Go Down, Moses

Edward S. Curtis Geronimo Apache cp01002vNOTE: This post makes the third or fourth time time I have published this essay. Sometime back I received a video from a Facebook friend in which a grizzled person like me runs on to the effect that if I hate America I’m a damn fool. One good thing about recent political events is that they have firmed up the battle lines for all coming elections in the foreseeable future. As I note in a recent poem, ‘we will never again sleep unstalked or with some Nazi’s gun unpointed at our shoulder.’ I note as well that my remarks below about Michael Brown remain timely and especially in light of the recent anniversary of his murder. Whatever may be true about these things, this essay represents my best attempt to answer the claim I have heard all my life that I, and others who think as I do, hate America. All of us who acknowledge a debt to the past era’s triumph of liberalism now find ourselves expatriates in our own country, but before we allow ourselves to a be consigned to a permanent condition of expatriatism, perhaps we might invite our accusers to sit down with us and have a drink, here at the end of the world.

Oh boys, take me back,
I want to ride in Geronimo’s Cadillac!

These are night thoughts. Looking over the past year I see that I haven’t written much. I could perhaps defend myself by pointing out that I was seriously ill last summer. But besides being a cop-out that doesn’t account for time outside the six weeks or so of my illness and recovery. I’m now thinking the real reason for my relative silence is that I’m more and more persuaded that my country is in a sort of semi-fascist historical trough, the kind we have experienced from time to time in the past, when the worst of us as a people and the worst of our social and political potential are in charge. I’ll not dilate upon this much. The mere fact that here in Saint Louis we are waiting for the Ferguson grand jury verdict like armies on the eve of a great battle says multitudes to me, with the governor provocatively having already called up the National Guard and declared a 30-day state of emergency. I plan to do what I can to help with the sanctuary effort of my church in the event of widespread protest. I’ve already made clear what I think about the murder of Michael Brown; but until the law of the land changes there will be more Michael Browns, and their deaths will continue the procession of wrongs without remedy that our present governing classes seem not only willing but also sometimes eager to inflict upon the rest of us.

Why we tolerate this deplorable state of affairs I’m not certain. But at the end of a long and disappointing summer, I’m proposing to myself as a tentative analytic that it is less a function of our divisions as a people than a sign that we have lost heart. The liberal state in our time has become bogged down in bureaucratic confusion and thralldom to the corporate interests that have been its chief financial underwriters in recent years. It has also fallen victim to a kind of paranoia of which our globally ambitious surveillance effort is one arm and our local epidemic of publicly supported police violence is another. These two phenomena have grown vigorous while and because nobody is steering the ship of state.

And in the absence of governance we have experienced the growth of a spate of power centers, industries if you will, that have developed huge economic appetites and require steady streams of human fuel while producing equally steady streams of human waste. Witness the growth of higher education which now discharges the majority of its clients with burdens of debt that will consign them to the human waste pile from the beginning of their post-college lives (I don’t say their careers because most of these students will not have careers in the way that their parents had them). Or witness the growth of the prison industrial complex, our chief contemporary human landfill.

I think the real significance of the economic crash of 2008 may turn out to be that it was the end of our culture’s ability to meet citizen demand for the means to the good life, or the introduction of permanent scarcity and its accompanying social consequences. We mounted no serious effort to overcome or mitigate the consequences of the 2008 crisis as we did in the 1930s during the great depression. We now experience the same social ills that afflicted us during that terrible period, but we have made no corresponding efforts to cure them. In the absence of governance our chief response to the deplorable state of our republic is helplessness. We have become expert at turning away from cruelty. Some of us wring our hands and cast about for partial and/or inadequate remedies for the suffering we see around us, and others (many of them turning handsome profits from the misery of their fellow creatures) smile, talk about trickle-down economics, and support laws against feeding the homeless.

Several times now I’ve said that I want to write something about why I love my country, but I’ve almost come to the conclusion that one cannot love a country such as ours. One experiences one’s country through its history and one’s small participation in it. That is sometimes very difficult to love. An honest modern person will acknowledge the fear and disgust that political engagement sometimes generates. A more serious person may suspect that patriotism is grounded in a need to escape from that fear and disgust, as Leguin’s Genly Ai puts it, or in the terror of history, to steal from Eliade. More to the point, perhaps, my desire to express love of my country may be a desire of the boy I once was, and still am deep down somewhere. That boy would have written a peroration that quoted Walt Whitman and Robert Frost—God love him. He could love his country for what he thought it might become and bracket his knowledge of the occupied place his country actually was.

