One side basks in the sunshine of common sense, the other is abject idiocrasy.  An objective assessment of the distinction between  American liberals and conservatives is scarce these days. We feel the visceral differences to be sure, and we wonder how otherwise intelligent people can defend such ridiculous positions on issues.   Even in academia, well ESPECIALLY in academia, an impartial analysis is nearly extinct.  Many universities vehemently – even violently- protest guest lecturers who don’t match their ideology (ref. University of California Berkeley v Mio Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, etc).  For Americans, politics embody a moral and social philosophy that defines the way we should interact with each other.  Witness either the hate you feel today towards Trump or the hate you felt a few years ago towards Obama:  They are both rooted in resentment of being governed by someone who doesn’t respect your beliefs or share your values.  Very territorial stuff.

Those precious few willing to make an effort can find some case studies that may help us understand how liberals and conservatives can look at the same set of circumstances and reach radically different conclusions.

Consider one such case in the news today:  Controversy over Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFBP). Here is text from the CFBP website:

In July 2010, Congress passed and President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. The Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB consolidates most Federal consumer financial protection authority in one place. The consumer bureau is focused on one goal: watching out for American consumers in the market for consumer financial products and services.

The act passed in the wake of a crisis in which tens of thousands of homeowners (well, home borrowers) were foreclosed on and financial companies went out of business.  President Obama appointed Richard Cordray to lead the fledgling agency, who spent the next 8 years defining and enforcing new rules about ways businesses, particularly financial businesses, interact with consumers.

Fast forward to 2017.   In November Cordray announced his resignation from the CFPB to run for Governor in Ohio.  He appointed CFPB Deputy Director Leandra English as his interim successor in (what he believed to be) accordance with the CFBP line of succession process defined by the Dodd-Frank Act.

Not so fast, says the Trump administration.  His legal team argued that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA) gives the president the authority to appoint an acting head of the agency, and that this authority trumps (pardon the pun) the line of succession specified by Dodd-Frank.   President Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney, also the White House Budget Director, to the job.  In other words, he appointed a fox to run the henhouse.

Mulvaney had publically criticized the CFPB, calling it a ‘sad, sick joke’, a bloated government agency abusing authority with no congressional or executive oversight.  He went as far as drafting legislation to abolish it while a congressmen.  Lawsuits were immediately filed by English and other CFPB advocates claiming the agency was created to be immune from political bias and the President’s appointment is exactly the kind of wrecking ball Dodd-Frank intended to prevent.

You may find the legal arguments interesting if you’re into that sort of thing, but none of the judges ruled against the President’s appointment of Mulvaney, finding the authority of the executive branch prevails under the conflicting laws.    To further stir the pot Mulvaney announced in early February that the CFPB would be asking for $0 in the upcoming budget, relying instead on the $177M surplus it had accrued.

Liberals screamed (and still are) that Mulvaney is deliberately destroying the agency created to protect consumers.  “It says ‘Consumer Protection’ right in the name!!”

Conservatives rejoiced at another project to ‘drain the swamp’.  Both sides claim the other is not acting in the best interest of US citizens, instead masquerading as wolves in sheeps’ clothing.  Reporters are no less bias in their attacks, with headlines like “Consumer Protection Bureau to Lose It’s Fangs Under Trump”, “Mick Mulvaney is Gutting the CFPB; Putting Consumers at Risk”. “Trump Team is Determined to Rein In the CFPB”, “Mulvaney Calls the CFPB to Serve the Public”,

Who is right?  Can either side really be the evil spawn of Satan the other claims it is?

For further analysis, let’s look at the case of the CFBP and Payday Lenders.

Payday lenders offer short term loans to people who need cash before their next paycheck.  Unlike loans for a car or college payday loans are usually less than $400 and intended to be very short term. These lenders typically charge a fixed fee per $100 borrowed, which can vary from $10-$30.  For example, a 2-week payday loan of $100 may cost $115 to pay back.

Standard interest calculations using these terms reveal that these lenders are charging 400% annualized percentage rate (APR)!  Is that fair???  Well, it might be if that $15 will let you keep your car instead of paying $10 a day to ride the train to work.

Consider the costs of these payday lenders.   As with any loan the interest rate is directly related to the risk the lenders are taking.  Because these are unsecured loans (meaning no collateral can be recovered in case of default) the interest rate is already higher than on a car or home loan.  Those seeking payday loans are usually living paycheck-to-paycheck (else they wouldn’t need the loan) and pose a high risk of default. Most banks and credit unions won’t even offer a loan to such applicants, considering them a bad risk. Even at 20% APR – a very high rate for most traditional lenders – the interest payment on a $400 loan for 2 weeks would be less than $1, which couldn’t cover the administrative costs of processing a loan request, let alone compensate for the risk.  Traditional lenders won’t touch these kinds of payday loans for these reasons.

