The Great Divide: Seeking to Understand Republican Values (November 2004)
Whatever we may have felt about John Kerry, his record of achievement far outstripped that of a C-student who obtained all his political and business connections through his family -- whose resume, in the real world, may not have gotten him hired outside of the Service Sector. Surely by Election Day more people would start realizing that a bull-headed U.S. foreign policy was decreasing our security at home? Or that the Administration is bent on replacing our democracy with monarchy? Or that basing crucial decisions on naive gut feelings without being bothered to read even one-page staff-prepared memos is no way to run the most powerful nation on earth? How could the Democrats fail to have it in the bag?
As we have since discovered, arguments that speak to the head could not match the Republican campaign's ability to circumvent the intellect. The success of effective marketing and packaging is measured by how many consumers buy the product without reading the its "Nutritional Facts" label.
I'm left pondering if those who vote Republican hold such different 'values' from my own, or if they just prioritize them differently. Republican voters I know are doers. When your car slides into a snow drift, one of them stops by and hauls you out with his pick-up. They organize soup kitchens, they build community playgrounds, they teach you how to fix something and even loan you the tools. They want to help, they want to serve. They don't want to get bogged down debating pros and cons; they want to get things done -- simply and in short sentences. While we all may value loyalty -- to family line and attitudes, to ball teams, to church and country -- many Republican voters also seem to have taken a "my country (or my President), right or wrong" oath.
Many of us feel strongly the need to belong to something -- perhaps an instinct dating from periods when one's survival depended on membership to a clan or tribe. We long in our hearts for others accept and protect us like family, often seeking the sense of family in institutions or organizations. From time to time, we are all tested as to whether we will abandon what seems right for the sake of belonging to a particular group or institution. As children, we witnessed and were subject to disrespectful behavior that we did not challenge because we wanted someone to like us, to include us in his/her circle. Our obedience may have been rewarded with camaraderie along with promise of protection. "When you're a Jet. . . you got brothers around you're a family man." As we matured, and developed more self-esteem, we could choose better friends. This test continues through adult life every time we are expected to rally around a mutual hatred or fear of something or someone.
The clan mentality is found in the corporate world and in seminaries alike: Either you're with us or against us. Bush plays this card skillfully. When, in the debates, Kerry had just finished thoughtfully answering the question about reconciling his Catholic faith with his pro-choice position, Bush retorted dismissively, "I don't get what he just said, do you?" In other words: If you're cool enough to be in my fraternity, you won't pay any attention to someone who thinks too much and can't answer with a yes or a no. Certain Administration staff have confirmed that Bush routinely addresses his aids by belittling nicknames he has chosen for each. This style of one exerting power over another is so pervasive that -- until we develop a certain degree of self-respect -- most of us are drawn indiscriminately into this familiar dynamic.
All acknowledge that religious faith played a large role in the election -- those who attend church regularly being far more likely to vote Republican. As a Music Minister -- who naturally attends church every Sunday -- I feel understandably misrepresented by this finding. Apparently I get something very different from the Bible and my participation in worship than do the Evangelicals, Fundamentalists or even many fellow Catholics.
As a child I needed a simplified version of what I now know to be psychologically and spiritually intricate. My understandings of "good" and "evil" resulted mostly from what I saw on TV or at the movies -- the U.S. always being portrayed as "good." It was not until well into adulthood -- after significant gains in my ongoing emotional and spiritual development -- that I began to consider myself a follower of Christ and could properly be dubbed a Christian. My childhood notions of "sin" or "evil" have been updated through deeper understanding of human and divine nature. This development of my faith depended on my taking the Bible less literally rather than more. (While it is clear to me that God created Heaven and Earth, it also appears that He likely needed to create Evolution to accomplish His ends).
The human principles of economic justice, healing the sick, health care, feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, a living wage so folks don't have to break their backs and then come home and not be able to make ends meet, an open American government that's unburdened by unnecessary secrecy, protection of our environment, a sane and responsible foreign policy where we take our place amongst a community of nations, civil rights and the safeguarding of our precious Democracy here at home.Working for these values requires a certain amount of altruism. I believe that it is the inherent nature of all human beings, once their spiritual and emotional needs are met, to be altruistic. The problem lies in the fact that the majority of Americans, regardless of income level, are struggling through life to get these needs met. We are hindered by addictions (substantive and behavioral), a materialistic and isolating culture, and all the other forms our unhealed hurts take -- such as obsession with what goes on in other people's bedrooms.
