The Borders of Things

Shit yeah, Paul!

Shit yeah, Paul!

Dude, you can write the post then save it as a draft, which lets you come back later to revise/edit to your heart's content. On the other hand, the nature of such posts is that they be passionate, and it's easy to revise the emotion out of stuff like this.

Anyway, I think one reason the gay marriage issue was/is such a focal point is because it's the first time it's seriously been at discussion. It threatens not only folks' sense of sexual propriety but also the territory of marriage. 'Til now, that's implicitly been the province of "one man, one woman," putting the more extreme sections of Utah aside. I think even the most oft-married Mormon clanmaster, who, presumably, is pretty open-minded towards what constitutes marriage and challenges the accepted idea of what marriage "is" himself, might be a bit disconcerted about legalizing male/male or female/female unions. Regardless, it's a much newer issue than foreign policy, environmental issues, terrorism or war-waging, and hits closer to home for more people. Also, don't call me Canadian.

Gosey, I think you're pretty safe from being called a canuck.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't care about gay marriage. While it's not much of an issue for me, I'm sure it has polygomyst-friendly (how d'you spell that?) Mormons frothing at the mouth.

What I am saying is that even if you believe that gay-marriage should be outlawed, shouldn't the other issues you mentioned (foreign policy, environmental issues, terrorism or war-waging) be a higher priority? The fact that it "hits closer to home" for more people is exactly the problem: somehow two men holding hands at Wal-mart seems to upset Americans more than the Sudanese genocide. And somehow one of those issues deserves the title "moral."

Yeah, I agree with you. I think people as a whole have a hard time assigning as much importance/thought to things they don't see as they do to the things they do see.

Mikey!

Good to hear from you. While I found the analogies in your quotation pertinent, I don't think we can fully escape the problem of the historical moment. That is to say, in some ways Kerry's rhetoric is analogous in the exact same way.
So the question could be, whose rhetoric do you embrace? Some might argue that this is the postmodern approach -- abandon one's self to the rhetorical movement. But I can't see that as anything but irresponsible. If abandonment is all we can do, we cannot judge the people who followed Hitler; they couldn't escape their historico-rhetorical moment.
I for one can't stop there. But, simultaneously, we cannot escape the problem. I think a remeday (as opposed to a cure) is to be hyper self-reflexive. We may not be able to escape our moment, but at least we can interrogate it; give it a run for its money, so to speak.
Could you clarify your statement "in a properly-functioning democracy, there is no way that an individual like Mr. Bush could be re-elected"?

While Kerry, indeed many politicians', rhetoric may be analogous to Hitler's, the context in which they were spoken cannot be overlooked. Kerry, Bush, and Hitler all sought election, no doubt. Unfortunately, only one team did not resort to mass manipulation in order to secure it. Kerry's. They didn't try to rig the election (see http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1104-38.htm). They tried to stick to the issues. They kicked ass in the debate. In short, their campaign was run with much more tact and attention to issues (from what I have observed here). It was not perfect, there were obvious moments of mud-slinging, etc. But there was not the blatant raping of democracy that was evident in the Republican camp. In this sense, Bush's push to the top is alot like Hitler's accession. This illuminates a part of my problem with the idea that the US resembles any kind of democratic model. The American process has lost the integrity that once made it admirable. It may as well come down to a Presidential 2-hour Fox "Survivor" special where the winner becomes the commander in chief.
I think you're right when you suggest a hyper-self-reflexive approach, although, I would suggest that simple critical reflection would get the job done. It's evident that this faculty has been lost in many people around the world (Canada included). I have a hard time getting into the mindset of the person who votes for Ralph Klein every election despite the burgeoning evidence that his governmental stylings are having a detrimental effect on our standard of living. At any rate, clearly an informed electorate, which, at the very least, means an electorate that can think critically, is required for a healthy democracy. An electorate that can be bribed with a carrot or two is not a critically thinking electorate and any democracy that hinges on this kind of voter is no democracy at all.

I hope we fare better in this month's provincial election.

Indeed. However, it gets more complicated than that. The right has long accused to left of being naive and not thinking critically -- the exact accusation the left is throwing at the right. Churchill supposedly said (and I paraphrase): "If one is a conservative before the age of 30, one has no heart; if one is a liberal after the age of 30, one has no brain." Spoken like a critically-thinking conservative. My point is that one person's critical thinking may be another's carrot on a stick. And, as is the case in the politics that really causes fights, the empirical evidence is there, depending on your interpretive strategy.

I don't know, maybe I'm talking myself into political nihilism. I fully agree that a critically thinking (and, I would add, vocal) electorate is a sign of social health.

When I was talking about carrots, I was referring to the referendum on gay marriage. The referendum should never have been included on a Presidential ballot. It was a cheap ploy, used only to bring in a certain demographic. Maybe in 2008 the Democrats can advertise that they will be handing out cheques to every ethnic person that walks through the voter turnstile.

You may have a point there, however, I don't think that was what put Bush over the edge (or gave him his mandate, whatever you want to call it). If the referendum had not been on the ballot (and remember, it was only on the ballot in 11 states), Bush had positioned himself as the "moral" choice on such social issues. Even if it hadn't been on the ballot, I think those voters would have gone with him, since the Republican party apparantly has a corner on the ethical market. What needs to change is the American definition of social values. We have an extremely limited view of what it means for people with differences to live together. Until that changes, the "moral" candidate like Bush will always win, because there is always some issue taking the forefront of the "culture war."
We are so f'ing militant. It drives me crazy.

Good conversation here, I like it.
Check this out. I saw the link on a t.v. commercial.
www.ready.gov
It's a dept. of homeland security site that tells you how to prepare emergency kits, plans, etc for a terrorist attack. (Perpetuating the fear, perhaps?)

Interesting. I would call that an "indeterminate socio-political signifier"; a fancy way of saying you could take it either way. It is both a way to save lives in the event of some sort of attack, and it is also perpetuating the fear of an attack. The point is, it does both at once and we can't look for some "author's intention" to resolve the tension.
I really think that much of our political discourse is the result of obtuse interpretation on both sides. For instance, does international capitalism help 3rd world economies? In some ways, yes, but a liberal won't tell you that. Does it hurt those economies? Again, yes. But you won't hear that from a conservative.
See, it all comes back to literary theory . . .

Paul, you and Capria should come on down to Tacoma soon. My brother and sister-in-law and I will have you guys over to their place. Weekend or week day? let me know.

Andrew, we'd love it. Probably a saturday or sunday would be the best since Capria works until 8 pm on weekday nights. Let me know what is best for you all.