Dean's World

Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

Letter To John Perry Barlow From A Pot-Smoking Deadhead Bush Voter

John Perry Barlow, author of one of my favorite documents on the Internet ("A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace") and perhaps my favorite Grateful Dead song ("Cassidy,") recently penned a lengthy piece entitled "Magnanimous Defeat." I found myself, as a Bush supporter, alternately bemused by the stereotypes that Mr. Barlow seems to embody and embrace, and yet moved by his effort to overcome at least some of them. A passionate Bush hater, Barlow seems to want to try now to understand his Bush-supporting fellow Americans better. He seems quite sincere, and I'm moved by that.

I don't know that he'll read this, but since he seems sincere, and there may be others like him who are sincere, I'll try to explain what the cultural divide has looked like from my end these last couple of years.

For the last two and a half years I have been writing this weblog. Through no intention of my own I eventually became what some call a "warblogger," although it's never a label I've embraced all that strongly. Is this because I'm a Republican? No more than Mr. Barlow. I'll vote Republican when it suits my purposes and I'll vote for a Democrat when it suits my purposes and if I don't like any candidate I won't vote at all. The Democratic Party here in Michigan a couple of years ago did a damnfool thing and locked voters out of its candidate selection process, but if they didn't have such idiot rules I'd have no hesitation about registering Democratic.

Am I a conservative, a "right winger?" Sure, I guess so, if you count someone who's pro-choice on abortion, is flabbergasted at the selfishness and mean-spiritedness of anyone who would put someone in jail for smoking pot, favors gay marriage, supports human rights organizations, and would love to see a world united in democratic governments a "conservative right-winger."

I think what bemused me most when reading your missive, Mr. Barlow, was your description of the young man who was probably popular and on the football team and supported Bush, while you the nerdy outsider supported Kerry, and you saw the whole thing through some sort of 50s-vs.-60s lens. Nothing could show me just how insular so many on the left have become than that. Few of the war supporters I know fit such stereotypes at all. "Think for yourself, question authority" is something a lot of us sucked in with our mothers' milk--and by the way, you know we kids who were born in the 1960s are now in our 30s and 40s and parents ourselves, right? A lot of us grew up being told to question authority, and a lot of that authority we now question is the left-wing orthodoxy of your generation, an orthodoxy many of us bought into as it was taught to us in school, in the books we read, and especially in the universities, not to mention in a lot of what we see out of Hollywood today.

We came to reject a lot of that orthodoxy as we got older and learned to think better for ourselves--not because we "embraced the establishment," but because we were questioning the establishment. You may laugh, but a whole lot of what's "questioning the establishment" to you seems like the establishment itself to a hell of a lot of people like me. Culturally, at least.

That being the case, there are are some things I don't see how we can ever agree on. For example, you seem to unquestioningly accept the left-wing orthodoxy that the war in Iraq has slaughtered hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Where you get such an idea I don't know, but from where I sit, having talked to both Iraqis and to soldiers fighting over there, that is, not to put too fine a point on it, A STEAMING CROCK OF HATE-MONGERING SHIT.

You also, in your missive, speak of watching "Fahrenheit 9/11." I hope you're aware that that movie uses all the same propaganda techniques as used by the great Fascist and Stalinist film producers such as Goebbels and Eisenstein. Indeed, I must tell you that after I finally watched that film, my hands were literally shaking. Not because of my great love and devotion to Bush (which I'm sure the left-wing stereotypers would love to believe) but because I had not seen such concentrated hatred and dishonest propaganda put to film in my lifetime. By comparison, Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will seemed tame. (Yes, yes, parts of it were funny. Leni Riefenstahl had funny bits in her movies too. So what?)

None of this is because I don't think for myself and question authority, John. None of it's because I just want to obey and faithfully believe whatever Bush tells me. It's because I do think for myself and I question "authorities" who distribute disingenuous hate-propaganda, making themselves hundreds of millions of dollars throwing raw meat to rage-filled leftists, telling them what they want to hear regardless of whether there's any real honesty behind it. I also question university professors, Hollywood celebrities, and opportunistic politicians who want to tell me that "Bush lied" simply because it will help them win an election.

Calling someone a liar when you know that maybe he was just wrong is a form of lie too, by the way.

Oh, and, while this may seem rude, I question the authority of countercultural icons who seem to want to relive the Vietnam era.

May I suggest to you that after you watch Fahrenheit 9/11 that, in your quest to try to understand the other side a little better, you also pick up Fahrenhype 9/11 or Celsius 41.11 or Michael Moore Hates America? And consider the remote possibility (unbelievable as it may seem) that those who made these films are not merely obedient conservatives who just want to support the President?

Hell, can I suggest that you just look at the previews?

I'll be honest to you: if you cannot look at a movie like Michael Moore's and see that it is propaganda designed to do nothing but tell rage-filled leftists what they want to hear, then it's probably impossible for people like you and I to even have a real conversation, and we'll have to just go on treating each other like aliens.

Don't think I haven't tried reaching out to folks like you, John. I've tried many times, and gotten my hand bitten more than once in response.

I voted for Bush. I'm not just glad of it, I'm proud of it. Not because I think he's a God. Not because I think it's wrong to question him. Not because I think you have to agree with him. But because I thought the Iraq liberation was the right thing to do for America, for the Iraqi people, and for the world as a whole.

