(this is the sixth in a series of essays which will carry the same title so that you can follow along easily if you should so choose.)
Change happens at different rates. Slow oxidation rusts steel over time. Really rapid oxidation of aluminum will have you traveling at 3,000 mph in about two minutes, even if you weigh about 165,000 pounds. Of all the changes we might put on “The Great List of Things that Change,” probably the slowest changes are in human nature. We are so slow to come to grips with changing ideas about humans and humanity. For all the joy of a specific accomplishment in the societal sphere, we must remember that there is a reason why the works of William Shakespeare are still enjoyed and find relevance in our time. Our nature hasn’t changed much since his time. We have moments in time in our civic life where we fight for a just cause. We may suffer for it, expend great resource, and suffer setbacks along the way such that when the goal, a piece of legislation, is arrived at and passed into law, we celebrate. We see ourselves as having made a great stride forward. Now justice has been done! And we think that we are done. Sometimes we go back to tending our individual worlds. Sometimes we gather with our allies and look for the next challenge, satisfied that our work on this challenge is done.
Although the goal has been reached, the work is not done. Whatever the conditions were that created the injustice or the behavior that needed remedy, the law did not render them out of existence. Most of the time, a law only proscribes or prescribes a specific behavior. It does not address the “stuff” from which the injustice or the behavior sprang. The forces remain though the law was made. The “stuff” from which the earlier laws and practices restricting voting to only white males remains today regardless of the 15th, and 19th amendments. Although creating barriers to voting based upon race or gender were prohibited by these constitutional amendments, they did not make the “stuff” that was the motive for voting restrictions “go away.” We have had to come back to fight that fight time and again. We thought we had answered that challenge once and for all with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and its subsequent re-authorizations. We had a law that we could point to and keep the franchise available to all. We patted ourselves on the back and turned to other interests. But we should have known that the right to vote would always be under attack, for it has always been so. Even as storied a patriot and American as Thomas Paine was refused a ballot in a local election in 1806.1 That act alone should have served as a constant reminder that the right to vote will always need to be protected.
Despite the Voting Rights Act, bit by bit, Republican controlled statehouses and governors began eating away at access to the vote as soon as it was passed. Anything that could make it harder for minorities, women, and young voters was fair game. Gerrymandering, residency challenges (caging), purges of voter rolls, unequal distribution of election day resources, curtailing early voting and voter ID laws were the more obvious impediments. Federal prosecutors fought to protect the rights conferred under the Voting Rights Act by varying degrees, but they no longer had mass demonstrations to support the diligent prosecutor or to goad the reluctant prosecutor into action. We fought were we could, but much of the energy and resource that had been focused on voting rights the past had turned to other issues that were deserving as well. We forgot to leave a strong rear guard behind to protect voting rights as we moved on to new issues. And with Shelby County vs. Holder, the Supreme Court claimed that the “stuff” that created voter discrimination was gone, and therefore important aspects of the Voting Rights Act were no longer justified. We lost the true power in the law that could be used when states or localities moved against our right to vote. And so the fight for access to the ballot box will have to be waged anew. This is a double tragedy, for our vote is among the most powerful tools we have to effect the change that we desire in all areas of our society.
Do we have the numbers to leave defensive groups everywhere we claim victory and still have forces left to press on? I don't have a sure answer for that. But I think there is a historic model that might give a clue. Something was happening in 1968. It was a moment in time when it appeared that the civil rights movement, the peace movement, and the labor movement were going to join forces in a grand coalition. In that moment, each saw in the others the points of commonality that could unite them all. Each saw in each other needs and desires in common. They saw the potential in their numbers. This was a synchronous moment that would have assembled the numbers to allow defense of every victory while the combined movement pressed on to new battles. But that spring, two of the most important voices, those of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, were silenced by assassination. Time passed, the opportunity was lost. But just as the forces that work against progressive change in society never go away, the forces that work for progressive change remain. So we must always remember that what is won must be held, and that we have to search for and find more resources through coalition building every time we win a battle. It is intriguing to ponder where might that search take us.
Though change itself is a constant, a universe of changes is occurring all at the same time, each starting from different points in time in different places and unfolding at different rates. Sometimes things come together, come “into phase” as it were, and then as they move forward, they can begin to slip out of phase, harmonious relationships can break down, never to be seen again, or if truly cyclical, they will eventually move back into phase. A piece of music might help give a sense of the ebb and flow of this synchronicity. After watching and listening for a bit, go ahead open more windows and set them playing at random... layers upon layers.
This is what generations sound like. We talk about generations as if they all start at 6:45pm on a particular date, and last until 7:30 am on another date when the next begins. In truth, there is no one single extant generation. There is a continuum of human life. It has peaks and valleys of birth rates and death rates over time, but these are just the varied lengths of the myriad measures that make up life’s song. Any group that has a set of principles around which it is organized can be an instrument. We can find principles in common with others if only we look, if only we listen. Within the shimmering of a complex society, if we can hear the singular melodic lines of each instrument, we will have the ability to identify, to see and to hear each other. As we listen to each other, can we modify our tempo for just a moment to bring our melodies into phase to create a new chord? Can I place my interests aside for just the moment necessary to "bring things in phase?" The harmonies that arise when we bring the notes in our melodic line in sync with others can be a powerful thing. Perhaps enough to fight racism, ageism, sexism, economic exploitation, and provide healthcare as a fundamental right at the same time.
The next installment is Where to From Here: Reflections on the Nature of Change (Standing on One Foot)
www.dailykos.com/...