Dare to Dream

[malthaussen]

17. Sometimes it's hard to tell the dreamer from the dream.

But it's no contest when someone isn't dreaming at all.

I consider that speech to be pretty damned eloquent, myself, but sometimes I think people don't quite get the message. When race, religion, gender, and all those other things that divide us are seen as the irrelevancies they are, then maybe the dream will come true. Barack Obama did not "make history" because he is black, he "makes history" by the substance of what he does. If Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will not "make history" because she is female, but because of what she does. If Bernie is elected, he will not "make history" because he is Jewish, but because of what he does.

The essence of MLK's message in that speech, IMO, is that a person should be evaluated and understood on the basis of his character and will, and not on accidents of birth, or issues irrelevant to participation in civil society. And maybe someday we'll achieve that, one can dream.

As for the American Dream, I have a problem there. Because I think the American Dream is fundamentally flawed, and malignant. That it is possible to construct a set of circumstances by which that dream is reachable by all, or by a great percentage of a particular population, is a question separate from the deeper one of whether it is worthy of achievement in the first place. But no candidate, not Mr Sanders nor Mr Trump or anyone else, is going to address that one. It is, however, a question that we as a society should be willing to examine, since the politicians will inevitably jump on the bandwagon once it has gained enough momentum. For the present, however, we are divided into two camps, both concerned with the mechanical (and trivial) question of whether it is possible to admit more people to the Dream. One says we can, the other says we can't. At least the camp that says we can wants to make a society in which the goods are distributed more widely.

Why is the American Dream flawed? (As distinct from MLK's dream, I have no problem there) Because it tells us that material goods are the only goods worthy of striving for, at whatever cost to sanity, happiness, and the health of the individual, the society, and the planet. A system of conspicuous waste, that is only really concerned with making sure as many people have as many toys as possible, and built on the blood and tears of great masses about whom we know nothing and care less. That's always been an underlying problem, you know: Athens had slaves, Sparta had peons. Examples can be multiplied, but society has always been divided into those who suffer, and those who profit from that suffering. In the case of the American Dream, we exported a lot of our suffering, to disenfranchised classes, to foreign lands. We're starting to notice this more these days, because the ruling class has decided to extend the suffering to a class of people who previously were benefiting from the system. (Calling them "consumers" was actually pretty witty, although I doubt many got the joke) And also because many of the disenfranchised have dared to raise their heads and demand their own piece of the pie. But in this demand, they may be losing sight of the fact that the pie is not really good for anyone. Alas, should one float this idea, it is almost inevitably construed as an effort to deprive others of pie. But, as I said above, this question is beyond the scope of the present campaign, which is really all about pie.

-- Mal