DOGMATIC DIVIDE (PART FOUR) CONSERVATIVE VS LIBERAL

God is no more a Republican or a Democrat than God is a Denver Broncos fan or (God forbid) a New England Patriots fan. God is clearly a fan of all the NFL teams and wants them to play nicely with each other. Also, sharing must be in there somewhere. Oh Sorry! That's more like what liberals want sports teams to do. Boring! Conservatives want sports teams to win at any cost or by any means of unprovable cheating or through any need to look the other way on physical or sexual assault charges. But to their credit, murder is seen as stepping over the line.

It's easy to stereotype. It's a lot harder to deal with the realities and complexities. Earlier elections have shown there is not a God Gap between the two main political parties as much as there is a cultural belief gap based on regular church attendance, family values, contemporary moral issues and etc. How is that not a God Gap then? Well, given that God has been freed from organized religion and that God is invoked in many other substantial ways, placing more of God on one side than the other or equally on both sides is purely subjective.

Cultural beliefs about capital punishment, abortion, guns, military service, sex, drugs and alcohol, entertainment, war, poverty and riches, immigration, marriage and environment are some of the main areas of contention that are informed by political ideology, theology, ethnicity, tradition, history, education, philosophy and experience. These and more, to a variety of degrees and focus, sometimes neatly fit into a complimentary package ...and at other times there is the assumption that they do. Which is part of the hesitancy to make any changes, even when confronted with contrary information or what is known as actual, alternative or fake facts.

The divide comes with a "people like you and people like us mentality" that exudes rightness, superiority, exclusiveness and in particular a special knowledge and understanding that others can't get or see. It's very much an "our differences make us who we are" emphasis rather than an acknowledgment of "what we have in common." Each believes theirs is the better way. And yes, some believe their way is from God or reflects what God would want without recognizing that they are not the only one holding a God card. If any of them would ever really look, they would see that the photo on the card looks a lot like themselves.

As just about everyone knows, one can generalize two main divisions that appear in so many areas of life like churches, schools, economics and the judiciary but especially in politics. Conservative cultural beliefs versus liberal cultural beliefs used to be part of the give and take until they became hardened and entrenched causing the demise of tolerance and respect. Regardless of what you might think about all of this, the fact is that not much is getting done about the 20+ problems and situations that this country faces that are more important than what is currently playing on the main stage.

Fortunately or unfortunately, there are divisions within the two main divisions that are creating even more distance. Which begs the question of what it means to be an American and the question of what a future America should be. We can not go back in time to what never was nor can we afford to believe that government spending will solve all our problems in the future. Overall, the dogmatic divide comes in the differences in how America works and how it should work. The haziness of the past has become a rather strident clearing of ever hardening beliefs to the extent that hating your neighbor as your neighbor hates you is becoming an ideal.

Previous animosities however understood had some merit with each trying to prove the other wrong. Now it seems that if you're not drawing blood, you're really not in the fight. Talking to each other is seen as   collusion and co-sponsoring a bill as treasonous. This is perhaps a little extreme but try voting against the party line and see what happens. Trickle down economics, or voodoo economics, may not work that well but legislative fights trickle down to the local level in alarm letters about situations that only more donations can fix.

But pop culture is rife conservative and liberal labels like - They are the only two conservative actors in Hollywood. Or, all the professors at that school are liberal. Nothing is all that simple nor does being more one thing than another give automatic agreement with everything that label represents or is attributed to it by the culture. Yet, a dogmatic division has developed. Some of which is due to the differences between a more liberal popular culture and a conservative religion that is fighting against its own liberal trends and having debates about who is the truest and best Christian. Which is always a good question to get a dinner party conversation started. 

One might say, in general, that liberals live more in the urban areas and conservatives live more in the rural areas but that might be it. Other factors, situations, issues and presuppositions soon come to bear. Some of which, like abortion, immigration and domestic spending, are constant battles that engender strong emotion and make party conventions the spectacles that they are. Another over stated stereotype is that liberals are communal minded and conservatives are self-minded. Experience with both can produce some interesting antidotes as well as notable kindness and glaring hypocrisy. For safety reasons, neither should be pointed out. Groupthink is quite popular and various litmus tests apply. But it's not until extreme militancy from either side of the divide takes over that things like freedom, equality and justice are made into meaningless platitudes. In actuality, this is something that few would really want to see. ....But it is something that is alarmingly possible.

BONUS MEMES

DOGMATIC DIVIDE (PART THREE) - MONEY

There are individuals, programs, departments of government, government employees, cities, states, projects, government contractors, international aid programs, nations and about every other thing that you can name that benefit from the taxpayers money who don't deserve, earn, or require what they receive. The amount of waste in government spending is incredulous. Washington has become quite the party. Let the good times roll even if it means pushing up the national debt even further. Most would agree on the need for basic programs and services provided at a reasonable cost and size. Fewer would agree on the definition of "reasonable" and even less on how they are paid for.

Beyond the basics, there is spending for the sake of spending or give-aways. With such a dispensing mechanism, there is bound to be more corruption than usual and a lot of embedded well-wishers. Someone has said that it's like everyone's favorite ATM machine despite the long lines and lack of moral fiber. The rich and poor alike line up for the  taxpayer money that comes with or without strings attached. Some of it is handed out to keep the works-so-well capitalist system going and tightly managed, or to fund pet programs and projects, or as inducements and disincentives for various foreign and domestic agendas and policies. The rest is unaccounted for or lost in the shuffle due to a lack of concern. 

So most often, politics is about what voracious, dollar consuming monster gets fed the most of the taxpayer and borrowed money. But also it's about something as simple as a school lunches. One side wants the child to eat no matter what and the other side wants to go as far as throwing their lunch in the trash just to make a point. Oddly enough, you could speculate that one side of the American divide believes in personal responsibility, consequences and exclusion while the other sees communal responsibility, no consequences and inclusion. Granted, this is quite simplistic and certainly doesn't cover the complexity involved, but it is a helpful guide that often predicts many actions and beliefs.  

Money, money, money. Who get's the money? Despite the outrageous amount spent on the military, the other major part is entitlements that are linked to every citizen in some way. Seen as the third rail of politics, little is being done to assure its continued funding after the main program of Social Security was ruined. Besides defense contractors and the politicians that hold stock in them, there are many more, as Allan Simpson said, tits that are sucked on, each hoping to get more money to come their way. Even though control and dependence is the price of earned benefits, most are comforted by monthly government checks and others by payments from whatever program or policy that pads the bottom line.

One might wonder how well capitalism works when there are no social programs and laws that serve as safety nets. Granted, many of these are more like safety couches but some actually save the taxpayer from future high costs and consequences. But for just practical purposes, the government has to spend taxpayer money; this is one of the truest facts of life. I still would like to think that it is more thrift than spendthrift. I would like to think that no patriot would commit fraud, gouge the government, cheat on their taxes or take goods or services or handouts that they didn't need. I would like to think that any good citizen wouldn't lobby for their own personal gain, especially if it was to the detriment of others. I would like to think ....but I know better.

Democrats and Republicans fight over spending budgets but never to the extent that their special interests, like Wall Street, will be harmed. This business as usual approach has taken on the extreme views in both parties as the deficit continues to increase. In the past, the economy outgrew the extravagance, waste and losses, some due to war and natural disaster. As in most other situations, when the revenue isn't there, people start to point fingers and propose cuts in spending for things they didn't want or approve of in the first place.

I assume (remembering that you and me ass thing) that government was meant to be the adults in the room who together made the best decisions possible for all concerned. But both state and federal politicians can act as childish as their constituents. Without debating the merits, there is an ever-widening gap as to how the taxpayer money should be spent. This ideological crisis further exposes the lack of compromise that has been the main feature of Washington politics over the last few years. Some boasting about voting against what they in the past supported.

"He who controls the spice (money), controls the universe." ___Frank Herbert, Dune. Some say the national religion of America is money. But it appears more likely that it's the control of money. Then there's that love of money being the root of all evil. Noam Chomsky says that the general population doesn't know what's happening and it doesn't know that it doesn't know. Are we to be left with an emotional religious instinct as to what is true and whom we can trust? Is our instinct more believable than common facts? I really don't know. Fortunately however, I believe there is never any overspending  in the department from which I get my government check.

BONUS PIC

DOGMATIC DIVIDE (PART TWO) - ELECTIONS

Pretty much everyone has a favorite explanation for why Trump won despite all the negatives he created in the campaign. Each might be part of the whole that put him over the 270 mark but not carry the popular vote. It's things like this and long naps that keep me up all night. Would taking away just one factor have been enough to change the results? Given the Pigpen like dust cloud that surrounds Trump wherever he goes, there is an escalated blame game and a come hell or high water entrenchment along with everything else that's not very helpful. What's right, fair and moral has been lost to the winner and loser conflicts where politicians say and do almost anything to keep or gain power.


The most interesting question to me is how we got to the point where two distinct and uncompromising doctrines have created political stagnation and essentially eliminated the middle ground. You can start with what has supposedly been the historical difference between the two parties with one representing liberals and one representing conservatives. But is it just a matter of where you stand on the issues? Or is there an underlying reality that creates such a stringent distance and demonization? Some have suggested that it comes down to a belief in original sin or a belief in original innocence. Looking at Washington today, I'd have to go with original sin AND original innocence ...AND original blessing. CMA - Covering My Ass 

It was enough to have cable channels compete for the pretense of fair and balanced news. But now with the use of fake news, it's often difficult to know what the truth might be. But typically, if it fits your view, you are more likely to believe it. The problem is when it's proven fake, some continue treat it as evidence. Similarly, one side will say the sky is falling and the other will say it's no big deal ...happens all the time. Amazingly, some these shaky differences have the power to separate people according to current political beliefs and allegiances. The rhetoric is more important than the conversation. No more is it matter of tolerating Uncle Buford's rants at Thanksgiving. Communities are split when before they could always resolve their differences.

The Tea Party was a response to Obama being elected but he completed two terms before Trump was elected. Along with other concerns, I believe a part just wanted a white guy but they got an orange one. Didn't they know that orange was the new black? Sorry, I just thought that was always funny. More likely there was a lot of desperation in this country mainly caused by a do nothing congress. Trump seemed to be the one to shake things up and deal with everything that kept America from being great. There was no more patience to be had for the flaccid status quo. I don't have to list the real and potential problems of the Trump administration. As a famous church lady used to say, "Well, it's different." So far, many still believe there will be a payoff. But even his staunchest supporters might not be so committed once the results of his policies are fully seen. 

But now I hear that the Democrats need to have someone like Trump in order to win the presidency again. That would be a fun election. It would totally take up all the news time. Real news might be lost forever. ...But what a show! 

THE DOGMATIC DIVIDE (PART ONE)

It wasn't necessarily President Bush's policies after 911 that let me enjoy all the jokes that became more pervasive by the end of his second term. For me, it was his inappropriate laughing and smiling while addressing the nation or answering questions from the press. I could never understand why they didn't get him a coach so his facial expressions lined up with what he was talking about. The anti/pro-Bush rhetoric became the anti/pro-Obama rhetoric. A change that Fox News must have found quite refreshing. Who wants to be on the defensive when you have so little to work with? But now, with Trump, management change, and anchor moves, they can play it both ways or in their own way. It still gives me pause to see two former FOX anchors on MSNBC. Especially since such congenial changes are contrary to the ever hardening, dogmatic divide that is occurring in contemporary politics.

Absolutely right is difficult to achieve in a democracy. Therefore your rightness has to be enforced by power and money. It's the ultimate "Nanner, Nanner, Nanner" because it's a "there's nothing you can do about it" kind of goal. Even close relationships are starting to be divided by "It's my way or the highway." The  protests against offensive conservative speakers on campuses are nothing new. Protesting an offensive liberal speaker, now that would be new! Somewhere along the line, the meaning of free speech has been lost and safe zones have been expanded to entire cities like Boulder, CO. I'd hate to think the only reason it's a nuclear free zone is that no one wants to waste a bomb.

One might ask where to hell do we get off voicing dogmatic beliefs when for some of them the only basis is what we've been told by someone who is like us. Believe it or not, I first heard this labeled by the Christian Education Director in a large Baptist church as Mutual Masturbation. Of course, he was talking about liberal MM and not conservative MM. My thought at the time was that either might be quite pleasant. Then I realized it was about people who thought the same and enforced each other. Therefore, the only thing they accomplished was assuring each other's rightness. ...In a very satisfying way of course.

I'm not sure if it's easy or if it's hard to totally take on a label, a party, a theology, a philosophy, a morality, a nation and/or an ideology in such a way that it automatically negates the rights and beliefs of those who disagree with you. But by the looks of it, for some it's rather easy. For other's it seems more like a Kirkegaardian leap of faith where so much is based on fact and reason, from their point of view, so you make the leap to where you believe that all of it must be true. Or you believe a part of it that you really like is true even though the rest is questionable at best. But you identify with it to some degree in order to get that which is most precious to you. (Excuse me for a moment while I shake off channeling Lord of the Rings.)

On one hand, Trump is the saviour (KJV) of the world or at least of baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet. On the other hand, he is the new Furor or Fewer - a joke that my wife had to explain to me. Perhaps these depictions are more on the extreme edge, but there are a real differences in how people think this nation should be govern. One part protests what Trump does and will resist in whatever way they can. The other part is pleased, if not ecstatic, about everything he has done so far. 

This much distance between the two factions is SIMPLY AMAZING (thank you Bones). But it's almost like if you're not in the game if you're not a part of one side or the other. Belonging has the privilege of believing you're mostly or totally right and the opposition is mostly or totally wrong on the issues that face our country. For example, some don't believe there's such a thing as climate change while others believe climate change is the most important issue of our day. My feeling is that they are both in the same line when it comes to real solutions noting that solutions may not be perfect but rather, the best we can do

An obvious preliminary observation is that the present THE DOGMATIC DIVIDE has deterred progress and has every potential of returning us to former times and former evils. To move beyond this present morass, I believe we need to eliminate the fear of change and the acceptability of unfairness. ...But the complexity of such might be why our present opportunistic leaders get away with so much. 

BONUS QUOTE