Frustrated hurt independent
Nov. 3rd, 2004 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
celticdragonflyI came back to reading LJ today, and it's not fun.
I do not belong to any political party. I am an independent centrist. Yep, that classic undecided swing voter. And liberals, you have totally alienated me.
And it's not because I'm against gay marriage, or against keeping abortion legal, or any of a long list of liberal causes. Because I'm NOT. I'm in agreement with liberals on a huge list of these things. I'm a supporter of these things.
But I am so tired of the hurtful, arrogant attitude that I am seeing from liberals, that anyone who doesn't think and vote exactly the same as them is stupid and evil. That they completely cannot understand that anyone might think differently from them on anything.
From a journal comment, "There is nothing but downright stupidity that would get ordinary people to vote neo-conservative." From another journal, "but I simply cannot think of any valid reasons that a thinking person would want Bush to win" From another, that someone who votes differently from her is a "low-life scum-sucking dog-fucking ghastly perverse ugly bastard". From the people at our Unitarian church, who are rapidly driving us away, talking about how so and so is awful, but this other person is a good democrat, making it quite clear they think only democrats are good.
It is very unpleasant and difficult these days to be in the middle. You get crap from both sides. But I gotta say, I've gotten a *LOT* more crap from the liberal side. I'm so tired of hearing people I thought of as friends talking about how anyone who thinks differently from them is a fascist or is no better than a murderer. And I am hearing this. All the time. There are a few liberals, gems of people, who do not say that and in fact will disagree if someone does. (Dear Gems, thank you so much for being you!) But they are the exception. Both sides are driving the middle away, but I'm sure getting it worse from the left.
Don't liberals ever think, when they come out and say these things, that somebody standing right next to them may feel differently than them? Can they not conceive of diversity at all? I know that not everyone is going to think and feel as I do and have the same priorities as I do. And that's okay. That's what's good about this country.
I'd already had to trim the flist because the political rants were too much. I'm having to trim it more today. I don't like doing this. I don't like giving up on friends. I don't want to be someone who only hears information from a limited pool of sources. I *want* to hear what the liberals have to say. But if they only want to be nasty, I'm not going to read it.
I want liberals to think about that. Next time they have some issue that they want to lecture and rant about, that they want people to vote for or against, that they'd like to reach the undecided centrist swing voter on. I'm not reading that post, because the liberal attitudes have driven me away. They're just preaching to the choir. And the choir may not be enough to carry their issue.
I do not belong to any political party. I am an independent centrist. Yep, that classic undecided swing voter. And liberals, you have totally alienated me.
And it's not because I'm against gay marriage, or against keeping abortion legal, or any of a long list of liberal causes. Because I'm NOT. I'm in agreement with liberals on a huge list of these things. I'm a supporter of these things.
But I am so tired of the hurtful, arrogant attitude that I am seeing from liberals, that anyone who doesn't think and vote exactly the same as them is stupid and evil. That they completely cannot understand that anyone might think differently from them on anything.
From a journal comment, "There is nothing but downright stupidity that would get ordinary people to vote neo-conservative." From another journal, "but I simply cannot think of any valid reasons that a thinking person would want Bush to win" From another, that someone who votes differently from her is a "low-life scum-sucking dog-fucking ghastly perverse ugly bastard". From the people at our Unitarian church, who are rapidly driving us away, talking about how so and so is awful, but this other person is a good democrat, making it quite clear they think only democrats are good.
It is very unpleasant and difficult these days to be in the middle. You get crap from both sides. But I gotta say, I've gotten a *LOT* more crap from the liberal side. I'm so tired of hearing people I thought of as friends talking about how anyone who thinks differently from them is a fascist or is no better than a murderer. And I am hearing this. All the time. There are a few liberals, gems of people, who do not say that and in fact will disagree if someone does. (Dear Gems, thank you so much for being you!) But they are the exception. Both sides are driving the middle away, but I'm sure getting it worse from the left.
Don't liberals ever think, when they come out and say these things, that somebody standing right next to them may feel differently than them? Can they not conceive of diversity at all? I know that not everyone is going to think and feel as I do and have the same priorities as I do. And that's okay. That's what's good about this country.
I'd already had to trim the flist because the political rants were too much. I'm having to trim it more today. I don't like doing this. I don't like giving up on friends. I don't want to be someone who only hears information from a limited pool of sources. I *want* to hear what the liberals have to say. But if they only want to be nasty, I'm not going to read it.
