by Evert Cilliers aka Adam Ash
Yep, since we are going to get obscene here, and bang on about what sexual positions suit the radically opposed Democratic and Republican weltanschauungs, it's probably advisable to start with a high-minded philosopher — if only to persuade you intellectuals out there that we're onto something serious, and not just wanking your planks for some middling satirical plank-wanking sport.
Levinas is the guy who said morality starts with the face-to-face recognition of the Other. You look the Other in the face, and because you look that Other in the face, it would be difficult to kill said Other in face-to-face contact, and voila: that's how morality starts, with the reluctance of killing the Other once you have faced each other eye-to-eye.
So how does this fundamental philosophical platform — as fundamental as it gets, right up there with “I think therefore I am” — relate to Democrats and Republicans and how they might prefer to go about their various bonking activities?
Aha. Good question.
(Just BTW, this is why I much prefer Continental philosophers to the analytical eggheads of the Anglo-American persuasion, who are as dry as a porn star's gonads after a lifetime of money shots leading to a premature loss of testosterone and an early Death of Desire. One can really be inspired by Heidegger et al into great fancy flights of thought, while Wittgenstein and crew — and he's the only really interesting chap among them — mire one into boring logical analyses that get lost in a morass of technical hair-splitting. I pick Isaiah Berlin's fox over the hedgehog any day: “the fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” If the one big thing you know is analysis and the careful parsing of evidential terms, you're kind of stuck in a very narrow pen, and you've basically scientized all thought into one small habit of mind. Also, who would you rather have hung out with: Simone de Beauvoir or Gilbert Ryle?)
Anyway, let's continue. After all, you want me to get to the bonking part as soon as possible, don't you? As much you like to live in your head, your loins always provide a welcome distraction, don't they?
Here's my thesis. A Democrat is prepared to give the Other a look in the face. She will look at the poor, and say to herself, I must help this poor sod because he can't really help himself: he needs a little alm or two from me out of my taxes. Now a Republican is not prepared to look the Other in the face. In fact, the Republican is happy to turn away from the Other. Listen, says the Republican, what's mine is mine, and I am not going to give my tax money to the government so they can turn around and give it to some poor bugger who is too lazy to get a job and work for his money like I do.
That's actually the big divide between the Democrats and the Republicans. The Democrats think of the poor as deserving of a little assistance, because they're human, for chrissake. The Republicans think of the poor as highly undeserving and responsible for their own plight. The poor can go to the damn dogs, because that's where they belong anyway. If they can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, I ain't gonna supply 'em with no damn bootstraps, no damn sirree.
There are other differences, too, of course. Today the GOP is basically nuts and have to lie to themselves and the world (witness candidate Romney) to hang on to their one big thing (cut taxes, shrink government), while the Democrats will always flounder since they'll never have the courage to run full-bore with their progressive convictions (witness our tinkering-round-the-edges president).
But philosophically and basically, the core difference is in how these two big strains in our political life view the Other, and especially the poor.
Democrats welcome difference. Republicans detest, fear and hate the Other (recently they even started a war on women — imagine being so nuts, you're willing to otherize half the voters).
Your Democrat believes in social empathy; your Republican in personal responsibility. Democrats say we help ourselves best by helping each other, and Republicans figure we help ourselves best by helping ourselves and nobody else. It's a communal vs. an individual thing.
So this leads me to my bonking metaphor which, as is the case with bonking metaphors, is very rich and pregnant with many meanings.
Your Democrat likes to face the Other when she or he bonks; she likes to be intimate with the Other; drink the Other in. While your Republican, well, he doesn't like to face the Other; he prefers to avert his face from the Other's face; he doesn't want to see the Other, let alone face her. So he prefers to bonk doggie style, because now he doesn't see the Other's face.
The Democrat wants to be with the Other as they get their rocks off, while your Republican wants to be with him or herself while she or he gets her rocks off.
Your Democrat uses her lover to make love with him, while your Republican uses his lover as an instrument to masturbate with.
And so on. Think about it. Dwell upon this massive divide, that gets down to the very act of love. Let your mind thrall. Give your cerebellum wings.
OK, so there you have it: my weird little thesis in a nutshell. But you are free to break open the nut and run with the scatterlings of this theory, and explore it in all its verdancy. In fact, you may be inspired to opine your thoughts in the convenient comments thread below. As for me, I will be happy to comment anon with further thoughts occasioned by yours. Your resident court jester has spoken, and he will chip in some more if you do. This is something we can work out to its fullest extent in a Socratic dialogue of hermeneutics. Let us engage in Heideggerian porn as we unmask the Democrats and the Republicans for who they truly are — and where it counts most: in bed, with their most private selves, and their most private organs, working it.
Mind you, other metaphors abound, not necessarily sexual. Republicans drink beer, Democrats drink wine. Democrats are female, Republicans are male. Republicans have dogs, Democrats have cats. You may think of many more.
As for me, I think the sexual metaphor may be the most enlightening.
In coitus, veritas.
(Afternote: I have a book out, self-published at the moment, based on my many provocative posts to 3QD. It's called The Real Obama: Progressive Tiger or Wall Street Poodle? You'll never have more fun reading about politics. Only $12 — order a copy here: lulu.com/product/paperback/the-real-obama-progressive-tiger-or-wall-street-poodle/18939747)