Both major political parties in the U.S. emphasize their support of positions near the ends of opposing philosophical spectra. And both parties demonize the other’s leaders—and supporters. The other parties, in general, focus on one primary issue, appealing to a relatively small group of one-issue voters. I sense that a significant portion of voters who support each of the two major political parties—as well as the majority of voters who hold their noses and vote for the least offensive candidates from one or the other—are not hard and fast political partisans. In other words, they could support more centrist candidates, provided those candidates acknowledge the need to address issues of high importance to those voters. Though I have almost exclusively supported Democratic candidates (with few exceptions) my entire life, I no longer consider myself a Democrat. My attachment is to progressive philosophies, not party loyalties. I suspect many people who tend to identify as Republican or Democrat are more closely affiliated with conservative or progressive philosophies than with the party that claims alignment with those ideologies. I think a political party whose tenets were more centrist, in general, and willing to openly acknowledge and discuss deeply held, but conflicting, perspectives could appeal to a much larger pool of voters than either major party, with its “fringe” doctrines. The successful formation of such a party would require an articulate, well-known, highly-regarded, and charismatic proponent. That person (and those who join him or her in supporting the new party’s formation) would need to differentiate the party’s philosophies from those of the two major opposing groups. That differentiation would exclude attacks on other philosophies and parties—only rational explanations of the “centrists'” positions and a willingness to discuss, without judgment, “sensitive” issues. Handled with impartiality and understanding, voters on both sides of such sensitive issues might come to a willingness to recognize and respect, though not accept or endorse, opposing points of view.
My respect for both major political parties has diminished during the past several years—to the extent that I cannot say I am a party loyalist. For that reason, as well as because both parties seem to have taken the position that “if you’re not with us, you are our enemy,” I favor exploring creation of a new, more broadly appealing party. While forming a new, more moderate, party would be risky and would require dedication and hard work, today I think it would be worth the effort. It would also require people who now stand on “both sides of the aisle” to step to the middle. The idea may be quixotic; that’s not news, given my history as a utopian dreamer. I should ask myself in six weeks whether I still hold this fantasy. I have a history as a capricious idealist and an aggressive adversary. I am guilty of the charges I make against “the other side:” I too frequently demonize its leaders and followers, taking on the persona of the pot in an altercation with the kettle.
+++
Chirping birds keep interrupting my thoughts. These are not imaginary birds; they are actual animals (capable of flight) just outside my window. I cannot see them, because the sun has not yet risen. But even in darkness I know they are perched in nearby trees. They may be watching me—peering into my well-lit office from the eerie darkness. Another 30 minutes have passed. The birds are silent. Fog hangs in the air, attempting to create a scene from a park in London. Dim sunlight barely finds its way through the fog, suggesting today may be better suited to a day indoors than a day exploring Village life on the last “workday” of the week. I have my work cut out for the day: pursue a final disposition of the situation with regard to the port in my chest. It looks increasingly likely that my earlier hope that I will not need another port will be dashed. If so, we will have to go the Houston early so the implant procedure can be done the day before my day-long “first day” can proceed along the timeline the hospital desires. Perhaps the birds simply wanted to make sure I was awake and ready to deal with the issue…they’re such thoughtful birds.
+++
I once considered sleep to be a “time-brake,” a way to slow and then stop time for a while, allowing sleepers to pause long enough to recover energy lost during their waking hours. We know now, though, that sleep does not slow, nor stop, time. Sleep consumes time at the same rate as does wakefulness; consciousness hesitates to allow for sleep, but sleep does not permit even a brief interruption to time. Time consume a bit of consciousness during sleep, the way fog consumes a bit of light. Not the other way around.
+++
I think polished chrome has no color. Just like mirrors, polished chrome is invisible. When attempting to look at the bumper of a 1950s car, one does not see the bumper; one sees only the reflection of items around the bumper. The same is true of a mirror; no one has ever seen a mirror—only visual regurgitations of the environment around the mirror. When looking at a clock, one does not see time; just an approximation of the measurement of time. And watching a car’s speedometer does not allow a driver to see the car’s speed, only an appraisal of how fast the car is moving. So many things we assume are real were, in fact, drummed into us from an early age. We equate the experience with reality, but it is only an approximation of reality in a form we can understand. Look at a clear water glass. You’re not looking at the glass, but at what is on the other side of the glass. You may see what you believe are the sides and bottom of the glass, but in fact you are seeing light from nearby objects as it bends around the glass. And you may see a reflection of your face in the glass. Again, it is just a visual regurgitation…in this case, of your face. When you see a car on the street, you are not seeing the whole car; you seen only the parts of the car that are not visually obstructed by the parts you see. We have gotten used to imprecision in describing what we see, hear, feel, taste, smell, and think. In some cases, we communicate in a form of “shorthand” that enables us to take less time than it would take to describe our actual experiences. There’s nothing wrong with that, as long as we recognize and acknowledge our shortcuts. But if we don’t, we could find ourselves in a prison for perception prevaricators, where the guards sew an inmate’s eyes and mouth shut and restrict access to the other sensory organs. The moral of this tale is this: avoid places with guards.
+++
Time to explore truth and beauty.
