Once again, trying to get back into the writing spirit (last post was in January after all..). So here's a tidbit I started writing late-January/early February.
---
I sat down to write just now, inspired, compelled even, to put my thoughts out there, and suddenly, as my computer was booting up, I realized, as so many times in the past, my own inner conflict. The thought that comes to mind, no matter how long it's been brewing in my head, suddenly becomes less...convicted? Less... I don't know the word. I suddenly start poking holes in my own thought process (which may be why I haven't updated the blog in far too long, and for that I apologize). But almost at the same time, I realize that's pretty much what this is about. I mean, look at the title for crying out loud. So here goes:
I would think that the basic, fundamental difference between the political right and left isn't about caring for people - I think that, on some levels, even when it's hard to see - both sides are looking out for people. The crux lies on #1: which people we're looking out for, and #2: who's doing the looking out. #1 I'll leave be for the time being (mostly because it only just came to now, but I stand by it. I just haven't had time to flesh it out for you, so thank you for your patience).
So we'll focus on #2. Two things inspired me to sit down right now (one reminding me of the other). Several months ago I (foolishly) had what I thought could be a calm, rational discussion of gun control - let me clarify: not gun control itself, but rather how strongly, how passionately people feel about the issue on both sides. The topic coming up, again, foolishly on my part (because if the topic is about a passionate issue, why wouldn't the response be impassioned? Hindsight is 20/20), as I scrolled through a message board on an article about, lo and behold, guns. And I had to laugh. Literally. Laugh. First at the thought of ever getting into a heated argument online (let's be grown-ups people), then at the arguments people are making. Because none of them supported a side, only put down the other - as though the idea that "if I can show people you're wrong, that means I'm right" was a real thing. Well, this message board happened to be about guns. So I ask this person (back to the in-person conversation,; I'm not playing the comment section game!), "Why is it that this topic is such an emotionally-driven issue? Why is it that this issue, seemingly more than any other, is so strongly driven that anything that detracts from it is taken as a personal affront?"
*sigh*
However, from his answer - because "some people want to be able to protect themselves, while other people want to take that constitutional right away", and my apparently ludicrous follow-up question about the police ("you can't trust the police to keep you safe!"), not only reaffirmed my original question (shortly thereafter I let him know I would not continue this conversation because I was hoping for a clear and level-headed dialogue and due to his emotional responses indicated otherwise, and I walked away). And thinking about it later, the hypothesis was apparent: it was about safety. Some people feel safest when they have a gun to protect themselves because they don't know what that person over there is going to do. Other people feel safer when they don't have to worry about getting shot at in the first place from that person over there. I doubt he was able to shift his paradigm (not necessarily change, but to simply be able to understand) to think of it that way and I'd like to think I'm smarter than to revisit the topic.
Have issues - politics, policies, parties, etc - always been this devoid of gray area?
No comments:
Post a Comment