But when it comes to congress critters, I don’t want any of that. I want them fighting. The less bipartisan-ship, the better. I don’t want any efficiency in debate amongst them. I want nasty partisan arguing. The nastier the campaigns, the better.

But I get your point. You’re more interested in the people you interact with. And there I agree with you.

However, I think you missed my point. I do not want us to all agree. Even if I thought that were possible, it would not be healthy. What I am bemoaning are the pockets of cliques that end up defining who we are. We seem to be unable to disagree and still get along in community. That’s not about government. It is about community. I want my government as well as my friends to have diversity of thought.

When I have friends like you who are passionate about things (like economics) in a way that I am just not, I can appreciate those things and learn about them in a way that would not otherwise be feasible. When I have friends around me that see the world from a different world view, I can “share” their world view, just by listening to them. By share, I do not mean “agree with”. What I am talking about is hearing without regard to agreement whatsoever; valuing the other person’s thoughts not because they are right but because they are a creation of God just like me.

I see the world through my own eyes and I may be projecting my own struggles on others. Maybe this topic is really about my struggle with co-dependency and wanting to be liked by others. Somehow though, I don’t think I am alone in this struggle.

So bemoan the political fighting if you must. Personally, I see it as a good thing.

ded-When I went to France in 2004, I saw how they love to argue, but it wasn’t fighting, just a lively discussion (there’s a word I am looking for and it will not come to me). There is a great value in being able to truly hear someone you disagree with. I want to keep getting better and better at that. Thanks for showing me yours (and your lovely, lurking wife’s) perspective

She interacts with a wide variety of people. Just prior to the election, she engaged an older couple in conversation. She used over-heard comments about Obama as her lead-in for personal conversation.

Before long she knew the two people as US citizens, though the man’s accent and brief story placed him in Europe much of his life.

He commented he really didn’t understand the American political reaction across our society. In contrast to our polarization, elections in Europe produce much open but usually congenial debate over issues. People’s differences are accepted as natural. The give and take of disagreement are an accepted social discourse. Whereas here, speaking positively for an issue or candidate causes immediate ends to conversations.

Even allowing for some faulty memory on his part, the point is obvious: we fail our own value of freedom of speech. Why? Perhaps we are so spoiled that being emotionally able to handle disagreement is beyond us. We are selfish in this country to want everything to be like we think it should be including the way others think. And, we are very willing to use a cold-shoulder or worse, condemnation and shunning, to enforce our view as the correct one.

It is ironic and pitiful to hear people on the one hand espouse the wonder of a political system which guarantees freedom of speech and religion–intended undeniably by our fore-fathers as a protection of the right to function according to one’s own conscience–and on the other to berate the choices of others in demeaning and disrespectful terms.

For those who espouse Christ and mouth words of being an alien here to do such strikes me as much more than irony, but a deep lack of faith and a large infection of hypocrisy.