As elections come around, I can't help but to reminisce what it was like to talk about politics ALL the time for the short period I lived in Bolivia. Every bus driver, every taxi cab driver, every street vendor, every "Joe, I didn't register to vote, the Plumber" had an opinion on how to make progress and change for the people. It seemed, many times, to be people's only hope. The hope that one day there would be a policy change that thought about the people, the majority people. And in Bolivia's case, along with most of the rest of the world, the majority people are the poor people. The people that by their very nature are blessed by their curse, if you will.
Politics in the states are not the same at all. It's a two party system that forgets its place in the world and its impact on other peoples and nations, not to mention its own marginalized people. But for the first time since I've been a voter, I can say that I agree with a candidate on the most humane level. A candidate that is causing the marginalized and poor people of America to talk and think and most importantly, hope. Take a step back and think along with me for a second, let me take you through a Watson thought process and maybe I can find the nerve that is creating this nostalgia.
How beautiful would it be to rid ourselves of our desires and just be content? To think and really act for others, and not for our own agenda. It would mean we we are no longer striving for something better in our lives, but for the lives of those around us that actually need. I guess that begs the question for everyone to answer themselves: Who are the lives around you? Is it your neighbor? The people in your country? The country next door? Or how about the continent next door that you've only read about? Is it possible to say it's all of humanity? Because at this time in history, life can be seen more clearly on a global context. It is more noticeable than ever before. When our economy struggles, it causes others to struggle as well. We are competing for resources against other people, real people that experience thirst, hunger, pain, loneliness, etc. The unfortunately reality is that we are not a content culture or people, we desire more and more and more, and this desire causes others to have less because of the limited resources this world can produce. Our greed causes other's poverty. Our inability to live outside discomfort causes others to live in discomfort. Our discontent causes a competition that results in LESS for other people. You don't have to like it, but it is true to some extent whether you are willing to face the new global era or not. Our actions and richness oppress others in a worldly context. While we say that we would like to help other countries develop, do we really mean it if it means there will be less for us? That fuel costs, food prices, could increase and we would have to cut back on some of the luxuries?
Judging from how the religious sector of America has responded over the past few months, I would say we don't really mean it. We would rather them struggle as long as life remains easy on the home-front, as long as our costs remain low and our wages high.
So, when I hear a candidate talk about "spreading the wealth", it reminds me of a people that struggle from the bottom with the hope that a policy and a leader will remember them and give them a fighting chance. It's a call to the rich to give a little more of their hard earned money for the poor that didn't have a chance from the beginning. It's a call to be content with the basics. After all, are we not called to carry each others burdens? Spread the wealth, live with less, love with your content spirit, and maybe then we can finally be an example to all the nations and spread the news of a Savior that did not come for the rich, but FOR the broken, marginalized, sick, and poor people of this world (he also came as ONE of those people). We can fight it all we want, but in the end the truth and only the truth will remain.
I am no exception.