Hi All!
I've got this brother-in-law who I really actually like a lot. But, he's a very white, very tall man in his early 70's with German Immigrant Parents who, after thirty-plus years of being an atheist is now a born again Mormon. And...he comes across a bit like your least favorite Right-Wing Talking Head. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. So, what's a woman to do when he's cherry-picking just about everything on the planet that can cast Bernie Sanders (and everything the Political (R)Evolution stands for) in a bad light?
I've got this brother-in-law who I really actually like a lot. But, he's a very white, very tall man in his early 70's with German Immigrant Parents who, after thirty-plus years of being an atheist is now a born again Mormon. And...he comes across a bit like your least favorite Right-Wing Talking Head. Yeah, you know what I'm talking about. So, what's a woman to do when he's cherry-picking just about everything on the planet that can cast Bernie Sanders (and everything the Political (R)Evolution stands for) in a bad light?
First off, I got my husband to stop "email debating" with him. Whew. My husband loves our brother-in-law, too, but when it comes to politics and social justice...they are water and vinegar. And, my evenings are too precious to sit around listening to my husband rant and rave about his latest email back and forth, blah...blah...blah.
Secondly, I keep in mind that the man is different from the philosophy. It's like loving your sister-in-law, even though she spends the weekend picketing the local abortion clinic or remaining cordial with your homophobic brother-in-law who cracks Ellen "Degenerate" jokes at family gatherings. Oh, and don't forget the Republican, Anti-Hispanic Immigrant rantings of the guy who married your Mexican Immigrant Sister-in-Law. I mean, seriously...was I expecting logic and continuity of thought?
No. When it comes to crazy family members who rub us the wrong way, we've got a choice. We can love the person and ignore/dislike/hate the sin (to use a catch-all phrase) or we can lose the relationship and "stop talking" to this or that person who is, otherwise, a sweet, loving and kind human being. To me, America's Political (R)Evolution is about maintaining the love, so that the door to new information is always open...after all, one day, maybe I'll say something in a way that resonates, right?
So, below is my reply to my brother-in-law asking me what I think about the following article (as it was proof that "left-wing demagogues" are out to destroy society as we know it). And yes, I literally laid out my email as you see it below. I find that avoiding "casual conversation" and focusing on an essay-like, breakdown and analysis of the content makes for my disagreements to come across less as personal attacks and more as a debate about the issue at hand.
Article Referenced by my Brother-in-Law:
http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/27861/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey there! So, here are my thoughts about the article you shared with me.
Source:
The College Fix:
Original - Student Reported - Your Daily Dose of Right-Minded News & Commentary From Across The Nation
Source:
The College Fix:
Original - Student Reported - Your Daily Dose of Right-Minded News & Commentary From Across The Nation
Writer:
This article was written by a woman named Kate Hardiman who is a student at Notre Dame (A Catholic Private College). She had an email conversation with a man and has written the article from that 2nd-hand information. I have no idea whether the Dartmouth Professor actually supports what she has written.
This article was written by a woman named Kate Hardiman who is a student at Notre Dame (A Catholic Private College). She had an email conversation with a man and has written the article from that 2nd-hand information. I have no idea whether the Dartmouth Professor actually supports what she has written.
Bias:
This article was written for a venue which has a self-expressed bias toward anything that supports a "conservative/right-wing ideological viewpoint." A topic generally hated and vilified by this demographic is unlikely to be covered in an accurate way on such a website.
Confusing Marxism & Socialist Democracy:
The quotes from this professor are written to suggest that he is pretty stupid. I doubt that he is. He's probably been very poorly represented by Kate Hardiman. In particular, she suggests on his behalf that he sees Marxism and Socialist Democracies as being the same thing...while the quote from his email includes a list of countries which are clearly more "Marxist," such as: China, Cuba, Eastern Europe and Russia.
The quotes from this professor are written to suggest that he is pretty stupid. I doubt that he is. He's probably been very poorly represented by Kate Hardiman. In particular, she suggests on his behalf that he sees Marxism and Socialist Democracies as being the same thing...while the quote from his email includes a list of countries which are clearly more "Marxist," such as: China, Cuba, Eastern Europe and Russia.
Force versus Choice:
The article tries to suggest that Socialist Democracy, itself, leads to cruelty, injustice and the loss of freedom. But, when you read the entire quote, it becomes clear that the professor is blaming 'revolutionary' imposition of a particular approach to governance as that which leads to cruelty, injustice and the loss of freedom. Of course, in America today, we see cruelty, injustice and the loss of freedom across the land...in most cases, as a result of institutionally empowered demographics having the ability to "impose" power upon less-empowered demographics.
Religious Focus:
The author of this article is a student at a strongly religious University (Notre Dame), so it's not surprising to find a religious argument in this narrative. According to the professor being quoted, "People seem to feel the need to believe in something, and when intellectuals abandon traditional religion, as most have done, they tend to seek substitutes."
This statement is huge and arrogant. Mostly because the difference between "faith-based" belief and "evidence-based" belief is paramount. In general, the traditional belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe has not stood up to the scientific study of our place in the Universe and few, to none, retain the previous "traditional" beliefs. Does this mean that everyone is seeking a substitute? Or does this mean that people have come to accept certain provable realities about the natural world? Like the Professor of Astronomy, a Professor of Economics or Social Welfare is not required to negate and ignore data and evidence that run counter to "traditional" beliefs. So, the whole argument being presented is based upon the writer's nicely Catholic assumption that "traditional" is better.
While this man seems to have grown up during the social unrest of the 60's and may now be questioning the volatile and challenging choices that young people of his era chose over the predominant ones offered at the time (Jim Crow South, WWII, Vietnam War, Bigotry, Sexism, etc.)...he does not speak from a place of special knowledge when it comes to Socialist Democracy.
Religious Focus:
The author of this article is a student at a strongly religious University (Notre Dame), so it's not surprising to find a religious argument in this narrative. According to the professor being quoted, "People seem to feel the need to believe in something, and when intellectuals abandon traditional religion, as most have done, they tend to seek substitutes."
This statement is huge and arrogant. Mostly because the difference between "faith-based" belief and "evidence-based" belief is paramount. In general, the traditional belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe has not stood up to the scientific study of our place in the Universe and few, to none, retain the previous "traditional" beliefs. Does this mean that everyone is seeking a substitute? Or does this mean that people have come to accept certain provable realities about the natural world? Like the Professor of Astronomy, a Professor of Economics or Social Welfare is not required to negate and ignore data and evidence that run counter to "traditional" beliefs. So, the whole argument being presented is based upon the writer's nicely Catholic assumption that "traditional" is better.
While this man seems to have grown up during the social unrest of the 60's and may now be questioning the volatile and challenging choices that young people of his era chose over the predominant ones offered at the time (Jim Crow South, WWII, Vietnam War, Bigotry, Sexism, etc.)...he does not speak from a place of special knowledge when it comes to Socialist Democracy.
As you can see from his bio page, after studying in England, the rest of his research was based in African and South America. Neither of which offers examples of successful socialist democracies. Which means that his experience cannot be called upon to illuminate our understanding of the successes of Northern European Socialist Democracies.
I would like to add that much of the medical care that your parents likely enjoyed (or were certainly eligible for) in their later years was provided by our tax dollars, as a social benefit for all. Suggesting that some broad-scale, social programs (when chosen willingly and knowledgeably by American Citizens) can be a good idea.
Sincerely,
March
