life and politics -- i am doing my best

[rm]

Sometimes, in the fact of the current election, it is hard for me to think, or to function. The entire situation makes me nearly apoplectic, on a nearly constant basis.

I do not, for the record, think Bush is Satan, which is of course what those who are planning to vote for Kerry are generally accused of. Nor do I think Kerry is the answer to all of our woes, and I think I've talked about that enough to not go into it here.

What I'm realizing is some people I know are going to vote for Bush. And when it's people on my friends list who live far away who I don't really know and that I've had intelligent conversations with, I feel okay about that, and I feel okay with feeling okay about that.

What I'm realizing though is that when it's people I know face to face, I feel betrayed and threatened on a nearly illogically visceral level.

Except, when I think back to certain events in my life, I realize it's not that illogical, even if it's not entirely rational.

I've talked a great deal about my political involvements in university, and many of you know the far longer version of the story I am about to tell.

In my freshman year, I had a horribly stormy relationship with my roommate, and eventually moved out. When I wound up dating a woman, I then received threats of rape on the phone, and to my face, from her friends who were College Republicans and members of Young Americans for Freedom, and in the course of these threats invoked campus and national politics, and attempted to pin some of the threats on the president of the College Democrats. Aside from having guards psoted outside my dorm door and losing my scholarship (which led to a debacle of proportions I don't care to go into with my family and finances), I was also the subject of an editorial debate in the school papers.

It was, in short, extraordinarily awful.

As a fan of small goverment and social freedoms, and without a personal adhearance to a Judeo-Christian faith or many of its accompanying moralities, voting always puts me in a difficult place. I am much less liberal than many of my friends on many issues and much more so on many others. And while I believe that 99% of anyone who thinks they understand economics without being an economist is a complete jackass, I'm certainly more informed, if not more comprehending than most.

Certainly, I know that many of my friends face the constantly annoying choice as to whether to vote on money or social issues. I'm just always surprised when they choose money.

To me, money is always something that can be sorted out. I've always found a way to scrape, struggle or survive. I've been fucked by tax policies from both sides, and I've been both wealthy and dirt poor. But, as hysterical and emotional as it makes me, at the end of the day, money is just money, and maybe I feel that way because I'm a woman. I may be a tom boy, but more than anything girls always know about plan B. Hell, it may be because I don't have a family, but truthfully, I don't really think so. I vote on the social issues because money I can sort out, I can finagle, I can solve. And even in some very black moments, several of them this year, money is never what's keeping me alive and will never be what kills me.

So I vote on stuff like civil liberties, abortion and gay rights, effectiveness on the war on terror and just a general sense of whether a candidate seems to think America is for all Americans or just the ones that agree with them. I know that a lot of people may think this childish, or naive, and I suppose my only defense is to tell you that it is neither of those things... just womanly instead.

And it is womanly not because I am weak, or a single issue voter or ignorant of finances. Rather it is womanly because one of those shits I went to college with is a senate aide now. And he raped a friend of mine, and he broke her collar bone doing it.

I don't think anything dumb like Republicans or Democrats are rapists, or that our leaders would condone the sort of behavior I both witnessed and was subjected to (a list which is far longer than anything I've written here). But my experiences stay with me, and my sense from my university experience, or just watching Dan Quayle on TV all those years ago is that the Republican party doesn't want me -- in their big tent, or in my country.

Because I'm a woman. Because I am queer. Because I've had an abortion. Because I am from the Northeast. Because I am from New York. Because I am educated. Because I am a Jew, and even less white than that in small measure besides.

Somewhere along the line I learned that your government holds your life in its hands. I don't know when I learned it. I don't know if I learned when I had my Soviet penpal who was never able to write me, or when I wrote for a history class a diary of a woman living in Chile under Pinochet (a project that probably sounds absurd now, but it got me into advanced creative writing classes at Yale as a 15-year-old). Maybe I learned it when I did clinic defense and women prayed for me before spitting on me. Some stuck pins into my legs. Maybe I learned it in Act-Up protests or lying on a bed in a hospital hallway in DC, when there wasn't anywhere to put a girl with a kidney infection because of all the people coming in with gunshot wounds (you see that, and you don't have problems, and fast). Maybe I learned it when the nurse with a pentacle necklace shushed me when I recognized it, or when the head of Women's Issues Now at University had "kyke" scrawled on her living room window. Maybe I learned it in rape threats or abortion or in walking seventeen miles through Washington DC with a friend of mine who served eight fucking years in Vietnam and had never gone to the wall until he went there with me.

