Hidden to give the political-weary a break

[veronica_rich]

So a lot of people are posting about politics; still others feel attacked by their f-lists, which is unfortunate. I cannot apologize for my political leanings; it just isn't going to happen. Nor am I particularly apologetic for the tone I use when referring to those who seem to have brought a lot of grief down on our heads over the past quarter-century or so.

Do I intend to offend my f-list or even casual passersby with political ranting? Without sounding disingenuous, the most honest thing I can say is ... it depends.

I look back over the last 28 years and feel like our presidential and Congressional leaders have not often cared a damn whether the rest of us, their voters, lived or died. There's very few I can point to and say "He's all right" or "She at least tries." But the whole Lewinsky scandal about 10 years ago really brought about a big shift in my mostly "don't ask, don't tell" attitude about personal politics. I do not care about somebody's personal life. Do not ask me to give a damn about the legal adults they sleep with, so long as it has no influence on public policy. And for the Republicans to instigate something so grave as impeachment hearings over nothing because they couldn't find something else really set me off. (Please don't bring up the "he lied under oath" argument - if I were asked a personal question that had nothing to do with how I did my job, I might lie, too, out of protest if not self-preservation. There is nothing in the Constitution regulating sexual relations.)

There have been a lot of actions taken (or not taken) since 1980 that have led to the problems we're now seeing in this country. Under each president. Nobody writing this post has ever excused Democrats for going along with wrongheaded legislation (or for not introducing rightheaded legislation). As an Independent, I only believe that the Republican party has a bigger canker it needs to cut out of itself than the Democrat party has right now, and the GOP can't do that if it is allowed to remain in power. Those at the head of the party, its figureheads, need to fail right now so that its members will take seriously the concerns of their fellow citizens and get the party back to what its elected officials are supposed to be: A servant of the public. Not Mama. Not Pope. Not the Boss.

I don't hate Republicans. I don't think 99 percent are wrong or evil or mean. There are a handful of the most powerful I feel DO fall into those designations, just as there's a good handful of Democrats who I believe are corrupt or stupid for going along with certain actions that they should not.

Depending on how you feel about the last eight years ... I might well be trying to offend you. But not personally. Just to get your attention and make you wonder why you think things have gone so well the past eight years.

Comments

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

*grin* Isn't it interesting how our blog posts illustrate so clearly the polarization of America?

You're nicer than I am. I haven't met a Republican I wouldn't toss under a train since Nixon. LOL! And I'm absolutely unashamed of it. If folks on my f-list don't like my politics, they can either ignore me or take issue. *shrug* It won't change a thing about how I feel. (of course, it does help that I'm old enough to be most of my f-list's mom--grandma, in many cases---and at 54, I LOVE simply saying, "Wait until you've seen nearly 40 years of politics in action." HA! Age DOES have its advantages.)

[crevette.livejournal.com]

I haven't met a Republican I wouldn't toss under a train since Nixon.

Nice to know you feel that way about me.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, that included my sister, whom I love dearly, until she got tired of playing reindeer games at her Bar Assn. meetings. So don't take it personally. *wink*

[crevette.livejournal.com]

As I was telling VR earlier today, I'm just sick of the overgeneralization on both sides.

I DO take it personally. I'm not a "Repug" or a "Rethug". I'm not "evil" or "stupid". I just have differences of ideology and perspective. I'm fucking sick of it.

Does that mean I'm voting for the ticket this cycle? No, of course not. If McCain had pulled a moderate for VP, I probably would have considered it. Palin closed the deal for me on that. I can't go anywhere near that ticket now. Of course, I didn't vote for Bush either time either. I'm a bad, bad (moderate) republican. Not that I should have to say any of that to anyone.

Maybe people should just spend a little time trying to understand what the other side is saying instead of acting like middle schoolers and shouting names and beating each other up over something as incredibly stupid and inane but oh so very polarizing as politics.