But when my now near octogenarian mind plays over remembered experiences in which I have felt the most intense pleadings of love I naively associated with my country, I find that these are grounded in particular historical moments and in awareness of being, or having been, imbedded in the complex ecologies of particular places. I have a great love for the plains of West Texas where I did most of my growing up; for the high deserts of northern New Mexico where I was born. I went to school in these places and was loved and fostered by teachers who knew of my father’s death in the war, as I became that boy who loved Frost and Whitman but perhaps lacked some toughness they may have had. For in those environs more than the deer and the antelope played: Geronimo, Cochise, Kit Carson, Charles Goodnight, Sul Ross, William Bonney, Cynthia Ann and Quanah Parker, Lew Wallace, Padre Martinez and Bishop Lamy, my own mother and father, and many another had their day, came and went, loved and hated and sometimes killed one another and one another’s kin.

I love and will always love the memory of the serendipitous regions of North Carolina where I lived for fifteen years. There the speech of the people lounges on a great porch crowded with wisteria, its branches sometimes thicker than my arm. There music rises up out of the pine barrens and tobacco fields like the flash of a bug zapper in the night. There Moses still shouts, “Let my people go!” And I now have arrived with a new love in my heart on the banks of this continent’s great river, for the old brick and mortar city where I now reside, named for a not-so-good French king, where great barges push their cargoes up and down river and the progeny of immigrants past and present from Somalia to Bosnia to Italy and Poland to the Sudan to Thailand and Vietnam to Mississippi and Alabama (and Texas) contend for space amongst gangways, bluffs, and caves, where the great silent water flows by in the night, laden now with ice floes to which morning may bring eagles searching for fish.

For many years I sought to love my country thinking the betrayals I experienced, that all lovers of justice have experienced in the past sixty plus years, were aberrations that would in the long run be put right. But guess what, those betrayals are the norm. For all the high-sounding stuff in our founding documents and hymns to our exceptionalism, we Americans are just like everybody else. We rob and rape and steal and kill and cheat our friends, and we hope to get away with it, just as we think we have escaped our country’s genocidal past. Indeed we have become skilled at creating complex abstract denials of that past that proclaim our righteousness in getting away with it (at this moment in our history we are doing a lot of that). For a while I thought I couldn’t love my country because Country (capital C) is another abstraction, but that’s only partly true. I can love abstractions all the way from the third law of thermodynamics to the music of Bach. But there are abstractions and abstractions, depending on the way the knife cuts. Maybe I can love my country’s history but not the hypocrisy of it, just as I love my friends and my kin and their places and mine and the memories they generated, but reject much of our foolishness, like the blackface act that friends and I once performed on my high-school stage. Or maybe I both love and need the hypocrisy too. Or maybe love and despising aren’t that far apart. Clearly I both love and despise memories I, myself, have generated; and perhaps that’s part of it too.

I mention Eliade above. Eliade’s distinction between linear and cyclic time rests on the difference between the historical and the cosmic. One’s engagement in the life of one’s country plunges one into history, into the political, into the constant ebb and flow and strife of events, essentially meaningless in itself, but perhaps touched by love. If in the final analysis, love of one’s country is grounded in the concreteness of places and people and events rather than in their ideological trappings, then one can also love people with whom one disagrees and is sometimes angry, perhaps even people whose ideas one despises, as one loves oneself. These possess materiality. They have existential force and stand out from the stream of experience. There is no taint in loving them. They are real and whole, and one’s love is a response to their reality and wholeness. Love urges us to find meaning in things and sometimes cures anger and the other historical passions. This is what Faulkner meant when he described Old Ben, the bear, as taintless and incorruptible. It requires a cosmic perspective too, to care about land, to struggle against the ruination of land and people and animals. Enmeshed in history there is only the struggle that is today. It is from a cosmic perspective that beauty and the possibility of a deeper love emerge, even love for the terrible darkness of the worst we do, and that is as it must be. There is no place else for us to go.

I have seen these ways of God: I know of no reason
For fire and change and torture and the old returnings.
He being sufficient might be still. I think they admit no reason; they are the ways of my love.
Unmeasured power, incredible passion, enormous craft: no thought apparent but burns darkly
Smothered with its own smoke in the human brain-vault: . . .

