by t clair
If that title is provocative it is only because you don’t know me. If we were speaking to one another face to face you would notice some things.
For instance, I don’t wear berets.
I bought one in Canada once. This occurred during a brief and rarely mentioned shaved head period. I was told that berets are fantastic for shaved heads. This, of course, was merely a ploy. In fact, I looked utterly ridiculous. The hysterical laughing that went on behind my back for the rest of the trip helped warm my frigid fellow travelers, I’m sure.
Given my lack of zeal for the beret, not to mention my non-vegan diet, I could hardly be considered an anarchist in any popular sense.
Or in any real sense for that matter.
Nevertheless, calling oneself a quasi-anarchist–thereby juxtaposing radicalism and half-ass non-commitment–strikes me as quite sexy.
I call myself this because I don’t believe in government. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that it exists. I believe in government in the same way I believe in sardines and the music of Pantera–it’s there but I’m not particularly fond of it and I would never take it especially seriously. It’s not that governments don’t do serious things. War, genocide, murder, liberty, democracy, freedom–all of these are serious things.
But I don’t believe that government can bring the kind of change we need. When (and if) I vote, I do so holding my nose. The recent election season was the longest in our nation’s history. Both democrat and republican camps seemed to insist that electing the opposing candidate would bring the very fall of our nation–and might just usher in the apocalypse. The evangelical right made this election a religious issue. The Democatic candidate, it was implied, was an instrument of the devil to bring shame and demise to this great “Christian nation.” The extreme left continued to push their own religion of secularism–and Barack Obama was their messiah. (Perhaps a real messiah would feed the masses by miraculously multiplying whatever meager means were available, not by “spreading the wealth around.” Just saying.)
Though no one would admit it, all of the rhetoric revealed our nation’s belief in government–belief in the salvific sense. Be it the Christian right or the secular left, the extreme wings of our political apparatus gave voice to our unspoken faith in this democratic republic. Until we human beings lay aside our weapons, both literal and metaphorical, and embrace the kind of change that occurs within, we will be placing our faith in human institutions and human leaders. And they will ultimately lead us astray.
But I am a Quasi-Anarchist.
I do not support the violent overthrow of the government. This stems from my beliefs as a Qualified Pacifist, also known as “the pacifist without balls.” What this means is I am a pacifist, but I am glad my fiancee carries a stun gun and I teach my seven year old sister where to kick the bad man if he grabs her. I am leery of any use of force, especially my own. I am terrified of what kind of violence I am capable of if push must come to shove (if it must ever come to shove).
But government, of course, only works if there is the threat of violence. In fine print on every stop sign are the words, “Stop, or we’ll really nail you.” We obey the law, pay the fines, because we know that if we do not they will forcefully seize us. Behind every law is a threat of violence. Being a Qualified Pacifist, I obey the law. I would not resist arrest. And I would not seek to overthrow the law or government by any violent means. I respect the role that government plays in the grand scheme of the universe, but I see it as easily manipulated by One that is much larger than itself. I obey with a smirk, knowing that its authority is delegated and is easily overridden by the true king of the universe.
Despite my cynicism, I was overwhelmed by the poetry of the recent inaugural ceremonies–and I do not refer to Obama’s well-crafted speech. I am referring to the poetry of an African-American man standing on steps that were laid by men of his same race hundreds of years ago, men forced to labor there. This man stood in the same spot to voluntarily take upon himself the duties of this nation’s highest office. The same government that had approved the enslavement of an entire people now has a member of that people guiding its policies and actions.
And the irony does not end there. Despite the war that was fought for the freedom of those people, and despite the violence that racism and prejudice has wrought in our nation, it was the nonviolence of the civil rights movement that ultimately led to this momentous occasion in our history.
I do not wish to discover what I am capable of when “push comes to shove” for I am not confident in my ability to always turn the other cheek, but I am emboldened to do so by the wonder of a black man in the oval office.
I have said here before that I have never been “proud to be an American.” However, despite my disagreements with the new administration (and government and violence in general), this January is the closest I have ever come to humming Lee Greenwood.
*The reader should note the position of the author’s tongue: firmly in cheek.
