Power, properly understood, is the ability to achieve purpose."
- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Where Do We Go From Here:
Chaos or Community?
Wow! Just wow! That our country could be so deeply divided as to allow for the election of a President-elect so clearly lacking in character and competence should be a wakeup call for us all. The question is whether we will learn from this lesson that is already deeply painful now and will doubtless become immeasurably more so in the next four years.
I'm moved to compose this piece by two friends with whom life circumstances afford me the opportunity to keep in contact via Facebook, but I'm thankful for this virtual bond because, in their messages to me, I was inspired to reconsider my reaction to this week's events. I still see them as tragic and dismaying, but I also now see an opportunity within them. As Einstein noted some years ago, it's actually in the midst of difficulty that we find opportunity and, as Churchill astutely observed, the optimists among us will focus on the latter. So I'll choose to be optimistic and invite you to join me....
The first friend from whom I heard was a former work colleague with whom I hadn't communicated in years. She was so saddened by the election results and the implicit - and possibly explicit - sanction that they give to our fellow citizens to express more freely their commitment to the -isms that continue to afflict our society. This being said, she noted that she detected a sense of hope in the spontaneous protests and the pledges of many of the more (self-professed) progressive among us to respond proactively, positively and constructively. All this she was motivated to share with me - openly, honestly and reflective of a still raw woundedness - after we'd been out of touch for at least five years or more. And she was motivated to share this with me because my FaceBook posts over the year indicate to her that I'm one of her camp, the progressives who believe in an ever more inclusive, equitable and truly free society. In my own pain over this horrific outcome, I was actually more disposed to respond cynically, but her faith in me inspired to reclaim my own hope.
The second message was from a former college friend with whom I'm actually closer virtually than when we were in school lo those many years ago. She decided that in order to close the last chapter and start a new one that she would delete all of her previous posts of a political nature, go radio silent for an indeterminate time and then reemerge with a reformulated strategy and commitment to a new worldview and the action plan to help realize it. I respect her thoughtful approach ... and yet her way, I realized, didn't work for me and therefore I was called to a different and equally authentic approach: I'm leaving my posts up so that I can review them periodically to insure that my commitment to evolve is happening. They are a reminder to me of my participation in a system that didn't work well enough to be sustained and thus while that system is being torn down in the next four years, I have to have a different approach to what comes after.
Accordingly, I'd like to start with two simple premises that underlie my still evolving but materially different worldview and approach: First, we have to go back to the past to find a greater future and, second, that our goal is not to restore what will almost surely be lost but to create something even and ever better.
Why do we have to go back to the past to light the way to our greater/better future? Because the strategist/conceptualizer of this new and better world is, sadly but also thankfully, in our past. Reflecting the paradox of life, it's sad that he left us too soon and it's great that he accomplished so much while he lived. I'm referring, of course, to the late Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. And he is our beacon for a new world not just because he's the greatest moral exemplar for our public life in our country's history but also because he was an underappreciated social strategist whose conception of a new and better world could and, I contend, should guide us now. Simply put, in his last book, Dr. King asked a question of us the answer of which should be our greater better future:
Where do we go from here: chaos or community?
While this week's election result may suggest to many (or even most) that we're headed toward chaos, I would suggest that perhaps its truer import could be toward community, at least in the long run. Let's face it, in his campaigning, Mr. Trump showed himself to be a most inhumane individual whose societal prescriptions would be intentionally hurtful to many of our fellow citizens. And that his supporters would overlook these twin failures of character and competence makes the wound that much more painful. And the violence and hatred-driven racism, xenophobia, sexism/misogyny, heterosexism, etc., that we've witnessed in the first few days since his election suggest that the chaos has already begun. When we add to it the public promises to dismantle much of the progress that we've made on so many fronts under the current Administration, you have to conclude that the chaos will continue - and possibly even get worse/more painful - for some time (if not for the next four years in their entirety).
But here's why, while I agree that we will experience a great deal of soul-wrenching chaos, the ultimate result could be a renewed and greater sense of community if we so choose.
(And, no, I don't live in one of those states that just legalized marijuana, so I'm not smokin' somethin'. Hear me out, please.)
Why were so many of our fellow citizens willing to overlook the President-elect's inhumanity? The early data is conclusive: not because they agree with or support it - and, in fact, many don't - just that this was a secondary concern for them, far behind that of their perceived economic, social and political marginality. And Mr. Trump was the only candidate to do two critical things: first, to acknowledge their fear and anger and then wrap himself in it and promise to be their champion and, second, to exploit it for his own benefit. They didn't elect Mr. Trump to be the inhuman leader of our country - which is an added benefit for some and an abhorrence for many (if not most) - they elected him to blow up the unresponsive and uncaring system/Washington as we know it. They elected a political terrorist not a reformer (which were their only two real choices).
Now, two questions immediately assert themselves: First, can Mr. Trump blow up Washington? Second, what will replace our current system? I think the obvious answers are first, "no," and second "we don't know," neither of which are good for us.
First, there's a difference between not liking something and blowing it up, between feeling alienated from and thus angry at something and wishing it not to exist. I agree that our political elites have structured our society in a way that has marginalized many if not most ... but the sad reality is that many of those who voted for Mr. Trump have also been voting for the (mostly Republican) elites whose policies have disenfranchised them over time. I understand your anger at a system that has hurt you ... but you can't escape the blame for your own role in helping it to do so. And the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because of your emotionally unintelligent (over)reaction.
Second, another culpability: with as complex a life as we live in our society, it's absolutely irresponsible and insanely dangerous to blow up our current system in favor of one that hasn't been carefully and proactively crafted to replace it and thereby function better. Now some of you will want to claim that the President-elect supplied a vision for a greater America ... but tell me, explicitly, what that means?
One element is the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, right? With what type of healthcare system? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)? This has been candidate Trump's primary suggestion. Think about this for a second: is the HSA a health plan (or an accessible system thereof like with the Affordable Care Act)? Nope, not by a long shot.
While an HSA will help you save for your healthcare premium and out-of-pocket expenses in a tax-advantaged way, it won't actually provide you coverage. So, following a favorite Republican orthodoxy, you'll just buy your coverage in the open market, right? Except that absent the healthcare exchanges at the national and local levels, actually finding out what's available to you, what these plans offer and at what cost is a real challenging thing to do. And, assuming even that tens of millions of our fellow citizens can navigate through this complicated maze, many will be refused coverage because of pre-existing conditions ... so the repeal of Obamacare also signals the end of their access to healthcare except on a pure, full cost out-of-pocket basis. Given that the top reason that people declare bankruptcy in this country is because of crushing medical debts, the reality of a post-ACA healthcare system is that it will lead to an increase in these ranks, especially from those who are economically marginal to begin with.
Unbridled anger is dangerous, especially when it leads to self-harm....
Or, consider this example: One of things that's supposed to make America Great Again is to repeal much of the regulation to which businesses are subject currently, ostensibly because these constraints make America less competitive in the cutthroat world economy. Let's look beyond the reality that the American economy is faring quite well relative to those of the rest of the developed world and zero in on one of the proposals made by the Republican candidate: to repeal the Dodd-Frank and other post-2008 Crash regulations that were designed to prevent our relatively unrestrained and lightly regulated financial industry from engaging in the unbridled pursuit of profit that led to the world-wide economic collapse of eight years ago and the resulting Great Recession. But wait, you say, perhaps the President-elect and his minions intend to replace this commonsense (though admittedly a bit unwieldy) regulation with a less onerous version. Nope.
The expressed intent has been to allow our financial industry to be virtually completely unfettered in its pursuit of ever greater hundreds of billions despite the clear and present danger that this represents to us. So, did our fellow citizens who wanted to blow up our system realize that in voting for Mr. Trump it actually meant endorsing the idea that we'd put ourselves at greater risk of national economic armaggedon? Probably not. But, then...
