One more time with feeling, a discussion about the belligerence, denigration, and name-calling that has become so prevalent in U.S. politics. Our politics have become almost a screaming match. I suspect we have all experienced a screaming match in the past, either as participants or observers, and the general response is to want to escape, to get the hell away from the angry parties.
We're unlikely to change the opinions of many people on the extremes of the political spectrum. That's almost like asking a fundamentalist Christian, Jew, or Muslim to change their religion; it ain't going to work. So, how the hell can we run a nation that seems so divided, so ready to pick up a gun and shoot another person, or drive a vehicle through a crowd of protesters?
It sure as hell won't be easy, but we have to do something before the United States begins to look like the Middle East or other warring nations in Africa and Central and South America.
So, let's start with a bell curve - you know I love these things. In my opinion, they offer the simplest way to visualize the disparate opinions across the political spectrum. The one below, which shows extremists on both the right and left of the political spectrum, suggests that the extremes of opinion, both right and left, represent approximately twenty percent of the populace, with ten percent on the right and ten percent on the left. That is debatable, but let me use that number for the sake of discussion. The next image shows these factions in bright blue and red.
Hopefully, that's easy enough to comprehend.
Now, let's assume that one extreme or the other gains control and wants to implement its philosophy in its totality. Here are some of our options.
Extreme Right - the red extreme: Almost all civil rights are done away with. We have a government insisting on constitutional fundamentalism. If it isn't covered in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Their religious beliefs also inform the extreme right, and they want a government bordering on a theocracy. The line between religion and government doesn't seem to exist for many conservatives.
Under the extreme right, government agencies are shrunken to a fraction of their previous size or are completely eliminated. There are no unions, no minimum wage, no social security, Medicare, or Medicaid. If you want to prosper in the CUS (Conservative United States), you do it on your own. If you want an education, you can pay for it at private for-profit schools. If a hurricane, earthquake, or wildfire destroys your town or part of your state, you'd better be able to pay the bill from something other than federal funds. Perhaps you can gather enough volunteers to donate materials and help rebuild your town.
About the only thing this conservative government will fund is a national military for defense, and maybe offense, and things they want to control, like the FCC and FAA. This is definitely a minimalist, bootstrap form of government. Oh, and they will want to fund Christian religious education and limit publicly funded education.
Now, let's move to the blue extreme. We’re talking about the purest form of socialism known to humankind. It may even go beyond the failed dream of communism. All industry in the country is owned and run by the government. There is no private enterprise or capitalism.
The government controls all prices. All unemployed people receive a livable stipend. All employed individuals working in government-owned industries are paid according to the government's valuation of the skills and education required for the job. However, everyone is guaranteed a minimal basic existence that is at least ten percent of the poverty line. Since all housing is government-owned, there are no mortgages or property taxes to pay. Without capitalism, banking shrinks to a minimum. The main function of banks is to offer personal savings accounts. Investment to make money is a thing of the past. There are no loans because everything is controlled at the federal level.
Okay, enough of that. We can all agree that neither of these extremes is workable or desirable. In the red extreme, if an unplanned and uncontrollable disaster hits you, you're on your own, a.k.a. shit out of luck or help. It's live or die by your own abilities, resources, and the support of family and friends, if they are available and willing to help. Perhaps your church will welcome you, assuming you are a practicing member of a faith.
In the blue extreme, you don't have to worry about anything. You are nestled in the arms of government from womb to tomb. You don't have to worry about anything. Of course, you also can't be an entrepreneur and start a new company - the government owns all companies. They may or may not find a place for you in the new company you dreamed of, but there are no guarantees. This system of pure socialism does not permit millionaires and above.
I hope that we can all agree that neither of these extremes is a workable form of government. We have seen the extreme dictatorships fail over and over throughout history, just as have the purest forms of socialism, such as Cuba and China, which realized they had to allow some degree of personal gain and enrichment to motivate creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic growth.
So, how do we work toward a sensible government that gives both sides some of what they want in government? We work our asses off, and we dispense with the extremes that we just agreed don't work.
Let's look at an example of how we might approach one of our divisive issues. Remember that we are not a theocracy because a theocracy, depending on one's beliefs, excludes many people with varying beliefs and those who do not share them. We’ll use the LGBTQ+ and gender-related issues as an example of working together. This isn't a book on the topic, so we won't be delving into all the arguments and details; the idea is to suggest a way to approach working through contentious issues like this one.
We must first try to agree that gender identification and sexual preferences are not something that people do just for fun, quite the opposite. In our society, if you come out as gay or trans, you are likely letting yourself in for a great deal of grief and discrimination. I don't think many people want to set themselves up for that kind of grief. To argue that a majority of the LGBTQ+ community are who they are because they enjoy being shunned and discriminated against holds no water.
We should also consider nature, or, if you prefer, God's plan. Throughout the animal and insect kingdoms, there are an overwhelming number of examples of creatures that engage in same-sex behaviors.
Animals have been observed to engage in sex for social interaction, bonding, exchange for significant materials, affection, mentorship pairings, sexual enjoyment, or as a demonstration of social rank. Bonobos resemble small chimpanzees, with whom they share 99.6% of their DNA. And both of these great apes share 98.7% of their DNA with humans, making them our closest living relatives. The researchers’ interest in female bonobos in particular arose from the fact that in the wild, all adult females engage in genitor-genital rubbing (rubbing the genitals together) frequently. Although males also engage in same-sex sexual behavior, they do so with less frequency, making the females’ behavior even more remarkable by contrast.
This is not a study of same-sex behavior between various species. This is meant only to try to find a point of agreement between the conservatives and the progressives that humans engaging in same-sex attractions are not an aberration, but a fact. It is more prevalent across the animal kingdom than we realized. The difference is that humans evolved a series of social contracts that encompass both religious beliefs and a range of cultural and social standards based on our self-perception. We have demonized humans for participating in activities that would seem to be natural for other species.
If, in the process of trying for find a way to deal with our sexual differences in society, we can agree that we seem to share this behavior with all of the creatures that God apparently in the same way He/She created us, then we might be able to agree that in society, we should not ostracize those who are different than many of us. If we can agree on this first point, then we can discuss how to structure our society in a way that ensures everyone is accepted.
If we can say that the LGBTQ+ community has a right to exist and practice the cultural and perhaps natural behaviors that nature or God endowed them with, just as he or she similarly endowed many species on our planet, we have made a good first step. They are not abhorrent; they are just different.
Next, we have to consider those in our population who find it difficult to impossible to accept the behaviors of the LGBTQ+ community. They have a right not to be forced to witness or engage with this community just as much as the LGBTQ+ community has the right to exist within their social strata. No one is suggesting that copulation should be a public spectacle, whether hetero or homo sex.
Getting to this point of understanding is not easy, but it has parallels with religious beliefs, which are often the basis for objecting to the LGBTQ+ lifestyle. In the world, some of the largest religions are Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. There are at least five other major religions, but for the sake of clarity, we will focus on these five.
Each of these religions interprets events in the life of our planet in a distinct manner. Each has its own religious text. Each has its unique practices, dietary rules, idols, or lack thereof, and beliefs about the afterlife. Notwithstanding the violence that one religion may have visited on another down through history, we have still chosen to live side by side in peace and harmony, even if we don't agree with or understand the other culture's norms.
Similarly, humans have different preferences in food, music, clothing, festivals, taboos, and prohibitions. We may not agree with or understand each other. Still, we accept these differences as a natural part of having a cohesive and functional society that is not constantly at war with itself. That's the point we are trying to reach regarding the LGBTQ+ community.
Rather than me going on ad nauseam, let's look at Fritz Perls' Gestalt prayer.
I do my thing, and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I,
and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
— Fritz Perls, "Gestalt Therapy Verbatim", 1969
If this can be a starting point for resolving our differences on this issue, then how do we deal with the gay couple who are being refused a wedding cake from a bakery that does not share their belief in the Gestalt prayer?
Without so much as a smattering of legal training, I suggest that if we have a federal law, which at this point we do, saying that same-sex marriage is legal. That means that if you are engaged in a business that has any entanglement with the government and the public, you are required to abide by the law and serve these folks. If you find that impossible, then we need to offer you a different track.
You are filing taxes and taking various business deductions, and likely enjoying other benefits under the government tax laws. You are enjoying the benefits of all of society, medical care, emergency services, city roads, electrical, and water services, all paid for by citizens, whether they are gay or straight.
Therefore, you must adhere to the law and not discriminate against people whose lifestyle you disagree with, just as you cannot deny serving people who are of a different religion from you or who speak with an accent.
To isolate yourself from this requirement, you might be allowed to set up a separate business class and license that refuses all government relief from taxes and perhaps many other benefits.
You may be separately assessed for other government services, such as police, fire, and street maintenance, on the street where your business is located. Let's call this the Right to Discriminate Law (RDL). You have to file under this designation when you file taxes. You will be required to justify your exemption from the non-discriminatory laws of the land. Similarly, as with being an LLC, you must declare on your business forms and paperwork that you are an RDL business.
As part of choosing this business designation, you must post in a prominent place visible from the sidewalk in front of your business who you want to discriminate against in your place of business. Now, there is no reason why a gay couple might come into your establishment.
You might want to discriminate against single women or people of color, provided you can justify your request to the government body that issues this type of business license.
Some might argue that having to declare yourself an RDL business opens you to discrimination by potential customers who disagree with your decisions. You would be absolutely right. But discrimination can go both ways. You can't hide your discrimination any more than you would want to have the gay couple hide their relationship to get you to bake them a cake.
We cannot have a functioning society that allows arbitrary discrimination against one group of people. It must be transparent and subject to public review. If you insist on discriminating against a particular group of people, it must be justified, approved, and you must take responsibility for it. If you lose business because of your decision, that is the cost of doing business your way.
I believe it is possible to work through many of these issues through understanding, compassion, acceptance, and a commitment to a society model that recognizes that while we are a species apart from other animals, we share a common right to exist.
Add comment
Comments