Rare political post

[emmagrant01]

I usually try to restrict my posts here to fluffy fandom things, but I feel compelled to do this. I'm angry. I'm disillusioned. And I'm really motivated to do anything I can to get W out of the White House.

I know there are people on my f-list who are Republicans, and who support Bush. If you like, you can skip the stuff behind the cut. ;-)



I was raised as a Republican. I was also raised as a Southern Baptist, and I think part of my issue with the Republican party is its alignment with the religious right.

I'm an atheist, but I'm pretty quiet about it. In general, I don't like it when anyone pushes their religion in my face, and most people don't, to be fair. One of my best friends is a minister, so I don't have a problem with people being religious. I think my big problem with the religious right is their assumption that it's perfectly fine for an entire country's laws to be based on their religion's holy book. I'm tired of being forced to pray at public functions (including the state Democratic convention, where I was a delegate), and I'm sick of the continued attempts to oppress people who are gay, bisexual, or transgendered. I'm pro-choice, I support gay rights, and am deeply offended that anyone would use the Bible to justify discrimination against any group of people in the form of controlling their bodies. (I know many Christians who agree with that sentiment, of course.)

I also have major issues with the war in Iraq, and Bush's horrid ignorance of the world outside our borders. It makes me sick to my stomach that my government has kept hundreds of people locked up in an internment camp in Cuba for two years, without charging them for any crimes or allowing them any defense. Geneva Convention? What Geneva Convention? It doesn't apply to us, you know. (And I don't count this latest attempt to satisfy a Supreme Court ruling, thank you very much. That's a farce, IMO.) It's un-American, and if any other country in the world did that, we'd probably invade them. We're holding these people based on what, our intelligence? The same intelligence that told us there were WMDs in Iraq? Yeah, I trust them.

Another part of my reluctance to support Republicans comes from my up-bringing, again. I grew up in the south, and many of my family members are Republicans because they see the Democratic party as belonging to African Americans and other minority groups they view with suspicion. In my family, being a Republican is definitely associated with being racist. I realize that represents a small minority of Republicans, but I can't separate my family's small-mindedness and racism from the issues they talk about. For example, they're against welfare and other public aid because of the stereotype of an unemployed black woman with eight children getting a monthly check. Telling them that welfare accounts for a miniscule portion of the budget in comparison to social security doesn't seem to make a difference. None of them have ever been on welfare. Those people are just lazy, they say. This is America, after all. The land of opportunity! You just have to work hard enough!

Of course, my own stories about working with battered women and teaching in gang-infested urban schools don't garner any sympathy for people who don't have the same opportunities as middle class folks. My family doesn't have any concept of the playing field not being level, because they won't even drive on that side of town for fear of being mugged. They just believe the stereotypes, and don't bother thinking for themselves.

I'm a big supporter of many causes the Democratic party traditionally champions, even though I disagree on free trade. (I think globalization is inevitable, and we'd best find a way to deal with it.) I'm all for tax cuts, as long as they go to the middle classes, where the people are actually likely to spend the money and contribute to the economy. (I'm a little tired watching people get trickled down on.) And as long as children don't go without free lunches or after-school programs as a result, or firefighters don't lose their health care, or senior citizens don't lose their access to medication. I'm more than willing to pay my share of taxes to help people who need it. I don't like my money going to support an invasion of a country based on a lie, so I totally understand where they're coming from. I just think they're wrong! ;-)

So I'm not a Republican for all of those reasons, and I hate W for others I won't bother detailing here. Mostly, I'm tired of being ashamed of the actions of my country. I really want to fly the flag outside my house again without feeling like I'm a hypocrite.



So that was more than you wanted to know, I'm sure! I do wonder about slashers who are Republicans, though. I mean, this president just tried to amend the Constitution to discriminate against gay people! How do you reconcile the anti-gay and anti-"porn" rhetoric of the party with participating in an internet community that embraces gay rights, women's rights, and free speech?

I really want to know, so please comment here. I'd love to have a thoughtful and reasonable discussion of this topic.

