The most fascinating marriage in the history of the world has got to be James Carville and Mary Matalin. I'm mildly interested in the governor and first lady of California too, but the Shriver/Schwarzenegger alliance seems less unholy, with a modicum of common ground, while Carville and Matalin take the notion of "strange bedfellows" to the nth power.
The Ragin' Cajun has mused publicly that a marriage of political opposites is probably not so different than one between a Christian and a Jew. But interfaith marriages (hopefully) involve full-throated support, or at least benign neglect, of the spouse's religion, while Matalin and Carville comprise a couple whose every working, and perhaps waking, moment seems dedicated to annihilating the other's political position and thwarting the other's professional success. One might reasonably assume that sharing a home and family could lead to a meeting of minds, but Matalin has let it be known that motherhood pushed her even further to the right on issues such as school vouchers, taxes, and welfare. She jokes that the secret to marital bliss is "faith, family, and good wine." He says it's "surrender, capitulation, and retreat." But really, how do they not kill each other?
I've been thinking about this union lately in light of our current political gridlock. Carville and Matalin might serve as an excellent template for our obstinate and partisan Congress. They have diametrically opposed convictions about almost everything, but they seem to get things done for mutual benefit -- the laundry, the carpool, two children. Even their home décor, recently featured in Architectural Digest, strikes a clearly compromising note -- neither red nor blue but unabashedly orange. Small increments of progress and accomplishment -- the Congressional equivalent of the laundry and the carpool -- would be most welcome in Washington these days. Is there a teachable moment here?
And yet.... I am so apoplectically angry at almost every Republican public figure -- the race-baiting of Rush Limbaugh, the proud ignorance of Sarah Palin, the arrogance of Michael Steele, the bloviating of Haley Barbour, the thinly veiled glee and suffocating ambition of Eric Cantor -- that I can't reasonably expect more tolerance from others. Of course, I'm sad to admit, there are Democratic idiots too, but I don't get apoplectic about them -- I get embarrassed. An African-American friend of mine admits that she listens to news reports about horrific crimes ("Man Shoots Wife, Then Kills Self") silently wishing: Please don't let it be black folks. It is natural that we weep and fret and feel especially vulnerable and responsible about our own peeps. This is never truer than when partisan politics are involved.
For a brief while, I dated a Republican (and "brief" opens up a whole separate discourse on what's missing in the Harvard Business School curriculum about personal integrity). Even before he showed true colors, the only reason our relationship had a prayer in hell was that he became so appalled by the politics of Dubya, the Swiftboaters, and McCain/Palin, he voted for Obama in '08. But he never failed to gloat about the shame of John Edwards' baby-mama, and I never failed to gloat about the shame of Mark Sanford's Brazilian hot mama. When an executive at my ex's firm was indicted for fraud -- a big fat cauldron of trouble for all the partners -- I was dismayed... that the scoundrel was an avowed liberal.
I recently wondered aloud (or the modern equivalent of aloud: on Facebook) if it's wrong that I'm a little happy when Dick Cheney is ailing. I have a hard time with the concept of "respecting the office" (I'm still stunned at the collective national memory loss that attended the death of Richard Nixon) or honoring someone's opinion if the opinion is myopic, dither-headed, elitist, or just plain dumb. When Matalin's former boss was hospitalized with yet another (is it his fifth?) heart attack, I would have given anything to eavesdrop on the phone call that Cheney received from Barack Obama -- "good wishes" for the man who has vilified the president as unfit to lead the country. And I know that there must have been Tea Party-animals who were pleased when Bill Clinton recently needed stent surgery. Nobody in Congress admits to such venal thoughts. On C-Span they are "the gentleman from Wisconsin" and his "good friend" from the "great state" of Utah, while their actions and efforts expose the fact that we are still red states and blue states, still Sharks and Jets, only now we are not fighting over turf in the South Bronx but about such issues as whether the law of the land will support a woman's right to dominion over her own body.
