Excerpt: "No longer oblivious, I couldn't remain in today's Republican Party, not unless I embraced an individualism that was even more heartless than the one I had previously accepted. ... My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality."
Jeremiah Goulka writes, he could not remain in the heartless Republican party. (photo: Charles Dharapak/AP)
Confessions of a Former Republican
11 September 12
ere, to my mind, was one strange aspect of the political convention season just past: since the great meltdown of 2008, brilliantly engineered by various giant financial institutions gone wild, we've seen a collapse in the wealth of middle-class African Americans and Hispanics, and a significant drop in the wealth of middle-class whites. Only the rich have benefitted. Though the draining of wealth from the middle and its fortification at the top have been a long time coming, the near collapse of the economy four years ago was a disaster whether you look at the rise in unemployment figures, poverty, the use of food stamps, gauges of upward mobility, or just about any other grim measure you'd care to employ.
All this suggests that the twenty-first century has largely been an American riches-to-rags story. It was this that gave both political conventions an almost fairy-tale-like quality, since the single life trajectory featured prominently at each of them by just about every speaker you'd want to cite was the opposite. Everybody, even Mitt Romney ("My dad never made it through college and apprenticed as a lath and plaster carpenter..."), was obliged to offer a wrenching, heartwarming tale of rags (or relative rags) to riches (no relative about it). The theme, heavily emphasized at the Republican convention and an undercurrent at the Democratic one, wasn't I feel your pain, but I celebrate my gain.
There are, in our world, so many journeys of every sort. It's strange to see only one of them emphasized and celebrated, the one that, at the moment, is perhaps the least likely to speak to the actual experience of most Americans. With this in mind, TomDispatch today offers quite a different journey - not economic, but political, and of a sort no one usually thinks to write about. It's Jeremiah Goulka's trip out of a particular kind of fantasy world and into what, in 2004, Karl Rove (then an unnamed source for journalist Ron Suskind) pejoratively called "‘the reality-based community' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'" Rove added - that moment being the highpoint of Bush-era imperial self-celebration - "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
Goulka's is a tale of how one man left a party that, in recent years, has had, in Jonathan Schell's pungent phrase, "a will to fantasy," and embarked on a hard-won trip into reality. There are so many more such stories in our country. Maybe someday some political convention will have the nerve to celebrate some of them. (To catch Timothy MacBain's latest Tomcast audio interview in which Goulka discusses his political journey, click here or download it to your iPod here.) Tom
Joining the Reality-Based Community
Or How I Learned to Stop Loving the Bombs and Start Worrying
I used to be a serious Republican, moderate and business-oriented, who planned for a public-service career in Republican politics. But I am a Republican no longer.
There's an old joke we Republicans used to tell that goes something like this: "If you're young and not a Democrat, you're heartless. If you grow up and you're not a Republican, you're stupid." These days, my old friends and associates no doubt consider me the butt of that joke. But I look on my "stupidity" somewhat differently. After all, my real education only began when I was 30 years old.
This is the story of how in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and later in Iraq, I discovered that what I believed to be the full spectrum of reality was just a small slice of it and how that discovery knocked down my Republican worldview.
I always imagined that I was full of heart, but it turned out that I was oblivious. Like so many Republicans, I had assumed that society's "losers" had somehow earned their desserts. As I came to recognize that poverty is not earned or chosen or deserved, and that our use of force is far less precise than I had believed, I realized with a shock that I had effectively viewed whole swaths of the country and the world as second-class people.
No longer oblivious, I couldn't remain in today's Republican Party, not unless I embraced an individualism that was even more heartless than the one I had previously accepted. The more I learned about reality, the more I started to care about people as people, and my values shifted. Had I always known what I know today, it would have been clear that there hasn't been a place for me in the Republican Party since the Free Soil days of Abe Lincoln.
Where I Came From
I grew up in a rich, white suburb north of Chicago populated by moderate, business-oriented Republicans. Once upon a time, we would have been called Rockefeller Republicans. Today we would be called liberal Republicans or slurred by the Right as "Republicans In Name Only" (RINOs).
We believed in competition and the free market, in bootstraps and personal responsibility, in equality of opportunity, not outcomes. We were financial conservatives who wanted less government. We believed in noblesse oblige, for we saw ourselves as part of a natural aristocracy, even if we hadn't been born into it. We sided with management over labor and saw unions as a scourge. We hated racism and loved Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., particularly his dream that his children would "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." We worried about the rise of the Religious Right and its social-conservative litmus tests. We were tough on crime, tough on national enemies. We believed in business, full stop.
I intended to run for office on just such a platform someday. In the meantime, I founded the Republican club at my high school, knocked on doors and collected signatures with my father, volunteered on campaigns, socialized at fundraisers, and interned for Senator John McCain and Congressman Denny Hastert when he was House Majority Whip Tom DeLay's chief deputy.
We went to mainstream colleges - the more elite the better - but lamented their domination by liberal professors, and I did my best to tune out their liberal views. I joined the Republican clubs and the Federalist Society, and I read the Wall Street Journal and the Economist rather the New York Times. George Will was a voice in the wilderness, Rush Limbaugh an occasional (sometimes guilty) pleasure.
Left Behind By the Party
In January 2001, I was one of thousands of Americans who braved the cold rain to attend and cheer George W. Bush's inauguration. After eight years hating "Slick Willie," it felt good to have a Republican back in the White House. But I knew that he wasn't one of our guys. We had been McCain fans, and even if we liked the compassionate bit of Bush's conservatism, we didn't care for his religiosity or his social politics.
Bush won a lot of us over with his hawkish response to 9/11, but he lost me with the Iraq War. Weren't we still busy in Afghanistan? I didn't see the urgency.
By then, I was at the Justice Department, working in an office that handled litigation related to what was officially called the Global War on Terror (or GWOT). My office was tasked with opposing petitions for habeas corpus brought by Guantánamo detainees who claimed that they were being held indefinitely without charge. The government's position struck me as an abdication of a core Republican value: protecting the "procedural" rights found in the Bill of Rights. Sure, habeas corpus had been waived in wartime before, but it seemed to me that waiving it here reduced us to the terrorists' level. Besides, since acts of terrorism were crimes, why not prosecute them? I refused to work on those cases.
With the Abu Ghraib pictures, my disappointment turned to rage. The America I believed in didn't torture people.
I couldn't avoid GWOT work. I was forced to read reams of allegations of torture, sexual abuse, and cover-ups in our war zones to give the White House a heads-up in case any of made it into the news cycle.
I was so mad that I voted for Kerry out of spite.
How I Learned to Start Worrying
I might still have stuck it out as a frustrated liberal Republican, knowing that the wealthy business core of the party still pulled a few strings and people like Richard Lugar and Olympia Snowe remained in the Senate - if only because the idea of voting for Democrats by choice made me feel uncomfortable. (It would have been so… gauche.) Then came Hurricane Katrina. In New Orleans, I learned that it wasn't just the Bush administration that was flawed but my worldview itself.
I had fallen in love with New Orleans during a post-law-school year spent in Louisiana clerking for a federal judge, and the Bush administration's callous (non-)response to the storm broke my heart. I wanted to help out, but I didn't fly helicopters or know how to do anything useful in a disaster, so just I sat glued to the coverage and fumed - until FEMA asked federal employees to volunteer to help. I jumped at the chance.
Soon, I was involved with a task force trying to rebuild (and reform) the city's criminal justice system. Growing up hating racism, I was appalled but not very surprised to find overt racism and the obvious use of racist code words by officials in the Deep South.
Then something tiny happened that pried open my eyes to the less obvious forms of racism and the hurdles the poor face when they try to climb the economic ladder. It happened on an official visit to a school in a suburb of New Orleans that served kids who had gotten kicked out of every other school around. I was investigating what types of services were available to the young people who were showing up in juvenile hall and seemed to be headed toward the proverbial life of crime.
My tour guide mentioned that parents were required to participate in some school programs. One of these was a field trip to a sit-down restaurant.
This stopped me in my tracks. I thought: What kind of a lame field trip is that?
It turned out that none of the families had ever been to a sit-down restaurant before. The teachers had to instruct parents and students alike how to order off a menu, how to calculate the tip.
I was stunned.
Starting To See
That night, I told my roommates about the crazy thing I had heard that day. Apparently there were people out there who had never been to something as basic as a real restaurant. Who knew?
One of my roommates wasn't surprised. He worked at a local bank branch that required two forms of ID to open an account. Lots of people came in who had only one or none at all.
I was flooded with questions: There are adults who have no ID? And no bank accounts? Who are these people? How do they vote? How do they live? Is there an entire off-the-grid alternate universe out there?
From then on, I started to notice a lot more reality. I noticed that the criminal justice system treats minorities differently in subtle as well as not-so-subtle ways, and that many of the people who were getting swept up by the system came from this underclass that I knew so little about. Lingering for months in lock-up for misdemeanors, getting pressed against the hood and frisked during routine traffic stops, being pulled over in white neighborhoods for "driving while black": these are things that never happen to people in my world. Not having experienced it, I had always assumed that government force was only used against guilty people. (Maybe that's why we middle-class white people collectively freak out at TSA airport pat-downs.)
I dove into the research literature to try to figure out what was going on. It turned out that everything I was "discovering" had been hiding in plain sight and had been named: aversive racism, institutional racism, disparate impact and disparate treatment, structural poverty, neighborhood redlining, the "trial tax," the "poverty tax," and on and on. Having grown up obsessed with race (welfare and affirmative action were our bêtes noirs), I wondered why I had never heard of any of these concepts.
Was it to protect our Republican version of "individual responsibility"? That notion is fundamental to the liberal Republican worldview. "Bootstrapping" and "equality of opportunity, not outcomes" make perfect sense if you assume, as I did, that people who hadn't risen into my world simply hadn't worked hard enough, or wanted it badly enough, or had simply failed. But I had assumed that bootstrapping required about as much as it took to get yourself promoted from junior varsity to varsity. It turns out that it's more like pulling yourself up from tee-ball to the World Series. Sure, some people do it, but they're the exceptions, the outliers, the Olympians.
The enormity of the advantages I had always enjoyed started to truly sink in. Everyone begins life thinking that his or her normal is the normal. For the first time, I found myself paying attention to broken eggs rather than making omelets. Up until then, I hadn't really seen most Americans as living, breathing, thinking, feeling, hoping, loving, dreaming, hurting people. My values shifted - from an individualistic celebration of success (that involved dividing the world into the morally deserving and the undeserving) to an interest in people as people.
How I Learned to Stop Loving the Bombs
In order to learn more - and to secure my membership in what Karl Rove sneeringly called the "reality-based community" - I joined a social science research institute. There I was slowly disabused of layer after layer of myth and received wisdom, and it hurt. Perhaps nothing hurt more than to see just how far my patriotic, Republican conception of U.S. martial power - what it's for, how it's used - diverged from the reality of our wars.
Lots of Republicans grow up hawks. I certainly did. My sense of what it meant to be an American was linked to my belief that from 1776 to WWII, and even from the 1991 Gulf War to Kosovo and Afghanistan, the American military had been dedicated to birthing freedom and democracy in the world, while dispensing a tough and precise global justice.
To me, military service represented the perfect combination of public service, honor, heroism, glory, promotion, meaning, and coolness. As a child, I couldn't get enough of the military: toys and models, movies and cartoons, fat books with technical pictures of manly fighter planes and ships and submarines. We went to air shows whenever we could, and with the advent of cable, I begged my parents to sign up so that the Discovery Channel could bring those shows right into our den. Just after we got it, the first Gulf War kicked off, and CNN provided my afterschool entertainment for weeks.
