Ridiculous
It was really fun to watch Bill Maher on the Daily Show tonight. Boy. So, after the shill for Obama, he makes the claim (and I'm simplifying it just a bit, not much) that anyone who does not agree with the goal of turning America into a European country is a "stupid redneck." Ah, such an intellectual. Such a liberal, open-minded, progressive view of things. Yes, of course, if someone doesn't agree with you, the problem is their intelligence! How could I not have seen it!
And, really, how could you not see that there could be other reasons for not wanting to turn America into a European country. I think the main one is the very stupid redneck reason that we're not a European nation. I realize you didn't mean literally--or, well, maybe you did. Who knows? But, see, despite the fact that we have some shared cultural history and certainly the whole Judeo-Christian tradition going on, America has diverged from Europe. Our histories are not the same, our cultures are no longer the same, and while I realize that you find the American culture inferior to the European one, some of us do not. America has problems aplenty; nobody is denying that. But the Europe-worship from liberals seems a bit stupid to me. I don't want to bash Europe here; that isn't the point. The point is that Europe is Europe, and it's OK for us to not be Europe. Or Canada. Or anyone else. How has it come to be standard liberal doctrine that America has no worthwhile culture of its own but should just mold itself into the shape of a different country altogether? How has it come to be accepted that European culture is inherently good and worth emulating (well, admittedly this isn't entirely new; America has intermittently felt this inferiority complex, especially in the art world)? I look for the evidence of this, and people toss around words like "sophisticated" but what is the underlying basis for this? I can't see that there is a valid one.
Slate actually had a decent essay (shocking, I know) about the split in American culture related to American Protestantism between those who believe the path to heaven is through personal responsbility and those who believe it is through reforming the public sphere. I somehow doubt that it's going to change most people's minds that those who believe differently are "stupid" but I think it's worth recognizing that both sides have some validity. It also points up just how deeply religion influences our society; I think when the effect runs this deep, to the very core of our ethics, we're not talking about something we can just give up and walk away from. Europe went through different religious splits and fights and came out the other side differently. We can't just become Europe, not when this history is so basic to American culture.
Bah.
I am also finding it ridiculous that many of the same people who cursed Congress for not listening to its constituents by going ahead with the invasion of Iraq despite broad (though by no means unanimous) opposition are now cursing Congress for "worrying about their chances at reelection" instead of passing the bailout bill. Excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fact that they are "worrying about their chances at reelection" indicative that they are doing what they believe their constituents want? Because their concern would be that passing the bailout bill would anger their voters, presumably because their voters do not want to see this thing passed. I realize this does not excuse the fact that they normally do not listen to the constituents, but you can't be very serious about demanding that Congress listen to the demands of the public when you agree with those demands and then ignore the demands of the public when you do not agree with the public's wishes. Of course, many of the same people doing this right now also think that anyone who does not agree with them are stupid rednecks. So, I guess Congress is only supposed to listen to the demands of its smart constituents. I'm sure they will be able to tell who you are by the fact that you, what?, don't have a car up on blocks in your front yard or something.
Meh. Finger-pointing sure is fun and productive, right?
I do think more people should come around to my perspective that a little hard times would be good for many people in this country. I can't articulate this coherently yet, but I think very many people in this country have really no idea how basically good they have it. It isn't just that we live in a country where things like indoor plumbing and safe drinking water is constantly available from your tap. It isn't just that we have come so far towards eliminating diseases that were responsible for most infant mortality that people now think it's OK to not vaccinate their kids--vaccinations that people in many countries would be grateful for because they can remember what damage diseases like pertussis and polio do, a lot of people in this country just grouse about them. It isn't, either, that we have huge tracts of land preserved for public use or that things like central heating are basically available to everyone (not the case in Japan--you have not really learned to live with cold until you go through a winter in a Japanese house, coughing up your black lung crap from the kerosene heater constantly at your side, a heater that fails to really make the room warm anyway). There is also the assumption of easy credit and material consumption. We don't just want a fancy toaster--no! We have a right! to a fancy toaster! This is the unpopular view, I know, but I just think that maybe if we had to go through life for a while with credit not being so easy and cheap and we had to learn to live without the biggest satellite TV package or, for that matter, the biggest TV, maybe it would be good for us. Maybe people would learn to live with less and appreciate the things they already have. Maybe if the TV breaks and they can't afford to replace it, maybe they'll spend that time doing something that is ultimately more satisfying and productive. All things are possible when this kind of shit goes down. Maybe if people took some time to appreciate the things that Wall Street can't ruin, maybe people would be happier. It isn't unheard of, you know, people being happy with less. It can happen, even in America, a country that used to glorify thrift and making do. It seems all you hear anymore is people bitching. I'm a cheeseball, I know, for ending every day with a private acknowledgement that I'm, for lack of a better and nonreligious term, blessed. My life is rich, without much money. Recognizing that means I feel even less need to spend money to make my life feel full. We conserve, we reuse and repurpose, we make things do, and still we are happy and we feel blessed. I think the people of our fair nation, if they let themselves, might find that it feels pretty good. Not in a smug way, just in a good, Lake Wobegone kind of way.
