Skeptics of the two-party system have observed that, with respect to
economic issues, both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party follow the
same neoliberal agenda. What distinguishes the two parties is that the former
is more “liberal” in terms of social issues and the latter is more “conservative.”
So, for example, a socially liberal person may remain loyal to the Democratic
Party because he or she supports gay marriage, even if he or she is frequently
disappointed by the failure of the Democratic Party to take a strong position
against larcenous bankers, corporate oligarchs, and war profiteers. A socially
conservative person may remain loyal to the Republican Party because he or she
opposes gay marriage, even if he or she is frequently disappointed by that
party’s performance in other policy areas.
It is essential that Americans participate in a broad political coalition
that is capable of challenging the two-party duopoly. To build this coalition,
it will be necessary to confront these divisive social issues and find a way
past them.
Let’s consider gay marriage and the desire to protect members of the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender
(LGBT) community from workplace discrimination. Many social conservatives are
members of evangelical Christian communities. They are taught by their pastors
that homosexuality as a sin. Children are taught this by their parents. And
there are undoubtedly countless school teachers who convey, year in and year
out, an implicit or explicit disapprobation of homosexuality. This sort of
cultural conditioning will foment visceral feelings of disgust toward
homosexuality.
There is no point in arguing that antipathy toward the LGBT community is
something that can be kept out of politics. Perhaps dedication to the 1st
Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion ought to restrain people from
applying their religious views to the question of LGBT civil rights, but it
doesn’t. Politics comes down to matters
of personal judgment and personal judgment is apt to be colored by religious
convictions. The Founders grappled with the same issue. Even though they gave us
the 1st Amendment, and even though it is clear that their intention
was to establish a country where people of any faith could find equal
representation under the law, their judgment of what is just or unjust was
colored by Christian beliefs. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
 |
| Sergius & Bacchus: Gay saints? |
To form a new political coalition, it is not enough to say, “Let’s agree
to put aside these contentious social issues until we have jailed the bankers, put
an end to government collusion with anti-American and anti-free-market multinational
corporations, and defeated the war-mongering military-industrial complex.” I
wish that it were that easy. But it is not that easy because gays who wish to
marry will not – and should not be expected to – wait until economic injustices
are resolved.
What is realistic, however, is to conscientiously set out to reduce the
level of rancor that these social issues generate. Currently, Americans are
divided by intense mutual animosity. There are the zealous opponents of the
so-called “homosexual agenda” or “homosexual lifestyle” on one hand. On the
other hand, there are zealous advocates of LGBT rights who delight in ridiculing,
pathologizing, or baiting the so-called “homophobes” among us. There are those
who absolutely must march, dressed in drag or skin-tight latex shorts, at St.
Patrick’s Day parades. The hothouse flowers – which is to say, teachers and
students at small liberal arts colleges – use the term “cis-male” to refer
(pejoratively) to men who behave like heterosexuals.
The level of passion exhibited on both sides of the debate has taken on
the character of a life-or-death struggle: if we relent in our efforts, the
thinking goes, our opponents will gain the upper hand. If that were to come to
pass, the future would be unspeakably grim. Thomas Jefferson was wont to use
the expression, “we have the wolf by
the ear and feel the danger of either holding or letting him loose.” So
it is with partisans on each side of these social issues: they feel that they
can neither relent in their struggle nor coexist peacefully with their opponents.
In order to transcend this rancor, it is necessary to understand its
origin. I’ve suggested that anti-gay sentiment is consistent with some interpretations
of the Christian scripture. But this does not provide a full explanation,
because early Christians did not hesitate to preside over gay marriages and Sergius
and Bacchus, who were almost certainly gay, are saints (source). And
really, any Christian has a choice between heeding the words of the law-giving,
punitive God of Leviticus or the words of that radically tolerant Son of God
who told us to love our neighbor and to refrain from casting stones. The
question is then one of uncovering the motivations that guide Christians toward
certain passages and interpretations, and away from other passages and interpretations.
The broader concern among evangelical Christians appears to be that the family is under attack, by which they
mean an intact nuclear family with a husband, a wife and offspring. In times of
spiritual doubt Christians seek clarity. Their approach to defending the family
is to state, in no uncertain terms, what it is
and what it is not. Unfortunately for
the LGBT community, many evangelicals appear to be in agreement that what the
family is not is best summed up by the title of the book Heather has Two Mommies.
What could give rise to this perception of the family being under attack?
Is this perception solely attributable to the existence of an influential LGBT
rights movement? Or is this perception sustained by evangelical Christians’
concerns about the proliferation of divorce, pornography, vulgarity, obscenity,
profanity, and secularism? If so, we may ask, are these concerns legitimate?
It’s probably true that Roman tyranny sustained itself for many years by ensuring
that the people were provided with bread and circuses. And it’s probably true
that if Americans spent as much time engaged in the careful study of politics
as they do watching pornography on the Internet, we’d have a much better-informed
electorate. It doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to conjecture that this
compulsion for momentary gratification fosters self-absorption, and self-absorption
in turn fosters a combination of self-neglect and callous disregard toward the
lives of others.
Spiritual philosophy, in its truest form, guides us to a keener
awareness of the subtle consequences of own own behavior. It reminds us of
the necessity of compassion. What is singularly lacking among anti-gay zealots
and gay-rights zealots is compassion toward those with whom they disagree. And
without compassion, rapprochement
between the two camps will never happen.
I’ll suggest that the rancor occasioned by these divisive social issues
is indicative of a primitive “in-group / out-group” mentality. It is sheer emotivism – that is, espousing beliefs
and engaging in actions simply because they express one’s own prejudices and
appeal to one’s own vanity. The ascendency of primitive thinking is very likely
a symptom of the profound anxiety that 99% of Americans feel: anxiety occasioned
by a lack of job security, the fact that it is nearly impossible to save as
much for retirement as one must, the prospect of life-long peonage to student
loans and mortgages, and the sense that their government is becoming increasingly
hostile toward the interests of the poor and middle class.
To follow up on that last point, anxiety about the satisfaction of basic human needs, according to Abraham
Maslow, leads to a more primitive way of thinking. Likewise, confidence in the
ability to satisfy one’s basic needs leads to self-realization and compassion
toward others. Maslow’s thinking may be usefully supplemented by Alderfer’s
consideration of the forces that act against self-actualization. This is shown
in the figure below. I will conclude by suggesting that the creation of a
viable political coalition to challenge the two-party duopoly will be aided if its
members find the courage and strength of will necessary to transcend primitive
emotivism (despite their anxiety) and hold fast to spiritually-informed, compassionate rationality.
Once this elevation of consciousness is achieved, it is likely that these
divisive social issues will cease to divide.
 |
| Maslow &Alderfer believed that sophistication of thinking is partly determined by quality of life |
No comments:
Post a Comment