8 minute read
Uncommon Questions Tom Seidner
Uncommon Questions by Tom Seidner
As obsessed as I am with the upcoming election, I don’t really want to write about it. The issues are changing too quickly for me to feel confident that my words will be relevant in the weeks after the Fall RFD is distributed. Instead, I want ask a series of unpopular questions. Not necessarily unpopular in the sense of controversial, though they may be, but I’m actually more interested in asking questions that may not be commonly discussed. And, being me, I will make some suggestions. Those may well prove to be unpopular.
The first is “Why are there still states?” Every four years people remember the Electoral College as a confounding obstruction to democracy. But nothing is ever done about it, because states with comparatively small populations would never ratify an amendment that would eliminate it. So, if we are going to honor the radical part of Radical Faeries, maybe we need to go to the root of the problem. The idea of states came from theoriginal thirteen colonies, which were British divisions that maintained their sense of being distinct entities. As the country spread westward, new states were added on in ways to accommodate political interests. A slave state was added on to balance a “free” state. A portion of the Great Plains was deliberately added as separate states to bolster the number of seats they would command in the Senate. Most states now are characterized by greater internal diversity, for example between urban and rural areas, than they are distinct from their neighbors. So, the result is that the government of this country is largely determined by divisions whose identity may lie in which sports teams they host. States enable Republicans to have a disproportional control of the Senate as well as the Electoral College. States rights advocates have traditionally been the proponents of the most regressive and divisive national policies. And while some might point to state governors as being both a bulwark against presidential power and a source of sanity during the pandemic, the same could be achieved by any intelligent division of the country, as long as population of each area was roughly equal. Another barrier to equality is that many states have one segment of the population having an outsized influence over the rest, ofte n in an urban/rural divide. This again could be addressed in forming new governmental sectors. An argument could be made that these new entities might not even have to be geographically contiguous. Wiser minds than mine might explore all sorts of possibilities. I am aware of maps that show that small geographic areas of the country have more influence in the current system in a way that favors cities. But our aim should always be one person one vote, not one acre.
A reasonable next question is “Why are we always the best country or the worst?”. We are often forced to choose between American Exceptionalism and a view that could be called America as Predator. Frankly, both just come down to America as Drama Queen. I am always wary of any notion that does not allow for the possibility we might be average. Other countries strugglewith many of the same issues we do such as distrust of immigrants, income inequality, the division between church and state, the balance between what is owed to the country and to the individual, and how to address the mistakes of the past. If we persist in the delusion we have all the answers or the fear that all we are capable of is interference and destruction, we cut ourselves off from engaging in dialogues with other countries to our mutual benefit. We have resources that can benefit others as long as we let them tell us what would actually help. We can ask for aid in addressing issues that have stymied us up until now. We can learn from the failures and successes other countries have had with their health care systems, for example, often incorporating both private insurance and governmental administration, as long as we recognize the diversity of their solutions and ignore the rhetoric of both the left and the right who refuse to distinguish between them. Because politicians are only voted for by the citizens of individual countries, they tend not to prioritize planetary issues that require a worldwide solution. Climate change, regulations to ensure clean air and water, responsible management of veg- etation and biodiversity, food production, etc. can only be effectively addressed by entities that span national borders. If the United Nations has shown it cannot be that entity, we need to work together to make other organizations possible.
“What do we do when some people have more than others?” The first obvious step is to address it and do whatever possible to empower those who have less. The majority of these efforts will require enlisting the aid of others, including unlikely allies. We are crippled as a species when so many need to devote all their efforts toward survival. Whose lives are consumed by illness, dangerous or degrading living situations, lack of food, or an absence of leisure time or paths toward happiness. That leaves them without the opportunity to use their intellects and explore their creativity. It is not only their lives that are limited, but all of ours. Can you imagine the solutions we could arrive at, the possibilities we could discover if all of us were operating as our best selves? But getting there is no simple task and we are forced to come to terms with the concept that there are people who will actually oppose such a world, because they think they are entitled to more power and money than others. Or even more commonly, they have more power and money and influence than others because of circumstance, like family connections or inheritance, and see no value in relinquishing it. And when we bring in entities, like corporations, the situation seems even less capable of being resolved. Let’s be honest, demonizing the rich isn’t terribly successful. The nature of power is often to make one indifferent to others and not subject to their censure. So, while we have disparity, and I know of no country without, there may be some options available to us to address it and reduce it. Corporations are not people, but they do have people making decisions. People can be found who will use their influence in the service of others. Sometimes, because it is something they want for themselves. For example, lesbian and gay organizations often find advocates and contributors in the families of the wealthy or people with corporate positions. Sometimes because it is good for the organization. Such as the companies who lobby for increased opportunities for immigrants as they want to draw from the largest possible field for talented employees. There is also the opportunity to motivate companies to do positive things because it helps them distinguish themselves. Very few companies actually sit around and plot to destroy people’s lives. But they do make plans to increase profit and gain an advantage over their competitors.
It is sometimes possible to pit these powerful forces against each other and to convince organizations and people in power that they can accomplish their goals by being identified as the ones who have concerns for the future and well-being of their customers. As opposed to competitors whose only motivation is profit, heedless of the destruction they do. And, at the risk of sounding even more unrealistic, there are people who want to help others because it gives them a sense of purpose and fulfillment. These are all things to utilize in these dark times, as uncertain as they are. One thing is more under our control. This is a wealthy country. Many of us have more than we need. Many of us have skills that would benefit others. Many of us have simply been through enough in our lives we have the capacity to sit down and actually listen to someone else. When we can be honest with ourselves and be of use to others, and not lose sight of them in an excess of self-esteem, at the very least we should sleep better and sometimes accomplish even more than we are conscious of.
The last question I want to ask is “Why care about politics?” All politicians distort information or actually lie and their primary concern seems to be their own election. Lobbyists and moneyed interests have much more of an influence than I ever could have as an individual. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, the fact that votes are tallied by state in presidential elections, the prevalence of news sources and social media presences that bend the narrative to their own interests, all contribute to make politics seem like something to avoid. All I can offer is that while politics seems extremely limited in leading to better lives for all of us, we have seen vividly in recent times that the opposite is not true. When the worst of us wield the most power, there is no limit to the damage they can do. As one of my heroes said recently, “If you think things cannot possibly get worse, trust me—they can, and they will, if we don’t make a change in this election.” And it is not only true of the next one. Politics, like so many things in life, is messy and much easier to get wrong than to get right. But, underneath all of the nonsense, politics is simply how we decide how we will live with others. What we value, who we trust, and what we want for the future. If it is ever going to become a true expression of our dreams, we have to remain aware of those who have nothing but contempt for them. So we care about this malnourished part of our lives to give it a chance to mature into something better.