Essay: What I stand FOR in the resistance movement

I have been thinking about this topic for a while now, as I follow the resistance movement across my country, read the political analyses, and expose myself to the writings and teachings of those who have lived under conditions of oppression in the past and present. I have struggled for months to find the right words, and I am not even sure I have them now. However, I believe, as Khalil Gbran writes, “Even a faltering voice strengthens the tongue.” So I put these thoughts out there, in hopes that writing them helps me organize and prioritize my actions, and also perhaps provides language to others for their own fights.

 

Because I see that we are engaged in a conflict that is based on ownership of language and symbolism. Language in the sense of the spectrum of words we have to reflect ideas and values; symbolism in whether or not any individual feels his or her voice is represented by the institutions and icons that the government represents. One of the harshest criticisms I have heard about the progressive movement is that they failed to provide a clear vision of a future we can believe in, versus the romanticized and [often] inaccurate vision of a return to the past offered by the conservative camps. We find ourselves on the defensive, thus, rejecting and resisting and standing against- but there has been, I think, a vacuum where it comes to actually being able to define/ put into words what we do believe, what vision we are proposing, what we can get behind.

 

I want my personal stance on these issues to be far more than a “reaction against” our current administration. I thus created a living document that I want to use to frame and support my arguments for or against policies and actions. Instead of what I am against, here is what I am for, and what I believe that our elected officials and leaders at all levels should keep in mind.

1. Recognizing that we do live in a global environment; where we have a situation of interdependence and responsibility regarding our own diversity of cultures and ecosystems and economic systems within our country, and in relation to the rest of the world. They may be incomplete and imperfect, but internationally accepted standards and laws regarding human rights, sustainable development goals, rules of engagement, laws of war, standards of transparency, and treaties of conduct towards our nations and resources were created and exist for good reason. US exceptionalism is not an excuse to throw them away. It is very important to recognize that goals of modern human life cannot be met without the active participation of all the world’s major economies- of which the US is arguably the most important. I believe in a policy where diplomacy, peacebuilding, alleviation of human suffering, and advancement of human well-being are major goals both within and outside of the US borders. I believe in the continuation of our role in providing refuge and asylum and opportunity to oppressed and disadvantaged and creative and entrepreneurial peoples from a variety of backgrounds. Diversity and innovation and basic humanity drive our economy and society, and have a critical place in our policies and decisions. We cannot socially or economically afford isolationist policies and stances based on unfounded fear, xenophobia, apathy, and victim-blaming.

    

2. Related to the above, I believe in a society where the contributions of all national and international service are equally recognized in their importance. Our military personnel are rightfully recognized for their bravery and endurance and sacrifices, but it is important to remember that there are many ways to serve the country, that are equally important and, in many ways, equally demanding. Our US government diplomats, volunteers, scientists, doctors, and civil servants deserve recognition, too, and the general public deserves to know of their contributions and importance. I would like the dialogue move away from “spending” and towards “return on investment” when discussing the value of work done on behalf of the US. When we talk about sweeping budget cuts, which sound good on paper, we are actually talking about the loss of hundreds or thousands of important jobs that many of our best and brightest people are performing, and the tools those individuals require in order to effectively do the jobs we pay them to do. Reframing the dialogue to talk about the work our public servants actually do is the only way to save their jobs in front of disinformation.

    

3. I believe in economic growth, but I also believe that growth for the simple sake of growth is as dangerous as cancer. Economic decisions are about far more than job creation- we should also be examining the social, economic, and yes, environmental value and impact of the jobs we invest in. Instead of only putting value on resource extraction and use, we should be placing economic job creation value on practices that contribute to the maintenance of vital healthy watersheds and marine systems; restoration and responsible use in terrestrial ecosystems; the rise of community-building; emphasis on quality programs and institutions for children and aging adults; provision of quality human services for both urban and rural communities; promotion of compassion and diversity; a trend towards walkable and livable cities and towns; celebration of arts and culture; and the other factors that the majority of the US population have learned are part of our happiness and well-being. Much of the dissatisfaction in the rural US is based on a perceived lack of job opportunities form a decline in extraction and manufacturing jobs, and most economic investment has been made in suburban and urban areas. We should rightfully have systems in place to reward responsible resource stewardship as job opportunities in our rural areas if we are to have any chance of allowing environmental rights to be considered in economic decision-making, as they must be. We need to start valuing all work as valuable work, and compensating for it. Imagine if we invested all of that wall money into economic incentives and grants for improving local rural communities; the way that many cities and suburbs have done in recent years to spur small business growth? This is the alternative dialogue we should be promoting- that we are not anti-infrastructure, anti-job, anti-business- but pro-responsible business, future-oriented business, and valuable opportunities; for both highly skilled and blue-collar type workers. That we value contributions by scientists, artists, teachers, and thinkers as much as producers of consumer goods and basic services; that we also consider our carbon and environment footprints in decision-making. That our incentives, taxes, regulations and penalties should reflect these diverse values.

