![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tealinI've been meaning to write this post for months, but never quite known where to start, so of course now here I am right up against it, with no choice but to blunder in. Please forgive the lack of any sort of coherence ... a stew may not be so palatable as a plated meal, but I hope at least it's as nutritious.
As every commentator under the sun has been saying for months now, this election has been full of surprises. The main surprise generally seems to be that Donald Trump, with his divisive, unapologetic, dare I say flamboyant rhetoric can have sustained the popularity he has done, when common wisdom has it that such talk should alienate the vast majority of calm, sensible people in the centre, who one has to win over to get a majority of the vote.
Frankly, what has surprised me is that this has come as a surprise to so many people.
I spent my teenage years in suburban Utah, surrounded by a conservative Republican society, in a house where right-wing talk radio and pundit TV were a constant presence. It was not the most benign place to come of age, but this year I have come to see beyond the damage of that experience and recognise that it was, in a way, a privilege to get a glimpse over the hedge. Thanks to that environment I understand (or at least feel like I understand) what is going on in the news, when people who didn't grow up with it are shocked and confused. For what it's worth, I'd like to share my perspective with you. It is by no means comprehensive or well-informed, but I hope that maybe by seeing it through my eyes, some of the pieces will fall into place.
There is an argument that going back in time to prevent Hitler's birth would do little to change the course of history, because he was just the head of the pimple and someone else would have taken that role if he hadn't. Well, this pimple has been brewing for a while and was going to come to a head sooner or later. That quite so many could have fallen for such a blatant con is a bit of a surprise, but when everyone around you agrees with you and is agitating for change, and the people supposed to be representing you have ignored, belittled, and suppressed your convictions for long enough, someone, anyone who offers to stand up for you will look attractive, even if they may not be your ideal. He is finally bringing your point of view to the national stage, and if forgiveness of a little indiscretion here and there is the price you pay for being represented at last, well, we're all sinners, and forgiveness is a virtue, right?
What people outside the conservative US don't understand is the Pavlovian response Republicans – even moderate Republicans – have to certain key words, including:
When he was elected in 1992, Bill Clinton was the reversal of a trajectory that had been set by eight years of Reagan and four of Bush, a movement to which millions rallied for reasons both economical and ideological. Clinton's arrival signalled a distressing change of direction to them, just as Bush Jr.'s arrival did to Democrats after Clinton's term. For those eight years, Bill Clinton was held up as the figurehead of everything wrong with the United States: he was the top representative of the baby-killing, gun-seizing, laziness-rewarding, prosperity-hating, God-denying degenerates infiltrating and undermining our beautiful city on a hill. On top of representing all these things, in his personal life he was a corrupt, disingenuous, womanizing smarm bucket. Just because concrete charges didn't stick to 'the Teflon President' didn't mean he was clean, it just meant he was so good at being sleazy that he'd greased his way out of the grip of accountability. Republicans didn't start hating Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky, which is when the feud hit international headlines, the Lewinsky affair was simply the first solid thing they could grab onto that he couldn't slither out of. Impeaching Clinton for marital infidelity – a concept baffling to foreigners who don't care what their politicians do in private so long as they are good at politics – was like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion: you couldn't prove the greater crimes you had every reason to suspect, so you pursued the lesser offence that could be counted on to deliver a conviction.
I will share with you some fragments of memory from this period.
A joke:
Upon the occasion of a State of the Union address, loyal listeners to one radio host (I believe it was Limbaugh but I might be mistaken) were encouraged to make a paper subtitle for their television which read "This man lied under oath."
It was pointed out that the size of the Bible which Clinton carried to church every Sunday grew as the scandal intensified. Biblical Compensation was a point of some humour.
A radio host (probably Limbaugh) cited the Psalm passage quoted above as scriptural foresight, and to call down divine retribution on the unrighteous President.
A radio host (almost certainly Limbaugh) started a countdown to the end of the Clinton administration. If memory serves, it started the day he was sworn in for his second term.
