A National Dip Stick

 I am, by undergraduate degree, a scientist; a social scientist, in fact. I deal with data different from that of physicists, chemists, medical scientists, etc.; nevertheless, I use the same scientific method as they. I also have two postgraduate degrees, so I know something about research. And I have a smattering of training in statistics, so I know how to test the data I discover through research. I also know how to check out the conclusions drawn by others, and can usually recognize a red herring.

The upshot is that I’ve learned that I don’t really know much of anything absolutely. I gather a preponderance of evidence that creates a level of confidence in what I think I know. Bottom line: everything I do or say is based upon faith: trusting the process, whether I’m researching human behavior or a passage from the Bible.

In recent years I’ve grown increasingly concerned about the proliferation of belligerent partisanism in our culture, especially as demonstrated in the level of animosity on social media—what amounts to a pooling of ignorance and a glut of misinformed (or outright Uninformed) opinion and counter opinion (Hey, somebody’s gotta’ be wrong!)

I’ve tried to determine when, where, and how the hostilities began, hoping to find clues to how to bring some sanity to 21^st century humanity. I’ve reviewed what I think I know, and I’ve done research (not nearly enough to justify another doctoral thesis), and I conclude it’s not a new reality. Man’s inhumanity to man[1] is as old as, well, humanity.

Partisan animosity enveloped the Continental Congress during the composition of the Declaration of Independence and on into the early years of the nascent United States. One need only recall numerous duels: Aaron Burr vs. Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson vs. Charles Dickinson. Even some women got in on the action.

Some blame social media. I find no convincing evidence of that; although, some data suggests that social media has brought to light what already existed below the surface of social awareness. Social media basically is a dip-stick that measures the mood and attitude of our rampant partisanism.

I do, however, locate a significant “flash point” in America’s political mood swing toward angry intolerance. 1968 was a year not easily forgotten by those who lived through it and were politically aware. Riots triggered by Vietnam protests erupted in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert Kennedy were assassinated. All this and the Vietnam conflict itself were brought into our living rooms via television. Public awareness was raised to unprecedented levels, and essentially never receded, although it remains tribally opinionated.

But the event that effectively drew the line in the sand happened four years later in the break-in to the Democratic National Committee headquarters in a Washington, DC office complex called Watergate. Implicated in the break-in and subsequent cover-up attempts, President Richard Nixon resigned, and the GOP has been out for revenge ever since. “Worse than Watergate” became a go-to claim every time a political opponent was caught with his hand in the cookie jar:

·         Chappaquiddick (“Bridgegate”) (Democrat): “Worse than Watergate”

·         Rigged Public Opinion Polls (Republican): “Worse than Watergate”

·         The Keating Five (4 Democrats and 1 Republican: “Worse than Watergate”

·         Iran-Contra (Republican): “Worse than Watergate”

·         Whitewater (Democrat): “Worse than Watergate”

·         Bush’s Iraq Coverup (Republican): “Worse than Watergate”

I could go on. And on. Ad infinitum. Ad nauseum. The die was cast at Watergate, and American politics—and the public’s perception of politics—descended into hell.

Revenge and counter-revenge so consume the major parties that constructive legislation is a pipe dream. The overwhelming appearance is that destroying a member of the “other” party, or blocking every legislative effort of the opposition takes precedent over the good of the country.

Truth no longer is based on evidence or documentation, but rather on party affiliation. We just don’t care if our guy or gal is guilty!

Ideology takes precedent over humanity, and any level of compromise is seen as a total surrender of values. (Values? There’s an oxymoron for ya’!)

I have a few Libertarian friends (and I cherish their friendship), and I don’t agree with them that “government” is de facto evil and bad. Government is a tool: no better or worse than those who wield it. But I find it very difficult to deny that the current state of our government totters on the brink of practicable counterproductivity. At best, it is distracted and ineffectual. Those few idealistic souls who enter the Senate or the House with hopes of making the world a better place soon are devoured by the corrupting influence of politics. In its present state there is little hope of constructive, positive, helpful legislation.

Rather than being a tool to actualize “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” the government has become an end in itself.

But see, here’s the thing: we the people are caught up in the same vortex of self-destruction. The evidence I’ve collected suggests that instead of being a tool to produce the ideals of democracy, the government has become just like social media: a dip-stick to measure American culture. And what it measures is the residue of the “Me” generation.

Will Rogers said there are people in congress who shouldn’t be allowed to play with matches. Well, who put them there? Congress has become a mirror. Do you dare look into it?

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Quoted from Robert Burns’ poem, “Man Was Made To Mourn: A Dirge”, 1784. Burns’ statement may have been a paraphrase of an earlier source, viz., "More inhumanity (to man) has been done by man himself than any other of nature's causes." Samuel von Pufendorf, 1673.

I Am Conflicted.

I deeply detest the divisive belligerence of the partisan political posts on Social Media. I have participated in the vicious “Mixmaster,” and thus far the investment of time, energy and emotion has produced a net loss.

I understand and affirm the right to express one’s opinions, and I understand and affirm the right and the obligation to stand up for one’s beliefs.

BUT…

I have begun to see that doing so on Social Media is totally useless. In fact, I’d venture to say such an effort is counterproductive.

In the first place, nothing is ever resolved in the venomous, malicious and hurtful exchanges that too often emerge. Essentially, Social Media becomes a venue, at best, for venting, and at worst, for cowards to hide behind its anonymity and become verbal terrorists, exploding over all who come within range.

I understand the human need to vent; but, it seems to me there are other, more appropriate and, indeed, more effective venues for venting.

In the second place, no minds ever are changed; indeed, most of the time it’s more like “My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts;” “I’m right.” Period. Therefore, if you disagree with me “You’re wrong.” Period. It’s a short journey from “You’re wrong” to “You’re stupid,” to “You’re evil,” and the elimination of evil is justified in most ideologies.

Sadly, however, too often the aftermath is an end-justifies-the-means ethic. In my thinking, no cause, no matter how good or noble, justifies, or is enhanced by, ignoble means.

And so, earlier this week I resolved to abstain from participation in the adversarialism. It was just futile. Useless. Divisive.

Today, however, a specific on line article caught my attention, and convinced me that Social Media has become a viable indicator of the American political pulse and blood pressure. The news agencies pick up on it; and by extension, I’m guessing the politicians and policy moguls notice, too. Perhaps all that contempt and bitterness and hatred spewed across Facebook walls play valid roles in social and political influence.

Perhaps I should stay engaged, after all. My perception of Social Media is not at all representative of Social Media as a whole. Fully 85% of my Facebook friends are conservative--from traditional GOP to Tea Party to Libertarian to Survivalist. A large majority are from the South and are Evangelical Christians. While I make no value judgments here, the ethos of my Facebook community is skewed, and not representative of the whole venue.

[Yes, I understand that my unwillingness to pass value judgement begs the question whether the belligerence I experience on Social Media is a direct result of the ethos of my Facebook community. On the other hand, my liberal FB friends, though making up a small minority, are not immune to their own brand of venom!]

I’m conflicted.

By personality type, by profession, and by faith, I advocate peace, unity[1] and cooperation. I promote reconciliation, collaborative conflict resolution and empathetic human interaction. I belong to a church whose vision includes being "a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world." Thus, I detest the schoolyard bully façade projected by a disproportionate majority of Social Media pundits (and wannabees) in my Facebook community.

My gut wants to just drop out. I’m tired of the bile and the refusal to consider “other”

Downloaded from a public domain site

perspectives. I’m tired of ideology taking precedence over human need. I’m tired of the racism, the misogyny and the hatred directed at ethnic, religious and LGBT groups. And I’m tired of the denial of all the above.

Most of all I’m tired of the “I’m right syndrome”—the across-the-board refusal to collaborate, negotiate or even communicate with anyone who disagrees with “ME/US”[2].

I’m tired of it all because at the bottom line I’m convinced that between any two of us there are infinitely more similarities than differences, and that if we so choose, we can build on our similarities and agreements and can thereby create “a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

That’s how I see it through the “Flawed Glass” that is my perspective.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Unity is not the same thing as uniformity. It’s more like harmony—a choir singing in unison can create beautiful music; but the same choir multiplies its beauty when the basses, tenors, altos and sopranos are singing different notes at the same time. That’s harmony. That’s unity.

[2] As I’ve written and preached many times, I believe in absolute truth; but I don’t believe any human or human group is capable of perceiving truth absolutely. Our human perception of “absolute” truth always will be “relative” to our personal experience of reality.