The Day After: Now What

Now that the elections of 2012 are over, I find myself wondering, what happens on the day after for those whose hopes of leadership were dashed? Did Mitt and Ann stay in bed until noon on Wednesday, ordering room service and watching cartoons? I wonder how long it took for them to have The Conversation, to sit at the breakfast table, look into each other’s eyes, and ask, ”now what?” The question is huge for the Romneys. After months and years of relentless campaigning, is there a sense of relief for them that it’s finally over? Can they somehow be themselves instead of whoever the spinmeisters tell them to be?

Most of us have never run for political office, but we’ve been in a similar place.  The long and painful death, followed by the rituals of the wake and funeral. Then one morning the doorbell rings and it’s the delivery person to pick up the hospital bed from the corner of the living room. It’s over. We look at each other and say, “what now?”

The daily commute for the job we’ve loved (or hated) for 20, 30, 40 years. Now a plant closing, a pink slip or mandatory retirement has robbed us of our identity, of our livelihood. Now what? What can we do? What should we do?

Sometimes the “now what” question comes not from a sense of loss but with a sense of expectation. Thirty-seven years ago, Larry and I were newly married and had just arrived home from our honeymoon, when Larry’s dad gave him some counsel about marriage from his own wealth of experience. “Now, be sure to have JoAnn get up each morning and fix you breakfast.” I actually did wake up early on that first morning home, and may even have scrambled some eggs for Larry. But as my memory recalls the scenario, I turned from the stove and said to him, “If you think I’m going to do this every day for the rest of my life, think again.” Unlike our favorite United Way director, there’s no oatmeal for Larry on a chilly morning.

Now what? While in some situations it’s a question tinged with sorrow, there may be an unspoken sense of relief and anticipation, even with loss. I’m not sure that we’ll hear the Romneys say it out loud, but there does come a time when we trade one dream for another and get on with life. What an opportunity they have to make a difference, even if not in the White House.

Look at Jimmy Carter, now age 88, with his support for Habitat for Humanity and his work for peace in the Middle East.  Remember Dan Quayle? I had to turn to Google to get the scoop on James Danforth Quayle, 44^th vice president of the United States, but since losing the re-election campaign in 1992, he’s written The American Family: Discovering the Values That Make Us Strong, redeeming his Murphy Brown comment that took some flack during the campaign.  And Al Gore? The young man whose desire at age 18 was to one day write novels has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his advocacy in the area of climate change.

Loss – even on such a public stage – does not mean the end.  Nor does it mean the end on our own private stages. Bell Hooks, writing in All About Love, reminds us: “Contrary to what we may have been taught to think, unnecessary and unchosen suffering wounds us but need not scar us for life. It does mark us. What we allow the mark of our suffering to become is in our own hands.”

Yes, Mr. Romney, as you noted in your concession speech, you left everything on the field. You gave your all to the campaign. And, regardless of political affiliation, we salute you for your dedication to America. So what now? Here’s my advice to Ann and Mitt from my four-month foray into a change of life-direction. Get some rest. Spend time with those 18 grandchildren. And then, as Frederick Buechner reminds us, follow your heart to the place where your deep gladness meets the world’s deep need.

Better Off?

So, are you better off today than you were four years ago? That’s the question that’s being bandied around the airwaves as we count down the days to the presidential election. 

In 1965, my parents lived in a comfortable home that they (and the bank) owned.  They had one car, three kids, and my dad worked one job as a carpenter while my mother stayed home to care for the house and the family. We walked to the neighborhood school, and came home for lunch every day.  We had a swimming pool in the backyard because my dad’s job didn’t allow time for vacations in the summer. One black and white television, 3 channels. One phone. The Buffalo Bills were AFL champions. The Browns went 11-3.

Fast forward 25 years. In 1990 Larry and I lived in a comfortable home.  We drove two cars, had three kids, and both worked long hours while wishing we had Alice from the Brady Bunch to clean our house and take care of the family. Three color televisions, cable. Two phones, one that was cordless.  The Browns were 3-13. Were we better off?

It’s now 2012. Our adult son and daughter-in-law live in a small home that they and the bank own, and yes, it’s probably worth less than what they paid for it six years ago. They both work full-time, Greg goes to school full time, and the lovely Madelyn Simone has gone to day care since she was 8 weeks old, except for the glorious day each week we spend together. They have Direct TV, with a gazillion stations so we can watch Bubble Guppies, wireless internet, and i-phones.  For the record – Madelyn does not have a cell phone, although she knows what to do with mine. The Browns are 0-5.  Are we better off? How do we define “better off”?

