Skip to content

Intolerance

February 27, 2012

They are the best neighbors in the world. Always ready with a tool, an ingredient or a jump-start for the car. Whatever you need, if they have it, they will give it. They are a lovely family: husband, wife and four smart, funny, polite children. I was sure they were Democrats.

-Diana Wagman

Ah, the solipsism of a stereotypically intolerant liberal. The personal is political; the political is personal. All good people follow the herd. Homogeneity is king.

As the husband sat down in our living room with his drink, he announced, “The tea party is not racist.” We just looked at him. “The tea party is not racist,” he continued, “because I am a member of the tea party.”

I laughed. I thought he was joking, but he quickly made it clear he was not. He is white and his wife is African American. And they belong to the tea party. They don’t care who becomes our next president as long as it isn’t Barack Obama. The conversation devolved from there until he was shouting, I was shouting, his wife was trying to calm him down, my husband was trying to calm me down, and our other friends — Democrats —were trying to keep everybody from breaking the furniture.

Apropos of nothing this crazy teabagger, and we know he’s racist no matter what color his wife is, just threw out a salvo? Surely a large group of Democrats, wholly owned by the personal nature of their political beliefs, didn’t throw out an off-handed tea party jibe. Surely not. I’ve never heard an average liberal, assuming everyone has their groupthink on, blurt out a disparaging and intolerant remark.

We argued about healthcare and welfare, President Obama’s nationality and religion, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We did not agree on anything. But honestly, the issues were not important. What matters is how personal it quickly became, how vitriolic, how filled with hate. He said I was sucking the country dry with my support of food stamps and public education. He said I needed to get off my butt and take care of myself. I suggested he sign his kids up to die in Iran, the next place he thinks we should attack. He called me a spoiled idiot and worse. I called him selfish, shortsighted and worse. It was awful, and it went on until after 3 a.m.

The next morning, they knocked on our door and we apologized to each other and laughed sheepishly. All in good fun, the wife said. It was the Scotch talking, my husband replied. But my feelings about them are changed. I cannot respect them as I did before. And as they headed back across the street, I saw the look they gave each other: They don’t like us anymore either.

One of these things is not like the other. One side is presented as irrational and obnoxious. The other is righteously indignant and simply against evil.

And, Ms. Wagman, you dislike them for their politics. They dislike you for other reasons.

My mother had Republican friends. She was a lifelong Democrat, worked with the Adlai Stevenson for president campaign and was a precinct chairman for Hubert Humphrey. She was ashamed of Richard Nixon and thought Ronald Reagan was misguided. Still, she didn’t hate Republicans. She disagreed with their politics and they with hers, but she believed people, no matter how they vote, are basically all the same.

I don’t agree. I don’t want to be friends with someone who is a member of the tea party or is a Newt Gingrich Republican. We are not the same. I equate their political views with thoughtlessness, intolerance and narcissism. I think they are not kind or empathetic. And my neighbor made it clear that he does not respect my opinions or me.

What does the interior of your intestines look like?

My views on all these things — gay marriage, abortion, the war in Iraq, healthcare, education, food stamps, even NPR and PBS funding — seem so logical to me. Of course we need to take care of those less fortunate; of course we want everybody to have the joy and legal benefits of a life partner; of course we want every baby to be wanted and every person to be safe, healthy, informed and looking forward to a better future.

These things are no-brainers to me, and it kills me that my neighbor disagrees. I wonder what would happen if he woke up one morning to find that his son had been killed in Iraq or that his 15-year-old daughter was pregnant or that his favorite sister was gay. What if he suddenly lost his job, his wife got cancer, there was no insurance and not much food? I’m not saying I want life to knock him around. But would he still feel that the government shouldn’t be helping anybody out?

Next time I drive to our cabin, I’m going to make sure I take everything I could possibly need. I don’t want to ask my neighbors for help. I hope it’s their weekend to stay home.

Micromanagement is a temptress. Occasionally, she is needed. More often, she is not. Yet, this temptress is the all-consuming patron saint of modern liberalism. The liberal processes any disagreement with method as a disagreement with outcome. If you don’t think unemployment needs to be extended, you want people to die in the streets. What once was marketing has become truth. At least for assholes.

The entire op-ed is just a whiny screed that reveals how intellectually and morally deficient the author is. If every sentence were replaced with, “Nonconforming groups and  resulting conversation makes Diana an insufferable bitch,” the gist of the op-ed would not change one iota.

I, though, am thankful for such bitches. Though the plural of anecdote is not data, I am very close with one conservative who began her journey after realizing just how stifling, intolerant, and intellectually incurious boilerplate libs are. As long as the true believers insist on acting as anti-missionaries to their cause, there is a glimmer of hope, however faint.

