I encounter this mentality quite a bit; enough so, that I've come to counter it each time I see it. In our own American cultural context, it's largely made along political polarizational lines: There's "us" and there's "them". What's more, what's acceltable for one is then condemned for the other.
This mentality is what we call ethnocentrism. And it's a sin. Just as sure as there's any sin.
One need only take Paul's argument from Romans 1-3 seriously: "There is no one righteous, not one ... no matter who you are". The trouble, of course, is the mentality that we can somehow section off a few from the rest.
Now, I'm as bothered as most by the current American governments overreach and overspending. That said, I find the current political crises that assume a polarization to be equally bad. "They" aren't the problem. "We" are.
As you learn in Sociology 101, ethnocentrism is an attitude that divides the world into two opposing camps. From an ethnocentric point of view, groups are either "friend" or they are "foe". Ethnocentrism is a general outlook on social difference; it is prejudice broadly conceived. Whenever we partition a society into an "in-group" and an "out-group", we're engaging in ethnocentrism.
Ethnocentrism is the psychological tendency to separate our social worlds into "us" and "them". As a part of this process we attribute virtue to people similar to ourselves and vice to out-group members, people from different ethnic groups, nations, socioeconomic strata or belief systems. What's more, given these attitudes we are ready to help in-group members and thwart out-group members.
In other words, ethnocentrism is a mental habit. It's a predisposition, one of which we're often unaware. But that's not an inocuous decision. Members of in-groups (until they prove otherwise) are assumed to be virtuous: Friendly, cooperative, kind, trustworthy, safe, etc. and out-group members are the opposite: Unfriendly, uncooperative, mean, liars, dangerous, etc.
It doesn't take much explaining to see how this applies to the current American political climate.
Ethnocentrism is generalized prejudice. We tend to think prejudice is group specific, and it can be. For example, one might have very negative feelings about a particular out-group (e.g., Whites, Blacks, gays, Muslims, etc.). However, the research on ethnocentrism has revealed that prejudices tend to cluster together. Thus, if we hear a person make a comment about blacks on welfare we can make a good guess about where this person stands on gay marriage or immigration reform.
Ethnocentrism cuts across party lines. It's possible to be Republican or Democrat and engage in this mental sinful habit. Party identification, views on limited government, health care, budgeting, etc., cluster together. But it can also cut through those tags in other ways. Research demonstrates that whites show some trends. Among whites ethnocentrism is, albeit weakly, correlated with political conservatism, a distaste for egalitarianism (e.g., social welfare to produce "fairness"), social distrust, and a desire for a more limited government. Generally, however, ethnocentrism is a force in American life that is distinct from other, more commonly discussed, political variables. Consequently, ethnocentrism needs to be examined as a political force in its own right if we are going to get a true and accurate sense of the dynamics involved in American policy debate.
Interestingly, ethnocentrism declines with education. The most important factor has been higher education -- college -- for a long time, though that's been eroding since the early 90s. College has usually promoted understanding complexity and tolerance. But not so much anymore. Ethnocentrism in America is so pervasive that we hardly ever realize we're hearing it nightly on the news or reading it online everyday.
It doesn't have to be this way. We activate our ethnocentrism whenever we frame policy debates as "us" vs. "them". Sadly this frame fits so much of what's being debated. So it becomes all the more pervasive.
Ethnocentrism is activated when a particular political issue, or a media framing of the issue, is presented as an "us against them" conflict. Sadly, this "us against them" frame fits many of our current debates. Specifically, ethnocentrism predicts the following:
- An aggressive, hawish foreign policy stance.
- Less empathy for foreign civilian casualties in America's wars (e.g., the deaths of Iraqi women and children in the War on Terror).
- Less support for foreign aid and assistance.
- Support for anti-immigration policies and protective measures to preserve "our American" culture from the effects of immigration.
- Opposition to gay rights.
- Opposition to policies, such as affirmative action, aimed at redressing historic inequalities between blacks and whites.
- Opposition to means-tested welfare (i.e., programs for low-income persons) such as Food Stamps or Medicaid.
- Support for social insurance welfare, such as Social Security and Medicare.
So we sort of like a socialized welfare state. More precisely, we like a welfare state that benefits us, but we're against welfare that benefits them.
Again, that's a sin. If you take Paul seriously. It's a sin if you take Deuteronomy seriously. In fact, just about 2000 times throughout the Bible, there's talk about caring for the poor, the foreigner, the stranger, the widows and orphans, the families struggling to eat or provide for themselves, the sick, the imprisoned, the oppressed. Only if you engage in the most obvious kinds of ethnocentrism can you ignore those passages -- those responsibilities.
That's why I think what's happening now -- with the opposition to the Affordable Care Act, sure, but even more largely by Democrats and Republicans -- is driven by ethnocentrism. Our generalized prejudice is out there right now. And it's a sin. We Christians should be doing better in keeping the tendencies of our hearts in check.