Feeling Liberal

Nicholas Kristof’s recent NY Times edi­to­r­ial notes the fol­low­ing dif­fer­ence between lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives sug­gested by a recent study:

…con­ser­v­a­tives are more likely than lib­er­als to sense con­t­a­m­i­na­tion or per­ceive disgust.

This reminded me of a cer­tain rel­a­tive, whose face I have seen scrunch­ing up in an “ew, yuck!” reac­tion a number of times over the years. I imme­di­ately shared it to Face­book, and almost as imme­di­ately regret­ted having done so. Though my pol­i­tics aren’t far left, I’m rea­son­ably sure most of my Face­book Friends are more con­ser­v­a­tive than I am. Would they per­ceive my link as a per­sonal attack?

Face­book is a ter­ri­ble venue for polemic. It might have been dif­fer­ent during its first couple of years when every­one using it had to be a stu­dent. These days I’ve got a range of Friends from par­ents to former girl­friends and cowork­ers, teen-​aged chil­dren of friends, people I know from school or church or work: in short a diverse group. Not only do they col­lec­tively hold a wide range of view­points, but also a wide range of inter­est or tol­er­ance for divi­sive issues in, say, pol­i­tics or reli­gion. It’s easy to offend, and in the result­ing argu­ment, if one loses face, one loses it before an audi­ence whose ties into one’s iden­tity or self esteem may run center-of-the-earth deep.

The larger point is that lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives often form judg­ments through flash intu­itions that aren’t a result of a delib­er­a­tive process.

Per­haps just seeing the words con­ser­v­a­tive or lib­eral in one’s Face­book feed hits a person down low, in some sub-​rational bread­bas­ket where food for emo­tional response lies undi­gested. For me there is also some addi­tional emo­tion that I take as frus­tra­tion that such things can’t be dis­cussed at a purely ratio­nal level. The words are so loaded in dif­fer­ent direc­tions that we get hung up in mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tions, as we might with a false cog­nate like abuse/abuser:

                          AMERICAN GUY
      But honestly, dude? I'm happier without her.

                          FRENCH GUY
      I think, my friend, that you abuse yourself.

                          AMERICAN GUY
      I what??

 
A couple of years ago I used the word pro­gres­sive in a con­ver­sa­tion with a more con­ser­v­a­tive friend. He asked me if I didn’t think it was funny that lib­er­als had taken up the prac­tice of refer­ring to them­selves as pro­gres­sives, his idea being that they were delib­er­ately attempt­ing to dis­guise their true nature (as I later thought, like Adolf Eich­mann taking up res­i­dence in Argentina and call­ing him­self “Ricardo”). I felt a surge of anger at this because it seemed like an oblique crit­i­cism of my own use of the word. I felt that I had chosen the word for its spe­cific sense of “advo­cat­ing change for the better” (in con­trast to the more freedom-​centric term lib­eral), and not as a deceit.

Think­ing about this now I’m sure that if not deceit, it was at least an attempt to avoid using an incen­di­ary word that I knew we would never inter­pret the same way. At some point it just doesn’t seem worth it. Who, bear­ing the sur­name Hitler, wouldn’t have changed it by the end of the war, even with­out a direct rela­tion to the Führer? One could of course say “look, my family has had this name for hun­dreds of years and we have a proud his­tory. We’re not related to that infa­mous other Hitler, we despise his memory, but it has noth­ing to do with us and you should accept us for who we are.” Even the most ratio­nal among us are unlikely to extend a dinner invi­ta­tion to the Hitlers with­out feel­ing a cer­tain Angst. (I am still some­what aston­ished that a major­ity of Amer­i­cans were able to get past the “Hus­sein” issue in an elec­tion so soon after the era of Saddam).

I’d hate to see the word lib­eral dis­ap­pear in Amer­i­can use. There’s much good in it. Indeed, many poli­cies we think of as being typ­i­cally con­ser­v­a­tive or Republican — such as sup­port for an unfet­tered free market — are lib­eral in the clas­sic sense of the word. In the mean­time I think I’ll stay clear of it and its sup­posed oppo­site on Face­book. After I share this, at least. I can’t quite seem to give up hope on a more ratio­nal discourse.

3 Comments

  • Dawn Lindsey wrote:

    Since I agree whole­heart­edly with absolutely every word, I think this little essay is bril­liant. I couldn’t have said it better, and were it a bit shorter I would have busi­ness cards engraved with this mes­sage.

    I heard Colin Powell say much the same thing recently, as he is under attack for trying to have a ratio­nal dis­course. The poor guy! He’s living my life since we came out of the closet, so to speak, to work for Obama last year.

    I have to say, though, it has been a good and enlight­en­ing expe­ri­ence, indeed, an enrich­ing expe­ri­ence to be on the receiv­ing end of the sheer weight of the con­dem­na­tion and dis­ap­proval voiced at fever pitch by those who…love me? I am chas­tened and sad­dened to think that per­haps at times I have done this to others.

    I must check into fur­ther into Wood’s Tea.

  • Sonja Hannington wrote:

    Yes, those pesky topics: pol­i­tics and reli­gion. Those topics, banned from polite con­ver­sa­tion are the only ones that really matter, and they deter­mine how we should treat every living person, animal and thing on this planet (the planet itself for that matter)- not to men­tion con­sider the sub­stance of every other pos­si­ble dimen­sion! These topics lead to true inti­macy with other people and crit­i­cal thought, both no-​nos in our cul­ture, which makes us all leery of post­ing links with any­thing loosely asso­ci­ated pol­i­tics or reli­gion on social net­works such as FB.

    An analy­sis I read by Kevin News­come explains our trep­i­da­tion, “We are truly a divided people, who agree or dis­agree along party, ethnic, racial and reli­gious lines. Much like the priests of cen­turies past, no deci­sion can be made with­out first con­sult­ing our appointed polit­i­cal or social lead­ers. We take sides with dif­fer­ing fac­tions within our coun­try, argu­ing about single issues that are pre­sented to us and whose sole pur­pose is to divide us into iso­lated groups. Instead of mean­ing­ful debate about the future of our nation, we receive only dis­trac­tions. .. We seek lead­ers, but only receive fig­ure­heads. We have ceased being Amer­i­cans. We are con­ser­v­a­tives or lib­er­als. We are envi­ron­men­tal­ists or cor­po­rate inter­ests, Catholics or Protes­tants, hawks or doves, black or white. The people of Amer­ica are divided among many lines, ulti­mately under the con­fines of a system of right and left… we are so dis­tracted by civil war of right and left, we aren’t aware of our coun­try van­ish­ing before our eyes…”

    This is the right/left par­a­digm I’m trying to escape. Why have my beloved Repub­li­cans allowed the secu­rity of our bor­ders to com­pletely dete­ri­o­rate? Whose last admin­is­tra­tion enacted the USA Patriot Act (signed into law shortly after 9-11), by which the gov­ern­ment no longer needs prob­a­ble cause to enact search war­rants for your library records, hard drives, or even book­store receipts? Any one of us can now be labeled a “ter­ror­ist” and read­ily lose our con­sti­tu­tional pro­tec­tions. I believed this was accept­able for a long time, because surely my benev­o­lent Repub­li­cans wouldn’t do any­thing not in the best inter­est of the Amer­i­can people. Where is the left on this issue now that Pres­i­dent Obama is in power? He promised to address the Patriot Act but has instead strength­ened it. Why did Pres­i­dent Bush pro­claim that he “aban­doned free market prin­ci­ples to save the free market system” with the bailouts that are a death­blow to the econ­omy? The Democ­rats are also a night­mare. Why is the Obama admin­is­tra­tion fail­ing to police deals in which banks par­tic­i­pat­ing in the $700 bil­lion fed­eral bailout lent bil­lions of dol­lars over­seas? Why did Pres­i­dent Obama say he “will urge banks to increase their lend­ing, and pos­si­bly pro­vide some incen­tives, [but] it will not dic­tate to the banks how they should spend the bil­lions of dol­lars in new gov­ern­ment money.” (The New York Times Feb­ru­ary 10, 2009)? The poli­cies of both admin­is­tra­tions are eerily sim­i­lar, and the play­ers have remained vir­tu­ally the same, which has led me to the con­clu­sion that our lead­ers are simply pup­pets of the true powers that be.

    A book I read in the early 90’s called “The Planned Destruc­tion of Amer­ica” out­lined a hell­ish con­spir­acy theory. I revis­ited this idea as I watched the Bush admin­is­tra­tion make my con­ser­v­a­tive heart faint with the $700 bil­lion bailout. The book explained that the Fed­eral Reserve Act, through the fed­eral reserve autho­rized a pri­vate cen­tral bank (a PRI­VATE bank and NOT a gov­ern­ment agency) to create money out of noth­ing, lend it to the gov­ern­ment at inter­est, and con­trol the national money supply, expand­ing or con­tract­ing it at will. Noth­ing has been the same since. We now print fifty cents to every dollar bor­rowed, and are nec­es­sar­ily headed toward hyper­in­fla­tion. The powers that be are in the process of enslav­ing the nations of the world with debt. Our chil­dren are now born into a house­hold of $546,688 of debt- this is unspeak­ably immoral. Our con­sti­tu­tional rights are being destroyed and our econ­omy is in a sham­bles. We are headed toward des­per­ate times. So I applaud people who have the courage to “swim up stream” and post links to things that spur dis­cus­sion and debate, even when I don’t agree. But beware, famous evil geniuses like Julius Caesar and Adolph Hitler under­stood how to use this divi­sive­ness to pave the way for tyranny. News­come goes on to give a his­tor­i­cal per­spec­tive: “Caesar cap­tured Gaul (roughly modern France) by incit­ing civil war between the Celtic tribes who inhab­ited the area, encour­ag­ing them to attack and anni­hi­late one another to the point of total exhaus­tion. This allowed the future Dic­ta­tor For Life to march in to (and out of) Gaul not only a hero, but a savior as well. Through his divide and con­quer tech­niques, Caesar por­trayed him­self to be the only assur­ance of peace, and through this cam­paign of pro­pa­ganda, con­trolled much of the world. An aspir­ing 20th cen­tury dic­ta­tor named Adolph Hitler pat­terned his future empire along sim­i­lar lines. Hitler,obsessed on the idea of racial purity, and inspired racial and reli­gious hatred to such a degree that an esti­mated 6 mil­lion people were mur­dered in con­cen­tra­tion camps, many from the hands of their fellow coun­try­men.” Lib­er­als and con­ser­v­a­tives dis­agree on many heart wrench­ing issues, but just as the great evil lead­ers of the past used dis­sen­sion to con­fuse the people, I believe there is a false left/right par­a­digm that is today being used to dis­tract us, as a people, from fun­da­men­tal issues that threaten us all.

    Yes I’ve become one of those foil hat people. I’m glad to do my part to add to the diver­sity of your FB friends Rob!

  • woodstea wrote:

    Dawn, thanks for your feed­back — I’m just get­ting this weblog started, more as a cat­a­lyst to get myself in the habit of writ­ing than any­thing else. I really admire your courage in taking a public stance despite the neg­a­tive reac­tion from those close to you. I was involved some in the Obama cam­paign myself but found it hard to be to open about it around friends that I knew dis­agreed. I felt an increas­ing level of frus­tra­tion during this time and a sense I wasn’t being gen­uine. Another reason for this weblog…

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *