Yes, I'll admit it. One reason I've always supported Kerry is that I perceive him to have a very important trait in common with myself. Namely, an intense drive to be influential and
matter to people.
But what is often the fate, in the real world, of people who have such a drive? Public scorn.
Unspokenly and instinctually, we reward people who don't have this drive, and punish those who do. Every day.
Little things do count. And the little, everyday social punishments of the driven (that's what I'll call them from here on out) have a chilling effect on anybody who would take up the call to be truly courageous.
The Vichy Dem mindset, the appeasement mindset is written into our very way of interacting with people. It's written into our very human nature.
It's written into the very way we "do" interpersonal interaction.
It's written into the very way we think about how to be respectful and caring towards others.
Thereisnospoon says,
"Only apathy can take your rights away."
I make the case that apathy is enforced in our daily lives, every single day. In a far deeper way than mere conformity pressure would do.
Remember, John Shadegg thinks we progressives have mental problems. Laughable.
How many times have you heard those same words from a friend, family member, or loved one? Even one who agrees with your point of view? Not so laughable.
Who really wants to think of themselves as mentally unhealthy? Who feels like any discussion is killed dead every time this angle comes up?
I had a very revealing conversation this evening with the husband of my dear cousin from Kansas City. I'll call him "Jeff". I started out talking about my dismay with the cloture vote, and it led to this:
MONTE: You know how they say, to build rapport with somebody you have to give them something they can understand? So, people go for the lowest common denominator. I've always wanted to do better than that. I've always wanted to inspire people to like better things.
JEFF: The trouble is, you try to inspire and you end up intimidating people.
MONTE: Why should they be intimidated?
JEFF: They feel like you're trying to make them feel stupid.
MONTE: Why should they feel stupid? I do it purely out of love for big words and strange things. Why do they automatically assume that what I do out of love is something they can't relate to? -This sort of thing happens to everybody who has this really strong, intense drive to matter to people. Why?
JEFF: Most people are not going to be exceptional. It's the people who don't try who usually end up getting the rewards in the real world.
MONTE: Why?
JEFF: Because the people who really want it, try too hard, and it turns people off.
MONTE: You know, I've heard both that I try too hard, and that I don't try hard enough! What do you think of that?
JEFF: And every time you call me or Mary up, it's to complain.
MONTE: Yes, I do, that's true. And that's not good. It's just that this Supreme Court nomination is very important to me. I will make a better effort next time to not complain-- but I must ask you: Do you really think that after you've asked me to stop complaining, that you're really going to be convinced by a show of happiness or lightness on my part? Aren't you going to see it as a fake effort?
JEFF: People don't mind fake.
And at that point, my cell phone lost power.
Yes, there are a lot of personal revelations in this diary. But they really are the best way I can apprehend what I see to be a serious, below-the-radar problem.
Not merely a "culture of apathy"--active social hostility towards any driven person, anyone who wants to change American culture for the better. At all levels from grade school and families on up.
The importance of that cannot be discounted. This is an everyday occurrence. The average American, said Jay Marvin, doesn't have the time to throw themselves heart and soul into a political cause. Not with jobs, kids, parents and hobbies.
But the average human being does know that the best way for him to have a happy and productive life, is to get along with those around him.
The best explanation I have is this: Somehow, it is actually considered socially inappropriate to care, to be driven. Somehow, it is actually considered disrespectful to have a strong drive to lead people, or to inspire people, or to be innovative.
The principle of respecting others involves abiding by their boundaries. Boundaries and true, deep connection seem to be opposed to one another. At least it appears that way to me.
We all believe that first you must earn your right to go beyond the boundary, before you can have a true connection. You must first earn trust, prove your worthiness.
It's the little extras, the little moments, the little exceptions to the rule that make life worth living.
But it is considered premature at best, emotionally manipulative and selfish at worst, to try to manifest those little extras in your life... not unless you've already built a rapport with the person you're offering your companionship to.
As this woman says: "Can you feel worthwhile if you DON'T 'do' things without being asked, or at least by offering first, and being able to take 'no thanks' for an answer?"
The drive to make a difference can backfire. It can paint you as a self-hating person who does things for other people to gain acceptance and attention, not from the pleasure of giving.
I've always been one of those people who has had trouble "taking `no thanks' for an answer". I highly suspect Kerry is the same way. It's the pratfall, I believe, for any driven person.
Kerry was called "Just For Kerry" back in prep school because he was perceived to be selfish on the hockey rink. He very likely believed (if he was thinking like me) that he was practicing an individual style on the ice while still acting as a team player. I've been called selfish, and told I'm foisting my opinions on others, that I want my own way all the time, and that I'm a poor listener--all while I believed I was thinking of the other person's point of view, and that my solutions had the goal of making everyone as satisfied as possible.
I haven't the foggiest idea how to STOP coming across in the way I do not wish to. Because I refuse to sacrifice everything for an unsatisfying concept of serenity and harmony. Because I have as my goal true social connection, not some limp substitute.
Because, in other words, I find boundaries unlivable, and I have a hard time believing that the boundary-respecting behavior isn't also the enabling behavior. The ineffectual behavior.
My goal has always been to resolve that boundary/real difference dilemma, whatever it takes. And also, to inspire people to appreciate brains, culture, art and goofy humor a la "Rocko's Modern Life."
I will not say I'm incapable of inspiring people. That still may not be true.
I will say there's not a whole lot of evidence that I can. I've probably inspired three or four people, in my lifetime, to do small everyday things.
But Jeff is a perfect illustration of the emotional block we all have--that our elected officials probably also have-- when it comes to giving it all we got, and truly being exceptional. He's a perfect indicator, to my mind, of some deeper, hitherto unseen consequence of being driven, of leaping from the pack.
The risk of being seen as a person who violates others' freedom to live their lives as they see fit.
This is why we revere intensely, obviously charismatic people like John Edwards. They seem to know how to get what they need without stomping on boundaries. We all crave that kind of power--where you don't have to put up with the heartbreaking message that you cannot go after what your soul needs, without being disrespectful or otherwise making an ass of yourself.
Where you can jump right into living a passionate life, without always having to look over your proverbial shoulder for the boundaries.
Where you can be sure that when you act calm, you actually will come across as statesmanlike, instead of wooden.
As I've alluded to, this phenomenon goes way beyond what could be a struggle between conformity and individuality. That ship has sailed; real-world individuality is a mixture of mainstream or establishment traits with offbeat traits. And how many "nonconformist" groups do you know that turn out to be just as bad with enforcing orthodoxy as, well, the current GOP?
Quite simply, courage is disrespect. Innovative behavior is boundary violation. Altruistic gestures are a turn-off.
This has become lodged deep within our psyches.
The very boundaries we use to protect ourselves, have grown beyond their legitimate purpose and served not only to isolate us, but to enforce our apathy.
If people keep getting the unspoken message that if they act courageous, they are going where they shouldn't go... or if they act persistent, they are invading others' space... or if they try to build rapport with one group or another, that they're pandering...
They might just conclude, why bother acting courageous at all? Why bother reaching out to others at all, if your effort is going to be botched? Why bother being persistent? It could be dangerous; you could come off as a stalker at worst.
Many times when I've tried to talk about this with friends and loved ones, I've been told not to worry about it. It's all in my head and I'm reading too much into things.
But I think about how much human potential we all waste, just by going through the motions of getting along. And I believe that if we will ever progress beyond our current stage of learning and learn to rise above human nature, we must address questions of human potential.
And stop denigrating those who want to actually do something effective. Who want to put their drive into actual action.