Communal Conscience

I have a very good friend. I do not get to see my friend often but the times when we get to converse, even over email, I enjoy rather notably. My friend is intuitive, insightful, inviting, intriguing and inquisitive. My friend is one of the best writers I have ever met, and exudes true passion for telling stories that I find to be rather enjoyable and while at times trite, meaningful in their relation to how people would most likely actually react. I have commented many a time on repetition in the human chronicle, but I find little to disregard in his repetition, in part my bias, in part my adequate assessment that the work is well written and insightful in parts. I have read both of my friend’s books, many of various magazine and newspaper articles and some excerpts of what may or may not get published one day. I find the books to be very intriguing additions to the literary world and provide a perspective that is relatively lacking in any culture, in spite of the flare we might give to the publication of an “immigrant’s perspective”. 

I would say, if someone was so artless to ask, that my friend was a “good American” by what I feel most people mean when they say that phrase. He likes the United States more than any other country I have heard him speak of. He believes that our system of management is a good perspective of governance. While critical, he feels that our labour perspective is made for entrepreneurial people and claims to enjoy the benefits of it as much as anyone else. He pays his taxes, he votes, he signs petitions and writes editorials when he feels the need, he contributes as best he can to his local community trying to befriend everyone equally. 

I think my friend is a good person. I think he cares about something passionately and goes about utilizing his capacities and concerns in a way that is not deleterious to others. I am not sure why the concept of being a decent human being cannot be equated with being a “good American”, although according to most people, I would argue, it is. 

I am not sure what the true distinction is. We are, whether we like it or not, humans first and foremost. After that I would argue is the distinction of how many X-chromosomes we have. After that is the question of whether we are either democratically minded or not. The first two are simple aspects of being alive as we are, and the third is a prospect of a person’s considerations of whether people can develop a good sense of community or not.

Unlike most democratically-minded people I acknowledge my doubt that people can be such well versed creatures in community. I have seen some of the most intelligent and fair-minded people turn themselves into voracious volunteers of the vocation to vilify Others for the vain purpose of having the veracity of their own viewpoint affirmed. I cannot with good conscience call that a community, where convenience and conceit outweigh the presence of another person. I suppose it is an improvement over nomadic cave society, but I do not compare apples to oranges – I am a real scientist. 

My point is that I should be the one, if any, labelled as a “bad American” because while I would calm myself democratically-minded I am in many ways hostile to the conception of the way the societal enterprise has construed these things in America. I am uninspired by the politics, the philosophy, the paranoia, the delusional sense of importance, and the predominant measure of value that is apparently etched in stone it be so magnanimous. 

I am by nature a critical and deconstructionist person. I find social structures to be debilitating and deleterious by nature. I often make a snide remark of them in order to get an edge in a conversation when I know it will rile someone and I take little penchant in “feeling” as though I “belong”. This is not to say I have ever designed to destroy or debilitate a community, but I am by no means a happy participant every day, and my consistent critiques would most likely draw more groans than gasps or greetings at this point. 

I, if I could, would change the very face and nature of all human society. 

My friend would most likely keep American society for about 85% of what it currently is, and genuinely believes it to be the superior and stimulating culture of the world. 

Yet there is a problem for this concept of who should be asked to stand in photo-opt moments with political candidates, who people want writing their mission statement, and who should be seen as a better member of the society in general.

I was born in Clifton Park, New York. My friend was born in Tehran, Iran. I was raised Roman Catholic. My friend remains a devout Shiite Muslim. 

I brought up what we are to make a contrast. I and my friend are both human. I and my friend have one X-chromosome. From what I can see, whether or not either of us is better for any social group then depends upon how closely minded we are to the core ideals of that group. 

My friend is more closely related to the core values of American society than I am. He should be the one people see as a good American. The reason people do not I assume has to do with three things: his accent, his religion, and his slightly tanner skin appearance.

I am not sure which has the strongest influence on people’s mindsets, but it is honestly sickening no matter how I parcel that out. 

I very much believe in the Right of Association. If anyone wants to be a member of a group, they need only agree in full with the core values of that group and they should have every right to associate with that group. Would I condone that for those groups who encourage and promote violence? I would say no, but then I would exclude nearly every major world power. 

Clearly my answer is no. I acknowledge I speak of Rights and of a humanity that does not define itself by such simple boundaries and associations, including violence. Idealistic or delusional, either way, the core value of my mindset is that someone should not be kept from participation because they have other personal convictions, simply because it appears as though those beliefs would conflict with how a group “views” itself. 

I bring this up now for really only one reason: people with both letters after their names have been elected who have publicly stated that my friend is a bad American, some even saying he is not American.

