Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
Perhaps it’s just me, but it seems like I sure do encounter quite a bit of advice about how we as a country should not be so polarized, how we should be more tolerant, not so divisive, reach across the aisle, try to understand one another.
Also, sometimes I feel such a painful separation from people I care about, a disconnect from others, because I am forced to just walk on eggshells, to say nothing, to look away politely so as to avoid conflict, and to maintain what little contact I do have.
The separation however remains, even if no one speaks of it, and I am keenly aware that the only reason there is no conflict is because I have denied myself and gone silent. Is that really loving to do to someone, though? Doesn’t love hold you loosely in it’s hands? Is it not actually abusive to require someone to comply with your belief system or else you won’t love them anymore? It is, it is indeed! With holding affection is symptomatic of psychological abuse.
It seems to me as if I am now totally polarized and quite unapologetic about it. Every article I read, every blogger I encounter, every person lamenting the sad state of our divisive nation, makes absolutely no attempt to try to understand me.
Like, I could be a “wealthy, self serving, elitist” or an “ignorant rube from the heartland,” or there is a slight possibility those are projections, stereotypes, mediated reality having no basis in the truth, but you’ll never know because you never ask.
Also, who begins a reconciliation process, an end to “polarization,” by calling people names? Methinks I’m not the one responsible for all this alleged “polarization.”
Photo by DSD on Pexels.com
I read an article so politically biased it was darkly comical, and I should have saved the link. I’m far too lazy to go find it now, but the heart of the argument was basically, this country is far too polarized so all you peeps that won’t fall into line with my dominant narrative are simply going to have to comply.
I mean, who could reject such a charming invitation, right? Tell you what, I’ll just surrender all my wisdom, reason, experiences, insights, lay down my polarization, and submit to your vastly superior mindset.
Or perhaps NOT.
It’s a wee bit amusing, I am perhaps one of the most likely to compromise. If I had a year book from high school, right under my picture it would probably say, “most likely to compromise.” I got an A+ in tolerance with extra credit, too. And yet for the first time in my life I am like, uhm, no. No, we will not be tolerating this. Nope, not that either. No, we will not be going along to get along. Again, that’s also a no. No. No. No.
Photo by Frans Van Heerden on Pexels.com
There are just some things so cut and dry, so right and wrong, so black and white, they are not just a “no” but a, “oh, hell no.” That’s a funny thing coming from someone who is all about the ambiguity, the many shades of grey in our world. I love to hold a paradox in tension and just stand back and admire it. Just the same, I find myself quite polarized and completely unapologetic about it.
I’ve come to realize something about myself in this polarized state of mine, I am and always have been, far more of a populist, than an evangelical. The people are my people, far more than the tribe called “evangelicals” are my people. There’s a division there that I find interesting, a division that perhaps the church as a whole should take note of, because I am not alone, I am just one of many.
Anyway, I’m sure no one cares, but I for one am not lamenting the “complete collapse of our country,” nor am I “sad and filled with despair over the state of American politcs,” nor am I, “wholly disgusted with both sides.”
I am absolutely delighted to finally be heard, seen, and to have my concerns acknowledged and addressed by a President. So, I’m quite cheerful, quite optimistic, and quite willing to endure more of this.
As long as we live in a world where some people obey God and others rebel against him we will experience polarization. Jesus said he came to bring not peace, but a sword. Our response to those who disagree with us should not be tolerance, but love. If they believe something that is harmful to themselves or to others love requires that we warn them and try to get them to see the truth.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Good points, Clyde. It really not loving to just tolerate and agree with everything. We need to be polarized when things are all wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I dislike the polarization that we have in our society these days. What I dislike more is the wanton denial of truth that is prevalent in our political discourse. For example, not allowing Trump’s defense to call witnesses during the House hearings, then having to endure the calls from the left for ‘fairness’ in the Senate deliberations wreaks of Goebbels “Repeat a lie often enough” mantra.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep, I completely agree. It was really disconcerting to watch people in leadership fail to honor the conditions and rights that protect us all, like you right to actually be charged with a specific crime, your right to defend yourself, your right to call witness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If my high school yearbook picture were captioned, it would say “most likely to provoke controversy.” My preferred method of learning how to debate effectively and acquire new knowledge was to make an outrageous statement, like “the Eiffel Tower is made of hard rubber”, then to listen to and debate with the counter arguments. As often as not, I knew my contention was wrong, but I wanted to understand how others arrived at their contentions. IF someone was able to muster a better line of reasoning than mine, I would happily and readily admit I was wrong. But if they got upset and emotional and had no rational argument, I would press on. I actually managed to convince my 14 year-old Sea Explorer group of the Eiffel Tower statement. Then I discovered the COGNITIVE DISSONANCE principal: Once they accepted the proposition that the Eiffel Tower was indeed made of hard rubber, painted to look like steel, they strenuously objected when I told them it was a deliberate lie. I think this example could be applied to both political and theological discourse.
LikeLiked by 3 people
LOL! Well said! There is definitely some major cognitive dissonance going on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
One big problem with polarization is when each side treats the issue as life or death. Because there are so few truly life or death issues, the important ones get conflated with opinions and it all gets treated like the war for the future of humanity.
I was watching a show about the anti-vaccine movement. Vice magazine presented it from a pro-vaccine POV, which makes sense to me. They pointed out that the anti-vaccine side considers it a matter of life or death and has amassed a lot of money and activists to go after people. Later in the story, it was shown that the anti-vaccine movement had both left-wing and right-wing elements. Vice, however, tried to argue that most of the movement was becoming right-wing because as liberals they didn’t like the fact their “political” side was tainted.
