Polarization in American Life Gerry OShea
Calling
someone a renaissance man is a big compliment. It conveys an image of a
well-rounded intelligent individual with an eye for the needs of other people,
especially the less-fortunate.
The
renaissance historical period lasted for most of two hundred years, stretching
from the 14th to the 16th century. It was an epoch of
change, a response to the passing feudal system with its acceptance of
superstitious medieval beliefs that gave way to a more rational approach to
life. It was the era when the promotion of human intelligence and inventiveness
came to be greatly valued and resulted in the development of the printing press
and of the mariner’s compass – and of gunpowder.
The famous
philosophers of ancient Greece, especially Aristotle and Plato, were studied in
the renaissance schools in cities all over Italy and in particular in Florence.
Teasing out the intricacies of rules for logical thinking led to a focus on the
art of debate where truth was sought by speakers who not only presented their
own ideas persuasively but also listened carefully to the arguments made on the
other side. This need for balance was part of what the ancients called rhetoric
and that subject was included in the core curriculum in every university.
That spirit
of listening and compromise had a place among American political leaders up to
about thirty years ago. In the senate, in particular, there was a willingness
for the majority party to occasionally take on board and implement some of
their opponents’ ideas and proposals. Passage of major legislation required
sixty votes out of a hundred, indicating wide community approval of any new
law.
Today the
culture is very different. Partisanship dominates all aspects of public life
with, for instance, the Postmaster General, the man in charge of the national
mail service, actively promoting delays in processing postal ballots for the
upcoming election. Democratic leaders are outraged but only a few Republican
senators have spoken out against this blatant usurpation of power by a White
House appointee.
The
divisions in American society are shocking and frightening, far deeper and more
intransigent than at any time in recent memory. For example, 48% of Republicans
believe that there is a lot of discrimination against Christians and 43% of
Americans think that the political system operates against white people.
James
Mattis, former Defense Secretary, a man widely admired as a principled patriot,
spoke scathingly of his previous boss on this issue: “President Trump is the
first American president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American
people. In fact, he doesn’t even pretend to try. Instead he aims to divide us.”
Stephen
Bannon, the influential Republican political scientist, claims that what he
calls tribal allegiances determine party political preferences and that the
power of intellectual persuasion is highly overrated. Thus, blue-collar workers
mostly vote Republican based on a group understanding of which party best represents
their feelings. Many of these men disregard their union recommendation that the
Democrats’ policies align more with their economic needs.
Evangelical
Christians are also reliable supporters of conservative Republican candidates,
even though, contrary to core Christian values, their policies show little
sympathy for the poor, and refugees in the southern border get a cold shoulder
from the present government. Cahir O’Doherty, the columnist for the Irish Voice
newspaper in New York, explained this hardliner dynamic when he wrote about the
Orangemen in Northern Ireland who display their narrow bigotry every July
marching season: “Rejecting whatever is not them means that they strengthen
what binds them together.”
A
persecution complex explains the behavior of many tight-knit groups, including
evangelicals. They see themselves as the last bastion of defense against the
encroachments of a liberal anti-bible culture. Christian evangelicals comprise
about 25% of the American population, that is around 80 million people. The
paranoid mind frame that claims they are being pushed around and unheard in the
corridors of power does not represent the real world.
Catholics
are immersed in a similar debate. Recently, Archbishop Vigano, former Apostolic
Nuncio to the United States, who in 2018 wrote a letter accusing Pope Francis
of covering up for the now-defrocked Cardinal McCarrick, wrote to President
Trump, praising his leadership in the aftermath of George Floyd’s torture and death.
Vigano sees an ongoing battle between “the
children of light and the children of darkness,” powerful biblical images
corresponding in his mind to the despised progressives in the church and what
he sees as the principled traditionalists. His letter agreed with the president
by pointing the negative finger of fear and darkness at the Black Lives Matter
protestors.
Religious
extremists love to don the halo of rectitude and claim they are under siege by
the forces of the imaginary Evil One. Vigano, whose main gripe with the pope
may really be that he was skipped over for the cardinal’s hat, is also preaching a convoluted narrative that
the coronavirus pandemic is really a pretext to deprive the faithful of
attending mass as well as a strategy to impose a new international order ruled
by “a world government out of all control.”
It is
shocking to think how deep the political estrangement is in America. 49% of
Republicans say that they would oppose a member of their family marrying a
Democrat while 35% of Democrats say they would not want any close link to
someone from the other party. Just a half century ago that figure registered at
5% in both parties.
New York
Times conservative columnist Ross Douthat favors the old-time religion where
right and wrong were clearly defined by the men in the Vatican. He decries the
new approach, approved by Francis, that invites local churches to wrestle with
the big moral issues of our time. Give an inch, he contends, on the clear
traditional church position on marriage – one man, one woman, one time – or on
intimate homosexual practices – unnatural so never allowed - and we are on the
low road to approval of polygamy and gay marriage.
When Pope
Francis seemed to open the door of tolerance a little on these two
controversial issues, traditionalists, led by Vigano and Cardinal Raymond Burke,
former Archbishop of St. Louis, named him as a possible heretic. This is a
strong and powerful group with access to plenty money and to right-wing media
outlets. It is hard to see how any reconciliation is possible with men who
point the finger of heresy at the pope. For them the metaphor of the two worlds
of light and darkness is pregnant with meaning and they see Donald Trump as an
important protagonist on the side of the angels.
Truth-telling
is always an important indicator in understanding a person’s character. In the United States few people outside of his
own devotees think that President Trump has more than a nodding acquaintance
with veracity. The Washington Post maintains an up-to-date record of his lies,
and the number since he assumed office has jumped to more than twenty thousand.
No previous president comes close to matching this level of disengagement from
the truth.
Psychologists
identify this flagrant inability to deal with facts as a mental condition called
pseudologia fantastica which defines a compulsion to claim truth-telling
by sidelining rationality and distorting
memory. Professionals assess this as a kind of pathological lying used
to enable a person to seem triumphant and special.
Thus, presidential
statements are dismissed by a substantial percentage of citizens, which clearly
heightens the divisiveness in the body politic. It is healthy in a democracy
for people to question statements from those in authority; however, we are in a
different world when so many disregard any important government pronouncement
simply because they don’t believe a word the leader utters.
John McCain,
war hero and Republican senator, was his party’s nominee for the presidency in
2008. At one of his rallies a woman interrupted to spew some negative tropes
about the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, which the partisan crowd cheered.
McCain intervened in her rant and told her that Obama was an honorable man with
a fine family. They disagreed on policy issues but they were both loyal
Americans. In the frenzy of a modern American election McCain displayed a
magnanimous spirit and a clear mind which ensures that many people will
remember him as a renaissance man.
Gerry
OShea blogs at wemustbetalking.com
Comments
Post a Comment