I’ve stayed clear of the political fray for the most part of late, but I had an observation based on the outpouring of sentiment following the Supreme Court’s ruling on Gay Marriage.
The vehemently hateful comments that have poured from Facebook and much of Fox TV, etc. The vitriolic, often threatening and if not encouraging than at least hinting at violence and suppression….
Why, when a controversial policy or issue is decided in government, ending in a favorable outcome for “liberals,” or Democrats. Before Shepherd Smith’s lips are done moving with announcement of the decision, both social and national media is lit up by extremists spewing vitriolic poison from the GOP and conservatives? Some of which is so hateful and menacing that in those moments not an elephant is the symbol of the party, but a spitting cobra. Why is there no effort to understand or tolerate, or simply acknowledge
“you know what, we lost this one…we’ll win the next one, but meanwhile let’s talk and maybe figure out why so many people disagree on this that it’s now law.”
Which is part of my point…when conservatives or Republicans win…do you hear this type of speech coming from Democrats and Liberals/Progressives? I’m sorry, you may be able to point out exceptions and finite cases where it’s happened in a very isolated instance…but overwhelmingly the answer is NO.
Typically Liberals/Democrats are more willing to move on, and even to try to understand why so many people seem to passionately disagree, at least so many disagree that in a vote or decision, they came out on the losing end.
For those that view themselves as a person of value, who cares and wants good things to happen for people other than him or herself. Can’t we agree it’s beyond time for a glance at your associations and a reevaluation of standing aside some of these zealots. The extremists promoting violence and casting themselves to decide what is “right,” or “American,” for other people, mostly strangers, to do? Those who regurgitate what they heard someone else say, but stand tall and defend it because it reinforces their already limited and self-centered worldview? It’s shocking to me some of the people that I know deep down, and even some on the surface, are kind and do care about others. But they choose to align with a party growing more and more radical and unaccepting of any outcome that isn’t 100% what they want; even if it disregards the will of a group, often a large group or even a majority, of other Americans.
Liberals mostly encourage you to say your piece and share your opinion, and often they even think about it, and try to relate to it and put themselves in your shoes! This may be a concept I should asterisk and offer more detail on below, as it’s sure to puzzle any GOP’s that don’t stop reading this after the first few sentences.
The vast majority of “Libtards,” I know, all have an open-mind in common. Even to the point of saying “change my mind if you can.” Understanding and not planting a deep wedge of dissent of disagreement is a frequent characteristic of Liberals I know. Typically leaving the back door out in case future information or events shed new light on a subject, is a unique characteristic only displayed by one side. Personally I’m proud of the fact I don’t plant my flag and declare myself immovable. I like to think it takes a certain amount of humility, but also, and this is really not up for debate, but it takes a whole lot of intelligence. Some of my most provocative discussions have ended with the statement:
“you know, I never thought of it that way, I am going to have to reconsider.”
I always want to keep up with the opposing side, and see both sides of anything. For my own good, if not for my ability to discuss current events. You never know when the winds of change blow in, and I’m a firm believer that more knowledge is always better than less.
I know progressives open to listen to Bill O’Reilly, Glen Beck and other radical entertainers. Conversely, I can’t tell you of any conservatives, at least of those I know, willing to listen or give thought to what is said by Rachel Maddow or Keith Olberman. I use the most extreme examples on each side, to make a point. But am I wrong?
One side seems overwhelmingly to be willing to listen to what the other has to say, and attempt to put the shoe on the other foot and see where the opposition is coming from. But on the other side, the GOP side…simply it isn’t reciprocated, or really even considered.
A few days ago, during an online forum discussion on a site I frequent, one of the posters made a comparison on a point to climate change. Once I was able to interpret analogy, reading on I came to his closing statement of
“or whatever Al Gore is calling it today.”
REALLY? Do some still believe that climate change, “or whatever it’s called” is a trumped up Al Gore manifestation existing only to make the ol’ guy not feel useless?
Regardless of your conclusion, whether you believe climate change is real, man-made, a natural cycle, a menstrual cycle, or a motorcycle. That I understand, as I realize conservatives avoid reputable sources and don’t listen if they don’t agree. But to suggest Al Gore is the sole source and that his demagoguery on the topic is all keeping it relevant, is ignorant at best and flipping moronic at worst.
That’s a relevant example here, because, not the issue, but the tactic because it’s worn out by conservatives related to any debatable issue they don’t like to discuss. “Liberals want to kill business and industry,” “they’re a bunch of socialists,” “they want to give my job to an immigrant.” Really? I know many of the extremists concocting this hyperbole don’t have a iron-clad understanding of exactly what these statements mean. Or what process of deduction they used to logically come to these conclusions with such certainty. But c’mon…is that all Sean Hannity told you to see?