These examples are few (frankly I'm surprised I remembered that many, given how blanked-out those years are) but I hope they give you some inkling of how despised Clinton was by those on the Right. People I've talked to who were outside of that social context in the '90s – especially people outside the US – usually don't have a clue, and when I tell them they are sincerely confused as to what justified such an opinion. I was a teenager with my nose stuck in escapist fiction so I can't give you an informed dissection of the reasoning behind it, all I can tell you is that some little part of me cringed when I heard his voice because it meant shouting was soon to follow. Some little part of me still does, after years of media silence on his part and years of removal from that scene. Whether or not it was justified, the hatred was very real and very powerful, and not quickly forgotten. If that's the conditioned response of someone who has changed enormously since that time, how much stronger the conditioning of those who've changed not at all?
But how does this apply to Hillary? She is not Bill, why would his political legacy be relevant to her campaign?
Well, leaving aside the conditioned response to the very syllables of the Clinton name (not an irrelevant topic, however overblown it may seem), there was also a perception at the time, at least at the beginning of Mr. Clinton's administration, that Mrs. Clinton was in fact the one calling the shots behind closed doors. Whether this was born out of feeling threatened by an independent, intelligent, respected woman being that close to the centre of power, or some evidence of which I am unaware, it was such a ubiquitous joke that I believe it even made it into a gag in Animaniacs. To some people, even if mostly in jest, she has already been almost-President before, or at least close enough to be implicated in the Clinton legacy in more than just name. Practically any other Democratic candidate might have brought more squeamish Republicans to their side this year, but anyone who was politically engaged in the '90s, and identified with the Conservative movement in that time, would have conscience pangs about giving any support to this sworn enemy.
This is why Trump reiterates the crookedness of Hillary. This is why he has brought up Bill's salacious track record when, objectively, it has nothing to do with her campaign. He's pushing those buttons that are still there to be pushed from twenty years ago, because he knows it'll work.
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders is possibly the only major Democratic contender who might have done worse than Hillary in borrowing Republicans for one crucial vote, and that's because he made the hilarious mistake of claiming it was actually OK to be a socialist. He actually used the S word! Sure, modern young people may not think that's such a big deal, but anyone who spent their formative years under the Cold War – a demographic which, coincidentally, has been proven to go out and vote – has been trained even longer into an even more profound gut reaction to that trigger word. I'm sorry, my fellow Millennials, but in the absence of a strong third candidate, the DNC probably made the right decision here.
I moved to Canada shortly before the 2000 election, but the machine that had started gaining speed in the Clinton years kept chugging along while I was away. The upside to the election of George W. Bush, I thought, was that at least the shouting would stop, but from what I heard it was as bad as ever: even if they weren't in the White House, there were still Democrats to shout at, either in Congress or as commentators on TV. The advent of Fox News meant the disciples of Limbaugh could fill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with self-perpetuation. Social media, when it came along, fanned the flames and closed the doors of the echo chamber. In 2008, the bailout of the banks in the financial crisis (NOT the election of Obama) prompted the formation of the Tea Party, which started out as fiscal conservatives protesting the nationalisation of private enterprise but quickly became a much-craved, magnetically attractive label for that mass of disaffected Republicans who felt betrayed by their party leadership and desperate for recognition.
And yet they were still largely overlooked or ignored by the culture watchers, the intelligentsia, the 'liberal elites' on the coasts, except when there was a joke to be made about Sarah Palin. You might not have known they were there, or what they thought, or why they thought it, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Now you know. The US is going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror after this election, and it may not like what it sees there, but at least it will finally be forced to see both sides of its face. What it does with that knowledge is anyone's guess, but if there's any silver lining to the smoke cloud billowing from this Hindenburg, it's that breaking out of denial is the only way to move forward. Maybe. If that's what you want to do. I don't know, I'm going to bed.
