The Egalitarian Ideal

Is egalitarianism an unattainable, and thus naive, pointless abstraction, or is it a principle central to the American ideal? Politics always involves an interplay between philosophical abstractions and pragmatic concessions to reality. That is as it should be. We err terribly if a recognition of non-attainability leads to the abandonment of ideals.

In our personal lives, horizons are necessarily limited, and lofty goals often must be scaled back or altered in order to set new goals which are indeed attainable. Sadly for some, that means abandoning not only the unattainable goal, but also the worthy ideal which buttressed it. But for others it means balancing the ideals with realism, and achieving something that can make a difference, rather than overreaching and achieving nothing, or giving up and substituting lofty goals with cynical opportunistic ends.

Our nation's history serves as a testament to the worthiness of the egalitarian ideal, boldly written into our Declaration of Independence, but incrementally approached as two centuries saw the extension of the vote to non-land owners, then an end to slavery, then women's suffrage, and further progress in the mid-twentieth century in the rights of minorities. As Martin Luther King Jr, who participated in creating that progress noted in 1967, "the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." Formalization of an ideal, such as that written into the Declaration of Independence can have a lasting influence in moving toward that ideal, however unattainable the ultimate manifestation of the ideal can be.

Of course, there will always be inequities. There is wisdom in the oft heard counsel that "life isn't fair" and we do well to recognize that early. But that does not mean that fairness should be thrown away as a value, nor does it justify mistreatment of our fellow human beings, just because absolute equality is unattainable. No matter how much someone may buy into the notion that making things fair is a hopeless proposition, it always seems they will still be acutely aware when they are not dealt a fair hand.

The egalitarian ideal has been held up by people of various political stripes throughout America's history, and adopted broadly in many parts of the world as a worthy goal. No philosophy or party has the market cornered on it, nor do I wish for that, but for much of the last century Democrats have been more consistent than Republicans in holding it up as central to the American dream, and it is largely due to that emphasis that my own identification has remained that of a Democrat throughout my adult life. My party's candidates stumble and fail frequently enough, but the egalitarian ideal remains an American ideal to which I hope the Democrats can hold fast as we approach the future.

And let us all, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and others alike, continue to hold ideals and vision as a beacon to guide our policy and politics as we grapple with the realities in our imperfect world.

Happy New Year!

Brutal Truths & Bridges of Hope

Truth wears no labels.

Truth shows up in surprising places.

Truth cannot be cornered and packaged.

Of course, we all have our own truths, and we get comfortable with the set of truths we know; we hang out in certain crowds; we can't resist packaging the truth as we understand it; but we all get blindsided from time to time.

I suppose I take it as a point of pride that I repeatedly question my own assumptions. Why do I think that? How do I know that's true? What does that person with the opposite opinion know that I may not? It turns some people away. They think I'm wishy washy - a flip-flopper. But it hardly means that I don't have deep convictions.

One such conviction is that it is wrong to judge someone for a trait over which they have no control. Always. But it does not follow that someone who does so wrongly judge others is himself always wrong about everything. He may see a brutal truth to which I am blind. Still I'll more often look for truth among those who first demonstrate the most compassion. It just stands to reason that the odds are better there. But occasionally close examination will reveal them to be dead wrong - about some things.

So we need to confront the brutal truths which come from disparate perspectives. But hatred can sometimes come disguised as brutal truth, so healthy skepticism is necessary to accompany that willingness to listen to opinions which challenge our assumptions. But with no willingness to listen then all is reduced to argument and divisiveness will reign.

Hmm. I can imagine someone reading this as a lot of airy nothing. But humor me, and stick with it for just a little longer. Because I'm not just saying that we need the brutal truth tellers from all sides (and we do) - even as we need the listeners who will help filter out some of the accompanying nonsense and expose it as chaff. We need the doubters like me, and we need those who are really sure of their paths and will not waver - and sometimes I'm like that too. But we need something else.

