Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

    This election year more than any in a long time, I am very concerned at the mud slinging and bilious rhetoric flying about on our nation's airways and in the press. I will be ever so relieved come Nov. 3 when all this cacophony stops (even though the outcome of the election probably will be debated for months afterward).

    As I was perusing the articles on today's Truthout.com website, I came across this "webitorial" by a woman named Debi Smith, who originally wrote the piece for CommonDreams.org. I'm only copying and pasting one small part of what she wrote (the whole article is below) because I realize that instead of being part of the solution these last 3 years, I was part of the problem. No more. I am doing my research and asking questions now. It behooves all of you to do the same if you value the freedom you were born with.

    "Yes, I blame this neo-oppression on the Bush cabal, I blame the media, but I also blame myself, and everyone else like myself, who just hasn't had the time, or taken the time rather, to pay sufficient attention. To question. To reason. We were born into very fortunate circumstances-our country having fought long and hard for the opportunity to be self-determining, democratic, and free. Yet we have mostly squandered that gift by our inattention and often slobbering focus on all things material. It's we the people who've handed over our power to the media, to corporations, to the government. We're the ones who left the store, leaving the door wide open and the keys in the till. "

    Miulang

    Complete article:http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102304L.shtml
    Last edited by Miulang; October 22, 2004, 05:26 PM.
    "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

  • #2
    Re: Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

    Well, Truthout and a number of the other sites you frequently cite aren't exactly havens of objectivity and moderation.

    No "side" (and to distill the current political climate to only two sides is a whole 'nother barrel of wax) can claim innocence in the current cultural war. I concede myself that, for a long time following the 2000 election, I was pretty unreasonably partisan. I didn't just oppose the Bush administration's policies... I decided my position didn't need to get much more nuanced than, "Bush is evil."

    Frankly, it was a lot easier to live that way. In that universe, all Bush opponents needed to know was that he stole the election, was in the pocket of special interests, and was a moron. Meanwhile, the other side didn't need to look any deeper than our being crybabies who hug trees, coddle criminals, and think big government is the solution to everything.

    Of course, here on this board, we've seen more than our share of, "Well of course you feel that way, you're a liberal/conservative/capitalist!"

    I try, now, to be less kneejerk, to think less simplistically, although I still feel strongly about my principles.

    One of the biggest parts of broadening my horizon was starting to read weblogs by prominent conservatives, not just the blogs of lefties who I already agree with. Turns out, they're not heartless minions of Satan intent on destroying Earth. They're decent, smart people, folks I might easily enjoy a ball game with, who just happen to feel differently than I do. The good ones make their case without needlessly denigrating their opponents. They disarm you with pictures of their kids or dogs and just when they lull you into thinking they're human, pow! They go and score a point or two on a political issue.

    Sure, there's the odd jab at commie pinko hippies, but I can take it. And now I try to listen better... before I vehemently disagree.

    While I have strong leftist tendencies, I consider myself a good example of why you can't pigeonhole someone based on just one question - be it Bush/Kerry, abortion, stem cell research, whatever. No one is that one-dimensional.

    Sure, I'm a member of the ACLU, I'm pro choice, I prefer preserving the environment to drilling for oil, and want Bush out of the White House. But. I also have a capitalist streak and have more confidence in the free market and globalism than most of my hippie peers, I think there is a reason for the Second Amendment (though I wouldn't go as far as AK-47s), I don't oppose the death penalty, I don't believe in "hate crime" legislation, and I absolutely demand a balanced budget.

    I have no idea what that makes me, and the search for a label even now makes me realize... it ain't ever going to be that simple.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

      Well, pzarquon, you're a lot more enlightened than I am. In my view Bush had a golden opportunity to unite this country (and the entire world) following 9/11, but instead he used that tragedy to win the midterm elections in 2002. Up until that point Democrats in Congress had mostly tried to work with him, and then got labelled "obstructionist" anyway. Moreover, the Bush crowd smeared a triple-amputee Vietnam Vet (Max Cleland) as a friend of bin Laden's. So I'd say that he's responsible for a lot of the divisiveness.
      http://www.linkmeister.com/wordpress/

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

        Originally posted by pzarquon

        I have no idea what that makes me, and the search for a label even now makes me realize... it ain't ever going to be that simple.
        Ryan, I think that makes you a "thoughtful" American, one who is not swayed merely by ideology and rhetoric but who is willing to ask questions and who knows in their heart of hearts what matters most to them.

