Observational Remarks - bourgie-lib vs. neo-hippies and/or neo-cons

SoW: I'm sorry...this is gonna sound bourgeois but why can't there be a Dufflet-esque type of cafe option on campus? A casual place with a calm and serene atmosphere so we can talk at length in peace...somewhere that offers food and the kind of hush quietness found in mid-afternoon city that only money can buy.

Sidekick: Hey, it may be bourgeois, but it's not like the radical left's been offering us a lot more in the way of making our lives more tolerable and comfortable (the radical left as in "hippie hemp-wearing pseudo anarchists.")

And so begins my rant on over-sensitive, insecure hippies. This stems from all these years (and counting!) of dealing with their intolerant attitudes and their fervent need to appear as righteously left as possible.

To all those neo-hippies who say “I will live by the principles I created to face all I see wrong with this world,” I would reply with, “Yes well, your actions and responses have shown me that you don’t exactly have an accurate view of the real world. [and yes, I’m laughing behind your back] When you get the chance or when you round up enough courage to brush away your fear, step into the light of reality for just a moment, darling, and hopefully, just maybe, you’ll get a glimpse of how the world really operates. And don’t give me the patronizing brush-off because I don’t play by the unrealistic standards you created based on your misperceived vision of the world. I’ve been learning those rules by which our modern society operates (that you’ve denounced with pseudo righteous leftist anti-modern-life excuses) within since I was a weaning babe, and I’ve been honing my use of them since I can speak. I know when to attack, defend, hold back, take a calculated loss, bank in, and strengthen my position. Therefore, at the end of it all, I come out on top. I play the rules to defy the world. So who’s the rebel now?”

“Fine. Refuse to recognize and continue to denounce the existence of said rules. But don’t come crying back to me when you didn’t achieve what you want in this world b/c you pissed off the exact people you needed to assist in the attainment of your goal. Oh but you would never know that b/c that’s part of the rules – they’re not gonna explain to a grown adult how they were offended by them.”

"CHILL OUT if you can't fit happy bacon into your grocery budget this month. You think I've been wrapped up in a bubble with my 7's and lattes and don't give a shit about the unnecessary chemicals in our food? But in order to continue with my rebelling I need to be a happy girl. Happy girls need calcium and if organic yogurt is out of my reach this month, I'll consume Danone."

"Ok, so you hate money and consumerism but how can you have such a strong opinion on something that you've barely experienced? It's like saying you hate kimchi after only looking at it for years but never actually having tasted it. Or maybe you secretly lust for modern consumerism in your life but you can only react with contempt for others who seemingly have a bit more - so you're bound up in this superiority/inferiority complex. Man, I feel sorry for you - that must be really taxing! Look, truth is, my eyes have seen more and further than yours have and no unnecessary leftist antics of yours will be missed by my eyes. You're the one who's losing for being intolerant and misunderstanding bastards. So don't give me any condescending 'tude, because at the end of it all, you have no idea who I know."

"And yes, yes, I pity you. But you annoy the hell out of me waaaaaaaay too much for me to help you out of the rut you are in."

Leah McLaren's article (below) illustrates some of my sentiments on this topic. (McLaren's column is not a personal fave. Check out Doug Saunders' "Reckoning" column, which is usually located next to McLaren's.)

Why can't we all just get along? Because it's boring
By Leah McLaren
Dec. 3, 2005.
The Globe and Mail, Style. L3

I have never considered agreeing with people to be an important part of friendship. When it comes to maintaining social ties, I believe common decency, humour and intelligence are more important than politics.

For instance, I can (and do) enjoy the company of people who hold what my grandmother would call "certain opinions" on abortion, immigration and religion in schools.

But if someone is rude to the waitress, cancels repeatedly for no good reason or doesn't "get" The Simpsons (yes, I once knew a guy who didn't get The Simpsons), that's a deal breaker.

Having friends you don't see eye to eye with is one of the major perks of living in a free and peaceful society. It also makes for lively dinner parties, so long as people behave themselves.

Even as a bourgie-lib downtown gal, I would much rather hang out with intelligent, curious and well-mannered conservatives than smug leftists who chew with their mouths open and don't laugh at my jokes. (It's important that all of my friends laugh at my jokes, regardless of whether they're funny.)

Having non-likeminded friends is a necessary part of being a cosmopolitan person. In Canada, it isn't difficult. We go so far out of our way to avoid bringing up disagreeable topics that it's possible to be good friends with someone for years without knowing anything about his politics.

Many people in Toronto find it impolite to discuss contentious topics such as sex and religion at dinner parties. Personally, I wonder if there is anything else worth discussing. The more disagreement, the better, I say.

Not everyone sees it my way.

A male friend of mind recently admitted he has cut off ties with a number of friends he disagreed with, not because of their politics, but because of the way their views infected every conversation in an aggressive, un-fun way.

"Sometimes the disagreement builds and builds and builds until it's too much of a burden for the friendship to take," he said, with obvious regret. "People take things too seriously. And when they continually try to convert you to their way of thinking, it's tiresome."

What's even more tiresome, however, is sitting around agreeing with everyone you know. You know the stock conversation I'm talking about. It's the one where one person says something obvious and everyone else murmurs their consent.

Example: "Can you believe that Stephen Harper/Jack Layton, with his outrageous views on gay marriage?"

"Disgusting, isn't it."

"Yes, terrible."

Who learns anything from this kind of talk? Moreover, who can stay awake?

Last week, I wrote an article about throwing a dinner party designed to convert my friend Liz, who, despite being a kind, tasteful, generous and intelligent woman, is also a raving neo-con. She supports the war in Iraq and delights in saying outrageous things like, "The Americans are light-years ahead of us in terms of health care."

I disagree with Liz, but I also respect her. Heinously misguided as her politics seem to me, at least they are well thought out. And she never becomes overintense or personal in a debate. Even if everyone in the room is against her and she has had several glasses of wine and is, frankly, not making much sense at all, she never cries (which is more than I can say for myself).

I was surprised to receive a slew of vitriolic e-mail in response to the story, most of it from American on-line readers who were "outraged" at my playful attempt to convert my right-wing friend.

From Kansas to Georgia, they wrote to tell me what a "commie" and "supercilious socialist bitch" I was. They also insulted Canadian food, vegetarian (a.k.a. left-wing) food, Canadians of Scottish heritage, women, Muslims and lefties of all stripes. But mostly they wrote in to tell me I was wrong to actively disagree with my friend.

It occurred to me how unlikely it is that any of these people have friends whose politics they don't share.

Surely this is one of the benefits of living in a peace-loving country where politics is just window dressing. But sometimes even that has its challenges.

As my friend David Eddie says, "Every once in a while you look at this friend you disagree with and think, 'Wow, if this country were in a state of civil war, I'd be heaving cobblestones and you'd be driving the tank.' But let's face it, it's never going to happen. So why not enjoy your differences while you can?"

The trick to having non-likeminded friends, according to Clayton Ruby, a criminal defence lawyer (and a friend with whom I agree on most things), is the ability to respect your opponent.

"You can enjoy the debate, but you can't take it too seriously," he says. "Even when you're ripping people apart, you have to be aware of how often you've been brutally wrong in the past. You disagree, and after it's over you just carry on with things. My life without people whose views I cannot bear would be bland beyond belief."

Kind of like the dinner parties in Kansas. And I don't care if you think I'm wrong about that.

lmclaren@globeandmail.ca