Most of us are familiar with many of the naïve aphorisms spouted by Messrs. Stills, Young, Crosby and Nash some 40 years ago. Isn't Teach Your Children one of the most pompous, ludicrous songs ever written? We still laughingly give lip service to at least one, and acknowledge its common wisdom. If you can't be with the one you love, then love the one you're with. But, precious few of us really take Stills' message to heart in two places where it counts, in love and in politics.
My thesis today is that the American public holds spouses, lovers and politicians to impossible standards. When the object of our adoration falls short of these lofty aspirations, we cavalierly discard them or reject them at the outset before giving them a chance to prove their mettle.
Why do we treat people like garbage?
In love, when a relationship ends badly, how often often have you heard one, or even both, of the parties complain about the personal deficiencies in the other that left the speaker "no choice" but to sever their ties? How often have you have you thought that the reasons you heard for the breakup were incredibly feeble? Did you think that the person was being being a total bitch or jerk and that the person they were dumping or rejecting didn't deserve such treatment? I've thought all those things innumerable times. I've felt like that every time I was dumped or spurned, and occasionally felt guilty about leaving someone.
The one thing I strive never to do is fabricate a fatuous, self-serving reason for leaving someone. Ever since a college girlfriend broke up with me because I wasn't "committed to the movement," I realized that such elaborate constructs are disingenuous sophistry. The rationalizing purveyor of pain does not have the courage to take responsibility for his or her actions. They try to displace the blame, and the accompanying guilt, for the failed relationship on the other as their just desserts for their crimes. This is intellectual dishonesty at its most egregious height. People who do this are just assholes.
If you're intent on dumping or spurning someone, you should admit to everyone, starting with yourself, what the real reason is. In all cases, it boils down to the simple assessment that the one to be alienated is not good enough for you. It doesn't matter if that conclusion is the result of the other's felonious behavior, misconduct, abuse, poverty, laziness, inept sexual technique, hygiene or physical appearance. You have come to the conclusion that you deserve a better spouse, lover, business partner, band member, alderman, legislator, governor, senator, member of Congress or president. That's it. The incipient pariah is too crappy for you to tolerate any longer, and more importantly, you think you can do better. It's OK to make such judgments, but cop to what you are doing. Except in the case of crime or violence, it's not them; it's you.
Holding others to a personal standard is most common in love. Every woman I've ever known claims that she "won't settle". Most men say something similar. We all know that we all do settle, though. We stridently maintain that we would rather be alone than hook up with someone because they are the only person that would have us. Yet, when when you look at your personal history, how often have you done exactly that?
I think there are a few people who don't ever settle for less than their ideal mate. There are people over 50 who have never been married or even in a serious relationship. I've met them. I've wooed a couple of women like this, and thought I had broken through their daunting emotional armor, but in the end they cast me aside because I wasn't good enough for them. The reasons they cited made no sense to me at all.
I have one male friend who fits this profile. We met 35 years ago in the military. Since then, we talk on the phone and write occasionally. I've been through a lot more relationships than he has, including two marriages. When I mention the end of a liaison, I tell him that I was dumped or cite the reason I had to dump the woman. I don't discuss the reason a woman states for dumping me because it's always the same: I'm morally, spiritually or physically deficient in some manner that makes me unworthy of her love. I can't accept her premise because if I did, it would necessitate blowing my brains out. Such conjecture seems futile and pointless, so I avoid it.
I listen very carefully to the reasons my friend cites for spurning women who approach him. He never dumps a woman because it never gets that far. If he does succeed in bedding them, they soon dump him because he's not good enough for them. They want a younger, taller, less bald, better hung, more skilled lover, or something like that. This guy gets dumped or rejected by some incredibly cruel women who don't mince words. These temporary successes are few and far between. The women are always described as beautiful, accomplished, well-educated and financially secure.
The exemplary women are all better than he is. He won't even give an ordinary woman "in his league" a tumble because he "won't settle." His reasons for spurning the advances of the bedraggled divorcées, sleazy barflies and good-hearted, frumpy women he encounters in his work as a musician are insane. He's looking for Cinderella in a dung heap, and when he occasionally finds her, she laughs at him or disdainfully dismisses him after he ceases to amuse her. His longest relationship was with a pretty, younger, simple woman with very little going for her. He didn't marry her and have a few children as she wanted because he wanted a classier gal. She eventually got bored and left him. He's been alone nearly continuously for almost 30 years.
Now, what happens when people operate politically as my musician friend does, and as did several women I thought were the love of my life? These are the cranks who say, "Politicians are all alike. I'm voting for 'none of the above'." I want to slap these people hard and yell at them, "Get your head out of your ass!" But, I don't. There's no point in it.
The cranks don't get that electing someone to public office is not like choosing a mate. You can't abstain from the choice; you can't choose to be unrepresented as you can choose to be single. Regardless of whether or not you vote, someone will occupy the office. Not voting is to deny a vote to someone you would prefer over his opponent or give that less-deserving opponent a vote. You can't weasel out of responsibility for who gets into office. It's you, not them. Their perceived deficiencies and failure to meet your personal standards are irrelevant. You still have a moral obligation to choose. If you can't be with the one you love, then love the one you're with.
The next time I hear some shrill jackass tell me that they are not going to vote because their Democrat was bested by Barack Obama in the primaries and they don't like him enough to vote for him, I will again struggle to stay my twitching, clenching fist and subdue the urge to pummel them until they admit they are stupid. The next time I hear about someone who claims to be supporting McCain because Obama isn't ideologically pure enough in some fashion or has the wrong stand on some piddly-ass issue, I will again start screaming about how they are really closet Republicans and fake, pseudo-progressive poseurs who have no business discussing who should be the nominee of the Democratic Party. I hope I am not in public, because this behavior is considered gauche.
We don't have to listen to this kind of drivel any more. When someone feeds you a line like that, call them out and confront them. Make them tell you why they are really trying to undercut Obama. If they eventually cop to being Republicans, then make them explain why they think any sane person could vote Republican this year. When they can't, make them admit they are full of shit, even if you have to get a headlock on them and force their bodies into an extremely uncomfortable position.