How do we Change the
Tone?
As we are entering the final two
months of this year’s Presidential campaign, everyone is bracing for what has
already been the nastiest election since 1824.
Some of the charges have been outrageous, the rhetoric has been over the
top, and many politicians or public figures who have thrown their two cents in
have been downright vicious.
I have written before about the tone
of our national political discourse in my article How
Did We Get Here, and the truth is, changing that is going to take a lot
of effort from a lot of people, and a lot of time.
But today I want to explore the
political rancor that can develop in our interpersonal relationships, between
members of a family, a circle of friends, or a workplace. In years past, people could have differing political
opinions without it putting a wedge between them. Our country was famous for coming together
after an election and supporting our leaders in the hopes they would
succeed. But no more.
Routinely, ordinary citizens face
violence or vandalism for their political positions, and anger carries the
day. Just look at Facebook. There are countless political posts, and many
are vitriolic. They call names, or spew
calumnies, or even vocalize a desire for personal harm against those who
disagree with them. Some recent
well-publicized tweets from celebrities have wished disaster and death on
politicians, or their supporters, or even people who eat at a particular
restaurant.
It’s bad enough when celebrities do
it. Why we are concerned about what they
think I’m not sure. But what if it’s
your uncle, or cousin, or sister, or co-worker, or friend? What if they wish death and dismemberment on
a faceless group of which you are a member?
Why does it happen so often, and how should we respond?
Elizabeth Scalia has an excellent
article in the recent issue of The Catholic Answer attempting to answer the
first question, and I think she has it right.
In a nutshell, she points out that in years past we assumed that we were
striving for a common goal. We disagreed
about how to get there, so we could have political debate. But when one party won, we came together to
try and achieve that common goal.
For example, 125 years ago, perhaps the
biggest issue in the Presidential campaign was tariffs. Should we have a high tariff to protect
American industry and jobs, or should the tariff be low, to increase
competition and drive down prices? Both
sides wanted a strong economy and an employed population with purchasing power. They disagreed on how to get there, but there
was a common goal. When the election was
over, I doubt there were many fist fights over tariffs, and both sides hoped
that newly elected President Harrison’s policies would prove good for the
country. Of course there have been exceptions in our history, slavery being the
first to come to mind.
But this common goal is no longer the
case. Oh, sure, we all want a strong
economy, and President Obama and Governor Romney each have their own ideas
about how to get there. The undecided
voters, who will decide the election, are voting based on the economy (which I
have repeatedly decried). However, we
are told there are a record few undecideds this year.
Our country, for decades now, has been
embroiled in a culture war, which has engulfed the entire western world. The Culture of Life versus the Culture of
Death. Those are the battle lines, and
the goals of each side are diametrically opposed. We Catholics are on the side of the Culture
of Life, and it’s pretty obvious that we can’t unite with the other side if we
lose, and hope our opposition achieves its stated goals. If we lose, we have to fight all the harder.
This makes sense to us. Our cause is just. We are fighting a life or death battle in
which souls as well as lives hang in the balance. If we respond to setbacks by throwing up our
hands and “go along to get along,” we will have to answer for it.
The other side fights just as
hard. At the root, of course, is
abortion. There are plenty of people who
have been duped into believing that we pro-lifers really are trying to take “freedom
of choice” away from women. But I
believe the majority know they are wrong.
In their heart of hearts, no one expects God to applaud their efforts on
behalf of legalized abortion. This often
makes them fight all the harder.
The Book of Wisdom gives us a glimpse
into this mentality: “Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;
he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for transgressions of the
Law…To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for
us, because his life is not like other men’s, and different are his ways.”
Jesus told us that following Him would
come with a price, and sometimes that price would be division, even within
families. So what do we do? Resign ourselves to having only friends who
think like us politically, to having certain family members who will merely
tolerate our presence when they have to and despise us behind our backs?
I don’t believe so. We will not win every battle on this front,
but we don’t have to concede our relationships with people politically opposed
to us either. But we had better be
prepared to take the burden of these relationships on ourselves.
