Edens_heel
Well-Known Member
I have a question for the Hyde Park populace. I'm not sure if it's more political in nature, or cultural, but it has been nagging me for some time.
I've been watching a lot of political coverage on the news lately (when not obsessing over the Olympic games), and I've noticed something that confounds me. Let me preface this by saying I do not intend this to be taken as an attack, or an insult, or as sarcasm in any way, but it warrants such a preface because it will most likely send some posters over the edge. What I'm looking for, though, are honest, introspective answers.
Democrats and Republicans obviously do not play terribly well together in the public stage. We've seen countless examples of this over time, but the divide is never more apparent than it is right now. I would go so far as to say that on a political level, America is as divided as it has ever been. But there is one thing that stands out to me, something that truly came into play in North American politics during the Bush administration and is currently being shouted from the rooftops with tremendous grandeur and gravitas: the word "enemy."
Obviously liberals and conservatives occupy polar opposites in many ways, and both sides regard each other as combatants, but why do I see so much use of the word "enemy" when the republicans are at bat? Why is it that, at least for the extremely vocal and media-present neo-con personalities, the stakes get ratcheted up to such an extreme that they are willing to almost want a war of sorts with their opposition?
Someone Tweeted this to me today: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers This, coupled with the recent republican convention, where everyone in America who ISN'T labeled as conservative was named outright as an "enemy" and the explosion of the tea partiers in recent months is what has really brought the word "enemy" to my attention.
Now, my question, for the republicans and neo cons amongst us, and I mean this as respectfully as it can be meant, is why that word? Why attempt to popularize a word used historically to describe Nazis and terrorists and the worst of the worst of humanity - those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity - to demonize a political regime that has done none of those things, but simply represents things you do not believe in. I, for one, am a very left-leaning atheist, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro health care reform, etc., but I respect the right to believe otherwise. Without needless villification, why would I be considered an enemy for simply choosing a different set of core beliefs? You are still entirely free to follow your own belief structures as you see fit - not regime can or will take that away from you. When the smoke clears, there will simply be more than one option. When the previous administration was in power, people cried out that they were wrong to go into Iraq, and there were reasons on all sides, but I do not recall hearing anyone in the public sphere in favour of the war as being labeled an "enemy." When you don't agree with a political structure's decisions, why go so far as to brandish that specific word, a word that has come to represent genuine cruelty and global threat?
Is it because it is a simple word with harsh enough connotations that it will inspire fear in the weaker minded or more easily swayed? If so, then it's a dangerous way to increase opposition numbers, because that tactic has the threat of inspiring those less stable to do just what was mentioned in that link - to take up arms, defend their beliefs with violence and hostility instead of attempting to introduce new methods of changing public perception and core beliefs.
We have been dealing with violent protesters up in BC at the moment, people very opposed to the Olympic Games for the money that they believe could have been better spent elsewhere. Now there are arguments on both sides of the equation, and though I love the games, I respect and in some cases agree with some of what they have brought to light. But when the word "enemy" gets thrown around, and people begin to "prove their point" with destroyed property and attacks on civilians, I lose any and all compassion for their movement, regardless as to whether or not it had merit.
Is there anyone out there on the conservative side of the equation in America that can tell me why the intense and very sudden desire, when no genuine harm to self or state has been done, to label anyone and everyone who doesn't buy into your way of thinking must be treated as a villain, or an enemy of the state? Do you see any merit in toning things down with respect to virulence and vitriol and instead attempting to approach things with a little more "compassion and understanding and discourse" and a little less "hammer-of-god, the world is coming to an end unless we stop these evil doers!"
I hope to hear whatever insight you may have, and please keep in mind when responding that this is meant to be a discourse, not a free-for-all. Answer respectfully and you will be responded to in kind.
Cheers.
I've been watching a lot of political coverage on the news lately (when not obsessing over the Olympic games), and I've noticed something that confounds me. Let me preface this by saying I do not intend this to be taken as an attack, or an insult, or as sarcasm in any way, but it warrants such a preface because it will most likely send some posters over the edge. What I'm looking for, though, are honest, introspective answers.
Democrats and Republicans obviously do not play terribly well together in the public stage. We've seen countless examples of this over time, but the divide is never more apparent than it is right now. I would go so far as to say that on a political level, America is as divided as it has ever been. But there is one thing that stands out to me, something that truly came into play in North American politics during the Bush administration and is currently being shouted from the rooftops with tremendous grandeur and gravitas: the word "enemy."
Obviously liberals and conservatives occupy polar opposites in many ways, and both sides regard each other as combatants, but why do I see so much use of the word "enemy" when the republicans are at bat? Why is it that, at least for the extremely vocal and media-present neo-con personalities, the stakes get ratcheted up to such an extreme that they are willing to almost want a war of sorts with their opposition?
Someone Tweeted this to me today: http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/03/oath-keepers This, coupled with the recent republican convention, where everyone in America who ISN'T labeled as conservative was named outright as an "enemy" and the explosion of the tea partiers in recent months is what has really brought the word "enemy" to my attention.
Now, my question, for the republicans and neo cons amongst us, and I mean this as respectfully as it can be meant, is why that word? Why attempt to popularize a word used historically to describe Nazis and terrorists and the worst of the worst of humanity - those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity - to demonize a political regime that has done none of those things, but simply represents things you do not believe in. I, for one, am a very left-leaning atheist, pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro health care reform, etc., but I respect the right to believe otherwise. Without needless villification, why would I be considered an enemy for simply choosing a different set of core beliefs? You are still entirely free to follow your own belief structures as you see fit - not regime can or will take that away from you. When the smoke clears, there will simply be more than one option. When the previous administration was in power, people cried out that they were wrong to go into Iraq, and there were reasons on all sides, but I do not recall hearing anyone in the public sphere in favour of the war as being labeled an "enemy." When you don't agree with a political structure's decisions, why go so far as to brandish that specific word, a word that has come to represent genuine cruelty and global threat?
Is it because it is a simple word with harsh enough connotations that it will inspire fear in the weaker minded or more easily swayed? If so, then it's a dangerous way to increase opposition numbers, because that tactic has the threat of inspiring those less stable to do just what was mentioned in that link - to take up arms, defend their beliefs with violence and hostility instead of attempting to introduce new methods of changing public perception and core beliefs.
We have been dealing with violent protesters up in BC at the moment, people very opposed to the Olympic Games for the money that they believe could have been better spent elsewhere. Now there are arguments on both sides of the equation, and though I love the games, I respect and in some cases agree with some of what they have brought to light. But when the word "enemy" gets thrown around, and people begin to "prove their point" with destroyed property and attacks on civilians, I lose any and all compassion for their movement, regardless as to whether or not it had merit.
Is there anyone out there on the conservative side of the equation in America that can tell me why the intense and very sudden desire, when no genuine harm to self or state has been done, to label anyone and everyone who doesn't buy into your way of thinking must be treated as a villain, or an enemy of the state? Do you see any merit in toning things down with respect to virulence and vitriol and instead attempting to approach things with a little more "compassion and understanding and discourse" and a little less "hammer-of-god, the world is coming to an end unless we stop these evil doers!"
I hope to hear whatever insight you may have, and please keep in mind when responding that this is meant to be a discourse, not a free-for-all. Answer respectfully and you will be responded to in kind.
Cheers.
