"HOW CAN YOU STAND IT?"

(Originally published Monday, September 22, 2008)

Recently someone asked me how I am able to maintain relations with people who are diametrically opposed in ideology and philosophy. More accurately, the question posed to me was "How can you STAND it when you KNOW he's voting that way!?!?!?" I thought about it for a while and realized that I had never entertained the implications of that question seriously because my relationships with people are not solely based on the philosophies and/or ideas upon which we agree, but on the understanding that on some (if not many) of them we may not agree. So, I am able to engage people, hear their positions, and more importantly, understand their rationale for their choices. I do realize that for some people it's a deal-breaker. If you don't agree with them, they will dismiss you and even try to destroy you personally, but I believe that most people are sensible enough to accept personal differences and still have meaningful and functional relationships.


I reconcile the two opposing sides of my friends the same way I reconcile the working relationship that many individuals, who were Registered Democrats during the civil rights movement, had with a Martin Luther King Jr., who was a registered Republican. Both sides were of opposing parties but I suppose they found enough common ground to overlook their differences. Certainly, history holds that although Martin Luther King Jr. and Sr. were both registered Republicans, the latter of whom voted for President Richard Nixon, many of their social or moral positions were consistent with those in the Democratic Party. Their political positions did not skew their sense of social consciousness and morality. Hence, in that same vein, I trust that decent individuals, irrespective of party association, are able to make informed decisions that are best for this country and the common good of its people.


Another example that comes to mind is the fracturing division that exists among several religious groups. I was raised in a Pentecostal home. My biological mother was a COGIC (Church of God In Christ) woman and my foster mother was a strict Apostolic woman, both of whom believed in the infilling of the Holy Ghost, speaking in tongues, dancing, and the playing of instruments (and if I may say so myself, I would kill a tambourine ). However, some of my childhood friends were reared in Baptist, Lutheran or Catholic homes. While they subscribe to the Christian faith, the expressions are certainly different. Many of you know that the differences between these religious expressions are as old as dirt, and often the negative sentiments for each run deep. Growing up, I heard Baptist disparage Pentecostals with "It don't take all that dancing and carrying on." And in turn, the Pentecostals asserted self-righteousness with, "We dance in praise!" I suspect that although some of you have heard it before, this is probably new to some of you. Those are some of the more sheer differences, but the doctrinal disagreements among religious groups run deeper and broader. Unfortunately, each side never missed an opportunity to pelt the other side with verbal zingers by invoking these insignificant differences, rather than affirming their most important commonality: Jesus Christ. However, while we will always have some believers with very dogmatic approaches to religion, the fact that we are still here co-existing is a testament that most people are able reconcile their differences and find some common ground.


As it relates to this election, which will undoubtedly be contentious, I have some friends who want Obama to win and are voting for Obama; some want McCain to win and are voting for McCain; and some have no trust in government or either candidate to do what's good for the country or the people, so they are indifferent and are not voting. But here's a kick in the head, some want Obama to win and are betting on McCain (or vice versa). In short, this is how it breaks down among people I know. The "socio-ecologically conscious" are for Obama. The "moral-nationalistically conscious" are for McCain. The "cynics" are for neither. And then I know some "mathematicians/ statisticians" whose position is, "It doesn't matter who I want, this is who's gonna win!" Their rationale is based on mathematical formulas and statistical models that they have constructed. As you can gather, the varying takes are definitely interesting but what is most curious to me is the rationale that each offers.


Here's the way that my mathematician friends explained it to me. Assuming that New York and California are the control groups that we are going to use to determine the probabilities of a typical voter, we would conclude that Obama would win because the data points gathered would show an insurmountable support for Obama, and against McCain. However, while the probability of a voter in the coastal states such as New York and California reflects a demographic that favors an Obama presidency, the typical voter in those states is not an accurate representation of the average voter in the remaining states because the voter pools in New York and California do not show a normal distribution of the American voters. Based on these pools, we would conclude that the average American voter is a "socio-ecological" voter, but statistically, the average American voter is a white conservative (irrespective of party), who's views are more consistent with that of the "moral-nationalistic" voter than with that of the "socio-ecological" voter. So while our avant-garde, forward-thinking qualities are best reflected by the demographics of our coastal states, our socio-political direction is more accurately reflected by the heartland states. Therefore, if we want to know what the latest fashion is, we should consider New York, but if we want to know who our next President is more likely to be, we need to also consider states like Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Dakotas. Then, to support their position, they showed me some "formulaic extrapolations" and "statistical regression calculations" penciled on paper that left me with a permanent stare and glaze of cluelessness than it did clarity. Of course, after every intricate discussion like this, they smile at me like parents would a 5-year old who doesn't understand why it's not a good idea to stick the family dog in the dryer along with the laundry.


The truth is that most people are fixed on their ways and/or belief systems, irrespective of facts, and the likelihood is that they will carry their philosophies for the rest of their lives. It's not lost on me that some advocates on both sides will do absolutely anything to win at any cost. They will do and say anything just to boast a "win" for their respective side or to be liked, even if it adversely affects the country in the process. However, I believe that those are far few and in between. Most people do care about the country and its people. Clearly, some will never subscribe to the views of the opposing side, but if most of us commit to listening to the rationale of the opponent, it may at least allow us to understand how we got to this place, perhaps take corrective measures and reconcile our positions, if need be done so. The point is that as long as we live on this earth, we will always differ and quarrel over politics, religion, music, cultural mores and tenets, etc… but if we really want to make it work, we better find more effective ways of engaging those with whom we may differ than outright dismissing them, and solely engaging those with whom we agree. Just a thought.