In my short time as the Spark’s local political columnist, I’ve been called a lot of names. It goes with the territory really, and it’s not something that I really spend that much time worrying about. The truth is, if you don’t have the stomach to see your ideas criticized in ways that are sometimes honest, but often unreasonable and mean-spirited, you don’t have what it takes to write substantive opinion-based material. The two most important requirements for this position are a commitment to your ideas and a thick skin because dealing with the crazies is a big part of the game.
Not to worry, this post has the official liberal seal of approval.
The name-calling though, has to be my absolute favorite thing about the crazies. The best ones are always the funny ones, and the funniest are the ones hurled clumsily by people using English words in wholly inappropriate ways like an inept carpenter who uses his shoe to hammer a nail because he can’t figure out what that blasted hammer in his tool belt is for.Â
So when I’ve been called things like reactionary, anti-Semite, chauvinist, and bigot, I’ve tended to laugh a little and shrug it off as the ramblings of people who can’t articulate their anger in any other way. Again, it’s part of the game.
Most of my detractors though, get right to the point with the political insults. They call me a liberal.
The term liberal is not one that I shy away from. I am, in fact, a proud liberal of the social democratic variety. Of course they mean the word “liberal†as the Rush Limbaugh-inspired caricature that exists only in the minds of those on the extreme right, and when they use the term, It’s meant to conjure visions of anti-family, immoral, America-hating, socialists who want to make everyone in the country wards of the state. I have to admit, I like caricatures. Even more than that, I like what the liberal caricature says about the people who believe it as gospel truth.
I had that particular caricature in my mind around lunchtime last Wednesday when I went to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protest outside the McDonald’s over on John B. White Sr. Blvd.
According to PETA’s press release, they were outside the McDonald’s protesting “the abuse that chickens suffer in slaughterhouses that supply the fast-food chainâ€. The protest featured two PETA members “crammed together in a tank of ‘bloody’ water with the message ‘McDonald’s Scalds Chicks to Death’â€.  Several others were walking around holding signs that said, “McCruelty: I’m hatin’ it”.  One protester held a sign with a picture of a dead chicken that had apparently been scalded to death, a tactic that reminded me instantly of the anti-abortion protesters who walk around with pictures of aborted fetuses attached to their signs.
As an event, the protest was decidedly underwhelming. It really amounted to nothing more than about a half-dozen people standing on a sidewalk being roundly ignored by both passing cars and McDonald’s patrons. If there was any effect on McDonald’s lunchtime business, I didn’t see it. Other than to satisfy some sense of moral outrage felt by the protesters, I don’t see exactly what was accomplished by the local PETA members on Wednesday.
Watching the protest was sort of surreal for me. On the one hand, there’s a valid point to be made about factory farming practices here in the United States. Factory farms and slaughterhouses are quite often needlessly cruel to the animals that eventually make their way to our dinner plates, and stricter rules are certainly needed to reign in such abuses. Â
On the other hand though, When I see a spectacle like the one put on by PETA last Wednesday, I can’t help but feel that for them, the cause they claim to be supporting is secondary to the feeling of moral superiority they get from showing all those evil McDonald’s patrons how cruel and awful they are.
And that’s how we get back to that caricature I had floating around in my head earlier.
The fact that I think PETA is group of self-serving moralizers, who have more in common with fundamentalist religious fanatics than they’d ever care to admit, separates me from many people on the left. People who’d normally be shaking their heads in agreement with me if the topic were preemptive war might find themselves angrily disagreeing with me when the topic turns to PETA. Conversely, my more conservative readers might find themselves in the awkward position of agreeing with a self-avowed liberal. That is of course, if they can bother to look past the label.
The trouble with the liberal caricature is that it leaves no room for nuance. The tagging of someone with a label becomes an act that stifles debate. It’s dismissive, and it gives the labeler the freedom to ignore any legitimate concerns raised by the labeled. It allows the labeler to wrap themselves in a warm blanket of like-minded discourse, never being challenged, and certainly never having to defend a position from one of those awful “liberalsâ€. It sheds a whole new light on why fans of Rush Limbaugh call themselves “dittoheadsâ€.
In the end, I still wear the liberal badge proudly. I wouldn’t let the animal-rights fundamentalists at PETA take the label from me any more than I’d let the right-wingers use it to dismiss me. I am a liberal. Just don’t be surprised if I’m not ready to do that liberal song-and-dance every time it’s expected of me. Sometimes, I just don’t feel like dancing.
Christopher George is a local blogger. Â You can read more of his stuff at Flying Oskar.
Christopher George
What a mess!
“The name-calling though, has to be my absolute favorite thing about the crazies.”
The who?
Of course it is your favorite thing. You do a good job of proving how you have mastered this craft while pretending you don’t do it!
I do believe that the point of what is being said here is that often those who label don’t bother thinking that label through. We are really good at trying to pigeon-hole people into little neat categories. But we forget that no one really fits into just one neat little idealistic box.
Of course terminology has changed over the years. Liberal used to mean generous, as in “Momma applied a liberal dose of salt to the stew” It doesn’t mean that anymore and I think that is sad. I would love to be called a liberal with it having the same original meaning.
On the flip side. Conservative once meant with respect for tradition,using restraint, not showy. Again valid attributes that I wouldn’t mind having used in my direction.
Both terms are now more insults then true labels to portray mindset. Which is why I hesitate to stick people who feel a certain way about a certain topic into a big mishmash of a category. It just simply doesn’t work that way.
That is a good point, but I doubt it was the point intended by fo.
In fact, I like the way you fleshed out some common terms. Used in a thoughtless (without thought) manner.
You should expand this further. Thanks.
CM
“Of course [name-calling] is your favorite thing. You do a good job of proving how you have mastered this craft while pretending you don’t do it!”
If you’d bothered to actually read the rest you’d have seen the names I was talking about. Since apparently you didn’t though I’ll post it down here for you.
“So when I’ve been called things like reactionary, anti-Semite, chauvinist, and bigot…”
I don’t care if you call me names or not, and I never said I don’t label people, though I’d like to think I take great care in making sure the label fits, at least to the situation where I’ve applied it. What I find funny is when people call me a name that means something far different from what they think it means.
If you want to call me a name that actually fits, like say “liberal”, that’s fine and fairly accurate even if someone does mean it as an insult. Want to call me “immoral” because I don’t buy into social conservative ideas about personal morality? Have at it! From a certain point of view that’s absolutely true.
Calling me a reactionary, anti-Semite, chauvinist, or bigot though, is laughable and the only explanation for using those terms to describe me is that the people who used the terms had no idea what they actually meant. Sorry I had to spell that part of the article out for you.
Incedentally, all those terms were actually used in the comment sections of various columns I’ve written for the Spark over the last couple of months. In fact, I got “reactionary” from one of your comments camelmike. In the interest of education, and so you don’t misappropriate the term again, I’ll supply you with a definition from Dictionary.com.
“Reactionary adj. of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, esp. extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.”
Do you see what the problem with calling me “reactionary” is now? Not trying to poke fun at you, just trying to help you bash me in an appropriate way next time. Hope you appreciate the help, camelmike.
“What a mess!”
I also appreciate your critique of my writing. I don’t suppose you’ve managed to jot down any of that marvelous prose of yours anywhere have you? If so, please share. I’d love to see what a real writer can do.
Are you re-writing your post in answer to my short comment?
Dictionary dot com? wat dat?
Most people who consider themselves to be “liberal” or at least left-of-center are usually embarrassed to say this. They come up with code words like “progressive” or even “moderate” that don’t sound as bad as the “L-word”.
Most Republicans, on the other hand, are proud to wear the badge of being a conservative. In fact, many would rather be known as a “conservative” instead of a “Republican”.
This should tell us something about the shame and self-doubt that many liberals have about their world view.
Chris,
When you get down and out…watch this little song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOpTAL50bl8 It always helps me deal with the shame and self-doubt I have over my world view…
Great post as always. You have quite the knack for coming out of your shell of shame.
Great to see you today.
t
Thanks Tammy. I love the song. I saw that video a while back, and it always helps me deal with my shameful, shameful worldview. Oh if only I could be one of those “proud” conservatives.