If one can love speech and voices and music, abstracted from their agents or not, perhaps one can also love history that one deplores. Geronimo lies buried at Fort Sill. He, and the folk he killed, and the folk who made him a prisoner and a caricature in his own place, are all long dead. In his grave and in the memories he generated, Geronimo is timeless. If there is a saving grace in humanity, if there is any real human hope, it is not in prophetic politics as Whitman would have had it. It is in place, in land and water, in the topsoil that Wendell Berry reveres, in song, in the twang of the banjo and the yelp of the coyote, and in the names of things and people, in our clumsy and beautiful bodies, in the gristle and boniness of us, and in our stubborn persistence. Finally perhaps, it is in the peace that may come to us as we contemplate these things at the end of a long day when greed and the other savage hungers have receded. At such times without sleep as new snow stirs the darkness outside one’s window one can, almost surprisingly, find oneself native to the places one has lived, to one’s times and ways and kinships. In and amongst these things we live and move and have our being. And in and amongst them too, we lie down at last.

These beauteous forms,

Through a long absence, have not been to me
As is a landscape to a blind man’s eye:
But oft, in lonely rooms, and ‘mid the din
Of towns and cities, I have owed to them,
In hours of weariness, sensations sweet,
Felt in the blood, and felt along the heart;…

It’s 1:00 on a Sunday. I have just completed my hourly round of walking. As I looked into my backyard from the kitchen window just now I felt the return of a sensation of openness I associate with being aware of the possibility of poetry. Wordsworth knew it, wrote of it often, the best known example being his “Lines Composed a Few Miles above Tintern Abbey, On Revisiting the Banks of the Wye during a Tour. July 13, 1798.” My epiphany just now came as I realized to my utter surprise that I had been without that familiar sensation for a time—I don’t know how long, but I associate that vacancy now, as I describe it, with my remembered aphasia. The epiphany just now has been a cause for real joy as well as a moment of solidarity with the great world and a poet whose description of it remains vivid for me.

I’ve had a stroke. It came out of nowhere and paralyzed me for a while during which time I was fascinated by various objects I handled. I contemplated my breakfast bar for seemingly endless minutes as I stood frozen by my kitchen table. Strangely, I was aware of the passage of time, as twenty, then thirty, then forty-five minutes elapsed before I reached for the kitchen scissors to open it. Then, in another twenty minutes or so I lost interest and wandered empty-handed into the dining room adjacent, where  I remember falling. I lay there on the dining room rug a while until my strength returned; then I got up and moved to my recliner in the living room. I must have collected my tablet because I remember watching a couple of episodes of a TV series I was interested in until my spouse returned from her swimming class at the Y.

I hadn’t called her, as she immediately pointed out much to my chagrin, but as I struggled to tell her what had happened to me I realized I had been unable to do so. I could formulate the idea of what had happened, but the words wouldn’t come. Long and short, we trekked down the street to the SLU emergency room and spent a night with concerned staff who found me a room in the hospital before morning. A CAT scan and MRI were performed almost immediately. I remember being given aspirin and heparin. Then we waited. An initial reading did not reveal a stroke, but a reading next morning revealed what the night’s reading had missed, a small stroke in my brain’s left frontal lobe. Fortunately, my motor skills were not affected, and the aphasia gradually diminished during the time I was hospitalized. Indeed the neurologist who examined me as I was preparing to be discharged said to me that he would not have believed I had had a stroke but for the MRI. I returned home with a loop recorder to monitor my heart rhythm and a feeling of gratitude that I had dodged a bullet.

Doctors at the hospital had suspended my regular blood pressure medicines (in order to flush out my brain I was told); so that my return home was accompanied by a kind of euphoria that vanished as the days went by. My new medicine routine includes generic Plavix plus aspirin (the Plavix to stop after thirty days and the aspirin to continue). And I’ve now added a statin to my daily maintenance meds. I’ve always had good low cholesterol, but since I’m now a stroke survivor my cholesterol needs to be even lower. Future blood work will determine the statin’s effectiveness. But resuming my regular blood pressure regimen has caused my blood pressure to drop abnormally, a condition with which I’ve been struggling ever since. Doctors have cut my beta blocker by half and taken me off the diuretic I had been taking since my earlier bout of heart failure. It remains to be seen whether I will need further adjustments. Currently, though my blood pressure has returned to more or less normal levels, I am experiencing a period of dizziness each day (with its accompanying fear of falling) from the time I take my morning meds until late afternoon. The hospital neurologist told me I could drive and return to the gym immediately upon returning home, but I’ve not felt like doing either. I’m walking around the house now, as my Fitbit reminds me to do. That seems effective in fighting off dizziness, but so far at least, the dizziness returns when I stop walking. This may be caused by the Plavix I am taking, that’s my current hypothesis; but if that is true I shall have to endure the daily dizziness until I complete the required 30 days of Plavix (another seven days or so).

