Chapter 15 -2

Of course, in the United States today, the Republican Party, which represents conservative views, does not dare to show any tendency to racial discrimination, and also under the banner of restoring traditional American concepts, it gathers people of various ethnic groups, including blacks and Asians Supporters included.However, among conservative Americans, even though they recognize the most basic idea of ​​"all men are created equal", there are still some of them who are quite prone to racial prejudice, especially in the southern part of the United States where conservative forces are relatively strong. .Perhaps, this is because in their ideology, there is no concept of multiculturalism.Perhaps, it is because in the United States where they used to live peacefully, racial segregation is also a part of their lives that they have become accustomed to.Therefore, radicals of extreme conservatives are almost all racially prejudiced to varying degrees.The liberal view of multiculturalism, on the other hand, cleans up racial prejudice more thoroughly.

However, these issues involved are not very simple judgments of right and wrong, and there are many complicated factors involved.For example, since liberal ideas have gradually become popular in the United States, people are often confused.Due to their extreme belief in multiculturalism, liberals basically hold a tolerant attitude of "long live understanding" to any kind of non-traditional cultural and social phenomena.This has also seriously broken the social tranquility that was originally maintained by certain ethics and morals in addition to the law.Even some crazy people among the liberals have transformed the spirit of tolerance of the liberals into unrestricted behaviors, which has caused a lot of social problems and made the problem of crime more and more serious.

A very extreme example is a judge in New York.When the police intercepted a vehicle in which a large amount of drugs were found on the spot, two suspected drug transporters resisted arrest and tried to escape, but were eventually arrested.In court, the liberal judge claimed that the police in this area have repeatedly committed human rights violations, so the two defendants could be forgiven for their instinct to flee when they saw the police. They were terrified.After such reasoning, the police are not good. Therefore, the defendant was acquitted and released in court.As soon as this news was announced, it aroused strong dissatisfaction in public opinion.In the end, the judge was forced to resign and apologized to the police before resigning.However, during the campaign, this example became strong evidence for the Republican Party to attack Clinton from the beginning to the end.The Republican Party wants everyone to pay attention to what it will do if the Democratic Party with a liberal style is in power.

Another example is that in the past 20 to 30 years, the problem of teenage pregnancy in the United States has become increasingly serious, especially in black communities.The extreme liberals believe that different cultures have different values. In our culture, there may be negative value judgments about pregnancy at the age of fourteen.However, in black culture, pregnancy at this age may be normal.Moreover, we can also find a large number of examples in many African countries, where black girls in tribes have children at this age.Therefore, our accusation against them is actually a kind of cultural discrimination, and we should understand such cultural values.

It sounds like there is nothing wrong with this logic.But, the problem is, this is not a closed cultural community, in other words, this is happening in modern America after all, not a tribe in the African bush.In a jungle, self-sufficient tribal life has its way of supporting such a mother and child.They are still a part of nature and have not been alienated from nature. They have their own way of surviving in nature. Indeed, everything is natural there. Of course, there is no value judgment problem that Americans are facing now. . Now, however, this is happening in modern America where all peoples live together.The society must maintain the minimum standard of living of their mother and child, rather than allowing them to survive in the law of the jungle and fend for themselves.They themselves already have the requirements of a modern civilized society for life.In other words, they no longer live in a closed and self-supporting value system.In the end, the consequences of these teenage pregnancies are borne by the people in the value system of modern civilization, who pay taxes with their hard work.This of course prevents conservatives from approving such an "understanding".

The problem is that some ultra-conservatives, while voicing similar objections, have a tendency to make the listener feel that they are actually racially biased, and the resentment of this tendency often drowns out the reasonableness of their opinions. part.In short, all kinds of complicated factors, including emotional factors, make many disputes themselves stalemate, and rational things cannot be separated. Although, racially prejudiced people are only a small group of extremists among conservatives.But there's always been mistrust of conservative attitudes on race.There are also historical reasons for this.Because in the 1960s, during the civil rights movement where blacks demanded the abolition of racial segregation in the American South, liberals were on the side of blacks, while a large number of conservatives opposed desegregation.