I want liberals to think about that. Next time they have some issue that they want to lecture and rant about, that they want people to vote for or against, that they'd like to reach the undecided centrist swing voter on. I'm not reading that post, because the liberal attitudes have driven me away. They're just preaching to the choir. And the choir may not be enough to carry their issue.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:08 am (UTC)Promise to you, Laura
Date: 2004-11-03 08:13 am (UTC)If I'm going to rant about politics, I'll put a rant warning in the title of the journal entry, so you know to skip me.
DV (who wants to know why they're testing a local siren, because it's quite sufficiently annoying)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:18 am (UTC)I've heard in the news that this is the most polarized election in many many years.
I think part of the reason is that both sides are feeling threatened at the very depths of their identity by the other side.
And when so threatened and scared, nobody's best sides are seen.
I'd say it's emotionally analogous to being physically sucker punched in the seeming safety of your own home.
"It's my country. I can't believe all these people don't think the way I do, and they have the power to hurt me by changing the country in which I live."
The US is a very diverse place, and yet, it's not rubbed in everybody's faces all the time. Like it is right now.
Though diversity can be a great thing, it's not an easy way to live. It takes a lot of effort to be tolerant.
I think this election is bringing out the worst sides of everybody because of the gut fear reaction that a lot of people are feeling.
I hope I haven't offended, but I do think that it will get back to normal soon. Oh, and I hope this doesn't make you more upset, I'm afraid I'm a natural apologist/devil's advocate. But I did try to keep actual issues out of it, because that wasn't my point.
PS I also meant to bring up that in such a polarized situation, the middle is a very lonely place to be. *hugs*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 08:30 am (UTC)Very very cogent observations.
Re: Promise to you, Laura
Date: 2004-11-03 09:08 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:11 am (UTC)You said everything that has been aching my heart for months now. It was very ugly here in Ohio...
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:18 am (UTC)ObBujold:
We're trying to all be one side, now. Miles decided this was not the time or place to pursue the unconscious assumptions behind Brun's word-choice.
I don't consider myself on either "side".
It does surprise me that the liberals are the ones that I encounter doing a worse job of it.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:19 am (UTC)I believe you are wrong.
I believe you are wrong to only to berate someone else for wanting to hear from "a limited pool of sources" when you are choosing to limit your own.
I hope you do not remove me from your flist because of that.
I, too, do not understand how this nation could've returned Mr. Bush to office. I firmly believe that there is sufficient evidence to hound him from office for the lies that he told about WMDs and Iraqi connections to Al-Qaeda. I am bitterly disappointed at the number of states that supported anti-gay marriage laws. I am scared that this morning I read that the tours of duty of 6,500 soldiers in Iraq have been extended, and hope that the mess over there doesn't extend till Jamie is of draftable age. I am daunted by the size of the debt that has been made from what had been a record suplus. I am frightened of gas prices and oil politics.
Perhaps there is a sort of intellectual hubris among liberals. I could believe and agree with that. On the other hand, I feel that the reactionary behavior of a lot of "middle America" I feel goes way beyond what could be considered traditional "conservative" values.
I am scared, Laura -- scared as hell that this nation could be thrown into bitter civil war.
Re: Promise to you, Laura
Date: 2004-11-03 09:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:22 am (UTC)I don't consider myself on either "side".
Yes, definitely clear from your post, and like I said, it's a very hard place to be. But I'm also hoping once the election brouhaha is over, things will be back to whatever normal is these days.
It does surprise me that the liberals are the ones that I encounter doing a worse job of it.
The losing side? Perhaps not so surprising. Disappointing, for sure.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:23 am (UTC)Thanks, though I'm not sure it helps much.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:24 am (UTC)Re: Promise to you, Laura
Date: 2004-11-03 09:31 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:43 am (UTC)No, I'm not really talking about stuff I'm seeing today. This is stuff I've been seeing and hearing for MONTHS. With the people saying it sure they were going to win.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:58 am (UTC)I'm not berating others for wanting to hear from a limited pool of sources. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying *I* do not want to hear from a limited pool of sources, which is why I've tended to read people from varied points of view on the political spectrum. I *would prefer* to continue to do that.
But if most of what I'm finding on the left side is just going to be nastiness, anti-diverse, and is going to assume that anyone who thinks differently than them is stupid and evil, well, then I run into an end of how much of it I can stand to read. By rights I ought to be the audience they're trying to convert. But instead many of them are busy villifying anyone but themselves.
