A friend of mine writes with the following thoughts, which I’ve edited for readability:
This election is highlighting a lot of the distinction between the way people on the Left and people on the Right think and feel. For the people on the Right, this election is about whether there will be a world war, whether the economy will be ruined, whether the southern border will be secured, what material steps need to be taken so that bad things will be prevented and some positive things happen. It’s about policy being implemented and government power being used in positive ways and not being used in damaging ways.
The Left is much more about personality and feelings. Identifying with Harris because she’s black and a woman, and feeling that she in some ambiguous but nonetheless important way represents some vague ideal that people care about. I have a friend whose daughter is voting for Harris, and he asked her why, and she said: Because she’s black and a woman and she’s not Trump; I don’t need to know what her policy views are.
It’s a completely different way of looking at the world. Frankly, it’s female, and I don’t like it, and it’s destructive if it’s given political power. The idea of this type of female mindset operating a system where people are arrested or people with guns show up at the door is terrifying. Such a system would be based on arbitrary female sentiments, and gestures of submission, rather than some agreed-on set of rules.
Good post.
The idea could be rephrased as:
Right = Common Sense
Left = Foolishness
Too many people have shirked their civic duty, by voting without gravitas.
I don’t think we have fully come to grips with the effect of women on our politics, especially within the context of our constitutional system. For better or worse, it’s a major game-changer.
I have a (female) friend who wants to abolish the 19th Amendment. I mean heck, if you are going to be canceled for deviating from the conventional wisdom you might as well get your money’s worth.
I have been following Matt Taibbi’s Racket News livestream of the DNC. He (along with Walter Kirn) have done a great job over the last few weeks dissecting the image being manufactured by the Democrats both before (think of the use of the word “Joy”) and during the DNC.
Yet, people on the Left often assert that people on the RIght are only supporting Trump because they are under some kind of spell of his personal magnetism.
Any objective analysis has to conclude that the world has become a worse place since women were given political power — which is not to suggest that the previous male domination was satisfactory either. But there is no effective way to reverse the situation. Catastrophe here we come!
I don’t know that the attitude is uniquely female, but it is intensely tribal, and almost monarchical. “Whatever the leaders of my tribe select is perfect, and needs no justification to inferior outsiders.”
The conservative of nature believe in a ‘nation’ that should be held as something worth preserving. In this case, a democratic republic.
Those more liberal are obviously more concerned with what I consider ‘smaller’ ideas, which have been mentioned, and relate closely to ‘feelings’ rather than facts and logic.
The conservatives look upon government as something that ‘must be done’ to preserve the nation, while liberals look upon government as the ‘resource’ to help them in times of difficulty and to act as the ‘safety net’ when no one else will hold out a helping hand.
That applies to ‘normal’ liberals, not those intent upon destroying the democratic republic with total disregard for and little respect for the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. They, generally, could give one fig less for the government as it is somewhat currently limited, instead seeking a government where they are allowed(encouraged?) to implement their superior ideas of what an ideal government should impose. Yes, impose, as the things contemplated are likely not 50%+1 popular.
It is actually a triumvirate of sorts. There are fringes at both ends of the spectrum, but most citizens are somewhere closer to the middle, being likely to accept traditional ‘liberalism’ as being in general ‘good’.
The smooth platitudes expressed by former POTUS at the Dunce Convention mostly followed the expected guidelines for politiical prevarication. The two pairs did not pay a lot of attention to being factual in their speeches, and ignored the contradiction that it is all R caused, though being in charge for 12 of the last 16 years. Their audience accepted as fact all those things that were ‘wishful thinking’.
The conservative and liberal audiences have different criteria it seems for what is acceptable in political speech. Until reality reaches out to pinch those living in a land of feelings, there’s no reason for them to change their outlook and acceptance of unfulfilled promises.
Woodrow Wilson has much to answer for. The Progressives got us into war under false pretenses. Wilson wrecked the peace talks with his high blown rhetoric. Clemenceau took the opportunity to give us Hitler with a Carthaginian Peace. Wilson’s fascist regime was largely reversed by Harding and Coolidge and the 1920s, like the 1990s, were a time of prosperity and innovation. The 1929 crash could have been short if only the Progressives had not taken power. First Hoover, then FDR. We are headed into another crash as the debt overwhelms us and communism beckons in the DNC nominees.
I don’t think think those are necessarily females’ sentiments. Much of the left just votes on “what feels right” at the time.
I can point to our California initiative process as an example. The voters have approved a number of initiatives that have shown to be destructive to the state and society. I point at the most recent one of raising the theft amount to $1,000. What that has brought is shoplifters simply making sure they don’t steal more than $1000 at a time, and the store won’t even bother detaining them because the police can do nothing.
Many stores have closed and for those that remain open buying simple things like shaving cream results in having it behind locked cabinets and having to call (and wait) for someone to unlock it for you. Just like the third world.
Vigilance Committees began in California and we might see them again.
The problem with reality is that it doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it, even if that hurts your feelings and even if you don’t like it.
If you feel bad that shoplifters go to jail and arrange it so that they don’t, then eventually you won’t have stores to shop in. This process is well along in California.
I would have thought the negative consequences would have been enough to lead to a change in policy, but it appears not.
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, something in American governance is broken at a fundamental level- something well beyond the fact that myriads of citizens base their vote upon wispy feelings and not reality.
To pick one item among many, you can’t really have a representative republic when your country has 330 million people and you only have 100 senators and 435 representatives. We need both more reps- a lot more- and more states. This also applies to California, which has 40-odd million people and a laughably gerrymandered tiny legislature.
The problem is that the people who have the power to do something about this are also the people who benefit the most from the ensuing dysfunction.
And also- of course- they have no incentive at all to tell those women who vote for them anything that would upset them and make them worry about the future.
So they’ll keep voting for people like Kamala Harris, because why not? What could go wrong? And why is shaving cream locked up?
Let’s have a ballot initiative to ban locking things up, because that’s so inconvenient.
What could- you get the idea.
Replying to StanD:
Right = Logic
Left = Emotion
There are lots of other ways to frame it, also, but this is how I have looked at it for many years.