[hippediva.livejournal.com]

Moderates have had a very bad time for a long time in the country and that seems to have become de rigeur, which is, of course, why nothing gets done. I'm probably what would be considered a fiscally conservative anarchist. Then again, I remember Nixon all too well. I found myself in a similar position to your in 1980 and that was the only time I ever voted Republican (I caught chicken pox for my trouble, which should mean SOMETHING. LOL!) It's a sticky wicket all the way. Politics inane? NAHHHHHhhh....it's just comedy improv by amateurs.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

Maybe people should just spend a little time trying to understand what the other side is saying

The problem is, there's more than two "sides" - but there are only two that get attention because we're so very binary for some reason. So the closest you get in those two "sides" is McCain for identification ... even if that's not really representative of your ideas. And people ranting about him, I think, are ranting about HIM and people who think just like HIM. I'm not convinced they're ranting about you or even thinking of you when they say it.

(Whereas, when someone on my f-list makes a point of posting about the liberal media when I try to explain why it's a myth - drawing on my own experiences in the profession to do so - it's pretty hard not to take it personally. There's more of you than there is of me. *G*

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I'd offer to tie you to the track if I saw Orlando on a horse nearby so that he could play Dudley Do-Right for you. *G*

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

LOL - I learned from the Elizabethan Wars of POTC when to hide and when to put it above a cut. ;-)

I'm related to a lot of Republicans - more than Democrats at any rate. And there ARE some of them I would throw under a train ... though it doesn't have anything to do with being Republican *G* ... but there are others I would not. My dad is probably the biggest bigot in real life, close only to Archie Bunker in the fictional world, and admitted racist, sexist, you name it. Yet when it comes to individual people in a bind, he'll help them. (Once there was this black carpet salesman who'd broken down outside our little white-only town. Dad, who worked at the local service station, went and helped him out and didn't charge him. For years after that, when the guy came through town once or twice a year, he'd stop by the station and give Dad free carpet samples - floor mats, basically - and they'd shoot the shit for a while. He thought of Dad as a friend - Dad would sort of shrug and grin when we pointed that out, but it DID cut down on his N-word remarks, I noticed.)

Anyway - the times I've wanted to throw Dad under a train, it usually wasn't because of his politics. It was just because of HIM. LOL

[pir8fancier.livejournal.com]

You know, someone better not say ANYTHING to me about politics in my journal. I am happy to debate anyone about the issues (indeed, I have a couple of friends who are extremely conservative and do I respectg them? Yes, I do). But I see a single sentence about why aren't you writing about teh porn and I will see red. There are times to write porn and there are times to stand up and take notice of what in the hell is going on around you. And this is one of those times.

I am HERE, sister! Don't "cut" on my account.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

The only thing is, I have a habit of being very incindiery with my remarks, and they can sting, sometimes a little harsher than I intend and sometimes the wrong people.

I'm cutting to save my f-list and spare the weary having to read yet MORE of this if they don't want to. I cut my pr0n too, for the same reason. ;-)

[the-dala.livejournal.com]

You watched the debate, yes? Did McCain come off as a smirking, condescending bastard or what? I'm talking pure body language, not even content - I don't think he looked at Obama once.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

I did notice all the smirking and ignoring, and belittling of not addressing Obama directly or even looking at him. I also thought he repeated himself a lot and went broad with explanations - and into the past - instead of addressing specifics of what he would do in office. Whereas, Obama didn't obviously have time to get into *specifics* of his plans, but at least he did enumerate some plans instead of talking about the buddies he's made or the veterans he's loved.

Hmm, I should probably make a post about this at some point this weekend.

[roguedemon.livejournal.com]

I have to say I am sorry for the ranting I just did in your journal -- I have to say that I am having a really bad day. But I also believe that to still be supporting the Republican platform at this time or calling yourself a Republican really says something about a person... that I can't agree with. I have to say that sure, people can be massively misguided, naive, what have you...but if you really know what you are voting for or the party you are identifying with...well. I don't really look at things at black and white very often, but in view of what has been happening in this country, I think things are really clear. I don't think that there are any more centrisits running the Republican party adn don't think there have been for a long time now. So, I would definitely moderate what I said to merely saying: I can't respect it at this time, particularly since Republicans have done such massive harm

Anyway, I apologize again, sincerely, for going off. I've honestly been planning on ranting in my own journal and then I saw your political stuff and a lot of my anger just came out... without moderation.

[veronica-rich.livejournal.com]

No, don't bother apologizing - it's your right to say as you think. (It was rather strong, but I can't say I disagree with a lot of it *G*)

I agree that when it comes to human rights, the Republicans have always fallen short of the ideal, at least of Democrats. It's the "liberals" who have chiefly advanced civil rights and equal opportunities throughout our country's history - and at one time, that WAS the Republican Party, say, back in Lincoln's day. But it was simply the reversal of labels to now.