T Clair is a Senior Contributing Writer for Into the Hill. He is a cartoonist and minister living in Alabama. Dialogue with him via tclair@intothehill.com
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Looks like we could have a decent chat over coffee. You do articulate many of my thoughts better than I do . . . hehe. Oh, and I think our discussion about this earth, and heaven, and home, and pilgrimness is to be continued . . . I still have some thoughts in response to your last one (many moons ago!). Thanks for sharing this, friend.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:41 pm
I think you DO wear a beret. I’m so American I pronounce the “t” in beret. I always love reading you Tyler, and appreciate your idealism and cynicism –which I can relate to (even if we disagree about some things –I refer, of course, to sports: the most important thing in the universe. sports is. sports.).
I will support you when you are fifty and running for office.
Note: Pay your taxes.
February 3rd, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Yes. Sports. Indeed. I agree.
But T, you say:
“I don’t believe in government. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that it exists. I believe in government in the same way I believe in sardines and the music of Pantera–it’s there but I’m not particularly fond of it and I would never take it especially seriously. It’s not that governments don’t do serious things. War, genocide, murder, liberty, democracy, freedom–all of these are serious things.”
Are not these the very reasons why government MUST be taken seriously? The problem is that our way of life is built upon the ideals and institutions of a very specific government (which may or may not exist still today) and so to suggest that one does not take it seriously is akin to suggesting that one does not take their way of life seriously. It’s all serious, far too serious.
I may or may not support when you are fifty and running for office.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:49 pm
What I mean to say when I state “I don’t take government seriously” is that it is ultimately not the thing that brings the most necessary, most permanent and most important change. I feel like the rest of the article makes this fairly clear. I’m given to rhetoric for the sake of pricking ears and hearts. This also is made clear in the article.
In one sense I believe that governments should be taken seriously. We should protest misuse and abuse of power, etc. However, in another sense, I submit to a higher power, and therefore believe that governments take themselves far TOO seriously.
Such an attitude, when held in the proper context, is actually the only kind that can bring the change we need. What would happen if a community of people obeyed the government in belief of its control by a higher power (no matter how evil the actions of that government may be)? What would happen if those same people became an alternative kingdom within the kingdom of this world? Would those two kingdoms rub shoulders? Would there be areas where their dominions might overlap? Certainly! But for a subject of the new kingdom to transfer citizenship to the old would be the worst kind of apostasy.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:12 am
Oh the pundits would love for you to run for office. I bet your most frequented quote would be “What I mean to say when…”
Don’t worry brother, I have the same affliction. You have my vote.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:18 am
not only is the likelihood of me making it to fifty greatly diminishing due to (apparently) controversial opinions, holding a political office would be quite a waste of time for one holding such (apparently) controversial opinions.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:28 am
Which is why I may or may not support you when you run for office.
When we talk about the “seriousness” of government what do we mean? First, you suggest that you don’t take it seriously because there is a higher power, a greater government if you will, but then you seem to suggest that you just think its less serious than Politicians think it. Are we discussing quantities? Or do you simply think, that aside from what politicians make it, government itself isn’t serious.
Let’s leave our own - or other specific political entities - government out of the equation. Let’s talk about government in its purest, more base (not in the negative sense) sense. What of that? Does government in that sense have the potential to be the agent of the change you call for?
February 4th, 2009 at 12:57 am
Your missing the point. The point isn’t about anarchy. It’s about the necessity for the human heart to be bent away from evil and toward good. This is something that violence and government can never accomplish.
Government in its purist, base sense may be valid, but it is impotent to bring the change I am discussing because it is incapable of changing the human heart.
I learned from a great teacher once that it’s good to say things that people don’t understand so that they seek the answers themselves. I understand you’ve met him personally, so I am sure you will understand what this is all really about.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:14 am
No, I’m quite sure I’m not missing your point. I don’t disagree even.
What I suppose I disagree with is some presuppositions that you make, like that government and violence are bedfellows, necessarily. I don’t see that at all. I also think one ought to be proud to be an American. Or a Brit. Or a Frenchman. Or an Italian. Or a Canadian.
But no matter.
You see, at the heart of your argument is the assertion that governments ought not to be depended upon because they will necessarily lead us astray. I disagree with that idea 100%, thats where i disagree with your argument.
