Asymmetrical Information

I suppose I'm lucky in that in most cases I can simply state that I don't agree, and that it would be impolite to continue the discussion in the current venue.

Only once did anyone get a rise out of me at a social event. Of the three people who were accosting me, only one did not resort to trying to out-shout me, because I'd destroyed the simplistic, party-line arguements (I have a theory about that. The attackers get angry because they realize that they haven't looked closely at the argument at all)>

The third person was content to say they disagree with me, and ceased trying to change my mind or discuss the topic.

Faith is a hard thing to analyze, and harder to prove.

You could try doing what I do: become anti-social and eschew cocktail parties!

Arguing with people over politics doesn't always mean disaster. Scott and I argued--er, discussed--gun control on our first date. And even if some people can't be swayed from really dumb opinions, there's always the hope that you guys can agree to disagree and have fun anyway.

Alas, so many people who disagree about the war and fixate on Bush's alleged stupidity are just plain disagreeable people, period. So maybe just think of their boneheaded comments as an easy filtering system for you to efficiently weed out the majority of the wacko's without having to expend too much effort in getting to know them. :-)

I can understand where you are coming from and since I have not lived in the city since 1996 I really can't take you to task. I would have to say though that if I were lived there now I would tell anyone starting the conversation that way that it is they who are a moron.
I have these fights all the time with my sister so I am not really unfamilar with it but it is easier when you are on the phone and 1600 miles away.

What else can you do? Perhaps, to twist a phrase, you can speak truth to cower. I've found that, since coming out as a hawk with no illusions and no qualms about sharing my opinions with anybody that things have become much more interesting at dinner parties and the like.

The truth is that while some might be ready to contest with you, most will be quite flummoxed by encountering the opposite idea forcefully held.

The strongest message from these hothouse liberals is not that disarming Saddam by military means is a bad idea. They can't even be bothered to think that far about the consequences of not disarming him, or about the consequences of the UN's posture of inspection lite. No, their finest and most unifying 'thought' is the bitter personal attack on GWB - how he isn't an intellectual, isn't one of us, is therefore beneath contempt. That's as far as they let their thinking efforts reach before reaching a conslusion.

What about a breezy "Oh, I'm a rabid warmonger, myself," with a shrug and self-deprecating grin.
"Y'know...killing evil fascist dictators'n'stuff? All for it, really. The more the merrier!" With a bright, wide-eyed, but slightly vacant expression. And maybe the hint of a stifled giggle.
I dunno, works for me....
;-)

The sort of tiresome boors who make assumptive comments of a political nature ("Isn't Bush disgraceful?", "Don't you just hate Clinton") to complete or near-strangers in casual social settings are the same sort of people who think it is a display of cleverness that their political philosophy can be summed up on a t-shirt or bumper sticker. Such people are to be avoided like mysterious respitory illnesses out of China.

Jane, I just change the subject and talk about Truman and Wallace and their 1946-47 political differences, always a nice topic. Another nice topic is how intellectuals supported Stalin particullarly in thirties (the Ukraine ruffles a few feathers). Certain fillibusters in the 50s and 60s come to mind, as well as, the President who actually integrated the schools in the "Deep South". Democrats always feel morally superior but they are not always consistent.

The above usually changes the subject to sports, then we talk about the Red Sox and Bruins.

I've become a lot calmer since I started realizing that it's ok for people to not agree with me, and it's even ok for people to say stupid things and remain uncorrected. It used to seem so, so important to make sure that poor, benighted fools understand the error of their ways, but I guess I just don't have the energy these days. Smile and nod, I keep repeating to myself. I save my arguments for the blogosphere, these days - you're much more likely to at least find an opponent who knows what he's talking about...

A universal problem.

Here in Iowa,I once lost a friend when,at a hockey game, he saw a National Rifle Association membership card in my wallet. He was positively irate. Odd; a mutual friend once introduced us to a fellow who boasted of being (literally) a card carrying communist (CPUSA) -- this was in the Reagan administaration -- and that wasn't a problem.

We had another couple and their kids over to grill hamburgers last summer. They are nice people. We met them at Sunday School, the one I stopped attending when they played a film about how evil the sanctions on Iraq were. I figured they were lefties (the Nader-LaDuke bumper sticker tipped me off), but they are nice folks, and their kids get along with ours.

I was tending the grill with the dad, and the talk turned to 9/11 and world events. He said, "do you ever wonder why they hate us?"

Perhaps I should have torn off my shirt to reveal my National Review Online undershirt and shout, "YES, I OFTEN WONDER WHY THE SICK BARBARIC ISLAMOFASCIST LOSERS HAVE THAT PROBLEM!" Instead, I offered him another beer and used the "biggest guy in the bar always has people picking fights with him" analogy. We had a nice dinner and my secret identity remains safe.

Is it ALL of New York City? Or is it your social circle? I find it hard to believe that the people from NYC that I know would be anti-war and anti-Bush. (Although, to be fair, I haven't actually talked to any of them in over a year.)

Ever hear of the False Consensus Effect? That's when we believe that we and our "tribe" are middle of the bellcurve moderates, and statistics be damned. That's what these poor people have, and it's up to us to cure them.

Socratic irony can be fun. Feign ignorance in order to lead them into contradictions. Most haven't thought deeply about anything, so the contradictions won't be long in coming.

They never meet real opponents, their only idea of conservative/libertarian thought is the cracker-ass caricatures they imagine populating the hinterlands and burning Harry Potter books, and they're flabby and out of fighting trim. Out-debating these people is child's play.

It's either that or just avoid guys who wear Emo glasses without lenses.

I usually set the Death Stare to 3 ("light stun"), and tell them, "This is not the conversation you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along."

Then again, I regard cocktail parties as a form of torture that ought to be outlawed, with stiff penalties for violations. I'm pretty sure there's something about it in the Constitution.

Thanks so much for this post (and all of the comments) - it's nice to hear how other people deal with this dilemma.

I'm a singer/songwriter living in San Francisco, which needless to say puts me squarely in the minority when it comes to my political beliefs. I think the worst part for me is playing gigs where other acts on the bill feel free to use the stage as their political platform....I'm always tempted to retort when I've got the mic, but I realize that a) that wouldn't be the best way to sell records here (kind of a reverse Dixie Chicks phenomenon, I guess), and b) people don't pay me money to opine about my political beliefs.

It's kind of depressing - I love going to see live music but it can really raise your blood pressure around here if you don't hate Bush and you're not anti-war.....

Ah, Jane, just come out of the closet; you'll feel so much better. Else if our oppressed minority ever gets acceptance here, you'll have free-ridden on the unsung struggle of those of us who are openly conservative...

Seriously though, I'm surprised you see this as more of an issue of their reaction than yours. When someone starts getting wild-eyed with the "Bush is eeeeeeeeevil..." stuff my first reaction is "what am -I- doing socializing with this idiot?"

Boy, Jane, do I disagree! If you are going to be physically assaulted for your ideas, then mums the word. Otherwise _at least_ say you disagree! Otherwise you're supporting the bast*rds. Plus, I find that when I speak up, it often encourages others to that would normally keep quite. You might find you're not as alone as you thought--I have.

Damn you, evildoer! How dare you disagree with me? ;-)

I've done this sort of thing, Megan.

Then again, I've also done it Tom's way.

I find your way a bit easier, simply because I sometimes get much more angry than I should be when I disagree. Paint-by-numbers arguments do that to me. So sometimes, I confess, I do the same things. %-)

As a fellow non-liberal Manhattanite... May I suggest you do what I do. Be honest, be clever, hold the high ground. Stand up for what you believe, but don't let the bastards drag you down. When you disagree, say so. And when the leftists start their rant, simply say, I don't want to discuss politics right now. I'll be happy to take this up with you later, but for now, let's just respect each other and have a good time. I hope that we are open and mature enough to do that."

Otherwise, the liberals will just keep growing more powerful... Unchecked by the reasonable among us.

Don't give up your social life, but don't be bullied. Don't pretend you are something you're not just to fit in. Would you do that at a clan rally? So why do that in a Manhattan restaurant?

Believe it or not (given the comments I've made in this forum) I'm guilty of the same crime -- ie, not letting others know of my political beliefs in social settings. Nonetheless, I find that in social settings it's best to simply listen -- if the opportunity arises to set the record straight, do it, but limit your exposure to points that are quickly made. And always have a witty insult ready in case your "opponent" decides to make you the butt of the party. Nothing changes the subject faster than laughter -- particularly if it comes at your opponent's expense.

I see Prof. Reynolds agrees with me... ;)

I have met these types. These are the same people who talk of love, peace, understanding, etc., etc.
The funny thing is they have nothing but hatred for the Bushies.

madman

I console myself with the realization that I'm not alone in the closet. I work in the snakepit that is academia, and I spend most of my time at meetings ashamed by all the childish invective and inchoate "analysis" I hear spouted. It's really embarrassing. (Example: The No Child Left Behind Act is all that evil Bush's doing...never mind that TED KENNEDY sponsored the darned thing.)
I no longer go to any work-related social functions. It's not worth the aggravation. Besides, most academics don't know or care much about my favorite topics: guns, country music, varmint hunting, and military history.
It's a lonely existence.

Park Slope, Brooklyn is no better. I spend my life in the worlds of libraries, the arts, and film. Either I maintain political silence, or spend my life arguing. And being blacklisted.

In my work, I conceal my politics.

The life of a mole does offer insights, among them the fact that liberals really don't know how to think seriously about anything serious. If at a social gathering I were to venture that George Bush isn't a retard, I would be pummeled from all directions. It's not worth it.

But it is lonely sometimes.

Sometimes it's just knowing when to pick your fights. Often, it just ain't worth it to mention disagreement at a cocktail party, 'specially when you have a good idea that that person will be incredulous. Better to sip that martinin and go "mmhmm, yeah."

I know exactly how you feel. Once I was walking to dinner with my roommate, and I saw something written on the ground... Something about women if I remember correctly (I think it was a "women's day" of some kind) and I made a comment about one of the things written there. Long story short, somehow we began to talk about Bush's letting lumber companies clear forests, as this was back when last summer's massive forest fires were still relatively fresh. I said it was a good idea, since our policy is generally to put out forest fires. He, being a Naderite, wanted to blame everything on corporate interests and Bush. Of course, he fails to grasp the connection between environmental groups opposing free-burn policies and the interests of the elite liberals who don't want their million dollar homes turned to ash. I kept trying to explain to him that either the fires need to burn naturally or they need to be cleared, but he would have none of it. It was probably the most uncomfortable conversation I've ever had, and that isn't even about anything truly substantial.

