Destination of Choice 2

In May of last year I posted “Destination of Choice”.  It dealt with the choices we have about how we live after a tragedy; we can become mired in self-pity and bitterness or we can make a conscious decision and effort to go anywhere but there.  I think the same is so very true of us corporately.  Today is Election Day.  We have been hearing from both sides of the political spectrum, and from varying political positions in between, that this election is of historical importance because it determines where we go as a nation; it determines the role of government; it most likely determines the future makeup of our Supreme Court.  But you know, I think there are decisions to be made with respect to the election’s outcome.  And there are decisions to be made that are independent (or most certainly should be) of the election; decisions that I personally believe to be of equal import.  No, maybe these decisions are of much greater consequence. 

The decision to be made regarding the election’s outcome is fairly straightforward, at least from my perspective.  We must decide how to respond if the side for which we have voted wins.  We can gloat with an equivalent of the childhood taunt “Na-nana-naa-nah!”, letting the “losing” side know there is no intention of being gracious and conciliatory; things will be our way and only our way.  Or we can be winners of integrity; making it clear that although we have won, we do NOT intend our winning to mean there can be no compromise or failure to respect the really good ideas of anyone with opposing ideas.  And, more to the point, we can mean that and actually proceed to work that way. 

Should our party of preference lose, we have similar choices.  We can be outraged, pout, and decide absolutely, under no circumstance, will we give an inch; the other side might have won, but they can try to get things done for the common good without any help from us.  Or, we can indicate our plan to continue the process by being willing to engage.  And then, we can actually do that. 

Whether we are on the “winning” or “losing” side should be irrelevant.  The resolution to act in a constructive way is one to be made not only as a political “side”, but individually in how we respond to those around us, our friends and family.  Being the voice of a peacemaker is not the responsibility of only those we elect.  In fact, I think the argument could be made that our individual responses have more effect.  Why?  Because our individual responses will set our expectations of how our leaders should react.  And if we insist on a reaction of integrity and cooperation, that should ultimately be beneficial and constructive for all of us.  

Okay, that all has to do with the election process and outcome.  In my first post “Destination of Choice” I maintained that as a family we could decide how to live after the loss of a child.  We could choose self-pity and/or bitterness.  Or we could choose to proceed with caution and avoid these two negative choices.  I said, “Shortly after Natalia’s death I said to my sister that I did not want us to get sensitive and assume/see hurt where it was simply not intended.  And actually, I wanted to overlook it if it did come…I wanted us to be very careful about choices made as a result of one of life’s horrible journeys I wish we had never had to take.  If nothing else, I saw that as in our best interest.  I continue to want us to be very careful and deliberate about our destination from here.  We do have a choice.”   

Now let me explain (or try to, anyway) what I said about decisions to be made that are independent of and of more weight than decisions centered on the election itself.  From my perspective, we have the same decision as a nation to make as individuals whose life experiences include a major, life-altering loss; the same decision I spoke about above and in that first post. 

Let’s go back to 9/11, but only as a starting point.  Because that’s exactly what I think it was.  Obviously, that was a frightening and devastating loss.  We saw people holding hands and jumping out of windows many stories above ground.  We saw what we had previously only seen in model-sized or computer-generated movie scenes, the complete collapse of huge buildings.  We saw real-life scenes of people running for their very lives, not knowing what was happening. We heard of airline passengers calling loved ones to say they were loved, to say goodbye.  We heard the stories of airline travelers, regular people, who did battle with other “passengers” in an effort to prevent the takeover of the plane and thereby insuring its destruction and that of those aboard.  Until that time, that kind of in-air suspense and drama had been our entertainment, in movies like “Air Force One”, for example.  I do not want to leave out or minimize the tragedy experienced by workers in the Pentagon and their families, but I've made my point, I think.  

