Belonging: a meandering diary of no particular substance

I have to admit, I'm a little wary of belonging, which is probably why "I belong to no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."  Hey, I even look on organizations like the Girl Scouts with a certain measure of suspicion, and view invitations from actual friends that say "Join us for..." askance.

But maybe precisely because I'm a confirmed belonging-skeptic, I've looked upon belongers for most of my life with a certain horrified fascination, sort of in the way rubberneckers look at accidents.

One of the belonger-groups I've watched with horrified fascination over the years has been the real-world Michael P Keaton squad.  Guys who came of age as Reagan came to power, who seemed wholly conservative as a rejection of their preceding generation's liberal bent, and who became avid Republican adherents.  What the ones I know personally are thinking and doing right now is kind of shocking and a bit of an eye opener.  I'm not sure what I think of it, so would welcome any meandering comments about what you think of it.

For purposes of thinking-out-loud (which is what this diary amounts to) I think I'll use a single, particular person of my acquaintance to illustrate the point (though I live in an upscale Republican town and know a large number of persons this diary applies to - he just illustrates the trend) - I'll call him Jack.

When I met Jack more than a decade ago, he would proudly tell anyone he could get to listen that he was a card-carrying member of the Republican party.  Having recently relocated to Illinois, he was outright distressed that, due to our open primary system, he could not declare his party allegiance upon registering to vote.  And yes, Ronald Reagan was his personal idol.

Over the years I've known him I've seen him spout virtually every Republican talking-point it is possible to spout, I've heard him Hillary-bash with the best of them, and I watched as he appeared to become absolutely hpynotized by the emergence of Fox News.

Then there was Bush.  911.  Much flag-waving ensued.

Then a very odd thing happened.  

I e-mailed him a link to Obama's keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention, in the expectation that he would burst a blood vessel at the very least (okay, I admit I have some oddly cruel ways of amusing myself at right-winger's expense).  

What he did instead shocked me: he positively gushed over Obama and the speech.

Huh.

Next time I saw him I asked him if he was aware that Obama's record in the Illinois legislature was progressive - very liberal indeed.

He said yes, he'd researched that after he saw the speech, but it didn't matter nearly so much as the fact that here was a leader who could return America to greatness. Didn't I understand that?

Huh.

For the first time in his entire adult life, Jack split his ticket to vote for Obama.  And that is, in fact, representative of a lot of Republicans I know - particularly of his generation.  A glance at Obama's vote totals in Illinois will prove that much.

Many conversations and a year or so later I became convinced that Jack was far less married to conservatism than he was to the talking points, but most especially I suspect, to the feeling of belonging to a movement, attached to the selling of conservatism.  Turns out he is really quite socially liberal - though he gagged a lot on my attaching that term to him at first, Jack doesn't see any reason why Adam and Steve can't get married, or why Sally can't get her abortion in peace.

By 2006 Jack shocked me by saying he no longer could stand to watch Fox News much, "because of the vitriol" and not long after that, he visited New Hampshire of all places, and came back saying "they" convinced him while he was there that he isn't a Republican at all, he's a Libertarian, then by mid-2007 he rejected that label and now just calls himself an Indpendent.  Oh, he still reacts with revulsion if anyone calls him a liberal or a Democrat, but he acts with precisely equal revulsion if anyone tries to call him a Republican or a conservative now.

Huh.

Right now, he believes in Obama.  He's donated to Obama.  He's volunteered for Obama.

So all this - coming not just from Jack but from the host of Jacks who surround me in this affluent Republican suburb - has helped define for me long before Obama's presidential bid what it means to see a Transformative Candidate emerge.  I expect there are a lot of Jacks out there who followed Reagan because they felt that by doing so they became a part of something bigger, who learned the team language of conservatism because they needed to sound like their leader, and who are now viewing Obama as the leader whose team language they will next learn.

This is not how I think.  In fact, I am inclined to Edwards on the issues, but I can not deny that I am still on the fence because I've seen the Obama-effect at work on Republicans in Illinois - and that's not even counting the effect he has on people who started at "Independent."

Like I said I am not inclined to belong or to join, but my gut tells me that there are enough joiners and belongers out there to ensure that the emergence of a charismatic candidate like Reagan at the right moment, when the belongers and joiners were feeling bereft of direction and a leader, turned a country from liberal to conservative, and the emergence of a charismatic candidate like Obama, when those same joiners and belongers are feeling betrayed by their leaders and entirely bereft of direction, can prove to be the tipping point that turns us right back to liberal again.

I do lean a little more to Edwards on the issues, and overall think the charisma factor is an insubstantial way to make a decision, but I suspect I am far outnumbered by the believers and joiners, who this time seem to be getting behind a leader who shares (almost all of) my positions on the issues.

Obama is a Transformative Candidate.  Just ask Illinois.