It doesn't matter where I learned it, I only know the experiences I learned it in, all strike me as horribly ordinary and that the knowledge sits with me as utter unshakeable truth. And while I would never attempt to compare my patriotism to anyone's because I think it crass, I do love this place and believe in it both as practical fact and idealistic concept, which I should damn well hope is evidenced by a good chunk of my writing about all of this.

But to get back to the point -- while I've always been a little uncomfortable when my friends vote Republican (even when I've toyed with the idea more than once), it's a little different now. And I'm sorry. I want to be a bigger person about it. I want to be able to say what I feel when I hear Barak Obama talk about one America.

But I can't. Because I'm scared. Because to me, all elections, and specifically this election, is about my life -- not the quality of it, but its mere existence. So when people I know vote for the other guy -- I don't think they are evil, or stupid or anything dumb like that. They're being Americans -- Hell, at least they are voting, that's awesome! But it's very hard for me not to think of them as self-interested, and even harder for me not to think of them as unsafe for me to be around. Certainly, it's nearly impossible for me to consider that they could view me as their equal, and it presents without a doubt a fairly plausible barrier to friendship, as I'm not real down with people who think it's cool or comfortable to hang out with or play with the marginalized groups, but aren't real comfortable with the marginalized groups not wanting to be marginalized (this goes for people that want "crazy creative bi-chicks" to date but not marry, as well as fandom people who write slash and don't support gay rights, and white people who want hip hop played at their parties as long as the crowd isn't "urban" -- to list just a few trite and hideous examples of which I've seen a bit too much).

I don't know if it's insanely rude to write this, but it seemed more decent to, than not to, because I don't want people I know to feel guilty or weird, and I don't want them to think I'm an asshole either. I just kinda want them to know why this election is making me so nuts, and what this body means to me and to understand that a lot of us who are crazed about this election aren't apoplectic because we've been ingesting dogma or like being contrary or aren't patriots or whatever -- it's just for some of us... it's more personal, and less abstract. Rightly or wrongly.

So I'm trying, okay?

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I am loathe to write, "Me too" type posts, which merely praise the sentiments, and add nothing, but this is such a complete summa of things I believe, feel and (without most of the apparent heartaches in coming to) share, that I must voice an opinion, and I can say is,

"Hear, Hear."

I will, if you permit, link to this, or; if you prefer, merely quote it.

Tk

[rm.livejournal.com]

Feel free to link to it, although because I write under my real name, this entry may become friends only at some point in the future, so if there's something specific, I'd also suggest you quote (which doesn't bother me).

[starkyld.livejournal.com]

i can't say anything that would add to what you've already written, but i wanted to thank you for writing this.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Another impressive and admirable post. I am perhaps lucky in that literally no one I know (except for a few people in the gaming industry who I already casually dislike) is even considering voting for Bush. I'm not certain how I would handle anyone I was even remotely close to doing so - at this point, I'm fairly sure that I would try to argue them out of doing so and then if they did not change their mind, I would completely cease associating with them - I simply do not want to be even casually close to anyone who supports almost any of Bush's policies. I consider Bush and his allies to be a serious threat to my safety and the safety of my loved ones and I am simply not OK with associating with anyone who agrees with him. Perhaps I'm being narrow-minded, but I can't see any vision of a unified America anymore.

It's very difficult for me to see this election as anything other than a major battle in an increasingly hostile and pervasive culture war - one in which I am far from neutral. As much as I dislike Kerry, I'm also completely baffled at how anyone could be undecided as to who they are voting for. People who approve of what Bush is doing appall me, but people who have no opinion or who are uncertain completely baffle me.

