Law and Order

Originally written Aug 4 2007; published here Nov 30, 2007

The pet names Marty affectionately and sporadically gives to his two fists
(a nod to Marty, who stands as my first example whom I should have included in the list of friends in my Third Book which, as I listed them, I knew there would be names dropped off, and intended to acknowledge as the further names arose)

It comes up not because I plan in invoke fisticuffs as solution to any problems that I have, but because it was the first thing I thought of (dunno why) when Abass extolled the virtues of “both the left and the right.”

I saw Abass last Friday night (damn, that long ago already?) and he asked me whether I would ever fulfill plans to come in and see him at the Capital. This past Wednesday I did…

We spoke of the “arts scene” in Harrisburg and central PA, and it moved into a larger conversation about social change and aloofness and “the status quo,” and as I relayed some truncated version of my idealized views, and Abass – demonstrating why, possibly, he holds the position he does – spoke to the virtues of the two sides, of the need for “the left and the right.”

And, Law and Order notwithstanding, the idea is (Abass would do well to comment here should I misrepresent his ideas) that too much social change too quickly can create too much upheaval and turn too much of how things currently work on its ear, and that “the right” exists to keep change measured, which is a good thing.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…okay, maybe you’ve got something there. Maybe. Maybe not, but maybe…

But before I wonder about the “maybe not” component of that, I’d like to speak a little bit to the poem that my visit inspired (see “WHITEGUYonthewall” on Poetry & More)

And maybe, as I walked through the halls that oozed the historical heritage of Pennsylvania, lined with portraits with WHITE GUYS – and more WHITE GUY portraits newly commissioned and standing on easels waiting for their time to join the club, there’s something okay about that because, after all, we are talking about people who left England and formed a new country…and they were Caucasians, weren’t they? It’s not like this New World was discovered by a bunch of folks who were leaving Morocco ‘cause they were being persecuted for their religious proclivities, right? I suppose if you walked through the halls of power in Thailand, where they capture and preserve their historical heritage, you would see a bunch of Asian (men? women?) on the wall – no WHITE GUYS founded Thailand, did they? So maybe it’s okay that all these WHITE GUYS are all over the place.

But why wasn’t it Morocco or Thailand? Had they not the reason to leave?

What if we reached the Age of Reason
Only to find there was no reprieve
Would you still be a Man for All Seasons
Or would you just make believe?
(Al Stewart)

Maybe they had no cause to leave for their cultures were already – to this extent – sufficiently enlightened that their religion and their faith was not persecuted. After all, it was another WHITE GUY that said “You’re only allowed to worship the God I say you can worship” that started the whole New World thing in the first place. And it was WHITE GUYS that led the Crusades, and WHITE GUYS that led the Spanish Inquisition. Age of Reason, indeed. The cultures of The Fertile Crescent and Persia and those surrounding areas had no consideration of “other faiths” for Islam was working for them quite well, thankyouverymuch.

And it’s WHITE GUYS that comprise the Right, Abass.
I’m left-handed – I’ve seen the world from this perspective, and I see how the word “right” gets tossed around in all its contexts.

“Left” is supposedly progressive
“Right” yearns to keep the status quo
Right fears change

So the argument that we need both, at its root, says, “Hey, let’s not get too hasty about making changes here. Everything’s working just fine.” Say those for whom it’s working.

I wonder how many 17-year old single mothers have a conservative bend?

You will forgive me, Abass, if after consideration, I can appreciate the perspective that says “we need both sides” yet come to see that it is really only fear of change – fear of wholesale, “there’s a shitload we’ve been getting wrong and things have got to start happening differently” change.

It needn’t be fearful. But Life is fear, and overcoming fear.
And we’re still this punk-ass pompous boastful teenager of a nation

I hate patriotism – drives me crazy. It’s a round planet last time I checked. (Hicks)

And I’m a WHITE GUY
Nay, more than that.
I am sitting in the proverbial cat-bird seat.
I wrote something in my journal during “Human, Being” as I sat in front of the Capital and saw what I saw from my perspective about all this…

…because I stood in such stark contrast.
I am a Caucasian
I am a Male
I am an American
I am relatively Tall
I am relatively Fit
I am relatively Clean
I am relatively Attractive
I am relatively Intelligent
I am relatively Articulate
I am relatively Mature

If I am all these things, who am I? Corporate bigwig? Political heavyweight? I am, with all those definitions, well positioned to do just about anything I want and have it accepted, to some degree……so why on Earth was I doing something so seemingly out of character? Because it is not out of my character – it is out of the “character” everyone might expect.

We don’t “need” the Left and the Right
I’m not even one to say what we “need” for I am in no position to make such declarations.

I can suggest, though, that perhaps our planet might stand a better chance of enduring the virus of humankind were those humans able to wrest themselves from the perceptions they create and maintain to find their individual happiness (because life is hard when you’re aware of it)

It is not a desire to return to a time before the ego
It is a desire to move past the ego, collectively, and embrace the idea that individual happiness is merely a matter of choice, and reality need not be transmogrified to accommodate that. Were we to achieve that, then any changes that might still be needed would be seen for the merits they have and would not be repressed by fear.

And we – each of you reading this – are able to see the truth to that, I am certain. And even the “practicality” that you might toss up as an argument to the contrary – you know that is your fear that suggests that, that believes the improbability of enacting such a wholesale change in perspective, the full tile of changes in every one of us that would be required.

Hey, somebody has to be the idealist. Might as well be, me.

Thanks for listening.

Philip