We need the bridgers. Those who can show us the bridges of hope. The bridgers are my heroes. Bridgers are no strangers to the brutal truths - but they find brutal truths on both sides of the divides and can speak to groups of people who find it difficult to speak to each other.

Today I bought myself a birthday present. A Call to Conscience: The Landmark Speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. On 7 audio CDs. King was the consumate bridger. Such bridgers are rare, but there may be more of them than we sometimes imagine. Few attain the profile that King did in his too short life.

Can a wealthy, idolized rock star be a bridger? It doesn't seem likely. But then there's Bono. I've long liked U2's music, but then I like a lot of rock and roll. What I really like is what Bono has done with his celebrity. Thanks to Bob Wratz of BrightEyesDimView for pointing me to Bono's homily (free subscription required) at the National Prayer Breakfast one week ago. I want to excerpt some highlights, but it's hard - it works best as a whole. You know the old "read the whole thing" exhortation. But here's a little after he is talking about how churches came around to confront the AIDS epidemic after a slow start born of judgmentalism:

But in truth, I was wrong again. The church was slow but the church got busy on this the leprosy of our age.

Love was on the move.

Mercy was on the move.

God was on the move.

Moving people of all kinds to work with others they had never met, never would have cared to meet...conservative church groups hanging out with spokesmen for the gay community, all singing off the same hymn sheet on AIDS...soccer moms and quarterbacks...hip-hop stars and country stars. This is what happens when God gets on the move: crazy stuff happens!

Popes were seen wearing sunglasses!

Jesse Helms was seen with a ghetto blaster!

Crazy stuff. Evidence of the spirit.

It was breathtaking. Literally. It stopped the world in its tracks.

When churches started demonstrating on debt, governments listened - and acted. When churches starting organising, petitioning, and even - that most unholy of acts today, God forbid, lobbying...on AIDS and global health, governments listened - and acted.

I'm here today in all humility to say: you changed minds; you changed policy; you changed the world.

Look, whatever thoughts you have about God, who He is or if He exists, most will agree that if there is a God, He has a special place for the poor. In fact, the poor are where God lives.

Check Judaism. Check Islam. Check pretty much anyone.

I mean, God may well be with us in our mansions on the hill. I hope so. He may well be with us as in all manner of controversial stuff. Maybe, maybe not. But the one thing we can all agree, all faiths and ideologies, is that God is with the vulnerable and poor.

God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is in the silence of a mother who has infected her child with a virus that will end both their lives. God is in the cries heard under the rubble of war. God is in the debris of wasted opportunity and lives, and God is with us if we are with them. "If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and speaking wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom with become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire in scorched places."

It's not a coincidence that in the scriptures, poverty is mentioned more than 2,100 times. It's not an accident. That's a lot of air time, 2,100 mentions. (You know, the only time Christ is judgmental is on the subject of the poor.) 'As you have done it unto the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me' (Matthew 25:40). As I say, good news to the poor.

Here's some good news for the president. After 9/11 we were told America would have no time for the world's poor. America would be taken up with its own problems of safety. And it's true these are dangerous times, but America has not drawn the blinds and double-locked the doors.

In fact, you have doubled aid to Africa. You have tripled funding for global health. Mr. President, your emergency plan for AIDS relief and support for the Global Fund - you and Congress - have put 700,000 people onto life-saving anti-retroviral drugs and provided 8 million bed nets to protect children from malaria.

Outstanding human achievements. Counterintuitive. Historic. Be very, very proud.

But here's the bad news. From charity to justice, the good news is yet to come. There is much more to do. There's a gigantic chasm between the scale of the emergency and the scale of the response.

And finally, it's not about charity after all, is it? It's about justice.

Let me repeat that: It's not about charity, it's about justice.

And that's too bad.

Because you're good at charity. Americans, like the Irish, are good at it. We like to give, and we give a lot, even those who can't afford it.

But justice is a higher standard. Africa makes a fool of our idea of justice; it makes a farce of our idea of equality. It mocks our pieties, it doubts our concern, it questions our commitment.

Sixty-five hundred Africans are still dying every day of a preventable, treatable disease, for lack of drugs we can buy at any drug store. This is not about charity, this is about justice and equality.

Ok, it was more than a little - but wasn't it worth it? At the National Prayer Breakfast, with Bush and Congressional and religious leaders in attendance.

King Still Germane Today

Extraordinary vision retains its relevance across conflicts and issues spanning generations. The American hero whose legacy we celebrate today was a prophet whose vision remains eerily germane today. From his essay Testament of Hope published posthumously we find:

Today's problems are so acute because the tragic evasion and defaults of several centuries have accumulated to disaster proportions. The luxury of a leisurely approach to urgent solutions--the ease of gradualism--was forfeited by ignoring the issues for too long. The nation waited until the black man was explosive with fury before stirring itself even to partial concern. Confronted now with the interrelated problems of war, inflation, urban decay, white backlash and a climate of violence, it is now forced to address itself to race relations and poverty, and it is tragically unprepared. What might once have been a series of separate problems now merge into a social crisis of almost stupefying complexity.

The lists of particulars have changed somewhat, but the insight remains germane to issues of civil rights today, as it is transferrable to issues such as the environment. Like others I have little doubt that King would have continued to challenge our moral edges boldly and creatively.

His assassination rocked my consciousness as a child in a white Atlanta suburb in the sixties, so today I commemorated that memory by taking my own child to Seattle's rally and march in his memory. He was embarrassed by the volume of my chanting--"I should use the voice I have", I told him--but remained a trooper in the rainy two mile march, carrying his own sign much of the way. Present were the provocateurs trying to bend the rally to their own leftist ends, but they were largely unsuccessful. I observed the scorn of a young black woman, whose reaction to the attempted "Bush is a fascist" chant of one young white guy with a bullhorn, was "I'm not going to say that!" Perhaps I share the indictment of Bush, but there are better ways to dignify the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. Sans bullhorn, I shouted and shout still, "We're keeping the Dream alive!"

Addendum
The fascist chant may have been off the mark, but not by nearly as much as the inclusion of fighter jets at the San Antonio MLK March, agreed to by their commission chairman Rev. Herman Price. Thanks to Jeanne at Body and Soul, Benjamin Greenberg and Tommy Calvert, Jr for their perspectives.

Rosa Parks

On the day of her passing, we thank Rosa Parks for her important role in bending the moral arc of the universe toward justice. But we also thank those who came before her, those who worked with her, and those who have come since.

The Rosa Parks story is frequently taken out of context, and there is a misimpression that it just happened one day out of the blue. Parks earned her renown after years of involvement. From Paul Loeb's article:

[the] familiar rendition of her story had stripped the Montgomery, Ala., boycott of its most important context. Before refusing to give up her bus seat, Parks had spent 12 years helping lead the local NAACP chapter. The summer before, Parks had attended a 10-day training session at Tennessee's labor and civil rights organizing school, the Highlander Center, where she'd met an older generation of civil rights activists and discussed the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision banning "separate but equal" schools.

In other words, Parks didn't come out of nowhere. She didn't single-handedly give birth to the civil rights efforts. Instead, she was part of an existing movement for change at a time when success was far from certain.

This in no way diminishes the power and historical importance of her refusal to give up her seat. But it does remind us that this tremendously consequential act might never have taken place without the humble and frustrating work that she and others did earlier on. It reminds us that her initial step of getting involved was just as courageous and critical as the fabled moment when she refused to move to the back of the bus.

As a white male in 2005, I live in greater freedom to the extent that oppression has been lifted from others. One of Martin Luther King Jr.'s great insights was in recognizing the oppressive effect of oppression not only on the oppressed, but also on the oppressor and upon those expected to take the role of the oppressor. To the extent that inequity was still palpable in the sixties when I was growing up in Georgia, I can tell you that it was unpleasant for me. Of course it was ever so much worse for those on the other end of the inequity.

