My Ideology Can't Hear Yours

 

by Bob Randall

Guest Blogger

(Editor's Note:  This is the second in a series of posts recently submitted by good friend, Ranger Bob.  In it he discusses his frustrations with the ideological extremes of current American politics.  You can expect a couple more of Ranger Bob's opinion pieces to run in this space within the next few days, and they are always much appreciated by this tired old typist - Pa Rock)

Close to home:  I was on the phone with my cousin.  I mentioned that I had had covid a few months before.  I added that I suspected that my covid vaccination had helped prevent a more serious reaction. He told me that if I had been taking Ivermectin like he does, I wouldn't have gotten covid at all.  I was brutal in my response.  I knew his politics and his tendency towards conspiracy theories.  If he was going to talk about such nonsense, I had nothing more to say to him.  We didn't talk about Ivermectin anymore.  We haven't talked much since then either.  I actually like my cousin but we can't carry on a conversation.

I was watching a comedian in a "Man on the Street" interview.  He was at a conservative street demonstration and asked a woman who had a few Trumpy sayings stitched to her jacket what she thought about politics. She didn't answer the question.  Instead she asked her interviewer if he believed that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.  She added something like this:  "cause if you don't, I don't have any reason to talk to you."  We are polarized.  We're so polarized that the enemies aren't just in the other political party, the middle of a party is at odds with the extremes of the same party.  Neither side will even talk to the moderates of their own party or independents on certain issues.

  

I was reading a blog post about a controversial subject.  The poster claimed that his opponents (people with whom he has a lot in common) were promoting debunked data.  He also used adjectives that were testy and made ad hominem attacks.  It was a subject that I try to keep up on and I was familiar with the work of the person he was attacking, so he needed evidence to convince me. As evidence of that debunking, he referred to a paper that disagreed with his opponent. I began a search for the debunking and found it.  I found that that debunking has been debunked by a third unbiased party. I read them both but admit it was highly technical and am not in a position to debunk any of it to a high level of certainty.  He made an argument that appealed to his own and his readers' confirmation bias. The comments section was filled with name calling and labeling.  For the most part, his detractors don''t read his blog so they weren't offended. They were probably too busy on another blog calling the others names.

Quick examples from both directions:

Universities deplatform speakers if they get too much push-back from a few angry student groups. Trump defunds universities that disagree with his agenda (and for spite).

Two freshmen congressmen disrupted a legislative session and led a noisy demonstration inside the legislative chamber.  Agree with them or not; that's out of line.

During a campaign speech, a politician encouraged his followers to rough up some demonstrators.

A senator at a town hall meeting says, "Well, we are all going to die"; then makes light of it by comparing dying with the tooth fairy.

Who cares?  I do.  I'm sick of it.

It is purity politics.  You have to agree completely with whomever you're talking to or you're the enemy.  On one side, the Republican leadership controls its politicians by threatening to primary them. That silences the moderates or old repubs. On the Democratic side, the far left pushes hard for some social justice issues and will respond to moderates of their own party by name calling, inaccurate adjectives, and accusations of alignment with the far right.  There's no conversation going on.  

Purity politics does not make a big tent political party.  It's a fairly solid 40% of the American electorate who support Trump.  All the Democrats have to do is piss off 11% of the remaining electorate to lose again.  All the Republicans have to do is not piss off the 11% of the electorate and they could win again.  It's more about the voters who vote against a party, rather than voters who vote for a party.  How much nose holding do we have when we cast our ballots? 

A recent Emerson College poll revealed that Trump would still win if the vote were held today, but by a smaller margin (this poll did not account for the Electoral College). Many of those who said they would change their vote, said they would vote for a 3rd party or just not vote. Well, that sounds bad for both parties. 

Honestly, I would like to have another choice. I don't necessarily need a third party, I need a third person in the voting mix in the general election. I don't think the multi-party system as in a parliamentary government is a good answer.  However, the primary system we have now gives us two radicals every time. I like the idea of the ranked choice system, but Missouri has already killed that option. It was done by hook and by crook by hiding it in a constitutional amendment. Sorry, I got a little distracted. That's for another post.

Frustrated in the USA.