I'm scared, too. There's lots going on I don't like. Heck, I haven't seen a candidate I want to vote for make it past primaries ever.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:59 am (UTC)Of course, she has been exposed to the worst of it from cranky messages from those who oppose the views of her less-centrist Husband. Of course,
Both sides have been perfectly vile to and about each other. We all need to learn something about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Could save the world that way.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 09:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 10:01 am (UTC)Yes, I see what you mean.
I don't think this is easy for anybody.
(and I'm not saying you shouldn't cut your friendslist, or not read things, you need to do what makes you happy as those things go)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 10:02 am (UTC)Case in point, the "lies" you attribute to Bush. I'll stand by the WMDs and terrorist connections, and cheerfully produce evidence for it. But
So, a question: Do you *want* to understand why Bush won? There's reasons for it, lots of them, and I'll be happy to discuss it. Again, elsewhere.
I've had fears of civil war myself. The biggest fear is that predictions of it are self-fulfilling prophecies. I've had words for someone on the right side about babbling about violence, I don't like hearing it from the left either.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 10:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 10:22 am (UTC)The worst seems to be when a bunch of like-minded people get into a positive feedback loop outdoing each other on harshness, which can scare hell out of the "Thems" listening. I've made posts sometimes to just break the unanimity. I think the more "across the aisle" conversations we have the more civil--and less worried--people will be.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 10:36 am (UTC)*blushes* Thanks. I did grow up in the US and lived there from the ages of 1 to 29.
I have thought about working in politics on and off. But my husband got a great job opportunity in England and we are here for now. And politics here are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 10:57 am (UTC)I hope and pray that my ill-timed venting did not come across as one of the intolerant rants you so rightfully castigated in your post. But given my history of "foot in mouth disease" when I get worked up emotionally, I don't dare "hope and *trust* that" etc.
*sigh*
*thwaps self*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 11:47 am (UTC)Who says that only Knights In Shining Armour get to be gallant? [smile]
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 12:02 pm (UTC)Nah, it's okay. Thanks again!
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 12:44 pm (UTC)Okay--this is puzzling me. When did democrat/republican become defining identities, like religions, rather than practical affiliations, like which restaurant is your favorite? I don't align with either party so I make my voting decisions according to how they're standing on particular issues. If the other comes up with a better idea, or a better individual candidate, I switch.
Why are so many people binding themselves to a specific political group? What happened to basing identities on a church, or family, or place? Or, hell, rock band?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 01:08 pm (UTC)Yeah, I don't know. I think that's where the polarization comes in.
Churches, families, places are all becoming less cohesive, aren't they? Fewer people going to church (or any other religious organization), families getting smaller one way or another, people not staying in one place for very long anymore.
What's left? Political party? Maybe.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 01:37 pm (UTC)Perhaps *too* well.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 02:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 03:32 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 03:50 pm (UTC)Unfortunately...
I found an *incredible* number of ohmygod we're all gonna die posts in my flist today. I'm another like you, standard swing voter, and I was seriously concerned with what I saw. They voted, I voted, the election ended, and now a lot of people anticipate the apocalypse!
You put it much better than I can, so I'll stop trying. *hugs*
(no subject)
Date: 2004-11-03 03:52 pm (UTC)I feel the need to try to explain (part 1)
Date: 2004-11-04 10:30 am (UTC)Ok, there are three comments there and I'm going to take them out of order but respond to all three from the perspective of someone who is genuinely heartsick and terrified by the results of this election.
"but I simply cannot think of any valid reasons that a thinking person would want Bush to win"
See. I totally understand this comment. I totally agree with this comment. I genuinely do not understand why people who are honestly informed about Bush, his policies and the stated and unstated positions of the republican party would vote for the man. I seriously DO NOT UNDERSTAND. I want to. I really would like to, for the completely selfish reason that I would like to know how I can get through to them my objections and fears.
But honestly, when I say I don't understand I genuinely mean I do not understand. Bush terrifies me. The current trend of the republican party terrifies me. I was in a blind panic listening to the election returns. Now part of that is I'm sure related to my current mental state, but only part of it.
And its not just about Bush. 11 states passed laws banning gay marriage on Tuesday, most of them also banned or significantly cut rights for civil unions or domestic partnerships. The law in Ohio essentially forces gay couples to leave the state if they don't want all their legal agreements from wills to custody arrangements to next of kin arrangements to be nullified. In Oklahoma, the new Senator is a man who's rallied against "the gay agenda" as the "greatest threat to freedom" in America today and warned about an epidemic of "rampant lesbianism" in schools. Incidentally, he has also advocated the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions. In South Carolina, the new Senator unapologetically declared that gays and single mothers should not be allowed to teach in schools.