So I must grudgingly admire Matalin, even while she cheerfully disparages her husband as a "serpenthead" (and I don't believe she's referring solely to the shape of his cranium). She's a lot more candid than most public political figures. I'm not suggesting that she give up her day job (actually, I'd be delighted if she gave up her day job -- one less strident oppositional voice). But perhaps she and James could run a sideline business as Congressional marriage counselors, sharing their secrets for harmonious dissonance. They could lead the dysfunctional ersatz family of men and women on Capitol Hill toward some rapprochement, examining the political parallels of such domestic contretemps as when to send in the troops (parental discipline), how to pay for health care (household finance), or what limits to set on lobbyists (taking out the trash).
Then again, in Congress, it would be hard to agree on what constitutes the trash.
--Sure. James calls his maid, who calls Mary's nanny, who calls the chauffeur, and they both take their separate rides in to the broadcast center, where they spout meaningless (sometimes inaccurate, but always incendiary) generalities into a camera or microphone in 30-second bites, get paid, go home... Elite professional rhetorical arsonists who leave it to others to put out their fires.
The butler awaits, with their favorite drinks already prepared. Their personal assistants hand them each a stack of research (done by someone else, probably for minimum wage) containing the latest ammunition to use in the next day's firefights, and they retire to their separate barca-loungers for a little light reading before bed.
Domestic bliss.
Recently, that agreement suffered a meltdown. And that has given rice to the 'rancorous' disagreement that we have witnessed. Some may call it vile, or uncivilized, or worse. I describe it as 'why did it take so long to get there?'
This has been creeping along, and I'm hoping people are finally starting to wake up to what they are giving up, and what they have lost, to the growing governmental reach, the expansion of powers. Yes, this discussion is going to be less than courteous, whent he terms of the discussion are freedom versus tyranny. It has to be that way. It must be fought to the last breath, because it is that important.
However, I think the risk of corporate tyranny is at times wildly exaggerated here, while at the same time there isn't even a healthy fear of growing government's size and power. Why is there so much acceptance of Washington as the solution to life's problems among liberals. Tyranny has historically come from government.
Besides, tyranny can only come from government, as it has monopoly power of the initiation of the use of force.
Let's say you don't want to work for a corporation. What can they do? Nothing. What if you don't want to buy from them. What then? Nothing. They are powerless as long as the person has the option of saying 'No.'
Not so with the government. Try telling them 'no' and see what happens.
There is a gross difference between choice and force.
http://www.breitbart.tv/off-the-hook-hypocrisy-rep-waters-used-to-love-vulgar-outlandish-protest-rallies/
James is typical Louisiana Democrat, indistinguishable from a Republican any where else in America, Mary justified that evil pig Cheney through EVERYTHING. I detest her every bit as much as Cheney.
It is self defeating, IMO, to let politics limit your choices in a mate. As a conservative, I am an anti-Utopian. I know that every bad policy has some good results, and every good policy has some bad ones, and that nothing human is perfect. Further, the people who agree with you politically are no better, and the people who disagree no worse, as human beings, mates, drinking buddies, whatever, than anybody else.
Anyone who would rule out a person as a mate because of politics is putting WAY too much stock in their own politics, IMO.
Some people believe they can divorce their philosophy from their actions. This is disingenuous. Why take action if there is no reason for that action? The reason would be the philosophy.
The idea that a person whose politics are in opposition to your own is somehow a less acceptable mate than someone whose politics mirror your own seems so wrongheaded to me as to be incomprehensible.
My wife is pretty liberal, I am very conservative. Together, we are complimentary. Works out great.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
And all those acrimonious shouting matches in public among politcal professionals there seemed to make no difference once the sun went down-- I used to go to the roof of Washington Hotel for drinks and stare dumbfounded at just who was joking and drinking with whom.
Perhaps it's, in the case of the Carvilles and Schwartzeneggers, a matter of bedfellows making strange politics.
As for myself, I'd prefer it if political enemies stayed enemies 24/7-- that way I could believe they were really serious about the stances and beliefs....
prove it