engaged in as a `war’ or `struggle’ is at best unhelpful, and at worst likely to encourage the slide back into animosity and shouting.
Gonz - Have you read either of Obama’s books? The reason I voted for him, rather than Clinton, in Indiana’s primary was because he seems to sincerely hold the view I’ve sketched here. We can bicker about whether his personal views make him `far-left’ or a progressive-leaning moderate, but what’s notable is that he’s willing to listen to conservatives and libertarians and try to find policy proposals on which all (or at least many) can agree. Look, for example, at his health care proposal, or his regular comments about the need for individual responsibility in rebuilding destitute African-American neighborhoods.
Let me be clear that the Christian pacifist tradition is filled with war imagery — the idea of “fighting with prayers” rather than weapons; it is the imagery of Christ with the sword (a figurative rather than literal device). There’s a long tradition in pacifist circles of using military imagery and subverting it.
Gonz, you could always write in Darren Mack.
greginak,
Greg, if that’s the way you feel about it, I’m sure that between now and January 20th some space can be found in Guantanamo. Just sayin’.
Gonz-
Sometimes, I wish we COULD split the country. Why should we have to stay with each other. I look at the people on the other side of the aisle and think “How can you SAY that with a straight face? Do you not see how foolish that is? How contradictory that is?”
But, then I take a step back, and think “The other side is my family, both literally and metaphorically. These beliefs, that I think insane, are from people who have just as strong values as I. I know them to be sincere. And, every once in awhile, they’re right. They have something that they do right, and I should respect and embrace that.”
Besides, risky shift is a dangerous thing, even if (and maybe, particularly if) it’s your side. And there are idiots on my side too. Of course, they are generally smart enough to know that the ending of “Atlas Shrugged” was fiction, and completely impossible in real life http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif
Re: Ayn Rand.
Back when I was dating on the internet, I always said I had only three instant disqualifiers for a potential mate:
1. An expression of a desire to travel anywhere in a large recreational vehicle.
2. A fondness for any denim garments other than jeans.
3. A fascination with Ayn Rand, objectivism, or even the barest frisson of flirtation with organized Libertarianism.
I’m curious to why Ayn Rand is so popular. Her morals are abhorrent, but more to the point, she has almost as many flaws as a writer as LeHey or Jenkins. Mary Sues, lots of telling-not-doing, major pacing problems, and glaring plot-holes. It’s weird to me that people enjoy it.
But, it has to appeal to someone.
“We can bicker about whether [Obama’s] personal views make him `far-left’ or a progressive-leaning moderate, but what’s notable is that he’s willing to listen to conservatives and libertarians and try to find policy proposals on which all (or at least many) can agree.”
BHO: “I want you to go out and find the people who disagree, and argue with them and get in their face.”
Wow, good thing he’s such a “uniter,” not like that “divider” George W. Bush.
We are a divided nation, and this is not the fault of any president or any other person. We are a divided nation because we all disagree on everything. Were we to have some semblance of a fair press, this would be easier to sort out. Instead, we have one side being accused of hatred at rallies while similar abominable behavior on the opposing side is seen as a non-issue. Any addressing of voter-registration fraud, or the same group causing the sub-prime lending crisis, is seen as “racist” so that we never get around to actually looking at the problem.
Are we family anymore? Really?
More and more I suspect that any claim of family is a great big dysfunctional one, of the hyper-protective controlling parent or spouse not wanting me to leave because they can no longer control me - or worse, that I will find my own way and do well by it.
I just don’t see it. And I am weary of trying. So many issues, so many principles are NOT grey areas, much as people pay idolatrous worship to that notion. One side wins - the other loses.
Again - I just think it’s time for a divorce. Your America would no longer be my country. And it’s safe to say the reverse would be as true.
Gonz, no-one’s making you participate in this conversation. I’m not holding a gun to your head and telling you that you have to listen to me. I’m not even trying to tell you how you to live your life. I’m just saying that there’s an alternative to the culture war, and that starts with listening to each other.
bmmg, from context it seems clear to me that he meant his supporters to talk to their friends and family about his (Obama’s) positions on the issues they (the friends and family) care about. How are you interpreting his remarks?
I’m confused what kind of ‘divorce’ is being talked about.
If anyone really feels that they can’t live in a country where people don’t agree with them, then they are free to leave and find another nation. I know there’s the “love it or leave it” line which implies that leaving one’s country is unpatriotic, but I don’t see it that way; it’s just wanting to live elsewhere.
