Gloucester
For two or three weeks motorists have been under the pressure of law to signal for turns and stops. This requirement to indicate directional signals is not particularly new, but now there are teeth in the law. Accessory dealers have been busy installing mechanical equipment so that some drivers do not have to lower the window, signal, and then close the window again. Meanwhile he must not forget to make the turn in the direction that he has indicated.
If the hand signals are made accurately and sincerely, other drivers and pedestrians will know where the driver is going and adjust their own conduct accordingly. But people do not always behave according to either law or our expectations. Someone was telling me that on TV this week there was a scene wherein a lady was in an accident. The driver of the other car protested that she had given an improper hand signal. When asked what signal she made, she raised her hand straight up (like this) and gestured thus. She indignantly said immediately that she wasn't signaling, she was merely shaking her bracelets farther down her wrist. Morey Amsterdam (quoted in The Boston Globe) says that when a woman driver sticks out her arms, you can be sure of one thing: her window is open.
Confused and awkward drivers are men as well as women. The day before yesterday when riding with a friend, a car coming in the opposite direction started to make a left turn across the path of the car in which we were riding. My companion, who was driving, immediately slowed down in ample time to avoid any crash. However, a person in the front seat of the other car (not the driver) stuck his arm straight up in the air as high as the roof of the car as he could reach and gestured thus. It could have been interpreted to mean that we were to fly over the top of the other car. While it was a funeral coach in which we were riding, most certainly the machine was not equipped with wings.
What have directional signals to do with the Christmas spirit? If properly performed, directional signals in the motoring world are signs that help avoid trouble, assist people in going their separate ways without violently crashing into another whose way may be different, but it's his way and he can take it if he likes and obeys the rules.
The Christmas spirit sounds forth in rather hollow and unconvincing tones, at times, when we consider that the world is in turmoil, at war in some sections and a vast fog of suspicion enveloping nearly every land. The reason is that some people are going right, some people are going left, and others are taking roads a certain distance to the right or part-way left, and they are crashing into each other with an impact that threatens to wipe out entire nations – even civilization itself.
I'm told that the terms “right” and “left” when used to indicate a persons economic and political beliefs originated in Paris where at one time those who advocated revolution lived on the left bank of the Seine, while those who were opposed to change, who thought the old way best, lived on the right bank of the Seine.
Since that time in theology, literature – all areas of knowledge actually – but most common in national and international politics and economics, the “right” has come to mean those people, whether individuals, groups, or both, who usually have a reverence for the past amounting almost to worship, who will not approve any radical breaks with existing customs or the existing order, who are opposed to revolution – and who have an aversion to any change in the accustomed way of doing things.
Conversely the “left” is not only willing that changes be made but is eager that thing be done differently than in the past, does not approve a custom or law merely because it is old, sometimes willing to permit violence if that violence will result in some change that the left wing groups think will bring about a certain desirable result. Both right and left have innumerable shadings along the spectrum – and they squabble among themselves as well as with their opposites.
The difficulty that is bound to arise when we are able to escape from our particular bias for the left or right as, the case may be, is that great ideas and movements elude any permanent classification of “right” or “left” or “conservative” or “radical”.
For example, 178 years ago today, on December 16, 1773, one of the incidents that precipitated the revolt of the American Colonies against the British Empire occurred in our ancient, honored and conservative neighboring city of Boston.
The King of England had proclaimed a new tax on the colonies for all glass, paper, paints, and tea. This import tax was exerted for three general purposes: in the first place, to support the soldiers who had been placed in the American colonies to see that the King's will and the king's laws were enforced; next, to pay the governors of the colonies, the judges and other officers – thus making them dependent not on the people but on the king's tax; and the third reason was to give large sums of money to certain influential citizens to persuade them to give public support to the King.
The colonies, particularly Massachusetts Bay which was a steaming cauldron of radical movements, immediately raised such an uproar that the sound and fury reached the ears of those in power in the Mother Country. Merchants banded together and pledged mutually not to import any paper, glass, paint or tea. Samuel Adams, sometimes called “The Father of the American Revolution,” proclaimed that he and others would “eat nothing, drink nothing, wear nothing” that was imported from England until all the duties on goods should be removed.
