We Aren't All One-Dimensional

[bigtree]

I don't know if most of the folks I work and live with are liberal or conservative. It doesn't usually come up in conversation, but, I can certainly see for myself that most folks I know have a number of perspectives and beliefs which don't usually fall into one ideological basket or the other.

Here at DU, many of us tend to see and respond to differences of opinion among us in stark terms of right and left; progressive and conservative; Democrat and republican. Yet, we'd be hard-pressed to conduct our lives that way and still function. I know that some do try and make those distinctions in the real world. Workmates or acquaintances, for instance might find room and opportunity to discriminate along political lines, but that hasn't been prevalent to any great degree in my experience.

It's been the ambition of the right-wing, for decades, to divide Americans among the ideological lines they draw between their own culture and the rest of the emerging population's based on exploiting social fears and promoting jingoistic nationalism.

Race is a familiar wedge that the right-wing has used to distinguish their own political following from the diverse membership the Democratic party has enjoyed since they broke off from the Dixiecrats and became defenders of civil rights and activists on behalf of poor and working-class Americans who comprise a large proportion of the minority community.

The republicans have recently taken to appealing to their mostly white base of voters' fear of that emerging minority-class which is slated to dominate the workplace in this century. We saw that political resistance bubble-up during the nomination and election of the first black president. We saw republicans work to exploit fears of black domination of the political landscape by denigrating the registrars who were signing up black voters in record numbers. We saw a campaign to convince that our American-born President was, in fact, Kenyan or Muslim in an attempt to divide support among the racial lines they had drawn.

We also see black pundits, pols, and political operators who have worked to stake out their own racial minefield, endeavoring to place President Obama on a tower in the center and posture as a defender of minorities and racial tolerance.

The danger in all of that is the likelihood of regarding everyone we work with, live with, and relate with outside of here with the same, divisive, ideological perspective. I daresay, that's the ultimate aim of political manipulators and operators.

The fact is, most Americans have a myriad of issues and concerns which motivate them politically and otherwise. That shouldn't have to be vocalized, but there's been so much blurring of interests and ambitions surrounding this historic presidency that it bears saying.

Blacks aren't one-dimensional. Whites aren't one-dimensional. Liberals aren't one-dimensional. Conservatives aren't either. Certainly, in this political bubble that we enjoy here on this progressive message board, there are stark lines being drawn between viewpoints. I suppose all of that may need to be sorted out into these little ideological boxes we create to help us keep track of where we're coming from in our little discussions.

I'd wager, however, that the majority of the sorting out is just flat-out incorrect. It just stands to reason. We can't possibly be all that much less complex and thoughtful than the rest of the electorate. We think deeply and look for answers to confirm what we feel, experience, relate. We aren't one-dimensional.

[FamousBlueRaincoat]

1. the left-right paradigm of politics has been broken for a long time

If it was ever more than just a label to make things easier for journalists.

There are plenty of good and bad people on both sides. There are authoritarians and anti-authoritarians on both sides. There are *legitimate* populists on both "sides".

One time in Saint Paul, Minnesota, during the republican convention, I sat with a couple hundred others occupying a bridge, surrounded by police. There was pepper spray and the cops were shooting tear gas cannons. I gave some strangers vinegar to use on their bandannas to help them breathe. These strangers were Ron Paul delegates to the RNC, who had given up their seats to Code Pink members, who later interrupted the convention, and instead faced down riot police with other people who know things are not always so simple.

Things are simple for people who need them to be simple.

Awesome thread.

[OregonBlue]

2. Other than political junkies like those of us at DU, most people don't pay that much attention.

They're way to busy trying to do their jobs and pay their bills and raise their kids. I think they have a general sense of what goes on but they sure as heck don't follow every bill day in or day out. They don't see everything in black and white, right or left, they're just trying to get by.

[bigtree]

4. even many political junkies on DU

. . . don't always pay all much that much attention. We're busy trying to do our jobs and pay our bills . . .

[bigtree]

3. great story

I won't try and top that. :)

[Hannah Bell]

7. The character of the footsoldiers isn't really the issue. The character -- or loyalties -- of those

they carry water for, is.

Don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but there are lots of 'good people' who vote Republican, too. One reason it irks me when people (here) talk about them en masse as though they were all mouth-breathing idiots.

I'd bet there were even 'good people' who supported Hitler early on as well.

The fact that 'good people' believe something & fight for it is a kind of useless observation, & a 'simple' one.

[bigtree]

9. the point is

. . . that we all make up a coalition of concerns, no matter what movement, party, ideology, racial group, gender, sexual orientation . . . no matter what walk of life you identify yourself with. We aren't all one-dimensional in the way we think about and experience the issues and concerns we all say we care about here.