Aside from a little thing called a Passport which would prove the latter of the two conceptions wrong, I find it appalling that these people are even running, much less winning. 

My friend should not have to write an editorial response to a congressional member declaring a ‘War on Islam’. My friend should not have to feel as though his prayer calendar determines his worth to his society. My friend should not have face a critic who has already given him a failing grade based on inconsequential evidence.

Christianity has a rather high number of anti-government implications as well, arguably more extreme than Islam. Judaism dedicates a portion of their theological writings as more or less a warning against having a “Jewish king and state”. Buddhism is another shining example of how “important” any state is compared to its tenants. Yet it is Islam that is the only problem? 

My bother with all this is an answer to the question ‘So what did you think about the Midterm Elections?’ My answer is simple: nine out of ten of the buffoons we all supposedly dislike so much that their approval rating has been equivalent to my shoe size were re-elected to continue representing us. I cannot say it is good or bad or even that it is surprising, just frustrating.

My real issue though came from comments from someone face-to-face and also a paraphrase of what I heard from many “news” reporters about why the Midterm Elections were so important. Their thoughts being ‘Is it not great that we can elect people to fix our problems from other parties and unlike other countries we settle it there?’

What country are you referring to exactly when you make this statement?

Last I checked most of the world is not in civil strife because of political reasons. The places that are, I would like to remind that America had a very nice helping hand in creating that volatile situation, as did almost every European country, because we all feel as though we have a right to play chess with the planet. 

Just to actually hit the comment, how exactly will this “new” Congress “fix our problems”? This is the Congress that is going to make it so women and men get paid equal? This is the Congress that will stop wasting time with legislation trying to impinge on basic rights of people, some from forty years ago, some from four years ago, when they know such legislation will never be accepted? This is the Congress that is going to say marriage is marriage, no matter who it is with? This is the Congress that is going to make it so people are paid fairly for a day of work? This is the Congress that will penalize companies for lying about their stock revenues and utilizing slave labour internationally and breaking unions? This is the Congress that will stop militarizing this society and make it into one where people can actually believe their safety is the prime concern? 

Here, I will hush distempered breaths – no, this is not that Congress. Stop thinking it is. 

This is not to say I was elated or that I thought the world was perfect two years ago. I thought little of the elections four years ago. I made some votes I am not pleased with now from six years ago. I can even remember a vote or two eight years ago that frankly, I am rather disappointed I made. I am not angry at politics, I am angry at what the political process has become. 

I am disappointed and sickened that these people who hold up as our representatives say things like “[Homosexuality] is just a sickness, we know that.” or “If that (war) is what [all Muslims] want, that is what they will get.” or “I think [equal pay] is something that is overblown.” they get elected. 

‘So what, you want our representatives to actually say things that do not sound disgusting and actually think about what they say?’

YES I DO! WHY IS THAT SUCH A HIGH BAR TO PASS?

 I cannot ask every politician to have a science degree (I would not want my profession belittled so anyway) but if you are going to represent me and make decisions about the future of scientific education and research in this country then open up a book, call an actual scientist, and learn what is actually happening.

I cannot ask every politician to understand what it is like to have two children and then the father leaves you, and because your secretarial job makes $2,000 more dollars than some archaic definition of “need” allots you do not “deserve” help. I can ask them that if they represent me to actually try and understand that the vast majority of those people are not trying to scam or scheme anyone, and that like most humans they are just trying to get by. In other words, I can ask them to treat people as people first, stereotypes second.

I cannot ask every politician to see how a belief and structure of community makes someone feel alive. I cannot ask them to know how it feels to be loved and accepted and take comfort in a group that they fear for some reason. I cannot ask them to know the pain of leaving their home, coming to a place half-way around the world, starting over from nothing and doing so because you genuinely believe in the community you are trying to join, only to have members who represent that community reject you. I cannot ask them to know. 

Yet it sickens me that I need to ask them to care. 

My distaste has nothing to do with my political party or my ideals. My distaste is because Republican and Democrat have been elected ignoring these simple essential aspects of good governance and decent human qualities. 

It is not the colour of the party we elect that speaks of who we are.

It is the content of what the members of our Congress and our electorates in general feel they have the right to forget, neglect and ignore simply because it is easy that speaks of who we are.

When that ignorance includes the exclusion and vehement disapproval of good people, of what I would call good Americans, simply because of personal distaste, I am unsure how I am supposed to ever be happy, proud or feel accomplished, red, blue, white, black, green, purple, indigo, aquamarine, or any other party colour that wins an election.