Parliament then conceded that a mistake had been made and removed all taxes except one of a few cents on a pound of tea to insure the maintenance of the right of the British Government to tax the colonies. The price of tea was pegged at so low a price that Americans could purchase tea from English ships, tax and all, cheaper than they could smuggle it from other countries. But the American colonists said they would not take it as a gift if there was a tax on it. In Boston citizens refused to unload a cargo of tea. Under port rules, at the end of 20 days if the cargo was not unloaded, custom house officials, who were British civil servants, would unload the tea.
On the 19th day the rebellious colonists held a mass meeting in Old South Church. The debate raged all day long and into the evening. Then Sam Adams spoke up, “This meeting can do nothing more than to save the country.” That was a signal for action, and colonists disguised as Indians gave a loud war-whoop, rushed to T-wharf, went on board the vessels and dumped $100,000 worth of tea into the harbor.
So 178 years ago today, less than 40 miles from here, one of the most important of the chain of events occurred that led to Lexington, Concord, Independence Hall, Yorktown, and the Constitution.
In view of what has happened, would you, if you had the power, change that incident – or prevent it from happening? These energetic citizens certainly were not the conservatives of their day. They were far left – that is, they were revolutionists. They overthrew the government by “force and violence.” Yet these men are honored by us. We praise their deeds and thank God for the liberty they won and which we prize – or so we say.
Perhaps you suspect, as I do, that there is something basically wrong, or at least inaccurate, about these arbitrary classifications of “right” and “left” or “tory” and “liberal”.
Another illustration: F.D.R. Is now and will continue to be one of the most controversial figures of our century. He described himself as “being a little left of center.” To the conservative he was considerably more than a little left of center. To the radical, Roosevelt seemed to be a middle-of-the roader at best, and at worse, one who saved all that was old and all that was bad by a few concessions to a desperate citizenry which prevented revolution.
The soldiers of the right and the soldiers of the left are still shooting at each other in Korea and other parts of Asia. In the rest of the world, Acheson scolds Vishinsky; Vishinsky laughs his (now notorious) guffaw at the right – The Western world accuses the Soviet world of innumerable crimes against human rights and human decency and the claims are valid. I believe the slave labor camps do exist, that many Communist governments stay in power because of the strength + coercion of the Red Army, that many, although probably not all of the charges made against Stalin and Soviets are very brutal realities in our 20th century world.
The Soviet world accuses the United States of depriving racial minorities of rights, of abusing them and refusing them the right to vote and compete equally for jobs and education. They say that prejudice as it exists in the United States is a vital cause in creating undemocratic racial tensions and crimes against persons and groups. Those things are true aren't they? We are accused of many more things.
The right accuses the left; the left accuses the right; unlike our automobile drivers, even though they have indicated at least vaguely in which direction they are going, they clash nevertheless.
In a most ghastly parable, fenders are smashed, bumpers are hocked together and blood is running in the streets.
Suspicion and hate are rising to an almost incredible pitch on both sides. We are at the point where even a relatively small and insignificant incident can spread the war that is raging in Korea around the world.
Did you see two stories which were placed together in a recent issue of the NY Times under the caption “Reasons Why”. Even though ludicrous, they are strangely pertinent to the way fear and suspicion may overturn the world: “A railroad worker in Superior, Wisconsin, explained in court that he had attacked three bunkmates with an iron poker because he suspected they were plotting an attack on him by snoring in Morse code.” “Charged with knocking down a policeman, a Detroit man pleaded: “I saw a big bee land on his neck above the collar. I didn't want him to get stung, so I hit the bee as hard as I could.”
If we on the “right”, and I hope in the right, have a valid claim to be the representatives of the ideal of freedom offering to help a world largely in chains, then we must recognize and accept that our freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility. If we make the mistake of thinking that “free enterprise” means freedom for a few and control for a great many, then we may find ourselves left, literally and in quotes as well.
There is no attraction into falling into what I think is the deadening fatalism of that part of the left wing which implicitly accepts Marxism and Stalinism. Capitalism will probably not endure forever as the predominant economic system – but there is no certainty that Marxism or any form of it is assuredly going to replace it. Incidentally, I, for one, hope that the cooperative movement will receive a closer examination from those who are concerned with personal, national, and international finance.
I have said something about directional signals, about “right” and “left”, but not much about the Christmas spirit, have I.
