Is anyone else a bit exhausted with the words that are used for our “political descriptive expressions?” Such words are appropriately called “Mud Slinging.”
Words like “right wing nuts” and “bigots” and “the religious right.” The list is endless, and I wish the ones using the expressions would pause to consider that they are speaking from the point of view from which they take a stand on any given issue. This is indeed a narrow view.
For instance, if I stand anywhere “right” of where you stand, you may consider me to be far right of where I actually stand. The opposite is also true of course.
Our loosely used words of political designation are not descriptive enough. I don’t suppose they are intended to be anything more than mud in the first place.
“Right wing nut” is intended to be a derogatory statement by the user, and really says nothing, except that the writer or speaker is not creative or knowledgeble enough to find an argument to convey to the hearers or readers WHY the particularly accused “right wing nut” is wrong.
These are nothing more than “picture words” that create something negative to those who view the accused as being very different than they are themselves.
Further, while I may view some people to be right of me, or left of me on some particular issue, it doesn’t mean that on other issues I may stand either right or left of them.
I am a TEA Party sympathizer. I like most of the TEA Party’s views. Right away you might classify me as a Right Winger and you would assume that you know all that I believe and stand for politically. You may even have my religious views established in your mind. How really accurate might you be in fact?
I will offer a for instance of my conflicting views in a following paragraph, to confirm that what I am saying is accurate. The position I hold against the loose use of “picture words” in our political arena is that they are nothing more than “mud.”
Mud is heavy and it cannot be seen through to see the facts accurately. Mud conceals the facts. Therefore, IF one desires to play a Mud Game, then Mud Slinging is what is intend. But IF you would like to honestly communicate, then other methods of communication focused on individual issues must be used.
My major conflicting view with the seemingly established stand of the TEA Party on “illegal aliens” is this: I do not think that all the people who are here “illegally” should be deported. I view it to be wrong to require people who are here by way of the non-verbalized consent of our Government, and of our people, to be forced to leave the homes our realtors have sold and rented to them, and whom many of our business companies have hired (for less than adequate wages,) many knowing that there was no green card available; people who have been allowed to attend schools and to make friends and establish homes and families, all because of our neglect to have our laws enforced. These people should not suddenly be sent away.
To do so is heartless, because we have given them permission, by our omission to enforce our laws, and have thereby authenticated them to live among us.
I do believe we need to close our borders and to require aliens to come into citizenship by the proper methods, in a legal fashion. It is not however, the modus operandi of our last decades.
If WE, as Americans wish to enforce OUR LAWS then we must enact OUR LAWS, but not retroactively.
My contention is that we have by our behavior tweaked our Laws. How is it humane to now begin to chant the 'Letter of the Law'? We did not enforce the letter of the Law. Perhaps we should begin to do so, but let us keep good faith with what we have permitted with those to whom we have given unspoken permission.
How many of you readers are surprised that a TEA Party sympathizer holds such a view?
My point is that we use words to identify people; words that truly are not descriptively appropriate or accurate in their communications.
We cannot lump all people into a categorized group either by Democrat, or Republican, or Libertarian, or TEA Party, or any other classification. That is, not IF we wish to speak honestly.
I personally see this one fault of communication as the reason we cannot come together for agreements to pass legislations that promote the welfare of all of our citizens.
My concluding thought is this: when anyone uses categorizing words, as all inclusive words of description for a group of people, I turn OFF. I do not care to hear what that person thinks, because that speaker is being narrow-minded and bigoted.
Please speak to me about issues, individually presented issues. That way we will find some ground upon which to stand together, and to make agreements for the good of our society.