When Elisabeth Kübler-Ross released her book On Death and Dying
- Denial
- Anger
- Bargaining
- Depression
- Acceptance
Elizabeth originally applied these stages to catastrophic personal loss (for example, the death of a loved one), but others have noticed that any significant personal change can elicit these stages. I think some conservative members of the Republican party are going through the process.
I want you to understand that I’m not attacking conservatives. Just stating my observations. Take a look at these comments written on a blog post describing a recent television appearance by Rush Limbaugh*:
- “I want Obama to fail in his stated purpose.”
- “I want Obama to fail to implement his domestic policies.”
- “I want the U.S. to succeed under the Obama Presidency, but that does not necessarily mean that I want the Obama Presidency to be successful.”
- “I want him to be successful in national defense and fail miserably on all social/fiscal policy.”
I understand that you’re angry that your guy lost. I understand that you ideas for the country don’t align perfectly with all of President Obama’s. You’re allowed to be angry. For a while. Because there’s work to do, and we can’t afford to bicker amongst ourselves for a minute more.
Haven’t we endured enough in-fighting over the last eight years? I look out my window and see Republicans and Democrats who actually hate each other. Talk radio shows are designed to bait people into on-air shouting matches. Why are we yelling at each other? “I disagree with your opinion, therefore you deserve to be screamed at.” When did that happen?
This type of divisiveness is not the American way. Worse, it’s counter productive. The economy is in very serious trouble among a laundry list of other things. The time to fight over “why” is later. The time to fix it is now.
When you’re on the sinking Titanic, you don’t stop to yell at the iceberg.
Our differences aren’t a hindrence. They’re our strengh. This country was founded and built by immigrants. It’s the varying opinions, insights, background and ideas that will get us through our troubles more quickly and creatively than a single mindset ever would.
President Obama called for A National Day of Renewal and Reconciliation. I’ve said some mean things. So have conservatives. Let’s admit that we were wrong and put down the sticks and stones.
I’m done fighting with you. You are my brothers and sisters. I want to know where we meet and how we can collaborate. So does President Obama. Tell him. Shaking your fist in the air accomplishes nothing (aside from some mild exercise). Let’s talk.
*I realize that what Rush does is theatre, not actual political commentary, but some people take him seriously.
Well stated!
Thanks, 1WineDude!
Dave,
As promised, I’ve written a response to your post. If you would like to read it (and I hope you do), you can find it here.
The short version: You’re an idiot. I’m right. Nyah nyah.
Dave,
I have to disagree with most of your post. I don’t see the Kubler-Ross model in Republican behavior at all. Partisanship is the only salvation in a two party system. Liberals and Conservatives have differing visions of the world that place them not only on different sides of almost every issue but also in disagreement about which issues are more or less important.
I don’t want to go point by point. To do so would be to summarize many years of apparently thinking quite differently than you do. But I can offer two general rebuttals:
1) Students of political history (and Rush certainly is) will recognize that almost everything Obama proposed during his campaign (whether or not he will act differently now is an open question) was tried and failed during the Carter administration. In fact, two of the things that are hot in the press right now, the mortgage crisis and the issues surrounding surveillance of foreign nationals within our borders, can be traced to two things Carter implemented during the euphoric haze of his first 100 days. Namely, the Community Reinvestment Act and the FISA court. Recall that, much like Obama, Carter was to be our savior. Some even made a big deal that his initials were JC. Not kidding.
2) I view the Constitution as our greatest source of national strength. It is called “a charter of negative liberties” for good reason. This mean that its purpose is to lay out those things that the government, after being given the right to govern, cannot do to us. Again, without going point by point, it strikes me that almost everything Obama proposes, will result in an increase in the power of government. I for one refuse to accept those proposals without debate and tireless political action.
If you are speaking instead of the common human impulse to “get along,” I agree and think our country provides for and nurtures that sentiment better than any other. As such, I think of you fondly, as a long lost brother and would do anything you asked if you were in need. As fellow citizens, that larger human framework is already assumed in the realm of government policy. There is no need for an additional call to unity. To do so would be to change the system in which we live. And I’m not interested in doing that.
Like Rush, I reject the false dichotomy between getting along as people and agreeing on policy. I will oppose Obama vigorously every time I think he is wrong. Just as I would have opposed McCain and as I have often opposed Bush.
