Are you now, or have you ever....
You would think that the McCarthy era would have taught us something. You would think that, seeing what happened during that time, people would respect and honor the right of privacy. The right to hold your own counsel, to keep your own opinions to yourself. Most importantly, you would think that people would be smart enough not to judge those who choose to remain silent on topics that they feel strongly about as enemies. The McCarthy era should have taught us all tolerance.
But, I suppose, therein lies the rub. Our current political climate isn't one of tolerance, it's one of absolutism. It's a climate where people assign moral absolutism to political stances. And I'm not just talking about right-wing nut jobs, either; this "us v. them" attitude crosses all political lines. There is no room for disagreement, no possible discussion of the pros and cons of any issue. There is the morally/ethically right side and those who are either too stupid or too evil to agree with the right side.
Don't believe me? Look at any political argument these days. Couched in the discussion of the topic is the underlying current of moral superiority or greater intelligence and always a thread of pitying condemnation for those who just don't understand. This is true of either side of any political debate from stem cell research to vegetarianism to the war in Iraq to zoning laws.
It becomes pivotal in any discussion to know "which side" a person is on. Knowing which side a person is on allows you to completely judge the moral and intellectual fiber of that person. If they refuse to state which side they are on, the only safe thing to do is assume that they are the enemy.
Because, in today's political world, there is no middle ground. There is no discussion, no debate; there is only rhetoric and derision.
Not telling people how I vote is a matter of principle. The right to a private vote is one of the cornerstones of our government. It's a privilege that is rarely appreciated and often viewed as inherently suspect -- especially in this climate of "if my side loses it must be because the other side cheated".
I don't tell people how I vote. I don't post those stupid "post this to prove you're not a bigot" memes that float around LJ. I don't forward those insipid "send this email to others to prove you care" emails.
I refuse to play petty games of "prove you're one of the clique". I didn't do it in high school and I'll be damned before I do it as an adult.
If it makes you uncomfortable because you can't make judgments about my ethical character by how I voted on Wisconsin's death penalty or marriage amendment -- well that's just too damn bad. Maybe you'll have to actually talk to me and get to know me. Maybe you will have to accept that fact that you can't use your political prejudices to judge me. Maybe, just maybe, you have to live with the fact that it is possible for intelligent, caring people to have differing political views.
If, on the other hand, you would rather view me as morally corrupt and ethically suspect, that's fine with me, too. I've had people think worse of me for much less. And in the end, I'll be in good company.
But, I suppose, therein lies the rub. Our current political climate isn't one of tolerance, it's one of absolutism. It's a climate where people assign moral absolutism to political stances. And I'm not just talking about right-wing nut jobs, either; this "us v. them" attitude crosses all political lines. There is no room for disagreement, no possible discussion of the pros and cons of any issue. There is the morally/ethically right side and those who are either too stupid or too evil to agree with the right side.
Don't believe me? Look at any political argument these days. Couched in the discussion of the topic is the underlying current of moral superiority or greater intelligence and always a thread of pitying condemnation for those who just don't understand. This is true of either side of any political debate from stem cell research to vegetarianism to the war in Iraq to zoning laws.
It becomes pivotal in any discussion to know "which side" a person is on. Knowing which side a person is on allows you to completely judge the moral and intellectual fiber of that person. If they refuse to state which side they are on, the only safe thing to do is assume that they are the enemy.
Because, in today's political world, there is no middle ground. There is no discussion, no debate; there is only rhetoric and derision.
Not telling people how I vote is a matter of principle. The right to a private vote is one of the cornerstones of our government. It's a privilege that is rarely appreciated and often viewed as inherently suspect -- especially in this climate of "if my side loses it must be because the other side cheated".
I don't tell people how I vote. I don't post those stupid "post this to prove you're not a bigot" memes that float around LJ. I don't forward those insipid "send this email to others to prove you care" emails.
I refuse to play petty games of "prove you're one of the clique". I didn't do it in high school and I'll be damned before I do it as an adult.
If it makes you uncomfortable because you can't make judgments about my ethical character by how I voted on Wisconsin's death penalty or marriage amendment -- well that's just too damn bad. Maybe you'll have to actually talk to me and get to know me. Maybe you will have to accept that fact that you can't use your political prejudices to judge me. Maybe, just maybe, you have to live with the fact that it is possible for intelligent, caring people to have differing political views.
If, on the other hand, you would rather view me as morally corrupt and ethically suspect, that's fine with me, too. I've had people think worse of me for much less. And in the end, I'll be in good company.