Voting Our Values

 A major player in the polarization within our country during this election cycle is that of values - what we believe to be true and hold dear. We vote for a particular individual or party based upon how closely they align with what we value and with the truths that we believe are foundational. (Values reflect what we believe to be truth.) 

I am indebted to Brian McLaren for his clear presentation about the diverse values of the different political groups. (See https://brianmclaren.net/the-five-electorates-in-2020) I borrow freely from his post (which I reposted on my personal FB page) before adding my own thoughts. In his post, McLaren acknowledges the sources from which he drew his thinking.

Within the two major political parties in our country are four different subgroups, each holding to a different set of values. 

Traditionalists hold to old-fashion values: hard work, including honest, physical labor; close-knit families and family values, with particular concern for children, mothers, and the elderly; traditional virtues like honesty, decency, respect (especially respect for authority), self-discipline, sacrifice, and service; religious faith and faith communities; the common good. Traditionalists are uncomfortable with the rapid rate of cultural change in our society, believing it to be undermining the strength of our nation. They believe the only hope for our nation is a return to the values that made our nation strong. They are on the far right of the political spectrum.

Conservatives value a limited government coupled with a strong national defense; free and fair markets not hindered by government oversight or restraints; individual freedoms with minimal government interference (particularly the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment); property and privacy rights; fiscal restraint that includes an aversion to debt. Conservatives fall on the center-right of the political spectrum.

Liberals fall on the center-left of the political spectrum. They value America's growth and global leadership; seek to protect the work and middle classes; fear large, powerful corporations; promote human rights and democracy around the world through foreign aid and international agreements; believe in good government that responds to the needs of the people and the opportunities of current events. 

On the far left of the political spectrum are the progressives. Progressives challenge the status quo of the nation; push for the whole truth about our nation's past and current injustices; advocate for the dignity and diversity of all people, especially the most vulnerable; preserve and protect local economies while being good global citizens; courageously face climate change and the ecological impact of our current lifestyles.

Progressives ----- Liberals ----- Conservatives -----Traditionalists

McLaren identifies a fifth set of values that are at play in today's political environment: toughness that refuses to acknowledge weakness; unapologetic willingness to break any rule in order to win; unquestioned loyalty to the leader, showering him with praise and adulation; sacrifice scientific truth and critical thinking to the reality defined by the leader; identify those who support the leader as good and those who oppose the leader as bad; suppress all dissent. He refers to the group that holds these values as authoritarians. McLaren identifies four primary tactics employed by this group: (1) fear of an enemy - real or concocted - to unify followers; (2) division of society based on loyalty to leader and hostility toward the identified enemy; (3) distortion of and diversion from truth so that the leader defines reality; (4) suppression of dissent, especially protesters and the press. McLaren views this group as a threat to our democracy, as do I. 

Some observations about these groupings. 

Obviously, these groups are painted with a broad stroke. The various groups are not always so clearly distinguished from one another. An individual can hold values from more than one of the groupings. (The  exception is the authoritarians. They hold their values exclusively.) But, for purpose of discussion, the groupings are helpful. 

Each group's values are good, but ... 

It seems to me, we hold our values too tightly. We hold our values - what we believe is true or truth - as though they were the only values ... or, at least, the only values that matter. After all, they reflect Truth (our truth = Truth). Because our values represent what is for us Truth, we believe they should be everyone's truth. As a result, we seek to impose them on others while failing to recognize, acknowledge, or respect the values and truth others hold. The issue of abortion is an example. For many Christians, abortion is not an option. Thus, they advocate overturning Roe vs Wade. Yet, a NPR poll shows the majority of American citizens support Roe vs Wade. Because "abortion is wrong/immoral" is the truth of some, they want it to be truth for all. These same people could rightly argue that Roe vs Wade represents another's truth that is imposed on them. 

In addition to wanting "my" truth to be "the" truth (Truth), we treat the different values as mutually exclusive. As a result, we end up in either-or, right-and-wrong thinking that polarizes us. We see this reality being played out in the various issues of the day. 

Progressives support Black Lives Matter while Traditionalists counter with All Lives Matter. Progressives are the ones calling out police brutality and calling for police reform while Traditionalists counter with Blue Lives Matter and Support the Blue. Traditionalists and Conservatives take offense when Progressives seek to call attention to on-going injustice by kneeling during the national anthem. 

As I have said before, either-or thinking ignores the complexity of any issue. For example, traditionalists argue for the sanctity of marriage, opposing gay marriage. They cannot accept that two gay men or two gay women can love one another the way a married man and woman do. They reject it, often appealing to the Bible to support their position. For them, their truth is the only valid truth (Truth). In doing so, they reject the reality that homosexual relationships have a clearly identified biological component and have been a part of every culture in the world (11-12% of every population) throughout human history. Human biology and human relationships are not as neatly packaged as we would like for them to be. It seems the old adage "there's an exception to every rule" just might be true. 

We approach these issues as either-or because we treat our values as mutually exclusive. I would argue that these values are not mutually exclusive. They are, in my opinion, complimentary. Each has something of benefit to offer. We can acknowledge that all lives matter while also recognizing that, historically, people of color have suffered because of racism and white supremacy. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. We can support the police and advocate for law and order while addressing the issue of police brutality. The two positions are not mutually exclusive. We can celebrate the greatness of our country and support our military by singing the national anthem and still acknowledge the failures of our past and present. The two positions are not mutually exclusive ... unless we make them exclusive. When we treat the positions as mutually exclusive, we are saying "I'm right ... you're wrong."

When any one set of values is ignored or excluded, we all suffer the loss. We are impoverished when we reject what the other values. Even more, we unwittingly contribute to the destruction of the very things we value. In his October 6 article "How Hatred Came to Dominate American Politics", Lee Drutman wrote, "'(T)his level of hatred - which political scientists call "negative partisanship" - has reached levels that are not just bad for democracy, but are potentially destructive. And extreme partisan animosity is a prelude to democratic collapse." 

And thus the challenge: 

• holding to my values while respecting the values of another 
• hearing what the other is saying beyond the slogans and sound bites 
• honoring the voice and truth of one whose experience is different from mine 
• searching together for mutual understanding and common ground 
• seeking what is good for all (the proverbial win-win). 

Could it boil down to something so simple as refusing to demand that everyone be "like me?"

Meeting the challenge calls ...

• for humility that moves beyond "I'm right ... you're wrong" attitudes that fuel either-or thinking;
• for us to move beyond knee-jerk reactions (being emotional reactive);
• for us to be emotionally mature ... certainly more so than we have been. 

I wonder: is it possible? For the sake of all that we hold dear (i.e., value), I pray we can.