The ‘Realism’ is that our world is never, ultimately, made better by returning evil for evil.  The ‘Realism’ is that our world is never, ultimately, made better by returning evil for evil.  And it seems ‘Radical,’ because it is often at odds with an ingrained reflex to do exactly that.

Good Friday, traditionally the day Jesus was crucified but forgave those inflicting the ordeal, sets an admittedly super-human standard for love. But can we, at least, aim instead for not going to the opposite extreme? Especially in in our public interactions?

A specific trigger brings me to this issue: Recently, I overheard someone speak merrily about the possibility of the natural death of the current President (whose name I prefer to avoid using), and going to the Tower named for him here in Chicago, singing a taunting song of joy.

To clarify: I believe this President is a bestiary of every trait a wise, effective leader should Not have. He lacks the intellect, impulse control, empathy, maturity and awareness of life’s hardships, to perform a job of skull-cracking pressure, which may also demand nuance, even delicacy. Very few people have this rare combination of attributes, and he is obviously not one of them.

No one need enlighten me as to how unfit as a ruler, and generally wretched a person he is. I hold him and all he embodies in disgust, at the very best. The same goes for the attitudes and actions of his most strident, intolerant, self-involved followers.

But it’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. And I absolutely will not ‘flatter’ him by permitting myself to be dragged to his level. Thus, under No circumstances could I share or endorse a horrid impulse to rejoice in his death. Doing so would make me as spiteful and vicious as him and his devotees.

How could any thoughtful person with a functional conscience let themselves follow such examples? People who got outraged when he snarked at the deaths of Rob Reiner and Robert Mueller, talking about exulting if his life ends? Does repaying him and his zealots with their own hurtfulness fit a self-image of rational tolerance?

To return to the subject of Good Friday: Surely, the only alternative to its transcending Self-denial is not to give free rein to our animal instinct, and reflex to retaliate. If one really desires a better world, deeds like enduring and forgiving crucifixion are not the only way to do so.

Simple forbearance may be a good compromise. As a parallel, consider the mechanics of air-conditioning: It does not ‘create’ cool air; it extracts heat. Forbearance, rather than forgiveness, may be like that; not creating love, but tempering passions from combusting.

One need not be Christian, or religious at all, to recognize that one cannot realistically hope for a better world by contributing to its negativity. Is it ‘rational’ to hope for such while repaying spiteful abuse in kind, rather than at least trying to resist the impulse to do so? Again, if we cannot do the very best, can’t we at least try not to do the worst?

The provocations of this President and his Lib-owning legions can be outrageous, but is our (Liberal) dedication to reason and tolerance too frail to control the impulse for payback?

We risk becoming like those we profess to loathe and surpass; a horrifying irony.

The President is some 80 years old and appears to have few good health habits, so Nature may take its course at any time. If he passes away in office, I will not mourn him, beyond the human condition of mortality.

But I sure as hell won’t sing and dance. It is irrelevant that he has not behaved so as to merit such consideration; my response will reflect upon me, not upon him. More generally, if we on the ‘rational, tolerant’ Left disparage the backwardness of his base, how is it different if we let ourselves be seized by base impulses?

Shouldn’t we know, and behave, better?

And there could be a fearsome practical consequence for behaving thus. In the event of his death, masses of Americans who follow him (not recognizing their own real interests) will be grief-stricken. So that man may do more harm to this Nation in death than life, if civil tumult arises between his mourners and opponents, who overtly acclaim his passing.

Is that worth a fleeting spasm of cathartic jubilation? No matter what misdeeds he has done, what odious prejudices and resentments he fed, it is reprehensible and civically reckless to risk provoking dire conflict which dignified self-control would let us avoid.

Jesus said from the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.’ All my readers do not share my personal (Catholic Left) religiosity, or any at all. For people like me, Jesus’ abnegation of the Self by the sacrifice of His own flesh is a marvel of both sorrow and hope, by which to be inspired.

While I personally find this premise sublime, I understand it is not such for everyone. Nor easy to conform to, even for us who strive to do so. But all sensible, responsible folk should recognize the value of moderation.

Schadenfreude, rejoicing in the sorrows of a fallen foe (or a total stranger) is one of the most unworthy human behaviors. Anyone deliberately indulging it can stop wondering why the world stays awful: It stays ‘awful’ in no small part because of exactly what you are doing.

Again, there is a middle ground between more than human forgiveness and Schadenfreude: Accepting that the world may benefit more from Self restraint than it ever can from surrendering to spite. Especially, having witnessed what kind of world comes when people who act that way get empowered.

Someone must stop the cycle of excess; and greater honor attaches to them who do. All of us, whatever our ideology, should, at least, refrain from unleashed acrimony. It may only help at a glacial pace, but it doesn’t make the problem worse, which is progress in itself.

If this President dies in office, rejoicing at it would help maintain a feral element in the life of our nation. As such, it would be an ultimately self-defeating response; and tragic, not to have been recognized as such.

Today’s ‘Radical Reality’ is that Not yielding to impulse may be the best way to ultimately procure the kind of world we say we want. Jesus this day set a precedent whose value – in an era where the primacy of the Self, rather than its surrender, is treated as paramount – that our culture struggles to recognize, let alone accept. Despite ages of evidence that ‘returning evil for evil’ invariably degrades and cumulatively hinders us all.

Thus, Christ’s surpassing of that reflex continues to offer light, even from darkness as deep at that on Calvary.