Can't Stop the Insults
Regions of Mind is pondering the great red-blue chasm that runs through the ventricles of the nation, and the attempts to suture it. He points the way to a Slate reader-response section and "AnnaS," a " 'lefty' living in a red state," whom Slate holds up as a Kerry voter who, post-Nov. 2, wants to make peace and heal the wounds.
Wait a minute. How many evangelical Republicans saw the heads off people who disagree with them, then dangle them like trophies, then make a video of the whole bloody mess as a recruiting tool? I'm supposed to think this woman is mature because she now sees that evangelical Republicans aren't evil, just misunderstood -- why they're no worse than our old friend Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The people who didn't vote her way are not, she concludes after careful observation, "stupid" (though "ignorant masses" apparently still is on the table). That is, we're not totally stupid. Just stupid enough to be scared of what she is mature enough not to be frightened by (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, perhaps). And stupid enough to be victimized -- yes, we're victims! -- by a ruthless political party.
It would be easier to take such people seriously if they didn't behave like the worst cliches their enemies saddle on them. To get past thinking of us as enemies, AnnaS takes the only path available in her mindset: you disarm yourself of hatred for an enemy but visualizing him as a victim. Turn us into another pack of people who just are crying out for help, and sympathy and tolerance begin to flow. In the right light, I might even look like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Will that help?
Hell, I'm a college-educated, pagan, pot-smoking, ghetto-dwelling, licentious poet and journalist and I'm far less offended at being called a conservative redneck a**hole than I am being called a "victim."
Slate follows this response with another (from TarheelJag), coming from the other direction. This was meant to show the political flip-side of AnnaS, seeking the same healing and wanting to "turn down the volume:"
These posts hardly are bookends. AnnaS says, "you're not so stupid after all; you're just semi-stupid victims." TJ says, "You lost us because you can't stop insulting us." They don't meet in the middle, as Slate seems to hope, but both posts seem to me to prove one point.
Shall we set a precondition for red-blue dialogue that the blue side drop the snarky presumption that disagreement is only explained by ignorance? Visualize us as just as smart and concerned as you are. What do you want in return?
UPDATE 11/11: By which I mean, stop saying things like this:
Demonizing the other side is fun, but it's rarely accurate — whether you're talking about Iraqi insurgents or evangelical Republicans. And it's hard for even those ignorant masses to miss the irony of throwing rocks at people in the name of reason and liberalism.
If there's an advantage to living in a state that was called for Bush before 8pm Tuesday night, it's that we see the other side up close. They're our coworkers, our neighbors, members of our family. We can't paint them with broad strokes, can't point to them and call them stupid or willfully ignorant or cheaters. By and large, they're good people — in some cases, spectacularly good people — and we hold more values in common than not.
The biggest difference? They're scared, and they've been victimized by a political party that ruthlessly preys on those fears. And this sort of mean-spirited "us-and-them" name calling only makes it worse.
Wait a minute. How many evangelical Republicans saw the heads off people who disagree with them, then dangle them like trophies, then make a video of the whole bloody mess as a recruiting tool? I'm supposed to think this woman is mature because she now sees that evangelical Republicans aren't evil, just misunderstood -- why they're no worse than our old friend Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The people who didn't vote her way are not, she concludes after careful observation, "stupid" (though "ignorant masses" apparently still is on the table). That is, we're not totally stupid. Just stupid enough to be scared of what she is mature enough not to be frightened by (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, perhaps). And stupid enough to be victimized -- yes, we're victims! -- by a ruthless political party.
It would be easier to take such people seriously if they didn't behave like the worst cliches their enemies saddle on them. To get past thinking of us as enemies, AnnaS takes the only path available in her mindset: you disarm yourself of hatred for an enemy but visualizing him as a victim. Turn us into another pack of people who just are crying out for help, and sympathy and tolerance begin to flow. In the right light, I might even look like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Will that help?
Hell, I'm a college-educated, pagan, pot-smoking, ghetto-dwelling, licentious poet and journalist and I'm far less offended at being called a conservative redneck a**hole than I am being called a "victim."
Slate follows this response with another (from TarheelJag), coming from the other direction. This was meant to show the political flip-side of AnnaS, seeking the same healing and wanting to "turn down the volume:"
From Jane Smiley to Surfergirl, there is a strong message, sometimes explicit, other times implicit, that anyone who voted for Bush is an ignorant idiot. Far from the rationale and thoughtful discourse that I normally expect from Slate, these demeaning articles only serve to heighten the divide between liberal and conservative.
How can you criticize Bush for polarizing America when you so pointedly put down the opposition in a manner that isn't going to win you any friends, much less sway an "undecided" to think that you are right.
I'll stop short of a Rodney King-esque "Can't we all just get along," but I will close with this — if you want someone to listen to you, calling them ignorant is a poor place to start.
These posts hardly are bookends. AnnaS says, "you're not so stupid after all; you're just semi-stupid victims." TJ says, "You lost us because you can't stop insulting us." They don't meet in the middle, as Slate seems to hope, but both posts seem to me to prove one point.
Shall we set a precondition for red-blue dialogue that the blue side drop the snarky presumption that disagreement is only explained by ignorance? Visualize us as just as smart and concerned as you are. What do you want in return?
UPDATE 11/11: By which I mean, stop saying things like this:
"Fifty-one percent of the American people lacked information (in this election) and we want to educate and enlighten them," [Michael] Moore was quoted in Thursday's edition of Variety. "They weren't told the truth. We're communicators and it's up to us to start doing it now."