(Well I also think his policies on school choice and Social Security reform are positive and progressive and will do more to help the poor in this country than anything Democrats have proposed in the last 35 years. But that's another debate. The war was my real issue, as it was yours.)

Now I must tell you that, because I have taken my stance on the Iraq war, I was forced on this weblog to eventually require people to register before they could leave comments. Why? Because I got tired of being called a Nazi, a "Bush apologist," a right-wing extremist, a brown shirt, a fascist, a sellout, and a liar on a daily basis by those "open-minded" and "thoughtful" leftists who are apparently still part of your tribe. My family has received death threats from angry leftists. I realized at some point that I could either take down the weblog completely, or I could start tossing out people who thought they had a right to abuse me and my family just because they didn't like my opinions.

In other words, I've experienced firsthand just how hateful, intolerant, and irrational you guys can be when someone dares to question your beliefs. You guys often come off exactly like the theocratic mullahs and the lock-step fascists you claim to hate (but which you, oddly enough, don't seem willing to use American power to try to overthrow).

Of all the people I know who support this war, most of us have conversations like this with each other all the time:

"Why are the anti-war people so vicious and nasty?"

"Why are the anti-war people so irrational and hateful and smug?"

"How do we get through to them? They just won't listen!"

"Don't you get tired of being called a liar and a fascist? I sure do."

It reached a point for a lot of us that on election day, we were doing more than just saying "We want to re-elect George Bush." When we pulled that lever for Bush, we were also just plain saying "FUCK YOU!"

Well Mr. Barlow, you said you wanted to try to understand. You spent a lot of time in your missive confessing to your anger and your hatred. Well now I'm telling you: Yup, a whole lot of us saw that. We saw it real well, and heard it loud and clear. We aren't stupid you know. You guys treated not just the President but all of us who agreed with his decisions with absolute contempt, and when we tried to call you out on it you just got nastier.

Meanwhile we were, many of us, talking to the boys and girls doing their work over there in Iraq. While some had their doubts, most were proud of the war effort and cared about the Iraqi people and made friends with them. (You do know that Bush got more than 70% of the vote from the National Guadsmen who are supposedly trapped in Bush's "back door draft," don't you? And that most of the soldiers interviewed in Michael Moore's movie hate his guts for the way he twisted their words and quoted them out of context? Did you know about the families of the fallen that he abused and betrayed just to tell his twisted story?)

Hellfire, a year and a half ago I played a role in helping to found an organization to ship toys and medical supplies for soldiers to distribute to kids over in Iraq. (You can donate to it right here by the way). Do you know how many lefties we were able to get to help us with that? Almost none. You guys were too busy shrieking about the evil BushCo-McRove Machine to actually do something to help those soldiers and those Iraqis you guys claim to care so much about.

That, to a lot of us, is the greatest irony you know. All the war supporters I know--all of them--read and listen to the anti-Bush and anti-war invective. We're most bemused when we hear your plaintive wails that we are closed-minded and fearful and zombified and that if only you'd try harder and be more passionate maybe we'd finally understand you. Meantime we're listening and we're watching and we're reading and we're thinking, "Yeah we understand you perfectly. We just think you're wrong. Why aren't you listening to what we're saying?"

And now, apparently, you sit around thinking, "Well we need those old-fashioned conservative respect-authority types in this country too I guess." Hey John? Fuck you. I'm not about obeying authority. I'm not about being captain of the football team--I don't even LIKE football, and I never dated any goddamned cheerleaders. I hated those people as a kid. I was too busy experimenting with drugs, reading books, noodling in the aisles at Grateful Dead concerts, and trying to get laid.

I voted for Bush because the war in Iraq was exactly the right war, for exactly the right reasons, at exactly the right time. Not because I think you're supposed to believe whatever Bush says, but because I independently concluded, like a whole lot of other people, that it was the right thing to do, and that NOT doing it would be a crime against humanity. And that America and the rest of the world would be safer if we did it.

And I still think all that.

Do you disagree? Okay. That's fine. That's your right as a human being. But you guys did more than disagree. A lot of you were just plain assholes about it. You could have talked to us but instead you wanted to tell us that Chimpy McSmirk was the new Hitler and a big fat liar just because you didn't agree with him. It offended the shit out of us, because we did agree with him and we didn't think he lied (and most of us still don't). We saw a good, decent, moderate man in Bush who decided to take a big gamble and do the right thing for both America and Iraq and finally, finally, finally bring down the monster Saddam. Which would have been done a long damned time ago if we'd had any decency as a country.

You don't agree. Fine. You don't have to. But don't think that acting like an asshole about it gets you my vote. You guys may have whipped a bunch of dumbass kids into a rage by feeding them Michael Moore style hate-propaganda, but you equally pissed off a bunch of other folks in the process who showed up to vote just to spite you guys for being such mean-spirited, reactionary, paint-by-numbers, bigoted, closed-minded jerks.

Sorry man, but it's exactly what you looked like from here. We saw your disappointment when good economic news came out and your almost desperate desire to deny it. It was written on so many of your faces. We saw your irritation when good news came out of Iraq. It was obvious in your tone and your attitude about it. We aren't stupid you know. You wanted America to fail just so you could take down Shrubbie McHitler the Dumbass Death Merchant.

But by the way, did you have to back a candidate who couldn't decide from one day to the next what exactly he thought on any subject--except that he wouldn't do anything that Bush did? (In other words, a reactionary?)

In fact Mr. Barlow, for a guy who's so hip to cyberspace, you seem astonishingly unaware of everyday, ordinary people like her or him or him or her or her or her or them or her or her or her or her or her or them or him or her or her or him or countless other powerful and interesting voices I know out here in cyberspace. Not an authoritarian in the bunch. Just people who don't agree with you, and who supported the liberation of Iraq and most of Bush's war policies. Most of 'em women, come to think of it, some of 'em queer, and a couple of whom actually served in that war in Iraq you seem to think is so evil and murderous. I could point you to countless more voices just like them.

I don't know. Maybe you guys on the left need the stereotyping and the rage in order to motivate people to the polls. But from where folks like me stand, it's your ideas that need to be questioned, and it's you guys who have been on the wrong side of human rights and progress these last couple of years. It's you guys who are the reactionaries.

That's what people like me have come to think, anyway. It's what a whole lot of people I know think. Because otherwise, a whole lot of us are puzzled as to why we can't seem to get through to you. Some of us just plain gave up, and now just figure we have to work around you because you won't listen anyway. We tried, we failed, so we just (no pun intended) moved on.

So. You say you want to understand us. I appreciate that, and honestly, that's as plain a picture as I can paint for you. Did I miss something? Is there something important I should understand that I'm not getting? Is there something in your arguments or beliefs that I'm just not seeing? Because I feel like I get you guys and your arguments just fine, that I've spent two and a half years researching your arguments and trying to tell you why I think you're horribly mistaken, but that it's you all who won't listen.

So is there any real hope here? I'd like to think there is but I just don't know.

Posted by Dean | Permalink | Technorati Trackbacks
maor (mail):
The only thing that insults my intelligence more than someone accusing me of being irrational is being accused of irrationality by someone who gets his information from Hollywood celebrities.
11.9.2004 4:32am
Mark Noonan (mail):
Post-election leftwing commentary runs in two groves...sometimes overlapping:

"How can a majority be that stupid?"

"How can we convince these morons that we're right?"

Hardly a strong basis for renewed understanding - but, that is not what they want; this linked article is a faux-attempt at being understanding...really just a reaffirmation of leftist elitism and bigotry dressed up as reflection.
11.9.2004 4:51am
Sean Kinsell (mail) (www):
Well, Dean, it has been less than a week since the election, and even less time since it became clear Bush had won. For people whose view of the world hasn't shifted a millimeter since Easy Rider, it may be too soon to expect equanimity and self-criticism. Not that they're not to blame for having boxed themselves in this way--just that if you're seriously interested in seeing whether (forgive the expression) a dialogue is possible, I don't think we can tell at this point. I think there's a lot for people to work out.
11.9.2004 4:52am
Mike (mail):
It has always been a curious thing to me that "questioning authority" and "dissent" have reached such a level of dogmatic reverence amongst the supposedly oh so intellectual left. (Just don't question their authorities though.) Those are nothing more than tools to be used as you go through life and like most tools are only to be applied in the right circumstances. For instance, there are signs at the gas station prohibiting smoking around the gas pumps. I guess to be a good active citizen one must dissent from that and light up while pumping that petrol, right?

No, actually that would be assinine, and if anyone wants to do it, let me leave first and get my camera. Similarly, I am not going to question the authority of an airliner captain when he is flying the plane. I have no desire to imitate a lawn dart from 50,000 feet.

Dissent is not automatically patriotic. It's just dissent and, depending on the circumstances, may be patriotic, or treasonous, or just plain silly. Same with questioning authority. I wish (and while I'm wishing, I'd really like that sports car) people would use their noggins and quit clinging to these cliches aagainst all common sense and experience.
11.9.2004 7:30am
rmschoon:
THANK YOU!!

I could not have put it better myself.
11.9.2004 7:32am
Andrew Ian Dodge (mail) (www):
To put it bluntly: when you start resorting to the level of insults that the left go up to in the lead-up, it is patently obvious that the intellectual case has been lost. The reason they are so shrill now is that they did everything in their power to beat Bush and the Republicans only to lose quite handily.

Nice piece Dean btw.
11.9.2004 8:05am
The Black Republican (mail) (www):
Bravo.

Though I must admit I was secretly hoping to see a particular URL when I browsed through all those "him"s and "them"s. Alas, I'm just a groomsman, again. (Then again, I am a bit of an authoritarian...) :-)
11.9.2004 8:12am
Val Prieto (mail) (www):
Gracias, Dean. Perfectly said.
11.9.2004 8:22am
Scott Kirwin (mail):

"A lot of us grew up being told to question authority, and a lot of that authority we now question is the left-wing orthodoxy of your generation..."


Question authority - unless they are the authority.

Fight the establishment - unless they are the establishment.

Excellent essay, Dean.
11.9.2004 8:51am
Rita (www):
Thank you for saying so well what I've been thinking the past few days (and the link!).

Rationalization is never pretty, is it?
11.9.2004 8:52am
peg kaplan (mail) (www):
Dean - Maaaahvelous!!

