I’ve created a new category here at fishkite so that I can post some of the funny or stupid or profound or interesting things I often hear at work and around town.

My office is an especially rich source of materal, and a fairly accurate microcosm of the country. So let’s begin by introducing the cast. Since I might very well be fired for writing about my co-workers, let’s at least give them fake names to protect the innocent (and that would be me).

The office is pretty much split down the middle, politically speaking; we have two libertarian-leaning Republicans, one moderate Republican, one moderate Democrat, and two liberal Democrats. I’m number seven, and I would describe myself as a conservative Republican.

Four of us participate in political arguments just about every day, and the other three are generally silent.

Actually, I’m pretty quiet myself, but I usually speak up at least once or twice each time these things erupt. I’m soft-spoken, and a man of few words, so a sentence or two is about all I contribute to the discussions, sometimes followed by a web-link or written statement via email, when necessary.

As for the other three…

James is a conversationalist who seems to be most happy when he’s playing devil’s advocate. He argues entirely for the sake of discussion and the exchange of ideas and has little to no interest in actually advancing his fiscally-conservative, socially liberal views. James is a Catholic who believes in evolution, 2nd Amendment rights, low taxes and limited government. He enjoys cracking a joke and is adept at coming up with politically-incorrect things to say, and sometimes you can’t tell if he’s being serious, or if this might be another example of something he thinks is funny-but-true. He takes no “official” position on abortion, but he dislikes welfare and social security. He sees history as a series of choices and believes that humans must adapt to their environment — sort of a pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps kind of fellow. James supports the war in Iraq and likes to quote Ronald Reagan: “We could invade the place, pave it over, and be home for lunch.”

Sara, a European, is cosmopolitan in her approach to political issues. She is most likely to speak up if the issue involves Israel, the environment, the United Nations, or the war in Iraq. A vegetarian and athiest, Sara seems most concerned with the ideas of fairness, diversity and social equality. She supports gay marriage and abortion, and said she was “very scared” by the so-called values voters on the day after the last Presidential election. She loves NPR and PBS, and her heroes are Bill Moyers and Jimmy Carter. She is convinced that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction and is really unhappy about the Iraq war. Sara is very serious and straight-forward, and the things James says drive her absolutely insane on a frequent basis.

Finally, there’s Carol, a liberal Democrat who sometimes describes herself as a “moderate” (such as when she’s talking up John McCain) and sometimes as a “progressive.” She hates Dick Cheney and thinks President Bush is an idiot and a lying scumbag. Carol was a big supporter of Kerry/Edwards during the last election and believes in multiple conspiracy theories concerning the war in Iraq, which she was against from the beginning. Carol grew up Baptist and is now a (somewhat-nominal) Methodist. She’s a media junkie, and she’s always launching into a discussion based on whatever talking point of the day has been advanced in the liberal blogosphere. On the other hand, she spends most of her time reading conservative websites such as NRO’s The Corner and listening to conservative talk radio, since she already knows what the Democrats have to say. She isn’t solidly liberal on abortion or racial quotas, but tends to lean leftward when pressed. Carol seems to be most interested in the politics of a discussion, rather than the actual issues at hand, concerning herself primarily with how daily events may benefit or hurt the two parties. She’s very intelligent, excellent in debate, and skilled at “framing” issues and leading a discussion into a direction where she can gain the upper hand. James’ routine is to argue the opposite position, but he often falls into her traps and is forced into contradicting himself, often without realizing it.

I tend not to wholly agree with any of these three, though more often with James than with the other two. For the most part, James and I share similar economic, budgetary and military views, but I tend to align myself more with Carol on some religious issues or in our estimation of the politcal winds, or with Sara on less-tangible points where James has taken the extreme cynical view of human nature.

***

So that leads us to today, where James and Carol were discussing the state of the nation, and whether America should employ measures of economic protectionism. At one point, they came to agree that our society is getting worse and that people are less prepared for difficult times than were their parents or grandparents, who lived through the Great Depression. They also agreed that the education system is no longer working, and that our country is headed in the wrong direction.

Moments earlier, they had been talking up Darwinism and survival of the fittest, so naturally I asked:

“If you agree with Darwinism, how is it that you also believe people are getting worse and becoming less able to adapt?”

Neither one had an answer, and almost without hesitation they continued their discussion.

It seems people like to believe in Darwinian evolution, but most haven’t fully thought the theory through. Because when it comes down to it, Darwinism, when applied to human affairs, is basically a mixture of racism (or a variation on it), might-makes-right, and the absolute “right” (for the lack of an amoral word) of winners to step on losers… concepts that typically aren’t otherwise advocated by social liberals, at least publically.