Saturday, November 3, 2012

thirteen ways of looking at citizenship

I started this blog a couple years ago with the philosophy that we are healthier - emotionally, mentally, spiritually, when we let ourselves look at life from many different angles - when we allow ourselves to open ourselves up to possibilities.  I've been interested over these years in the number of times I've found myself writing about citizenship and 'current events.'  I am surprised to find that I believe our role as 'citizen' actually impacts our emotional life and health.

So here's a blog that's been cooking since August (maybe that's why it's so long).

In the August 6, 2012 New Yorker, Ryan Lizza profiled Paul Ryan.  The following quote was attributed to Mr. Ryan: “Only by taking responsibility for oneself, to the greatest extent possible, can one ever be free,” he wrote, “and only a free person can make responsible choices—between right and wrong, saving and spending, giving or taking.”  http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_lizza#ixzz2B3vsd5DZ

I've done a lot of thinking about this.  I am juxtaposing the thinking about freedom Mr. Ryan has done as a politician and the thinking I have done about freedom in my work as a therapist.

I should probably back up.


I have to confess my political leanings, in case you haven't guessed.  I lean toward liberal.  In the past, I have been probably what I would call a 'knee jerk' liberal.  My father, a Republican in my childhood, and now maybe an independent, used to accuse my mother of brainwashing me during my naps as a child by playing Peter, Paul, and Mary and the Kingston Trio and other peace and love hippie music.  Certainly FDR was a big, big hero on my mom's side of the family and therefore, to me.  And of my generation, I was influenced by the Cold War, the threat of nuclear holocaust  - does anyone else remember, "The Day After" ?!?

Then, I spent over the last decade of my life as a social worker.  In that time, I have seen nearly every kind of social problem, every kind of illness, every kind of ruinous living condition that you can imagine, but not as many of those situations as some of my colleagues.  As you know, the problems are staggering, and the answers are inadequate.  It can feel overwhelming.  If I found it depressing to visit a crack house to deliver adult diapers to a dying man, I couldn't begin to imagine being the ex-girlfriend who took care of him.  I saw that government programs existed, but didn't always help.  I saw people on disability and food stamps carrying cell phones and smoking cigarettes.  I saw children who were abused and the government system did not keep them safe.

And then I think about freedom. About taking responsbility for oneself, as Paul Ryan says.  And in the face of vast suffering, I can at least consider how and why it might feel like the best answer to whittle complexity down to a simple belief, i.e., "This country is founded on freedom, not collectivism.  If each person or family took care of his or her own, and left the next to take care of his or her own, we would not be subject to paternalistic and cumbersome policies and in a state of freedom, social problems would diminish and people/enterprise would flourish."  I can understand that thinking in a way that I used to not understand it.

Yet in this,  I come back to wondering about definitions of freedom - freedom to do what?  Freedom from what?  Are we talking about  the freedom to make money?  Are we talking about free access to healthcare?  To marry who you want to marry?  Who's freedom?

There are many different kinds of freedom, which makes this discussion even more nuanced.

I have no delusion that government is the answer to every problem, or even the one answer to any one problem.   But, I want to continue to raise the question about meaning - what can we mean by freedom?  When Republicans and Democrats talk with one another, are they using the same understanding of the word, "free?"  Before we judge 'the other guy' or 'the other position', it might be good to figure out if we're even talking about the same thing.

One thing we can agree on is that because we have this democratic society, we can talk about these issues publicly and without fear of retribution, and we can make the most well-thought out choices we can when we vote on Tuesday.

I am not a knee-jerk liberal any longer.  I am a liberal who is willing to consider with respect a more conservative outlook.   Back in the day, my dad used to accuse me of being naive, mostly due to my dove-ish tendencies, but I don't feel naive.  I feel like I am compelled to think and learn about every point of view and reach my own conclusions. I hope you will feel that way, too.

3 comments:

  1. Your father could only hope you would develop into a open minded individual who would think and learn about every point of view and THEN reach your own conclusions. Congress should adopt your approach along with the ability to compromise to move forward and to develop an approach of civility among themselves and with the other branches of government.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So true. Our solutions are not embedded in sound bites that attack the "other." Entering into those fear-based discussions just sucks the energy out of everyone--and I think it shows in just how sick everyone is of the election this year. Parade magazine actually did a nice piece this week that included non-partisan ideas for a better America from a variety of sources--thoughtful, peaceful and forward-thinking. Wonder if it sells?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Asking what Freedom means is a very good question. I think of myself as very liberal in some senses (gay rights, women's rights), and very conservative in other ways. I have always thought this was a trait that helps me to get along with and understand most anyone.

    No doubt, Freedom is different for everyone. My husband is very passionate about the idea of personal freedom, and for him it means that the initiation of force should NEVER be used against an individual. Note he says "initiation," meaning that one should also have the right to defend him or herself. Now, this gets interesting because this means that a person cannot be forced to pay taxes, for example. I see a lot of failed and failing government programs, and I teach students who are the products of a failing public education system, and failing wars that I am forced to fund, and I am not thrilled with paying taxes because I believe that the system is broken. My money is not doing good and building up my country. It's sending drones over Pakistan (referencing your last blog), and getting lost in trickle-down corruption.

    It's not that people shouldn't be helped, but the government has proven a failure at doing so. Maybe if we localized it more and brought it down to the state, I don't know. The current structure does not work, and throwing more money at it has proven useless. This is why my son saw a person buying a case of beer with government food stamps last week. This is why a friend of mine who volunteers at the St. Louis Crisis Nursery says women drop their kids off for the weekend so they can go party. This is why millions of high school kids graduate as functional illiterates in America today. We must remember: this is not "the government's money." The government does nothing to earn money in products or services. This is OUR money, and it is forced away from us.

    I suppose I don't know where I'm going with this, except to say that "Freedom" should not mean taking away another's freedom, in the many different ways that can look.

    ReplyDelete