Several years ago, after a period of quiet reflection, I penned the following words and then shared them with some of my friends. But, more than it being a very short opinion piece at the time, or more than an attempt at being, simply, creative, it served as an entry to my journal. I cannot recall what I might have been going through at the time that it was written, or what, specifically, I had observed out in the world to inspire it, but, for some reason, I found it necessary to write it:
“Computer on the blink — what do we do sometimes? We switch off and then reboot. After we’ve lost loved ones or a job what we also tend to do, believe it or not, is to find some way to reboot. After failing our exams — we reboot. After fire, after flood or after theft we go ahead and we reboot, we reboot, we reboot.
Life in this advanced, technological world is what it has always been – one of crisis, one of survival, and one of recovery. It is a wondrous thing — this mind of ours which is so entwined with our souls and our bodies — to come out sane after being slammed, head on and multiple times, by the vicissitudes of our mortality.
We get knocked down, we become disoriented and unconscious, and then we wake up, only to stagger to our feet and press on again, and again, and again, and again. We talk things out, we pray and we play. We busy ourselves with this and with that in order to distract or to inspire ourselves, or we meditate or hibernate in the cradle of slumber. We journal and we make a hobby of life.
What strength is there in such fragility. We reboot. We often find new and very unique ways to reboot. What awesome creations we are. What capacities to survive and to thrive we have. How we just reboot, reboot and reboot.”
Although those words were geared towards the experiences of the individual — at the micro level, I now wonder, after having reviewed them, what relevance or what importance that the thoughts behind them might have for a nation at the macro level. The psychology of a citizen of any country is not, likely, that of the collective, although there are definite connections between the two.
Can a country, after much upheaval, confusion and distress effect a reboot of some kind towards normalcy? And then this raises the question as to how one defines or interprets the word “normalcy”. For countries that have embarked upon the democratic experiment — any deviation from or glitch in that system would, if possible, require some sort of reboot. In light of the current mayhem in the American Government and within the American society, under the Trump Administration, can the United States return to the vision and to the values of the country’s founders? Are there no longer any men and women of integrity to stand, as it were, in the gap?
Historically, there is evidence that a country can reboot in the aftermath of unparalleled chaos and utter confusion, even after much blood has been spilled and after raging fires of destruction. The United States, for example, was able to reboot after the Civil War which was waged for a little over four years, between April 12, 1861 and May 26, 1865. Spain was able to reboot after its civil war — a military conflict which was fought from 1936 to 1939. Germany was able to reboot after the stain of Nazism under Adolf Hitler.
And, so, in the current crisis within the United States, where efforts are being made, stridently, to gut or to destroy the federal government, why should an effective reboot in terms of democracy be an impossibility? Can we afford not to look for possibilities? After the immense progress that the country made in the 10-year period of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, the Old racist South managed to destroy much of the gains that were made. And yet, after the Old South’s so-called “Restoration” and after their Jim Crow laws of racial segregation the Civil Rights Movement managed to effect more than a positive facelift for American democracy, even though the spectre of racism still haunts us today, with one of its champions sitting in the White House. And so, is a reboot possible, and, if so, how?
There are more learned men and women than I who could posit the nitty gritty of workable solutions towards that end. I would not, therefore, pretend or even dare to aspire to be a part of such an intelligentsia, but I do believe, at the barest minimum, that I have a handle on the basics. And so, the following are my thoughts on the matter.
I would prefer to contend with the Devil, within an agreed upon set of “rules of engagement” than to operate in an arena where the rule of thumb is that of ever fluctuating whims — when the lines of scrimmage and the goalposts are constantly made to shift. Where there are no hard and fast rules, where there are no mutually agreed upon “social contracts” one has no recourse against any or all trespasses committed.
In fact where there are no rules of engagement there is only the likelihood of chaos, which is but a prelude to utter disaster. The American democratic experiment — with its Constitution and its Bill of Rights — has conceived, has expressed, has established and has safeguarded, until today, a framework for mutual respect, for civility and for the continued prospects for discourse which are far better alternatives than the volatility, the vitriol and the brutality of unremitting social unrest and war. This is something worth fighting for, I believe, whether in our courts or on our streets.
