Preaching Love and Practicing Hate

History will dictate if this is a turning point for our country. But every single one of us gets to choose right now if this is a turning point for us.

~ Spencer Cox

At a press conference in the wake of the assassination of political activist Charlie Kirk, Utah governor Spencer Cox made this powerful statement, which to me resonated deeply as a nationwide call for a fundamental cultural shift away from hate and towards Love. I am referring here to that human ideal of Love, that guiding principle Martin Luther King Jr espoused in his legendary sermons, that cosmic healing force the Beatles described in All You Need is Love. Love with a capital L is that universal power that so many of us hold at the core of our personal beliefs and values – be they religious, spiritual or secular – but which we so often struggle and fail to live up to.

When he was tasked with the public announcement that a suspect for the murder was in custody, Cox recognized the inevitable overwhelm of press attention as an opportunity to reach and influence millions, and he used his moment in the global spotlight to deliver an inspired and inspiring message aimed especially at our younger generations. In essence, he reminded a country riven by partisan rage and polarized resentment that we can collectively forge a social dynamic far more aligned with our core ideals of free expression, open discourse and civilized disagreement. Cox emphasized that, contrary to popular rhetoric, words are not violence, and that harmonious coexistence requires the fortitude to abide hard conversations that accommodate passionate dissent. That collective shift towards a new, more peaceful and durable paradigm, the governor suggested, is incumbent on each of us as individuals. This left me pondering: what would that look like in reality and where have we gone wrong? It seemed to me that Governor Cox was doing his part in that press conference to practice what he preached, but what about the rest of us?

What happened on social media following Kirk’s murder showcased a particularly ugly volley of sociopolitical rage, amplifying (as algorithms do) the most radical voices on both sides of the ever-deepening divide. The extreme right sounded rallying calls for retribution, while the extreme left indulged in snarky celebrations of an implicitly deserved death. One side was prepared to make the man a saint and martyr while threatening vengeance, the other danced upon the grave they alleged Kirk had dug himself by dint of his own controversial opinions. As a political independent who feels strongly invested in finding ways to bridge that dark chasm I found it all deeply disconcerting, but it wasn’t exactly surprising. To me, it was just the latest nadir in a predictably consistent downward social spiral in American politics.

What did shock me, however, was how readily and pervasively the majority tracts of non-extreme partisans on both sides supported and proliferated those most radical, vitriolic reactions through social media shares. I wondered – how can this hellbent trajectory towards actual civil war be derailed on either side? In an atmosphere so polarized, one can hardly expect criticism from the outside (let alone the adversary) to do any good. I figure the first reasonable step must be for the most willing among us to take a good, hard, honest look in our mirrors and deeply reflect on what we are doing. What are we cultivating in our actions, our speech, our thoughts, and especially – in our hearts?

One of the darkest hallmarks of a polarized society is the unequivocal exoneration of own’s side coupled with the unmitigated vilification of the other. Every single action, gesture or sound bite from the opposing group is deliberately interpreted and de-contextualized in the most incriminating, inciteful way and presented to one’s own cohort as yet another bit of evidence that they are evil and we are good. Both sides use escalatory language which, by turns subtly and crudely, distorts, twists or intentionally amplifies what the opposition has said. An insensitive remark becomes “racist”, a feminist opinion is characterized as “militant”, a right-wing president’s overreach is instantly “Fascist” while a left-leaning president’s social policy is branded “Marxist”. Anyone harboring concerns about gender-affirming care for youths is a “transphobe”, while anyone criticizing a conservative policy “hates America”. As the tension in any given polarized exchange escalates – particularly in the context of social media – the language becomes increasingly inflammatory and categorically condemning.

The conviction that we are on the right side in a starkly defined battle of good versus evil, justice versus injustice, order versus chaos or democracy versus autocracy endows us with a feeling of moral superiority that often blinds us to the possibility that there may be fault, error, or corruption in our own camp. We also become convinced that it is impossible to go “too far” when we are in the right, so we pull out all the stops that respect, decorum and basic decency would otherwise hold in place. We relinquish the responsibility and desire to take stock of our own words and actions, and to dispassionately assess the policies, groupthink and cultural stances which our chosen affiliation expects us to adopt and promote unquestioningly.

Our personal convictions fall prey to both the comforts and pressures of conformity, as we are praised for adhering to the dictates of our organization’s orthodoxy and punished for challenging them. We gradually surrender our individual will to the collective identity of the group. It becomes easier, more validating and energizing to join in the chanting and ranting of my team than to form and articulate independent conclusions based on my own research and inner grappling. Why struggle to form an unbiased, well-informed, nuanced and possibly assailable opinion when it is so much quicker and more gratifying to re-post, re-tweet, re-phrase or re-iterate those most titillating bits of content pre-approved by my group and favored by the rancor-generating algorithms that fuel this endlessly profitable contest of rage?