[bloo-stocking.livejournal.com]

As others here have said, you have summed up so well what I've been feeling. I am not a Kerry supporter, nor am I a Democrat. After the 2000 election, I registered as a Green because I could not see the differences between the two major parties. Yes, I was one of those people who voted for Nader, and I don't regret it. I have become so cynical about US politics over the past few years. The Bush administration is so frightening on numerous levels. Is there one single aspect of our nation that Bush hasn't botched? And how much more of his "traditional family values" do we get shoved down our throats? Come November, I'll vote for Kerry only to get Bush out. Of course, I'm cynical that Kerry will do the right things. I'm cynical that my vote really doesn't matter. For the first time in my years of voting, I feel like I'm picking the "lesser of two evils" and it's awful to feel that way. It's late and I'm tired, but I just have to share this. I'm writing my MA thesis on Emma Goldman and her critique of the "social significance of modern drama." One of my favorite quotes of hers is so very appropriate right now: in 1919, she said "Sooner or later the American people are going to wake up." Well, Emma, we are STILL waiting for this to happen. Hopefully, we'll all wake up before November.

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

This is very well said.

The thing is, the personal is always political, and in times like this, the political is more personal than ever. This really is a mattert of supporting hate and oppression.

It makes me intensely uncomfortable, bordering on upset, to think that someone who is my friend, someone who cares about me, as a person, would support a regime that dehumanizes me, that believes that I should not be extended the rights of a U.S. citizen. And make no mistake, that's what we're talking about here: we're talking about systemized oppression. We're talking about a campaign to take away the rights of some people, and extend special privilege to toehrs, based upon economic and ideological support.

To be honest, if I learned that someone close to me did so, I would have to re-evaluate my impression of that person. It would be very hard for me to think of someone as a "good person" if they choose to support an oppressive, murderous regime. It would be hard for me to think of someone as a friend, if they supported a regime that wants to deny me my basic civil rights, and in some cases even wishes me dead.

That's the difference, I think, between "us" and "them." "They" want to extend the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, only to those whom they choose, and they choose only those who agree with their agenda. "We" want to extend them to everyone- yeah, even those people who want to oppress us. I want them to absolutely have the right to do whatever they want, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. They don't want that for me.

[fireincarnation.livejournal.com]

We're at a very scary place right now, because we're only a step away from tyrany, and tyrany is a terrifying place to be.

My parents are voting for Bush, which would lower my oppinion of them, except that I already know they are morons. Somehow they are convinced that Bush is the only way to protect their rights.

I somehow wish there was a way to vote for the best cantidate, instead of the least worst, but it seems that has been what the choices are for a long time. Then we end up with presidents that do Felony Stupids like Clinton and Nixon, or presidents that *are* Felony Stupids, like Bush.

I wish that people weren't assholes, that they didn't do such horrible things to other people when they felt morally superior. I mean, I wouldn't go out and get an abortion: that's not right for me, but I'd defend to the death the right of any woman who felt it was right to get one. I'm not out to force my beliefs on someone else, but I will force one concept on everyone who I can force to swallow--tolerance. I just wish people weren't asses.

And I aggree with you . . . completely.

[adriang.livejournal.com]

I agree with much of the position you write, and in fact, you put it so well that it seems like a shame almost, to disagree with any part of it. Before doing so, I'll point out that I am voting for Kerry, and I'll probably donate to his campaign, since I live in Kansas, and my vote for Kerry will likely be wasted, anyway.

My only point of disagreement is that there may be more than just concern about money behind some people's support of a less liberal tax policy. I am a liberal, myself, and I do support the idea that those of us who are more financially successful than average should pay a higher percentage of our income in taxes than those who are not. But it troubles me a great deal that many of my fellow liberals, including Kerry, seem so eager to throw around the word "Rich" like a swear word and whip up a frenzy of resentment in middle and lower income voters against anyone financially better off than they are. I work for a living, and I've put a lot of work into developing skills that have made me successful. When I hear some of my fellow liberals eager to make sure we make the rich "pay their fair share" when taxes are raised and to make sure that tax decreases should only be for the middle and lower classes, it's not hard to see where a few cycles of raising and lowering taxes would lead under that scheme; And when I see that the tax laws already discriminate against me, even though I'm certainly not "Rich" yet, it troubles me. Sure, those of us who are more comfortable (I won't say "more fortunate," because I paid my way through college and I EARN my current salary) should pay more, but it should be done according to rational principle, and not in a way that is driven by some political opportunist preaching resentment to the lower half of income earners against the upper half.