    

4. I recognize the ecological and planetary pressures that a rising and modernizing human global population places on our abilities to meet human needs. It is imperative to recognize that we are on course to lose over half of the species on the planet. The US has been recognized as a mega-diverse country in terms of human and natural diversity; with regard to diversity of habitats, species, and [especially indigenous] cultures. In order to protect our cultural and natural heritage, we have identified specific needs- leaving half of all carbon-based resources in the ground; declare some areas important wildlife corridors where human transformation of the landscape should be limited; protect half of our lands from urbanization and transformation for intensive agriculture; autonomy for our indigenous peoples and a right to make decisions about how land they occupy is used; declaration of some areas as too fragile for high-density human presence; buffer zones and restoration practices; economic value placed on soil and water and air; and autonomy for every woman and family on earth to determine when and with whom and under what circumstances to conceive and raise children, and how many. We need research into food and infrastructure and energy systems that will be resistant to coming climate change shocks, and not further contribute to their impact and effect. We need open sharing of dialogue and information and resources around these vital topics- the exact opposite of what the current administration is doing.  

    

5. I believe in the inherent right of all species and all human cultures to exist. I do not necessarily consider repressive and abusive authoritarian regimes and movements such as Boko Harum and ISIL or the KKK to classify as “cultures,” nor am I against elimination of parasitic species, invasive species and disease causing organisms. The right of all species to exist does mean that it is legitimate to deny an economic activity based on threat to animal populations. I sincerely believe that the alternative economic opportunities mentioned above are going to be necessary in order to provide this type of balance between meeting needs of modern US citizens and considering the rights of other peoples and species. I also believe it can be achieved. I believe that the rights of one person or group to do as he or she pleases are naturally restricted when those actions cause destruction or harm or actual physical, physiological, or psychological damage to other human beings or to ecosystems. Just laws would be focused on these criteria as basis for issuing permits, creating incentives, and regulating or punishing or rewarding human activity. We need to recognize as a nation that contribution to society is a value based on far more than monetary value in the market.

    

6. Aside from the human rights recognized in the International Human Rights document, I believe that there are three very important additional rights not included. The first is the right mentioned above for other species to co-exist with human species. The third will be addressed below. The second is the right to human sexuality. Basically, that every human being, man, woman, or transgender; has a right to their own sexuality, in terms of sexual preferences, orientation, and practices and their consensual expression. To be as sexually active or not sexually active as desired. That consent is based on age and mental/ emotional/ physical capacity and explicit permission between parties capable of providing consent. That sexual expression not ever be legally limited by marital status or an individual’s desire or ability to either procreate (or not). That the promotion of healthy sexual attitudes incudes recognition of the many reasons that humans engage in sexual activity; the preferred language of people regarding their bodies and functions; the inherent complexity of human sexual interactions; the recognition that even within marriage, not all sexual activity is always consensual; and a right to an individual’s privacy and non-discrimination based on sexuality and gender. That all humans deserve access to a full spectrum of services related to sexual and reproductive health that is not in any way restricted by their age, gender expression, sexual orientation, marriage status, economic or social status, or race or religion. That an individual is able to place restrictions on their own sexuality and use of available services based on their own religious, spiritual, or moral/ ethical beliefs; but not deny services to others based on the same.

    

7. Related to gender and sexuality, that men and women and transgender individuals; and persons of all sexual orientations and marital status, also have equal rights for opportunities regarding employment, education, access to justice, freedom of expression, protection from abuse and psychological/ economic/ bodily harm. The same holds true for persons of all races, religions, economic status, creed, ethnicity, skin color, and preferred language in the home and social circles.

