If you study the thematic progression of satire and criticism against George W. Bush from his first term to his second, le mouvement du sujet, I think you'll find that the criticism has moved from the President himself outward to the criticism of an entire culture. Bush was once only a stupid president, but now he's only the poster child for a whole population of "stupid" people. The big displacement was clinched just after the election, when anti-Bush folk could no longer place the blame on the shoulders of the President himself (and really, blaming Kerry is no better than kicking an old, tired hunting dog) and placed the blame on a group/culture of people who we considered ignorant, backwards, and hateful. We considered these people not just duped. By their own agency, as voters, they had done the unforgivable and voted for... not-Kerry... which, for some reason, baffles some people.
Now that every criticism of George W. Bush is paired with another criticism of the constituency that put him in office, the big question for analysts is, "how did it happen?" The popular answers seem to be: the gay marriage referendum, Bush's gendered campaign tactics (the "cowboy" image of male power), and, of course, everyone's pet theory, religion. Religion was the reason Bush won, they say. Christian evangelicalism is out of control. Mel Gibson released a gorey movie about Christ that made everyone rabid, raving Jesus freaks.
My problem with these analyses of the election, and by extension, of "the Bush culture," is that they reduce the motives of a group of people (in fact, half the country) to a few vectors. Whether or not people are motivated by monolithic factors like "religion," "homophobia," or "support for our troops," I don't like how the liberal mentality makes conservatives into an Other whose motivations can be reduced to simplifications like those above. The best way is to think of a reverse example: you know how freakin' angry you get when you hear the conservative pundit explanation that the only reason American intellectuals are liberal is because the universities were flooded with goddam hippies dodging the draft in the '60s? I mean, I know that pisses me off, namely because it's insulting to hear someone insinuate that the reason you believe what you believe is something beyond your agency or comprehension. You have no idea why you believe that which you do is what that statement infers, but it's exactly the same way in which we condemn conservatives who "don't know any better."
Personally, maybe I'm more offended than others because Alpharetta is significantly more conservative than any American private university, and because many of us (Milton readers) lived in a red state, we grew up with conservatives. Most of my friend's parents are conservative. My dad is conservative. The guy with the funny moustache at my family's church is conservative. I'm not religious, but damn, that guy was a really nice fella. So it stings a little when these people, some of whom make up my family, are reduced, by the people whose political inclinations I share, to narrow-minded gay-haters.
I got angry today when my Sosc professor was citing a study shown on Bill Maher that Christian voters (35-40%) don't care about environmentalism because they believe that the Second Coming is nigh anyway. Um, what? It's an insulting claim, but most people in my class accepted it as wholly probable, most likely possible. Even if, let's say, it's true--- how do people decrying the ignorance of half the country prove that they themselves are motivated by anything more complex? The general idea among liberals is that we're better because we're not vulnerable to religion, myth, superstition, or rhetoric--- in other words, that to be liberal means to be an individual, to resist the crowd, and to be objective.
There is nothing inherent in liberalism that makes it more objective that conservatism. It's this claim to objectivity that makes me cringe, especially when it's brought into the classroom. Everytime someone makes a political remark in the middle of discussion, it always smacks of sophistry, because it very plainly has no place in a dialogue that strives to be objective. Not that you can't make an objective argument for liberalism-- in fact, it's not hard at all (neither is it for conservatism). But claiming that your view is more rational because the other doesn't have the intellectual faculties to offer a worthy counterpoint? That the conservative motives for casting a vote are determined by singular, superstitious, frightened motives? It prevents liberal-minded people from engaging in any way with a conservative view point, from giving it an ounce of respect. If it's RED, it's untouchable. When people joke about moving to Canada, well... that's a very strong statement to make, when you think about it, because what you're inferring is that, not only can you not tolerate a view different from your own, you can't even acknowledge that the other view might be something worth believing. I'm blaiming a lot on liberal people, and I know that certain conservatives do just the same thing, but, being on a university, you get an earful much more from the left. What it boils down to is bad discourse, and it's the reason why there is nigh on zero intelligent political debate occurring in this country.
