September 13, 2010
-
Bleed American!
On one of my magical journeys across the internet I came upon this nice little piece of political experimentation. What follows is one pod-cast dude/blogger’s breakdown of the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Each Amendment is then addressed from a stereotypically Conservative and stereotypically Liberal viewpoint. The exercise was intended to address the increasingly propagandist hyperbole of “Anti-Americanism” that gets slung around so much these days and which side really behaves more inline with the hallowed Constitution you ‘Mer’cans so revere. I’m gonna include my (entirely biased Liberal) perspective on each as we go.
1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Liberal View – Well, except for hate speech.
Conservative View – As long as that religion is a christian one, and no one is burning flags, or desecrating a host, or taking prayer out of school, or….
Advantage: Tie.
My thoughts: I see why the author made this a tie; because both groups don’t seem to be entirely in favour of uncensored free speech. However the single Liberal objection next to the myriad Conservative objections rather shifts the argument in the Liberal favour, I feel. The average Liberal does seem to espouse this particular Right, unless it constitutes incitement to hatred/harassment. Which, to me, is a fair objection. The average Conservative, on the other hand, seems only to cry “my rights,” key-word; “MY.” They then spend the rest of their time trying to strip everyone who doesn’t suit them of their rights.
2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Liberal View: Guns are dangerous and should be outlawed, see there it’s tied into a “well regulated militia”.
Conservative: See there “shall not be infringed”, it is the right of “the people” to keep weapons.
Advantage: Conservative
My thoughts: I can’t really fault the Cons on this one. Personally I find the continued advocation of this particular right to be an anachronism. This is not colonial times, or the Old West. Guns are weapons and I believe none outside of the military (note that “well-regulated militia” part) or police should carry a real gun. At the very least only those trained to handle them with safety and responsibility should be permitted to carry. An arbitrary law allowing any none-trained individual to purchase a fire arm seems ludicrous. I know, I know… it’s all about “opposing tyranny” and “rising up against a corrupt government” etc, etc. The modern United States possesses the most powerful armed forces on the planet. You wanna whip out your shotgun and “rise up” against them…? Good luck, sir…… Nevertheless, if we are talking constitutional rights, undiluted and unbiased, the wording is pretty clear. “The right of the people to bear arms.. shall not be infringed.” I may think it;s a bad right to have but it is what it is. 1 to the Cons.
3.) No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Liberal: I don’t want to house a warmonger!
Conservative: Get off my lawn! My property, my rights!
Advantage: Tie
My thoughts: Fair enough!
4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Liberal: Everyone has a right to privacy, what they do in their own homes with mutual consent is nobody’s business but those involved.
Conservative: If you’re not doing anything wrong then you’ve got nothing to hide.
Advantage: Liberal
My thoughts: Tricky one, this. “Unreasonable searches and seizures.” “Probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation..” All a little vague and open to interpretation. The Liberal answer is exactly my answer and the Conservative answer is another example of double-standards and hypocrisy I see so much from the right. Although, I have to query… if a Con would object to harbouring soldiers in times of war (see 3rd Amendment) surely they would also object to excessive property searches, phone-tapping, personal privacy, etc? Old School, by-the-letter Cons probably would be. I guess it’s just the modern Con, all in favour of the rights that protect them, but somehow failing to realise that those rights extend to everyone and in equal measure, that takes this authoritarian stance. Still think the average Lib would be with this Right but I think the Cons would be kinda split.
5.) No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Liberal: Due process is important, sometimes the guilty may go free, but it’s the price of living in a fair and just society.
Conservative: I don’t want a rapist or a murderer to go free just because some police officer forgot to fill out a form, or signed on the wrong dotted line.
Advantage:Liberal
My thoughts: The law is a tricky thing. I don’t think any of us want rapists and murderers going free. But neither do we want the innocent going to jail (or executed, since this is the US here!) I never did follow up on my dad’s assertions that I’d make a good lawyer so Law is something I don’t know enough about to comment on in depth. All I can say is fair, unbiased due process is the only way a free society can try someone and anything more authoritarian would be a breach of rights. This one, specifically.
6.) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Liberal: No problems here…
Conservative: well, unless they’re a terrorist! Stupid trial lawyers!
Advantage: Liberal.
My thoughts: (See also 5th Amendment.) To fairly try someone we need to keep the methods consistent and unprejudiced. As far as this Amendment goes there’s little room to argue.
7.) In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Conservative: Fine by me…
Liberal: Me as well
Advantage: Tie.
My thoughts: Me too!
8.) Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Conservative: Well, unless they’re a terrorist…
Liberal: It’s important that America takes the high moral ground as an example to the rest of the world, what right do we have condemning torture if we inflict it ourselves?
Advantage: Liberal
My thoughts: Jack Bauer made the whole “renegade rule-bender side stepping the law for the Greater Good” look cool. And it is. On TV. In Real Life we have to be a bit more objective. We know who the good guys and bad guys are on TV. We often know more about what’s going on than any individual character on the show. Real life isn’t like this. Honestly, part of me would hope someone would be willing to overstep the lines of acceptable procedure if a city of millions was under threat of a chemical virus or some-such. But is the reality ever that simple? Whatever Fox News may try and tell you, it’s not, and over-simplifying complex issues solves nothing. When all is said and done if this text is details the inalienable moral and ethical rights of a people not to adhere to them, but to preach the Constitution and Bill of Rights out of one side of your mouth, then condone torture out of the other is gross hypocrisy.
9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Conservative: Unless they’re a Homosexual…
Liberal: Spot on!
Advantage: Liberal
My thoughts: Indeed. Like the rights of consenting adults to marry, express their sexuality, their religion (or none-religion,) eat meat, not eat meat, etc, etc. free from persecution and prejudice. And, significantly, free from government interference. Hang on….! Isn’t it Conservatives who are always harping on about limiting the powers of government yet many of them readily espouse governmental intervention regarding whom one marries, what one believes, what is taught in schools and various other matters, public and private, should be mandated based on the very irrational prejudices and excessive interference the Constitution is meant to check against? Yet Liberals are the “Un-American ones” just cos they want things like universally accessible health care….!!!? Political control over something that affects no-one but the consenting individual parties or is the product of an objective and fair consensus from the experts in said field = Good Conservative Values. E nsuring, by means of the governmental body, all people receive (potentially life-saving) health care = Evil Socialist Conspiracy!!! I think I need to check my blood pressure…..
10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Conservative: That’s right, let the states decide!
Liberal: If we’d have let the states decide how would Civil Rights, or Reproductive rights or the rights of Women stand today?
Advantage: Conservative.
My thoughts: So this is where the “Devolved Government” thing comes in. If that is what the Constitution says I guess the Cons have it. But the Lib rebuttal is extremely relevant. I mean, these things are called “Amendments,” right? There has to be room for reexamination and change. The very Liberal Theory upon which the US Constitution is based warns against “the tyranny of the majority” and protecting persecuted minorities against it. As the original author poses those very ideals have been addressed via progressive thinkers. Left to the States you’d still have male-only suffrage and apartheid. Also, if you’re so concerned with State Autonomy why not just dissolve the USA entirely and become self-governing micro-nations? Oh, because that would suck and you no longer be so rich, powerful and privileged. Yeah.
Totals:
Advantage Liberal: 4
Advantage Conservative: 2
Tie:4
The author rules in favour of the Libs. He’s no doubt Liberal himself so no surprise! But reading each Amendment and examining them in the context of stereotypical Conservative views it is hard to see the Cons coming out on top. The US Constitution was founded on Liberal principles. The equality of man, his inalienable rights (forgive the masculine pronouns) and promoting freedom and liberty within the context of an evolved nation-state. It seems to me that government is a necessary element of any cohesive society that seeks to maintain a standard of life, order and well-being amongst the people. We are all answerable to laws in a civilised society and so ‘True Freedom,’ as it were, would be Anarchy. The difference between nightmarish Orwellian Socialism and mainstream European Socialism is that the former seeks to control the social institutions AND the intellectual, private lives of the people. The latter does not, it merely utilises the “whole is greater than the sum of its parts” principle to provide for the people services difficult to maintain for smaller entities and ensure all citizens receive certain inalienable rights and standard of life (sound familiar?)