Why were so many of our fellow citizens willing to overlook the President-elect's inhumanity? The early data is conclusive: not because they agree with or support it - and, in fact, many don't - just that this was a secondary concern for them, far behind that of their perceived economic, social and political marginality. And Mr. Trump was the only candidate to do two critical things: first, to acknowledge their fear and anger and then wrap himself in it and promise to be their champion and, second, to exploit it for his own benefit. They didn't elect Mr. Trump to be the inhuman leader of our country - which is an added benefit for some and an abhorrence for many (if not most) - they elected him to blow up the unresponsive and uncaring system/Washington as we know it. They elected a political terrorist not a reformer (which were their only two real choices).
Now, two questions immediately assert themselves: First, can Mr. Trump blow up Washington? Second, what will replace our current system? I think the obvious answers are first, "no," and second "we don't know," neither of which are good for us.
First, there's a difference between not liking something and blowing it up, between feeling alienated from and thus angry at something and wishing it not to exist. I agree that our political elites have structured our society in a way that has marginalized many if not most ... but the sad reality is that many of those who voted for Mr. Trump have also been voting for the (mostly Republican) elites whose policies have disenfranchised them over time. I understand your anger at a system that has hurt you ... but you can't escape the blame for your own role in helping it to do so. And the rest of us shouldn't have to suffer because of your emotionally unintelligent (over)reaction.
Second, another culpability: with as complex a life as we live in our society, it's absolutely irresponsible and insanely dangerous to blow up our current system in favor of one that hasn't been carefully and proactively crafted to replace it and thereby function better. Now some of you will want to claim that the President-elect supplied a vision for a greater America ... but tell me, explicitly, what that means?
One element is the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, right? With what type of healthcare system? Health Savings Accounts (HSAs)? This has been candidate Trump's primary suggestion. Think about this for a second: is the HSA a health plan (or an accessible system thereof like with the Affordable Care Act)? Nope, not by a long shot.
While an HSA will help you save for your healthcare premium and out-of-pocket expenses in a tax-advantaged way, it won't actually provide you coverage. So, following a favorite Republican orthodoxy, you'll just buy your coverage in the open market, right? Except that absent the healthcare exchanges at the national and local levels, actually finding out what's available to you, what these plans offer and at what cost is a real challenging thing to do. And, assuming even that tens of millions of our fellow citizens can navigate through this complicated maze, many will be refused coverage because of pre-existing conditions ... so the repeal of Obamacare also signals the end of their access to healthcare except on a pure, full cost out-of-pocket basis. Given that the top reason that people declare bankruptcy in this country is because of crushing medical debts, the reality of a post-ACA healthcare system is that it will lead to an increase in these ranks, especially from those who are economically marginal to begin with.
Unbridled anger is dangerous, especially when it leads to self-harm....
Or, consider this example: One of things that's supposed to make America Great Again is to repeal much of the regulation to which businesses are subject currently, ostensibly because these constraints make America less competitive in the cutthroat world economy. Let's look beyond the reality that the American economy is faring quite well relative to those of the rest of the developed world and zero in on one of the proposals made by the Republican candidate: to repeal the Dodd-Frank and other post-2008 Crash regulations that were designed to prevent our relatively unrestrained and lightly regulated financial industry from engaging in the unbridled pursuit of profit that led to the world-wide economic collapse of eight years ago and the resulting Great Recession. But wait, you say, perhaps the President-elect and his minions intend to replace this commonsense (though admittedly a bit unwieldy) regulation with a less onerous version. Nope.
The expressed intent has been to allow our financial industry to be virtually completely unfettered in its pursuit of ever greater hundreds of billions despite the clear and present danger that this represents to us. So, did our fellow citizens who wanted to blow up our system realize that in voting for Mr. Trump it actually meant endorsing the idea that we'd put ourselves at greater risk of national economic armaggedon? Probably not. But, then...
Unbridled anger is dangerous, especially when it leads to self-harm....
