As I’ve never been a particularly political person. In 2008, when my high school friends were all up on the Obama campaign, I appreciated what Obama represented, and enjoyed his suggestions. But if you compared my thoughts and feelings on the election, they were much more lukewarm than any of my friends. I suppose part of that can be attributed to my upbringing: household discussion hardly, if ever, involved politics. In fact, my parents asked me to advise them on who to vote for a few times. Me, an un-worldly high schooler!
More and more, I’ve become wary of elections. Don’t get me wrong - I actually enjoy *thinking* about the topics - economic inequality, environmental protections, civil rights, campaign finance reform; these are all topics that must be discussed. What my brain can’t handle, however, is all of the rhetoric. Politics and elections are, theoretically, agents for progress. Ways to address issues in society. Coming up with a collective agreement for approaches.
Populistic rhetoric *is* a force to fight for the “common people”. Historically, it has been a tool to empower millions of the disadvantaged. Simultaneously, it’s a means of manipulation: the leaders must convince the masses that they will get what they want. Historians have documented the dozens of populist movements throughout societies, and unsurprisingly, in retrospect, they are represented all among the spectrum between “positive forces” and “negative forces”. (From a majority perspective, of course.)
In the US, the left-leaning folks often see the Republican party as an example of a populist negative force. You have political leaders trying to elbow each other out for the most extreme positions. You have fact-twisting and claim-making, allegedly helping the masses who (in the liberal view) are actually hurting them. This is what’s most commonly heard and seen in my part of the world (the SF Bay Area). The liberals here criticize Republicans for their polarizing rhetoric and outrageous statements, and no one would bat an eye during conservative-bashing.
Some people claim the same about the progressive wing of the left. It is very much populist - rooted in labor rights and unionizing, and the self-representing faction of immigrants, radicals, and activists. When I was at Cal, I associated with the progressive wing most of my “politicized” time. I’ve come to agree with so much of their policies and goals, theoretically.
So why am I so annoyed at politics, conflicted about my own allegiances, and overall, confused? As I said earlier, I’m not very political - but what I often mean by that is that I don’t have a solid political identity. Although I’m registered Democrat, I don’t particularly care about party loyalty. I don’t have allegiance to factions, groups, associations - and dare I say - even race, sexuality, or gender. My philosophy has always been akin to this: Vote rationally. Be open-minded and have empathy, but in the end, the rational idea wins.
But in context of how politics actually works, that’s so difficult to achieve. I’m also “guilty” of having emotions. I live contextually; I don’t live in a textbook. Many different explanations can be rationalized; rhetoric can sway me, as it sways people across time and land.
San Francisco/Bay Area politics have taken a nasty turn, and my emotions and thought have gone into hiding. There are so few actual conservatives here that instead of Democrats vs Republicans, we have Progressives vs Moderate Liberals. Mix that in with everything else: racial tensions; the “tech influx”; housing crisis; the history of SF politics - it is messed up.
I have friends all over the (left) political spectrum. My Cal friends are decidedly on the progressive side. My high school friends are smack in the moderate, as most Millbrae-ites are. And I’ve made plenty of friends post-university who are in tech. It’s just how the demographics of my generation work - I enjoy meeting people, and inevitably, some of them will be in tech.
In the past 2 years, I can’t recall if I’ve ever seen a thoughtful, well-reasoned, and most importantly, calm discussion between progressives and moderates in the Bay Area. 95% of the time, people who are firmly in one side only discuss political issues between one another. And that’s natural: many people don’t like discussing politics with people who don’t share their view. People are non-confrontational. People don’t want to be attacked - perhaps they don’t want to be challenged.
But I think the biggest issue is that here in the Bay, politics are personal. They are all over the world, but in the Bay, it can’t not be personal, somehow. The area is often quoted as one of the most diverse in the country - with that, comes an unpredictable array of backgrounds, along with their political baggage. The vitriol in politics is cyclical: it goes back and forth like an infinite ping-pong match, with defenses increasingly ramped up.
(At this point, I’ve been writing this free-form without much of a break. I haven’t gotten to the actual content and thoughts yet, but it would make me sad to just erase this whole post...so I’m gonna put this up as Part 1, and there will be a Part 2 at...some other point. I haven’t even gotten my thoughts together - I wanted to write something after reading an article on SF propositions that completely played off the reader’s emotions, and being extremely annoyed at the rhetoric. This was also after reading about the GOP debate from yesterday - if I recall correctly, they barely actually debated any genuine topics, and made wide-sweeping polemical statements)