What Do You Mean, "Radical?"

Issue 18

Come with me (through some construction and detours) to an America that has realized its potential as a society whose reason for being is compassion. A radical idea, you say? Not when one considers that a primary component of compassion is the notion that we are, all of us, equal simply because we are, all of us, human beings. None of us is greater than another. Each of us has inalienable rights. Each of us is free to pursue our happiness. That’s compassion in action and, what do you know? It’s exactly how we started some 240 years ago — or so.

We also know, however, that we tripped right out of the gate by affording this novel opportunity of a compassionate society that values equality and fairness only to White, male landowners, which was not fair or equal. Since then we have, in varied and flawed ways, belatedly and painstakingly, endeavored to extend this opportunity to Black Americans, Native Americans, women, and other classes of non-White male American constituencies, a project not yet realized and which might be made easier when viewed through the lens of compassion.

This is who is telling me that I am a radical? In a negative way? Give me a fucking break.

As a country we are characterized as an idea, an experiment which, itself, was radical in the 18th century. People governing themselves? Whaaaat? And I’m just a Jewish boy from New Jersey who grew up in an America heavily dominated by Christians, but weren’t Jesus’ teachings somewhat radical when he offered them? In our current hyper-polarized, hyper-partisan American political moment, the term “radical” has become a pejorative — “radical left” and “radical right” — and I, for one, am eager to reclaim it for what it is. That’s because I’ve had it with being lectured by political conservatives (I’ll eschew the quotes) who are at once: 1) all about the greatness of America, a compassion-infused radical idea of a country; 2) almost always steeped in or connected to one strain of Christianity or another, all based on the teachings of a radical man and which, if I have it right, are, ironically?, fundamentally steeped in the concept of compassion, and 3) some of the least compassionate people I’ve ever encountered.

This is who is telling me that I am a radical? In a negative way? Give me a fucking break.

In a compassionate society, it is radical to deny any degree of freedom to any and all individuals who comply with the laws where they live. Period. Thus, the Equality Act, is not about “penalizing everyday Americans for their beliefs about marriage and biological sex.” It’s about the vast overwhelming majority of Americans who are not transgender or gender-non-conforming (and who likely know little to nothing about what that experience is like) being compassionate by listening to those who report being discriminated against because of how they experience gender — and then making it right because that’s what compassion does. The whole point of the compassionate America that beckons is to have the freedom to believe whatever we choose to believe but not the ability to impose those beliefs on anyone else if said beliefs limit the rights and freedoms of another. That’s plain; that’s simple; that’s well-established.

In a compassionate society, particularly one that is also a democratic republic, it is radical for a minority of people to rule a majority of people. Thus, conversations about trading the Electoral College in presidential elections for one person/one vote, are not about standing against “the tyranny of the mob” as those who argue for the status quo often maintain. Viewed through the lens of fairness, another component of compassion, is it more radical to ignore the will of the people or more radical that five of nine currently seated U.S. Supreme Court justices have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote? You decide.

In a compassionate society, it is radical to deny — institutionally and socially — wide swaths of society (Blacks in particular) the ability to create wealth for themselves and their families for generations while providing it for others (Whites in particular). Thus, a proposal to update our social safety nets by exploring, say, Universal Basic Income (UBI), is not a radical left idea that forces taxpayers to provide income to people who are unwilling to work. Not even a little bit. It is about being present to the inequity that is, taking responsibility for having caused it, and offering solutions that have “proven to be one of the most successful ways of reducing poverty.”

I could go on. Like how it’s radical in a compassionate society for one person, the U.S. Senate Majority Leader, to refuse to take up legislation that would pass his chamber because he and his moneyed interests don’t want him to. It’s radical in a compassionate society for sitting federal officeholders of one party to refuse to acknowledge the winner of a not-close presidential election. It’s radical in a compassionate society for the most vulnerable among us to become sick, homeless, and unemployed while a pandemic rages, utterly unsupported.

Some would say it’s radical to even talk about America in terms of being a compassionate society. I, of course, would argue the opposite. But that’s just me.

---

NOTE: Image via beej.us