This country, however, is not going to go through a divorce. If it didn’t work in the 19th century (when the notion of the USA as a single nation rather than an allied bloc of states that just happened to be a nation), it won’t work now, and I truly don’t want to see another attempt as violent as the aforementioned one was.
And Noumena, I think listening is part of fighting the culture war with civility. After all, we must be willing to change sides if the spirit moves us.
Gonz, I’ve spent time in Red State America. (Parts of California.) I may be an effete urban vegan, but I know how to mend a barbed wire fence and I’ve dipped my share of Skoal and used a Husqvarna chain saw clearing brush. I know my Willie Nelson from my David Allen Coe. And I’ve worshipped with the Assemblies of God. I get the mindset, really I do — and more to the point, I love and adore me some good old fashioned conservative folks. I’ve got friends and family who are voting for Chuck Baldwin because John McCain is too liberal; they are my flesh and my bone and my heart. How can the eye say to the hand, I have no need of you?
I have more than one passport, and my loyalties are diffuse on the best of days, but we can stay in civil friendly dialogue even if we go through ecclesial schisms and rough and tumble elections.
I honestly don’t know who to vote for this election. My issues of most concern (in no particular order) are environmental issues- halting deforestation, desertification, fisheries depletion, depletion of fossil fuels, and catastrophic climate change. And, of course, Latin America- I have a great sympathy for the ’21st Century Socialist’ type of government that has taken power in a number of Latin American countries in the last few years, and would like to see the U.S. take a more hands-off approach to that great continent. I don’t think either McCain or Obama will do much on either front, but Obama will be a little better.
On the other side of the ledger, I’m a fairly devout Anglican who accepts the Catholic position on abortion- that it is a grave moral evil, a form of homicide which in a just society must not be tolerated either legally or socially. Obama is, to put this as neutrally as I can, extremely and unapologetically pro-choice, probably more than any Democratic candidate in history. You all know the details of his horrid record on this issue so I won’t repeat them here.
I honestly don’t know who to vote for, as I think both men would be disastrous choices from a Christian point of view. Perhaps I will wind up writing in the name of a pro-life Democrat.
I’m with you on the environment, Hector. Bob Casey is the only major pro-life Dem I know; Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich both switched to the pro-choice side in recent years…
You can write in Daniel Ortega.
Hugo,
I’m all down with what you say and all, but it’s kind of hard for people who live in families headed by homosexuals to even consider some sort of listening out. It’s all well and good to argue that taking it easy and talking it out is all well and fine, but to those people, it’s basic issues of their family’s cultural legitimacy that is at stake.
That’s the problem. I have no answers. Christianity is permanently around for anyone willing to practice, and if believers are right, so is heaven. But there’s no legitimacy or rights associated with it for homosexual-headed families. We simply cannot be the first to give.
Gonz,
My family is literally is conservative: that’s not a metaphor.
You might be the crazy uncle I give a strained smile at the door at before bolting to the basement with the cousins, but I’m still stuck with you the same way I’m stuck with him.
but I’m still stuck with you the same way I’m stuck with him.
Why should you be?
Seriously - what is the difference?
I’m “anti-choice,” a “biiter clinger to guns and religion,” a “Christofascist Godbag,” and all other manner of epithet. Not that the rhetoric is different in tone elsewhere, but where is the love? The like? The respect? The tolerance?
It’s not there anymore. We’ve gone past arguing about process and details and are now down to irreconcilable principles.
You want A, B, and C. We want X, Y, and Z. And they are mutually exclusive, and not subject to compromise. You can’t have a “little” B. It’s B - or not. Some “Y” - how the hell do you do that?
So don’t be miserable. Go your own way, have your “A, B, & C” and visit sometime if you can stomach it. We’ll give each other a couple years to put affairs in order and move if they so desire. I really have no desire to “control” you.
Just leave us to our way. If you’re just going to rush off to get away from “Crazy Uncle Gonz” - then why bother with the pretense? Who cares if I am at Thanksgiving dinner - at least you’re spared the uncomfortable sick smile, and you don’t have to pretend to like me.
Hugo, you would never have dated me. In the one and only women’s studies class I ever took in college, I wrote my term paper on Ayn Rand (subject: biographize a notable woman of the first half of the 20th century).
Antigone–yeah, Ayn wasn’t much of a novelist, though she did sometimes score with humorous dialogue. She was pushing a philosophy, not really trying to make it as a fiction writer. Probably her best novel in terms of an entertaining story was one of the two people are least familiar with–We the Living.
