Thank goodness for the notion of an 'open thread'.
The varied posts of this weekend seem to illustrate the remarkable differences that many of us (whether as readers or commenters) have in our interpretation of what constitutes: 'objective' vs. 'subjective' data; 'right' vs. 'wrong'; 'emotional' vs. 'rationale'; 'divisive' vs. 'constructive' discourse; and the degree of personal awareness of 'conscious' vs. 'unconscious' motivations, etc.
Mary very appropriately raises the central issue of individual responsibility (specifically, in the propagation and self-justification of torture).
Similarly, what drives us to be divisive (think about the meaning of the word), specifically by raising 'hot button' issues such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and differences in the 'practice' of our spirituality? Do we also take personal responsibility for driving a wedge between ourselves and others?
As Taegan Goddard points out today, Bill Clinton (like Obama)has also addressed the frustrations that drive defining oneself by single issues:
From Clinton's 2004 memoirs:
"...Americans...would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to [Republican] appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns."
When Left Coaster contributors repeatedly raise the above issues (most recently abortion on which there is very little substantive disagreement in the community) we should wonder:
(1) why a "progressive" would mimic Republican/Rovian talking points in the service of promoting a candidate (or tearing down' the opponent)
(2) what unconsciously drives habitual and compulsive deviseness?
(3) whether the Left Coaster readership should 'reinforce' such maladaptive discourse by reading or commenting on posts from such contributors?
The term divisive is a device used to disparage anyone who dares counter the sentiments of the manipulators, whether right or wrong.
Posted by onar at April 14, 2008 06:09 AMI was simply referring to the common usage of the term 'divisive', i.e. "to cause disagreement, disunity, or dissention".
Posted by tfitznc at April 14, 2008 06:57 AMwhat exactly did he say that was demeaning, elitist, or divisive? are we parsing what the term "bitter," means?
who exactly isn't bitter at what our government has done to its constituents?
as tfitznc says, Do we also take personal responsibility for driving a wedge between ourselves and others?
amen to that...
it has been scratch that, it is way to contentious here at times, h.r.c. or b.o. who cares, as long as mccain isn't there in jan 09.
"cant we all get a bong???"
Posted by anthony at April 14, 2008 07:22 AMYes, we can all avoid being 'divisive' by simply ignoring certain issues.
Posted by snark at April 14, 2008 07:52 AMmorning (to you) snark:
what about this one from theda skopel?
I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing.
again, how is what he said wrong? or is it the choice of words that was wrong...?
snark,
you know that i'm not afraid to stick my neck out on issues. i'm agreeing with the above poster, cuz interactions here have been heated, on both sides. it seems for 25-35% of hrc supporters, and 15-25% of bo supporters, this "banter," is causing them to not want to vote for the other. how is it that either hrc or bo, can work to heal this rift before november??? parsing what the meaning of is, is, to get turn the superd's against one or another, is rather shoddy, no? especially if you are on record saying basically the same thing...
i'm implying bill and hilary in the last sentence...
Posted by anthony at April 14, 2008 08:09 AManthony,
I wasn't really talking about anything Obama said. Politics is politics. It's a dirty business. I have not been following the campaign over the weekend so I really don't have much to say about Hillary spinning Obama's comments. Sorry. But a big point of not being spun is being very careful with the way you craft your words. I think Obama has a bit to learn in that respect.
My comment was simply a response to tfitznc's rather flowery appeal to certain people to can it in the interest of "unity".
Posted by snark at April 14, 2008 08:32 AMtfitznc,
It is a tried and true tactic in politics to divide and conquer your enemy. And the easiest way to do that is get people to so identify with an idol that they see others with similar views who do not support their idol as "the other." Thus, enemies are defeated.
Back on the eve of the New Hampshire primary Gloria Steinem (who's history included working for U.S. intelligence) wrote an op-ed that deliberately pitted women against black men. She could have written that Hillary was the better candidate because of x, y and z. But instead she began a divisive discourse that has been running through this campaign. And now that it is mathematically impossible for Clinton to win we still have people who should be allied attacking each other--to McCain's benefit.
In the labor movement we have a saying, "An injury to one is an injury to all." Not Steinem's "My injury is bigger than your injury." All injuries should be addressed, not compared and dismissed. As a lifelong member of the working class I can say that a lot of people are bitter. How about we all work together to make sure all people's injuries are taken care of?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 14, 2008 08:32 AMGeez, are we back to who's more divisive again? I think it's divisive to bring it up, myself.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 14, 2008 08:50 AMsnark,
thanks for the clarification, and i agree...
can someone tell me how exactly what he said is not true?
and in the same breath cheer what bill and hilary put forth when he ran?
Posted by anthony at April 14, 2008 11:01 AM