Human life, whether in our individual experience or as we become aware of our history, gives us plenty of reasons to be angry. Some people have had to overcome animosity toward people who have a differing skin color and all of us Americans must deal honestly with its birth defect of racism and segregation. My focus in this article is the American experience. The presumption by the mostly north Europeans who settled on this continent that they were superior to the prior inhabitants, that they had the right to import as their individual property members of tribes in Africa sold to them by other tribes, and that the males had superiority over the females, was a profound self-centered and arrogant approach to their privileged status. It has taken much time to gain a moral and just insight in these matters. American institutional life has changed dramatically because of those insights. It has taken a Civil War, a Civil Rights movement, and a Women’s Suffrage movement, to help those changes take place. It took anger properly directed to turn insight into reality.
Jesus was angry with those in the temple who were selling and buying, overturning tables, and declaring there were turning the Temple into a den of robbers (Mark 11:15-18). He was angry at the saying of long prayers by scribes for the sake of the appearance it gave of their piety, the honor sought by religious leaders like the scribes while in public settings, in synagogues, or at banquets. Not only that, but they will also receive condemnation for the way they devour the homes of widows (Mark 12:38-40=Luke 20:46-47). Paul (Ephesians 4:26-27) could urge his readers to be angry, never forgetting that there is a justifiable anger. One who is not angry when there is cause to be may well open the door to sin. Unreasonable patience nurtures many vices in that it fosters negligence in correcting what is wrong. Paul acknowledges the validity of anger born out of disagreement, but he cautions readers not to allow self-serving tendencies to extend the natural boundaries of our anger. Paul does not ask us to be emotionless, but neither does he give us the latitude to create an environment for nurturing grudges and rivalry
Anger is like a fire in that safely used we derive great benefit, but uncontrolled it can do great damage. We are not to let the sun go down on our anger, allowing resentment to simmer and endanger others. Do not hang on to anger obsessively. Those who live their lives driven by anger eventually pay a bitter personal price. Among the seven deadly sins, anger may be the most fun (Frederick Buechner Wishful Thinking, 1973). We get to lick our wounds, smack our lips over grievances long past, roll our tongues over the prospect of bitter confrontations still to come, savor to the last morsel the pain someone gave you and the pain you give back. We have a feast fit for a king. Of course, the chief drawback is that what you are wolfing down so joyfully is yourself. The skeleton at the feast is you.
I have a particular concern for certain persons, mostly on the Left and who embrace the progressive ideology, that their anger toward American history and the institutions that have grown out of that history are so evil that the only just response to overhaul them and replace them with something else. The sense of alienation such an analysis brings tends to keep adherents perpetually angry over perceived injustice. The embrace of critical theory tends to locate evil in certain groups, such as oppressors, white people, white men, and heterosexuals, and virtue in certain groups, such as oppressed, black, women, homosexuals (and those who wrestle with gender identity). The obvious problem here is that evil and virtue cuts through the heart of us all. Everyone has an inward battle that tests their character.
Bitterness reflects a form of sustained anger that keeps calling to mind experiences of hurt or pain. It is possible to revel in victimhood. Critical theory represents such sustained anger in that it keeps picking at wounds within a society, separating people further rather than finding a way toward common ground and reconciliation. In Latin America, the wound at which they keep picking is between indigenous populations and the descendants of European settlers. The point of such sustained anger is to dismantle the society and institutions in which they find themselves and rebuild. We have all known injured people who just cannot let it go. Some people go to their graves feeling bitter for the way their parents or their spouses or their children failed them. Or they castigate themselves for some missed opportunity decades in the past. Bitter talk, when it continues for an exceedingly long time without let-up, causes terrible emotional harm to the speaker — not to mention misery for everyone who must listen to their complaints. Such sustained anger blocks thinking rationally and seeking reasonable courses of action.
Conservatives represent to them a respect for the Constitution, the history of the country, and the positive role America plays in the world that the progressive does not share. The alienation the progressive feels from the country and from Western civilization is real and deep. Here are some signs of your alienation from the country: you do not like Memorial Day, the 4th of July, Columbus Day, Thanksgiving Day or Veterans Day. Such national days are simple expressions of gratitude for this nation, its history, its liberties, and its role in the world. Such simple acts are not ways to deify the nation or have a “love it or leave it” attitude. Like every nation, certain days are special and honored not because the nation is perfect, but precisely because it aspires to build upon its past and become a better nation.
I want to admit that I have anger as well. It can hook by dark side. If I were to launch on the progressive it would come from a place in which I wonder if their desire is to destroy the country. Thus, if I wanted to destroy country, I would do things to take away its energy independence it earned by letting the domestic market of oil production expand. I would do so my stopping an oil pipeline, make fracking and vertical drilling prohibitive, and increase taxes and regulation on vehicles with the internal combustion engine. I would keep the national debt as high as possible. I would obliterate the physical boundaries, destabilizing local communities as much as possible. I would destroy trust the electoral elections. I would be glad about the increase crime because it destabilizes local communities. I would agitate the differences that a diverse culture has by creating a victim/persecutor relation. I would make America deny its vital role in preserving freedom in the world by envisioning it as an oppressor like so many other nations. I would enlist Big Tech to stifle free speech, labeling anything not in line with progressive ideas as a threat democracy and as hate speech. I would continue using COVID-19 as a model for limiting freedom. The point of all these behaviors is the destabilization of a free society, putting pressure upon it so that it will be open to the imposition of further a progressive utopia that would be impossible without some form of totalitarianism.
I share my anger to admit that I have a dark side as well. I do not view myself as being on a morally higher ground than the progressive. The intent of this article, however, is to consider progressive ideas calmly and rationally.
From whence does the anger arise? An interesting way of looking upon Genesis 2-3 is to suggest that the temptation contained in eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is that of putting ourselves in the position of a judge. We have the authority to judge our beliefs and actions and the authority to judge the beliefs and actions of others. When others to do not see things the way we do, it becomes a small step to be angry. Accepting that only God has the right to judge is an act of humility, but all of us take the path of Adam and Eve and arrogantly assume the right to judge right and wrong and be angry when others do not coincide with our judgment. In our setting, the tribe-like adherence to set of beliefs and actions assumes the right of judging one’s own group as right and labeling other groups as evil. In repeating in a boring fashion the decision of Adam/Eve claim the position of judge, humanity continues its self-destructive course of divisiveness that tends toward violence.
I have discovered two interesting journeys of young people who began as progressives and eventually left that movement and embraced a conservative view of the world.
I appreciated the article The Turn, a journey by one young person from the Left to the Right. Even if you are liberal/progressive, you can appreciate the well-written article.
A young woman shares her experience moving from being a progressive in California to a conservative. When she had success, she was reminded that she had it because she was pretty white woman. When she had struggles, it was because males oppressed her. To state the obvious, there are things that happen in life that are beyond our control, which the virtue tradition descending from Aristotle thinks of as good and bad fortune. She eventually made the journey to a separate way of thinking about herself, accepting responsibility for her life, she found herself happier, enjoying her life, and healing relationships with her parents. She came to the important realization that much of the success and failure in her life is within her control, in that it derives from the way she thinks about her world and herself and from the choices she makes.
These two journeys out of progressive ideology are encouraging to me. Anger is usually something we experience as an outburst, learn what we can from it, and move on to a flourishing human life. Anger inhibits rational thought and action. It distorts our perception of history and the world. In my view, the sustained anger by the progressives had a profound influence on the 2022 midterm election.
Since I am not a progressive ideologically, but I am concerned with living in a free and just society, I understand the need for change. We are creatures of time and therefore change is fundamental to who we are as individuals and as communities. To refuse change is to begin dying. I also understand that part of change is recognizing that society has not included persons who need to be included. Society has not respected the worth and dignity of groups of people whom it tended to push to the margins of society. The obvious examples in American history are slavery, racist laws represented by the Jim Cross laws, thereby denying to black Americans access to political and economic institutions, and denying women political and economic access.
At the same time, some people, most of whom are progressives, come across to me as those for whom there will never be enough social justice, never enough equity, and never enough change, since they are in pursuit of a utopia for themselves that is impossible to achieve and that for others is not desirable. My belief is that the progressive already lives in a society that is more inclusive and has institutions more open to change than any society on the planet. Hence, by concern is that the anger of the progressive has blocked the progressive from seeing the inclusiveness of the society in which they already live. The way progressives shape their views seem designed to deceive and psychologically manipulate others into questioning their perceptions of what they are seeing in the world. It suggests that they question the sanity of anyone who disagrees with them. In other words, the form of argument involves gaslighting opponents.
The point here is that our past does not determine the choices we make today. Our past does not determine our destiny. Forgiveness of sin is prerequisite for a relationship with God. Even in our personal lives, a relationship cannot move toward something good if the aggrieved party does not extend forgiveness. Further, if the one asking for forgiveness has no intention of repentance, has the person even asked for forgiveness? If the person has no intention of change, asking for forgiveness becomes a cover for living life with no consequences or worse to have an abusive relationship. It takes faith, hope, and love to extend forgiveness. Suppose a nation has at its founding a birth defect. Let us call it slavery and racism. The aggrieved party, in this case, those of African descent, cannot have a rewarding and fulfilling experience of the nation without extending forgiveness. In the same way, of course, the nation needs to repent of its sin and correct the birth defect. One cannot truly repent without faith, hope, and love. As America keeps mending its flaws in this regard, it can become a Promised Land, a bright and shining city on a hill, for all people. The combination of repentance by the wrongdoer and forgiveness from the aggrieved party is essential for the relationship to move forward.
My approach to my opponent, the progressive, is different from the gaslighting approach of the progressive. I will refer to topics that the Pew Research Center says are typical of the progressive. I note that there is no place in this study for the shibboleths of either side of the political spectrum, the Nazi or the Communist. A simple truth needs some recovery: the way to tell the truth is to speak with kindness, for only the words of a loving person can be heard (Henry David Thoreau). In some cases, I provide links to further discussion in other articles I have written.
I do not think a bigger federal government will bring increased justice or equality and I do not think expanded federal government services will have the effect the progressive desires. From March 2020 through June 2022, the federal government added $7 trillion in debt. To put that in perspective, the federal debt reached a total of $7 trillion in 2004, covering a span from George Washington to the first term of George W. Bush. That means the federal government has racked up 215 years’ worth of debt in just 27 months. We need to start cutting spending, reducing taxes, getting rid of regulations, building out our energy supply, pipelines, and refineries. Given the expansion of national debt and yearly deficit, it makes me wonder what your goal is in weakening our financial stability.
I want equal rights, a goal of the progressive with which I fully agree. One of the least important aspects of human beings is the color of their skin. It is no more important than the color of their eyes or hair.
I do not believe institutional life in America needs to be torn down and rebuilt for any reason.
I do not think higher taxes on corporations or high-income individuals will improve justice or social health. Some have suggested a tax on wealth. One problem with this is who determines the value of what you own? If the value of your asset goes up, you are taxed, but if the value of that same asset goes down, does the government return the money. Of course, now it is only people with wealth over a certain amount, but the same was true of the income tax, which when passed in 1896 would apply only to the top 10%. If you do not have enough income to pay the wealth tax, will the government force you to seek assets to meet this new obligation – including the assets it just assessed? Does that represent a taking of your property?
I do not have positive views of democratic socialists.
I think America has provided a model for human rights, for the expansion of liberty to all persons, can continue to provide to aspire to a free and justice society. I think there are good reasons to feel pride in this country. I also think there are good reasons for people to feel pride in any country in which they live. It is appropriate to love the country in which you live. One does so, aware of its imperfections and that it still aspires to be and do better. I am concerned with doxing and associated attacks on the first amendment. These actions oppose inclusion. Such human rights are part of the abortion debate.
Although I disagree with the progressive, I have no antipathy toward the progressive, but I wonder if many progressives have antipathy toward conservatives, Republicans, and traditional/orthodox/evangelical Christians. I think many progressives would agree with the language of Dr. Jason Johnson of MSNBC when he labeled the GOP a terrorist organization. Thus, the development of the Russian Narrative that has now been shown to be the Russia Hoax, the accusation of Fascism, the accusation of insurrection on January 6, and the charge of Christian nationalism are matters of great concern to me. It makes me wonder what the progressive and others who make such accusations really want in labeling 40% of the country with such terms and using government authority in this way. That does not sound inclusive.
I welcome immigrants to this land, for they expand American experiences, bringing a rich cultural heritage that benefits us all. I think people need to enter this country legally. It makes me wonder what your real goal might be by encouraging illegal immigration.
I love my neighbor, regardless of how they choose to live. Especially in sexuality, I do not think we do people any benefit by encouraging confusion of sexual identity or sexual expression outside of love and commitment to each other. Most human beings fall short in the ideal here, for sexual desire is strong and comes with much curiosity regarding it. For many persons, sexual desire burns hot, but it will bring greater happiness if it is a controlled and directed burn toward one with whom you have love and commitment. However, attacks on the nuclear family and marriage are tearing at the soul of our country, and efforts to silence and punish those who hold different beliefs is the opposite of tolerance, respect, or individual liberty.
Some of the discussion around gender identity seems absurd to me. A clarification of terms might be helpful. Cis-woman is a term used to denote biological women who identify as women, while trans-man is a woman who “identifies” as a man. Nonbinary people identify as neither men nor women.
I think all first responders, especially the police, deserve our respect and admiration, for they are the line between civilized society and the criminal elements of society.
I respect your right to be religiously non-affiliated. I wonder about your goal in making those with religious convictions adopt your attitudes, especially regarding sexuality, if they are to do business in this society or express their opinions on social media. Such actions are not inclusive.
The rhetorical statement that “everyone believes” that climate change is not merely a byproduct of human activity, but that it threatens life on earth and that to deny the latter proposition is tantamount to Holocaust denial, is one that leads to canceling views that look at the matter differently. This is not inclusive and is not conducive to healthy debate.
I think this is a dangerous world, in which freedom has opponents in communism, authoritarianism, and Muslim militants. These dangers are far greater than imagined domestic opponents, usually labeled as enemies of democracy or fascist. I want the military strong enough to deal with such threats. I do not want the military engaged in foreign wars unless this country experiences direct threat. Thus, not only was Vietnam a mistake, but so were the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and so is the war in Ukraine. I do not want the military used as a social experiment by progressives.
No comments:
Post a Comment