"Religion and politics are the two topics unfit for polite company." And family reunions...
As a refresher, my parents met in Ohio and moved to California in the 1970's where they raised a family including me. Some summers we would visit our grandparents and aunts and uncles in a green paradise full of iced tea, thunderstorms and fireflies.
From Trolls to Corn Hole to Sarah Palin
When I was old enough to understand the world of politics and religion while simultaneously discovering that the world can exist without strip malls, Ohio became a more complicated place and I didn't return for several years until the funeral of my 26-year-old cousin who died of the flu. It was a debate for me whether to go back or not because I'd been gone so long that it felt weird just showing up in black for the funeral of a guy I'd played trolls with when I was 10.
But, the whole family went, including my dad who puts flying along with dogs on his list of most hated things in the entire world. We sat together at Tommy's pizza in Dublin, Ohio drinking Peroni and eating crispy pizza cut in square pieces, and the relatives vowed that it shouldn't take a funeral to get everyone together. Another two years later, I came for my sister's college graduation, barely achieving that seemingly reasonable goal.
What I learned from this portion of the trip was 1) corn hole is harder than it looks...
And 2) I'm glad my extended family doesn't have to get together on Thanksgiving or Christmas because I'm pretty sure it would result in an almost immediate political and religious shouting match of epic proportions.
Even with everyone on their best behavior we existed dangerously on the line of a Bill O'Reilly v. Jon Stewart showdown. I don't want to get distracted by a rant about the role media plays in citizen political debate, but suffice it to say, the hypocrisy of the debate in this country is shocking and discussing it in a swing state with my relatives somehow made the topic hit home even harder for my California "your vote doesn't really count, but donate money so we can run ads in Ohio" self.
Basically several family members extolled the virtues of Sarah Palin totally non-ironically, and then argued on and on about how Obamacare was ruining their lives. What made this particularly difficult was that while they argued using talking points provided by FOX news, they were simultaneously and explicitly milking the current healthcare system for everything they could get, far more than anyone I've ever met in California does. The stated reasoning was "I have to take my piece or someone else will steal it, but if the pie wasn't there I wouldn't care" (when, of course, they would care if they had to pay for their expensive healthcare). In other words, it's in many ways the battle between individual and society - sometimes what's best for society isn't the optimal situation for the individual, but because what you see before you is more influential in your world view than a theoretical mass consequence, you focus on that, sometimes to the detriment of everyone else.
It's a similar logic behind why there aren't very many orderly lines in India (because someone will often cut to the front) and why there are massive empty yet "fully sold" apartment buildings in China (must buy now before someone else does even if we can't use it). If that chinese example sounds familiar, it's also the same reasoning behind the US financial crisis and more importantly, why Wall Street feels no remorse for its primary role in destroying the financial system ("hey, you bought it!"). Everyone wants a piece of the pie, but not because they understand the pie - because they want to make sure they get their fair share of whatever it is.
or 
Apple pie or cow pie? What does getting your fair share of the pie really mean?
What this kind of competitive consumption leads to is an environment of snake-oil sales of epic proportions in which smart, unscrupulous people take advantage of this feeling in every way they can. Usually, the people buying the snake oil don't find out until too late that it is worthless and then we have an economic crisis on our hands.
Somehow though, the consequence of this logic doesn't seem obvious enough, and for that I blame high-school micro-economics. In high-school, many people learned about supply and demand. They influence each other, and if supply screws up then demand will keep it in check. Vis-a-vis, if supply sells you snake-oil then eventually demand will dry up as people realize it's worthless. Unfortunately, the reality of this system and attitude is much more complex and its societal impact is much more negative than the simplified theory suggests.
The trouble is a) this never happens in real life and b) I've been to a wide range of countries where this attitude of "it's the consumer's responsibility if they get screwed" rules more than it does in the US, and generally, they're hard to live in. The water isn't drinkable, diseases are more rampant, and people are generally less trusting. The gap between the rich and the poor is wider, and the quality of life between them is defined not only by money, but by safety and health in a way unfathomable to an average American, especially one in the suburbs of Ohio. This is obviously correlation versus proven causation, but there are certainly clear examples of the attitude impacting quality of life and vice versa.
The basic high school argument also assumes that there is no corruption, collusion, or monopolies, and that there is full transparency in the market, which obviously there isn't in any real world example. What that leaves us with is a revolving door of new schemes dropped into a marketplace (ie, our daily life), that consumers must protect themselves against without transparent information. This situation actually stifles markets because it leaves them ripe for corruption and over time corruption will erode consumer confidence and drop a bomb into the center of a thriving, false economy, leaving a few extremely rich people richer and the rest of society picking up the shattered pieces (2007 -> today).
Commencement speeches for doctorates and open corruption in America
This point about corruption is particularly poignant due to an experience I had in Ohio that demonstrated a unique brand of American corruption that is particularly insidious and growing more acceptable every day.
My sister graduated after four years of hard work with a degree in nursing from Otterbein University, a small liberal arts college in the suburbs of Columbus. The commencement speaker of this college graduation was a VP at Disney who was in some way involved in running their theme parks. She also happened to receive an "honorary doctorate" at this graduation ceremony for her "public service" and also happened to be the sister-in-law of the University's president.
Here's how I picture the solicitation went:
University president: "Hey sis, we're family. Can you do me a favor and do the commencement speech?"