My Groups
-
The Thinking Woman Updated: 2 hours ago
-
Gardening lovers unite! Updated: Yesterday
-
Voxercise! Updated: 2 days ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
Really? You're not afraid of being a wholly owned subsidiary of a kiwi? Weird.
Just kidding. Americans do seem to have some phobia about foreign ownership. Considering how much foreign ownership we already have here, you'd think they'd get used to it. But you always hear these rumors that the "Japanese/Chinese/Dutch/whoever are taking over the country!" Hmm...what nationality is Arnold Schwarzenegger? Because he might actually take over the country someday.
Sorry this turned into a rant about my sister but she came immediately to mind when I read this post...
Haha. I know the type, certainly. That's the difference between being financially poor and psychologically poor.
I know I used to gripe about the way America is a lot more until I went overseas. Then you realize that every country has good aspects, and they all have bad aspects. In some countries, the good aspects are totally different from the good aspects of your own country, and you think, "Hey, why can't we do X?" On the other hand, you also think, "Why don't these people do X the same way we did? It was so much better." Saying that America should become something it isn't is to deny that America has any good aspects, when I think it's pretty clear if you stop and think about it, that there are good things about this country. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve the bad ones, but there's no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Also, one of the things that I always think about in this regard is that America has produced some truly great authors and poets and musicians and musical genres that really couldn't have come from anywhere else. When you think of Cormac McCarthy or Faulkner or Carson McCullers or Hank Williams or John Coltrane or the Gershwins--they're so American, so completely American, and is that something we're meant to be ashamed of? I think a culture that can produce so much original, great art has something going right with it.
And yes, there's no denying that I still do love things that are distinctly American in music, literature etc. and that's why I like them. Plus, I'd be lost here w/o them!
I always like your posts that touch on culture. I certainly had ideas about "other cultures" before I lived in one, one other than mine. Now, I feel even less knowledgeable. And isn't that the way it goes?
Ideally, that is the way it goes, but you do meet gaijin over there who don't seem to understand just how much they don't understand about Japan. My roommate my first year there had previously been in Korea for a few years, and when I asked him about Korea, he said it was pretty much just like Japan. So, I kind of gathered that this was a man who didn't notice things very well. That proved to be true.
Good luck with the driver's license test. I never did that. I just never drove. Of course, my boyfriend (now husband) was Japanese and had his own license, but we didn't have a car and just took the train or bicycle everywhere. I've heard it's tough, though, so good luck!
Eh, bullshit. I never said or implied or thought that other countries don't have great artists, did I? I also never said I didn't care about what other countries have. If you're going to accuse me of putting words in Bill Maher's mouth, then don't put words in mine. My point was that when people trash American culture, especially the South, as just being a bunch of stupid rednecks without any real culture, they apparently think that Faulkner is an anomaly, but he isn't an anomaly--he's absolutely a Southern author. Maybe he would have still been a writer if he'd been born somewhere else, but the style, the themes are very Southern, very American. No intelligent person that I know of says American art is something to be ashamed about, but they do frequently act as if American culture and American art were somehow divorced, as if it weren't some of the very peculiar circumstances of American life that make American art happen.
You say Europe gets a lot of things right and America gets a lot of things wrong. I'm going to argue with you that what is "right" in and for one country isn't "right" for another country. My original point was that judging what Europe gets "right" and hoping to persuade America to do exactly that is to force America to be something that it is not because what is "right" for them isn't necessarily right for us, certainly not for me. There are aspects of European politics and society that I admire--some of those things would work here, some won't, at least not without some kind of tradeoff that I don't know if I'm willing to make.
