When I was a student at UC Berkeley, I had the great joy and privilege and playing piccolo for the Cal Marching Band. The Cal Band was (is), almost completely, a student run organization. It had a complex system that made the orgnization work, and every year we would have elections for the top leadership positions: Student drum major, student music director, secretary, etc. These were run as almost all elections are: the students would campaign, in a sense, and this would end with each of them giving a speech at an election dinner after which we would all vote by ballot. The reality is that the Cal Band typically has about 170 members, so most of us knew each other pretty well, we witnessed first hand the other members' strengths and weaknesses, and by the time that dinner and vote came along, I assume I was not the only one who pretty much knew who they were going to vote for even before the speeches were made. Still, there is one election that remains prominent in my mind, 30 years later.
Two young women were running against each other for one of the positions. What was unusual about this was that the two young women were known to be best friends. They were always together, very close, never out of each other's sights. But they were also very different in terms of temperament. One, whom I will call Jill, was very confident, strong, an achiever, well-organized, pretty much good at everything she did, and generally very well liked. The other, whom I will call Sally, was an emotional mess. I think today we might have more compassion and understanding about the mental illness or life struggles that had led her to where she was. But at the time, most of us chose to stay out of her way as much as possible. She threw herself, sexually, at most of the young men, she flitted in and out of very dramatic and emotionally charged friendships with the other young women (perhaps in part because she would not hesitate to fling herself at their boyfriends, too), she was often seen having emotional break-downs or throwing loud temper tantrums. She was dramatic and emotional and constantly in crisis. So when we all saw that these two women were running against each other for this position, all of us, I'm certain, planned on voting for Jill. We did not see how Sally could handle a leadership position in the face of all the other crises that seemed to run her life, frankly. We had our ballots in front of us as the speeches were made and I know that even before the speeches came, most of us had already marked our vote for Jill.
Sally stood up and she gave the speech most of us expected her to give. It was emotional but also passionate about her desire to serve in this way. I don't remember it much, except that she was clearly very nervous, and she made her earnest desire to hold this position very clear. Then Jill came to the podium. And Jill's speech I will never forget.
Jill stood before all of us, and instead of telling us why she wanted the position or why she would do a good job, she took the opportunity to slam her best friend, Sally. She called her "unstable" and was sarcastic and mean in her comments. It was a cruel speech. And this close community of the Cal Band had no tolerance for this. At her first comment, her audience collectively gasped with shock and concern. As her comments went on, groans and "oh!"s resounded. This shook Jill. Her stance as she began her speech was extremely confident, as she had every right to be. But as the rest of us responded negatively to each of her nasty comments, I saw her falter in her speech. What began with loud assertion, ended with a quiet, unsure, shaky speech. She read the speech she had written through to the end, and did not alter it, despite our reaction. But I am certain that as she finished, she could not help but see that none of us were looking anymore at her. We were all looking at Sally, with concern, and with compassion.
As Jill sat down, the next thing I saw was everyone's erasers on their ballots. Sally won that vote by a landslide. And Jill's popularity from that moment on was never anywhere near what it had been before. We all voted against meanness, against cruelty, and against that kind of attack. We expected our leaders to be community builders, community players. We voted in people who would care about the well being of even their opponents because we knew that that would reflect how they would treat each of us, how they would respond to our wishes for the Band. Or, to be more accurate in this case, we voted against someone who was so self-focused and self-aggrandizing that they were willing to be cruel even to their best friend to try to get what they wanted.
Unfortunately, this election does not seem to mirror the choices of our country. Instead, studies show that the mudslinging campaigns of attack on one another WORK. Usually, the person who does the most cruel (and often libelous) attacking of his/her competition wins in our bigger elections. These candidates avoid saying how they really feel about anything, and so people assume these folk are on the same page in terms of values. We hear from these candidates what is wrong with everyone else and that works to sway votes away those they are slamming, even when the things they say are lies, even when there is not a hint of truth in them. We vote in those who are best at cruelty, lying, and vicious attacks. Is that really what we want for the leadership or our country?
I recently was in a conversation with someone who is my political opposite. I heard him say in light of the terrible way our politicians are treating everyone, are speaking about everyone, are attacking those they are running against, even on the same general "side," that he would choose to vote in this upcoming election for anyone who did not behave in this horrible way. He would vote for the first person who chose, in their campaign, to speak about what they valued, what they wanted, and what they believed, rather than speaking only to attack everyone else. And for the first time in our history together, I found myself on the same page as him.
I am deeply dismayed by what has been happening in our country, the policies that are so cruel, the hatred of anyone who is different from us, the constant villainization of the "other". I think that all of that is both a reflection of the very way in which people talk about and to one another these days, and it is condoning, and affirming this horrible way of treating each other on a day to day basis. There is a Sweet Honey in the Rock song based on a Chinese proverb that basically says that what you are at heart is reflected in your small actions that reflect into the larger attitudes and actions of the family, then the nation, then the world. We have forgotten this wisdom, this truth.
The bottom line:
If we want our world to be better, it has to begin with the ways we treat one another now, here, today. If we want our world to be better, we have to be kind to one another. But more, we must affirm kindness and expect kindness from our leaders. When we not only tolerate but condone and affirm cruelty from our leaders by our votes in reaction to their campaigns, what kind of naivete is it that expects that their intolerably vicious behavior will not then be aimed towards all of us in their policies, in their practices? Personally, I've had enough. I won't support that in any way. I can't. I'm voting for compassion this year. I'm voting for kindness. I'm voting for Love.
No comments:
Post a Comment