I'm apparently not alone feeling that there are too many people in this country that seem to just not get it. It is useful to remember that everyone doesn't think the way you do and to consider things from their point of view. This leads one to respect to some degree even those whose beliefs are totally different from your own. I personally find it hard to totally despise someone because of this "walking a mile in their moccasins" mindset.
For instance, Alan Keyes argued that Cheney's daughter is "selfish" for being a practicing homosexual (having a homosexual "lifestyle," I guess would be one way he would put it; what an offensive term when applied to one's basic being). This is a horrid thing to say, but he truly believes it, as do millions other Americans who apparently think that Mary Cheney is a practicing lesbian because she "chooses" to be or something. I personally know people who share such views, and it does little good just to sneer at them. Or damn all who have them as closeminded bigots.
Not that I have too high of an opinion of these people. What strikes me is how hateful, how mean those in power today are. The patent disgust that I had over the anti-gay constitutional amendment is but one aspect of it all. It is far from outrageous, really, to oppose gay marriage. An amendment to the Constitution to stop any state from having it, well that is on another level. The level of meanness in the House of Representatives is particularly high, especially the leadership. How is it that so few really underline how sad it truly is that Tom DeLay and Dennis Hastert are in control of one half of Congress?
Along with the hate is the self-righteousness. The President almost wallows in this, as suggested by his remark that when it is said that he "swaggers," over where he comes from (Texas), it is called walking. This is a useful quality to have when you consider not dwelling on the past or stressing major decisions (such as going to war or signing death warrants ... well, slim difference, I guess) too much a good way to be a chief executive.
One would sneer at this at their own risk, however, because many respect this as a sign of assurance and determination. A sign of leadership. Sort of like Jem in To Kill A Mockingbird thought his dad was boring as hell until he shot that dog dead. On the other hand, Jem and Scout soon learned that manliness was a bit more complicated than that, but they are just children. What do they know?
Likewise, not compromising, refusing to be accountable (secrecy helps here), and "my way or the highway" all work better when you are sure you are right. I always thought humility was an important part of being a good Christian, but I guess I'm not the best one to speak of such matters. After all, did not Jesus rebuke Thomas for wanting proof that he rose from the dead? [I guess this works as well when war is involved.] Who am I to challenge the (ahem) duly elected president of the United States?
I guess it is not blasphemous to speak like this, since apparently God himself (sic) put President Bush in office ... he is said to work in mysterious ways. After all, Giuliani thanked God that Bush was President on 9/11. One reason is that Bush is manly. Seriously. Gov. Arnold, for instance, spoke about "girlie men" who worried about troubled economic times, and even tossed the term into his speech at the Republican Convention. Personally, I find such language akin to immature teenage boys worried about their dicks being too small so they beat up people, but maybe that's just me. Who, after all, played dress up on that aircraft carrier?* Again, we sneer at this at own risk, since this macho act apparently allows the country to hold their head (sexual undertones?) up high.
These things, not politics per se, are what drives me up the wall, what causes almost a sense of nausea if I think about it too much. It also is much harder to counteract than bad policies. We must somehow do so though because these qualities are rotting our system at its core. The president is in part the symbol of our nation, the head of state, and this always was an important part of the job. We look at policies and politics alone at our peril. Some of them are quite troubling, even dangerous to our well being, but this underlining mode of doing things is in my view even worse in many respects. It is what makes me all too often ashamed of my leaders.
We can take the exaggerated qualities of the current leadership and temper them into a reasonable facsimile of good leadership. For instance, why is so hard for Democrats to find candidates who can connect with the people, personable sorts that are just plain likeable? A basic assurance of one's abilities also is not a bad thing, but humility has to be mixed in as well. This is part of the problem when people suggest that there is so little difference between the parties or candidates. Not quite true ... often, style is quite important:
The differences between Bush and his predecessors have more to do with style than substance, more to do with the balance between competing strategies than with goals, with the exercise of good judgment than with the definition of a worldview.**
An exercise of good judgment would be to try to change the style of politics, to demand more than campaigns dominated by empty bullshit followed by the bullshit artists being elected. If someone has trouble counteracting downright nasty and dirty campaign tactics, they are considered unqualified for office. [Politics is always dirty, but sorry, it shouldn't be this dirty.] Demand little, get little in return.
---
* One reader of this blog noted on another forum that some people actually respected the uniform enough to think of it as more than a prop. True respect of things like religion, patriotism, and so forth would often lead to disgust of how such qualities are (ab)used by our leaders today, which always seemed to me as rather ironic.
** Thanks to BTC News for bringing this article to my attention. I don't quite agree with all of it, but there is enough good stuff there to merit reading the whole thing.