A few weeks ago, I jumped in the car and drove to Chicago to meet my lifelong friends for a weekend of sightseeing and reconnecting. Chicago and the chance to get together were good draws, but the main attraction was Monday night's Roger Waters show. For those that don't know, Roger Waters was the creative force behind Pink Floyd for most of the 1970's, when their popularity was at its peak. But Roger Waters has always symbolized much more - his lyrics had both meaning and message - catapulting him to the upper echelons of great singer songwriters.
The Chicago show was special. It wasn't just a concert; it was a performance. In it, Roger Waters perfomed "The Wall," from beginning to end. No opening act. No encore. Just "The Wall," one of the most significant influences on our young lives when it was released in 1980. But "The Wall" is not just your average, every day album. It was one of the original and great concept albums, a rock opera stringing and layering multiple messages and themes - political, social, intellectual - from the first note to the last.
I was mesmerized. Energized. Reborn in my commitment for social progress, my desire to make a difference, to effect change. Recommitted to nonviolence, peace, justice, and unburying my anger at the horrors of war. In other words, I walked out remembering why I fell in love with Pink Floyd in the first place. Why their music was one of the most significant influences on the person that I would become.
I floated out of the concert, hoping that the power of Waters' message was able to change one mind, to energize one more person to get involved in making a difference, to mobilize a small group of couch potatoes into soup kitchen volunteers or war supporters to rethink the insanity, and inhumanity, of unending violence.
It didn't take long for my beautiful moment to clash with reality. I asked my friend Rob what he thought, and he said it was "good." The understatement of the millenium, IMHO. The retort was instantaneous: "Good? That's all?" His response was firm and confident: "I go to a concert to be entertained. What's with the political message? I really don't like when politics and entertainment get mixed. Its not appropriate."
Crash.
Days later, I was still bothered. So I emailed my boys and gave them something to think about. I started by reiterating Rob's distaste for mixing entertainment and politics. And then my thought on the matter: "Mixing entertainment and politics is the only kind of entertainment I have any respect for." And then a nugget from a Rolling Stone interview with Roger Waters. Waters:
"There are huge, huge profits to be made from war and that, by and large, is why they happen so often. This show is unashamedly about all those big questions - and the success of the work I did with [Floyd] gives me the power to have a platform. Some people think that people shouldn't use the platforms that they have because of their celebrity of success. I don't subscribe to that view at all. I always loved Hanoi Jane. I love it when Sean Penn comes out and says something or takes part and John Lennon or any of the other people who stood up to be counted… I have the same responsibility to put on this production as Picasso did to paint 'Guernica.'"
(Most folks know that Picasso painted Guernica in response to Germans and Italians bombing Guernica during the Spanish Civil War. The painting shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts, primarily on innocent civilians.)
Alan wrote back: "How can you go to a production of The Wall and not expect the entertainment to be mixed with a political message? But, Brian, do you really not respect entertainment that's just meant to entertain?"
And my response:
"To answer your question. I do not mind entertainment at all. In fact, I like it. But I am a bit strange on these things, as you’ve undoubtedly noticed over the last 25 years. I hurt inside, daily, at the injustice and suffering, especially needless suffering, that occurs in our world. It fills me up, it motivates me, it drives me, sometimes it comes close to consuming me. I still manage to smile a lot and have a good time though, right? I’m impressed with myself, anyway.
As you’ve noticed, this can still cause me to be a bit of a downer sometimes. Or a bit intense. Guilty as charged. While most in society might respect a businessman that makes a lot of money and a football player that sets records and a movie star that wins academy awards, sadly, I don’t give a shit about any of that. If you have a voice or make lots of money, and want my respect, you better damn well make a difference. So while I might love lots of music and lots of movies and lots of sports, I don’t have any actual RESPECT for ANY of them unless they stand up and use that fame to make the world a better place. To promote non-violence, alleviate suffering, and speak to justice, equality, and compassion for others.
So I can go to a rock concert and have a blast. But if the artist delivers a message – whether it be through the music, through the video, or through a speech between songs – that might cause ONE PERSON in that crowd to go home and do something meaningful, well then I’m going to walk out proud to have been a part of it."
Think Bruce Springsteen playing for John Kerry, despite the loss of millions of fans. Think Dixie Chicks speaking out against George W Bush, despite a clear understanding of how much it would hurt them.
Or think Ben Harper. I saw him open for Barak Obama a few weeks ago and watched as he sang “With My Own Two Hands” as a rallying cry to support the President in trying to “make the world a better place.” With our own two hands. Amen brother; now that’s what I’m talking about.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Power and Humanity: Common Council Version
Something fairly irregular happened a few weeks ago at the Madison City Council meeting and while it brought up many issues and thoughts, the most poignant were those related to our humanity. To who we are, who we think we are, and who we want to be.
