An Inarticulate Request for Reflection
This essay may be misunderstood and not totally well-received by some of the people I love.
Maybe my negative view on so many things in contemporary society is overriding common sense—
having family and friends is so precious how could one ever put them at risk.
Why would anybody think negatively about the American situation?
Could it be our rank in the world with respect to education. Or our total lack of both perceptiveness and plan when it comes to foreign policy, except for trade agreements that is (see God of consumption). Or our unwillingness to resolve the challenge of immigration and prepare for being a nation of multiple minorities. Or our losing battle with racism. Or our utter stupidity regarding gun control. Or our on-going, unsuccessful struggle with drug addiction. Or our distorted income and opportunity inequality. Or the fact that an important percentage of the workforce is making no more money than twenty years ago or more.
Nah … everything is cool. This is the United States, the country that people gravitate to, not escape from, and with good reason.
**
The good people exiting the church go to work every day, brush and floss their teeth regularly, respect the flag and country, love their parents, and cherish their children ….and they are the problem. The good people see, at least on the surface, nothing negative or unsustainable in the relationship between how they live and the long list above of societal challenges.
They listen to the gentle push from the pulpit and take it for what it is—a friendly nudge to divert a few dollars from consumptive column A to “do-good” project B. There is no thought of it being, because it is not, a call to change the course of one’s life. When the orator of the day repeats the bromide that “all people are equal,” there is perhaps one parishioner in ten who both believes and lives it. Instead, there is a shared disposition by all within the building to avoid that which is terribly difficult for everybody, including those outside the building, namely thinking through a personal response to any of the negatives outlined at the top.
This avoidance — of that which is unpleasant — is hidden by being securely in the hands of good people, in contrast to, e.g., drug or alcohol addiction, where the negative is classified, discussed, and confronted—with a clear change in behavior required to achieve sustainable health. (In this regard, note that the good people are purportedly healthy, thank you, leaving aside any comment on the implications of their medicine chests or therapy bills. And ignore the common thought that addictions in suburbia are treated as mostly health issues, whereas in the cities, the same behaviors are labeled as crimes.)
The definition of a good person here is unconnected to a philosophical or ethical point of view; highly intelligent people elsewhere write massive tomes on said subjects. Instead, it becomes a collection of absent negatives, i.e., non-addiction to drugs (the illegal variety anyway), alcohol (the leading legal drug), or sexual activity outside of the marriage. It should be added that the good people by definition (i.e., on paper, and not to be confused with reality) are non-discriminatory in their attitudes toward those of other ethnicities or persuasions.
For the sake of discussion, and to have some analytical fun with a few generalizations, assume the population is comprised of good people, 60%; irretrievably stupid ones, 10%; evil-doers, 15%; and hypocritical, 15%. (Some would argue persuasively that we are all in the last category.) Whatever the exact numbers, if there are many more good people than those under other headings and we still have the opening list of negatives, does this mean that (a) the good people do not want to invest time, energy, and/or money in bringing about the substantive changes needed in American life or (b) the good people truly are hypocritical or (c) evil individuals are so disproportionately powerful that it is fruitless for good people to attempt being change agents.
For sure, a high percentage of the good people, presumptively comfortable with their largely unexamined lives, are reluctant to embrace major change, whatever the specific issue. In contrast, consider another group, creative/artistic people: are they not less likely to be religious while being stereotypically associated with a disproportionate number of “bad” habits (e.g., how many great writers have gone through phases of being alcoholics), and yet, are they not more apt to be change agents.
A third sector, that of business, quite often has its practitioners clustered in the hypocritical column, their workplace amorality often coupled with piety elsewhere. However, in fairness, if not for the entrepreneurial, inventor category of business people, the world would still be characterized by some blend of long work hours (making 9am-5pm sameness seem like a walk in the park) and short lives. Such individuals make their own environments, which admittedly are often costly in terms of personal relationships, including within the family. In this sense, they are similar to many in the creative/artistic category.
A fourth category, that of advocates, is excluded here, as by definition, those individuals seek to be change agents. Perhaps the necessity for legal redress is an impediment to a grouping of overlapping issues, but unfortunately the targets for change are often single issues. Rather like pick your poison and seek to eradicate it — whether it be capital punishment or anti-gay discrimination or impossibly low minimum wages – without the handicap of having to formulate a comprehensive philosophy.
Where in this confusing picture are the theoreticians of a big picture debate: e.g., consumption as central to life versus whatever might be considered an alternative. Is there a philosophy which tackles this overriding challenge while mixing together the many attractive elements of American society: rule of law (particularly property rights), free speech, an opportunity to make mistakes and not be penalized generationally, the relative ease of establishing a business, the chance to rise or fall that is still more on one’s own merit than is true in the majority of countries from which immigrants come, and a level of diversity which puts other countries to shame.
The perception by good people of individual politicians, who naively might be expected to be involved in discussions of major philosophical import, almost never as initiators but as followers when they pick up the scent of success at the polls, instead is along the lines of, “my representative might be okay, but yours is a crook/buffoon/fool, etc.” The more strident would argue they all are borderline thieves, some deals taking place in broad daylight and some in backrooms with transactions brokered by highly-paid lobbyists. These characterizations stand regardless of which political party has won which election.
Meanwhile, the growing heterogeneity of the country’s population, inevitable regardless of the pushes and pulls (and politics) of immigration, will bring more diffusion of political power, more cultural uncertainty (tell me again what are the unique American values), and increased technological connectivity (which thus far should not be equated with improved communication, unless the latter is defined as knowing that your friend just changed his profile). Ethnicities will be so intermixed that maybe somebody intelligent will suggest dropping the enumeration of different skin colors. There will be questions as to the sustainability of having half the population continuing to own nothing – their assets are completely offset by their debts.
Will the good people, so-called “conservatives” and “liberals” alike, react to the long list of seemingly insurmountable problems by fleeing to physically gated communities. Already, residential segregation is high and growing, accompanied therein by even more commonality of political thought than heretofore.
Will the good people look inward, but without the deep dive which would reveal hypocrisy. Will the good people “act out” as the therapists say, endorsing politicians who do not recognize the underlying cause of many of the negatives listed at the outset—a consumerist country which has no other benchmarks than economic by which to measure its health. Will big picture questions continue to be avoided?
Maybe my emphasis on the ills of America will in time be considered a reasonably accurate picture, but ultimately only relevant to a defined phase in our society. On the other hand, maybe the good people will not rise to the occasion and work to resolve, or at least ameliorate, the lengthy list of situations at the open. Maybe there will be a bloody confrontation as the sector of our society which has enjoyed uncontested power since the creation of the United States finds it no longer enjoys that luxury. In any event, the fundamental challenges of American society cannot be addressed without a changed approach by the good people.
At this point, it does not appear that the reluctance of the good people to address fundamental issues is beneficial, at least not when it comes to these three rather important measures of progress: is the economy better—not for the average person, even with the recent macro improvement; are people happy—the polls say not; are we at peace—you answer it.
There is a saying, “you know you are growing as a person when you feel slightly uncomfortable.” This essay is simply advocating that more good people become a touch uneasy, okay, more than a touch.
http://bobhowittbooks.com/?page_id=22