As I got older, I studied Civil War military history and memory. (I would eventually edit a book of letters by Union Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.) I thought I knew a lot about war; even if Sherman was right that "war is hell," it was frequently necessary, we did it well, and - whatever those misinformed peaceniks said - we made the world a better place.
But then I went to a war zone.
I was deployed to Baghdad as part of a team of RAND Corporation researchers to help the detainee operations command figure out several thorny policy issues. My task was to figure out why we were sort-of-protecting and sort-of-detaining an Iranian dissident group on Washington's terrorist list.
It got ugly fast. Just after my first meal on base, there was a rumble of explosions, and an alarm started screaming INCOMING! INCOMING! INCOMING! Two people were killed and dozens injured, right outside the chow hall where I had been standing minutes earlier.
This was the "surge" period in 2007 when, I was told, insurgent attacks came less frequently than before, but the sounds of war seemed constant to me. The rat-tat-tat of small arms fire just across the "wire." Controlled detonations of insurgent duds. Dual patrolling Blackhawks overhead. And every few mornings, a fresh rain of insurgent rockets and mortars.
Always alert, always nervous, I was only in Iraq for three and a half weeks, and never close to actual combat; and yet the experience gave me many of the symptoms of PTSD. It turns out that it doesn't take much.
That made me wonder how the Iraqis took it. From overhead I saw that the once teeming city of Baghdad was now a desert of desolate neighborhoods and empty shopping streets, bomb craters in the middle of soccer fields and in the roofs of schools. Millions displaced.
Our nation-building efforts reeked of post-Katrina organizational incompetence. People were assigned the wrong roles - "Why am I building a radio station? This isn't what I do. I blow things up…" - and given no advance training or guidance. Outgoing leaders didn't overlap with their successors, so what they had learned would be lost, leaving each wheel to be partially reinvented again. Precious few contracts went to Iraqis. It was driving people out of our military.
This incompetence had profound human costs. Of the 26,000 people we were detaining in Iraq, as many as two-thirds were innocent - wrong place, wrong time - or, poor and desperate, had worked with insurgent groups for cash, not out of an ideological commitment. Aware of this, the military wanted to release thousands of them, but they didn't know who was who; they only knew that being detained and interrogated made even the innocents dangerously angry. That anger trickled down to family, friends, neighbors, and acquaintances. It was about as good an in-kind donation as the U.S. could have made to insurgent recruitment - aside from invading in the first place.
So much for surgical precision and winning hearts and minds. I had grown up believing that we were more careful in our use of force, that we only punished those who deserved punishment. But in just a few weeks in Iraq, it became apparent that what we were doing to the Iraqis, as well as to our own people, was inexcusable.
Today, I wonder if Mitt Romney drones on about not apologizing for America because he, like the former version of me, simply isn't aware of the U.S. ever doing anything that might demand an apology. Then again, no one wants to feel like a bad person, and there's no need to apologize if you are oblivious to the harms done in your name - calling the occasional ones you notice collateral damage ("stuff happens") - or if you believe that American force is always applied righteously in a world that is justly divided into winners and losers.
A Painful Transition
An old saw has it that no one profits from talking about politics or religion. I think I finally understand what it means. We see different realities, different worlds. If you and I take in different slices of reality, chances are that we aren't talking about the same things. I think this explains much of modern American political dialogue.
My old Republican worldview was flawed because it was based upon a small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that worldview, I had to believe that people had morally earned their "just" desserts, and I had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to point out that the world didn't actually work that way. I think this shows why Republicans put so much effort into "creat[ing] our own reality," into fostering distrust of liberals, experts, scientists, and academics, and why they won't let a campaign "be dictated by fact-checkers" (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains why study after study shows - examples here, here, and here - that avid consumers of Republican-oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news sources or don't bother to follow the news at all.
Waking up to a fuller spectrum of reality has proved long and painful. I had to question all my assumptions, unlearn so much of what I had learned. I came to understand why we Republicans thought people on the Left always seemed to be screeching angrily (because we refused to open our eyes to the damage we caused or blamed the victims) and why they never seemed to have any solutions to offer (because those weren't mentioned in the media we read or watched).
