Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Land I (try to) Love

This post was submitted by Corey, a TNG Editorial Assistant and local blogger.

First, Sarah Palin said at an event in North Carolina that she loves to visit the "pro-America" parts of the country. Then, Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Chris Matthews that Barack Obama and many members of Congress might be "anti-American," and that there needs to be a special investigation of this for the good of the country.

Not to be outdone, reports were confirmed today that Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) said while opening for John McCain that "liberals hate real Americans that work and accomplish and achieve and believe in God." The Hayes story is perhaps the most atrocious of all because he tried for several days to cover things up, blaming the media for practicing "irresponsible journalism" - sound familiar?? - until an audio tape surfaced. Now Hayes said he had forgotten the comments, which are being taken out of context.

Bachmann had made the case that because Bill Ayers, a domestic terrorist with a very loose association to Obama, and Jeremiah Wright, a former pastor at Obama's old church, had liberal views and also anti-American views, that all liberals must be suspected of harboring anti-American sentiment. She mentioned Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in particular, and wouldn't comment as to the third or so of Americans who self-identify as being liberal.

Matthews did a pretty good job of grilling Bachmann, but one thing he failed to bring up is that a lot of right-wing folks have been "anti-American," too, if we can even label something like that. The Ku Klux Klan is a conservative organization, and so is the Westboro Baptist Church, which protests at military funerals that soldiers deserve to die because America is tolerant of gays. (I guess "tolerant" is a relative term.) Surely even few Republicans would consider these groups to be "pro-America," and so there seems to be just as much of a link between conservatism and anti-Americanism as there is with liberalism.

In the end, though, how can we really label anything as anti-American? Literally we might suppose that someone who knowingly wants to do harm to the country is anti-American. But that's not how Palin, Bachmann, and Hayes meant it. What they meant was someone whose views were too radical - in all these cases, too radically to the left - that they could only be considered against the very foundations of our country. Then again, the primary tenant of American society is democracy, and the idea that people are free to believe whatever they want, with ideas debated in public and voted on by citizens. In that case, the only ideology which is anti-American is that which seeks to end democracy and silence voices - which is ironic, because that is precisely what these folks seem to be trying to do.

What I really thought of upon hearing all of these comments, though, was that I am surely one of the people that all three of these politicians would call anti-American. I'm pretty far left politically, I question a lot of America's tactics overseas, I believe in universal health care and a progressive tax system, I believe in the deregulation of marriage and sexuality by the government, I believe in civil rights for all people, including on the basis of sexual orientation, I am agnostic, I am a secularist, and I am gay. And I can bet you that Palin, Bachmann, and Hayes would all tell you in a heart-beat, at least off the record, that I'm exactly the type of person they're talking about.

So I guess my question is, how can I be proud of a country where a good portion of the people think another sizable chunk shouldn't be a part of this nation? How do I respect a country that doesn't offer me equal rights? And how can I love a country that doesn't love me?

I'm not saying I necessarily am not proud, respectful, and appreciative of America, but I'd have to say I'm rather ambivalent at this point. And when I hear stories like this, I wonder, how much of an America is even left for any of us to love or hate? It seems to me that for a long time we've been drifting into two nations, with two different sets of values and agendas. I think back to the map that emerged during the 2004 election that showed the blue states merged with Canada and the rest of the country becoming Jesusland; sometimes I honestly think about that map and wonder if it wouldn't be easier.

But the truth is, we're here together, probably to stay. Yes, Governor Palin - the pro-America parts of America and the not-so-pro-America parts... and yes, Rep. Bachmann, those conservative folks who love this nation and those liberal folks who need to be investigated. We are all one nation, for better or for worse, and maybe it's time we stop fighting over that and try to find a path towards tolerance.

The most difficult times in our nation's past - the Civil War, the Red Scare, the post-9/11 warmongering - have all been characterized by the belief among large pockets of the population that some Americans cannot be trusted because they are too different from "us." That is the sentiment that these comments echo during these trying times for our country. And these are the moments that come to mind when I wonder from time to time how long I, a gay liberal in a center-right country, will be allowed to be American.

11 comments:

Parker said...

large chunks of the "jesusland" on your graphic will be voting for obama in two weeks. in addition, bachmann and hayes will soon be unemployed largely due to their recent comments. so don't give up yet.

Anonymous said...

You post reminds me of one of my favorite lines in one of my favorite movies--The American President. The line comes late in the movie when the president makes his big speech at a press conference after a long night of soul searching. "America is advanced citizenship. . . .It's not easy. . . .It's going to put up a fight."

It's sad that such a large segment of our population reacts to difference and change in such a negative and fearful way. But, it's part of the growing process.

Daniel said...

It is the undecided voters that kill me. Actually, I'm not that bothered by the extremes, there will always be extremes. That's why even though David Sedaris bores me a lot of the time, this bit he wrote for the New Yorker feels right on the money:

"Some insist that there’s very little difference between candidate A and candidate B. Others claim that they’re with A on defense and health care but are leaning toward B when it comes to the economy.

To put them in perspective, I think of being on an airplane. The flight attendant comes down the aisle with her food cart and, eventually, parks it beside my seat. “Can I interest you in the chicken?” she asks. “Or would you prefer the platter of shit with bits of broken glass in it?”

To be undecided in this election is to pause for a moment and then ask how the chicken is cooked."

Anonymous said...

You choose respond to Palin's derogatory and divisive anti-America vs pro-America remarks by posting a cartoon that is just as ignorant and divisive as the very words you wish to condemn? Kind of self-defeating, no?

While you're lashing out on Palin's comments, would you mind stating your views on Obama's inability to condemn the racially-motivated attacks on John McCain by John Lewis, in the same manner you have chastised Bachmann's remarks about Obama? Or how about Senator Biden warning donors about "an international crisis" comparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 of within six months of the next President's administration? Or you could take a moment to point out that on October 8th, Sarah Palin stated that under a McCain-Palin administration, she would support gay civil unions and would not support a gay marriage amendment (the latter of the two, the President nor Vice President have no vote on)--the exact same position taken by Biden in the debate.

These relentless posts bring the political debate to new lows, where your readers are given another heavy dose of political rhetoric rather than substantive opinions on policy or a healthy comparison/debate of issues. Clearly this site has a political agenda, but I'd expect the "new gay" to rise above the fray and find intelligent topics to write about rather than reiterate the political rhetoric of campaigns and other media outlets.

This, coupled with Michael finding humor in a Wikipedia edit equating homosexuality to pedophilia, makes me wonder where I might find the "new" gay on this site.

Aidan said...

Not sure who the above anon is, but hot damn, you have fellow travelers, at least as far as the political content of this blog is concerned.

meichler said...

Hi, Anon: We're always seeking new contributors. If you'd like to submit posts sharing your intelligent and informed viewpoints about politics with our readers, you're welcome to send them to submit@thenewgay.net

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what "these relentless posts" are... I count 4 political-but-not-explicitly-LGBT-rights (i.e. I'm not counting Prop 8 stuff) posts in the last 2 weeks, which is hardly overwhelming.

Anon, Corey wrote a response to one thing... and you're complaining that he didn't write a response to 12 others? Are you paying him? Did Corey say that this post comprizes the whole of his political opinion? Does this blog advertize itself anywhere as a medium for comprehensive political commentary?

I don't think The Blog has an "agenda". I think The Blog is a bunch of people who write and post pieces, probably without consulting the rest of The Blog. If it skews left, well... so do LGBT people, as a demographic. omg, newsflash.

The folks who run the blog have made it obvious on a number of occasions (see: Michael's comment above) that they welcome outside submissions. So unless you think the editors are actively culling out all the well-writen right-leaning political pieces (anyone else think this dubious?) - put up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

if we're going to be rude and stupid, i'd like to rename the united states of canada to ELITISTLAND.

Kyle said...

A few words about elitism: I don't want to sit and have a beer with my president. I want him to be too busy running the country and getting along with the world. I consider myself above average in intelligence, and eager to learn about the world. I believe I am smarter than Palin by a long shot. But I recognize that I am not qualified to lead this country. I WANT elites to run this country - intellectual elites, specifically. If that makes me elitist, then I am, happily, elitist.

Anonymous said...

Landoftrolls said it. I like to sit down and have a beer with my friends, who are fun people, but some are ignorant and/or lazy. That is not what I want my president to be. I want my president to be smart and high above me, because in the end, I will never hang out with him/her, but I will be expecting him/her to make some of the toughest and most important decisions this world faces.

Daniel said...

'Elite' is now a hijacked word. Elite is the best of the best, the top ranked. It is a compliment, not an insult. The proper word for what Anon means is 'Snob', the people who look down on you out of a sense of perceived entitlement.

Honestly, I think both sides are about as guilty of looking down on the other side. There is plenty of snobbery to go around. What it comes down to, at least to me, is this: in which side I'm more likely to live a free live with all the rights and duties of a fully enfranchised citizen? And that's my side.