November 7, 2004 06:44 PM

It's interesting . . . I guess I expected to be more upset by a Bush victory than I actually am. But now that the votes have been cast, and troops are descending on Fallujah, and we are where we are as a country, I'm seeing the situation a little more through my "spiritual counselor" eyes, and I find it hard to be adversarial.

There's lots of media talk about the "two Americas" and "red states vs. blue states," as if we've suddenly found ourselves in a new, tense moment of cultural conflict. But let's face it . . . America was founded on such internal conflict.

It's ironic that Kerry, the liberal candidate this time around, should be from Massachusetts, since the early history of that state contains all the contradictions of America today. As every school child learns around Thanksgiving time, the Massachusetts Bay colony was founded by Puritan "Pilgrims" fleeing the religious persecution they faced in England.

What few school children learn is that the Puritans in America, while enjoying their own religious freedom, did not feel at all obligated to share said freedom with anyone else. In the Puritan worldview, only Puritans were entitled to the Massachusetts brand of freedom. Others subsequently fleeing England, also looking for a safe place to practice their beliefs, found themselves brutally disillusioned upon reaching Massachusetts. The Puritans would banish or hang any newcomer who didn't share their faith.

Freedom for me, not for you. It is the refrain of both the red states and the blue states, then and now. The definitions of freedom are somewhat different, but the final application is the same: Each of us wants to live in a country where our concept of freedom reigns supreme. Few of us want to be bothered with the idea that freedom may mean different things to different people.

Fast forward to the drafting of the Consititution. Northerners felt slavery had no place in the United States. Southerners relied on the practice of slavery for their way of life. Based on this one difference alone, the two sides would never in a million years have agreed to form a Union . . . except that neither group could hope to sustain their independence from England without the aid and support of the other. So a compromise was struck, and a schizoid nation was born.

The mutiple personalities of the USA have come to blows many times since then. The Civil War was the bloodiest and most overt episode of "acting out." The Temperance movement of the early 20th Century (passing a Constitutional Amendment banning liquor, then repealing it) was another.

The suffragette struggle during World War I to give women the right to vote, and the racial integration tribulations of the 50's and 60's were further manifestations of the "two Americas" at cross purposes. And today's twin conflicts over the recognition of gays in society, and the role of Christianity in U. S. government, are just the latest flare-ups in this ongoing psychosis.

It is not new.

But perhaps, after hundreds of years, we are reaching a new level of frustration about it . . . all of us.

At this moment in history, I actually find the concept of "two Americas" - despite its divisive tone - to be a very useful one. It occurs to me that what we are dealing with, really, is a long, rocky marriage between Mr. Red and Ms. Blue that is not going so well. Tuesday's election was the culmination of a heated argument between the spouses, and Mr. Red won.

Mr. Red is currently trying to consolidate his identity as the winner, as the superior partner in the marriage, the one who "knows better." Ms. Blue feels helpless, and bitter, and is clearly looking for the first opportunity to "get back" at Mr. Red.

Any marriage counselor will tell you that there is absoultely no way that Mr. Red and Ms. Blue can enjoy a healthy relationship, or even achieve personal happiness, if they continue interacting in this confrontational, aggressive style. Neither Mr. Red nor Ms. Blue feels safe in this marriage. And without a basic sense of safety, no positive human growth is possible.

If I were counseling this unhappy couple, I would give them two pieces of advice:

1) Shut up for a while and let yourselves have a cooling-off period. Almost every statement made this week by both sides is laden with the bitterness of past suffering, and the desire for retribution. It is a valid human response to seek justice for past wrongs. But no discussion is possible if every word is a poison dart intended to cause pain. If you are too angry to speak constructively, than don't speak to each other at all for now. Find other outlets for your anger. Hit a pillow or something.

2) While you are not talking to each other, spend some time setting goals. What do you want, going forward? What do you want life together to be like? It's easy to become so mired in argument that you forget why you are bothering to argue in the first place. You lose sight of whether the argument is actually getting you closer to your goal or moving you further away from it. Write down a list of the things you really want to accomplish. And when you are ready to talk to each other again, bring that list with you, and stick to your objectives. Rather than re-fighting old battles, build new dreams together. Share your plans with each other, and see if a way can be found such that both parties can get what they are looking for. Because as with all human interactions, only a "win - win" resolution can lead to lasting happiness.

In short, whether you are a "red" or a "blue," if you look over at the "other side" and see a pack of demons right now, you need to realize that you are looking in a mirror. Step back, quench the hellfire in your own breast, and then take another look.

That's the only way you will be able to see America.

COMMENTS (0)

TRACKBACK (0)

PERMALINK