My government discriminates against me, because of my income, and it's not just a matter of paying a higher percentage in taxes; The easiest example is the fact that I can only contribute something less than half the money to my 401K plan as someone who makes 15K/year less than I do. I could understand not being able to contribute a lot more, but shouldn't I be allowed to put away as much for retirement as anyone who makes less than I do? I've crossed some threshold, where my government is starting to act like there must be something illegitimate about my income. I'm not saying this is a terrible problem, but I am saying that there are more than simple money concerns here, even if money is how some of the other concerns manifests themselves.

I really don't like John Kerry, but GWB represents the worst of excess and evil by fundamentalist christians in this country. He has shown his willingness to brush aside every one of the civil liberties he's sworn to protect. I'll vote for Kerry, and I'll probably contribute to his campaign, because he is clearly the lesser evil. I'll do these things knowing that if we are successful in getting him elected, he will continue to demonize the rich, and then under the table, slip those of us who are simply a bit more successful than usual in with "the rich" as victims of his tax policies. I expect try to help get Kerry elected, and then if I am successful, I expect Kerry to stab me in the back. The knife will be too short for more than a superficial wound, of course. The injuries I sustain will be nothing compared to what GWB has in mind for everyone who has the temerity to live lifestyles he and his mindless fanatical friends don't approve of.

You really are right to say that the harm I will face from Kerry is far less serious than the real evil done by Mr. Bush. You are right to say that I should put that irritation aside in favor of getting Bush out of office. But even if money is the easiest part to talk about, there is more to what Kerry is going to do wrong than mere money. Even relatively small injustices from government are troubling when they seem to come from unreasonable and unprincipled resentment against us. It's natural to fear where those attitudes may lead if they go unchecked.

Adrian

[lawnrrd]

There's a lot more that I could say, but I think all I should say is: I'm trying, too.

Eloquent and Heartfelt.

[talkshowhost.livejournal.com]

That was perfect, and since I am loathe to simply say "me too", I feel I need to throw my 5 centavos in here.

I am a man, I am straight, I am mixed ethnicity that passes for white. I have an alright job, good friends, and nothing really to "complain" about....except the fact that people I love, I care for, I believe should have just as many rights as anyone else are being treated like outcasts, like offal, like those who shouldn't be allowed to breathe.

I mean, we're talking about people trying to add an amendment to the Constitution to deny a segment of the population the right to do something. The last time that happened, crime lords flourished making money on illegal booze, and we all saw how well THAT worked out. Thank you, Volstead Act!

A perfect example of my own personal feelings on the topic:

I am a game geek. I like to play computer games online, specifically first person shooters with my friends-Battlefield: 1942, Battlefield: Vietnam, etc. The group of friends I usually play with call ourselves The Argonauts, and have all taken Argonaut names-for example, I'm Orpheus. We all have different politics, but we generally ignore those to just have fun and talk trash and drink beer and shoot the bad guys.

Well, recently, one of the guys I play with has changed his gaming name to "Three Faked Purple Hearts". I shrugged my shoulders and rolled my eyes about it at first, but then, suddenly last night, I got really, really angry, and quit the game, and have pretty much decided that I don't want to have anything to do with him for the time being. Is that rational? No. Is it illogical? Yes. Do I feel at all upset about doing it? Not even a little bit.

I can't help but feel like this election is a lynch-pin for our future-that something more than simply who spends the next 4 years in office is going to be determined-and I, for one, cannot even comprehend how bad it could get.

A friend of mine put it best-the question we need to ask ourselves is, are you happy with the way things are, or do you want them to change? So, let's see-foreign policy in the toilet, overspending while riding the edge of a giant economic false bubble, civil liberties being taken away, trying to discriminate against fellow citizens based on sexual orientation....Yeah, I think I'll take a pass on that, George. In my mind, Kerry can't fuck up anything more than GW already has.

Once again, though, kudos to you for such a kick ass entry.