How our leaders often respond to us reflects that ambivalence of purpose, intent, and belief that we all share.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. And so, since we're all stirred up in this great gob of mush,

there's not much point in standing for anything at all, is there.

That how you end up with 'progressives' voting to give the uber-rich giant tax benefits while defunding Social Security.

Nobody has any principles anymore, and therefore can't see the results coming from their attempts to 'get along'.

[bigtree]

16. I don't see it that way

Your 'principles may well lead you to support one political strategy or another. Your principles may well not see the value in some political compromises, for instance, where others' principles may lead them to support political compromises. It's not just a matter of some feel-good/get-along thing that would lead some to support political compromises. They may just feel like the deal is the best they can get at the time to defend other principles which would fall to the wayside if they didn't compromise. That's nothing new in our political system. Folks might not trust that legislators have a chance in hell of revisiting these issues and producing any different outcome, or the outcome promised by the ones digging in their heels.

In many ways, it's just not a sustainable position to be absolute about the outcome of most political debates. Our government is the place where we bring our different ideas and attempt to reconcile them into action or law. It's inherently geared toward compromise.

We can take absolute stands outside of government because we're subject to nothing but our own conscience. But, elected legislators come from many diverse regions and bring with them many disparate views and motivations. Not every one of them is going to get their own way. They must build coalitions which agree to vote for their initiatives. It's unrealistic to expect that just one view, without reservation or alteration, is going to gain the support needed from the myriads of interests that make up our legislature without some compromise.

Of course, there's always room in our political system to 'fight' and be obstinate. The solution to that is seldom just some surrender by an opposing interest. Our political system provides many avenues to reconcile our differences. That's how most legislation advances; through negotiation and compromise. That's actually one of the most redeeming traits of our country's democratic system of government; our ability and willingness to compromise. It doesn't take a government to just stage a fight. It does take one for the folks we elect to work things out and to endeavor to agree on solutions.

That's been the hallmark of our system of government; remarkably responsive, really, compared to the majority of nations around the world and their institutions that wield and exercise power over their citizenry without regard at all to what they want or need.

[Faryn Balyncd]

5. Thanks for a wonderful thread, bigtree.

(I cannot imagine who would have unrec'd this, and put it underwater. I'm sure that will be temporary.)





:hi:





:kick:

[bigtree]

6. thanks for reading

:hi:

[blondeatlast]

8. I'm not "either/or," I'm "yes, but" and "no. but..."

Well said. The fact that here at DU we are frequently expected to choose one side or another--on a political opinion message board, no less--speaks to that.

If one isn't holding seemingly conflicting or confusing ideas, one isn't trying hard enough to understand or worse--that one is blindly following.

Thank you for a thoughtful post. k/r (edit--and still at <0 as the blonde sighs sadly...)

[BobbyBoring]

10. I agree 100%

I have a friend that is a dyed in the wool Ditto Head. Believe it or not, it's fun having one B/C I befuddle the daylights out of him. His core belief is everyone is either lib or con, lefty or righty. This is what they are taught by their mentors. How can it be that I am a liberal but think Affirmative Action is not such a great thing and abortion shouldn't be considered a blank check for casual, unprotected sex? Maybe I'm not a liberal but someone who has a variety of convictions??

Once you start a dialog, it's easier to break down this falsehood. It's also easier to point out the hypocrisy of the far right. Many of the true wedge issues like abortion and gays boil down to mind your own business issues. You want government off your back but you want them to police a persons sexual preference (if it is that) or number of family members??

No, we're not 1 dimensional and if we can break down this myth 1 person at a time, we might have a chance of salvaging this nation~~

[elleng]

11. Absolutely, and thanks, 'tree.

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. Nice Rant but I believe that the physicists are right on dimensions

I do enjoy your posts but lately they hardly even 2 dimensional
let alone 1 dimensional
when there is at least 7 let alone 11, dimensions we know of.......LOL

I've studied your posts for years and I think this is my second response to you.

Many of your threads I have kicked and nominated but lately
Not so much, though I don't give it a negative, I hardly do that with anyone BTW.

I think you need to rethink dimensions, .

[bigtree]

17. the problem might be

. . . how you view participation here. Many folks see this board as a campaign tool. Day in and day out they post here hoping to maintain some sort of political momentum from here. It's kind of like a dual steering wheel that's actually disconnected from any drive.

If you look around the board, there is plenty of dissent and angst to satisfy anyone. I can't for the life of me understand why the few folks who bother to represent what our Democratic president and our Democratic legislators are doing are treated like some big threat. If folks are actually secure in their own opinion, then why is there such a urgency from so many to denigrate folks who may disagree?

