On Friends and Politics
I have a lot of respect and appreciation for Pete Abel, who writes for The Moderate Voice, but I’m afraid I don’t quite get the point he’s trying to make in this post he published today.
You see, Pete is a lifetime Republican but intends to vote for Barack Obama November 4. There are more Republicans who do that, as Pete knows, and he decided to talk to some of his more conservative friends about his choice for Obama. He sent them an e-mail informing them about his choice and received responses all of which seemingly made Pete quite sad, although I wouldn’t know why.
Of the three responses, only one was clearly over the top. The other two were reasonable and calm; one can disagree with them – I do on some points for instance – but they were not ‘way out there’ and they would not cause me to ask Pete, as he put it, how these people can be his friends.
Unless one’s normal friends always agree with one, of course, two of the three responses were normal, he should have expected them.
For instance, lets take a look at the first response:
It just so happened I got an article from the Investors Business Daily emailed to me about the same time I got your email.
Although it was about Carter and the things he did that arguably led to our (and the worlds’) current problems in Iran and in the economy because he was naive and weak, it is a reminder of where our current problems germinated. As Margaret Thatcher said- ‘I could not help liking the man but he had no business being president’ . We could be saying the same thing about Obama in a few years.
The corrupt and unaccountable UN will be empowered by him as well as the liberal ideologues which will dominate the Supreme Court and rewrite the constitution from the bench to fit their ideology, which may not matter anyway since we will be subservient to the UN rules and taxes. The opposing point of view will be muffled by the equal time laws Nancy Pelosi is already pushing for, supported by her other left wing friends.
If Obama was president instead of Bush, we would be out of Iraq- we never would have gone there, they would have completed their nuclear weapons and other WMD programs by now, no telling what they would have done with them, particularly to the people who made him look bad over the last 10 years…
If the middle east is a peaceful place in 20 years, history will likely show the stability began with the introduction of democracy via the Iraq war, not with the Jimmy Carter starry-eyed dreams that unleashed a monster in Iran that has terrorized the middle east with Hezbollah, Hamas, Quds and others since Carter empowered them with his ineptitude.
If you vote for him you vote to empower Nancy Pelosi’s left wing ideology, which is way too similar to Obamas.
The second response:
Funny, exactly what I said to Pete earlier. Think Jimmy Carter when you make that vote. My recollection is that he had crossover support as well…he was an unknown.
No, one can disagree with the above – the comparison between Obama and Carter, or the view on the Iraq War, Carter and Iran, and so on – but they are not insane or rude, or aggressive, or what have you. They are simply friends who disagree with Pete’s take on Obama and who, unlike Pete, believe that, for instance, associations do matter and that a hawkish foreign policy serves America’s interests better than a dovish one.
Again, you can disagree with that, but there’s absolutely no reason to be offended or shocked by their responses. This is what friends do, this is how they can disagree with each other. And there’s nothing strange about it.
As such, Pete’s response to their e-mails: “After reading their replies, those of you who have likewise decided to vote for Obama might wonder how I can consider these men my friends. It’s simple, really: When I follow the advice of the omnipresent and amorphous ‘they’ and avoid discussing politics, I find these guys to be decent and delightful souls. They are, all of them, loving fathers. They are also selfless givers of their time and talents to worthwhile causes. I defend them, not their words, for the same reason Obama defended the person of Rev. Wright without defending his remarks: What my friends say is not the sum of who they are.”
Is extremely strange. No one in his or her right mind would wonder why these people, the first two at least, the third is a different subject, can be Pete’s friends. No one.
Except, of course, those who believe that all the criticism of Obama is dishonest, false, and mean, and that not supporting him is a sign of ‘unreasonableness.’ The rest of the world, though, don’t find the e-mails shocking at all, but merely a political disagreement between friends, who all seem quite capable of expressing themselves well.
Strange post, not sure what to make of it.
Fair reaction, Michael. I edited the noted section of the post to hopefully clarify that certain people might wonder how I can consider these guys my friends — in particular, the friends offering the two longer responses (first and third) –”given the disparity in our views.”
I added a few other notes, as well, to clarify as you have that we’re free to disagree on some issues and still get along.
OK good to see the edits Pete.
You know, I’m engaged to a girl with whom I disagree with on politics quite often. But we love each other, and we get along perfectly.
Whether or not such differences should play a role in friendships or even personal relationships is, in my opinion, only an issue if one takes politics too far, namely from the public into the private sector; making politics too personal.
I’m a bit surprised Pete’s just now officially saying who he’ll vote for. I thought he pretty much said who he would vote for back when he had his own blog still. I don’t see anything too bad on the two responses myself. Sure certainly on the right side of things but far from out there. The Carter response was accurate and the comparison is a fair one. Although Carter had more experience. To me the responses seemed to lend themselves to being debatable.
If anything, I’d tend to write back that I couldn’t give a rat’s behind who other Republicans are voting for. They do not cast my vote and therefore it holds no water.
Course I never thought Pete came across as a Conservative – Centrist certainly, but not a Conservative.
I find this whole shift change of yours quite baffling, Pete, if you’re still reading comments here.
If you feel that Obama is such an excellent choice to have caused you to abandon your previous commitment to working within the Republican party to make it better, and to have it more inclusive of moderates, and also find Obama excellent enough to not need ANY of the checks and balances built into our system (since he’ll obviously have a solid majority in both houses of Congress, and a media that fawns over him instead of doing its job, and a public which can’t seem to separate its disdain of Bush from a rational critique of his policies-including an inability to distinguish McCain from Bush even though they’re incredibly different in temperament and philosophy)…
Then why is it, Pete, if something has led you to believe that much in Obama’s greatness, that the sole reason you gave to your friends to explain your support is that certain other Republicans have decided to support Obama? You couldn’t give any reasons of your own? Don’t you think friends (whom I presume have had some discussions with you in the past, hopefully where you’ve shown more respect for them than to parade them in front of the scornful ‘moderate’ crowd at TMV as poster children for Limbaugh conservatism- even though as Michael points out their comments overall don’t warrant that kind of caricaturization) might actually want to engage you in a real discussion of the concerns they bring forward- or perhaps more to the point, engage you in a discussion of concerns that YOU yourself used to express about the need for political balance?
Sorry, but each time you write a post supposedly explaining your shift in position, you lose more and more respect in my eyes. I keep reading these posts thinking, OK, convince me that you actually see some reason to have reversed yourself over the concerns that you used to express (which led me to sign on to your letter (I still support all of the principles there, do you? And if so, how can you possibly think that they will be better advanced under an Obama administration than a McCain one?)
But instead of seeing any logical explanations, I see the exact same thing as I see in the explanation of those other Republicans who’ve made the same decision as yours- basically taking a leap of faith that this man’s personality, intellect, and style will transcend all of the elements that don’t bode well for any counterweight to unfettered, corrupt liberalism. Our founding fathers never would have put their faith in the personality of one man, and neither should we.
If you ever get around to actually explaining why none of that matters anymore, Pete, or why you think Obama can transcend it all, I’ll listen, but I’ve seen several posts like this one that really give no logical explanation at all, so I’m not inclined to keep reading and I think you’re mainly wasting your time (or at best, just getting more affirmation from people who already agree with you at TMV.) Do you need those pats on the back to make yourself feel more comfortable with your decision?