Before I begin, want to make very clear that I don't consider myself to be a liberal. I don't consider myself to be conservative. I do, however, consider myself to be a free thinker. The simplest way I can think of to put my beliefs is that I don't believe that "because it's always been done this way" is a good enough reason to keep doing it. Which, I suppose, makes me nonconservative, by definition. On the other hand, I also believe in smaller, responsible government; I believe in spending what we have, not what we want to have; all of which are traditionally conservative views. I believe that we need to be careful with our funds, but progressive in the social arena. I believe in a woman's right to choose; but that the husband should be allowed some say in the matter. I believe that government should be small, but not so small that it can fit into its citizen's bedrooms. As I understand it, that puts me pretty much smack-dab in the middle of the political spectrum.
Next, I want to point out that I personally reject the whole concept of labels. I'm Drew MacCannell; I'm not "Straight, White, Male, Biophysicist." Although all those things apply to me, they aren't who I am.
But a lot of people in the political arena, particularly in the US, have been demonizing their opponents by slapping the label "Liberal" on them; but for some reason that I cannot fully ascertain, slapping the exact opposite label carries no such stigma.
One of the worst things that can happen in any political campaign is to be painted as an extremist at either end of the political spectrum; and with good reason: extremists of all political slants are kinda scary. What worries me, is what, exactly, is labeled as "extremist."
The US is currently in the midst of a political quagmire as they try to decide who will step into Sandra Day-O'conner's seat on the Supreme court. Bush has nominated Harriet Miers; which is actually a far more reasonable choice than I'd dared to expect from our illustrious president; her lack of judicial experience notwithstanding. Her political views seem to be largely middle-groundish. She's in favor of gay rights (although she hasn't voiced any opinion on same-sex marriage yet); she's danced around the issue of abortion; she seems to favor separation of church and state. Although, I hasten to add, she's got no judicial experience; ergo it is nearly impossible to determine her views on many issues simply because we have no rulings to base such an assessment upon.
Far more interesting that Miers' actual views on the issues is the reaction of Bush's conservative base. Somewhat surprisingly, a number of Conservative groups; not the least of which being Focus on the Family, have been absolutely adamant that Miers is not what they're looking for. They went on to invoke current sitting justice Antonin Scalia by name, announcing that they wanted another justice with his views installed.
Now, I'm scared.
Antonin Scalia is quite possibly the single most terrifying Supreme Court Justice currently sitting on America's highest court. To describe him as conservative is a massive understatement of his actual views. He has repeatedly voted against Roe v. Wade, and has risen several times against the separation of church and state, the rights of minorities (including gay and lesbian couples). He was one of only two who voted against the supreme court decision that a gay man could not be arrested for sexual activity within his own home.
And what really scares me is that asking for another Scalia on the supreme court seems to strike much of the political clout in the US as perfectly reasonable.
How did it happen that being even marginally liberal somehow meant that you hated everything that America stands for; but being radically conservative didn't? How did it happen that being slapped with the label "liberal" was the ultimate kiss of death for your political future, but being slapped with the label "conservative" wasn't?
As previously mentioned; my political views sit, as I understand them, pretty much in the middle; but in the US, I may as well be a radical left-winger. There's a view which is becoming scarily prevalent, that you're either conservative or you're not. It seems as if it's suddenly becoming acceptable to shift to the extreme right wing, to the level of extreme protectionism, homophobia, and barely-veiled racism, but if you shift to the left of Alan Keyes, you're a radical leftist.
Suffice it to say, my trip down to the states this christmas will be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Yeah, your trip to the states might be a bit Twilight Zone. My friend from California has calmly and graciously withstood and mostly agreed with all our friends lecturing her on the evils of American politics. The last time she went back, she found out her dad voted for Bush. Naturally, she had a bird. He adamantly said that he voted against (wishywashy) Kerry, but she remains in shock.
It can be hard to avoid politics, but you might want to try it a bit for your own comfort. If Auntie Em says something that sounds borderline scary-conservative or offensive, you might want to let it pass by, unless you think that Auntie Em might actually reconsider her viewpoint if you dive into the deep murky depths of political discussion. Well, if you like Auntie Em, I'd say leave it alone. If Auntie Em gave you socks again for Christmas and you don't mind losing the connection, dive on and good luck.
When I say this, I remember talking about religion and minimum wage with a good friend from South Africa. She was 16, and the daughter of a minister. Strangely enough, when we talked about religion she was pretty open to leaving me in my agnostic state. When we talked about the importance of minimum wage, I felt like I had turned over a rock and found something disturbing underneath.
I knew that I might be getting into dangerous territory, but I thought that she was open-minded enough to see my concerns. She said that her young black housekeeper was treated okay, had her OWN ROOM, meals included, and could go out on Saturday nights. What else could she want?
I sort of sat there, thinking - but Lida, you want a degree in Medicine, a family, and your own house. Why should she want less?
Anyways, when I got out of the conversation without saying something irretrievably offensive, I realized that I had been lucky. And because Lida was so young and openminded, I might have even changed her views a bit. But it is a practice that I recommend only in certain circumstances.
If your family is anything like mine, you might be better off if you leave the iffy topics alone, and just chow down some more turkey. Not that my family is very good at that. . . our Christmas dinners are only made bearable by the wiser family members (rare white sheep in our motley herd) who try to distract the rest of us.
*clap clap clap*
Best blog post ever! (this season)
Is this why we Canadians scare and confuse Americans... what with our liberal government and gay marriage and everything.
That's pretty much the situation as I see it.
Interesting, though, is the fact that during the whole Bill C-38 debate, a number of candian MPs reported getting an almost interminable string of phonecalls from American conservative groups asking, nay, demanding that they vote against the gay marriage bill.
First off, what business is it of theirs whether Canada decides to vote same sex marriage into law? Second, why on earth would they care? Whether C-38 passed or not would have had absolutely no effect whatsoever upon anyone currently living in the States.
Interestingly enough, the legislature in the state of California recently voted in favor of same-sex marriage. The governator decided to veto it; in spite of his campaign promise never to exercise such a veto.
So, as I understand it, the general rule of thumb in the states is as follows:
-the actions of the judicial branch are invalid, since they are not the "will of the people", however, in California, the actions of the courts are preferrable to the legislature, so the opposite rule applies.
-the actions of the representative legislative branch is invalid, as it doesn't represent the "will of the people", except in Massachusetts, where the judicial branch is the invalid actionary member and the legislature acting to overturn their constitutionally-based decision is the proper course of action.
-the actions of the executive branch, acting against the will of the courts and the legislature is a heinous abuse of power, if it is in San Francisco or New York and the action being taken is to bestow rights upon citizens. If it is the governator of California, acting against his own campaign promises and against the elected representatives of the people, then that's an okay thing.
-In other words, it would seem that the good ol' GOP intends to implement a full chaosocracy where the majority has absolute power over the minority and can abuse them and deny them any and all rights via the voting booth, thus overturning the constitutional, representative government which has served us up until today, using the "might makes right and makes your rights invalid" theory of government. The mob mentality right now makes this the most efficient path to achieve their desired results, much as has been done in many past governments, with limited, yet hideously disasterous results.
Summary: Tearing apart the very basis of government in this country and hurtling towards ruin is okay, as long as, in the process, they make sure them faggots don't get adequate health care, family, and estate options, since that'd be disasterous.
Is that about the situation as it stands right now?
Post a Comment