The Wake

Any hack creative writing instructor will tell you that an effective storytelling technique is to start at the end of a story and work backwards. So I’ll tell you this: In 1932, Jonathan Selwyn became the mayor of Deadwood, South Dakota. He was a great man; an honest broker who refused to back down.
He stood up to criminals of all stripes and refused to take injustice sitting down. More than anything, he wasn’t afraid to ask why things were the way they were.

As the election draws near, it’s becoming increasingly rare to hear any questions being asked, not to mention incisive, constructive queries. The country has entered into a locked groove: statements are made, statements are parroted, increasingly adversarial debate ensues, nothing changes, statements
are made, etc. We’re fed news and opinions every minute via RSS feeds and endless tickers reeling off digital tape unto infinity or at least until we stop thinking about it completely. If this election has become anything, it’s a half-hearted endurance test. Who can slog through data fastest to pick
out the most damning reasons to reject candidate X? Who has the most embarrassing press photos? Whose Youtube videography yields the most face-palm-inducing moments? Who has the free time to incessantly google until they collapse, all red eyes and tendonitis?

It’s no wonder that we’ve lost the ability to question effectively. As a nation, we’ve been beaten into submission by campaign ads and the 24-hour news cycle. With so much to consume, we’ve forgotten how to create. We’ve let politicians and advertising execs define who and what we are and they’ve gotten it completely wrong. It gets even more confusing, though, when the population is so complacent that they begin to actually believe the bullshit. If you want a thesis statement, here it is: The American people have lost the ability to ask, fundamentally, why things happen and what they mean. This has lead to ridiculous campaign management and policy decisions that target an illusory/non-existent population, hereafter referred to as “Hockey Joe Plumber NASCAR Mom/Dad.”

Jonathan Selwyn came to Deadwood in 1902. He was an enthusiastic youth, a carpenter by trade and a bit of an iconoclast. He had little interest in the family woodworking business, instead setting his sights on owning a general store. As soon as he had convinced an organization of repute to front
him the money for his operation, he opened his store. It was an immediate target for the heads of the illicit entertainment industry, a cartel whose influence has long been felt in Deadwood - a haven for gambling and prostitution. Selwyn had no interest in financing their operation or paying out extortion
money, though, and took the unheard step of rebuffing these titans of graft. The consequences were swift and immediate: his name was slandered, his business was repelled and his family was terrorized. Ultimately, his store was burned to the ground, supposedly due to one of the freak wild fires that still occasionally run through Deadwood. He would not be stopped, though. He stood his ground and picked up the pieces.

Those same kinds of assumptions that Selwyn fought so long ago – that we have to give in to criminal intimidation because “that’s just the way it is” – are still haunting us today. As I watch the people around me react to the latest election news, I become increasingly despondent regarding the future of
this country. Everywhere I look, I see smart, conscientious, subversive people tuning out and supporting candidates who do terrible things because “they have no choice.”

And they’re not entirely wrong. As long as we assume that politicians have to be sleazy and unrepresentative of their constituents, we will completely lack the power of choice. In order to solve this, we have to challenge the assumptions that the mainstream press, politicians, authority figures, etc. have been pressuring us to make since the moment we were born.

For example, why do we have to assume that socialism is evil? The McCain campaign has repeatedly attacked Obama for being a “socialist,” which they use as a slur. They have also attacked his use of the phrase “spreading the wealth.” I mean, really? Didn’t we all go through kindergarten? Didn’t we have to share paints and glue and other toxic art supplies? What’s so bad about wanting to share things? I think it takes some brilliantly twisted logic to attack someone for wanting to spread wealth out more evenly. But just as we expect McCain to make those attacks, we assume that Obama has to fervently deny the claim and, thus, justify its use as a slur.

The pattern repeats: when a woman asks McCain if Obama is an Arab and he responds with something to the effect of “no, he’s a family man,” (such polar opposites!) no one blinks. Why is it okay for politicians to imply that an entire ethnic group is made up of swarthy, unstable maniacs who can’t
start families? Why do we assume that these racist statements disguised as platitudes are just part of the game; a necessary evil? Another: Joe Biden says that the gay population deserves equal rights, but he doesn’t support gay marriage. In response, we all politely clap and say that it’s “the best we can expect from a politician.” I mean, shit, I said that last line to my sister. Why? Why do we assume that candidates have to exhibit fear and distrust based on sexual orientation? Why can’t we get a candidate who prizes equality and consistent logic over placating some demographic some guy somewhere told him was key? (this year joe six pack, last year desperate housewife, before that NASCAR dad, etc.) Is this what we deserve?

By the time Selwyn had started his mayoral campaign, he had rebuilt his business and become a pillar of his community. He ran a refreshing, honest campaign and won. As mayor, he couldn’t solve a lot of problems, but he saw himself as a first step, a catalyst for others who would do the right thing. He
refused to play the political game or be bought by illicit commercial interest. His campaign was not a crusade; he was a pragmatist rather than a moralist. That is, he simply thought that there was a better way to live than in fear of and debt to a shadowy ring of criminal interests. He dared to ask why and if things had to be that way and make changes appropriately.

We may not be dealing with the same interests anymore – the idea of grafters and gamblers is almost cute now - but we face the same problems. By assuming that we have no control and, thus, willfully surrendering it to representatives, we’ve allowed them to define our terms. We’ve let them write the contract on what we want and what we need from our leaders.

And what have they come up with? Well, apparently we’re all single-issue voters who get incredibly excited over attack ads and tax cuts. All we really want is a candidate who knows how to slander, pander, and little else. We want someone who can use marketing to convince everyone that false claims are true via endless repetition. We want whoever can race to the mount fastest and bellow, “MY OPPONENT IS A FAGGOT!”

Despite their calculations, I can honestly say that I don’t want any of those things and I think that a lot of people are with me. If you actually talk to people, it becomes apparent that people are rarely as shrill or annoying as their political allegiances would suggest. We only get into this situation when we give up and accept the politicians’ ridiculous representations of our beliefs. If people could drop the posturing and reject the political baggage, I think that many of our current “big issues” would completely fall by the wayside. If we could reject the labeling of real people as stereotypical liberals,
conservatives, hockey moms, gun nuts, etc. we could actually talk about issues and maybe, just maybe, get something done. That would be actual change, the kind you can’t buy with a 30-second attack ad. It’s also the kind that none of our fair candidates are selling. We’ve been forced to speak their language, but I think it’s time we started speaking in our own code. We need to stop assuming that this is the way it has to be and stand up for what is right.

The point I am trying to make is not a moralistic one, though. I’m not saying that there’s one “right” we can all stand for, fists in the air like political power rangers ready to give an orgiastic shout to the heavens and ride into the sun. No, the point is that we have to ask if we’re buying what politicians
are selling; if what they’re saying registers as right when weighed against our own beliefs and not some weirdly maladjusted scale made especially for politicians. If the answer is yes, then so be it, but I honestly don’t think that the question is even being asked right now.

If we are to ever break out of this cycle, we need a return to skepticism. We need to constantly ask questions and reject what we believe is wrong. If we continue to blindly accept what others put in front if us as right and true, we will soon find that we’ve lost our ability to choose. If we want to take
back control of this country, we need to take a lesson from people like Jonathan Selwyn and refuse to accept a set of circumstances just because it is easy. Yes, we need to learn from Jonathan Selwyn, a man who, for all you know, may not even exist. Take the time to look it up and maybe then we can start asking the important questions.