[Ughh... here goes...]
Off and on for the past week or two, a few of us have had a nice little discussion about civility, decent treatment of fellow citizens, and the relative propriety of affording dignity to neighbors who disagree philosophically/politically. Specifically, I pressed for decency – not only courtesy in debate, but in demonstration of respect and kindness toward others in general. Predictably, the discussion swerved to NAZI Germany (what contemporary issue does not now elicit reflexive parallel to that?!?). The notion of kindness and decency to fellow citizen was likened to the apathy and/or acceptance of Germans in the face of the Brownshirt scourge.
Kindness is not reflected in the abiding of evil. Let me state this outright; if you believe your fellow American citizens to be maniacal, evil, torturous thugs hell-bent on informing on one another and eagerly embracing systematic immolation of neighbors – then there is nothing for you in this post. Moreover, let me also state this even more plainly; if you believe that the whole of human history makes the case that increased enmity, disdain, bitterness, hatred and calculated dehumanization of your fellow man is the thing that offers hope and restoration among us, then you will have little use for me either. I am no pacifist. I argue neither for acquiescence in the face of evil, nor footsie with the fanatical. Sometimes war is a geopolitical necessity to prevent greater evil. At times, conflict with your fellow man in order to restrain him is acceptable – a moral imperative even. These instances, however, are not reflected in what I am describing here. I cannot, in good faith, assign moral trespass to neighbors based on their voting proclivity.
I am a very conservative Christian who has spent the vast majority of his life in the hometowns of Seattle, Austin, and Portland respectively – famously secular progressive bastions, all. What’s more, by trade I contract with diverse international entities varying from many rigorously formal, polite-to-the-near-point-of-paralysis, and tradition-entrenched, consensus-tethered Asian cultures, to the ruggedly vociferous and directly-physically-contentious Israelis. I know something of tolerance, pluralism, and getting along. Much of what I assert here is experientially-derived… but not the important part. This is not about me.
As I mentioned, I am a Christian. As such, the example and person of Christ is supposed to uniquely and centrally inform my being. Whether or not you share my faith, most affirm that His was an admirable example of a life lived in kindness and wisdom – selflessly ministering to the needs of others. He was and is servant first. Whether or not you accept Him as Lord, there is no historical question that He existed, and that He walked among the ordinary rather than the elite. History records that His ministry was characterized first by a personal walk. One life lived – He walked what He expounded. He ministered not to heads of state, or political and religious elites. He sought not even ministerial or religious power. He simply walked His ministry of goodness. While He could have done so, He never traveled to the seat of all political power of His time (Rome). He practiced perfectly what he proposed. Why do I invoke His example here in what is predominantly a political and overwhelmingly secular venue? Precedent…well – that and shameless proselytizing ;-) You have my assurance, however, that I shall be neither ham-handed nor Biblically-thumperous.
The fact is that God understands that political solution is nothing more than a fence. Human history is nothing more than movement from one hateful conflict to another; nation against nation, race against race, faith versus faith… and now – it seems – neighbor against neighbor. Why is it that this pattern repeats? Communists and capitalists, the religious and atheists, modernity and antiquity… the formula never changes. Why is this? My answer is that there is nothing transformative about political and philosophical order. When the terms of our existence are grounded in our selves and our existential preference – our personal, myopic attribution of what comprises goodness in our fellow man despite our very limited visibility into same – we become absolutists with striped canes.
The overused cliché of “winning hearts & minds” is a noble and necessary thing. It is, however, never achieved by temporal political order. Political order – the entire notion of governance in general – is a construct of convenience and existential necessity. It is nothing more. It offers no transformative attribute – whether the order is oriented right or left… democratic or totalitarian… collectivist and egalitarian or individualist and libertarian. It is irreparably disconnected from goodness among its populace. Why, then, do we leverage it as if it is determinative of integrity and goodness? I am conservative guy, but because I am grounded in something more central, more enduring, transcendent, and profoundly transformational, I cannot allow my philosophical preference (however functionally superior I may consider it) to frame my view of my fellow man. To those who constantly steer discussion toward divisive, acrimonious, and absolutist extreme categorizations of citizens between Bush voters who ‘necessarily like torture and war-by-fiat’ and those who oppose Bush, I am sure my words will seem entirely disingenuous at best. I can only counter with the observation that this is rooted in the characteristic preoccupation with and grounding in contemporary political order rather than something more meaningful.
What binds men ought not be the state social order of the day – and neither should that be what tears them apart.
Your neighbor is much more than a Kerry voter or Bush voter. What he “enables” in his life every day is not seen by you or me. The day a Brownshirt kicks your door in and attempts to cart you off, you may count on me – as the guy who was always courteous and kind to you before this happened – to fend him off afterward. Neighbor-to-neighbor respect and interactive decency does not preclude good stewardship. On the contrary, it precedes it.
On this board, most don’t know me. I have little station or standing to admonish others. Nonetheless, I will do so. Don’t allow yourself to be defined by politics. Don’t filter esteem through philosophical label. Don’t extrapolate personal malevolence from voter registration. Do not be persuaded that good will come of hatred and disengagement. It won’t. It can’t. Evil must be fought, but not projected, extrapolated, and distributed where it is not… and the means to its defeat most assuredly will not be hatred and shunning.
Nice guys finish first – but more importantly, they help others finish also.
Thus endeth another screed. Forgive the indulgence of a profoundly imperfect man… as I forgive you yours.
:-)
