Political Vomit 2: Bumper Sticker People

Sorry, I don't think I quite got it all out yesterday. This has been accumulating for awhile.

Part of the reason that it is easy for a mild-mannered, reasonably intelligent conservative-minded guy like me to get a little depressed about things is that, by all appearances, the rest of the country is in complete disagreement with me and my personal views. Everywhere I look, there are bumper stickers and yard signs snidely deriding my beliefs, proclaiming the deity of Barack Obama, and trumpeting snarky, self righteous one-liners about how horrible people like me are. Some of them are pretty funny ("Republicans for Voldemort '08") and some of them are so sappy they rot your teeth ("one day schools will have enough money and the navy will have to hold a bake sell to buy a..." yadda yadda, I think I'm gonna puke, 'scuse me, I feel so dirty for even quoting this), but all of them amount to the same things I mentioned yesterday: Republicans are evil, mean, war-mongering, intolerant, gun-toting, over-religious bitter clingers-- with absolutely no exceptions-- and you should all be dreadfully ashamed of yourselves, hit with plastic bags of feces, sued, impeached and shot.

Besides the bumper stickers and yard signs, just watch any television, movie, or listen to any popular music. It is absolutely undeniable-- I mean, come on, even the most liberal-minded of you can't deny this and keep even the slightest shred of respectability-- it is absolutely undeniable that the vast and nearly unanimous majority of our entertainers (including the broadcast news media, with the single exception of most talk radio) are passionate adherents to democratic political philosophy. It is an axiom. If you are an artist, actor, singer, writer, or entertainer in any way, two things are true about you: Your job is to be heard and seen by the general public, AND you are a liberal-minded democrat. The result: nearly every message we hear in our media-saturated culture, either directly or indirectly, mirrors the messages of the bumper stickers and yard signs.

It is no surprise, really, that the entertainment community as a whole is liberal democrat. If it is true (and it is) that Democratic beliefs are rooted in emotion, then it makes perfect sense that it'd appeal strongly to a demographic whose very livelihood is based on the conjuring and commerse of emotion. Artists of all stripe work in the world of manufacturing emotion, first in themselves, to create the product (drama, music, art, news*, etc) and then in the general public, through the sale of that product. Emotion is their single currency. It's all they understand. I know this, because I am an artist, and I know a lot of other artists. Of course they are not all ruled exclusively by emotion, but I know from personal experience that it takes an effort of will for an artist not to be. Thus, again, it makes perfect sense that a political idealogy based on feel-good intentions and lofty motivations (regardless of actual result) would appeal to the great majority of artists.

It's no surprise, either, that young people are also almost entirely democratic. Young people are all ruled by emotions. It's the very nature of being young. We who are no longer particularly young remember it well. We all made stupid decisions and said moronic things and got into sticky situations because our emotions made it seem like "a good idea at the time." If you don't agree, I'm sorry, you were never a teenager. Also, let us not forget that the single most important thing to any young adult is being as attractive and cool as humanly possible. There is NO way that a young person can be attractive and cool AND be known as a Republican. (I recall the episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in which the main character is so disgusted by the fact that his gorgeous romantic partner is a Republican that he loses all desire for her; 'nuff said). On the other hand, there is no quicker and surer way to proclaim your coolness than to mock Republicans, mindlessly parrot democratic talking points, and march for global warming/world peace/save the polar bears/protect abortion-on-demand rallies.

Face it: young people, while pretending to be the most free-minded and individually unique of us all, are the most lock-step lemmings imaginable. "You can be cool believing anything you want! Er, as long as it's the same thing me and George Clooney and Moby believe."

At the end of all this, the result is that we are absolutely inundated with the message that democrats are the vast majority, that they alone are cool and well-adjusted and socially conscious, that democratic beliefs are the only responsible choice, and that Republicans are evil, uncool, hate-filled neanderthals with rebel flags tatooed on their very fat butts. Thus, for a guy like me, looking around at our culture, it is easy to get depressed. It looks as if everyone is aligned against me and my beliefs.

But I've begun to suspect something. You wanna know what it is? I don't care, I'm gonna tell you anyway.

