An Apology, a Thank You, and a Conversation Starter.
It all started when I posted two articles:
One from the American Thinker titled, “What Do the Election Results Mean for Conservatives”, and one from National Review Online titled, “America’s True Genius”.
I mentioned in the first post that I wanted to start a discussion and my friend Jordan Peacock took me at my word and posted a couple of comments with a link to his BLOG:
Related to the American Thinker post he said:
“he was shocked at the violence of language”, and “it’s the us-versus-them rhetoric, the demonization of all who do not fit within the author’s bounds of “conservative” that has me concerned the most.” and “there are ways to work alongside people who one is in great disagreement with, without cognitive dissonance or compromise of one’s standards.”
Jordon also referenced an article by Don Miller as counter point. Don talks about his journey from Reagan Republican to Obama supporter. Related to the NRO article Jordon posted a link to his BLOG as response in which he takes on a number of issues.
Since Jordan brought up so many issues and his response serves as a perfect segue into what I was planning to write about anyway I decided to make my response into a series of posts that will feed into Facebook and worshiptherock so people there can comment as well.
I will address each issue one at a time over the next couple of days. I welcome your comments, please keep it civil.
I have re-read the American Thinker article a couple of times and it’s true the tone is harsh. The reason I posted it and spoke “glowingly” about it is because it takes Republicans to task and says what needs to be said in a very “matter of fact” way. It is also the compromising of conservative standards that caused the sound whipping Republicans received at the polls last week. In my passion and disappointment I was blinded to “the us-versus-them rhetoric”. For that I apologize and thank my friend Jordan for calling me on it.
I also agree that people who disagree can work together. I travelled to Salt Lake City two years ago and was able to attend the National Student Dialogue conference last year where we met with General Authorities of the Mormon Church and students from BYU trying to accomplish that very thing.
Where I take exception is the idea of “the violence of language”.
We have taken things which are important and made them unimportant while elevating the world’s ideas to an unapproachable status. For example: situational ethics and relativism over absolute truth, respecting ideas over respecting people, quality of life over sanctity of life, diversity over unity and tolerance over vigorous debate for the purpose of winning in the arena of ideas.
While I don’t believe the old saying “sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” if the violence of language was enough to cause Mr. Miller to turn from his conservative values I wonder how deeply he held those values in the first place. My initial observation of his article was his religion and politics were not his own but his parents and was not founded in principle or core beliefs.
Don has authored a brilliant piece of persuasive writing. He gives us an overview of his life story wherein he offers anecdotal evidence that conservative Christians are legalistic, shallow, uneducated people, who don’t think for themselves and live in fear of anyone who doesn’t believe the same things they do, don’t have the same skin color, and don’t share their political interests. Then goes on to tell us why an Obama presidency and democrat ideas are the answer.
I am not questioning his personal experience and I will not defend legalistic churches or deceptive politics. I do find fault with his facts and conclusions. I’ll get to that next.
Comments
3 Comments
My Songs
Thanks for the expanded explanation. When you explain seeing the American Thinker article as a well-needed stern reprimand to those Republicans who would stray from their party tenants, your glowing recommendation makes much more sense.
I think part of the issue is (and this is the wrong link, but it puts forth similar ideas so….close enough: http://www.danablankenhorn.com/2008/04/tribes-of-the-g.html) is that there are Republicans and Republicans. Just looking at the 2008 nominees showcases that there is hardly a party consensus politic, and some of the party members quite strongly disagreed with one another, over every issue from economics and defense to morality and the public welfare.
So the conservatives that are speaking in American Thinker are much like the Green Party to Democratics or the Libertarians to both – a subset of the majority, trying to win hearts and minds. But they are losing influence to the neo-conservatives and other tribes amongst the elephants.
Regarding the ‘violence of language’, I used the Don Miller article (which frankly surprised me; I usually HATE his writing
) because he was describing how the way an argument was framed and how people discussed an issue could become a repellent, even to people otherwise sympathetic to the cause. I in no way agree to his politics – going back to the neither Democrat or Republican thing there.
But the American Thinker article repelled me in the same way – even the parts I agreed with, I was hesitant to voice agreement with.
I’m looking forward to the rest of your response.
Thanks again Jordan,
I believe conservatives are the majority. check this article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_biggest_missing_story_in_p.html
Conservative principles clearly articulated always win. Liberal ideas clearly articulated always loses. This is my biggest frustration.
We are not debating principles or ideas in this country we are hosting a beauty contest every four years.
It is a beauty contest…don’t get me going.
Can you clarify ‘conservative’ for me, as I don’t usually think of these things one-dimensionally. Do you mean fiscal conservatism and laissez-faire capitalism, something that is quite open to change? Do you me social conservatism, which means holding on to traditional and (occasionally) archaic values? Do you mean political conservatism, the small government ideals that the Republicans have paid lip service to? It’s a loaded term, and people I’ve met usually only mean 1 or 2 of the three meanings above.
I just finished reading the D3 article. My 2c is that the majority of people have unease about ‘the other’ and a preference for the norm. The word conservative, culturally speaking, is a comfort word. I use it all the time at work – giving a ‘conservative’ answer when I want to play things SAFE. Couple that with a couple hot-button one-off issues (ex. abortion or gay marriage) where, regardless of the political or social theories one may have in common with moderates or liberals, the line is drawn.
That said, I can still see a preference in the states for conservatism, matched or exceeded only, in my experience, by my time in Kuwait. So that is the ‘elephant’ in the room that any liberal-leaning politician has to deal with.
I think you’ll enjoy some of the resources I mentioned in the other comments. It’s coming from a different perspective, but a lot of it will resonate with the ideas you’re exploring on here.