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.
Before i express my view on this post, i would like to give a brief introductory of myself. I am a proclaimed democrat who like yourself, believes that i am too open-minded. I have friends from all sorts of countries with a countless variety of backgrounds, religions, and ideology. And i am very thankful for having these friends for they have helped shaped me into the person i am today.
ReplyDeleteNow, what i have to say about this post is that even though you proclaim yourself to be open-minded, i view this post to be almost entirely narrow-minded. I say this with the utmost respect and have no intention to offend you in any way.
First i disagree with you observation of "Modern Republican politics are entrenched in negative ideology rather than the positive ideology of liberal politics." You followed with two examples that is easily two sides of the same coin. If a person is so strongly against pro-choice, wouldn't that mean they are strongly pro-life? How can a person be strongly pro-life without being just as strong against pro-choice? If a person puts an extraordinary amount of effort to speak against pro-choice, wouldn't they in turn be promoting pro-life with the same conviction? The same logic can be applied to "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and same-sex civil unions.
Second, your view that "Modern Democrats" "want taxes to be income-based rather than against those who can afford to part with more." Well to be blunt, income-based taxes ARE against those who can afford to part with more. The two cannot be compared since the two is essentially the same. The rich's income is taxed a larger percentage than those of the poor based on the current tax system.
Third, i would like to talk about your view that Democrats "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." Not all Democrats respect differences in its entirety, nor does Republicans. Open-minded people respect differences, narrow-minded does not. Your view of Republican ideology is nearly entirely all incorrect. Republicans as a political base does not demand all share their beliefs, narrow-minded people do.
ReplyDeleteBoth Democrats and Republicans can be narrow-minded. The strongest example in this is the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. Two extremist views on the political spectrum. The Tea Party speaks against big Government while Occupy Wall Street speaks against big businesses. Youtube Tea Party members and Occupy Wall Street members. Doing so wil open your eyes to the extreme of the extreme and true narrow-mind people.
Next i would like to address your comparison of Republicans to the Taliban. I view this to be completely disrespectful to many good American citizens and should never be said in any circumstance. You expressly declared your view that Republicans are terrorists, a view that is one of the strongest evidence of you being narrow-minded.
Now i will comment on your claim that the Romney Plan invoking terror. This plan was intended to lower costs in healthcare and education (among other things). By the government providing subsidies, they are essentially raising the costs in the respective industries. If more people are able to afford healthcare or education, wouldn't the cost rise? This is best explained through the crowding-out effect. Since more government spending is put into an industry, less private spending will feel the need to do so. And this increased government spending must come from somewhere, to be specific, borrowed from the same banks the private sector do business. This increased borrowed spending will raise interest rates across the board, consequently raising costs in every industry, including health care insurance and student loans. So is Romney's attempt to lower the countries costs truly an act of terror? Or is it just the Republican's view on how to help the greater good of the country?
It is strongly evident that you do not understand either Democrat nor Republican ideology. I will briefly explain each for you. Democrats wish to benefit the greater good of the country through the creation of more government intervention with social programs through higher taxes. They want to take away from those who "can afford to give" and give to those who "have no means to provide for themselves". They wish to redistribute the wealth in order to increase overall utility (satisfaction).
ReplyDeleteRepublicans on the other hand wish to benefit the greater good of the country through the creation of more businesses, both small and large. They wish this to be done through competition so that the general public receives the best products at competitive prices. They want lower taxes so that businesses can thrive and expand, essentially hiring more who are in need of an income. Wealth is passed down from the rich to the poor which is easily explained by the trickle down theory.
Both parties argue how to help the greater good of the entire country, not for the greater good of those who believes in their ideology. Both Democrats and Republicans wish to see their country thrive. That is fact. Of course there will be those who declare themselves to be in whatever party and speak differently. We are all human beings and as such we are all different. If you truly declare yourself to be a humanist, why call your fellow Americans terrorists? Republicans are human as well, do not forget about their well-being.
I end with an experiment i wish for you to try. The next person you meet and have a conversation with, get to know them without knowing their political alignment. Avoid topics that may lead to any indication of this person's affiliation, and instead look to understand solely the person. At the end of the conversation, ask this person their political affiliation. If you like this person and they reply Republican, would you truly reject your feelings and view them as a terrorist? I sure hope that doesn't happen.