They're ALL bumper sticker people. What I mean is that it only seems like the rest of the country is aligned against conservative beliefs because democrats are the LOUD ones. They're the ones whose political beliefs are rooted in emotion, thus they are passionate and angry, and this makes them militant and vocal. From the news anchors to the guy currently waving the "impeach Cheney" sign on the courthouse lawn across the street from this very coffee shop, they are believers in the spectacle as argument. They are big ones for rallies and marches, shouted chants, chaotic disruptions of speeches, throwing fake blood and real feces, spray-painted epithets and, yes, bumper-sticker plastered cars.

I have fairly strong political convictions. I quite like to debate them, because I am very keen on honing my own convictions via sharpening them against smart people who might disagree with them (even though-- and I'm not joking here -- smart people who disagree with me are getting harder and harder to come by). But I don't have any bumper stickers on my car. I never have. I don't put up yard signs or chant slogans. And I definitely don't believe in the persuasive power of spitting on old ladies as they try to enter conventions.

In short, I'm not one of the loud ones. And here's the part that gives me hope: I don't think the majority of the country are, either. I think most of us are doing our jobs, raising our kids, thinking through our political and moral convictions, and voicing them only in the quiet but earth-shaping act of voting. We look with dismay at the militant, spittle-flying diatribes of our angry democratic neighbors, and with disgust at the snide, belittling attitudes of the entertainment media, and we just go on silently anyway, unswayed in our convictions because we are not the sort to be persuaded by emotion alone (even if it would make us a little cooler to Keith Olberman and Tim Robbins).

We're the ones that really move the country, and this is why the loud ones are so very, very loud. They hate that we, the quiet ones, are, in actuality, driving the nation. We, who work too hard to attend protest rallies, who respect people too much to shout them down at their speeches, who believe in logical thinking too much to reduce our convictions to snarky one-liners, we are the mighty unseen who carry this country and make it work. And yes, this gives me hope.

Even if it means Al Franken thinks I'm a big fat idiot.

*And if you think news is not interested, first and foremost, in conjuring emotion, consider that most famous news axiom of all, "if it bleeds, it leads."



ADDENDUM TO YESTERDAY'S POST: The Polar Bear Debacle

My general advice to any political minded person, republican or democrat, is the advice I try to follow: 1) verify the rumors before you make them the foundation of your convictions. 2) Check and know your sources before you try to use them in an argument. And 3) Use your brain just a little teensy bit more than you use your heart. With this in mind, I did some research on the Sarah Palin Polar Bear debacle my friend "Ruth" was so exercised about.

I discovered a lot of things, but the only one that really matters is this: the entire controversy is based on the numbers of polar bears. Are they increasing or decreasing? As with all such things, it depends on who you read. I found this article about it, from a site dedicated to debunking the opponents of man-made global warming and proving that we humans are the vilest creatures to ever leave a trail of slime on this poor, abused planet. Here's the quote that was meant to prove that polar bears are in dire doom:

"Yet recently there have been claims that polar bear populations are increasing... While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these [various polar bear] populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing."

Let's turn off our emotions for a moment and look at this together: the article states that two populations are increasing, two are declining, and two are unknown. At best, mathematically, does this not mean that polar bear numbers are, in fact, generally the same as always, with some variation in specific populations? I thought the numbers were supposed to be plummeting? This is the whole reason they were supposed to be endangered, yes? The best the self-proclaimed defenders of the poor polar bear can do is claim that the numbers of polar bears are unchanging? Forgive me if, like Sarah Palin, I don't find this incredibly moving.

In fact, if two of the populations ARE, in fact, increasing, as the article states, how can we be certain that any changes made for the good of the declining types of bears would not harm the numbers of the type that are increasing? I guess, like any good democratic philosophy, it's noble and just that the bears who are benefiting be punished in favor of the bears that are less-well-off.

Despite what the polar bear blogs say("Oil and gas extraction can be very damaging to arctic ecosystems including the polar bears."), even Alaska's Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, who "rejected every point" Palin made about the polar bears, admitted that the threat to polar bears did not come from the petroleum industry (it comes from your SUV, you stupid Republican war-monger). So. What does this leave us with? Turn your emotions back on. That rankled, itchy, hot feeling in your chest? It's justified annoyance at being hoodwinked.

Political Vomit

I've been watching the coverage of the upcoming election and talking to people about it, and I feel like if I don't spew some of the thoughts that have been locked in my head during this time, I'll go into some sort of mental constipation overload. Thus, the following may not be particularly coherent, organized, or digestible. It is, after all, political vomit. Here goes.