And a final, painfully obvious example: the promise to bring all of those "good jobs" back to the heartland, which is the number one present that our economically marginalized could ask for. That this is pure fantasy and completely implausible on its face makes its near universal embrace among Trump voters that much more painful and amazing in a very bad way. Think about it, the President-elect is proof that this won't happen: in his own clothing manufacturing enterprises, just to use a single example, he has his personally branded items made overseas in factories with much lower labor costs than would be the case here in the U.S. To put a point on it, the first run of those ubiquitous red "Make America Great Again" hats was made in China!?! Now, how, exactly, is a businessman who's lowered his own costs and fattened his own profits by shipping his own manufacturing opportunities overseas going to get others to do so en masse?
Their anger has blinded them both to economic reality and their candidate's own disproof of their fantasy, which has not only damaged their lives - just how delusional and alienated and angry are they going to be when it turns out that their fantasy-promising leader isn't, in fact, more powerful than the twin realities of globalization and macroeconomics?!? - and is certainly tragic for them, but it also has subjected the rest of us who knew better and decried this from the very beginning to the economic, politcial, et. al., uncertainty and instability that will result when this undeliverable promise goes unfulfilled. Again...
And a final, painfully obvious example: the promise to bring all of those "good jobs" back to the heartland, which is the number one present that our economically marginalized could ask for. That this is pure fantasy and completely implausible on its face makes its near universal embrace among Trump voters that much more painful and amazing in a very bad way. Think about it, the President-elect is proof that this won't happen: in his own clothing manufacturing enterprises, just to use a single example, he has his personally branded items made overseas in factories with much lower labor costs than would be the case here in the U.S. To put a point on it, the first run of those ubiquitous red "Make America Great Again" hats was made in China!?! Now, how, exactly, is a businessman who's lowered his own costs and fattened his own profits by shipping his own manufacturing opportunities overseas going to get others to do so en masse?
Their anger has blinded them both to economic reality and their candidate's own disproof of their fantasy, which has not only damaged their lives - just how delusional and alienated and angry are they going to be when it turns out that their fantasy-promising leader isn't, in fact, more powerful than the twin realities of globalization and macroeconomics?!? - and is certainly tragic for them, but it also has subjected the rest of us who knew better and decried this from the very beginning to the economic, politcial, et. al., uncertainty and instability that will result when this undeliverable promise goes unfulfilled. Again...
Unbridled anger is dangerous, especially when it leads to self- and other-harm....
So now what? Now that we realize that we're in for a real clusterf@#k when reality asserts itself in a painfully obvious way, what can or should we do? Thankfully, there's not just an answer, but it's a great one and it comes from a person who left us almost a half-century ago.
When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., first began to speak about his concept of "The Beloved Community" back in the mid- to late 1960s, our reception wasn't exactly enthusiastic. After all, in 1967 when he began to work on his aforementioned final book that explained this concept, our society was in the midst of chaos: not only was the economy shaky, but there was massive social unrest as a spate of riots had erupted in many of our major cities, a passionate anti-(Vietnam)war movement was making its presence felt and being met with harsh resistance from the authorities in power at the time and, in the Black community, 'Negro' leaders like King were beginning to be considered passe' and losing influence to the newly empowered, younger Black Power advocates. And along comes Dr. King talkin' about a Beloved Community....
Truth be told, at the time, we were too enervated and scared and confused and overwhelmed to listen, understand and embrace his wisdom then ... but we sure better do so now. While there are many aspects to this concept, for our purposes today, I'd like to concentrate on two: its commitment to inclusion and its commitment to class- vs. race-based political and economic solutions.
As he had throughout his adult life, Dr. King never wavered in his belief that we are all God's children, even if we choose not to be loving to our neighbors. Accordingly, in Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, he argued passionately for us to seek to be what we now call "inclusive." He reminded us that "In a multiracial society no group can make it alone," and that "To succeed in a pluralistic society," across racial/ethnic/et. al. boundaries, "strength will only be effective when it is consolidated through constructive alliances with the majority group."
Let's think about this for a moment: If we accept the premise that in a polyglot society like ours we need interracial, interethnic, interreligious, intersex, inter-everything collaboration, then we'll need to have alliances with the majority group. From the perspective of race, for example, for the next quarter-century or so, that means that minority groups will have to have alliances with whites. And after the mid-2040s when American becomes a 'minority majority,' whites will have to have alliances with People of Color, et. al. In other words, in order to have harmonious relations, we must all work together toward progress (especially across racial, ethnic, et. al., lines), cognizant that we are, in Dr. King's words, "bound together in a single garment of destiny."
