American Fatigue

As I write this column from my mother's home in Phoenix, I am well and fully aware that in a few days, the temperature will be 111 degrees. Last week, the temperature rose almost that high. The conditions are oppressively hot in the desert this time of year.

How appropriate... because America is an emotionally exhausted country. Americans are hot and tired and worn out on both sides of the political divide.

Yes, there are plenty of moderates who haven't been sucked into the extremes of our polity, but among those who regularly participate in our politics -- creating a series of close elections which are likely to continue into the near future -- the emotional temperature of political discussion has become severely overheated. Like a couple in an irreconcilable marriage -- two people doomed to suffer through a bitter divorce -- the competing sides of American politics have nothing charitable to say about the other and don't want the other party to receive any credit, any joy, any redemption.

Political rivalry and intense competition will always create an intense theater of intellectual and ideological combat. Intense dislike of political opponents is nothing new. Moreover, America has suffered through profound divisions before. What we are seeing in the realm of immigration policy is hardly the exact same thing as the Civil Rights Movement -- the issues and dynamics involved are unique in their particular dimensions, to be sure -- but the larger reality of Americans seeing disturbing visual images of treatment toward ethnic minorities is a striking similarity. Cultural transformation and education did not emerge quickly or easily on that set of issues, and a similarly gradual process awaits this nation again.

The key point is to at least be able to initiate this process of growth and understanding, but in this political climate, it is hard to be confident that a 2018 reconciliation can occur.

Making sense of why -- and how -- we got here is the difficult but necessary prelude to any real attempt to bridge the divides which are tearing this country apart.

With that, let's dive into this highly complicated and unsettling conversation. It is not meant to satisfy or reinforce beliefs. It is not meant to make anyone comfortable. Exactly the opposite. We have to be willing to be uncomfortable to grow and stretch and change and evolve, and that's why this is such a crucial starting point for Americans of all worldviews at this moment in our history.

With my preamble over, the first essential point to establish at the heart of this conversation is that Americans don't know what to do with pain. We think of pain most immediately as a physical thing, but if we have learned anything from the suicides of enormously creative, talented, and materially successful people such as Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, and countless others, pain is a gigantic internal monster, a beast shredding the psyche, the spirit, and the soul.

The American mind has no clue how to fight this kind of pain, and we are seeing this in the fatigued, exhausted, frayed nature of our politics, like two wild beasts intent on fighting to the death with no intent on stopping.

What does pain do? It often makes us immediately lash out at someone else, so that we don't have to look inward at ourselves to find blame, responsibility or ownership. Pain can be a response to a genuine injustice we have suffered, or to a perceived unfairness which is understandably hard to accept. Feeling pain is universal to the human condition; no one is exempt from it. Feeling pain is not a sin or a deficit. It is not something meant to be denied or wished away. Pain is an inherent part of life, and it is not weakness to feel it or be hammered by it.

Pain is wrenching. It sucks... but it can't be avoided. The great spiritual teachers tell us we have to walk through our pain instead of denying it or ignoring it.

The challenge -- which American society has failed to respond to -- is to process pain in ways which transform suffering into enlightenment, wholeness and healing. That's where we fall short.

Here's how this failure to process pain emerges in our politics, specifically in relationship to the highly emotional occurrences at the U.S.-Mexico border:

I have talked to conservatives and Trump voters on Twitter, as I consistently try to do. In conversations about the immigration issue, multiple people have responded by saying two things in particular:

A) Where was the outrage about repressive immigration policy during the Obama Administration, either from Democrats or from the media?

B) Why are liberals so concerned about religion and what the Bible says now? This isn't mentioned on the abortion debate.

As a Catholic Christian, I profoundly agree with these lines of thought.

Let's start with item A.

Yes, the Obama Administration -- while not quite as severe as the Trump Administration on immigration policy -- was nevertheless extremely repressive and harsh on the issue... just not as much as the current POTUS. It is widely acknowledged by people who have studied and reported on immigration that previous presidents made it easier for Trump to do what he is doing now. Bill Clinton is part of this trend, which has generally provided successively less "soft" approaches to immigration and asylum seeking. Yet, Democrats did not cry out against their President when deportations and confined-space detentions significantly increased relative to the Bush 43 years. The media simply did not apply sustained critical scrutiny toward Obama on immigration; only now, with Trump in office, are we seeing what sustained scrutiny looks like.

It is hard to NOT acknowledge -- if we're willing to be honest with ourselves as a country -- that conservatives and Trump voters bring up a fundamentally valid point about the lack of concern expressed by Democrats and mainstream media on immigration until the occupant of the White House changed from a Democrat to a Republican. Stormy Daniels occupied a lot of space and time in MSNBC coverage very recently, even while it was known that immigration policy was getting much worse. This is a more than fair critique. ICE behavior, procedure and dysfunction were already significant stories (not in terms of being right or wrong, but in terms of representing a change in operations relative to Obama) in 2017, but the Russia frenzy crowded that story out of MSNBC's main line of sight until the issue became too powerful to ignore.

Let's be clear: Whether you agree or disagree with Trump immigration policy, it is true that Obama made it easier (not harder) for Trump to do what he did. It is similarly true that MSNBC and other mainstream outlets didn't grill Obama on this issue (not nearly to the extent that they are finally doing on Trump) and were even late to the party on Trump because of Russia and Stormy Daniels, two versions of ratings catnip.

Now, item B.

Catholic Church leaders aren't constantly visible in American politics, and to be sure, the politics of Catholicism have changed a lot in America since the sex-abuse crisis blew wide open in 2002. Nevertheless, the one issue on which Catholic leaders could reliably be counted to make public appearances or statements over the past few decades has been abortion.

The Democratic Party and politically liberal voters -- many of them Catholics who became ex-Catholics in the wake of the sex-abuse crisis -- have had no use for Catholicism this century. Disgust at the hypocrisy of the institutional Catholic Church has been a central driver of this standoffish attitude. Genuine disagreement with conservatives about the breadth, depth and consistency of applying "pro-life" principles at very different stages of human life has also made American liberals more entrenched in their resistance to Catholic teachings on abortion and more skeptical of the place of religion in informing and shaping political values and priorities.

Now, in this immigration theater of activity, Catholic leaders are finally beginning to speak out in a way reminiscent of abortion. This is not the exact same thing as familiar abortion controversies of the past involving Catholic Democratic politicians such as John Kerry in 2004. Abortion attained a fixed place in political debate for multiple decades. It was not a moving target; it became a predictable element of the culture-clash between the two main political parties and the messy but generally recognizable ideologies they represented.

Immigration -- largely ignored by both parties (yes, by Democrats as explained above, at least to the extent that it was not a needle-moving issue in election campaigns) -- doesn't own that fixed place in our politics. It is a much more fluid topic whose political potency is unknown. We will have a much better feel in November. Yet, in my inbox this week, the appeals and messages from my former Catholic parish in Seattle, various national Catholic legislative advocacy groups, and other Catholic faith groups have piled up. They and their foremost leaders are speaking up against Trump immigration policy.

Meanwhile, MSNBC -- on Monday night -- brought on Father James Martin, the Jesuit writer who is also the editor of the Jesuit publication, America Magazine. Father Martin appeared on Lawrence O'Donnell's nightly show. Liberals on Twitter are referring to the Bible a lot more, especially since Attorney General Jeff Sessions invoked the Bible (Romans 13) on this issue and Sarah Huckabee Sanders also made reference to the biblical nature of this policy.

Conservatives and Trump voters, to varying degrees, are surely noticing this sudden interest in Scripture from Democrats, and as reflected in my conversations with Christian conservatives in recent days, yes, the anger about selective use of religion and the Bible is real.

For the secular liberal person (in many cases from an urban center in the Northeast or on the West Coast) who has never had a use for religion, personally or publicly, it might not ever register that other Americans might be pissed about this abrupt invocation of the Bible by liberal journalists or lefty media outlets. For the many ex-Catholics created this century in the United States -- ex-Catholics, by themselves, comprise one of the largest groups identified by religion in this country -- the invocation of Scripture on this issue is probably welcome, but also a reminder of what is, to these ex-Catholics, Republican and conservative hypocrisy on Christianity and "family values" issues. Evangelicals and conservatives would naturally and reasonably respond by saying they have held down the family values fort for decades and never had any help or support from Democrats who were all too ready or willing to disparage Americans who embraced Christianity.

What you have been reading in this piece is not a personal statement of approval or disapproval of any line of policy or law. What you have been reading is an explanation of the fault lines in our politics as they relate to ideology, primarily through the prism of religion, sometimes through the prism of the media. This is not an endorsement of any person or group, but an attempt to explain various groups' political views to each other and underscore the depth of the divide between or among groups.

This is the portrait of American fatigue we all need to appreciate. Policy fights are important and urgent, but knowing why policy fights -- legitimate tugs of war over a course of action -- have become so impossible to conduct in public discourse represents a problem Americans need to learn (or perhaps re-learn) to solve.

No, the point of this is not to change minds on policy, but to soften the intensity of opposition toward each other. Of course we -- as liberals and conservatives -- will maintain a lot of fundamental disagreements. Of course we will continue to preserve our larger worldviews. Yet, in a time such as this -- on the immigration issue -- we should all be able to agree that separating toddlers from their mothers is immoral. (That's my first and only policy advocacy statement in this piece.)

A key insight: If we loosen our grip on wanting the other side to suffer in mortal political combat, we can achieve that "softening" of opposition which will emotionally allow us to agree on at least a few lines which the United States Government should never cross.

Let's try to soften opposition, then... which begins with accepting the reality that it will be very hard to achieve that goal.

Why is "own the libs" such a big deal for a lot of Trump voters? Why, on the other hand, is it so important for liberals to persist in using secular language, self-consciously and very visibly avoiding an embrace of religious language in national political discourse?

We are tired -- emotionally and spiritually -- as a country. That's why.

Over the eight years of the Obama presidency, the lack of media attention to Obama's hard-line immigration policy and numerous other issues which are only now receiving scrutiny under Trump created an enormous, deep and intense source of resentment among conservatives and the voting bloc which pushed Trump into the White House. A number of these people aren't wildly supportive of Trump, and some didn't even vote for him, but when presented with the Trumpian worldview and the view of either Democrats or media outlets which stand on the culturally liberal side of the American landscape, they will lean more toward the Trumpian view than what they see as the intellectually dishonest and morally selective outlook of the liberals.

The purpose of outlining this climate of resentment is not to say that it is right or wrong, but merely that it is emotionally understandable, in the ways which emerge when a marriage breaks apart. The two parties' disagreements in these especially nasty divorces become unshakable declarations of principle, as though it is inconceivable -- and personally repugnant -- for one party in the marriage to ever admit that he or she is at fault for anything. The wrongs done by the other party are always magnified, turned into eternal and profound betrayals which can never be walked back or compensated for.

In this climate of pitched battle, "no concessions -- EVER!" is the first, last and only priority. Much as the most bitter divorce proceedings seek total victory in litigation, current political "discourse," such as it is, seeks total destruction of the other side in a two-party system.

I see this every time I talk to my liberal mother and to liberal people of my mother's generation: They don't understand how anyone could steadfastly maintain such a diametrically opposite set of views. They can't articulate a coherent explanation of a conservative or Republican line of thought. They merely think it's horrible and appalling, and are either unwilling or unable to give expression to the competing worldview they are opposed to.

My teachers in high school and college told me -- this is a great piece of advice for any young person -- that in order to understand a person with whom you disagree, you must be able to explain their philosophy or worldview in the way THEY intend that philosophy/worldview to be applied. In other words, the principles or policies they advocate must be articulated in a way which doesn't demean or diminish said principles/policies. The articulation must contain the positive vision or identity of the philosophy, even if you disagree with the merits of the philosophy. That way, the political opponent understands that you GET -- you really do appreciate -- what their philosophy is trying to achieve.

It doesn't mean you APPROVE of that line of thought, but that you have taken the time to see the world from that OTHER point of view.

THIS is the thing which very rarely enters into current political conversations, and it is the very reason why our political dialogue is essentially a bitter divorce proceeding, soaked in extreme emotional fatigue all the way through. Understanding the depth of fatigue -- flowing from an unwillingness or inability to articulate the opponent's ideal framing of the world -- will help us soften opposition to each other.

One more idea needs to be underscored before concluding this piece, and it also involves the attempt to soften each other's hearts to begin to loosen the entrenchedness of opposition we have toward each other.

That idea: We as Americans often relish election victories more for the fact that our opponents suffer than for the idea that the country will be meaningfully improved.

In 2016, the election was carried out under the banner of "no," the banner of opposition to what each candidate and side stood for. "LOCK HER UP!" versus "DEPLORABLES!" very succinctly characterized the clash of worldviews and animating purposes in play in the election. If asked to provide additional rallying cries on both sides: "BUILD THE WALL!" and "RUSSIAN PUPPET!" would suffice.

The 2016 election was all about "preventing the other side from winning," not about a positive program to enrich citizens. Conservatives might say that building a wall represents positive action, but the very image of building a wall represents a preventative action -- that might be enlightened from a conservative point of view, but the act itself is an expression of, "No, you can't do this," so it is a negative act -- not as a value judgment, but in terms of being a deterrent.

When elections are so thoroughly about preventing the other side from winning, or about preventing groups of people (immigrants) from being able to do various things, the winner of the election is more easily inclined to feel happy not because of the personal victory, but because the other side lost. This is exactly the "broken marriage/bitter divorce" climate of emotional fatigue we have in America.

When I interact with conservatives on Twitter, I see this fatigue, just as I see it when liberals on Twitter refuse to be gracious toward Laura Bush for her comments on immigration, or when liberals wish death or suffering on Republicans, or when liberals think it's okay to harass Kirstjen Nielsen -- the Secretary of Homeland Security -- inside a restaurant.

Conservatives are so emotionally fatigued from the Obama presidency -- and all the body blows they suffered during that time of media neglect of problems such as immigration -- that they want to see liberals suffer. They are not yet emotionally ready to let go of this need to have liberals "see how life is on the other side of the presidency." Dislike of Trump's policies matters less than making sure liberals wallow in the emotional misery conservatives feel they had to deal with when Obama was given kid-glove treatment by a compliant, culturally liberal media. The resentments created by that era are now in evidence. Payback -- the desire to want to have it and dish it out in full -- is motivating a good chunk of conservative animus toward liberals on immigration and other issues where a broader consensus SHOULD emerge... but has not.

It flows from elections being attempts to hurt the other side and deny its contributions or value to the American story.

This is a broken marriage wracked -- and wrecked -- by runaway emotional fatigue.

Is our nation finally ready to seek couples therapy, to be able to honestly and generously articulate what the other side sincerely wants to achieve?

We have to do this... or a bloody Second Civil War WILL manifest itself.

Then the U.S.-Mexico border might become a problem for a whole different set of reasons.