archive:

2004
december
november
october
september
august
july
june
may
april
march

citizen's duty

tuesday, 10/26/2004

Like a lot of other people, I have already voted in the upcoming election. This was my first time to use an absentee ballot, since I wasn't sure if I could make it in for early voting. When I couldn't parse the confusing verbiage, in spite of my many years of expensive education, I called the county elections office to make sure I filled out the application correctly. There were all sorts of conditions and warnings to cover all possible situations, most of which didn't apply to me. Heaven forbid I do it wrong and miss the opportunity to vote! It seems odd that a government document for something so straightforward has to be so confusing.

Although I cast a vote for a major candidate this time, I found myself once again wishing there were more to choose from. I don't think I'm the only voter who finds that neither party shares all my views. In the end, the choice boils down to which issues are most important to me, and I have to settle for the baggage that comes with that candidate. Actually, I imagine most people do this.

The news media bombard us daily with polls and surveys which claim to decipher just what it is that grabs the imagination, and therefore the votes of the body politic - is it security?, war?, morality?, entitlements? I've thought a bit in the past few weeks about what things resonate most with me.

I'm pretty passionate about the concepts of individual liberty and equal rights for all. I think these things form the very foundation of our country. Maybe that's why Thomas Jefferson wrote the opening part of the Declaration of Independence the way he did. I never get tired of reading it:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

It isn't always easy to find the balance on individual liberty, but I prefer that the default be to err on the side of more rather than less. Adult citizens should not be constrained by another's "moral" beliefs so long as their actions don't harm another citizen. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are less interested in liberty for everyone than they are in forcing others to behave just like them, or like some ideal they have envisioned.

In order to have a functional civilization with a high degree of personal liberty, there must also be a high degree of personal responsibility. This means that adults are responsible for their own lives, and for any children they create up to adulthood. Other citizens, whether individually or collectively (as the government) have no obligation to care for those who will not take responsibility for themselves. This sounds rather harsh, but there is a caveat: I am willing to take on a fair share of the burden (in the form of taxes) to help those who truly cannot help themselves. This is not so much altruism as it is a recognition that none of us know when we might fall into that group through some illness or accident beyond our control. I suppose it could be thought of as an insurance policy of sorts. I wouldn't want to live in a country where there was no compassion.

When I look at the current state of our government, then try to imagine which candidate will move it in the directions I prefer, I end up with a split decision, or most unfortunately, with no decision. 

Watching the candidates speak on the tele, there is much heat but very little light. The heat is designed to appeal to the place where most people ultimately make their decisions.  I would say "their emotions", but I think it is more specific than that - the politicians have learned to play to our insecurities, prejudices, and weaknesses.

A major insecurity for me is the long term financial outlook, both personal and for the country. When I think about the fine example of fiscal irresponsibility that our government is setting, I feel ill. How long can we go before our national debt and trade imbalance finally cause the collapse of the almighty dollar? Will I ever see a cent of all that money I am still paying into Social Security? If we just go on spending like there is no tomorrow, with no thought of paying the bill, when does the house of cards collapse? The Roman Empire lasted a thousand years; will the USA make 300?

This issue is a no-decision - neither candidate will face up to reality.

Another of my major insecurities is the apparently increasing influence of religious zealots on our laws. We have only to look around the world today and throughout history to see that the closer a nation moves toward theocracy, where purported divine revelation is used as the basis of government, the less freedom is allowed the individual. The flavor of the religion is completely irrelevant. A decline of the civilization is assured in a theocracy. 

Well, I think I figured out which insecurity swayed my vote.

searching

sunday, 10/3/2004

I think this has been only my third weekend alone here in the city.  This situation is always awkward for me, since I enjoy doing things with people I know, but I'm not the sort who calls friends on the spur of the moment to suggest something.  Instead, I've always depended on people to call me. I'm also extremely shy about meeting new people, particularly if it is in a group setting. People who aren't introverts don't understand this way of being, but there are a lot of us, and unfortunately, we are our own worst enemies at times, feeling lonely but unable to initiate the social contact that would solve the problem.

Advice columnists (Dear Abby and the like) are usually quick to offer tips for shy people, and I'm trying to take the advice, but the results are mixed at best. The number one suggestion is usually to get out of the house and join organizations that you may have an interest in.

A couple of weekends back, I spent a Saturday at the local Museum of Natural Science. I really like this sort of thing, and I thought about becoming "involved" by donating money (this is most often the prerequisite to joining a group), but the feeling faded pretty fast.

Last night, I went to see the orchestra perform a program which included Beethoven's Sixth Symphony (a personal favorite) downtown in their spiffy auditorium. I even bought new strappy shoes and dressed up for the occasion (the web site suggested that ladies wear dresses and gentlemen wear coat and tie). Although the music was good, the only people I talked to were the employees at the will-call window and the usher who showed me to my seat. The older people sitting near me didn't talk much to one another, much less to me.  I've watched both M and youngest daughter in situations like this many times, and either of them would have exchanged life stories with the people near them before they left. I don't know how they do it. Needless to say, they aren't shy!

One of the other stand-bys for those of us searching for somewhere to belong is to join a church. After all, most churches depend upon  social ties to hold the congregation together. I've sort of been running an experiment to see how local churches welcome strangers in their midst by showing up on Sunday morning and seeing if anyone takes notice.

Fortunately, there are a good half dozen Unitarian Fellowships spread out around town. If I were Baptist the number of churches would approach infinity, but probably best for me not to go there. One of the most interesting things about UU groups is that they are all very different in style. I suppose this is inevitable for a spiritual tradition which has almost no liturgy and by definition rejects any dogma. So, to find the group that pleases most, one has to "shop around" a bit. By contrast, my experience has been that for Catholics and most of the major Protestant denominations, the order of service differences are pretty minor.

Although I enjoyed the sermons, the two large churches both made me feel completely anonymous.  It was interesting that the sermon at the large church I attended this morning was literally about making visitors feel welcome, since they plan to do a recruitment drive in a few months, yet not a single person there made any effort to welcome me, a visitor! I feel certain they are unaware of this paradox - it is just one of those things that large organizations forget how to do, never knowing they've forgotten.  Kind of like the difference in shopping at Joe's corner grocery vs. shopping at Wal Mart.

By contrast, when I visited a smaller UU church, I wasn't as keen on the sermon (too ephemeral), but several people spotted me as a visitor and made a point of introducing themselves after the service, signed me up for mailing lists, offered me coffee and donuts, etc. Although I hope to find both emotional warmth and intellectual satisfaction, warmth is more important to me if I'm forced to choose.

Actually, if I had my druthers, I'd rather hang out with my old friends back home, but until M wins the lottery, that isn't an option. I'll be back to speak there in November, so I'm just starting work on my chosen topic, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." I think it will be a fun essay.

* * * * * * * *