Hmmm… I just finished reading this and I kind of have the same reaction as I do when watching political advertisements that only serve to discredit “other”. Notably… I do not appear to share many views, opinions or beliefs with Sarah Palin. I actually stayed awake through the last US presidential election thinking… okay… “hoping” that if I “watched” the outcome would be that Bush would not be re-elected. I certainly hope that Obama is elected this time round. And/but… I continue to believe that it is our (any of us and each of us) privilege to think as we think. And… until this is understood, until this is accepted, we will continue to need to come up with lists of “rights” (”that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting”) to protect this what-should-be “fact”.

The definition of “privilege” is “a special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by all”. Whether this privilege is granted or inherited or taken I suppose doesn’t matter. It is the “benefiting” part, the “not enjoyed by all” part that is important. And each of us does think as we think (as a result of some still debated combination of physiology, language and environment) and, indeed, none of our thinking is enjoyed or shared by all.

So… one thing that I absolutely “like” about the current US elections is the stereotypical essence of it. I mean, really… in an already privileged “free” context, how much clearer can the drawn lines be? Look at the sides. They are such large and basic issues that I can’t imagine anyone being a fence sitter. There are black and white issues (some of which are skin colour) and so far I haven’t seen any grey zone. Well… good! Let people vote “this” way or “that” but then when happens? The US will be governed by either “this” side or “that” but the actual grey zone is the mixture of these black and white stances post-election. And I haven’t yet heard anyone mention, broach, tackle, propose how “that” is supposed to work.

This isn’t a game of Red Rover. Calling people to one side or the other changes what exactly? I thought the point was to look after all players… including those we don’t “like”, including those we don’t share experiences with, including those whose opinions are on the opposite side of our spectrum of thoughts. Where is that being talked about?

It is easy to criticize. It is easy to be outraged. It is not easy to inform/educate/pass along experience or understanding. It is not easy to listen or hear. It is not easy to find a place in the sand (that doesn’t involve sticking one’s head in it) where we can begin to find (imagine, construct, live in) a society that works for each of us. I guess I want someone to “imagine” in John Lennon style and then come up with a governance proposal for that. I know that it wouldn’t (couldn’t) involve excluding, discrediting, diminishing any “other”, even if or exactly because each of us comes to this life in some combination of physiology and context. And each of us tries to do the best with that and from there.

We could all do “better”.

And I do get that there has to be some tearing down before rebuilding can happen. But what on earth are we rebuilding?

p.s. I am a 50 year-old, white, naturalized Canadian, living in Quebec, single parent woman. My just turned 18 son will be able to vote for the first time in this Canadian federal election. I look forward to hearing what he ends up doing. I look forward to seeing what I end up doing. In many ways I would rather vote in the US election. In many ways I sense that this would be more “effective”.

p.p.s. The only position that includes the choice of “no choice” (applied to any issue) is a “choice-full” position to start with. “Imagine” starting from a “choice-full” stance. (And, yes, I get that this is supposed to be where we now are. And I get that we are not “there”. And I keep wondering why not.)