Every once in awhile I'll catch him looking at Michael Moore's anti-gun propoganda cartoons or "Show how superior you are by comparing Bush to a chimpanzee" types of websites, and I've learned to just ignore it and pretend that I agree. It's a ridiculous situation, and incredibly oppressive. I might bother to talk politics frankly with him when I move out, but at this point if I let him know what I really think, I'm afraid he'd slit my throat while I'm asleep.

When I lived in Texas, I was considered an arch-liberal near-communist. When I lived in san francisco, I was an arch conservative right wing warmonger. The problem wasnt that my postion on certain political issues changed, they were exactly the same, it just depends on where you are standing at the time and by whom you are viewed, you learn not to take it personally.

On the current iraq situation, I just tell people that I dont really need a "good reason" to attack Iraq, I'm ok with doing it out of damn meanness alone. I think that any country where the leader has a ill fitting uniform anda beer gut or bad haircut is subject to attack. Those damn goofy building sized pictures of the 'glorious leader' everywhere, thats just GOT to be stopped. I think we should just set up a lottery that runs every 5 years, we put in the name of every tin horn dictator butcher, and we pick the name of the winner of the 'free can of whupass' contest. The prize is delivered by the 101st and 82nd airborne. eventually, we'll run out of butchers.

I dont ask that people agree with me, I just ask they they are sincere and are open to the possibility that they may (gasp! horrors!) be wrong. If they are not open to that, I change the subject politely and talk about the weather.

I think we non-liberal Manhattanites need to form a club.

And that's why that crap dominates the field of discussion.

People don't even challenge it.

How to sink to their level:

Fuzzy headed liberal:
"Can you believe that moron Bush is getting us into a senseless war?"

Crass conservative:
"Well at least he's not a pedophile bombing an aspirin factory so we don't notice where his penis is."

Scalzi's recent advice is best: just don't demonise. If you look like a reasonable human being, and not a demon, people will listen, will consider, and that's all you can reasonably ask on the spot.

One has one's friends (hopefully!) for deeper reasons than political affiliation - that relation ought to be worth keeping alive.

Megan,

Why care? If you led off your cocktail chatter with a disclaimer ("Before you say a word, buddy, do you realize I am not a Democrat and I won't have political arguments?") you probably would spend a lot less time taking to people who are wildly, impossibly, horribly wrong about 90% of their core ideas. The regrettables would go away immediately, and you wouldn't have any political arguments - and the ones who stayed around would be better to talk to and probably better looking, too. Also, this approach would mean that you would end up speaking to essentially no women in Manhattan - except Peggy Noonan and maybe Lynne Kiesling if she is visiting, and I leave to your judgment whether this is a bad result.

In any event, while I want to remain flexible on these matters, it is clear that if you do not take my advice your fate is hopeless and you are utterly doomed. In the course of limiting the doctine "buyer beware," the common law developed the doctrine of "implied warranty," which essentially implied representations about a purchased object to the object's mere appearances. So a seller who sold something that looked like a car at a price that was normal for a car would be deemed to have represented that the object was a car - not a paper mache model of a car.

By application of a New York social version of this doctrine, you Megan, need not open your mouth in order to misrepresent yourself as a Democrat. A highly articulate, highly attractive professional woman in Manhattan who is not wearing a disclaimer (perhaps a button bearing a little American flag or a Donkey profile with a diagonal line through it?) is already impliedly (mis)representing herself as a being a Democrat.

Your choices: Wear a button or offer a verbal disclaimer right off or move to Westchester or someplace Upstate ... or lie.

[Note how I carefully distinguish Westchester from "Upstate."]

I suggest conversational jujitsu, agree with your tormentor but go out the other side stretching their arguments out into sheer parody. If they start with, "that bastard Bush," agree whole heartedly and then claim he eats babies for breakfast.

If you're deft enough, you can get your opponent to actually begin defending your position. Occasionally, you can even trick them into thinking.

Outside the office -- where one sometimes has to sit back and take this from bosses -- this is only a problem if you regularly socialize with new people. All my friends of any duration know my politics, and thus are free to decide whether they want to pick a fight (I have no problem arguing civilly with friends) or just leave the topic.

But, I'm not everyone; my wife is home with the children, and she meets a lot of new people and usually stays quiet when they start bashing Bush (at least post-Sept. 11 they don't bash Rudy anymore).

The other problem is that people tend to do this stuff in offhand comments, rather than inviting you to discuss the subject, so you look like the bad guy for disagreeing.

Sounds a lot like law school, actually. I've gotten to the point where I rarely even try to contribute my opinions to my fellow students and teachers, because I know I'll meet with round disapproval or impossible, illogical political debate:

Liberal: Conservatives are evil!

Me: You think I'm EVIL? Whatever for?

Lib: Well, not you, of course, but...but...How can someone like you support that stupid EVIL hick Texas cowboy...

Me: Um...I'm from Texas.

Lib: Oh. Well, it's all about oil, anyway. And OIL is evil!

Me: Sure. Fine. Whatever.

And I know it will just get worse when I get into the legal workplace. Disgusting.

Thank GOD we have at least a few professors and students at our school who don't follow the braying herd of liberal academia (www.instapundit.com).

Linds -- two words: Federalist Society.

Here's an idea: try telling 'em your IQ is (some astronomical number, but keep it under 250) and ask them why on earth would they expect you to agree with them?

I understand the awkwardness you feel -- I deal with it every day. And it's not because we're weak-willed or ashamed of our beliefs. Will Allen, up above in the comments, gets to the real core of the matter: It's because most antiwar people run ramshod over standard social protocol. THEY create the awkwardness the moment they walk up and say, "Can you believe that moron Bush is getting us into a senseless war?"

That kind of presumptuousness is flat-out rude and is a breach of civilized manners. By not engaging these people after their brazen declarations -- and thus possibly embarrassing them -- we're not selling ourselves out. We're simply adhering to standards of etiquette that they disregarded, giving them the benefit of politeness they didn't give us.

Preventing discomfort for others is the reason humans established etiquette in the first place.

That doesn't mean political conversations have to be avoided. But there are better ways to start them than by putting words in the mouths of those with whom one wishes to chat.

One by one I have had arguments with my friends here in New York, usually ending by being hung up on or stormed away from, as if I have just revealed that I have a secret shrine to Hitler in my shabby loft in Williamsburg. So I have decided to disown everyone who disagrees with me on this issue, and live the lonely, hermetic life of the morally justified. Amid this pit of Neville Chamberlains and Noam Chomskys in ill-fitting thrift-store tshirts and pudgy goth Katha Pollitts eating rancid vegetable burgers at Dojo, there lurks one shaven-headed gay artist who thinks America is just fine, and that there is no other moral choice than toppling Hussein if there is ever to be talk of morality in international affairs again.

O, pity the lonely path of the righteous!

I've found that the conversational jujitsu effect is also worthwhile. Just keep them going, encourage their rant, let them extend it out as far as they can imagine it, then pounce.

I've found it works just as well for cranks on the right as the left, since there's no monopoly on cant or irrational thinking on either end of the political spectrum. Keep in mind that I'm in a bit of an odd position: working class, supports war on Iraq (and N. Korea, though that's an entirely different kettle of fish...), has come to regard Bush in a very different light than I did at the beginning of 2001 (he's smarter than we thought), is disappointed but unsurprised by his administration's lax prosecution of corporate criminals. A Catholic social conservative who opposes censorship and supports public health care and welfare programs. Yes, I'm Canadian...

The point is to draw debate out, to get people to think outside of the cliches they've probably been toting around since college. (NB: this is a useless tactic against college-age people - the will to believe can be astounding, the sense of outrage and petulance almost bottomless.)

I used to have a friend in NYC, before 9/11 that is. It took me months to figure out that the strange ideas coming out of her head were a result of childishness. I've since decided that only a small majority of people ever become adults. I'd say up to forty percent or so get stuck somewhere in childhood or adolescence, and that it has nothing to do with one's intelligence. I know plenty of certifiably intelligent people over thirty who have the minds of children.

The one true sign of a child-person is that he never looks at anything from a perspective of responsibility. He hates responsibility, and he doesn't like responsible people. The reason he doesn't like Bush is that Bush represents adulthood. He considers Bush a Mr.Bossy Pants.

Just smile an endearing smile and say, "Aaaaw. That's so cute!"

Wow. It must be pretty tough in your neck of the woods. Here in SW Missouri I can say what I think and only get a few crosseyed looks. What a country! Most people here, I think, can relate to GWB precisely because we kind of talk like him in our more unguarded moments.

Tom - Thank you for stating what I had been feeling, but was unable to verbalize - the fact that the lefties rudely and presumptuously create an atmosphere that will make things uncomfortable for anyone who disagrees with them. They make their statements so matter-of-factly that you feel rude for disagreeing with them, when in fact it's perfectly acceptable to (calmly and politely) do so.

I have a Ph.D. in the Social Sciences and work in a research field. Unfortunately, that means I am often surrounded by people who assume that any Ph.D. MUST be Democrat and MUST hate Bush and MUST think everyone who voted for Bush is a vile and ignorant redneck. When people find out that I'm from South Carolina (and not ashamed of it), the rhetoric sometimes gets worse.

I haven't actually been cut off by any of my friends - but I have cut off a few myself who consider "You know, Republicans are evil" and "It's impossible to be both Republican and truly Christian" to be acceptable opening statements for public conversation. I don't want to cut people off, but when they make it obvious that they despise my political beliefs, and they're not willing to listen to my reasons for them - what reason is there to continue the friendship?

I have to say, although it can be a little scary to talk about politics right now, it's helped me figure out who my true friends are. And most of them don't agree with me politically - but they agree that we each get to have our own beliefs, and they agree that heated political discussion is by and large a waste of time. Anyone who tries to get a rise out of you is just not worth your attention.

"Can you believe that moron Bush is going to get us into a war?" I've heard it, too.

Try this one: "I know. What a moron. Why didn't get rid of Saddam a year ago. I mean what kind of idiot let's this sort of thing go on this long."

First, they think you agree. Then they are hit with a mild shock. Next they get confused and don't know if you are joking. It may convince no one, but is entertaining as a hell.

And yes, I've used it. Heck, I'm right in belly of the beast in S.F.

I work with a bunch of lawyers (arg) from DC no less (triple arg). Needless to say, a libertarian warmonger doesn't fit in too well. So, I stay in the closet and avoid politics.

I must say, maybe I'm old fashioned, but I always thought politics was something you just don't bring up among people you don't know very well. When someone I barely know says to me "Oh those evil Republicans want children to starve!!!" that seems REALLY RUDE to me. A little less rude than ripping a big fart, but close.