I am gonna link to what if? as soon as I get back from work later today :)

You tell 'em!!!!
11.9.2004 8:59am
DSmith (mail) (www):
Bravo Dean! First rate, wouldn't change a word of it.

I'll add one other little unexpected side-effect: I got so mad over the plain dishonesty and anti-American spirit spouted by my supposed fellow Americans on the Left that I decided, for the first time in my life at age 50, to get involved with the local political party. The Republican Party. This after being a lifelong independent and Democrat.

So not only did their antics cost them this election, they made an opponent for future elections. I now regard the Democrats as not only hateful and misguided, but positively dangerous. I don't want one of them for so much as dogcatcher, and I'm going to work with my local Republican party to do what I can to prevent it.

Nice going, John Barlow &Friends. I stayed a real liberal, I want to fight for human betterment and freedom - you want to stick up for the guy that built children's prisons. Who is the "reactionary" now?
11.9.2004 9:46am
Dave Schuler (mail) (www):
Oh, c'mon, Dean, don't hold back. Tell us what you really think. ;-)

Seriously, Dean, thank you. It needed to be said.
11.9.2004 9:48am
Tim (mail) (www):
Dean, I had no idea you didn't like football. I may have to stop coming to this blog.

In all seriousness, though, you have hit on something that both bemuses me and disgusts me about my side of the aisle. Deep down inside, I think, we don't much want to win. It's so much easier - and a whole lot more fun, as evidenced by my own blog - to sit on the sidelines and throw crap at the other side. And then we get to wallow in self-pity.

One of the most left-wing guys I know once had the thankless task of being chairman of the state Democratic Party in South Carolina. He was certainly a bomb-thrower, no doubt. But he had also at one point served on a county council and been responsible for actually trying to make government work, so he also knew a thing or two about pragmatism and bi-partisanship. He described our party's participation in selecting presidential candidates and getting them through a general election like this: "Every four years, we Democrats engage in political masturbation. It feels great for a while, but then we wake up all alone."

I disagree with George Bush on many, many things. I also think he's smug and arrogant and really has pretty much skated by on the family name his whole life. I primarily voted against him not because I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but because he's mucked up the job pretty good (although maybe I'm still buying into liberal orthodoxy?).

But the election's over. He won. For the next four years, I'll probably oppose nearly everything on his domestic agenda. But in Iraq, at this point, every single one of us has a stake in seeing him succeed. It's time to quit the whining, do what we can to win this thing and quit thinking people on the other side are complete idiots.

Unless they don't like football.
11.9.2004 9:48am
Chris Lansdown (mail) (www):
I think that you nailed the necessity to say something like this right on the head; Barlow's post reminded me of the confession of a man who's been beating his wife and children: "I haven't been a very good father, but I'm going to try to not hit anyone from now on."

He made some good sentiments, but what was missing was any real sense that what he had done had been wrong, and that he was culpable for it.

Still, it's encouraging that he noticed, at least.

You know, someday someone needs to write a history of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and the year-long rush to war that preceeded it, titled, "What if there was a debate and one side didn't show up?"
11.9.2004 10:01am
Paul Burgess (www):
Dean:

A lot of us grew up being told to question authority, and a lot of that authority we now question is the left-wing orthodoxy of your generation, an orthodoxy many of us bought into as it was taught to us in school, in the books we read, and especially in the universities, not to mention in a lot of what we see out of Hollywood today.

I'm ten years older than you, so I can remember a time when "Question Authority" had not yet become an unquestionable piece of cultural wisdom. Nonetheless, my formative adolescent years fell during that cultural revolution we call the Sixties (actually, the late 60s and early 70s).

Certainly by the time I was in college, I was in full swing questioning the authority of left-wing orthodoxy. Which in those days was a very lonely undertaking, especially at a place like the University of Wisconsin-Madison, "the Berkeley of the Midwest"!

Back in those days, almost 30 years ago, I coined a saying: "Who Will Question the Authority of Those Who Question Authority?" A deliberate take-off on the old Latin saying, "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"

I guess I must have a built-in early warning system, or something. I saw through the Leftist affinity for an orthodoxy-to-end-all-orthodoxies, very early on.

BTW, excellent Esmay essay! :)
11.9.2004 10:20am
AnotherFred (mail):
First, excellent post Dean, truely excellent. Thanks.

I have another bit of life experience that may help to illustrate why the extreme left has such a hard time listening to the right.

As I have mentioned I've been a political activist on and off for the last 10 years. I raised money, organized rallies, created ads, bumper stickers, and signs. But for any number of reasons I was not the "face" of any particular group or movement. I didn't hide it, nor did I flaunt it. As a result the left really had no idea who I was nor my political leanings. So in 2000 I was invited to spend election night watching the returns at the local democrat post election party.

Here is what I learned. The activists on the left HATE the people on the right with a venom that I found profoundly distrubing. As the returns came in, each Republican defeat was cheered and evoked invective that most would reserve for child molesters. Wishes for future personal disasters of the most vile kind filled the room to the agreement and deep satisfaction of those present. For the people in that room, largely adults in their 30's and 40's, mostly parents with children, their opposite numbers on the right were the personification of evil on this earth.

I've often thought about that night. Trying to understand it. After watching this election cycle, I've come to believe that the left believe we hate them as much as they hate us. Thus our attempts reach them with reason and discounted and distrusted and anything they do to defeat us is justified.