My transition has significantly strained my relationships with family, friends, and former colleagues. It is deeply upsetting to walk on thin ice where there used to be solid, common ground. I wish they, too, would come to see a fuller spectrum of reality, but I know from experience how hard that can be when your worldview won't let you.
No one wants to feel like a dupe. It is embarrassing to come out in public and admit that I was so miseducated when so much reality is out there in plain sight in neighborhoods I avoided, in journals I hadn't heard of, in books by authors I had refused to read. (So I take courage from the people who have done so before me like Andrew Bacevich.)
Many people see the wider spectrum of reality because they grew up on the receiving end. As a retired African-American general in the Marine Corps said to me after I told him my story, "No one has to explain institutional racism to a black man."
Others do because they grew up in families that simply got it. I married a woman who grew up in such a family, for whom all of my hard-earned, painful "discoveries" are old news. Each time I pull another layer of wool off my eyes and feel another surge of anger, she gives me a predictable series of looks. The first one more or less says, "Duh, obviously." The second is sympathetic, a recognition of the pain that comes with dismantling my flawed worldview. The third is concerned: "Do people actually think that?"
Yes, they do.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/authors/jeremiahgoulka - Jeremiah Goulka writes about American politics and culture. His most recent work has been published in the American Prospect and Salon. He was formerly an analyst at the RAND Corporation, a recovery worker in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina, and an attorney at the U.S. Department of Justice. He lives in Washington, DC. You can follow him on Twitter @jeremiahgoulka or contact him at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Yes, tsw, I keep going back to that, too. And it has been suggested that their behavior is treasonous; I heartily concur. The definitions of treason are:
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
3. the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.
There can be no question but that the repigs have committed treason according to the 2nd and 3rd definitions, and I would argue the 1st applies as well.
I'd like to hear this message of treasonous behavior trumpeted throughout the country and see it emblazoned on billboards along every highway. I sincerely hope the Dems pick up on it in their political ads. Maybe even some of the bigoted and/or ignorant people who are usually duped into voting against their own self-interest would stop and think a moment about elected officials in Congress engaging in treasonous behavior!
Let's all send letters suggesting this to Pres Obama and Dcm party officials!
Yeah, all very true, lexy677...but the problem is, people do not pay attention! But people drive and people watch TV. That's why we need it splashed across billboards and blaring on TV ads all over the country.
True, but I think perhaps the biggest factor is talk radio with Limbaugh and his ilk spilling out lies that even employed union construction workers believe hook, line, and sinker as they listen to it at work... that's why they broadcast during working hours. Unfortunately, some of the best of the NPR shows play after the drive to and from work. While Al Frankin and crew tried to tackle it, in order to do so they found they had to play the same game, and hopefully we're better than that. That's why I applaud some of the brave journalists and comedians for pointing out the hypocrisy in what these guys preach.
I'd like to hear this message of treasonous behavior trumpeted throughout the country and see it emblazoned on billboards along every highway. I sincerely hope the Dems pick up on it in their political ads. Maybe even some of the bigoted and/or ignorant people who are usually duped into voting against their own self-interest would stop and think
One trouble with that is this: The democrats are not mean enough, nasty enough, just do not have enough HATE to do it.
I left the party (formed and loyally followed by 5 generations of ancestors) when a fund raiser told me we had to "Fight dirtier than Democrats," as too many of my fellow Republicans started implementing Newt Gingrich's GoPac Memo "Language: A Key Element of Control" more coldly calculatedly and devious than Mitch McConnell's slip into such an obvious "mission statement." McConnell seemed perfectly willing to destroy an American system that had worked so well in the past, when it couldn't be as easily changed to put in a power structure I see as similar to what the British did to us before our American Revolution. It even seems we are falling into what the British did right after the American and during the French Revolutions, brutally suppressing internal dissent, while very grudgingly making just enough changes to prevent a more violent revolution, at least on the home island. I think they barely prevented the internal revolution but their heavy handedness cost them so much more in the rest of their "Empire." We should know better.