Dr. King also called for a "revolution of values" that would "honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encourage (sic) smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that ... they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity," or, as one writer put it recently, the people in the back of the room who've been left behind amidst our 'progress.' Certainly America is wealthier and more powerful than ever before, but studies show quite consistently and conclusively that this wealth is ever more concentrated at the top and that the inequality in the allocation of our material gain is widening. One source of Mr. Trump's election was this urgent, angry cry to feel recognized as someone at risk in our economy or even as someone who's already sliding backward. He acknowledged their alienation and their pain ... and they overlooked his myriad flaws and lack of experience or competence, so now we're all at risk....
But if we think back to the final programmatic thrust of Dr. King's life, his Poor People's Campaign, we'll notice a marked difference in strategy and approach that was both controversial and divisive at the time: the PPC was class- rather than race-based. Dr. King understood that in order to increase the influence that he sought for African-Americans, he had to reach out to other similarly positioned groups, especially the poor whites who actually outnumbered them. So he began to focus on their common condition - economic disenfranchisement - and not their racial and/or social realities (and differences). He understood what his detractors did not at the time: that in collaboration, the numbers of the collective poor were too large to ignore, but the alienation of each group separately was an insufficient foundation for organization.
And this class rather than race focus should be ours now: we should seek to unify all of those being left behind in our top-skewed modern capitalism. One thing that's clear - and made clearer still by the actual popular vote totals in our recent election - is that numbers matter and that the more voters there are, the more influence they will have in key strategic locales. In this week's epically critical election, almost half - 45% - of us who are registered to vote didn't (and, of course, there are millions more of us who are not even registered).
Imagine if everyone who could vote did. Imagine if our leaders had to respond to the call of the more than 80% of our fellow citizens who are middle or working class. It would be much harder to continue to ignore the concerns of those who derive the least benefit from their leaders' upper income and class bias, wouldn't it?
Which is why we need to reach out to Mr. Trump's supporters - including those of callow character who've begun taking his election as an excuse to engage in horrific -ism-based behavior - and to listen to their concerns and to craft a plan - together with them - to address our super majority's needs. The better able we are to develop a solution that improves the current fortunes and future opportunities of the majority of our citizens, the better off we will all be. The challenge will be whether or not we can rise above our historic and current differences - especially race and ethnicity - and work together to achieve a more just and equitable society, especially from an economic perspective.
Such a class-based approach will be both a recognition and effective address of "disappointment that produces despair and despair that produces bitterness, and that the one thing certain about bitterness is its blindness." It will be an acceptance of and effective response to the reality that "America must be a nation in which its multiracial people are partners in power" which "is the essence of democracy." And it will be effective proof that we both acknowledge and act in accordance with the wisdom that "This refusal to be stopped, this 'courage to be,' this determination to go on 'in spite of' is the hallmark of any great movement."
Will it be easy? No. Absolutely not, even. Groups that have rarely collaborated don't typically have the relational skill and necessary good will to partner effectively, at least initially. And let's face it: there's a long history in our society of racial and ethnic groups being pitted against one another to their mutual detriment (while the ruling elites that encourage the fight continue to profit thereby). But because of rising inequality, rural and rust belt whites now find themselves as vulnerable and suffering economically as their Black - and also Brown - counterparts.
The solution is not the competition among them to be at the top of the bottom, but the collaboration between them to insure that in a rising tide they all rise comparably and equitably. The solution is not the sort of political tribalism that results in a shared disenfranchisement, but a conscious collaboration that results in common wealth and the improvement of the commonweal. The solution is not handing power to a malevolent, craven beneficiary of a rigged (economic) system, but seizing political power nonviolently and collectively to wield it in a way that reflects that we are "seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live" for ever more of our fellow Children of God. And, the solution, as we seek to refashion our society and our world in more economically, socially, politically, etc., inclusive ways, is that we recognize that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that" and that "Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
These are the contours of the Beloved Society, that we value everyone and seek our collective - and each person's individual - progress. I may be naive, but I have a belief that this may be a watershed moment in our shared history. That we've finally done something so reckless that it may lead many of us to reconsider long-held beliefs and, in so doing, to find that we share common ground with others whom we may have perceived very differently in the past.