VP: "I've never heard of that college. If it's not a brand name, then I don't care. What's in it for me?"
University president: "How about an honorary doctorate?"
VP: "Fine. But I'm going to throw in Disney marketing so I can expense the trip."
University president: "Yay!"
*Dear lawyers: Dramatization. Not a transcript of a real conversation.
However the agreement happened, the reality was that first a doctorate was bestowed upon someone, clearly in exchange for a service (the commencement speech, which was also seemingly lifted from some Disney corporate training BS about your "personal brand"), and then later it was made proudly clear in the speech by the university president that this person also happened to be related to her.
What is particularly striking to me about this is that a) it was so proudly extolled and b) no one batted an eye. Since when was a combination of nepotism and bribery acceptable enough in this culture to not only do it, but to proudly state in front of the graduates, friends, families and trustees of the university that that is what you are doing?
I took a poll among random people I talked to in Ohio, liberal and conservative, and I asked, "Do you think it's OK to give a doctorate in exchange for a speech to your relative" and the unanimous response was "absolutely not" yet, there it was, wide open in front of an audience of people who either didn't notice at all or thought, "hmm, well if they're so open about it, it must be OK."
This differentiates America from other countries that suffer corruption and it is a dangerous direction. In other countries the corruption is known to happen but the individual details are kept secret. Indian politicians taking bribes are expected to be shocked and outraged at the accusations of corruption. Chinese communist officials who do back-door real-estate deals are dealt with by the party if it becomes too obvious what they are doing. Corruption is known and feared, but is still expected to be carried out in the shadows because it is societally unacceptable. Yet, in America right now, there is a new way of dealing with it. Be open from the get go, and market it as a positive thing.
The more acceptable it is to brag about your corruption, the more corruption itself becomes acceptable - even praised, and unfortunately this particular variation seems to be happening more and more.
How many politicians have re-emerged from a scandal stronger than ever before with some BS about "being saved" or "learning their lesson" that makes them even stronger candidates? Certainly more now than 40 years ago. Watergate, anyone? Can anyone imagine Nixon re-running for president on a platform of, "come on, guys, it wasn't that bad..."
How many wall street executives maintain that they didn't do anything wrong, and that it was in fact, their job to F* up the financial system? Lots. And society mumbles about it and then lets it go because exposing the corruption isn't the smoking gun it used to be. Now it's followed by a proud, "explain to me why it's wrong." To me this tone of unabashed public abuse of power is reminiscent of ancient Rome, and we all know how that ended.
Alternative views in the home of America's (somewhat) recent massacre
In an experience that rounded out my family political discussions for the trip, my fiance and I also met up with his uncle at a bar near Kent State University, home of the famous massacre of students by the Ohio National Guard in the 1970's. This uncle had a surprisingly liberal outlook and a deep passion for the importance of voting, "You young people need to vote. You need your voice heard, yet you don't vote, just like I didn't when I was your age. That is the single most important thing you can do for this world."
He is, of course, right, and young people overwhelmingly do not exercise their right to vote to the same degree as older people. But, when they do, they can achieve important things. Ohio is a swing state for a reason, and despite the on-going loud religious and conservative drum-beating, it voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election. College students and people under 30 played an important role in that political win, as they did in other swing states.
Yet, after my week in rural Ohio, I felt a little funny in that bar talking liberal politics, especially after spending several days in fundamentalist conservative Amish country (next post). I was somewhat afraid that someone would overhear us and come yell at us, perhaps with a Bible in hand. Perhaps that was exactly what should have happened, if it could have created a personal and pragmatic discussion between two differing viewpoints in which both parties would benefit from a deeper understanding of the issue.
Unfortunately, this trip only reiterated for me that we aren't really at a stage in which logical discourse between differing viewpoints can even happen. It didn't happen between my relatives, to the benefit of everyone else in the restaurant, it didn't happen amongst strangers (as it rarely does), and so it is left to the media pundits who make careers stirring up fear and resentment through half-truths and open corruption that permeates our daily lives and national consciousness to such a degree that even siblings must often sit in awkward polite conversation, avoiding an elephant in the room that hardly reflects reality at all.
Conclusions
In the end, Ohio remains strange for me because it feels foreign in ideology and lifestyle, yet there is a cemetery with generation after generation of my family with my name lying in wait between a Wendy's and a vinyl-sided housing development. My cousin was buried there and my grandparents, like their grandparents will be buried there too. I will not.
I don't know what will happen to me, but in the end while my roots are a part of who I am, my culture and upbringing is fundamentally different than my relatives who stayed put, in the same way that children of immigrants become citizens of their new country, versus the generations before them who remain steadfastly entrenched in the old. For those people who choose to remain, there is comfort and stability in the known, which may contribute to the fear of change so associated with conservatism and why areas with people who have more recently moved (such as big cities and newer states like California and Hawaii) tend to be more liberal.
Going home can be an interesting experience full of complex and confusing factors. Meeting people with your nose and your chin provides a link to your larger biological footprint that can be interesting and feel meaningful, but I believe that these things only define you to the degree that you let them.
For me, just as my parents did, I will embrace the forward movement to new places and cultures, always remembering where I came from as part of the journey, but steadfastly aiming ahead at the unwritten, unpredictable and exciting future.
And I'll vote.
