Conservatives on Liberals and vice versa

One of the clear conclusion that has come from reading 100 People and 101 People (see first post) is that there is a definite stereotype that each side places on the other. By this I mean both conservatives and liberals have that picture on the dart board of a certain idea when they think of the other. The ironic thing is, it seems as though both sides are throwing darts at almost the same people.

For conservatives, their hatred seems to be focused on the cultural elite. Those (to put on a conservative hat) load mouthed actors, artist, models, and whoever that tabloid magnet for the week is, that seems to have that microphone glued to their face (hat off). For liberals their dart board picture is the economic elite. Those (to put on a liberal hat) fat, bloated, pockets loaded, union destroying, employee screwing entrepreneurs, and stock brokers (hat off once again. I need to get these cleaned, their both pretty dirty).

Now there are flaws where both sides aim their darts (although one side may actually use that image at a shooting range ). Granted the cultural elite may not have a profession that makes them the most informed individuals when it comes to politics, but when in our history has anyone from any profession not been encouraged to discuss issues. Granted, the cultural elite are probably more famous than anyone for understanding one issue well and ignoring the others despite the fact that their view, while great for that one issue, is absolutely one of the most ignorant things you've ever heard. Take Cameron Diaz for example when she said, "Women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. If you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, then you should vote." Sure her stance on abortion is sound in my mind, but virtually saying (in ANY context) "if you don't agree with me don't vote" is about the most ignorant, undemocratic thing I have ever heard. Hell she's basically slapping the right that gives her the freedom to discuss politics as an actress.

The economic elite may often been seen as greedy, but why should we immediately write off people who have overcome odds set in place by the America's Capitalist system. Say what you will about them being greedy, but doing so is obviously no easy task otherwise everyone would have achieved this status. Doing so, in some way, has also fulfilled part of the American dream where anyone can make it big. Sure there are those (think Enron and Walmart) that upon achieving that status, do everything they can to make it sure that anyone who is under their employment never have a chance to make it to that status themselves (again slapping the right in the fact that they are enjoying so much).

Furthermore, its ironic that when you come down to it these are very similar groups. How many of the Cultural Elite (Barbra Streisand, Cameron Diaz, Alec Baldwin) are not in some way successful entrepreneurs. How many of the Economic Elite (Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch, Steve Jobs) are not in some way also successful cultural icons? I'm not saying the line is blurry because I believe it is quite defined, but it does make me wonder exactly how divided are conservatives and liberals. I think there are other stereotypes that seem to make the definition between the two much stronger than it actually is.

Conservatives are not racists or fascists or bigots or anything else. It is true though that more racists (et al.) will probably familiarize themselves with a conservative party, but this is similar to how a pedophile would probably jump on board with the liberal agenda because they are more sensitive to the strain being on a sex offender list puts on a person. That doesn't make all liberals sex offenders, and not all conservatives are racists. Liberals are not louder in the media than conservatives (it is more obvious when a loud liberal is talking though). Liberals are almost correctly defined as being loud mouths. I'd say I agree that when a liberal is talking, he is more obvious and possibly more obnoxiously beating one issue until its dead, but to say that liberals are heard from more in the media is something 101 People (liberal bias) gives a whole section of his book to disprove. The following is the most telltale in my mind:

The watchdog group Media Matters for America inventoried all guests who appeared on Fox, CNN. MSNBC during their January 20, 2005, inauguration coverage and reported that Republican and conservative commentators outnumbered Democrats and progressives nineteen to seven on Fox, thirteen to two on MSNBC, and ten to one on CNN. Moreover the rare Democrat or progressive usually appeared opposite conservatives, whereas most Republican and conservative guests appeared solo or alongside fellow conservatives.

Please note the replacement of the word liberal with progressive. Not for clarity, but to note the bias it gives this block of facts. To conclude, both stereotypes, in my mind and I hope I made my case on this, seem largely false.

What does all this mean about our two party political system? Well one question that has been plaguing me is that WAY before the 2000 election, political analysts were noticing that Republicans and Democrats were loosing their definition. At the time, they certainly were not agreeing, but taking less opposing views. There was speculation that we would actually see the two groups join together and at one point a third party would probably step in to give new life the system. Today that idea seems ludicrous. All thanks (?) to Bush the Republican and Democratic parties have never been more necessary, but while looking at the Candidates I'm not sure how much of a definition I actually see. It seems like no matter what, every candidate seems to have one goal, to not look like another George W. Bush! That by itself seems to fuzz the line very sharply as to what we actually need in this country now. This is just one more reason why I feel like this is going to be one of the most important elections in our country's history.