[rm.livejournal.com]

*nodnodnod*

Thank you for being gracious about what I've had to say here.

[rm.livejournal.com]

*nodnodnod* I agree, and honestly, didn't get into it mostly out of exhaustion. I particularly find the throwing slurs around about people's incomes trite, and equivalent to teh demonizing being done about east coast colelge professor types or whatever it is this week.

There was an interesting piece in Business Week around tax time about the new tax laws, the Alternative Minimum Tax (which is a fucking nightmare that needs to be fixed in a big way), that included excellent data about the spread of incomes nationally (i.e., we keep hearing about the 2% of earners nationally, who are they?) and who thinks they are in given groups. I wish I could remember the numbers, but it was something weird and insane like 20% of the people think they are in the top 2% of earners, and twice that think they will get there. Which I suppose is both a vote for the optimism of American's, but also illustrates very clearly the problem with how cursory our national economic discussions are.

About a month ago, I filmed this thing about politics, that I can't really get into until it airs, but there was one women in the group who kept demanding "what am I going to get?" about every candidate. It made me realize this is how a lot of people vote, and while obviously, I vote self interested too -- we all do -- I never heard it reduced to "if I open an account with you do I get a free toaster?" before.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I added a bit more to this post after you posted it. The people in question aren't close, but are part of my f2f social circle, and I just can't get past the idea now, the more I've thought about it, that people like me aren't real -- just part of the entertainment. You know?

[rm.livejournal.com]

NP.... I'm guessing you're reacting, at least on some level to the thing on your friends list too?

[00goddess.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I know.

Occasionally I have realized that an acquaintaince, maybe someone with whom I thought I was building a friendship, and sometimes just someone who I approached as an equal, openly, with nothing false, was not approaching me the same way. It's always been a shock to me, like a hard kick, to realize that to them I'm not really a person, I'm an amusement.

Oh god, this just reminded me of YEARS ago, like, almost a decade, when my GF was invited to a birthday gathering of one of her coworkers. They specifically said that SOs were welcome, so she asked me along. And we were all at the pub, at the table, all cozy and friendly and etc, and then someone asked something about our lifestyle (not our love relationship per se, but something about our living arrangements or the way we split baby care and all that) and the entire table got quiet and turned to us. To see what we would say. Because we were the entertainment.

It took us a few minutes to catch on; we were answering honestly and openly and then we realized that we had become the focus of attention. The birthday woman had such a look on her face, she was mugging at one of the other guests, and I can even see it in my mind now, it was so "Look how entertaining the lesbians are!"

And so the questions started pouring in, and they were so fucking amused and titillated and interested in it all. And not in a good way- in a morbid way. And so we remained polite and excused ourselves as quickly as we politely could (these being her coworkers) and although I really didn't give a good goddamn, she was just devastated, because she thought that we had been invited because that woman wanted to be her friend.

We were just a party favor. And wow, I hadn't thought about that in years.

Anyway, you're not overreacting. This is really how things are. We are a nation at war, but it's internal, it's a culture war. People like you & me, we fight it every day.

[noveldevice.livejournal.com]

one women in the group who kept demanding "what am I going to get?" about every candidate.

I tend to look at a candidate and ask "What are you going to do for me?" but I'm asking as a representative of my gender, my income bracket, my faith, etc. Not "What are you going to give me" but "What are you going to do for all those groups of which I am a member? What will you do for students, for women of reproductive age, for people not making a lot of money, for pagans, for bisexuals, for those with disabilities?"

It doesn't do anyone any good to vote on the basis of selfish considerations--voting is not really about me, it's about us. Maybe if more people thought of it that way, things would be different.

[adriang.livejournal.com]

I have to admit that the message I got at first form your original comment was that you had to re-evaluate your friendships with people who don't make the right political decisions. I see a lot of that, in politics, and I mistrust that approach to arguing with people.

But while I don't think that a mere difference in political opinions is, in itself, grounds for re-evaluating a friendship, discovering that a friend can so easily dehumanize other people just for being different, or in your case, your discovery that they can dehumanize you personally really does and should make a difference is how you view them. Clearly I wasn't paying attention to what you were really saying the first time around.