There is another component to consider. I doubt very much that the nonactivists in the democrat party are aware of this. So they attempt to weigh the message from the left and the right. Many of them probably say something like, "either my party is run by a bunch of lunatics, or the right has really screwed things up". The reasonable assumption is that the right has messed up.

I wish I had answers for this, but I do not. I find it very very sad. What a mess.
11.9.2004 10:33am
Chris Lansdown (mail) (www):
AnotherFred,

I think that you're very much right that the left believes that we hate them as much as they hate us.
11.9.2004 10:39am
mariner:
Nice job, Dean!

You blog, so I don't have to. :)

Right-wing Slacker
11.9.2004 10:53am
Russell Newquist (www):
Indeed.
11.9.2004 10:59am
Ian S. (mail) (www):
The current Left reminds me a lot of the stereotypical dumb American tourist: they're in Paris or Rome or Tokyo and they're trying to get the locals to understand by speaking louder and slower.

In this case, we understand them fine, we just reject their ideas as wrong.
11.9.2004 11:30am
Catch 22:
"I voted for Bush. I'm not just glad of it, I'm proud of it. Not because I think he's a God. Not because I think it's wrong to question him. Not because I think you have to agree with him. But because I thought the Iraq liberation was the right thing to do for America, for the Iraqi people, and for the world as a whole.

"I voted for Bush because the war in Iraq was exactly the right war, for exactly the right reasons, at exactly the right time.

" And that America and the rest of the world would be safer if we did it."

Well said, Dean.

Kerry had he won would of course be calling up Bill Clinton to find out what to do next.
11.9.2004 11:41am
Wince and Nod (mail) (www):
Dean,

Great essay.

Paul,

Great slogan.

Yours,
Wince
11.9.2004 12:31pm
Dean Esmay (www):
Tim: I think that's a fine and brave admission and the first step to figuring out how to fix things. Have heart. There were times in history when Republicans were in the exact same boat, irritated and frustrated and omre willing to yell than to talk. I think this is a very cyclical thing.

We will see how well he succeeds or fails, and you guys have four years to figure out how to rebuild. My suggestion is that you make it about ideas and proposals and how you can woo people to you. Republicans can match you on the registering new voters and getting people to the polls now. So the question is how can you persuade the centrists who can be persuaded?
11.9.2004 12:45pm
Chris Lansdown (mail) (www):
Dean,

Isn't the answer obvious? Bribery (i.e. entitlements).

I'm kind of afraid that that's what it will be.
11.9.2004 1:24pm
Margi (www):
Wow. I'm sitting in awe of your abilities. Thank you for saying what I could not. Well, I COULD, but it wouldn't have made any sense.

P.S. I was a cheerleader. We weren't ALL mindless Fembots, you know. *snicker* (Not that I remotely resemble that lithe teenager anymore, either.)
11.9.2004 2:29pm
Dean Esmay (www):
Well if all cheerleaders were like you... ;-)
11.9.2004 3:27pm
Steven Malcolm Anderson (www):
HAIL TO THE KING!!!!

I admire Dean
For marrying the Queen.

I admire the Queen
For marrying Dean.

Every once in a while Dean writes a magnum opus that sums up just about everything he has been writing for a long time, and that sums up why I read Dean's World all the time. This was terrific. Thank you, Dean.

Paul Burgess asked:
"Who will question the authority of those who question authority?"

I will. I have been doing so for a long, long time. I don't conform to the non-conformists. I deviate from the deviationists.

Interesting spectrumology. The football players vs. the chess club? Dean has always struck me as a chess champion, a brilliant intellect, the defender of the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.

That essay reminds me of an essay Tom Wolfe once wrote in a symposium in "Commentary" back in September, 1976, on the various meanings of "Left" and "Right". He said that "Left"-"Right" conflicts come down to replays of high school conflicts between "jocks" vs. "freaks". The football hero gets all the cheerleaders, but ends up pumping gas in the middle of Nebraska, yet still roots for the winning team (police, army, etc.). The "freak" gets bullied by the "jocks", but ends up selling his art for $100,000s in the most fashionable section of Manhattan or San Francisco, but still roots for "the underdog". Interesting idea.

Most interesting about all that, takes me back. Back in the good old days when I was in good old Central High School, Monmouth-Independence, Oregon, Class of 1973, "the Royal Orgy House" as some of us called it, we called the "jocks" the "soshes" (i.e., the "social" stars: athletes, cheerleaders, class presidents and other officers, prom queens) and the "freaks" we called the "hippies" (long hair, pot, protesting against Nixon and the Viet Nam War). There were also the lower-class "greasers", who liked cars and motorcycles, who tended to be the Right of the "soches".

A conservative club, the "Synthetics", put out their own newspaper, arguing that the official school paper (which dealt with little more ideological than the latest football game or the problem of gum-chewing in the halls -- though there was the famous letter to the editor "[James] Mole Says Hippies Wrong") was too far to the Left. One young Rightist intellectual wrote: "....to me, hippieism is the same as communism...." That has always stood out in my memory. The _style_ of that!

Anyway, I myself and my closest friend throughout high school, Charles William Harrington, stood apart from all of those groupings. We were loners. He and I both wrote stories and poetry. He had extremely short hair. He once drew a spectrum on the blackboard from collectivism on the Left to individualist anarchy on the Right.

