rants and bilewhat?



Platform Politics

I've become especially sensitive lately with the way every public medium and social institution today seems to be less concerned with its own specialized role and more dedicated to a sort of "catalogue" response to the world. This spans everything from social clubs to political candidates, public issues to editorial stances. I've written about it before: the "all or nothing" response to the world at large, expecially in reference to political values.

The most obvious sign is the political landscape of the past decade. As gerrymandering came back with full force in 2000, politicians have had less and less to worry about in terms of competing against candidates of the other party within their districts, and instead have to cater to the extremes of their own party in order to defeat so-called "wishy-washy" bi- or non-partisan candidates. As a result, the republicans get scarrier and more right-wing religious and the democrats get more slimy and authoritarian-fascist.

This has coincided with a tendency to campaign on "values" where you paint the opposing candidate (and, supposedly, all who support him) as villanous: a democrat just knows that a republican is a money-grubbing, coprorate-welfare-indulging, gun-toting imperialist. A republican knows that a democrat is a welfare-state-touting, fag-marrying babykiller. You can no longer argue the issues, and you can no longer take a "stand". You have to toe a conceded and accepted "party line" and paint the opposition as meanly intolerant, and do so as thumpingly and intolerantly as possible.

The same thing has made it's way all the way down to our daily conversations. People no longer seem capable of individualized policy or behavior analysis. Rather, they determine (often from a single word or phrase or action) your place on the political continuum and judge your past, present and future accordingly based upon the platform of values that position implies under the current atmosphere.

It transfers just as easily to the everday. Recreational social groups are no longer malleable or individual-oriented: they are "lifestyles". You are not a fan of pizza, you are a "fast food consumer". You are not a practitioner of leather fetishes, you are part of the "Leather Community". You don't just ride public transit to get to work, you are a "Spare the Air" supporter! You get a chubby from round-bellied fuzzy guys? Then you like "Bears" and you will also like their clubs, their bars, their camping trips and you'll want to move to Palm Springs.

I find that perhaps my inability to find like-minded individuals, or at least riseable conversation partners is attributable these days not to the lack of any such people, but the fact that judgements of compatibility are made so quickly and generally by everyone today (including, admittedly, myself) based upon such a superficial sample of opinions and behaviors. We cannot "get to know" someone, we cannot "learn about" an issue. Our opinions are instantly and irrevocably formed by association.

We know that anyone who is questioning the logic of legalized assault weapons is obviously on our side in the gay marriage debate, marching to end the occupation of Iraq and fighting to keep abortion legal. We know that anyone who is supporting prayer in public schools is also chaining their barefoot wife to the kitchen counter, slogging money at the Republican party, lynching fags, and proudly sending their first-born sons off to Iraq.

I honestly doubt that any of this is valid or rational, at bottom. It seems that the majority of Americans do, in fact, take their individual lives and opinions seriously, and have individualized tastes. I think most people are rather tired at how homgeneous their choices have become, and I have a feeling that our media outlets, activist citizens and public figures are all getting it horribly wrong by "platforming" every aspect of public life.

People are different. I think most of us appreciate and understand this. However, in the game of mass-market saturation, the ones who appeal to the highest number of lowest-common-denominators seem to make the biggest strides. That, I suspect, is all our faults. I think we're too often giving up something of ourselves and pigeon-holing our desires and ideals in exchange for a mass-movement association. Rather than compromising, would we not be far better off demanding the best from life and accepting smaller victories as the price?

So you're a square bolt and the ratchet is round? So be it. It's more important to find a round ratchet that at least fits you, rather than filing off your corners just to be fit for it.