Re: Nice Planet XI: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off!
I'm probably more interested in your view of this than anybody's (and certainly more than mine, which I already know). So I'll lay out what I think and I'd appreciate it if you would respond in kind.
In my opinion (with no empirical proof):
(1) Policy positions that Republican candidates now regularly advocate used to be restricted to drunks at last call, fringe talk radio callers, and John Birch Society members.
(2) The right has become more far violent in its rhetoric. (Like you, I don't have data to tell whether they have become more violent in actual actions, although I suspect they have.)
(3) The right now presents every single issue as an irreconcilable matter of good vs evil. What used to be restricted to arguments about abortion now engulfs everything from environmentalism to foreign treaties to the tax code.
(4) The righty gun fanaticism is getting REALLY creepy.
Since you stand in direct opposition ideologically, I'd like to know if you agree at all with any of these concerns. To be clear, I believe the vast majority of conservatives (95%) and even of Republicans would never resort to actual violence, and are just being internet blowhards. But all things above scare me a little -- (4) scares me a lot, because once the shooting starts you get vengeance cycles that can go on for decades.
Let me preface my response by making a couple of comments.
First, I'm not certain I am necessarily qualified to answer very good questions you pose. Notwithstanding my appearances in some of these threads, I don't consider myself a real political person. I've never given money to a party or candidate. I've never run for office. I've never attended or otherwise participated in a party meeting or caucus. The closest I ever came to hands on political involvement, beyond voting, was the time I moderated a non-partisan City Council debate in my hometown.
Second, I have a couple of general opinions/observations about the state of politics and changes I've observed. The first is that in the late 60's and early 70's, when I first became aware of politicians, whatever you might think of the positions, or intelligence, of people like Tip O'Neill, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon, and whether they were at their core good people or not, they were "statesmen." There was a measure of professionalism, courtesy, even
class if you will that simply does not exist in politics today, or if it does, it gets virtually no publication.
Third, we have become a society of "instant response" which has coarsened public discourse to an enormous extent. Thirty years ago a work mentor gave me an invaluable piece of advice. He told me that if I ever found myself writing a particularly pointed or angry letter, to set it aside after it was written, wait until the following day, then read it again before mailing it. I follow that advice even today as I respond to emails. Far more often than not the letter or email never gets sent, or is written in a vastly different tone. In the world of twitter, message boards, facebook, etc..., responses must be and are immediate, and too often people speak (write) before the brain is fully engaged. This results in stupid statements, and in a world where no one can ever admit they were wrong, we get the defense of stupid statements, which is even dumber in my opinion.
With that rather lengthy preface, my thoughts regarding your questions are as follows:
(1) I've never really listened to drunks at last call, talk radio or John Birch Society members, but I agree that the current Republican party talking points, at least on a national level, have moved. As I understood national Republican policies when I first started to vote, they were all about limiting government interference with business, lowering taxes and government spending and a sufficient national defense budget to protect against Soviet invasion. I believe the national Republican party has moved more towards personal and away from economic issues, certainly to their detriment.
(2) I don't know if "violent" is the term I'd use. It is certainly more strident than in decades past, but I think that is at least partially true for the Democratic party as well. It has also certainly become much more personal and coarse. In my signature on this Board I have a quote about public discourse from Learned Hand that I've always liked. I can't even imagine a public figure writing or uttering such a phrase in today's world. Instead it would be something like "This world has gone to h e l l because President Obama doesn't want to let me come on tv and tell you all Mexican's are rapists."
(3) Again, I don't know if "good and evil" are the words I would use. From my point of view it's all "win or lose". If the other party wants something, we have to be against it. I agree the Republicans are probably more guilty of this than the Democrats, but that may be in part based upon what each "wants." We have simply lost the ability in this country to compromise.
(4) Gun issues really don't bother me, but maybe it's because I was brought up handling guns and around guns. I once took a Civil War era black powder gun to school (it actually works), when I was in the second grade for "show and tell." Not sure I'd get away with that today.
I'll throw in a personal note regarding guns, and what I've seen in the last decade or two that I find "interesting" rather than "creepy."
As I wrote, we had guns in our household since I was born. They were all shotguns or rifles, and with the exception of the aforementioned Civil War musket, were used for hunting geese, ducks, deer, bear, or a variety of other animals. My father never owned a handgun, and when asked why not, simply said they were too dangerous and he had no use for one.
Now, my dad and my brother are both well-respected, and well educated leaders in their community, and although I've never asked, I suspect both lean Republican in their politics. About 8 years ago I discovered both had gone out and acquired "conceal and carry" permits, and had actually each bought a handgun. Candidly, I was pretty shocked. Both, independently, gave me the same response when I asked why. They both said they thought there was some chance that the law was going to change that would make it extremely difficult, if not impossible to acquire such a permit or gun.
At the same time, I happened to be in a Cabela's outdoor store with a friend, and I watched him buy about 20 boxes of handgun ammunition (he sells insurance). Again, when I asked why his response was that you simply can't find that ammunition anywhere, so when you come across it in a store you have to stock up on it.
Both of these situations were identical. Neither was brought on by an intent, overt or subliminal, to engage in some criminal activity. To my knowledge neither my father's nor my brother's handguns have been fired to this day. Their actions weren't creepy, to my way of thinking. Basically they fell victim to a form of marketing. Someone told them they weren't going to be able to get something. The statement was made for purposes of gathering votes, but had the secondary effect of creating an entirely artificial demand for something they otherwise had no intention of buying. I think what you see today in this country regarding guns and ammunition is explained in large part by that precise phenomena.
And I'm not speaking for the GOP. I'm speaking for myself.