I have entertained views that, sometimes, differ on fundamental grounds with others. I have found some positions taken by others not only greatly irritating but, also, downright detestable or loathsome. Some views, in my humble opinion, pose existential threats to life on both a metaphysical and a physical plane of existence. But the American democracy, as flawed as it is, and which, by the way, is NOT Christian, has its own set of rules of engagement. One is free to express one’s views without browbeating one’s detractors into intellectual submission, or to be on the receiving end of the same. We can contend with each other without killing each other. People even have the wherewithal to “demonize” each other. But when rules are in constant flux, or when they are nonexistent — any card can be played. These are vices that are worth fighting against whether in our courts of law or in the rough and tumble of our streets.
I can abide being called a “nigger” and by being thought of as an “ape”, with a subterranean Intelligence Quotient (I.Q.). That is part and parcel of an ongoing discussion taking place in this republic which I may win or ultimately lose. But, at the very least, the framework of our society allows for such a discussion and it safeguards “freedom of speech” for all — even for those who love to defend a lie. Even if one wants to re-introduce the idea of “Make America Great Again”, whatever that might mean, that would be one’s right to express such a view under the law.
And, I could give other examples. But all discussions — no matter on what subject — would not mean anything, nor are they likely to accomplish anything if the rules of engagement — the very foundations of our democracy — are completely destroyed. A fearsome prospect — a bone chilling one indeed.
Although I believe that our judiciary has been corrupted by subjective and selfish political agendas it is heartening to see that there are still judges — Republicans and Democrats — willing to take a stand for the rule of law against the Triple Entente of Trump, Vance, and Musk (and not necessarily in that order).
During the recent election season there was one overarching concern that I had, which, as strange as it might seem, superseded all the other issues. That concern trumped such things as the continuation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare); who should sit on the Supreme Court or on the lower courts as judges; whether to continue DACA or not; what is an appropriate and an effective immigration policy; whether to continue to recognize or to denounce LGBTQ rights; whether to support Black Lives Matter as a social movement or not; whether to defund or not defund the police; whether to embrace or not embrace the notion of climate change; or whether we should continue to participate in NATO or not. The growing tendency to treat our laws as mere suggestions and nothing more, and to view voting as but an impediment or as a threat to our democratic process, other than as its solid pillars, is most insidious and invidious of all threats to America and comprise my greatest concern.
Those discussions would not have been able to continue — not even bitterly — nor urgent solutions sought for if the rules of engagement were divested, eschewed, and replaced by totally new ones, fashioned and enshrined in ONE individual, and FOR LIFE! Such a principle of governance is repugnant to everything that the founders of this country risked having their necks stretched by the noose of the executioner! It was, indeed, heartening, to see, for a change, both Democrats and Republicans — known for going at each other’s throats and for often creating political gridlock — coming together to acknowledge what the world was witnessing prior to Trump’s election.
Our current president is well within his right to engineer and to carry forward any argument or agenda he so pleases. He is a very poor product of this very proud democracy that we share and enjoy. But, to employ suspect methods which only contravene and undercut the very foundations which provided him with those rights is another thing altogether. The same principles which gave him his privileges can also remove them as well.
Eric Hoffer, in his book The True Believer, copyrighted 1951, offers the following words to ponder from his study of history: “In pre-war Italy and Germany practical businessmen acted in an entirely ‘logical’ manner when they encouraged a fascist and a Nazi movement in order to stop communism. But in doing so, these practical and logical people promoted their own liquidation.”
We see our own businesspeople making the same mistake, not realizing that freedom of speech is, indeed, the father of their freedom to earn a profit, and not the other way around. The freedom to dialogue within a framework of freedom is something worth fighting for. The American patriot, Patrick Henry, captures the thoughts and the feelings of many Americans today, of those who battle in our courts and protest in our streets, who have not surrendered to the oligarchic ideas of Trump’s MAGA supporters on that issue: “Give me liberty or give me death!”
This is the time for us to invoke the fighting spirit of the late Sir Winston Churchill which inspired the following words that he uttered in an attempt to instill in and to fortify the courage of his countrymen in the face of the frightening prospects of invasion and of destruction by the brutish and the murderous foot soldiers of the juggernaut of Hitler’s German fascism:
“We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender”.
Let us, therefore, find some way to reboot!