If we’re truly a nation of spoiled, self-centered materialists, then I suppose the question is an appropriate one to ask. Oh, that sounds judgmental, doesn’t it? But at some point, it can’t be all about the stuff we have. When do we ask, “Do my neighbors have what they need?” rather than “Do we have everything we want?”

Life is more than fame or fortune. Do I wish I had more money in my pocket today? Sure, who doesn’t? But would I trade an extra handful of cash or a fancier cell phone for the time spent with my precious granddaughter? Absolutely not.

Here are the more vital questions. Should there be a safety net of protection for the most vulnerable in our country, or isn’t that our problem? Should social security be protected because I want to get what’s coming to me, or should we work together to find solutions that will insure that those without adequate resources in retirement are taken care of (the original goal of social security)? Should I vote “no” on the school levy so that I have more money of my own while our community’s kids rattle around in that dreary, decrepit middle school? The answers we give to these kinds of questions define what living in community, and yes, what living in America mean to us. My parents knew what it used to mean. Say it with me: “It’s not all about me!” Does it still mean that today?

 Back to the question: are we better off? The answer for me is not about whether my family is better off economically than we were four years ago. The answer has less to do with who the president is and more to do with the fact that we have an openly elected president (even with all the political commercials) and not a dictator. We have freedom of speech – we can blog to our heart’s delight and protest without fear of incarceration. We’re working toward having affordable health care for everyone.  All of our children can go to school – girls and boys. It’s not like that everywhere.   

Those are the reasons we’re better off as Americans. I may not be able to afford a new car this year, but maybe the Browns will beat the Bengals – then we’ll be better off for sure!

Pick Me!

“Pick me, pick me!”  It’s the chant of the kindergartener wanting to be the line leader and the freshman running for student council.  It’s also the common message of the commercials that are relentlessly flooding the airwaves.  “Pick me, pick me!”

                How do we choose?  Consider the scenarios.  Does the kindergarten teacher choose the child jumping up and down in her enthusiasm for the role, or the one whose behavior has indicated that he can perform the task of leading others well?  Does the freshman class vote for the most popular, the one with the funniest speech, or the one committed to improving cafeteria meals?  And for President of the United States, who do we choose?  Experience, issues, popularity?  The most entertaining or least offensive commercials?  In our contemporary world of sound bites and tweets, do we vote for the one who makes the most noise, the most promises, or the fewest gaffes?  

In the midst of all the hype, how do we sort out what is true?  A phrase used during the presidential primary race to describe a certain candidate is perfect to illustrate what happens in the electoral process – it’s like a manure spreader in a windstorm.  How can the average voter sort out the issues while the air is so fragrant?

Here’s one example that hits us every time we put gasoline in our vehicles – the price at the pump.   Has the price of gas really doubled since Obama took office?  Is the current president to blame for the high prices of gasoline, and if elected, could Mr. Romney reduce the price of gas in time for our next vacation?  What’s really going on?

My friend Google pointed me to GasBuddy.com, where I found a graph of gas prices from 2008 to today.  Yes, the little sticker we see on some gas pumps is correct.  The cost of a gallon of that precious essential has doubled since the current president was elected/took office. 

No, that can’t be.  When was gas under $2 a gallon?  How did I miss that?  The reason I don’t remember it well is that prior to the precipitous drop right around the election of 2008, a gallon of gas had risen to $4, just in time for our summer vacation of 2008.  Its decline to under $2 per gallon lasted about 2 months, beginning its price rise even before President Obama was inaugurated.    

So, my next question is – was that the president’s fault?  His responsibility?  Did the price of gasoline, having reached an all-time high under a republican president, decline dramatically in anticipation of the election of a democrat?  Probably not.  Did President Bush work some kind of magic to reduce gasoline prices in his last few months in office?  Nope, not likely.  Or does the price of gasoline fluctuate based on Wall Street, the weather in the Gulf of Mexico, and other factors of supply and demand, rather than who is in the White House?  Well . . .

After being bombarded with political ads that proclaim to tell us the truth, how can the average voter figure it out?  Some websites promise to check the facts for us, but the browser must consider the source of the website to ascertain its bias.  It’s important to listen carefully, to ask questions, and to dig into the facts for ourselves.  And here’s a hint - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck, even if it says it’s a donkey or elephant.

An Abbott and Costello film clip is a timely reminder for these days of inventive truth-telling.   In his classic comedy routine, Lou Costello uses addition, multiplication and division to prove that 13 x 7 equals 28.  The gag went so well the first time (In the Navy, 1941) that it was also included in A Little Giant in 1948.  Now you know and I know that 13 x 7 does not equal 28, but given the right amount of persuasion, confusion, and repetition, it’s possible to be convinced of almost anything.  That’s called being bamboozled.  Not the best way to pick the president of the USA.