An Open Letter to Both Parties

Edit: part of the inspiration for this post was omitted due to my irritation at recent experiences in political discussions. What got me to thinking about the partisan polarization we are faced with was a quote from Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings – specifically, Treebeard’s wise observation:

Side? I am on nobody’s side, because nobody is on my side…

There has been an idea in the back of my mind for a while now – a sort of an “open letter” format addressed to both ends of the political spectrum as well as those who are moderate and/or independent. My motivation to complete this thought has really been relegated not to the back burner, but to the mental equivalent of a chafing dish – a place where ideas languish until needed.

In April of this year, I presented those I know on Facebook with an open question:

Over the last few weeks, I have noticed a trend in my podcasts: “Why?” – the question of why we think the way we do on topics, why we vote the way we do, or even why we think the other side of the fence is so messed up at times.

Being both a moderate and a writer, then, I have a possible idea I would like to propose:
What would you like me to write about? 

All I ask is to keep it reasonable/respectable – that whole “moderate” thing? Yeah, I reserve the right to pass on some topics which may be a bit too personal… but for all others, I will try to keep the blog entry to a reasonable length…

Oddly enough – whether due to whatever algorithm determines which posts are shown or overall understanding of my stances on various issues – there was only one response:

…The left’s hatred for the constitution and American history. […] far left socialist… the element of the democrats that abandoned their constituents and are stating they want socialism and to abolish 1st and 2nd amendment as well as the 4th and 5th.

I figured that, if anything, a political question would be almost guaranteed – and I was right.

Unfortunately for the friend posing the idea that the problem is only with one party, I cannot agree. Both parties are to blame for our current situation; even then I would venture to quantify the blame as a quarter for each party. The majority of the problem, as I have stated before, lies with us… “we, the People.”

---

To Democrats:

I really understand many of your core positions: social compassion, environmental curation, and the desire to take a stand against the injustices of the world. I get it – I really do… and I commend you for your lofty ideals… just not your current methods or attitudes.

How much longer is the “Russian Collusion” angle going to be maintained? Those of us who are moderates and/or politically unaffiliated are officially sick of it, and you are hemorrhaging support because of this incessant rant. You have cried “WOLF!” so much that there could be a snarling 10-foot-tall rabid feral canine gnawing on your own leg and we wouldn’t believe you. This is the danger of such rhetoric: desensitization. You are believing your own paranoia, and this makes it nearly impossible to separate danger from disparagement.

Identity politics is a similar thread which you have pushed a bit too far. Personally, I don’t care what color, gender, sexual orientation, faith, or whatever someone is – especially for political leaders – I just want them to be able to do one simple thing: the job that they are asked to do. In a way, you have pushed for a lowering of performance standards to identity, placing capability secondary. In doing so, you have made a mockery of the idea of merit-based performance and equality by hoisting unrelated attributes to the top of preferred qualities.

Tragedy marketing is another area where you have become deft in capitalizing upon. It seems that the dust has never fully settled before there are calls for a “solution” which often seems far more draconian that the problems you conflate out of fear or selective understanding. From gun control to climate change, your issues are paraded by children as a threat to their futures; at the same time, some of the very policies you promote – anti-vaccination, “safe spaces,” non-aggression, and crafted revisions of history – might be much bigger threats to their own futures than you realize.

Censorship is another point of contention. The stifling of any alternative perspective than what is deemed acceptable is insidious and extremely terrifying to those who study history. With the headquarters of many big tech corporations located in California – a state staunchly Democrat – it is worrisome that there will come a time when the political influence in national elections aren’t threatened from the outside; rather, the outcomes may dictated by a very biased handful of people within our own borders. The threat of alternative perspectives isn’t isolated to formal censorship either: discussions in person or via social media are guided by the concern that an offense will result in an ideological dogpile, doxxing, or any other aggressively passive-aggressive courses of action that have been readily taken over the last few years.

Finally, we get to the one issue that ties my concerns together: alienation. Each time any of the aforementioned points have more pressure applied to them, you push away moderates and independents, you further isolate Republicans, and you galvanize the extremists or foreign opportunists. Where I have voted for the most capable candidate of your party previously, I presently have a hard time pondering if you could produce any candidate for local or national positions I could genuinely support. In a way, you make it easy for your opponents and other threats to our national unity by being so far “out there” and predictable that it probably wouldn’t take much effort to take full advantage of those shortcomings.

You have much to work on, but I know your intentions are good…

---

To Republicans:

Like my views on Democrats, I also get your core positions: individual effort, free markets, and value-based cooperation. Also like your political opponents, I respect your positions… but have issues with some of your present themes and ideas.

First and foremost: your overconfidence is problematic. It might be easy to look across the aisle and smirk at the damage the other party is doing to itself, but the political pendulum swings both ways. Legislation to restrict rights, no matter how “just” or “moral” they may seem to be can – and will – return to haunt you later. At the same time, while the other side may appear to be spiraling downwards, shedding support in the process, any additions to your rosters carry with them the burden of responsibility. If there is an appeal which draws constituents, then the challenge is to build upon that foundation for the good of all – not just the guaranteed base.

Identity politics… yes, you do it as well. If you campaign on a foundation of morals (faith-based or otherwise), then you should be compelled to act accordingly; for when the sordid truth of improprieties surface or unchecked previous indiscretions are brought to light, you bring your ideas down in a flaming wreck faster than Herb Morrison could formulate an exclamation about “the humanity!” Additionally, an emphasis on religion could be perceived as going against the concept of any separation of church and state; these are dangerous grounds upon which treading should be cautiously and deliberately avoided at all costs.  

Conspiracy theorists are the bane of either end of the political spectrum, but your party seems to appeal to those potentially more militant and belligerent. I understand the perspective that there appears to be a threat to rights held dear but maintaining a healthy distance from those fringe elements is something that both parties could benefit from… especially those who may be significantly armed. This carries into any discussion of immigration, mental health reform, national defense, and foreign intervention – there is a fine line between rational concern and paranoia, after all.  

Censorship bedevils each side – those who have had their voices stifled and those who fear freedom of speech. In this case, the only victim is truth. Just like you don’t appreciate your political views to be altered, the historic truth of our nation cannot be denied – to do so creates an imbalance of perspective and a dangerous meddling with interpretation and public opinion. It is extremely problematic that censorship has been weaponized by both traditional and social media, but censorship can be a giant glass house surrounded by fields of rocks.

Optics are a bit more challenging as a point of contention, but it really boils down to one simple truth: put your best foot forward. Don’t promote a candidate merely on the idea that they will look better than any candidate the other side might put forth. Likewise, don’t associate with individuals or groups that offer an easy path of derision. If you value the nation, then you understand that it represents the whole – not just one political group.

Finally…

---

To the constituents of BOTH parties:

Blame: this is going around entirely too much and has often crossed the line into schoolyard mockery. It is way easier to ridicule the figureheads of an opposing party than to accept that the blame for where we presently are is all our fault. We consume news from sites which placate our firm biases, we denounce facts which disagree with those beliefs, and we rarely question the motives of our sources for information. We surrendered our ability to think critically… to entertain different perspectives… and to accept that we might be wrong about what we think. This naturally leads to…

Division: again, this is our own fault. No one else is to be held accountable for changing our own minds; for providing a convenient label for those who do not think as we do… for those who do not look as we do… for those who do not hold the same values as us. No one forced the reader to have the fundamental ideas they hold true – such actions are of their own volition… just like there is a choice to disassociate from the “others.” If one were to choose to believe the hype, this country would be a nightmare and far different from what is to be experienced walking on the street of any city or town. We have come so far not to just make it this far… but we are taking paranoid steps backwards in many cases.