There are two types of people we may
come up against in our families or at work, etc. The first are people who agree with us on
issues such as life and religious freedom, etc., but who don’t vote according
to those beliefs. They may believe so
strongly in the judgments of one party regarding the poor or immigration or the
economy, for example, that they will faithfully vote for that party and ignore
other issues. Perhaps they are voting
based on the differences between the parties that existed 40 years ago, but old
habits will not be broken. Of course, we
know that prudential matters regarding how to help the poor, etc. can not trump
intrinsic evils like abortion, etc., but we can recognize their genuine concern
and desire to do good.
We may discuss these things with them,
if our discussions can remain civil, but we should not have trouble respecting
them. What if they attack us,
though? Usually (not always) in this
case, because we share similar values, and only apply them differently in the
voting booth, a calm, heart-to-heart conversation should clear the air, and if
we have not responded in kind, we should be able to expect them to be gracious.
The other type is much more
difficult. These are people actively promoting
the Culture of Death. They do cast votes
based on non-negotiable issues, but they cast them on the wrong side. We are much more likely to get nastiness from
these people, and it’s harder for us to show restraint because though we may
love them, we really don’t respect their positions.
There are a few things I would
suggest, based on my own experience.
Though we don’t have to be punching bags, any response we make, however
firm, must not contain personal attacks or cruel rhetoric. Focus on the issues, not the person we are
debating. Always read an email or
Facebook post, or whatever, at least three times before hitting send, and wait
a while between writing it and rereading it if possible. Sometimes a response is not even necessary. Also, remember that much of what comes to us
from people promoting the Culture of Death comes from pain.
As I said, very few people, if any,
deep down, truly believe in the goodness of abortion, but many are suffering
severe pain from having had an abortion and are not yet ready to deal with
it. We can’t make assumptions about
individuals, but I think this is the fuel behind much of the fire. Even if someone hasn’t had that experience,
we could be bearing the brunt of other painful experiences.
Groups like Planned Parenthood have
done so much to hurt women, to convince them that when they are in a crisis
pregnancy, they really have no choice.
And then, when the abortion is over, those women find out it made things
worse, not better. They are naturally
hurt, and they have a right to be angry.
When we deal with someone who is
suffering we must show them compassion.
We should be prepared to encourage them, show unconditional love, and
direct them to healing resources like Project
Rachel if they ever do confide in us.
We can react as to someone in need of the healing touch of Christ, and
even by lashing out at us, they give us the opportunity to be that touch for
them. Will our patience and humility win
them over in the end? Maybe. Maybe not.
But we will surely receive our reward in Heaven.
Quickly, I want to comment on what has
just recently become the most contentious issue of our day, same-sex
marriage. I approach this issue
differently than others because of those in the Culture of Death, it stands
apart. Unlike abortion, I do believe
that many, if not most people advocating for same-sex marriage really do
believe they are doing the right thing.
They see the issue as one of human rights, and believe their cause is
just.
Unfortunately, because of that, this
is the issue for which we will receive the most scorn. Promoters of same-sex marriage do not share
our understanding of marriage, and perhaps even of the human person. They are not advancing the good of society,
or even the good of the people for whom they believe they are advocating, but
they don’t see it that way. And we can
laud their motivation and the goodness in their hearts, even if it is
misplaced.
I believe our task here, when dealing
with people we know and care about, is simply to show them that we are not
bigots. Our opposition to same-sex
marriage is reasonable. It comes from a
desire for the common good, to safeguard the well-being of children, and to show
authentic love for our brothers and sisters who struggle with sexual identity,
or have same-sex attraction.
We will most likely not get our friend
or family member to agree with us on this issue. But if we have genuine compassion, and
refrain from insulting or degrading remarks (which are never appropriate), though
they may see us as people who are completely misguided on this issue, they will
not see us as hateful bigots. I would pray
that that is enough for our differences not to harm our relationship.