Liberals, by and large, seem mainly to concern themselves with personal freedoms that do not infringe upon those of others, consistent with the principles of Liberty. Conservatives seem to espouse (sometimes excessive) authority and order and yet, conversely, decry overt control and government involvement. They call freedom and rights when their own are threatened (and even when they’re not) but would rob those they have personal prejudices against of their rights. There is a claim to support an almost inerrant reading of the Constitution and yet they fly in the face of it far more than Liberals do. If one wishes to call on the Constitution as the inalienable rights of the people one must hold views consistent with it. If one disagrees with the Constitution one must admit it is flawed and can hardly start slinging jingoisms around at those who then disagree with it in a way you don’t. To live by the sword is to die by the sword. If, on the other hand, you want to debate the value of the Constitution, where you agree and disagree, like intelligent adults, that would be good. If you wish to actually think through your principles, their contradictions and hypocrisies, that would be even better.
X
Comments (15)
I agree with a lot of what is here, but the bias of the author of the original post is way too obvious in the way he/she depicts the average conservative. It smells a bit of straw men in some cases (4, 5, 6 and 8). Unless the typical conservative is actually a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh (which, in my experience, they certainly aren’t), I feel like conservative views were very misrepresented.
It could be argued that both sides tend to bend or break 9 to suit themselves. Conservatives could argue that abortion = denying someone the right to life, or all rights, really. Of course it’s not quite that simple, but very few conservatives I know would vote against gay marriage or some equivalent institution, regardless of their opinions on homosexuality itself, so 9 is a bit iffy for me.
As for 10, the amendment says “nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” That, as I understand it, means that the federal government gets to make the really big decisions (like civil rights), and the states get to vote on laws for the smaller details and more specifically local issues. What is written here as a typical liberal view of this amendment doesn’t seem to take this into account. The author just seems to be grabbing at opportunities to make conservatives look worse while putting liberals on a pedestal.
I do think that conservative stances, by nature, tend to focus more on “my rights” while liberal stances, by nature, tend to focus more on “our rights,” though. I also think that it’s good that the two are always in a struggle for balance, and that the balance is occasionally tipped in order to make progressive change.
@the_greatest_pip - so basically the 4 the Liberal wins are all cases of “straw men,” right….? “Straw men” is all well and good in an intellectual argument but people actually vote on these issues, are coerced by these positions and people who espouse them (whether they live by them or not) wield very actual political power. In the debate forum they may be “straw men” but in the actual world they’re friggin’ Sauron in his Battle Armour of Death. Whatever your personal experience polls taken have shown a large amount of people, whilst maybe not quite Limbaugh or Beck, do swerve in the given example’s direction on each issue.
If 10 worked that way, and that is its true function, then I would fail to see a problem. But, ummm… look at 10 and the conclusion he reached. He gives that one to the Conservatives. So he’s giving a “typical Liberal view” and “putting Liberals on a pedestal” and yet he actually awarded that particular amendment to the Cons? If he really wanted to out Liberals over he coulda made it a lot more cut and dry than this. People range right across the board and the author was clear in stating they were “stereotypical views” (not necessarily “average views.” But I’ll come back to that.)
You’re citing personal experience a lot. “Conservatives (you) know.” “In (your) experience.” No-one’s individual personal experience amounts to actual evidence or cuts the mustard in debate and discussion. It may be the case but there’s 49 other States out there. Voting records and opinion polls certainly suggest that many fall in line with the rather polarised stereotypes given in the examples. Yeah, the guy is biased. So am I. But your personal experience does not prove that a dangerously sizable percentage of the country at large does not share Stereotyped Con’s views. The issues the population votes on, the public opinion polls, the policies adopted by the majority of the two major parties, this kinda stuff, that does.
And if Conservatives views are being misrepresented then the level-headed ones need to start speaking up and taking their image back, cos it’s the Rush Limbaughs, the Glenn Becks, the Sarah Palins, the Pat Robertsons, even down to the Mike Huckerbees and George Ws, who we always get to hear from. (And of that list, I personally like George Bush the most, just to put that in perspective!)
@the_greatest_pip - My intuition used to tell me the same things. That is why I stood up for America in class so much. “They were just vocal, crackpot minorities,” I told myself. “Most people, whilst they may disagree on policies, essentially aren’t represented by these nuts.” Well, when I actually followed up on it it seems like more of average America leans that way than I ever could have feared. Simply the views expressed over health care have blown my mind!