Really awesome to see so many people out today at “Show Up For Spartanburg” despite the rain. I should’ve got up and said something. Kinda kicking myself for not.
It was an awesome event. I’ve been bombarded with positive emails all morning. Which is awesome. It’s so great loser liberals like ourselves are out there changing this community. Good for us, huh?
“Most people who consider themselves to be “liberal†or at least left-of-center are usually embarrassed to say this. … This should tell us something about the shame and self-doubt that many liberals have about their world view.”
William: I take it you don’t get out much. That’s kind of how it is here in this corner of South Carolina, but this state is considered really backwater by most of the country. In most of the rest of the country — and the Western world, for that matter — left-leaning politics are a major part of the conversation, and often the majority view. You’re just not seeing that because you’re in an area that’s one of the last strongholds of hard-line right-wing conservatism in the entire nation.
It’s also not that anyone is embarrassed, it’s more not wanting to provoke a pointless confrontation with some Dittohead who is spoiling for a fight. There’s no shame or self-doubt generally speaking, but there’s also nothing to be gained from getting into an argument with someone who already dislikes you because your worldview goes beyond that of some blowhard on AM radio.
Don’t listen to Steve.
He wants to put you in a conservative concentration camp.
“I take it you don’t get out much. That’s kind of how it is here in this corner of South Carolina, but this state is considered really backwater by most of the country.”
I just love it how a few people who profess to be overflowing with so much pride in their community never really have anything good to say about the state that Spartanburg lies in. If one’s hopes are to see downtown Spartanburg become a blue dot in a sea of red, I think they may be the one who won’t be getting out of a five block radius that much. South Carolina really is a lovely and diverse state, you should get out and see it sometime.
“In most of the rest of the country — and the Western world, for that matter — left-leaning politics are a major part of the conversation, and often the majority view. You’re just not seeing that because you’re in an area that’s one of the last strongholds of hard-line right-wing conservatism in the entire nation.”
You should take a look at a county-by-county breakdown of the 2008 presidential election results. See all that red?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html
LOL. If only the candidate with the most colored blocks on the map won…you might have a point. Yet, with all that red…he still lost by what 10 million votes? It must suck to know the power that the handful of blue states holds.
“I just love it how a few people who profess to be overflowing with so much pride in their community never really have anything good to say about the state that Spartanburg lies in.”
South Carolina has a lot going for it — great music, wonderful beaches, some excellent communities, ect. — but let’s not kid ourselves about the state’s political and social backwardness. I have plenty of good things to say about South Carolina, but not so many when it comes to things political openness and social inclusiveness.
“If one’s hopes are to see downtown Spartanburg become a blue dot in a sea of red, I think they may be the one who won’t be getting out of a five block radius that much. South Carolina really is a lovely and diverse state, you should get out and see it sometime.”
I also don’t run the South Carolina Spark; I run the Spartanburg Spark. And you’ve basically proven my point about seeing things from the perspective of being inside one of the few die-hard conservative strongholds in America.
“You should take a look at a county-by-county breakdown of the 2008 presidential election results. See all that red?”
The red counties are also the places where the population density is the lowest. In places where the majority of people in this country actually live, it’s basically all blue. This is true even in the South Carolina part of the map. It’s hardly backing your view. You’ve essentially demonstrated that only rural, undeveloped places with overwhelmingly white voter populations tend to vote Republican. Doesn’t speak much to diversity, does it?
“I just love it how a few people who profess to be overflowing with so much pride in their community never really have anything good to say about the state that Spartanburg lies in.”
You’re confusing civic pride with political pride. Personally, I love South Carolina for its history, natural beauty, and cultural richness. Those are the biggest reasons I’m proud to be from South Carolina, and implying that people who don’t care for our political direction don’t love the state just a much as the right-wingers do is dishonest. Politically, the state is backwards from the majority of the rest of the country, but that’s a completely separate issue from everything else that’s good in SC.