For those of you that missed it, Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele had separated a number of items from the "consent agenda" which allow her to speak about those items when the items could have otherwise been approved in a single motion. It is general practice to separate as few items as possible so as to shorten what are already very long meetings. At the same time, every alder has the right to separate whatever they want, for whatever reason. Alder Pham-Remmele has made a bit of a habit of separating items to ask questions of staff that could have been asked prior to the council meeting. Those items would normally not be separated.
This is time consuming not only for the alders, but for everyone at the meetings from citizens to staff. In fact, once an item related to their agency is separated from the consent agenda, staff have to sit around waiting for the agenda item to come up just in case questions are asked. If the very important “gentlepersons agreement” about separating agenda items is abused, efficiencies are sacrificed, the billable hours of City staff that are paid for at taxpayer expense pile on, and alders who have researched their questions in advance of meetings are left with frustration.
At the meeting in question, with five items remaining on the agenda, all separated by Alder Pham-Remmele and all, most would argue, unnecessarily, a few alders got fed-up and decided to walk out of the Council meeting in protest. The meeting was instantly adjourned as quorum was lost the moment they walked out. This whole experience has been disturbing me for weeks.
On one hand, we all celebrate the unique spirit of an alder who beats to her own drum. I agree with Alder Pham-Remmele on almost nothing - politically or in most other ways. But she definitely beats to her own drum, and I have a grudging respect for that.
However, having listened to hours of “wasted” questions for what seems to be self-serving political motivations, I can completely understand the urge to fight back, to protest, to make a statement that what is happening is annoying and we do not like it. In other words, I understand the desire to protest and send her a strong message to adhere to our unwritten agreement to separate agenda items only when necessary and to adhere to protocol by doing homework ahead of time and trying to avoid political grandstanding that holds everyone hostage to her court.
On the other hand, we probably need to look in the mirror before we cast too many judgments. I don't use the same strategies as Alder Pham-Remmele, and I am not much into posturing for political gain, but I have my values and my principles and I articulate them when I feel like it. I would like to believe that I am passionate, concise, and convincing. I'd like to believe that every ear in the room is riveted, hanging on every word, that every person is shaking his or her head in amazement at the vast depth of my reasoning, and sitting in deep contemplation about how my rhetorical skills have forced them to reconsider their own opinions. Reality likely falls somewhere far short of that image. At what point does my soliloquy move from convincing to meaningless, from concise to verbose, or from interesting to annoying? I wish I knew that sweet spot, because I'm sure I'd hit it more often.
There are other alders on the Council who like to talk. Occasionally their speech is like that of an orator; something passionate and meaningful and gripping - resulting in a beautiful discourse that hones in on a target like a raptor on prey. But equally as often, it is a rant. A tirade. A preachy, moralizing, sermonizing lecture that changes no minds and accomplishes nothing more than giving the speaker an opportunity to hear his or her own voice. Ask anyone who follows the Council, and they'll tell you. Ask anyone on the Council. My predecessor was fond of saying, "Everything has been said. It just hasn't been said by everybody."
Which brings us back to the point. Where is the line? Who gets to determine it? If we all annoy each other so regularly, are we just taking our frustrations with everything out on the one alder who happens to be the recipient of our invective? And if so, isn't that just a bit unfair?
As I said earlier, Alder Pham-Remmele’s methods are frequently frustrating. But please believe this: she is far from the only Council member who frustrates her colleagues. She deserves just as much right to speak as the rest of us, even if its about things we all agree are unnecessary or even ridiculous. We have options. Just as she has the right to separate items, others have the right to protest. They can "call the question" and force a vote. They can vote to put items back on the consent agenda. They can speak up about the frustration. They can pull Thuy aside or send her an email. They can move to District 20 and run against her in the next election. Or, clearly, they can stand up and walk out of a meeting. Just as each of us has a right to talk as long as we want or separate items no one else wants separated, we also have the right to just walk away from a meeting.
So, in the end, I don't think its about what we can do. Maybe its more about what we should do. Honoring each other’s humanity, respecting each other even if we feel its not deserved, recognizing our own weaknesses, and thinking about how we treat each other and how we would like to be treated, are great places to start.
When people talk about politicians, they talk about power. But taking power back, especially when its been taken from you, is a human trait, not a political one. And when someone is thrown in a corner, shamed, bound, and gagged, his first instinct is to take his power back whenever and however he can. Thuy lost a lot of power when she stopped working with her colleagues and when the Mayor pulled her from her committees. She’s taking her power back, however she can. But that’s exactly what alders are doing when they protest her behavior. Taking their power back. In the end, this is all basic human nature.
But the council is a family, dysfunctional as we are. And like most families, we have our issues. The question is: do we want to air them for the world, or try to address them internally? Because one thing is certain: the family that gathers together and tries to resolve their differences at the family meeting, all things being equal, has a better shot as resolution than the one that requires the televised intervention of Jerry Springer or Dr Phil. Maybe we owe our constituents, and ourselves, a little more of the former.
