Category: Current Event

Recently I was in a situation in which someone who has not known one of my sons very long, identified him in an educational document as somewhat of a “class clown.” While aspects of the description were not without merit, I respectfully requested that we alter the document.

“I don’t disagree with the behaviors you describe,” I asserted. “The challenge is the label. Once we put a label on something, it sticks. And then that’s how we tend to see and treat the person always thereafter.”

Thankfully, in the educational setting, everyone in the room respectfully recognized the potential pitfall… If we identify a person as “_________ ,” they will forever be viewed as “_________.”

Fill in the blank with whatever word you wish — positive or negative…

Friend or foe… genius or jerk. Labels stick.

One label I’ve heard from many as of late — perhaps due to the volatility of the current political climate — is the identification of another as our “enemy.” Socially, relationally, politically, you-name-it. We disagree… someone gets hurt… an initiative is obstructed… and our political leaders unfortunately then encourage the mass labeling.

The potential pitfall is that if we can get the “enemy” label to stick, then we can treat the person differently. We can justify it. We can even think lesser of that person — and then actually get lured into the idea that such is a wise thing to do. At that point it becomes completely acceptable to ignore another’s entire analysis or perspective… They are the enemy, after all. They are not deserving of our respect or consideration.

Who respects their enemy?

If persons are identified as the enemy, then they are certainly not our neighbor, because no way would we live anywhere close to them. And if they are not our neighbor, guess what? We don’t have to love them. We don’t have to like them. We don’t have to even try. It’s only our neighbor we’re universally called to love… right?

…“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself”…

Love your neighbor as yourself… the Intramuralist sees such as a pretty profound concept… I mean, I do love myself, and I’m pretty hip on my family and friends. But my neighbor? That’s more of a reach. I suppose I love most of them.

But notice how we have minimized the profoundness of loving our neighbor as ourselves because we’ve curtailed who can actually be considered in the neighbor category. We have made the imperative easier. Once we identify another as the enemy, we can justify treating them however is easiest and most convenient for us… No need to work through the tough stuff with this one… no need to pursue relationship or reconciliation… no need to give any validity to any of his perspective… nope… he’s the enemy.

For years I’ve led a study encouraging attenders to seek the greatest wisdom. One exercise repeatedly practiced is based on the timeless tale of the Good Samaritan. As has been shared for centuries in all sorts of circles, a traveling man is attacked, beaten, robbed, and left for dead. Multiple persons walk by, notice him but intentionally avoid him; obviously, they don’t see the injured man as their “neighbor.” Since they have labeled him as something lesser, there exists no need to help.

Along comes the Good Samaritan — an ethnicity at the time which was despised by pharisaic leaders. The Samaritan gave the injured man first aid, disinfected and bandaged his wounds. He even lifted the man onto his donkey, led him to an inn, and made him comfortable. Still, he paid the innkeeper for the injured man’s stay.

The Good Samaritan knew who his neighbor was. He never minimized it. He never allowed any belief, behavior, ethnicity, income, political or social standing to alter his awareness of who his neighbor was. He never confused his neighbor with the enemy.

In our study, we thus asked of one another:
“Who would be the person on the side of the road hardest for you to help?”
“Who have we labeled as our enemy?”
And “who have we justified loving less?”

Fill in the blank with whomever you wish. My suggestion is we first learn better who is our neighbor.

Respectfully…
AR

{Gleren Meneghin on Unsplash}

Sometimes it’s hard to know what to write about. I say that not because the Intramuralist has no things to say — more because as I survey the status of current events, some are so tough for understandably many to engage in actual, respectful dialogue. Regardless of the submission of any respectfully-articulated perspective — as is this blog’s promise — the chances of someone screaming back at me or pointing fingers or maybe even throwing something at their computer screen seems to have exponentially risen.

The reality, no less, is that through this online outlet, I can’t hear any screaming nor does any creative projectile damage anything other than what’s in the thrower’s possession. Hence, what I candidly observe is the frequency which with we point fingers. Allow me to rephrase…

We are really good at calling out other people.

Problem after problem… conflict after conflict… so often we strongly suggest the solution rests solely in the change of someone else. So often we promote the only cure as one in which only others must change what they think, say and do. We believe in some grand panacea for all current ills that conveniently absolves self.

“I/me/my/myself,” my husband and I often say. When first married years ago, we began repeating that phrase frequently, reminding one another that it’s our innate, first inkling to articulate a solution or perspective that is “all about me” — that if there’s something wrong, the problem rests not with “me” but with “you.” Sometimes we don’t even realize we’re doing it; maybe we unknowingly mask the challenge to be about someone else.

But in our “I/me/my/myself” mindset, we get lured into believing that the problem rests entirely due to the beliefs or behavior of the other. If that other would only change, then the problem would not exist.

We absolve ourselves of the responsibility to change how we believe or behave.

I have seen this sincere, so-easily-adopted lure creep into so many of our perspectives… and yes, these are hard…

If those others would only realize they are bigots…
If those others would only realize they are privileged…
If those others would only realize they are intolerant…

In other words, if “those others” would only change. Not me, mind you… them. Solely them.

I have absolved myself from any contribution to the unhealthiness. We have absolved the “my” — my people, my party, my behavior, my way of thinking.

Maybe I’m wrong, but my strong sense is that one of the reasons so many topics are so tough to talk about respectfully is because we’re too busy pointing fingers at someone else; we’re so focused pointing out how another has to change how they believe or behave.

What if we instead asked ourselves…

Where have I been rude?
Where have I been mean?
Where have I been unwilling to listen?
Where have I been intolerant or demanding?
And where have I chastised or screamed at another?



Few want to change how they believe or behave when another is chastising or screaming at them. If we want to solve some of these tough topics, perhaps we instead start by stopping this illogical idea that it’s wise to absolve self and only call out the wrongfulness of another. Let us first wrestle with the wrongfulness within ourselves.

Today my husband and I celebrate 23 years of marriage. As most who’ve been married that long will share, there have been moments of both terrific and taxing (some of which I’ve been serendipitously grateful that occurred long before the existence of social media). But we made a commitment to do this… to work through things… to solve problems… and to grow. We committed to doing life together in sickness and in health — in the healthy and unhealthiness. Step one means omitting the emphasis on “I/me/my/myself,” asking not how my spouse must change, but rather, how must I.

Respectfully…
AR

 

{Photo by Felix Russell-Saw on Unsplash}

As The Intramuralist guest writers continue through the month of August, today we wrap up a 4-part series exploring the reasons for the partisan gridlock in Washington and why each side talks about the other as evil, in search of mutual respect and a bipartisan path forward. If you’re just catching this entry, reviewing the previous installments – The Great Divide, Why One Would Choose to be Liberal, and Why One Would Choose to be Conservative – would be a helpful foundation. We are now In Search of Common Ground.

I began this escapade not knowing if I could complete it – certainly with no predetermined conclusions – but this exercise has provided a number of observations that have influenced my political worldview:

First of all, we itemized lists of extremist groups that choose to associate themselves with each side, socialists, militant atheists, moral relativists, and race baiters for the liberals, racists, anarchists, religious zealots, and materialists for the conservatives.

This brought my first observation: neither side describes themselves in those terms. You don’t hear liberals talking about abolishing capitalism or morality, just as you don’t hear conservatives promoting discrimination or theocracy. Each side tries to define the other as extremist. Why? Because if you believe your core values are threatened by the other side, you’re more inclined to write a check and get involved.

What should we do? Whenever one side talks about the other in extreme terms, stop listening.

Secondly, we explored a number of single issues that motivate some to vote one way or the other. In every case, the right answer is somewhere in between:

Environment vs. Business – Which do we need, a productive economy or to take care of the environment? The obvious answer is both.

Abortion – This is a tough one for those who believe any abortion is taking a life. But there is also no excuse for the abhorrent practice of partial-birth abortion. I’m comfortable with Bill Clinton’s declaration, “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.”

Guns – The right to own a gun is clearly in The Constitution. And there is absolutely no need for people to arm themselves with weapons whose only purpose is mass murder.

The right answers? In the middle, in the middle, and in the middle.

Then we examined the reasons one might choose to be liberal or conservative. The goal was not to prove ourselves right, but to understand the other. These analyses made clear that each persuasion has legitimate motivations for seeing the world as they do. So again, the right answer very well may be to combine the best of both rather than striving for one side to defeat the other.

But another observation bubbled to the top: liberals want the government to control economic outcomes, but stay out of our private lives, while conservatives want the government to stay out of the economy, but are far more comfortable legislating morality.

Are those even consistent philosophies? One begins to wonder if there truly are sets of core principles guiding each side, or are both simply cabbaging together collections of special interest positions in hopes that they add up to 51% of the electorate? For the left, democratic socialism, a progressive tax structure, gay rights, pro-choice, gun control, affirmative action, and social welfare. For the right, capitalism, tax incentives, evangelicals, pro-life, gun rights, reverse discrimination, and business. What do those positions even have in common? Who represents the common good?

And what would that common ground look like?

First of all, our government is out of control. We are $19 trillion in debt. It doubled under W., and it doubled again under Obama. Which means it’s growing not at a steady pace, but at a geometric rate. Like a virus.

We’re not going to fix that on the backs of poor people. Nor would we fix it if we took every dollar from “The 1%.” We’re not going to fix it by cutting all social programs, nor by not touching them. Nor can we fix it by continuing to write blank checks to the military.

Congress is sticking their heads in the sand pretending Medicare and Social Security have any hope of surviving the tsunami of Baby Boomers reaching retirement age. Rather than fix them, they keep playing politics, pointing fingers at the other side, saying they’re out to get you.

The same games are played with taxes. The politicians keep arguing about tax rates, arguing over who is favoring the rich or engaging in class warfare. But what matters is tax revenue, how many dollars are collected. It’s possible that lowering tax rates – with the appropriate closing of tax loopholes – would increase tax revenue, which would be good for everyone.

