Dearest Rachel –
I’m a little reluctant to tell you about the events (such as there were between Daniel and I) of last night; I don’t like to talk about politics here, even though we didn’t shy from such discussions in life. While the three of us tended to be on various spots within the same page, that can’t necessarily be said about those who might be reading this over your shoulder. This is a day and age where those of blue or red persuasions have been at each other’s throats for years now – and it’s only gotten worse since your departure (not that it had anything to do with that).
Worse yet, there’s not a lot of room to skirt the topic, even for those like me who would rather avoid it; you’re required to pick a side, as our culture and its icons demand it – and then they get upset, should you choose what they deem to be the “wrong” side. We’re supposedly free to speak in this country, honey, but as we have to consider what happens after we speak, we have to be careful what we say nevertheless, which is almost like not having freedom of speech in the first place. I’m going to try my best to avoid names and parties, which should obscure my opinions to the point of inoffense, but it one wants to be offended (and on this subject, most people do), one can easily find what they want. Personally, I think that if one constantly thinks they’re hearing dog whistles in what others are saying, that says more about them than the people they’re listening to.
In any event, this means that while I tend to post links for these letters on various social media platforms for those who might wish to read over your shoulder, this one is going to be left off the list on at least one of those platforms. Again, I won’t bother to name it; it didn’t even exist in your lifetime, so the name would mean nothing to you.
With all that being said, you might be curious as to why I’m bothering to write about such a fraught topic as this in the first place. If it’s such a dangerous place to rhetorically visit, why go there? It’s safer to talk about dreams, or travel, or my attempts at dating; why tiptoe through the minefield when there are so many other options I could dwell on? It’s a fair question, really.
The thing is, many evenings see me holing up in the bedroom while Daniel and Logan hang out in the family room watching anime together (and I should mention that I don’t bother much with anime myself anymore, despite still considering myself an otaku; I don’t want to intrude on their time together, even though some of the titles sound interesting when I overheard them from the kitchen or wherever, and watching stuff on my own just feels… wrong, somehow). While he’ll join me for an hour or so after Logan retires for the evening (he works a seven-to-five shift four days a week, so he calls it a night earlier than I used to do, even), it’s still a small period of time that Daniel and I generally spend together at the end of the day.
So when Daniel wants to hang out with me instead, I know I need to take that opportunity, even if it’s a matter of what amounts to watching political news together. This is something he can’t do with Logan, as his friend is at best apolitical, and at worst, when pressed, admittedly falls on the opposite side of the spectrum as Daniel. And yet, unlike those who create and define culture for us here, the two of them manage to stay friends – Daniel, in particular, has learned to tone down his opinions when he knows they aren’t welcome – our ostensible tastemakers could learn a thing or two from them, if you ask me.
To be sure, it helps that the art form that the two of them bond over is one that emanates from a different country and culture entirely. As a result, the creators don’t try to keep up with what’s going on over on our side of the pond and address any of it, thereby precluding any conflict regarding such topics, since they’re never brought up.
But yesterday had something unusual going on – although, that may be overstating things, since the address to Congress is an annual event, and therefore not “unusual” per se – and he wanted to watch it with me. And while he takes a much more aggressive political position compared to me – as you might recall even from when you were around – he and I can share the same news feed and watch this sort of thing together.
Only, it turned out that we had some difficulty getting connected to the feed at first. My news subscription had several outlets that were doing a live blog of the event; you would recognize the process as being akin to watching the proceeding and commenting throughout, not unlike Mike and the bots from Mystery Science Theatre (or its modern successor, Rifftrax). However, for whatever reason, the widget providing the video feed kept asking for a login code, despite being logged in on both the news organization and YouTube, which was broadcasting the event. Eventually, I linked to the stream on the YouTube site, but as we were trying to keep up with the comments, we didn’t focus on the browser tab with the video at all. Essentially, we were just watching these columnists who were watching the event, and trying to keep up.
One thing kept occurring to me about the whole situation. It’s been posited that, between our two major political parties, one seems to think of the other as merely misguided, while the other regards their opponents as pure evil. Given the latter conclusion, in particular, and assuming you truly believe it, how could you even work with your counterparts across the aisle? And so it seems to be these days; no matter what the one party does or says, the other party must, by definition, take up the opposite position. To do anything else would be to succumb to the evil that defines their opponents.
However, if all you’re defining yourself as is “whatever they say, I’m against it,” it leaves you with very little in terms of true self-definition. In a way, you’re more beholden to your opposition than if you followed them. At least those on the one side seem to have the odd difference of opinion; they can’t always make progress because of this, because they aren’t moving in lockstep, but they’re trying to move in the same general direction. Sometimes, it just comes down to how they’re going to move, in fact, rather than in which direction.
But on the other side, once the one side has their position chosen, you must oppose it, simply due to the fact that the one side is “evil.” Attempt to address taxation? Evil; oppose it. Attempt to address waste in government? Evil; oppose it. Never mind that their party one took stands on these positions, too; the fact that the one party is doing something automatically makes it evil, and they must stand foursquare against it. Question it, and you’re thrown out of the party; amazingly, many of the leaders of the one party are folks that were dismissed as heretics by their former colleagues in the other.
They can’t even so much as cheer for a kid battling brain cancer being honored for his desire to get into law enforcement; since the one party favors law enforcement, even that has apparently been deemed evil and must be opposed. The boy is just collateral damage in their ideological warfare against supposed “evil.” Or maybe, by accepting the honor, he’s evil too, by their lights. I honestly don’t know what they’re thinking.
I will say, they remind me of the Philadelphia who notoriously booed Santa Claus, once upon a time. They’ll never live that down, nor should they; it was just that ridiculous. But to catcall a man claiming that God spared him “for such a time as this” – which, admittedly, does sound egotistical, but hey, that’s the nature of the political mind; and considering that God Himself has said that he raises kings up and throws them down, isn’t all that far out of line – that comes pretty close to booing God Himself by proxy.
Then again, it may be that, in their attempt to define “evil” as those who they oppose, they have set the Party up as their god, so it all makes sense – in a twisted sort of way. The problem is – which they refuse to ask themselves – what if they’re wrong about what’s righteous and what’s evil? Suppose their god isn’t the true God? What happens then? But hey, I’m just watching these things; it’s not like I’ve invested myself or my life in one or the other of these. There’s more to life – and eternity – than politics, after all.
And with that having been said, honey, keep an eye on me, and wish me luck. I’m going to need it.
Letters to Rachel 