A conservative friend of mine recently wrote me about the email signature that I've been using to mark Earth Day--it's from Barry Goldwater:
"While I am a great believer in the free-enterprise system, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean, pollution-free environment." (1970)
First, he noted Goldwater's age (I would point out that it was only six years after he had run for the WH); next, my friend asserted that pollution was much worse then (in 1970) than it is now, which is certainly true for burning rivers and the like, but asserting pollution is not a problem now is like saying that we're post-racial.
But the thing that most caught my attention was this: my conservative friend questioned whether I believed in all of Goldwater's doctrine, suggesting that if I didn't completely endorse his--or G. Gordon Liddy's or Ronald Reagan's or Pope John Paul II's--thinking/beliefs/morals/world-view/philosophy then I shouldn't quote them, regardless of the sentiment being expressed.
I found his line of thinking revealing--and this is not to single out just conservatives; many liberals operate the same way, and that's the problem--call it tribalism or team cheerleading but the result is a flattening of perspective and intelligent engagement of ideas. We tend to defend our "team" from the other side, our opposition. And this is how we end up with a "liberal" President who endorses the use of drones abroad that kill in our name indiscriminately. It's how we still have Gitmo; it's why nobody has gone to jail for the economic collapse of 2008, or nobody has been tried for the torture conducted under the last Administration; our government has killed at least two US citizens abroad, justification based simply on being accused; and Pvt. Bradley Manning is not the whistleblower he intended himself to be but instead is already an enemy of the state, presumed guilty before having gone to trial. Imagine, my fellow liberals, if these abuses (or worse) had taken place under our last President--I can hear the screams of protest from here.
But because he's one of ours, he has, for the most part, gotten away w/ it (mainstream media certainly haven't pushed on these issues w/ any authority. The other side? They can't get their noses out of the Birther websites or turn off Rush Limbaugh long enough to criticize, to challenge this President on things that matter, devolving their credibility in the process of constructing another conspiracy theory to replace last week's.
I don't think there is anybody--Republican or Democrat or even a Jill Stein--we should endorse without conditions, without accountability and transparency. This is blind faith and doesn't promote a vibrant democracy where we need to challenge policies and debate on issues--not root for our team to win. That's what tyrants teach and dictators desire.
* * * * *
I almost . . . almost included some lyrics here from Immortal Technique but decided to keep it PG ("read, m effers . . . read . . . ")
"While I am a great believer in the free-enterprise system, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean, pollution-free environment." (1970)
First, he noted Goldwater's age (I would point out that it was only six years after he had run for the WH); next, my friend asserted that pollution was much worse then (in 1970) than it is now, which is certainly true for burning rivers and the like, but asserting pollution is not a problem now is like saying that we're post-racial.
But the thing that most caught my attention was this: my conservative friend questioned whether I believed in all of Goldwater's doctrine, suggesting that if I didn't completely endorse his--or G. Gordon Liddy's or Ronald Reagan's or Pope John Paul II's--thinking/beliefs/morals/world-view/philosophy then I shouldn't quote them, regardless of the sentiment being expressed.
I found his line of thinking revealing--and this is not to single out just conservatives; many liberals operate the same way, and that's the problem--call it tribalism or team cheerleading but the result is a flattening of perspective and intelligent engagement of ideas. We tend to defend our "team" from the other side, our opposition. And this is how we end up with a "liberal" President who endorses the use of drones abroad that kill in our name indiscriminately. It's how we still have Gitmo; it's why nobody has gone to jail for the economic collapse of 2008, or nobody has been tried for the torture conducted under the last Administration; our government has killed at least two US citizens abroad, justification based simply on being accused; and Pvt. Bradley Manning is not the whistleblower he intended himself to be but instead is already an enemy of the state, presumed guilty before having gone to trial. Imagine, my fellow liberals, if these abuses (or worse) had taken place under our last President--I can hear the screams of protest from here.
But because he's one of ours, he has, for the most part, gotten away w/ it (mainstream media certainly haven't pushed on these issues w/ any authority. The other side? They can't get their noses out of the Birther websites or turn off Rush Limbaugh long enough to criticize, to challenge this President on things that matter, devolving their credibility in the process of constructing another conspiracy theory to replace last week's.
I don't think there is anybody--Republican or Democrat or even a Jill Stein--we should endorse without conditions, without accountability and transparency. This is blind faith and doesn't promote a vibrant democracy where we need to challenge policies and debate on issues--not root for our team to win. That's what tyrants teach and dictators desire.
* * * * *
I almost . . . almost included some lyrics here from Immortal Technique but decided to keep it PG ("read, m effers . . . read . . . ")
No comments:
Post a Comment