Now as a gay woman, that terrifies me. That the candidates of a national party could espouse these views and be backed by party funding and assistance AND be elected, that just frightens me so much.
That's not diversity, its bigotry. And its aimed directly at me. I talked to my father on the phone last night and after we'd commisserated about our candidate not winning his first words were "and this must be so much worse for you, kiddo." 51% of the population of this country voted for a man who advocates ammending the constitution specifically to restrict the rights of me and people like me. And when I say this, moderate republicans say "oh, he was just pandering to the far right, he always knew it would never pass" as if this somehow makes it ok. Pandering to the far right on gay rights vs. pandering to segregationists on civil rights, the only difference I see between the two is that the second would get a politician run out of town so fast his head would spin.
Sorry, I should stop rambling now, but genuinely, that's where that comment comes from. It comes out of fully rationalized fear and genuine lack of understanding. Its an honest expression of complete befuddlement.
(continued in next comment)
I feel the need to try to explain (part 2)
Date: 2004-11-04 10:30 am (UTC)Now, I do not agree with this statement, but I can see where it comes from. Follow on from my first comments, you have people who are genuinely frightened of a specific candidate, his party and his politics. They really feel that these people hate them and everything they stand for. And they're scared and they're trying to find hope. Which would you rather do: believe that every person who voted for those candidates agreed with their most frightening statements and beliefs? or believe that most of the people who voted for them just didn't know or didn't believe that they had said and espoused those things? Personally, I'd much rather believe that a big chunk of the electorate was taken in by republican spin then believe that 51% of my country genuinely thinks that I am a threat to their children and my rights need to be limited for my and their protection. Can you honestly blame me for that?
From another, that someone who votes differently from her is a "low-life scum-sucking dog-fucking ghastly perverse ugly bastard"
Now this is completely unjustified and I have never used such language to my knowledge or agreed with and supported people who did. But again, I can tell you how that person probably got there. When you're already afraid and feeling persecuted its not a long step from "So and So voted for the candidate who wants to limit my rights" to "So and So hates me for who I am." And from that second to lashing out in anger and fear and calling that person rather inventively unpleasant names. I don't agree with it, at all, but I can see how it would happen very easily.
Just my two cents. I'm not going to stop speaking my piece in my journal and I'm never going to apologize there or anywhere for doing so. My politics and my sexuality are part of who I am and I refuse to hide them, especially now when the temptation to give in to fear is so strong. If that means you feel the need to unfriend me that is your prerogative. I will still read your journal unless you specifically ask me not to because I like you and I care about you and I am interested in what you have to say.
Re: I feel the need to try to explain (part 1)
Date: 2004-11-04 11:28 am (UTC)Okay, let me try to explain my vote. I understand your fears. I am more afraid of something else. Specifically, I'm afraid of islamofascist terrorists getting their hands on a nuke, or poisoning a city water supply, or using a weapon that hasn't been invented yet, and killing Americans by the millions. At which point they will destroy us as a country--or the nukes will be unleashed and it'll be "no Arabs, no problem." I think Kerry would pull an LBJ and just do the minimum, not making any attempt to divert us from that. Bush has a plan to avoid that, and I want to give it a try. It might fail but it's better than just waiting for Ragnarok.
I prefer live gay couples living together without government recognition to dead ones with a full set of paperwork.
I wouldn't call it civil war, folks
Date: 2004-11-08 07:56 pm (UTC)> civil war.
Civil War???? Civil War??????????
Come on, folks, the founding fathers were smarter than that. Everyone is looking with such limited historic vision. The pendulum swings, back and forth.
there's enough inertia in the system that if you believe Bush will try to do serious long-term damage (although he has done quite a bit of damage), he won't be able to do much of it, just as if you believe Kerry would have done serious damage, he wouldn't have been able to do much of that either. The Democrats will regroup, wisen up, and nominate a stronger candidate next time - Kerry was duped into making serious strategic blunders and fell into Republican traps. (The election says more about the skills of their political advisors than it does about the candidates.) The Republicans that go too far to the right will find themselves splitting with moderate Republicans who will go against them if they go to far. Things work themselves out over time. Balance returns.
Although the country is clearly increasingly polarized, talk of a civil war is insane. Ivory Coast, Sierra Leone, probably Iraq in a few years, those are places with civil wars.