However, flawed (mostly by the fact that it didn’t really bear a lot of applicability to the massively complex society we live in, and somewhat by a clear thread of dominance fetishism she personally had) as her philosophical stances indeed were, they also did carry some (to me, anyway) important and relevant ideas about religion and the lionization of mediocrity. I think it’s a mistake to discard everything she had to say based upon the flaws of some of the rest of what she had to say. JMO, of course.
Oh, I know a great many young, bright women who went through the “Rand phase”. It’s usually just a phase, praise God. After years of people-pleasing and taking care of everyone else, it’s sometimes nice to imagine oneself as heroic, brave, and finally, finally, willing to put oneself first. Rand is a nice corrective to the kind of culturally sanctioned martyrdom that gets pushed onto a lot of women.
When I was internet dating, I was looking for women who were my peers, in their early thirties. Women in their thirties who still considered the Fountainhead to be the greatest book ever — they were to be avoided. In a nineteen year-old, a fascination with Rand is to be indulged, like a devotion to patchouli or to dating moody unemployed musicians.
Hugo,
There are more pro-life Dems than you would think, including, believe it or not, Steve Lynch who represents the southern half of Boston, and James Langevin from very liberal Rhode Island. Also people like Bart Stupak (MI), Lincoln Davis (TN) and so on. And then people who are moderates on the issue like Harold Ford. Of course none of them has a snowball’s chance in hell of advancing much beyond the state level at the highest.
Ultimately I think that trashing the natural environment is going to be a bigger threat to human life on this planet, and a bigger affront to the natural order, than abortion, so I’m going to reluctantly vote Obama.
Daniel Ortega is nice, although he’s not the man he was back in the ’80s.
Gonz,
Where, precisely, would you have anybody go to? If you wanted a split, how would that work? Red state/ blue state divide? A number of states are voting differently this year, not to mention most states are pretty borderline either way. Walled off cities? If you’re talking about internet space, I’m not the one posting on your blog: I’m commenting on a feminist-friendly one.
Lisa KS:
Yeah, I liked those aspects of Rand in high school too, and did in fact read “We the Living”. But at the end of the day, she’s selling that we have no social responsibility to anyway, and I’m not buying.
Because Crazy Uncle Gonz is still her mother’s brother. Crazy Uncle Gonz may have weird views about gays, but she’d still show up at the hospital if he had a stroke, because he’s family. He has as much right to be at Thanksgiving dinner as she does; she doesn’t have the right to say “You’re no longer related to me and I won’t let you come to Grandma’s anymore.” She may refuse to give Crazy Uncle Gonz a dime for the latest version of “keep the queers from marrying” but she’ll do him the service of being polite and not trying to ruin his Thanksgiving by picking a fight over the mashed potatoes.
Not everybody thinks of family that way, of course, just as not everybody thinks of a nation that way. But that’s really the answer to your question: because many people think that we’re all still Americans, and the way we resolve “A or not-A?” is through the mechanisms of government, rather than by the people who are on the losing side threatening to take their municipality home and not play anymore.
YMMV, of course. I’m a little biased in that I know if such a divorce happened in my state, the blue parts would be pretty, interesting areas like the North Bay and Santa Cruz, and the red parts would be, well, Bakersfield.
Oh, and on the original post, Hugo, Hyacinth Girl is a narcissistic twit. She hasn’t lived through any real conflict - at least, not one where she perceived her “side” is losing. And now that the culture war seems to be against whatever she thinks is Good and Right, it’s, like, worse than the 1960s and the Civil War combined, OMFG?
(I mean, you’re talking about somebody who thinks computer programmers are “overwhelmingly liberal”, as if “I want to read porn and download from Limewire without the government telling me no” is the very core of liberalism.)
Indeed, Mythago, anyone who looks at the voting habits of Californians know that with very few exceptions, the loveliest areas are thoroughly Blue. Admittedly, I have found beauty in remote areas of ultra-red Tehama and Inyo counties in my day.
I’m being a little unfair to Shasta County, frankly.
But let’s say we “divorce”. What happens to the Republicans who live in Marin County (50% of households are gun-owning) and Berkeley? Do we make them pack up and move to Orange County? Do we have some kind of litmus test where if your positions are 51% conservative, you aren’t forced to relocate from Fresno to San Francisco?
