
Note to readers: I have stopped announcing each blog with a Facebook post. I am no longer a Facebook user and have some misgivings about the platform. So…..I am depending on you to forward my posts to others. If you will do that, hopefully, some new people will subscribe.
We hear a lot these days about tribalism. Both sides of the political divide decry our divisions, urging civility and reconciliation instead. As a clergy person, I feel acutely sensitive about being tribal because it reminds me that I should try harder to be a reconciler and peacemaker, even though my heart balks at some of the compromises that would require. Maybe one of these days I will have shed enough of my own very personal convictions to listen unemotionally to the tribe on the right; maybe then I’ll see compromises that wouldn’t make me feel like I’m selling out.
But I’m not there yet, and I’ll explain why.
Last week I heard Sen. Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska, plugging his new book entitled Them. It’s subtitled, Why we hate each other and how to heal. Sen. Sasse was persuasive and I can’t argue with most of what he said. I bought the book and find it positive and thought provoking. He’s an intelligent and thoughtful man. But the “fixes” he prescribes don’t address my core problem. That’s because most of the big issues that we wrestle with politically are at their heart moral issues, and I don’t believe in compromising on moral issues.
Take, for example, how we talk about and treat immigrants from Latin America. Jewish and Christian teaching is clear about how we are to treat “the alien in our midst.” We are to be gracious and welcoming. We are to show hospitality which is the opposite of hostility. Demonizing isn’t OK. Separating families isn’t OK. And it isn’t OK to cheer for those who do those things. This is core moral teaching.
Now that doesn’t mean our borders have to be porous. We can control who enters the country. Sensible immigration legislation is needed. But there is no place in the discussion for lies and demonization. And that, I am sorry to say, is what one party is doing to whip up the vote of people who are anti-immigrant. (see my blog on The Caravan) It is hard for me and, I am sure, for others to reach across the metaphorical aisle and embrace anyone engaged in such behavior. How can one look the other way and not call that out? Are we to compromise our most fundamental moral teachings and by not speaking up allow one group to demonize another?
There’s another issue in the news right now that involves Saudi Arabia. Because the Saudis are rich, hate Iran, and buy millions of dollars worth of weapons from the US, we are willing to support their war on Yemen. I’ve already written about Yemen and our complicity in possible war crimes there. Is it being tribal to oppose the mass slaughter and starvation of civilians? Do people who have accepted the teachings of Jesus or Gandhi or King have to put those teachings on the back burner to avoid being perceived as tribal. I don’t know how I can find common ground with someone who could actively support what the Saudis are doing in Yemen. In what moral universe is it OK to bomb into submission a country full of indigent people in the name of a geopolitical power game? So when it comes to Saudi Arabia, it’s difficult for me to be the non-tribal man that Sen. Sasse wants me to be.
Another major obstacle making it difficult for me to play the reconciler in matters like these is the lies. In high school, I would have been expelled for lying. Expelled, not suspended. The same went for cheating or stealing. They were things we were taught not to do. Because we’d already learned these rules from our parents and from the church in most cases; it wasn’t difficult to accept. As I have grown older, my feeling that lying is wrong and sinful has not diminished. Should it have? Should I have jettisoned the notion that it is not OK to lie just so I could avoid being called tribal? Does the goal of being a compromiser extend to being morally compromising?
Perhaps the biggest moral compromise we’d have to make with the party in power is to be silent as the President and his people transform the US into an icon of climate change denial. When they dismantle the Clean Air Act to pay off the extraction industries, should we go along to get along? Compromising on the environment is selling our descendants down the river. It is beneath contempt. And one of the two parties of our two-party system is cheering as we go down this amoral path. How can one compromise with that?
Many mature leaders feel that what we need is compromise, respect for others, and more civility in public life, and how can one argue with that? But to move in that direction we who oppose the policies and behavior of our president are expected to “tone it down.” We are to say nothing when he denigrates Latinos and lies about “the caravan.” We are to accept the cover-up of Jamal Khashoggi’s murder for the sake of good relations with the Saudis and to keep Jared’s friendship with Mohammed bin Salman intact. We are to let a slew of lies pass and not call them out. We are to lay low while our environmental policies make us a rogue among nations. And we must do all these difficult things in order to “bring people together.”
But we will have to sell our souls to do so. I cannot bring myself to think that that is the right path for me or anyone else who shares a similar set of values. And I firmly believe I am not a bit unique. Most Americans are not climate deniers, racists, liars, or war mongers. And if most of us share some common convictions about right and wrong, as I believe we do, we will at some point expel Trumpism from power via the ballot. But I don’t think we should do it by compromising bedrock moral values.
