My comment on Facebook after the Women's March on Saturday, January 21, 2017, following the inauguration of the POTUS created some question by one of my good friends about whether I advocate a totally pacifist position concerning "politics" and how my present position fits with my past position(s). His is a legitimate challenge and I realize I was ambiguous speaking from my Christian perspective. This is my response.
I must say at the outset that my perspective is shaped by my experience, theology and as much as I hate to admit, my selfish interests.
The issue seem to be how one approaches a political reality that one opposes and how one expresses that opposition within the bounds of "governance" and ethics or conscience. This is my thought on the issue:
Premise: Ultimately every institution depends on the trust, or fear, of its members. When trust in the institution of a democratic government is lost, or rule is accomplished by instilling fear of the governed, the moral capital of governance is lost. Without moral capital the ability to govern relies upon coercion and power, which is usually the anthesis of justice. (In other words, forget, but don't forget the debate between Jefferson and Hamilton.)
This premise offered above places the total obligation for democratic governance on two parties, those who govern and those who are governed. The Civil War, AKA The War Between the States, and the coincidental circumstances around the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, the protests against the war in Viet Nam and abdication of President Nixon are two examples that come to mind where the country teetered on the very edge of loss of moral capital. Perhaps the almost complete economic collapse of 1929 and 2008 rank up there with them. A newly elected President wealthy with moral capital bridged the chaos and saved the day in those four cases.
Today, we are entirely too close to events to know whether again we stand that precipice - whether we are a moth flying around a candle - or simply have sore egos. After all, Marshall McLuan said we drive into the future with pedal to the metal and our eyes staring into the rear view mirror. We never have the perspective of our own history until it is history.
A failure by both the governed and those who govern in current affairs seems obvious. The presence of surreptitious deceit, as the Russian fake news effort within the United States that favored Donald Trump for obvious reasons, and the blatant lies, as in K.A.C. advancing easily disproved "alternate facts" as an apology or argument for the POTUS undermines the moral foundation of government. This Russian effort, at the minimum, sowed discord leading to loss of public trust and thereby achieved its end. Both Government and Press have an obligation to identify and repudiate lies whether from external or internal sources. Yet both seem to walk on pins and needles to avoid speaking against lies.
What about internal matters? Governance relies on the humility of leaders to recognize the limits of power and the fact that there as always a dramatic majority who object to policy but whose support is ultimately needed in the absence of exercising absolute power. (See below, between 25% and at best 41% of the voters elect presidents). The objections of the 60-75% will pinprick ego, but a humble and effective leader recognizes criticism is a part and parcel of a democratic institution and always asks if there is substance to the objections. A fastidious leader with moral capital searches for compromise. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.
Governance also relies on the responsibility and moral capital of the electorate, not only to evaluate and choose leaders, but to do it wholesale; that is, to accept and believe absolutely that the right to vote is an irresistible obligation to ensure trustworthy governance, it is a demand, not an option. When leaders are elected by a significant minority of the public due to lack of participation, or by diversion of third parties, the prospect for loss of trust is great. I leave it to the reader to figure out why.
In the USA, between 1828 and 2016, the percent of eligible registered voters in presidential elections ranged from 48.9% to 81.8% (See this UC-Santa Barbara study). This means that roughly 25-41% of registered voters selected the president over the last almost-two centuries. In the last election about 57% of the registered voters voted, and significantly over half of these rejected the person who won the electoral college vote, rivaled only by Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 when 81% of the voters voted. Rutherford Hayes won by 1 electoral vote. As I see it, the POTUS received less votes than Mitt Romney in 2012. The reader should not doubt how fragile is the democratic institution and how much its stability relies upon the trust of roughly 75% of registered voters who did not vote or voted for the loser.
When governance becomes tedious, arbitrary and unjust regardless of the best effort of public election, public discourse and opposition is justified. My position is that the only recourse is non-violent opposition, and I walk behind the advocacy of great leaders as M. Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
Non-violent opposition carries a heavy burden of personal responsibility. It cannot be any other way. If an issue or action of government is worth opposing, then so is the price paid for opposition. Non-violent opposition is the only alternative when the ballot box fails, or when the public fails to vote its convictions, but this means it is also a threat to the institution and it should not be undertaken lightly. It can be as dangerous as the loss of public trust. Are you ready to sit in a jail cell, to have your "friends" make you a pariah? I leave it to the reader to figure out why.
So how does all this "theory" apply to the state of the Union in 2017?
I said in my Facebook post that non-violent opposition is the only alternative when the ballot box fails. When large-scale non-violent opposition emerges, the question is, "How well did the ballot box represent public consensus?" I leave the answer to that question to those who did not vote or who cast futile and ultimately subversive votes for third party candidates with no whimper of a chance to win.
Concerning lies. It is one thing for government to lie surreptitiously, even mistakenly, about circumstances. It is insidious, and if effectively used and ignored by the press, very dangerous to the republic because it undermines trust.
More dangerous is the circumstance when the government asserts directly disprovable lies, now called "alternate facts," as truth to confuse the electorate or sooth ego. To assert an obvious lie in place of truth sways and confuses the public that trusts the leader, if not showing the leader has abandoned any sense of moral character.
