Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Duncan's Finest

"The big thing I've noticed about political assassinations is how my older brothers admired a politician named Lincoln and somebody shot him and one named Gandhi and somebody shot him and two named Kennedy and somebody shot them both and one named Martin Luther King and somebody shot him too. Then I noticed how first President Johnson and now President Nixon pretty much talk gibberish and lie like rugs and all my older brothers except Irwin hate them. But nobody shoots them. So creeps survive. That's my main political theory. Satan takes care of his own is what I believe, whereas look what God did to His only Son." - David James Duncan, "The Brothers K"

Taken at face value, living a righteous life devoted to truth, love and peace-making is a perilous decision. It is not unusual to see the person who stands up for the right cause overwhelmed by the mass of people dedicated to mediocrity, injustice or even brutality. It is as if the world we live in is radically determined to prohibit progress ... as if there is a great centripetral force pulling all benevolent persons back into the status quo.

It's sad, but it's also not that surprising to me. The reality is that a righteous person automatically confronts all of society with a dillema. By taking a step towards righteousness, they take a step away from mediocrity and present another alternative. Individual, righteous actions present a crisis for all others.

I saw a great example of this recently on the new tv show, "My Name is Earl." The story is about Earl's decision to turn his life around - do something positive, right his wrongs, make peace with those he has injured. One of his very first acts of reformation was to pick up trash and thereby eliminate his guilt from years of littering. Earl's intentions were truly virtuous. Unfortunately, they were also threatening. Earl happened to be picking up trash at a hotel, and a housekeeper quickly took offense to Earl's actions. Not only was Earl doing her job, he was also raising the expectations of her manager. He was threatening her job security and indirectly pushing her to raise her own behavior and standards.

Now just imagine someone trying to right a serious wrong, such as racial prejudice or political corruption. The voices of dissent and objection would be many. The resistance would be tremendous. It is like the many images of horror movies which show demons or otherwise evil forces seeking to "take hold," "grasp," or "seize" women and children. These are not merely fictional themes, but spiritual realities which Dante choose to highlight in "Inferno"; diabolical forces are intent on keeping people restrained and confined (just as the devil perpetually holds himself back). Perhaps that is why the devil tempted Adam and Eve in the garden: if he knew that he was already fallen, why not seek others to keep him company. For misery does love company, just as there is no hell like the one you have to suffer alone. Consequently, it's terrible to say, but often true: it's much easier to kill the godly than follow them. That's what Duncan's quote above illustrates and what history teaches us.

But, the challenge to live a godly life will not go away. Virtuous behavior is still required by God, which leaves us with the unending, persistent task of walking the difficult road. Contrary to the hellish images of a frozen, atrophied existence, the godly actions of liberating people, creating beauty and seeking excellence must go on. And I think the greatest way to get there is to follow in the footsteps of those who died dreaming of another way of life, not by following the rules and codes of fearful leaders who spend more time addressing the evil in the world than the good that's left to be done.

Wes

1 comment:

Wes and Anna Kendall said...

The cases of Reagan and Bush do provide quanderies to the "political theory" given by Duncan. As for Reagan, his averted assassination was more the result of the assassin's crazed impulse rather than a moral or ethical push from Reagan himself.

The situation in Iraq will perpetually make me scratch my head, as it is so very hard to distinguish between right and wrong, heroes and villains. I guess Bush could be heralded for his campaign to bring "freedom" and "justice" to the Middle East, but my gut feeling is that the way Bush uses those two words is a far cry from how Gandhi or JFK or Lincoln would use those exact same words. Sadly, I think Bush has politicized "virtuous vernacular." Other more noble leaders were guided by virtue itself. Besides, I've yet to see how military aggression in Iraq has altered or improved behavior and standards there. Perhaps time will show us otherwise.