It wasn't necessarily President Bush's policies after 911 that let me enjoy all the jokes that became more pervasive by the end of his second term. For me, it was his inappropriate laughing and smiling while addressing the nation or answering questions from the press. I could never understand why they didn't get him a coach so his facial expressions lined up with what he was talking about. The anti/pro-Bush rhetoric became the anti/pro-Obama rhetoric. A change that Fox News must have found quite refreshing. Who wants to be on the defensive when you have so little to work with? But now, with Trump, management change, and anchor moves, they can play it both ways or in their own way. It still gives me pause to see two former FOX anchors on MSNBC. Especially since such congenial changes are contrary to the ever hardening, dogmatic divide that is occurring in contemporary politics.
Absolutely right is difficult to achieve in a democracy. Therefore your rightness has to be enforced by power and money. It's the ultimate "Nanner, Nanner, Nanner" because it's a "there's nothing you can do about it" kind of goal. Even close relationships are starting to be divided by "It's my way or the highway." The protests against offensive conservative speakers on campuses are nothing new. Protesting an offensive liberal speaker, now that would be new! Somewhere along the line, the meaning of free speech has been lost and safe zones have been expanded to entire cities like Boulder, CO. I'd hate to think the only reason it's a nuclear free zone is that no one wants to waste a bomb.
One might ask where to hell do we get off voicing dogmatic beliefs when for some of them the only basis is what we've been told by someone who is like us. Believe it or not, I first heard this labeled by the Christian Education Director in a large Baptist church as Mutual Masturbation. Of course, he was talking about liberal MM and not conservative MM. My thought at the time was that either might be quite pleasant. Then I realized it was about people who thought the same and enforced each other. Therefore, the only thing they accomplished was assuring each other's rightness. ...In a very satisfying way of course.
I'm not sure if it's easy or if it's hard to totally take on a label, a party, a theology, a philosophy, a morality, a nation and/or an ideology in such a way that it automatically negates the rights and beliefs of those who disagree with you. But by the looks of it, for some it's rather easy. For other's it seems more like a Kirkegaardian leap of faith where so much is based on fact and reason, from their point of view, so you make the leap to where you believe that all of it must be true. Or you believe a part of it that you really like is true even though the rest is questionable at best. But you identify with it to some degree in order to get that which is most precious to you. (Excuse me for a moment while I shake off channeling Lord of the Rings.)
On one hand, Trump is the saviour (KJV) of the world or at least of baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet. On the other hand, he is the new Furor or Fewer - a joke that my wife had to explain to me. Perhaps these depictions are more on the extreme edge, but there are a real differences in how people think this nation should be govern. One part protests what Trump does and will resist in whatever way they can. The other part is pleased, if not ecstatic, about everything he has done so far.
This much distance between the two factions is SIMPLY AMAZING (thank you Bones). But it's almost like if you're not in the game if you're not a part of one side or the other. Belonging has the privilege of believing you're mostly or totally right and the opposition is mostly or totally wrong on the issues that face our country. For example, some don't believe there's such a thing as climate change while others believe climate change is the most important issue of our day. My feeling is that they are both in the same line when it comes to real solutions noting that solutions may not be perfect but rather, the best we can do
An obvious preliminary observation is that the present THE DOGMATIC DIVIDE has deterred progress and has every potential of returning us to former times and former evils. To move beyond this present morass, I believe we need to eliminate the fear of change and the acceptability of unfairness. ...But the complexity of such might be why our present opportunistic leaders get away with so much.
BONUS QUOTE
