West River Eagle

Change takes wisdom, willpower, patience & courage



In a conversation with a colleague, the question was posed to me, “What can you or I do about it?”

We were discussing multiple issues — gun control and the right to bear arms, financial disparities and materialism of the rich, racial discrimination and institutional oppression.

Her point was that we are limited in our ability to change some of these grand issues outside of our votes for representative officials. We lack the power, know-how and money to influence changes in policy and individual choices, which are rightfully protected as freedoms in our constitution.

We merely scratched the surface of the issues we discussed, yet exposing deep-seeded philosophical differences in how we perceive the world and our power as individuals to influence change.

Our discussion mirrors a thousand discussions Americans have each day, over coffee, on social media, in newsrooms, and at the dinner table. We arrived at no solutions, we disagreed on most points, and when we did agree on one point, our thoughts about what to do next often differed.

Later, I surfed my wall on Facebook and came across a meme that says, “I am no longer accepting the things I cannot change and changing the things I cannot accept.”

While I like the sentiment of this quote, I felt compelled to go to its origin, the Serenity Prayer.

The key line in this poem is not about accepting what one can change or having courage to change what one can, but instead about having the wisdom to know the difference.

When Joe takes home his paycheck, he does not want someone to tell him that he has to take 10 percent of his income and contribute it to taxes, while the person down the street, who makes a third of his income, only needs to pay 3 percent in taxes.

Joe may be worried about this if his income were only $50,000/year, and he has a family of four.  After taxes, in this recognizable simplified example, Joe would bring home $45,000. But what if Joe made $50,000,000/year. His take home pay would be $45,000,000.

Forty-five million is considerably more than forty-five thousand, and clearly rich Joe will have more expendable income than middle class Joe, even if they both have a family of four.

Should rich Joe pay more in taxes than middle class Joe? What is a fair share? Should we regulate greed with policy in our government?

Middle class Joe may be a mechanic, and rich Joe a CEO to a successful company. Does one man work harder than the next? Or is one man’s job more valuable than the next?

Making these decisions requires not only knowledge of economics, but also an analysis of systems, what people want in their systems, and if people are willing to adhere to the policies of the systems.

We currently, as a nation, stand on the precipice of a series of chasms that widen with each passing day. Our representatives in government offices resemble the deep philosophical divides that exist in our own communities, but seem to come out more through social media and media debates, but are presented in varying degrees of bias.

Wisdom seems to have been lost in the storm of violent verbal exchanges. Hypocrisy and hate ripple through political and social discourse, each side of the debate peopled with passionate advocates for different solutions founded on conflicting philosophies.

For example, we may all agree that gun violence among youth has become too common an occurrence in our society. We are all saddened and horrified by the loss of young lives and educational staff each time a shooting occurs.

Yet, this is where our agreement divides. We have some people who want greater restrictions on who can buy guns, and the kinds of guns that anyone can buy.

Others want to ban guns altogether. Still others want to loosen what they call already-restrictive gun laws, and claim that people who want guns will get them, regardless of the laws, so why bother having any restrictions at all.

In so many circumstances I have encountered, no matter who speaks, there is a vehement attack on people who have an opposing view. From liberal to conservative, we seem to like telling people how stupid they are for thinking as they do about the topic.

Too many people agree to disagree or stop debating. Why?

Some stop, because they do not want to argue. Others stop the debate because they are so certain they are correct, and the other person is never going to believe as you do, that there is no point in arguing. Some feel that talk is cheap, and they have no power to act and make change, so why bother?

Still others believe that they are talking to deaf ears, and the only means for change is coercive, so they resort to protests, marches, letters, etc. to try to influence change at a higher level.

Some of these people choose to run for office and influence or create policy and laws.

We all have a role to play in the changes through which our nation grows and evolves.

Regardless of our individual desires and freedoms, I think too many of us shirk our responsibilities as citizens in this country.

We fail to uphold standards of compromise and respect for one another as fellow citizens. We too often fail to listen to one another, or conduct critical research, or challenge ourselves by considering and learning about opposing views.

But our failings would be what Niebuhr would say is based in our nature as humans to be selfish, prideful and self-righteous.

This recognition of our shortcomings as human beings may be why he wrote the Serenity Prayer — to get us to reflect what we seek to change and why — to help us think about what we change we can affect and what we cannot.

More and more I turn to the constitution for our common ground, but it too is a somewhat elusive document, open to interpretation, and inviting debate. To understand it in all its complexities, we must read three centuries of laws and court cases that evolve and change over time as our society, technology and ideals shift with each new administration, congress and court.

I chose to teach and to write, because I believe these are two fundamental ways to influence the world in what I think are positive ways — but I constantly ask myself who is right? What makes one person right and the other person wrong? Should I even be thinking in terms of right or wrong? Should we instead think about what is best for us as a nation and for our future generations?

Do we have the patience to hash out our differences, to listen, articulate, compromise and truly look out for the good of our nation’s future, which is made up of a mass of people, all of whom are not much different than you or me, regardless of whether or not we agree?

If we cannot work through our differences to solutions, which will require compromise, acceptance and unity, what will become of us as a nation?

We owe it to our ancestors who fought and died for the ideals of this country, to each other now as citizens responsible for its security and endurance, and to future generations, to make this nation an even better America than we have experienced in our lifetimes.   

We have never truly been great, but I think we can be if we learn to view multiple possibilities, seek truth rather than go with gut feelings about who looks trustworthy, or who reinforces our own beliefs, and seek solutions to issues that we then share with our representatives.

We as everyday citizens can affect change. As soon as we think we cannot, then we put our fate in the hands of those who think they can. I for one, am not willing to sit silently as others choose our country’s fate in what they may tell me is my best interest.

I have to start letting our representatives, even if I did not vote for them, know what I think about the policies they are making and supporting, and offering them alternative perspectives and solutions.

I must share my thoughts on our societal issues. When we put our thoughts out into the world, the world will talk back, and I must learn to listen, and as I learn, I will learn to filter to noise from the sound arguments, and we may move closer to solutions we can all live with.

Sometimes I think people expect major and immediate changes when they make the effort to influence others, but that is not how people work and definitely not how systems work.

Change can happen suddenly, but in many cases, it is a slow and steadily evolving organism influenced by the elements that surround it. We can only affect change if we make ourselves a part of those surrounding elements.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *