Whenever I'm in Casper for a symphony concert, (yes I realize that from the first sentence I have betrayed my many disconnects from most of society and thereby discredited this post before it even begins) I like to have breakfast at this one dinner with a great breakfast special. It's one of those archetype establishments, just off the rail yards where young parents drink soda with breakfast and sit in the smoking section with their children. Where the tattoed waitstaff serve bacon and eggs to the parolee waiting for a ride to court, the unemployed waiting for their next big break, and the Juilliard grad waiting for his orange juice. This is a crossroad that doesn't exist in Boulder, Colorado, and existed only as romantic idea to the boy who grew up in Queens Village, New York who longed to gain a better understanding of this diverse nation.
From the breadth of my experience what I have learned is that the folks in this resturant have more in common with the people I know in my otherwise elite proffesional life and the people I grew up with than any of those groups will ever know or admit. Yet because of assumptions confirmed by geographic but more importantly ideological distances, precious little flows between these distinct and similar worlds. The important differences are meerly semantics and scale. So while most people of the "blogging" class choose a coffe shop for their musing, I prefer the platte river diner in Casper, Wyoming.
One day a year however the apparent competing values are exchanged via a vote of the people. This is the opportunity for society to look in the mirror and truly see itself. However like the compulsive dieter, the denial of the image is at once a result of the distortion that we know but can't define, as the unwillingness to accept the truth.
As in our personal lives, we can only address what we know. Society in the same way is the only entity that truley knows itself. While any increase in voter turnout is to be applauded, it is important to pause the celebration breifly to confront the fact that if our democracy was a student in any public middle school, the 64% turnout would earn an F on the final exam of election day. Any percentage point below 100 is by definition a distortion of the image of society. With a historic 64% of opinions recorded, we lack the input of 34%. What do those people know that we don't? What mistakes will we make without their insight? How can politicians know what's best for society when society doesn't know itself?
The most troubling statements I heard from people as the results of this election came in was the shock by the intellectual elite that I live with, that our nation could elect a black man with such decisive margins. How can anyone be surprised? Is it possible that those who pride themselves the most with an enlightened lifestyle are actually woefully ignorant of the good nature of people who have less economic and academic means? Has the intellectual class proven it does not know what the majority has known all along? Perhaps this is our greatest political problem.
I was not surprised. I have always observed that more people than not live without bias. More people than not, if given the opportunity prove themselves to be selfless. More people than not are of the opinion that rising tides economics makes more sense, not because a college professor told them so, or latent guilt of their generational wealth compels them, but because the circumstances of their life have demanded it. Americans chose Senator Obama not because of desire to make history, but rather because on his merits, they see Barack Obama as the best option to solve the problems they face. We have to give ourselves more credit as a society, but more importantly we have to find the silent 34% and get their input.
With our problems I have only known America to be a society that is actually better than it recognizes. This viewpoint has been viewed as naive by many, but it comes because through accident of my birth, my interests and my pursuits I have crossed the many bridges that span the rivers of ideological divide. Like Senator Obama I have seen and lived the myriad social strata and as a result have an insight if not true empathy to the logic of why we segregate ourselves. My life experiences may be unique, but rarity does not equal invalidity. My beliefs are always confirmed as voter turnout increases. Let's not forget that once and only once our scholar democracy did earn a solid B. Once with a voter turnout of 81% America elected a President with controversial social progressive values. An unknown legislator, the standard bearer of a new and unknown political party from a backwater state, the clearest image of our fundamental values showed us that we needed a leader like Abraham Lincoln. With that in mind I reject and dismiss out of hand any argument that modern America is not a tolerant and inclusive society.
Let us not confuse imperfection with the lack of progress.
Instead let's imagine a democracy with 100% participation. A society where the imperfect image we see in the mirror is at least accurate. In order to de-corrupt our elections we have condemned lobby groups, and corporate money. Some have even criticized the role of political parties, a critique that George Washington himself would concur. But as we have seen by the seemingly contradictory candidate and ballot measure returns, with an increase of individual participation, the influence of special interests groups in all forms is reduced. This is not to say that people should not organize based on common values. I rather believe that lobby groups, unions, special interest groups and political parties are a factor of efficiency in the public debate, however until we approach 100% individual participation, even the tools of organization will be distorted.
We know that people will vote their best interest when it is clear that those interests will be served. Rather than waste time and energy deconstructing tools of organization we should turn those efforts to creating a culture of participation. If everyone voted their best interests, society will know itself. When we know where we are, we can know where to go. The only way to perfect our union is to increase participation. Society knows itself better than any individual can. If we create a culture of participation we can elect politicians we can trust, because as many republicans learned in this election, like democrats did in 1994, elections have consequences, but those consequences are earned in a term of office.
I don't know if we will ever completely live in a society without broad ideological differences. I'm not even convinced that this is even a valid goal. As I have strived to define myself in the context of the worlds in which I live by accident and by choice. As I have struggled and failed to clearly explain the values, similarities, assets and liabilities of one world to another, I have come to the conclusion that it is perhaps best to accept the beauty of a society that can sustain these happily disconnected worlds.
But what is true, is that in order for us to live our separate lives in cooperation rather than competition we must reach a unified culture of participation.
Comments