Even more dangerous is a two-fold problem. On one hand, a government institution may attack the press to undermine public credibility and enhance its own. The press is the only effective social mechanism to resist and inform the public of facts on a widespread basis because such governmental action creates loss of confidence in all institutions. On the other hand, an equivalent danger is when the press fails to take the responsibility faithfully to call out lies, but rather uses events and public hysteria to enhance readership. We get the same end, an abdication of moral responsibility. The press becomes too little, too late.
A creative, intelligent leader could use attacks on truth and the press to establish a fascist or otherwise repressive state; however, in our current case, David Brooks, a pressman, tends to convince me the more likely consequence in America is a descent into chaos in governance - a paralysis.
The consequence of such chaos in America has world-wide implications, both moral and existential. In such case, the USA, as fait accompli loses its moral authority and becomes endangered by external forces - quite ironic in the face of the POTUS' political claim to make America great. It also endangers the very stability and confidence in the nation of its international peers.
The country-wide marches last Saturday were an impressive display of the voice of the people. If folks put politics aside, it is hard to deny that the several million people marched as a dramatic, repudiating statement. There can be no avoidance that consensus in this election is not at hand.
If we dispense with the street theater and character assassination (that diminishes moral credentials), we can see many millions of people are concerned over the disrespect the POTUS has towards women and other issues. Character assassination and vilification gives the protester some degree of short term satisfaction but only alienate those who might otherwise find a path to stand with the protestor. It sends the message that person has no higher moral standard than their estimation of opponent's.
When a cynical mood hits me, I can only think, "Boy! If all those folks had voted we's see a different outcome." Perhaps less than a 100,000 votes over 50 states determined this election.
Yes, in the late 60's and early 70's I was the angry young man who tossed the word, "Tricky Dickie," and cheered the House and Senate committees who investigated Watergate, and was vocal in my opposition to the war in Viet Nam and said voting for Nixon was a good way to disrupt and wake up the system. Today, I will encourage committees that are sorting out the facts about financial conflicts of POTUS relative to the emollients clause of the US Constitution, for example, solely for the public good. I will encourage people to get out and vote in 2018.
But as much as I chew nails rather than admit it, songs such as Bob Dylan's Dream and a poem I wrote when a friend turned 50 sober me:
Piss and Vinegar
(To a friend’s 50th)
When
we were young and full of piss and vinegar,
We
ran head-long into trouble around every corner.
But
half the time we couldn’t have cared less,
Being
preoccupied with a comely, young lass.
The
money, the friends, the bliss
flowed
like water through our fingers.
Now
the years have rolled on, and
while
the heat of that spirit lingers,
angling for a fortune and friends have gone hither.
Now,
it’s all we can do to stave off
becoming
a sour puss and hold our piss.
Copyright 2005 Henry Paris
I've been around long enough, and head-butted enough issues of the 60's/70's with my Dad - we loved each other dearly and unconditionally - to realize finally harsh words seldom change minds. What changes minds is the realization that the acts or politics one has supported damage the things one treasures the most. Those valuable things may be comfort, security, being "right" about political opinion or holding on to a lasting friendship. My Dad willingly risked his life in Europe in WWII for this institution we call the USA and made it through, even though a forward observer seldom lasted more than two weeks. He and his peers paid the price paid for my ability to vote today. I will say to this day I know every harsh word my Dad and I exchanged is a regret I carry to my own grave.
At this point in my life, I value my relationships with others more than most anything. I've learned that I want to go out of the way to cling to and uphold those who can look beyond personal opinion to the value of the other person. I hope the power of my relationships is a more effective impetus for change than invective, in both me and the other person. I've stumbled into places that are "on fire" with this idea of friendship, probably only due to a power greater than I.
A lot of people who are intensely upset about the current state of affairs were also similarly upset over President Obama's effort to find compromise to achieve incremental change rather be unbending to seek radical change. They were offended by Secretary Clinton's apparent moral ambiguity. Many I know either did not vote or went third party contributing to the present result. They disliked that President Obama might say his opponents may have something constructive to say. They must decide if what they got in return is worth the vote they spent, or is frivolous.
Make no mistake, I, for one, highly respect President Obama and his family. I respect his accomplishments, integrity, insight, grace and the parental love he clearly has. The color of his skin, his idea that we can be greater as a community than we are as individuals scared some and they felt getting beyond him could not happen soon enough. Some may say everything he did is being undone. I'll wait for them to see the error of their ways.
For the fearful I can only ask you look beyond yourself to the "opponent" who would stand before and with you. To the naysayers, I can only say that giving up and eschewing compromise for polemic is a self-fulflling prophesy of failure. President Obama may one of the rare wise persons who graced our presence. He spoke to the truth. The one thing he said about the present as he and his wife departed DC is this:
","
Last Saturday is meaningless and President Obama's "comma" becomes a "period" unless the energy and commitment of Saturday persists to the mid-term elections and beyond. No idea whose time has come can be suppressed. Time will tell if you are a dust devil or the wind. Time is all I have, and little of it.
It is time for some self- honesty.
If you were among the crowd that marched, I hope you voted. If you thirst for justice but tossed your vote, realize your foible, you'll never see total justice in a human institution, no matter what your political perspective. Seek constant, irreversible, incremental change and remember one thing, your opponent is your brother or sister. Love them that way. Vote.
Justice is a higher order, transcendental thing. If my politics determine whether I love you, I am lost. I'll let the reader figure that out.
As for me, I want to get back to working on relationships because few friends will subvert the other for a contingency.
Grace and peace,
Henry
No comments:
Post a Comment