Call me crazy, but I think that tired, hurt and angry as we all are, we may finally be open to trying something radical like the Beloved Community. And is this any crazier than the reality that we just chose the least qualified candidate in our history over the best qualified candidate in our history because, despite his utter and literal embodiment of every -ism that continues to plague our society, he made a significant number of us feel heard for the first time ever or at least for the first time in a long while? Call me crazy, but I think that after the implosion of the Trumpian fantasy, we may be able to harness the even more intense disaffection toward the positive, mutually beneficial ends of the Beloved Community (including because at that point, we'll have even less to lose...).
When the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., first began to speak about his concept of "The Beloved Community" back in the mid- to late 1960s, our reception wasn't exactly enthusiastic. After all, in 1967 when he began to work on his aforementioned final book that explained this concept, our society was in the midst of chaos: not only was the economy shaky, but there was massive social unrest as a spate of riots had erupted in many of our major cities, a passionate anti-(Vietnam)war movement was making its presence felt and being met with harsh resistance from the authorities in power at the time and, in the Black community, 'Negro' leaders like King were beginning to be considered passe' and losing influence to the newly empowered, younger Black Power advocates. And along comes Dr. King talkin' about a Beloved Community....
Truth be told, at the time, we were too enervated and scared and confused and overwhelmed to listen, understand and embrace his wisdom then ... but we sure better do so now. While there are many aspects to this concept, for our purposes today, I'd like to concentrate on two: its commitment to inclusion and its commitment to class- vs. race-based political and economic solutions.
As he had throughout his adult life, Dr. King never wavered in his belief that we are all God's children, even if we choose not to be loving to our neighbors. Accordingly, in Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?, he argued passionately for us to seek to be what we now call "inclusive." He reminded us that "In a multiracial society no group can make it alone," and that "To succeed in a pluralistic society," across racial/ethnic/et. al. boundaries, "strength will only be effective when it is consolidated through constructive alliances with the majority group."
Let's think about this for a moment: If we accept the premise that in a polyglot society like ours we need interracial, interethnic, interreligious, intersex, inter-everything collaboration, then we'll need to have alliances with the majority group. From the perspective of race, for example, for the next quarter-century or so, that means that minority groups will have to have alliances with whites. And after the mid-2040s when American becomes a 'minority majority,' whites will have to have alliances with People of Color, et. al. In other words, in order to have harmonious relations, we must all work together toward progress (especially across racial, ethnic, et. al., lines), cognizant that we are, in Dr. King's words, "bound together in a single garment of destiny."
Dr. King also called for a "revolution of values" that would "honestly admit that capitalism has often left a gulf between superfluous wealth and abject poverty, has created conditions permitting necessities to be taken from the many to give luxuries to the few, and has encourage (sic) smallhearted men to become cold and conscienceless so that ... they are unmoved by suffering, poverty-stricken humanity," or, as one writer put it recently, the people in the back of the room who've been left behind amidst our 'progress.' Certainly America is wealthier and more powerful than ever before, but studies show quite consistently and conclusively that this wealth is ever more concentrated at the top and that the inequality in the allocation of our material gain is widening. One source of Mr. Trump's election was this urgent, angry cry to feel recognized as someone at risk in our economy or even as someone who's already sliding backward. He acknowledged their alienation and their pain ... and they overlooked his myriad flaws and lack of experience or competence, so now we're all at risk....
But if we think back to the final programmatic thrust of Dr. King's life, his Poor People's Campaign, we'll notice a marked difference in strategy and approach that was both controversial and divisive at the time: the PPC was class- rather than race-based. Dr. King understood that in order to increase the influence that he sought for African-Americans, he had to reach out to other similarly positioned groups, especially the poor whites who actually outnumbered them. So he began to focus on their common condition - economic disenfranchisement - and not their racial and/or social realities (and differences). He understood what his detractors did not at the time: that in collaboration, the numbers of the collective poor were too large to ignore, but the alienation of each group separately was an insufficient foundation for organization.
