"I never thought of myself as racist," says the older woman who knows she's about to say something that, taken out of context, would sound entirely racially prejudiced. "And I don't think of myself as a bigot in any sense of the word, but I do have every belief, in my heart of hearts, that Obama is a muslim, and is helping those terrorists that hurt us on 9/11."
Everytime I hear this, I can't help but feel a loss somewhere deep within. It's crushing. Truth is, unless some shocking evidence comes out saying so, there never has, and most likely never will be proof that any of those alleged claims are true. The closest thing they have to go on is his name: Barack Hussein Obama. Sounds like a terrorist - must be one, right?
I often wonder why it makes me sad to hear such things. I think maybe it's because an entire ethnic group will have that stereotype association to any of their names or pictures by a very large sector of my home country. I think maybe it's because a man who could possibly change things for the better and lead our nation into this new century of technological rennaissance is getting resistance in the form angry white people forming a lynch mob to hang the black president, who, by the way, wasn't born here, and believes in a heathen tribal faith, and is a nazi-fascist-socialist-anti-christ.
I'm not saying Obama is perfect. Look at the numbers. They reflect a person who put too much on his plate at once, and is now asking for more time to finish the meal. Whether or not it is his fault, it becomes his legacy in the next term. But anti-christ? Nazi? Where are these people getting these things? And that's when I look at which people are saying these things.
For the most part, the conservative wing of the Republican party is christian/faith-based/tradition-based people out on the farm, or members of affluent small-town/suburban families belonging to communities whose major form of regular social interaction is church/the corner bar. It is where the social sectors collide and exchange ideas. Those who do not show up to church have a common perception in their community of not caring, or not having the right priorities, not being well off enough to attend (i.e. needing to work). This goes as far back as the Puritans and our continent's first English settlers, when those who did not appear for Sunday services were seen in almost the same light as blasphemers. This happens across the nation, in every sector - not just the conservative wing of the Republican Party. But it controls the Republican platform the most - as the major component of the right wing is the religious conservative bloc.
What religion does when it enters politics - which it did during the Bush administration - is begin to take over the conversation with belief and idealism, as opposed to fact and scientific data. Because fact and scientific data so often counter belief and ideals in real-life situations, they can be at odds. So, I contest that when someone applies the idealism based in religion to their political ideology, there becomes a stand-off in the conversation. For instance: Grover Norquist, who takes his political stance on taxes to an idealistic-to-religious type of extreme.
More importantly, this religious line of thinking goes into traditionalism, and often relies on hearsay of accepted opinion as opposed to facts and data. So, when a traditionally reliable source says something - say a certain Christian radio/TV host has a hunch that maybe Obama has similar qualities to the anti-christ in the Book of Revelations (going back to the late 19th century interpretation that the Prophecy was yet to be fulfilled; as opposed to the interpretation that it already happened in the fall of Rome, or the interpretation that says it was just a metaphor they used to create a proverbial Last Battle), and then gives a quote from the Biblical text - they are more likely to believe it over the fact that Obama was not a solid candidate until after the primary (and even then needed a financial collapse to push him over the top). There was no sweeping victory. In that manner, Ronald Reagan could have been the anti-christ. But don't try to convince one of them of that - they might call you a blasphemer.
Because of this, we have people believing fervently in things that are not true because they apply their traditionalist practices of thought to the political atmosphere, rather than separating them for pragmatic applications. It does not help that their sources of information are tabloid-esque programs specifically designed to corral them into a particular way of thinking.
This aspect is yet another portrait of American Tragedy passed on through the ages, just one more picture on the wall of our social gallery: The Faithfully Used.
No comments:
Post a Comment