We could create a new state of “Eastern California”, made up of all the counties which don’t touch the Pacific or the Delta. That’s where the conservatives live, mostly… and since we’ll still have blue Monterey county with the Salinas Valley, we’ll have all the food and all the technology and all of the tax base. But we’ll be screwed when it comes to water…
Now you’re verging into Ecotopia territory, and that was a shitty book.
Or we could just go back to genuine federalism.
The founders really wanted the states in competition with each other, for bodies and taxpayers, and gave individual states a lot of latitude in deciding internal issues. Ideally each state would set their own policies on gay marriage, abortion, gun rights, welfare policy, whatever your personal hot issue happens to be. You don’t like your state’s current policy? You can get together with like minded people and try to change it. But if there just aren’t enough of you…move to another state with policies you find more agreeable. And moving to a state that is allowed to govern itself and maintain significantly different policies would be a lot easier than moving out of the country, the way some people threatened (largely empty threats) in 2004, or seceding from the union the way some people would like to today.
If a significant number of people vote with their feet and leave your old state state with you and that state starts losing tax revenues, perhaps that state will reconsider their policies.
On the other hand if your old state continues to do fine you may have to accept the fact that the problem was with you and not everybody else in your old state. Hopefully you’ll be happy enough in your new home, however, that you won’t care.
I left the Federalist Society after law school because an awful lot of conservatives feel the same way about federalism as they do about states’ rights - that is, it’s not a genuine principle, it’s a convenient excuse for taking certain political stances. (Otherwise, why DOMA instead of a broader law that says “no marriage shall be valid in any State unless it could have been undertaken as a valid marriage in that State”?)
Which is to say, I actually agree with you, but I have no illusions that many of the folks wanting to secede from the overbearing lib’ruls actually agree with either of us on this. Especially with your third paragraph.
I had problems with Ecotopia too, as much as I liked some other parts. But hey, if you figure out desalination, you won’t have water worries any more, and besides, you could boost the supply with personal solar stills.
I voted with my feet and moved from California, where I was born and raised, to the state where I currently reside. Democrats are the majority in government here and they’ve done a fine job of MUCKING things up further. I haven’t seen improvement, but just excuses and the same old thing—always whining for more money and blaming the other party. I dislike them and am NOT enamoured of my party. All they know how to do is create huge debt, spend money they don’t have, ignore budgets and tax people to death (greedy, spineless idiots) and snivel and whine about how they haven’t been in office long enough to make changes (Chronic lies and bureaucratic BS). I’m a registered DEMOCRAT, but I’m one of those independent swing voters. Just because someone happens to be a Democrat doesn’t mean that I don’t think they’re a lying, miscreant, fool and idiot. The local government is run by a bunch of spineless, arrogant, greedy, incompetents–who think their constituents are a bunch of uneducated simpletons and morons. I grew-up listening to talk of separting northern and southern California….Now it’s east and west?…I’m glad I left, but politicial agendas are pretty much the same wherever you go.
The fact that the narrator was a possessive rapist who abandons his wife and family kinda didn’t help the book much for me.
Ack! Now I’m glad I found the start of it too boring to read very far in.
Just thought I’d remind on the idea of dividing California that the biggest individual sector of the economy (in dollar amount, naturally) is agriculture. So it isn’t necessarily the case that the coastal part would get the majority of the tax base (assuming that the central valley is part of “Eastern California”.) And also, keep in mind that the coastal areas have what are probably a lot of the worst parts of California too (I wouldn’t think too much of living in Richmond, or Compton, or Cudahy, but I guess to each his own).
Ah, but we get the coastal counties… San Diego is blue, Monterey is blue, Ventura is (barely) blue… lots of ag. It’s not just the SJ valley.
You don’t get San Diego. Or Orange County. Sorry, red California there, at least as things currently stand (though that might change).
I could have added San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties: SLO is reddish-purble, and SB is bluish-purple.
I’d bet Obama wins San Diego County narrowly,and loses Orange County. Obama will beat Kerry’s spread statewide by a point or three. And if McCain carries SB county, I’ll make a donation to the RNC.
Blip on the radar. The Dems have their arguably best candidate and the Repubs their arguably worst in a very tumultuous year following 8 years of an unpopular and largely unsuccessful Administration. Both SD and OCs 50 year histories and delegations to both the US House and the California legislature tell the tale.
And the growing Latino demographic, and the California GOP’s determination to alienate everyone with a Hispanic surname, mean that the past will be increasingly irrelevant to the future.
Probably, since Karl Rove was never the genius he thought he was. Though if we are talking secession, we might get border security passed under those circumstances.