I admit to finding this way of thinking persuasive. Democracy depends on agreement that it's ok for the other party to win elections, even if we want our party to win. I'm pretty sure that agreement is no longer operable in the United States, and I don't quite know how to get it back. That's the short version of my argument.
And it pains me, greatly, to think about. I'm terrified of living out the last third or so of my life in an unstable, poor country. (Especially one that possesses an endless supply of nuclear weapons -- it is terrifying to think how instability in the United States could quite literally bring about the end of the world.) Even worse, I feel miserable when I think about my son having to navigate such a world, if it survives.
Manjoo's column this morning reminded me of Jonathan Franzen's New Yorker piece, almost exactly a year ago, in which he contemplated the likelihood of a "climate apocalypse." It made a lot of people angry, but his case then -- that we're far down the road, and there is insufficient political will to do what is necessary to fix the problem -- seems to have grown in strength now that we see how much of a mess America has made of the pandemic.
But I didn't think the piece was totally hopeless. Here's what he said toward the end of the piece:
It’s fine to struggle against the constraints of human nature, hoping to mitigate the worst of what’s to come, but it’s just as important to fight smaller, more local battles that you have some realistic hope of winning. Keep doing the right thing for the planet, yes, but also keep trying to save what you love specifically—a community, an institution, a wild place, a species that’s in trouble—and take heart in your small successes. Any good thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the really meaningful thing is that it’s good today. As long as you have something to love, you have something to hope for.
But I didn't think the piece was totally hopeless. Here's what he said toward the end of the piece:
It’s fine to struggle against the constraints of human nature, hoping to mitigate the worst of what’s to come, but it’s just as important to fight smaller, more local battles that you have some realistic hope of winning. Keep doing the right thing for the planet, yes, but also keep trying to save what you love specifically—a community, an institution, a wild place, a species that’s in trouble—and take heart in your small successes. Any good thing you do now is arguably a hedge against the hotter future, but the really meaningful thing is that it’s good today. As long as you have something to love, you have something to hope for.
This makes sense to me. Franzen was talking about climate change, but I wonder if it might not be best to take this approach to everything. I may not be able to save America. I may not be able to save Kansas, or Lawrence, but maybe I can do some things to make my corner of this community a little better. It may be all I can do, in fact. And if enough people do it in enough places, maybe we can make enough of our places better that this thing we call America won't slide into total failure.
That's not much hope. But it's the best I can do.
2 comments:
I'm not sure if this is "the end." I don't think any of us have any idea what "the end" would look like. I doubt the next few years will look like a Mad Max movie, even if Trump wins.
But I do think that even if we don't have a failed state, we have a failed government. It was an experiment, after all. And no, you can't just blame Trump, Newt or the right-wing loonies. I can't think of a SINGLE meaningful thing that our government has done to make lives better for ALL residents in the last 40 years, save throwing them an occasional relief check when the bottom dropped out of the economy.
This is a government made by the rich for the rich. We've gone so far as to lionize Hamilton, who spurned those not well-off or well-connected from the beginning. Save perhaps the FDR years, the common man has suffered while the wealthy continued their haughty attitude and greedy ways.
We have to stop seeing ourselves as exceptional and ask how we can create a government that serves the people. There are so many fundamental flaws that we've come to accept without question that it's hard to see how it can be put back together. I wish I were more optimistic. We need a real leader. But before that, we need to raise awareness and gain acceptance of the fact that our systems are fundamentally broken.
"We have to stop seeing ourselves as exceptional."
Yes. We think we're immune to both the patterns of history and to correcting ourselves, and the result is an acceptance of not-good-enough *while at the same time* proclaiming that we have achieved a utopia of sorts. And woe to any politician who suggests otherwise -- clearly they hate America.
Post a Comment