Important Notes on the Bible verses
I have employed these verses as epigrams because I remember them being cited in the 90s by the Bible-thumping Right against the godless Left. I don't think they expected a walled-up skeptical teenager to cross-reference them, but I did, and what I found made quite the impression on me and left me with a lasting distrust of people who quote scripture to back up their arguments, unless they are arguing theology and quote an extended passage while demonstrating a clear understanding of context. Because it turns out, as anyone with a Bible to thump should have known or been able to discover, that they generally mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean by the person quoting them.
Revelation 3:15-16 (NRSV)
15. I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot, I wish that you were either cold or hot. 16. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
17. For you say, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing." You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. [Chapter 3 of Revelation is a message to the early church in Laodicea to humble itself, not assume it's got all the answers, return to the source of pure truth which is real spiritual wealth, and take reproof because it is done out of love. It's not a call to be more stridently fundamentalist and condemnatory.]
Luke 12:3
(1. Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered in thousands, so that they trampled on one another, he began to speak first to his disciples. "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees [literalist fundamentalists], that is, their hypocrisy. 2. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.)
3. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.
In other words, those people who think they're so holy, they have dirty secrets too, and they're going to come out one day. Not "you're an overlooked underground movement right now, but don't worry, one day you with burst forth in a glorious new dawn."
Psalm 109
7. When he is tried, let him be found guilty;
let his prayer be counted as sin.
8. May his days be few;
may another seize his position.
Psalm 109 is a poem/song in which the writer cries out to God about the people unjustly condemning him. The words quoted here (and quite a long screed which follows) are put in the mouths of these false accusers. Anyone who looked up this psalm even briefly would have got as far as the first three verses, which should have cast some doubt on the context:
1. Do not be silent, O God of my praise.
2. For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me,
speaking against me with lying tongues.
3. They beset me with words of hate,
and attack me without cause.
So the next time someone throws a Bible verse at you, instead of shouting something back, go look it up, and surprise them next time.
As every commentator under the sun has been saying for months now, this election has been full of surprises. The main surprise generally seems to be that Donald Trump, with his divisive, unapologetic, dare I say flamboyant rhetoric can have sustained the popularity he has done, when common wisdom has it that such talk should alienate the vast majority of calm, sensible people in the centre, who one has to win over to get a majority of the vote.
Frankly, what has surprised me is that this has come as a surprise to so many people.
I spent my teenage years in suburban Utah, surrounded by a conservative Republican society, in a house where right-wing talk radio and pundit TV were a constant presence. It was not the most benign place to come of age, but this year I have come to see beyond the damage of that experience and recognise that it was, in a way, a privilege to get a glimpse over the hedge. Thanks to that environment I understand (or at least feel like I understand) what is going on in the news, when people who didn't grow up with it are shocked and confused. For what it's worth, I'd like to share my perspective with you. It is by no means comprehensive or well-informed, but I hope that maybe by seeing it through my eyes, some of the pieces will fall into place.
I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot, I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. (Revelation 3:15-16)Donald Trump is by no means the exponent of a new political movement. From the moment I first became politically aware, there have been people saying what he's saying – if not the exact phrasing of it, then at least the sentiment and tone. The incrimination of Mexicans (a term which implies most Latinos), the liberal elite, special interests, the media, Wall Street, Washington, its fat cats and the swamp they live in: this has been the language of the American Right as long as I've been hearing it. These are the mythic enemies of everything that is right and good about America. There has been a mass of people generally sharing a common set of talking points for at least twenty years, desperate for a leader who represents what a true, red-blooded conservative believes in, frustrated with a Republican party who suppresses the will of the people by nominating milquetoast quislings in an attempt to win moderates and swing voters ('What even is a moderate?' I was once asked). I don't know if Trump believes what he says, but in his own dubious way he is a businessman, and as such has seen a gap in the market and filled it in colossal fashion. Here is a movement in desperate need of a leader: step in and be that leader, and you don't have to build your market, it will come flocking to you. Anyone who spent a week listening to the right-wing media with a mind to manipulation and an instinct for crowd-winning flair could have done what he did. I remember asking why none of the demagogues with talk shows ran for office themselves: I never got an answer to that. (I assume, now, that they got paid much better and had more power behind a mic than before a crowd, but that is only an assumption.) Donald Trump has picked up their torch and run with it.
Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops. (Luke 12:3)
There is an argument that going back in time to prevent Hitler's birth would do little to change the course of history, because he was just the head of the pimple and someone else would have taken that role if he hadn't. Well, this pimple has been brewing for a while and was going to come to a head sooner or later. That quite so many could have fallen for such a blatant con is a bit of a surprise, but when everyone around you agrees with you and is agitating for change, and the people supposed to be representing you have ignored, belittled, and suppressed your convictions for long enough, someone, anyone who offers to stand up for you will look attractive, even if they may not be your ideal. He is finally bringing your point of view to the national stage, and if forgiveness of a little indiscretion here and there is the price you pay for being represented at last, well, we're all sinners, and forgiveness is a virtue, right?
When he is tried, let him be found guilty;Another thing people outside the US don't understand is why people find it so hard to vote against someone who is quite clearly a liability in the office of President. No matter how questionable Hillary's secretarial practices might be, this should be an exponential difference in values. Hold your nose and vote! Lesser of two evils! How can anyone be undecided at this point?
let his prayer be counted as sin.
May his days be few;
may another seize his position.
(Psalm 109: 7-8)
What people outside the conservative US don't understand is the Pavlovian response Republicans – even moderate Republicans – have to certain key words, including:
- liberal
- Democrat
- socialist
- Clinton
When he was elected in 1992, Bill Clinton was the reversal of a trajectory that had been set by eight years of Reagan and four of Bush, a movement to which millions rallied for reasons both economical and ideological. Clinton's arrival signalled a distressing change of direction to them, just as Bush Jr.'s arrival did to Democrats after Clinton's term. For those eight years, Bill Clinton was held up as the figurehead of everything wrong with the United States: he was the top representative of the baby-killing, gun-seizing, laziness-rewarding, prosperity-hating, God-denying degenerates infiltrating and undermining our beautiful city on a hill. On top of representing all these things, in his personal life he was a corrupt, disingenuous, womanizing smarm bucket. Just because concrete charges didn't stick to 'the Teflon President' didn't mean he was clean, it just meant he was so good at being sleazy that he'd greased his way out of the grip of accountability. Republicans didn't start hating Clinton because of Monica Lewinsky, which is when the feud hit international headlines, the Lewinsky affair was simply the first solid thing they could grab onto that he couldn't slither out of. Impeaching Clinton for marital infidelity – a concept baffling to foreigners who don't care what their politicians do in private so long as they are good at politics – was like nailing Al Capone for tax evasion: you couldn't prove the greater crimes you had every reason to suspect, so you pursued the lesser offence that could be counted on to deliver a conviction.
I will share with you some fragments of memory from this period.
A joke:
A man dies and goes to heaven. As St Peter is showing him around, they come into a giant room filled with clocks.An electric pencil sharpener was made with Clinton's face, which had puckered lips where the pencil went. My Grade 9 chemistry teacher had one.
"What's with the clocks?" asks the man.
St Peter replies, "Every clock is a person's life, and every time they tell a lie it advances one second."
The man points up. "Why is that big one up there?"
"Well you see," says St Peter, "it was getting a bit hot in here, so we decided to use Bill Clinton's clock as a ceiling fan."
Upon the occasion of a State of the Union address, loyal listeners to one radio host (I believe it was Limbaugh but I might be mistaken) were encouraged to make a paper subtitle for their television which read "This man lied under oath."
It was pointed out that the size of the Bible which Clinton carried to church every Sunday grew as the scandal intensified. Biblical Compensation was a point of some humour.
A radio host (probably Limbaugh) cited the Psalm passage quoted above as scriptural foresight, and to call down divine retribution on the unrighteous President.
A radio host (almost certainly Limbaugh) started a countdown to the end of the Clinton administration. If memory serves, it started the day he was sworn in for his second term.
