I know that love is, like, beyond color and creed and whatnot, but I have to say I just DO NOT GET James Carville and Mary Matalin. The fact of their relationship is cool, in a theoretical way, but I just don’t get it.
If you hadn’t guessed (and maybe I’ve said so before), I’m pretty liberal. My coworkers keep telling me I’m really from Oregon, and I just keep it to myself that Oregon is actually a swing state because I know they’re just trying to tell me they wouldn’t be surprised if I drove a Subaru, wore natural deodorant and like, cared about the environment and crap.
Hm.
(Also, my favorite new thing is to show up to our mud run trainings in as hippie-ish gear as I can find. This week I showed up in a Marin Headlands t-shirt I got at camp in 5th grade, and next week, CANNOT WAIT, I am totally showing up in a Pink Martini t-shirt that shouts in bold letters, WELCOME TO OREGON (PM’s homefront)! I am so awesome.)
Anyway.
James and Mary.
I get it IN THEORY that people can be basically good even though they live on the other side of the blue-red divide. I in fact know many awesome people who do, usually because they’re religious and/or wealthy (or plan to be) (they should read this) and/or Ayn Rand fans (j/k).
And assuredly, they make the same allowances for me, the nutty tree-hugger.
But I just don’t think I could really date someone who was on the other side, even if they were just fiscally conservative. There are so civil/human rights issues and sorely neglected (in my liberal mind) social programs out there that I think I would get too upset knowing that they were one of the people standing in the way of what (in my liberal mind) needs to be done. I just couldn’t do it. I think I would just always secretly think they were obtuse. Or mean (I choke up every time I watch this).
Which I know is HORRIBLE, and says a lot more about me and my intolerance than it does about any conservative.
Which is why I think that, despite all your awesome “Chick Lit that Doesn’t Suck Like Chick Lit” recommendations, I think my next book is going to be All’s Fair: Love, War and Running for President.
I’ve dealt with some pretty big dealbreakers in my day: prolonged unemployment, perpetual B.O., utter selfishness. If I could stomach those, surely I can deal with some voodoo economics?
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
I am totally fascinated by James Carville and Mary Matalin. We were just talking about them the other day. I don’t think I could do it. BTW, if you haven’t seen it already, you should rent The War Room — it’s a great documentary about Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, and they’re featured pretty prominently in it.
Also, for when you’re done with All’s Fair, I remembered today (after seeing it on the bargain shelves at Barnes & Noble (sorry Penny)) that I really enjoyed London is the Best City in America, by Laura Dave.
I understand your fascination with these folks completely. For too many years I have asked myself, “How do they make it work?” Then I remind myself that I (And I am pretty liberal.) used to date a guy who thought that Rush Limbaugh was the second coming or something close to that. And that when I broke up with this guy it was not about his feelings about Rush Limbaugh. It was about issues that had nothing to do with either of our political affiliations. Well, maybe it did in some twisted way but that would be a really long comment.
Oh, and because I am a slacker and missed out on the book recommendations, might I suggest “American Theocracy.”
I remember the first time I accidentally dated a conservative. It was in high school, fall 1992, and I went over to his house after watching a vice presidential debate, all full of my new love, Al Gore. And when we talked about it, he said he thought the Republicans had come out on top in the debate. I was flabbergasted. Young, attractive people could be conservative? It blew my mind.
I’m with you Jen, when it comes to a partner, they’ve got to be on your side of the political fence. I was so proud to be married to a Hillary supporter during the primary. And it was much more productive to debate democratic candidate strategy and speeches than whether affirmative action is necessary or if trickle-down works (sheesh!).