The liberal anti-Vietnam war movement, and many of its views, emerged, matured, and developed around the same time as the black civil rights movement.Even the modern music and modern dance that freed the liberals and generations of young Americans after that completely freed them from the shackles of their minds also developed from black music and dance.There is a connection between them that runs deep in the blood of the culture.As for conservatives in the United States, although thirty years have passed, times have changed, and a new generation has grown up, most of them have changed their racial prejudices to some extent.However, their cultural context is a completely different path. Therefore, there is always a gap between them and the non-traditional American culture.

Therefore, we also found a very interesting phenomenon, that is, in terms of cultural orientation, the vast majority of black Americans are almost naturally liberal.However, Asians, who are also ethnic minorities here, are more likely to accept the views of American conservatives in terms of cultural identity.The proportion of Asians in the U.S. population is much lower than that of blacks.Especially during the civil rights movement in the 1960s, the number of Asians was much lower than it is now.Chatting with the older generation of Asian immigrants, they felt that the hard struggle of blacks in the civil rights movement made Asians who did not do anything about it at that time enjoy the fruits of blacks fighting for equal rights for people of color. Great deal."

Asians in the United States have always had a large distance from black culture in terms of cultural identity.In the cultural background of Asians, it is very easy to accept the social ideals of American conservatives.So much so that it is very common to cause conflict between two generations in Asian immigrant families.The new generation of Asians born in the United States get along with young people in the United States. Many of them are no different from their American classmates.In this case, there will be a big conceptual difference between them and the previous generation.Generally speaking, when people evaluate this kind of situation, they always attribute it to the difference between Asian culture and American culture. In fact, more precisely, it is the difference between Asian culture and American liberal ideas.

Therefore, for a long time, although the proportion of Asian Americans participating in American political activities is relatively low, if they support a political party, many of them will tend to support the Republican Party.But now it seems that a big change has taken place, especially in this year's general election, a large number of Asians turned to support the Democratic candidate Clinton.This change is largely due to the different views and policies of the two major political parties on the immigration issue. Immigration and race are of course related to some extent, but they are not the same issue.The immigration issue bears the brunt of the economic and social problems caused by immigration.On this issue, liberals have always welcomed immigrants and adopted a lenient attitude based on their multicultural starting point.

