Part Three: The Ultimate
Test
The situation I described between George Will and a
Facebook commenter is relatively mild. The commenter engaged in a small act of
othering, so small that my description may be unfair. Behind much of our
political discourse stands the figure of Trump, who has made a career of
destroying those who cross his path. His descriptions of the other Republican
candidates in the primary campaign of 2016 illustrates his method: Belittle;
mock; destroy. The chant at his rallies during the presidential campaign, “Lock
her up!”, falls into the same category.
One can argue with some justification that the political
left has engaged in a similar process for many years. I have lived many years
in the academic world, and when someone takes a forbidden political stance in
academic circles, they are “othered” comprehensively and quickly. As more than
one person has observed, there is a fundamentalism of the left as there is of
the right. (Compare, for example, Ron’s Sider’s comments in his blog.)
Whether this process of depersonalizing and othering
one’s opponent is a disease of the left or of the right is not my concern here.
I suggest it is a disease of our society today, both on the left and on the
right. Trump has simply carried the art of attack to new heights. This fact
brings me to my question for part three of this essay: How do we respond to
people whose only mode of discourse is depersonalizing attacks? How can I speak
with respect about or to someone who seeks only two options – to “other” me or
to dominate me?
I do not have a simple answer, and I cannot be sure
that any response will work. One is tempted to respond with “fight or flight”.
Either I fight back and hit the other as hard or harder as the other has hit
me, or I disengage and get out of the way. My own tendency is to disengage and
stay out of the way; others may react by fighting. Neither is an appropriate
response.
I lived for many years in Zimbabwe. I grew up and
taught school in Smith’s Rhodesia. I taught also in Mugabe’s Zimbabwe. Robert
Mugabe and ZANU-PF began as a liberating force. Their armed struggle to
overthrow white rule in Rhodesia was as close to a “just war” as I can
conceive. When a minority of 4% rule the majority population with no effective
end of their domination in sight, one sees why the majority rise up and take
back control of their lives. “Fighting” makes sense.
Over the years, Mugabe and ZANU-PF gave way to the
love of power and corruption ate them out from the inside. The people of Zimbabwe
have suffered even more under Mugabe than they did under Smith’s rule. (A long
conversation is needed to process these thoughts: There is no space here for
that conversation and it must wait for another venue.) They rose up at the
ballot box and voted ZANU-PF out, but the ruling party falsified the results
and Mugabe stayed in power. Then he and the party took revenge on the people,
beating up and killing their opponents, almost randomly. I think it was Michael
Ignatieff who observed that, when a revolutionary party seizes power through the
gun, they return to the gun when their grip on power is challenged. So it has
been with ZANU-PF. Even in so righteous a cause as revolt against white rule in
Rhodesia fighting has proved to be problematic.
To return to American politics, the problem with
fighting is that, when we adopt the tactics of the destroyer, we become the
destroyer in turn. If we respond to Trump and his party by seeking to destroy
them, we become like them in our turn. Treating them, treating our bitterest
opponent, with respect is the only path forward.
As I said above, I don’t know how to do that. It is
a vulnerable position – to refuse to fight back and to refuse to give up one’s
position. It is, I believe, deeply and profoundly, the only way forward. To
embody Jesus’ teaching in the Sermon on the Mount by humanizing one’s enemies
instead of depersonalizing them. I welcome anyone who can help me learn how to
live with that kind of respect, genuinely loving and caring for my bitterest
opponents without abandoning the position I hold myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment