{"id":161004,"date":"2016-06-19T11:58:41","date_gmt":"2016-06-19T17:58:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/?p=161004"},"modified":"2016-06-20T10:37:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-20T16:37:48","slug":"political-passion-shouldnt-be-hatred-and-vitriol","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2016\/06\/political-passion-shouldnt-be-hatred-and-vitriol\/","title":{"rendered":"Political passion shouldn\u2019t be hatred and vitriol"},"content":{"rendered":"

COMMENTARY:\u00a0<\/strong>Whelp, here we are. It reminds me of that joke: An entitled criminal and an inflammatory bully slam the door in the face of an amiable grandfatherly socialist as they walk into a bar\u2026<\/p>\n

Oh wait? That\u2019s not how it goes? Is it because I forgot to add that there\u2019s a New Mexican sitting in the bar claiming he\u2019s all about fiscal rectitude and legalized marijuana?<\/p>\n

\"Elisabeth

Courtesy photo<\/p>

Elisabeth Miller<\/p><\/div>\n

What an awful state of affairs, right? You\u2019re absolved for thinking that, but before you panic, let\u2019s consider a few things.<\/p>\n

Does it matter who the U.S. president is in\u00a0your daily <\/em>life?<\/p>\n

How many of you have ever met a U.S. president? I have, and I\u2019m sure some of you have, but I\u2019m equally sure that most of you haven\u2019t. How is my life different from having met a few? Well, I have some posed, signed pictures to hang on the wall, but other than that, it\u2019d be hard for me to come up with much to say about it in terms of life-changing effects.<\/p>\n

That you likely haven\u2019t says a lot about how important a U.S. president is in your daily life \u2014 as in, not very. Further, unless you work for the federal government (thank you Mr. President for announcing on Dec.\u00a05 that we were\u00a0getting Dec. 26\u00a0off <\/a>too!)\u00a0or you\u2019re in the military subject to participating in military actions, it\u2019s even less than that.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s now President Obama\u2019s last year in office; regardless of your opinion about him or his performance, what are the things that he has done that have directly affected you? Not tangentially, but directly \u2014 where your life changed in some tangible way?<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve only got two things: getting that day after Christmas in 2014 as a bonus holiday, and Obamacare. The first is positive and the second is incredibly negative. True story: If you don\u2019t qualify for a subsidized policy on the exchange, it\u2019s akin to paying something for nothing<\/a>, and don\u2019t we all love doing that!<\/p>\n

Now I\u2019m not saying that who will be the next leader of the free world is unimportant \u2014 nor am I saying that you shouldn\u2019t care \u2014 but I am saying that to you, whoever is president likely matters a whole lot less than whomever your community leaders, your state representatives, your governor, and your congressional representatives all are.\u00a0 These are the office holders who have more influence to help or hurt you directly.<\/p>\n

And yet, the way our electoral cycle works, presidential election years are motivating.\u00a0 Voters who ordinarily express no political preferences come out of the woodwork with very definitive and inflexible points of view. Federal office holders fret over<\/a> coattails<\/a>\u00a0since these are the years more people vote<\/a>. The media scrutinize\u00a0or talk amongst themselves as if their opinions were news \u2014 yes, I\u2019m looking at you Fox & Friends<\/a>.<\/p>\n

And we all fall into line thinking that if our candidate doesn\u2019t win, then the world will end and we\u2019ll have to move to Canada<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Another reason we get whipped into a frenzy over presidential elections is our desire to be able to identify with the candidate<\/a>,\u00a0as if we are saying something intrinsic about our own character by whom we support. Isn\u2019t the president the face of the nation? How can we be likeable if our candidate isn\u2019t?<\/p>\n

Or if you won\u2019t have a beer with that candidate<\/a>, what happens to that after-work drink with your co-worker who supports her?<\/p>\n

Political scientists acknowledge that there is this thing of \u201chate Congress, but like your congressman<\/a>,\u201d\u00a0or at least hate him less<\/a>, because if you needed something, they are actually accessible.<\/p>\n

A necessary tug-of-war game<\/h3>\n

While it does feel like a strange presidential election year, I\u2019m not terribly\u00a0verklempt<\/em><\/a> because I\u2019m not confident that who wins will affect me enough that it matters. And here\u2019s why: In my humble, or perhaps not so, opinion, if you\u2019re a Republican, it\u2019d behoove you to be grateful for the Democrats \u2014 and vice-versa.<\/p>\n

You perhaps already know I\u2019m touchy about those who can\u2019t explain why they are a \u201cD\u201d or an \u201cR\u201d — or choose \u201cI\u201d to avoid being tainted by whiffs of socialism or ridiculous bathroom laws instead of taking a principled stand in a way that might cause a party platform to change. This is because I\u2019m a creature of ideology and decision rules. I believe things for a reason, and I understand events in terms of rational choices and re-running my decision calculus when I happen across new data.<\/p>\n

Sparing you didactic political theory lectures and multiple citations, roughly, conservatism is things like: Plato had a point that is still relevant today; government really is a Leviathan that\u00a0does not generally have our best interests at heart and thus needs checks on its power; limited government does not mean no government, it means a government that\u00a0provides public goods, deals with other countries, stays out of personal matters, and resolves market failures; and, if the Leviathan ventures into the land of regulation, the goal is to create equality of opportunity and allow citizens to rise and fall as the result of their own efforts.<\/p>\n

