Like many in the blogosphere, I often opine on issues on which I lack formal expertise. Once I get beyond education, I would be hard put to justify my opinions on the basis of either formal education or job experience. In that sense I am no different than many who are paid great sums to offer their bloviations, the pundit class. I may agree with them - as I usually do with the likes of Paul Krugman, Charles M. Blow, and Eugene Robinson - or I may find their offerings tainted by their skewed political outlooks - as is usually the case with Charles Krauthammer or Michael Gerson - or their apparent sense of innate superiority over anyone else - are you listening David Brooks, Richard Cohen, and Thomas Friedman?
Yet I regularly read all of the aforementioned, and others as well. It is not at all uncommon for me to focus readers attention on their words by devoting some of my own to that task, whether in disagreement, affirmation, or as a starting point for expressing my own thoughts on a topic.
In recent weeks the primary focus of my writing has, as one might expect, stayed connected with the changes in our lives as a result of my wife's illness. Yet I still from time to time have focused on other topics as well.
Today is Friday, not Saturday, so this is not a personal reflection of the kind to which I am prone on that morning when in the past I would not have to be rushing to school and would have time to be somewhat more thoughtful and reflective.
It will be a pondering of political participation and expression, both that I see from others and of my own.
I invite you to continue reading, and fully understand if you choose not to do so.
I have since my pre-teen years almost always been somewhat involved in politics, starting as a 10 year old in 1956 advocating for the reelection of Eisenhower in his rematch with Adlai Stevenson - my mother was a Republican party official whose politics today would probably be more aligned with Jeff Merkley and Sherrod Brown than with any notable Republican official - you could justifiably have called her a Rockefellar Republican as that notable NY Governor eventually appointed her to a relatively high legal office in state government.
By 1960 I was already moving away from the Republicans - in 1957 I had been transfixed by the happenings in Little Rock, and it would be Civil Rights that became important in my adolescence - odd considering that Southern Democrats were invariably segregationists and Northeastern Republicans like my mother were not. It was the Presidential election of 1960 that moved me - with few exceptions since - to the Democratic side. Both of my parents had encountered Dick Nixon while all three were at the Office of Price Administration and neither could stand him - my father refused to vote for him in 1960, 1968 an 1972, the last time not casting a vote for President. Further, my mother taught me in that election that if a Catholic could not get elected in 1960 what hope would there ever be for a Jews? So by 1962 I was an active participant in Teen Dems.
Without recounting my political life story - not the point of this post - I have functioned in various fashions politically. I have never been paid campaign staff nor have I ever worked for pay for elected public officials. I have been a high level volunteer in campaigns ranging from borough council to attempts to obtain the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, and I have been a low-level volunteer far more often than at the more stratospheric levels. I have done my share of door knocking and phone calls, I have done data entry, I have written correspondence on behalf of candidates (including for the Presidency), I have done field, I have offered policy advice.
I mention these because in many ways I have far more experience in practical politics than do many who are paid to write about it.
I will still from time to time do those kinds of political activities, usually for people who are personal friends.
I tend now to be more focused on issues that matter to me.
As I have aged I have found that signing petitions and participating in demonstrations - even on issues about which I care a great deal - is a far less effective use of my time and skill than is my ability to communicate - in writing and in speaking. I have been involved in demonstrations - I was one of the organizers of the 2011 Save Our Schools March and National Call to Action. I find now that words are my most effective way of political participation.
Words matter. So do actions. The latter often outweigh the former, but it is the former that first move us. Richard Nixon was an anti-semite, something even close Jewish aides apparently did not know. It did not matter, because at the moment of Israel's greatest peril during th 1973 Yom Kippur war as President he moved heaven and earth to get military supplies and material to that nation so that it could survive the attacks against it, for which many in the American Jewish community were very grateful.
Similarly, words that inspire us can lead to severe disappointment when inspired by those words we move heaven and earth to elect someone to high office only to see actions that seemingly are contradictory to the inspirational message that so moved us. I could name several examples of this with the current occupant of the Oval Office, even as I acknowledge some of the difficulties he has faced not only in the Republican opposition determined to make him fail, but in those at least nominally of his party who have undercut him on issue after issue.
This brings me to whatever point it is I think I am trying to make.
I do not think it matters whether one speaks or writes from a position of expertise or training, although I think one need consider the advice of those who are involved in that field. Here I note especially my experience in education over the past two decades, where many of the policy prescription being advocated by influential voices and pushed by political and other actors were obviously flawed to those of us in the field. It is worth noting that it is not only the Bill Gates and Eli Broads who had no experience in education, but the likes of Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach for America, who has never been a classroom teacher.
It is not that those in the field are the only voices of importance on so many areas about which those of us opine - be we pundits, politicians and bloggers. After all, these issues affect all of us and there can be a tendency to think too institutionally and not of the larger impact upon society. But surely rather than be dismissive of the voices within a field we have some responsibility to hear what they have to say and why and in our own remarks - and political actions - take those into account.
