Ain't No Party Like a Political Party...

It's hard to abide by the old adage: never talk religion or politics in mixed company... particularly when you call the "bible belt" home. Religion and politics are the border around so many snapshots of life down here. The "mixed company" part is tough, too - because often the assumption is, the company's not so mixed. More often than political debate, I hear people toss off a political statement with the clear ease of someone who assumes that everyone around him agrees with everything he says.

An assumption of homogeneity in political thought is certainly not unique to the South. Just as the generalization is often made that all Southerners are knee-jerk red-state conservatives, the generalization is often made that everyone in Berkeley, Ann Arbor, Boston are knee-jerk blue-state liberals. Those generalizations are a large part of the problem with any given political conversation.

I offer the following harsh, stereotypical definitions often associated with the two main American political labels:

• Conservative (typically a.k.a. Republican). Someone who is small-minded, insular, judgmental, and utterly convinced that their way is right and everyone else's way is wrong.
• Liberal (typically a.k.a. Democrat). Someone who is loosey-goosey, ethics, morals, and values-free, generally all-too-willing to quickly relinquish revered traditions and societal institutions.

These definitions are really, really helpful when it comes to crafting SNL skits, cracking one-line jokes, and making movies like Team America. They sure aren't helpful in getting people to connect, find common ground, and have more productive conversations about our shared society.

Last week, two of my friends posted Facebook blogs about their political views. (One of them, BK2, also shared his on a blogspot blog.) One posted from the point of view of a "conservative," the other a "liberal." The refreshing thing about both posts was that the authors both wrestled with their definitions, mentioned respectfully that not all their friends necessarily agreed with their views, and sought to articulate their individual positions rather than a strict party line.

I would argue that both of these friends defy the negative stereotypes of the groups they represent. (I should mention that they, too, are friends with one another.) I applaud this defiance. I generally tend to avoid labeling myself politically, but based on many of my opinions, I'm more often slapped with the "liberal label." However, as I noted in the last politically-themed blog I wrote, while in Ann arbor, rather than the political l-word, I had the political c-word tossed my way a few times. What does this show? The divisiveness and arbitrariness of these labels. I feel pretty confident that many of my conservative friends, who might call me a liberal, would likely in the same breath vouch for my ethics and clarify on my behalf that I'm far from being morally "loosey-goosey."

I get nervous when political conversations are less about reflection and more about rhetoric. I get inspired when friends on two sides of the fence can eloquently share their stances. I feel hope when I think that good, thoughtful people, across lines, can agree on the importance of mutual respect and working together to better our country and our world.

I still don't like the labels we currently have available to us. Thus at the risk of sounding cheesy, I declare here and now that my political affiliation is "Thinker." That's my stance. Consider yourself invited to the party.