The politics of friendship

Ah, yes, the politics of friendship. Or, put another way, the idea that politics defines your friendship. At least for some people. I try not to allow it to affect my friendships; though, to be fair, I have never been above riding someone about their political views. But I would like to think I have never defined my friendships based on political views.

However, it is something that has become a glaring issue in my opinion. I have friends and family members who define their friendships based on their political views and wanting to associate only with politically like-minded individuals. I don't get it and, quite frankly, find it to be a very disturbing concern. Everyone has political views (particularly in the US) and there is a strong vein of politics that permeates American lives because of our history. Further, I am sure that the sense of polarization that is so prevalent today is nothing new and has existed throughout the short history of the US. However, that should still not pose the issue that it does with so many non-political friends and associates of mine.

A short thirty years ago (during the heyday of Reagan), there was a lot of political vitriol between the two political parties in the US, the Republicans and Democrats. Yet, at the end of the day, I remember the stories of the two main leaders of their respective parties (Reagan and Tip O'Neil of the Democrats who was the then-Speaker of the House) getting together to have drinks and engage in friendly conversation. These were the same two men who would put forth great criticisms of each other and their respective views on the issues of the day but they also realized that it was as much political theatre and did not allow it to keep them from being able to interact on other levels for the benefit of each other and the country as a whole. Today, however, the two parties batter each other to a degree that comes close to rivaling the demonization that preceded the genocidal massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. And that occurs just on the political level. However, what has followed today is a similar level of demonization on a non-political level by adherents of the various parties.

I have friends and family who will not speak to each other because they hold different political views. Some of them are on the political right and only watch Fox News because it is "fair and balanced" and read the National Review while anything else represents only the political left (those damn liberals!). Some are on the political left and only watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones while abhorring Fox News for being biased (stupid retarded conservatives!). And they will only associate with people who hold similar viewpoints while lambasting those who hold divergent opinions without ever truly attempting to understand them, let alone trying to find a middle ground. The result, of course, is a stark inability to find common ground on a personal level that could be used to help create a framework to help move them (and the country as a whole) forward. This deliberate limitation is amazing and completely idiotic to me. Why would people choose to limit themselves from learning from or about others? I have never understood this and the politicization of these relationships makes it even more difficult to fathom.

Of course, I see this because I tend to adhere to a more moderate set of views that crosses over into both major party platforms so I am not beholden to one or the others. I also prefer to learn as much as I can and do not limit myself to a single source of information - though I also am aware of the various biases that creep up in what passes for "news reporting" today. But the idea that I would allow my political views to dictate my friendships (none of which are "political") is abhorrent to me. And this is in spite of the fact that my degree is in Political Science and I have a fairly well-grounded knowledge base on a number of subjects.

I simply want to take some of these people (who will openly admit to such selective "friendships") and throttle them while asking them what the heck they are thinking in doing such a thing! Maybe I am just an anachronistic relic of an earlier age or an optimist? I hope not. I'd be curious for the feedback of others on this.

Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

Thanksgiving, that most American of holidays. And I had a very nice Thanksgiving for which I was thankful to see a cousin and uncle I had not seen in some time with the rest of my family (blood and otherwise). Hopefully will be able to continue to renew old family acquaintances in the near future. Ah, the joys of the internet making the world that much smaller...

Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.

Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.

Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.

Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.

Nothing ever really changes

I'm currently slogging (and believe me, "slogging" seems negative but it's the right word considering how long it is taking me) through The Great War for Civilization by Robert Fisk. It is a long book and covers much Mr. Fisk's journeys and research on the Middle East. And while he has a certain leftist bent that does not diminish the work that he has compiled. I have found it to be fascinating reading, though not everyone would necessarily agree. I only wish I had read it when I first purchased the book more than a year ago - then promptly misplaced it until recently. *sigh*

But before my ADD tendencies cause me to diverge too far from my intended subject, I am currently reading through one of his sections on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. He brings up the demonization that takes place by the Israelis when they discuss the Palestinians and how they are vermin, cockroaches and insects to be stomped upon in order to teach them lessons. This is, of course, when they're not being referred to as terrorists or homicide bombers. <sarcasm> Really, I suppose the world owes Fox News a debt of gratitude for that. </sarcasm> And one only need go through MEMRI to see how many Arabs and Muslims talk about Jews. And these are things that have been occurring for years, not something that is just recent. If anything, the only thing recent about these characterizations is that they're now much more easily translated into English and therefore available to the English-only crowd who previously may have been unaware of them. And it is this demonization issue that I discussed less than a year ago on this blog and it seems to have come around again.

Indeed, how it easy it is to learn that the best way to make it easy to hurt or kill someone is to strip away their humanity and see them only as a negative caricature or as nothing more than a beast. It is not hard to understand how the situation in the Middle East between Israelis and Palestinians continues to fester when they see each other as beasts needing to be slaughtered in order to obtain what they want. Someone needs to really bring both sides to the table and enable them to start talking to each other - as people. This doesn't mean that it would be as easy as that but there can be no real beginning to a solution unless and until each side recognizes the other as someone more than just a generic "enemy" - or vermin or terrorist or Zionist or pig.