I think people must do that because they're used to an echo chamber. It's just a form of social bonding. Let's all agree how thoughtful and compassionate we are and how evil THEY are.

Thanks for all the ideas and strategies. Socratic ignorance does seem like a good idea. But the last poster (Dave Culp) hit on something that's very hard to overlook. I recognize myself in my many acquaintances who just assume I am a leftist (I live in a college town). The problem is that it is myself at 19. The style of argumentation, the need to have others agree, etc. I can't claim to be an adult (only 41) but have at least grown a wee bit.

I have but one antiwar friend with whom I feel comfortable. She is the only such friend who does not start hissing insults after ten seconds. She realizes that one can be an opponent without being an enemy, and that we shall still be friends after Saddam gets his mosque kicked. A rare and commendable attitude, indeed.

I would do just as you have been doing. Then I would come home and read all these wonderful comments. We all should be as lucky as you to have such supportive friends!! Come back to posting whenever you are ready; we will be waiting.

Avoiding politics often isn't enough. I once managed to get someone to walk out of a dinner party because of my views on Asian art. Granted, my argument that vanishing-point perspective was a scientific discovery and that Asian artists would have used it if it had occurred to them had a faint tinge of Western hegemony about it, but still...

Most often, I can forgo war conversation...but it really irks me when people bait each other in public. In a rehearsal tonight, we had one of our singers say "So, do you guys think this is as fscked up as I do?" and it just went downhill from there. I suppose I wear my politics on my sleeve, a moderate in an office of lefties doesn't go unprovoked, I'm afraid. I just wish they wouldn't choose to label me as delusional.

Poor Jane...it would be far easier if you were a man. When I encounter probable opposition (I can smell it at a cocktail party from about 15 yards...I'm working on my distance and soon will be able to detect anti-Bush sentiments from the street) I affect a lisp, go limpwristed, cock my head in a fey manner, and prance up to the conversation. Of course, it's all quite horrifying and politically incorrect, but who's to say straight men can't have queenish affectations? We being multi-multi here. Now when I defend Bush, no one dares contradict me. See, my feminine side trumps my politics. So New York. Tres chic. I find I can say the most outrageous things...heck, it's expected...we're all bitchy and catty, no?
So you pretend and so do I...except, I'm far more successful at being heard and actually converted folks to my side. Sometimes too successful. I had a hard time getting rid of the last guy who I invited back to my apartment for a longer discussion. Ciao!

I'm an intern at the Village Voice and pro-war. You don't get more conflicting with the "Manhattan attitude" than that, and yet, it's really been quite easy. I don't understand all this whining about how hard it is to be accepted as pro-war in Manhattan any more than I understand the sense of victimization consuming so many well-off Manhattanites who have problems like getting poorly-bred, imported-from-Russia, French dogs. (see Gawker)

Isn't Rush Limbaugh a Manhattanite? He must have to wear a freakin flack jacket. Same with Bill O'Reilly.

I generally lead said people into an interrogatory that exposes the logical falicy of their position.

If this is your view:

Alas, so many people who disagree about the war and fixate on Bush's alleged stupidity are just plain disagreeable people, period.

then don't go to parties full of liberals. They probably don't want you there either.

If you think people who disagree with you are morons, then don't socialize with such people, because they'll return the favor.

I'm a liberal with more than a few conservative friends, and we always -- always -- have civil conversations. It's called maturity. I never have the urge (or a very strong one anyway) to verbally assault my conservative friends. I presume they don't have the urge either, because they treat me with respect.

I frequently come across people on this board -- with a few exceptions -- who treat dissenters with utter contempt, as if Asymmetrical Information were a conservative cocktail party. Perhaps many of you should practice being civil with dissenters, so you can at least have the pleasure of appearing more mature than your "moronic" liberal fellow partiers.

And there are plenty of right-wingers in NY. You just need to join the right clubs.

I spent 10 years there in the late 70's early 80's. It made me the right wing reactionary I am today. One possibility, change the topic:"Oh, that's very interesting. How about them Mets?"

Everybody hates anything I say, and it's mainly because of my spiritual prowess and high level of being that I've developed. It makes me separate from everybody else no matter what they believe politically or socially or religiously. Just my presence will cause 'people of love' to become, giddily, 'people of hate' and vice versa. If I were to say I hate President Bush then every Alec Baldwin type in the room would immediately announce that they love him. If I were to say I love him then they stick with their original stance and hate him. I don't say these things though because the people I would be talking to would already be feeling the higher energy of my presence and would be too shaken to hear such small talk. People just start to shiver in anger when I enter a room. This is the effect a higher level of consciousness (not 'new age' consciousness, but like archangel-like, elect of God consciousness) has on normal/average humans. Mentally and emotionally damaged people hate me too. The mere sound of my voice makes people feel like demons in the presence of Christ. So I don't have this problem Jane (Megan?) Galt writes of because I can't even fake anything. The light alone that surrounds my being lets people know I am not one of them, either way.

