Daniel-David-Joseph
Member
I had a dream not long ago in which I heard a voice make the following remark:
“Bring balance to the talk.”
I immediately had a sense of what the words in the dream meant. I believe they referred to what I now see as an imbalance in both my approach to the current political debate and in the approach of those I have engaged with.
The words of the dream forced me to think about the dialogues I’ve pursued since I became a member of the religious forum. My primary reason for joining was not to argue politics; it was too connect with a wide range of people who care about a wide range of spiritual topics. Nevertheless, with only a couple of exceptions, a thread about dreams and a thread about the separation of the genders in orthodox religious practice (which of course has a huge political dimension) I found myself drawn to the threads occurring within the political “community” here. These include: “Trump backed by Christie, Sessions, who next?”; “Donald Trump approves mass killing of Muslims!”; and a thread I myself started (“Trump’s Fascist Dog Whistle”). By and large I have been quite impressed both with the level of civility maintained even in the midst of heated disagreements as well as the level of knowledge many participants on both sides of the argument seem to enjoy.
In the soul searching provoked by the dream I came to feel that, like many others here, like many in the media, like many in the world at large I had partially succumbed to a dangerous temptation … that of demonizing and stereotyping the other side. While I stand by everything I have said about the central object of my ire, and continue to believe Mr. Drumph (Trump’s name before it was changed) is a dangerous, authoritarian figure who behaves in a way that should disqualify him for any level of public office much less the presidency, I nevertheless own that I haven’t been entirely fair.
My demonization lies solely in failing to acknowledge the areas where I agree with Drumph, where I think his position is actually right, moral and even, in some cases brave: His conditional support of Planned Parenthood; his support for Social Security and Medicare, his denunciation of George Bush and the Bush administration vis a vis the war in Iraq, his contention that politicians are bought and paid for, all of which I agree with to one extent or another. These positions, which go against the Republican establishment deserve to be honored just as his positions on so many other things deserve in my opinion, to be vigorously challenged and condemned.
I think there is a tendency on the part of those with whom I find myself most at odds with, to underestimate the dangers posed by Drumph and those who support him, and to demonize in turn, his opponents. But perhaps, at least to a degree, their underestimation is a reaction to the overestimation on the part of those who see only the negative (and there’s a lot of negative to see). When there is common ground, no matter how infrequent, shouldn't it be acknowledged, rather than ignored?
theshifting.org
“Bring balance to the talk.”
I immediately had a sense of what the words in the dream meant. I believe they referred to what I now see as an imbalance in both my approach to the current political debate and in the approach of those I have engaged with.
The words of the dream forced me to think about the dialogues I’ve pursued since I became a member of the religious forum. My primary reason for joining was not to argue politics; it was too connect with a wide range of people who care about a wide range of spiritual topics. Nevertheless, with only a couple of exceptions, a thread about dreams and a thread about the separation of the genders in orthodox religious practice (which of course has a huge political dimension) I found myself drawn to the threads occurring within the political “community” here. These include: “Trump backed by Christie, Sessions, who next?”; “Donald Trump approves mass killing of Muslims!”; and a thread I myself started (“Trump’s Fascist Dog Whistle”). By and large I have been quite impressed both with the level of civility maintained even in the midst of heated disagreements as well as the level of knowledge many participants on both sides of the argument seem to enjoy.
In the soul searching provoked by the dream I came to feel that, like many others here, like many in the media, like many in the world at large I had partially succumbed to a dangerous temptation … that of demonizing and stereotyping the other side. While I stand by everything I have said about the central object of my ire, and continue to believe Mr. Drumph (Trump’s name before it was changed) is a dangerous, authoritarian figure who behaves in a way that should disqualify him for any level of public office much less the presidency, I nevertheless own that I haven’t been entirely fair.
My demonization lies solely in failing to acknowledge the areas where I agree with Drumph, where I think his position is actually right, moral and even, in some cases brave: His conditional support of Planned Parenthood; his support for Social Security and Medicare, his denunciation of George Bush and the Bush administration vis a vis the war in Iraq, his contention that politicians are bought and paid for, all of which I agree with to one extent or another. These positions, which go against the Republican establishment deserve to be honored just as his positions on so many other things deserve in my opinion, to be vigorously challenged and condemned.
I think there is a tendency on the part of those with whom I find myself most at odds with, to underestimate the dangers posed by Drumph and those who support him, and to demonize in turn, his opponents. But perhaps, at least to a degree, their underestimation is a reaction to the overestimation on the part of those who see only the negative (and there’s a lot of negative to see). When there is common ground, no matter how infrequent, shouldn't it be acknowledged, rather than ignored?
theshifting.org