        The people who are absolutists (as in staunch Republican, Democrat or whatever, no matter what they will support the party line) fail to see the infinite "shades of gray" that exist with any issue. Thoughtful Americans look at those shades of gray and decide for themselves what makes the most sense in their lives. I think this upcoming election will show those middle of the road "thoughtful" Americans that it's time to say "enough!" to the partisan politics. It's time for thoughtful Americans to try to heal the rifts in this country so it can once again be united.

        As a funny and sad (at the same time) aside, the Kyoto Protocol (the one that has been ratified by every recognized government except the US and Australia) has been approved by the lower Duma of the Russian government, which means that it will go into effect early next year. The main thrust of this protocol is to try to limit the effect of global warming...something we in this country should be concerned about, because we use 36% of the world's natural resources and therefore produce most of the world's CO2.

        Why did the Bush Administration not want to ratify this protocol? It wouldn't affect us in this country because we already have pretty stringent antipollution measures in place, but it would affect American corporations who do business (and pollute) elsewhere in the world, that's why. The sad part is, where once other countries would regard a US "no" as a sign that they should also vote "no", 120+ countries ratified the agreement! We no longer have the credibility abroad to influence the thinking of other governments.

        Miulang
        "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

          The American Conservative Party, which is comprised of the more "traditional" conservatives, is so angry at the neoconservatives that now run the Bush Administration that they have gone on record with their constituency to urge that they vote for "the other candidate" and not George Bush.

          I predict that if Bush wins again next month, there will be a rift in the Conservative movement so that the traditional Conservatives will move more toward the left and become "moderate". With this infighting, it will make it much harder for the incumbent Administration to get anything done over the next 4 years, since the Dems and the traditional Conservative Republicans will be working together and against the Bush Administration.

          Miulang
          Last edited by Miulang; October 23, 2004, 09:50 AM.
          "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

            I am not quite sure why George W. Bush would have conservatives against him. His stances on social issues are pretty conservative, and most conservatives are very pro-military and for the spreading of democracy. Saddam Hussein killed between 1.5 and 2 million people. It is terrible that we have lost 1,000 plus soldiers, but people have to die to preserve our freedoms. Fortunately, we have a President who is able to look long term and not just short term. President Clinton, though many of us liked him, never responded to any terrorist attack overseas. Ask any terrorism expert....they only respect strength. During those years the terrorists lost respect for our military and our resolve to fight them.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Who's to blame for the divisiveness?

              I don't care so much that the terrorists don't have any respect for us and our ability to fight them (although it is pretty laughable right now), but I do care that this Administration has gotten us into a no-win situation with many nations because of Dubya's nonexistent foreign policies. We are losing our ability to build the kind of global coalition that can defeat that faceless, countryless enemy known as Al Qaeda and the Taliban, who have now joined forces.

              If we were held in such high esteem by the rest of the world, why did 120+ countries sign the Kyoto Protocol (including our buddies in England and our other coalition partners...the only other abstaining country was Australia). Shouldn't our opposition have caused other countries not to endorse the treaty, too? In the past, it would have.

              Doesn't our country care about global warming and about our multinational corporations polluting and economically exploiting other nations? This country cannot afford to "go it alone".

              The traditional Conservatives do not like the Bush Administration because they do not agree with many of the things he and his people have done in the last 3 years. If you really want to know how the "traditional" Conservatives differ from the Bush neo-conservatism, you can read this statement from the Nov. 8 edition of The American Conservative:

              "George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support."

              More here: http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

              Miulang
              "Americans believe in three freedoms. Freedom of speech; freedom of religion; and the freedom to deny the other two to folks they don`t like.” --Mark Twain

              Comment

              Working...
              X