I feel like you think you're talking to a stranger, like really? This is what you think of me? That I don't know or care at all about other countries or give any consideration to what might work better than the system we have now? Interesting. I don't know if you're making the same error Maher makes in assuming that everyone who disagrees with you just hasn't thought about it as much as you have, but give me a break. Seriously?
By the way, the interview is here. Here is where Maher himself simplifies his argument. Well, it isn't even an argument. And I realize he's an entertainer primarily, but he positions himself as a political commentator, and this kind of thing is just...well, "honky, please."
If you don't want to watch the interview, he says: "There's like a progressive European nation that a lot of us live in or would like to live in, and it's being strangled by the Sarah Palins of the world...it can't quite be born because this other stupid redneck nation won't allow it." I know you think I make this shit up, but I don't. And if you seriously think that this is some great motivation for us stupid rednecks to vote for Bill Maher's guy, you are very much deluded.
Damn. Just...please. It's interesting that you are more prepared to defend Bill Maher and his "intent" than you are to listen to mine.
All my point had to do with was the fact that there is absolutely nothing wrong with looking at other countries to find ways of getting some things right, just as many countries look at America to get some things right in their own countries. Obvious. Something you already know and something I knew that you know. But I was responding to your criticism of Maher.
However, if that's true, then right-wingers accuse liberals of being "anti-American," or representing the "liberal media elite" (some idiotic invention during the Nixon era), as if liberals are not also individuals who just want their country to be happy, safe, successful, and doing right.
Yes, absolutely. The reason I don't bitch about it when Republicans do it is because I and nearly everyone who reads this is more closely aligned with the liberal/Democrat side. I take it to mean that we all already know what Republicans do. I think, also, that part of this, and maybe I haven't made it clear, but I used to be one of these liberals who thought everyone who didn't agree with me was stupid, and I am ashamed. I was an asshole. I was Bill Maher, only funnier, and now that I'm not, I kind of think I'm a better person. I don't want this country to be fighting at each other all the time, not from either side. But it is no more helpful or persuasive or unifying to proclaim one side is "stupid rednecks" than it is for Republicans to say that liberals are "commie pinkos" (the preferred slander where I grew up, and it's funny isn't it? I mean, really, "commie pinkos." Well, I think it's funny.)
You're right, too, that saying that liberals worship Europe is an overstatement and an oversimplification. HOWEVER, when one is discussing most social issues (gun control, health care, state daycares, etc.) with a liberal, that liberal will 9 times out of 10 cite some European nation's plan for handling that and will often simultaenously state or imply that Europe is so far ahead of us and so much better because they do/have X. Now, I think that you and I both know that Europe (or even any specific European country) has its own sets of problems, but these seem to be obscure to, say, 90% of the Democrat-leaning people I went to college with. This isn't just because Americans don't know enough about other countries. It is also partly due to a similar phenomenon as sometimes occurs in a certain type of gaijin in Japan. These are the gaijin who go there already thinking that everything Japanese is way better than anything in their home country, so they get there and are apparently blind to some of the less-awesome aspects of Japanese society. It's like certain types of people get these blinders on and can't see that, oh, racism exists in any other country, or that Americans don't prefer things like state-sponsored daycare, not because we're stupid and backwards, but because we have different ideas (still being negotiated, sure) about the powers, duties, and limitations of governments than European nations tend to. And that's fine. That's my point. That it's fine for Europe to have a different set of ideas about government's role in society and the people's role in government than we do, and that however fantastic Sweden's daycares may be, they may not work here, at least not quite the same, because we just aren't Sweden. I don't mean and never meant that one is better than the other or even that we shouldn't pay attention to what other countries do. Eh, I hope I'm making myself clear. I just want liberals who think that whatever they like in Europe should work the same here and all us stupid rednecks who don't like it should just start thinking the way they do to see that not all of it is going to work here because Americans don't necessarily think or behave like Europeans. That should be obvious enough, but also that we shouldn't have to.
That doesn't mean we can't make improvements. Of course we can. Jesus, there are so many things that I wish were different about our government and country right now. Bush and Cheney have completely raped the Constitution, and I want a complete reversal of everything they have done to the balance of power. I also want a Congress who is not a wholly owned subsidiary of lobbyists and investment bankers. Those would be good places to start. But instead, we as a nation bicker about stupid, irrelevant shit and call each other names. And people forget or something when their side does something that they complain about the other side doing, so everyone thinks they're innocent.
