I have been thinking about what to “proclaim” myself as (politically). You know how facebook sort of puts the pressure on? Pick something. Liberal? Conservative? Moderate? What do these even mean to me? And what do they mean to others?
The problem for me arises when it becomes evident through conversations with friends and through reading that these terms hold different meanings for different people. Sounds like my blog on gender equality. Well I notice this issue – the inconsistency of language – recurring in various arenas all around me; our language is constantly evolving, changing, morphing, and being used for different reasons in different contexts. So how can we pin down a steady, universal meaning for American political language? It’s difficult.
For instance, many think that Obama is a “progressive” candidate, and in some ways, he is. However, he is not the most progressive democratic candidate that ran – take Mike Gravel, for example. As far as policies go, this guy is far more progressive than Obama. But if Obama uses the term, “progressive” for himself, he can create an image in many people’s mind of what he’s about, even though he may not actually represent the interests of many progressives today. In what ways is Obama not progressive, you may ask? Well, he supports the death penalty. He supports government funded faith-based initiatives. His money is not as clean as he would like to propose – he has accepted corporate money. He wants to increase the size of our military. He wants to make 2 years of civil service (community or military) mandatory for every United States citizen (with few exemptions). Contrary to his image, he has done little politically to help the problems of social inequalities (be it race, gender, or social-economic-status, etc.). He voted for the 2006 re-enactment of the Patriot Act. (You can see all this information if you check his voting record or public statements by him). Now, I do see many fine qualities in Obama, and this blog is not to argue against him. But just because he is biracial and democratic does not mean he is actually progressive or radically different in policy than many other traditional democrats. My point here is that we tend to use political terms so broadly that we may not even realize what policies certain politicians have supported.
McCain is not without his inconsistencies either: in the 80s, he voted AGAINST making MLK DAY a national holiday, although he claims to support diversity. He supported the public finance act years ago, but has not followed through with that during his current presidential campaign. He has publicly acknowledged that he doesn’t know much at all about economics, and that he needed to educate himself on the matter (he stated this on numerous occasions, but the most amusing is on an interview with Tim Russert on “Meet the Press.” Youtube it). He supports “amnesty” for immigrants, which contradicts the republican platform. He supports the “Dont’ ask, don’t tell” policy on homosexuality in the military. (This silence toward homosexuality in the military could be seen as a passive way of allowing homosexuals in the military, which is again, contradicting his party’s platform.) I don’t like McCain very much for many reasons, but among them the most striking are: [1] he is pro-war, and [2] he voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act of 2007 (which was a public policy that sought to bridge the gender gap when it came to income disparities).
. . .Of course, regardless of my preferences, it’s clear that these two candidates project certain images of themselves to the American public; unfortunately, the reality of who they are and what they do don’t always match up to these projected images. Images like: democrat, republican, moderate, progressive, liberal, conservative. It would be far more beneficial to America’s people if we talked less in labels and generalities and more in policies and specifics. That’s where we are most likely to find meaning and resolve. We need to have discussions about particular policies and the implications of those policies, rather than proudly (and often blindly) supporting a political party that may not even represent our interests.
Now, I am very well aware that McCain does not support my interests. I started to think that Obama did. And he does on some issues. But then you have the money, the lobbyists, the corporations, racial misunderstandings, the media exploitation of facts, and by the end of it all, who knows what anyone really stands for in our mainstream political arena? Both parties are so steeped in the complicated power-relationship with money that they aren’t so different when you look at it in those terms (of money and power).
Douglas Adams said,
“Anyone capable of getting him/herself elected president should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
And these Ani DiFranco lyrics illuminate the idea of convoluted party interests:
“Yes the goons have gone global
and the CEOs are shredding files
and the democrans and the republicrats
are flashing their toothy smiles
Uncle Tom is posing for a photo op
with the oval office clan
and Uncle Sam is rigging cockfights
in the promised land…”
The wordplay of “democrans and republicrats” lets us for a moment stop and realize that our two major political parties are based on similar foundations. The two greatest similarities in my opinion are: [1] where they get their money; corporations, etc., and [2] their voracious drive to gain and maintain power. This makes the two parties not so different despite obvious differences we may notice at first glance (such as pro-life/pro-choice; same-sex marriage; taxes; the war, etc.).
Not only is American public political language inadequate for us to truly make sense of our situation, but our perspicacity of America’s historical context is weak. We forget that the REPUBLICAN party signed the Emancipation proclamation, while the DEMOCRATIC white elitist politicians of the south perpetuated acts of racial hatred and an unjust justice system for African Americans during reconstruction. Lynchings increased 200% in the south between the years 1882-1892 under democratic governance. Yet not even a century later, the DEMOCRATS wrote Civil Rights into law. We ought not forget that parties morph and change – and that we must be alert to these changes, for at any given time we may find ourselves supporting politicians or a political party which does not actually represent us.
Because our public political language is constantly changing, we must make ourselves aware and informed of the actual ISSUES. Our public political language – both from the media and the politicians – is often nebulous and perfunctory. Or it’s muddled with sensational discussions on peripheral concepts (such as much of the news media is responsible for … Rev. Wright? Ahem…), thus taking the population’s attention off of the real issues – if we rely on mainstream media and the major parties alone, we would and will often be led astray.
If parties can shift so much over the short span of a century – (as exemplified above) – we MUST inform ourselves of the facts and the issues so that we can be alert to those changes.
Don’t speak generally; speak specifically!!!
It’s not always wise to trust terms such as “progressive” or “moderate”… we should ask ourselves, “What do these terms actually mean to me? And what do they mean to others?” It’s easy to know what terms mean to us. The more difficult responsibility we have is to try to understand what they mean to others – both in the public and private spectrums. And most importantly: FIND OUT! Look it up! We need to do our homework and read, read, read. We need to be responsible, critically-thinking citizens. Future generations depend on OUR ability to detect bull-crap. Once our population stops thinking critically, intelligently, and unselfishly about our leadership and its direction, we’ll crumble.
