The election of ‘08 in a week
October 27th, 2008 ~ Culture gone madI’m in the airport waiting to go home, and the young people across from me are talking about the election. The funny thing is that I knew they were doing that even before I heard what they were saying. It was obvious from the change in body language, how they suddenly turned towards each other in earnest urgency.
We’re all doing it, I suspect. I’ve been in town for a wedding (more about that in another post, I hope), and when I met up with old friends, the talk turned to the election with the same kind of urgency, the same driving emotion.
This one just feels different, doesn’t it? Somehow, the left has managed to load up every election in this century with MORE baggage, turning a presidential vote into a vote for … what? A worldview, it seems. A scheme, a plan, an outlook. This doesn’t have that much to do with one guy or another guy any more. The vote now hardly seems like it’s just for Obama or McCain; a certain angry faction have managed to turn it into a vote on whether the country should take a hard, hard turn to the left or not.
We’re not just voting on who occupies the White House now. We’re voting on whether there will be oxygen for those in the center or center right. We’re voting on whether a person gets to believe in something more than The State, on whether they get to decide that for themselves and their family the Ten Commandments trump political correctness and the fear of being sued. We’re voting on whether a person is even allowed to doubt the wisdom of a secular utopia.
It may be that there is no such thing as winning, unless you are for Obama. That’s certainly what the last two elections have been leading up to. The failures of Americans to vote in a Democrat president in 2000 or 2004 only infuriated the left and made them insist more on getting their way. It made the mainstream media more deliberate in their bias, and made the rift between liberals and conservatives grow wider. It made the entertainment media less tentative about offending the public, and made a lot of quiet people on the right go into hiding.
Actually, I think Obama will lose, because there have been too many assumptions by the chattering classes that they don’t realize are assumptions. But that’s not the election event that concerns me the most. I’m worried about what happens after that. Not the riots some have alluded to. That might happen, but those inclined to riot are usually short on attention, and only really end up hurting their own communities, fouling their own nest. I’m more worried about the stealth riot that happens when anger is esteemed more than reason.
The problem with calling the demons is that, sooner or later, they’ll answer.
Contents available under a
October 28th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Huh, as someone who I suppose is “on the left” I really agree in a way that this is a vote for the direction of the country, but I am desirous of the direction that Senator Obama wants to take the country. But, I don’t think that it comes from an anger about 2000 or 2004 in that I disagreed with the direction that the current president took the country, but I also believe that it was the direction that people apparently wanted the country to go, hence more votes were for him than for the other guy (both of whom I voted for)
Anyway, it is lovely to see you post, as always and I look forward to hearing about the wedding.
October 29th, 2008 at 11:05 am
I’ve been kicking this around all night, I hope it is ok to comment again, I think that I’m struck by the assumption that I am voting out of anger, and that’s where I’m getting stuck.
But, having said that I want to say two things - one is that I love you and your blog. And two, that Mother Raphaela, who I saw speak this weekend, said the same thing as you on your last line, she said “do not go looking for the devil, for you will find him”
Lord have Mercy. And hugs.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I’ve actually been thinking about it, too — how’s that for a couple of politically involved types? It sounds like just a lame ‘me too’ to say that I love you and your blog as well, but I really do.
I think I wasn’t being clear. I’m not saying that I think a bunch of people are going to vote for Obama because they’re mad. That’s a BIG generalization, and it doesn’t even sound accurate. I wouldn’t presume such a weird thing any more (hopefully) than you would actually believe that if I don’t vote for Obama, it’s because I’m a racist.
But there are a lot of people on the left who are angry, and unfortunately for reasonable people like you, those people are the “voice” of the left right now, either because they are in industries that are all about broadcasting your views — news & entertainment for two — or because they’re the alt-media guys that have the ear of the Democrat party — Daily Kos, Huffington Post, MoveOn.org, etc. There are voices on the right that probably sound similar, but their message is not echoed by the GOP. That’s why I say that there’s a very powerful strong-arm tactic going on that is completely one-sided. (If you think I’m making that up, check out this admission from Politico — “1. Yes, we’re totally biased against McCain; 2. So what? “)
THAT is what I’m talking about, not individual voters voting their consciences. And, as I said, I’m not even just talking about Obama vs. McCain. I’m talking about all the baggage that the election is carrying right now. You may not believe in forcing people to comply with a liberal agenda, but there are a lot in power who do (just look at what Prop. 8 in California is asking Christians to go along with).
Hope that doesn’t sound mean or anything. I’m just trying for a little honesty, because yeah, stuff looks reeeally ugly out there right now. If Obama wins, maybe I’ll find that those in power *don’t* want to grind conservatives into dust, but I’m not holding my breath.
October 29th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
No, I gotcha, thanks for clarifying. I know what you mean, and I see it on both sides, this accessing the anger side. I think honestly, some of the real and serious issues facing the country are so overwhelming, that the fallback response is fear and anger, does that make sense? And, unfortunately, I do see it with the GOP too.
