Political Subtleties

Before I met my friend, my experience with Anarchists was limited to those who call for a violent overthrow of the government.  My friend patiently and respectfully explained to me that Anarchism, like all ideologies, has subdivisions.  Those I had known are not representative of the large majority - most Anarchists practice what they call the Non Aggression Principle.  They based their belief on the very idea that, if left alone by government, people will be able to live peaceably and help each other out voluntarily.  The few jerks who won't will end up effectively banishing themselves.

Yet we see people freely slap the label Communist on Bernie Sanders.  Communism and Socialism are closely related, yes.  Both fall under the same ideological umbrella.  Yet there are the same sort of subtle differences we find in Anarchism.  Communism is to Socialism what those Violent Over-throwers are to Anarchy.  They are the fanatics.  

Fanatics exist in every group, be it political, religious, racial, sexual....  Islam has ISIS, Christianity has WBC...  It is wrong to assume your neighbor Abdul wants to chop off your head because you ate a ham sandwich.  It is wrong to assume Pastor Smith wants gays executed.  I know Catholics who see birth control as a matter of conscience and accept the idea of abortion under certain circumstances, feminists who are happily married to men and even have children, lesbians who don't hate men and even raise straight children of both sexes.

If you are a member of any group (and who isn't), the proper response to an ignorant party is not to attack them.  On any level.  My own personal experience with Fanatic Anarchism might be "anecdotal evidence" and therefore a logical fallacy, but you aren't going to get anywhere by insulting me.  I am willing to be convinced - said friend can vouch for that - but only by a respectful discussion.  

And if you expect me to see subtle differences, you need to be willing to see them as well.  Or you are guilty of a logical fallacy of your own, as well as of being a hypocrite.   

First Ladies

Presidential elections are approaching, and with them yet another woman is going to find herself First Lady.  Or maybe a guy, since we have a heterosexual female in the running.  Bill might get out of it - we've had Presidents whose First Lady was a daughter or niece.  I always feel for these women.  They just can't catch a break.

Mary Lincoln thought the American people needed to see her as prosperous, to combat that whole Civil War bleakness.  Instead they called her frivolous and wasteful.  Nancy Reagan, a Hollywood woman, was also called these things because of her expensive tastes.  Yet Michelle Obama is "cheap" for buying clothes most American women can afford.  Barbara Bush, and to a lesser extent, her daughter-in-law Laura, were practical women and thus labeled frumpy.  So...  the First Lady is standing in her closet, knowing she's going to be mocked no matter what outfit she chooses.

It's become tradition that the First Lady choose a pet cause.  Jackie Kennedy famously renovated and redecorated the White House, saving a good deal of history from ending up in a landfill.  Yet it seems she's the only one to get proper credit for her efforts.  Nancy Reagan went after drug abuse and "Just Say No" is laughed at.  Hillary and Michelle get called all kinds of names for wanting actual regulations.  Again, the poor First Lady is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

I'd hate to be in her shoes, whoever she may be.  Because nothing she's going to do is going to be right.  If she wears fancy clothes, she's a snob.  If she's frugal, she has no sense of style.  If she comes on too strong with her pet cause, she's a shrew.  If she comes on not strong enough, she'll be laughed at and/or ignored.  She'll be too old or too young.  She'll have a scandalous past or she'll be boring.

Sometimes I think Rachel Jackson had the right idea - when her husband was elected, she promptly dropped dead.