.jpg)
The YMCA is one of the few places I go where I rub elbows - sweaty elbows- with the conservatives who make up the majority of my childhood home. Sometimes I find the parking lot bumper stickers abrasive, but mostly I find it interesting. Not, "Oh look at those ridiculous conservatives not understanding evolution," but, "Oh OK. This is where they are coming from." It always makes me frustrated but not in the way you might think. I leave longing for a venue where I could ask politically right constituents questions and not have the whole situation instantaneously erupt into a verbal pissing contest.
Today, the two elderly men 2 ellipticals down were talking quite predictably about health care. They were saying how the government now controlled everything: the banks, the car companies and today the health care system. (I first walked in I think they were talking about how Obama still hasn't shown his birth certificate but never you mind.) They sardonically talked about global warming and how it's been the coldest winter on record for many parts of the country. And they topped it off with something about how homeland security harassed an 84 year old woman and then later realized she wasn't who they thought she was. Again, not totally sure here. But one thing was clear: they were clearly critical of homeland security b/c Obama is president. I am 100% sure that their news sources wouldn't have covered the story in as much depth if we were still with Bush II. This facet of the Republican/Democrat power switch is the singel most fascinating part for me. It makes me wish I understood psychology better.
Democrats were once discussing their own anger issues under Bush (wars, contractors, drone attacks) and now that the command has changed, there is silence. "Politics," we're told. "We have to stay in power." Ah yes, power. For the elliptical men, when Homeland security seizes people now, it's Obama's fault and invasion of privacy. When Bush's people did it, it was to keep us safe. When Bush's contractors ran wild around Iraq and his drones killed civilians, we Dems were outraged. We said it was a problem with the party in Power. We loved that our politicians stood up and said no. When Obama has increased the percentage of contractors and has killed even more civilians with drones than Bush, are we saying he has to be tough on terror so that Dems can win their midterms? Where is the clamor?
What the politicians are doing changes little. We the constituency is what changes. We back Our Guys when they are in power. We make excuses. We overlook. We instead focus on the evils of the other party. And then when Our Guys aren't in power, we point to all the terrible things the Other Guys are doing. We point harder. We get to be moral again. We get to say Our Guys would do it differently.
Back and forth. Back and forth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Up and down, up and down,
ReplyDeleteI will lead them up and down.
I am fear'd in field and town:
Goblin, lead them up and down.
I certainly don't disagree with the overall sentiment here... and what a challenge it is to not tie our fates, opinions, loyalties to a fallible human being!... but I do disagree with the idea that we are wholly backing Our Guy. Because Obama is doing exactly what he'd said he'd do in the campaign... which is "double down" in Afghanistan and work to pull troops from Iraq. (The Guantanamo shut down? Yeah that hasn't happened and I agree that's BS. But for Middle East war zones, I believe anyone who argues they were tricked didn't listen very hard during his campaign.)
ReplyDeleteYeah. I'm still sorting out my own thoughts here, but I do think it's hard to not tie ourselves to something (someone) so tightly. I want to be able to believe in things.
ReplyDeleteFor me, actually, hopefully in the future I will tie myself more closely to a politician than a party. Unfortunately it means I need to get my ass researching. (Bleh.) It means I can no longer just assume one side (Party) will do what follows my beliefs, which is what I've done for a very very long time. Quite ardently at times. But the party has to try and be everything for everyone. I think there's more hope that a candidate will reflect my beliefs. I hope I can find politicians who do. Or, who do most of the time. Or do most of the time but then don't fall into deal breakers. (Every person has a different set of political deal breakers. And I need to figure out which are mine. It's probably gun control. Everyone definitely has a constitutional right to carry a semi-automatic. Clearly.)
*cough*
But following this line of thinking probably means I won't be real gung-ho about presidential candidates in the future. It may mean however I'll be making school board candidate t-shirts. B/c that would be AWESOME.
But mostly it means I need to do a lot of thinking and trying to verbalize what I mean and why I mean it. Which can be hard.
Go you Huskies!
Oh! In a post script! Those guys are totally regulars. I went to the gym suuuper early today and was leaving as they came in. It made me sad at the missed opportunity to hear them talk. I gave the main guy a huge smile (I'm a smiling maniac at the gym) and he gave me a huge smile back. Like, "Good morning! Let's start this day right at the gym!"
ReplyDeleteWe would probably hate each other if we talked politics, or met on opposite sides of a rally, but it was nice to have an interaction, as human beings. This is what I want.