These examples are few (frankly I'm surprised I remembered that many, given how blanked-out those years are) but I hope they give you some inkling of how despised Clinton was by those on the Right. People I've talked to who were outside of that social context in the '90s – especially people outside the US – usually don't have a clue, and when I tell them they are sincerely confused as to what justified such an opinion. I was a teenager with my nose stuck in escapist fiction so I can't give you an informed dissection of the reasoning behind it, all I can tell you is that some little part of me cringed when I heard his voice because it meant shouting was soon to follow. Some little part of me still does, after years of media silence on his part and years of removal from that scene. Whether or not it was justified, the hatred was very real and very powerful, and not quickly forgotten. If that's the conditioned response of someone who has changed enormously since that time, how much stronger the conditioning of those who've changed not at all?
But how does this apply to Hillary? She is not Bill, why would his political legacy be relevant to her campaign?
Well, leaving aside the conditioned response to the very syllables of the Clinton name (not an irrelevant topic, however overblown it may seem), there was also a perception at the time, at least at the beginning of Mr. Clinton's administration, that Mrs. Clinton was in fact the one calling the shots behind closed doors. Whether this was born out of feeling threatened by an independent, intelligent, respected woman being that close to the centre of power, or some evidence of which I am unaware, it was such a ubiquitous joke that I believe it even made it into a gag in Animaniacs. To some people, even if mostly in jest, she has already been almost-President before, or at least close enough to be implicated in the Clinton legacy in more than just name. Practically any other Democratic candidate might have brought more squeamish Republicans to their side this year, but anyone who was politically engaged in the '90s, and identified with the Conservative movement in that time, would have conscience pangs about giving any support to this sworn enemy.
This is why Trump reiterates the crookedness of Hillary. This is why he has brought up Bill's salacious track record when, objectively, it has nothing to do with her campaign. He's pushing those buttons that are still there to be pushed from twenty years ago, because he knows it'll work.
Unfortunately, Bernie Sanders is possibly the only major Democratic contender who might have done worse than Hillary in borrowing Republicans for one crucial vote, and that's because he made the hilarious mistake of claiming it was actually OK to be a socialist. He actually used the S word! Sure, modern young people may not think that's such a big deal, but anyone who spent their formative years under the Cold War – a demographic which, coincidentally, has been proven to go out and vote – has been trained even longer into an even more profound gut reaction to that trigger word. I'm sorry, my fellow Millennials, but in the absence of a strong third candidate, the DNC probably made the right decision here.
I moved to Canada shortly before the 2000 election, but the machine that had started gaining speed in the Clinton years kept chugging along while I was away. The upside to the election of George W. Bush, I thought, was that at least the shouting would stop, but from what I heard it was as bad as ever: even if they weren't in the White House, there were still Democrats to shout at, either in Congress or as commentators on TV. The advent of Fox News meant the disciples of Limbaugh could fill 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with self-perpetuation. Social media, when it came along, fanned the flames and closed the doors of the echo chamber. In 2008, the bailout of the banks in the financial crisis (NOT the election of Obama) prompted the formation of the Tea Party, which started out as fiscal conservatives protesting the nationalisation of private enterprise but quickly became a much-craved, magnetically attractive label for that mass of disaffected Republicans who felt betrayed by their party leadership and desperate for recognition.
And yet they were still largely overlooked or ignored by the culture watchers, the intelligentsia, the 'liberal elites' on the coasts, except when there was a joke to be made about Sarah Palin. You might not have known they were there, or what they thought, or why they thought it, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist. Now you know. The US is going to have to take a long, hard look in the mirror after this election, and it may not like what it sees there, but at least it will finally be forced to see both sides of its face. What it does with that knowledge is anyone's guess, but if there's any silver lining to the smoke cloud billowing from this Hindenburg, it's that breaking out of denial is the only way to move forward. Maybe. If that's what you want to do. I don't know, I'm going to bed.
Important Notes on the Bible verses
I have employed these verses as epigrams because I remember them being cited in the 90s by the Bible-thumping Right against the godless Left. I don't think they expected a walled-up skeptical teenager to cross-reference them, but I did, and what I found made quite the impression on me and left me with a lasting distrust of people who quote scripture to back up their arguments, unless they are arguing theology and quote an extended passage while demonstrating a clear understanding of context. Because it turns out, as anyone with a Bible to thump should have known or been able to discover, that they generally mean the opposite of what they were intended to mean by the person quoting them.
Revelation 3:15-16 (NRSV)
15. I know your works, you are neither cold nor hot, I wish that you were either cold or hot. 16. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
17. For you say, "I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing." You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. [Chapter 3 of Revelation is a message to the early church in Laodicea to humble itself, not assume it's got all the answers, return to the source of pure truth which is real spiritual wealth, and take reproof because it is done out of love. It's not a call to be more stridently fundamentalist and condemnatory.]
Luke 12:3
(1. Meanwhile, when the crowd gathered in thousands, so that they trampled on one another, he began to speak first to his disciples. "Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees [literalist fundamentalists], that is, their hypocrisy. 2. Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.)
3. Therefore whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.
In other words, those people who think they're so holy, they have dirty secrets too, and they're going to come out one day. Not "you're an overlooked underground movement right now, but don't worry, one day you with burst forth in a glorious new dawn."
Psalm 109
7. When he is tried, let him be found guilty;
let his prayer be counted as sin.
8. May his days be few;
may another seize his position.
Psalm 109 is a poem/song in which the writer cries out to God about the people unjustly condemning him. The words quoted here (and quite a long screed which follows) are put in the mouths of these false accusers. Anyone who looked up this psalm even briefly would have got as far as the first three verses, which should have cast some doubt on the context:
1. Do not be silent, O God of my praise.
2. For wicked and deceitful mouths are opened against me,
speaking against me with lying tongues.
3. They beset me with words of hate,
and attack me without cause.
So the next time someone throws a Bible verse at you, instead of shouting something back, go look it up, and surprise them next time.
no subject
Date: 2016-11-11 08:59 pm (UTC)I'm learning a ton of things here.
no subject
Date: 2016-11-12 02:36 pm (UTC)About Sanders: Yes. I liked him a lot because he reminded me of some of our left-wing contenders in Europe, but I was also intensely aware that this very fact excluded him from the running. *sighs*
no subject
Date: 2016-11-12 09:22 pm (UTC)[P.S. I can't really blame them – I would quite happily have turned off or shut out the right-wing media I was exposed to growing up, and stuck solely to NPR; it's loud, abrasive, upsetting stuff and turning away from it is a natural reaction for a peaceable person. I would't have this perspective if it hadn't been forced on me. But people whose job it was to comment on the political landscape of the country and report it to the broader whole should have been aware of it and taken it seriously. I've heard talk about replacing all pundits – well, get some expats from red states on the roster, at least; people with family who read Drudge Report or share this stuff on Facebook; you need someone with an insider's understanding who can explain it to the outsiders.]
Re: Sanders – It's really surprising how much the word 'European' is used as a derogatory adjective over there ... Often it denotes something effete or elite, but also in a less obviously negative way, like people at Disney saying Hunchback didn't succeed because it was 'too European.' (A movie which, by the way, was highly reflective of the rotten nerves in the 90s: read 'Gypsies' as 'Mexicans' and make Frollo a neoconservative evangelical politico, and: yeah.)
no subject
Date: 2016-11-13 04:28 pm (UTC)I watched Fox News once or twice, in the waiting room at my local hospital while waiting for a routine examination, so I am aware of what it's like, but I can't watch it for long because it makes me super uncomfortable. It fascinates me for reasons we've already discussed - it's such an obvious instrument of propaganda. It's hard to imagine that there are many people taking it seriously (I mean, I completely believe you when you say that there are, but I don't think I realized it fully until this week.)
