Toeing the party line.

Recently, an influx of people have stepped into my social circle. Some are friendly acquaintances of the past that developed into friendships this summer. One is my and my husband's roommate's boyfriend, which we inevitably spend a lot of time with since he's at our house a lot. Of these four people, one is completely conservative; two are conservative with socially liberal leanings, and one is liberal with libertarian leanings. Sound confusing? It's not, not around here. I don't know how other places have been affected by the politics of identity, and whether the extreme polarization of parties is mostly relegated to the blogsphere or not. I can only speak about the place that I live.

And in this place, the people I spend time with--who are mostly graduate students or college instructors of English and history, but a few students of geology, archeology, and business--have complex and diverse opinions that do not fit conveniently into one party's structure or another. That is, they used to be. This one guy, who as you might guess is my roommate's boyfriend, is completely conservative, 100%.

Perhaps my own social group is so diverse in thought because I actively seek out non-conformists, as their thinking is more interesting than the "us versus them," "good guys and bad guys," "traditionalist or secularist" rhetoric of the modern political forum. These are people who have actually examined their beliefs rather than adhering to a particular political identity based on what their parents thought or what aspects of culture they personally identify with. So maybe my own experience is actually the peculiar one.

Whichever is the case, people who espouse a party line all the time, in each and every circumstance, freak me out. They are little dogma-spouting automatons, and I haven't spent time around them in so long that I forgot how much they annoy me. I don't think that they are free-thinking people, and I despise the removal of thought from discourse, because at that point it is no longer "discourse"; it is professional wrestling with words.

I believe every person should have one bone of contention with their party, and if they don't have one, they should find one. It's easy, with a bit of self-examination and rational thought. Mine is the issue of gun control.

Gun control is the one issue that I take serious issue with in regards to the Democratic party. I say this not because I like guns--I don't. At all.* They make me nervous and I don't like being around them. It's not even a violence thing; it's a fear of accidental-death-by-shooting thing, and probably irrational. On the other hand, I love swords and maces (they pierce and bludgeon at the same time!), especially when they are wielded by skirt-wearing men in historical films.

Anyway, the reason I do not support gun control, in any way whatsoever, is that it is unconstitutional. Period. It is in our Bill of Rights. And while I acknowledge that guns present more of a potential threat in some regions than in mine, the 2nd amendment is there for a reason, which is the protection of our lives and liberty.** And because of the Equal Protection clause, state and local governments cannot infringe upon our constitutional rights any more than the federal government can. That's the argument for Roe v. Wade, and that's the argument against gun control for individual cities.

The 2nd amendment is not the one that is most important to me personally. If I had to rank all of the Bill of Rights on a scale of importance, it'd probably hover in the bottom four or so, well after the 1st, the 4th, and the 5th. But that doesn't matter. Whether you like guns or not is a cultural difference,*** but it has no place in policy. I believe we should separate culture from policy, and that the real reason most Democrats like the idea of gun control is that they dislike the culture that guns represent, just like the real reason that Republicans dislike the idea of rights for gays is that they dislike the culture that gays represent (and the same goes for abortion most of the time). I get it; I don't like it when people are obsessed with guns, either. It's disturbing. Some of my friends are, and I think they should probably seek therapy, just like my friends who are obsessed with swords.

But once you start restricting some of our constitutional rights, don't you put them all in jeopardy? We Democrats (as well as many wise Republicans) are furious at Bush for his suspension of habeas corpus and violation of the 4th amendment's search and siezure clause. How does annihilating the 2nd amendment make us any different from him?

*I do, however, love BB guns; three are currently in my "fun drawer." (No, not that kind of fun drawer! It's got Monopoly and Scrabble and stuff.) Also, I am hoping for a BB shotgun for my birthday. It'll make a MESS!