To a certain extent, I believe that the tensions that exist between the right and left react on each other to solve the problems of history. The German philosopher Hegel used the famous analogy of the skater to make this point clear. The skater swings his left leg to the left, then quickly strides with his right to the right as a result of these alternative left and right movements the skater progresses down the centre of the ice. The disagreements, the pendulum-like swings and changes of public opinion and political leadership do bring forward progress. Were it not for the right and left movements, the skater would soon glide to a stop by staying on dead center.
But it is not enough to go right and left. For example, one cannot describe or understand the vast oceans merely in terms of square miles of surface area or the topography of shore lines. One must know something about depths, channels, shoals, and tides in order to have any appreciation of, or ability to survive the “sea around us.”
Right and left are not enough – there must be another dimension. That is why the Christmas Spirit is related to life's directional signals and movements. We must concern ourselves not only with right and left but also with right and wrong. When we repeat, “Peace on earth, good will to men,” we can not single out conservatives, or radicals. All are included.
It may well be that the critical problem of our day is the Machiavellian methods by which Soviet Government and its satellites are trying to bring about the domination of the world. Furthermore that this menace and threat must be dealt with skillfully, diplomatically, economically, and militarily. But also communism is a disease caused by misery. Over the long run it is not alone the power of democratic argument that will be tested – but the power of democratic ideals and ideas of government to produce conditions of freedom, health, warmth, and knowledge. Didn't Lincoln say once, “no nation can survive half-slave and half-free”? -- neither can a world.
The Christmas spirit is one of kindness – feebly glimmering in an unkind world. Albert Schweitzer, from deep within his place of service in Africa, challenges us with these words, “all the kindness which a man puts out into the world works on the heart and thoughts of mankind, but we are so foolishly indifferent that we are never in earnest in the matter of kindness. We want to topple a great load over, and yet will not avail ourselves of a lever which would multiply our power a hundredfold.”
The Christmas Spirit is one of revolution too – the inner revolution of good-will and understanding – no matter how greatly we may have been injured – no matter how easily our hurt could be the spark for a conflagration of retaliation.
In 1936 when Hitler's re-armament program was moving into high gear, when Goering had pledged the German people to give up butter for guns, when the Nazi overlords had seduced the entire German people with the foul myth of Aryan and Germanic racial superiority, the late and famous author Franz Werfel, author of 40 Days of Musa Dagh and the Song of Bernadette, was booed off a platform in East Prussia when he pleaded with a group of inflamed students that their choice was not left or right – but above or below.
He wasn't trying to lure them with a promise of some far-off heaven. He was pointing out that there is a moral choice involved in either a right or left wing decision. He was saying that there are values that must be recognized in any system. These values concern freedom in all the areas we dream of, concern human dignity and decency and the right of a people to judge the truth – the additional dimensions.
The story of Jesus and the woman of Samaria is one of those rare jewels of religious insight that we occasionally come upon in the gospel of John. The gospel of John is one that is largely theological rather than biographical or ethical. Its announced purpose is to promote an idea of Jesus as the pre-existent God. But here in the fourth chapter there are some profound implications for universal religion.
The Jews and the Samaritans hated each other – distrusted each other – even as nations do today. The Jews, from the time they campaigned against the pagan gods of the Canaanites, had insisted that God could be worshipped only in the temple at Jerusalem. The woman refers to this when she says, “our fathers worshipped in this mountain; and ye say (referring to the Hebrew doctrine) that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.”
But Jesus goes beyond the right and left of worship practices of that part of the Near East. He didn't defend Jerusalem or attack the Samaritan custom, he said, “the hour cometh and is now when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshippers. God is a spirit: and they that worship him in spirit and in truth.”
So if we are to make, someday, a reality out of the daring dream of “peace on earth and goodwill to men”, we must go beyond a mistaken compulsion making a choice between Jerusalem and Samaria or staking all on the “right” or the “left.” We must believe profoundly enough in the reality of the Christmas Spirit that wherever the directional signals of right or left may take us, we will achieve, maintain, and preserve as individuals, and as parliaments of man, the basic dignities which must become the property of all peoples or we most surely will all crash together: freedom from fear through goodwill and cooperation, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and of speech and the freedom to introduce our children to all that is best and noble in human history so that through wise and understanding moral ideals they may survive the conflict of ideologies of “right” and “left” which is now brutalizing our world.
No comments:
Post a Comment