Regretfully, there’s a strong undercurrent of fear percolating in a vocal minority of Americans. I don’t want to feed it, the media is already doing a good job of that, but I do want to acknowledge it so we can consciously make a higher choice.
The latest incident: Kentucky Senatorial candidate Rand Paul states that the Civil Right Act of 1964 was flawed in that it made it illegal for private businesses to discriminate on the basis of race. When questioned yesterday on the Rachel Maddow show about his position, he tried to walk the line between saying he’s against discrimination but believing that a private business has the right to discriminate based on race. He equated a restaurant owner having the freedom to choose to prevent guns in his restaurant with a restaurant owner denying service based on race.
Unlike the media pundits, I’m not going to claim I know what Rand Paul’s true beliefs are on this issue or his intent with his statements. However, we’ve all seen that a politician who wants to get elected frequently tries to read the political tea leaves so as to position himself to appear favorable to the mood of the populace. It certainly appears that Paul is doing this and it just might get him elected.
This event coupled with Arizona’s new immigration law and the so-called tea party people certainly points towards a lot of fear in parts of America. Why is there so much fear? Reasons put forth by others include: racial pushback against a black president, shifting demographics as whites move into the minority, the economic problems of the past few years, jobs moving to other countries, the never-ending wars, gay marriage and ecological disasters such as the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf.
I think we can all agree that Americans and all of humanity are in the midst of massive change. Although change brings growth, it also brings fear. One basic need we all have is for safety and security. Meeting that need is threatened psychologically when we are moving from the known into the unknown. A common response in facing the unknown is to retreat into clinging on to the old.
Much of the “take back my country” chants are driven by a psychological drive to retreat into the known of the past. The political posturing of folks such as Paul are recognizing the motivations behind these chants and are using them for political advantage.
The question facing America is this: during this time of momentous change will our ultimate motivation be based on fear or on a higher purpose?
As we look to the future of humanity, what is it that we really really want to see?
Do we want to retreat into the past where we felt safe? A past where whites were the majority, Spanish wasn’t spoken here, businesses could discriminate on race, gas was cheap, legitimate relationships were only between a man and a woman, we could continue to use natural resources up faster than the rest of the world and so on? If we are truly being honest, then we know that this past wasn’t truly that great for many segments of humanity. Is going back to the past really in our collective best interest?
I don’t know about you, but I know that rather than retreating into the past, I would rather move forward into a better future where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. I wish to live in a world where people are motivated by love rather than fear. I wish to live in a world where we look beyond skin color and ethnicity and only see our common humanity. I wish to live in a world where there is no need to build barriers between us because everyone everywhere has the opportunity to succeed. I wish to live in a world where politicians no longer pander to our fears but rather inspire us to our highest possibilities.
Mark

You always present a contemplative awareness, Rev. Mark! Thank-you
The association Mr. Paul presented of individual/entrepreneurial “Liberty” within the context of the 1964 Civil Right Act, then “tagging” Gun Rights along for the ride, has me chuckling about what Rand Paul would see out his kitchen window on a clear morning should he been asked by Rachel Maddow. Was there an opportunity of checking Mr. Paul’s palms before, during or after the interview?
Thanks for the kind words, Steve.
People can say and believe what they do…we don’t have to agree with any of it or give it energy to expand on the planet via our consciousness….the same goes for anything I say, too! Free will, baby, free will.
I just want to point out that favoring conservative government fiscal policies doesn’t mean you are racist.
And I wouldn’t mind a return to cheaper gas prices.
Hi, Debra,
Thanks for the post. I agree that you cannot automatically assume that one who favors certain policies in one area can automatically be “lumped” into a certain category. There is a sort of “shorthand” that many people apply in labeling others….that if you believe certain things in one area of life, then you must then believe a certain package of beliefs that I have determined always go together…..I sometimes think people do this because we have so much information coming at us that we cannot take the time to really break things down (including our “categorization” of people) into really seeing them for as they are…..this is how our brain “fills in” information that our senses don’t take in based on expectations from prior patterns….this process may work as we are navigating around physically in life, but it leads to erroneous assumptions when we try to “fill in” the blanks on people….
I have heard some people try to lump all “tea party” people into the category of racists. I don’t buy it. Many may be, but many are not.
By the way, although I believe it was clear….my article was not implying that Paul or others were racist….my concern is that we have people who’s motivations for political purposes are designed to tap into a generalized state of reactionary fear…they sense that fear and they feed it for political gain….rather than trying to move us out of fear and call us to see what is the highest and best for everyone and moving us to that awareness…is America and Americans served by saying we should have business owners be able to discriminate on race?
Some would say “the business owners need to be able to determine how they run their business without outside governmental control….I am just pro-business and fiscally conservative” ….that’s all well and good…..the issue becomes in all such matters, where does the rights of one party end and the rights of another begin? There is some areas at the edges here these rights bump into each other where folks can reasonably disagree. I’m all for a fiscally conservative and pro-business approach that allows an owner to determine how to buy, advertise and sell his products so long as such activities don’t infringe on the greater rights of others and humanity at large. I also believe that the rights of anyone to go into that business and purchase their products should not be denied because of their race. I can find no reasonable justification to support the rights of the business owner over the rights of the customer in that case. To allow the rights of the individual in that case to override the rights of humanity at large is not in our collective best interest.
Again, I take us back to my point….don’t tap and use fears that are running as an undercurrent in our culture for political gain….don’t fan those flames even if that’s how its always been done…sure that may have been successful in the past….but what is in our best interest right now? I believe America needs to be inspired to reinvent itself as the highest vision of what it can be….not retreat into fear nor retreat away from the advances we have made in social justice because it is politically expedient. We can put in place fiscal policies that support business and all people. It doesn’t have to be one at the expense of the other.
And, yes, I wondered if anyone would see that “low gas price” comment…
I’m for low priced energy too!
Thanks for the comment.
Mark