I mean, I watched a documentary a while ago called Jesus Camp, and it was a lot like watching life on another planet. It's hard to believe this is really happening. (And I believe that after a while I blanked out the more worrying moments - there were quite a few really disturbing things.)
Because obviously it goes both ways: if you choose to live in your bubble, you can just as easily ignore all the naysayers around you. Literally all US citizens I follow on social media voted for HRC, so all the posts I saw about Trump were so awful that I was CONVINCED he'd never have a chance.
How does your family feel about your path? How do you feel when you go visit them - are they still in Utah?
no subject
Date: 2016-11-15 12:34 am (UTC)As for being obvious propaganda, well, no one in the States is taught to recognise propaganda unless it's got swastikas or hammers and sickles on it. Propaganda doesn't happen in the United States of America! Maybe the reason alarm bells haven't been raised about the American right is because they don't have one strong logo.
My family, well ... mainly we just don't talk about it. I think both sides hope the other will come around eventually. My mum and I both took the path of least resistance, i.e. 'don't get started, it'll only end in tears' (I honestly have no clue what my mum's opinions are, if she has any), whereas my sister is much more of a fighter, and as such has a more strained relationship. She and I have both embargoed Utah: if our parents want to see us, it has to be somewhere else. So far that's working out pretty well. It's exactly the sort of head-in-the-sand attitude that's caused all this problem, but I don't know what else to do ...
no subject
Date: 2016-11-15 06:34 pm (UTC)At the same time, I remember reading books by la Comtesse de Ségur when I was 8 or 9 and always feeling that this wasn't right (her books are all about aristocrats who are kind to their servants who can't help being simple people after all, and the servants being OH SO THANKFUL - even at 8 these scenes set my teeth on edge). So yeah, the idea of a predisposition it certainly interesting. It's still super interesting to me that BOTH you and your sister turned away from this completely, even though I assume you grew up in it... Any ideas as to how it happened?
Also, tumblr is a weird, weird place at times. It's so easy to reblog stuff - and then it's so easy to fall down the rabbit hole. It's easy to get more fired up than you usually would be and lose all sense of proportions...
no subject
Date: 2016-11-26 10:20 pm (UTC)To me it seems odd that people do follow in the political path of their parents – to my perception, the whole of the 20th century has been pendulum swings of rebellion as one generation rejects the precepts of the last. I'm not sure quite how my sister and I ended up where we are, politically, but it seems more inevitable than going the other way. Perhaps what's more surprising is that my parents, given their internationalism, involvement in the arts, and respect for education, curiosity, and critical thinking, should be so unquestioningly right-wing. My dad read me Watership Down when I was five, and then wondered how I became an environmentalist and, if not dewy-eyed socialist, at least collectivist. It was considered only sensible to have a preference for reasoned, calm, intelligent discussion over emotional flailing; that I should have gravitated towards media in which educated experts analysed issues rationally, rather than that in which people armed mainly with opinions shouted at each other, should hardly have been a surprise. On the genetic side, all my dad's extended family is centrist-to-liberal, and much of the contemporary generation of my mum's, so if there's a heritable inclination to one or the other, we conform with the broader family if not the black sheep we were raised by. Then of course, my sister and I both hated Utah and all it stood for, so it was easy to reject all its political associations along with the place and its people. (As a side note, my time there has also enabled me to understand a tiny sliver of what might turn an ostracised, oppressed, mocked, and hopeless minority teen to extremism – I funnelled my simmering resentment into escapism, but had I more testosterone and a righteous cause which justified taking out those feelings on those who caused them ..... )
Tumblr is a weird place, but its proclivity for bubble-forming is only as bad as any other social media platform in which you're allowed to choose who you hear from. It may be uniquely bad for shouting down differing opinions (Twitter has this problem too, but being limited to 140 characters rather stymies the rants) and shaming/scaring people into silence who might otherwise be a moderating voice; in that sort of atmosphere, mobs get as polarised as possible in a very short matter of time. That's what worries me most about social media: not the bubble, per se, but the self-censorship and policing that brings out the worst in people.