I know a lot of people who say they are Republican because of finances, "traditional" Republicans (and, to be fair, while traditional Republicans aren't known for advancing human causes, they usually did stay out of your bedroom at least). Now I *think* they mean is anti- spending on war, anti-empire, anti- giving American jobs to anyone besides legal Americans, and anti- spending on wasteful programs. I myself believe in social welfare programs, but after 34 years of watching my mom and sister work for the state in that particular department, I admit there IS jiggering of the system and benefits going to people who shouldn't be getting them. (Mom herself, who usually identifies as a Republican - not this time - doesn't mind giving temporary help to those who can work and long-term help to those who physically or mentally can't at all, but she got weary of seeing entire families who knew how to work the system for generations when they were perfectly able to support themselves.)

Anyway, when it comes to that side of the fence, I tend to socialize with fiscal traditional Republicans, not social Republicans or neocons, because the latter two bother me HIGHLY. I don't see how someone can just not give a damn about their fellow humans who are suffering, especially if it's suffering over things beyond their control (downsized in a job, pregnant and scared due to rape or youthful inexperience, what color they're born, etc.). I do also think there's a "dirge" of sorts among the social Republicans - as somebody else pointed out, it's like they think there's a finite amount of Happy to go around, and if you are, then they aren't.

And, don't get me started on the social Republicans' hijacking of Christianity and their stubborn - not to mention, inaccurate - adherence to the Scary God of the Old Testament over the New. Jesus was a radical liberal. You'd think by logic that it'd be the Jews who were pigheaded fire-and-brimstone and the Christians who'd be mostly forgiving and accepting, not the other way around as it frequently is.

[roguedemon.livejournal.com]

I have to say -- I think the situation we are in calls for strong statements, I just usually like to think about mine a little more, instead of going off half-cocked. Anyway, I have always been a liberal. My father has always been one, and I get it from him. My mother became a dedicated feminist over the years, and my sister is also a liberal (She's from Chicago, if Obama is not elected, she'll be devastated). Anyway, it's strange because I was faaar apart from my family in most other respects most of my life. On the other hand, politics were never shoved down my throat and discussion was always welcome, unlike other things in my family.

I digress. I have a problem with fiscal Republicans for a couple of reasons. First of all, I think that the fiscal Republican ideal has become a myth and a laughable one at that -- we'll cut spending on everything that helps the country, and pour billions, nay, trillions, into military spending so we can go fight wars to protect our oil? All the people that yammer on about big government while conveniently forgetting about the Pentagon need to consider this: The percentage of the budget that is being spent on social assistance programs is minuscule. I need to doublecheck, but I know I'm accurate on the minuscule in comparison to other things part. That doesn't count Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, but somehow Republicans don't want to mention them (they'll just try to undermine Medicare behind everyone's backs).

The second reason is this. Overall, they are choosing an abstract ideal over human rights. In spite of the fact that the economy performs fine under Democratic presidents, some vague fear that Democrats might *gasp* spend some money on Federal funding for a community mental health center or student loans or a crumbling bridge keeps FR supporting the Republican party -- IOW, the party leadership, the people who get elected and drive policy. In doing so they are supporting people who are against woman's rights -- not just choice and birth control, but equal pay, protection on the job, the possibility of real maternity leave, the possibility of access to quality child care without bankruptcy, and all the many small things that add up to the whole. These people are against gay rights of any kind -- I'm not just talking marriage, I'm talking the right to not be fired for being gay. They think the formation of a permanent underclass is fine and dandy. They think it's great that soldiers returning home can't get the help they need. I'm sure you would prefer I don't go on. I'm sure "fiscal Republicans" think they are nice people, and individually many of them are, but this is what they are supporting without thinking about it. Often against their own self interest.

As for the people who are working the system. I get that. I worked at a VA Hospital for a while. There certainly were vets who seemed to be working the system (although my opinion is if who served in the military, you are entitled to government money), perhaps taking money from others who were in greater need of help. However, no matter where you go, there will always be people who work the system. Getting rid of assistance for people in desperate need of it is not the answer.

So I'm Nell, and I approved this strongly worded message *g*.