It is also less confusing to trust and align yourself with a small assortment of news and opinion sources shared with your like-minded peers than it is to seek out conflicting takes, alternate viewpoints and varied sources. In a data-saturated world of increasingly untrustworthy information, it feels like a voluntary relief to conform one’s views to the group’s; ultimately, however, it is a perilous deprivation. We join because we have been tempted by the apparent benefits of membership, never realizing that the costs are markedly higher in that we sacrifice our freedom in both heart and mind. In a purportedly free society, there is no greater commodity than true inner autonomy. Tragically, most of us don’t even miss it, so immersed are we in the warm, fuzzy fervor of knowing – and feeling – we are on the side of good and right.

This gradual supplanting of individual identity with group identity tends not only to override our capacity to analyze and interpret without prejudice, it also obfuscates our emotional responses to the point where we become unable to discern the real sentiments we are harboring internally and promoting externally. When I post something on social media that exposes the evils of my opposition, my group identity emboldens me to interpret that feeling I get as the justified indignation of the righteous, when in fact I am actually just experiencing and expressing good old-fashioned hatred. Confronted with this fact, my indoctrinated mind will react with even greater outrage, presenting a lawyerly case that further demonizes my opponent as the hateful one, ostensibly proving that any anger directed towards the hateful and guilty can’t itself possibly be hate; it is merely the entirely warranted wrath and condemnation of the morally superior.

The hard truth here is: this is hate and it is eating us alive, it is eroding our society and culture from both sides, from the inside out, from top to bottom and every which way. We all believe we are right, we delude ourselves that somehow everything we believe in is rooted in goodness and rightness and even love – love for humanity, love for our world, for our country, for our community and for our children, and yet here we are practicing hate in the name and guise of righteousness. Perhaps you are a red-state conservative with genuine religious conviction and traditional family values, yet despite your personal commitment to neighborly kindness and good will, you find yourself bitterly vowing retribution for Charlie Kirk. Or you’re a coastal liberal pacifist who espouses kindness, compassion, inclusion, fairness and non-violence, and there you are one day posting a vindictive meme that makes a cruel joke of Kirk’s death and condemns his character as deserving of his fate.

Across the political spectrum, we are ideally, spiritually, ethically, religiously and philosophically committed to love, yet we so often default to hate. This moment in time should not be a referendum on the merits of Charlie Kirk, but a spiritual reckoning for our society and where we are headed and what each one of us can do about it. This holds true for every single high-profile assassination or murder.

Beating the war drums and dancing on graves are not good looks for anyone – right or left, conservative or liberal – but hate doesn’t just live in these most overtly contemptuous expressions; it’s germinating and ever-present in the steady stream of lower-grade finger-pointing, shaming, blaming, condescension, mockery and general condemnation we are enthusiastically encouraged by our warring camps to carpet bomb each other with.

In summary, this is how we got here: by allowing the emergence and long-term dominance of a dualistic political power structure which, fueled by nearly unlimited corporate funding, has reduced every single cultural, societal and economic issue into a binary divide of perpetually dueling monoliths that demands that we choose one and commit our unwavering, passionate loyalty to its dogmatic proclamations. It is often referred to as a two-party system; I call it a two-cult system. Each side sadly only recognizes the cultish qualities of the other, while denying its own. I’m not literally suggesting every person who identifies as “conservative Republican” or “liberal Democrat” behaves like a cult member, but there’s a strong argument to be made that a group that demands of its members absolute conformity of belief and opinion, unconditional loyalty and the ostracizing of members who question or stray is pretty cult-y. As a lifelong liberal Democrat who gradually dis-affiliated from all such identifications and became truly independent, I experienced this first-hand: it’s a party when you join and a cult when you leave.

So how do we find a way out of this increasingly embittered death march of partisan hatred that is steadily pushing us towards civil war? How do we best heed those words of Governor Cox and make this a turning point towards good? (Let me acknowledge here that his choice of phrase here seems to tip the hat to the organization founded by Kirk, yet his message passes as genuinely non-partisan.) I believe it begins with willfully challenging and examining each and every one of our opinions and positions to determine whether they are truly our own, or someone else’s.

If my sympathies and antipathies have been shaped by my chosen political community, I may notice intense social frictions arise the moment I begin the process of openly questioning them, so it’s advisable to approach this process delicately. I’m not suggesting that everyone should ultimately abandon their political party and go independent, nor gratuitously argue with their peers over doubts as they arise. If, however, I am going to harbor a belief, ardently defend a position, or commit my personal voice and vote to a particular group, then the convictions I hold better stand to up to that level of self-scrutiny. Once I am awake and truly free, I can choose my affiliations more consciously, and guard my autonomy from the unreasonable demands of absolute loyalty to the horde. That’s when I can rest easy that I am a voluntary participant in a chosen party or movement, not a cult member.

As soon as we have freed up those thoughts, beliefs and opinions that we may have unconsciously assimilated, we also need to become aware and deliberate about what energy we are contributing to the communal dialogue. In this regard, our feelings provide the clearest guidance. It is usually possible to approach anything from either a positive, supportive perspective or a negative, destructive one. If I seek to promote Christian values, for example, I could spend my time, energy and social media bandwidth condemning those whom I consider sinners, heathens and threats to my way of life, or I can devote myself to events, projects, endeavors and social media posts that positively promote those good values I’d like to see proliferated in my community.

Which of these two options feels more productive, uplifting, inspiring and effective? If fascism is the issue I’m tackling, what brings more fulfillment: gearing up anonymously with a mask and a baseball bat to scream at and provoke presumed fascists, or contributing my voice and resources to institutions and people who endeavor to strengthen and safeguard democracy? Does it feel better to fight what is bad, or support what is good? What do my feelings tell me about how my actions and words may be beneficial or harmful for the world?

Hate has a particular buzz to it; it’s like a toxic street drug with a short, intense high, a horrible hangover and rapidly diminishing returns. Some of those Antifa guys may get off on it, but anyone who has ever indulged in an acrimonious social media battle can attest to the horrible vibe it leaves you with. Acting out of Love may be scary sometimes, may require courage, and it may actually trigger backlash from some people, particularly those who are lost in the thrall of hatred. It will sometimes call for a yielding humility and other times steadfast tenacity, but never cruelty. When Love is the true motivator, however, it will invariably bring about something good and leave you with a peaceful, grounded feeling.

I have been trying to cultivate the following practice: when I am participating in a potentially charged political or cultural conversation, (whether in person or online), I try to keep checking in with myself as honestly as possible with questions like: how is what I am saying making me feel? Am I coming from a place of intentional good will, or righteousness? Is my righteousness just a cloak for hateful rage and resentment? Are my words designed to persuade, or defeat? Am I promoting something good, or fighting something bad? Are these my own thoughts and feelings, or someone else’s? If I am re-posting something someone else has shared, have I thoroughly examined its greater context and implications? Am I feeling a toxic high, or a grounded resolve?

When I am particularly tuned in to my inner state, I can even distinguish different voices vying for my attention, (I think we all experience these, although with varying levels of consciousness). There’s that nasty, raging voice of the instigator in my head, some call that one the ego. It’s constantly egging me on to fight, to be ruthless, to see the other as an opponent and take them down without mercy.

Then there’s a quieter voice that comes from deeper within the heart region, one that calmly reminds me that I am one with the world, not separate, and I am here to do good, not harm. I’ve heard it referred to as the higher self, or the true self, but whatever it is, I know things go a lot better when I put my trust in this inner voice rather than the other one. This conscious commitment to mindfully distinguishing within ourselves these different feeling experiences, and the thoughts that come with them, can become a powerfully self-transformative personal practice. We can anchor this practice by just taking a few calm breaths in calm contemplation before we post something online, or engage in a potentially contentious conversation.

To many, this will all sound like utopian idealism, or the naïvety of privilege. When you believe yourself to be engaged in a battle of good and evil it is profoundly difficult to imagine that peace and unity are possible. Think what you like but consider the alternative: is it better to battle to the end, or to end the battle? I am not presenting myself as a paragon of perfect temperament – far from it. I fail so often to live up to my own ideals that I hesitate to share them. Nevertheless, intention and practice do go a long way, and the more of us who strive to truly live by that communal, human ideal of Love, to seek understanding, peace, compromise, collaboration and unity, and to persuade with words, votes and positive exhortations rather than hatred, violence, and condemnation, the more likely we are to collectively avert the catastrophic inevitability of mutual destruction this doomful path of polarized rage is undeniably leading us toward. To hold the center is to hold the future.

In his audio podcast OMEGA MALE, Dan Mackenzie hosts wide-ranging conversations exploring new paradigms of masculinity, the healthy evolution of men and forward-looking conceptions of manhood and maleness with a broad variety of compelling guests. He has intentionally appropriated the rare and vaguely defined term “Omega Male”, rebranding it to represent the emergent, kinder, more balanced ideal for male-ness which he hopes will gradually supplant the antiquated, compulsively dominant ”alpha male”. Past guests have included a blockbuster filmmaker, a female entertainment business mogul, a mythopoetic author/speaker, a celebrated centenarian academic, a spiritual leader, a nationally renowned poet, an independent political pundit, a men’s work expert focused on porn addiction, and a man who transitioned to female, and then back, and a man who outlived a life sentence in prison to facilitate men’s groups for inmates.

—

Previously Published on substack and is republished on Medium.

—

Photo credit: iStock