The need for grace even in areas of sharp disagreement
We need to be able to disagree about foreign policy (and domestic policy) without assuming the other side is totally evil.
I was listening to a couple of populist conservatives on a podcast a couple weeks ago when the host and his guest started yammering about how "neocons" want war for its own sake and want to see people slaughtered. (I am intentionally not naming them, to not distract from the argument I am making in this post.) They argued that the first "neocons" became Republicans because they loved the bloodshed of the Vietnam War.
This is hateful cynicism. I am much closer to these men on foreign policy than I am to the "neocons" of the early 2000's. I have become much more non-interventionist over the years, especially where there is not a direct threat to our national security. I am not a pacifist, but war is a terrible thing and should be the last resort. But while I strongly disagree with Republicans and Democrats who take a much more interventionist stand, it is needlessly cynical to argue they are all supervillains who want more bloodshed for its own sake.
Cynical is the charitable term. Liar might be more accurate. Both men are smart enough to understand the reasoning for a more interventionist foreign policy. They may think that policy is wrong - and I agree - but the people who want more military intervention are not hoping for large scale death for its own sake. They think military intervention and more aggressively confronting adversaries can result in a more stable, peaceful world. That was the reasoning for "regime change" in Iraq - a war I supported in 2003 but have since realized was a mistake. The critics who claim "blood lust" know this.
We need to be able to disagree about foreign policy (and domestic policy) without assuming the other side is totally evil. This does not mean there are not specific people who are evil, but to assume everyone who disagrees with you is totally evil is simple-minded. That is where some nationalist conservatives are trying to lead people, and it is morally repugnant.
For example, I think abortion is a terrible thing but I do not think every single abortion-rights supporter is a bloodthirsty maniac who loves the idea of killing the most helpless babies. They are people who worry about women's bodily autonomy, the ability to care for offspring, the liberty implications of a government regulating a "medical procedure," the privacy implications of regulating abortifacient drugs, and the harm of back-alley abortions. Do I think they are wrong? Absolutely! Are they all bloodthirsty people who might as well be Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy? Absolutely not. Many of them are just spiritually blind.
We would not want people assuming we are demons just because we disagree on policy, and we should take a charitable view of the other side when possible. This does not mean we abandon discernment or refuse to call out actual evil, but that we should not assume that tens of millions of people are bloodthirsty maniacs or supervillains just because they hold an opposing or even morally repugnant view of public policy. Many people are spiritually blind, or hold a bad position for compassionate reasons - even if that compassion is misguided.
If we want to lower the temperature of our political discourse, promote a more civil political atmosphere, and reduce the likelihood of political violence, we should assume good motives when possible. Again, this does not mean that we should abandon discernment and refuse to recognize when specific people actually are corrupt. This does mean that we should love our neighbor as ourselves. If we want to convince people they are wrong and our vision is right, screaming that they are bloodthirsty supervillains is not the way to do it.