Starting a Conversation?

Election night, I rushed home from my very late vote, hurriedly ate, and settled in for an evening of election coverage.  I toggled back and forth among (in alphabetical order) CNN, C-SPAN, Fox, and MSNBC because I like to hear multiple points of view.  I visited political website with various perspectives. Then, while running errands Wednesday, I listened to some talk radio.

Tuesday and Wednesday, I seemed to find general agreement on the facts: who won where, what the exit polls revealed, and even approximately when each network believed it had enough information to project winners.  I say "seemed" because I wasn't conducting a scientific survey.

The commentary, however, was nothing short of bizarre.  From Fox News and talk radio, I heard Obama was elected by a coalition of Socialists who want free healthcare and cell phones, women who voted with their vaginas, Black Panthers who stuffed ballot boxes in Philadelphia, and shady types who want to drive America over the "Fiscal Cliff."

From MSNBC and other sources, I learned that Romney's supporters were white racists, angry men who used their power to keep minorities away from the polls, theocrats who want to strip rights from women and gay people, and greedy billionaires who want to push Grandma off a cliff even while she tries to take her last bite of cat food.

No wonder pundits say we're polarized!

Because I happen to have a lot of liberal friends, a lot of conservative friends, and a lot of friends whose political leanings are obscure to me, I compared what I was told about voters and what I know about real people.

I couldn't think of a single friend who is demanding that free cell phone, who sees herself as a walking vagina, or who wants to see our republic and our economy fail.  Nor could I name anyone who votes solely based on race, wants to set up the Christian version of sharia, or really thinks it's about danged time for old people to just die and get off the public teat.

Oh, I'm sure people who fit those unflattering descriptions are out there, and I heard plenty of anecdotes to remind me they exist.  No doubt, somewhere in America, someone voted illegally or more than once, and even one instance is too many.  I also heard credibly of at least one 2008 Obama voter being told not to "renig" in 2012.  That's pretty disgusting.

What disturbed me most, however, is that conservatives get their descriptions and definitions of liberals from other conservatives, sometimes ultra-conservatives who are paid very well for keeping their audiences riled up.  Likewise, many liberals know what they believe they know about conservatives because other liberals with agendas that aren't driven by truth tell them how conservatives think.

Not only is this situation wrong, but it is also very dangerous.  It flunks a test of basic logic and fairness.  Since when did conservatives become the leading experts on liberals or vice versa?  Shouldn't people be allowed to define their own causes and submit them for everyone's consideration?

Our nation has two large political parties that reliably turn out tens of millions of voters every time we elect a President.  I don't think they're really talking with each other, though.  I know the Republicans don't say what I want to hear, and then when I fail to support their candidates, they define Democrats in ways that don't describe me.  And I have enough conservative friends that I don't think the Democratic ads reach out to or the liberal election post-mortems accurately characterize them.

My one-on-one conversations since the election have often included an arduous effort to peel back media-fed stereotypes.  Sadly, that effort has sometimes failed.  People who get 90% of their news from people of their own political persuasion too often think they know what they don't.

I'm not suggesting that my conservative friends turn on Rachel Maddow or that my liberal ones become Rush Limbaugh listeners.  What I do strongly urge my conservative friends who want to know what motivates liberals do is ask a liberal. There are millions of us.  And if my liberal friends want to know what conservatives really think, ask a conservative.  They, too, abound

Mostly, though, I encourage conservatives to ask themselves whether they even have any liberal friends, and I challenge liberals to do likewise.  If the answer is "No," you must consider at least the possibility that you live in an echo chamber.  You are depriving yourself of the opportunity to meet and get to know some very fine people who share your patriotism, love of freedom, and devotion to liberty.

They just have different ideas about how to get there, and that difference is a strength, not a weakness, of our country. 

It's as American as apple pie, a chicken chimichanga, a beef stir fry, and a good plate of greens.

Post-Election Message to Republicans

The vote counts are more or less final in all the states except Florida, where vote counts never seem to be final, and a few points are clear.  First and foremost, Barack Obama has been reelected President of the United States.  The polls were correct, and your pundits who argued bias, especially Karl Rove during his semi-nervous breakdown around midnight on Fox, were dead wrong.

The Senate, which had been all but conceded to the Republicans a year ago, not only didn't go to the GOP, but the Democrats actually added two seats.  Majority Leader Reid is safe for two more years.

A large consolation prize, the House of Representatives, remains under Republican control.  All federal bills involving taxes or spending must originate in the House, so if Speaker John Boehner can maintain the support of 217 colleagues, he can directly shape the budget.

