trying to grok

I think you're far tougher than you give yourself credit for!

I agree with darla. Some people wouldn't even be able to say nothing's free. I'm pretty nonconfrontational myself. So I think you did the right thing. You were asked for your opinion, and you gave it. Maybe not all of it, but the essential part. If nothing is free, then it follows that health care is not "free." It's not as if you mentioned some obscure objection to avoid offending him. You got to the point.

Do you remember how he reacted to nothing being free?

I'm curious: how many former Democrats / leftists here were "converted" because of a conversation like the one you had? I've never had a conversation like this, and I "converted" myself, so I don't know if you could have changed my way of thinking 20 years ago. I'm not saying that Nugent's tougher love is ineffective, but I do wonder how effective it is, and if it's worth the social cost.

Speaking up also takes time. I don't like it when people politicize apolitical activities, and I don't want to waste more time on a subject that shouldn't have come up in the first place.

We have to choose our battles. Dr. Helen chose wisely. She'll never see those people in the drugstore again. She had nothing to lose at that moment. I would assume Ted Nugent doesn't have to answer to anyone. He can say whatever he wants. Not all of us have that luxury. But we can still find more opportunities to express our viewpoints ... have our own drugstore incidents.

PS: By coincidence, this is the first blog post I saw after I read this one.

I believe in speaking up, but how do you define what's appropriate? Your for instance about healthcare, I would discuss that with someone I knew fairly well. Not with a stranger on a plane. But then I also just stopped discussing politics altogether during the campaign because it became increasingly difficult to not want to choke someone for being stupid.

I think if we can speak up in a logical and polite fashion then we should. Also not everyone has the same social finesse as you do Sarah. :) I have no problem talking to people but a lot of folks are a little more shy.

Maybe the 56 million of us who didn't vote for Obama could wear lapel pins or something?

The problem with speaking up when someone is pontificating is that they usually don't want to hear it.

I adore a good discussion - even with people I don't politically agree with (and there are lots of those everywhere) as long as it can stay civil and the person I'm speaking with can give me facts as well as passion. And with one other caveat - the person I'm talking with has to be as open to hearing new facts and re-evaluating their belief system as I am. That's not too much to ask, I think, and that places the onus just as much on me as on the person I'm discussing with.

The problem is that if someone's entire political worldview can fit on a 2 x 12 bumper sticker, there isn't depth for discussion.

Mare,

I also just stopped discussing politics altogether during the campaign

I kept my mouth shut "in real life" unless someone came "out of the closet." I always let others make the first move, unless I know we share common ground (and I do share some with people on the opposite side of the aisle - they're not another species!).

airforcewife,

The problem with speaking up when someone is pontificating is that they usually don't want to hear it.

Yes. Such people are not interested in initiating a discussion; they intend to impress others with how "virtuous" they are (since they have the "right" beliefs). Questioning their "virtue" only angers them. Rage will blind them to whatever merits the opposing position may possess.

the person I'm talking with has to be as open to hearing new facts and re-evaluating their belief system as I am. That's not too much to ask

It depends on how "open" one is. It's "not too much to ask" if one is willing to take a few new steps in one direction or another. But expecting people to 180 because of something one says is too much. I'll admit it - I'm not likely to go back to the left any day soon. I don't have a totally open mind about Communism - or jihadism. And I'm not sorry about that.

People have vast emotional investments in their core beliefs. Striking those beliefs directly is likely to fail. Questioning peripheral beliefs is safer, though it falls far short of what Nugent demands. (Not that I feel any need to please him.) Sarah's "nothing is 'free' in this world" or her unsaid "Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should" exemplify a third, more effective approach: question the underpinnings of the core beliefs rather than the beliefs themselves.

The problem is that if someone's entire political worldview can fit on a 2 x 12 bumper sticker, there isn't depth for discussion.

But just enough "depth" to identify that person. That's all politics is for a lot of people. Tribal insignia. Why bother to question their badges? Good advice!

I too, tend to keep my politics under the table IRL, unless I know the other person is open to having a genuine discussion. Where I live, such a thing is a rarity, so I am thrilled with the fact that we have become good friends with another couple in Beowulf's unit that has the same core conservative beliefs that we do. My husband, this couple, and my parents are really the only people I can think of IRL that I will talk politics with. I had some conservative friends my senior year in college, but they are spread all over the place now and I rarely see them anymore.

What I am more likely to do, if politics are brought up with someone who I'm not sure how they think, is ask questions. I will ask them specifically why they think that it will work, or bring up the negatives that other countries have experienced with socialized medicine, or bring up how even the military has trouble being effective and efficient (people having to make appointments months ahead of time, a guy from hubby's platoon sitting in the emergency room for 9 hours before he saw a doctor after cutting off the tip of his finger, etc). And how they think doctors will get paid, what about malpractice suits, and what will happen to the pool of doctors when their pay is effectively "capped". I'm much less likely to tell them straight out that I disagree (I'm really kind of a shy/timid person unless I know you), but I will ask questions.

Leofwende,

My husband, this couple, and my parents are really the only people I can think of IRL that I will talk politics with.

That's a lot more than I have in IRL ... namely, zero. I'm envious.

Somebody send me the map to the gulch ASAP!

What I am more likely to do, if politics are brought up with someone who I'm not sure how they think, is ask questions.

Good idea. I'm too shy to even do that, but I do listen to the other side. My goal is not to sway them over but to understand their POV better.

Amritas:
It's "not too much to ask" if one is willing to take a few new steps in one direction or another. But expecting people to 180 because of something one says is too much.
That's why I said they have to be as willing as I am to look at evidence. If I'm not willing at all, I have no right to expect them to be. But this also applies to them.

Don't expect me to listen to a rant about some person who called Barack Obama some name if you have bumper stickers on your car calling George Bush names. On the same subject, don't expect me to be more respectful towards a president I didn't vote for than you were towards a president you didn't vote for.

I will be, because I have a sense of decency and respect towards office. But don't expect it, because you didn't put that tip in the karma jar.

That's what I mean by that. I just expect people to be as open themselves as they expect other people to be listening to them. Invariably this doesn't happen. As you said, because they consider their views "right".