Polianiac

Are you financially better off today than you were yesterday? That is a question only each of us can answer. However, for ‘ordinary citizens’ in the United States, the ultimate outcome of today’s House vote on the “Stop the Bleeding Bill” may be realized with “unintended consequence of doing good”.

No one is happy at the prospect of “bailing out” anyone or anything. We have to consider: are we so unhappy that we allow ourselves to become martyrs for someone else’s cause? Today’s vote was not a huge victory for Capitalism. The vote today has sent the world markets into turmoil; and that will affect all of us. Like it or not, for decades we have trended this direction. This is not going to be changed in one day, one vote, or one national election cycle. This is the price we pay for not paying attention. At some point, we have to play catch up on the facts.

So I ask you, if your car blows up tonight, do you have enough money in the bank to go pay cash for a new one? Does your employer depend on a “line of credit” to make your payroll? The people who voted today do not have to worry about these things—we do. Oh, and how is that 401K today, compared to this time last week? Why don’t we stop, take a breath, and realize we have been at least 30 years getting to this place—it is going to be a long road home.

I am not for one moment going to deny “fatigue”. It is present and oppressive. It basically sucks the life out of us—if we allow it. It seems to me, in order to win the battle over fatigue we must view it differently. We must view it as opportunity and choice.

Fatigue as opportunity: We have the opportunity to be fatigued in expressing our views both publically and privately. That is a gift—and one we can not be so fatigued we do not see. We have the opportunity to right wrongs; albeit difficult, burdensome, and at times overwhelming. The key is not to be overwhelmed. No one is alone in this. We have the opportunity to stand together, if only we will. Standing together requires together-ness: a willingness to reach out and connect, to touch and be touched; the willingness to learn something new. Not an easy task for this individualist society; but, a necessary one, if we are to remain…

Fatigue as choice: There is luxury in choice. Relish it by exercising it; and yes, there will be fatigue.  The reward comes at the end of the day, when you realize you did everything you could to “be the change you want to see in the world” (Gandhi). There is a “token economy” at play here: Who would have you be fatigued and who benefits from your fatigue? Think about it, answer it for yourself, and then act accordingly.

There is an end in sight—along with a new beginning. Either way, fatigue will be with us all. The question is do we let it work for us or against us?

We are 36 days away from the 2008 Presidential Election. This week I am going to find out how and when I can cast an early ballot in the Commonwealth of Virginia. From here on, I am going to focus on my work: the psyche of American people as it plays out daily within “the American experience”.

This morning on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Senator John McCain spoke of the value Governor Palin brings to his campaign. He expressed jubilance at “the excitement…popularity…enthusiastic response” she has generated for his whole campaign; while exhibiting petulance toward the entire conversation. That petulance disturbs me.

Friday night, McCain’s entire debate appearance can be summarized as “shrouded in petulance”. I have had it with Petulant Presidents. I did not like it with Clinton. I certainly have grown weary with Bush II, and the idea of enduring any-more years via Petulant McCain is really an outcome I dread to consider.

I do not remember Reagan as petulant. Admittedly, even though I voted for him in both 1980 and 1984, I am not a historical fan. Iran-Contra, along with issues like poverty and HIV-Aids eventually wore me out. The point is, Senator McCain claims Reagan as his icon. Reagan was never petulant.

What is the price of petulance in a president to the American people? What is the price of petulance in the American president to the world? The answer might lie in the horizon of possibility. Consider the definition: Petulant: 1. unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish 2. Contemptuous in speech or behavior. How do those qualities contribute to concepts like “future”, “hope”, and most specifically, “safe and secure”?

Petulance is a choice. It is a mode-of-being that one chooses. The choice is made by each of us, daily, even hourly, as we actively co-contitute our life and outlook. Personally, I can’t afford petulance in any area of my life. I do not have time for it, and I sure can not afford the negative outcomes that accompany it. Bottom line: I have found it gets me no-where and no-thing.

Pre-petulant Bush:

Personal Journal: Room With a View, September 26, 2008:

Last week, I got into a cab at Farragut West headed for Tenleytown. We had only gone a block or two when the driver asked, “What do you think of Tolerance?” Suddenly, the world was in slow motion. The words of every ethicist I have read filled my head: Martin Buber, Emmanuel Levinas, Aristotle, they were all there; yet, the only Gestalt present was “i-other”.

Here I was, making small talk with a perfectly nice man who was happy to drive me across town; and I found myself facing an ethical epiphany.

The next thing I knew I was talking. I was telling the nice man how I felt about tolerance; and actually between you and me, I was working through a thesis that until that very moment, resided only within…  “I don’t like the concept of Tolerance because it seems to possess an inherent power imbalance,” I stated frankly. Oh hell, Foucault was there too. 

“Tell me more, if you don’t mind” said the nice man. “Well, I think if one is tolerant of an-other, that very premise suggests the-other is somehow other-than-me. We are all human beings—people. For me to be tolerant would suggest I believe me to be somehow superior, in order to render the judgment of being-tolerant in the first place. I prefer to acknowledge the-other-is.”

“That is very interesting”, said the nice (kind) man. As we drove by the National Cathedral he said, “I am really glad I got to drive you today!” Still deep in my thoughts, I laughingly responded, “No, I am glad I got to ride with you today!” I wondered if he knew how truly grateful I was for the opportunity to synthesize my beliefs on this issue. As I walked through the campus gates it occurred to me that I had just experienced on of those neumenal moments; that place where something “bigger-than-me ” constantly resides. I have always thought that was God…

Later I was looking in old folders from my Masters days… That is where I found this: “Jung believed that when we use symbolic language we are acknowledging content that we “know” (but are not aware of) that resides in the unconscious.  Jung believes symbol is used to establish a relationship with the unknown by positing it in the known as symbols revealing a deeper, more significant psychological concern.  Encounters with archetypes possess a neumenal quality, the instinctive inner “knowledge” that we are in the “presence of something awe-some.” The passage came from my Final Exam answer two years ago in graduate Psychology & Religion.

Social Conscience is interesting turf. I wonder if it could be considered Main Street of our individual core beliefs…