I’d like to begin this thread by mentioning I live in New England and I do tend liberal, I know, I know, surprising, but suffice to say I am not going to sling any mud. On November 5th I wanted to see how the conservatives in this country were handling the election of the most liberal president [arguably] in history. I wandered over to the Hannity forums to take a peek. Like I had anticipated people were frothing at the mouth calling for all sorts of things from secession to civil war redux to even more heinous things I cannot repeat here. I even went so far as to register on the Hannity boards to see if I could converse with these fellow Americans who were so up in arms. At times it felt more like a civil war rally than political message board, anyway, I continued to read the boards and post on occasion all in a grand experiment to see how the Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity crowd thought. I have a tough time believing that Limbaugh has 20 million listeners but hey, he might.
I was going to write a longish post to highlight the differences I saw between Conservatives and Liberals but instead I thought I’d open it up to discussion: Personally, I think we live in an America that is extremely divided – as a liberal minded person I am happy with Barack Obama, I could do without the massive spending but I am looking forward to seeing how he is doing in a year. I voted for him because he represented a change I think Washington needs, granted that change is coming in many different colors and hues but things are certainly shaken up.
There are those in this country who are calling for secession, another civil war, who are hoarding guns and ammo and are preparing for the end of days – I know they represent an extreme voice of the American people, but how big is the divide from your perspective? If you look into the GOP you can easy see there is tension in the ranks and a veritable paradigm change happening in that party right in front of our eyes. I wonder if they are going to come out more conservative or more moderate? And what will that do to our political system as a whole? Will we see a massive influx of Libertarianism?
I don’t think it’s quite as divided as people like to think. In some ways it’s pretty divided though. For the most part people are people and they don’t spend the vast majority of their time politicking. Of course the people who derive much of their sense of self from political affiliation cannot mix with one another, though they agree on one thing: they can’t stand those wishy washy people in the middle and wish they’d just pick a side already dammit!
If you separate out the obvious loonies and nuts from both “sides”, the differences are not really that huge. Someone could be a social liberal and financial conservative, or the reverse. People are generally not all liberal or all conservative anyway. You don’t get a true picture by only looking at the noisy extremists.
I don’t really see any divide in this country at all. Having taken long driving trips during the past few years, it seems obvious to me that life is one part is much like life in any other. Subdivisions in northern Virginia look a lot like subdivisions in Tennessee. Shopping malls in Illinois are virtually identical to shopping malls in Alabama. Small towns in Kentucky can barely be distinguished from small towns in Pennsylvania.
And that sameness across the country prevails in politics too. When Bush was in office he sent American troops to the Middle East. Now that Obama is in office, he’s keeping them there. The Republicans’ biggest spending change was federal money for medical care. That’s the Democrats biggest hoped-for spending change as well. Bush’s last major act was to give hundreds of billions of dollars to America’s largest banks and financial institutions. Obama has given hundreds of billions more.
The differences between the two parties are relative minor compared to the areas of agreement.
I’m not sure how much one can learn from visiting a site dominated by the losing party on the day after the election. People will be at their screamiest right then and there.
I think the divide is deep and profound, but is NOT the same as the froth-and-spittle crowd. I think the divide is basically between rural and urban (which also tends to be conservative vs liberal.) The rural folks don’t see any need for gummint, for any gummint at all, they jes wanna live their lives free and open, doin’ as they please and doin’ what comes nacherlly. (OK, I’m exaggerating for humor.) On the serious side, though, just some examples of issues: they see things like gun control as unnecessary (why ruin my ability to hunt out in the woods?), health care as just fine as it is, and government interference with small rural local businesses as destructive. Urban folks see gun control as necessary (why should teen gangs have semi-automatic weapons?), health care as only available to the rich, and government controls on huge corporations as a necessary evil.
If you’re notion of business is mom-and-pop stores, then if they go under, and you shrug your shoulders. If you deal with greedy executives in control of corporations that employ tens of thousands of people, you can’t just allow the executives a free hand.
To address the OP specifically, I live in the Bible belt and you better believe that there are two Americas. I am surrounded by conservative ideology and rarely hear a coherent liberal argument in person. If I did not seek opposing view points on the web, I would be hard pressed to get any.
Unfortunately, WRT the frothing Hannity acolytes the overuse of hyperbole is the norm.
Only the fringes of both left and right seem to screetch loud enough over the typical chatter for the other side’s fringe to screetch back, and vice versa. Meanwhile, the liberal conservatives, moderates and conservative liberals all get along just fine and usually can engage in friendly debate without hyperbole.
We really could do without the fringe from either side…and fortunately, don’t buy what they are peddling.
This isn’t precisely what you’re asking, but I think part of the reason that there is so much spittle and anger flying against Obama is because his predecessor, Bush, was so utterly hated by so many.
Regardless of how justified this was, there were a LOT of people who described Bush as the worst president ever, said he was actively stupid, or actively dishonest, or actively evil, or what have you.
After hearing that, and presumably disagreeing with it, for 6+ years, it’s understandable that the people who now dislike Obama feel like they should have rhetoric angrier than just “I respect him as a person but disagree with his positions”.
Once you’ve achieved a certain level of malice and spittle in public discourse, it’s hard to back down from it.
I think the “two-party system” is a divide-and-conquer P.R. maneuver by those who love the status quo. It’s easier to keep the public from asking too many questions (or standing up for what’s right) when they are busy infighting.
That’s a great link BrainGlutton, thanks. I too think the vitriol over Bush angered quite a few folks who supported him, but they get their turn now to spew it on Obama. Thats what many of them are doing.
**WorkInProgress **- I understand exactly what you are saying, and I appreciate it, I’ve met quite a few decent folks on the Hannity boards…
It’s hard to say there’s NO truth to that. On the other hand, a lot of the reason we got Bush in 2000 was cynical people thinking there was no difference between R and D, and thus between Gore and Bush.