Are you in a swing state? I am not, and that coupled with the fact that I don’t watch TV news (I get my news from NPR and the newspaper, plus clearly the internet) I think that tempers my perception.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I think I’m more selfish with each passing election cycle, but not in the way that pollsters and the chattering class tend to think of selfish voters (i.e., people voting their pocketbook, etc.) Which is to say: I don’t think the person in the White House affects me, my household or my family all that much.
It’s an odd position to be in, particularly since I used to work in policy circles and, as Grace will happily (I think) admit, I sort of introduced her to the world of politics and policy many years ago.
Today, I’m all about my own microeconomy and microculture — the candidate who will allow me to create and sustain those two things with the least interference (notice that I did not say “with the most assistance,”) is the one who tends to get my attention. And honestly, although I don’t *agree* with most of Obama’s policy initiatives, I think I can insulate myself from most of them. Heck, even the McCain policy choices I agree with wholeheartedly aren’t the kinds of things that will affect me in a visceral, day-to-day way for the most part.
Anytime I hear people of the Orthodox faith talking politics, I always want to ask a genuine question: If this life is temporal and we’re supposed to put nothing ahead of God, how do we square that with our political choices?
There’s no “right” answer, but politics — and politicking in particular — is a form of secular evangelism; we should, I think, be countering both the prevailing world view that This Is The Most Important Thing Ever(tm) as well as looking at specific policies and positions that are in opposition to a Christian perspective.
That’s not to say we should make no choice at all — we do ourselves no favors as citizens or as members off the Body of Christ by hiding in a sort of monkish “the world doesn’t interest me,” mindset or taking on the “they’re all pretty much the same” mantle of cynicism.
We’re called to make secular choices all the time. But a surprising number of people seem ready to call themselves devout and to in fact act devout — right up until it clashes with party affiliation It’s an odd and widespread phenomenon with a lot of different rationales, which is why I like to ask the question.
October 30th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Argh! Greg taking the high road — ALWAYS embarrassing!
Just as Mimi found that I was (accidentally) mirroring a message from Mother Raphaela, you’re now duplicating a constant message that I read throughout Fr. Alexander Schmemann’s journals, which is: Orthodox Christians have to not just live for this life, this age, this world … even for this Church. We have to be living eschatologically, living for the next life, the next age; that’s the truest way to be sure that we are really loving God with all our strength and living for the Kingdom of God. He says it better, of course, and I’ll try to see if I can’t post some of it to make the point better. But anyway, you and Fr. Alexander — BFF. Who’d have thought it? :-)
For what it’s worth, I had been thinking this morning of the list of things I want to do on the day after Election Day. The point is to focus on (a) how little the election really changes my day and (b) how many things I can come up with that are not just bi-partisan but a-partisan, beyond “party.” I think the Big Issues, Big Directions right now are important, but when the election is over, it’s over (barring 2000-esque voting day strangeness). In most of my personal dealings, I’m sick of even thinking about how the people around me might vote. And I’m really, REALLY sick of hearing everyone on mainstream and alt-media talk about nothing else.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:17 am
I am very much enjoying this conversation, and how it mirrors what we’ve heard and read from those who are wiser than I am. And, I appreciate Greg’s comments too.
One thing I remember reading online (perhaps on the Yahoo Orthodox Convert List) was that Orthodoxy isn’t Right or Left, It’s Up and Down on the political axis, and I very much agree with that. Our priest was talking about how we do have a duty to vote, as Greg pointed out, but like Grace is saying, ultimately, it matters little (but not so little that you can’t participate, if that makes sense)
November 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Mimi,
I belatedly remembered that I never answered a question. Yes, Missouri is a battleground state.
As for sources of news and news analysis, I get it from the internet and talk radio, which will probably elicit an ‘Ohhhh. Well, then,’ response. But just so you understand how it goes on this side of the ideological aisle, I would suggest that the only difference between getting the news from alt-media-right and from old-media-left is that I *know* I’m getting news & conservative analysis whereas newspaper readers and NPR listeners are under the impression that they’re getting objective reporting.
Dear old NPR probably has the best reputation of the two, but I would challenge anyone who thinks it’s fair and balanced to count how many negative stories are done about Republicans as opposed to Democrats in the next week or so. When NPR very begrudgingly conducted a survey back in ‘05, they found that 38% of listeners said they had a liberal bias, and I think it’s gotten much worse since then.
Not trying to throw down another gauntlet here, just trying to offer some perspective on why it is that those on the right don’t consider offerings from newspapers or public radio to be fair.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Nah, I totally get what you are saying. Although, I have a question - do you mean that 38% of listeners said that NPR had a liberal bias, or that 38% of listeners said that *they* (being the listener) had a liberal bias.