[MD] political harmony

[Arlo Bensinger]

[KO]
However groups are necessary part of evolution and whenever you have 
groups you have exclusivity.

[Arlo]
Exclusivity, yes. But we have moved far beyond that. Two problems, 
very broadly, as I see it. (1) False concreteness. (2) False 
associations. In (1) we come to see group boundaries as permanent and 
inviolable. In (2) we come to associate that within the group with 
"good" and that outside the group as "bad".

About (1), I would argue that our social activity communities work 
best when they are fluid. I may be a "teacher" by day (and you would 
be outside this group) but in another hour I may be a "jazz fan" 
(maybe with you in my group). With fluid groups we come to see others 
who move and out of our particular groups not as threats or 
alien-enemies, but as others who share X with us, even if they do not share Y.

About (2), I would argue that this is the vile ideological rhetoric 
of nightmares that has served to divide us into sides fighting a 
"culture war", rather than brothers and sisters with different views 
about the world. Conveniently for the ideologues, those "in" the 
group are always the noble, courageous, honorable, decent, caring, 
loving, worthwhile, Good people, while those "out" of the group 
become the corrupt, evil, deceitful, malicious, treasonous, 
black-toothed, scoundrels responsible for all the evils in the world. 
As the great (but now often overlooked) California punk-band Channel 
3 once sang, "In every world, in every age, there's a 'they'..."

Palin's deplorable rhetoric played off both these problems. First, 
there was no margin of error, no fluidity, if you did not agree with 
Palin, you were immediately "not a real American". Even if you were 
an NRA member by day, even if you support hunters and fishermen in 
the afternoon... if you did not at the end of the day agree that 
McCain/Palin was the right choice, you were obviously not a real 
American. Second, it draws an unquestionable line between those who 
are decent and good (real Americans) and those who are wicked and bad 
(not real Americans). (Murtha's rhetoric displayed the same faults).

For what its worth, I think McCain is an honorable and decent man, 
and I think he would have a made a good president. I would have 
disagreed with him on several issues (as I do with Obama), but I 
would not hesitate to call him a Good man (I'd say the same about 
Obama). It is the Palins and the Murthas that are the problem, and it 
was the allowing their level of rhetoric into his campaign that 
ultimately (IMHO) hurt McCain (and it was staying mostly above it 
that helped Obama).

Anyhoo.. to sum, exclusivity (as seen from fluid vantages points), 
yes. Demonizing the absolute other? No.