The 'Self' in Relationship

I usually have a bunch of thoughts after a Presidential debate. Not many this time around. I was stunned by President Obama's sleepwalk during the first one.  But none of the three shed much light on where we could go as a country with tremendous resources in a world in which so many people live such desperate lives. The debates unfortunately were pretty indicative of the sad state of our political discourse.  While defining our relationship with the world from the perspective of our 'self-interest' is understandable.  It sounds like our 'self-interest' is viewed from both an isolationist and interventionist point of view.  We distance ourselves and jump in only in terms of what we call our national security.

For example, last night neither participant engaged the state of the European Union and the economic implications.  They both wanted to make cases for the domestic economy, but except for Romney's fear that we are going to become Greece, little was said that would underscore the sense that we are all global citizens.  Some sense of responsibility for the world was eluded to but little 'with' the world in developing a global society.

I'm sure being a 'global citizen' does not track with a 'me first' relationship to life. The polls don't reflect well when we're not talking about our own personal issues.   But it serves none of us when those running for president cater to our basest (not basic) desires.  The assumption is that the "I" is where our self-understanding begins and ends.  A 'self' as a 'relationship' isn't on the radar. An understanding that all a human being is his or her relationships does not compute when we push such an isolated individualistic point of departure.

During the past month, much of my time has been spent in 'relationship' with my mother-in-law. (a clumsy phrase that does not communicate in any way my connection with Lorene who I have known now for 50 plus years).  I've been involved in her move from Kansas to Wisconsin and all the tiny details that make up such a move, from renting trailers to spending hours on-line or on the phone to update Social Security addresses, health care etc.

I have shocked myself with waking up and realizing how much I enjoy this relationship.   All that minutiae and 'stuff' that one has to do energized me, if not always perfect or fun.  I have to admit that it was mostly an important experience for me.  I am who I am as this 'relationship' which is Lorene played itself out.   That is my identity and how I play it out, ie. accept it and live it, is part and parcel of my life.  Multiply that by all my other relationships and one begins to get a sense of who Rick Deines is.

The future is made up of the way we relate to the relationships we are.  This is as true of a nation as it is of individuals.  How we talk about the connections we have with Mexico or China or Greece defines us.  The bluster that passes for American exceptionalism is not useful.  To say that we have always treated other nations in a respectful way is not apologizing for who we are.  It is simply recognizing that  for effective diplomacy to happen, a 'relational' understanding of who we are is the truth.  The triumphalism of being American (the U.S. brand) is not strength in relationship.

I try not to be naive about terrorists and the kind of violence that I cannot imagine.  I can't overlook that divide across the world between the haves and have nots.  I do think that the United States can play an important and perhaps unique role in dealing with the challenges facing the world.  I think we best do this, however, from a posture that communicates care and concern and goes the second mile.  We can afford that.  We are the 'richest' country in the world. We are also the world.  We are interdependent.  Love of neighbor is not limited to those we like. All that goes on in every corner of the world is in a relational sense who we are.  That may be 'the heart of the matter.'

How Much Does It Matter?

I’m not sure any of ‘it’ matters. Of course,’ it’ does, but what is the’ it?’  In this case, I think the ‘it’ is the ongoing, repressive conditioning of the U.S. American public that suggests that the balance of history hangs with the Obama-Romney election.

My difficulty with how our political system works is many fold, but fundamentally I see nothing in the decision in this election that gets any where near connecting with the lives of the majority of the neighbors that make up the American public.

Something doesn’t ring true when I get angry with a friend because they put up a Romney-Ryan sign in their front yard.  That simply cannot define my relationships. And yet I allow it.  I have to be ‘talked down.‘   And that is symptomatic of something much more important.   I can choose to reduce my life to this kind of silliness or seek another way.

In my mind nothing short of a foundational shift in the narrative of who we are as a nation, as a people gets close to what is needed.  

Many people in their guts, have a sense of what quality of life looks like.  They may not be conscious of it, or able to articulate it.  They may out of frustration give in to the rhetoric of one of the political parties.  They may run for cover and isolate themselves in their families.  They may find solace in some religious expression or sports franchise.  But given the chance, they could give us all insights into what a healthy community might look like.  I think most people want more, not stuff, more meaning.

“Divide and conquer” has always been the strategy of those with power versus the common citizen.  Instead of united communities we have division after division. Split the African-Americans and Europeans and Latinos and Asians.  Divide gays-lesbians from straights.  Clarify how immigrants today are ‘aliens’ but in earlier times they were ‘courageous seekers of freedom’  Demonize the Christian right or the Socialists. Stake a  claim that Republicans are more ‘American’ than Democrats or vice-versa.  How is any of that beneficial?  It creates a lot of anger and guilt and a lot of impossibility.

This is not understood by politicians. They owe too much to too many to get close to the ‘heart of the matter.’  The 1% vs. the 99% is not just an economic metaphor.  It also speaks to what percentage of the population makes decisions for the rest of us, the voting booth not withstanding.

With my involvement in more and more conversations with persons from a variety of political and religious persuasions, I’m pretty sure there is a better understanding out there than we will ever know if we simply accept the way things are.

It is understood, in part,  by the citizen who is seeking ways to financially support her family. 

It is understood, in part, by the parent who is trying to figure out what if any difference it makes to fight for effective education from pre-school through grad school (as well as technical training).  My car mechanic has a son who runs a ‘tool and die’ operation flooded with orders from China, but can’t find qualified workers.

It is understood, in part,  by the friend who doesn’t have insurance and can’t afford to have a hip surgery he needed years ago until he qualifies for Medicaid. True story (he has about 8 month to go.)

It is understood, in part, by the neighbor who sees the quality of life diminished because of home foreclosures leading to blocks of vacant houses that become the locus of drugs and the stimulus for violence. She doesn’t want to raise her kids that way, but.....

The narrative that I’m talking about is a narrative of community.  The politicians talk about ‘the American people’, they do not talk about our identify as a community and as communities within a community.  Little is said about social responsibility and interconnectedness. Virtually nothing is said about individual responsibility.

Political campaigns try to convince us that there are good positions taken by one or other of the parties.   So they pit what are thought to be different points of view, like,  is the government too big or too small, to tax or not to tax, protectionism or not, shipping jobs overseas or keeping them at home, public schools or school choice, job creators or welfare dependents.......and on and on.

See what I mean by ‘not sure any of it matters.  Of course it does....’  I don’t think we’re any where close to having a national and local conversation about who we want to be as a society.  And when we do, we distance it from the bread and butter, life and death concerns of our citizens.

Our forum for discussion does not provide for wide spread grassroots participation.  The  forum is dominated by money, period.  That is our narrative.  We cooperate with that narrative by defining meaning with our participation as consumers.  Not many of us want to change the choices that come with the existing narrative, ie. its’s all out there and if you want it bad enough and work hard enough, you, too, can have it.

Our opportunity to shift that narrative is as close as each of us, as one has put it, the main question is, ‘what kind of human being do you want to be?’  Extended outward that same question concerns family, neighborhood, city, nation and globe.  

Change that matters will come to the degree that vision and responsibility can be embraced and implemented.  There are those who are moving in that direction. Joining with them is an option.

Let’s not be deceived.  That is the predominant value in our lives.  That is our ‘god.’ That is our religion.  That is the ‘heart of the matter.’ Is it?