I met a couple at the park the other day whilst watching the kids. They were very nice, and I quite enjoyed connecting with them as our kids threw sand on each other in the sandbox. They'd just moved to St. Louis from California, where they had both worked in the film industry, thus we had some immediate common ground. Their son was wearing a tee shirt with the word PEACE on it, framed in the appropriate symbol. Not too surprising, of course, but somewhat indicative. Shortly, the couple began talking politics with me, assuming that I was, of course, in complete agreement with them in their decidedly liberal views. I was sad, because I realized that what had begun to look like a burgeoning friendship was suddenly doomed. NOT because I cannot tolerate democratic friends, mind you. Quite the reverse, in fact: I sat feeling rather dejected in the knowledge that, if these nice people knew I was a Republican, they'd suddenly and disgustedly shun me.

After all-- and this is the point-- Republicans are EVIL, aren't they? It was apparent that this nice couple believed in that supposition entirely. From George W. Bush on down, Republicans are evil, selfish, hate-filled, war-mongering capitalist pigs intent only on dropping bombs, jailing homosexuals, and shooting things with guns. Republicans are incapable of love, compassion, generosity and grace. For example, when asked about Cindy McCain's adopting an Asian child whom she'd brought to this country for a life-saving surgery, a caller on a radio talk show stated with dripping disgust, "she's just looking for a new servant to manage her mansions." Enough said.

Being a Republican means being a pariah. It's not the same in reverse. Have you noticed this?

We have quite a few Democratic and liberal friends. Hell, we have Socialist friends. Do most hardcore Democrats have Republican friends (that they know of)? I'd hazard a guess that they don't. We, as Republicans, can have liberal friends because, for the most part, we see liberals as wrong, and potentially dangerous when in positions of high power, but that's all. We don't think they are evil. We don't believe they deserve to have bags of human feces thrown at them as they attempt to enter their convention. We don't wish them horrible misfortunes. We believe that the rank and file Democrat truly means well. Thus, we don't hate them. We can and do befriend them.

Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, believe that Republicans are the pure essence of evil. Me. They think that I, your friendly neighborhood coffee-drinking, Potter fan-fiction writing, goof-off computer animator and very occasional blog writer, am EVIL. It goes without saying: you don't make friends with evil. You fight evil. You shun and hate evil. In a culture ruled by political correctness, marches for peace, and tolerance for all, Republicans alone deserve nothing but scathing mockery, violent protest, and complete rejection. Because we, people like George W. and John McCain on down to little old me, are the devil incarnate.

It's cool to hate people like me. It's hip to mock us. Not that the mockeries are fair or even representative of us. I've never shot a single living thing, for fun or for food. I'm an artist. I listen to System of a Down and Evanescence and Three Days Grace. But that doesn't matter, because Republicans like me are ALL-- without exception-- gun-rack truck-drivin' redneck factory workers or rich white wanna-be-slave-owning industrialists. We're all selfish, arrogant, and stupid, and we ALL listen to country and western music. Right? As far as the left is concerned, these are the things that virtually define being a Republican. I'm a Republican, so do the math. Yuck, yuck, yuck.

That's the first thing that has been bugging me about the political world. After all, how do you discuss issues calmly with someone who is absolutely certain that you, your leaders, and everything you stand for is the earthly manifestation of pure, liquid evil?

But there's something else.

I, like pretty much every other semi-conservative Republican with a pulse, was excited about Sarah Palin's appointment as McCain's running mate. Up until then, I was not a huge McCain supporter. Palin I like though, for a variety of reasons. You get the point. When we expressed this excitement to one of our Democratic friends, she recoiled. This friend, who I will call Barbara, was completely disgusted with Palin. Why? "Well," she replied, "the whole beauty pageant thing..."

...

... what?

I'd not even heard about "the beauty pageant thing" at that point. I looked it up, worried, certain that Palin must have some horrid, nefarious past in which she'd cheated in the pageant, or been paid to judge falsely, or had broken the knee of another contestent with a tire iron. As it turns out, she was merely in the Ms. Alaska pageant. She came in second. That was enough for Barbara. To my wife I said, "as an attractive woman, does it offend you that apparently being attractive means you are stupid and incapable of leading?" She didn't need to answer. She did, of course, and her answer wouldn't surprise anyone.

