We are in the midst of the presidential election and the Republican National Convention just finished up. I didn't watch it but have caught bits of it on different online news sources, also caught the reactions on social networks, and what I am noticing bothers me. On both sides of the political aisle, the chatter is all anti-other-party and I don’t recall any political person being “pro" anything.
Can it be that we’ve come to a point where all we really have is a two-party government run by people whose main drive is solely to be against the other party? Yes, I know each side has a platform with talking points, but that’s not what I’m hearing or seeing. And isn't it the rhetoric and behavior which truly defines what a party values?
I'll be upfront and disclose I tend towards the liberal side. (Friends and family are at this point sarcastically saying, "Really?") So I tend to follow more liberal news sources, blogs, twitter, etc. One source I started following is written by a Christian Democrat. After my Inherit The Wind post, I became more interested in the Christian Democratic perspective, thinking maybe a Christian who was Democrats would have positive things to say. Well, it was more of the same; negative; us vs. them. I don't think I have seen a single positive or constructive comment coming from that writer yet. The Christian Democrat writer’s sole purpose seems to be to spew the same negative rhetoric back at their opponents that their opponents are spewing. Which doesn't strike me as very Christian-esque.
But, before I start throwing too many stones, I’ll admit that I trend towards behaving in the same negative way. It is so much easier and maybe more exhilarating to be angry, to be against something, than it is to be for something. A fight is always exciting and easy to get emotionally caught up in.
But it doesn't take a huge intellectual leap to see the flaw in this approach, not only in our government, but our lives, too.
I was talking to someone about this recently, and they gave me a Mother Teresa quote, "I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." And I thought, That’s it! That’s the direction I want to go. That is the rhetoric of the party I want to vote for.
Isn't the idea of being positive and pro-something-- pro-anything-- better than being against everything?
And before you say it’s only semantics, let me point out that “war” is life-destructive and negative, and “anti-war” is angry and negative, but “pro-peace” is positive and life-affirming. Just think about what the two rallies would be like. An “Anti-war” rally would be lots of loud angry slogans and hate-filled speeches, whereas a “Pro-peace” rally could be equally loud, but it wouldn’t be angry or hateful. Nobody can focus on peace and remain angry or hateful; anger and hate are the opposites of peace.
When I heard a Republican congressman say, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term President", that closed the Republican door for me. If, instead, I’d heard, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is to work with the current administration to achieve our platform objectives for the betterment of America and our constituents," I’d have been on board. I like many of the Republican platform points. I like many of the Democrats platform points. But I almost always vote third party because I don't like how either party behaves.
I don't think Mother Teresa would have liked seeing America’s current “anti” political campaigns, and she may not like an anti-anti campaign but that's the catchiest title I could come up with. What I’d really like to see is a political system that-- instead of being focused on defeating the other guy at any price-- is focused on what’s good for our country and its people.
I am in total agreement on the positive vibe approach (vibe matters).
ReplyDeleteIt may just be me, but the term 'liberal' has been taken over by the Republicans and has a negative connotation. I still and will continue to call myself a Democrat. Because my values/opinons/positions fall on both sides of the Republican/Democrat line. But I am in most agreement and less afraid of the democratic position on the issues. I will not let the Republicans label me (just because I don't always agree with them). What brings up this post is that early in the piece you referred to yourself as 'tending toward the liberal side'. In my mind at least, tending toward the liberal side just makes you a democrat. Also, in my mind, being a democrat has less of a negative vibe than liberal.
It is strange "liberal" is said with such venom. But I am quite happy with identifying myself as liberal but less inclined to call myself a Democrat. Like your, both parties have platform issues I agree with but I will usually vote Democrat because I see the Republicans as mostly an obstruction party. I know very well the Democrats are known to behave in the same manner but I don't think to the same degree. What I was disappointed in is the "Christian Democrats" I was referring to were just as negative as any republican with an "us vs. them" message. Politics will never meet the needs of the masses until the message is a global "us" the parties are working for.
ReplyDeleteGreat comment, Bob. Thanks for your insightful input.
I absolutely agree too. In order to foster democracy (nothing to do with Democrats), people need to become more interested in politics beyond what the mass media provides and actively participate in the political decision-making. However, the whole “anti” campaigns really hinders people to become interested in the solution of real problems the nation is facing and literally fuels further political apathy.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the word “liberal”: Though it originally meant just “freedom”, in political context, it is interpreted as deregulation in all areas thus (intentionally or unintentionally) allowing powerful private entities act arbitrarily without considering losses of the society or the environment (of course, they may consider it if they want to). While liberalism is by itself a good thing, that of this form should not go too far in order to maintain peace and to form a sustainable society. Hence a single word (like “liberalism” or “democracy”) will never appropriately describe what you really want. The same goes for the other extreme as well: “socialism” means to prioritize the yield of the society, which is a good thing, however, as it became like a totalitarian tyranny in the former USSR, it has a quite negative connotation nowadays. Even Western “social” measures meant to help employees and vulnerable citizens can, if not carefully designed, harm small businesses with limited resources thus destroying jobs. Therefore no plane ideology from the past century helps a lot in arranging political measures to fit the real needs of the society.
Yushin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughtful input. I especially like your point about the programs meant to help, actually hurting. I had mentioned I vote third party most of the time. Years ago I voted for John Hagelin of the Natural Law party mostly for one ideology. To paraphrase he said, "We know what we're doing doesn't work yet we keep doing it. Aren't we better off trying new ideas that may not work until we find ones that do, and then do those?" Our social programs are flawed, our criminal correctional system is flawed. We know that. The argument about these types of programs makes up much of the "anti" "us vs. them" campaign material. I would like to see a strong third party develop to start pushing the two major parties into positive action instead of blind opposition.
Thanks again for you input.