I leave you with two recommendations:
1) Two seasons ago on “The Office,” they had an episode called I think “Grief Counseling” in which Michael’s mentor Ed Truck dies in a car accident. Michael finds the Kubler-Ross model online as a way to help the staff through the tragedy. He ends up going through each of the stages himself through various and hilarious antics (as usual). It’s a cleverly written use of structure and actually a very touching episode.
2) “A Conflict of Visions” by Thomas Sowell. It lays out, in magnificent detail and with extensive notes, the two different philosophical visions that lead inevitably to our current state of affairs. It’s not light reading but well worth your time.
I’m up for discussion any time. Even in disagreement.
All best,
Ryan
I don’t wish to become a troll but a propos your post and my comment, I came across this item from National Review. Rush may be theatrical but he knows political philosophy and history and his analysis is dead serious:
Limbaugh Responds to Obama [Byron York]
According to an account in the New York Post, President Barack Obama yesterday told Republican leaders, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” With George W. Bush now off the stage, it may be that Obama and some of his fellow Democrats view Limbaugh, and not John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, or any other elected official, as the true leader of the Republican opposition. This morning I asked Rush for his thoughts on all this, and here is his response:
“There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.”
Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:
“If we don’t get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can’t let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That’s how things don’t get done in this town.”
“To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.”
Obama was angry that Merrill Lynch used $1.2 million of TARP money to remodel an executive suite. Excuse me, but didn’t Merrill have to hire a decorator and contractor? Didn’t they have to buy the new furnishings? What’s the difference in that and Merrill loaning that money to a decorator, contractor and goods supplier to remodel Warren Buffet’s office? Either way, stimulus in the private sector occurs. Are we really at the point where the bad PR of Merrill getting a redecorated office in the process is reason to smear them? How much money will the Obamas spend redecorating the White House residence? Whose money will be spent? I have no problem with the Obamas redoing the place. It is tradition. 600 private jets flown by rich Democrats flew into the Inauguration. That’s fine but the auto execs using theirs is a crime? In both instances, the people on those jets arrived in Washington wanting something from Washington, not just good will.
If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of the trillion dollar debacle.
One more thing, Byron. Your publication and website have documented Obama’s ties to the teachings of Saul Alinksy while he was community organizing in Chicago. Here is Rule 13 of Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals:
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”"
Rush only wishes he had such a profound effect on the nation’s politics. Anyone should be able to see that his whole show is sensationalist journalism and nothing more.
If be truly is “the leader of the opposition,” then the opposition is doomed.
My whole point was to say that the divisive argument that we’ve unfortunatly succumbed to isn’t the same as honest debate.
Dave said: “Anyone should be able to see that his whole show is sensationalist journalism and nothing more.”
I guess I’m nobody then. 8-0
I’ve been listening to Rush for years. Frankly, you’re dead wrong about him. I’ll put his knowledge of history and political philosophy up against the editorial board of the NY Times and Washington Post any day of the week.
I can’t help but feel that your sweeping conclusion about Rush is a response to the mainstream media’s typical caricature and hit-and-run responses to out of context snippets and not an opinion gleaned from actually listening to what he has to say. His opposition is principled, as is mine. And divisive argument is often the result of honest debate. Also, if you are implying that Obama has engaged honest debate while the other side hasn’t, well I don’t concede that for one second. Obama’s centrist turn since defeating Hilary in the primary is as dishonest as they come. Not that I’m ungrateful for the moderation of a few of his wackier ideas.
R
PS – If I’m wrong and you’ve listened to Rush extensively and still dismiss him, I apologize in advance.
I shared an office with a dittohead for years. So yes, i’ve had extensive exposure. My opinions are my own, and not the result of mainstrem media brainwashing.
I’m really glad you’re commenting and I’ll leave a more thorough conversation in a day or two. Really I appreciate it!
You know what continues to amaze me? That people who were consistently WRONG, WRONG, WRONG on just about every issue of any importance in the past eight years have the balls to expect their opinions to be taken seriously. Even now. Seriously.
Denial? Yeah, maybe a little.
To make such a comment constructively, you’d have to specify which people and which issues you are referring to. I voted for Kerry and then for McCain. So by your measure would I be 50% wrong or 50% right? Then again, things you think were consistently wrong, others probably think were consistently right. The fact that one side won and one side lost in both cases, with virtually the same issues on the table, swayed my convictions on those issues not one bit. I’d guess that vagueness and/or sweeping statements are just not the honest debate Dave was asking for.