Today, on Twitter, a woman who is an acknowledged Conservative Republican tweeted that she was in an elevator and a Liberal called her “the enemy”. Her response was to remind the person offering this description that many Conservatives “pack heat” in what can only be characterized as a not-so-veiled threat.
I consider this interaction between a Liberal and Conservative to be quite enlightening of the different ways in which the two groups think, or don’t think, as the case may be. Liberals have gotten to the point where they no longer perceive Conservatives as "loyal opposition". They perceive them as "The Enemy." I will not necessarily condone this, but it does point out that our polarized politics has reduced many of us to the perception of the us vs. them mentality, Liberal and Conservative alike. It is a view by both sides that the system is a zero-sum game, that is for every victory, there must be a corresponding defeat by the "other side". If you have it, you must have taken it from me. My objection to Conservatives however is the length to which they have taken this way of thinking.
Conservatives are forever citing the Second Amendment as one of the freedoms that they hold near and dear. Unfortunately, they apparently do not hold the First Amendment in the same high regard, especially when it is someone offering a difference of opinion with their particular viewpoint. It is seemingly all right for them to cite their own First Amendment protections whenever someone exercises it, but when a Liberal does, not so much.
Now before someone gets all technical on me, I know that the First Amendment only protects a person’s speech against government infringement. If it protected us against infringement by anyone, then an employee of Coca Cola could not be fired for going on television for endorsing Pepsi. Let me assure you that Coke can and probably will terminate the employment of their employee for doing such a thing, and they are within their rights to do so. However, the government cannot make a law that infringes any citizen’s right to endorse Coke over Pepsi or Pepsi over Coke. The Constitution is intended to protect us from our government, not each other. Okay, civics class is over, now back to our regularly scheduled blog.
Conservatives seem to have this predisposition to the use of force and/or violence as a mechanism to achieve their wants, needs, goals and desires a lot quicker than Liberals. In the thinking of the Right, might really does make right and to the victor go the spoils. Thus, they have a tendency to go to the force option faster. This is true in many different circumstances. In the example at hand, a woman, identified as the enemy, immediately raises the specter that those that identify her as such had better watch out. Because, as a Conservative, she might be exercising her Second Amendment Right and be carrying a gun; she implies she might be willing to use it against someone that disagrees with her point of view in a manner objectionable to her. Personally, having seen my share of death, destruction, violence and mayhem by my fellow man against my fellow man, I tend to go with the sticks and stones option first, possibly followed by a stern sticking out of my tongue or raspberry. To go directly to the “be careful, I might have a gun” option first is, pardon the pun, overkill.
As I said, there are many different examples of this kind of behavior within the ranks of Conservatism. Sharron Anlge, of Nevada called for “Second Amendment remedies” to what she perceived as the takeover of the U.S. Senate by the Left. While discussing these so-called Second Amendment remedies, she said, “I’ll tell you the first thing we need to do is take Harry Reid out.” While I may think she is a complete nutball; folks she was an elected member of the Nevada Assembly from 1999 to 2007 and a Teapublican candidate for Harry Reid’s Senate seat in 2010. If you can’t beat ‘em, kill ‘em?” Sarah Palin, the darling of the Right Wing said, “Don’t retreat, reload.” Uh, she was a candidate for Vice President of the United States.
The other thinking that runs through Conservative America is the concept of picking up their ball and going home. When a state does this, it is called secession. The Governor of Texas jumped on board this bandwagon and called for secession based on the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court in, coincidentally, Texas vs. White (1868) declared secession to be impossible and illegal. Thus, the only way to do it would be armed insurrection. Now the last time I checked, armed insurrection against the government of the United States was treason, but because of the way they think, the Conservatives don’t seem to have a problem with resorting to “the nuclear option” right off the bat.
The Conservatives have become the bullies of politics. They use force to get what they want and to stop anyone that has the temerity to disagree with them. Much like the school yard bully, they make you afraid to disagree because you might get beaten up, or, in the case of our elevator woman, might get shot.
1 comment:
An objective assessment of ones personal level of knowledge usually begins with the realization of how little one actually knows. For those of us who occasionally allow ourselves a little self reflection, it actually comes as quite a shock to realize how little we know of the spectrum of topics which make up our human knowlege base. Our lack of facts and true understanding of the various and myrriad issues which confront us as a civilization are actually quite mind numbing.
Climate change, environmental contaminants, religious differences, macro and micro economics, military actions, terrorism, biological affects of development and population, energy production, ect. ect., are but the several areas we must all have general knowledge of when we vote to elect our officials who will control our government.
I raise this issue only to emphasize that people who are convinced they are right about all of the issues they confront in any arena, and most assuredly politics, are at best difficult to deal with, and at worst dangerous because of the impact of their all knowing opinions. "Knowing" you are correct when you begin a discussion about how to solve a problem obviates the necessity to listen, contemplate, consider, and learn of alternatives or god forbid the thought that there are better solutions to problems held by others.
We politely refer to this group of people as ideologs, when they are truly nothing more than close minded, and ignorant social elitists. The vast majority of our current group of ideologs are white, uber religious Christians, and they suffer from a jingoistic mania. Is it any wonder they have developed an us against them mind set and identify only with others who are essentially like them, ie., white conservative christians. When you disagree with them you are not only wrong, but dangerous as you oppose not only thier politics, but due to the concurrence of their religious and political views, the very core of their social existance. As a result, arguments against their views lead to anger and an intransigence to compromise.
With this group why would we expect anything less, but more importantly, why do we give their views credence or value. We should smile sweetly, nod our heads as they speak, and then ignore them. That is what they consistently do with us, except they do not smile.
Post a Comment