This is a personal entry. It's about something I've had to think about from time to time and seems to be a theme in my life and perhaps others as well - especially when it comes to politics.
I consider myself very liberal when it comes to politics and what, I believe, is good for the nation.
I consider myself somewhat conservative privately, but open personally and socially.
I was a registered independent until George Bush scared the hell out me.
I do not believe that "hate" and "manipulating to further ones aims" is productive in the long run, although it happens all the time and is a part of life and human nature. But, for short term effect, they often work. And..."hating and manipulating" are accepted as a part of life because it is impossible to eliminate them.
It seems to me that the ability to be self-analytical doesn't come easily to most people because this requires a certain set of skills and tools that take a great deal of patience to learn and the ability to tolerate discomfort. the ability to tolerate one's uncomfortable emotions until a good solution presents itself is at the core of wisdom. Most of us find it difficult and too time consuming to be introspective much less tolerate discomfort. At a time when we have a common enemy with so much power over our individual lives as George Bush does it is a reasonable argument to assume that this is no time for introspection. And...there is no one who is perfectly objective anyway.
Since the launching of Air America, I have been reminded why I refuse to identify with either party. I sympathize greatly with the issues and policies of the left. Before a friend told me about dailykos (he teaches Middle East Studies), I was a regular poster (under a different user name). I have argued many of the points being made here. Including the one about democrats being too "nice" in their criticism of George Bush's manner of persuasion and his policies.
I'll say it - you have to have guts to stand your ground on dailykos. You don't have to have sense.
What I'd like to say to the posters here is that I've noticed a strange phenomenon since Air America aired. The strongest, most sensational, most emotional, person on the station is undoubtedly Randi Rhodes. She is also the most persuasive and the most self-absorbed. However, I was, along with a few other kossacks were turned OFF by her treatment of Ralph Nader. It was assumed by some of you that either we, who criticized her, were either Nader supporters or hadn't noticed how well she's done her homework or that we were the same "lay down, nice liberals" the republicans have been shitting all over for the last few years. Please note - I use the word ASSUME which is a big word and causes great havoc when people apply their assumptions without checking the facts first which, by the way, is something Randi Rhodes DOES do. Her knowledge is impeccable. I had a strong negative reaction to her. My question to those who then attacked me for saying that I feared she did more harm than good at that moment is, "SO!?!?!"
What has this got to do with my opening point? The point is, when we attack rather than debate each others view's (I would argue that debating whether someone should or shouldn't like someone is undebatable anyway), we all lose. If we attack Bush because we think it's stupid because he says, "you're either with me or against me" then we have no right to attack each other for having different views either. Disagree, argue, debate - OK. But I, personally felt my criticism of her - that she shut him down which is the equivalent of murdering debate, is inconsistent with democratic values. She SHOULD be aggressive, she SHOULD be relentless in stating her facts, but I felt (you may not) that she crossed the line and became a neocon like O'Reilly, like Limbaugh, like Rove, like Rummy, like Shrub when she attacked Nader. I did not criticize any of YOU for not seeing it my way. But many of you attacked me for not seeing it your way.
The problem is, I was then the target of some people here because I didn't like her technique -at that moment! Geez, isn't that a form of group think? Isn't this what Al Franken was talking about when he explained the difference between mommy love (who can do no wrong) and mature love (where you don't cast a blind eye on your lover's foibles yet love them anyway)?
Now we stand divided - those that love Randi like they love their mommy and those that don't have to love every thing a prominent liberal does in or to continue to support liberalism.
Question: Do we sometimes engage in our own form of group think? My husband says some people's emotional security is tied to their position/stance. Just because she's a liberal doesn't mean I agree with everything she says or does and if some of you feel challenged by this, then I ask you - how different is that from George Bush?
I'm ready for the attacks to come because that's what I've experienced from some of you before. I don't really care about that. What I do care about are the voices here who may be feeling the same way as I do but fear the rest of you jumping on them. Hope I've been a voice for some of you who wanted to say something but didn't. Please speak up. You can't allow yourselves to be bullied by republicans, democrats or independents.