And the "red"/"blue" geographic split only looks so strong because of an artifact of the electoral college. It's not like everyone in a red state voted Bush any more than everyone in a blue state voted for Kerry.
And, although people voted for Bush or Kerry, not many of them were happy about it either way. I have a friend here in Atlanta who voted for Bush simply because he thought Kerry would be weak on fighting terrorism, although he disagreed with Bush on every other single issue. Similarly, I voted for Kerry, although I found him an utterly lackluster candidate and it would take hours to catalog all the mistakes he made. There are some True Bush Believers, but far less than the number who voted for him.
The apocalypse will not be televised
Date: 2004-11-08 08:03 pm (UTC)A sad aspect of this election is that's an attitude now associated with the Left, as you might call it. If Kerry had won, you would see just the same amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth on the Right, with Republican politicians certain Kerry would invite Osama Bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein in for tea and Christian preachers certain God will bring judgement on us for our sinful ways. Same insanity, just a different style.
The main reason I was hoping Kerry would win was to see Ann Coulter go ballistic, which is always fun.
Re: I wouldn't call it civil war, folks
Date: 2004-11-08 09:24 pm (UTC)Mr. Bush's administration has already done more damage to civil liberties than any other since Joe McCarthy, in the name of "Homeland Security". Oh, wait, isn't that why that -one- county in Ohio refused to allow their vote counting to be witnessed? The -only- county so inclined . . . in ALL FIFTY STATES????
Mr. Bush's administration has done more to damage our international credibility in the 2 years since "9/11" than I would have believed possible. This planet is smaller every day, in terms of communication, interaction, and interdependence. Mr. Bush acts like, because we're the biggest bully in the sandbox, we have the right and the responsibility to impose our will on everyone else. Don't get me wrong: the Islamic extremists need to be dealt with and on their own terms -- as far as I'm concerned, they need to be squashed, and hard. The problem -with- that sort of action, though, is that everytime we sit on 'em, those remaining get more pissed.
That's where Osama bin Laden came from in the first place -- having once been -funded- by the US, he somehow got religion and decided seeing the infidel on holy Muslim ground was an affront not to be borne. Never mind that Saudi Arabia couldn't maintain its own infrastructure without US aid -- we can't maintain our own, either, because people don't want to have to pay for it! The Bush family has been in metaphorical financial bed with the Saudis since Mr. Bush's grandfather's time, helping them build and develop their oil facilities and mechanical infrastructure.
Shall we address what Mr. Bush's administration has already done to the scientific community, environmental issues, or education in this country? I'm not sure LJ would let me go on that long.
A Kerry presidency -would- have been severely limited by a Republican Congress, and so probably could not have enacted much of his more left-leaning agenda items. Balance would have been served. However, between the Excutive and the Legislative branches right now, and the influence they're likely to have on the judicial, I'd be hard pressed to find an administration that had more opportunity to establish long-term influence in this nation.
I live in California -- Los Angeles County to be precise. My county went pretty solidly Democratic. However, if you look at the state map, most of the inland and rural counties went relatively Republican. This urban/rural pattern is seen fairly clearly across the nation. I think you'll find far more of the Bush "true believers" in the small towns and "heartland" -- I have members of my own family who are -rabid- Bush supporters, and will hear nothing bad about him, and I cannot for the life of me understand why, except that he speaks to fear and mistrust of change, rather than hope and aspiration. I still feel there is the potential for conflict.
As for Kerry as a lackluster candidate: you're right, there are several situations his mis-handled badly, and his speaking style is more suited to the classroom than a debate floor . . . most of the time. Of the Dems, I'd have preferred Wes Clark -- he has a better concept of strategy and tactics, and having been in the military, I feel may be better equipped to address real-world issues than what Senator Kerry seemed to feel was an academic debate.
As for "everyone" voting one way or the other: no, you're right. For all Messrs. Cheney and Bush talk of a "mandate," it's an awfully slim margin. The problem is, it's an awfully LOUD margin.
...sorry for the rant, Laura
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-06 10:12 pm (UTC)Hi. You don't know me. I know of you through
Continue the debate. I hope some of the commenters here revisit this entry, or find some coffee shops to gather at and continue to talk.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-09 05:19 pm (UTC)Oddly, that's exactly what my experience has been with people who label themselves conservative. At too many workplaces and in too many public discussions, I've been literally AFRAID to express a differing viewpoint (and anyone who knows me will tell you how atypical that is for me!) because it was clear that I'd get a response ranging from vicious, pack-attack contempt to possible physical violence.