just who the hell *is* my neighbor?

There’s a guy who lives across the street and one house over from me.
I might be scared of him.
I’m at least wary of him.

I feel like a rabbit who’s not quite sure if the fellow creature beyond my burrow is a predator or not. I am upwind of him, and the sight and sound of him aren’t clear enough to give me an actionable understanding of him.

I try not to let fear get to me. What do I really know about this man?
He’s probably in his late 30s, maybe early 40s.
He has a beard and short brown hair.
He doesn’t wear glasses.
He drives a loud pickup.
He rents his home.
He has an activity that takes him from his home every weekday morning at 7:10 — probably a job.
He has a preteen son who visits occasionally, so I assume he has an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend.
He has friends or acquaintances who occasionally visit him late at night.
He rarely mows his lawn.
Occasionally he will work on his pickup in his driveway in the middle of the night.
Beyond that, he seems to keep to himself.

He also flies a flag in front of his home, a flag associated with right-wing extremists and calls for “no quarter” given to the enemy.

I often wonder: if he knew me and my family, would he consider us the enemy?

These things I know and observe about my neighbor lead me to conclude that he is in accordance with the current highest power in the nation, a power which is actively eliminating its opposition.

As of this writing, The Economist‘s tracker of US-Americans’ stance toward that highest power reports that 39% of US-Americans approve of that higher power. According to public opinion researcher Civiqs, approval 42%. Here in Oklahoma, says The Oklahoman, it was 56% in September.
(Dated mid-October 2025, that Oklahoman article claims that Trump’s net rating had dropped. If I am mathing right, that month-ago net approval of -7 translates to 34% approval from Oklahomans. That seems low to me.)

So. Whether it’s 39-42% of all my fellow citizens or 34% of my fellow Oklahomans — it works out to a goodly chunk of humans around me who constitute a people in accordance with the current highest power in the USA, a power that is enacting policies that subjugate, hurt, and or kill anyone who doesn’t think, look, or act like them.

The German word for “accordance” is “Übereinstimmung” = “one voice with each other.”

In the past, I’ve had people tell me I’m a born peacemaker, a mediator. Exemplar of Matthew 5:9. The glue that binds communities together. And sure, maybe that’s a skill I possess — one I’ve both used and misused, as these imperfect human traits go.

One of my abiding questions, asked both silently and aloud, has been:

Can’t we all just get along?

Can’t we set aside our differences?
Can’t we reach a compromise?
Can’t we reconcile?
Can’t we share and discuss and commune and try our absolute damnedest to see why the other person is the way they are? Can’t we make up our minds and change our hearts to, as Atticus Finch says in the movie To Kill a Mockingbird, “consider things from [another person’s] point of view…climb inside of [their] skin and walk around in it”?

These are principles…this is a mindset…this is an attitude of the heart I have tried to practice for almost as long as I can remember. I started early, and I’m now 48, so that’s a not meager period of time. Practice makes progress (not perfection!), and my abiding hope for our entire species is that we learn to be human together in a way that benefits all of us.

But I am now thinking of this people who are being one voice together with the power that gloats not only when its opponents suffer, but also when its supporters suffer — so that they will raise their unified voice in furthering the harm against the opponents. (This is called “sado-populism.”)

Bringing my abiding heartset to bear on this situation, I have to ask myself:
How do I reach compromise with this people?
How can I share and discuss and commune with them?
How do I set aside differences — when the difference is that I want to be a person and they don’t want me to? when I want to live and many of them want me to die?

Political difference is “I think we should have libraries in every neighborhood” vs. “I think every city should have one large, central library.” Or “I think every intersection should have stop signs” vs. “I think every intersection should have roundabouts.”

But — I’ve said it before, and I’m sure I’ll be saying it again — what we’re dealing with here is multiple groups of humans saying:
“we want to be able to live as we see fit as long as we’re not actively harming others”
vs.
other groups saying:
“we want you to stop existing in public spaces or at all.”

How can the former groups possibly reconcile with latter?
It would be like expecting the former groups to voluntarily place themselves in permanent restraints, to put it far more mildly than I’d like to.

The near ancestor of “reconcile” is a Latin word meaning “unite/connect again.” Follow that back far enough, and you reach a Proto-Indo-European word that meant “solemnly call out,” in which “call out” means “summon.” That PIE word also happens to be the ancestor of the Ancient Greek word “ecclesia,” which is often used for “church.”

So, the real question here is: can we dwell in solemn purpose together with a people that wants our subjugation and/or elimination?

Can I give myself over to union with a people that wants the subjugation and/or elimination of others who, like me, resist?

I’m not speaking in hate. I am asking how reconciliation can ever be possible when one of us is saying “I just want to live as a person” and the Other is saying “I don’t want you to be able do that.”

I can’t “solemnly unite again” with people

• with whom I’ve never before “solemnly united” to begin with,
• who advertise without fear of consequence that in violent conflict, they would murder their opponents, and
• who have already fulfilled that advertisement and been absolved of that action by the highest power in the nation.

I cannot embrace — take into my arms — a people who don’t want me to embrace them and will gut me if I try. And I can’t expect other targeted groups to embrace that violent people, either.

Since I’ve been involved in pyrotheology, this whole topic inevitably leads to the question of how the parable of the Good Samaritan applies. What none of us ever mention is the possibility that the Samaritan could bring himself to help the injured man (Israelite? Jew?) because the injured man was too hurt and too weak to harm the Samaritan.

Was the Samaritan a kind person who went above and beyond to see and aid the Other?
Yes. Without a doubt.

Did the Other happen to be in too weak a position to lash out and cause harm, thereby making him less of a risk to the Samaritan?
Yes. Without a doubt.

Would I see and aid the MAGA Other who are my neighbors?
Also yes, without a doubt. I cannot and will not stand by and ignore suffering if I can prevent it.

But I would first confirm that they’re too weak to aim and fire a weapon at me. And I would keep them from harming anyone else once they’ve regained their strength. Anything less on my part would qualify as enabling. Maybe even collaborating.

I think about my apparently right-wing extremist neighbor across the street. Yes, I would like to see him more clearly. I am open to knowing the whys behind his manner of living as a human on this planet. I am open to compassion, caring, and concern when it comes to him and to the others who unify their voices together with the man who’s doing his utmost to ru(i)n the lives of everyone except his billionaire buddies. I’m even open to compassion, caring, and concern when it comes to that unapologetic narcissist.

As one who’s no stranger to emotional trauma and economic hardship, I can well imagine some of their collective whys. Even his. And I feel sorry for him.

But just because I understand someone does not mean I don’t set boundaries on how often or how deeply I interact with them. I think I do understand some of their reasons for how they are and what they do. I can empathize with their pain. I can offer them compassion.

That doesn’t mean I can reconcile with them.
That doesn’t mean that any of their targets can solemnly unite with them.