[Addendum: For additional background on Rosa Parks's action, the role of others, and the Montgomery bus boycott, please see Sheelzebub's excellent post at Preemptive Karma.]

Satirical "Lost" Bush Speech

If conservatives were consistently this brilliant in expounding their ideas, then they certainly would be quite formidable, but then they would also be less frightening. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion that the underpinnings of conservatism are ethically bereft, and all eloquence in defense of its policies is tantamount to cynical trickery.

As a liberal (usually) who is most annoyed by the dogged conflation by the right of liberalism with moral decay, one of my fundamental liberal notions is that sound values based on concern for our fellow humans can honestly lead people to different conclusions. It would be hypocritical of me to not acknowledge that some conservative values have merit, when my most scathing rebuke of many right-wingers is their refusal to acknowledge any merit to either the underpinnings of liberal thought, or an occasional success borne of liberal policy.

ScrappleFace consistently publishes intelligent satire from a pretty far right perspective. His attacks of the Bush administration are pretty consistently delivered from Bush's right. But while I would often vehemently disagree with author Scott Ott's prosriptions for an improved public policy, he strikes me as being in touch with the nobler underpinnings of conservatism, so much of his commentary rings true in spite of my disagreement.

Many on the left would dismiss Ott's frequent quotations of MLK's oratory as disningenuous because he clearly opposes many of the left's proscriptions for equal opportunity. But I see no reason to believe that his implied belief in equal opportunity is not genuine, simply because he mocks systems which he sees as fostering dependency and removing incentives for positive living and contribution to society. In fact I agree that any liberal system for promoting diversity and opportunity for the less advantaged needs to avoid those potential maladies, while I suspect that Ott would agree that any conservative system which demands responsibility and accountability should implement checks to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful.

In the current political climate, I find myself unambiguously allied with "the left" because I see the rise of corporatism as a real threat to the egalitarian ideal which has been advanced in fits and starts over the last two centuries. The current leadership of the Republican party is marching us toward an ever increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor which is in dire need of reversal. Many leaders of the opposition rightly point to the importance of framing in the right's success in gaining currency for their ideas in the national dialogue. They will point also to the technique of smearing the ideas associated with liberalism in changing the tenor of the debate. The implication is that progressives need to wage a similar campaign in reverse to compensate for the current imbalance. They may be right.

My fear is that when all the focus is put into winning the argument for one's "side" we lose sight of the values that were the underpinning of our ideology, and we contribute to the poisoning of the dialogue for those of good intent on both sides of the debate. But we don't need to lose sight of those values. The liberal values of generosity, enablement, fairness, openness, and freedom of thought can remain central to our discussion of the issues. We can agree with conservatives that personal responsibilty, accountability, temperance, and caution are worthy values to keep in drafting a way forward, without compromising our own ideals.

This is why I find no inconsistency in declaring myself to be both liberal and conservative, even though I supported the supposedly "far-left" candidacy of Dennis Kucinich in the last election. It's why I never stop looking for signs of reason from some in the Republican party, because ultimately we need a synthesis of ideas rather than a one-sided solution. Too often compromises are tactical rather than principled and we get a muddled centrism which brings some of the worst from both parties together. But not always. There are success stories out there. We must find them and model them if we are to choose hope for our future.

Democracy and Intellect

It's scarcely original to notice that dishonesty is a prerequisite for political success. One can try to blame "the system" for that, but really the fault lies with the vanity of the electorate.

"I have great faith in the people of our great [city, county, district, state, nation], to sort out the issues, and make the smart decision" is a typical winner's statement.

Yeah, right. Of course it would be politically foolish, if the winner has any future ambitions to insult the very people who voted for him or her. But usually even the best politicians must rely on the votes of people who misunderstand the issues in order to win a majority.