I remember that when I first came to the United States, the economy was quite sluggish, but immigrants continued to flow into the United States year after year.Therefore, the United States began to have the voice of tightening immigration policy.I was once discussing this topic with my friend Deger, whose father is a Southern Baptist pastor and who is a Democrat.He expressed a very firm attitude of continuing to support mass immigration.I asked him strangely, don't you worry that the influx of immigrants will lower the standard of living of Americans?He told me innocently that immigrants are what made America great.Recently, Dege passed away unexpectedly in his thirties.When I think of him, I can't help but think of our conversation, and his kindness to foreigners like us. Another time, on a liberal talk show, a young Jewish man made up an immigrant story about his grandfather to mock conservatives who opposed immigration.He said his grandfather waited in the immigration line at U.S. Customs for a long time and waited a long time before he was able to enter the U.S. Customs.Unexpectedly, just as soon as he set foot on American soil, he turned around and taught the people behind him in an "old American" tone, saying "you immigrants". Strictly speaking, in the United States, everyone is an immigrant.After research, even the so-called Native American Indians "immigrated" from Asia across the Bering Strait in distant times. "Immigrants are in no particular order", you can say that the descendants of immigrants who came earlier have no reason to be entitled to oppose immigration just because they came a few days earlier.The United States has indeed benefited greatly from its multiculturalism, attracting talents of all kinds from all over the world and exerting their greatest creativity.All these principles are correct. However, things are not always that simple.The land in the United States is also limited.Our friend Karin, she has sponsored several Chinese people to come to the United States.But, she tells me now, she doesn't want to do it again.Because she saw that the population density here was also growing rapidly, and the speed of construction development was synchronized with the speed of natural destruction, which began to worry her.Karin's change of attitude was typical.As immigration has increased year by year, many formerly pro-immigration people have begun to wonder whether there should be at least some restrictions. When the economic situation is not so good, the reason why the immigration issue will be brought up first has a lot to do with the fact that the United States adheres to some of their basic concepts in immigration policy and pays a lot of money, for example , Regardless of whether you enter the United States legally or illegally, as long as you enter, Americans believe that the most basic humanitarian services must be provided, such as medical assistance.The medical expenses in the United States are quite high, which are generally settled by medical insurance.The life of new immigrants is still unstable, and they rarely buy medical insurance.In this way, once there is a problem, you can only refuse to pay.However, according to the law here based on the spirit of humanity, the hospital has to give treatment.In this way, these medical expenses must of course be spread on the American people. The United States implements a compulsory education system, and students who attend public schools do not have to pay fees until they graduate from high school, and the school also has free lunches.School expenses are, of course, American taxpayer dollars.It is also based on the spirit of humanity. Immigrant children who come to study, even children of illegal immigrants who have just sneaked across the border, are treated equally.The school must also hire more teachers and set up bilingual classes, so that children who cannot speak English can use their mother tongue to catch up with other courses while tutoring English. Another example is that some of our classmates became pregnant and gave birth to children after they came to the United States to study abroad.According to regulations, international students are generally not allowed to work legally, so of course, the money earned by working illegally will not be taxed.Therefore, they all applied for the social benefits given to poor pregnant women by the US government as a matter of course.Such benefits can be said to be comprehensive.From regular checkups for pregnant women after pregnancy, free nutritional food coupons throughout pregnancy, medical expenses during childbirth, to baby products and food including disposable diapers after childbirth, etc.Writing a letter back made my old classmate who was pregnant in China envious. Immigrants generally belong to the family once they move.Also based on the principle of humanity, the immigration policy of the United States has long stipulated that the immediate relatives of immigrants can apply to come to the United States to settle down and reunite with their families.Although the waiting time is different depending on the relationship, but, after all, it is a matter of time, and there is always hope for a reunion.At the same time, the government will take care of the elderly over 65 years old in the United States if they do not have certain savings and income.Such welfare for the elderly includes free medical care and monthly living expenses. If there is no housing, you can also apply for an apartment for the elderly subsidized by the government.According to the previous immigration policy, foreigners can also enjoy the same treatment as long as they have obtained permanent resident status for more than five years.Thus, in In the United States, the elderly in a large number of immigrant families are not borne by their children, but by the US government. In fact, they are borne by American taxpayers. The above examples are only a small part of the immigration problem.The immigrants I mentioned earlier refer to foreigners who have not yet naturalized in the United States.In other words, for a long time, American citizens have paid a considerable price for the influx of foreigners and insisting on some of their basic ideas, but the momentum of immigration remains unabated. Mainly in California and other areas with a very high proportion of illegal immigrants, calls for reforming immigration policies are