Are we all equally to blame for the "Political Civil War"?

.
The Fan Page of an author whose books I have just begun reading has a post from the author herself ---or at least it appears to be her post.  The post quotes a radio program ---This American Life-- that assessed how those of our friends who are a lot less political-minded than we are are regarding the fact that personal relationships are being strained by the politics.

"Ira Glass" it begins, "rides around with a man in the man's hometown...a man who doesn't want us to say his name on the radio. Why? Because he's secretly a Democrat, in a small town dominated by Republicans."  That sort of encapsulates the sort of thing that is happening around us: people afraid to talk politics, or disclose their affiliations for fear of cooling a relationship, or fear of ridicule.

A year or two ago I would not have thought twice about telling my students where I stood, politically, though I made it quite clear that I did not expect them to side with me, nor that they should expect me to regard them with particular favor if they did.

My wife just reported that a friend of hers on Facebook just re-posted a remark from someone that said something on the lines of "Democrats know where you live, and are going to come for you!"  She did not post this as a joke; it was a warning to fellow-Republicans.  Now, that is sad.  I had no idea that things had come to such a pass.

This American Life, it appears, blames both sides equally for this situation.  But are we vilifying the Republicans?  I don't think we are.  I think liberals are furious at the opposition for mis-characterizing Obama's attempt at progressive Health Care Legislation as something that is "leading America down the Wrong Road."  Of course liberals, who love America just as much as conservatives do, are indignant at being portrayed as anti-patriotic.  Who wouldn't be?

But do the Republicans really consider liberals as some horribly non-patriotic, un-American fringe elements of civil society, or is it just election rhetoric?  Will they tell us that it was just politics, and we're all good friends again after the election, or will they just pretend that it was that way, while they really hate our guts for being liberal?

As for me, I understand the various positions conservatives take.  I do not agree with them, but I understand them.  They say:
(a) Government spends too much money.  (We have to agree to disagree on which government programs are worth spending money on.)
(b) Women should not be allowed to have abortions, and in any case, the Government should not pay for them.  (I agree that women should not be encouraged to get pregnant casually, but we can't be setting ourselves up as judges of each individual case of pregnancy.)
(c) Social Welfare programs should be phased out, and eliminated entirely.  (I simply disagree.)
(d) Government should not get into the business of Health Care; it should be left to private insurers.  (I completely disagree.  Health care should not even be the responsibility of employers, and businesses.  Health care and business should have far less to do with each other than Health Care and Government.)
(e) The Government should not subsidize student loans.  (That's what they really think, though Romney has started to say that his administration will expand Pell grants.)
(f) Evolution should be taught side by side with Creationism as a competing theory.  (Nonsense.  I have many friends who will not come out against Creationism; they probably secretly believe in it, and hope that Scientists will find some sort of compromise that won't completely embarrass the Creationists.)
(g) People should be allowed to have any guns they want.  (Actually many conservatives would prefer gun control, but they let it pass, since their conservative friends are gun freaks.  And some of them think it might be good to have guns, just in case some illegal immigrant attacks the house.)
(h) The Mexican border should be closed up once and for all, and it should be made almost impossible for a Mexican to become a US citizen.  Furthermore, they should stop letting children born in this country automatically become citizens.  (This is a complex issue, and I'm not going to give it a flip response; I'm probably further to the left on this one than most of my readers, and I don't want to risk getting lynched.)
(i) Foreign policy should be more aggressively pursued, we must be more harsh with our perceived enemies, and more friendly towards our traditional friends.  We must be really rough with China about all the terrible things they do, e.g. currency manipulation.  (This is a lot easier to say than to do.  Our information about which countries are "friendly" is severely limited, and the pursuit of better information will actually jeopardize some of our international relationships.  The majority of moderate Republicans out there will probably be appalled at the 'rules' their leadership is willing to play by, and I fear that it is the same with the Democrats.)
(j) The environment, including Global Warming is a red herring.  We should do whatever is necessary to encourage business and improve the economy, without regard to its environmental impact.  The State Lands should mostly be given over to private companies to exploit, which will solve the employment problem once and for all.  (This is a matter of judgment.  Exploiting natural resources is how the USA became this wealthy this fast.  But it has increased the expectation among Americans about the standard of living that can be enjoyed.  It is all about Rate.  Fast exploitation: good standard of living, but rapid depletion of resources.  Slow exploitation: low standard of living, almost no depletion of resources.  You do the math.  Some hucksters promise that we can have it all.  This is why we call them hucksters.)
(k) The country should be run by Christians, for Christians, against all others.  Christian prayers and reading of scriptures should be allowed anywhere, any time; separation of church and state is only about subsidizing the churches.  (No; separation should be complete.)
(l) Most of all, taxes should be drastically reduced.  We should be allowed to enjoy a lot more of what we earn.  (This is a matter of moderation and balance.  We must provide social services to the poor, and we must pay for them out of taxes.  To the extent possible, we must seek to cut out waste, but it has to be done deliberately and carefully.  There is no doubt that there are offices in Washington that spend a lot of bucks, but from where we get very little bang.  But enormous Tax Cuts must not be promised as an election ploy.)
(m) The Deficit must be reduced.  (I'm all for it, provided we don't try to do it at the same time as we cut taxes.  Reduce the deficit first by cutting spending, then, once the deficit is reduced, the taxes can be cut.  The Republicans have this belief that cutting taxes on the very rich ---right away--- will result in more tax revenue, because the very rich will go out and make factories and hire lots of unemployed, who will in turn pay lots of taxes.  It is a lovely thought, sort of like the Tooth Fairy.  Statistics show that the opposite happens, because the very rich are notoriously tight-fisted, and are much more likely to invest in a company in China.  That will result in a lot of tax revenue, but for the Chinese.)

I don't want to make a big issue out of this, but it is not the Democrats who regard the conservatives as the enemy.  It is true that most of us truly believe in the positions we take, whereas conservatives adopt their positions for political reasons, and so might be less emotionally tied to them, and feel the need a lot less to stand behind them, at the risk of losing friends.  (Gosh, that's not how I see them, somehow.)  But it is painful to be accused of being unpatriotic and un-American, and that's not something we accuse conservatives of.  (Possibly because traditionally to be American stood for some pretty terrible things that we don't like to do anymore, such as murder Native Americans, etc.  So, obviously we don't accuse the NRA of being un-American.  We call them other sorts of names that are, frankly, a lot less hurtful.  One hopes.

Arch