Dearest Megsie,
I won’t lie to you that your sudden conversion from libertarian to typical, mainstream democrat was a bit of a shocker. I never understood it and, unfortunately, after your brief explanation I still don’t.
You say your change of heart was motivated by realizing the people you were supporting would ultimately take your freedom for religious reasons. This confuses me because I seem to remember us all being pretty closely aligned in our political philosophies. I think BarryPatch Politics could be nicely summed up in the simple phrase, “Less government=more freedom”, and that was why we all supported Ron Paul, the 2nd Amendment, the end of the War on Drugs, and, yes, even secession. I don’t seem to recall lauding any religious theocrats or mainstream conservative Republicans. Is my memory failing me?
The primary focus of your ire seems to be the Tea Party movement, and this confuses me all the more. Granted, I’ve found nothing attractive in the Tea Party movement. If it ever stood for anything remotely libertarian at one point it no longer does now, having been thoroughly battered by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh into acting as a front for the Republican Party (obviously, seeing as Palin was the keynote speaker at the first Tea Party convention this last Thursday). But what, pray tell, does this have to do with anything? It’s quite obvious the Tea Party movement was not what we were supporting or rooting for in those bygone days.
In the end I think it worked out for the better. You moved to a city filled with typical democrats and it would have just been terribly awkward to be so damn radical, like you once were. Ironically enough, I think you may have become more conservative. But it’s all okay. You’ll keep swooning over your corporate candidates and I’ll keep pushing for secession away from said corporate candidates and life will go on (as someone wisely said, it’s the same old shit).
Sincerely,
Samuel Eldon Bourne
Dear Sam,
Most excellent. I’ve often wondered if anyone from the old group was going to have the guts to question my apparent Road to Damascus conversion. The truth is, however radical such a belief shift may have appeared to you or anyone else from our group, it was in fact the result of long and quiet doubt on my part. We both know that for a long time I have not shared the religious views of you, or anyone else in our group. I was, inevitably, the outsider. Yes, I spoke fluently the language of the disillusioned seditionist - and I hope you believe me that it was not a farce - but unlike you, Sam, and unlike our other religious peers, what I hated most of all about the Bush Administration that we railed so violently against was not his bumbling inadequacy, nor his political heavy-handedness, nor his unjustifiable war, but the religion that drove him to all of those things. A religion that you share with him, in name, if not necessarily in application.
Christian Reconstructionism, Theocracy, Faith-In-Government or whatever incarnation of that theme religious politicos are pushing may not have been the theme of our every discussion (though it was certainly the topic more often than you seem to recall), but it is the undercurrent that seems to drive much of the right’s political fervor. It is the logical conclusion of a religious belief system. If the Bible is God’s word, then it should be the Law of the land. If it is the law of the land, someone like myself can have no place in that land. Even if Constantine does not kill the pagans, his successors will.
On a somewhat different note, you cannot have missed my long-time sympathy with liberal causes. The religious Republicans who took over the party may talk about civil liberties and (now that a Democrat is in office) small government, but they actively oppose women’s rights, and gay rights, and support torture. This is NOT in line with the American ideals I support, and is perfectly in line with Christian theocracy. I certainly don’t agree with Democrats on everything, and I am not a liberal in the typical sense of the term (though I find it incredibly odd that you claim I am more conservative now, since I am certainly not that at all), but I absolutely refuse to align myself with any group, political or otherwise that is actively working against the civil rights of a minority group. So yes, I have allied myself with the group that promotes civil rights, because my conscience will not allow anything else.
As for Obama, I have never fawned over him, except in jest. I respect him, and yes, sometimes I dare to admit that. I think that he is doing many good things. I agree with many of his policies. I disagree with at least as many, but I am most of all frustrated by the unadulterated ignorance of his loudest detractors. Of all the things to complain about, we still hear about his birth certificate. He is blamed for events that were put in motion long before he took office. He is blocked by the opposing party from passing legislation, and then criticised by those same people for failing to enact meaningful change.
I did not actually have very high hopes for Obama when I first chose to vote for him (maintaining low expectations is the surest way to avoid disappointment), so perhaps I am unduly impressed, but I still take offense at your implication that I “swoon” over him or any other politician. We may long for radical change, but we must maintain some semblance of realistic expectations. Obama has in no way lessened my personal freedom. The only real complaints I’ve heard about his so-called socialism have been about the healthcare plan, which does not require anyone to have government care if they can afford private healthcare. I suppose, like many, I am most disappointed in what Obama has NOT done, rather than what he has done. Of course, I never expected him to repeal any of the sweeping powers the Bush administration granted itself, so perhaps “disappointed” is not the right word.
As for smaller government, more freedom, I still agree, but I don’t think that small government is possible now. The anarchist and near-anarchist ideals we longed for were just that - ideals. Such a society is only remotely possible in a small, homogenous culture: one language, one religion, one race. That is not America. Only a big, messy, Republican Democracy will suit our diversity. Yes, I believe this system will eventually implode, perhaps sooner than later, but I hope to hold it together for as long as possible.
Revolution is a truly romantic idea, but it is a very ugly reality. There may come a time when it is necessary, but that time is not now, and when it comes I will not fight side-by-side with people who will ultimately disenfranchise me and others who do not subscribe to their religion.
The truth is, our worldviews are, and always have been diametrically opposed, even though politically they converge on some points. I perhaps did not share my doubts and disagreements as much as I ought to have, in large part because I did not want to be shouted down. I did not change my beliefs to fit in with urban Democrats here (in fact, most of the people I’ve met here are religious Republicans), but rather I moved away from Idaho so that I could get away from beliefs that smothered my own. I moved so that I could think my own thoughts. Yes, I know a few (a very few) people here who have corroborated what I long suspected, and helped strengthen my infant beliefs, but I did not convert to please them. (Though I must confess, I do enjoy not being dismissed as crazy for expressing my opinions).
I sincerely hope that you don’t have such a low opinion of me that you continue to believe that I changed my beliefs without careful thought, even if you were not privy to those thought processes.
Obviously, we have very different beliefs and probably will always continue to disagree. All I ask is that when Palin is in office and wants to feed me to the lions (or shoot me from a helicoptor, more likely) that you make at least a cursory plea to spare me. I’ll do the same for you.
Love,
Megan
