Be the Change

Donald Trump has pulled off the unthinkable: a hostile takeover of the Republican Party. The Dump Trump, Never Trump, Vote Your Conscience initiatives are dead. The final nail for the coffin has been forged, and the hammer is poised to drop this week in Cleveland. All that remains is for the RNC delegates to make the deal official. This whole debacle is disturbing on so many levels, but one question I have to ask myself is what this means for the future of presidential primaries and caucuses. We’ve already spent a whole year listening to speeches and debates and casting our votes; and the Party of Lincoln has fallen into the hands of a vulgar, crass, racist reality TV star. How much longer can voters driven by anger, distrust, and a hearty appetite for entertainment be trusted to select our own leaders?

Our Constitution does not specify a process for electing our president, so the political parties have over time developed their own procedures and policies. In the early days, candidates were selected by their fellow politicians; in the ensuing years, the process has gone through reform after reform, leading to the mess we’re in today. Now voters have so much power that even when they elect a candidate whom the party leaders can’t conscientiously support, those leaders have no recourse because the delegates are bound by the will of the voters. And that sounds great when the process goes well; but when it produces a national nightmare, reasonable people begin contemplating the next reform of the system.

In the opening lines of Henry David Thoreau’s famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau says:

“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least’; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe- ‘That government is best which governs not at all’; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

“Civil Disobedience,” is about the individual citizen’s relationship and obligation to government. The words “That government is best which governs least” are enclosed in quotation marks in the essay because obviously Thoreau is quoting someone else. The line is widely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but that attribution is unconfirmed. At any rate, this essay—written in 1849—begins as a response to someone else’s idea.

Today we refer to the scope of government’s power over our lives as big government and small government. Jefferson, or whoever is being quoted here, comes down on the side of small government. The less it governs the better it is. And Thoreau begins by agreeing with the assertion but then takes it a step further: “That government is best which governs not at all.” So far, he’s said small government is better than big government, but no government is the best of all possibilities. He makes it clear in the rest of the essay he’s not an anarchist; he’s not talking about turning people loose to do whatever they want without responsibility or accountability. The key is the last clause: “When men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government they will have.” There’s the catch! If we don’t want a lot of laws and government control, it’s up to us to be “prepared for it.” We have the power, at least in theory, to lessen the grip of government on our lives and to protect the rights and privileges we have.

What does that mean? I think it means the more we govern ourselves the less we have to be governed by anyone else. I, for example, don’t need a law to tell me not to help myself to what I see in my neighbors’ homes or yards or the many shiny, attractive things I see in retail establishments. I do see lots of things I admire and would like to have; and okay, I confess, I might sometimes feel a twinge of envy when someone else has something I like but don’t have or can’t afford. But nothing would ever induce me to take anything away from another person or to pocket an item in a store. So for me, all of the laws regarding stealing could be removed from the law books and my behavior wouldn’t change at all. My conscience is enough to control my actions; in other words, I can govern myself on the issue of stealing, thank you very much.

According to Thoreau, if our consciences were properly tuned, none of us would need the government because we’d do the right things by our own conviction. It’s when we don’t govern ourselves or when we abuse privileges that those privileges must be restricted. When I was a teenager, I didn’t temporarily lose my driving privilege for doing errands for my mom or for being safe and responsible when I was out with friends; I lost my privilege to drive the car when I’d done something stupid. When my three children were teenagers, they didn’t get grounded for bringing home good report cards, contributing to the work of the household, being safe drivers, and returning home by curfew (all of which they did most of the time). They got grounded on the occasions when they made bad choices, not the times when they made good ones. I used to tell them that if they were tired of hearing me “discuss” what constitutes a good choice, there was an easy solution: just start making the right choices on your own and I will be more than happy to shut up, because I’m as tired of saying these things as you are of hearing them.

Often on social media, I’ve made the statement that it seems to me people who really want to protect what they view as their second-amendment right to gun ownership ought to be the very first in line to support common-sense safeguards on gun sales and ownership. As you can imagine, that position has not been politely received by my gun-loving friends; but I’m sticking to it! We lose the privileges we abuse, not the ones we use responsibly. Our country is in a mess right now. Violence and lawlessness reign. Mass murders are the norm. I don’t see this ending well for gun owners. If you want to protect your privilege, you have to willingly accept limitations. You have to govern yourself, just as when you were a teenager, the best way to persuade your parents to give you a later curfew was to abide by the one you already had. Coming home late every night doesn’t put you in a good bargaining position when requesting an extension. So even if you do think the second amendment to our Constitution guarantees you the right to own every type and amount of weapon and ammunition your little heart desires, and even if you think you have the right to tote that gun with you everywhere you go, it seems to me the smart choice would be to accept reasonable limitations in the interest of saving the overall privilege. Sacrifice a couple of battles so that you may be able to win the war. The only reason so many are currently seeking new laws is that far too many gun owners are abusing their privilege.

All of our freedoms are at stake if we can’t figure out how to govern ourselves. A country that descends into lawlessness and violence is begging for an authoritarian figure to take over and restore order: order that comes at the price of our personal freedom. I know I’m oversimplifying the matter, because our country’s problems are complex and deeply rooted, and we all feel powerless to untangle the web. Some things we can’t do, but what we can do is take control of our own attitudes. We can model responsible behavior for our fellow citizens. We can stop caring more about the success of our own political party than we care about the success of our country. We can stop hating and ridiculing everyone who doesn’t see the world the same way we do. We can stop framing every situation as “us” and “them.” We can stop believing we have to choose between black lives and blue lives and realize we can love and value all of our fellow citizens and want to protect all of their lives. We can stop being so damned rude and mean to each other. We can learn to solve our individual problems in ways that don’t involve violence. We can stop acting as if “our side” has all the answers and “their side” is automatically wrong. We can stop shrugging our shoulders and saying “God is in control.” God told US how to live, and we can’t do stupid things and then think God’s going to take control and fix the mess we’ve made. That’s not how it works. I don’t think very many people are listening to God when they make Donald Trump a presidential candidate and go around killing each other every week.

These problems won’t be fixed in a month or a year or even ten years; I’ve resigned myself to the probability that they won’t be fixed in my lifetime. But we’re not powerless. We each have a voice and a sphere of influence, and if we don’t start using them more effectively, the consequences could be dire. Mahatma Gandhi said, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” I think it’s our only hope.