The GOP would blame my mother for a husband that abandoned his family & left us in these dire circumstances. They would blame the victim. It is imperative for the soul of this country that a Republican White House is not allowed to discount & abandon the least among us. Stand up for those unable to stand up for themselves & vote a straight Democratic ticket. Vote for sanity, vote for president Obama.
This is also MY story, albiet over 45 years ago. Vietnam, the draft, Peace Corps, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, LBJ's war on poverty, Nixon and working "on the ground" did it for me.
I applaud Mr. Goulka for not only telling his story, but also for being able to see different human realities, up-close and personal.
This should be a NYT 's front page editorial.
This is an amazing article, I hope that more republicans read this and see their reality isnt fact based, and their truth isnt the facts, its only what they allow themselves to hear.
Thank you again, this article is amazing!
I went through a similar experience.
Free the mind...it really works!
My mother was not a well woman, emotionally & physically; had 3 sons to raise on welfare, one with debilitating polio. We were pressed into living in a housing project, a hotbed of crime & drugs even in the 50's & early 60's of my youth.
If the security net programs had not been in place for us, the family as a unit would not have survived. The medical costs for my younger polio stricken brother were astronomical, having had operation after operation. We always had food but never a fresh vegetable or fresh fruit as it was not in the budget. We were always clean but wore Salvation Army used clothing & my mother would have to go begging in the winter to various organizations to procure us warm coats or shoes without holes.
part 2 to follow
Mr Goulka puts into words that are both clear and ring true why I attempt to not demonize the Republicans. I do admit to mocking them, but that is just a reflection of my own brand of juvenile humour.
The Republicans over the years have slipped into a different reality, pushed along by the likes of Karl Rove, whom I do demonize. Upon entering that fantasy reality, the rules of political physics become altered and are no longer subject to the same set of facts that those of us left behind base our worldview on. Once the political science has been changed to ignore reality based facts, then reality based science may also be ignored; especially when it runs counter to the fantasy world's structure.
This may be a window perhaps by which we may attempt to communicate to those that share our nation and its heritage, but not our reality; to at least understand what our reality is like.
We are living in a delusional world people, it's going to take many more stories of awakening such as this to begin to turn things around. Since the major news outlets are all owned by corporations for whom publishing this would not be permitted (at least not without allowing the Republicans a chance to tell their side), maybe the Occupy movement can take it's teachings up as a mantra. Fareed Zakaria is the only journalist in the US who might be brave enough to interview Goulka... maybe... Jon Stewart? Colbert perhaps?
You hit the nail on the head with that comment. An adult that still hasn't been exposed to these basic truths is intentionally avoiding them. I know MANY of these people and they hate it when reality disagrees with their worldview. It's why so many of them tote guns and lose their temper about the world around them.
You can lead a horse to water...
Notice also HOW long it took for Mr. Goulka to COMPLETELY wake up and see the truth.
He was,... luckily for him,... put in situations so gross, that he could NOT help facing the facts.
Seeing the shenanigans in the justice department, shows that he is a decent man, for plenty of people went along with practices, that distort the justice system.
He was also lucky to work in New Orleans, and to see for himself how unjustly poor people are treated.
The Iraq experience may have been the last straw.
Many republicans grow up like he did, and never remove the blinders from their eyes to their detriment and to the detriment of all of us.
Because repugs are always the loudmouths of every party or Thanksgiving dinner, most of us middle class whiteys know many of them from personal experience. Since they don't pay attention to anything going on around them, many of them don't actually know any liberals, or if they do, have never bothered to ask why. So, they make assumptions based on glenn beck's latest tirade.
What I'm getting at, is that since many of us grew up in those same neighborhoods, we know them better than they know themselves. We understand their motivations better than they want us to. The stuff they won't admit (i.e. the truth behind all the code words and dog whistle politics) is a poorly kept secret and they just don't realize we have their number.