Well, at least in my Tuesday/Thursday Sosc class.
Anyway, this'll be the last political post for another six months, so I'll get back into my routine of blogging about more consequential things this weekend.
Now that every criticism of George W. Bush is paired with another criticism of the constituency that put him in office, the big question for analysts is, "how did it happen?" The popular answers seem to be: the gay marriage referendum, Bush's gendered campaign tactics (the "cowboy" image of male power), and, of course, everyone's pet theory, religion. Religion was the reason Bush won, they say. Christian evangelicalism is out of control. Mel Gibson released a gorey movie about Christ that made everyone rabid, raving Jesus freaks.
My problem with these analyses of the election, and by extension, of "the Bush culture," is that they reduce the motives of a group of people (in fact, half the country) to a few vectors. Whether or not people are motivated by monolithic factors like "religion," "homophobia," or "support for our troops," I don't like how the liberal mentality makes conservatives into an Other whose motivations can be reduced to simplifications like those above. The best way is to think of a reverse example: you know how freakin' angry you get when you hear the conservative pundit explanation that the only reason American intellectuals are liberal is because the universities were flooded with goddam hippies dodging the draft in the '60s? I mean, I know that pisses me off, namely because it's insulting to hear someone insinuate that the reason you believe what you believe is something beyond your agency or comprehension. You have no idea why you believe that which you do is what that statement infers, but it's exactly the same way in which we condemn conservatives who "don't know any better."
Personally, maybe I'm more offended than others because Alpharetta is significantly more conservative than any American private university, and because many of us (Milton readers) lived in a red state, we grew up with conservatives. Most of my friend's parents are conservative. My dad is conservative. The guy with the funny moustache at my family's church is conservative. I'm not religious, but damn, that guy was a really nice fella. So it stings a little when these people, some of whom make up my family, are reduced, by the people whose political inclinations I share, to narrow-minded gay-haters.
I got angry today when my Sosc professor was citing a study shown on Bill Maher that Christian voters (35-40%) don't care about environmentalism because they believe that the Second Coming is nigh anyway. Um, what? It's an insulting claim, but most people in my class accepted it as wholly probable, most likely possible. Even if, let's say, it's true--- how do people decrying the ignorance of half the country prove that they themselves are motivated by anything more complex? The general idea among liberals is that we're better because we're not vulnerable to religion, myth, superstition, or rhetoric--- in other words, that to be liberal means to be an individual, to resist the crowd, and to be objective.
There is nothing inherent in liberalism that makes it more objective that conservatism. It's this claim to objectivity that makes me cringe, especially when it's brought into the classroom. Everytime someone makes a political remark in the middle of discussion, it always smacks of sophistry, because it very plainly has no place in a dialogue that strives to be objective. Not that you can't make an objective argument for liberalism-- in fact, it's not hard at all (neither is it for conservatism). But claiming that your view is more rational because the other doesn't have the intellectual faculties to offer a worthy counterpoint? That the conservative motives for casting a vote are determined by singular, superstitious, frightened motives? It prevents liberal-minded people from engaging in any way with a conservative view point, from giving it an ounce of respect. If it's RED, it's untouchable. When people joke about moving to Canada, well... that's a very strong statement to make, when you think about it, because what you're inferring is that, not only can you not tolerate a view different from your own, you can't even acknowledge that the other view might be something worth believing. I'm blaiming a lot on liberal people, and I know that certain conservatives do just the same thing, but, being on a university, you get an earful much more from the left. What it boils down to is bad discourse, and it's the reason why there is nigh on zero intelligent political debate occurring in this country.
Well, at least in my Tuesday/Thursday Sosc class.
Anyway, this'll be the last political post for another six months, so I'll get back into my routine of blogging about more consequential things this weekend.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home