You may be telling yourselves that Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough or because he didn't scream "Benghazi" at the top of his lungs.  You may say the Obama majority are "parasites" who suck the financial blood of "true Americans" and pay fealty to a Marxist Kenyan Muslim.

If that's you, you probably ought to quit reading this post.  Many of us liberals are perfectly familiar with the "severely conservative" (his choice of terms) Romney, and we want answers about Benghazi, too.  I also happen to go to work every day, pay my taxes, and think I would have enough sense to see through some sort of Marxist-Muslim (an odd combination if one ever existed) Manchurian President bent on taking America down. 

Before you start telling me how big a fool I am, please reread the first sentence of the last paragraph. Then, if you still want to call me a fool, find another url.  Move on, please.

Okay, now, if you're still reading, I'd like to share some comments on three social issues: immigration, same-sex marriage, and abortion.  Yes, I'm going there.

No one knows exactly how many foreigners are living illegally in America, but we do know most of them aren't going anywhere.  We're not going to create some vast national program to round them up and send them back to Mexico, where a lot of them aren't even from.  We aren't going to head down to the heat of Florida and start picking our own oranges, either.  Many of these immigrants have relatives or friends who were born in the same places and now live here legally.  And they vote.

If you got to know them, you'd find these legals and illegals have a lot in common with you.  They participate eagerly in their churches, they want to educate their children well (in English, no less), and they work, work, and work.  Given a choice between Obama and Romney, however, which candidate do you think they supported yesterday, particularly after Romney's talk of self-deportation?

America's population is getting browner, and no wall across the Mexican border will reverse that trend.  If you can't earn more immigrants' and their children's votes, you're toast.

Karl Rove and his other George W. Bush strategists used the same-sex issue brilliantly in the early 2000s.  State after state passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court found for it in 2003.  The amendment passed by a greater than 3 - 1 margin here in Georgia.

A funny thing happened then.  The people's legislatures in some states began legalizing same-sex marriage there as well.  Sometimes, as in Maine and California, the people themselves overruled the legislature and banned same-sex marriage again.

An even funnier thing happened last night.  Voters in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington either approved same-sex marriage or refused to ban it.

No matter how angry my next few words make you, do read on this time: same-sex marriage is inevitable.  The younger people are, the more likely they are to approve of it.  And now the argument that the people in no state have ever voted it in no longer holds.  It may not reach Georgia or Oklahoma soon, but it is coming to Virginia and Florida.

Holding out against same-sex marriage doesn't make you look like principled defenders of God's plan; it makes you look like bigots.  You are denying a natural-born right to your fellow citizens for no other reason than you find some people's sex lives yucky.  Get over yourselves -- please.  You really won't want your great-grandchildren to read some of the comments you're making about gay people in 2012.

I saved the toughest, abortion, for last.  I get it that you think all life is sacred.  I understand that to you, abortion is murder and that the "killing fields" of abortion clinics have destroyed tens of millions of people.  I find abortion pretty disturbing myself, and I'd like to see the numbers greatly reduced.  On this, Bill Clinton was right: abortion should be legal, it should be safe, and it should be rare.

"But abortion is abortion," you may be muttering or shouting.  I feel you.  But let me ask you a Dr. Phil question: how's that working out for you?  Last night, two of your United States Senate candidates lost races they almost certainly would have won if not for intemperate remarks about abortion and rape.  Our country is largely pro-life, but even a significant minority of you think those two candidates went too far, and they lost in states that Mitt Romney won handily.

There's a larger issue about abortion, too.  Roe v Wade was handed down in January 1973, when Barack Obama was ten years old.  Since then, many of you have fought tirelessly to ban it.  And where has that gotten you?  How much closer are you to overturning Roe v Wade, returning the abortion issue to the states, or passing a right-to-life amendment now than you were in 1973?

Barack Obama's reelection, along with a majority Democratic Senate, means the elderly Supreme Court Justices have at least two years to start looking at retirement properties if they like, knowing (or dreading) that pro-choice Justices will take their place.

Might not moral suasion be a better use of your pro-life energies than failed attempts to ban abortion?  Do you really think some 50 million American women and their doctors are cold-blooded murderers?  Put some of your energy into showing women with crisis pregnancies that they really do have choices.  Show that you will love and accept the biracial, meth head baby.  Try not to look quite so far down your noses at the upper class, suburban teen who makes a mistake and then decides to keep her baby.

