Speaking Our Truth

 

Some days, I think life for us would be better if we could all cooperate with our neighbours, if we would be of one mind about the important stuff. On other days, I remember that when a nation can get a preponderance of its citizens to “be of one mind,” a Nazi fascism or a Maoist China can take hold … and gratifying as it may be to experience thousands and thousands of “my people” marching in unison, we know what mass indoctrination of the population leads to. At the very least, it leads to penalties for dissenters: the “kulaks” must be imprisoned or killed, the Jews and communists must be annihilated, the capitalists are fit only for slavery in work camps.

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

We could learn much about how nations take their unique shapes from the history, for instance, of Nazi Germany, Mussolini’s fascism, Maoist reign of terror by being schooled well in our histories. But if we can’t work up a reasonable indignation over book banning in Florida, for instance, it’s probably because we’ve been so fat and flabby about history that we don’t recognize the danger to free speech that the muzzling of writers represents.

We’ve been too safe and comfortable in the West for too long. We haven’t engaged in a match with meaning for so long, we can’t even remember how to put on a boxing glove. Hitler and Goering knew that victory for them would require a big idea that the majority could embrace, and that message control—propaganda—and building solidarity around the big idea with rallies, uniforms and local action would cement the people’s commitment to that big idea.

The slogan, Blut und Boden (blood and ground), summarized and encapsulated the big idea, namely that to be Aryan with Aryan features and with a demonstrable German pedigree—biologically, culturally and linguistically—made you superior to anyone without those credentials. From that the discarding of Jews and Gypsies and other “aliens” as well as any others in the population who could “water down” the German race’s superiority were slated for elimination.

The “big idea” on which the Communist Revolution in Russia based itself surrounded property rights, the concept that if the means of production (land, factories, mined resources, etc.) could be individually owned, then there was nothing to prevent wealth from accumulating more and more to elites and less and less to the peasants and laborers of the country.

In both the German and Russian cases, ideas with more than a germ of truth in them became unstoppable to the point of becoming so overbalanced toward the “big idea” essentials that their own weight caused them to crumble.

Humanity seems to survive and prosper where differing ideas stay fit and vocal enough to admit of a balance of strengths. Not capitalism “YES,” and socialism “NO,” but capitalist principles where they prove workable and socialist principles where they alone answer best to the general idea that all people have a right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” If Canada thrives on a “big idea,” that would probably be it: tolerance for many ideas in dignified tension with each other (negotiation) and agreement on how choices will be made and respected when made (democracy).

It’s not surprising that humans—possessing, as we do, a god-like consciousness and intellectual capacity as unbounded as we find it—should come to assume that their individual “big ideas” should be the only ones to exist. Both the fascist and communist “one big idea” regimes became murderous and greedy to the point where they collapsed under the weight of their own, single-minded ideologies.

Earlier in this post, I used the adjectives “fat and flabby” to describe a problem in Western cultural development. To my mind, loud and persistent efforts are being expended to move our politics toward single, big ideas. Legislation in the US South to regulate what people read, what they teach children, even their reproductive choices belong to a “big idea” whose object is to gather enough mass to crowd out other ideas. Citizens in a democracy have the right to hold to whatever ideas they wish, and to pursue goals based on those ideas. But if ideas are forcefully and repeatedly placed before the public WITHOUT A COHERENT, LOGICAL COUNTER ARGUMENT, the way is being paved for a “One big idea” ideological movement to grow.

(I can visualize librarians responding to the legislated regulation of books on their shelves by suggesting a compromise: instead of banning a book deemed inappropriate for an unsupervised child, we'll place it on a shelf from which only adults may borrow.)

I’m a Christian. That means that I see in the Gospel of my New Testament the seeds of “a big, even great idea.” But I know through attention to history and social sciences that it’s not the only idea—by far. The Sermon on the Mount teaches me that war is wasteful of life and resources and never redounds to anybody’s benefit. That idea is worthwhile reiterating and emphasizing whether I’m a Christian or not. What is not acceptable is keeping my Christian ideas to myself, “hiding my light under a bushel basket,” as it were.

A competing idea is that war is inevitable and that it’s folly not to prepare to win it when it happens. That too is a defensible idea, but like the former, might well be folly unless it and the alternative are logically put with fervour and factual information.

A parliament--where actual debate takes place and the flogging of “party-line big ideas” doesn’t dominate as we work our way through complex problems--would certainly help.

So if you count yourself a Christian, “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (II Timothy 2:15, KJV – Apostle Paul to his young colleague, Timothy.) And if you’re not … well, I guess the advice would be the same, except you might feel more comfortable with “... approved unto Truth ….”

Like a boxer who can never get very good unless he/she/they competes with strong, skilled opponents, our defense of our truth, of the alternative ideas sorely needed can only strengthen through their exercise.

Here’s a suggested start for the “study” part: listen critically to a 40-minute lecture on defining fascism by Ryan Chapman. Keep a pad and pencil in hand and take some notes. Then talk to somebody about the contents. I’m open to talking at gg.epp41@gmail.com. Here’s the Chapman link: Bing Videos.