While laws and politicians can greatly affect our lives, democracy gives us a say in the matter. Polarization tries to take away that democratic option by saying that “Even if you think X is incompetent and could start World War 3, candidate Y will enslave the country for 1,000 years and kill your family in the Rose Garden on Inauguration Day.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
You make a really good point, part of what polarizes us is perceiving things as a matter of life and death. If your opinions or views are perceived as being that dangerous and threatening, I’m now entitled to defend myself by whatever means necessary. That’s a chilling concept, because you’re right, polarization tries to take away that democratic option.
LikeLike
So many good points here. True, when someone talks about “bipartisan,” they are ALWAYS talking about the other party’s coming their way, never giving an inch themselves.
This post reminds me of the title of Ryan Dobson’s book “Be Intolerant … because Some Things are Just Stupid.” I think the title says it all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Good point. LOL, I may have to check that book out! Sounds like something I would enjoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
3 cheers for polarization! Seriously i do appreciate your take on this. While I don’t like the fighting and divisiveness our country is experiencing, the main reason for it in my opinion is people are way more informed. For all the bad things that come with social media, there are many positives to having more choices of news services.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Really good point about people being more informed, Tricia. LOL, I’m not saying we’re any smarter, but we do have access to more information. That makes it so much harder for our elitist overlords to control the narrative. Now we’re more like herding cats and I can’t help but celebrate that chaos, even though I often find it maddening. Freedom can be really messy but it sure beats the alternative. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
P.S. Jesus (my point of reference) did say He did not come to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:24). It’s nice to try to get along, but there comes a point where it’s time to separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32), the wheat from the chaff. Wisdom knows when we’ve reached that point.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“Like, I could be a “wealthy, self serving, elitist” or an “ignorant rube from the heartland,” or there is a slight possibility those are projections, stereotypes, mediated reality having no basis in the truth, but you’ll never know because you never ask.”
Amen, IB! What you said here is exactly the point. Polarization is not about having a differing opinions, even strongly held ones, nor is the answer giving up what’s important to us to just “get along.” Polarization is quite the opposite of being tolerant, it’s actually totalitarian tribalism. It’s dismissing and demeaning other’s opinions when they won’t march to our ideology .
But when we actually stop and listen to one another, we find that we have a lot to agree with, that there is common ground. We don’t have to compromise what we believe but we also need to realize that we live in a pluralistic society, so it does require grace and a bit of moderation.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Well said, Mel. I like what you said about how, “polarization is not about having a differing opinions, even strongly held ones…”
I think my hubby and I have been polarized on several issues over the years, and yet there’s still this underlying acceptance, unity, and respect, perhaps? Not sure what I’d call it, but that’s what I mean about how love holds each other loosely. It makes space for people to be wrong…or not. I mean, maybe you’re the one who is wrong, LOL! I’m just saying, insisting on compliance and unity of opinion and thought really is fascist totalitarianism.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I like what someone once said about tolerance. It’s accepting the other person’s right to be wrong (and, of course, we may be the one who’s wrong!) 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Perfect, Mel. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
“…advice about how we as a country should not be so polarized, how we should be more tolerant, not so divisive, reach across the aisle, try to understand one another.”
Sadly, most often the ones preaching unity are intolerant of opposing ideologies and tend toward extreme fanaticism while forsaking any thought of middle ground or compromise. Being constantly scolded by such persons has made me a bit of an expert in walking on eggshells.
But my perceptions are equally prone to misinterpretation. Just this past week I discovered that a person I long thought to be a radical liberal is actually more conservative than me! I had always kept silent and looked “away politely so as to avoid conflict”. Much to my surprise, while watching TV News together for the first time, we realized our views are similar!
As you rightly shared – “the only reason there is no conflict is because I have denied myself and gone silent”. I now find that it is also true that CONFLICT perpetuated because I remained silent – another two-sided coin proverb.
Tolerance is NOT endorsement. We can tolerate without condoning. In the best case scenario, avoid hypersensitivity. We must learn to dwell where we’re celebrated, rather than merely tolerated, and if leads to division, remember that true unity is always built on peace.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree, MJ. I have seen conflict avoidance lead to much greater problems. God even tells us ourselves to go to Him boldly, not to run and hide or try to avoid whatever has us worried. I’ve written a few posts about the difference between peaceKEEPING and peaceMAKING. We’re called to make the peace, not keep an illusion of peace going on by avoiding potential conflict. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Individualism breeds pride and non cooperation while dependence breeds subservience. You’re passionate plea of victimization is fine. Except, our political polarization isn’t rooted in you’re being ignored. That’s just what the “Right” tells everyone to keep the pressure on. Our political polarization is rooted in the way our politics is conducted by both parties. Frankly, our politics has been reduced to warfare and a winner take all proposition. For example, Plan Redmap, the 2010 institutionalization of gerrymandering by the GOP, took an already rotten idea and made it a way of life. More than one GOP representative has said that their party has always depended on voter suppression to survive, so we might as well believe them. Voter suppression, in any form, is a guerilla tactic that strikes at the very soul of our democracy; the idea that everyone has a vote and that vote should count equally. Another example is McConnell’s packing of federal courts. He blocked the appointment of federal judges all through the Obama administration, including a Supreme Court justice that was picked because there was no way Republicans could object to him, and then packed our court system under this administration. He even reduced debate time on judges from 30 hours to 2 to make sure he could get the job done. I’m not aware that McConnell broke any rules, but again, he struck at the heart of our democracy by not appointing judges at they came up and working solely for partisan advantage. The GOP has operated on the basis of delay and obstruct since the Gingrich, and their tactics have forced Democrats to respond in kind or lose everything. Our country used to believe in equality and fair play more than anything else. But selfishness, arrogance, and ignorance has been killing that idea since they stopped teaching citizenship in the 70s.
LikeLiked by 1 person