How do we face the sunrise?  

[Pt. 5]

I recently saw the movie, Noah. Without diving into the strengths or weaknesses of the film, I want to focus on the most compelling moment in the film. Noah believes God wants mankind to end with his family, and so he feels painfully obligated to kill his two newly born grandchildren. As Noah holds his knife above their heads, he faces a choice. He must choose between the swelling love in his heart for these precious gifts, and the duty he thinks God has put upon him.

Though the biological relationship between a grandfather and his grandchildren is much more unique and intimate between a politician and his constituency, the choices our nation’s leaders face carry similar gravity. It may not always be between life and death, but it is always between the flourishing of some over others.

My empathy for the choices these individuals have to make is what inspires me to always look for a deeper understanding of their motives. This is why I write Mezzo. This is why I want to find solidarity of a middle ground, being critical of over-generalizations and uniting in our mutual desires to see humans thrive.

I proposed at the beginning of this collection that I could find a common thread in the current American political conversation. I said I could do that by deconstructing the messages posed by the most popular media forms. I found some errors in the communications of these messages, but ultimately a theme prevailed. Politicians, journalists, and film writers all want to see people living in communities supporting each other’s aspirations and leaving space for individual identity.

In Buzzfeed’s article on Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the text reflected an affirmation of women and men striving for the success of their political party. While the language of the article ignored some of the problems with such a rigorous pursuit of power, the purpose was still encouragement of core human values. Mr. Stanton supported human equality, praised political commitment, and applauded the diligence of a representative of the people. His message ignored the fact that marginalization will always be a problem, but his text revolved around unity. Rather than trying to add to the disillusionment of the public toward politicians, Mr. Stanton used his words to rehabilitate our faith in the good intentions of our government.

Senator Rand Paul used his speech at CPAC to affirm the government’s intention to protect the people. Vacillating between a cheerleader and a stern father, Sen. Paul attempted to assure the people of his devotion to the foundation of the country. His speech had little support for his immense generalizations, and he too actively tried to create value for himself by shoving his opponent in the sandbox. However, his patriotism and allegiance to service are commendable. Sen. Paul’s speech inspired people to be proactive about their beliefs and resist complacency. Regardless of how you feel about these beliefs, there is no contesting the need for people to make their voices heard. Rational ignorance can only be justified to a point.

Scandal, brimming with drama and consistent existential angst, is one of the most successful shows in terms of forcing its audience to wrestle with the problems of justice. “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” pushes the viewer to consider the (very Augustinian) possibility of heart orientation being the only measurable distinction between justice and injustice. The show’s ambition in redefining political boundaries and (hopefully) inadvertently destroying the republic altogether should be cause for not taking any of its claims too seriously. But if you are looking for a thoroughly imagined “means over end” government, this show gives you the space to judge the probable consequences.

I have deconstructed the weaknesses, shown the fallacies, and shed light on the contradictions, but even my essays contain each of those elements. No message, especially in the world of politics, can go without ignoring some needs and conflating some terms. The community of discourse in this realm is predetermined to be one person or organization necessarily proselytizing another individual or group. To meet this goal successful, the people who communicate these messages must skim over “the other’s” needs.

Let us not forget the burden these individuals bear, though. The dedicated servants (or tyrants) of any regime commit themselves to constantly acting in the ever-critical public arena. Even I assume the burden of claiming to know some greater truth or insight that I hope you adopt as you make tremendously crucial political decisions.

Think back to the choice Noah made in Aronofsky’s film. Think about how difficult it must be for our leaders to choose one person’s success at the inevitable cost of another’s prosperity. Think of your own choice to analyze or ignore the political messages bombarding you from your Facebook newsfeed every day. Healing and truth are not found in apathy, but negativity only serves your own pride.

Hopefully these case studies struck a chord in you somewhere. It is discouraging to think of the flawed humanity that no public figure can ever escape. Dwelling in the insufficiency of democracy also breaks down our collaborative spirit. So how do we face the next day? How can we look ahead knowing that so much cannot change, and what can takes more than our lifetimes? Feel the weight of your citizenship and the responsibility behind your vote. But be a faithful listener and a humble wisdom seeker. Above all, serve your neighbors. That is the only source of change you can control.

vérité et de grâce

truth and grace