Many have remarked on, and bemoaned, the bitter polarization of our nation and the vast and seemingly impassable chasm between our two political parties. Because I live in the deep-blue bubble of Seattle, I often hear people say, and I myself say, “Is there nothing that will make a dent or even occasion a doubt with Trump supporters?”
And I wonder if they say the same of us.
As the election draws near, the divide only deepens and the communication and comprehension impasse even greater. If you are a Harris supporter, have you had a genuine conversation with a Trump supporter? Or vice-versa. Hopefully, some of you have managed such a feat, but mostly we stew and fret in our own silos. We may not even actually know anyone in the other tribe!
For Team Blue, the thinking is something like: “Trump and his supporters are fascists who will end American democracy.” For Team Red, it’s “Harris/Walz are the Trojan Horse of a left-wing agenda that will re-make America, ending meaningful elections via their open border policy.”
In response to this I offer two suggestions. One is that you listen to the debate at The Free Press between Sam Harris (no relation to Kamala) and Ben Shapiro. Harris, a Stanford neuroscientist, author, and podcaster, is pro-Kamala although way more anti-Trump than pro-Harris. Shapiro, a Harvard educated lawyer, podcaster, and author, is anti-Harris and a bit more pro for his candidate, Trump.
Both are smart guys who manage a civil discourse and engagement; the discussion one might wish to have. You might find it refreshing, as I did, amid all the hysteria. I did not agree with Shapiro but was happy to give him a hearing.
Second thought: As America has become much more secularized, we have not, paradoxically, become less religious. That is, if by religion one means a comprehensive system of meaning and belonging that claims ultimate significance. We have become more religious, but with replacement religions taking the place of more orthodox and historic faiths.
There was a time when mainline Protestantism, more or less liberal or at least generous in spirit, was the default religious option in America. No more. Now, we are a thoroughly secularized society, receiving regular bulletins on the “decline of church and religion.”
But while organized religion has declined, alternative or replacement religions have multiplied wildly. I do not mean things like Zen Buddhism or Mormonism. I mean things like career, technology, food, health, and wellness. Today these fill the gap (badly I’d say) left by the decline of religion in a secularized society. Each make their bid as the answer, for the way that people will find “enough-ness” for themselves, and purpose and meaning in life.
The greatest of the replacement religions of our secular age is surely politics. People now look to politics for meaning, belonging, and salvation, not to mention a messiah. There was a time when people wouldn’t marry, or would hesitate to marry, “outside the faith,” be it Judaism, Catholicism, or another. No more. Today the marriage deal-breaker is political affiliation. “He voted for Trump“ or “She’s a Democrat.” Impossible!
Politics qua religion claims to have all the answers, the comprehensive framework that explains everything. Moreover, the greater your zeal, the higher your status in a politicized faith (ergo the disproportionate influence of party activists and primary voters).
Color me a doubter as regards the religion of politics. While I believe politics to be an important part of life (emphasis on part), I am dubious about the frenzied claims of both sides that if the other side wins, life as we know it … America as we know it … is over. I may be wrong, but I have more faith in our institutions and my fellow citizens than the “it’s over” scenario would suggest.
I, blue-leaning, am appalled by most everything about Donald Trump. But do I think that the world will end, or that America will end, should he be re-elected next week? I do not. Nor am I, sorry to say, wildly enthusiastic about Harris. My vote for her, already cast, is like Sam Harris’ – more a vote against Trump.
But what I most want to register is my belief that politics does not, and will not, fill the bill as a religion, as a comprehensive framework and way of life that orients us to the sacred and cultivates a generous and gracious spirit. Yes, more traditional religion and Christianity, can and have, at times, become destructive and toxic. But it’s when you merge religion and politics that you are really in dangerous territory.
Making politics our replacement religion turns us all into ultimate and bitter, existential enemies without hope of comity, shared life or a future. “One side must win. The other must be annihilated.” Or “Salvation depends on complete, unquestioning loyalty to the true faith, whether MAGA or Woke, Red or Blue.”
I don’t buy it. The end is not at hand. When yet another “most important election of our lifetime” is over, God will still be God.
Thank you!
Sent from my iPad
Those who are “religionists” (believers) often see all aspects of life through the lens of their religions. Thus, it would follow, that any other path through life must be framed in religious terms (from this myopic viewpoint). The rest of us out here are not pursuing “alternate religions”. We’re not “replacing “God” or anyone’s religion. We’re just on about our lives.
Disagree – politics and religion can both be an ideology depending on how you engage. In Seattle, even local politics have created ideologies with warring factions on Twitter (We Heart Seattle Seattle vs Urbanists with different approaches to homelessness vigilantism for example); remember all that virtue signaling about wearing a mask or getting a vaccination a few years ago? That’s not secular behavior even if there are no Bible verses involved. Maybe you are just going about your life and didn’t notice, but you’ll see it if you tune in to traditional and social media, or pay attention to yard signs. I’m a Gen Xer and could speak a lot freer about most things in high school without fear of being labeled “other.” This is tribal, ideological behavior.
PS – I’m an atheist!
We sometimes use words like “ideological” and “religious” somewhat interchangeably, but let’s recognize that this is rhetoric that doesn’t meet rigorous standards for semantic clarity.
“Religion” refers to a fairly specific phenomenon, and if you think this phenomenon appears in the world of politics as well, you need to make a far better case for it than this article does. To me it doesn’t appear that they have much in common at all — other than when they get in the same cart together. The idea that anyone has picked out Kamala Harris as a messiah, for example, seems pretty absurd to me.
People are worried as hell about this election for good reason. That doesn’t mean they have adopted some weird religious faith, it means they’ve been hearing or reading what that man has said, and the people around them, and they believe he may indeed do some of those things, with predictably catastrophic results. It means they’ve watched apparently normal people in their communities, maybe in their families, inexplicably snared in the lies that pour out of his mouth. This isn’t like the division that old people today may remember from the Vietnam war era.
Maybe best to qualify this a bit, “People now look to politics for meaning, belonging, and salvation, not to mention a messiah.”
As at least a fourth generation political activist, I have never observed this attitude in my extended family, in-laws and outlaws included. We understand that elected officials are people who find themselves cutting deals, some of them unsavory, to rise up through the hierarchy. Very little is left to faith.
But definitely agree with this, “But it’s when you merge religion and politics that you are really in dangerous territory.”
When any religion gains political power, the end is nigh.
Politics is becoming–as religion has often been–a set of ultimate preclusive considerations where there are no obligations of evidential warrant. In such belief systems, major differences cannot be discussed or negotiated–violence was history’s only final recourse.
We can only hope that politics can recover a decent regard for evidential support, so still difficult but healthy discussion can resume.