In my last year of high school (and then after until his tragic death in an auto accident) I became acquainted with another independent-thinking young man, David Lynn Smith. He wore his hair extremely long like a hippie, but he thought very differently from any hippies. He liked the hard, sharp, dualistic, _styles_ and passion of Rightists like Ayn Rand and the Rev. Dr. Billy James Hargis. We watched the Watergate hearings and we loved to hate Nixon. He and I created a two-dimensional, four-quadrant spectrum, the "Smitty'n'Andy" spectrum, which I have been refining and expanding upon ever since, spinning out endless variations and tie-ins, and have added a third dimension. We talked about making a board game out of that spectrum.

The _styles_ of it all. Most interesting. Anyway, I totally agree with what Dean (the King) wrote about the vile hatefulness of people who want to throw other people in jail for smoking pot. I also feel that way, if you haven't noticed, about the people who want to throw other people in jail for having sex with other consenting adults. I'm against the government telling us what we can read or who we can marry. And, yes, I voted for Bush, I support the War Against The Terror Masters 100%, and I totally defend the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If the Democrats want to win our votes, they're going to have to clear away the fog of their stereotypes about Republicans and Independents.

The comments to that essay by John Perry Barlow show very well, by way of negative example, why so many people did not vote for the preferred candidate of those commenters. These Leftists hate "the rich", and yet a commenter kept arguing that Kerry supporters travel more and therefore have higher IQs and are more enlightened and morally superior. Those who travel have more money! A blatant contradiction. Those asinine comments could have been written by Dean to prove his point!

Anyway.... HAIL TO THE KING!!!! AND HAIL TO THE QUEEN....!!!!
11.9.2004 3:40pm
IB Bill (mail) (www):
Well said, Dean. Good job.

You know the irony in this? If the Democrats just go back to being Democrats (that is, the party of FDR, Truman and JFk), they'd be fine.

Even Clinton would've cut the left off at the knees during this election. Al Sharpton in the primaries? Clinton would've ripped his heart out. Gay marriage? Clinton would've supported the state amendments.

Remember, Clinton executed a retarded man lest he seem weak on crime, tore Jesse Jackson a new asshole just to score some points, and signed DOMA. Clinton knew how to win.

If the Dems want to win, they just need to go back to being Dems -- strong on national security, but out to protect the interests of the working class and smooth out those inequalities that tend to occur in a capitalist system.

But they're too busy calling us idiots.

You know, the Dems should've just nominated Howard Dean and gone down screaming in defeat. They'd feel better about themselves. And they'd know it won't work.

Instead, my guess is they'll move further left and have to learn the lessons of 1972 all over again.
11.9.2004 4:06pm
Jazz Shaw (mail) (www):
Took a while to get through both of those lengthy but excellent posts. (Both Dean's and Barlow's) and to write my own way too long for the comments section response. I'll just say, that as in many cases, I agree with some of what both of them said and disagree with other parts. Dean and I will never agree on the Iraq invasion (note: I will not call it a "liberation" as I point out in my response. It was an invasion.) but I feel there's room for us to agree to disagree.

Many of the things about the bitterness between the sides was nailed right on the head. Well written, Dean, as usual.
11.9.2004 5:05pm
d-rod (mail) (www):
Wow! Well said, Dean.
11.9.2004 6:03pm
Eric Scheie (www):
Barlow was a Republican committeeman in Wyoming during a time when that was decidedly unpopular and uncool -- and Deadheads roamed the free ranges. I don't know what happened which caused him to embrace socialism. I was a Deadhead at age fifteen (in the Pigpen days) and time was when I would have taken this all very personally. But AIDS came along and killed the cosmic dream for me, and killed off so many of my friends that the part that used to care had to grow death calluses. Death, by the way, is a decidedly un-psychedelic experience.

Yours was a very moving post, obviously from the heart. No idea whether Barlow will read it or what he'll think. But I'm a fellow traveler headed in a different direction for reasons I'd hope he'd understand.

(I also wrote a post about Barlow, Dean, and Steven Malcolm Anderson just directed me to yours. Don't know what to say -- other than that the blogosphere is a wonderful thing.)
11.9.2004 7:10pm
Hatcher (mail):
Dean, thanks!

I read Mr. Barlow's piece on his blog and needed to take time to process it. It missed the point, but I wasn't ready to tear into it. You did, and admirably so.

I guess I'm older even than Paul. While I never coined his phrase, it was very much the one I've lived by. Through chance, I happened to spend three years in SE Asia in the mid-late 60s. I was in Thailand, mostly, but got to Laos, Cambodia and Viet Nam--but not in a uniform. It was only then that I went back to the US and started university.

I was thunderstruck by how much ignorance there was about the region on campus. Everyone seemed to spout facts--from the left or right--but the facts were either specious or badly misinterpreted. Trying to explain some simple facts brought about different reactions. Those from the right were generally, "is that so?" Those from the left were, "That's a lie."

