Recognizing Difference: Political Talk

            I am not unique in my experience. I was born in a once-coal-mining-now-industrial town in Western Kentucky about forty minutes from the Ohio River. My maternal great-grandfather was a coal miner and Pentecostal preacher. However, the atmosphere of my home breeds conservatism regardless of having religious familial connections. Every one finds comfort in believing the same thing.  

            When I voted for the first time in 2004 between George W. Bush and John Kerry, I voted like those around me. Kentucky has been a Red state for quite some time now. From the pulpit, my pastor had told us, “I cannot tell you who to vote for between John Kerry and Brother Bush.” I remember being told that Kerry would turn us into a god-less nation, that people would start marrying animals and abusing children.

            I sit here now typing this as a Democratic Obama-voter who hopes Hillary runs in the next election. Religiously, I embrace agnosticism and my girlfriend is atheist (borderline antitheist). My experience is not unique. There are many people around me who have the same story of growing up conservative, moving to a subculture, and embracing liberalism. All with this experience share more than just a story, but also an insight into the debates between conservatives and liberals. Only a fence-hopper (or backslider) can really understand the futility. How can two people argue if they are on two different channels? In two different locations? On two different planets?

            Religion and conservatism are usually a two-for-one deal. I have met some liberals who are religious, but I have yet to meet a conservative who is not. The Republican party is broken into several factions with over 80% of them agreeing that religion is important to their lives (Pew Research Center). I do not believe that I need to prove that the convictions of religious people affect their political decisions. We can see this on matters such as equal marriage, immigration, healthcare, and abortion. Religious ideology is inseparable from the Republican party and this ideology exists but is not inseparable from the Democratic party. In fact, many religious people that I know have suffered backlash from fellow believers due to their politics (accepting homosexuality, voting for Obama, etc). It is almost like treason.  So, what is a betrayal of?

            The majority of Religions, including Western Religion, has a temporal view of the world. I’ve often noticed that Republicans use the word “world” whereas Democrats use “earth.” There is a difference. From world, there is the connotation of “worldly” or “secular” which are no-no terms in Christianity especially. I have heard it used as “worldy goods,” “wordly ways,” and “secular non-believers.” It is almost like a warning word, a constant reminder of evil. That the world is evil, and we should be happy that it is temporal is the idea. The focus is on the next life, heaven or hell. It is what we do now that decides if our escalator goes up or down. It is a life preparing for something that could possibly come at any moment which could be death or the Rapture.  There is no planning ahead for future generations, because, hopefully, the world will end by then.

            Our political system is built on platforms and debates which do nothing except affirm either side. There is little to no persuasion. Most people know who they are going to vote for regardless of what either party has to say. The reason lies in the fundamental difference between Republican and Democratic ideology. Republicans are built on religious conservatism which has a short-sighted view of the future. Democratic ideology is built on social movements and consciousness-raising with little religion involved and are concerned with the future. So, how can two people set down and talk about global warming when one sees the world as temporal? The rift runs too deep, and without some consideration (or humoring if you will) of certain religious ideologies, it will always be too deep.

            Women’s rights, homosexuality, healthcare, immigration, war, and environmental policies are near impossible chasms for discussion between these two ideologies. We have seen in the news some acquiescence from Republicans on marriage equality, but that has more to do with political tactics (the fact that the Republicans are losing ground fast), than a change of heart or ideology. It is not because Paul Ryan believes gays should be able to adopt. It is because Paul Ryan wants to continue being successful in his political career.

            There is a huge difference between the representatives of the party and those that the party represents. In this article, when I have mentioned the parties I have meant the people, not the representatives. The people truly believe whereas the representatives may believe, but it is still a political game. We have seen politicians switch sides to snatch up nominations. We have seen politicians stay quiet regardless of their convictions. The people are much different. It is not a game. Conservative folk truly believe in the temporal versus the secular and that belief informs every decision they make and this informing process is parallel to Democrats in that they will never touch.

            In the PBS documentary Makers: Women Who Make America, Gloria Steinem said, “We thought if we would just explain it [Women’s rights] to them, they’d understand.” I believe every person regardless of political party has felt this way. During election season, I hear a plethora of questions that reflect this naivety.  How could they believe that? Are they stupid? Do they just not understand? Haven’t they read the report? Anyone with common sense couldn't believe that, could they? When you are looking at the world through lamb’s blood covered glasses, you can only see the world in a certain way.

            This article has had nothing to do with which party is enlightened or is right or wrong. That is exactly opposite the point which was to show that there are rifts too deep for crossing. However, I hope I am wrong and that it is possible to both see the world as temporal and worth saving. If we do not come together on that, there we will no earth to exercise any rights on.