No, I’m not going there in Fiction Daily … yet as this election season gets under way in earnest, I know that for the next few months it will become more uncomfortable to be around many familiar people … harder to pass their houses in my neighborhood … tougher to make small talk, even to chat with one of my oldest and best friends. People I know in one way — as animal lovers, good parents, friendly neighbors — become someone else, as they represent larger, often angry, political dogmas.
For the most part I keep my political views to myself. I learned to do so after working with large groups of like-minded people on a couple of local issues … helping protect a large piece of property from development and preserve it as a public park … working to halt plans by an out-of-state developer to build a shopping center in the wetlands behind our house.
To take meaningful action on these vital local issues, I’ve learned to keep larger political and religious issues out of play. That’s because my Unitarian and Baptist friends can equally agree that parks are good … dogs are good … cats are good … children are good … clean air and wildlife are good … and if we keep to these common matters we can get something done.
Yet on the larger stage, battles loom this fall, and the stakes are considerable. My private choices are steered by a belief that compassion and nonviolence are paramount, that individuals should have the most freedom possible as long as they don’t hurt others, and that a person’s private life is, well, private.
We have to structure a world where people can make choices safely and learn without too much hardship, where we can work hard and enjoy a fair return for our labor, and where other sentient beings — children, animals and the natural world around us — are held in highest esteem.
Agreed all around! We can also agree that one’s private life should be private unless A) one chooses to make it public, or B) one attempts to control another person’s private life through governmental legislation, religious persuasion, brute force, etc. In the latter case, one can not rightfully pry into the life of others unless he or she is prepared to have his or her life made the subject of public scrutiny as well.