Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Christian Meth vs. Hippiecrisy

Christian Meth is defined as those things which Conservative Christian Civilian Persons (CCCP) go crazy for.

Hippiecrisy is defined as those things which hippies love, that in fact run entirely contrary to their stated goals.

Of course there's unfair and factless generalizations in both of these categories. That's what blogging is all about.

Christian Meth:
- Movies about white families
- Military invasion paranoia porn (see "Red Dawn", "24", "Left Behind", "Fox News")
- Ronald Reagan
- Music which is less culturally challenging than Lawrence Welk
- Sarah Palin (oh man, how they love them some Palin. Good God.)
- Completely disproved political talking points which are emotionally soothing (see "Tax cuts are always good", "Democrats hate the military", "Obama was born in Kenya", "It actually matters that Clinton got a blow job")
- That a fetus is absolutely a human being from the instant of conception - but ask them if they'd save 4 impregnated embryos in petri dishes over a 4-year-old child, and watch the gears start grinding

- Worrying about fair trade coffee, rather than how poor Americans are screwed over in the Appalachias and all of West Virginia
- Donating to help animals, or the poor in other countries, or animals in other countries, rather ignoring the homeless right across the fricking street (see "Los Angeles downtown Hoovervilles", "People For the Ethical Treatment of Humans" [a group that doesn't exist]).
- Thinking Che Guevera was a heroic revolutionary for the people, when he was in fact another murdering fascist thug the instant he got any power
- Thinking they're awesome for listening to gangster rap, rather than doing a damn thing about actual conditions in American ghettos
- Thinking that talking shit about The Man actually means they aren't, themselves, The Man (see Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Barbara Streisand, most of the executive-assistant-abusers in Hollywood)
- Capitalism is automatically awful
- New Age movements which pretend to be about spiritual betterment, when in fact they are materialist-oriented wealth-lust (see "The Secret") or low-grade pyramind (intentional spelling) schemes (see "Scientology")
- Smoking cigarettes is bad for you, but hemp will save the planet

This article is an example in balance. Conservative Christians are, in general, pretty easy targets. And I disagree with them in just about every one of their Fox-approved talking points. In fact it's a crime and a shame to me how people who are generally screwed over by the GOP's major backers, have had their well-deserved indignation channeled against the populist reforms which would most benefit them - more educational funds, more job-training funds, more restrictions on corporations, and publicly funded health care.

The last point is just craazy. Every single country in the world which has single-payer health care has a healthier population that lives longer AND PAYS LESS. Yet somehow it's off the table - thanks, Democrats.

Which leads to why it may be that Christian Conservatives, and conservatives in general, are in their own way right not to trust the Democrats. Unless Democrats actually stand up and DO things - such as FDR and Harry Truman - or they are at least extremely effective, such as Bill Clinton - they are only slightly better than the GOP. So why, in fact, would conservatives switch?

Now let's talk hippiecrits for a second. Easy targets also - and it's unfair to tar most hippies with this brush. A lot of the benefits we take for granted now, were fought for and achieved by the radical leftists of their day. That kids can go to school and not be worked to death in factories. That minorities can actually vote. That there is no longer a military draft. That there is any social security or medicare at all.

But hippiecrits exhibit a fundamental difference between talk and action, that sets my teeth on edge. Hippiecrits so *almost* get it that they are tragically frustrating. They earn my ire for how much they *say* they want a better world, but in fact take no meaningful action or plans at all.

For a prime example of this, see Ralph Nader. Boy, he says a lot of the exactly right things. But once he stopped forcing car safety and started running for President, what has he actually done? When has he helped a single other progressive candidate get into office, or helped a ballot initiative win, or performed any other meaningful action that actually caused physical changes in the real world? And how in Hell is he supposed to get anything done as President, if he doesn't have a party behind him??

As the USA grows one step closer to pitchforks and torches, those who present actual plans with measurable results will get a majority from both sides - just as President Obama did when he plausibly represented change. Now Obama is in the phase where he must demonstrably achieve those results - which I think he is realizing now. I wait eagerly for politicians of both parties to realize the same.

No comments:

Post a Comment