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I support gay rights (which I don't think the Bush team approves of), women's rights (which they do approve of, except in the matter of abortion) and freedom of speech (which you can't seriously say this Administration opposes.) However my support of Bush is based on his foreign stance, which is paramount to me right now. We - the Western world - are at war against people who want to defeat us. You think there are human rights abuses in the US (and I condone none)? Just imagine what it would be like to live under the Shari'a, or even in so-called secular Middle-Eastern states. Gays are executed in Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and were in Iraq until last year. (Read this New Yorker piece about the routine examinations a Baghdad hospital doctor used to make that sent gays to the firing squad. The guy lost no sleep over them.) As it happens, I support the idea of a national health coverage system. Considering that all these are bankrupt in Europe, the US should try & invent a different system; but I'm all for the principle itself.

I am French, so I know perfectly well that this Administration has not lost the godwill of European governments like mine (but not those of Poland or Italy), because there was none to begin with. You have no idea of how entrenched our anti-Americanism is. (In fact, if ever Kerry should win, all the Euros who say they prefer him are in for a shock; because his policies would still not be close to what our chattering classes would like.)

As for the racism of a minority of Republicans (and surely I only need to say "Southern Democrats" for you to see that this taint is bipartisan, you can't accuse the Administration that has Condi Rice and Colin Powell in key posts of sharing it.

But I think all this takes a second seat to the international situation; and those who say this administration has worsened it do not understand what's been going on. Sure, the terrorists don't like victims that fight back. (All the Guantanamo detaineed were seized in Afghanistan carrying arms for the Jihad. This is not a place you happen to be by chance because you took the wrong turn on the freeway.) Tough. It still is the only way to go.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting!

freedom of speech (which you can't seriously say this Administration opposes.)

So here's the thing: I don't feel free to express my views in public, especially concerning the war in Iraq. And this ain't my real name, so this doesn't count! ;-) The Bush administration has stated unequivocably that if you don't support their actions, you're "with the terrorists". I don't mean to say that the administration has actively prevented people from expressing themselves, but they've created a climate in which it's difficult to oppose them without being labeled as a terrorist yourself. Example: The Dixie Chicks.

There's also a feeling among Republicans that opposing Bush = not supporting the troops. That one makes me crazy, because it doesn't make any sense. You can support people and hoep for the best for them, and at the same time dislike what they're being forced to do.


We - the Western world - are at war against people who want to defeat us.

I think the current political situation is much more complex than "us vs. them", though. Most of the people who oppose the US and its actions and policies are not out to conquer the western world.

Just imagine what it would be like to live under the Shari'a, or even in so-called secular Middle-Eastern states.

Oh, yes! Absolutely! I seethed for years that the Clinton administration did little about the Taliban, and that the Bush administration initially reversed the economic sanctions the Clinton administration applied. (Gee, wonder if that had anything to do with an oil pipeline somebody wanted to build?) It was only when the US needed to bomb Afganistan that anyone seemed to care about teh horrible oppresion of women there.

And don't get me started on Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Wonder why we don't invade those countries, if the whole point (in retrospect, when no WMDs surfaced) was to liberate the people? If the US decided to make it a policy to go around the world and free oppressed people, I'd be all for it, because that is something I could believe in. What sickens me is the fact that we were lied to about why we invaded Iraq, and when the lie was revealed, the reason for going just... changed.

Yes, Clinton lied about getting a blow job in the Oval Office. This is on a completely different level though.

You have no idea of how entrenched our anti-Americanism is.

Oh, but I do. My husband and I travel a lot, and we've experienced some of that anti-Americanism for ourselves!

I only need to say "Southern Democrats" for you to see that this taint is bipartisan

Of course. As I tried to emphasize above, that's based on my admittedly limited experience with people in my family. The reasons why I'm an atheist are also based on my personal experience. It was an attempt to explain my feelings, and not a brand on Republicans in general.

That said, I have to say that the southern Democrats I know have very different opinions and perspectives on minorities than do the Republicans. Again, I only have my personal experience to go on.

those who say this administration has worsened it do not understand what's been going on.

Here I simply must disagree with you. The US had a lot of support from the international community after 9/11. Bush's decision to invade Iraq without broad international support lost most of it. It's also made this country look like horribly hypocritical. We value freedom, yet we lock up supposed terrorists without due process? We thumb our noses at the UN and the rest of the world, and do what we want because (in the words of Bill Clinton) we can?

It looks like we are miles apart on this issue! Thanks for participating in the conversation anyway -- I appreciate it.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Thanks for commenting!

A pleasure! You set the tone unagressively and with a willingness to listen to different points of view. That’s pretty rare!

So here's the thing: I don't feel free to express my views in public

Well, here’s the thing for me: part of my family lived under Communism (and my parents remembered Nazism quite well; I was a late birth.) I interviewed many Soviet dissidents when I started as a cub reporter. And this has nothing, but absolutely nothing to do with what happens to you under a regime that does not respect freedom of speech. Our world (not to mention LJ! I don’t know how I built my flist, love ‘em all, but they’re 90% pro-Kerry!) is full of people expressing different opinions. Yes, they are sometimes brutally contradicted, but that’s the thing about freedom of speech…

There's also a feeling among Republicans that opposing Bush = not supporting the troops. That one makes me crazy, because it doesn't make any sense. You can support people and hoep for the best for them, and at the same time dislike what they're being forced to do.

I agree with you on this (not being anti-war, but being both anti-war and supporting the troops; yes of course that’s possible. IMHO misguided, but definitely possible.)

I think the current political situation is much more complex than "us vs. them", though. Most of the people who oppose the US and its actions and policies are not out to conquer the western world.

Well – I don’t suppose Germany and Russia and my own country want to conquer the world; but their UN votes have supported the side of people who do want that. Radical Islam does want to conquer the world. Here is another absolutely terrific New Yorker piece, on the new generation of Al-Qaeda, which gives a bit of a notion of the mentality of the people attacking the Western world, to avenge medieval slights. (Seriously! It turns out, for instance, that the Madrid bombings were planned at least one year before the war in Iraq, and had more to do with Bin Laden’s much-echoed claim to Andalusia, Moorish Spain, “lost” in 1492.)

And always remember that 9/11 was planned under Clinton, whose foreign policy (or absence thereof) had always been of appeasement and divestiture when it came to radical terrorism.

Oh, yes! Absolutely! I seethed for years that the Clinton administration did little about the Taliban, and that the Bush administration initially reversed the economic sanctions the Clinton administration applied.

Now this I never saw anywhere. Could you point me to some documentation about it?

And don't get me started on Saudi Arabia, or Iran. Wonder why we don't invade those countries, if the whole point (in retrospect, when no WMDs surfaced) was to liberate the people? If the US decided to make it a policy to go around the world and free oppressed people, I'd be all for it, because that is something I could believe in. What sickens me is the fact that we were lied to about why we invaded Iraq, and when the lie was revealed, the reason for going just... changed.

There are so many things in answer to this…

1. Agree totally with you on the utter unloveliness of Saudi Arabia and Iran. That being said, Iraq was in violation of 17 UN resolutions, & shot at US and British planes every day. Saudi Arabia is nominally an ally (although they finance the terror networks, and I for one favor breaking diplomatic relations with them and buying oil form Angola and Russia. Iran, say all analysts, will actually blow up of its own: it has a population that’s 75% under age 25, who’ve known nothing else than the Mullahcracy they suffer under, and they’re organizing as we speak (go read Iranian blogs! There are many in English.)


(to be continued)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

2. There so were, or rather had been, WMD in Iraq – if only because the Iraqis declared themselves some tens of thousands of liters of Sarin to the UN inspectors as late as 1998, at which date said inspectors were kicked out. Tens of thousands of Iraqis (Shia and Kurds) had actually been gassed by Saddam. Israel had blown up a French nuclear reactor in 1981. Who was to tell that the whole programme had turned pear-shaped, and Saddam’s mangy scientists were lying to him? (I personally think, based on various interviews of Syrian opponents, that Saddam hid the stuff in Syria, and that the Syrian government then dumped the whole caboodle at sea.)

At any rate, Bush did not lie. He sincerely believed the WMD were there, as the 9/11 commission has confirmed.

3. Actually – US policy does favor democracy, which we Eurps sneer at. It still is a very admirable worldview. (You could use the same argumlents against joining the fight in WWII. As I owe my very existence to the victory against Nazism, I am rather sentimental about democracy-loving Americans.)