In contrast, liberalism (aka progressivism, not classical liberalism because that\u2019s actually conservatism — confused yet?) assumes that prior cultural and philosophical thinking cannot be trusted given that\u00a0every day we are shown the fruits of our folly (e.g. slavery, prejudice, sexism); government is a force for good that resolves conflicts and raises all boats regardless of the tide; government having a say-so (i.e. regulation) about every activity is to protect us, not to control or to harm us; and, where all legislative efforts hew to a desire to protect citizens from themselves and each other in a bid for equality of outcome.<\/p>\n

Or maybe you don\u2019t quite agree with my nutshell descriptions. After all, Republicans were recently embroiled in bathroom law tomfoolery<\/a>. Seriously Republican Partiers, don\u2019t we think that our government should not\u00a0be legislating personal behavior?<\/p>\n

Evidently to my chagrin, it appears that we Republicans will go for invasive social laws whenever we can cast women or kids as victims. That seems to be the decision rule \u2014 and while I may be a victim on occasion, I\u2019m confident it\u2019s not purely because of my gender.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s why I\u2019m grateful for Democrats. Truly, I see our political system as a tug-of-war game. Republicans lined up along the rope across the mud pit from a line of Democrats holding the other side. Each side is straining back and forth to keep the other side honest.<\/p>\n

Democrats are preventing Republicans from being too hard on folks in their desire to focus on opportunity, and Republicans are preventing Democrats from saying equality only exists if everyone has exactly the same (or enough as deemed by\u2026 the Leviathan?).<\/p>\n

Regardless of how you characterize it, what happens if one side abandons its cause?\u00a0Everyone falls down and into the mud. In other words, each side needs the other to keep both from going off the deep end.<\/p>\n

The cake<\/h3>\n

That\u2019s all well and good, but who really votes ideologically anyway? Isn\u2019t it really all about cake?<\/p>\n

When I was in 6th\u00a0grade, my class held a mock election for that year\u2019s gubernatorial race. The candidates were a Republican (who won, then became the state university president, and is now a U.S. senator who won\u2019t respond to my emails) and a Democrat (who lost and was subsequently convicted for bank fraud foreshadowing the Lincoln savings and loan scandal<\/a>) (i.e. clues to figure out what state and when).<\/p>\n

But we were just 12, we didn\u2019t know any of that, and we were just supporting who our parents were. In fact, I recall our debate issue was about that very important government service of filling roadway potholes in a timely manner. Given an even number of students, none of whom were shy about declaring their support publicly, it meant the election should have ended in a tie.<\/p>\n

Until the day itself, where one party\u2019s candidate squeaked by with just one vote. But how? It didn\u2019t take long to find the turncoat. And when I asked why she had changed her vote, she \u2014 looking at me as if I were an idiot \u2014 said, \u201cBecause they had cake.\u201d<\/p>\n

Evidently, the victor\u2019s side had indeed handed out slices of chocolate cake in return for a verified vote for their candidate.<\/p>\n

However, whichever side you\u2019re on \u2014 whether it\u2019s ideology or cake you care about \u2014 I beg you to consider three things.<\/p>\n

Firstly, question what you hear \u2014 especially when it\u2019s saying one side is the devil. Everyone in Hollywood is a liberal?\u00a0Maybe not<\/a>.<\/p>\n

President Obama gets accolades for saying<\/a>, \u201cThat\u2019s how democracy works. So you\u2019ve got to be committed to participating not just if you get immediate gratification, but you got to be a citizen full-time, all the time.\u201d He said it at a university commencement speech<\/a>.\u00a0But Justice Clarence Thomas, at a different commencement speech given the same week,\u00a0said<\/a>, \u201cAt the risk of understating what is necessary to preserve liberty in our form of government, I think more and more that it depends on good citizens, discharging their daily duties in their daily obligations.\u201d<\/p>\n

Switch the quotes, and I don\u2019t think anyone would notice.<\/p>\n

Secondly, cake. We all like it. We all want and get some<\/a>. There is no moral high ground here.<\/p>\n

And last but not least, and in fact this may be the most important: A presidential win is not<\/em> a mandate<\/a> to run roughshod over the other side. That\u2019s really what democracy means: The losers still exist, still have rights, still have representation, and you cannot grind them into the dust until they\u00a0cease to exist forevermore.<\/p>\n

Hate guns, and your gun-hating candidate wins? The Second Amendment still stands.\u00a0 Think welfare programs encourage people to give up looking for work and stay \u201con the dole?\u201d If so, the solution still isn\u2019t to be inhumane and offer no safety net to the poor.<\/p>\n

As for cake? Whoever wins, you\u2019ll get about the same amount regardless of who<\/a>\u00a0is in the White House and who the majority parties are in Congress.<\/p>\n

Go ahead and passionately support a candidate for president. I would never gainsay political passion. But being passionate for a candidate doesn\u2019t need to mean vitriol and a desire to wipe the floor with the other side.<\/p>\n

Elisabeth Miller is a seasoned communications and government relations expert whose guidance has been relied on by public, private and government organizations alike. She holds a Ph.D. in political science from Claremont Graduate University. Her areas of expertise are issue\/crisis management, immigration law, and border issues. Most recently, she was a diplomat with the U.S. State Department serving in Ciudad Ju\u00e1rez. Currently she serves New Mexico as a citizen member of the N.M. Law Enforcement Academy Board.\u00a0She moved to Las Cruces in 2015 when her husband opened Miller Guns & Ammo<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

That\u2019s really what democracy means: The losers still exist, still have rights, still have representation, and you cannot grind them into the dust until they cease to exist forevermore.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":109002,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1192,16],"tags":[708,226,116],"class_list":["post-161004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-guest-columns","tag-2016-election","tag-presidential-race","tag-washington"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=161004"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/161004\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/109002"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=161004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=161004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=161004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}