Let's face it, the majority of people in most jurisdictions don't have the intellect to sort out all the issues sufficiently to understand which candidate's election (or initiative position) is truly in the best interest of themselves, much less the whole of their city, county, district, state, or nation. That sounds so like an insult, but it shouldn't be. People have as much intellect as they have, and there should be no embarrassment associated with it.

People are vain about all sorts of things, notably their looks or abilities. But there is an unspoken suggestion that you really shouldn't be vain about looks, but it's OK to take pride in one's intelligence. Looks are external or superficial, but smarts are on the inside. But wait, that makes no sense! Smarts, just as much as looks, are an attribute that we only have minimal control over. Why then is it not just as frowned upon to mock "those idiots", even if they are dumb, as it would be to deride someone who is ugly or blind.

I was fortunate to be born with more than an average intellect, but I've always been sensitive to the truth I stated above, probably because of my mentally retarded first cousin, one year older than me, who was my childhood neighbor. Most people now get it that they shouldn't make fun of the developmentally disabled, and in fact most mature adults realize that it is mean to ridicule anyone for lack of intellect. But even if it is only quietly, otherwise decent people, myself included, are more likely to judge someone harshly for lack of mental powers than for lack of athletic ability, for instance.

In choosing our leadership, intelligence certainly is desirable. A dumb person can still be smart enough to realize that it makes more sense to choose a smart person to lead their group, just as a klutzy person can understand that it makes more sense to give the more athletic people on the team the most playing time. But the pride that is sanctioned with respect to intelligence poisons the democratic process, because there is such reluctance to admit to intellectual shortcomings, both on the part of the politicians and the voters. We all want to be smart and understand all the issues, even when we sometimes would be better off deferring to expertise that has been duly earned in a particular field.

Of course, there are complications with expertise as well. How do we know that claimed expertise is truly earned, or that the process of getting it has not been corrupted by power or nepotism? The more transparent the processes for accreditation, the better off we are. Democracy can work when power is balanced, secrecy is discouraged, and pride is not pandered to. But it is fragile, even in as powerful a nation as mine. Leaders need boldness and confidence and sadly a little dishonesty to actually lead and inspire their people, but I like to see a little humility as well, else I fear they will start believing their own hype, and become enamored of their own power and lose sight of the ideals we might aspire to.

Jimmy Carter remains the only President that I ever voted for, and I understand why I liked him, and why some of what I liked turned into shortcomings as a leader. Still I wish we could actually elect someone of his integrity and sometime soon. We have a growing integrity deficit, and if it gets any worse we could lose the best of what we still have as a nation. I remain hopeful, but not terribly optimistic. Our best hope will probably emerge outside but parallel to the political process. Martin Luther King, Jr. remains the best American model of recent history that I can think of. There are a lot of people out there - don't think it's not possible.

Confidence and Humility

Humility and Confidence need not be mutually exclusive. In fact they desperately need each other. Confidence without humility breeds meanness, self-righteousness, and arrogance. But the wisdom born from humility is lost to the world without the confidence to share it.

In preparing for this post, I searched for quotes from accomplished, and necessarily confident, historical figures extolling the virtue and necessity of humility. I expected to find wisdom from Martin Luther King, for instance, and I am sure he had great things to say about humility in his extraordinary life which exuded wisdom, confidence, and humility. But quickly I came upon the following from Helen Keller which strikes at the heart of this message:

I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is moved along not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker.

Keller, against incredible odds, indeed did accomplish a great and noble task in publicly sharing her wisdom with posterity. But she had the humility to recognize that without the goodness of the multitudes there would be no substance from which the great and noble could emanate.

We require the talents of many, as without each other all that is good falls apart. We need the philosophers, the teachers, the artists, the scientists, the manufacturers, the workers, the mothers and fathers, the logicians, the planners, the cleaners, and the earnest efforts of the humblest among us. In a well-functioning dignitarian society each role is carried out for the benefit of everyone, all are recognized for their contributions, and each can retain his or her dignity. Our own Western society functions far better than many, indeed in many ways amazingly well, but leaves plenty room for improvement, and in some areas dire need for improvement.

When we are able to take a role in our society, cognizant of the contribution we can make in it, we can and should be satisfied with our place in the world. We can sharpen our talents, expand our abilities, and improve on our contribution, but clearly no one can do it all. Everyone, no matter how great their accomplishments, is indebted not only to the "giants" who preceded them, but also to the many nameless contributors without whom they never would have had the platform from which to realize their greatness.

I feel I have some talent for expressing my thoughts. I feel no obligation to be the most brilliant philosopher to share my perspectives on our world for public scrutiny. I know I have some things wrong, but I'll do my best to honestly share what I believe to be true. Because the things I think about frequently have me making moral judgments, I am keenly aware of the need to guard against the hubris of feeling personally morally superior, because I know that not to be the case. I can look not only to failures in my past, but also to flaws in my current character and behavior to see my own warts. But it is a critical contribution to our society that we speak to a greater vision, and celebrate the best of human values. Millions upon millions of people do these things every day in large ways and small ways. Most parents do it with their children. It is unreasonable and unnecessary that we require of anyone addressing a moral concern that they be without flaw in regard to the area which they are addressing. Indeed, who better to speak to at-risk youth than an ex-con who took the wrong turn himself at their age?

Yet we are frequently timid, too timid, about speaking to the greater vision we may see, especially when that means speaking truth to power, because of doubts about our own truths as well as fear of repercussions. Some timidity is warranted, though, lest we become smug and self-righteous in our own surety. Dee Eisenhauer in a beautiful statement for peace, reminds us

Humility will help us cool our jets a little even as we seek to create peace. Here is a teaching I have found helpful for many years: I am right about 80% of what I believe and wrong about 20%; the trouble is, I don’t know which is the 80 and which is the 20. Some reserve even about our best ideas is appropriate. It’s not that there is no “right” and “wrong” -—a huge liberal mistake—- but in our speech we seek always to persuade and not pulverize, realizing we may be in error.

Eisenhauer's caution does not grant us leave from speaking our truth, but rather counsels care in how we do so. If the world only hears from those who (think they) are 100% right, I fear for her prospects.

The web has made such public introspection easily available, so I've decided to hang my ideas out here, while looking for other means to speak my truths and challenge authority where I believe it to be in error. My readership has remained relatively small, which has limited my temptation into hubris about the importance of what I have to say. But the nature of my explorations lends itself to big ideas, and the danger of succumbing to self congratulation always lurks around the corner. I've appreciated tremendously kind comments and emails from readers who have appreciated my words and have expanded my own perceptions with their offerings. Such exchanges keep me motivated to continue to explore and share, both here and in the rest of my daily encounters. But Keller reminds us that the small kind acts of those around us, nobly undertaken, provide the push for advancing the causes that sustain our hope for a better future.

the Unknown vs the Illogical

O.T. Ford, in one of his many fine essays over at The Stewardship Project, suggests:

Humans are basically conservative, and want familiarity in their lives, comfort, ease, a lack of challenge. This comes of being animals. It is easier to know what to expect, comforting to have routines, difficult and disconcerting to be faced with the new and the foreign. The new and the foreign are frightening; they are to be shunned.

But humans (at least humans, and possibly other animals) have individual minds capable of thought. They have the capacity to understand, and they have the desire as well. That which does not make sense will get their attention, and they will make efforts to change it. They will study the problem and attempt to understand it, and if the situation still does not make sense they will try to change the situation itself.

The instinctive fear of the unknown versus the cognitive dissonance of the illogical. The emotional peace of familiarity versus the emotional peace of sensibility. Humanity is being pulled in two directions, backwards and forwards, down and up. It is my personal conviction that humans are slowly becoming something better, that the rational pursuit of truth and understanding is a natural function of the mind, and the mind will eventually demand the freedom to pursue it. More importantly, the mind will eventually sacrifice comfort and familiarity, and risk social isolation and retribution, to pursue truth and understanding.

