I got an e-mail from a fellow (non-political) blogger yesterday, in which the writer pointed out that we’re on opposite ends of the political spectrum, indicating that perhaps this might be a problem for me. I suspect that I’m inferring more than was implied, but this is a recurring theme in my life. I often encounter people who, knowing a little about me, feel compelled to point out to me that they are Republican. This often done with a little doubt, a measure of concern, even a tone of confession. Not because they have a problem with being Republican, of course, but because I am a Democrat.
For those who do not know me, this may sound strange: politics ain’t that important to me. Political affiliation is even less important. You will never hear me refer to “GOoPers” or “rethugs.” I’m not holding back — I just don’t think in these terms. I do not view Republicans as enemies. You are not a Jew and I a Nazi. Not only are we two individuals with a common goal (a better world), but — and this may come as a shock to some — there’s a great deal going on in life that is not politics.
I began blogging about Virginia politics a few years ago for one simple reason: nobody else was. I sat down for lunch with the Sorensen Institute’s Sean O’Brien sometime in 2002, if memory serves, and told him that I thought there’d be value in creating a cvillenews.com-style site about state politics. I figured it would be useful. So I did it.
If I stopped blogging about Virginia politics tomorrow, I wouldn’t be sad. There is a large, vital Virginia political blogging community. If Saturday’s Summit on Blogging and Democracy in the Commonwealth goes well, my self-assigned role as community busybody will be obviated, and I may no longer serve a particularly useful role in this particular community. This isn’t a threat to bail on blogging about Virginia politics — I have no such plans — but merely an attempt to describe the role that it plays in my life. I wanted there to be a blog about Virginia politics. Now we have sixty. Mission accomplished. My interests may wander away from politics in the future, and I feel good that nothing will be lost if I do so.
What excites me — what I really enjoy blogging about — are the structures of community. Laws are one such structure. Customs are another. Politics (which bridge customs and law) are yet another. There are the structures that permit us to communicate and form community. Blogs are one. The Thomas Jefferson Center’s chalkboard is another. More specifically still, Flickr, blog aggregators, and community WiFi are digital structures that enable and create community.
I’ve chosen to blog about politics, from my perspective as a Democrat, for the past couple of years. But that’s not who I am; it doesn’t define me. And that’s only one small piece of what is, for me, likely to define what I do for the rest of my life — studying the mechanisms and structures that form community and determining how we can use them and modify them for the betterment of us all.
So don’t confess that you’re a Republican. It’s not a problem for you, and it’s not a problem for me. We can talk about baseball, human migration patterns in Indonesia, linguistics, R.E.M. or long-distance backpacking. We can even talk about politics, if you want. You like the Royals, I like the Red Sox; you are a Republican, I’m a Democrat. There’s more to life.
I agree with Waldo, there is more to life than political labels.
He and I, for instance, get along quite well, despite our disagreement on issues 77.45 percent of the time. And I know that even at a table full of libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives, Waldo can more than hold his own in conversation without departing from civility. (I hope he can say the same about me at a table full of liberals.)
Partisanship is a lot less divisive than people make it out to be — or wish it to be. In my experience on the Charlottesville Electoral Board, for instance, which by design has two members of one party and one member of the other, our few disagreements are seldom, if ever, defined along party lines. When we can’t reach consensus, it is because we disagree for reasons other than partisanship.
Am I correct? Royals to Republicans, as is Red Sox to Democrats?
Low blow to Republicans, Waldo…;)
Great post.
Am I correct? Royals to Republicans, as is Red Sox to Democrats?
I originally wrote “Yankees,” but I decided that was just plain mean. :)
“Royals to Republicans”? I’ll bet Waldo didn’t even realize that Rush Limbaugh used to work for the Kansas City Royals, when he came up with the analogy. But then, Red Sox Hall-of-Famer Ted Williams was a Bush supporter, so we can’t get away with making political connections to baseball teams with any degree of consistency.
Yeah, great post. (Or, should I just say “ditto”?)
That’s how I felt for years. I am pretty conservative on many issues and in many ways could have been classified as a Republican as recently as 2000. Pro-gun, pro-military, pro school vouchers, in favor of student-led school prayer, anti-affirmative action, opposed to late-term abortions, in favor of balanced budgets and smaller, less intrusive government. That was the bait on the GOP hook in the late 90’s, right?
Then the Republicans started rounding up minorities and POWs and torturing them. Most of the GOP rank-and-file excuses and supports this. So now it’s different. At best, these people are in the same category as those who lived just down-wind from Auschwitz. It is morally wrong to ignore this truth for the sake of conveniently getting along with them in social situations. None of my other political goals cited above and no social discourse is anywhere near as important as torture and murder. I really can’t imagine how these people could be any worse unless they were to actually kick the prisoner in the teeth themselves.
Those who torture and murder deserve punishment and shame. Period. Ordinary Republicans are responsible for the needless murder of tens of thousands of ordinary Iraqis, the torture of at least hundreds of prisoners and the continued imprisonment of thousands upon thousands of people without any legal due process. This isn’t some budget disagreement or different ideas about the role of government. This is torture and murder and it is unforgivable by moral people. Republicans have become a cancer representing some of the most vile behavior that mankind is capble of. Anyone still on board after the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered is not entitled to the least bit of respect, save a recognition of the basic human dignity that they deny to others.
Don’t kid yourself for the sake of ‘just getting along.’
Waldo is definitely on the right track. The right goals include the betterment of society.
The problem with ATA’s arguments is that they offer no links to source material. For an inside view of the “terrible conditions” at Guantanamo Bay we only need to read this recent article by Rowan Scarborough in THE WASHINGTON TIMES.
August 8, 2005 – Harry Potter has become favorite reading for Islamic terror suspects at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay. Lori, a civilian contractor, who for two years has overseen the detention center’s library, said J.K. Rowling’s tales about the boy wizard are on top of the request list for the camp’s 520 al Qaeda and Taliban suspects, followed by Agatha Christie whodunits. Read more…
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050808-121804-4322r.htm
Ok, ATA’s comment is generalization at best. What it in large part ignores is the complicity – through inaction, if nothing else – of those that do not label themselves Republican in any actions that may or may not have been taken, at multiple levels of government. After all, we have government by representation in the U.S.
One would be greatly mistaken to state that Democrats do not commit murder, or torture others – criminal behaviour by itself is neither Republican or Democratic. Neither is moral behavior, religious belief, or self-sacrifice.
As an example, both the co-chair of the Scott County Republicans and the chair of the Scott County Democrats are people of high moral integrity, who work hard for the betterment of people other than themselves, and sacrifice a great deal personally to do so. Neither of the two are “a cancer”, neither represents the “most vile behavior” people are capable of (quite the opposite), and neither of the two condone or commit rape, torture or murder.
They do both have passionate and differing views on the proper role of government, and how to go about achieving mutually desirable goals. This makes neither of them evil. This makes neither of them unworthy of respect. This also makes neither of them responsible for the smallness or greatness of character exhibited by persons other than themselves, at any level.
—
Side Note:While I’m coming to suspect that even after the upcoming blogger’s summit, there won’t be a great deal of “Virginia political bloggers … holding hands and singing Kumbaya together”, I do hope that there won’t be lines drawn in the sand as harsh as the one ATA is drawing. That would render the entire gathering a waste of valuable time.