No Such Thing As Friendly Politics

Normally, I try to avoid conversations about politics with Peter and BJ as a rule. They are both just a bit too intense regarding their political beliefs and I would sometimes say they seem a bit fanatical. When I was dating BJ, back during the last Presidential election, it was downright scary some of the things he said in his political ferver supporting Bush. Mind you, I did vote for Bush in the last election. I was a supporter, but I never outright said that anyone who voted against him was stupid or somesuch. He seemed to believe that the country would go to hell in a hand basket if Bush wasn’t President.

Ironically, in the last 2 years, I have felt that the country has gone to hell in a hand basket. But looking back over my voting history, I’ve never voted to keep a war president in power, though Iraq isn’t my only concern in this year’s campaign.

For some reason, the other night while talking to Peter I kind of initiated the political discussion though I did try to skirt the major issues. Some of the things that he said really bothered me. Not bothered me in the way that I wonder if my political views might be questioned but bothered me in the way that I’m afraid of some of the silliness that came out of his mouth. I honestly believed that despite the fact that he does seem to be one of those voters who picked up his parent’s political views by tradition and ran with them, he is an intelligent person who has found serious facts to declare his allegence to the Republican party for.

It scared me that he said that between 1988 and 2000, the colors representing the parties in the media (the red and the blue) have switched sides, meaning that when showing the map with the voting results, the republicans (he said) used to be represented by blue and the democrats were red, but now it’s reversed. Not only do I not know how true this statement is because I’ve not particularly researched it but I didn’t understand why the color itself was important. When I asked about the importance, he basically said that the Republicans can’t be red because they aren’t communists. When I asked if he really thought that the Democrats were communists, he said their doctrine read as if it was. I’m really offended by that and I’m not a die-hard democrat. If I were a republican, I think I’d be embarrassed.

I did ask around on a message board about this and was told that Reagan’s color was red. I wonder where I could look this up.

To me, all of that may be akin to someone saying they are voting for a candidate because he looks better. Would you pick your surgeon based on his good looks or his experience and reputation?

He also insisted to me that the media does not respect Bush, but did respect Clinton and Carter. Really I have to laugh at that and everyone I’ve questioned about this has thought it was ludicrous. The media certainly did not respect Clinton. After all, they crucified him over an affair that was no one’s business but his and the intern’s. They humiliated him in the eyes of the world. However, Peter insists that the media, particularly the liberal left-winged media, never calls him “President Bush,” only “Mr. Bush.” I’ve been very attentive to the news since this conversation, particularly when I listen to NPR, which Peter claims is very liberal (I don’t see it, but hey). I have only ever heard the news on any channel (including a right-wing fanaticist I heard last night on the radio) call him “President Bush” or “Bush”. I don’t know where he’s hearing this. *shrug*

Our conversation did make me wonder, however, does the media we listen to shape our politics or do we choose media that fits our politics? For example, he thinks Fox news is the least biased news source and thinks NPR is the most liberal-skewed (next to Air-America, I’m sure). I think Fox news is a right-wing sensationalist tabloid-style news source and NPR is less skewed than most news sources — I admit I don’t care for the fanatacism of Air America Radio.

I admit I trust Bush less than I trust Kerry. However, I don’t buy completely into everything Kerry says either. I do know that I don’t like the way Bush is running the country. Kerry is saying all the right things. I’d rather vote for someone who at least is recognizing that there’s something wrong going on and that something needs to be done than someone who mistakes stubbornness for strength. President Bush has alienated us in the world and made it a more dangerous place for us. We cannot fight the war on terror alone. The war on terror will only stop when presented a united front and President Bush seems to think that the world will either do it our way or we will do it on our own. This is too extreme. Not to mention that we are spending Billions to rebuild other countries when our own country cannot afford to keep open it’s own schools and fire houses and other necessities of civilization. Our jobs are going to other countries and the new jobs the Republicans say they’ve created don’t financially equal the ones lost. Cost of living is increasing while jobs are lost and people are having two jobs just to make enough money to put gas in the car and food on the table. And President Bush only seems interested in butting his nose into the affairs on this continent when it’s a so-called “morale” issue like discriminating against a class of people or a whole gender.

My conversation with Peter was like so many other conversations with fanatic political-types. Strange rhetoric and claims and nothing to do with the issues. Maybe if I’d spoken to him longer we would have discussed the real issues, but I think it’s best to draw the line at politics because I know he and I will never see eye-to-eye and it will just frustrate us both because we each know we are right and the other is wrong and why can’t the other see how illogical he/she is being.

I suspect this is going to be a close election again…and it scares me.

tags: politics, dysfunctional drama, George W. Bush, stupidity, 2004 election, Democrats, Republicans

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.