So the historical trend of liberalism is not just the quest for a better life. It is the movement towards an intellectual destiny. The practice of dominion in its many forms is the counterforce, the enemy, of liberalism and rationalism. It may be that some practitioners of dominion are themselves afraid of the unfamiliar, and oppose change because they are feeble-minded. But some are clearly just self-interested liars who will say or do anything to get their way. For them, the fear of the unfamiliar is a powerful ally in their efforts to control the world. They need only convince people to listen to their own fear, hype up the threat that change poses, and they have a ready army of uncritical supporters who will fight the battles that the dons cannot win on their own.

It is easy to become impatient waiting on 'eventually', but as Martin Luther King pointed out, "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

The Content of our Character

...I say to you today my friends, that even though we must face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed--we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, sons of former slaves and sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day, even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice.

I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today!

I have a dream that one day, the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, that one day, right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today!

I was only six and a half years old in August of 1963 when those words were spoken, and my awareness of them didn't come until later, but I do remember sitting in the den of my suburban Atlanta home when the tragic news of Dr. King's assassination in Memphis was announced less than five years later.

Being from the South I sometimes confront assumptions about what it must have meant to grow up with the legacy of racism, but being in Atlanta, Martin Luther King, Jr was part of my legacy as well, even as a white kid in the suburbs. Red state or blue state, white or black, 'liberal' or 'conservative', Christian, atheist, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, Hindu, or deist, we should all be judged by the content of our character. That's the crux of what matters, and those who try to divide us never succeed in getting the 'better' character on one side or the other.

Whether I'm right or wrong, I've judged the character of our current leadership to be sorely lacking and morally repugnant, and consider it my patriotic duty to continue to expose their corruption and cry for justice. Alas the majority of the counter-inaugural protests on Thursday come sponsored by strident ideologues who can't properly represent the outrage that's felt by reasonable Americans of diverse political persuasions. The best of the bunch that I've found is a plan for inaugural attendees to turn their back on Bush when his motorcade passes.

Whatever may occur this Thursday, all I can hope is that during the next four years we continue to find our voice and have it heard loudly and broadly, not as the voice of extremism but rather the voice of sanity and compassion. That voice may be radical when it needs to be radical, calm when it needs to be calm, reaching out to opponents when that is appropriate, but it should always informed by the call of justice. Here's to the memory of Dr. King.

Idealistic Vision & Practical Considerations

I've always been an idealist. At times that's led to naivete, but it scarcely means that I can't weigh practical concerns in reaching conclusions. Indeed it is never necessary that idealism be naive. Martin Luther King Jr was extraordinarily effective because of his ability to predict the practical outcomes of group actions he endorsed, while never losing sight of the idealistic vision, which was the underpinning of the changes he espoused.

It strikes me that a very common course is for people who follow their ideals early and get burned one or more times to become cynical and start to favor practical courses of action over idealistic ones as a matter of policy. The world very much needs pragmatists skilled in predicting outcomes, but when pragmatism becomes the goal, and idealistic vision is mocked as naive, then pragmatism loses its point altogether.

It is my intent to present the ideal and ask "Why not?" Sometimes there's a good answer, but even then keeping a vision of the ideal gives us a yardstick against which to measure the various outcomes short of the ideal which are within reach. After that it is all cost/benefit analysis, but proximity to ideals needs to be kept as a highly desired benefit, else we stray down a random road without much meaning.

Spoken 37 Years Ago - Chillingly Relevant Today

The setup process is somehow not conducive to great profundity, so I'll start out by quoting Dr King's words from 1967, from a sermon he gave at Riverside Church in New York.

“… the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’ Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

“A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, ‘This is not just.’ It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, ‘This is not just.’ The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

“A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

“America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.”

-- Martin Luther King, Jr
May 1967