Unlike many of our individual life tragedies, we had someone to blame for 9/11.  Responsibility was proudly announced by those who did not mind killing innocent people; people who were just going about their everyday lives; people who had no power to make the political decisions against which the anger of those guilty was directed.  I know from personal experience that it is easy to think a tragedy could be made easier (I find it difficult to say it would be completely accepted.) if there were an understanding of why it had to happen.  Having an explanation and someone to blame can perhaps be helpful both mentally and emotionally, I imagine.  But very much like chemotherapy, it can also be very toxic.  Chemotherapy can, in due course, be life-saving.  Yet, it killed my friend Ruth; her body could not take the poison that is chemotherapy.  The “comfort” (if it should be called as such) provided by an explanation and someone to blame can quickly and so easily morph into something that can either severely damage our corporate sense of fairness and compassion, if not completely and utterly kill both.  When (I personally feel that given where we are, it is more accurate to say “when” and NOT “if”.) that happens, I do not see how it can matter which political party is in power, or what our determination about what government should be.  We will have become no different than the enemy against which we rail.  We will hate indiscriminately, just as they do.  We will throw blame to those who had little or no power regarding political decisions that were hurtful to some.  It will not bother our collective national conscience if some pay the price for what they personally and individually did not do; for what they perhaps did not approve.  We will cease to see people as separate from their group (or what we determine to be the group to which they belong); all will be judged on the few.  And we will justify that in the same way those guilty of 9/11 did; focusing on the wrong done to us.  We will be judge and jury in exactly the same way al-Qaeda was when they decided to set the attacks in motion.  And once hate has taken over, the political power and the policies which feed our hate will be those we choose.

However, the explanation and resulting blame for 9/11 as a poison could be controlled.  It did not, and does not have to continue becoming an ever more wide-spread and more lethal toxin.  We had, and have, two choices:  to blame and direct our anger towards ONLY those truly responsible, those who were involved in the decision to plot and carry out the attacks; or to blame, be angry towards, and begin to hate any and all who have anything in common with the guilty, be it through religion, nationality, world geographical region, just whatever. 

It does seem to me that we, thus far, have chosen the second of these two possibilities.  We have political leaders and religious leaders who aggressively malign all Muslims and people with the coloring which seems to indicate they might come from the Middle East.  I know individuals who think “they’re coming here to kill us”.  I know people who get on a plane and look around to see if any such “types” are also on the plane.  Allow me to share a recent example.

I attended the annual Halloween party of a friend a few weeks ago.  It was a smaller party than usual, which I liked; more intimate and conducive to shared conversation.  Since my friend had just returned from a mission’s trip to Mexico, the topic of air travel came up.  My friend admitted that she and another friend always look around to check out their fellow passengers.  She and the friend apparently have some name they use to refer to anyone who “looks like” he could be the terrorist.  (That is actually one of many things I love about this friend; she is open and honest.  You know where she stands on things, even if you do not agree.  Another is that she can agree to disagree.)  “Really?”, I asked.  “That was 2001.  It’s been 11 years.”  Not too much to my surprise, but a little, others spoke up, totally agreeing that they did the same and had the same concerns about who was on a plane with them. Only a retired airline pilot, whom I did not know, was able to relate an incident that illustrated how ridiculous some regulations have become.  I understood that.  It was a specific case, something someone truly HAD experienced; something that had no connection to a particular group of people.       

In fairness, I understood to a very small degree the fear you can have.  Allan and I flew from Buffalo to Atlanta ten days after 9/11.  The plane was practically empty.  I did look around at the other passengers.  I was afraid.  But, to the best of my memory, that is the only time I have done that.  I HAVE, on a couple of occasions, looked around to see if there are any young, strong guys on the plane.  I truly don’t remember caring what they looked like.  To me, the one with the darker skin could be the guy to save us.  The potential threat could be a crazy guy who is white and hates the US government, passionately.  So, I just wanted to see a decent number of young, strong-looking guys, period.  

The people with whom I disagreed (although I said nothing more) are people I like and respect; a lot.  Their opinions did not change in any way my regard and respect for them.  But it did generate some thoughts and questions in my mind about how intelligent, reasonable, kind, generous people can be drawn into assumptions about any and all people who look a certain way.  That’s when I began to consider the decisions we have made and continue to make in response to 9/11.  I have to say that I’d like to see us make a different choice.  I think it would be far healthier if we choose NOT to become bitter towards an entire group of people; far healthier if we choose NOT to be controlled by fear; far healthier if we choose to do what we say we believe in, consider someone innocent until proven guilty.

As I’ve been suggesting here, we do have a choice about where our collective, national attitude towards  and respect for others will go.  Its impact on us will be great.  If we doubt that, we need only study and consider the impact on Germany when just one voice gained an audience; one voice insisting on the hatred for and discrimination against one group of people.  I’ve been hearing an awful lot about the “exceptionalism” we Americans enjoy.  I’ll show self-discipline and for this post only say that we need to remember we would NOT be in any way exceptional when it comes to hatred.  No group would.  But, since we call ourselves a Christian nation, we should be especially aware of how all human hearts have the same capacity for what we call evil.  And we do believe hatred to be evil, do we not?  Something to think about, I hope.