Would that it were so easy...

War and Demonization

I was recently getting my car worked on at the local dealership and, while waiting, ended up watching some of Fox News.  Unlike many people, Fox News does not bother me most of the time; if anything, I view it as the anti-MSNBC.  In other words, I recognize that it has a specific editorial bent and watch it with that in mind.

On that particular day, they were covering the recent protests in Egypt and specifically addressing their concerns regarding the possibility that the Mubarak regime would be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  With little context other than the repeated use of the phrase "Muslim" Brotherhood expressed in a dark and sinister tone, anyone whose knowledge of the world was garnered only from Fox News (and I know more than a few) would automatically infer that this was bad and therefore to be avoided.  Another inferred suggestion was that the US should instead support the Mubarak regime at all costs because it was secular and not based on Islam (not to mention his support of a peace treaty with Israel).

But it is this directly implied reference to the negative aspects of Islam (via the twisted ideology of Islamist fanaticism) with the very term of "Muslim" that provokes a sad reminder of the past - one that has been oft-repeated and still is not learned from.  Or, more precisely, it has not been learned from in the context of preventing it from recurring.  Unfortunately, those who have learned from it have discerned that it continues to work in spite of its negative historical precedents.  The lesson, of course, is that in order to foster a willingness to fight against an enemy, it is vitally important to demonize that enemy.  And when I say demonize, I mean to classify your enemy as being less than human, as being not worth consideration or insignificant, as being nothing more than an object to be destroyed.  After all, it is always far easier to kill someone when you do not consider them to be human or worth the effort to consider why you should not kill them on someone else's orders.  And such a demonization can be done based on ethnicity, gender, political affiliation, religion, national standard, or any other subjective measure; there are no limits to this classification.

The historical precedents within just the last century are staggering when we consider that they still continue today.  Hitler and his rabid persecution of the Jews during the 1930's and 40's are perhaps the clearest example - but not the only ones.  We also have the persecution of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda in 1994, the massacres of Kosovars by Serbians in the mid 1990's, the slaughter of Chinese, Koreans and other Asians by the Japanese during WWII and the attacks against civilians (perceived to be enemy supporters) in Vietnam by the United States in the 1960's.  This does not include other events that could be similarly classified - China during the Cultural Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, nor incidents that occurred under Western colonial rule throughout Africa, Asia and the Middle East.

The key factor that all of those times mentioned above have in common is the consistent dehumanization that took place prior to and during each of them.  The view that your enemies were lesser than you whether by virtue of color, culture, religion or political bent was the key factor in energizing the supporters of a given leader to be willing to attack, hurt and kill the "enemy".  It is easy to want to destroy something that you do not understand - I have an abhorrent hatred of cockroaches and would sooner kill one than look at it and I do have a general understanding of cockroaches.  When your enemies are designated as cockroaches, you no longer see them as human and have less compunction about hurting them (this example is particular to 1994 Rwanda and the treatment of the Tutsis).  This is reinforced by ensuring a clear separation and delineation of your enemies (such as the Jews in Germany who were forced to identify themselves as such by the wearing of a yellow star) and making certain there is no mixing that might lead to a recognition that your opponents are very similar to yourself.  Referring to your enemy in negative stereotypes and not understanding their point of view (the US attitude toward its enemies in Vietnam as well as the Japanese during World War II) leads to an unbridled arrogance that is hard to overcome and bridge the gaps between.

Yet the one way to overcome this sort of demonization is to open the lines of communication between various groups and allow people to be more than just a stereotype.  When your only understanding of someone different from you is a stereotype, then it is not difficult to carry that image into a negative portrayal that can easily be twisted into something that inevitably becomes far more dangerous.  But the responsibility for breaking through the barriers separating groups lies with everyone - not on the other people.  Indeed, when it relies on other people, that is where the path toward demonization begins.  Find someone who is different and learn how to prevent those barriers from being erected in the first place.

(Special thanks to FP for editing assistance. Any errors are mine alone.)

Consumer News

Fox News has published a list of news stories that they claim did not make it to the mainstream media during the course of 2009. I tend to follow a number of news sites (when I have time which, quite honestly, has not been so much recently) and I have to admit that some of the stories in the Fox story were hardly prevalent in some of the more mainstream news sites - or at least not above the fold.

I guess an argument could be made that the stories would more favorably fit the ideology of Fox News and therefore would likely be more high-profile there as a result - with the correlated belief that they would then be less high-profile on sites with a different editorial bent. But that does not excuse the fact that they were not reported (or at least not extensively) elsewhere. It is even more egregious when there was certainly no shortage of news footage given to the death of Michael Jackson, Tiger Woods and his infidelities, the balloon boy and his family and any number of sundry celebrities. Quite frankly, there are tabloids for that sort of "news" but the self-professed news channels have been sorely lacking and there is little wonder that more people use Comedy Central's The Daily Show and less-than-biased blogs to get their news than they do the traditional news outlets.

It is time to return to an era where the media again returns to take responsibility for providing the public with the facts and news surrounding them rather than pandering to a consumerist ideology more beholden to the bottom line rather than the celebrity lifestyles that pass for news today.