Adventures at Midlife: Election 2008: Why shouldn’t we get along?

AMEN.

I like a good discussion, but it’s hard to find one anymore that doesn’t disintegrate into name-calling and personal attacks. It seems that if you pick a side, at least some members of your own family, circle of friends, ‘adoring public’ etc., will genuinely and deeply hate you for it.

That’s a bit frightening.

Thanks for an update on the ‘fatosphere’ too: I hadn’t thought of how this whole battle could break apart communities and close-knit groups that folks depend on. That’s sad; that hurts.

Great post.

Because everyone I know is firmly in one political camp or the other, I am fascinated by the ‘undecideds.’ Do you need more information to make up your mind? Are there particular issues which will sway you? Is it which negative campaigner turns you off the least? I ask out of genuine curiosity. It seems like so many people vote according to their political persuasion/values versus detailed policy information. It leaves me wondering what influences those who are truly on the fence.

Well put, msmeta. I’ve stopped reading some of my favorite blogs because of the attitudes that if you don’t think this way, you’re stupid. If I feel like that’s what someone is saying, I’m going to say goodbye and move on to somewhere else I’m not made to feel bad about my own beliefs. I hope more people get this message.

Yes, ladies….it’s hard to remember a time when we haven’t all been so polarized. I normally try to stay detached from politics because my real opinion is that the whole system needs an overhaul so that it functions with the country’s best interests at heart. But, even I succombed in my blog and got my dander up. I don’t mind it when we can remain respectful since it does add richness to the individuals, but we seem to have a hard time with that in these days and times. I guess people feel the stakes are very high.

We are certainly ilving into the Chinese proverb, May you live in interesting times. At least there is nothing boring about politics at the moment!

Allison

Thanks for the comments. Elaine, I just need to get some good, non-hyped-either-way information on Obama. I still don’t know who he is. And I admit I’ll be very interested in the vice presidential debate next month.

I’m wondering, is this rancor a girl thing? I’ve always been told that men are much better at beating each other up on the playing field and then going out and getting happily drunk together afterward. Can women separate heated debate from warm friendships?

Hi Ms Meta – I read both Obama’a books and that helped sway me, plus I read all the candidates platforms back when the primaries were starting. I also make it a point to read a broad base of news sources.

I loved this post. I teach 10th grade and our ground rules for class discussion (that the kids help write) include “keep an open mind.” Name calling and put downs are never allowed. And after discussion, they always write a reflection, whether they change their opinion and why or why not. If fifteen years olds can learn to position their opinions with facts and be willing to readjust their opinons based on listening to other’s points of view, I don’t understand why adults can act so childish.

Thanks for putting this out there, MsMeta. I’m appalled at some of what’s going on in the blogosphere. It isn’t the person posting that seems to have a hard time reining in their anger as the commenters. Just the other day, someone signed onto to BlogHer and ran rampant with the insults on a political post. They don’t call me the Manners Narc for nothing, I alerted BlogHer to what was happening, and they got onto it right away. By the next day, the whole flame had been erased. I think we need to be very conscious of how our comments may sound to someone who (a) doesn’t know us, and (b) isn’t sitting across from us so they can see the smile on our face.

Thank you for this reminder. I have to admit that I have sometimes fallen into the trap of thinking that those who disagree with my political opinion must be stupid – I try not to say it out loud or in my blog, but I really shouldn’t be thinking it either. I live in a very blue state – Massachusetts – so it’s easy to forget that not everyone sees things the same way. And I agree with Allison, it feels like the stakes are so very high. But I guess being able to get along and work together after the election, no matter who wins, is just as important.

I kind of understand why but I can’t prove it. There is so much passion and concern for our country that folks want to participate in the process.

I bring this up from time to time but I think there is a kind of psychic hurt in the nation. There needs to be some kind of healing process for the country. Something that allows us to respect the views of the other why working on necessary issues.

Folks are lit up and a lot of the participants are not that skilled in civil discourse. How can they be when many of them were raised on Springer, Rush, Geraldo and others who yelled instead of listened.

Interesting times, indeed.

My husband works in the media and has been an election-watcher since the ’50s, so I asked him if he thought this year was more rancorous than usual. He said no, he thinks people are basically saying the same things they always say about the other side. It’s just amplified by the media and blogosphere. There are more opportunities to be misunderstood, and more opportunities for people with conflicting views to collide.

On CNN tonight, Candy Crowley said something along the same lines: every election year we act surprised by the vitriol. But c’mon! We’ve got gender, race, class, the economy and war up for debate. It would be weird if the discussion weren’t heated. When you think of how the country was split over Vietnam, or what it must have been like when people were duking it out over the Great Depression, Prohibition or slavery — this is nuthin’!

You know, susan, I think your husband is right. The cable media and the Blogosphere have really amplified the debate and allowed all the crazies to come out of the woodwork and upset everyone with their vitriol. It does seem especially loud this season.

My father was a world-class grudge-holder and my mom was the “forgive and forget” type, but in general I think women do take invective more personally. Certainly both genders can be nasty, no doubt. Women lean towards the snarky, sarcastic, “mean girl” tactic while men lean towards the louder, domineering, schoolyard bully role. But while boys grow up with rough-and-tumble play, girls spend more time in talk and cooperative play. That early orientation might make it harder for us to shake off insults. I think this is changing as more girls get into team sports and learn different ways to compete.

It’s fascinating to see how this is playing out in this election. Under what circumstances are we comfortable with women being ruthless? Do we really want to fight like men? People decried Hillary Clinton for being ambitious, tough and power-hungry — but Sarah Palin has those exact same qualities and look at the response she’s getting. You can’t tell me the difference is just their ideology! Does anyone think that Americans are ready to elect a Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir or even a Tzipi Livni? I don’t think so.

The benefit of election-year conflict is that it shows us how the candidates respond to threat. Do they point blame? Get defensive? Lash out? Get passive? Play the victim? Their reactions tell us how they will respond to hostility and danger once they’re in the job.

The other benefit of election-year conflict is that there’s no shortage of information to help you make up your mind! There are nonpartisan groups like FactCheck.org and the League of Women Voters. If you google “candidate comparison” you’ll find scads of charts created by different newspapers and nonprofits. CNN has a good issue comparison chart while NPR has built some interesting interactive tools.

Lastly, I really like today’s rational, calm piece from David Broder, Too Early to Call It. He’s right… it is.

Yes, it’s important to remember that good and honest people can have very different views on how to solve what are real problems in this country and in the world.

YOu know, I wonder if part of it isn’t two things: first there is some anonymity provided online. You’re not having to tell the person face to face and so it’s a little easier perhaps to let fly. And, then, in emails or blog comments sometimes it’s easier to mis-read the tone. Someone may not mean to sound disrespectful or as if they think the other person is an idiot, but it’s easier without benefit of body language and voice to read that into a comment.

I don’t know, I hope Susan M, your husband is correct but it does feel more rancorous to me. But who was it that said we see the world not as it is but as we are, Anais Nin maybe? Anyway, I’m more charged about all this than I have been in a long time so maybe I’m just projecting that onto to everyone else…wouldn’t be the first time Or the last, sigh….

What I should clarify is that the debate is now becoming more *openly* rancorous. Racism, sexism, religion and culture wars, and the firm conviction that the other political party is composed entirely of idiots… those things are not new. But it used to be that people would mutter their thoughts quietly to their spouse or barber. Now, they are shouting them to the world. What has always existed is now being exposed. That could be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how we handle it.

What I wish for is a place to discuss the significance of what’s going on around us, without it being interpreted as pro-one-side-or-the-other. For example, my candidate made some really dumb remarks in the last 48 hours. I’d love to be able to express my frustration at that, and talk with other women about how we could change the system. But in campaign season, you just can’t risk posting anything that could be interpreted as waivering or weakness.