The Faithful Hound

Monday, March 20, 2006

Left, right, left

How do you tell a liberal from a conservative in America? There are many ways to broach the topic.
"So, what do you think of the current administration?"
"Do you think there were ever any actual WMDs?"
"Did you watch Bill Maher last night?"
"Are you done with your taxes yet?"
"Isn't Ann Coulter hot?"
In today's label conscious world, what clearer tag to put on yourself than your black or white political predilection?
What strikes me the most though about the left vs. right debate in America is that there are so many questions whose answers place you on one extreme or the other of the political spectrum. There's no middle ground on your religious conviction, political affiliation, thoughts on minority rights, degree of patriotism, choice of media outlet or level of sexual tolerance.
You can either be a flag-waving, gun-toting, gay-bashing, Fox-news-watching, fetus-loving, tax-hating conservative
...or a war-hating, Clinton-worshipping, abortion-defending, beard-growing, free-loving, welfare-supporting liberal.
There's no in-between.
So, what happens to people who have varied views on some topics, and no views at all on others? I don't think that society in the US gives you that alternative any more. You choose a political direction and then you stick to it. Your opinions on all social issues will be decided for you, based on the political side you have chosen. Usually you're a liberal until you're 30 (if you have a heart) and you're a conservative after that (if you have a brain).
It's easier to have a political leaning in India because politics do not govern all aspects of social life. You're on the left wing if you're a Bengali or a Malayali who wants to start up the next communist revolution, save the Narmada valley and burn down the nearest McDonald's to protest against those filthy American capitalists. In this case, you dress in khadhi and call your friends 'comrade' (also if you're a woman you stop shaving your legs and OD on kajal). Instead, you're on the right wing if you want to tear down mosques, save cows from slaughterhouses and burn down the nearest McDonald's to protest against those filthy American missionaries. If you fit this description, then you usually dress in saffron (or khaki shorts) and carry a trident to work.
But, if you’re in the other 98% of the population, your opinions are usually your own and you make them without worrying whether they allign with any greater cause. You aren't being constantly indoctrinated by the media, your peers and your political candidates, so you try to approach issues from your own perspective. Perhaps this is because most Indians completely distrust their politicians and don't consider their opinions to be worthy of serious consideration.
It would seem that America could learn a lot from India when it comes to independent thinking on social issues.

If you're curious about my personal political beliefs, I guess I would consider myself a social liberal and a fiscal conservative - Do whatever you want, as long as you can pay for it.

14 Comments:

  • At 1:24 AM, Blogger Prerona said…

    "Do whatever you want, as long as you can pay for it" sounds like a good motto for life overall :)

     
  • At 1:23 AM, Blogger GhostOfTomJoad said…

    ...which is why the US President had the gall to stand up and tell the world that either it's us or them., completely negating the possibility of any middle ground.

    Your post calls for a long debate, which I'm uable to indulge in at the moment. However, this I will say... it is grossly unfair to club the Narmada agitation with a lot of other, largely, politically motivated campaigns. This one is about huge masses of people being displaced in the name of development. It's a very serious problem that the society has chosen to overlook and pass it off you've done.

    Maybe I'll come back ad take this up :-)

     
  • At 11:09 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @prerona: Thanks - I use the line to close a lot of long winded arguments.

    @GhostOfTomJoad - Ah, where do I start? It's an unfortunate fact, but history is full of examples of people being inconvenienced for the sake of progress. Europe had its industrial revolution, the US is still reeling with outsourcing and India had to endure decades of semi-socialism before it rolled up its sleeves and entered the world market.
    Now there are certainly those among us who would prefer that mankind gave up its cities, cars, refrigerators, dams and antibiotics so we could all move to the hills and embrace (shorter and less comfortable) lives filled with true happiness (until you're eaten by a bear), and I don't begrudge them the thought. But unfortunately there are many more among us who believe that a few hundred having to move homes so that a few million may have access to electricity is really not a big sacrifice. Who's to say what the right solution is, but in a democracy - majority wins.

     
  • At 1:26 PM, Blogger GhostOfTomJoad said…

    No one is begrudging anyone the car, the microwave, and the refrigerator... may everyone have two of each. But you don't think there is something fundametally wrong with only the poor and voiceless having to make all the sacrifices? How is it that you and I have never been inconvenienced in the way these people have been? Besides, I think you missed the point that I was trying to make - that the Narmada movement is different from, let's say, the Ayodhya movement of the BJP, or the burn down the McDonald's movement of various parties. Unlike the other two, the Narmada movement is not political in any way.

     
  • At 3:59 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @GhostOfTomJoad
    Look around you, the world is an unfair place. Are you going to start protesting the fact that lions eat poor defenceless antelopes?
    It's a fact that the weak are dominated by the strong - it's natural. Protesting against that is equivalent to protesting against a thunder storm.
    Regarding whether the Narmada movement is political, I think that it turned political when that sanctimonious moron Arundhati Roy decided to pitch in.

     
  • At 10:37 PM, Blogger GhostOfTomJoad said…

    That is the weirdest logic I've ever heard...that the world is an unfair place so we might as well let the rich and powerful get away with doing as they please. Why have laws then? I don't understand how the Narmada agitation invites comparisons with thunderstorms and lions eating antelopes. Besides, that "sanctimonious moron" is just an insignificant part of that protest. The visible face of that agitation is Medha Patkar. Finally, let's not start passing judgement on people we know little about.

     
  • At 12:21 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @GhostOfTomJoad
    Don't get me wrong - I'm not for or against anything. In the spirit of realism I'm simply suggesting that protesting the weak being exploited by the strong is pointless because that's the way things have always been and always will be. Don't forget we would not have had evolution without 'survival of the fittest'.
    Back to Narmada - I'm sure that Medha Patkar's heart is in the right place, but even you must admit that her movement has been politicized of late. I know hordes of social types who have never even seen an Indian-style loo, but talk avidly of saving the Narmada valley because it's the 'in' thing to say.

     
  • At 1:33 AM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    MT, Ghost:

    Apologies for butting in on this debate -- it's one where I believe I could argue both sides and lose equally convincingly in each case.

    Just the one point. Ghost, when you say:

    "But you don't think there is something fundametally wrong with only the poor and voiceless having to make all the sacrifices? How is it that you and I have never been inconvenienced in the way these people have been?"

    I think there's one thing (in this particular case) that you miss out, which is the natural confound between being "poor and voiceless" and not being in a center of urban population density. The people being displaced are not having it happen to them solely because they are poor, the primary reason is that they live in an area which is apparently well suited for this dam. No one would think of building a dam across the Yamuna at Rajghat, if that were possible, if you see what I mean. And the poor and voiceless of the Yamuna-paar bastis are not in danger of getting evicted by any such dam.

    That's not to say that they are not making sacrifices or being inconvenienced. Of course they are. Why are you and I not being inconvenienced in such ways? Goes back to MT's point about the world being an unfair place. I don't think MT is saying such unfairness is okay -- we just have to accept it and try and remedy it in our own ways [1].

    Finally, MT, I'm totally with you on the politicization of the Narmada dam issue. This thing about taking the high moral ground on issues and drowning debate in a flood of words often leads me to conclude that the words are, indeed, often used to conceal an absence of insight or resolution, while attempting to conquer with sanctimony.

    Digression: There's a line of thought that says that animals make their eyes BIG and DARK when they want to be aggressive and scare away their antagonists, so from an evolutionary perspective, people who wear spectacles with thick frames are actually revealing their latent aggression in a way. (Me, I'm rimless.) Easy to see how that could be extended to the case of OD'ing on kaajal.

    [1] And let's not forget, people like us get inconvenienced in ways "they" don't. It goes back to Maslow's hierarchy -- different people get stuck at different levels, but there's enough research to say that the extent of wealth/poverty is *not* a useful indicator of life happiness.

     
  • At 2:02 AM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @TabulaRasa
    Good points and I agree with them all. Didn't know about the eye exaggeration to show latent passive aggression, but it seems logical. I always figured it was just a part of the whole JNU style commie-chick ensemble. You know - khadhi kurta, dirty jeans, heavy kajal, hairy arms and a journalist's cloth sachel full of Marxist literature.
    As for Maslow's heirarchy, I was wondering whether I should bring him into the argument, but didn't want to seem unsympathetic to the liberal left. But it is completely true - I think I am as upset about having to sacrifice a significant portion of my paycheck to taxes that pay for pointless social welfare programs as an adivasi in the Narmada valley would be if he had to move his hut. Since I have never experienced a threat to my supply of food or shelter, the frame of reference for a disturbance to my well-being is on a different level from someone who experiences those threats every day. We are both making sacrifices for progress and, although they are on different planes, we both feel them as badly.

     
  • At 3:05 AM, Blogger Shivangi Misra said…

    Abt your comment on my blog: Nearest make out spot? Ya, we didnt have to go looking for that too far! Actually, we were staying in a residential complex that the coll had taken on lease... each floor had two flats, A and B. So each floor had a guys flat AND a girls flat... There were no wardens... and ample opportunity for those who were inclined! So you see, we were ALL living in! hehe

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    MT,

    It's almost heretical when you put it that way. "If you got nothing, you got nothing to lose." Ouch.

    Do I really agree with that?

    Like I said, I end up losing both sides of this argument.

    (And I can't deny the khadi kurtas, dirty jeans, and hairy arms charges myself...)

     
  • At 1:50 PM, Blogger GhostOfTomJoad said…

    MT & tabula rasa: I think both of you really need to make trips to JNU pronto...because things have changed a bit :-)


    MT, you say, "protesting the weak being exploited by the strong is pointless because that's the way things have always been and always will be. Don't forget we would not have had evolution without 'survival of the fittest'"

    I'm not sure evolution is being/was forced upon humans by the goverments of the day. Unlike the Narmada issue, evolution is a natural process but, again, I'm not sure it always necessarily means survival of the fittest at the cost of the weakest...I'm not sure it means survival of the fittest by exploitation of the weakest. As far as I know, it is more about adaptability.

    I know what you're saying and I understand that you're not implying that it's alright. However, to condemn the Narmada movement because it has been politicised (which I'm not sure about) is to say that just because a whole lot of nonsense is being passed off as religion, religion is bad (which I think it is) :-) Unlike the Ayodhya 'movement', and other such crap, the dam is a real issue.

    Dams are hardly the solution to any problem. In fact, they are a part of the problem...look at the Tehri dam! I'm sure that, with little thought and a little planning, alternative and practical solutions could've been found.

    I'm also not very fond of those pretentious 'social types', as you say, who think its hip to support a cause. But I think it will be grossly unfair to club Arundhati Roy with such crowd. For one, she is never seen at fancy parties and she is not a part of the P3 swish set. One never hears from, or about, her unless there's a pressing social issue that needs to be addressed. Or when G W Bush comes visiting. I was never a fan of the films she has written and nor have I read her only novel. To be honest, earlier, I used to dislike her rather intensely. But now I truly admire her for speaking out for various causes. She doesn't have to. She's made a truckload of money, in foreign currency, which she can sit back and enjoy. But she still chooses to raise her voice against injustice. And I can't find fault with that.

    There's plenty more to be said but I just hav to go...maybe another time.



    Tabula Rasa: I'll be back...to comment on your comment :-)

     
  • At 3:58 PM, Blogger MockTurtle said…

    @Shivangi
    I'm almost glad we didn't have co-ed dorms. Have you seen the women at the average engineering college in India?

    Back to the discussion...
    @TabulaRasa
    Whether you agree with the fact or not, you have to admit the argument holds merit.
    @Ghost
    Ok, This is going to sound cruel and heartless, but bear with me...
    The evolution of man would be speeded up if we weren't so magnanimous with the downtrodden. The weak would die out and only the strong would reproduce, creating even stronger offspring. Evolution is not about exploitation of the weak, but about revoking protection to those who would otherwise not survive. That is what has made every species better suited to it's environment with each passing generation.
    When the intelligent, the strong and the powerful use their resources to keep the weak alive they are simply ensuring that those would normally drop out of the gene pool continue to contribute to it. This causes a never-ending cycle with an omni-present weaker segment of society permanently dependent on the stronger.
    Having said that, it is certainly not a good thing to break this cycle. What differntiates man from beast is our capacity for kindness and that kindness is what keeps our weak alive. I simply ask that we all remain cognizant of the fact.
    Regarding Ms Roy, the less said the better. I almost had a physical reaction when I saw her speak in NY. Her incoherent babble was full of passion but had no substance. I was ashamed to be an Indian when she was done with her preening and posturing.
    If she's to be believed she's against the Indian nuclear program, but is all for Iran building N bombs. She's against destruction of the Narmada valley, but thinks it's perfectly fine to build her mansion on protected forest land. Give me a break!

     
  • At 12:52 AM, Blogger Tabula Rasa said…

    MT:
    The argument certainly holds merit. As do your later points about the process of evolution and the humanity of it.

    Ghost:
    I think part of the reason that the issue of this particular dam has raised such a problem is that it conflates two issues -- whether there should be a dam at all, and if so, how should it be. It seems to me that part of the reason there are so many problems is that the dam is going in in a very heavy-handed way. I'm not an expert on this, but surely they could have put more thought into the dam's location and specifications (just as at Tehri). The alternatives that you point out could well have been found in a yes-dam world, rather than a no-dam world.

    And about Ms. Roy, as far as I'm concerned, the less said the better. I've rarely found any kind of reason or coherence in her diatribes. Off to JNU with me.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home