Dear Ms. Galt,
And a Happy St. Patrick's Day to you!
As an American of Irish extraction, I wear green today. But not really in celebration -- it's more of a protest. I don't consider Patrick to be a saintly person.
He is rather an usurper of the traditional Celtic folkways of his adopted land. He took advantage of the hospitality and the open-minded tolerance of the high king of Ireland to proselytize and destroy the old order. Thousands upon thousands of Irishmen and women flocked to him and his church as if he were a conquering rock star.
So in my own mind, he is no "Saint Patrick" but rather "Olc Padraig", which is Irish for "evil or really bad Patrick".
Now you may not be surprised to hear that I am a Republican New Yorker as well. Just last night, on the way home from the video store, I literally ran into a small "peace" vigil and stopped in my tracks.
I circled the group of about 80 or so people and searched for any familiar faces. But the only people I knew were my assemblyman, Jeff Dinowitz, and my councilman, Oliver Koppell. So I walked up to Dinowitz and expressed my surprise that he was against the war, since he was a fervent supporter of Israel. And we had a very interesting and friendly discussion, and several candle-bearing peaceniks chimed in, and I was able to state my beliefs without starting a shouting match or getting mugged.
Just as I was about to tear myself away from the vigil, an old friend showed up and demanded to know what I was doing there, for he is very pacifistic and holistic and he knows that I am not. As I explained, he promptly branded me a "troublemaker", and I demanded that he not get too close to me with his candle. We both laughed and chatted and were very happy to catch up with each other under such curious cirumstances.
So I guess my point is, there are alternatives to "passing" as a Democrat. Although it probably helps if you're not enclosed in a dining room or a subway car.
Sincerely,
Matthew Goggins

Matthew,
Olc Padraig probably did it to get even for being kidnapped and sold into slavery.

Megan,
The Shi'ites do as you do among the more numerous Sunni in most Muslim countries. They call it Taqqiyya, hiding their sectarian beliefs by an outward show of conformity.

Ms. Galt:

My primary tactic for dealing with difficult cocktail party conversations is to start talking about the wine. At most parties it isn't very good, so everyone can have a good gripe and forget about politics. With really difficult people one can go into technical oenological details at great length. The look of exhausted stupefaction this eventually produces from one's interlocutor is most satisfying.

The blacklisting issue is real. I'm also in a creative field, and generally keep quiet. Partly it's not worth the frustration, partly I don't want to deal with the repercussions. I'm thankful for the friends I can be honest with, but depressed that it's less than all of them.

Walking around my neighborhood (East Village) doesn't do good things for my blood pressure these days. I don't want to visit some stores I like because they've decided to make their political position impossible to ignore. (The people who dress their kids in those "Kids against war" shirts are the absolute bottom.) I take some solace in the defaced stickers and rapidly disappearing flyers. People may not be outside cheering for war, but they're not exactly sitting by quietly either.

It's funny reading this and thinking how many of these people live here, support the president, yet don't talk about it. Makes me wonder if we're all walking past each other with misplaced contempt. Maybe we do need a big 'out of the closet' day.

As a liberal living in Houston, I have absolutely no idea what that's like :)

Urr.. I've certainly noticed a liberal slant every now and again, but I think it's a rather far stretch to call all of Manhattan's social circles lefty-brain-dead™.

I work in the entertainment industry quite a bit-- an industry which is horribly liberal at the best of times-- and I know a good number of people who are traditionally very liberal, yet support the war and Bush.

I've found the same in other circles as well.

It's pretty sad that you are so desparate to live a dinner party life that you pretend you are a liberal. Grow up.

I am a transplanted New Yorker in Dallas. It's often not much better here in gatherings of other transplants. Some otherwise normal looking person will start on Republicans drowning puppies.

Interestingly, if some Right-Wing Nut says something nutty, he'll generally be put down, even by a reasonable right winger; especially by a reasonable right winger. But for some reason even members of the VRWC rarely challenge Loony Leftists. And so, the Loony Leftist, never hearing a discouraging word, always feels among friends & may in fact be deluding him/herself into thinking that he/she is in fact a centrist or moderate. He/she, then will have no compunction in spouting anti-rightist ideas or failed Leftist ideas, which ideas do not represent the views of most present & do not represent how the spouter actually lives his/her life.

One has to bite one's tongue, lest some other guest of easily offended sensibilities claim that his/her evening was spoiled, not by the Loony Leftist, but by the VRWC response. I've stated at the end of some parties some veritude like "I enjoyed your preaching but I'd remind you that there's no free lunch", just to avoid going home thinking I shoudda, coudda, woudda.

If I do reply during the gathering, some card carrying members of the VRWC, & who know I'm really a good guy, will sometimes interrupt me by apologizing for my views, implying that said views are really more extreme than polite society can bear, or than the interrupter's views.

Why? I'm not extreme; I'm a Good Person. I love my wife & kids & grandkids & don't kick my dog. I feel sorry for the poor & afflicted. (I actually give money to charities.) I pay my taxes. I'm really warm & fuzzy & a great guest.

TomCom

I am stunned. I work in a concrete habitrail on Wall Street where I spend my days with my jaw clenched as I listen to a phalanx of middle-aged stuffed shirts grumble about how Bill Clinton is responsible for everything from 9/11 to the moldy cheese in the cafeteria. The only other "lefty" once told a coworker from India he spoke excellent English for someone who had only been in America for four years. When the work day is over I make an effort to not waste my precious time with people talking what I consider nonsense. Give it a go!

Jane, what do you not have to be proud of? Hearing other people out without jumping all over them, especially when they imply that their views are the more valid because they're willing to get all emotional about them with strangers, is not exactly a virtue practiced excessively these days.