And this class rather than race focus should be ours now: we should seek to unify all of those being left behind in our top-skewed modern capitalism. One thing that's clear - and made clearer still by the actual popular vote totals in our recent election - is that numbers matter and that the more voters there are, the more influence they will have in key strategic locales. In this week's epically critical election, almost half - 45% - of us who are registered to vote didn't (and, of course, there are millions more of us who are not even registered).
Imagine if everyone who could vote did. Imagine if our leaders had to respond to the call of the more than 80% of our fellow citizens who are middle or working class. It would be much harder to continue to ignore the concerns of those who derive the least benefit from their leaders' upper income and class bias, wouldn't it?
Which is why we need to reach out to Mr. Trump's supporters - including those of callow character who've begun taking his election as an excuse to engage in horrific -ism-based behavior - and to listen to their concerns and to craft a plan - together with them - to address our super majority's needs. The better able we are to develop a solution that improves the current fortunes and future opportunities of the majority of our citizens, the better off we will all be. The challenge will be whether or not we can rise above our historic and current differences - especially race and ethnicity - and work together to achieve a more just and equitable society, especially from an economic perspective.
Such a class-based approach will be both a recognition and effective address of "disappointment that produces despair and despair that produces bitterness, and that the one thing certain about bitterness is its blindness." It will be an acceptance of and effective response to the reality that "America must be a nation in which its multiracial people are partners in power" which "is the essence of democracy." And it will be effective proof that we both acknowledge and act in accordance with the wisdom that "This refusal to be stopped, this 'courage to be,' this determination to go on 'in spite of' is the hallmark of any great movement."
Will it be easy? No. Absolutely not, even. Groups that have rarely collaborated don't typically have the relational skill and necessary good will to partner effectively, at least initially. And let's face it: there's a long history in our society of racial and ethnic groups being pitted against one another to their mutual detriment (while the ruling elites that encourage the fight continue to profit thereby). But because of rising inequality, rural and rust belt whites now find themselves as vulnerable and suffering economically as their Black - and also Brown - counterparts.
The solution is not the competition among them to be at the top of the bottom, but the collaboration between them to insure that in a rising tide they all rise comparably and equitably. The solution is not the sort of political tribalism that results in a shared disenfranchisement, but a conscious collaboration that results in common wealth and the improvement of the commonweal. The solution is not handing power to a malevolent, craven beneficiary of a rigged (economic) system, but seizing political power nonviolently and collectively to wield it in a way that reflects that we are "seeking to make the world and our nation better places to live" for ever more of our fellow Children of God. And, the solution, as we seek to refashion our society and our world in more economically, socially, politically, etc., inclusive ways, is that we recognize that "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that" and that "Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."
These are the contours of the Beloved Society, that we value everyone and seek our collective - and each person's individual - progress. I may be naive, but I have a belief that this may be a watershed moment in our shared history. That we've finally done something so reckless that it may lead many of us to reconsider long-held beliefs and, in so doing, to find that we share common ground with others whom we may have perceived very differently in the past.
Call me crazy, but I think that tired, hurt and angry as we all are, we may finally be open to trying something radical like the Beloved Community. And is this any crazier than the reality that we just chose the least qualified candidate in our history over the best qualified candidate in our history because, despite his utter and literal embodiment of every -ism that continues to plague our society, he made a significant number of us feel heard for the first time ever or at least for the first time in a long while? Call me crazy, but I think that after the implosion of the Trumpian fantasy, we may be able to harness the even more intense disaffection toward the positive, mutually beneficial ends of the Beloved Community (including because at that point, we'll have even less to lose...).
The only healthy answer lies in one's honest recognition
of disappointment even as he still clings to hope,
one's acceptance of finite disappointment
even while clinging to infinite hope.
- The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
Where Do We Go From Here:
Chaos or Community
No comments:
Post a Comment