No, it's not about 'partisan hate'

Last week David French of the conservative National Review magazine wrote a piece, “Partisan Hate Is Becoming a National Crisis,” that has been well-received by a number of people, even on the political left. And taken at face value, it does sound conciliatory, that the two sides need to put aside their differences and work together for the good of the country.

But if you look at it from any historical perspective, French gets it dangerously wrong on several fronts.

1) It was never a “partisan crisis” as such as one of ideology — and even not purely “ideology” as such when it came to specific political positions. That should have been obvious with former Sen. George Voinovich saying around the time of the 2008 general election that “If [President Barack Obama] was for it, we had to be against it ... [Sen. Mitch McConnell, now Majority Leader] wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”

2) This didn’t start two years ago with Donald Trump. It didn’t start 10 years ago with Obama. It didn’t start 25 years ago with Bill and Hillary Clinton. It didn’t even start 40 years ago with Ronald Reagan.

No, it started back in the mid-1950s — in part with National Review itself, which came out of the “new right,” inspired by the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954. The late founder William F. Buckley Jr. used the magazine to try to streamline conservatism, which is inherently reactionary, into an intellectual force, which sounded noble on the surface but proved ultimately unworkable because folks often vote their fears — against rather than for something.

Newt Gingrich accelerated the divide between conservatives and “liberals,” with the assistance of the “religious right,” which spent a lot of money raising funds against the political left. (To this day, I remember the ominous statement of a pastor in suburban Atlanta who seemed to be gleeful at the destruction of political enemies, punctuating one rant with “[F]or our God is a consuming fire.”) And then you had right-wing talk radio beginning in the late 1980s, sprung loose with the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. Later on you had the right spreading the nonsense of Obama being a crypto-Muslim wanting to impose Shariah law on the United States.

Only since Trump’s election in 2016 have liberals begun to push back with any serious force, riding his incompetence and alleged corruption to victory in the House of Representatives two years later. But that’s what happens when you spend the last few decades picking at your opponents — they’re bound to react.

Now, in fairness, National Review is trying to do a balancing act, largely supporting Trump’s agenda while denouncing his comportment — in essence, trying to stay above the fray; the trouble is, of course, is that people were attracted to his crudity in the first place because they saw it as a sign of his, shall we say, authenticity. But, like all politicians and probably more than most, he desires to be worshipped, so he has rewarded the “religious right” with packing Federal courts with conservative judges in the hopes that Roe v. Wade would be overturned (he himself likely doesn’t give a hoot about the issue of abortion in its own right).

It’s true that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has said that impeachment of Trump, which many Democrats demand, was not going to happen, referring to it as “so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” French, quoting an interview in The Washington Post, saying that it reflected her high-mindedness. Nonsense — it reflected political reality, since GOP senators won’t vote for it as things stand now precisely because they owe their positions to Trump. In other words, if they were to vote to impeach him the base would revolt.

The Weekly Standard, another conservative opinion magazine but never supportive of Trump, recently folded, likely because of that stance, so NR might feel compelled to call for civility in its own right. But modern conservatism was never supportive of a civil discourse in the first place, even despite Buckley’s attempt to foster such. And that’s ultimately why French gets it wrong — at times civil discourse means telling an opponent, “You really do get it wrong.”

Shelving the "golden rule"

"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

 —  Jesus, as recorded in Matthew 7:12

Something that I've found very interesting about the "religious right" in general and evangelical supporters of Donald Trump in particular: By displaying hostility toward, and thus trying to defeat, folks who don't agree with their politics they often claim that they want to save American culture from secularism and "bring God back" to society.

The irony is that their very activity is precisely what's causing America to turn more secular in the first place due to their failure to observe the "golden rule," taught not only by the LORD Himself but also by most other world religions.

Basically, you simply don't ignore the essential tenets of religion in order to maintain a veneer of piety for the sake of power.

Something else to ponder: When you have political, social, economic and cultural power, why would you have need of or want the Power of the Holy Spirit? It sounds to me as though such folks are putting themselves in the place that is rightfully His.

You may be thinking, But Christianity in this country is under attack. Frankly, I don't believe that, and even if that were true, it seems that you've forgotten that you, too, were an enemy of God — as I myself was. The difference is that today I understand the dictum "But for the grace of God ... ," and because I get that I've been willing to put myself in the shoes of those who may hate me for whatever reason — and I don't assume that it's because of my faith.

You see, one thing that much contemporary evangelicalism has lacked over the decades is a willingness to identify with the suffering, especially when the person/people involved don't share their faith.

Indeed, such compassion for enemies is what motivated Martin Luther King Jr. to preach, directly to them, "One day we shall win freedom, but not only for ourselves. We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory" [from "Loving your enemies"].

Want true revival? Then treat people the same way you want to be treated — no insulting or patronizing remarks toward those who don't agree with you. Remember that you have to earn the right to be heard, and badmouthing them as "godless" doesn't win hearts, let alone souls.

The codependency of Christian Trump supporters

Those of us who have been involved in 12-step recovery movements over the years understand the term "codependent," a take-off on the original term "co-alcoholic" for family and friends, often a wife, of an alcoholic who, because of the partner's own addiction, has centered his/her/their behavior around the hope that, for the good of the relationship, the person will eventually change. Often the partner calls him/her off work when drunk or hungover or might say, "Well, s/he really didn't mean that" concerning an inappropriate public remark made when drunk.

Probably the two key books published in the 1980s following the adult-children-of-alcoholics movement were Melody Beattie's "Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself" and "Women Who Love Too Much: When You Keep Wishing and Hoping He'll Change" by Robin Norwood. I've read the latter book which, despite my being a man, proved very insightful.

You can guess where I'm going with this. The vast majority of evangelical Christians who support President Donald Trump seem to have this delusion that he will suddenly turn into a strong Christian leader who will wipe the "enemies of God" from this nation — this despite his womanizing, abuse of workers, stiffing of contractors, ignorance of basic Scriptural principles and lack of humility and remorse. They do so likely because he demonstrates hatred toward many of the same people that they do — those of color, Hispanics, Muslims and, especially, those of a more politically liberal bent.

I think we need to face facts: Trump is who he is and will, and likely can, not change because, like the active alcoholic, his own needs take primacy over everything and everyone else. We also need to face that, because of our own emotional ties to him, the Good News of redemption and reconciliation through Jesus Christ is being besmirched, sabotaged and downright compromised. And that also may say something about us as well because, rather than an attitude of selfless service, we often display one of bullying power for the sake of maintaining our privileged status.

I don't see Jesus in that at all, and you can bet that much of the rest of the world doesn't, either.

The irony is that Lois W., wife of Bill, the founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, was encouraged by her husband to find her own recovery; according to the biopic "My Name is Bill W.," he had to confront her because she had become so accustomed to his drinking that she couldn't handle his being sober and accused her of trying to pull him "off the wagon." She thus started Al-Anon, which uses the exact same steps and principles of AA, originally as a support group for wives of alcoholics but which has since opened to anyone in any kind of intimate relationship with an alcoholic.

And the first thing you learn in Al-Anon — and I did attend meetings myself for quite some time — is that trying to change a person to suit you is not only impossible but indeed shouldn't be the focus anyway. There's a reason the church has no business having any relationship with any politician — it has a mission to accomplish, and coddling or bashing elected leaders inherently interferes with that purpose.

Look, I don't particularly care if Trump says he wants to end legal abortion or even takes steps to do so; after all, addicted people often make promises to just to keep their subjects in line even without conviction. This is what happens when we declare such a flawed person a messiah — we forget that he too will have to face God someday, where the one question to be asked is "How well did you reflect Me?".

This is yet another reason I say, "Either Jesus or Trump." Ultimately, you will have to choose.