“The Others” in other applications

I know, these titles are getting repetitive. As long as each post is, they are part of a greater whole, and I am going somewhere. I think the titles will start using different words though, for differentiation if nothing else.

My main contention has been that the problem is with taking sides. I don’t know why we are like this. I guess choosing one side over another takes away ambiguity, but it also takes away accuracy. So the police feel beleaguered, and it is reasonable, and citizens are worried about police brutality, which is also reasonable, but the end result seems to be that people quit examining what they need to change and only focus on how they are wronged. (Maybe the reason I don’t relate is my deeply ingrained tendency to always think things are my fault. There are problems with that too.)

Anyway, this leads to my concern with how partisan politics has become lately. It’s the same principle. My side is threatened by your side, so it becomes perfectly okay to vilify and lie and do whatever is necessary to make sure your side loses. The weird thing is that I think it is important to let emotions play a part in your political philosophy, but it feels like it gets taken too far, where no intellect is taken into account.

Here is where I will admit some possible shortsightedness. It seems to be that this mindset is worse on the right. That may just be a result of the last cycle of losses, which did upset the balance, and so the threat factor comes into play again, but it seemed like it was that way before too—that conservatives were more likely to deal in insults and ignore facts, while liberals were more likely to be giving reasoned responses and trying to keep the argument calm.

Now, an article I recently read mentioned this occurring on both sides, and gave specific examples, so clearly there are liberals doing it too. I guess I still feel it less because I am not encountering it as often. My opportunities to encounter things primarily come through conversations with acquaintances, as well as Facebook postings, letters to the editor as featured in The Oregonian, and comments posted on AOL articles. I don’t generally watch television news shows or listen to talk radio—I prefer getting that information through print and internet media.

Probably that preference is because it seems to be more intellectual rather than emotional. I assume they write scripts for these shows, but I believe they spend more time on the writing when it is being turned into an actual article, and going through that process makes a difference. It can make you be clearer, because you have to stop and think, and the reader will have time to stop and think, and it is just a different mindset.

So, coming from that background, it looks like the conservatives are bigger jerks. I remember when I wrote my own posts against Matt Wingard, I did go back to check various sources, and I spent some time on blueoregon.com, reading their articles and the comments posted. Again, most of the people who were in agreement were very thoughtful—they referred to board history (going back two decades no less), they quoted other articles, they wrote in complete sentences—and the people who were against it could only say “You’re bad!” (I’m paraphrasing, but not as much as you might think.)

Now, do you see what I did here in expressing myself? I explained what my impression was, admitted some lack of knowledge but explained where the knowledge that I did have came from, and it’s civil. That’s what I like. Sure, it’s nice when I agree with someone, but you can disagree without calling someone a cancer and wishing them dead.
When we take that mentality of it being a fight, with a wrong side and a right side, suddenly we have created enemies, and we assume the worst about them.

I remember recently a small dust-up over whether Costco should be allowed to take food stamps, and how dare anyone who could afford a Costco membership get government aid! Well, okay, but what if they had just renewed, and then lost their job and were getting aid, or had a friend who had a card and would help? Because if you are feeding a family on a tight budget, Costco is great. You can get a 25-lb bag of rice for $8, when 5-lb will cost you $6 at a regular store. Peanut butter is a great deal too. Not everything there is a good deal, but there are some things that can really help.

Also there is a poll on whether drug tests should be administered to welfare recipients. Certainly, the purpose of welfare is not to free up money for drugs, but if you have your hard cases scamming the system, they probably have a method for passing the test. Apparently those tests are easy to work around. Would it really prevent bad people from getting something for nothing, or would we just be taking another shred of dignity from someone who doesn’t have much left? (I admit, my feelings on drug testing have changed since reading Nickled and Dimed.)

I have another example, but I am going to save it for later. The next post will be deeply personal, putting a face on this liberal who has been unemployed, underemployed, and struggling with debt and hoping for socialized healthcare.