As psychologists have noted, the only emotional need greater than that of receiving (unconditional) love is the opportunity to give (unconditional) love. When hurts remain unhealed, however, Love takes a backseat to Fear. The New Testament tells us that Love and Fear cannot coexist. When people are fearful, they are much more likely to be persuaded by appeals to their gut rather than to their reason. When you're a Republican strategist it is in your best interests for people to remain fearful, as they will more likely be compelled by what you say rather than scrutinize what you actually do. You therefore talk primarily about below-the-belt issues like sexuality, taxes, and terrorism. Once you've grabbed the fearful voter in this manner, concerns for the environment or honest government -- or other issues mentioned above -- become secondary. Many of those who take positive action on a local level, such as mentioned earlier, may be too overwhelmed to put themselves in the place of someone in another culture, or to empathize with the painful choices facing certain women with an unintended pregnancy.
Most of us, particularly parents, are indeed upset by the "moral decline" in our society (the reason Mother Theresa refused to send her orphans to the U.S.). I don't see many politicians challenging the entertainment monopolies that promote violence, inappropriate sexuality and instant gratification; there's too much money at stake. The lack of a living wage and spiraling costs for most Americans means parents are working longer hours and having to leave their children at the mercy of these monopolies for hours a day. Extended families and neighborhoods that used to provide mutual support in raising children have been lost to a hollow striving for the individualistic American Dream. It is no wonder that many turn to the most organized option that appears to counter this trend: institutions of religious faith. And who offers the most dynamic, influential and widely available youth programs? Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, if I'm not mistaken.
These denominations also offer easy answers to Divine mysteries, a black-and-white picture that comforts the overwhelmed, over-stimulated soul. But just as for "patriots" of the right, there is a parallel oath: "My church, right or wrong." I must ask myself if those who seek to have their literal interpretation of Scripture rendered as civil law are abandoning Christ's mission for one based in their own fear. I, for example, have come to the conclusion that in order to be fully present in every waking moment, as Jesus instructs, I cannot drink alcohol or consume anything addictive. However much I believe that anyone who lives this "value" will in the long run be better off than someone who does not, I wouldn't expect others to reach the same conclusion without undergoing the steps that brought me to it. Would there be any point in me legislating that you never have another drink?
The next Administration will be even more united than the first, which should cause a fright both at home and abroad. Though most of us will not be directly affected -- on the short term, at least -- by the election's outcome, many of those in other nations, who of course did not get a vote, will be significantly so. Any CIA official who is not a willing co-writer of the Cheney screenplay is now getting replaced. And because gut-level tactics are as effective on Arabs as they are on Americans, our war-making is a losing tactic from most vantage points. On the international chessboard, Osama has lured Bush's queen into Iraq -- our soldiers and the Iraqi people the pawns.
Does the answer lie in reshaping the Democratic message so that it speaks more to the gut of the 51%? I, personally, have no need for my President to talk about Faith. The President I would choose for my country needs to be rational, compassionate and diplomatic. I certainly don't mind if he reads the Bible for two hours every morning -- as Bush is purported to -- but I need him to base important decisions on all the expert advice he can gather. I need to know that he is seeing reality. One reality the Democratic campaign did not acknowledge, however, is that many people do need to hear about Faith from their President. Their faith and their institutions of faith have brought many of them new hope. Apparently John Kerry could not deliver a message of hope that enough people could believe in; but it's more than one man can do. How are we offering hope to those around us? . . hope that someone could overcome an eating disorder, actualize themselves artistically, leave an abusive marriage or recommit to a floundering one, quit a job or find a job? Can we offer our assistance, one American at a time?
I recall the story told by a black teen who was being cornered by taunting whites when one of the whites said quietly to another, "You know, I don't think this is such a good idea." The whites withdrew and the teen was saved from physical harm. In the process, the boy who spoke up was saving himself and even perhaps his friends. It did not require great physical effort. Such opportunities present themselves to all of us at various times. It's going to take time and courage to change America.