**And most pertinent in the constitutional guarantee of arms is the protection against a military, whether present by a coup d'etat or a foreign occupying force. This entry was actually inspired by a perusal of Camille Paglia's column archives, in which she responds to a reader who was arguing in favor of semi-automatic weapons so that his wife could defend herself against six hypothetical attackers hell bent on raping her. I wasn't sure if it was a valid concern or a perverse and elaborate sexual fantasy. Why six rapists? At once? Really? Has anyone ever heard of this happening? Rape with that large a number of involved parties includes Rohypnol, beer, and a pool table, doesn't it?

***Which is what Obama was referring to with the "guns and God" comment. He was saying that Southerners cling to their culture during bad times. And since we actually have slow economies period, that's pretty much all the time. I get it. I see it. Many people here see liberals as culturally hostile towards them by their nature, and vice versa. This culture war has got to stop, y'all. It is not intelligent in any way whatsoever.

What it means to be a "middle American."

In the past dozen or two years, certain Republican strategists--we can call them the predecessors of Karl Rove--have convinced America that a certain gross generalization is a true and actual fact. They have contrived a peculiar image of liberalism that “belongs” in exactly two places: San Fransisco and Boston. The idea is that these two cities are far out of touch with “mainstream” American values. My point is not to disparage these places, because stereotyping the entire population of even a small town is wrong and inevitably factually incorrect. My point is rather that the generalization of roughly a third of Americans is absurd.

The image that the Republican party invented for the liberal is twofold. First, there is the western version: the unwashed hippie who wears Birkenstocks, is homosexual and wants to teach your children to be homosexual as well, and hates Christianity. Second, there is the northeastern version: the elitist Ivy League-educated metro-sexual city dweller, who is an atheist and who also hates Christianity, and who wants to indoctrinate your children into the same beliefs.

Firstly, this stereotyping of entire regions of people--the Pacific Northwest, and the Northeast--is offensive and silly. People have created stereotypes of Southerners, too: that we are racist and bigoted; that we don’t wear shoes or have air conditioning or paved roads; that we have less than the requisite number of teeth; that we all have children by the time we are old enough to receive our driver’s licenses. I’m sure there are also stereotypes of Midwesterners, ones that include some of those same characteristics. Does it offend those of us in the South? Hell, yes, it does. And it is patently untrue, as anyone who lives here or has visited here knows.

Secondly, this caricature of liberals is as ludicrous as a similar one for conservatives would be. There are liberals in every part of this country and from all types of backgrounds; many attend church and PTA meetings. There are conservatives in every part of this country and from all types of backgrounds as well; many are atheists and single with no kids.

Thirdly, the “values of middle America” are not more or less significant than the “values of coastal America,” even if we could generalize all those values into one singular definition of a region (which we can’t). Why would they be? What right do any of us have to say that our regions are more important than others? Who gets to be “mainstream” and who doesn’t? And why would "mainstream values" be more important than "fringe values" anyway? Why shouldn't people with "fringe values" have the same freedom to practice those values as anyone else, provided that they don't harm others? Isn't that what our great nation is all about? Did abolitionists and advocates of women's suffrage not hold values that were "outside the mainstream" at one point? Should we have dismissed them for this reason?

Fourthly, the values that Americans share are far more numerous than the values that distinguish us from one another. These include values like accountability, the drive for success, and the love of freedom. These values inform our identities much more than how we personally feel about abortion.

Lastly, the reason for my blog in the first place. I live in Mississippi, and don‘t plan on living anywhere else. I am no transplant; my great-great-great-great-great grandfather also lived in Mississippi. I’m married, an Ole Miss graduate, a dog-lover, and a cook. I live in a town of about 25,000 people. I know all the words to “Dixie.” My personal goal is to have my own successful small business one day, either a furniture boutique or a small firm for providing services to other small businesses, such as tax advice and marketing. My family consists of cops, nurses, engineers, farmers, teachers, high school principals, football coaches, and accountants. I think I’m about as middle-American as they come.

And I’m casting my ballot for Barack Obama in November.