getting louder.Therefore, in this year's general election, the immigration issue has become a major hot spot.The Republican Party is more firmly on the position of tightening immigration policies, while the Democratic Party is relatively more moderate. For example, on the specific terms of immigration reform, the Democrats try to bargain with the Republicans.At the same time, Clinton's administrative branch simplified the naturalization procedures, so that a large number of foreign elderly who may lose their benefits after the passage of the welfare reform bill will still enjoy their original benefits after being naturalized as American citizens.After the simplification of procedures, an army of millions of new naturalized citizens in the United States was formed last year.These new American citizens have a lot of opinions on immigration reform, so their turnout rate is very high, and of course they all voted for Clinton, the Democrat.This made the Republican Party very annoyed, claiming that such "fast naturalization" was completely Clinton's canvassing tactic. Many Asians here are already American citizens, but the tightening immigration policy is still closely related to them.For example, the Republican Party proposed to cancel the policy that some adult relatives of citizens, such as brothers, sisters or adult children, can come to reunite and settle down as a matter of course, which caused a burst of panic.In this battle over immigration reform, many Asians have experienced varying degrees of fear.Many of them regard the attitude towards immigration policy as their primary consideration for political party support, or even the only consideration.This has also resulted in an unprecedentedly high proportion of Asians supporting the Democratic Party. The differences between conservatives and liberals in the United States can be encountered almost everywhere on some sensitive issues in American social life.However, the differences of opinion between the two major factions in the society are reflected in the propaganda of political parties and the presidential election. The situation is different.Because although these two political parties have conservative and liberal tendencies, they sometimes appear moderate and moderate in some policies and election platforms.The reason is that they all want to win the support of more voters, not just the support of a certain faction.For example, on the issue of immigration, liberals in society have very open views, but Clinton has liberal tendencies in dealing with this issue and has also made efforts to fight for the rights of immigrants. However, before the general election, he still agreed An immigration reform bill that largely reflects Republican views.Because there must be some change in immigration policy, which seems to reflect the majority of public opinion now. The same is true when it comes to dealing with homosexuality.Conservative Americans have little tolerance for homosexuality, but liberals have a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality.They believe that this is just a personal tendency of some people, just as heterosexuality is also a personal preference.Although this happens to a few people, they are just made that way, and you can't take away their individual right to the pursuit of happiness.Therefore, they basically tend to allow homosexuals to enjoy the same rights as ordinary people on specific issues such as marriage and adoption.Of course, even for liberals, everyone's tolerance for this issue is different. It should be said that in the United States over the past few years, the attitude towards homosexuality has increasingly tended to understand and tolerate.Especially in cities like New York and San Francisco, the stronghold of liberalism, there are grand parades for gays and lesbians fighting for human rights every year, and the momentum is getting bigger and bigger every year.In San Francisco's gay gathering area, rainbow flags symbolizing homosexuality are flying everywhere.Although California, where San Francisco belongs, stipulates that homosexuals cannot be legally registered as a couple, but there are more than 3,000 gay couples in San Francisco registered with the city government.Not long ago, San Francisco held a gay group wedding, and the mayor also witnessed their marriage on the spot. You may be wondering how there are so many gays in San Francisco.In fact, it’s the city’s tolerant attitude toward gays that drives gays from all over the United States, and possibly the world, to move here, which may not be a problem in liberal strongholds like San Francisco and New York.Surprisingly, in the most conservative South, Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, now also has an annual gay party, and on that day, rainbow flags can be seen everywhere in Atlanta.This was completely unimaginable a few years ago. But such a problem seems to involve the most primitive human ethics.Therefore, personal opinion is one thing, and once it enters the legislative process, it is another matter to give a legal conclusion on such an issue.At this time, all those involved in the legislative process will become more cautious and "conservative" than they were before.In fact, the same is true among the public. A considerable number of people express sympathy and understanding for homosexuals, but they do not know whether it is appropriate to confirm same-sex marriage in legislation.Therefore, the liberal tolerance of homosexuality in society did not make the Democrats and Clinton try to block the "Defense of Marriage Act" proposed by Republican lawmakers and passed by both houses of Congress before the general election.The Act reaffirms the definition of marriage as a union of opposite sexes. According to the principle of "balance and check", legislation passed by Congress must also be signed by the President.After all, this is an overly sensitive topic before the election.Among the sensitive presidents, Clinton was the first to openly express understanding and tolerance for homosexuality.Now, he agrees with the opinions of the majority and believes that it is too late to solve this problem, and this problem must be left to the future.The status quo is still maintained.However, this still goes against Clinton's consistent image among gay voters. We have already mentioned that during the presidency of the United States, it is a sign of the performance of the president to reach an understanding with Congress to reach a piece of legislation.Therefore, generally speaking, when President Clinton signs a bill, he will have a simple ceremony and invite some public representatives related to the bill to participate.This time, Clinton was uncharacteristically, and quietly signed this extremely sensitive bill in the United States in the early hours of midnight. In society, liberals generally tend to lift the ban on marijuana, which has become a major target of conservative attacks.So while it's possible that Clinton himself would have balked at marijuana being classified as a drug.However, as long as the time to lift the ban on marijuana is not ripe, he will avoid the marijuana issue during the campaign and emphasize strict drug control and anti-drug as his important policy agenda.Otherwise, he will lose a large number of voters. Clinton of the Democratic Party has always advocated the gradual control of tobacco, which is also one of the weapons in the contest between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.Republicans often refer to the fact that the liberal attitude to marijuana is essentially an advocacy of drug use.Democrats immediately confronted it over pulling out tobacco.Efforts in this direction have been made during President Clinton's tenure.This made the tobacco industry in the United States panic.What makes the tobacco industry especially nervous is that the Federal Food and Drug Administration will declare tobacco's main ingredient, nicotine, an addictive drug.In this way, tobacco will be regulated by the bureau for the first time.There will be tighter restrictions on cigarette advertising and new restrictions on the sale of tobacco products to young people.Meanwhile, the Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether tobacco companies made incorrect claims to federal regulators about the contents and health effects of cigarettes.If there is such a situation, it can be prosecuted as a criminal offense. As we mentioned earlier, the Republican Party basically protects the interests of entrepreneurs. Tobacco is a big industry, and they have always supported the Republican Party.It has never been a secret that the tobacco industry has donated heavily to the Republican Party to help its candidates campaign.However, since President Clinton came to power, he has made an aggressive stance against the tobacco industry, which has led the tobacco industry to start an active campaign donation campaign. In the first half of last year, it donated more than 1.5 million US dollars to the Republican Party, which is five times that of the first half of 1994. . Although tobacco company spokesmen claimed that their donations were to support Republican political ideas, most people believed that they did so to allow Republican leaders to intervene on their behalf. So from the perspective of the American public, how do they view such a problem?From a conservative point of view, tobacco is a part of traditional life, and there is nothing shocking to them, they are already used to such a thing.And for liberals, tobacco has been one of the reasons for their outrage over marijuana being classified as a drug.Because they believe that the harm of tobacco to the human body is well known, and tobacco is even worse than marijuana. So during the campaign this year, a very interesting thing happened.The Republican candidate Doerr was asked by a group of reporters, since you advocate strict drug control and attack Clinton's ineffective drug control.Then why do you know that tobacco is also harmful to health, but why do you open up about it?On this issue, Duer probably felt wronged himself, but he had to give an explanation.Therefore, he replied vaguely that the harm of tobacco is still being debated scientifically, and there is no very definite conclusion that cigarettes will definitely be addictive.It is not uncommon to hold different views in science.For example, some people say that drinking milk is also bad for health, but there is no conclusion.Therefore, it cannot be banned immediately as soon as negative views arise. As a result, the next day, the interview report in the newspaper attracted everyone with the headline, "Durr believes that cigarettes are not addictive, and milk is harmful to health."The news certainly caused a certain reaction among the public.This made Durr furious.Generally speaking, a candidate always makes every effort to have a good relationship with the press, that is, try not to criticize the news media as much as possible.But in the later stages of Toure's campaign, he had enough patience with the press, complaining several times that liberal journalists had ruined his campaign. In American political life, "lobbying" is legal within the scope of the law and has a long history.Interest groups from all walks of life will "lobby" to political parties and Congress.They are also likely to support political parties that represent their interests in the form of political donations. The term "lobbying" does not have any derogatory meaning in the United States. The reason why the law allows this is that Americans believe that this is a normal way to express public opinion.Through "lobbying", they make political parties and congressmen fully understand the demands of this part of the people. In the United States, "lobbying" has become a part of normal political activities, and professional lobbying companies have also developed and become an industry. Therefore, there is also a special "lobbyist association".In different eras, with the development of "lobbying", different problems arise, and correspondingly different laws and regulations are produced to restrict them.Recently, the Senate of Congress unanimously passed a bill to strictly regulate lobbying.Tighten lobbying registration requirements and force "lobbyists" to disclose basic information about who they are lobbying for, who they contact, and their income.This makes lobbying more transparent and more open. So, does this mean that the election was manipulated by a few wealthy bosses?Here we can see that such a result cannot be deduced just because of this.On the one hand, many groups representing the people at the bottom receive a lot of social donations, and sometimes the social power they gather is no less than that of a large enterprise.For example, as I mentioned