I think there's great value in presenting a pov (the administration's) that's so regularly ignored and misrepresented here. There's almost zero value for me to join in the din of dissatisfaction and apathy that makes up the majority of popular threads here. I can't believe there isn't enough of all of that already.

What's been lacking from our debates is a representation of what our administration actually intends and represents. You won't find that perspective forthcoming from the wall of dissension that graces each and every page of our discussions here. I think the debate needs that balance, so I try and provide that. I don't think I have to make any apologies about that. This isn't a campaign and I'm not a campaigner. I'm an individual with MANY points of view, based on my life experience. If you can't respect that, fine. I can live with that. I'm not trying to win some popularity contest. Nor, am I overly concerned with carrying some politicians water.

What I seek here is balance to our discussions. That's not occurring at a level that I'm comfortable with, so I find myself searching for and compelled to include that perspective into the midst of discussions. I don't think that effort or ambition deserves the scorn it's received here lately, nor the derision I've personally experienced from posters in response.

Most of what I see here at DU are folks who actually share the same goals, but disagree strongly about how to go about effecting our ideals and policies in our political system. That divide between strategies consumes most of the discussions here, and is presented as a irreparable divide. Yet, we only expect such fealty to each others' ideals inside of this Democratic bubble we've created.

Outside of here, we're pulling for as many votes as we can on election day. It's a curious tactic from some that intends to create deep and permanent divides among folks who disagree on strategy, but agree on most policy ambitions and goals. Maybe it's natural to expect more from ourselves in our debates than we would from the electorate at voting time, but our members here at DU are also real people who can't live their lives under the absolutes we sometimes expect in our political discussions.

I'm a real person with real-life struggles and limitations. I have a perspective that's unique to that life experience. It would be nice if folks would recognize that as they work to cram all of my opinion and advocacy (and that of everyone else) into some little box of their own bias.

[H2O Man]

13. In Rube's new book,

he writes about Americans who live and with each other; send their children to the same school, and attend the same after-school activities together; who drive similar automobiles, watch the same television programs, and read the same newspapers; who celebrate the same holidays, and eat the same foods; who wear the same styles of clothing, and laugh at the same jokes. But who are convinced that they are existing in very different realities.

"Kundalini is the force that keeps us in a hypnotic state." -- G. I. Gurdjieff

[bigtree]

18. so then, opening ourselves and our minds to others' opinions

. . . helps us recognize our similarities, and the differences we perceive fade into the background.

Kundalini. Very insightful, H2O Man.

[puebloknot]

14. K&R I often agree with Ron Paul, even though he's a Neanderthal ...

... on women's rights.

I see too much demand for party loyalty on this site for my taste.

And "one dimensional" is still fine in a literary sense. I dated a physicist for years who was very much one dimensional in a social and personal sense, though he could wow me with the latest scientific findings, and pat me on the head when I seemed to understand at least a little of it!

Thinking for ourselves is sometimes scary and may create loneliness and alienation from followers of *any* given philosophy. I fear that, too often, followers of any stripe are in the game for the warm feeling of belonging to something.

Good post. You certainly struck a nerve with someone(s) regarding all the unrecs. It's my humble opinion that the unrec feature needs to be tombstoned, and if people disagree with something, they should be required to step up to the plate and state why, rather than taking cowardly potshots at someone who has bothered to offer an honest opinion.

[bigtree]

22. I don't see demands for party loyalty

. . . as much as I see demands for ideological fealty. That makes it easy to include and exclude viewpoints at will because of the nebulous and often narrow definitions of what it means to support one ideology over the other. Party loyalty is out of vogue right now.

[puebloknot]

23. Oh, really! I've seen flame wars with one particular writer ...

... who does not mind chastising her fellow DUers when they don't follow the party line.

I *hope* party loyalty is out of vogue right now. Rumblings of protest are cropping up, so maybe there's hope. And viewpoints are likely to be shaped, more and more, by fiscal reality.

Butidealogical fealty is more dangerous than party loyalty, in my view!

[Jeffersons Ghost]

19. Your OP has drawn too many unrecs to recommend. I can't see why but here's a kick

[BumRushDaShow]

20. K&R

And agree with JG... so many unrecs on this OP for whatever hateful reason that some have but am reccing anyway. :hi: Sad that so many calm voices of reason are being shouted down by the hysteria on DU.

[bigtree]

21. meh, urecs

tanks!

[Telly Savalas]

24. The unrecs make sense

There are two corollaries to the OP:

1. Statements like "Mr. X needs to move towards the left to win" oversimplify matters to the point of being childish.
2. Consensus-building is a critical part of political progress.

While both of these statements are basic common sense for folks not living in a bubble of dogmatism, they're in direct contradiction with the core beliefs of a very large number of people who post here.

[Scurrilous]

25. Thanks.

:thumbsup: