The Red and the Blue

I admit I haven't read Lakoff's book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, but I heard his interview on npr and found his metaphor one of the most interesting political ideas I've heard. You can hear the complete interview at npr's website here. He's a professor at Berkeley, and that sonorous voice is a little dreamy, but his concepts, his metaphor of the family to understand the world-views of those on the left and the right, is ingenious.

Even if you don't buy his description, the questions posed at the beginning of the interview remain. Why do many on the right feel so strongly about gay marriage and abortion, but also often support the death penalty, the use of the american military abroad, and oppose many social programs which are designed to feed and educate?

And while I've never raised an infant, Lakoff's thesis reminds me of the Ezzos' On Becoming Babywise. The Ezzos have backed off their original, and rather inflexible, feeding and sleep schedule for babies. But even in the early 90's, before the book was published, his ideas were popular in my evangelical church in an underground way. Parents were meeting in groups, actually in minor secrecy, to adopt his concepts. Perhaps if I were a harried parent of an infant I'd look for an easier path also, but there is something rigid, even non-loving, in Ezzo's tone. I remember going to a friend's house, one of the couples I knew using Ezzo, and the wife was home alone. She had locked her daughter, maybe two or three years old, into a bedroom with a bunch of toys. 'This is her time to be with herself; this is my time for me.' When we opened the door and I saw the girl, she was obviously distressed, sad, even disoriented.

What most bothers me most about Ezzo isn't even his ideas (which apparently can be helpful when taken in moderation) it's the rapidity with which his early inflexibility was embraced by some Christians. Gotta train those little sinners into saints, was that it? Or, I want to raise a child and somehow lower the personal impact? I don't even want to discuss spanking children, which I utterly oppose, which no research I've seen supports, and which will never happen in my home regardless of two verses in an ancient Hebrew wisdom book called Proverbs.

I've never had a baby, and I admit I haven't even read Ezzo's book (though I read much of his website a year or two ago, and articles from both sides; I realize these facts severely limit my credibility). I do know when S was raising Mikey she gave everything she had; she fed him when he was hungry, she held him whenever he cried because she believed there was a reason he was crying. In short, she sacrificed and nurtured, at 18 years old. I'm astounded when I think of it. It exhausted her, yet her son is one amazing kid and other parents tell us this all the time. He's far less neurotic than either of us. I have only been able to participate in his parenting since he was four, maybe five, and while we're not perfect parents, I believe I have seen dysfunctional cycles which go back generations in both our families end. Thanks be to God. Like Moses, we have seen the promised land, a land we will never live in as Mikey will.

I admit none of these issues, political parties or parenting, are simple, and one great thing about writing on a blog (as opposed to actually publishing something) is I can have as many questions as I want; I can go back later and say I've changed my mind; I can figure things out through the writing. I'm certainly open to comments from parents who have Ezzoed and found it healthy, or Republicans who feel their party is addressing the nt's concerns with charity. I am quite sure some will read this blog who are better parents than my wife and I; we probably got lucky with Mikey. But when I listen to Limbaugh, or O'Reilly, or all too many Christians discuss politics (and I was here at one point in my life also) I sense an undercurrent of severity, judgement, a lack of compassion. Especially when we think the person in need broke our moral code or somehow brought their suffering on themselves. Christ warns against this kind of judgement explicitly. The sermon on the mount is, in significant part, about every person's inability to live by God's moral standard. While many Christians do in fact attempt empathy for homosexuals, girls or women considering, or who have had, abortions, the uneducated, the desperate and the homeless, the mentally ill, the poor at home and abroad, some don't.

I am divorced, as you know; I am also remarried. Forty or fifty years ago, less actually, my Episcopal church would never have let me be on vestry. Our deacon now was asked to leave the church he currently deacons when he was a teenager because the woman who was bringing him to church, an aunt I think, divorced her husband when he left town with his nurse. Beauty, heh. Yet many evangelicals, including the episcopal church, have softened their position on divorce and remarriage because they've seen, even in the face of Christ's explicit statements in Matthew, that spiritual health is often furthered by a remarriage. Is divorce a good thing? Generally, no. Mine hurt very much; that's not my point. My point is many heterosexual Christians have cut themselves slack. Even Jesus said celibacy surely wasn't for everybody, and we feel it and know it. What about those facing much greater challenges?

Finally, and most seriously, we have the constant pronouncements in the gospels and the epistles to care for the poor (the original job of deacons, apparently). The early church immediately began to take care of those in their community in need; this is clear from the nt. Jesus elevated himself above the poor as he elevated himself above everything else, but he condemns love of money and the accumulation of wealth. So when I hear O'Reilly bleat about not wanting to pay for a single woman's baby, or almost anything that comes out of Limbaugh's mouth, I have to ask myself: how did these guys get so popular with the Christian right?


Maybe Lakoof is correct. Perhaps our upbringing does affect our political instincts. It makes sense that it would, including in my case (I can't deny my intense, emotional reaction to spanking comes from this). It would also make sense that I hopefully look at my attitudes and experiences with God's help and try to adjust toward a loving path. Christ said that's how the world would know us; he also said loving action is how he would recognize us. That is a stark and sober thought, regardless of my political party.

***

One thing I'll add as I re-read this (and this post of course is my comment on the American election) is that I hope I don't sound pompous and alienate those who read. I tend to adopt that sermonizing, didactic tone; it comes from so many years of b.s.'ing college freshman for a living. Active charity is certainly an area of my own life that needs to expand and improve. My little parish models this kind of service on an impressive scale for how small it is, and it's good for me to see it. I'm learning like all the rest. Peace.