The wingnut can't help loving me. Her reply to my e-mail on our politics/obstacle in relating

Last edited Fri Apr 10, 2015, 04:51 PM - Edit history (2)

Notice that she uses the universal tactic of seeking to take higher ground (some higher authority, higher philosophical point, higher whatever). And that she refers to the dirty trick of playing one interest group against the others while attributing it to "the Democratic watch" instead of to its prime practitioner KKKarl. I never criticized her cooking classes, but she feels guilty herself about almost quoting the-poor-will-always-be-with-you since she claims her individual charity will deal with them but she's at cooking classes. The quoted material is her reply. My e-mail previously is below that.

**********QUOTE*******

Without a doubt you ARE an idealist. I neither have the interest, time nor inclination to occupy my time in studying politics because the truth is obsolete in it, and frankly , I do not put my trust in any one party or politician, because man without the fear of God is a fool and desperately wicked. The poor will always be pawns at the hands of the powerful politicians, who use welfare as a means of control , and NOT for the sake of social justice.. WE, as individuals have an obligation to help the helpless and pursue social justice. In the last 6 years, we have seen social justice, civil rights, liberties being threatened more than ever by wars between the haves and have nots, the genders, against religion, among the races, all under the Democratic watch. It's true! But, what do I know, I'm just a simpleton, will never match your intellect or knowledge, because I'd rather go to cooking classes, haha, and spend time with family and friends Love ya (Name). Be patient with the likes of us.

**********UNQUOTE******

My e-mail (below) previously to her that garnered her Reply (above), but Prefatory Note, if anybody hates all-caps, which I use for emphasis and speed (as opposed to typological graphics) and for surnames (nostalgia for U.S. Navy administrative typing), stop reading now, and I'd appreciate comments about personal preferences for typing in some other thread, thanks in advance:

During our co-employee 20+ years, we seldom if ever talked about politics. In our retirement, when other topics besides work are allowed, I was surprised at your Conservative politics because our work was in a Helping vocation that would stem from a Democratic outlook, but then literally SHOCKED at the RAGE triggered in you from any mention of the Democratic Party and any Democratic leaders, and besides that I was amused that your “reasons” were all echoes of Fox News.

For the sake of our friendship, I proposed that we delete all mention of politics between us and volunteered not to send you my politics e-mails that I send to other people. I’ve done pretty well abiding by that for the past many months, but really politics is a main interest for me, and I am somebody who wants to interact fully-as-I-am with others, rather than PARTLY-as-I-am. So putting this PART of me off limits was always like holding back, watching myself, being guarded, just NOT BEING REAL.

Lately, I slipped and included you in one of my politics e-mails. To be honest, I didn’t “slip,” I was in the mood to TEASE you.

Anyway, I’d like to explain (“MANsplain”?) where I’m coming from vis a vis “politics.” [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]RULE #1: TAKE EVERY WORD AS ROCK SOLID. [/FONT] This means, this is not b.s. for me; I go to political and news websites every day for a couple of hours, besides that my whole family upbringing included political discussion, am not a windbag or talking through my hat. I am an amateur, not a scholar, in the sense that I know basic History from the public schools, have read some things that most people haven’t (the Federalist Papers), but mostly come at it from conventional sources (family, life experiences, daily news).

What I found truly LAUGHABLE the first time we clashed over “politics” was how you ASSUMED that I was an “OBAMA” idolater, how you were TRIGGERED into an apoplexy of personal attack on him, or later on “Hillary” or “the KENNEDYs”. So far you have not gotten to attacking LBJ, HST, or FDR and Eleanor, which would be getting into REAL ugliness. And you don’t have to bother telling me that there is DIRT about them, too, I know enough of it all.