The thing is how would you have written each viewpoint? Generally speaking Liberals are more permissive, interjecting only when the issue of personal freedom and human rights comes up. Conservatives, generally speaking, are not so permissive thus have more to take issue with on matters of all shapes and forms. I’m not sure how exactly one could express the stereotypical views of each party any other way than this. A Con who doesn’t take issue with personal freedoms is basically a Libertarian so how I feel if stereotypical Conservative stances look bad that is cos they make themselves look bad.
It’s mostly from various blogs, following news stories, reading articles and stumbling across opinion polls that I’ve formed my impressions. I’ll try to find some relevant stuff.
I understand that those kinds of views are dangerous in the real world.
The reason I said “it smells a bit of straw men” is that I’m doubtful that the views expressed here are as common
in the real world as the original poster made them out to be. I was sure to include the “in my experience” and “I feel like,” because I don’t claim to be a political expert or have all of the numbers. My experience and intuition is the best I have off the top of my head. Have you seen the numbers? Can you show them to me? I’m seriously curious, not trying to pick a fight.
I just think he is representing the conservative views in a way that is easy to knock down while giving the liberal views a bit more polishing. With 10 he gives the “win” to the conservatives, but tries to detract from it by simplifying the conservative view and elaborating on the liberal view (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the amendment anyway). And I wasn’t suggesting that the conservatives “win” anything. If I were going to suggest something, it would be that most people on both sides value the constitution while neither seems to fully agree with it.
I’m not even saying the guy who wrote that is a bad person or did something bad. I was just disappointed that it wasn’t a little less obviously biased.
One thing I think is worth mentioning is that I spent about twenty years practically surrounded by conservative Americans, and we’re talking Mississippi and Kentucky here, so I’d rather my personal experience not be completely blown off. I realize that it’s a limited experience, but it’s got to count for something in terms of nourishing my intuition. I’m willing to accept that I could very well be wrong, naive and young-minded, but I would definitely like to see the polls first. I keep searching, but I’m not having much luck. I’ll keep at it, but do let me know if you find anything relevant to conservative stances on any of the constitutional issues we’re talking about.
It would be great if moderate conservatives were better represented by the people they vote for, but I just don’t think there is a place in the headlines or in the White House for moderate anythings, sadly. As long as a politician is on the same end of the spectrum in terms of conservative vs. liberal, people will sooner vote for them than someone on the other end. If the ship is sinking, most people will want to jump on the life boat. If the guy you want in office doesn’t seem to have a good chance at winning, most people think their vote will do more good with whoever (within their end of the political spectrum) has the best shot at winning. Like the whole George W. thing. He wasn’t the first choice for a lot of conservatives in the primaries, but as time went on his well-funded campaign and big name gave him an edge that made him look like a more likely victor in the long run. Most conservatives preferred him to the liberal options, because a person with a more extreme version of your ideas is more likely to accomplish your goals than someone whose ideas are very different.
Politics are messy and really disappointing.
@the_greatest_pip - Just some articles I’m reading now on the current state of, and rise of hard-line Conservatives in, the Republican Party
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/christine-odonnell-tea-party-interview
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/tea-party-republican-primary-victories
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/rupert-cornwell/rupert-cornwell-this-civil-war-spells-only-bad-news-for-the-us-in-the-long-term-2080459.html
Regarding Health Care
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Regarding Gay Marriage
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/gay_marriage_support_and_oppos.php
Regarding Sarah Palin
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-palin.php
Just a few things. I was never saying (nor was the blogger) that every person who identifies as Conservative would swing the way of the examples. Just that a large amount would and one who identified as Conservative would likely adopt a stance close to or around those generalisation, than they would the opposite generalisation. It also seems from the articles and reporting I’ve been following lately that those who espouse these views are not just some hard-line fringe but a very real and mobile faction winning votes!
@moss_icon - Thanks for the links. Pollster seems pretty handy, but one problem I have with these polls is that they don’t distinguish between people who would call themselves conservatives or liberals. As for Palin’s approval ratings, even most people who support her still wouldn’t say what this guy suggests they would in regards to amendments 4, 5, 6, 8, or 9. They might be upset about their tax money being used to pay defense attorneys for “terrorists,” and they will probably oppose gay marriage, but they wouldn’t try to stop their tax money being used that way, and they probably wouldn’t be opposed to civil unions (notice the lack of a civil union option in that particular poll). What I’m getting at is that even the more narrow-minded conservatives I’ve met aren’t given enough credit by this guy, because most of them would not knowingly disagree with constitutional rights, as is suggested here. At least, that’s what I’d like to believe. Let me know if you run into any polls that are more focused specifically on conservative opinions.
