Yesterday for the first time in my life I was accused of being narrow-minded. This comment has arrested me in the most interesting way, for it has prompted me to step outside myself to view how it could be applicable. For a long time, since before I knew what diversity was, I have had friends of different races and cultures. I remember my first gay friend in 7th grade and my other friends who made fun of me for associating with him. But the accusation of my narrow-mindedness came in the context of ideology – more specifically, my sharing the observation that I have very few friends who identify as republican and my refusal to associate with anyone who does. Does this make me narrow-minded because I refuse to associate with others on the basis of politics? The answer, I would argue, depends on the politics.
Modern Republican politics are entrenched in negative ideology rather than the positive ideology of liberal politics. What I mean by negative is that Republican politicians position themselves against something rather than for something. For instance, they are not pro-life so much as they are against pro-choice. They are not for “preserving the sanctity of marriage” so much as against same-sex civil unions. In contrast, modern Democratic politics, by and large, position themselves for the greater good of all Americans rather than against the 1%. They want taxes to be income-based rather than against those who can afford to part with more. The difference is not merely negative versus positive, but self-serving versus civil.
Why would I refuse then to associate with Republicans? Not just because of the maxim that you become the company you keep and the sociological research that supports this, but because I believe that all relationships are grounded in respect. My democratic friends, even the ones who are white and straight and come from upper-middle class families understand that not everyone has it so easy; so out of respect they support policy that benefits the now proverbial 47%. They respect differences. But Republicans by and large do not share such a respect, for their ideology countermands all respect for those who don’t share the same beliefs as they do. They are uncompromising in believing that their beliefs should be normative for the rest of the population.
So does my refusal to associate with Republicans – to not respect their ideological differences – make me narrow-minded? Let me rephrase the question with a metaphor to illuminate the rhetorical answer: Would my refusal to associate with the Taliban – to not respect their worldview that desires Shariah law be imposed on all civilizations and to destroy those who will not submit to their will – make me narrow-minded? I think it makes me one who knows better than to waste time conversing with terrorists. To respect such differences would invite the annihilation of our society, though that is in effect what the Romney plan would do. It invokes terror in those who cannot afford health care without government subsidy; in those who do not have a heteronormative disposition; in those who wish to get an education but weren’t born into affluent families; in anyone who cares about the environment. Can Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, be said to threaten the livelihoods and dreams of any American citizen? Only of those whose dreams enact privileged elitism and subjugation of the least of these.
I do not identify as a Democrat, for I do not agree wholly with their whole ticket. But I sure as hell do not identify as a Republican, for I have conscience. If you would require I self-identify, I am a humanist – one whose agenda eschews political allegiance and instead embraces what favors the common good. I believe in equal opportunity and the right to an education. I believe no individual because of his or her sexual, gendered, racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic disposition should be disenfranchised from the civil liberties promised in our nation’s constitution. Could I be narrow-minded? Those who are might tell you so.
