Dr. King's Witness to Civility--True Conservative and True Liberal Values Strengthen Each Other

(written but not submitted last October. Included here because of Dr. King reference and Black History emphasis.  The first thoughts were triggered last October by a little seen Dr. King tribute display at the Milwaukee Central Library.  I re-visited and edited what I wrote at that time. This is the result. )

I have a dream--at least a partial one.

I want the Democrats to stand in the deep history and commitments that have evolved since the founding of the party.  I want them to check their party platform, the vision of our society, and how the leadership will function, yes in the reality that the present approach cannot offer much new direction.

I want the Republicans to stand deep in the history and commitments that have evolved since the founding of the party.  I want them to check their party platform

We need to be a country of progressives--forward thinking, risking, learning from one another.  The progressive vision can easily become abstract, idealistic, romantic, and utopian in ways that do not connect with the masses of citizens.  One critique of 'liberals' is to be ungrounded, too heady, and expect others to carry out the agenda they describe.

We need to be a country of conservatives--building on the wisdom of the past, learning from the lessons of history, creating a wealth that is made up of the varied gifts of all people as well as an economic understanding that builds the 'household' of each person and community.

I hear repeatedly that we all want the same things in our communities:  safety, work, schools, affordable products, transportation, health care, families that raise children with civic responsibility.

Is that what the Democrat platform (Corey Booker) means by expanding the middle class?  Where are the neediest recognized as citizens and given opportunities, if they are mentally and physically well?

Is that what the Republican platform means by reducing regulations so that small business people can be successful as entrepreneurs?

Where does our foreign policy, our relationship with Israel, with the African and  South American countries, with the Middle East, the Soviet Union, England etc. fit with those things "we all want."

What is it that drives politicians to want to punish fellow citizens or those desiring citizenship?  Is there another answer than prison (or nation imprisons more people than any other industrial nation)? What 'liberal' or 'conservative' values are behind denying these basic human rights.

The burden is upon the Democrat Party and President Obama to be more than 'the lesser of two evils.'  Little positive energy comes out of simply making the other guy look silly.  While my shadow side laughs when my side seems to win such debates, I know that moving together as citizens in a common cause requires a commitment to a common cause.

That is what I think Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, even with the great opposition it had, gave to the nation and to the world.

The word 'civility' is being used by so many of us that it will soon become like invoking Dr. King, Mahatma Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela, names repeated so frequently that the essential meaning of their work is lost.

With that risk, when people ask me what I mean by 'civility', I will increasingly point to the life--the beliefs and the deeds--of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  It is both easier to make this claim now (he is not a controversial figure as an American hero) and more difficult (since he's accepted into the club, it is more difficult to appreciate his challenge to us and his fundamental disagreement he would have with some of our values.).

I walked into the exhibit( see my previous post on this experience) open to whatever struck me.  I would not have been surprised if the greatness of Dr. King had been reduced to a romantic illusion or too clearly a display to make the sponsoring company look good.

What happened to me however is that at every turn I was confronted with something he said or did that pushed the envelope I will call civility.  At times I felt affirmed.  At times I felt judged (not by Dr. King but by my own lack of savvy).  At times I was given to new thoughts about the conversation process I use in facilitating dialogues designed to bring understanding and civility.

From his letters, his speeches and his sermons, a few insights that might guide our own attempts at civil conversation.

1) Dr. King's arena for 'Civil Conversation' is the arena of 'innocent suffering.' He sought the 'Beloved Community' in the reality of the neighbor near and far.
2) He entered this arena not to solving an immediate problem but to learn and live the reality of this moment in relationship to our history.  The U.S. still is rebuilding from the life reality of slavery, its aftermath, and the clear mistreatment and injustice brought upon an innocent people.
3) He used Christian scripture not as a law to preach but an illustration(story) to invite.  e.g. "There was a rich man...."
4) He pointed to the future (we shall overcome)--his conversation is about what we should do to alter whatever is still unjust in our system.
5) He rooted his values in the larger vision:  (ie. the Constitution, the 'Dream' of the United States)
6) He recognized his limits/Others will carry on:  "I do not expect to live a long life."
7) He modeled a process of speaking deeply to specific experience while simultaneously setting forth a clear set of broader values.  He avoided the 'self-centeredness' ("are you better off than you were four years ago?) and a sense 'omniscience''("what the American people want is..").
8)He understood that each individual brings a different history to the table.  And that positions we have taken through our history can change.

Reaching for these experiences will change the kind of public conversation we have.