I couldn’t agree more. Let morality be the start of many conversations!
I am perplexed by how morality seems to be as variable as the rainbow these days. There is no “absolute” morality, even among Christians, even among Christian authorities who have dedicated their lives to carefully interpreting Scripture and “morality” through the lens of Jesus rather than their own biases.
I guess now I understand why Catholics have an “infallible” Pope. The Decider.
Maybe an alternate framework for debate should be a more secular Golden Rule, which appeals to a person’s own fragile ego instead of an external authority.
Amen, Buck, Amen, Amen Amen.
thanks, John Ira Clemens for your comments. My thesis is that people simply don’t apply whatever moral teachings they have absorbed to what is being done in their name by the US government and elected leaders. For example, I don’t believe that most people who subscribe to Trump’s policies on immigration would care to think of themselves as mean-spirited toward people who are risking everything to create a safe life for their children. Yet that is just what our “leader” is doing and in supporting him, one supports, among other evils, mean-spiritedness toward helpless refugees.
Very well said, Buck. I am sending this to an old friend who actually supports Trump BUT for the first time, I am sending it with genuine curiosity and desire to better understand. I don’t hold out the hope of reconciliation/compromise, but better comprehension of how Trump supporters think/feel might give me a little empathy…. or perhaps better arguments for my tribe.
Buck – I noticed your acknowledgment that we need sensible immigration legislation, and I agree. I also saw your statement that we shouldn’t have porous borders, but that is what we have right now. What is your proposed immigration policy, and how do you propose to control our borders in order to enforce that policy? Unless your policy is to allow anyone in who wants to come in, wouldn’t the policy require the ability to stop those who don’t cross the border legally?
reading your writers I am learning more and more about the horrible situation we are facing in this country. I had to moved here because a domestic violence my kids and I was facing during 20 years. Was very bad situation, but never compared with the situation we are experience, because when I took the decision to move to another country I chose US because I realized we will live with confidence and safety.
Now, 14 years after I live in a insecurity country with fears. when I opened my eyes every morning and say thank you god for give a new day to life, nevertheless waiting for a new fatal tragedy. this is not a good things to start a new day, this is like to live in terror , anguish and uncertainness. My prayers every day asking God for his forgiveness to this Nation and to give to all of us wisdom to share his love around to help him to grow his kingdom.
I know my writer is not prefect but I want to share my thoughts.
Jim, First, let me answer your second question. Yes, we must have a mechanism for sending home those who enter the country illegally. You are right on that and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. Your first question asks what my proposed immigration policy is and I cannot answer that since there is nothing on the table for me to say yea or nay to. That will be up to our lawmakers. However I will say that a bi-partisan plan acceptable to both our political parties would undoubtedly contain provisions to which I might object. But that is ok. I don’t make the laws and won’t like them all. However, my comments in the blog were not related to how to reform our immigration laws. They were about demonizing the “other.” Nothing is gained by having our President spread negative rumors about a group of refugees 1500 miles away. I think you’d agree with that.
I absolutely agree with that. You might want to read a book reviewed in the NYT Review of Books today. It’s “Melting Pot or Civil War”, written by a recent immigrant. I’d really like you to read it and then you can tell me whether it’s worth reading or not. It does, apparently, comment on what our current immigration policy is doing to this country, and to the people who immigrate here.
I disagree with one thing you said. I think we all need to decide what a good immigration policy would look like. Amnesty for those here illegally, as long as they have not committed crimes of violence. The book I mentioned seems to suggest that we adopt something along the lines of the Canadian policy, which allows people to enter on a points system including education, ability to speak English, skills and family connnections. We also need to decide what beliefs holds us together as Americans, and ensure that entrants will support basic beliefs such as equal rights, civil liberties, our judicial system and our personal freedoms. Whatever system we adopt will, however, be meaningless if we are unable to control who enters the country. There will also need to be quotas for entry, as it is estimated that 300 million people would like to enter this country.
I will indeed get that book and see what it has to say. I think that if you and I were the Congress (scary thought) we could come up with a compromise on immigration reform.
Mercedes, Many thanks for your comments. It is good to hear from you. B
Buck I don’t really get this one. I understand the responses dealing with immigration policies, which we are all watching anxiously – both sides. I don’t get why you should question your differences of opinion vs Ben Sasse, seems pretty clear to me. You’re right.