Which presidential candidate
excites the most high-pitched, venomous rhetoric? I find the nastiness, especially by Trump
supporters whose hatred for Clinton sounds anti-woman, not just anti-Hillary,
particularly troubling. There are plenty
of things to challenge about Clinton’s actions without name-calling or making
her gender an issue.
My favorite brand of
politics, right now, is listening to the musical Hamilton. This re-imagining
of Alexander Hamilton’s life tells the story of the founding of our
nation through the genre of hip hop.
Author Ron Chernow, whose 700+ page biography inspired Lin-Manuel Miranda
to write the musical, says that Washington was the father of the country,
Madison the father of the Constitution, and Hamilton the father of the American
government. Listening to the musical and reading the
biography demonstrates that American politics was fraught with passion,
demagoguery, and duplicitousness since the beginning. Whether taking the side of Hamilton and the
Federalists or Jefferson and the Republicans, the exchanges in person and on
paper were certainly as vitriolic as they are now, although much more witty and
sophisticated. They argued
over federal versus states’ rights, banking versus agriculture, executive
branch versus legislative branch power, how to interpret the Constitution,
whether to side with the French or the British, and much more.
Those intense arguments are still going on almost 250 years
later. This election is historic because
of who is in it: Hillary Clinton as the first-ever woman, Donald Trump as the
first person who never held any elective office. But it takes place within the American
tradition of free speech, for better or worse. When my Dad and I talk politics and cannot
come to a resolution, he sometimes says, “It depends on whose ox is being
gored.” This means that any event,
person or situation will be seen differently depending on the viewer’s
self-interest. And it has ever been
thus.
But even as political squabbling has not changed for
centuries, perhaps there is another way to think about our disagreements—something
beyond self-interest. Hamilton would say
no, according to Ron Chernow, because he had a cynical view of humankind. But I wonder if our conversations with those
who believe differently could come from a place of love, not conflict. We all
want to prove we are the right ones, the reasonable ones, and that the other
side is stupid and emotional. It would
be a great start to come from a place of compassion, understanding that the
other person has a right to her perspective, no matter how perplexing. But how to keep from going “gotcha” all the
time? For example, if we are debating
immigration and I say, “But did you look at the statistics on immigrants?” that feels like a gotcha statement. And is this really about facts for me as
well? It’s a conscience thing, to quote
Ted Cruz (which I find painful).
I just came back
from a week-long yoga workshop by the founders of the Holistic Life Foundation
(http://hlfinc.org/) at the Omega Institute (https://www.eomega.org/) and re-discovered
that there are multiple ways to embody what I believe. Steeped in the scholarly world of critical
theory which views imperfect systems as the root of injustice, it was good to
reconnect with a different set of theories about social change: that transforming consciousness can lead to
transforming systems. Eric Schneiderman,
a welcome and surprise guest at this workshop and the New York attorney general
said, “We are playing the same sport, just different positions.”
That is, those of us who seek equity and liberation for
humankind may speak different languages:
the scholars may use critical race theory, radical feminism, critical
discourse analysis, intersectionality, Marxist-based thought, and/or
post-structuralist theories to name and describe oppressive systems. Yogis and others on liberatory spiritual
paths embed their work in love: love for
the self, love for others, and love for humanity as a whole. It is not the fake-y love where acceptance
means submission, but the kind of love that asks hard questions and recognizes
the flaws and limitations of society.
Scholars and yogis have a responsibility to talk, write, vote and
agitate for social justice. The goal is
liberation and transformation of the self and the well-being of others, even as
we are mindful of where others are on their respective journeys.
It does not matter if you play multiple positions on the
same team. I see myself as a utility
infielder who sometimes plays the position of love (and acceptance), and
sometimes of justice (and righteousness).
I still have not figured out how to merge the two. Maybe by
November.