Oh, and the whole Tea Party thing is a joke. It doesn’t represent the average conservative at all. As far as I’ve seen in the news up to this point, most conservatives are pissed about it. A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square. Most Tea Party supporters are conservatives, but most conservatives aren’t Tea Baggers.
@the_greatest_pip - In addition your time spent surrounded by Conservative America nourishing your intuition, plus, by your own admission, politics being not something you’ve really spent much time on, insinuates to me that your intuition would likely favour Conservatism. I remember you even describing yourself as Conservative early on at NUFS. You’re also unaffected personally by traditionally Conservative stances, even more so during those 20 years surrounded by them. What we could do with is someone else who grew up surrounded by Conservative America for 20 (or more) years but has suffered for the espousal of Conservative values and may be able to paint a slightly different picture and maybe testify to their general nature….
(Chris, enter stage left….)
Now, I gave you my history of my dad being left-wing and all that. But I was hardly raised surrounded by Liberal Britain. Far from it. It was an eclectic mix, to put it euphemistically, of bloody-minded Socialists and intolerant Tories, closed-minded small working town England with Socialist leanings but hardly Liberal attitudes. I never identified as Liberal until the past few years and entered university with no political bias, freely sticking up for either side and learning what I could about their positions. Of course when matters became personal for me that helped me choose a side more lucidly. Also bare in mind that the shift in what is “moderate” has different meanings in different countries. Here in Japan an American centrist may be considered radically left-wing. In the UK they’d be seen as rather right-wing. A British Liberal’s (like me) opinion of moderate America will be different to said moderate American’s.
As for voting curves, it is very hard to find set stats online. I have had trouble too. But seriously, even without stats the general voting slants of the major parties and political groups are pretty much a given. Bang in the party names, or the political theories, into wiki and it’d tell you the general stance of the general adherent.
@the_greatest_pip - no, it’s not suggested here that they’d actively disagree with the Constitution. It’s saying that their general stances are not inline with the Constitution.
The republican party (conservatism) is not to be compared to what it was yesteryear. There was a time that the rep. party had a stigma of being elitist, preppy, intellectual, filled with Princton, Yale, Brown and Havard grads, but today it is the party of the boors, the beer belly pragmatists, the loud and profane who will say anything, adopt any position to achieve their goals.
More to say later.
there. i commented.
Just found a great quote from an article in the Guardian by journalist George Monbiot:
“Rightwingers are making monkeys of themselves not just because their
beliefs take precedence over the evidence, but also because their
interests often take precedence over their beliefs.”
@errolmartins - Yes, I’m alive and blogging again! Another perspective will be welcome, look forward to what you have to say.
@Kween_of_the_Queens - Very considered and enlightening, Kweeny. Really…… >_>
Hey, it’s been a sum. Thanks for responding. On most of these blogs you spend time writing your opinions with no response, so thanks.
As I was saying, others that live abroad don’t realize how bad the political climate is in this nation. If you take a close look at the republican party you see a dismal display of loud, envious, older people who have no vision for the future, envious of the young and attactive, older people that have too much time on their hands, mostly uneducated, who are afraid of being left behind as the young venture into the future. They only offer fear, (“woooooowoooo watch out for them there blacks and tthem there latinos and them musims A-rabs the lot of them and anything with the color green”), ad-infinitum. At any rate it’s over for the U.S. economically with no foriegn investment coming into this nation, thanks to the last rep. admin. Asia, the U.E. and South America are trading amongst themselves with the U.S. excluded.
