Apologies for posting late.
Yesterday, I read an email from Rick Steves. For anyone who doesn’t know, he is the dude who (for probably more years than I’ve been married) has been making travel shows which are broadcast on PBS. I’ve never been really into travel, but I am into inclusion and multiculturalism, and his shows are big on those. I don’t normally read his emails, but they are also so few and far between I haven’t bothered to unsubscribe – plus he’s a good human being who suports, among other, Bread for the World. Yesterday, for some reason, I did read it, and I’m glad I did. It tuens out he has prostate cancer. That, of course, is not necesarily a death sentence like pancreatic cancer, but it’s also no fun. It appears not to have spread and he expects to be scheduled for aurgery in late September, before which he plans (with his doctor’s permission) to film two new shows, both in France. Over the years he has become less and less a travel host and more and more a good will ambassador (and oh boy, do we need those right now.) If you’ve never seen one, there are 100 available at this link. I watched “Iceland” because it was at the top, being the featured one for August, but the farther down you scroll, the more options.
And now I need to rant for a bit. Not just here in the United States, but also all around the world. People think of politics as being defined by “Left” and “Right” – concepts which come from the first French post-revolution legislative body, in which the conservative members sat on the right side of the room while the more liberal sat on the left side of the room. It was convenient, so it stuck. But language has not caught up with the reality that “Left” and “Right” refer to economic theories, not to overall political opinions. Certainly still today people probably vote “Left” or “Right” and think about how each side’s policies will affect them financially. But there’s more to politics than economics. That’s why the “Political Compass” was invented – and this election displays why that matters. Because the distinction between “authoritarians” and “egalitarians” (the Political Compass site uses the term “libertarian” but, besides the fact that it has been stolen and no longer means what it used to, I doubt whether it would have been the best word even in its oldest sense.) – that distinction is what this election is all about. Not economics, even though that also matters. And this article IMO is an example of how one’s conclusions may not be reliable if one fails to recognize the dimensins of politics. (In fact, there may well be a third dimension based on whether one does or does not believe in accountability. But I’d have to think long and hard about how to describe it in two adjectives.) Bottom line, politics is not just one thing – and different people can have wildly different opinions even if they agree on economics – and can easily get sucked in supporting politicans who they would hate if they understood the implications of those politicians’ views – provided they and the politicians are equally “left” or equally “right.” OK, end of rant. For now.
Heather Cox Richardson writes about the history of conventions – which is connected to the history of parties – so she writes about that also