For those of you that missed it, Alder Thuy Pham-Remmele had separated a number of items from the "consent agenda" which allow her to speak about those items when the items could have otherwise been approved in a single motion. It is general practice to separate as few items as possible so as to shorten what are already very long meetings. At the same time, every alder has the right to separate whatever they want, for whatever reason. Alder Pham-Remmele has made a bit of a habit of separating items to ask questions of staff that could have been asked prior to the council meeting. Those items would normally not be separated.
This is time consuming not only for the alders, but for everyone at the meetings from citizens to staff. In fact, once an item related to their agency is separated from the consent agenda, staff have to sit around waiting for the agenda item to come up just in case questions are asked. If the very important “gentlepersons agreement” about separating agenda items is abused, efficiencies are sacrificed, the billable hours of City staff that are paid for at taxpayer expense pile on, and alders who have researched their questions in advance of meetings are left with frustration.
At the meeting in question, with five items remaining on the agenda, all separated by Alder Pham-Remmele and all, most would argue, unnecessarily, a few alders got fed-up and decided to walk out of the Council meeting in protest. The meeting was instantly adjourned as quorum was lost the moment they walked out. This whole experience has been disturbing me for weeks.
On one hand, we all celebrate the unique spirit of an alder who beats to her own drum. I agree with Alder Pham-Remmele on almost nothing - politically or in most other ways. But she definitely beats to her own drum, and I have a grudging respect for that.
However, having listened to hours of “wasted” questions for what seems to be self-serving political motivations, I can completely understand the urge to fight back, to protest, to make a statement that what is happening is annoying and we do not like it. In other words, I understand the desire to protest and send her a strong message to adhere to our unwritten agreement to separate agenda items only when necessary and to adhere to protocol by doing homework ahead of time and trying to avoid political grandstanding that holds everyone hostage to her court.
On the other hand, we probably need to look in the mirror before we cast too many judgments. I don't use the same strategies as Alder Pham-Remmele, and I am not much into posturing for political gain, but I have my values and my principles and I articulate them when I feel like it. I would like to believe that I am passionate, concise, and convincing. I'd like to believe that every ear in the room is riveted, hanging on every word, that every person is shaking his or her head in amazement at the vast depth of my reasoning, and sitting in deep contemplation about how my rhetorical skills have forced them to reconsider their own opinions. Reality likely falls somewhere far short of that image. At what point does my soliloquy move from convincing to meaningless, from concise to verbose, or from interesting to annoying? I wish I knew that sweet spot, because I'm sure I'd hit it more often.
There are other alders on the Council who like to talk. Occasionally their speech is like that of an orator; something passionate and meaningful and gripping - resulting in a beautiful discourse that hones in on a target like a raptor on prey. But equally as often, it is a rant. A tirade. A preachy, moralizing, sermonizing lecture that changes no minds and accomplishes nothing more than giving the speaker an opportunity to hear his or her own voice. Ask anyone who follows the Council, and they'll tell you. Ask anyone on the Council. My predecessor was fond of saying, "Everything has been said. It just hasn't been said by everybody."
Which brings us back to the point. Where is the line? Who gets to determine it? If we all annoy each other so regularly, are we just taking our frustrations with everything out on the one alder who happens to be the recipient of our invective? And if so, isn't that just a bit unfair?
As I said earlier, Alder Pham-Remmele’s methods are frequently frustrating. But please believe this: she is far from the only Council member who frustrates her colleagues. She deserves just as much right to speak as the rest of us, even if its about things we all agree are unnecessary or even ridiculous. We have options. Just as she has the right to separate items, others have the right to protest. They can "call the question" and force a vote. They can vote to put items back on the consent agenda. They can speak up about the frustration. They can pull Thuy aside or send her an email. They can move to District 20 and run against her in the next election. Or, clearly, they can stand up and walk out of a meeting. Just as each of us has a right to talk as long as we want or separate items no one else wants separated, we also have the right to just walk away from a meeting.
So, in the end, I don't think its about what we can do. Maybe its more about what we should do. Honoring each other’s humanity, respecting each other even if we feel its not deserved, recognizing our own weaknesses, and thinking about how we treat each other and how we would like to be treated, are great places to start.
When people talk about politicians, they talk about power. But taking power back, especially when its been taken from you, is a human trait, not a political one. And when someone is thrown in a corner, shamed, bound, and gagged, his first instinct is to take his power back whenever and however he can. Thuy lost a lot of power when she stopped working with her colleagues and when the Mayor pulled her from her committees. She’s taking her power back, however she can. But that’s exactly what alders are doing when they protest her behavior. Taking their power back. In the end, this is all basic human nature.
But the council is a family, dysfunctional as we are. And like most families, we have our issues. The question is: do we want to air them for the world, or try to address them internally? Because one thing is certain: the family that gathers together and tries to resolve their differences at the family meeting, all things being equal, has a better shot as resolution than the one that requires the televised intervention of Jerry Springer or Dr Phil. Maybe we owe our constituents, and ourselves, a little more of the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