If so, then it reinforces my point that it’s past time to expose yourself to some of the drivel from the other side. Because these issues are so much more complex and “grey,” than that. I don’t care what anyone says, we live in a world of grey, and black nor white seldom apply. Foreign policy? Climate change? Economics? Systems of governance? How can anyone see these as black and white? And with our recent controversy relating to gay marriage. I will understand a person seeing the right or wrong of homosexuality as black and white based on their beliefs. But the concept of marriage isn’t unique to any one race, creed, religion, nation or tribe. It’s a universal way two people bind themselves and commit to partner through the rest of their lives. Even if the issue of them personally having to accept it, I don’t care if they do, that’s their right. But the right for them to get involved and decide what other people may or may not do? Obviously some think it’s black, to others it’s white. Indicating that accepting it as grey, is probably pretty logical. Living in the grey, or at least accepting grey, is how compromise happens. And in the history of the world, compromise has led to quality outcomes.
In the United States today, we hear comments like “both sides shoulder blame.” Which because we do disagree, in that respect we do share blame. But if the answer is compromise, as history has shown it over and over to be.
Yet one side still refuses to budge a millimeter or consider why there so many think they’re right, and vehemently disagree. This viewpoint and unwillingness is not unique to both “parties,” or “affiliations.” When heels are dug in, teeth are gnashed, threats and personal insults are hurled…honestly, which side is associated with those actions? Is the blame really 50/50….or even 60/40? Can you look in the mirror and tell yourself that with a straight face?
When it comes to financial issues and economics, conservatives want to keep what’s theirs, which is a common view and may surprise them but so do liberals. Many liberals of today are fiscally moderate to conservative, this one included. We like the ideas of financial prudence and playing some things safe. When discussed, I nod my head along and think “uh-huh.” Right up
to the point that the opinion moves from reasonable to what any rational person has to see as bing the definition of “greedy,” or at best extremely “self-centered.” If the government has to fund our country, and it comes to who to ask for more from. If the money will either come from my country club membership fund, or your food and shelter fund….I have no problem taking the hit, in reality…I insist. I neither want or work for more than my share, and I certainly don’t need to be rewarded for working hard by taking more than my share and leaving someone else with less. I want my share, and I want you to have your share. Then maybe we can both hang out, talk and enjoy life and company. Maybe there will even be a chance that neither of us has to be too concerned with debt, or bills or gas prices and we can focus on our fellows. And if that’s the case for me, but not for you, then I’d like to know what I can do to help, if anything,” and someone who starts off as a stranger, maybe we can help one another and in enrich both of our lives and enjoy the pursuit of happiness as friends, who care about each other and are always there to help. Finances separate us all today, creating the imagined concept of social class, which we then turn around and exploit and excuse many of our actions. Further we allow it to justify why things are how they are, and to remove empathy for those that have less.
Class is directly related to levels of crime, as 80% of crime is related to finances….stealing, gangs, drugs? All those things represent segments of the population that are marginalized and don’t have near a fair share. The other 20%….it’s white collar crime. So crime is either because people are miserable, or they’re selfish and greedy….oh well, throw them both in jail….
I’ve actually heard friends I respect say that’s the answer “throw them in jail.” WOW!
Some people spewing, believe it or not, are active churchgoers identifying as “moral.” They not only see themselves as good, but take it upon themselves to decide who is else is good, and who else is not. Just like their politics they skew over the line into judgment and closed mindedness in almost all of their opinions.
The GOP is closely associated with the church today, which counterintuitively is part of where this “closed for business,” approach to politics is originates. While I agree with their faith, I don’t agree with their practice of it or their steadfast insistence on their way. Further, I don’t want my faith and beliefs to be forced on other who may not share the beliefs. I would imagine many “Libtards,” regardless of faith feel the same. There’s a pattern here, and it’s one of acceptance, tolerance and empathy.
On almost all issues, Liberals and Democrats will listen to what the other side has to say. They not only listen…but they consider, and ponder….they give some thought to. Unfortunately, for all of us, it’s just a one way street.
Conservatives, don’t want to hear what “Libtards,” think, they don’t care about any opposing argument. It might as well not exist, because they’re not going to consider it. If discussing it, more often than not, descend into ad hominem arguments that have no relevance, but act as a crutch for people who frankly, and this is just my opinion, but they can’t explain why they think what they think. Often they realize somewhere in them it’s illogical…and avoid discussion that leads to that conclusion at all costs. This is the core of the problem, discussion creates questions, and questions in the case of these extremists, they really don’t have answers that make real sense. It’s a situation that doesn’t appear to be changing soon. Liberals will continue with “let’s talk,” and conservatives with “if you don’t agree, you’re unAmerican, socialist and of low moral character.
Not all conservatives are bad people, but all conservatives are misguided at least in their insistence that issues not have two sides. I challenge those that are good people, who care for their fellows and want to help other people and in turn help themselves. How can you associate with extremists and allow these loud and radical voices to speak on your behalf. There needs to be another group step up within the group. To say not all of them are on board with what’s being spewed so hatefully in their name. To embrace education and logic and no longer stand with others that are so extreme, often willing to espouse or at least hint at violence. So extreme, that they equate more closely to radical Islam than “Libtards.” Time to reassess just which side carries blame, or at least the majority. It will never be our way or the highway with Democrats, we’re not going to rollover and just change everything we think without you giving some too. Compromise is about two sides of the coin, agreeing to work things out and find common ground. It’s time to take accept responsibility and stop trying to blame others for our misguided opinions. We all have to say “let’s talk,” and stop saying “buzz off.”