Still with all that’s currently wrong with the political structure though, there are positive political signs for SC too. In 2008 Charleston County swung blue. That hasn’t happened in quite some time. In fact most of the urban centers in South Carolina got more Democratic in 2008 even if they didn’t swing completely. Overall in SC, McCain won 53.8% to 44.9% for Obama. That’s a pretty good margin of victory, but in 2004 Bush beat Kerry 58% to 40.9%. Looks like there are some cracks in that Republican wall around the state if you ask me. If the urban parts of the state continue to shift blue the same way urban centers in the rest of the country have, South Carolina’s Republican ruling class may be in for a bit of a shock in the coming years.
“You should take a look at a county-by-county breakdown of the 2008 presidential election results. See all that red?”
Well then it’s a good thing for us that empty square miles out in Wyoming don’t get to vote isn’t it? Seriously is that all you’ve got? You do understand that practically nobody lives in those red areas compared with the major urban centers in the country right?
I’ll break it down for you. More people voted just for Barack Obama in California, than voted for EITHER candidate in Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and Alaska combined. Are you getting the picture of where the people actually live now?
Yes, everyone knows (or at least I do) that New York and California has a higher population density that Wyoming and Utah, and that the most of the big urban centers of this nation are majority blue, and that Obama got more votes than McCain in 2008, and Bush got more votes than Kerry in 2004, etc. etc. I studied political science and maybe you all missed my point.
Steve said: “You’re just not seeing that because you’re in an area that’s one of the last strongholds of hard-line right-wing conservatism in the entire nation.”
Your saying our AREA is one of the last STRONGHOLDS of hard-line conservatism…to me this sounds like you are making a statement of the geographic area we live in (I am assuming you mean either South Carolina in general or the Upstate specifically). Your statement about our area being so conservative doesn’t really have to do with our population density and comparing how densely populated we are to blue areas but rather the majority political viewpoint of our area in terms of per capita.
My point in showing you the map was to refute you argument that we are in an AREA that is one of the LAST strongholds of hard-line right-wing conservatism in the entire nation. Actually, there are AREAs and congressional districts in our nation that are far more conservative than us by objective measures. If you wish to continue this discussion we could get into comparing Cook PVI ratings for congressional districts in this nation, and you will see that we are not really one of the LAST AREAs of “hard-line right-wing conservatism.”
“Your statement about our area being so conservative doesn’t really have to do with our population density and comparing how densely populated we are to blue areas but rather the majority political viewpoint of our area in terms of per capita.”
Which is exactly what I’m saying about it being the exception to the rule — one of the “last strongholds” and all that. You’re illustrating my point, not refuting it. Outside of this admittedly right-wing heavy area, where the debate is between mainstream and hard-line Republicans, the conversation is quite different. Left-leaning interests and views are part of the conversation, not considered part of the fringe.
And as Spartanburg’s (and the Upstate’s, really) demographics change, you’ll see the traditional limits of the debate change. In fact, it already has. The “liberals” are already more visible than they traditionally are, and there’s clearly a growing number of “progressive” minded voters and citizens making themselves heard. And the result of this — which is linked to population density to an extent — is demonstrable from the voting statistics Chris pointed out: Hard-line Rebublicans are losing ground in South Carolina.
“Actually, there are AREAs and congressional districts in our nation that are far more conservative than us by objective measures.”
I’m not saying it’s “the mostsest conservative kingdom in all the land.” I’m sure there’s some nowhere town of 100 people out there where every voter voted Republican, making it burning coal of pure red. That’s really not what we’re talking about, we’re talking about the idea of being “liberal” in an area that trends strongly toward being “conservative.”
Are you saying it’s NOT a conservative stronghold? Because you just spent an awful lot of time trying to demonstrate that it is. And even conceding that point — which I don’t, but just for the sake of argument — it’s still utterly irrelevant to your fundamental premise, which is that “liberals” are somehow embarrassed or ashamed of their views, rather than not terribly interested in being harassed for them.
I will try to simplify this–you originally said: “you’re in an area that’s one of the last strongholds of hard-line right-wing conservatism in the entire nation” and your comments have revolved around your believing this. My argument is we are not one of the LAST areas of “hard-line right-wing conservstism” precisely because there are MANY other areas of conservatism in the country, in fact a good number of areas that are MORE conservative than even we are. I am saying we are not an exception to some rule and if you look at the numbers of the 435 congressional districts you will see my point.