This is VERY BASIC to this clarification (remember RULE #1): I DON’T CARE about PERSONALITIES, don’t care about OBAMA, HILLARY, OR THE KENNEDYS. I don’t worship idols. Frankly, I don’t even like Hillary at all, and when JFK first appeared I preferred LBJ. After the KENNEDY demise and all the rotten true gossip became known, I was disgusted. Then LBJ’s personal junk (take “junk” in any way) became known, WHATEVER. I don’t care.

(Remember RULE #1), what I *CARE* about is the Democratic Party AGENDA, which to me means: [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]Social justice, civil rights, civil liberties, stewardship of the planet, and investment in human potential. [/FONT] Republicanism means to me: Racism, greed, (that’s pretty much it, can’t think of anything else really).

So put those two things together: 1) Don’t care about personalities, 2) DO care about the AGENDA, and you get this: I don’t pick SOME CANDIDATE TO FOLLOW OR WORSHIP. I pick the Democrat who MIGHT WIN. In our system, the WINNER takes it all. We Democrats have had our hearts broken many, many times heartbreakingly NOBLE candidates. My mother often talked sadly about losing with Catholic Al SMITH. One of my earliest memories was of her and my elder sister crying when Adlai STEVENSON lost (2nd time he ran), and this was against EISENHOWER, whom today I would admire as a conscientious, moderate in today’s NUTCASE Republican party.

NOBLE Losers are WORTHLESS. While I admired George McGOVERN during Vietnam, I wrote him a letter in 1972 telling him I admired him personally but asking him to withdraw because ALL THAT MATTERED was to BEAT NIXON, and that I was convinced he couldn’t do it. He or his staff wrote back, “I think I can win and hope to have your support.” Actually, I don’t think anybody could have beat NIXON that year. Only the WINNER can wield power in our system. And even the worst Democrat, short of criminality, is BETTER THAN THE BEST REPUBLICAN (for my Democratic agenda). The worst Democrat can still nominate Supreme Court justices and hundreds or thousands of lower-level POLICY MAKERS, all of whom can have a monumental impact for decades.

So it is USELESS for you to personally attack OBAMA, Hillary, the KENNEDYs, or almost any other Democrat (short of a criminal) when you’re dealing with me. If you think some DIRT on any of them is news to me, it’s NOT. What I learned during the CLINTON *fake* impeachment was this: A leader who has damaging PERSONAL BAGGAGE is a DISTRACTION away from WORKING ON OUR AGENDA. During the CLINTON years, we Democrats had to spend ALL OF OUR ENERGY into DEFENDING HIM PERSONALLY. INSTEAD OF HIM AND US spending all of our precious energy WORKING ON OUR AGENDA. The problem with CHARISMA and IDOLATRY is that it is personal, capriciously based on personality, and not focused on our AGENDA.

So you’re wasting your time attacking OBAMA or any other Dem personality, besides that I know most of the gory details about their personal failings, which don’t matter to me because any real Dem is chipping away at obstacles to the Democratic agenda.

All of that said, I’m puzzled by these things: 1) You, me, and our other co-workers were in a HELPING VOCATION, dealing with people who needed help, so you aren’t the first co-worker I’ve found out is a raging “Conservative” and I’m astounded that you all harbored this hostility to people and principles we were working with. 2) Why not forfeit Social Security and MediCARE, which were Democratic programs, if you are so hostile to Democratic policies? 3) Most of all, IDEALISM is at the bottom of my Democratic convictions: My family and I seldom benefitted from a lot if not most of the Democratic programs – not “food stamps”, not “Welfare.”

What we voted for and supported was [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]IDEALISM, [/FONT] and I am utterly mystified how wingnuts hate “Liberalism” so much, but I can explain why I *do* hate wingnuts (racism, greed). Perhaps you can explain. But spare me the Fox News crap. I probably listen more (to know what the newest attack is) to wingnuts than to Democratic mouthpieces. I prefer to poke holes in wingnuts than to hear people on my side parroting what we all know. I detest WINDBAGS no matter what side they’re on. So have at it, or we can go back to the NO POLITICS deal.