I know that my political musings--diatribes, rantings--haven't gotten a good response; that is okay. I write this blog, in part, to help clarify my thinking, which sometimes includes bouncing ideas off of others. There is much to tell as I'm still on what is beginning to seem like a very lengthy vacation, and Christmas always lends itself to great kid stories.
It has also lent itself to much family togetherness, which has been really good. (Aside: it has also really hit home this week how far away I am from family and there has been a degree of homesickness that surprised me. This will, no doubt, be a subject for a future post.) It has also meant that there is much Mitt-championing going on because members of Plantboy's family, particularly, have definitely jumped on that bandwagon. What has amazed me is the extreme sensitivity over any question of Romney's candidacy or tactics. It reminded me of a post of KimBlue's some weeks back.
She discussed a survey about viewing/listening/reading habits of conservatives and liberals. One major conclusion was that conservatives tend to avoid media that disagrees with them because it seems threatening or dangerous to their ideals. Liberals, on the other hand, observe all types of media and are more likely to have shifting opinions. I have been mired in the land of Conservatism these last two weeks.
I guess I believe that we need to stick to our guns where principles and eternal gospel truths are at stake, but if we occasionally, or even often, change our minds about the efficacy and logistics of certain practices, then perhaps this is just evidence of progression? I'm tired of being told that I've gone to the dark side because I don't believe the government's whole role should be to bomb countries with more oil than us. If the government is a reflection of its people, then what does this say about us? But you know my feelings on THIS.
I probably won't/can't say much else. My blog is being read by some suprising people who don't always leave comments until after they've read for some time, or they tell me in person. And while I'm happy about this, I am starting to see that the idea of an on-line, open journal definitely has its limits. Forecastcallsforrain told me that she loves her Dallas book club because all of the members are from different wards and the group is pretty exclusive. She says it is kind of a place to go and dump the baggage because what happens at book club stays at book club. I feel like I need a place like that.
Hm . . . . now it sounds like I'm an incurable (insufferable, incorrigible) gossip, but I'm really not. I've just got a lot rolling around in my head right now that I'd like to "talk" about, but I don't think this is quite the right forum, though there are some of you I'd like to really hash out some of this stuff with. My journal writing used to be a place I could really unload on the page; often times, by the time I'd finished writing I'd feel better, more clear-headed and and relieved from some of the emotional baggage. But blogging . . . well, it is just different. And though this is filling an important niche for me, it is not quite filling the niche I expected it to.
As I approach post #100, I need to do some re-thinking about what I'm doing here.
6 comments:
I know what you mean - on many levels. If my sister didn't live here I wouldn't really have a close friend. I think those early years - when everyone is newly weds and has their first few toddlers - are an anomaly in adult life. I especially relate to the feeling of being politically different in most circles... I would guess most of our opinions in this area are similar. And I too feel like I have to filter my blog a lot of times because of the various people who read it. I actually started a totally anonymous blog where I vented about a lot – but then I deleted it.
It's funny - when I was at BYU, I often viewed Democrats askance, as if they were worldly people with weak testimonies (sigh - we all have youthful memories that make us cringe).
I've since come to take a more moderate view that both parties have their strengths and weaknesses, and I wonder how many LDS people feel the same way. Since so many seem to equate a Democratic vote with personal apostasy, I'm hesitant to even bring politics up with most members I know. Maybe I need a bigger backbone, and more faith in people.
For some reason, though, I feel freer to discuss my political musings on my blog than I do in person. Perhaps I figure that if people are reading my personal blog (as opposed to the photographic family blog), it's because they like me and/or like reading things that make them think. Either way, they're not likely to be too put off if I say something they disagree with. Plus, as you mentioned, writing things out helps me sort through my ideas.
Incidentally, if you want to toss ideas around you're welcome to do it on my blog - I don't think our readership crosses over much. :)
Please continue your musings and hashing of ideas on your site. I love to read it and often show John, since he shares a lot of your views. Anyone remember the Kerry-Lieberman sign he put up in the window because neighbors put up the Bush-Cheny sign? A lot of people in our ward looked at him a little warily after that. Someone even called the office to see if he was allowed to do that, since I "represented" the University. I hope you still can find some release with your blog, it has been so fun to read and helps me flesh out my own ideas so I can discuss things a little more intelligently.
Please separate Utah Republicans from other political positions. They are their own unique party. Those are quite sweeping generalizations of conservatives you made. Suprising, coming from someone who claims to so open-minded. :)
Yeah, I'm slightly inclined to agree with Ashlee on the last sentence. Just because someone is Mormon and supports Mitt doesn't mean they're "jumping on the bandwagon." Maybe they just see things differently?
Point taken. None of those mentioned, however, are actually Utahns, so I'm not sure where that came from. And about half the Mitt supporters I know are genuinely interested in the issues and the candidate, the others are going with him because of the Mormon thing. I think I mostly meant to point out that I was tired of the Mitties I know refusing to have any kind of dialogue about his candidacy without seeing me as having a weak testimony. I'm fully willing to concede that many have thought through the issues and we just disagree.
Again, the blog is maybe not the best place to "let it all hang out," so to speak.
Post a Comment