His gift and challenge to both political parties and to those who claim other loyalties is that core values matter.  They aren't invented in the moment, but they represent  what is best for all people.  The core values of both a 'liberal' perspective or a 'conservative' point of view are needed for a healthy nation.  That's the heart of the matter.

"Amour" -- What is Love All About?

Popular culture at its best is a channel for an encounter with reality that can be part of our ever-developing need for sustenance as people.  On an individual and community level it can feed us. The 2012 film 'Amour' is one such example.  Film, art, poetry, music and drama are the gifts of the gods.

The film ended.  No one moved. The theater remained silent.  A near full house then began to leave the film "Amour" sharing an extended silence.  No music accompanied the credits.  We were left with our own feelings and the sense that others too were dealing with some unexpected emotions.

Thomas Vinterberg, who directs, leads us gradually tothe center of being, the heart of living. The no-blinking honesty of the story unfolds from the easily understood to the more deeply problematic. Moment by moment  of unvarnished truth  absorbs and infects us with what commitment calls for when a loved one is dying.

Georges and Ann, in their 80's, provide a lesson in 'processing life.'  They leave us with the question, "how do you or will you handle life when it goes off course?"  Their answer is 'Amour', love,  but it is not the  love of pop culture.  It is a love beyond the romantic or sentimental.   It is hard core--hard dore practical and continual care that demands 100% devotion, a care we can never really fulfill.  That is the dilemma.

'Amour' gives us an opportunity to re-think how we process life,  how we 'love.'

Couples making life long commitment through marriage in our time like to write their own vows.  'Amour' asks, 'do our vows capture the reality of love?'  Or do the tempt us to dodge what we know is true?  Traditional vows set the bar very, very high.

 I, (name), take you, (name), for my lawful wife (husband), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.

That is a very high standard.  It is total devotion.  All excuses for why a relationship might not work are swept away in the wake of this commitment.  We commit ourselves to an impossible kind of relationship.  We tend to forget that this kind of commitment happens in the context of a community of 'forgiveness'--you will fall short, but we will be there.  When we aren't an even greater sense of being or power of life will be.

Anne and Georges find this power in music. It strengthens them beyond what they can naturally give each other.  But then life requires even more of them.  They are finally left to use the gift of their commitment to ultimately love one another.

Age and illness gradually gives them choices they do not want.  They proceed painstakingly to adopt the kind of mundane day-by-day decisions that require more.  It is no longer adequate or sustaining to share music or words of affection or even acts of kindness.  The community and family aren't much use to them either.

Life that once called for one kind of care shift almost without notice to require a new level of attention.   No longer primarily emotion or romance, love is an act, an act of care that requires every ounce of physical and mental strength Georges can call on.

Yet, neither Georges nor Anne look to others for empathy or sympathy.  They understand the potential illusion of co-dependence.  It is their lives they are responsible for. This is now their live and others cannot help change the situation.

They will work through the choices as they see them finding neighbors, physicians and home health care to assist them, but they have no tolerance for well-meaning, yet misinformed or misdirected intentions.

They suffer the additional agony of having those closest to them misunderstand who Georges and Anne are and have to be now.  False comfort is not a friend.

From the earliest stories of humanity, the popular myths present life only through a lens of two choices--something is either good or bad.   Happy is better than sad.  Light is better than dark.

Georges and Anne make a different choices.  There is no 'good' and no 'bad', there is only a 'yes' to what is.   At the end of a day filled with changing diapers, and bedding; making meals that won't be eaten; listening to her incoherent cries;  knowing that tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow will be exactly the same, only harder because of the repetition, Georges loves it all.  He doesn't like it.  But he does not shirk his duty of love.  He has promised her.  He will not let her down.  Anne, too, only occasionally alert,  does all that is humanly possible to love back.

It is not clear if they are 'happy' or 'sad' or simply accepting on some level that their choices are horribly limited.  Words like 'meaning' or 'hope' or 'cure' don't exist for them.  Neither do they feel guilty about rejecting easy but inauthentic options.  They are not attracted to take paths that lead further into deception.

'Amour' is pitch-perfect in almost every way.   No moment is wasted.  There is no extraneous scenery or characters or dialogue or acting or truth.  This leads full circle to the silence that enveloped the audience.  We're left kind of naked, but not ashamed.  Exposed but not fearful. Devastated but not without possibility.

In viewing 'Amour' some are met by mystery in the ordinary.  Is there any experience in life that is more important than that?  Or is that 'the heart of the matter?'