A confession:
Once upon a time I was an incrementalist. A pragmatist. A person who believed you had to work within the system to change the system. I was also a Catholic who believed that I could work within the Church to change its culture to a more enlightened and liberal viewpoint.
Then two things happened.
The child molestation scandal exploded and I saw the vile perversity that the Church "leaders" had been hiding and perpetuating for centuries.
Around the same time I read a biography of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, who also found himself confronting an ethical and moral crisis on the question of whether to oppose slavery in a pragmatic, moderate and incremental manner, or to adopt a radical and "unrealistic" attitude toward the problem.
I quote the words that leapt off the page and set a fire in my soul:
In Park-street Church, on the Fourth of July, 1829, in an address on slavery, I unreflectingly assented to the popular but pernicious doctrine of gradual abolition. I seize this opportunity to make a full and unequivocal recantation, and thus publicly to ask pardon of my God, of my country, and of my brethren the poor slaves, for having uttered a sentiment so full of timidity, injustice and absurdity. A similar recantation, from my pen, was published in the Genius of Universal Emancipation at Baltimore, in September, 1829. My con-science is now satisfied.
I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; —but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest—I will not equivocate—I will not excuse—I will not retreat a single inch—AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead.
At that point I realized that by trying to engage the Church on its own terms, by its own rules, not only was I doomed to accomplish nothing, but I became an accomplice to the evil that it did by lending it the legitimacy of my society, minor though it may be. By attending any service, donating any money, I was enabling the molestation of children, and the oppression of women, lesbians, gays and trans individuals who suffered at the hands of their "teaching".
This I would no longer do.
I unequivocally broke with the church, and over the course of years, left religion behind entirely.
Today I hear the same arguments being made in this election. I am told that I must be pragmatic, realistic and sensible. I must vote for the one candidate who, despite their "faults", is the only one who can "win in November". If I refuse to support that person, then I doom us all to a much worse fate. They agree with me that change is needed, but admonish me that change takes time, and I have to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Now is a time for action, not starry-eyed dreams. Yet their "action" is to support a policy of gradualism that has done nothing but merely slow down this country's march to the right. My guy can't win, they tell me, because his policies and plans will never be accepted by "the people" because they are "too radical". If I refuse to vote for the incremental status quo, I am throwing women, children, minorities, gays, lesbians, trans people, et al, to a Randian dystopia AND IT WILL BE ALL MY FAULT.
No. It will not.
The time for radical change is now. And it is our last chance. The reality is that this country is hurtling toward the abyss at 60 mph with a hundred feet to go. We have a choice of two drivers:
One will gently apply the brakes, and drive us over the edge at a more restrained 45 mph.
The other will jam on the brakes, and slam the transmission into reverse.
The rest of the country will pick between one of these two, and a driver who will stomp the accelerator, hit the nitrous booster and light the JATO rockets.
Of these three choices, only one driver has any chance of keeping the country alive. The other two mean certain death.
Think I am exaggerating?
Well the "live or die" issue of our time is not campaign finance reform, not marriage equality, gun control, abortion rights or income inequality.
It is global warming.
After decades of warning people that we were approaching the point of no return, we have now either reached it, or passed it. Ahead lies mass extinction, famine, pestilence, and war on a cataclysmic scale.
Our choice of candidates, as "Democrats/Liberals/Progressives" is simple:
The person who will take radical measures to cut carbon emissions and build a green energy infrastructure, or the person who will compromise and only implement realistic plans with consensus "buy in" from the relevant stake holders.
The first person will probably fail, but might,
just might succeed.
The second person will fail, PERIOD.
And that, my friends, is what is on the line. After the primary we will either choose between two candidates who will both drive us into abyss, or one who will drive into the abyss with maniacal glee and one who will do his damndest to stop on the edge.
I refuse to be blamed if you pick wrong.
