I am a hypocritical moron. I did something the other day that I am incredibly angry at myself over – something that other people do to me all the time, and that I hate.
I’m a Christian Jewish liberal gun-hating pro-choice pro-gay rights evolutionist creationist. I sympathize with both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict and I think anarchy, democracy, and communism are all pretty nifty ideas. I think legalizing marijuana makes a lot of sense but I don’t touch caffeine. I trust lawyers over doctors and I’m a feminist who adores guys. And I hate when people assume that since I’m a smartsy liberal I’m an atheist; or that since I love Jesus I hate gays and the Clintons. Any time I want to discuss my views I have to explain or excuse them first, and this is beyond frustrating to me. I feel like I have to prove myself by preaching to the choir before I can make any points. The things listed above shouldn’t have to be contradictions – beliefs and views do not come as a one-size-fits-all bargain bundle pack – but people think they are because they’ve been presented that way.
So I was thoroughly ashamed when the other day I (wrongly) assumed that a libertarian-leaning atheist was rabidly pro-choice. Turns out that the question of human life and its origins, rights and value isn’t religious or political, but personal – and I knew that, I really did, but I allowed myself to be brainwashed by the blue vs. red mentality we have going on, and I jammed my foot into my mouth quite uncomfortably.
This is why I get so annoyed at the democracy of personalities we have constructed in America. No one human is a perfect package, and the way we have the system set up, it doesn’t exactly lend itself to finding the best candidate for the job as president. We don’t have Executive Branch scouts out finding and auditioning the best and brightest minds – we have mostly rich kids from privileged families rising to the top. The way I see it, there’s more of an equal selection process to cast the next star of Final Destination 908 – and they aren’t expected to write, direct, or produce; but a presidential candidate is expected to hold balanced and “complementary” views on economics, military actions, social policies, etc.
When we force all these decisions to fall to one or a few human beings, we cheat ourselves out of democracy. True democracy votes for ideas, not people. The focus on Obama’s pastor is a perfect example – instead of squabbling over his influences, his past, his ideals, we need to demand a game plan we can say clearly “yes” or “no” to. I don’t want to sit around and speculate about his inner psyche – he should tell us what exactly he would do in certain situations and we should judge that. It is, of course, then our job to hold candidates to that standard – lying is not nice, and when Bush denies saying something that he’s been filmed on camera saying, there should be more of an outcry. That’s the closest we can realistically get to voting for ideas and decisions over people. Ideally, there would be a neutral Executive who carried out the wishes of the masses: every morning there would be new issues on the table (“Should we declare war: yes or no”) to decide on. This would be true democracy and it would allow people to be more informed and involved. What we have now forces the bundling of ideas I discussed before, which is frustrating. I’d like to be able to vote for a candidate who will carry out true Christian values in office – “purity, understanding, patience, kindness and love” (2 Cor. 6:6) – but I think today those who claim to be furthering God’s agenda are getting it pretty wrong (and they endorse a religion that encourages me to say this: Romans 16:17-18*).
So here’s the real issue: people come in unique packages capable of thinking for themselves, and thinking independently on every separate question. Objectively, owning guns for self-defense has nothing to do with whether or not you support the right to a homosexual marriage and neither has any impact on whether you think the Iraq war is right. This is why politics of personality is dangerous and damaging to democracy.
What we can do about it: refuse to participate. Only engage in discussions about candidate’s relevant political ideologies, and shut down any gossip about “omg Hillary Clinton’s hairdresser has a gay goldfish” (DISCLAIMER: I made that up) by pointing out its irrelevancy. We’re stuck with a system that unfortunately forces personality politics, but supporting legislation that regulates campaign donations/spending is a step in the right direction. And spread the awareness that leaders/ideas don’t get to dictate entire belief sets by refusing to make assumptions and allowing ourselves ideological flexibility, considering separate issues separately.
*"Watch out for people who cause divisions and upset people’s faith by teaching things that are contrary to what you have been taught…Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests."
Recommended reading:
New York Times: Taking their faith, not their politics, to the people
The Washington Post: Communion denied for supporting pro-choice Obama
Focus on the Family's response to the claim that one can simultaneously be gay and Christian
New York Times: Liberal explains why he's against same-sex marriage
One reporter's take on an unconventional juxtaposition of views
5 comments:
"Any time I want to discuss my views I have to explain or excuse them first, and this is beyond frustrating to me. I feel like I have to prove myself by preaching to the choir before I can make any points. The things listed above shouldn’t have to be contradictions – beliefs and views do not come as a one-size-fits-all bargain bundle pack"- the story of my life.
I read this after glancing at a headline on yahoo news about how "hip" Obama is versus McCain; a whole 2 page analysis on Obama's signature fist-bumping. THESE PEOPLE NEED TO FIND SOMETHING REAL TO WRITE ABOUT.
I hate that the "liberal vs. conservative" political denominations have been severely twisted in America during the last half century. Traditionally, both terms can be used to describe an individual's stance on whether they'd stick to the status quo or push for reform. Not the political labeling we see today. (the examples you used).
Props, blogger. Excellent read.
haha, well I know if I'm going to elect a leader he better be one snazzy dude. Kind of like how I only listen to music if I agree with the singer's opinions on ethnic foods. and how I only read books if I'd invite the author for a sleepover (sorry, Lovecraft).
I imagine you've got plenty of interesting stuff to say about people who make automatic assumptions re: your politics/beliefs/attitudes.
and thanks.
Do you really want the masses running the country though? I for one can think of very few ideas worse than people who don't see why a poll that says 72% of people support something doesn't make it true running our country. That being said, I rather like this essay. Labels are for soup cans. And cans of 5.56 rounds.
of course "the masses" can be wrong (what religion is Obama?) and I didn't say that type of democracy would be the best thing ever; i said it would be a purer democracy than what we have today. also if things were like that I think there would be a feeling of more responsibility all around to educate/be educated. your second sentence took 5 re-reads to get, by the way.
Post a Comment