Move to Texas.

Michael,
I think you may be right about Olc Padraig. His masters made him serve for seven years as a shepherd on a lonely Irish hill, time enough for him to plot his escape and his eventual glorious return.
But far be it for me to cast aspersions on his motivations. He seems to have had convinced himself that he was just doing the right thing for the Irish. I disagree, but I am just a humble, simple American.

kung fu style!!!

course i'm a mean bstard without a caring bone in my body, and this is well known (muttering about bloody commies does this... especially when its about the bush whitehouse!)

but it is fun to get someone going really crazy... mention how you heard that the republicans fluoridate the water so that they can track people by the radioactive isotope... and that gw has a secret earthquake weapon (like the core) that he'll use to devastate the west coast to ensure his victory in 04...

lots of ways to have fun!

or you can just be like me and think that mccarthy wsa a pansy, and use that in convo... its hilarious! course you have to be generally a nice person for people to put up with it!

http://members.tripod.com/AttitudeAdjustment/Essays/Dogbert.htm

"But who wants to spend their evenings getting into political arguments?"

I wouldn't mind once in a while but it's just about impossible in my part of the country. Around here the second you disagree with someone they change the subject to something dull like the weather or what's on sale at Wal-mart.

As I live in Amsterdam, the situation I face is somewhat similar. I used to adopt a similar camouflage strategy myself, but I gave up. I have found it much more satisfying to be myself. I generally try to avoid conflagrations that would spoil any social events, but I will put people on notice that I do not share their views. If they can't deal with that, well, though. Those aren't the kind of people I'd want to associate with anyway.

Besides, there are plenty of people in Manhattan who share my views too. Of the people I know in our Manhattan office, I'd say about half are hawkish. If you never let people know what you really think, you're never going to find others who agree with you (or alternatively, find those who disagree with you but are not obsessed with that disagreement).

Every question in life has an answer in "The Godfather".

Jane: Godfather. I don't know what to do. I want to attend this cocktail parties. I'd be a perfect guest. But the others are all liberals and they're mean to me. There's this guy. A movie producer. He's always mean to me. Calls Bush a moron. I don't know what to do. I don't know.

*slap*

The Godfather: You can act like a man!

"[T]here are plenty of right-wingers in NY. You just need to join the right clubs."

Amitava, I agree with your sentiments about civility -- but just imagine your reaction if a conservative said that you should avoid liberals by "join[ing] the right clubs" ;)

Someone - I tried the Federalist Society, but I got kind of tired of being the only girl. And it sucks to be fiscally conservative, socially moderate-to-left, and yet consistently vote republican. As a result, I tend to be more moderate than most of the guys in our Federalist Society, but my political beliefs are reviled by the rest of the legal world.

Amitava and "Hmmm" - The posters here are pointing out a legitimate problem. In areas where liberals outnumber moderates and conservatives, we're often marginalized before we even open our mouths. If you think we're being immature or irrational here, go try posting something "conservative" on a comment board at, say, Indymedia.org and see what happens.

I am known as the 'token' conservative my group, I announce to new people who have the audactity to assume I agree with their political opinions that they are adressing possibly the only live republican they have ever met. It simplifies things. I don't have to listen to nearly as much drivel as I would otherwise. Occassionally I have real conversations with some of them, but only if it's really about exploring other positions and not a diatribe to 'save' me.

Reading this, though, there are a lot of us here in NYC-we should congregate, preferably at a bar.
Sarah

I'm fortunate enough not to have to live in NYC but I do live in a small Midwestern university town where the libs are at least as rabid and --worse for them -- suffering from inferiority feeling because they're not in NYC.

Anyway, the thing is that none of my lib/rad friends can believe that I'm a card-carrying conservative-Republican-Catholic. To them, anyone who reads books, once in a while goes to the opera and spends as much time as he can tramping the hills and woods of Pennsylvania must by definition espouse their own political/social beliefs.

What really gets them, though, is when I laugh at what they're saying and ask them to explain why they think what they do without lapsing into name-calling or other forms of idocy.

I realized some time ago that, if an opinion is reached without the aid of reason, then reason will be useless in changing the opinion.
I find this makes confrontations with screaming liberal less stressful, almost comical.

Megan,

Enough waffling!

If Susan Sarandon's 79 year-old Republican mother can state her case at Hollywood parties, YOU should be able to buck up enough at Manhattan parties to say WHO AND WHAT YOU ARE:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42317-2003Mar17.html

I agree with Amitava (both comments), Aaron (on perspective), ct (on just plain funny) and Robert Musil.

....

Also, it bothers me that some of the commenters here seem to think that the false consensus effect is a purely left-wing phenomenon.

Come on, people.

"most antiwar people run ramshod over standard social protocol. THEY create the awkwardness the moment they walk up and say, "Can you believe that moron Bush is getting us into a senseless war?"

or

the lefties rudely and presumptuously create an atmosphere that will make things uncomfortable for anyone who disagrees with them.

Look, I hate this stuff too. Who doesn't?

But this is something that happens on every side of the political spectrum. Liberals get away with it in NY, conservatives get away with it in Texas.

Almost every time Jane makes some legitimate, specific point, one or more people on here generalize to all liberals and/or ignore the same phenomenon among conservatives as if no one who voted for Reagan could ever have done such a thing.

Is it so crazy to think that both the liberal and conservative camps are composed of flawed human beings who do things that annoy us?