to you last year, the "American Civil Liberties Union", which specializes in assisting ordinary people to file lawsuits for violations of their civil rights, is a civil rights organization with considerable strength. On the other hand, except for legal restrictions, a political party's political views and attitudes towards various issues are all open to the public.Under the just-passed strict lobbying management law, it is also open to the lobbying of some interest groups for members of this political party.In this premise, the political party and its candidates are simultaneously monitored by various civic groups, the press, and voters.For example, tobacco companies have donated to the Republican Party. There is a public welfare group called "Common Cause", which specializes in collecting information on tobacco companies' donations to the Republican Party, and then announces and publicizes it to the public.Such a public welfare organization may have far less economic strength than a tobacco tycoon, but their practices do not need to spend too much money.However, the impact among the populace was considerable.Moreover, this influence may be crucial in the general election. Because, if a political party is influenced by certain large companies, and even receives a large amount of donations from them, if it intends to implement policies that are beneficial to this company, it still has to convince the people.Strong words can actually do bad things.For example, although tobacco companies can "lobby" and make donations to the Republican Party, the boss of the tobacco company only has his own vote.Ultimately, the decision on the future of tobacco depends on what the majority of people in the United States think of tobacco during this period. Next, let's talk about private gun ownership, which is also a big topic in the United States.So, what are the attitudes of the two major factions in the United States?Conservatives in the United States insist on a relatively thorough freedom to own guns.Now in the United States, some guns are not allowed to be privately owned.In my letter last year, I introduced to you that the possession of arms is a civil right enshrined in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.However, we have also mentioned that in the two hundred years since the establishment of the United States, the development of weapons is very amazing.And, where there are always people who abuse their liberty, the abuse of weapons is always the most dangerous part.So freedom has actually been giving way all the time. So now in the United States, citizens have only limited rights to own guns.At the beginning of this century, the United States had the problem of mafia armed crimes.After the invention of the fully automatic rifle, it was gangsters who first started using it.Therefore, fully automatic rifles were the first to be banned by legislation.During the Clinton administration, another piece of legislation partially restricting private weapons was passed on the grounds of deterring crime, restricting several types of weapons, including semiautomatic rifles.The bill was passed with great difficulty, after several iterations of amendments. After this proposal came out, it can be said that it aroused great anger from the ultra-conservatives.It is believed that this is the government's intention to deprive the people of their constitutional rights.On this point, the attitude of the Republican Party is also very clear. They are far more cautious than the Democrats in bills related to gun ban.Many of the past presidents of the Republican Party are members of the Long Gun Association, one of the largest non-governmental organizations in the United States. Why are conservative Americans, who prefer to live a traditional, stable life, so interested in owning guns?One reason is because guns have always been a part of traditional American life.At the same time, it emphasizes individual rights and individual constitutional rights, which are basically the common characteristics of Americans.It's just that the way and angle of emphasis are different.There are few liberals who demand a comprehensive gun ban, because everyone knows that this is a recognized constitutional right. But it must be mentioned that, apart from the need to ban guns for the sake of suppressing crime, there are quite a few pacifists among liberal Americans who seem to have no interest in weapons.Conservatives have inherited the notion of a "battle hero" developed since World War II.Young liberals respect such heroes of the older generation, but since the Vietnam War brought them reflection, pacifism has quietly emerged among the younger generation of liberals.I mentioned earlier that conservative Americans are very popular with the flag as a decoration, but among liberal young Americans, the most popular decoration is a symbol of peace. So, aren't liberal Americans patriotic?I think it shouldn't be possible to say that.They just feel that the patriotic concept of conservatives is very narrow.They feel that it seems meaningless to discuss "patriotism" in this way.Many of them feel that they are cosmopolitans, just like their concept of environmental protection. They feel that there are many things in this world that have gone beyond the concept of "patriotism".For example, the concept of peace, the concept of humanity, the concept of living in harmony with nature, the concept of allowing all animals to have a good living environment, the concept of allowing all nations in the world to preserve their original culture, etc., etc. . This letter is really long enough.As I mentioned earlier, the difference in the way of thinking of liberals and conservatives among the American people is reflected in almost every aspect of life.So this can be an endless topic.They have different feelings for music, different tastes for artworks, different clothes, and even different expressions.Therefore, sometimes we really feel that we can make a basic judgment as soon as we meet.However, among our good friends, there are both liberals and conservatives. Although only a small portion has been covered here, I hope I have covered their major differences of opinion.I hope that through this simple introduction, you have a basic impression of the two major factions in the United States and the two major parties that basically correspond to them. wish it is good! Linda