Another friend of ours, who happens to be a Socialist-leaning Democrat (we'll call her Ruth), was equally repulsed when we brought up Sarah Palin at a recent gathering. Ruth believes Bush is the anti-christ (not entirely jokingly, either) but she was, at first, cautiously hopeful about Sarah Palin. Until her speech at the Democratic convention, that is. As she talked about her response to Palin's speech, Ruth repeatedly used the word "horrified". My mouth was agape. I'd seen the speech. Depending on your philosophy, I could imagine you disagreeing with Palin, but to be repeatedly "horrified"? I asked why. What policy or position did Ruth object to? Turns out it wasn't really any of her specific policies, it was the way she was so vicious and mean, the way she attacked the Democrats.

"You mean," (I didn't say) "She hurled plastic bags of infected urine at them and dropped sacks of dry cement on their buses from overpasses?" Oh wait, no, that was the Democrats. Not the leaders, of course, but I've noticed that those same leaders didn't verbally object in any way to the actions of their followers. Thus, we have to assume that that kind of attack is all right with both Ruth and Barack Obama. No, stating facts and critiques about one's opponant from the stage, with a smile and a confident tone of voice-- that's uncalled for and unforgivable.

Then, of course, there were the polar bears. There's always the polar bears. Apparently, Palin refused to sign some bill that would declare all the polar bears endangered. Ruth was absolutely beside herself about that. As far as she was concerned, Palin was intentionally trying to kill off the polar bears. I'm not exaggerating. She really believes that, with a passion. I tried, fleetingly, to discuss it with her, to offer a lucid argument, but she simply couldn't hear it. I could see it on her face. No argument mattered. Just the polar bears.

I went for a walk, completely flummuxed. I couldn't quite put my finger on what bugged me so much about talking to Ruth, or, for that matter, Barbara and the rest of the Democrat/liberals out there. I finally realized what it was, and it was a revelation to me. Here's what it is:

Republicans like me base our positions on logic. We base it on thinking through the facts, discussing them with people who both agree and disagree with us, listening to arguments on both sides, and coming to a defensible conclusion. Our Democratic friends do not seem to do that, and by extrapolation, I can only assume that this is not a typical characteristic of Democratic philosophies in general. Democrats don'tseem to think about issues-- they feel about them. For our Democratic friends, issues are, first and foremost, emotional. The feel-good response is the right one, even if it doesn't really work out in real life.

Further, anyone who disagrees with a Democrat or argues with them is assaulting their feelings, and therefore invalidating them. Anyone who contends with the "science" of global warming, therefore, hates the environment and are evil. Anyone who believes welfare might actually harm the poor who come to rely on it hates the poor and wants them all shipped off to an island somewhere. In short, to a liberal-minded person, if the argument is not emotional at it's heart, there can be no argument at all. It didn't even begin to occur to Ruth that Sarah Palin might have had good, logical reasons for not signing a bill that felt as good as one protecting polar bears. Despite whatever I said to logically argue Sarah Palin's possible perspective on it (like, for example, the fact that they said the same thing about the caribou, and we all know how well they fared, despite the predictions) Ruth was completely unable to hear a logical (non-emotional) argument. If the motivation isn't emotional, it isn't a motivation at all. Instead, Ruth had to invent a potential motivation for Sarah Palin based on emotion: hate. Sarah Palin hates polar bears. To me, it would be truly funny if Ruth didn't believe it so ardently. Sarah Palin hating polar bears is the only thing that makes sense to a person who bases their decisions solely on feelings.

Ugh. That's about it. Enough political vomit. The bottom line is I am so very tired of feeling afraid to admit I am a Republican, since it has become such conventional wisdom that Republicans are stupid, mean, hateful and backwards. I'm a people-pleaser; I want to be liked! But, thankfully, not enough to change my hard-thought convictions. I'll just go and vote, like I always do, without making a big thing about it, just like the vast majority of those who are like me.

And I am tired of not being able to have a healthy debate about issues because you cannot argue with someone's emotions. It just insults them, because deep down, they believe you are invalidating something central and very personal to who they are. Honestly, I have no problem with feelings. I am a sensitive, emotional guy, and I am passionate about my views, but moreso because I have thought them through so carefully. In fact, the more my worldviews are backed up by careful, daily scrutiny, the more impassioned I am about them, because I am increasingly confident in their rightness. Political decisions must be logical first.

But you can't say that to a liberal. Mostly because if you do, they'll know you are a Republican, and everyone knows Republicans are evil.

(sigh.)