Anyway, you're not overreacting. This is really how things are. We are a nation at war, but it's internal, it's a culture war. People like you & me, we fight it every day.

You're right that she's not overreacting and you aren't either. We have the Dark Ages to look back on, if we want to see what happens when religious bigots gain power. We can't let religious fanatics divide us and conquer us in small chunks. Even if my sexual orientation doesn't put me in their first batch of targets, if I don't stand with you to fight them off, sooner or later they'll get around to me. Deep down inside, GWB and his cronies believe that the more people they hate, they better they are. They can't help but continue looking for more excuses to hate more people. You are not overreacting, and in fact, maybe the rest of us are under-reacting.

Adrian

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

A very powerful essay, rm; I'll be passing on a link to my friends.

Reading it reminded me of Orcinus' essay The Political and the Personal (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_11_23_dneiwert_archive.html#106970848149574609), which describes similar anguish for some different reasons.

There's one thing about growing up in a place like Idaho: If you can't make friends with conservatives, you won't have many friends.

And as my oldest friends can tell you, the truth is that I used to be fairly conservative myself. I come from a working-class family -- my mother's side of the family was in road construction, and my dad's was mostly a farming family, though his father actually was an auto mechanic.

Working-class values, and my belief in blue-collar virtues -- like integrity, decency, hard work, honesty, common sense, and fair play -- all were quite deeply ingrained. When I was younger, I really believed that conservatism best embodied those values.
...
I have heard all kinds of anecdotes about interpersonal alienation over Bush and his handling of the "war on terror." Some of these involve family members, others longtime friendships. One can only imagine what scenes will erupt from the coming Thanksgiving and holiday seasons too. For myself, it is not profound, but noticeable: invitations to traditional camping and fishing trips not issued; letters ignored; cold and brusque treatment when we do get together. A decided lack of communication and a clear sense of rejection.

And it's too plain why: I and my fellow "Saddam-loving" liberals are all traitors. They know, because Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and everyone else out there has told them so. Indeed, these right-wing "transmitters" have been pounding it into their heads for years now, and it's reaching fruition.

I don't really blame my friends for this, though of course I deeply resent their willingness to adopt such beliefs. It is a very hurtful thing, and it may take years to recover, if at all. But I'm trying to be patient, knowing that eventually they will come around.

tangentally

[rm.livejournal.com]

Working-class values, and my belief in blue-collar virtues -- like integrity, decency, hard work, honesty, common sense, and fair play

Why are these blue-collar values? Or why are these blue-collar values only? I'm not blue collar, and my family isn't (although my father's father was a shoemaker), but those were the ideals I was raised with, and I would say most of the peers I grew up with were as well (and some of them really have been in that mythical top 2% of earners).

I work hard, and I'm lucky to have the opportunity to. I hate the rhetoric that says that's impossible because I sit at a desk (or perform), or have a college degree, or live in NYC, or whatever it is this week.

I get the point, and it's good, illuminating writing.

I just get sick and tired of being told I don't have values or don't have shared values.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

Aye. By my lights, those are the values of people of any social class who are professionals in the truest sense of the word.

The "values" thing makes me crazy, too. It's not that I don't have values, it's that my values are --- in some places --- different. Cultural conservatives have a long laundry list of rules about sex. I believe in a single core principle of consent. I understand all too well what their values are, but (chillingly) they often don't appear to even understand the concept of consent. Don't tell me I don't have "values."

[stephl.livejournal.com]

I read this in my FriendsFriends entries, and it really moved me to comment.

I live in Ohio, and because it's a critical swing state, this election is making me more and more frantic as November draws closer. My part of Ohio is probably the most conservative part of the state, which is maddening to me. I see far more Kerry/Edwards yard signs than I ever would have expected, which gives me some small hope, but, ultimately yard signs don't translate to actual votes.

I have friends who voted for Bush in 2000, and will most certainly vote for him again this year. I have family who consider voting "against" Bush to be a portent of the apocalypse. (Family members who, when they found out I saw Fahrenheit 9-11, reacted as if I saw a snuff film.)

