Those of us Republicans with an understanding of politics and sociology tried, so hard, to stop this from happening. When you have a respected former president (George H.W) saying he will vote for Clinton, when you have the last Republican nominee Mitt Romney giving a brutal 30 minute speech because he felt like he needed to be able to tell his grandchildren what he did to stop Trump, and when you have the sitting Speaker of the House saying he will no longer actively support the Republican nominee, and yet Trump wins in a landslide, its hard to say this was anything other than a popular movement. Whether or not your realized it, you had a role in this movement.
I'm not arguing with your values--only with how you decided to pursue them. You chose to use centralized federal power to shove your version of morality down conservative America's throat. For the past eight years, you called them bigots, and your nominee called them "deplorable." Racism IS deplorable, but true racists were only a small part of Trump's support.
One example is gay marriage. We now live in a country where it is uncertain if you can even choose what kind of cake you bake. This level of minute control is demeaning and unnecessary, and it invites rebellion. There is a different way you could have approached conservative America. You could have said:
"We know you hold marriage sacred, and have for thousands of years. We know your faith means everything to you, and one-man one-woman marriage is a part of that. We have a different view, and we are also citizens. We would like to be able to see our partners at the hospital, to share our property, and to not be discriminated against in housing and the workplace. We would also like to be able to adopt children. We know you believe that children need a father and a mother, and while we disagree, we are sure that you will agree that some parents are better than no parents. Lets discuss our options. You can keep the word marriage--we will call ours something else."
Imagine what that kind of respectful dialogue could have done for our country. Conservatives area also to blame, but right now we are talking about the rise of Trump.
"We know you hold marriage sacred, and have for thousands of years. We know your faith means everything to you, and one-man one-woman marriage is a part of that. We have a different view, and we are also citizens. We would like to be able to see our partners at the hospital, to share our property, and to not be discriminated against in housing and the workplace. We would also like to be able to adopt children. We know you believe that children need a father and a mother, and while we disagree, we are sure that you will agree that some parents are better than no parents. Lets discuss our options. You can keep the word marriage--we will call ours something else."
Imagine what that kind of respectful dialogue could have done for our country. Conservatives area also to blame, but right now we are talking about the rise of Trump.
Conservatives don't feel respected by you. Instead of showing empathy for their deeply held beliefs, and acknowledging that many of them will likely not change, you have taken their sacred symbol, remade it in your own image, and shoved it down their throat and down their schoolchildren's throat with the force of law--in states where this is wildly unpopular. And then, after all that, you have called them bigots and haters with the loud megaphone of the mainstream media. Can you begin to see why they think YOU are the haters?
Donald Trump was not even close to the best conservatives had to offer. A large proportion didn't even like him. But he was a very, very effective way to show anger towards the liberal, mainstream media establishment. If we respected each other more, perhaps we could have reduced this anger.
Donald Trump was not even close to the best conservatives had to offer. A large proportion didn't even like him. But he was a very, very effective way to show anger towards the liberal, mainstream media establishment. If we respected each other more, perhaps we could have reduced this anger.
I have empathy for liberals and their concerns. I have empathy for gays who are bullied and mistreated. I have empathy for gays who yearn to be parents. But I also see that empathy is a two-way street. You have to give it even when you think your position is morally superior.
I experienced this in the Middle East, where I routinely dealt with Muslims who believed things such as that anyone leaving Islam should be killed. I think that is a terrible belief. But strangely enough, one of my best friends from Jordan, a very kind and decent man, believes just that. We need to open our hearts a little bit, and realize that shame will not bring peace. Liberal America, you can start today. Try to understand conservative America--show them you understand them, and feel for them, even if you disagree--and maybe we can make Donald Trump a one term president.
Photo Credit:
By The Telegraph – http://wealthmodo.com/billionaire-donald-trump-idiot/, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52498577
I experienced this in the Middle East, where I routinely dealt with Muslims who believed things such as that anyone leaving Islam should be killed. I think that is a terrible belief. But strangely enough, one of my best friends from Jordan, a very kind and decent man, believes just that. We need to open our hearts a little bit, and realize that shame will not bring peace. Liberal America, you can start today. Try to understand conservative America--show them you understand them, and feel for them, even if you disagree--and maybe we can make Donald Trump a one term president.
Photo Credit:
By The Telegraph – http://wealthmodo.com/billionaire-donald-trump-idiot/, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=52498577
There is so much that needs to be changed in the Democratic party and it can't be denied that they are in part culpable for the conditions that led to the rise of someone like Trump. But let's be clear, the blame and responsibility for bigotry lies with bigots. I have little sympathy for those who want marriage to be a protected category but refuse to extend that to everyone. All the rights and protections- to not be denied service arbitrarily, to have a legal institution that respects a union that mirrors marriage in both partnership and in the ability to involve children- these aren't little 'extras' that are being demanded, but a return to equal protection under the law. It's a strange phenomenon when a dominant class (in the previous example, heterosexuals), once presented with equality, claim they are now being oppressed because they are no longer privileged. That said, these kind of conversations need to keep happening. Like in any relationship, when real communication stops, any step forward dies, and I agree that a lot of the facebook viral political discourse creates a climate of hate and shutting doors, rather than opening the way to real conversations. I guess the real struggle comes when you have to admit to each other that maybe on some level you do have different values and the public sphere of government can't answer for everything related to how we think the world should be at the end of the day. So we start with the minimum common ground and build from there.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, Charles Taylor wrote an amazing book called Ethics of Authenticity, in which he talks about the modern idea that communication between people from value groups is impossible, and he argues that it is possible- because sharing the same language, there's still hope that we share some common foundation for meaning and that's what we can build upon. Anyone a book for our time I guess.
That sounds like a good book. Thanks for the comment. Yes, I believe it is a myth, that we can't find some things in common. Like I said, I was able to find much common ground with a Muslim who believed that anyone who leaves Islam should be killed (and many other things I found objectionable).
DeleteMay I suggest that the fact that you have little sympathy, perhaps suggests a lack of understanding? I think you have presented the liberal view, (which conservatives should try to understand) but I'm not sure if you showed understanding of the conservative view. I'm not sure if bigotry is a useful concept when you are dealing with religious-based beliefs about good or evil. For example, I think a true understanding of the conservative point of view on this would include the idea that marriage is a subsidy of sorts--something to encourage behavior that is good for society. Like it or not, many religious conservatives fundamentally disagree that homosexual behavior is good for society, and thus it should not be subsidized. This is not a matter of privilege or lack of privilege, or of a dominant class, but of belief or non-belief in a paradigm. The "equal protection" argument has no relevance if one conceives of marriage's fundamental definition being of a union between the sexes to be encouraged by society. If one conceives of its definition as simply a union between two people for financial and tax purposes, then yes, the equal protection argument has relevance. So if you just jump to the bigotry argument, I think you are missing something.
I think you are right that there is a limit to the common ground that can be found, but my main point was just that more common ground would be found if liberals tried to understand the deep faith and commitment that accompany some of the beliefs they find objectionable, and show respect to that instead of condemning long-held spiritual traditions as "bigotry" and "deplorable."
So again, I'm not saying that liberals should change their goals (although some compromise could be necessary and proper), just that they should learn to communicate those goals differently--in a way that doesn't dehumanize conservatives, and that acknowledges that their beliefs are not simply a selfish attempt to hold onto privilege.
Delete