Freedom & Truth
My dad has been visiting us for the last two weeks, using as his primary excuse coming to see us perform "Crazy for You" — all 5 performances and the dress rehearsal, no less. Anyway, we relaxed and entertained ourselves last night by watching "Good Night and Good Luck", which we thoroughly enjoyed and thoroughly praised for its contemporary relevance, but we are a bleeding-heart liberal family after all.
Anyway again, we discussed the nature of democracy and those who, despite their apparently best intentions, try to "preserve" our freedoms by destroying them in the fashion of McCarthy, with overzealous patriotism and paranoic secrecy.
I made the claim — one that I'm still thinking about but that still seems to me to be true — that democracy is something that one can't trust politicians to pursue: what elected official in his right mind would choose such a slow-moving, unwieldy system as democracy? Instead, democracy must rest in the hands of the people electing the politicians, and the people must see to it that the politicians are kept honest. Democracy may be the worst governing system ever invented save all the others, but it seems definitely not a system under which the governed should simply trust their leaders and hope for the best, because then we get the worst.
In my mind I started comparing the idea of elected officials doing their work out in the open versus doing it in secret — for our own good, of course — with my own life before and after coming out as gay. Not surprisingly, I found many similarities and resonances that I could probably write about for years to come. But the big point in my own thoughts was that, before coming out (BCO) as gay, secrecy seemed so natural and necessary a way of life that one dreaded the thought of being without; one would feel undressed and horribly exposed and vulnerable.
But the truth — and it's a truth known to every gay person whose ever come out — is that the secrecy and half-truths are an incredible burden that leave one vulnerable and open to exposure. And what's to expose? Nothing but the real person, but a person ashamed. After coming out (ACO), I discovered that the truth is powerful and protecting; the vulnerability vanishes like the insubstantial will-o-the-wisp it turned out to be.
The problem with this lesson about the difference BCO vs. ACO is that the closeted gay person in the BCO era never believes it. It can only be experienced personally, although it helps that there are many, many gay people these days who can testify to the effect.
This may not seem relevant to anyone except me, but I think the lesson is the same for elected officials: doing a job honestly in the open-air of truth seems like a horrible idea, but is really the best way to get the job done in the end.
And then, this evening I read the following:
…you can’t have freedom without the truth.*
— Al Franken, 4 April 2006
It seemed to sum everything up quite nicely, at least for now.
———-
* Franken went on to say this:
"You can have freedom without jokes, as has been proven by the Dutch and the Swiss."
True as it may be, it didn't seem to fit the mood I wanted to present above.
2 Responses
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Subscribe to comments via RSS
Leave a Reply
To thwart spam, comments by new people are held for moderation; give me a bit of time and your comment will show up.
I welcome comments -- even dissent -- but I will delete without notice irrelevant, rude, psychotic, or incomprehensible comments, particularly those that I deem homophobic, unless they are amusing. The same goes for commercial comments and trackbacks. Sorry, but it's my blog and my decisions are final.
on Thursday, 6 April 2006 at 01.47
Permalink
I don't think preserving democracy is really what Joe McCarthy was about. He was a demagogue on a power trip, hooked on the power he gained through wrecking other people's peace of mind, at minimum, and their reputation at worst.
I suppose a person could argue that McCarthy's ugly career provided a cautionary object lesson for future generations and in that way did democracy a service.
Amen to that. In fact, I credit that situation for the predicament we now find ourselves in: stuck for three more years with a president most Americans find thoroughly unsatisfactory.
Will most Americans learn and start paying some real attention? I really doubt it. I'm convinced most Americans are content to be know-nothings most of the time and back-biting dilletantes when they discover things are going too badly to be ignored. They dislike politics and disdain politicians.
What they really want is set-it-and-forget-it good government with instant results automatically forthcoming, or as close to that as they can get.
They also want to hear what they want to hear, as opposed to what they need to hear. If they're disgusted about a rise in crime, people want to hear a "lock 'em up and throw the key away" response.
The result is sometimes an improvement and people are pleased. But then we hear tales of people being railroaded to execution. We learn about a none-too-swift woman who was ordered to deliver a package by her thug boyfriend. The package contained heroine. She got caught and ended up being sentenced to 17 years in prison (as best I can recall).
As a general rule, I hold that in a democracy people get government as good as they require it to be or as lousy as they let it become. Our history bears that out, with periods of decline followed by short spurts of relatively intense reform.
on Thursday, 6 April 2006 at 02.03
Permalink
About coming out, I can only vicariously appreciate the difference it must make. No one should be made to constantly lie and mislead others in an effort to be regarded and treated fairly and decently, all because of something basic and integral to his or her nature.
People would do well to learn more, be more realistic and come to terms with their notions about the human body and sexuality generally.