Arguing With My Republican Brother-in-Law

I suspect we all have one.  That one brother-in-law who always starts in on the political arguments.

It’s not that he’s a Republican.  That’s not the real cause of the arguments.  I have other friends who are politically conservative and Republican, and I find I can have thoughtful, balanced, informative conversations with them, as well as tell funny jokes and talk about our kids.

My brother-in-law, on the other hand, just badgers me with neo-conservative rhetoric, presumably not because he thinks he’ll change my mind, but because…well, that’s just the thing, I don’t know.  I don’t know why he takes so much pleasure in it, but he does.

It doesn’t help that he lives in Texas.                                                             

Texas.  Massachusetts.  You can pretty much tell how all these conversations go.



We're just like JFK and LBJ, except... No, we're not.
I'm sorry, that analogy fell apart before it even got started.

And he called just the other night.  In fairness, we called him to try and sell him magazines.  Because, of course, my daughter’s education is being funded by magazine sales.  Don’t get me started.

Anyway, being cheap, he bought nothing.  And then, the arguments began.  I don’t know if I can truly transmit the silliness of his arguments, or the sarcasm of my responses, but I will try, because I feel it sums up the insane rhetoric of this campaign season.  To wit:

Him: “This country needs someone to get us out of this recession.”

Me: “We’re not in a recession.”

Him: “Bill Clinton says we’re in a recession.”

Me: “Are you really going to quote Bill Clinton to me?”

Him: “Bill Clinton says we’re in a recession.”

Me: “Recessions have a clear definition.  We’re not in a recession.  President Obama already go us out.”

Miss the part where he completely avoided the empirical reality of what is or is not a recession?

Or, my personal favorite:

Him: “But Obama shouldn’t force insurance on everyone.  I think states should have the right to make up their own minds on what their citizens can do.”

Me: “Right, which is why they need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal government must allow same-sex marriage if a state decides it’s ok.”

Him: “Well, if a state wants to permit same-sex marriage, other states shouldn’t be forced to accept it.”

Me: “Of course they should!  That’s a perfect use of the Commerce Clause!  People can’t have a different legal status in two different states!”

Him: “But the Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton.”

Me: “Leave Bill Clinton out of this!”

Ok, I may have made that last bit up, but it was there in spirit, if not in words.

In the end, he tried to sum up the conversation with the old standby, “I guess we have to agree to disagree.”

No!  I do not agree with that!  We are not just disagreeing.  One of us is dealing with reality, and the other is living in a word of rhetoric and spin, totally devoid of facts and practicality.

Unfortunately, on one point, he is quite right.  “I guess it doesn’t really matter, since you live in Massachusetts, and I live in Texas.”

Damn it, he’s right.  Our two votes totally don’t count, since those two states are pretty well predetermined to fall one Democrat and one Republican.  So why bother?  And why do we have such a ludicrous electoral system that benefits a handful of states while totally writing off the rest?

Answer:  Because our founding fathers didn’t trust the regular voter to make such an important decision as who will be president.  Because they believed that our country should be run by elite, intelligent people, capable of having dispassionate debate about important issues, instead of blindly following the “will of the people.” 

But since no one is interested in reasoned argument or debating the facts, we’re left with a country in which one half of the population will never be able to change the mind of the other half of the population and we’re all left talking to ourselves.  And elections are decided on voter turn-out in two, maybe three, states.  The rest of us could just as easily write-in Mickey Mouse for president and it won’t make any difference.

(Digression: DON’T write in Mickey Mouse.  That’s just throwing your vote away.  Write in “Dave Reed” instead.  A vote for me is a vote for beer!)

So, if our votes don’t really matter, what are we arguing about?  Why bother?  Well, I argue with him because I believe in the responsibility that every person has toward every other living person on this planet, in society taking care of those who are unable, for one reason or another, to take care of themselves, and in defending basic human rights and equality.  And since becoming a dad, I’m more convinced than ever that we must all work together somehow to make this world a better place for the next generation.

And my brother-in-law?  I’m pretty sure he just likes to piss me off.

Please.  Guy’s not even from Texas.  He’s from Connecticut.  That makes him exactly as much Texan as the FIRST President Bush.  And Joe Lieberman.  Just sayin’.

Where'd all the Joe-mentum go?