While I thought Nixon was a POS on many counts, the opponents the Democrats put up against him were even worse. The "war in the streets" was widespread enough that I could count on being teargassed in my bed during campaign season. But that period was not unlike this one: a lot of people rich in opinion and passion, but really short on facts and substance. It was a no-brainer to vote Bush. It was the only rational choice.
11.9.2004 10:44pm
Beth (www):
You NAILED it!
I'm 38 and was raised by baby-boomers as well. Fortunately, they were and are still very independent thinkers and didn't march in step with the boomer (or any) groupthink, so I was lucky. But through their friends and acquaintances and in general, just living life while the boomers increased their clout to this day, I've also thought for YEARS that for a bunch of "rebels" and "free-thinkers," the leftist boomers are a bunch of spoiled rotten conformists and professional crybabies.
This essay of yours could legitimately be called a manifesto of our generation, if not all Bush voters--fed up with the misguided anger, groupthink, self-pity, and self-centeredness of so many from the previous generation. It makes me want to sit down and write a BOOK on this!
Pure, sublime clarity. THANK YOU.
11.10.2004 1:46am
Beth (www):
The Black Republican said:
Though I must admit I was secretly hoping to see a particular URL when I browsed through all those "him"s and "them"s.

HA! I dare anyone to say they DIDN'T do the same thing! LOL!
11.10.2004 1:51am
Jim Ausman (mail):
Whoa cowboy.

Don't paint us all with the same brush.

I am a proud San Francisco liberal, but I have tried to understand the viewpoints of Bush supporters. I really don't think you understand your own viewpoint unless you can listen to and at least attempt to sympathize with those you disagree with. I started reading this blog and contributing to it because there are a lot of things I could understand about the points of view of the posters here.

And I realized that I was getting warped view of Bush supporters by just reading Free Republic and Little Green Footballs.

I even donated to the Spirit of America drive.

But perhaps I understand the interests and concerns of much of middle America better for having grown up in Wyoming and having served a stint in the 82nd Airborne.

I don't like Bush much and I like the War in Iraq even less, but I respect the fact that these are just my opinions and that we live in a democracy and that the people have spoken.

So I will just bite my tounge and do my best to support him in his efforts.

And I know that I am not really the kind of person your comments are directed at.

But don't put us all in the same box.
11.10.2004 2:20am
Jim C. (mail):
Well said, Dean.

Comment #44 over at Barlow's is a small step in the right direction, but it's still very patronizing. Yet he praises it. A sample:

"I am talking about the Christian fundamentalists who have been duped by Fox news and Bush because they have been made to feel that they belong."

And as far as I can tell, her response would be to patronizingly dupe them that they belonged to her side.

There was a leftist on a message board I read that admitted she just didn't like or respect people on the right, and she wouldn't like or respect them even if they changed sides.

Nothing will change until they drop that attitude. The people they look down on may not be as educated as them, but they can sniff out condescension in an instant.
11.10.2004 2:48am
Dean Esmay (www):
Jim: I don't lump you all in. See Barlow's message. It was a direct response to Barlow, his commenters, and people I know who think like him.

Peace. :-)
11.10.2004 2:58am
Ironbear (mail) (www):
I'm almost ashamed to admit it after reading your post, Dean, but I dated a cheerleader for several months in high school. And I enjoyed it. Please don't throw me out of the VRWC for that, k? ;]
11.10.2004 3:09am
Sandi (www):
Dean, that was excelent, excelent, excelent.

Not just your responce alone, but the clairity of it as it so obviously poured from your heart.

Since about mid-summer I have been a daily reader here, and this post by far has had the most heart moving effect on me.

BRAVO!!
11.10.2004 3:25am
Tom Grey (mail) (www):
Dean, here's my comment on JPB's note (echoing your call against his Iraqis killed), yours is better but I hope you consider the need for Iraqis to fight for, and kill for, Iraqi freedom:

Great job, JPB -- you should have been drafted to write, with heart, for Kerry. The way Peggy Noonan writes, with heart (and a bit of gloating in last piece), for the Reps.

But: I doubted that even Saddam has ever killed as many Iraqis in a year and a half as we've just polished off, but I let that pass.

This is terrible, wrong. Since May 03, the Iraqis who died are primarily those who have NOT surrendered to the victorious coalition liberation/ occupation army. Those who do NOT accept democracy. The terrorists who fight against iraqi democracy are the cause, directly and in US response, for the deaths. The US Liberators would have been happy to stop killing any Iraqis, had the Iraqis peacefully accepted democracy.

The violence in Iraq is because of anti-democratic Islamofascists. And the fact that the USA refuses to let them win; and the uncommitted in Iraq have not decided to resist the terrorists enough.

You were also against the Vietnam war, wanting Peace, as did Kerry in 1971. Peace Now.
Peace and genocide, rather than fighting evil.
The movie you need to see is The Killing Fields. And think, as you see it -- THIS is what your "peace now" idea was in favor of.

You favored Clinton. The Liar who refused to call Rwanda genocide, until some 800 000 murders later -- and then he had such a fine apology.

War is hell; people die, innocents die. But not fighting evil produces alternate hells. Please consider what evils are worth fighting against, and in what ways.

This was a great confession, bile-letting, prep for survival. (Pro-life folks have had Roe crow forced down their throats for 30 years, think about it.) Maybe some more constructive criticism would be nice?
11.10.2004 4:46am
GeraldW:
I'm still confused about their inability to understand the mathematical implications of a loss by 3.5 million votes.

But then they don't understand why I have a shotgun hanging in the rear window of my pickup either.