Like the Democrats blaming the Republicans for deregulation, then blaming them for not passing the bailout bill. Well, a) almost all of the deregulation legislation that is responsible for the current mess was bipartisan, and at least some of it came in during the Clinton years, so this is convenient forgetting, but, yes, typical, and yes Repubs would do the same thing and b) it would appear that for once in their lives the Representatives who voted against the bailout actually listened to the voters, which is what they're supposed to do in a democracy such as we allegedly are. But, of course, now that they've been chided by pundits and probably threatened by the big business interests they are beholden to, now it's passed. Now, we're a further $850 billion in the hole. So, it's probably time to start learning Mandarin, which isn't such a bad thing, except those tones just fuck me up.
Yeah, well, anyway, sorry if I overreacted. I still don't think I oversimplified Maher's point, because I think it was ultimately an extremely facile point, one that I've heard before. And, yes, I get my dander up about this, because really I'm getting really tired of everyone assuming I'm stupid just because I live in a small agricultural town or because I am a stay at home mom instead of a working mom (because working moms are smarter! right!) or because I listen to country music or own a gun or whatever. I'm sure New Yorkers dislike hearing themselves insulted by small-town folk, and yes it's bullshit that one or the other type of American is more "authentic" or "real," but seriously, the shit gets old. When I hear it, it's often from friends and acquaintances. It comes from publications that I read to get my news from or media that I watch because I'm in basic agreement with them on a lot of issues. But I also own guns and hunt. And I'm much more libertarian than most Democrat/liberals who sometimes come across as if they want the state and taxes to take care of everything, every little trouble anyone ever has (yes, I know that's hyperbolic). If I listen to most of these sources long enough, eventually it will come out that, really, they think everyone who owns a gun is a stupid redneck with a penis complex. Or they think it's all "Deliverance" or something. It's tiresome.
You already know what kind of ignorant, smokescreen kind of crap the Republicans say. But liberals have become just as bad, and I don't think most liberals realize it. I could be wrong, but I don't think they do.
Yeah I know what you mean: a bit of playing the devil`s advocate at times. I have liberal friends who accuse me of being a closet conservative (because I`ll challenge ideas that I agree with ultimately), but I`m not really: I just find `sloppy` thinking intolerable (not that I`m not sloppy at times) and since I am a liberal, I think liberals should think with intelligence and not rely on cliches and unchallenged assumptions. Why I feel that it`s my job to do this, I don`t know. People think whatever they want and they certainly don`t need me to offer my opinion hehehe.
To be honest, I was against the bailout bill, at least in its first form. And we are given a very limited amount of information (and I fucking hate it when some news outlet tells me that `most Americans don`t understand` NO shit, Sherlock: how can we understand if you don`t explain the fucking details) about the bailout really. The part that concerned me was that in the first version at least Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and his office (and NO ONE ELSE) had total discretion over spending that money, a LOT of money. Sorry but I find that suspect and very dangerous: there were provisions in that original bill which specifically stated that no government body, no court, no leader had any jurisdiction in even advising him on how it was to be spent. Uh...sounds like a bad idea to me and just a way of him bailing out his friends. How do we know we are getting a fair price for all the assets we`re now suddenly owners of...
Of course, now that they`ve passed the bill, we get no information if that has been altered (just `tax breaks for working families`crap which they assume is enough for people to just smile and go on with their lives).
Maybe liberals realize it they do just as much idiotic stuff as conservatives, maybe they don't. I don't know. I think the fact that both sides are sanctimonious as hell is just human nature. I wish I could be a liberal and NOT vote Democratic, in all honesty. And not just in this election,but all elections. But what other choice do I have...not voting. Mmmm. Then I feel that I have no right to bitch!
Well, there's always Nader. I've voted for him, like, two or three times, and look where it's gotten me!
I think, and I could be wrong, that most of the sanctimony comes from what I would consider the extremes of both sides.
As far as I can tell, from all the news I've read about the bailout bill that did pass, Paulson still basically has all the authority and nearly all the details of what to buy, for how much, and so forth are up to him or the private-sector guy he brings in to do it for him. This is scary. You know what they say about absolute power.