And for goodness' sake, let the schools teach a little more about human sexuality than abstinence.  Condoms are not murder weapons.  In fact, they're a lot less scary than male Senate candidates who tell a woman she should be grateful for a child begotten upon her during a horribly violent assault.

If you're still reading, your blood pressure has probably risen several points.  That's okay.  Still, if you try to be a little more accepting of same-sex couples, I promise you your own kids won't suddenly turn gay.  Finding some path to citizenship for people who are here illegally but who love this country and would give anything to gain its acceptance won't destroy American culture and render English extinct.  And while you may not be able to save a million babies this year, you -- individually and in faith communities -- may save one or ten or ten thousand.

I won't deny being a liberal.  I voted for Obama in 2008 and then again yesterday.  You may think I'm hopelessly naive (which I may be) or that I'm trying to set you up (which I'm not).  You may decide, in fact, that allowing sometimes cynical party leaders to lead you only to nominate national candidates who vow to oppose same-sex marriage, to deport as many illegals as possible, and to appoint judges who are pro-life in all instances (except maybe what one failed Congressional candidate called "the rape thing").  You may decide nothing else is acceptable in 2016, just as it wasn't in 2012 or 2008.

And given our country's disposition and its demographics, you'll probably lose again.

National Novel Writing Month

Think of all the times you've heard someone say, "I have so many stories I'd love to write down some day.  I could literally write a book."  National Novel Writing Month (aka NaNoWriMo) literally makes that true!

The premise is simple: write, type, or chisel 1,667 words each of the 30 days that hath November, and you finish with a 50,000 word novel.  A long day at work?  Come home and write 1,667 words.  A bout of writer's block?  Sit down, or stand up, and write 1,667 words.  Give some coin to the NaNoWriMo "cause," and you can receive little stickers that remind you of what each unit of 1,667 words means.  A sticker fits nicely on a laptop.

NaNoWriMo is a perfect opportunity for solitary nerds.  Even though NaNoWriMo schedules "Write Ins" around most big cities, writing generally does not lend itself to group activity.  Writing begins with an empty page and ends when you've either put enough words on the page to justify giving yourself some time off or you've spent so much time and effort you can't stand it another minute.  Then, you come back -- alone -- the next day and do it all over again.

I managed to complete NaNoWriMo in 2010.  It was a great experience.  I followed the advice to tell everyone from students to colleagues to Facebook friends I was writing a novel so that people would ask me how the book was coming.  Having to explain why I wasn't writing was more difficult than just doing it.  The novel ground forward, about 1,667 words per day.

One night, I decided to attend a NaNoWriMo group meeting at a suburban coffee shop.  No one else showed, but my daughter and her friend did enjoy their overpriced hot chocolates loaded with various expensive extras.  They managed to keep themselves entertained just long enough that the complaints of boredom were still few when I closed my laptop.

A few friends asked to be in the book.  My son's best friend from 2000, the year I set my novel, even provided me the alias I used for him.  He gave every indication of thoroughly enjoying every word I read him.  Other friends didn't ask overtly, but individual moments involving them were so clear they simply had to go on paper.

From the perspective of November 2012, the subject and plot of 2010's The Recount, based on how a character with certain similarities to an unmarried, obese version of me is shaken back into trying to have "a life" during the Bush versus Gore Presidential recount of 2010, matter much less than the effort.

My wife read The Recount.  I emailed it to my eldest son, who probably didn't.  My daughter, who was then just turning 13, read the first paragraph, which (in what I considered a cleverly ironic twist) consisted of the protagonist picking lint from his navel, and turned away with a "eww."

I did read a couple of selections as a professional conference presentation early in 2011, and I even went so far as to print out my certificate of completion and fill it out as my presentation ended.  The audience applauded and said they enjoyed what they heard.  They did not ask, however, for the full book.

I have a general plot for another novel, The Call, based on how a character who bears certain similarities to a more successful version of me is shaken to reality by the events that follow 9/11.  Had I the time this month, I'd try to grind out 1,667 words tonight.  Honest, I would.

For thousands of novelists around the world, NaNoWriMo begins or has already begun today.  Of those who finish, most will write a lot of junk.  Not all, however.  Mental Floss has published a list of 11 NaNoWriMo books that found a publisher and an audience.

All of which means that if you're reading this post at the beginning of the month, it's not too late to go to NaNoWriMo's website and sign up.  Do you have 30, 29, or 28 days of potential literary greatness in you?

The answer lies between you and the empty screen or page.  If you decide to accept the challenge, I can promise you some lonely hours between now and November 30, but I don't think you'll ever regret the effort.  To literature!