16 Comments leave one →
  1. February 27, 2012 12:18 pm

    Gosh, what a nasty bitch.

    Wagman. Nuff said. Liberal, and one of them.

    • February 28, 2012 3:34 pm

      “Wagman. Nuff said. Liberal, and one of them.”

      Will, I’m always happy when you figure out the more… uhhh, “Tribal” aspects of some/many/most liberals especially the worst ones.

      “Gosh, what a nasty bitch.”

      Obviously, with a surname like “Wagman”. I think you and I are well-versed in how that volk operates.

  2. February 27, 2012 12:20 pm

    Charlotte Allen’s corresponding piece captures the essence of the challenge; they (liberals) think conservatives are evil, while conservatives think liberals are silly. Of course, the truth is, it is liberals who are evil, and alas, most conservatives are silly…

    • February 27, 2012 12:35 pm

      Let me amend; it’s the worldview of liberals that is evil; the people, no more necessarily so than anyone else.

    • February 28, 2012 3:30 pm

      Will, there was a reason why the paleocons call the Democratic Party the Evil Party and the Republican Party the Stupid Party. Mainly because it’s true.

      • February 28, 2012 8:37 pm

        Yep.

        “You are posting comments too quickly. Slow down.”

        ?

  3. February 27, 2012 12:28 pm

    The difference between Wagman and her mother is that for Wagman’s mother, her politics were her politics and for Wagman, her politics have become her religion. You can tell it’s a religion because everyone who doesn’t agree or comply is not misguided, but evil.

    • February 27, 2012 12:35 pm

      That’s a good point, grerp.

      Though I suppose the same charge could be leveled at us conservatives, since I do find their worldview evil. But that said, I can still get along with them, and see the people as no more evil than I.

      • February 28, 2012 3:35 pm

        I think that their worldview is evil and that they’re stupid. Stupidity is the greatest friend of Evil.

      • February 28, 2012 8:38 pm

        So (pause) it (pause) is.

        Hope that’s slow enough commenting for WordPress.

  4. February 27, 2012 1:12 pm

    And which side crossed the street to make nice?

    I know plenty of people like this. I know enough to not talk to them about anything important. They get the weather and sports scores and I don’t follow sports. Everything important will result in ties to politics. Eventually Obama and Hitler will be mentioned. Read the comments on most internet news pages. Obama’s name is normally in the top 5 comments even when the story has nothing at all to do with him.

  5. February 27, 2012 1:19 pm

    One difficulty I had with your response to this Wagman person’s column was that you’ve tagged her as Diane, when her name is Diana, and you gave no attribution to the L.A. Times. Your omissions required me to search harder to find the original column before I could begin to properly understand your response.

    Once I had read the original, and done a few minutes research on her other work as a writer, I now believe she probably made it up, or at the very least enormously simplified and restructured the actual event, to bait readers like you for an emotional reaction – which I see worked. She is, after all, an accomplished author of edgy fiction steeped in symbolic metaphor. One thing she is definitely not is a typical political opinion pundit. She teaches at Cal State Long Beach, and by far most of her columns are reviews of current novels. She also writes about other personal experiences, but does not couch them exclusively in political contexts.

    People whose primary mindset revolves around separating others into groups according to their political preferences (or their religion for that matter) are persons of limited imagination. Wagman’s CV proves she isn’t, so I think she’s crafting a story to try and make a point about fear and stereotyping. The reason she includes a “way it used to be” person (the mother) is that’s it’s a more elegant way to show that current political discourse is impolite, and it wasn’t always so. The reason she offers the husband’s view (“It was the scotch talking.”) is because people today make constant excuses for why debates over ideas have devolved into name-calling. Sorry you missed the subtleties.

    • February 27, 2012 1:44 pm

      Yes, I accidentally wrote Diane.

      I linked to the original, so you could have saved yourself some searching.

      If this is art, it fails. It should not take more words to explain the subtlety and nuance of a piece than the piece itself contains. Maybe, instead, she took a break from edgy fiction and subtly nuanced political writings and movie reviews to gripe about something that happened to her at her vacation home. Occam’s Razor favors that option.

      • February 27, 2012 2:01 pm

        Not art, JOURNALISM. Journalism school teaches students to make shit up three times a week for four years. nothing has to be true as long as the story reads well and fills the column space.

      • February 27, 2012 2:28 pm

        Good point about Journalism, even though she isn’t a journalist and has no training in that. She’s a novelist, short story author and screenwriter, whose day job is teaching fiction writing at several colleges and university extension programs. She gets paid to make stuff up well, a lot more above board than a journalist would.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 80 other followers