I, Libertard.

I remember reading about a Union soldier and a Confederate soldier found dead after a Civil War battle. Each gripped the other, and each had thrust his knife into the other’s side. They lay together in death.

That epitomized the hatred in that conflict, a hatred still un-healed.

So. I was researching on the internet the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known to its detractors as "ObamaCare"). People have written things like, "This explanation is so simple that even a Republican can understand it." Or, "Send this to your libertard friends and watch their heads explode"– or something like that.

On Facebook, liberals and conservatives often hate on each other.

1. A house divided against itself.

Abraham Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." And he was quoting a higher authority. What Lincoln said was true then: hundreds of thousands died in a war to uphold a nation divided against itself.

An what he said is true now. In our hatred, we risk burning our abode. Some people hate the other party, or a particular person, such as Barack Obama, more than they love their country. They'd burn down their own house to kill their "enemy" in it.

For a scientific point of view, study Harvard professor Martin A. Nowak's article in the July 2012 Scientific American, called "Why We Help". Cooperation helps organisms survive.

2. Harming ourselves.

When we call someone a "libertard" or a "tyrant" or a "Republiscam" or a "fool" we muffle our own intelligence.

We could have a chicken-and-egg argument about whether movies and television dramas and popular fiction make us shallow, or whether producers make shallow entertainments because we are shallow. The fact is that it’s the rare movie or television drama that has a villain with any complexity.

Shows with complex characters become iconic. The Sopranos is an example. Tony Soprano was a thug. But he was a complex thug. He loved his family, and he was capable of kindness, for all his wrongful ways.

And that’s why Shakespeare endures. Nobody could read everything that has been written about Shakespeare and his plays, even if he spent a lifetime trying. When I lived in China, I knew a Chinese scholar who studied Shakespeare – not to teach, but to learn.

Shakespeare’s characters were complex, even the villains. Richard III is a rogue, but an interesting one. Macbeth murdered his king, but he is a human character with pathos.

The point is that when we summarize a person into a pejorative, like fool, we overlook richness and complexity in the personality of another human being. We make ourselves shallow when we regard others with small eyes.

And to those who care what God thinks, he is clear: hard judgments are a conduit to condemnation.

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell. [Matthew 5:22 (NIV).]

3. The first step.

The first step to un-divide our house is not from those who do wrong; it’s from the wronged. It’s forgiveness.

I try. When I first saw it, I was burned by the term libertard. Hated it. I'm fine with it now.

Didn’t Jesus say that his kingdom was made for the simple, not the smart? Didn’t he say that who he was was for the simple to know? "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." (Matthew 11 (NIV).) Maybe if I'm a libertard, I'm simple enough to see God. So I forgive libertard.

The importance of fogiveness is a core christian  belief. "And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins." (Mark 11.) This is a big idea that appears many places in the New Testament.

But to ground this piece in science, I'll refer again to Why We Help. That article discusses five distinct patterns of cooperation that favor an individual or group in evolution. One is called "direct reciprocity". On its basic level, it's tit-for-tat. One monkey grooms another so that the other monkey will groom him.

The author described the use of complex computer simulations to show how this kind of cooperation could evolve. Describing these computer-simulation results, he said:

What made our early computer simulations even more interesting was the revelation that there are different kinds of direct reciprocity. Within 20 generations the initial tit-for-tat strategy had given way to a more generous strategy in which players might still cooperate even if their rival defected. We had in essence, witnesses the evolution of forgiveness -- a direct-reciprocity strategy that allowed players to overlook the occasional mistake.

The last form of cooperation that the author described, which applies to "all manner of organisms, from amoebas to zebras", is the performance of "selfless acts for the greater good, as opposed to abetting a single peer."  No doubt forgiveness can be such an form of cooperation. It enhances group cohesion.

A happy confluence of science and religion exhaults forgiveness.

4. The second step.

The second step is to forebear from harsh words against people we disagree with. It divides the house against itself.

I say this fully aware of my own blog posts, such as "When Christians are Assholes." http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-christians-are-assholes.html I also remember blog posts that take down certain republican candidates. E.g.: http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/02/mitt-romney-up-tree.html And I have been happy to share on Facebook non-partisan fact-checker analysis that calls persons out for pants-on-fire political statements.

So you can call me hypocrite. I prefer complex.

Please remember that I have also called for prayers for Mitt Romney. http://www.justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/05/prayers-for-mitt-romney.html  And I wrote a post call Ten Things I Admire about Conservatives. Among others. http://justsayinghere.blogspot.com/2012/02/ten-things-i-admire-about-conservatives.html

5. The third step.

The third step is to pray for each other. Pray for blessings on people we oppose. Who knows? Maybe we will find it harder to find fault after that. Maybe that will be because God will change them. Or maybe God will change us.

Do Liberals Resemble Jesus? (Yes, but Very Imperfectly.)

In The Whites of their Eyes, historian Jill Lepore tells of her experience with the Tea Party. Her book is in no danger of being sold at Tea Party rallies, but Lepore sometimes speaks warmly of the people she met, and she credits their sincerity.

But at one point, she writes, a Tea Party woman asked her if she was a liberal. Before she could fully answer, the woman grabbed her and demanded fifty dollars. This was because, according to that woman, liberals give money to everyone who asks for it.

Ms. Lepore didn’t say what she said back. But she might have said, "You’re thinking of Christians". (See Luke 6:30.)

In what ways do liberals imitate Christ? I can think of ten ways.

1. Liberals care about the poor.

When someone takes up the cause of the poor, it's usually a liberal.

See Matthew 25:40,45. ("[W]hatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.") See also the story of poor Lazarus and the rich man. (Starting at Luke 16:19) The story ends happily for Lazarus, not for the rich man:

"Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony.’"

2. Liberals sit down with sinners.

Republicans agitate and foment about Bill Ayers. Their claims about Ayers and Obama are greatly exaggerated. But this guilt by association is a uniquely Republican argument, like what the Pharisees said about Jesus. And, of course, conservatives, more than liberals, berate criminals and those who defend them. Criminal-defense attorneys skew liberal.

Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house, and a large crowd of tax collectors and others were eating with them. But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law who belonged to their sect complained to his disciples, "Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" [Luke 5:29-30.]

3. Liberals care about health care, even health care for the poor.

I can hunt down many, many cases in the Gospels of Jesus healing - the blind, the leprous, the paralyzed, the chronically bleeding. Jesus might have performed healing miracles more than any other kind.

Liberals passed health-care reform, with help from Democratic moderates. Health care reform will mean that sick will not die because they are poor.

4. Liberals believe in paying taxes.

Conservatives seem to want to throttle government by cutting off revenue to it. Liberals typically believe in paying for programs through funding that includes taxes.

Jesus approved paying taxes, and he paid taxes. Matthew 22:16-21:

“Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.  Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?  Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius,  and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

  “Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

Also Matthew 17:27: Jesus pays the temple tax with a coin from a fish’s mouth.

5. Liberals believe in reasonable restraint on business.

Under the rubric of "free enterprise", conservatives beat the drum of repealing virtually all regulation of business. Liberals believe that reasonable regulation is necessary.

Jesus didn’t have an idolatrous regard for free enterprise. See, Matthew 21:12:

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

6. Some liberals are rich, but, like Jesus, they don’t adulate the rich.

Jesus wasn’t real crazy about the rich. I referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man already. Also Mark 10:25: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for the rich to enter the kingdom of God."

And Matthew 19:30: "[M]any who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first."

7. Liberals believe that the poor, if they contribute little, are equal to the rich who contribute much.

Liberals believe in the progressive income tax. Conservatives often want a flat tax.

Jesus believed that the poor who contributed little were entitled to more honor than the rich who contributed much.

Luke 21:1-4:

As Jesus looked up, he saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. "Truly I tell you," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

8. Liberals are open to other cultures and nationalities.

Conservatives often hate foreigners. (Lately, especially the French and the Mexicans and the Muslim.) Liberals, not so much.

Jesus loves all nations. Matthew 28:19: "[G]o and make disciples of all nations . . .."

 9. Liberals believe in mercy.

Liberals, more than conservatives, believe in second chances and mercy. Liberals, more than conservatives, oppose California’s Three Strike law, under which a man with two serious prior felonies can get a life sentence if he steals a packet of aspirin for his ailing wife. Liberals, more than conservatives, oppose the death penalty.

The mercy of Jesus breaths in the Bible.

His life was mercy.

John 8:1-11 is the story of the woman caught in adultery, who was about to be killed. Jesus wrote in the sand, and the crowd peeled off until they all were gone. Jesus asked who was left to condemn her. She said nobody. Then he told her: "Then neither do I condemn you," . . ... "Go now and leave your life of sin."

He told the criminal dying on a cross next to him: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43.)

Matthew 9:13: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Luke 11:4: Jesus teaches us to pray: "Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us."

Luke 7:3-4:

"If a brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them."

In the story of murderous Saul called to become an apostle to preach the gospel, mercy is huge. (Acts 9.)

10. Liberals believe that private property can be appropriated for the common good.

Conservatives consider private property sacrosanct. Liberals, within reason, not so much.

And Jesus: not so much.

Matthew 8:28-32:

When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"

Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs."

He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water.

Of course, one of many differences between Jesus and liberals is that liberals have to compensate owners who’s property is taken. (They know they’re not Jesus. And they aren’t.)

Honestly, I've listened to conservative preachers and liberal preachers, and I prefer the conservatives. But there's something in liberalism that imitates Christ.

Now, I'm only half-serious here, so I assume that my conservative friends will be only half-angry. (If that.)

________________________________

Biblical quotes are from Today’s New International Version.

Ten Things that Liberals Believe - National Politics

In a few minutes, I wrote ten things that liberals believe. These relate to national politics (compared to international politics). It’s not an exhaustive list. It might not even be the top-ten things. But I think that these ideas are at the core of domestic political choices that liberals make.

1. Sick people shouldn’t die because they are poor.

2. In times of shared sacrifice, even the rich should share in the sacrifice.

3. Government of the people, by the people, for the people should be like the people. If people should be compassionate, government should be compassionate.

4. People should be compassionate.

5. Corporations are not people. Giving corporations First Amendment rights to spend unlimited money on political contests risks to drown out the actual people.

6. Big businesses, big banks have great power because they have great resources. They use their great power and their great resources for their own benefit, not for their nation’s benefit. They do things that harm the nation. It takes a strong government (of the people, by the people, for the people) to stand up to big businesses and big banks.

7. When we say that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, we mean all the people.

8. In our time on Earth, humankind has built powerful technology. It makes our lives easier and better. But it also has the power to wreck our air and water and soil. We must use and control our technology to make sure that we pass on to our children and our grandchildren a cleaner Earth.

9. A nation is judged by how it treats its most powerless members.

10. Human rights are worth sacrificing for.

Back Off, Olbermann

Liberals like Keith Olbermann and Paul Krugman are screaming and spinning about President Obama's tax compromise with the Republicans. They forget that compromise is fundamental to American politics.

We owe our existence to it. Many of the men who signed the U.S. Constitution had mixed feeling about it. Why? Compromise.

I’m reading Pauline Maier’s Ratification, about the, well, the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Sixteen of fifty-five participants in the Constitutional Convention did not put their names on the Constitution. Of these, many rejected some of the compromises that were needed to break the Convention’s gridlock. Some felt that safeguards were missing from the Constitution. Some of these men became powerful anti-ratification forces. They did their best to bring down the Constitution that probably saved our republic.

These opponents of the Constitution wanted to allow state ratification conventions to propose changes to the Constitution. They hoped in those state conventions to re-fight the battles they had lost at the Constitutional Convention.

Their idea to allow the state conventions to propose changes sounds reasonable. But here is the problem. The Constitution was a carefully-calibrated compromise among the interests of the various states. This compromise was possible because each delegation to the 1787 Constitutional Convention was free from instructions from their states. Their hands weren’t tied. They had the ability to compromise.

But at the state ratifying conventions, each state would amend the Constitution to suit their interests. So each state ratifying convention would propose different amendments than other state ratifying conventions would. The plan was that a second constitutional convention would iron out these differences. But the state delegations to the second constitutional convention would go with state-dictated instructions. These instructions would have destroyed the delegations’ ability to compromise.

The proposed second convention almost certainly would have ended in failure. And it wouldn’t have improved the product of the first convention.

The U.S. Constitution became the law of the land because the states accepted what was to them an imperfect federal government. Our nation survived because the states were willing to give a straight up-or-down vote on what they believed was a flawed document. The world was forever changed because the states accepted what was good, and did not hold out for what was perfect.

And that’s Obama’s take on legislation. He lives the old adage: You know a good deal because each side walks away a little bit unhappy.

But well-known liberal pundits are very unhappy to be a little bit unhappy. They expect Obama to beat the Republicans bloody in every contest. To them, legislation isn’t log rolling. It’s a Rambo movie. They would rather go down in defeat than compromise. Maybe they really do expect an action-adventure plot to unfold in Congress: the hero gets beat up by the bad guys at the beginning of the movie, and he beats up the bad guys at the end.

But this is not Commando. This is Congress. And Obama is operating in the American tradition. It isn’t flash-and-bang stuff. It’s the prose of politics.

So back off, Olbermann. Take a deep breath, Krugman. Obama is doing what he’s supposed to do.

Obama's problem: he was elected to be the cool friend; but he's governing as the responsible adult.