Echo chambers: Ugh… Twitter… Facebook… Any comment section for pretty much every news article online… even the company we choose to keep tends to end up being one form of an echo chamber or another. Even I am guilty of this: at times, I have gotten so sick of trying to reach out and understand a different perspective… tired of trying to be the voice of reason… only to be called out as one of a multitude of epithets or colorful adjectives… or to be tuned out in favor of the “cognitive dissonance” channel (“All day, all night, we have what makes you comfortable, with no contradictory interruptions!”). If we really want to move towards a better version of who we are, we wouldn’t make it so damn difficult to share information in this age of amazing technology…

The real fault, therefore, resides in us. We have no one to blame than ourselves, really. All of the above points are valid components of human nature… but they are processes which might be tamed and cultivated from liabilities into strengths. These are things that I have been consistently discussing and working on for my own personal development:

22Aug2016 (In reference to protesters blocking freeways)

I ended up writing my thoughts about the people blocking the roads on one of his posts… so, I think I may have to share. Please note, the blame here falls to the collective we/us/Americans. I state that because of the potential for the following comments to deteriorate into EXACTLY what my point is – we’re readily and willingly dividing ourselves. This is not an attack on a figure, race, or cause… this is just my perspective on the running commentary I come across on Facebook and news articles.

I’ve been reading a lot of the back-and-forth here and all over the place over the last few weeks, and it really supports my theory that we, as a nation, were not really ready for some of what we hoped was change but in reality turned out to be regression to the same issues and tactics that have been going on for a L O N G time.

We aren’t going to “change” because of a head of state, political party, or even a Facebook debate, unfortunately. We have to want to change – to look beyond the anger, labels, and convenient truths that we wrap ourselves so snugly in. The current (and projected) state of affairs suits us fine, and we believe the narrative closest to our own personal bias, guilt, or anger… and until we start thinking for ourselves and looking at the causes for our division (looking at you, bullshit media), we are going to embrace the facade of change over the foundation of change.

Do the protesters have a right? Sure… to peacefully assemble and list grievances as part of the rest of the freedom of speech provided by the First Amendment.

How they do it is up to local law enforcement and government.

Is it wrong to block the roads? My opinion is that it is stupid and dangerous in that it poses the potential for making things WAY worse when someone irrationally angry on the OTHER end of the spectrum floors it and gives another media headline which widens the gap.

“With so much chaos, someone will do something stupid. And when they do, things will turn nasty. And then S̶u̶t̶l̶e̶r̶ the government will be forced to do the only thing h̶e̶ ̶k̶n̶o̶w̶s̶ they know how to do.” Finch, “V for Vendetta”

22Jun2018 (On the topic of running for office):

Yesterday I had mentioned that no rational American would not want to contend with that level of scrutiny. Elaborating further, think of it this way:

You are reading this, therefore you are considered a friend. Imagine the sudden influx of media attention you would be instantly subjected to. Every post you have written, broken down to see if it could be used to discredit me through “association with known -ists or -phobes.” Questions you answer would more than likely be used out of context… Our past would be analyzed in search of moral weakness on my part, goofy indiscretions, or whatever else which may paint a picture that fits a predetermined narrative.

See where I am going with this?

Running for office is no longer about providing a public service. It is about identity and how that can be effectively leveraged for attention. It is about the desire to manipulate – either the candidate or their platform.

Not about what is better in the long term.

This is my brutal cynicism showing, but we as a Nation don’t really want what is best for our own future… we want what we are told to want. We don’t read, we don’t think objectively, and we have a REALLY hard time with cooperating, listening, and accepting our own faults.

We get what we deserve… With politics, we get our choices because we tolerate and support this constant diet from the media, and with that there will NOT be a rational person running for office anytime soon. This is not the fault of any party…

This is OUR fault.

Where we go from this point is up to the person in the mirror. Plain and simple.

31Mar2019 (Quotes from one of Dustin Sandlin’s “Smarter Every Day” videos):

“These people literally make us hate each other… and then we turn around and give them our money.”

“…Until our hearts change towards political grace, these people are going to keep taking advantage of us; I don’t care what kind of laws we make to try to get around this – they’re going to make us fight, and we’re going to sit there and do it and then close our eyes and give them our money. We’ve got to be smarter than this.”

He’s right: we have to be smarter than this. It isn’t a matter of “the left’s hatred” or the right’s blind patriotism… it is a matter of what is important to us as Americans first – party second. It’s a matter of what we are willing to pay attention to… to think about… and to do.

Postcript:

I realize I hinted at “a reasonable length” to this post. 2,731 words might have stretched and/or exceeded that loose definition. If you made it this far, I thank you for your patience and I am humbled by your interest. There are some themes I may further elaborate upon in later blogs, but a glance at the word count imposed restrictions based on reality. Until then, thanks for reading!