If all repugs could be given a reality tour of the real world right under their noses that they refuse to see, we'd undo all the susceptibility to right-wing talking-points and propaganda.
The trouble is that the conservative mindset, by definition, is usually unwilling to see anything that disagrees with its prejudices.
Ask them if Ronald Reagan raised taxes. If they say no, then ask them to look it up for themselves. Ask them 1 week later if they actually looked it up and the odds are they had not. They do understand just how fragile their world is, and that is why they cannot allow facts to get into their reality.
Let's face it, often the truth really is scary, uncomfortable and offensive.
Add to this Bill Moyers, Rachel Maddow, Brian Lamb (the most impartial and best interviewer today).
Charlie Rose (on his PBS show) is another possibility... because of him, I've started watching CBS This Morning. He and Norah O'Donnell make a pretty good team. I can live without Gayle King, but she does appeal to the Oprah audience.
There REALLY are two Americas. And the well to do or middle class republicans are so blind. I fear for the country for it will take too darn long if the conversion happens only one at the time.
Poorer republicans I do not understand, unless it is that you want to feel that some others are and DESERVE to be worse of than YOU are.
The older I get, the more wool is pulled out of my eyes (to borrow the author's wording) and the more liberal I get.
This is why many of the elderly who grew up with seriously tough times during the Depression are so economically liberal. My parents fall into this category, and before I became a man, I noticed how, in many ways they understood the poor of my generation better than I did.
It's the biggest threat to the continued improvement of human civilization that we seem pre-programmed to only take care of each other after we've experienced hard luck first hand.
Where are they? They never seem to make any comments to those articles. So far, this one is a perfect example. Once their cornered by any facts, they just slither away and pretend nothing happened.
This explains birthers, and people who think the President is "being dishonest" about his college records. It actually bothers them MORE to know he really is just as American as they are and that he really is a genius who deserved everything he got.
CONT.
It bothers them so much to know people are turning away from their philosophy (in droves) that they want to change election laws and make it harder to vote.
It bothers them so much that minorities are often given equal rights, that they pretend they're asking for "privilges".
It bothers them so much that reaganomics is STILL not working after 32 years of trying that they STILL claim it hasn't been tried.
It bothers them so much that science completely disagrees with them that they pretend 98% of all scientists are the ones with a political agenda.
It bothers them so much that news events often disprove everything they want to believe that they invent their own news media to avoid them.
Needless to say, I could go on and on.
It bothers them SO MUCH that the President is a Baptist and the repug candidate is a Mormon (who doesn't believe Jesus is God) that they just make up stuff about the President being a secret Muslim.
They want to undo the Separation of Church and State (that bothers them so much they pretend it doesn't exist), BUT they're willing to vote for a non-Christian (by their own definition) to avoid voting for a black Democrat.
We try not to talk about religion or politics, or at least I don't, because the last time either of those subjects came up it made her cry when she asked, "Don't you respect my opinions?" and I responded, "Just as much as you respect mine." It occurs to me that I wish she would pull the wool from her eyes probably just as badly as she wishes I would convert to Christianity, something I grew out of during my teen years. Which is a thought I do not find encouraging.
So... anybody who cares, would linking my mom to this article be a good idea or bad idea?
I, on the other hand, have an awareness of the goodness (empathy) in (some) people, and choose to promote those IDEALS.
The "conservative" "ideal" is to choose the most expedient, most profitable, least considerate course of action, and to get others to pick up the tab, even with their lives, if the bottom line can be improved.
Racism is much worse when it goes against the majority of of people??? What is that supposed to mean? That the Pres. is a racist? You might recall that he is multi-racial, as are his children.
Good luck with your life of lesser evils, the banality and venality that tolerate grinding poverty, environmental destruction and endless war so a few pigs might wallow neck deep in the public trough while the real workers struggle to make ends meet on an ever decreasing share of the wealth. Your Ayn Rand view of life is childish and ridiculous.
RSS feed for comments to this post