Download Print-Friendly Version

Dignity. That’s what’s missing from our politics. 

Leadership isn’t just about what you do; it is about how you do it. At the core of our humanity lies a profound longing for our dignity to be recognized—for the inherent worth of each of us to be acknowledged. As scholar Donna Hicks has written in her book Dignity: Its Essential Role in Resolving Conflict, “When we feel worthy, when our value is recognized, we are content. When a mutual sense of worth is recognized and honored in our relationships, we are connected.” Effective leaders facilitate relationships by cultivating recognition and respect for the dignity of others. Unaddressed dignity violations destroy connection, smothering progress and development.

The Constitution of the United States is built for disagreement. It not only expects conflict but channels it: elections instead of coups, courts instead of tyranny, justice over arbitrariness, and persuasion over coercion. But no amount of constitutional design can substitute for a culture where people choose to recognize one another as fully human. Dignity is not the opposite of conviction. It is the opposite of contempt. 

Leaders set in patterns of disparagement and contempt damage this culture. If we want a healthier political culture, we need to name the patterns in political leadership that are harming us and seek leaders who implement principles of dignity in their leadership styles. 

Why Dignity Collapses in Politics

The tendency to aggrandize oneself and demean others is, ironically, rooted in a lack of self-confidence. As Hicks further describes in her book, “The temptation to save face is as powerful as our fight-or-flight instinct … The dread of having our inadequacy, incompetence, or lack of moral integrity made known is enough to … do whatever it takes to protect ourselves.” 

That instinct shows up in politics as a familiar set of moves: avoiding, deflecting, dodging, and attacking instead of taking responsibility. It shows up as blaming rival administrations, condemning entire organizations or groups of people, and ostracizing opponents. It shows up as othering. 

While “othering” enemies is an oft-used war tactic, promoting dignity is a more effective approach to leadership because it harnesses individuals’ excellence. Honoring dignity promotes the self-respect necessary for proactive and practical greatness. You change people by introducing them to their goodness rather than demeaning them. Perceiving and appreciating the dignity of others helps to unlock their creative potential. 

I share five ways that politicians—and anyone, really—can emphasize the dignity of others in their leadership. For additional ideas, check out some of the resources provided by Project UNITE.

Principle 1: Lead by Recognizing Inherent Value, Especially in Your Opponents

If dignity is the acknowledgment and recognition of every individual’s inherent value, then the first test of leadership is simple: Do you talk about political opponents as fellow citizens, or as inferior people who must be shamed, crushed, or erased?

Notice that neither party has a monopoly on contempt or on dignity. It isn’t about ideology; it’s about integrity of character. On the left, dismissive rhetoric tossing entire communities into a moral rubbish heap has become a shorthand example of what it feels like to be written off. On the right, language declaring opponents “enemies,” “traitors,” or “enemy of the people” functions the same way—less as a critique of behavior than as a declaration that the other side is illegitimate. Dignity collapses when leaders use labels that convert people into caricatures, treat disagreement as proof of moral inferiority, and popularize contempt as entertainment.

This matters because contempt is contagious. Once leaders model it, followers feel permission to practice it.

Principle 2: Sidestep Shame and Blame to Get to Problem Solving

The strongest leaders are able to sidestep shame and blame in order to problem-solve. Rather than wasting energy on contempt, the most effective leaders focus on taking responsibility for what they can control and drawing out the goodness of others.

Dignity-honoring leadership, here, looks like owning mistakes without theatrics and naming trade-offs and limitations honestly. It means replacing scapegoats with solutions. Both parties have had their moments of success and failure. 

In the frantic days after Sept. 11, 2001, Republican Rep. John Cooksey of Louisiana suggested pulling over anyone who looked “Middle Eastern,” including anyone with “a diaper on his head” with a “fan belt wrapped around” it.  In 2018, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California urged supporters that if they saw members of the Trump administration “in a restaurant” or “a gasoline station,” they should “create a crowd” and “push back,” telling them they were “not welcome anymore, anywhere.” In both cases, these are politics of humiliation that smother problem solving. 

Dignity-violating leadership like this makes a sport of blaming. It treats every setback as proof that others are incompetent, corrupt, or inferior. It assigns villain status to whichever target is useful that week: the previous administration, the media, the courts, the bureaucracy, immigrants, corporations, extremists, woke elites, or religious fanatics.  The labels change. The psychological pattern does not. Shame and blame feel powerful in the moment, but they suffocate progress and development. The strongest leaders are able to sidestep shame and blame to get to problem-solving rather than wasting energy on contempt.

Principle 3: Resist “othering”—because it builds fear, not strength

Some leaders believe that “othering” rhetoric promotes unity among the in-group. It often does—briefly. But it actually and ultimately engenders fear. And when our psychological safety is at stake, we are, as Hicks describes, thrust into “a frozen state of self-doubt, preventing us from accessing the positive power that is at our disposal once we see and accept our value and worth.”

The fear isn’t limited to outsiders. I’m part of the in-group now, but what if I’m the next one to be cut out? It seems fine until you are the one getting “othered.” 

Consider how President Trump othered his rivals, complaining that he had to fix “disasters” and “failed policies” inherited from a “totally inept group of people.” President Trump went on to say that “President Biden totally lost control of what was going on in our country.” Perhaps his task was difficult, but by claiming it was others who caused or failed to solve problems, he suggested he was somehow above them.

Dignity-violating rhetoric treats entire groups as suspicious, disposable, or beneath respect. It publicly humiliates opponents in an attempt to signal dominance. It turns politics into a permanent purge: who’s in, who’s out. 

Principle 4: Negotiate and Govern by Acknowledging Dignity First

Politics is negotiation—between regions, classes, generations, cultures, and moral codes. An effective negotiator acknowledges the dignity of any leaders’ attempt to protect their people, then moves forward to interest-based solutions.

Honoring human dignity begins with a basic posture: You are a human being with worth; now let’s argue honestly about what is right. In practice, this means starting with shared goods—safety, opportunity, freedom, flourishing—and treating opposing concerns as real, not fake. It means keeping criticism tethered to actions and ideas. It means arguing about ideas instead of attacking people.

Contempt can’t do this work. Emphasizing weakness, antagonizing, and enflaming hatred may feel like strength, but it is often simply avoidance veiled in camouflage. The alternative is the discipline of honoring dignity up front, and then digging into the substantive work of negotiating interest-based solutions. You can see flashes of that discipline when leaders refuse the cheap thrill of televised dunking and instead build coalitions around shared goods like stability, safety, and opportunity. Sometimes that looks like cross-party pairs who learn to argue honestly without degrading—think of bipartisan efforts like McCain–Feingold’s campaign finance work, or the strange-bedfellow coalitions that produced criminal justice reform in the First Step Act. Sometimes it looks like the unglamorous willingness to split credit and share blame, like the 1983 Social Security compromise shaped by Speaker Tip O’Neill and President Reagan’s team.

Both parties have been tempted by the cheap thrill of televised dunking. But doing the substantive work turns the theater of humiliation into governance.

Contempt doesn’t negotiate; it escalates.

Principle 5: Praise The Good In Others More Than Emphasizing the Negative

Honoring dignity will always be more effective than fostering disparagement and contempt. Honoring dignity promotes the self-respect necessary for proactive and practical greatness.

Leaders from both parties have had rare, powerful moments when they described the other side’s voters as understandable—neighbors motivated by real fears and hopes—even while fiercely disagreeing. You can hear it when Joe Biden, in his 2020 victory speech, told Americans to “lower the temperature,” reject the language of “red” and “blue,” and treat one another not as adversaries but as fellow citizens. You can hear it, too, when Republican Gov. of Utah Spencer Cox’s call to “disagree better”  warns Americans not to slip into the habit of treating one another—especially our political opponents—as enemies. 

And leaders from both parties have had destructive moments when they spoke as if the other side’s voters were beneath respect. The difference is not cosmetic. It is structural. Their language either builds trust in institutions and the rule of law, or it erodes it.

The Good News

The good news is that violations of dignity can be named, tamed, and healed; this rebuilds the civic trust on which strong communities are built and unleashes the inherent power of dignity.

Don’t be fooled by righteous indignation masquerading as political victory. Leaders (and each of us) can build this dignity dimension by praising the good in others rather than overemphasizing the negative, accepting responsibility for our actions, and choosing to popularize dignity validation.

Although I have focused on broader principles of dignity, there is no question that there are politicians today who have violated these norms with increasing frequency and severity. The sanctity of holding political office has been tainted by demeaning nicknames, dehumanizing political opponents, and contempt filled with shame and blame, both domestically and internationally. These behaviors are not the sole domain of one party or ideology. But having the most powerful leaders in the world disregard the dignity of others so often and so severely undoubtedly has a coarsening impact on our entire national discourse. 

Elected officials take cues about dignity from those who elect them. It is time for every responsible voter to pause in a moment of deep introspection and ask: Do I really value the inherent dignity of my fellow human beings?

The incentives we create will determine the leaders we get. If we reward humiliation, we will get more humiliation. If we reward dignity, we may yet recover the kind of political discourse where disagreement does not require degradation—and where progress and development are not smothered by contempt.

The post The Dignity Deficit appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

If you were to ask Jesus today, “Are you a Republican or a Democrat?” He might simply kneel, draw something in the dust, and tell a story instead. It was never His way to choose sides on worldly matters like we do. He saw through every label, every flag, every slogan. To Him, the question was never Who do you support? But rather, whom do you love?

Today, politics has become a new form of faith. It shapes our values, friendships, and even our sense of identity. We divide the world into saints and sinners, heroes and villains, based on who supports our side. We often begin with our political tribe and then justify it with faith.

Christ invites the reverse: start with love, truth, mercy, and justice — then observe what’s left. This book begins with a simple but uncomfortable question: How does your political party stack up against one thing and one thing only? Love.

That’s not a trick question, and it’s not meant to shame anyone. It’s an invitation to hold our politics up to the light of Christ’s teachings — the ones about mercy, humility, forgiveness, and service. To see what survives that light, and what doesn’t.

Does your party honor the dignity of others? Reduce suffering or fear? Does it build reconciliation or division?

Would Jesus recognize love in it?

So if love is the standard by which Christ measured everything, then love must also be the measure by which we examine our own public life: our policies, our priorities, our party platforms.

When Jesus spoke of loving your neighbor as yourself, he wasn’t just suggesting a simple slogan—he was establishing a revolutionary way for people to connect that goes beyond party lines and policy fights. Yet today, we find ourselves more divided than ever, with each side claiming moral superiority while often ignoring the core message of love that Christ emphasized.

Consider the immigration debate. Rather than viewing it through the lens of partisan talking points, what if we examined it through Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan? The story doesn’t ask us to determine the legal status of the injured man or debate border security policies. Instead, it challenges us to see the humanity in those who are different from ourselves and to respond with compassion.

This is not to suggest that complex political issues have simple solutions. They almost never do. Instead, it’s about approaching these challenges with the right heart and perspective. Christ’s emphasis on love wasn’t just about personal relationships—it was about transforming how we approach every aspect of human society, including governance.

What would our political landscape look like if we truly filtered our policy preferences through the lens of Christ’s love? How might our approach to partisan politics shift if we prioritized His teachings over party loyalty?

The Heart Before the Flag: Christ’s Radical Political Vision

Jesus—supporter and champion of good; protector of the weak; defender of life, justice, and liberty; leader of compassion and Savior for all. He is our blueprint.

Jesus was a radical and a revolutionary in the truest sense—not because He sought to overthrow governments, but because He sought to overturn hearts. He confronted hypocrisy with truth, power with humility, and hatred with love. When He entered the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers (Matthew 21:12–13), He was declaring that greed and exploitation have no place in the house of God.

His message was not about allegiance to a nation or party: it was about allegiance to truth, mercy, and the intrinsic worth of every person.

It breaks down divisions, exposes hypocrisy, and reorders our priorities toward justice and mercy. When we apply His radical vision to our politics, we are invited to see opponents not as enemies to be defeated, but as neighbors to be loved. Only then can we begin to heal what power alone cannot fix.

Jesus spoke more about love than any other commandment because love is the engine of transformation. Love can make you think, see, and live differently. It is not abstract sentiment, but the most powerful political and spiritual force on earth.

Love doesn’t just tell you; love shows you. Love breaks down the limits of mind and heart, calling us to see even our enemies as children of God. In that radical reordering of priorities, Christ offered not just salvation for the soul, but a model for how humanity might truly live in justice and peace.

“Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.”- 1 John 4:8

A Kingdom Not of This World: Beyond Red and Blue —The Way of the Cross

The Way of the Cross in modern life means carrying the weight of reconciliation. It means standing in places of tension—between rich and poor, conservative and progressive, believer and skeptic—and refusing to walk away.

To bear the cross is to absorb hostility without returning it, and to love without condition, even when that love is mocked as weakness. Public witness no longer looks like shouting from platforms; it looks like quiet courage in workplaces, schools, local communities – and online.

The Quiet Work of Repentance

How can we begin to undue the division that has been manufactured by politicians over not just decades, but hundreds of years? Political idolatry is not undone by argument, but by repentance — a turning of the heart. That repentance might look like listening before judging, or admitting that a policy we once defended actually causes harm. Or refusing to share a post that fuels contempt instead of compassion.

Repentance is not weakness; it’s freedom. And it releases us from the emotional leash of the outrage machine. It lets love, not loyalty, guide our conscience.

The Politics of the Heart

In today’s marketplace of political ideas, where power and influence are traded like precious commodities, Jesus’s revolutionary message of love stands as a stark contradiction to conventional wisdom. His teachings weren’t just spiritual insights but radical political statements that challenged the very foundation of how human beings organize themselves and relate to one another.

Today, this message remains just as disruptive. Imagine if our political conversations started not with who deserves to win, but with who most needs to be heard. Imagine if policy debates were guided by empathy instead of ideology. The teachings of Christ challenge both the left and the right, progressives and conservatives alike, not to adopt “Christian politics,” but to judge every platform and policy by the standard of love. In doing so, we rediscover that politics at its best is not a fight for dominance, but an act of service—a reflection of divine love in the public square.

The Seduction of Certainty

Every party claims moral high ground. Each says it stands for justice, freedom, or compassion. But certainty can become its own idol. When we believe our side is always right, we stop listening, stop learning, and stop loving.

The prophets spoke truth even to their own kings. Nathan confronted David. Amos challenged Israel’s elite. John the Baptist rebuked Herod. Love demands that same courage today: the willingness to hold our own side accountable.

In our age, courage rarely looks like standing before a throne; more often, it looks like standing in a comment section. It’s resisting the easy applause of our tribe and speaking words that make both sides uncomfortable, or refusing to share the meme that distorts the truth, even when it flatters our position. It’s saying, “That’s not right,” when our own side crosses a moral line.

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will seeclearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” – Matthew 7:3–5

This teaching reminds us to examine ourselves before judging others — to practice self-awareness and humility.

Silence in the face of deceit is not peacekeeping; it is complicity. True love tells the truth, even when it costs us our sense of belonging. To love truth more than victory is to worship God more than ideology. 

In the end, Christ will not ask how we voted, but how we loved each other. He will not count our party victories, but our acts of mercy. And if our politics have hardened us to compassion, it may not be our country that needs revival — it may be our hearts.

Ask yourself: Do I equate faithfulness with winning, or with serving? In my community, what would it look like to lead from the cross instead of the throne?

If my party demands allegiance, does it also demand compassion? Do its policies reflect service, humility, and care for the least — or do they mirror Caesar’s hunger for dominance?

Does my loyalty to this party make me more loving toward those who disagree with me? Do I defend truth, even when it costs my side a win? Am I more excited to see mercy triumph than to see my party prevail?

Love has never needed permission to begin. It only needs participants. Every act of kindness is a policy of grace; every word of truth is a campaign for peace.

So go into your world—not to conquer, but to care. Not to shout, but to shine. And remember: the Kingdom is already among us, growing wherever love dares to act.

That is the true revolution.

That is the politics of Christ.

That is the politics of love.

That is how love reigns.

That is how heaven transforms history.

The post A Kingdom Not of This World: Beyond Red and Blue appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The religious right is in a crisis of discernment.

Following Charlie Kirk’s assassination in September, many religious conservatives began to ask “What now?” Kirk had been a unifying voice and a coalition builder. With his Turning Point USA organization, Kirk brought together diverse voices to advance Christian conservatism. An evangelical Christian himself, Kirk assembled a team of Catholics, Jews, Latter-day Saints, and others to promote the cause. He reached and mentored racial and sexual minorities who might otherwise avoid the conservative movement, as Amir Odom explained in a viral video after Kirk’s death.

But lacking Kirk’s unifying force, the conservative movement has fractured along political fault lines that were already emerging. Now, the fault lines have become much deeper and more public, particularly between conservatives who believe in the U.S. constitution versus Christian Nationalists who seek an authoritarian Christian ruler instead of our often-contentious pluralistic political system.

Commentator Tucker Carlson has also cultivated disillusionment with the Constitution and free society. In a recent commentary on Venezuela prior to the arrest of Nicolás Maduro, Carlson followed a similar pattern he has in the past: he identifies a country under an authoritarian regime, then suggests to his viewers that everything you have been told is wrong.

Carlson said of Venezuela: “Nicolás Maduro and his government are very left wing on economics, not on social policy, by the way, which is kind of interesting. In Venezuela, gay marriage is banned. Abortion is banned. Sex changes for transgenderism are banned.”

“And by the way, the U.S. backed opposition leader who would take Maduro’s place if he were taken out is, of course, pretty eager to get gay marriage in Venezuela,” he adds.

Again, the pattern is to look at a regime that is oppressive, illiberal, and in conflict with the United States. Then, make the case to Americans that we have been deceived about that country: Show viewers that in that authoritarian-ruled country, good things are happening that are not happening in free Western societies.

In the case of Venezuela, Carlson’s hinting that authoritarian socialism has enabled the implementation of conservative social policies around marriage and gender that should be the envy of the American right.

The effect of this commentary is to leave viewers thinking “I’ve been deceived by elites. People and governments I’ve been told are bad, are in fact benign or even good. Up is down, and down is up.”

The unstated message is “trust me to be your new guide to reality.”

I recently saw the outcome of this commentary in a response to one of my social media posts on Tucker Carlson, as a commenter admitted Carlson was “the only journalist I trust to do real journalism.”

Tucker Carlson’s message appeals, in part, because he is often correct in cases where prominent people and institutions are wrong. After Carlson was accused of promoting a “great replacement conspiracy theory” in 2023, the Biden administration allowed a massive influx of immigration and resettlement using federal dollars, under an expansion of the notion of “humanitarian parole”.

Around that same time, Carlson began warning that Joe Biden was in cognitive decline and the executive branch was being run by staffers and presidential advisors — predating revelations near the end of Biden’s term about the full extent of decline that had been covered up.

A good lesson for critics is this: if you think it is important to limit the influence of a commentator like Tucker Carlson, the worst thing you can do is give people legitimate reasons to believe he is right and he is presenting a more accurate picture of reality than you are.

Anytime a commentator is spending most of their time negating, disrupting, deconstructing, and telling you “everything you’ve been told is wrong,” they are destabilizing.

Of course, there are times and situations where that mental toolset is appropriate. But when it becomes compulsive, when it becomes a person’s constant default approach to the world, that person is showing you that something awful is going on inside.

When asked more about KGB strategies of subversion, Bezmenov described being instructed to “try to get into large circulation, established conservative media, reach filthy rich movie makers, intellectuals, so-called academic circles. Cynical, egocentric people who can look into your eyes with angelic expression and tell you a lie.”

“These are the most recruitable people: people who lack moral principles, who are either too greedy or suffer from self-importance. They feel that they matter a lot.”

None of this is to suggest that Tucker Carlson and other right-leaning influencers are somehow doing the bidding of Russia. What I am highlighting, however, is that our adversaries have been very open about their intentions to destabilize our society, and whether consciously or not, many of our influencers follow the patterns that these open enemies employ to undermine our social fabric and our institutions.

Tucker Carlson’s efforts to upend conventional wisdom have led him to moral inversion, where he condemns Israel for its campaign against Hamas, but is only able to muster morally ambiguous commentary about Russia’s rampage in Ukraine.

Recently, his criticisms of Israel have turned into something resembling obsession, and in a recent episode of his show, he and a guest suggested that the COVID virus was engineered to have a lower impact upon Jews.

This downward spiral of antisemitism on his show was on full display with the recent guest appearance of Nick Fuentes, a commentator distinguished by his open admiration of Hitler (and Stalin), as well as countless examples of vile remarks toward women and minorities.

And here we find the crisis of discernment on the right, particularly among the religious right. In the coalition that Charlie Kirk formed, there are people who hold conservative and even extreme-right positions on issues like immigration or foreign policy. Not all of these people have a Christian worldview, including a Christian understanding of Israel and its biblically-described role in the world.

Many people on the right feel deeply disillusioned by the failures of our institutions, even ones that are trusted to promote a conservative vision for America. Figures like Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens step in and validate people’s sense of disillusionment. They throw gasoline on the fire by leading their viewers into some mixture of true narratives intermixed with cynical conspiracy mongering.

In this way, they offer a constant stream of destabilizing commentary, steadily removing the mental guardrails of their audiences and cultivating a new receptivity toward extreme and morally-inverted viewpoints.

Standing against this process are Christian commentators like Catholic professor Robert George and the evangelical leadership of the Christian satire site The Babylon Bee, as well as other commentators like Ben Shapiro, who is Jewish.

In my view, only a genuinely religious understanding of the world can guard against the pull of authoritarianism that finds so much appeal in a destabilized soul. A believer can see that destabilizing a mind with constant narratives of “everything they tell you is wrong” is the exact process employed in graduate schools to indoctrinate postmodernism and modern flavors of Marxism.

Whereas Christ fasted and prayed in the wilderness and ended up spiritually grounded enough to reject the temptation to power, destabilization is the exact opposite process, preparing souls to accept the lie that power is the only pursuit of real value.

The electoral success of Charlie Kirk’s coalition has been remarkable, and a cause for celebration on the right. But now there is a harder process ahead. The problems facing America’s religious right are spiritual in nature, and they require the teaching and practice of humble and searching discernment.

The post The Most Corrosive Claim in American Politics: “Everything You’ve Been Told Is Wrong” appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The world feels unsettled. Each day, the news reminds us how quickly suspicion, anger, and hatred can erupt into violence. The American public square, once envisioned as a marketplace of ideas, now often resembles a gladiator arena where shouting replaces persuasion and outrage buys more attention than reason. The Savior’s counsel is unambiguous: “He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:29). That warning could have been written for our very day.

Contention has become an industry. Politicians fundraise on it, as congressional scholars note that fundraising has become central to power and influence in Washington, rewarding those who stir the loudest reactions. Commentators monetize outrage culture, and platforms profit from it. Research on social media use has shown that when users are rewarded with likes and shares for outrage, they are more likely to increase their expressions of outrage in future posts. Another audit of Twitter’s ranking system concluded that engagement-based algorithms “amplify emotionally charged and out-group hostile content” far more than neutral material. The result is a culture that demands instant reaction and punishes reflection. Yet disciples of Jesus Christ are not licensed to live that way.

The Lord revealed the manner of that power: “No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” (D&C 121:41). By the world’s definition, those are fragile words. But in God’s economy, they are disciplined strength. They mark the difference between true influence and the counterfeit of domination.

American history offers its own reminder of this truth. At the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Adress could have been a moment for triumphalism or recrimination. Instead, he spoke with a spirit of restraint and humility, describing the conflict as judgment upon both North and South and closing with the plea to act “with malice toward none, with charity for all.” Lincoln understood that real power would not come through vengeance but through a disciplined appeal to mercy. His words remain one of the clearest civic echoes of Christ’s way.

Other moments of civic restraint echo this pattern. George Washington’s decision to surrender command rather than cling to power set a precedent of humility that defined the nation’s character. Decades later, Dwight Eisenhower’s calm leadership through the Little Rock civil rights crisis modeled steadiness when passion ran high. In Europe, Margaret Thatcher’s early dialogue with Mikhail Gorbachev showed that firmness and civility could coexist. Pope John Paul II’s public forgiveness of his attacker revealed that moral clarity and mercy can walk hand in hand. Such examples remind us that peacemaking is not a sign of weakness, but rather a disciplined strength exercised in public life.

Latter-day Saint history supplies another example. In March 1839, from Liberty Jail, the Prophet Joseph Smith urged the Saints to respond differently from the world around them. “We ought always to be aware of those prejudices which sometimes so strangely present themselves, and are so congenial to human nature, against our friends, neighbors, and brethren of the world who choose to differ from us in opinion and in matters of faith.” At a time when mob violence was common, Joseph called his followers to extend generosity and peace, not retaliation.

The Book of Mormon adds an instructive contrast. Captain Moroni, believing himself betrayed, wrote Pahoran in anger (Alma 60). Pahoran answered without offense: “I do not joy in your afflictions, yea, it grieves my soul” (Alma 61:2). His meek reply preserved unity that anger might have destroyed. Abigail’s quiet intervention with David in the Old Testament did the same (1 Samuel 25:23–35). Across scripture, God’s chosen people learn that restraint saves lives.

The contrast could hardly be sharper. America’s politics rewards spectacle. The kingdom of God rewards persuasion and meekness. While anger drives the news cycle, Christ calls His disciples to patience. The culture insists that peace is weakness. The gospel insists that peace is power.

Jesus Himself showed us how to live in a fractured public square. He was surrounded by Roman occupation, religious factions, and constant agitation for revolt. Yet His pattern never shifted. He taught truth (John 8:31–32), extended compassion (Mark 1:40–41), and invited repentance (Luke 5:32). When He called out hypocrisy, it was never to score a point or win a debate but always to redeem (Matthew 23:23–24). His power was never reduced to noise.

This is the model for our own civic and spiritual engagement in an age of outrage culture. The influence of Latter-day Saints will not be measured by how cleverly we spar online or how fiercely we denounce our political opponents. It will be measured by how faithfully we embody Christ’s way of peace. When Relief Societies practice love unfeigned, when quorums cultivate meekness instead of rivalry, when our families learn persuasion instead of shouting, then we are exercising priesthood power in the way the Lord intends.

That also means disciples must resist the temptation to baptize outrage in religious language. Too often, the tones of the culture bleed into our pulpits, our classrooms, and even our family conversations. If our words add heat without light, we should choose silence or seek a holier way of speaking. If our online presence looks indistinguishable from the cycle of grievance and anger that dominates American discourse, then we are not offering the world an alternative worth choosing.

The Lord has promised that Zion will be “a place of safety for the saints of the Most High God” (D&C 45:66). That safety does not come by withdrawing from public life. Nor by pretending the world is less divided than it is. It comes when covenant disciples carry the Spirit of Christ into their conversations, their councils, their neighborhoods, and their politics.

Outrage comes cheap in today’s America. Peace feels costly. Yet the disciples of Christ are called to pay that cost. It may mean pausing before we respond, remembering who we represent, and speaking only when the Spirit can remain. It may mean choosing to see the person rather than the position. It may be as ordinary as keeping a thought unspoken or giving another person space to finish theirs. The quieter word often carries the greater power. Such habits of restraint are not weakness but power, the kind that builds Zion in a fractured world. The steadiness of our hearts, the discipline of our words, and the meekness of our influence are what set us apart.

The post When Outrage Sells, Disciples Choose Peace appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Download Print-Friendly Version

The idea that religion is essential to the American experiment in self-government has carried significant weight since the Founding era. For example, in his final address, George Washington declared that “religion and morality are indispensable supports” to the new country. Many others throughout American history have made similar arguments. I lead America’s Quilt of Faith, an organization committed to this idea in today’s modern and turbulent public square.

While it is true that many religions and traditions draw upon forceful, even militant language to describe the spiritual quest to enact God’s will on the earth, these movements are different.

They are rooted in dominion theology and a vision of enacting Christian political and cultural dominance over every sector of society. Several are influential within conservative politics, and a majority of their proponents are also fervent supporters of the current president. The original articulator and foremost proponent of one of these movements is among the most influential MAGA Christian activists today.

This particular belief was central to the spiritual warfare theology and political propaganda that drove many Christians to participate in the January 6 insurrection. Some are part of a broader movement of the Christian right in the United States to more fully embrace (what they perceive as) the workings of the Holy Spirit, which has brought a more assertive, militaristic rhetoric and sensibility to the values and policy agenda of the old Christian right.

America’s Quilt of Faith celebrates the freedom that allows for all religious beliefs, including those described above. Yet we are concerned that these particular religious movements undermine American constitutional democracy.

The founders of the United States held that religion was essential because religions have a unique capacity to build virtue in citizens. We applaud all religions and beliefs in this indispensable work, which brings peace and stability to communities and the nation. However, we believe the founders of the United States of America did not intend for religion, let alone one sect or belief system, to “take over” any sector of society, most especially the government they had just created.

It is true that many Christians believe Jesus will one day return and rule on earth during a time of worldwide peace. It’s hard to imagine even in this scenario that such a global reign would be enacted through aggression that somehow forces a belief in Him, and without an allowance of continued free expression and peaceful pluralism.

Latter-day Saints join many other believers in insisting on an unpressured conversion experience—respecting other faiths to walk their paths even as they seek to “build the Kingdom” by influencing and persuading through love and the Holy Ghost’s workings. As Princeton’s Robert P. George argues, “Any attempt by the state to coerce religious faith and practice, even true faith and practice, will at best be futile and would likely damage people’s authentic participation in the good of religion.” A true relationship with God “cannot, by its very nature, be established by coercion.”

We urge all religious Americans who, as part of their faith, believe that God had some role in establishing the United States Constitution and see it still relevant today to be wary about supporting the aggressive goals and methods of these movements and instead participate in the public square in ways that support, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitutional order.

The post Perspective: Religion Can Support the Constitution. A Religious ‘Takeover’ Does Not appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In a recent article in The Atlantic, executive editor Adrienne LaFrance describes an increasing level of violence in American society, promoted by extremists at both ends of the political spectrum who seem intent on fomenting anarchy without any plan for what should replace the existing structures of government and community. Drawing on examples from the early twentieth century in the United States and in the 1960s to late 1980s in Italy, she identifies these factors that make society vulnerable to political violence:

• Highly visible wealth disparity
• Declining trust in democratic institutions
• Perceived sense of victimhood
• Intense partisan estrangement based on identity
• Rapid demographic change
• Flourishing conspiracy theories
• Violent and dehumanizing rhetoric against the “other”
• Sharply divided electorate
• A belief among those who flirt with violence that they can get away with it. 

That list of factors seems to apply to the current situation in the United States. It is also reminiscent of times in the Book of Mormon when the rule of law was undermined, there was a clear dividing line between the rich and poor, high levels of violence were present due to conflicts and murderous gangs (the Gadianton robbers), and people gathered for protection into tribes as the government broke down. One of these violent eras occurred when the system of the judges—and thus the rule of law—was destroyed just prior to the great devastation accompanying the death of Jesus Christ (see 3 Nephi 7). Another such violent era occurred in the final years of the Nephite civilization when the warring armies of wicked people (both Nephites and Lamanites) fought battles in which tens of thousands were killed, and most of the Nephites perished (see Mormon 1–6). Because the Book of Mormon was written for us in our day, we can be warned that times like those, when society broke down, and violence reigned, foreshadowed conditions that arguably are beginning to occur today.

The violence in these latter days was prophesied. The Come, Follow Me lesson for Genesis 6–11 and Moses 8 in the 2022 Old Testament year of study says: 

When Jesus Christ taught how we should watch for His Second Coming, He said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it shall be also at the coming of the Son of Man” (Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:41). In addition, phrases that describe Noah’s day, like “corrupt” and “filled with violence,” could just as easily be describing our time (Genesis 6:12–13; Moses 8:28).

In Doctrine and Covenants 45, the City of Zion, or the New Jerusalem, is prophesied to be built in the latter days. Indeed, we seek to build Zion in our hearts and lives in preparation for the time when the actual city will be built. The scripture says:

And the glory of the Lord shall be there, and the terror of the Lord also shall be there, insomuch that the wicked will not come unto it, and it shall be called Zion. And it shall come to pass among the wicked, that every man that will not take his sword against his neighbor must needs flee unto Zion for safety. And there shall be gathered unto it out of every nation under heaven; and it shall be the only people that shall not be at war one with another.

Too many these days are literally taking up their swords—their weapons—against their neighbors, even if those neighbors are innocently ringing the doorbell, getting into a car, or driving up the wrong driveway. American gun sales have surged among first-time purchasers, women, and people of color among fears of political and social unrest. People are purchasing guns to defend their homes, even though having a gun at home does not make a family safer—it makes them more, not less, likely to die by homicide.

And people are taking up their figurative swords—words—against their neighbors as social and other forms of media have been used for bullying, incitement to violence, and amplifying the words of extremists and anarchists in every setting from the family to the international scene. 

The cycle of increasing fear and the escalating violence it feeds are the opposite of faith. The violence in our society should call us not to “take up [our] swords against [our] neighbors” but to “flee to Zion for safety” (see Doctrine and Covenants 45:67–69). We can do this now, even though the physical City of Zion is not yet available as a destination, by building Zion in the increasing purity of our hearts (see Doctrine and Covenants 97:21) and in our wards and stakes.

President Russell M. Nelson’s April 2023 General Conference message asks us to be peacemakers; trying to heal the conflict and contention in our lives and in society is one way of “fleeing to Zion” for safety. President Nelson’s message could be considered as inviting us to step back from constant fear or vigilance about the violence that others may commit to examine how we may be contributing to the atmosphere of fear and contention in our homes and in the wider world. The sword that we must refrain from taking up against our neighbor is not necessarily a literal weapon—attitudes and words can be as damaging as actions and can just as easily lead to violence.

1. Avoid characterizing issues and people in terms of extremes. There is usually a moderate position or a common ground to be discovered that respects people’s experiences and allows them to respect ours.

2. Speak out against views that promote anarchy or undermine the rule of law, including tolerance of corruption or winking at behavior that undermines families and society.

3. Be a repairer of the breach and a restorer of paths (see Isaiah 58:12)—seek to heal the gap between violence and peace in our own lives, in the lives of those we love, and in the lives of our neighbors. Seek also to restore the literal paths that make up the planet Earth by helping to prevent or heal the violence that has been and is being committed against the environment.

4. Support common sense regulation of firearms and measures promoting safe gun ownership, such as universal background checks, safe storage requirements, higher minimum age requirements for gun purchases, and banning large-capacity magazines and bump stocks.

5. Support measures that decrease the gap between the rich and poor in our society and better the situations of the needy and vulnerable.

6. Support the increased number of temples in the world and the work that is done there. Perhaps the closest thing to a physical Zion at this time is a Latter-day Saint temple. A temple blesses the members of the Church in its area but also brings blessings to the place and people where it is located. As Latter-day Saints, we go to the temple to experience its peace—not to hide from the world but to take that peace with us when we return to our daily lives.

The answers to so much that is wrong with society involve healing and faith at the individual level—which is why I sometimes find myself, after watching the news, thinking, “Send the missionaries!” But we are all the missionaries; we are all the neighbors who can bind the wounds of others as the Good Samaritan helped the man who fell among thieves in the Lord’s parable (see Luke 10:25–37). We can be peacemakers; we can seek to repair the breaches we encounter and restore the paths where we walk as we journey toward Zion and its ultimate safety.

The post Moving toward Zion in an Age of Chaos appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Every once in a while—even in our contentious times—there is an inchoate sense in the air … of a unity so close we can almost taste it.  

From our shared fear and concern about getting through the disastrous pandemic to a shared sorrow and revulsion at the Afghani suffering following our withdrawal, in moments like this, we don’t seem to be all that far from a deeper unity as an American people.  

Until we look closer. With a free, sovereign nation that has openly embraced many Western ideals of democracy now surrounded by an overwhelming horde of Russian troops, you would think we would be close to that kind of unity this week. Indeed, when we started this staff piece, our working title was “A Rare Moment of American Unity?”

Until that is, we started reading more closely the national discourse. Although a surprising number of Republicans and Democrats are united in condemnation for actions taken by the Russian army, one Republican Senate candidate notably said, “I gotta be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or another.”

Former secretary of state Mike Pompeo called President Putin “very talented” as a statesman—and someone who should be respected because he “knows how to use power.” Even more notably (and inexplicably), former President Trump took this dire moment—to be clear, prior to the more overt invasion—to praise Vladimir Putin’s recent actions (yes, watch for yourself) as “genius” and “smart” and “pretty savvy” and “wonderful.”

Lastly, Tucker Carlson chimed in to scold people for hating Vladimir Putin too much, reminding them of all the reasons that liberals in America were far worse than he was. While it’s true we need to be cautious about intense emotions such as hatred, it’s important to not overlook how repeatedly scripture encourages believers to “hate evil” and “hate sin.” 

Even in a day when “good is evil” and “evil is good,” surely this is still something we can find meaningful common ground … especially when any overt violence is concerned (rape, abuse, invasion of another country). 

To be clear, a great number of American conservatives are as shocked as liberal-leaning folks at the aggression we are all witnessing.  President Joe Biden said in a brief statement yesterday at the White House, “Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbors?” 

It’s definitely not the Lord, the Prince of Peace. 

Prayers for brothers and sisters in Ukraine. In 1994, the Ukrainian state gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for guarantees from Russia, the United States and other western countries that they would never “use force or threats against Ukraine and all would respect its sovereignty and existing borders.”  That agreement included reassurances for international action if any country did try to use force against them.

Yet as everyone inside Ukraine knows, no one is coming to defend the Ukrainian people. As the international community looks on in horror, they will be required to fight for themselves.  The New York Times described “many civilians joining territorial defense units across the country” and “lines outside of recruitment centers.” 

Imagine having to make those kinds of decisions with your family over the dinner table?  

Within this beautiful country of 42 million waiting with bated breath, there are over 11K Latter-day Saints spread out across 48 congregations (8 wards and 40 branches) across nearly every major city. A temple—considered the House of the Lord in our faith—has been dedicated and active since 2010. 

We pray for these Saints, as we do all the mothers and fathers, husbands and wives—and especially the children—who will no doubt have difficulty falling asleep in many nights ahead of them, and even more difficulty when they wake up.  

To one of our own friends living in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, we offered a place to stay in Utah (she is resolute about remaining). What else more can we do aside from donating to refugees and praying?

Reaching for a moment of possible unity. It’s fair to wonder whether this whole Ukraine mess would have happened if our current White House administration had made different choices in Afghanistan.  It’s also fair to wonder (like many on the political right), how the different entanglements of the President himself and his son have influenced the situation. It’s equally fair to wonder (as do many on the political left) how the previous administration’s hands-off approach to Putin’s prior efforts to undo western military support for Ukraine also plays into this dire moment. But before we get carried off into yet more of the endless partisan bickering (about pretty much everything), can we not appreciate the potential way this could be a rare moment of unity? 

Vladimir Putin has done what no one else seems to be able to do — unite leaders of the free world. Yet in the United States, up until this very moment, that unity has been elusive, with much of the rhetoric focused on attacking President Biden more than President Putin.

Now that the invasion has commenced, there are signals of unity emerging.  When was the last time you saw Republicans and Democrats even tempted to be united? 

Maybe at the beginning of the pandemic. For sure, 9/11.  And perhaps again now? As Sen. John McCain said in 2014, during the last Russian invasion of Ukraine, “We are all Ukrainians.”

By many measures, President Biden has shown some steady and reassuring leadership during this crisis—and we can be grateful for that. In addition to providing significant military resources for Ukraine, the president has had to grapple with enormously sensitive dynamics of our own involvement. When explaining why American soldiers would not be intervening for now, he emphasized, “That’s a world war when Americans and Russia start shooting at one another.”

Don’t let yourself get pulled into the partisan vortex so much that your mind is no longer able to see any good in your political opposite. If we can no longer see any such virtues even in a difficult moment of real courage and resolve, what does that really say about us?  

We can do better. Let’s do that. All of us.

The post We Can’t Even Agree on Vladimir Putin? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

So it came as some kind of a relief in the early days of the Trump presidency when there was a collective gut check from the legacy media. Ken Stern the former CEO of NPR was one example of trying to dive into understanding the kind of people who voted for Trump. And for a moment I hoped that Trump’s victory would prompt us to see each other more fully and lessen the othering that has become so endemic to our politics.

Welp, that didn’t work out.

I have spoken frequently of my concerns about how Trump played a significant role in the coarsening of our dialogue. But here, I’d like to talk about the dehumanization of Trump supporters, especially around the issue of QAnon.

I have deep concerns about the number of Latter-day Saints who responded in a recent survey that they endorse QAnon, Peggy Fletcher Stack, recently articulated those concerns well. 

So rather than revisit those concerns again, I’d like to focus more on how this recent QAnon survey has been used not just to raise concerns, but to suggest that those who said they support QAnon on a survey are dumb and unworthy of consideration.

This dehumanization is troubling, first of all, because it’s always troubling. But second of all because claiming to believe in QAnon on a survey likely doesn’t communicate what many assume it does.

Let’s take the first survey question. Imagine for a moment that you’ve chosen to support Donald Trump, and have felt frustrated over recent years by media outlets consistently validating the worries of 67% of Democrats that believed Russia tampered with vote tallies to elect Trump, without any evidence, but gave no comparable leeway to Republicans who have similarly believed evidence-free conspiracies about this election.

You feel frustrated, unheard, and resentful.

Now you can say no because you simply don’t believe that.  Or you can say yes because you completely do. But there’s a third likely group we’re not acknowledging, who believe it partly.  After all, most all Christians believe everything before that hyphen—that Satan is influencing those institutions. The point is chances are good you might say you agree, even if you don’t—at least not about the ridiculous part.

As Ross Douthat wrote about conspiracy theories in 2019, while the details of QAnon are clearly false, “the premise of the QAnon fantasia, that certain elite networks of influence, complicity, and blackmail have enabled sexual predators to exploit victims on an extraordinary scale — well, that isn’t a conspiracy theory, is it? That seems to just be true.”

And if you believe the larger message of corruption and depravity, why would you publicly defend those institutions on a survey?

So what percentage of those who answered “yes” to that first question in fact believe QAnon conspiracy theories about satan-worshipping pedophiles, and how many feel powerless and resentful and saw another way to register frustration and “stick” it to those they believe hurt them.

This combines with several other questions the survey identifies as QAnon conspiracies, but which could well be held by many reasonable people. Such as: “There is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.” 

Latter-day Saints in particular who believe that Christ will return “soon,” may believe this as a simple matter of faith.

Other beliefs such as “The 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump” are ambiguous enough that someone could reasonably believe it without subscribing to conspiracy theories (for instance, by someone believing that the election was stolen from Donald Trump by “turncoat never-Trumpers” who they see as abandoning the Republican party).

Other questions such as “The coronavirus that causes COVID-19 was developed intentionally by scientists in a lab” have recently gone from a conspiracy theory to being enough on the radar to warrant ongoing study.

Another contributing factor may be those frustrated with the polling industry because of what they perceive to be a leftward bias, and potentially see this as an opportunity to simply troll the results—or folks on the left who see an opportunity to make the other side look bad.  

All told, it’s likely the percentage of those who believe QAnon conspiracy theories is much lower than polls suggest.

But shouting “it’s not true” to the performative QAnon type doesn’t work. After all, they already know. And the existence of this performative element ultimately obscures the number of those who have truly been hoodwinked versus those who are merely along for the ride. 

In so many cases, the people who are claiming to believe in these counter-cultural conspiracy theories are deeply alienated and feel their most cherished assumptions are under attack. And since so few intellectually coherent defenses of traditional morals are found in the public square, they perhaps come to rely on conspiracy theories which at least give them a weapon for confronting their unarticulated grievances.

Ultimately, I believe we should be skeptical of these “what do you believe” type survey questions since they often operate as identity questions. In our deeply divided atmosphere, many hear the question “Was the election stolen?” as “Did you vote for Trump?”

Of perhaps greater significance, focusing on QAnon conspiracies obscures how truly bipartisan believing in conspiracy theories can be. Questions about whether Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks or AIDS was created by the US government would likely produce a much different partisan profile.

Yet in today’s partisan atmosphere, a survey or article tying religious or Republicans to conspiracy functions effectively to make them look uniquely dumb, silly, and irrational.

In all this, we could use more of the curiosity around this subject like that Peggy Noonan demonstrated in her recent article examining the social factors that have led to the rise in conspiracism. Even with all the shock that insinuating conspiracy belief elicits in our prevailing American conversation, in the end, this kind of argument may end up meaning less than we think. For instance, writing a headline that the religious are more likely to believe in QAnon likely means little more than the religious were more likely to vote for Trump, and we already knew that. 

QAnon is indeed a ridiculous theory. But as Douthat warned in that same article, while most conspiracy theories are false, dismissing them immediately risks “ignoring an underlying reality that deserves attention or investigation.”

The reality here is not that the religious or Trump supporters are dupes, but that the last four years have only served to deepen our divide and increase our alienation. And that certainly deserves our attention.

The post Dehumanizing QAnon Supporters appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

But whatever side of the political divide you happen to occupy, there is no doubt at least half the country seems to be utterly mad—and they probably think the same about you.

Can this really be true?  For many of us, in calmer, saner moments, it is difficult to believe half our country—which half doesn’t really matter—is unmoored from reality.

Thomas Kuhn in his revolutionary book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions acknowledged the common belief that science is a steady cumulative flow of one idea being built upon another but argued that notion is simply wrong. Coining the phrase paradigm shift, Kuhn proposed that in reality, science moves ahead in intellectually violent revolutions where one world view, or paradigm, is completely tossed aside and replaced by a superior paradigm.

What leads to these intellectually violent revolutions and corresponding paradigm shifts is the accumulation of “unreconciled anomalies.” These occur when the actual results don’t fit with the expected or predicted results. Sooner or later, these anomalies are either somehow explained away (or ignored for as long as possible), or they accumulate until they force a break with the underlying theory, since it clearly is wrong.

But being in the middle of one of these revolutions is quite a different experience, and perhaps that is where we find ourselves today.

No, half the country hasn’t gone mad. The growing frictions we experience every day—regardless of your political position—are simply the symptoms of the present failing paradigm and the two main purveyors of these failures: the Democrat and Republican political parties and their various allies. 

And just like the world of science, the only way to address these “unreconciled anomalies” is to abandon the present thinking which has led to the crisis and discover a deeper, more fundamental truth. 

To do so requires discarding the left/right, conservative/liberal, and most certainly Democrat versus Republican paradigm. That bifurcated thinking is what got us here in the first place.

Never forget that political parties are nothing more than networks of private organizations which employ thousands and spend billions to control the levers of power in government. If this doesn’t cause a certain degree of concern, you aren’t paying attention.

Each attempts to create tribal loyalties to “their side,” but ultimately these organizations are primarily concerned with their power and the rewards it brings to them, and little more. The high-minded rhetoric is too often just for consumption by the rubes who are foolish enough to participate in this game. The fighting between the parties is much more about whose snouts get in the trough, not a battle for the soul of the country.

Critiques on America’s two-party system, of course, are extensive—as are debates about the viability of third-party or independent candidates. We see that happening in the push-back to the Evan McMullin-led proposal by 150 prominent conservatives to seriously consider a third party.  While recognizing the challenges of seriously moving beyond this bifurcated system, perhaps it’s time to think hard about what it would take.  

Yet I’m not simply making another argument against the 2-party system.  And I’m not only pointing towards the possible benefits of a third party.  What I’m pointing to are inherent limitations in the left-right paradigm in terms of solving our problems.

Never forget that concentrated power will attract those who want to use this power—it is as predictable as night following day—and both major political parties have their assigned roles to play in this scripted drama. And play it they do.

But it seems the paradigm upon which these organizations rest is beginning to crumble, and it is highly unlikely this genie will ever again be put back in the bottle.

So, what to do? First, remember quite often all of those “problems” that seemed so insurmountable, those issues which simply don’t seem to have a solution other than the “other” side pulling their heads out and seeing things my way, simply fade away. They are problems created by the system.

Our political, economic, and cultural wars are all based on these “insurmountable” problems. Look at the present political situation. Half the country seems absolutely mad and people sincerely speak of a coming civil war as they see no realistic way to solve the arguments other than the physical annihilation of, or separation from the entire “other” side.

I would argue the simplest solution that is neither Democrat nor Republican, liberal nor conservative. It’s the solution this country is based on.  Just as the Founders understood, individual freedom is the only long-term answer. 

People must be allowed to live their lives as they see fit, as long as their actions don’t hurt or infringe on anyone else’s life. Period.

This is why all the debates about the growing size of government in the U.S. still matter today. By many measures, it’s difficult to maintain true individual freedom while at the same time having large, intrusive, governments. 

Perhaps, then, we don’t after all, need our betters in any political party leading us to some imagined promised land. Maybe we simply need them to give us space and preserve our freedoms—aka, leave us alone. And let’s not give up on ways to control and shrink the leviathan the various levels of government have become. Finally, let’s ensure those limited things governments are authorized to do, they do well and efficiently. Is that so difficult?

But let’s return to the more important point.  No, your neighbors aren’t mad. But the tribal hatreds that are flowing across this country are very real and are primarily driven by those who supposedly want to fight them—the Democrat and Republican parties. 

Stop hating your neighbors and instead consider hating the beliefs of those who have brought us to this point in time. It is far past time for us to end this fool’s game.

The post Has Half the Country Gone Mad? appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

Instead of teasing a possible celebration to come, however, the President directed singular focus on the fact that no major network (including Fox News) had yet called these five battleground states as victories for him.  Rather than expected complexities of what others had called a “fairly smooth election process,” President Trump insisted this delay was yet more evidence that something foul was afoot.

“You know what happened?” He said, the Democrats “knew they couldn’t win, so they said, ‘let’s go to court’…and did I predict this? I’ve been saying from the day I heard they were going to send out tens of millions of ballots…either they were going to win—or if they didn’t win, they were going to take us to court.”

He concluded: “This is a major fraud on our nation” and “this is a fraud on the American public—this is an embarrassment on our country….Nobody has seen anything like it.”

The President went on to insist the election had already been won—“Frankly, we did win this election”—something presumably all Americans would have known if not for the “very sad group of people” trying to rob him of victory.

Even for those who had predicted the possibility of a premature declaration of victory, this was alarming talk. Even some of his strong supporters pushed back:

The assertions of election-day fraud were alarming, even for those concerned with prior accusations of a Biden victory coming only through a “rigged” election.  After all, these claims of present fraud were arising not from a heartbreaking loss (that virtually everyone had predicted was coming); rather, they were directed at a fairly routine aspect of American elections—that it sometimes takes a few days for a final victor to be known.

Speaking of the delay in final results, one presidential historian, John Meacham, pointed out minutes before the President spoke, “this is not uncommon—almost half the time in our modern era since 1960, we have gone to bed without knowing who won.  1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2004, and 2016.  This is not an anomaly.” This Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar later added:

There’s nothing outside the American tradition and the ordinary conventions of American history that says you have to know the winner by midnight on election night. For many, many times in our history, this has taken some time. And it’s the most vital decision we make in our country. This is our collective expression of the national will, in terms of who should be in charge of our affairs.  Isn’t that worth a couple of days?

In fairness, there were some irregularities through the night—not unanticipated in an election with unprecedented numbers of people voting by mail due to fears of virus exposure through in-person voting.  And I would argue it’s therefore not unreasonable for the leadership of either party to be concerned about the potential for novel (and real) abuse of mail-in ballot processes that are brand-new in so many states.

Neither is it fair to pretend that any desire to ensure ballot integrity and election security represents covert, sinister attempts at “mass voter suppression.” To the degree President Trump was motivated to ensure this kind of electoral integrity (especially amidst massive COVID-inducted changes in procedure), anyone who cares about the continued fairness of our elections should perhaps be sympathetic to the impulse.

But it wasn’t mere caution the President stood to deliver. It was a pointed, dark accusation against a vicious group of unnamed people who were “trying to disenfranchise” his supporters and “trying to STEAL the Election,” as he tweeted prior to his speech.

Even in the face of the plainest of realities (again, the simple need to finish counting votes after a record turnout), I find it remarkable how suspicion finds a way to conjure evidence of dark motives….and someone out to get us. As Ian Gibson once wrote, “a suspicious mind will see evidence of poison wherever it looks.”

In fairness, once again, it’s perhaps not hard to understand how President Trump comes away feeling this way— e.g., after years of trying to defend himself against massive accusations designed to take him down (including both fair and unfair critiques).

The President is also clearly not alone in modeling such suspicion. The rhetoric on the left over the last year has become even more pointed in making accusations across a variety of areas, but especially in terms of highlighting latent racial hostility in all directions.  Indeed, it’s worth pointing out that the President’s own accusations of fraud are a mirror opposite of what others have leveled at Republicans for the last six months: they’re trying to rig the election in their favor! 

In short:  this hidden pandemic of suspicion and accusation goes far beyond the White House and the Republican party.

Infectious disease is more than a metaphor too since one accusation triggers another—with suspicion fomenting more suspicion, in a metastasizing mass.  The ancient author of Proverbs describes strife (Prov. 16:28) and discord (Prov. 6:19) as something that can be “sown”—with bad seeds potentially spreading in every direction.

The evidence of seeds sown from that speech just a few hours ago is everywhere this Day After in America—in every newspaper, every workplace, and even many homes. Rather than talking about the surprisingly strong showing of President Trump last night, our collective attention will be absorbed in the darker insinuations of Something Sinister he raised.

As Dan Baltz noted, “Whatever happens in the vote count, whatever the courts do or don’t do, Trump has given his followers license to see anything other than a Trump victory as a stolen election.”

That kind of searing suspicion begets only more of the same.  For instance, almost immediately after the President spoke, Rachel Maddow was quick to assert in response that the only reason he would make such accusations was because he knew he couldn’t win fairly—and had to resort to legal fights to try and steal the election (sound familiar?).

How will President Trump’s own core supporters respond to these dark accusations he raised last night?  Surely many—even most—will simply believe them…adopting and absorbing them into their own frame of reference—in part, or in whole.

All this explains why the potential of spiraling accusations in such a volatile atmosphere is one of the scenarios experts had most feared for election night.

And our President did not disappoint.

How will the rest of America respond? That’s really my own big question:  When does this level of pointed accusation and suspicion devolve into something far worse?

That same wise book of Proverbs compares a contentious man to “burning coals” and “fire” that “kindle strife” (Prov. 26:21). Speaking soberly after the President’s remarks, Chris Wallace noted the volatile situation in our country and suggested the President had just “thrown a match” on a smoldering fire.

How long will it be before the sparks from mounting suspicion and accusation all around us start a raging fire no longer in our control?

Central to the Book of Mormon’s own narrative account are warnings about precisely this possibility—and the disastrous consequences that can result for entire peoples.

The book also relays detailed and perfect instruction for those who want to avoid getting burned—and, in the other direction, who want to live a very different way and build a very different kind of society.

Answers exist to all these questions for those looking for them, as we’ve summarized in our recent reviews of Pastors on Politics and Prophets on Politics.

I pray that more Americans will find these answers—and receive them in their lives.

Joining us—and the many still hungry for peace in America—in finding a better way.

The post When Does the Poison of Our National Suspicion Become Lethal?  appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

We recently spoke with Liz Hume, President of the Alliance for Peacebuilding, about exactly this.  Here’s what she said about this American moment in an interview for the New York Times: “There are a lot of people who have been working internationally who are calling me up and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, what do we do? We have to do something,’ We are seeing some serious red flags. Things that make conflict experts like me really nervous.”

Liz is not alone. When Daniel Noah Moses, director of a nonprofit working for peace in the Middle East, moved back from Jerusalem to America, he commented on how strangely familiar it all was, “I’ve been surprised by how similar it all is—the gaps in understanding, the levels of emotion, the negation of ‘the other.’”

As Liz and Daniel both attest, this dismissive negation is not inevitable. There is another way – a far better way. 

That’s no Pollyannish bluster. It’s the conclusion coming out of the combined deep experience of the dialogue and deliberation community here in the U.S., including seven inspiring organizations that have worked at the heart of the very red-blue conflict now exploding before our eyes.  

Since our own editor-in-chief has been involved with each of these organizations in some capacity, Jacob takes a moment to summarize each of their unique contributions below, in what we hope will be a collective Shot in the Arm at a time—and on a day—when we could all surely use it.  

After these introductions, we circle back to the big question facing us all today (yes, arguably even bigger than That Other Decision we’re making).

1. Miracles in Your Own Home—Living Room Conversations

After starting the progressive force Moveon.org years ago, Joan Blades came to realize that “adversarial problem solving” would not be enough to overcome the challenges our nation was facing.  Over the last decade, Joan has rallied an army of what she calls “domestic peacemakers” through her work with Living Room Conversations. One by one, home by home, night by night, Joan has planted seeds of peaceful co-existence across the deepest of boundaries in America through a simple, scalable process that people can do without any formal facilitation. All you need to do is download a guide across many relevant topics, call up a friend willing to co-host, and get ready to have a powerful evening.  If you can’t think of anyone, you can also participate in an online LRC with someone else across the country—including in their “Moving Forward Together” campaign of online conversations after the election. 

 I’ve seen the fruits of this beautiful practice over and over—including at the LGBT/religious conservative divide, as Tracy and I wrote about at the Huffington Post, Eating Hummus with the Enemy. (Take a peek at how this easy approach to hosting conversations works with the highlights of another evening here). The impact of even 2 hours together is magical—with people who were previously suspicious, leaving with hugs and an exchange of phone numbers.  

On the eve of a troubling election, Joan told me in a recent interview: “there is definitely a portion of our national discourse that is deeply broken.” Rather than something people are conscious about, however, Joan cited the recent documentary about social media to highlight how external forces are acting upon people unawares and thereby “exacerbating our polarization.” At the same time, she emphasized that “many of us don’t have the tools it takes to disengage from the partisan narrative and make real connections across differences.” She then summarized what she saw as the central key:

We don’t trust our voting systems, we don’t trust our leaders and we don’t trust each other.  It is time to restore our trust in each other and our systems.  We need to be in right relationship to address the big challenges we face.  We will only succeed if we do this together.

Oh, one more thing:  It was also thanks to Living Room Conversations and their close partner All Sides, that we were able to create and launch the Red-Blue Dictionary several years ago—an innovative text that helps “map out” various meanings for terms in a way that helps folks on the left and right “translate” the different senses of a word like “social justice” or “biblical” (which clearly don’t mean the same thing to Americans anymore).   

2. Civility That Doesn’t Taste Like Broccoli—The Village Square

The idea of “civility” can feel stuffy, and boring…like being dragged into a high school civics class all over again. But it doesn’t have to be! 

Over the same decade that Joan was convincing individuals their own homes could become havens for social and political healing, Liz Joyner was innovating the foundations for a public square to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Billing themselves as “a nervy bunch of liberals and conservatives who believe that disagreement and dialogue make for a good conversation, a good country, and a good time” Liz helped launch The Village Square in Tallahassee as a revolution in how we approach civic spaces—outlining how to convene diverse citizens for conversation over good food, and lots of belly laughs. One key is to tell the American story in a way that people across the political spectrum can find inspiration in it (rather than writing it off completely). Needless to say, Liz is a big Hamilton fan!  

As Liz told me in a recent interview, “If you were to boil down the essence about what is unique about democracy – it’s not that we agree with each other.  It’s that our way of seeking truth involves disagreeing with each other.” She continued:

We maintain our freedom by disagreeing…those are constant companions in the yin and yang – finding truth and exercising freedom. That’s how a diverse people self-govern.  Without that yin-and-yang, it doesn’t work.  You run up against human nature – with like-minded groups becoming even more blind than individual humans are.

 Liz added, “What’s attacking us is the ugly side of human nature.  Call it evil, or the devil – or whatever frame you want to put on it. That’s really what I think we’re fighting here.”

Over recent years, I worked with Liz Joyner and the Village Square, to help create the Respect and Rebellion initiative—collecting examples of Red-Blue friendships throughout history, up to this very moment (seriously, if you need a boost, just read some of these stories!).  In fact, many of these “unorthodox” or “treasonous friends” have made themselves available to speak on college campuses and in communities—with pre-post tests confirming substantially positive shifts. For instance, compared to before the event, 85% of participants report “feeling more comfortable sharing my political views honestly” and 78% report feeling “like it is more possible that I could learn something from people on the other side of the aisle.”

Those shifts come from just one evening of witnessing an unorthodox friendship sharing their story. It doesn’t have to take a miracle!

3. The Answer for the Academy’s Woes – Heterodox Academy

While we’re talking about college, you’ve probably heard by now how partisan an environment universities have become. (It’s true.)  But it’s not true that we should give up on the beautiful potential of the academy – which I personally experienced during an incredible graduate school experience. Heterodox Academy exists as a reminder to faculty, administrators, students, and the public at large about the precious need for ideological diversity on American campuses— along with other kinds of valued diversity. 

Having attended the last two national conferences Heterodox hosted in New York City, I can tell you the spirit is powerful and electric. (Listen to this remarkable panel discussion from the last conference to see what I mean). If you work at a university in any capacity—or attend college—you’re going to love what this group is doing.  

If you are a college student—anywhere—I’d also encourage you to reach out to Bridge USA, an organization geared even more directly to students, and with an allied mission. The inspired young leaders of the effort, Manu Meel & Ross Irwin, are men I know personally and well; they are remarkable and good-hearted.  If you’re a student right now, reach out to them—and register for their “Post-Election Student Forum.”

4. The National Leader in Red Blue Reconciliation—Braver Angels

When I showed up at the (then) “Better Angels” National Convention last year in St. Louis, I wasn’t expecting to be surprised. Having worked in Red-Blue dialogue in some capacity for a decade, I didn’t imagine there was a whole lot more to see.  I was wrong. My time immersed among the ethos and people drawn to (now) Braver Angels was unlike anything I had experienced before. What I noticed first was how much these people (who were exactly, by the way, evenly divided – 50/50 – between right and left), were laughing….and not the merely polite kind. There were deep belly laughs on every side! The more I observed—their debate format, the social gatherings, the workshops, the speeches, I started to realize the Tour de Force this organization was becoming (and with a minuscule staff and an inadequate budget).

Most recently, they invited people to sign a letter committing to a peaceful transition of power and outlining citizen commitments to “What We Will Do to Hold America Together.”

If you haven’t spent some time with them, you really need to…maybe, starting with their “Day After the Election” Gathering to process whatever happens tonight and to hear personal reactions from the seasoned Braver Angels leadership. Writing about the post-election environment, their founder David Blankenhorn recently said:

The great task before us is to rebuild what Lincoln called our “bonds of affection” after this election. The great need is to come together as one country, knowing that neither side, whether in or out of power, will get the country it wants by despising the other side. This is the work of patriotic citizenship after this election. It’s up to us—the politicians won’t fix this, only we the American people can fix it.

If you need a shot-in-the-arm of new hope, join Braver Angels as a member today—and plug into debates, workshops, calls, and anything else they cook up.  You won’t regret it. 

5. The Gold Standard for Difficult American Conversations—Essential Partners

The very first time I attended the National Coalition of Dialogue & Deliberation conference, it was (then) Public Conversations Project who met me—and assured—me a conservative kid from Utah was welcome. This organization became famous in the 1990’s for facilitating successful dialogue between pro-life and pro-choice leaders in Boston after an abortion doctor was murdered. They also pioneered one of the earliest Guides to Conversations across the Red Blue Divide.

(Now) Essential Partners leads what I consider the most highly refined and sophisticated training of the art of dialogue anywhere—with workshops delivered all around the world, including in Nigeria.  Over two years, we had the joy of bringing Dave Joseph and Meg Griffiths to Utah to conduct two different training workshops to prepare more dialogue facilitators in our region, and ultimately help us create a strong “community of practice” in our state. As the organization is led by two of the most effective spokespersons for dialogue in America today, John Sarrouf & Katie Hyten, Essential Partners workshops are like manna to a nation that is forgetting how to do this. 

If you’re looking or more post-election support, Essential Partners just announced a four-part series, starting next week, which will empower you to repair the fabric of your community, piece by piece.

6. The Missing Piece in the Red-Blue Tapestry—Weave, The Social Fabric Project

No single individual has done more to advance deeper understanding across the political divide, I believe, than David Brooks.  It’s just the truth. With his enormous reach, David has advocated for not only conservative principles, but for the critical respect for institutions, faith and community on which America’s health depends.  

I was honored to be invited to attend his Weave conference launching an effort to help re-weave the social fabric last year.  Liz Joyner and I profiled highlights of the conference here (you can watch the introduction of the conference here).  Among the many efforts, they have launched a beautiful online forum to help connect people doing good things in communities.  The careful attention to the fragile beauty of our social fabric is a crucial part of the conversation Americans need to keep expanding in future years. Their invitation to the country is summarized below:

Our experiences of this outbreak and unrest are all different, but one thing is clear: in this time of struggle, we have a choice.

We can give in to fear and put up our defenses. Or we can open up. We can find meaning in relationships. We can solve challenges together.

Because it’s in small acts of bravery, caring and connection that we can heal this pain and weave the future we want.

Let’s Go There

7. Synergizing Coalitions and Alliances—NCDD, Bridge Alliance, and Listen First Project  

It was thanks to the National Coalition of Dialogue and Deliberation that I came to learn and know anything about these remarkable organizations—and to meet the many friends and conversation partners who have changed my own life. For instance, at my first NCDD conference, I met Phil, an atheist Marxist professor with whom I wrote, “You’re not as crazy as I thought (but you’re still wrong).” It’s at this same conference a few years later where our “Sextet” dialogue group came into being that taught me so much about LGBT/religious conservative dialogue.  In addition to gathering the largest online resource center of dialogue and deliberation resources anywhere, NCDD has convened hundreds of dialogue organizations and practitioners for many years—and given all these understaffed, unheralded groups regular encouragement to keep going.  

With a similar vision of the power of collaboration, Debilyn Molineaux and David Nevins—formerly with Living Room Conversations and No Labels—helped launch an inspired effort to bring together organizations working for healthy democracy and civic society called the Bridge Alliance—which most recently gathered a “Crisis Recovery Guide” to help communities navigate election-related turbulence. And Pearce Godwin’s Listen First Project similarly has brought together organizations for innovative, creative programming to reach even more Americans with this message. His vision of “transform[ing] the tide of rising rancor, deepening division and increasing isolation into a wave of respect, connection and belonging” was featured in USA Today this summer. 

Our Precious Civic Ecosystem 

Each of these organizations has played a crucial role in bringing together disparate dialogue, deliberation and bridge-building efforts for more synergy over the last decade.  In total, all these efforts represent a kind of crucial “civic ecosystem” for America—especially as they work in partnership with civic organizations, faith communities, and millions of individual families. As detailed in “Preserving and Protecting Our Precious Civic Ecosystem” compared to the remarkable efforts going into preserving our natural habitat under threat, relatively little attention (and investment) goes into the similarly fragile civic ecosystem.  

Which brings us to the giant choice still facing us—regardless of who wins the election this week.  

To put it starkly, are we going to work to preserve this precious civic ecosystem, or are we going to allow others to keep lighting it on fire?  Which effort will we be a part of—those reweaving the civic fabric, drawing hearts together, and deepening understanding?  

OR the many opportunities to join with that other corrosive, cynical effort all around us (and on both sides of the political divide)?    

That’s a choice we all get to make.  

Leaders around us are making both of these choices.  And so are citizens.  

This isn’t just a “conservative” or “liberal” question, because it divides people on every policy question (while uniting them across various political divides).  As confirmed by recent surveys, there are very different kinds of conservatives and liberals out there.  There are liberal and conservative Americans who care little about preserving a civic space of open conversation—and there are Americans across the political spectrum that care enormously about exactly that.    

So, what kind of liberals and which kind of conservatives are we—and what do we want to be?    

One thing seems increasingly sure:  the ugly elements on the left and right will keep duking this out—perhaps even in more aggressive ways in the future.  That leaves those of us who want something better to find each other—and hold on to each other, as we preserve a better way of moving forward.    

We need to do that regardless of what the aggressive elements on each side end up choosing to do.  Independent of that, we can do the work in our own sphere and networks to cultivate conditions for the world we do want to live in.  

One day.   

Deep Breaths and Big Dreams

Recent years have been difficult for the many players in the bridge-building community we’ve surveyed above.  All the hard work they’ve done on campus, in communities, and in homes, seems at times to be unraveling. 

In fairness, it’s not an easy time for anyone working towards a better society, in all the many dimensions of what that includes.  But the conviction and passion of this movement (and others) won’t die, even if they have to be “seed-savers” for a future day when more Americans re-embrace these principles. As McKay Coppins wrote in a piece last year about Romney’s isolation from other Republicans, “In cynical times like these, someone has to serve as the guardian of lost causes.”

It’s not too light to fight for all these causes, and draw more people to them—even if the larger landscape looks ever more gloomy.  That’s not just subjective hand-wringing—and is, indeed, reflected in widely-respected, objective measures of civic destabilization.  For instance, in 2017, the United States fell 11 points and ranked 114 out of 163 countries on the Global Peace Index, placing it between Rwanda and El Salvador. The U.S. also fell in the Fragile States Index and was downgraded—with 29 other countries more stable than the United States in terms of security forces, human rights, government stability, societal grievances, and other measures.

That’s why Liz Hume cited earlier joined other conflict resolution experts in a June 2020 letter titled, “Conflict Experts Call for Immediate Action to Address Conflict Dynamics in the United States.”  

The dangers of this moment are real.  However, no matter what difficulty we have to face ahead, we also see good things on the horizon.  That includes a “gathering of all goodness”—with the decent, good-hearted people in all communities increasingly being compelled to find each other and come together in new, promising ways.  

And that’s something to be excited about!  In the meantime, check out these encouraging efforts above to get an extra dose of optimism regarding all the beautiful things still possible.  

The post Dear America, We Can Still Do This! appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In your neighborhood, and ours.  All around us. 

They’re not so easy to spot, though, because they often go out of their way to say the nicest of things. About America.  About democracy. About the future – and the past. About black people.  About religious people.  

But don’t let that fool you—and, for sure, don’t be duped into believing what they actually say.  Because deep down—beneath all the pleasantries—lies the shocking truth.  

They hate America. And they’re actively, consciously wanting to tear down our democracy. They hate black people.  And gay people. And religious people.  And the traditional family. And the police everywhere. 

Deep down, they want it all to burn. 

If you think this sounds paranoid, maybe it’s you who hasn’t been paying careful enough attention. After all, the signs are obvious if you’re watching for them….

********

This is how some engrossing Stephen King books begin. But this is no novel or Halloween stunt.  It’s America’s real-life story continuing to unfold before our eyes right now.    

 You read about it in the news when commentators talk about this vague thing called “political polarization” spreading across our land.  But what does that even mean?

Well, it’s not just about anger, which can sometimes be legitimate (and even righteous).  And it’s also not just about disagreement, which can be healthy, even when sharp and intense.  

No, what’s most dangerous about this American moment is not that we’re frustrated, or even that we’re disagreeing profoundly. It’s that we’ve stopped believing what other people are saying—reading instead into their words with shocking consistency an intent (and malevolence) right under the surface…if you’re watching close enough.  

None of this should be unfamiliar.  We’ve all been exposed to it plenty. For instance, haven’t you heard?   

• Liberals don’t actually care about America—even though they “say” they do.  What they want is for the government to intrude even more into your lives, to silence religious voices, to kill more babies, and to enable lawlessness and entitlement in every flavor. And these are all outcomes that they’re conscious of and trying to pull off.  
• And conservatives don’t actually care about other people—even though they “say” they do.  What they want is for their own religious values to intrude even further into others’ lives, to silence and disenfranchise minorities, to strip away health care, and to retain power illegitimately (as long as they possibly can).  This is also what they’re consciously trying to do as well.  

Notice the key difference here:  none of these arguments concedes the possibility of the other side pursuing wrong approaches that have inadvertent, unintentional consequences that they nonetheless sincerely believe could do good for the country.  No, that’s all too complicated.  So much more dramatic to insist they’re aware of any bad consequences you see they’re doing…and would you believe it?  The rascals are doing it anyway!    

Thus, our President calls the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate a “monster” and the Speaker of the House “crazy.”  And critics of the President return in-kind, calling him a “terrorist” and “fascism” the core of the Republican message.

This kind of promiscuous name-calling and intense suspicion has infected both major parties – and virtually all sides of every major disagreement in our country. The negative consequences of constantly questioning intent stand in sharp contrast with the kind of strong, open questioning of arguments which can lead to such good (including an expansion of understanding for all). The reverse is true here—with suspicion multiplying confusion and distortion in every direction.

The tragedy is that formalized space to pursue healthy deliberation across differences is one thing that made America truly unique in the world. That takes trust and respect.  

But monsters don’t deserve either of those.  Because their core is bad.  You’ve got to hit them there—hopefully to expose their heart of darkness. 

Thus, conservatives used to claim not merely that former President Obama was making poor decisions and leading the country in the wrong direction, but that he was trying to hurt America. And progressives today claim not simply that President Trump is making poor decisions and leading the country in the wrong direction, but that he is trying to consolidate power for a totalitarian-like future. 

Such perceptions are not confined to political leaders alone—with polling in recent years confirming the extent to which Democrats say Republicans are “more dishonest than other Americans” (42%), “more immoral” (35%), and “more unintelligent” (33%).

In the other direction,  more than half of Republicans (52%) view Democrats as “more closed-minded than other Americans,” “more immoral” (47%), “lazier” (46%), and “more dishonest” (45%).

What makes these kinds of perceptions so corrosive is the way in which they impact our ability to continue any sort of productive conversation as Americans together—with something else very different filling the void. Thus, when Mike Lee compared President Trump to a hero in the Book of Mormon, Evan McMullin’s response went beyond honest disagreement with the Senator’s position, to insinuating he was actively participating in hurting America knowingly: “Mike knows that Trump is a threat to the republic, but chooses to enable [President Trump] anyway because doing so serves his personal ambitions in Washington.”

And in the other direction, rather than openly questioning the wisdom in over-relying upon COVID-19 testing as a barometer of national well-being, President Trump went beyond that honest disagreement to suggest that people were actively promoting that line of thinking in order to specifically hurt him politically: 

And you know now with them, you can’t watch anything else. You turn on… COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID, COVID. On November 4th, you’ll hear, “It’s getting better. It’s getting better.” You watch. No, no, they’re doing heavy COVID because they want to scare people.

The list of similar dismissals of positive intent (and insinuations of Something Awful right under the surface) goes for miles in every direction. For instance:  

• Climate activists insisting that those who disagree with dire predictions don’t care about the planet’s health (rather than acknowledging honest differences in estimations of the threat of climate change).
• Social justice activists insinuating that religious conservatives don’t care about black people, gay people, and women (rather than acknowledging honest differences in our visions of how to sustain the rights of all human beings). 
• And rather than acknowledging honest differences in how we see the latest Supreme Court appointment, Republican leaders have been accused of vile hypocrisy and conscious deception.  Senator Mazie Hirono said on NPR recently, “I would be happy if two more Republicans changed their mind and grew a conscience.  [By contrast] truth matters to us. Keeping our word matters to us.”

In each case, thoughtful observers have pointed out honest disagreements that really do exist on each issue—including the ones that make people the angriest (see, for instance, Christopher Cunningham’s recent articulation of a perspective on the legitimacy of Amy Coney Barret’s confirmation that has been little acknowledged). 

None of this is to deny the existence of real evil in the world (and real good)—nor to suggest that actual policy and legislative decisions don’t affect real lives in measurable ways.  

All this is true. It’s when our disagreements about what is good (or not good) so quickly translate into accusations of endemic evil in the opposition…that’s when we’ve entered a whole new world. 

And not the good kind of “new world.”  The dystopian kind.  The Stephen King kind.  

The one where we don’t want to see what happens next.  Isn’t that where we finds ourselves today in America?  

• 70 percent of Americans say there will be permanent damage to this country if the “wrong candidate wins – with 80% of Democrats saying Trump would take the country gradually towards a dictatorship and 90% of Republicans saying Biden would gradually take the country towards socialism.
• 60 percent of Democrats and nearly 60 percent of Republicans over the past four years see the other side as a serious threat to the country, LSU researchers found
• 40 percent of Americans see political opponents as “truly evil,” rather than as neighbors they happen to disagree
• 20 percent of Democrats and 15 percent of Republicans say the country would be better off if large numbers of people on the other side “just died.”

The LSU researchers call this “lethal partisanship” for a reason. Rather than just a violent fantasy people are casually musing about, a remarkable 36 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats in a recent YouGov survey said it would be at least “a little” justified for their side “to use violence in advancing political goals” – with even more (44 percent of Republicans and 41 percent of Democrats) saying there would be at least “a little” justification for violence if the other party’s nominee wins the election – both of which were measurable increases from the same survey just months earlier.

Twice that number – 75% of Americans – report being concerned about the possibility of violence on and after Election Day, according to a USA Today/Suffolk University Poll – with a historically low 25% feeling “very confident” in a peaceful transfer of power.

This is not another silly horror movie. They are serious dangers – even for those who see beyond the monstrous misperceptions on both sides.

We don’t have to keep doing this, America.  We really don’t.  

There’s another way forward.  

No matter what happens next week, please don’t give up on each other.  

The post Monsters Among Us appeared first on Public Square Magazine.