Whether “they” read David Brooks or watch Fox News, at the end of the day, their emphasis is on self: family, comfort, safety, access to good food, the ability to travel without hindrance.
On occasion, the bigger picture may be discussed, leading to a few comments on what “others” should be doing, those unnamed people who must run the political gauntlet, pick up the public arena sword, be verbally effective within an area much broader than self. Even if “they” reference a specific issue of particular interest, it never costs them a moment’s sleep or results in a sustained boost in blood pressure.
The physical manifestation of their viewpoint is readily apparent from their choice of where to live, almost invariably these days linked to a commonality of thought process. Peeking at their financial statements does not necessarily uncover a substantive connection to the world beyond them.
(An interesting geographic contradiction is that even liberals move to Texas and Florida, two states with non-liberal politics. Maybe the allure is avoidance of winter and state income taxes. Do not bother raising the issue of hypocrisy; we are all guilty, some more than others.)
From the proverbial couch, it is relatively easy to be an advocate – for others, that is. And the current environment has made it easy to be anti – fill in the blank. However, over time, doesn’t this wear down (I leave it to others to apportion the incoming New York City mayor’s message between positive and negative components). Don’t therapists say that regardless of what has held a person back, there must be a strategy to move forward.
The above thoughts were swirling in my head as my route dictated I use a dreadfully uninteresting interstate highway for several miles before connecting with a country road and my ultimate destination. That mental exercise led to reflections about several individuals of my acquaintance.
Wilma is straight out of the “I’ve got mine and nothing can hurt me financially” camp, which in truth has little connection to the way in which she has led her life.
Mark shuns political discourse, implicitly willing to let those who are involved carry the day, except – and it’s a big exception – his vote still counts the same as anybody else’s.
Bruce basically supports authority: the police and the federal government are two institutions of which he is quite fond.
Hank has a great benefits package, coupled with a nice portfolio. All good, the same being true of those with whom he associates.
Brian has a good life, other than health, and knows enough about current events to be dangerous; those news soundbites can be rather misleading.
Eathan never did decide where he wanted to put his stake in the ground: would it be majoring in minor issues or minoring in major issues, his terminology. Outrage is the easy part of his many political comments.
Diane is cerebral, always ready with an insightful observation. Her passionate set of beliefs on big issues has not yet been released for public consumption.
Ralph reads the assigned text and talks with those in his discussion group. On occasion, there is a project with an impact far beyond the organization to which he belongs.
**
All normal, demonstrably intelligent, good people, nothing controversial in how they deal with the challenging world of 2025.
Nothing which seems to justify an observer’s quiet scream, “can’t they do more?”
And should the writer put away his laptop and go to the vigil seeking to protect Jose and Maria.