Recently, I was having lunch with a friend for whom I have great respect. She expressed that she believes she possesses great tolerance — with the exception, she said, of those with a differing political opinion.
That statement was a great clarifying moment for me. Here was this person, highly educated and intelligent, who is basically saying that she just can’t tolerate differing political opinions. I think of that conversation as an “a-ha moment,” an epiphany of sorts, as to all that I find troubling in today’s political environment.
There is nothing original in saying this, but I must say it nonetheless: I am sick, to the point of a primal scream, of this presidential contest, and of our political landscape in general. I have reached the point where I can barely stand to watch television. MSNBC or Fox — really, what’s the difference anymore? Their viewpoints, sure. But their rigid dogmas and rabid discourse? It’s just different sides of the same coin. I enjoyed every minute of watching the debates (as flawed as they are, the pureist thing yet in this election), but had to tune out as soon as the debates ended and segued into the talking heads and spin room.
Where is reason? Where is intelligent, respectful discourse? Where is objective reporting? My j-school professor Marty Brian, God bless her, must be turning in her grave…. There is no presumption of good will or good intentions, no even slight extending of the benefit of the doubt. They are bad; we are good. They are wrong; we are right. They are evil; we are honorable.
My friends, family, neighbors and acquaintances are about equally Republicans and Democrats (is that unusual these days?), and I know that it’s not that clear-cut. I have a “D” after my name, but my friends of differing political opinions are good people — but also people whose life experiences and independence of thought (imagine!) have led them to reach different points of view from my own. My Republican friends (my Republican-leaning husband included) don’t hate gays. They aren’t racist. And my Democratic friends aren’t looking to create a welfare socialist state that redistributes all income and suppresses free enterprise.
Some will say I’m naive — and maybe I am. I can see shades of gray (does that make me squishy? I don’t think so). But before you label me naive, remember how inspired so many of us were, four years ago, by that gentleman who encouraged us to rise above dogma and reach across the aisle and try to get along? Sadly, that particular experiment didn’t work out so well (there’s plenty of blame to spread around), and today those words seem almost provincial.
Of course I have my “line in the sand,” and I know there are extremist people out there who wish others ill will. But in my humble opinion, the vast, vast majority of the people in this country, regardless of their political persuasion, have good intentions and aren’t the extremists we are led to believe. We can’t reasonably assume that one’s party affiliation tells us the content of one’s character.
As I was writing this, I happened upon an interesting article addressing this same notion. (In the spirit of keeping it non-partisan, I won’t credit the publication.) It more artfully captures what I find so disappointing and divisive in today’s political environment. Allow me to quote just a few passages….
“For the past generation or two, Washington has been the not so hallowed ground for a political war. This conflict resembles trench warfare, with fixed positions, hourly exchanges of fire, heavy casualties on both sides, and little territory gained or lost. The combatants wear red or blue, and their struggle is intensely ideological.
“Before the 1970s, most Republicans in official Washington accepted the institution of the welfare state, and most Democrats agreed with the logic of the Cold War. Despite the passions over various issues, government functioned pretty well. Legislators routinely crossed party lines when they voted, and when they drank; filibusters in the Senate were reserved for the biggest bills; think tanks produced independent research, not partisan talking points. The “D” or “R” after a politician’s name did not tell you everything you thought about him.
“….The people Washington attracts now tend to be committed activists, who think of themselves as locked in an existential struggle over the fate of the country, and are unwilling to yield an inch of ground.
“…The War Between the Colors reflects a real divide in the country, the sorting of Americans into ideologically separate districts and lives.
” …the fighting never really stops.”
Life is compromise. Continued animosity is a drain on the national psyche.
Reblogged this on robert's space and commented:
hitlers problem all along.
Yes. You are naive, or at least selectively perceiving reality.
I have experienced more ugly intolerance among my liberal “friends” in the last four years, than anywhere since my 7th grade cafeteria.
I’ve also noticed that compromise is only heralded by the left, when it is your opponent that you expect to compromise, and when it is their principles that must change, not yours. I remember the hope and change guy, and the most telling clip is the one where he turns to the “other side of the aisle” and says “I won.” I watched C-Span and saw how much the left “reached across the aisle.” NOT.
The tone of the New Yorker clip you’ve quoted is what is to be expected as Romney strengthens in the polls. The left will be hoping to chip away by touting compromise, and nostalgia, while offering no compromise of their own. We’ve seen it before…
Not to be too argumentative, but this shores up my point.