I met a woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico with a fresh approach on how to choose a president. She plans to watch each candidate’s performance on the Dr. Phil show, assess in her own mind their strengths and weaknesses in character only, and then use that as her sole source of information on voting day.
She said that the most important characteristics of a strong and able leader are represented and played out in his or her family life, and that Kerry and Bush would be questioned about their thoughts on child rearing and family on the Dr. Phil show. And though to me this approach to staying politically active and aware seems a bit ridiculous, to many Americans it makes perfect sense. And I am going to go out on a limb and say that I bet it makes more sense to conservative Republicans than liberal Democrats.
So this discussion about Dr. Phil got me thinking. A running debate among my friends surrounds the question: what singular characteristic sets us liberals apart from our conservative counterparts?
Here is my proposition (a great sweeping generalization to be sure): conservative Republicans want someone to represent them whom they would be proud to have as a family member, someone whose character is unquestionable, whose approach to child rearing is in line with their own, whose children they would want their children to play with.
I think questions of sexual orientation, abortion and the like are very personal considerations that, when approached with a “do I want a gay couple living next door to my children?”-type of mentality strike a chord deep in the hearts of many conservatives. I think conservatives consider questions that have deeply moral and religious origins and then hope that their representative government will pass laws and elect judges that will promise to maintain the quality of life they deem to be important.
It seems that many of the more conservative Republicans I have encountered on my trip across America are first and foremost concerned with how they will personally be affected by a new president or senator.
In contrast, I offer my sweeping generalization of more liberal Democrats that I have developed over the past couple of weeks. They too take a personal approach to political issues but are just as likely to consider other people -- whom they may not even know -- as individuals with specific concerns when speculating about how certain laws might affect an individual.
For instance, the Patriot Act is some of the worst legislation I have seen in my lifetime, but I don’t think it has or will affect me personally very much. I know what rights of mine may be infringed upon under the guise of the Patriot Act, and I know that I will most likely have minimal interaction with the Act. But when I generalize the Act and think about all the other individuals in this country whose will be greatly harmed due solely to race, intellectual pursuits or even religious beliefs, I am angered. It seems that liberal Dems are also far more prone to consider people of other countries on this individual level.
I know I’m just touching the tip of the iceberg here, but I feel like the gist of the Republican Party is centered on the locus of individualized fear. I think your average conservative Republican is fearful that his daughter will have an abortion, fearful that his son will be attracted to another man, fearful that he’ll be attacked by terrorists during his daily commute.
These are all deeply personal fears that, to be sure, conservative and moderate Democrats have as well. The difference I see, though, is that while some Democrats may be morally against homosexuality, they are less likely than Republicans to vote based solely on such a personal issue. To them the issues that are of the utmost importance, this issues that should make or break a candidate’s run to office are those that deeply affect other individuals both in this country and around the world.
Respond
Back to top