Redstate

By birdmojo Posted in Other Parties — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

So my job is one where I would say a good 90% of my co-workers are military or ex-military (or the spouse or ex-spouse thereof). Most of the guys I work with are, unsurprisingly, Defense Hawks. Most are also Social Conservatives. A majority are also Fiscal Conservatives (the remainder are "Compassionate Conservatives" in the way that Socons can be sometimes).

As you may or may not know, I lean libertarian in my own life. Big fan of the Constitution, big fan of the 10th Amendment, bigger fan of the 9th. Now, this isn't really an issue when it comes to the inevitable political discussions... most people have something in common with any given libertarian they come across. The problem with libertarians isn't this view or that one, it's that they hold both of the views at the same time. Like, if I said "Dude, I don't care if two guys get married and want civic protections", I could get a ton of people smiling and thinking that I'm an enlightened kinda guy. If I said "I think that the drug war is a waste of resources and should be ended immediately", I'd get another handful of people to applaud and yell "FREEBIRD" or whatever it is potheads yell. Were I to say that Social Security is a complete mess and ought to be dismantled (or, if that's not feasible, phased out), I could get yet another group of people to stroke their beards and agree. And, finally, if I were to say that anything that was not explicitly "Interstate Commerce" or related to the General Welfare of The States should not be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, I could get yet another group to smile broadly and start talking about their favorite Amendments.

But when you say all four things in the space of 2 minutes? Every single person from every single one of those groups will look at you like you just took a dump on the floor.

All that to say, at work, I'm pretty usually the leftmost guy in the room. Philosophy Major. Atheist. Pro Gay Marriage. End the War On Drugs. Pro-Choice. Libertine.

But I also have friends from North of Colorado Springs with whom I do not work. Hanging with them, I find that I am, quite often, the rightmost guy in the room. Indeed, the other day, I was told "you're the most conservative person I know!"

Which brings me to the concept of Tribalism.

The other day, I was arguing about Universal Healthcare/Socialized Medicine. For the record, I'm against it. Not because I think that the promised benefits wouldn't be sweet. Yes, I would much rather prefer a medical system that is as effective as what we have now but that costs half as much and is pre-paid, so that when I show up at the doctor's office, I only have to make a small, negligible, co-pay and have everything taken care of beyond that. Not only would I benefit from that system but The Children would benefit from it too!

Well, my attitude is that while this would be sweet indeed, what we would end up getting would not end up looking like this. Moreover, I reckon that the laws regulating Universal Healthcare/Socialized Medicine will be written by lobbyists for Insurance Companies and passed by Congressmen who have received campaign donations (both hard and soft money) from said Insurance Companies. So when I say that I am against Universal Healthcare/Socialized Medicine, I am not saying that I am against The Children getting the health care they need and for free, but I am saying that I am against what we'd end up getting after we say "Yeah, we should totally let Congress pass laws mandating this sort of thing!"

Well, one of the things said to me was the following:

"I fail to see the nobility or logic in Birdmojo's campaign that there is any downside to universal healthcare coverage that is comparable to the callous inhuman evil of denying people medical care simply because they are too poor."

Do you see what that counter-argument does? It doesn't address my beliefs about Universal Healthcare/Socialized Medicine at all. What it does do, however, is glances over my viewpoint and notes that it does not support Universal Healthcare/Socialized Medicine and comes to the conclusion that since I do not support it, then I am therefore on the other side. Yea, not only on the other side, but *EVIL*. Needless to say, I rolled my eyes. I still do. I'm rolling them now.

One thing I've seen far, far, far too often is the assumption that "You don't agree with me, therefore you are on the other side". I've seen the things said by people on the other side and, I assure you, I don't agree with them either. I mean, I don't support Ron Paul. Won't vote for him, wouldn't vote for him. I think the Congress is made better by his presence and hope that the Republicans aren't short-sighted to the point where they do their darnest to make sure he won't get re-elected to his Congressional seat (mostly because I'd like another election without a Perot/Nader)... but he's not a guy I could vote for for President. Well, I've had people express surprise at me for this. "But you're both crazy!" is what their arguments generally paraphrase down to. "No, no...", I try to explain. "He's a Paleocon. I'm libertarian. There are tons of differences." "But you both talk about The Constitution until everyone else is sick of it!" "Yes, yes we do. And he's reading it wrong."

Well, these conversations rarely go very far. I will continue to get "you're not bad for a conservative/liberal/square/libertine" comments from time to time along with "for a conservative/liberal/square/libertine, you're a real horse's hind end."

And I don't want to do the "Dudes! You people totally need to change your minds about how you view folks who don't agree!" thing because, well... mostly, it doesn't work. But I still wish that the people with whom I disagreed didn't see me as the member of the enemy because I'm not the member of their tribe.

I assure you. I'm not a member of their tribe either. They freak me out.

Hrm. Maybe we need a "navel-gazing" tag.