It is a fact, the rich and the poor are getting farther apart. There are those who could afford to pay more. But we can’t turn around and spend it, otherwise we just dig ourselves into a deeper hole. And entitlements need to be reformed so they don’t incentivize not working. Right now there are flat dollar amounts that once you exceed them by a single dollar, you lose your entire benefit. You simply can’t afford to do that. We’ve got to make it so it is always in your best interest to work and earn more.

On social issues, it is completely understandable why a homosexual wants equal rights. It is also completely understandable why a person who believes that homosexual acts are sinful would be reluctant to grant them. This country is a beacon to the entire world that all men and women were created equal, both the homosexual and the evangelical. We’ve got to find a way to give the homosexual equal rights without making the evangelical’s sincere viewpoint illegal.

So all of this begs the question, why can’t our elected officials find these compromises? I think the answer is clear: Politicians care more about being re-elected than about accomplishing anything in office.

Ubiquitous gerrymandering has institutionalized this phenomenon. Gerrymandering doesn’t only create safe districts for the majority, but also the minority. The way you get a whole bunch of districts with 60% favoring your side is by creating a few districts with 80% favoring the other.

The result is that in many cases, general elections don’t matter, only the primaries. So primary voters no longer have incentive to elect a bipartisan moderate who has a better chance in the general. Activist primary voters are more likely to elect an extremist who will “go fight for you.” Translation: talk about the other side as evil.

We’ve got to find our way out of this. I find myself debating systemic fixes such as requiring bills to have a majority vote of each party, or if you don’t vote for enough bills that pass, you’re ineligible for re-election. Create incentives to work together and get stuff done. Nonpartisan redistricting commissions are certainly a step in the right direction.

But politicians aren’t going to oust themselves. The answer has to start with you and me. We have to hold politicians from both sides accountable for actually accomplishing things.

There are legitimate reasons one would choose to be liberal. There are legitimate reasons one would choose to be conservative.

Let’s quit talking about the other as if they were evil. Let’s combine the best of both sides. Let’s find common ground.

Respectfully,

MPM

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash

Today we continue our guest series on the legitimate reasons one would hold a particular political view. I again ask readers not to focus on their view, but the other, in search of common ground. Today we explore Why One Would Choose to be Conservative.

As with liberalism, we start with conservative extremists, not as representative, but for reasons that will become clear in the series conclusion:

Racists – There are no two ways about it, just as no Democratic presidential candidate since 1960 has received less than 82% of the African-American vote, those who are prejudiced vote in the other direction.

Anarchists – And those who would overthrow the government, for whatever reason, vote with the party who would at least limit it.

Religious Zealots – Those who would hold a literal interpretation of the Bible over our Constitution align with the party that wraps itself in religion.

Materialists – Greedy, filthy-rich people who want to keep as much as possible for themselves.

And just as with liberals, there are those who vote conservative because of their passion for a single issue:

Business – Attributing this country’s success to the strength of our free-enterprise system, some object to any restriction upon business whatsoever.

Abortion – Those who equate ending a pregnancy within the womb to murder.

Guns – It’s in the Constitution, so don’t you restrict my right to own any gun one iota.

And just as with liberalism, there are legitimate reasons one would choose to be conservative.

We again need to recognize that the labels have flipped over the years. European “conservatives” sought to preserve the monarchy the Americans (“classical liberals”) revolted against.

But today, generalizing, while liberals are by and large idealistic, conservatives tend to be more pragmatic.

They don’t necessarily disagree with the problems liberals identify, but they don’t think passing laws to fix them works very well.

And they definitely don’t see government as a very effective means of solving society’s problems.

At the core of conservatism is a belief in a free-market economy as clearly the most prosperous economic engine the world has ever seen, so much so that many equate the free market with freedom itself.

They believe that any government interference in that economy creates inefficiency. Less efficiency means less prosperity. Too much inefficiency, and we are no longer the economic powerhouse we could be.

Conservatives are far more comfortable with the disparate outcomes of the free market. They like to say that everyone is guaranteed equal opportunity, but not equal results.

As one conservative writer put it, “Man is flawed. This world is imperfect. Youth is fleeting. Life isn’t fair. Conservatives are comfortable acknowledging all of these things.”

But conservatives are afraid that the more we “rob from the rich and give to the poor,” the less incentive there is to drive economic activity, which means a lower standard of living.

Just as with liberals, there are a myriad of reasons one could be conservative. Socially, philosophers have debated for thousands of years whether standards of right and wrong stay the same forever or change over time. Social conservatives are more likely to believe in moral absolutes.

I again don’t want to be too cursory or over-generalize, but that pretty much captures it for me – let the free market do its thing, and interfere with it as little as possible.

So conservatives, is there anything important I left out? Or liberals, anything I glossed over? Remember, the goal is to understand each other, not insult the other.

Because next comes the hard part, In Search of Common Ground….

Respectfully,

MPM

Photo by Mitch Nielsen on Unsplash