Its not that I believe that our government is perfect, or that any government is perfect or can be perfect. On the contrary, of course. But rather, government in its purest sense CAN lead us to a promised land. Government in its essential, base sense does lead us there. Human nature demands it, human order demands it. Indeed, government in its purest sense CAN lead human towards good, can aid in changing the human heart.
Again, I see your point. But, I struggle with this statement you made:
“Until we human beings lay aside our weapons, both literal and metaphorical, and embrace the kind of change that occurs within, we will be placing our faith in human institutions and human leaders. And they will ultimately lead us astray”
I don’t see how your argument follows. So when we lay down our weapons (of which rhetoric is one, btw) we stop placing our faith in human institutions? Thats a bit of an oversimplification, don’t you think? And also, so when we embrace the change that occurs within we stop embracing human institutions? Even if we are embracing a spiritual change that doesn’t mean we ought to abandon our hope in humanity and it’s ability to foster change organically, internally.
I don’t know. I totally get your point. I do. I just feel like your simplifying things to much. I’m probably overthinking it though.
PS - to which teacher do you refer?
February 4th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Yeah, I think you’re overthinking it. It’s a simple point, not a complex one. Government can’t save you.
And Jesus.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
and I am intentionally over-simplifying things.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Well, ok, but even the statement “only Jesus can save you” is complicated.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Here’s my heretical two cents. Maybe it’s off topic, but it’s sort of in the arena.
I think the Bible demonstrates and teaches that authority flows from God into other hierarchies (I said that word, yes) which is evidence of his common grace for people. People do mess it up, but government is a good thing, a gift. Rebellion is like witchcraft. Going outside the authority of God (which we are usually faced with most clearly by our earthly superiors/authorities) is similar to divination. This is true in the home, the nation, the church, everywhere. The world God created is hierarchical, and that is good.
I think we in the America are usually more guilty of being stubborn and rebellious and tend that way (”I’ve got rights,” “nobody’s gonna tell me what to do”) and we think that we are only accountable to God. And we are accountable to God, but if you’re a kid, then God says obey your parents. If you are a wife, God says obey your husband. If you are a person in a church, obey the elders. Etc. If you’re a subject, then obey your king (this is not our arrangement in the US…we are the kings [via representation], and that bears particular responsibility in my view…like being active that stewardship for the defense of the most vulnerable, to serve our fellow citizens, love your neighbor, all that). All the while, not seeing government as THE solution is important, I agree. That may mean trying to obtain representation that limits the power of the inevitably corrupt bureaucracy to have power over us, which I am in favor of, but is certainly not very popular at present.
But being involved is a treacherous journey. It can be distracting and corrupting, etc. etc. Being entrusted with authority is hard, but that’s how God made the world. In America…that’s us. So we have to figure something out, and I don’t think abdication is the best answer. Not that you are saying that. The government here is us, though. All of us. For better, or for worse (usually worse).
Sorry, I meant to just say like one thing. Dang.
February 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am
I am a quasi-anarchist.
I don’t believe in traffic rules. Don’t get me wrong, I believe that they exists. I believe in traffic rules in the same way I believe in lap dogs and the music of Abba — it’s there but I’m not particularly fond of it and I would never take it especially seriously. It’s not that traffic rules don’t do serious things.
But I don’t believe that traffic rules can bring the kind of change we need. When (and if) I stop at a stop sign, I do so holding my nose.
But I am a Quasi-Anarchist.
I do not support the violent overthrow of the traffic rules. This stems from my beliefs as a Qualified Pacifist, also known as “the pacifist without balls.” What this means is I am a pacifist, but I have been known to tailgate, cut people off and once I sort of gave someone the finger. I am terrified of what kind of violence I am capable of if push must come to shove (if it must ever come to shove). Road rage is real, especially in Boston.
But traffic rules, of course, only work if there is the threat of violence. In fine print on every stop sign are the words, “Stop, or we’ll really nail you.” We obey the law, pay the fines, because we know that if we do not they will forcefully seize us. Behind every law is a threat of violence. Being a Qualified Pacifist, I obey the law. I would not resist arrest. And I would not seek to overthrow the law or government by any violent means. I respect the role that government plays in the grand scheme of the universe. But I obey it with a smirk.
Sadly, the cops who pull me over do not tend to appreciate the subtle irony and political commentary in my smirk.
Thus the speeding tickets.