William,
Obviously you have the talent and time to pick and parse dubious statistics with these fellows, and you do hold your own.
In holding your own I would suggest that you resist the temptation to “rise to the bait”.
That is a sophomoric trick learned early and employed too long by would be intellectuals.
Maybe they will “grow”. Maybe not. Meanwhile they are making their bones whilst preening beards and sipping cheap wine from cheap glasses.
At least they are smart. If not they would be easily crushed and what’s the point of that?
I swear I think there is only one of them. Have you ever seen them both together?
I stole that line from one of “them”.
Last stronghold!
Now that is good bait.
Uhm, camelmike… are you honestly suggesting there is some sort of “conspiracy behind the spark”?
Chris and Steve are “eerily alike” in a lot of ways. I’ll give you that. But one person? You’re really kidding yourself. Besides, that seems to be one of the silliest things to bring up now. Talk about growing up!
All I’ve seen here is a decent discussion that everyone can benefit from in some way, and you’re trying to ruin it by attacking the people you simply don’t agree with. I mean, who licked the red off your candy?!
“Meanwhile they are making their bones whilst preening beards and sipping cheap wine from cheap glasses.”
This is funny. It’s not particularly accurate, but it’s clever enough that I don’t care. I tip my hat.
“At least they are smart. If not they would be easily crushed and what’s the point of that?”
I am relatively smart, but more accurately I’m articulate and informed. I seriously doubt I’m likely to be “crushed” by what amounts to someone having a differing opinion from mine. When you concentrate our arguments to their basic elements, William is saying “Liberals are weak, meek and self-loathing” and I’m saying “That’s not true, it just seems that way because you’re in a state that’s exceptionally dominated by loud, self-important, hard-line right-wingers who generally aren’t worth trying to discuss anything with, as they rarely listen.”
“I swear I think there is only one of them. Have you ever seen them both together? I stole that line from one of ‘them’.”
We are the informed, the progressive, the open-minded, the active and the participatory here in Spartanburg. We are legion.
You do good work.
CM
“who licked the red off your candy?!”
Katie, I loved that, can I borrow that statement for future use?
William said: “Most people who consider themselves to be “liberal†or at least left-of-center are usually embarrassed to say this. They come up with code words like “progressive†or even “moderate†that don’t sound as bad as the “L-wordâ€.
Most Republicans, on the other hand, are proud to wear the badge of being a conservative. In fact, many would rather be known as a “conservative†instead of a “Republicanâ€.
This should tell us something about the shame and self-doubt that many liberals have about their world view.”
Where do you get your information from? I would like to see more facts than opinions.
You posted this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html
How does the information on this site support what you said? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
We’re way past that comment you are quoting from me, even if Steve keeps wanting to say that is the only argument I am making (see Steve’s last comment about me).
The link I provided was in reference to Steve’s comment:
“You’re just not seeing that because you’re in an area that’s one of the last strongholds of hard-line right-wing conservatism in the entire nation.”
The last two comments I posted was to directly refute this argument made by Steve. And if you notice in Steve’s last comment, he does not address my point that the Upstate is not one of the last strongholds of conservatism, that in fact there are plenty of areas around the country that are as conservative or even much more conservative than the Upstate by objective standards (i.e. polling data, election results, party-identification, etc.)
Since Steve is quite a self-proclaimed wordsmith, maybe his comments that I am refuting were actually hyperbole, because it sure isn’t a statement of fact. If it’s his opinion, I guess that is OK, I’m just saying the facts don’t support it.
William, i don’t care if we are past that comment from you. It still needs further explanation. You actually think people are ashamed to be liberal?
You don’t seem to realize Steve was refuting YOUR comment. You cant turn it around and say you were refuting his.
Did you actually look at the margin of victory map you linked? Mostly pale pinks not blood reds. Square footage doesnt really provide info anyway, its population density.
William realizes perfectly well that his so-called conservative strongholds are mostly sparsely populated rural areas, but he’s trying to split hairs with his supposed “point”.
The percentage of self-identifying Republicans is down while the number of self-identifying Democrats and independents is up. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118528/GOP-Losses-Span-Nearly-Demographic-Groups.aspx
There is a cancer in the Republican Party right now, and they don’t seem to have the slightest idea how to remove it. Most of the country has realized how intellectually bankrupt the conservative ideology is, and William wants to play games with colored dots on a map representing places where relatively few people live to try to hide the fact that his favored political philosophy is falling out of favor with most Americans.
William is smart enough to know that this is the reality that Steve is getting at, but he’d rather take one of Steve’s statements out of context and try to make that the central argument when it clearly is not.
The main point is that Republicans are losing ground across the nation. South Carolina may not be one of the last strongholds of conservatism, but it is obviously a stronghold for an ideology that is losing favor in most of the rest of the United States. Now, if William wants to stop trying to play semantical games and argue that contrary to all the facts on the ground, conservatism is actually experiencing some sort of renaissance in the U.S., I’m all ears. I like a good fairy tale as much as the next person.
Ok how about hearing from a Republican who is now embarrassed to be categorized as a conservative? Many who lean to the right in the party I have long felt most comfortable with have become angry, bitter name callers with no real answers to any problems. They rail about all that’s wrong with the country yet offer no sound solutions. They point the fingers of blame at people with moderate or more progressive, or even “liberal” lines of thinking trying to cast all the blame upon these so called groups.
Granted there is plenty of name calling and blame casting on both extremes of the political thinking spectrum which is counter-productive to any real progress or needed changes that need to be made to the political process.
Many of the stands conservatives adhere to I agree with in principal, but I utterly disagree with in application as I find such methods as being more prone to divide us then bring us together as a people. Hot topic issues such as abortion, gay rights, marriage, immigration have no easy answers, but I strongly suspect that no one, especially in the conservative camp is asking the right questions. What bothers me about modern conservatism is the lack of compassion and understanding about the people which they hope to limit certain activities or civil liberties.
On the other side, I often wonder if the liberal camp is a little too permissive and accepting, not always taking time to count the cost, short and long term of decisions being made.
However, I tend to find myself appreciating the fact that despite my less then liberal personal mindset I can find more acceptance of my views and opinions amongst the liberal camp then the conservative. Quite interesting actually.
“You don’t seem to realize Steve was refuting YOUR comment. You cant turn it around and say you were refuting his.”
This. Again, I’m not saying S.C. is the ONLY conservative area of the country. I’m saying that it is one of the last few strongholds where hard-line, right-wing conservatism has a deep — and historically uncontested — majority, particularly given the population density. It’s deep red, not wishy-washy, flip-floppy red. And even that is changing, particularly in places like Spartanburg, where the city basically went Democrat in 2008.
Sylvie makes several good points, and the most compelling one to me is that ideological divisions are preventing needed common-sense changes. It’s more a matter of having the best solutions to the problems, and insisting that the country just needs to keep making the same old mistakes — which is the Republican party line right now — isn’t putting forth much of an argument. Not that Democrats can’t make those same mistakes, but right now there’s a very progressive and intelligent person in power who was elected to change the game, and he appears to be doing so.
But here’s the important part: At the local level, mainstream political ideology shouldn’t even be a part of the discussion. Mayors don’t decide who can marry whom, City Council doesn’t exist to discuss abortion rights.
The Spark isn’t about national politics. It’s about people living in Spartanburg right now. We need to think about what we want our city to be like, and who are the best people — Democrat, Republican, Socialist, Green, Libertarian, whatever — who can be trusted to make those changes happen. If we want a city that’s actually nice to live in, is thriving economically and socially, and is a place that attracts a variety of interesting people and businesses, we need to vote for the people that can make that happen, not the parties that spout the best platitudes.
Which is the problem, because pointing fingers and saying “Liberals are weak” and “Republicans can’t think of new ideas” doesn’t solve anything. Spartanburg is clearly becoming more progressive, but the Democratic party doesn’t own that word. Sylvie’s views, in fact, could be described as “Progressive Republican,” as could any number of local people who read the Spark, and thousands more who’ve never even hear of this site. It’s not about the big, national political arguments, it’s about who can make downtown attractive to new businesses and who can help to give the town’s unemployed a hand-up.
Maybe we should start a local “Progressive” party?
Maybe we should start a local “Progressive†party?
I’d join in a minute