Yes, Clinton lied about getting a blow job in the Oval Office. This is on a completely different level though.

Clinton’s foreign policy was actionable. It’s because of Dahran and Mogadiscio and Kenya that Bin Laden called America a “defanged tiger”, ripe for attack.

Oh, but I do. My husband and I travel a lot, and we've experienced some of that anti-Americanism for ourselves!

Oh, my poor egg, where?

Here I simply must disagree with you. The US had a lot of support from the international community after 9/11. Bush's decision to invade Iraq without broad international support lost most of it.

See, my government (with which I am in violent opposition, as I’m sure you’ve guessed) masterminded this supposed international opposition for completely selfish reasons (yes, oil is one, in our case) and to oppose the Americans on the world stage - to exercise out nuisance value, since it’s the only way we can delude ourselves that we’re still a superpower. And still there were some 40 countries in the coalition; so what are the Poles? The British? The Italians? The Hungarians? The Japanese? Chopped liver? *g*

We value freedom, yet we lock up supposed terrorists without due process?

“Supposed”? Caught on the battlefield with weapons? France may be violently anti US, but we’ve immediately locked up the four French nationals who were freed three days ago from Guantanamo; and they’re being charged with terrorism all right. I have no problems with Guantanamo. (I have plenty problems with Abu Ghraib, now.)

We thumb our noses at the UN and the rest of the world, and do what we want because (in the words of Bill Clinton) we can?

You’re reversing the positions. The UN has been thumbing its mad nose at the civilized world for decades. Naming Libya and Sudan to the Human Rights commission? Pocketing billions of dollars in bribes in the oil-for-food scandal, all the way to Kojo Annan, son of Kofi? The UN should clean house before it peeps a word about the US.

It looks like we are miles apart on this issue! Thanks for participating in the conversation anyway -- I appreciate it.

Yes we are – and this is almost the first time I explain myself on this on LJ; the debate on everyone else’s journals was so unpleasant that I usually keep mum. Thank you! Don’t let this dissuade you from writing a sequel to LMH!

[helens78]

I don't mean to say that the administration has actively prevented people from expressing themselves, but they've created a climate in which it's difficult to oppose them without being labeled as a terrorist yourself. Example: The Dixie Chicks.

o_O The Dixie Chicks have been labeled terrorists?!?!? All I heard was that they were booed off stage by a crowd that paid to see them, and were later boycotted.

Seriously, this is an argument I keep hearing from the left, over and over -- that people are being "kept down" by the right, that it's not OK to espouse your own beliefs, and so on, and so forth. I've actually written two pieces in my political LJ on these things -- one rant, specifically mentioning the Dixie Chicks, and one much longer piece explaining why I don't think what happened to the Dixie Chicks in any way constituted censorship or an abridgment of free speech.

Boycotting's been a way for private, individual citizens to express dissatisfaction with businesses, celebrites, etc., for a very long time. I don't think booing and boycotting celebrities for their political views is censorship-level behavior. Those celebrities can say anything they please -- they just have to accept that there will be consequences.

I sympathize with your personal discomfort back in the days when you had to sit through prayers and didn't feel comfortable not making it look as though you were praying, but unless you would have been arrested for it, I don't think that's a case of forced religion, either.

Our Constitution's a wonderful thing. It provides for a lot of different freedoms, no matter how many times both major parties would prefer to throw those freedoms away. But nothing in the Constitution has ever claimed that you have the right to be totally comfortable no matter where you go or what you're doing, and I don't think it should. I think it's vital that personal comfort be self-created and self-protected and not a matter of government edict, because anything the government has the power to give you, the government has the power to take away. (Which is why I believe the government should have as little power as possible.)

(yeah, look at me stirring up trouble again. feel free to tell me to go away...)

[emila-wan.livejournal.com]

Too right. Censorship is when the *government* makes law against free expression. No jackbooted soldiers burst down the doors and dragged the Dixie Chicks to jail for insulting our president. No official government action of any sort happened. They simply found themselves hoisted by their own petard, as many of their fans exercised *their* freedom of expression in turn.

That's what's so beautiful about America!

