Do you hear what I hear

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

I stopped writing about politics about a month ago. Mostly because it was giving my hypertension, but also because it makes me sad. It doesn't seem like there's much middle ground these days, and each side is so filled with righteous indignation they often can't hear what the other side is trying to say. Or alternatively, they hear all too well what the other side is trying to say, and it makes them even angrier. Welcome to the modern incarnation of the Southern Strategy, otherwise known as dog-whistle politics.

As a liberal, I freely admit that my ear is more closely attuned to the dog-whistles used by the right than the ones used by the left. For example:

When conservatives say, "Let's take our country back," what I hear is, "I'm an angry, scared, white, CIS dude, and the fact that the women and the browns and the gays want to compete on equal footing with me, want to be protected equally under the law the same as me, and want to deprive me of my unearned privilege fills me with anger. I want to go back to the days when these 'others' drove the economy for my benefit alone because I'm blind to the experiences of those not like me."

When conservatives say, "I don't believe in being politically correct," what I hear is, "I don't believe in treating others with respect, because doing so removes the emotional charge from my argument and then I have to win based on facts, figures and merit, rather than an emotional, knee-jerk reaction." 

Do these interpretations mean I believe every conservative is a blind, unenlightened racist with no inner life or empathy for others? No, I don't. I truly believe that people of good conscience can disagree about the role of government in our lives without ascribing evil motivations to those with a different worldview.

But I think these specific phrases, and the history behind them, is code for an entire set of policies and motivations that does not bear close examination. They lead directly to the continued oppression of historically oppressed people, and they attempt to dismiss and ignore the generational burden of being black, or brown, or female, or a member of the LGBTQ community. The fact that often those who use these phrases are shocked at the suggestion that they would be categorized in a such a way is immaterial. Manipulative, shitty politicians have been using this nonsense for years to mobilize an angry, scared base, and the fact of the matter is that they work. If the people who are using them can't clearly articulate why they're angry, or scared, or exactly who in their mind they need to wrest control from, then I would suggest they need to do some additional soul-searching as it relates to their political opinions.

There are equally damning allegations against the left, of course. From what I'm able to discern, the conservative base considers the phrases "Social justice" and "Social programs" to mean "Taking money from hard-working people and giving it to lazy good-for-nothings who don't want to work." Or the term "Christian fundamentalist" is apparently code for the left's desire to persecute Christians.*

The point, I guess, is that neither side assumes the other is capable of seeing the "truth." The "truth" about how we're all manipulated by big money in politics, the "truth" about what's REALLY compromising the integrity of our economy, the "truth" about the motivations of the opposition.

For myself, I will continue to measure political positions based on the categorical imperative: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

By that yardstick, we're all pretty fucked up. I can only vote for those individuals who come closest to this ideal. As Paul Wellstone put it, "We all do better when we all do better."

________
*I have trouble even typing that one without giggling uncontrollably. "Persecution." SNORT.

0 comments: