Two Cars In One Garage: Conservatives, Liberals, and Polarization

We hear it said often today that, sadly, America is becoming increasingly polarized--that the Democrats (liberals) and Republicans (conservatives) are carping at each other beyond restraint, and that civility is a forgotten art. I am not happy about it, but neither am I alarmed. A quick glance at our national past turns up plenty of political incivility, beginning with the so-called Revolution of 1800, when the supposed atheist and first opposition leader, Thomas Jefferson, captured the Presidency, on through anti-Catholic riots, anti-slavery confrontations, charges that FDR was a communist, McCarthyism in the 1950s, and so on. Familiarity with dissension reduces the scariness of this American habit.

Polarization is latent in any public conversation because the general population will always cluster in a generally consistent ratio around the two summarizing but contrasting varieties of opinion--Conservative or Liberal. I heard of a recent study suggesting DNA may be a factor in how we settle into one camp or the other. Just as I don’t worry about newborn baby boys losing out over baby girls in nature’s coin toss, so I am at peace about the future of my camp holding its own over time. Since George Washington was elected as the first President in 1788, we have had 28 (philosophically) Republican administrations and 27 Democratic.

Individually, we may move around in our position on the political spectrum with various issues at stake, but whether due to nature or nurture, our personalities tend to categorize us. I think it is good advice to avoid the “far” positions of both left and right, for if anyone calls the other person a betrayer, a fool, or some other word intended to separate the world into the acceptable and the unacceptable, you can know that person is deficient in savoir faire. Example: when Glenn Beck calls Barack Obama a socialist, or when Michael Moore calls George W. Bush a criminal. Conservatism and liberalism are distinguishable but not mutually exclusive. Language of exclusion aimed at the opposing camp masks the commonality that Americans have in a democracy. At any given moment, the politically wise and socially astute will listen for the tone that characterizes each camp respectively and evaluate what is needed to keep our ship of state balanced and upright in the storm.

During most of George W. Bush’s administration the conservative party dominated American politics and policy. In an environment of crisis, he chose to use the power of “fear” to motivate followers. When Barack Obama sought the Presidency, he tapped into the power of “hope” to surf into office. These terms are more descriptive than definitional, but they suggest two other terms that do not normally excite controversy--liberty and equality. This pair of words is thought to represent the key pillars of democracy, terms of collaboration in our early struggle for independence, twin goals of our new government. But a closer look at them shows a difference in “tone” that hints at the relationship of conservatism and liberalism in our country.

- Liberty implies the overthrow of tyranny, a release from harassment; it suggests
unbounded opportunity, unrestricted freedom and protection of personal, individual rights.
- Equality implies honest and mutual respect, social harmony, sharing of resources and
benefits; it suggests cooperative teamwork, and removal of social distinctions.

Patrick Henry displayed the first (conservative) tone quality when he shouted to his oppressors, “Give me liberty or give me death.” Thomas Jefferson captured the second (liberal) tone quality in his declarative notice of all men’s equal endowments at birth and open path to happy pursuits. Both men are sunny representatives of our honored founding generation.

Those early years were a honeymoon period, when we were busy setting up house, buying new furniture and hanging pictures. Over time, the energetic practice of speaking our minds, and the human urge to manufacture self-esteem inevitably illuminated the differences of opinion about how to assure the continuance of our young democratic experiment. In the early years of our republic these two philosophical gemstones of democracy--liberty and equality--locked arms in felicitous harmony. But potential friction lay just below the surface. With the chafing of time, the distinguishing tone of each philosophical disposition took on some edginess, particularly when each group had its turn out of office and was playing the opposition role

- Conservative liberty lovers saw challenges to their prized possessions. The less optimistic
among them soon felt a twinge of “fear” when the impractical liberals took office. Their personal
maneuverability was at stake.
- Liberal equality lovers felt a creeping hint of suspicion that their new status was at risk in
the hands of conservatives who networked noiselessly with each other.

One popular U.S. history textbook (Beth Norton, et. al.) notes that in 1964, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act and opposed the national Social Security system. “Like many conservatives,” the authors state, “he believed that individual liberty, not equality, was the most important American value.” Recently, some political analysts conclude that the failure of the Democratic party to withstand a big comeback by the Republicans in the 2010 mid-term elections was because President Obama seemed more concerned about helping the poor while regulating the business class, rather than trying to encourage capitalists who knew better how to bring the country out of depression.

George Washington and fellow compatriots would be disheartened to see Liberty and Equality so at odds.

Conservative and liberal dispositions are family; there is no reason they cannot be respectful siblings. The trick is to pull on both ends of the rope to keep it taut, without trying to yank the other pullers into the mud puddle in between. America showed the world how to set up a democracy, but we still have a way to go to understand how justice (guaranteed protection of rights) and mercy (equal, unqualified standing) make a serendipitous combination. The Apostle Paul did not use the terms conservatism and liberalism, but in I Corinthians 13, he picked up on the characterizing tone of each. He spoke of hope (which flows from the equality fountain) and love (which flows in a state of liberty where fear and uncertainty are cast out). So if real liberalism is “hope” and real conservatism is a tolerant absence of fear, we can know if our favorite political prophets are on the right track when we properly characterize their message.

Let’s look at the messages of the current politicians asking for our allegiance. I’ll list the characteristics, you provide the names. In my chart below, which puts Liberals on the left and Conservatives on the right, I acknowledge the liberals look good and the conservatives look not so good. But I am only parroting what I hear the respective spokespersons proclaim. I put these characterizations in my own phraseology; but they (maybe unwittingly) are self-characterizations by members of the respective camps. I don’t pay much attention to far-leftists, so my phrasing reflects what Obama and responsible Democrats espouse. It happens that the Republicans, who are having an affair with Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, are allowing the far-right to speak for them. I recognize that there are crossovers and some renegades, and neither camp would necessarily agree with my word choices; but in abbreviated form, here is what I hear each saying when I listen to both. If you think my chart is unfair to either position, then, for example, check out Obama’s public statements, and John Boehner’s media pronouncements. Then turn on the TV for a few minutes of FOX news, then CNN. Both liberals and conservatives unashamedly display themselves. Neither side is wholly or indelibly positioned on the cheerful scale, though Conservatives currently are milking the negatives as if they were positives and are getting good mileage out of it. We will see if this tone shifts any with their party now in power in the House.

Liberals - Hopeful. Conservatives - Fearful.
Liberals - Champions of equality. Conservatives - Champions of liberty (personal).
Liberals - Calmly confident. Conservatives - Actively challenging.
Liberals- Group oriented. Conservatives -Self-oriented.
Liberals - Idealistic. Conservatives - Elitist.
Liberals - Spiritual. Conservatives - Religious.
Liberals - Nuanced. Conservatives - Cheerleading.
Liberals - Modest. Conservatives -Triumphal.
Liberals - Sharing. Conservatives - Possessing.
Liberals - Patient. Conservatives - Impatient.
Liberals - Open field vision. Conservatives - Tunnel focus.
Liberals - Concerned about tree roots near sidewalks. Conservatives - Concerned about sidewalks next to trees.
Liberals - Trusting God to control. Conservatives - Trusting "godly" men as God's vicegerents.
Liberals - Seeing challenges. Conservatives - Seeing threats.
Liberals - Forgiving. Conservatives - Cynical.
Liberals - Solution: just add water to ingredients. Conservatives - Dump out ingredients and drink the water.

Obviously Equality (left) and Liberty (right) as represented by this chart are not in sync. In the world of D.C. politics, unless the liberty-loving, tyranny-fearing Right replaces fear and triumphalism with New Testament love, the hope of the Left will fail to surmount Congressional obstructionism. Equality and Liberty will prosper only when loving-justice and hope join hands in expectant cooperation. Our Founding Fathers showed us how; let's not disappoint them.

How To Kill Without Murdering--Join the Army

Are individual soldiers guilty of murder?

Most of us would say an emphatic, “No”! We explain that when sin broke loose in the Garden of Eden, the first couple was exiled, and the human race was sentenced to live here below in a stew of our own brew. But we have the Bible as a template for how to handle ultimate threats. The good guys have to be protected, so we organize an army. The problem is that you can not win a war without killing someone. In order for the Israelites to gain their due reward as God‘s people, the threatening Canaanites had to be wiped out. As Saint Augustine put it in his gloss on the Old Testament, when God tells us to kill, the killer is absolved of any guilt for the murder.

More recently, when savage Indians attacked our frontier settlements, with God’s supposedly tacit approval we eliminated the threat with superior troop strength. After all, America is the New Israel, the last, best hope for a peaceful, democratic world. We can’t let evil control the field of play. We send soldiers to do the necessary dirty work, and tell each one that his assignment to kill is a temporary expedient. Then we assure him he will be honored and considered a hero for his valiant deeds.

We even elect some hard fighting soldiers as President for their battlefield skills and dedication. Why then did Jesus not compliantly accept by popular acclamation the job of King of the Jews? Where was his national spirit and loyalty? Why did he tell his self-appointed body guard, Simon Peter, to sheath the sword. Did he see something wrong with the warring template? Apparently.

In the Garden of Gethsemanee, Jesus was using God’s authentic template when he tolerantly explained that the Roman soldiers did not understand what they were doing. This is a different kind of absolving of guilt--one that we, in our own wisdom, think is giving in to evil. What the new template asks of us is very difficult; it is counterintuitive. But Jesus had superior intuition; he not only said to not engage in killing, he provided a better, more commanding and effective way to defeat any devil that bothers us. His method was personally painful, but powerfully potent.

Modern theorists and theologians have tried to bridge the gap between idealism and pragmatism by outlining principles that justify some wars as necessary--all of which still kill people. (See the footnote in my blog of Nov. 11, 2008) But if there are any wars left that pass the test of the tough just war restrictions, still none could win the stamp of moral approval.

Actually the error in our thinking about justified killing stares us in the face. The flaw lies in our definition of justice. Peter (and St. Augustine) wanted judgment because humans can quickly administer this. Sloppy use of terms leads to exaggeration in ill results. Wars have no moral standing; they are only ethical determinations. Ethical game rules are a mother-may-I step short of morals.

Just as ethics and morals are of different genus, judgment and justice are not the same thing. Contrary to common use of the word, justice is not simply judgment with accompanying punishment. Nor is it satisfaction, as many victimized people term it when they cry out for “justice.” Punishment and penalty are only tangential procedures, ethical protocol at work; they do not bring justice.

Judgment and Mercy, in tandem, bring Justice. Judgment alone is not justice, nor is ”closure” justice. Conviction and punishment is not justice; they are only unmercified judgment. Justice, rather, is the restoring of balance, making things right again as they are meant to be. Judgment prevents naiveté. Mercy--judgment’s Siamese twin--disintegrates bigotry and hatred. Together they make punishment (and war) unnecessary, hence immoral. As per the dictionary, justice is fairness, an eminently pragmatic and satisfying resolution of an imbalance, pure and simple.

Wars are incapable of bringing justice to either side. If we really want to end wars, we must start with justice, which abhors killing. At the political level wars follow an ethical playbook (ethics defined as rules of conduct society agrees upon), but they cannot be moral, if Jesus had anything worth proclaiming. They only bring judgment and punishment; while we wait for the convicted to recuperate and return to the field to reverse the judgment of battle. As Jesus tried to teach Peter the correct understanding of God’s view of wars and killing, justice is judgment and mercy in lockstep, with punishment commuted. No one wins, so everyone wins. When justice is the goal, war gets in the way.

The difficulty is how to get this happy reality lodged in our numb skulls. How can justice prevail without war? It is easy. And the method has proven rousingly successful many times in secular history. Read Jonathan Schell’s, The Unconquerable World, to find out how.