I agree with Jim that rudeness is not a liberal or a conservative trait per se. On the other hand, I've asked my mother whether conservatives give liberals the same treatment in the small, arch-Republican town she's from, and she says no -- not because conservative principles somehow preclude rudeness, but because in a small town, you'd better get along with the other people there, and getting into fights about politics is one way to ruin the next fifty years. To be fair, however, my mother dislikes Manhattan rather a lot and may be exaggerating the virtues of the world outside Moscow-on-the-Hudson. And neither of us knows what goes on in the suburbs. ;-)

I think that that specific kind of rudeness -- the assumption that you are among the anointed, and everyone who's anyone naturally agrees with you, and the willingness to announce it to strangers -- may be a coastal phenomenon. I've caught myself doing it in various contexts, while in Chicago, which is fairly liberal at least among the young professionals, I was never subjected to that kind of political harangue. Conservatives may be harassing liberals in Texas for all I know; I don't know enough about Texas to make an informed guess either way. But the reason that the liberals here harass people of differing opinions isn't, per se, that they're liberals -- it's that they're pushy Manhattan jerks.

Heh, I've often run into this one.

I generally avoid getting into political stuff in person, but a friend of mine re-created an old citadel-based bbs he used to run in web-based form and a bunch of my friends are on there.

I'm the sole person who's come out in favor of removing Saddam by force and even before that, I've gotten myself into far too many long political arguments where I'm the only person arguing one side and have from 1-10 people attacking me. :/

It's caused a lot of tension between us and I've found myself thinking that I should find some people a little more like-minded to hang out with sometime so I feel a little less alienated. Sucks.

I'm sorry, are you saying that George W. Bush is NOT Satan's idiot stepson????

Jim

Re Texas & Conservative Boors

Let me reprint below a paragraph from my post, the latter part being agreed to by Jane in her post answering these replies.

Tom Comerford Dallas

*************

Interestingly, if some Right-Wing Nut says something nutty, he'll generally be put down, even by a reasonable right winger; especially by a reasonable right winger. But for some reason even members of the VRWC rarely challenge Loony Leftists. And so, the Loony Leftist, never hearing a discouraging word, always feels among friends & may in fact be deluding him/herself into thinking that he/she is in fact a centrist or moderate. He/she, then will have no compunction in spouting anti-rightist ideas or failed Leftist ideas, which ideas do not represent the views of most present & do not represent how the spouter actually lives his/her life.

Imagine yourself in my shoes. I am a black American male, college and law school educated, I practice law in New York (albeit these days in Westchester County), a registered Democrat, detested Clinton and the way he conducted himself, particularly after the revelation of Monica, and I work for a quite liberal politician. I also voted for Bush, support the actions we are taking regarding Iraq, and I listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and I agree with most of their arguments. I also tend to keep my opinions to myself unless I hear someone start up with "that idiot Bush" or some similar comment. You can imagine the confusion on the faces of people in New York when I get started. Hang in there and don't be ashamed of your beliefs; there are a lot more of us than you think. It's just that we were raised to be polite and not to try to impose our beliefs upon others.

If you want to have productive political discussions with people who you disagree with then choose a single assumption that underlies the argument of your opponents that you can easily show to be false and question them on that assumption. Do not try to challenge every assumption they have. Do not try to argue the latest political question that is being debated (e.g. whether to attack Iraq). Just choose one assumption where you can demonstrate a great deal more knowledge than them and educate them on it. But it has to be an assumption where it is easy to demonstrate the falsehood of their beliefs.

Just as Rome was not built in a day kiberal minds can not be changed on the issue of their derived opinions. If you wisely choose which assumptions to challenge and if you know the basic information that contradicts a given assumption you can frequently get people to change their minds. But you really have to know a great many facts that are relevant to an assumption.

The problem is that arguing with people who you disagree with who argue in bad faith is hard work. But it can be done if you choose your battlegrounds carefully.

As for hiding your beliefs so totally: If you can't bring yourself to reveal your views to hostile audiences then either move to a different town or get a circle of friends who you can be honest with. NYC is a big town. Surely there are people there who you'd find agreeable and pleasant company.

A suggestion:

Dress down, be polite, listen closely, speak slowly, don't be afraid to ask unrelated questions and go off on tangents when you're bored, save your best points for the end of the night when you're getting ready to leave, and preface them with: "Just one more thing."

It's always worked well for me.

Loved the comments. Used to live in Manhattan. Now I live in Jersey City. A great improvement.

Manhattan has been on a downhill slide for 30 years as it has become ever more homogenous. The concentration of gays has virtually driven out hetero nightlife in the Village and Chelsea. The intense immigration of college bred feministas has produced an even greater degree of sterility.

Something is very wrong here.

I remember looking out the window of my office in Chelsea with a gay friend who was complaining about the refusal of those beyond the Hudson to become more "diverse." I pointed out to him that Chelsea is one of the most self-selected segregated communities in America. After 5 p.m., when the working people go home, try to find anybody who isn't college educated, gay and liberal.

My friend was quite incensed. But, what I said was true. The level of self-selected segregation in Manhattan is an atrocity. Jersey City is a fantastic change. It is a city of Asians, blacks, whites and Hispanics in which you can find old fashioned families, a reverence for God and children who are traditional and respectful.

In short, Manhattan has become a tawdry nightmare.

Comments are Closed.