[lauramcewan.livejournal.com]

heh, I see the other side of this on the website I work for. We have rules about what can be discussed, or how (personal attacks, language) and when we we enforce the rules they agreed to when the signed up (for a free site, I might add) they start yelling "violation of my free speech rights!"

um, no. Your free speech rights mean you can go make your own website and set the rules for it yourself, just as we did, and that you can criticize your government without fear of imprisonment.

So folks threaten to leave and stop buying our products. *shrug* Yeah, we don't like folks leaving, but the rules were there when they joined. We certainly cannot force them to stay.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

All I heard was that they were booed off stage by a crowd that paid to see them, and were later boycotted.

Clearly that played differently where you live than it did where I live! After Natalie made her comment about being ashamed Bush was from Texas, it was all over the local news here, and the same was true where my parents live. There were tons of interviews with citizens who were shocked and horrified, and radio stations were saying they wouldn't play their music anymore. The local variety show had a Dixie Chicks segment that they promptly dropped. People my husband works with told him they thought Natalie et al should be arrested for treason, and compared them to Jane Fonda. And when the DC came on tour and did a show here, there were protests and demonstrations. The local news stations were down at the arena interviewing people on both sides.

Go ahead and ridicule me if you like, but here's the thing: It was bizarre, and revolting, and it shook me because that could have been me. There was this feeling here at the time that if you liked the DC, you were aligning yourselves with the terrorists. I'm not exaggerating; people really said that. And all the group had done was publicly express their opinion about the president.

Was this a loud minority, or was it the majority? It was difficult to tell, because all the media showed us was the people who were vilifying the DC. People who supported them or agreed with them did it very quietly. It isn't like that anymore, thankfully, but there was a brief period of time in this country where people who did not agree with the administration's actions were told to "love it or leave it", in no uncertain terms. It isn't so much like that now, but I refuse to brush aside such intimidation tactics.

Yes, people can boycott whomever they choose! Yes, people can say what they like! Do you seriously think I'm advocating restricting speech? *rolls eyes* Then you haven't been reading what I've been saying at all.

My point in using this example was not that the DC were censored in any way. The government did nothing to them, personally. What did happen was that they were made into evil terrorist-sympathizers by a bunch of small-minded people. Someone wanted a scapegoat, and they were convenient. The media jumped all over it, and it became an example of what would happen to celebrities who stuck their noses into politics. Other artists have since come forward and expressed criticism of the Bush administration and the war, and it's not the same now as it was at that point in time. I completely believe it was the atmosphere of suspicion and fear and mistrust created by the Bush administration that caused people to react that way.

And I still get riled up about it, because I still hear people making snide remarks about them, still equating them with terrorists. Yes, celebrities should take responsibility for what they say and be prepared to face the consequences. The Beatles learned that the hard way too. But there was an atmosphere surrounding that incident that I'm not going to soon forget. It was the first time I was afraid to express my opinion to people, in my life.

I absolutely agree with you that the government should have as little power over individual liberties as possible. Oddly, republicans say they believe this as well, and then try to legislate what people can and can't do with their bodies. That's a completely different issue, though.

[helens78]

Clearly that played differently where you live than it did where I live!

Yeah, it did -- I live in Seattle, where it's so rare to see a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker that it attracts notice. Where peace rallies on many street corners are a weekly event, and when people who are anti-abortion stand on street corners, they get booed and honked at angrily. It didn't even really cause a burp in the local news, and if I hadn't heard about it over LiveJournal, I probably wouldn't have heard about it at all. I had no idea any of that happened regarding the Dixie Chicks, and where I live, there has never been any kind of "love it or leave it" sentiment -- the LiveJournal attitude of "Bush is a demon and anyone who likes him is a stupid fucking moron" is exactly the sentiment that is publicly expressed in Seattle. I would be far more afraid to say "Bush isn't so bad" than to say "I agree with the Dixie Chicks" here, not that I'm afraid to say either one.

