Comments on: Loyalty

By: conradg

conradg — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:35:48 +0000

When Rittelmeyer uses the euphamism of “friend” or “family” to describe one’s political orientation and philosophy, what she is really doing is turning conservatism into a cult. In other words, there are real friends and real family, and we all know who our real friends and real family are. People who share a similar political orientation and policy are simply not our friends and family, and they are not owed us that kind of allegiance. To say that they are is to make a political movement into a cult, which is to say, a fake family that uses its claims on our loyalty to manipulate us into doing things which no real friend or family would ever do. My father was a Goldwater Republican, and he never once tried to use his family influence upon me to dissuade me from being a liberal, or from criticizing his politics (or he, mine). Real families don’t require ideological purity or blind loyalty on political issues. Neither the GOP nor the conservative movement is a family in any sense of the word, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is trying to manipulate you using cheap cult tactics. I say, resist those people like the devil himself, regardless of their “good intentions”. And that of course appies equally well to liberals and their loyalties.

By: Ratufa

Ratufa — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 19:22:46 +0000

I think that the conflation of friendship and loyalty to The Party is offensive on several levels. But, to play along: Sometimes there may be occasions where you take your friend’s car keys and don’t give them back, no matter how much they plead and talk about “our friendship”, because they are in no condition to drive. This doesn’t make you less of a friend — just the opposite, in fact.

By: Indya

Indya — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 18:48:03 +0000

It is a cult. And Sarah Palin is a cult of personality.

I am so glad I have no party affiliation.

By: rawshark

rawshark — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:45:28 +0000

It’s a cult. It’s why I got out. As soon as someone said ‘you don’t sound like a republican’ I got out. I can’t be a part of a group that won’t let me think on my own. I will not ignore bullshit just so my side can win an election they can’t win on merit.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:44:39 +0000

From Rittelmeyer’s post:

As livid as I was, her answer absolutely satisfied me: “I could never be friends with anyone who worked or wrote for the other side because being someoneâ€™s friend doesnâ€™t just mean spending time with them and enjoying their conversation. It means being there for them. I never want to be in a position where my response to â€˜I had a terrible day at workâ€™ has to be â€˜Good, Iâ€™m glad.â€™ Thatâ€™s not what a friend does.”

This is a sad and unpleasant view of friendship. Why does the response to “I had a terrible day at work,” have to be “Good, I’m glad”? That’s only the case if you’ve chosen to make your job and/or your political opinions more important than your friendships. It seems perfectly possible to me that people whose professional interests clash could still genuinely care for one another.

It’s interesting that her argument in favor of party loyalty ended up here. Elevating political loyalties to the same level as family loyalties and loyalty to friends produces a warped approach to public life. But, at least in this case, it also seems to produce a warped approach to friendship.

As she explains herself more fully her original argument just seems more and more pernicious and empty.

By: Howard J. Harrison

Howard J. Harrison — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:37:49 +0000

Thinking of this relationship in terms of friendship, wouldnâ€™t we agree that a friend who deceives you, abuses your trust, betrays you, cheats you or in some other way defrauds you for his own advantage is not much of a friend? I donâ€™t know whether the others would put it this way, but I would.

I would, too.

Daniel, off-topic, when you can spare a moment, would you briefly follow the hyperlink below? A question is asked there that one suspects that you could shed some light on. Look at the question, if you would—which in itself will not take much time—and then decide whether it is worth your further time and interest to address it.

(For some reason I cannot persuade the blog software to let me hyperlink the following in the usual way, but here the address is in plain text.)

http://econnat.us/?p=119

Howard

By: Username

Username — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:23:58 +0000

Not to stray too far off topic, but I’d like to take a moment and recognize DaveA’s sacrifice of 25+ years.

By: DaveA

DaveA — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:07:35 +0000

Yeah, that’s about it. As a 25+ year fan of the Cincinnati Bengals, I think I have a pretty good handle on the point where loyalty and stupidity intersect, and I freely admit that I crossed the line into stupidity quite some time ago. Fortunately, all my clinging to a forgone negative conclusion does is to occasionally enrich the pockets of NFL jersey manufacturers.

You hit the head of it here; “The emphasis on loyalty is also very important, but if anything I think Ms. Rittelmeyer does not emphasize the importance of loyalty nearly enough. That is, she seems to apply it only to one side, as if the voters were vassals who owed service to their lieges but expectedâ€“and receivedâ€“nothing in return.”

Yup. The argument that I should pull the lever for McCain because Obama will be worse ignores the fact that McCain will be little, if any, better. And “settling” for the proverbial lesser of two evils only ensures that you will get a even lessers of two evils next time around. Loyalty is a two-way street. What has the GOP done for me lately?

By: jstrummer

jstrummer — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:00:33 +0000

look, if you think of yourself as a Republican, then obviously you’d want to support McCain. but maybe you are a conservative, in which case you would not want to support McCain. it’s that simple.