Wednesday, March 22

Par-tay!

Last night I attended my party caucus. Beforehand, I called to see if the organizer needed any help. She asked me to bring cookies. When Lola found out I was making cookies to take to a party, she wanted to come. When she found out it was a political meeting, she changed her mind and decided to stick with eating leftover cookies at home. Smart girl. And now she knows that "party" has two meanings. One of them is boring. One is not.

When I arrived at the caucus, I found myself sitting at a table with all the other Democrats (the few who care, anyway) in my city. We started filling out an information form, and everyone wanted to know what House District they were in. I asked them who their representatives were, so I could help them with that information. Eighty-three percent of them didn't know. (See previous post--I represented about seventeen percent of the group--still above average!) Here's how it went with one guy:

Rabid Democrat: What's this "Legislative District"?

Me: Who is your representative?

RD: I dunno.

Me: Well, judging from the precinct you're in, it's probably John Dougall.

RD: [blank stare]

Me (patiently): Is John Dougall your representative?

RD: Pssshht! He's not my representative.

Well, judging from the fact that two seconds ago you didn't recognize his name, I'm guessing the only reason you are saying that is because he's a Republican. This makes you an idiot. I could tell you why I don't think he represents me, based on what I saw with my own eyes during the last legislative session, and I could also share some things I saw him do that I really appreciated, but I don't think you care. So you go back to reading your pulp fiction (incidentally, I bet John Dougall would love that book), and I'll save my comments for someone who can listen with an open mind. Also, he isn't my representative--literally--so I'll save my energy for a candidate I can actually do something about.

This brings me to my next thought. Why is it that such a large percentage of people who attend these types of meetings are fanatical, close-minded, and totally opposed to the idea that the two-party system works? I say this because I get the impression from a lot of people on both sides that this is a battle between good and evil. "I must get involved in order to prevent the Minions of Satan (i.e., Democrats/Republicans) from taking over my life." That's not how it's supposed to be at all. There are good (dare I say, righteous?), right-thinking people in both parties. All Democrats are not pro-abortion (is anyone, really?), and all Republicans are not anti-environment. When you show up with your "Those stupid Republicans/Democrats--we must fight them!" attitude, you're really oppressing the system rather than supporting it, in my opinion.

Political parties should not be issues based. They should be based on the values that a group of people wants to see government espousing. Many times, of course, specific issues will be caught up in those values. I know some people think that because I'm a registered Democrat, I must be an advocate of gay marriage. That does not define the Democratic party. I hear people saying, "All those Republicans care about is big business and making money." That's not true at all. Thinking this way makes for narrow-mindedness, which makes for bad government, if these are the people that are running it.

Sadly, a lot of the people that attend these types of meetings are people that have a lot to say, much of which is drivel (that's the sad part). They feel that they have found a forum where they will be listened to with sympathetic ears, and they're going to exploit that, at the risk of losing the respect of others. Most of the rest of us just want to be involved, and just want to do good in our communities. We know that it's possible to agree with people who don't necessarily share all of our values, and many of us have been known to vote for candidates not of our party. I believe that's healthy.

What is not healthy is choosing a party (many times solely based on what your parents think and do) and then voting straight party line in every election for the rest of your entire life without even thinking about what you're doing. That is wrong. Parties change, values change, and people change. Sixty years ago, the majority of Utahns were Democrats. Plenty of people thought that if you were a registered Republican you were going to hell. Now their kids and grandkids are telling me that I shouldn't be able to be a member in good standing in my church because of the political party I belong to. Does anyone else feel uncomfortable with this?

No one party has all the answers. In fact, I would go so far as to say that both parties (and other, smaller parties, of course) have the opportunity to bring their values to the table, and that only when they truly work together can the problems that plague our society really be solved.

I'm proud to be part of the political process, flawed as it is, and grateful to live in a country where I can say what I think without fear of repercussion (from the state, anyway--my neighbors are a totally different story). I just heard a news story about the Afghan government arresting a man and sentencing him to death for converting to Christianity. That sort of puts things into perspective, I think. We have it good here--real good. So let's appreciate that, dig in, and make things work!

5 comments:

Natalie Gordon said...

As the chair of my GOP precinct, it's nice to know there are whack-jobs on both sides of the isle -- I was sure we had the market cornered! I spent the evening being followed around by a Sutherland-Institute-sanctioned candidate who was really convinced he could get me to like him, all the while I am telling my friends that have been elected delegates to support the pro-public-education candidate (who is NOT him). And I'm thinking "Man, I like democracy, but I'm missing Manilow night on Idol for THIS?"

stupidramblings said...

Good to see there is sense in the political world. I, a republican, know the perceived extremes in the two parties serve to check and balance the extremes in the other party.

Take for example capitalism. I am for strict capitalism because I believe it does the greater good for the most people in the long run. What about the short run though? Am I not sympathetic to those of true need? Am I closed enough to social programs that I would turn away the truly needy? No, I am not so cruel. I just fall on the side of "the government should not be in the business of redistributing income."

So who should? We should. All of us have a responsibility to help our fellow man. So in the case of financial matters, I fall on the Republican side most of the time. Why? Because to me, a businessman, capitalism makes the most sense for the greater good in the long run.

My point? The Rush Limbaughs and Al Frankens of the world would have you believe the [insert party name here]s are plotting to ruin the country. Not true. There is good on both sides of the aisle. The greater good will win out. If that which is not good wins out, WO! unto our nation. The checks and balances of the two party system serve to bring valid arguments to the table and the greater good wins almost every time.

Sincerely,

Not so stupid this time.

Cicada said...

Great post, Daltongirl! You are so very reasonable!

David Rodeback said...

You go, DaltonGirl! (As a white guy, am I allowed to say that? I should have checked.) Also, I didn't see any refreshments at my Republican caucuses. I wonder what that means.

daltongirl said...

natgo: You're better off without Idol. I won't pass judgement on Barry.

Stupid and Cicada: Thanks!

DR: It means that Democrats will do anything to get people to come to their meetings. Plain and simple.