Taking Sides - Or Not

I have a confession to make. I wrote the last post, “Character Matters,” two months ago, around the commemoration of MLK’s “Dream” speech. After I wrote it, I sat on it, and decided not to publish it. When I read it again a few days ago, I asked myself why I had chosen to bury it.

Here’s why. As a public person – and I acknowledge that by virtue of preaching a sermon every week, teaching at a local college, and maintaining a blog, I am a public person– I sometimes battle creeping discouragement because of the era through which we are passing. I pray that it is but a temporary phase, a backlash against more powerful positive forces that cannot be stopped. But I sometimes despair that, for at least the reminder of my lifetime, our society will be enmeshed in a cultural quagmire with no resolution and rising resentment, and I wonder, “What’s the point of saying anything?”

We’ve moved beyond hyper-ideology and polarized politics. We’ve now descended into an abyss of what many are calling “tribalism,” though I sometimes wonder if that phrase really captures the depth of our moral crisis. I prefer to call it “side-ism.” It has nothing to do with a political philosophy, social agenda, or set of civic principles. All of us are being reduced to what “side” we are on. When people speak publicly, their words are not judged on their merits. The only serious consideration is, “Is he/she on my side?” Any language, vocabulary, or even tone of voice that indicates the person speaking is on the wrong side is reason to summarily dismiss everything being said. And sadly, “side-ism” also allows us to spew toxic venom (think Roseanne Barr and Samantha Bee) because everybody on the same side will tolerate it, or even cheer it.

What are the sides? It is tempting to say there are only two: “Pro-Trump” and “Anti-Trump.” The President got elected by taking the side of some Americans against other Americans. I believe he was genuinely surprised that this worked.

He was channeling the same anger spewed by InfoWars’ Alex Jones (whom he called “a great American”) in the hopes of building the base for a new media empire. Plans were in the works for a “Trump Network” to be launched soon after the election was over. It was a brilliant strategy. He would become the hero of millions of Americans, the embodiment of their “Lost Cause,” the First Victim among victims who reveled in identifying scapegoats for their economic and personal failures.

But then he won. And he’s governed the same way he campaigned. He divides in order to conquer. (Yes, Hillary Clinton fell into the same trap when she stupidly characterized some of Trump’s supporters as “a basket of deplorables,” but she’s not President of the United States.) Trump is certainly not the first U.S. chief executive to be content to govern through a bare majority, rather than try to reach beyond the coalition that elected him. But he is absolutely the first president in the modern era to publicly side with his supporters against their perceived enemies, who are also Americans. He’s supposed to be the president of all Americans, but he divides the nation into his friends and his enemies.He has made scapegoating a government policy. Not surprisingly, all those whom he has scapegoated and those who are offended by his rhetoric have buried their differences to form an opposing side.

But it’s more complicated than being for or against Trump, who did not create this atmosphere. He took advantage of it. Those who make up his hard-core base (which does not include the nervous Republicans and annoyed conservative Independents who wish he would start acting like a president) don’t spend much time thinking about his trade deals, his on-again, off-again efforts at a summit with North Korea, or his tax policies. What matters most is that he’s on their side. Both major political parties have made the mistake of abandoning rural and working class white people, while Trump actually appeals to them directly, albeit in a darkly cynical way. He legitimates their worst suspicions. He speaks their language. He talks like they do. He’s one of them. So they are loyal to him. If he suddenly got religion (really came to Jesus instead of pandering to evangelical Christians to get votes) and repented of his divisive, racist rhetoric, I don’t believe this base would stay with him. In fact, recent polling indicates that a growing number of Trump supporters prefer an authoritarian government that favors people like them to a democracy that protects the rights of all people. If hebecame disloyal to themby pursuing a lofty agenda designed to embrace all Americans equally, their support would come to a screeching halt. Ultimately, the triumph of their “side” is more important than anyone or anything else.

And that “side” is the preservation of an America where the people who most look like our founders (the ones of Anglo and European descent) are in charge, beneficently “allowing” others to participate in the American dream, but only to a manageable degree. It is the rejection of the “browning” of America, which is on course to become a majority-minority nation by the middle of this century. It is the side of the “melting pot,” where everybody acculturates to the dominant culture, rather than the “quilt,” in which America’s beauty is found in its diversity. It is the side that assumes economic opportunity is a zero-sum game, and constituencies have to compete against each other in order to survive.

Of course, Trump’s most ardent supporters reject this characterization, because it implies that they are all racist. And, after all, they have lots of friends who are black. They have no problem with people of color living in their neighborhoods or attending their churches. Plus, they don’t feel like they are dominating in any way. They’ve watched their farms go bankrupt and their factories go overseas. Their economic hardships have led to alcoholism, drug abuse, and broken homes. White privilege? Are you kidding?

But “white privilege” doesn’t mean that all white people have it easier than all black people. It means that a black family in poverty has to work twice as hard to advance as a white family at the same level of poverty. And the reason why is a dirty secret that I doubt even Donald Trump understands. Since the beginning of Industrialism, poor white people in America have been kept down with the assurance that, no matter how poor they are, they are at least better than the black folks. They’ve been convinced that the real threat to them is not unregulated corporate capitalism, but those peoplewho don’t look like them (a vague category that would later include darker-skinned immigrants). Dispossessed rural and working class white people actually have a great deal in common with people of color, but powerful interests have kept this a secret, pitting these two groups against each other. Racism has been imposed on allhistorically impoverished people.

This sordid legacy, which has since 1776 resisted the inspired vision of our founding documents, has now been blown up (largely through the insidious use of social media) into a cold civil war, threatening the entire basis of our democracy. Both sides demonize each other as “racists” and “globalists” (or “multiculturalists”). The resulting dichotomy ensures that all words shared publicly are screened through a harsh filter that precludes listening with an open mind and discovering common cause. Even in church, sincere efforts to relate the scriptures to current events are often heard suspiciously (or gleefully) as “taking a side.”

Christianity is not a “side.” It is a way of being in the world that rejects sides (and therefore Christians must call out public figures, including the President, when their words and behavior encourage us to take sides against each other). But, you might say, didn’t Jesus “side” with the poor and oppressed of his time? Didn’t he “take the side” of justice, mercy, and faith? You could say that. His teachings echoed the ancient prophets as well as some of the leading rabbis of the time. But he also spoke of the kingdom of God in a way that transcended all the sides that the Jewish people were taking against each other. Jesus never sided againstspecific people. His confrontation was with the forces of evil that pitted people against each other.

As followers of Christ, we are bidden to follow deeper stirrings of the Spirit; to listen for a more transcendent Word than any of the cultural squabbles that compete for our attention. We also know that our identity does not rest, finally, in ethnicity, social status, political clout, level of education, or any earthly citizenship. We are children of God; brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ. The movement of the Holy Spirit has always been about breaking down barriers, not erecting them for political or economic gain, or angling for an advantage over somebody else.

When Americans – and Christians – reduce ourselves to tribal loyalties, regarding ourselves as victims of our cultural enemies, we’ve given up both the guiding vision of our nation and the core of our faith.

©2018 by J. Mark Lawson

Comments

[Michael Salamone]

Great work, Mark. As you know, taking sides also exists within religious denominations, too. A Right Wing Temple Guard type friend of mine endlessly supports the usual causes of anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-married or female clergy, yet ignores war, injustice, racism, sexism, etc. This also goes against the example of Jesus to bring all people together.