so i’m very, very late to the conversation, but i could still feel the expectant glare that david was aiming at me through the chat window. i generally try to avoid debate (or thought) about topics like religion or politics unless they directly affect me, and while i know that it does ultimately play a part in shaping my environment, the influence seems too abstract to waste much energy on. that said, in a perfect world i think i’d lean more right, but as it is nowhere close to perfect, i find myself very firmly on the left, but perhaps aside from those who study politics extensively, i don’t think that anyone really has a solid idea of where they fit on the scale mostly because i think people tend to stick with the party they were raised with. traditionally the majority has been tipped slightly to the republican party’s advantage (more repub presidents in u.s. history than dems). however, things have been evening out lately, and i find it interesting that there is a correlation between levels of education and party affiliation, highlighted by a tradition (though not a rule) for college towns to be more liberal. while i’m at it i’ll also throw in an interesting mention of a very
recent study (heard about it in the news this last weekend) that found
that those identifying as atheists, agnostics, jews, and mormons (i
believe even in that order) are better educated about religion in
general than those part of a protestant or catholic faith. let me
extrapolate and rephrase: atheists are better educated about a religion
than those claiming to be a part of that religion. the large majority of
the people in the u.s. that claim to be religious are either protestant
or catholic, and it’s fairly safe to say (for protestants at least)
that christian = republican (which is absurd, but that’s another
conversation entirely), and it’s likewise fairly safe to say that the opposite is often true. now of course i’m speaking quite generally. but it’s
interesting what can be inferred when considering these trends together.
as for the statement that the tea party is a joke — while i agree, i’m afraid it’s not as much as a joke as we might hope. a quick glance at the wiki article shows that the movement is gaining pretty solid ground (take a look at the list of candidates benefiting from the movement in 2010), and the movement is only becoming more visible as time goes on.
as for my own experiences, my arguments are going to be slightly colored by the fact that i was raised rlds (essentially mormon to outsiders who
don’t know better). i have had a fair amount of dealings with other religious groups (i attended non-denominational services in columbia for about two years and a few methodist services) but my experiences in these were largely similar as those in my “mormon” upbringing, and i’d even say the non-denoms were more hostile both to my upbringing and my orientation. while my family is very firmly republican, most of my life was still spent in the swing state that, with the exceptions of the last election and the one in 1956, has chosen the side of the winning president for over a century. very bellwether, arguably middle-road, or at least fairly well split. roughly 2/3 of my life were spent in the more conservative kansas city (missouri’s largest metro), while roughly the last third (until recently) was in the liberal columbia. my experiences with conservatives in both cities was largely the same, and with some exceptions especially among those i met in college, these align generally with the characteristics portrayed in this post. many of the conservative responses even reminded me of several people i know. the ones that don’t align with these are usually less religious and closer to the middle, or they are republican for economic purposes (they’re filthy rich). sure, it might be stereotypical, but even the gays can admit that stereotypes exist for a reason.
i don’t want it to feel like the gays are teaming up, but i also have to agree with david with his statement that conservatives don’t exactly help with their image. in recent news alone i can think of the very conservative assistant attorney general of michigan stalking a gay college student in ann arbor and quite publicly harassing him multiple times, i can think of the laughable christine o’donnell (just run a youtube search on that one), and don’t even get me started on NOM — or the phelps clan — or mormons — or sarah palin — or … yeah, you get the idea. and yes, sarah palin still has remarkable clout. why else would republican politicians running on november’s ballot tout their status as “endorsed by sarah palin”? in fact, the more i read the news (multiple sources that are considered both liberal and conservative) the less attractive conservatives and christians (increasingly interchangeable) become. yes, i know that there are those who don’t fit that mold, but i also have to fault them for not being equally if not more vocal about their positions, as david said. it might be that it’s just the crazies who are the loud ones, but why does it seem that all the conservatives who aren’t crazy are gay? christians and conservatives are shooting themselves in the foot, alienating more and more people with every crazy statement, and fred phelps is an excellent example as a caricature. if anything his antics have only helped to push more people away from his cause, which is exactly what “normal” conservative/religious folk are doing — just not as quickly.
so yeah, my experiences have been quite different. after all, it’s only a surprise to me when a christian doesn’t spout hate.
@errolmartins - it certainly seems like the modern-day Republicans are made up off small-minded and self-serving has-beens and regressives, desperately trying to exploit people’s ignorance (and resulting fears) to fire their own dark Age agenda.
@mercurialmusic - thanks, Chris. Took you long enough (;-P and ironically Matt and I discussed and drew a line under our little disagreement here just last night) but I thought your input would be valuable. Unlike me you have Matt’s experience of having lived amongst American Conservatives but, unlike Matt, you have been made actively aware of their stances on these issues. You did seem like the most effective person to address the issue with experience both mine and Matt’s positions.