I’ve always thought of myself as an optimist. I generally “look on the bright side of life” and I seek silver linings after hardship and loss. Whether through the love of family and friends, the wisdom of ancient sages, or the solace of Nature, I find reasons to be hopeful.
Those close to me might argue that I’m more of a “neutralist.” They might point to my objective and analytical “Mr. Spock” nature around which I’ve built a science and engineering-based career. Or, they may point to my gravitation toward Eastern philosophy and my normally calm non-judgmental attitude. I tend to accept what is and adapt to situations as needed. I don’t worry much about what may be but rather attend to the things I want and need to do as best as I’m able. Sure, I plan for the future, have hopes and dreams, and have a vision for a healthy world, but I don’t dwell on failures, shortcomings, and dead ends. The pragmatic MacGyver in me has dealt with unexpected situations enough times to have confidence that things will work out.
As this Earth Day neared, I considered how my perspective as a neutralist leaning towards optimism has shaped my reaction to environmental concerns of the day. I realized that I’m being apolitical. Besides the typical reasons like parental and familial responsibilities, professional duties, and competing personal interests, life affords plenty of opportunities to be disengaged from the big problems like climate change, gun violence, gender rights, immigration, and a misguided Presidency. Life presents plenty of distractions and valid reasons not to be political.
What’s politics have to do with it?” you might ask. That’s what I thought so I grabbed my copy of the wonderful Politics for Human Beings (Hummel and Isaak, Duxbury Press, 1980). There, I was reminded that “Politics is a social act to resolve the tension between human needs and social facts.” Hummel and Isaac explain:
Social facts are old social acts that have become conditions. Social facts often frustrate human needs. For example, although people set up a corporation to satisfy their own needs and wants, as soon as their act becomes a condition, it frustrates the needs of others who share more in the pollution than in the profits created by the firm. Thus the social acts of one group of people to satisfy their own needs often frustrate the fulfillment of needs perceived by other groups. As soon as such tension between social facts and human needs is perceived, political consciousness comes into being.
So the question may be, how intense does the tension between one’s human needs and the social facts of the day have to become to inspire an individual to become politically engaged? For a neutralist leaning toward optimism, there have been plenty of ways to rationalize inaction – the easiest being to be ignorant of what is happening. One might avoid the social facts by turning off the Twitter feed and the nightly news. Some may choose to binge on Netflix, focus on their physical health, or find peace of mind in Nature. Political leaders who advocate building walls and closing borders, isolating ourselves and being suspicious of strangers, and bullying those who present inconvenient facts encourage the hermits among us to find a quiet places to avoid being engulfed in the pervasive and stupefying societal miasma being spewed.
But by avoiding the situation, we allow it continue unchecked. We accept and endorse through our silence. We keep the virtue and honor of our higher ideals to ourselves and neglect to call out the shameful and indecent behavior of others.
That’s why lately I’ve become a pessimist.
It seems to me that it’s the pessimists who push the envelope and force others out of their accepting complacency by challenging the status quo. By definition, it’s the pessimists who see the worst in things. By extension, I think they are less content, less accepting, less forgiving, and less agreeable than their counterparts. They complain more, they want change, they speak up, they get pissed, and they make trouble. I don’t see pessimists as being constantly scowling and bitter, but I do see them as being more likely to get upset about injustices and inequities than a neutralist or optimist. My long-gone dear friend Karen Lundegaard impressed upon me the lesson that “it’s the squeaky wheel that gets the grease” as she struggled with health coverage that was insufficient to offer adequate care in her short battle with cancer. And, while fighting for her life against a bureaucratic health-care system didn’t tarnish her positive outlook on life, it left me with a lasting awareness that if people don’t complain, systems won’t change on their own. An excellent current example of what it takes to change a system can be found in Cecile Richards’ new book, Make Trouble (Touchstone, 2018).
Changing implies that something else will be “better” for those whose needs aren’t being met. Better is a judgment call – who’s to say what is better? Society needs to make that call through political action. I agree with Michael J. Sandel who in his 4/8/18 New York Time Book Review piece on Robert Reich’s The Common Good points out that, “Against the grain of much liberal thinking, Reich acknowledges that promoting civic virtue requires being judgmental about what moral attitudes and qualities of character our public life should affirm and promote.”
But for the rare exceptions, individuals, no matter how charismatic, virtuous, sincere, well-intentioned, and honorable, have an insignificant impact on the momentum of society unless they band together in with a common cause. The winter 2017 #Resist movement in the U.S. that emerged in response to the Trump presidency can be viewed as non-violent action in accordance with fundamental principles of what is right and fair in America. The Me Too movement, March for Our Lives, and Black Lives Matter are other recent examples of people organizing to resolve tensions between needs and social facts. Building on Reich’s point the, I’ll suggest that current conditions justify being judgmental about what behaviors and actions we need to take for the well-being of us all: whether that involves social equity, women’s rights, gun safety, racial equality, or the environment.
Another such organization is Climate Reality: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/
Having attended Al Gore’s October 2017 training in Pittsburgh with 1,400 other enthusiastic leaders, I felt some optimism that society was recognizing that current conditions and trends were leading us to an undesirable future. The 11,000+ members of Climate Reality are working to help us recognize that:
1. Yes – we must change what energy we consume and how we consume it;
2. Yes – we can and are changing past conditions through energy conservation, renewable energy, and the phasing out of coal-burning technologies; and
3. Yes - we will eventually change. Change is occurring but is the pace sufficient enough? I think not and it’s for that reason that I became a Climate Reality Leader.
The reality of climate change has been accepted worldwide. Actions from the individual who chooses the most fuel-efficient modes of transportation available to the nation-states who are working to implement renewable energy economies, span a wide range of morally-driven actions aimed at resolving the tension between perceived needs and current conditions. I’m pessimistic that the Trump presidency will do anything good about Climate Change. My objective for the year ahead is to help fuel the awareness that politically engaged people can lead our political leaders in morally virtuous directions: one critical direction being toward the societal acceptance of the realities of climate change.
Happy Earth Day!