(Or would if I had a pickup. Or a shotgun.)
11.10.2004 4:58am
Beth Donovan (mail) (www):
Essays like this one are why I try to read you as often as possible.
You know, I did feel like my Bush/Cheney 04 bumper sticker on my car was like a Fuck You to the liberal elite.

It's still on my car.

Might be there for awhile yet.
11.10.2004 7:33am
Physics Geek (mail) (www):
Thanks Dean. You got my day off to a great start. Great post.
11.10.2004 9:51am
Joe (mail):
Dean,

This is my second day reading this site, and I am enjoying reading it.

I am also a Deadhead, but I chose John Kerry because he seemed more capable of dealing with complex issues, has a much better track record on the environment, and I do not trust George Bush.

Given that, I have taken the last week to read and listen to understand the election results. I do not like hyperbole, so I can certainly understand how people do not like Michael Moore. (I have never seen any of his movies, but a friend of mine liked some of his earlier films but thought F 9/11 atrocious.)

I hope we can come to dialogue now that the election is over. However, one obstacle to overcome, imho, is that each party has their bogeymen (Michael Moore, Karl Rove, et al) which tend to scare off voters. (To be honest, I would not be a likely Bush voter regardless, but the presence of this guy definitely costs Bush points in my book.)

The bright point is that many people do not identify with the extremes of either party, and these are the people whose dialogue will likely make a positive difference on politics and civil discourse.

Joe

P.S. Cassidy is a wonderful song!
11.10.2004 10:52am
Dean Esmay (www):
Joe: I mostly find the fear of Rove by the left mostly amusing myself, Joe. But I'm sure we'll have much to talk about over time. :-)
11.10.2004 5:28pm
annika (mail) (www):
Hey Dean, you forgot about this pot smoking, deadhead, ex-cheerleader who voted for Bush in '00 and '04!

annika!
11.10.2004 5:38pm
Joe (mail):
Dean,

Rove has opponents both Democrat and Republican who don't find him amusing.

Anyways, I'm sure we will have much to talk about! :)

Joe
11.10.2004 5:58pm
jason (www):
fantastic post. you inspired my own. well said!
11.10.2004 6:43pm
jane m:
One of your best, Dean. You articulated what has been mulling and rolling and squishing around in my mind without clarity throughout this campaign and has now boiled over in the aftermath of the election. I am a former Dem and I can't believe that the political party I identified with for decades has deteriorated to this level of hate filled rhetoric. Hate only serves to confuse the mind. They will continue to lose if they continue to hate. A party that stands for hatred of their opponents is doomed.
11.10.2004 9:56pm
Joe (mail):
Hate only serves to confuse the mind.

I agree with you, Jane, but I think we all have blindspots. What about the gay amendment issues that were on eleven state ballots? Was that done out of love? At best it's a cheap political trick.
11.11.2004 5:02pm
MM (mail):
You have articulated what has been rolling around in my head for what it seems forever. I am a 59 year old, female, lifelong Democrat, who switched to Independent this year and voted for George Bush. First Republican president I've ever voted for. And for the reasons that you just stated. Thank you so much.
11.11.2004 7:34pm
david:
thanks, dean. well spoken. many of us are so muddle-headed that we need friends to articulate what we have such a hard time saying.

i was born in 1952, went thru the 60s in a fog, and finally figured it out when i was about 25--very late, but i, like you, mulled over things a lot. i spent my formative years in wisconsin, louisiana, missouri, mississippi, alabama, and finally illinois.

in 1979, i spent 4 months in saudi arabia, and from 1983 until 1986, i spent my time in jordan. all was time well spent.

you come to make friends in places you live. you also come to realize that some things are like pissing into the wind. the grave injustice of losing TWO homes to some red-neck that flew/boated in from europe, just doesn't set well with you. hence my palestinian friend living in a jordanian refugee camp (oh, by the way, do we remember what the word "refugee means) does not make a tolerant, innocent bystander!

it may come as surprise to you, but the common sea in which you live--"one nation under god"--may make for two sides of the same, erroneous perspective on things.

one of my best friends, a missouri "red-neck" once told me that it's best that the middle east be brought screaming into the 20th (now 21st) century.

i don't fault him for that (he said it before 9/11, by the way). he enjoys a very productive life in a water-park world just down the street from where he lives.

i just am sad that liberals, conservatives, republicans, democrats, neocons, fascists and the like refuse to define the word "refugee" and understand what it means and implies. terrorism will NOT go away until you do!

p.s. my friend john (his name has been changed to make it more palatable to westerners) has 12 kids--2 PhDs, and the rest, well....
11.12.2004 7:21pm
John Perry Barlow (mail) (www):
Dean,

I posted something here last night, but it never appeared. Are you withholding it for some reason?

Yrs,

John Perry
11.14.2004 5:09am
Dean Esmay (www):
John: Absolutely not! I am terribly interested in reading your thoughts on this, even if you are angry with me. I definitely did not withhold anything. Has there perhaps been a hiccup? The comment system here is generally very reliable, I'm mystified if anything you posted dissappeared.
11.14.2004 5:13am
RUSirius (mail) (www):



Dear Dean,

I have written a response to your interesting rant here.

Enjoy!

RU Sirius
11.15.2004 9:19pm