On the other hand, do you remember Rick Santorum? The guy who went on about how gay marriage was equatable to incest or pedophilia? He was vilified here. People thought he was the next antichrist -- only not exactly, because no one in Seattle is religious. Maybe 30% of people go to church here, if that. You know how one of the questions you get in small talk that follows up "what do you do for a living?" is "where do you go to church?" I've lived in Seattle for four years, and no one has ever asked me that. I've never been asked to pray at a public event. It simply isn't expected that you have a religion at all, and it is considered nobody's business.

Seattle also has a very high minority population -- many, many Indians (as in people from India) live here because of the technology industry, there are of course a large number of hispanics, and there's a huge Asian population. (On the other hand, I've heard black people refer to Seattle as one of the whitest cities ever because there's not much of a black population here, oddly.) One out of ten couples here, if not more, is multiracial -- I've seen the 10% statistic in the local paper, but honestly, judging by what I see on the street, it's a lot more than that. Gay people can kiss on street corners. So yeah, where I live is very different from where you live.

Yes, people can boycott whomever they choose! Yes, people can say what they like! Do you seriously think I'm advocating restricting speech? *rolls eyes* Then you haven't been reading what I've been saying at all.

Here's the thing: I do think Democrats are just as likely to want to restrict speech as Republicans. They just want to restrict different kinds of speech. Many Democrats want to make "hate speech" illegal, or punishable by heavy fines. Many Democrats want to make "hate crimes" more strongly punishable than just plain "crimes". I think hate crimes are revolting, yes, but I do not want to live in a society where you get three life sentences instead of two because of what you were thinking at the time you committed a violent crime. I don't want to live in that society because the minute government can decide which thoughts are desirable, they can legislate any thoughts. The minute government can decide which thoughts are "harmful", any thoughts can be branded harmful.

Oddly, republicans say they believe this as well, and then try to legislate what people can and can't do with their bodies.

So do Democrats. Every single abortion bill and every single gay rights bill has had advocates on both sides -- and Democrats, by the way, are the ones I usually hear advocating smoking bans, which in my opinion (and I don't even smoke!) is a major blow to what people can and can't do with their bodies. You don't want to inhale smoke? Go to a nonsmoking restaurant -- with or without regulation, there are tons of them. How about seatbelt laws for cars, or motorcycle helmet laws? Democrats again. This is not something that can be pointed at and restricted to one political party. There are libertarians who don't believe in abortion, too.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

So, one of the things I realized as I read this was that I've lived in Republican states for my entire life. I've lived on the east coast, in the west, and in the south, and every place I've lived has been a "red" state for as long as anyone cares to remember, and will continue to be "red" for the foreseeable future. I've always been to the left of everyone I know. I've always been a "kooky" liberal socialist left-winger. In fact, until I started participating in slash fandoms, I'd never known what it was like to be a part of a group of people who thought like I did on so many issues.

It's hard for me to comprehend it being any other way. Texas is the worst of all the places I've lived in that the Republican party here seems to believe it holds a monopoly on "family values" (or "Texas values" -- not sure what those are, but I bet I wouldn't like them). The word "liberal" is a brand put on even moderate political candidates, and candidates actually boast that they're the most conservative in the race. (Seriously, the political signs say things like "Conservative Texas Values". *shudder*)

It's not that I think Democrats are any better than Republicans when it comes to allowing free speech or other things; it's that all of my life experience has been that *I* am the one who is derided, or ignored, or attacked for believing differently than the majority. It's a bit mind-boggling to think that there exist places where people on the left hold that "tyranny of the majority" over people on the right. With the exception of faculty meetings at the university I work at, I've never experienced it any place I've ever lived.

Democrats, by the way, are the ones I usually hear advocating smoking bans, which in my opinion (and I don't even smoke!) is a major blow to what people can and can't do with their bodies.

Opening another can of worms here, I know, but I actually support smoking bans in public places. My grandfather died of lung cancer, and I'd rather not be subjected to anymore secondhand smoke in my lifetime, thanks. I don't like the government telling me what I can do with my body in the privacy of my home, or the privacy of my doctor's office. But if something someone else is doing is harming me, I feel like I shouldn't have to tolerate it.

Whole other issue, though. You're right that there are people on both sides of every issue in every party. I'm always fascinated by people's reasons for choosing one party over another, when in some regards, the parties aren't so very different. That, in a nutshell, was what my post was about in the first place.