Critics of payday lenders claim they take advantage of desperate low-income consumers by forcing them into unreasonable terms.  CFPB advocates are proud of their success in shutting down these ‘predatory lenders’.

Defenders claim the government has no right to shut down the only lenders willing to offer credit to these low-income consumers.

Who is right?   Are payday loans a lifeline for consumers or a rope for them to hang themselves with?

If you’ve read this far, you probably already have an opinion to defend on this issue.  And you will argue (maybe heatedly) with anyone who is too blind to see your side. But how can reasonable people reach such diametrically opposite positions? We speak the same language, drink the same water, breathe the same air, we support liberty, justice, baseball… how can we be so different?

Reality is – tho many of us don’t realize it – that our thinking does not proceed from the same foundation.  To illustrate, ask yourself (and someone you disagree with, if you dare) this question:  What fundamental role should government play in the lives of citizens?

Liberals believe that government is the only force big enough and strong enough to protect citizens from the ravages of big industry and subjugation by the rich and powerful.  People need someone to watch out for them.

Conservatives believe that government does nothing efficiently and is nearly always a hindrance to free market forces that ultimately benefits consumers.  People need to take responsibility for their own decisions and their consequences.

Let’s apply this to the payday lender case;

Liberals see a class of weak, underprivileged people being preyed on by money-grubbing businesses who have a vested interest in keeping them poor.  Lending money sends them into a spiral of dependency they cannot escape.  These consumers will forever be oppressed unless the government defends them.

Conservatives see a market opportunity that the government shouldn’t interfere with.  Payday loan seekers have a need, and the free market responds to meet it.  Why prevent that? Nobody is forcing consumers to borrow money, and these terms are not deceptive, but rather the real-world cost of a service they need.   We cannot blame the lenders for the financial decisions of their clients, everyone needs to accept responsibility for their own actions.

How can we see this objectively?

It’s become overused and even a punchline, but a very wise lens through which to view such issues is WWJD – What Would Jesus Do?  Would Jesus be a democrat or a republican?  Christians on both sides of the aisle think the answer is obvious.

Whichever side you’re on, give it a second thought.  I doubt Jesus would accept being forced into one of 2 boxes.  In fact, I think he would have some harsh words for both camps.  Far be it from me to speak for The Almighty, but allow me some license for a moment to create a context.

To democrats, He might say something like:

I appreciate your concern for those in need.  While I was there I spent a lot of time helping them, even when the ‘leaders’ of the time thought it was undignified. Frankly if my people were doing what I asked you wouldn’t need so many government programs to take up the slack. But any good ambition that spreads high and wide provides openings for motives to mutate beyond their good origins.   Ask yourselves if you’re helping people because you care about them or because you want them to depend on you?  Believe me, I know people want to hear that someone is going to save them from their bad decisions.  But I’m the only one who can really do that, so don’t make promises you can’t keep. 

To republicans, he might say something like this:

Your merit based philosophy is consistent with what I said about ‘reaping what you sow’. Also recall the parable of the talents and note how the stewards were rewarded based on the fruits of their ambition.  But don’t assume that all the poor and needy are there because they are lazy.  You’re not in heaven, you’re on earth:  Sometimes bad things happen to good people and they need a helping hand.  Think about the good Samaritan story:  Don’t be those first 2 guys!  You are proud of what you have and feel like you’ve earned it, but my Father could take it all from you in an eyeblink.  He lets you accumulate wealth so you can help those in need. Don’t donate for a tax write-off or to be celebrated – do it because you share my compassion for others.  Remember that left hand/right hand thing?  Believe me, nobody up here cares what your net worth is anyway. 

I’ve come to believe this is why our country is so evenly separated in any given election.  We need each other to be kept in check so the worst of us doesn’t take over.  God help us that we don’t get so consumed with destroying each other that we lose sight of the virtue in us both.

To be sure, there are plenty of small thinkers with lots to say. Before trying to reason with them you might be recalling that ‘pearls before swine’ philosophy.  Fair enough. But not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron.  We need to find a way to put away the knives long enough to listen to each other, especially those of us who share the same faith. That’s the common ground we need to remind each other of.