When they voted for Bush in 2000, it irked me, but I was sure he couldn't win. Four years later, I feel, like you described, betrayed by the people I know who still plan to vote for him again. And I'm also very confused, because it's as if we've lived the past 4 years in 2 completely different United States. I honestly don't understand how they can look at the past 4 years and think that 4 more years of the same could be anything but destructive.

So I *do* feel, when it comes right down to it, threatened and unsafe because of their vote. Not just because of my gender or sexuality, but because I'm an American, damn it, and the current administration is eroding everyone's rights, and most certainly will continue to do so if given the chance.

[graene.livejournal.com]

Thank you once again, for helping distill my confusion into words of clarity, so I can more easily speak out to my acquaintence seem not to get this.

Great post.

[ex-meta.livejournal.com]

Certainly, I know that many of my friends face the constantly annoying choice as to whether to vote on money or social issues.

I don't think I know anyone rich enough to be able to argue that they're voting for Bush out of economic self-interest.

As far as I'm concerned, you don't vote for an administration that officially condones torture. That's an absolute line you do not cross. If I'm gonna lose friends for taking that stand, so be it.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

But it troubles me a great deal that many of my fellow liberals, including Kerry, seem so eager to throw around the word "Rich" like a swear word and whip up a frenzy of resentment in middle and lower income voters against anyone financially better off than they are.

That sort of resentment is rather understandable in the US. The US has a greater disparity between rich and poor than in any other First World nation. I while back, I ran into some hard data on this. PBS has a site with a pop-up which lists relative wages gaps between worker on the factory floor and executives. The figures listed are very disturbing.

Nation----------Wage Gap
Japan--------------11
Germany-----------12
France------------15
Canada------------20
Britain-------------22
Mexico------------47
Venezuela---------50
United States-----475

From my PoV, this sort of wage-gap simply not acceptable. To make matters worse, 20% of the population holds 83% of the wealth in this nation. As a result, resenting the wealthy makes perfect sense to me. In the rest of the First World (and for that matter in many of the less wretchedly-off nations of the Third World) the members of the lower middles class and the working poor are not supporting an ultra-wealthy class.

When I hear some of my fellow liberals eager to make sure we make the rich "pay their fair share" when taxes are raised and to make sure that tax decreases should only be for the middle and lower classes, it's not hard to see where a few cycles of raising and lowering taxes would lead under that scheme;

I simply do not agree. I would very much like to see the US have a tax structure more in line with the EU. The wealthy do need to pay their fair share, which (from my PoV) is a whole lot more than they are paying now. With that sort of money, we could have working social programs, guaranteed healthcare for all citizens, and the other benefits that residents of almost every other First World nation takes for granted. In short, one of the few things I agree with Kerry about is the absolute necessity of raising taxes for the wealthy.

[adriang.livejournal.com]

It sounds like you are saying that because some people have a lot more money than average, and because you can think of some good uses of that money, that we should simply take it. It seems to me that any meaningful system of ethics must afford some level of protection from all parties involved. Do you have any restraints, at all, in mind to limit how much money we might take from the rich?

You say, "The wealthy do need to pay their fair share", but the whole point I'm making is that I think far too many people have this category of "The Rich" in their minds, and that this category is made up of people that aren't really human to them and don't really deserve the same consideration and protection of law that the rest of us do. I'm concerned that there is a kind of class bigotry at work here and that it affects the way that some of my fellow liberals think about tax policies.

Please don't misunderstand what I'm saying; I think that some rich people and some CEO's have a lot to answer for. There's no reason to think that the upper classes are bastions of moral conduct, any more than the lower classes. But there's something very wrong with the principle that "The Rich" are different from us and they have things that we want so they don't deserve the same protection of law that they rest of us get. When I hear things to the effect that the rich need to start pay their fair share, and when I know that they already pay a far higher percentage of their income in taxes than the poor, I have to ask what it is about that logic that is different from, "They're different from us and they have what we want, so we should take it."

Nothing in your post offers the slightest suggestion of what protection "The Rich" might have from excess in our plans for their money. Whatever this nebulous "their fair share" you are thinking about is, it appears that the already disproportionate share in taxes that they pay is not enough for you. Is there anything in your philosophy that "The Rich" could look to for some hope of fair treatment?

Adrian