Having said that, I now consider my own political participation. It is not inconceivable even in my late 60s that I could be seriously involved, including as paid staff, on a political campaign of some significance. Acquaintances/friends who hold high office - elective or appointed - have on occasion discussed with me how my abilities and interests could help them advance issues that matter to them and me were I willing to go on staff.
We see this happen with many. Perhaps someone writes speeches, or does policy work. Or one uses one's communication skills to serve as a spokesman - we can note that the current White House Press Secretary is a former notable journalist.
The difference is at that moment one ceases to have an independent voice - anything one says or writes will be interpreted by others as representing the views of the political figure for whom one labors.
It is possible I still at some point may decide that is the way in which I can make the greatest difference. And after all, there is something heady about being on the inside. Further, like many people I still need an income, and it is rewarding to be paid for using a skill for which one has some justifiable pride.
Except I have learned something about myself. I do not seek to dictate to others how to believe. I have spent too many years as a teacher, where my task was to engage my students, to get them to think more deeply about things, to understand how there could b ways they had not considered of looking at issues and actions.
Further, as I age, I find there are some matters on which I feel a deep passion, a passion such that I do not want to be limited in how I express it.
Perhaps my words will at times ramble. I acknowledge that.
Perhaps my words will not connect with many who encounter them. That is to be expected.
Sometimes my words will engender major pushback. If a dialog ensues perhaps all who participate and those who merely observe will begin to see in the issue in new ways.
In the time left to me, it seems as if my primary political activity will be thinking and writing and occasionally engaging in verbal interchanges.
Like many pundits, both those named at the beginning of this piece and others who come to mind both for me and for those reading these words, I will lack formal expertise on subjects upon which I opine. But I can understand, I can reflect, I can question.
I am reminded of a famous interchange between John Ehrlichman and Senator Sam Ervin. When the former offered a verbal challenge as to how Ervin could know something, the Senator replied Because I can understand the English language. It is my mother tongue.
When people ask what empowers me to opine on a subject, I have a similar response - because I am a part of humanity which is affected, I have a write to participate in the discussion.
I write from observation of how others are affected. But I also write about my own experiences for another reason - I have found in my teaching that when I share on a personal level it connects with my students in an important way, it legitimizes what they feel, it empowers them to express, and from that meaningful learning can take place.
I suspect that in the political arena it is ultimately not that different than in the classroom. We are motivated both by fear and by aspiration. It is when we are empowered to consider both as legitimate - for ourselves and for others - that we have the possibility of moving forward, of changing society for the better.
I do not participate in politics because I want to see a Democrat rather than a Republican in the White House. Given my politics that is certainly a preferable outcome, which is why despite my concerns and even strong objections to policies of the current administration I advocated strongly for the President's re-election.
I participate in politics in part because I am fascinated by the process.
I participate because it is through the political process, broadly defined, that we should be able to shape our society in ways we think beneficial.
I participate because it is through the ways I participate that I can better understand the fears and aspirations of others.
I participate because I want my voice considered, and because I hope to model for others having their voices also considered.
I am aging. I have personal priorities that are of great importance to me. Yet even these affect my political participation.
When I began writing about health care and insurance, it was in part because of my own experience of a false alarm about a possible heart condition. Then I experienced the health crisis of others through volunteering at free medical and dental fairs. Now again it is personal because of my wife's health. When I write about us now it is personal, but it can never be entirely separate from the political - we benefit from societal decisions that gave her access to terrific health care. That is political.
It is also, I would contend, political that we have the support of various networks. We participate in those networks for different reasons. Some are of blood and marriage. Others are of religious preference. Still others are because of our employment situations.
Then there is this community, whose primary purpose is political, but whose community aspects are what bind us together even when we disagree strongly among ourselves - on presidential primaries, on I-P, on Guns, on the role of religion in society. We are empowered to continue our political because of the personal, because we are connected beyond a common belief on certain issues and policies.
That is true in our other networks as well.
I used to say that teaching was my primary political activity. Many have noted that much of my writing is a form of teaching. I think that's fair: for me teaching is about challenging our thinking and our preconceptions; it is about exposing us to information and points of view of which we might lack prior knowledge. For me personally it is also about sharing things that excite me as well as those things that frighten me because of their possible impact.
Why I write.
It is a form of teaching.
It helps me clarify my own thinking.
It is how I best engage with others, given that I am both an extravert and shy.
As I approach my 67th birthday, it is also how I can best participate politically.
So I guess I am a pundit, a talking head who bloviates on topics for which he has no acknowledged expertise, with the possible exception of education.
Unlike the names listed at the beginning of this mental meandering, I am rarely financially compensated for my literary efforts. Occasionally I have the experience of seeing my words and thoughts more widely considered. That is a form of meaningful compensation.
When others respond to my words, or when I respond to theirs, I am more meaningfully connected to the rest of humanity. That is important to me.
it is also a major part of how I see politics - that we can be connected, that we can find ways of improving life not only for ourselves but also others. Sometimes that improvement begins by finding common feeling. Sometimes it begins by being empowered ourselves to say something, be it political or personal, that begins to move us beyond ourselves.
Insofar as my writing serves such a purpose, Es it genug; dayenu.
Peace.