    

8. The third human right not explicitly recognized, and associated with a right to exist, is a right to live a life free of fear of emotional, economic, mental, physical, sexual, and psychological trauma, torture, abuse, and lack of access to basic human needs. There are reasons that the universal human rights document contains language guaranteeing every human being on the planet a right to quality education, a clean environment, right to assembly, right to transparency, and right to change one’s physical location and/or migrate. Those fortunate enough to live in places where basic human needs are, for the most part, met; do have a moral and ethical responsibility to help others reach the same goals, to strike down limits to their achievement, to speak and act against injustice, and to open doors to political, climate, and economic refugees whose rights cannot be met in the places they are fleeing. We especially have an obligation to the most vulnerable members of oppressed populations- women, children, the elderly, religious and ethnic minorities. This responsibility goes far beyond being the basis of common human decency. It also makes sense from national economic and security perspectives. This right to exist, I believe, also extends to a right to live free of terror of annihilation by the actions of one country’s government. The nuclear arms reduction actions of the previous decades and international treaties for curbing the effects of civilization-threatening climate change, for example, were movements addressing the rights to basic existence and freedom from terror and loss of life of all citizens of the world. A “US-only” policy that negates these basic rights is the antithesis of a stance that respects the rights, challenges, and contributions of others.

    

9. Based on empirical research across several continents and disciplines, I believe that is becoming increasingly clear that inequality is the real score by which to base economic indices- not income, GDP, or percentage of growth. Focusing only on averages says nothing about the gap between the highest and lowest earners and wealth holders; nor does it speak to equality of access by different segments of the population to opportunities, services, infrastructure, quality of life, institutions, media, justice, or protections. I strongly believe that we need a returned sense to our responsibilities to creating prosperity in all of our citizens, and limit the influence of economic wealth in the realm of decision-making where human and environmental well-being are concerned. It is, to me, disgusting and shameful that the quality of your drinking water depends on your zip code; that your child’s medical treatments are dependent on your family’s ability to pay out of pocket; that there is more incentive to invest in remodeling a bathroom in a private home than in a local community center for recreational opportunities for youth. There is a perception that giving rights and opportunities to a group formerly denied access to them, somehow makes those rights less for others who previously had them. Yet we know that investing in well-being for all improves the economy and quality of life for everyone. The enemy is neither poverty nor wealth- the enemy is avarice and unwillingness to share or invest in collective prosperity. The concept of human dignity needs to return to the table; not a dialogue about who “deserves” and “does not deserve” adequate food, water, shelter, medical care, stability, security, or access to digital information- all considered vital needs for modern human life. This is why issues such as respect for privacy, net neutrality, open sharing of research data, freedom of press, right to unionize, government transparency, voter access, and tax-dollar investment in public goods and services are all so vitally important.

    

10. I believe we need to demand that our elected representatives and public servants be innately professionally and temperamentally qualified for their positions. To lead a committee or hold a cabinet position or oversee an agency they must have the political, scientific, legal, constitutional, and socio-economic knowledge required to make informed, high-functioning decisions. They should believe in the programs they are asked to form, lead, and evaluate; have a genuine spirit of service to all of the people they represent; and be able to examine policies through the lenses of quality, justice, equality, impact, and real value. Popular opinion should inform but not dictate positions. Prejudice, pre-conceived notions, profits to individual corporations, and religious doctrines should not replace truth, evidence, and knowledge in the development of policies in any sphere. The needs and challenges of a modern, technologically advanced, global society will not be met by thinking that was outdated in the 1950s. We need our scientists and philosophers and academics to inform our lawmakers and justice system and executive government more than ever before. Open access and communication channels and real-time dissemination of information is vital to informed decision-making. When you silence your thinkers and medias, you cripple your economy, defense, public health, food security, disaster response, and every other sphere of life. This same holds true if you elect lawmakers without the ability to apply critical thinking and judgment or listen to counsel, reason, or the public.

           11. I believe creativity and wonder and beauty have a role as important in our society as utility and industry. I support my tax dollars being used to support our understanding of the world and its inhabitants, in our universe, in our role as human beings. In reflection of our being. In expanding our definition of what it means to be ethical and moral, from both religious and non-religious perspectives. I believe in funding and supporting the arts, permitting dissent, and celebrating and supporting our sciences. I believe in recognizing different kinds of talents and contributions of people of all levels of ability. I believe in the right to leisure and breaks and a period of time to devote to children or family in need. I believe that freedom of religion means that people of all faiths are free to practice and to non-discrimination. I believe also in freedom from religion- that people are also free to abstain from practicing any religion and are free from pressure by any religion to conform to its doctrines. I believe in separation of church and state, and I believe that our government buildings and court houses are right to not promote any one religion over another. Individuals are free to express and practice their faith as they see fit through personal attire, prayer or non-prayer, pledging or non-pledging to any proclamation, and recognition of their own holy days and cycles.

 

Please feel free to comment on any portion of this. Please also feel free to borrow it or adapt it if you think it will help you in any way. I only ask for professional recognition of my words as the author/ originator.

I am not acepting public comment/ review on this piece onWriters Cafe. If you wish to comment, please message me privately here, through Goodreads, or on Facebook if you follow my author page.