My risk of secondary stroke is highest for thirty days, but I remain at risk for the rest of my life and particularly for the next five years. This is especially true for me since my stroke was cryptogenic; its cause remains unknown. Of primary concern is the possibility of undetected atrial fibrillation; I learned in the hospital this time that the left atrium of my heart is enlarged. But the possibility also exists that the PFO in my heart may have allowed a clot to escape and reach my brain. The loop recorder I am wearing should over time detect atrial fibrillation (or not), a result I am coming to think of as the lesser of two evils, since recent research seems to indicate only limited benefit to patients my age from PFO closure.

I am now trying to image the healing of my brain. I see a lesion left by the stroke. I can’t determine its size, but remembering the MRI and recalling that I never lost motor control, I think my stroke involved only the speech centers of my brain and may have left only a small lesion. I recall battling to regain the ability to find words for my thoughts and being overjoyed when it returned so that I glozed on and on each time I was given a stroke test in the hospital. What do I now carry in my brain’s left frontal lobe? That will be the question that preoccupies me as I face the days ahead. I look forward to getting back to exercise, because I don’t want to lose the strength and muscle tone I built up during my pulmonary rehabilitation phase. I recall the euphoria I experienced during my first few hours at home and my then conviction that recovery from my stroke would be a piece of cake. Not so, I fear. I have a long and uncertain recovery time ahead of me. Now, today, I awoke feeling invigorated. I had slept all night without frequent trips down the hall to the bathroom. My goal today is to walk 250 or more steps each hour as I am reminded by my Fitbit to do. Life is still good.

in the act of finding

Since I began this blog there have often been periods when I’ve not posted or times when I’ve put off writing particular pieces I’ve promised in favor of paying attention to events. I’ve posted nothing for the past six months partly because I’ve been paying attention to events in a way that is new for me and has seemed more conducive to silence than to speech. (Writing is speech for me, perhaps because I am old fashioned, or just old, perhaps because I am a poet). In this essay I hope to be able to delineate what I think I have learned, or am learning, in my new round of attending.

As a way of beginning I am recalling a conversation with an old friend, the Rev. Jimmye Kimmey, a priest of The Episcopal church for whom I have lasting and deep admiration and affection. I don’t remember the context, what it was that caused me to ask my friend what I asked her, but I do remember that it was something in the news of the times towards the end of the last century, something that disturbed me with the suggestion that misogyny was far more widespread than I thought. “I’m wondering for the first time,” I said, “if most men hate women. Is that really true?” Her answer surprised me. Very quickly and quietly she said, “Yes, men hate women.” No qualifier, nothing to let me off the hook as a man, but as we continued to talk it was as though she had touched my hand when she spoke. We were in one of those communicative moments when difference falls away and humans confront one another outside the norms of prejudiced discourse.

Another friend, Rob Anderson, has studied such moments, He and his partner, Kenneth Cissna, have written extensively about what they call Moments of Meeting, in a study of conversations between Carl Rogers and Martin Buber that was published by SUNY Press in 2002. Whether such moments, or some public equivalent or set of equivalents can be constructed as part of an attempt to retain or revive mass participation in various performances of the public good among us, I don’t begin to know. But I mention Rob and Ken’s book as a way of making a generalized statement at the outset about what I think is at stake for us in this century as peoples who in the final analysis must live together on this small planet as we confront what is coming to seem more and more like a worldwide backlash against the liberal world order we have known (and taken for granted) during most of my lifetime. Could a transformational moment of meeting take place between congressional Republicans deeply invested in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court and women just as deeply invested in frustrating that confirmation? We already know the answer to that question. Here’s another. can we imagine such a moment of meeting between a group of women who oppose the Kavanaugh nomination and women who are now defending it?

And of course there’s a larger question behind these questions about a particular historical circumstance involving particular cultural commitments and instrumentalities. It’s the question we, like J. Alfred Prufrock, have had dropped on our plate by the new century which seems to be turning the world upside down. I’ve been trying to think about what’s at stake in my own confrontation with this question, as well as how to frame an interpretation of it that will suffice for the time being. At the head of this piece I am returning, as I often do, To Wallace Stevens:

The poem of the mind in the act of finding
What will suffice. It has not always had
To find: the scene was set; it repeated what
Was in the script.
        Then the theatre was changed
To something else. Its past was a souvenir.

In declaring my desire to find a poem, I ask for something I think precedes defending the public good. What factors, conventions, instrumentalities impinge on my taking the public good seriously. What commitments do I have as a human individual with my particular history and acculturation that may impinge upon my thinking; and if I find myself at fault, what can I do about it? Another old friend, the late A. C. Greene, said to me once that he thought one should have a personal reason for whatever one believed about life. At the time I thought the remark was a fairly shallow obiter dictum, but I no longer think so.

And for a while, too, I was satisfied with the recommendation I have made in a number of essays, that we as a people need to revive politics and participatory democracy. But I now think something else has to happen before I can recommend conventional politics seriously to any young person who believes that voting is a sham and that direct action, protest, union organizing, and like modes of social action are superior to established ways of what we now call bringing about change. What needs to change after all? Isaiah Berlin says at the outset of his first essay on liberty that when ends are agreed upon in a polity all politics is instrumental. We now live with the reality that questions about the ends of life and society form occasions for bitter and irreconcilable dispute among us. Some even take the view, famously associated with Margaret Thatcher, that society doesn’t exist. As I think about my country these days, I am less able to return a political answer to Chernyshevsky’s question, “What is to be done?” than I was when I wrote about it in 2016 shortly after the election.

Much has been said as the present U. S. regime has run its increasingly destructive course almost to its midpoint, about the undoubted fact that this regime has flouted most norms of decent behavior. But the conflict over the Kavanaugh appointment has exposed another set of norms that the majority of Americans who oppose the present regime find embarrassing and distressful. I am one such American. As a descendant of slave owners I have directly benefitted from the peculiar institution. My mother’s parents were shaped by post-reconstruction southern ideology. I grew up in the twilight of the Jim Crow era, internalized its values, attended segregated schools. As a descendant on my father’s side of white settlers who came to the southwest in the last days of the Oklahoma land rush I am a beneficiary of ethnic cleansing of the North American continent, of Manifest Destiny, as well. What these facts mean to me now is that my thinking for most of my life has been embedded in acceptance of a social hierarchy that assigns roles to its members on the basis of the accidents of birth and history. It’s all very well for us to tout American meritocracy, but in my case privilege came before any merit of my own

When someone like Brett Kavanaugh proclaims that he got into Yale by virtue of virtue when in fact his was a legacy admission, we understand how meritocracy works at a different scale of entitlement from mine. Leaving race and ethnicity aside for the moment, I have been struck in the past few days by how often I have heard it claimed that all of us men, if we are honest, will have to admit to attempting to rape a woman, or women, when we were young; and that therefore, if Kavanaugh is found to be guilty of moral transgression as a young man, how will the rest of us escape whipping? In the immediate aftermath of Lindsay Graham’s tirades against women and the Democrats in the U. S. Senate, it was this argument that was the subject of a number of telling critiques of masculinity written by women, of which this one might serve as an example. I think I am one of a number of men who have never raped, or attempted to rape anyone; but I have had a long and complex education in regard to my own participation in the sexist hierarchy that dominates modern culture worldwide, no less so in this presumably enlightened place than in those “shithole countries” our enlightened leader enjoys stigmatizing. But if Graham’s target was more Democrats than women, then his tirades take on a further dimension as critiques of Democrats who support Dr. Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh but defended Bill Clinton in an impeachment trial in which Graham was the prosecutor. You can’t have it two ways Graham seems to tell us. If you defend the essential innocence of Dr. Blasey Ford against the youthful depravity of Brett Kavanaugh, then you should at least acknowledge your culpability when you defended Bill Clinton against defenders of Monica Lewinsky. Consent aside, the power differential between Clinton and Lewinsky should have caused you to vote for impeachment.

Of course the Clinton impeachment trial was not about whether the president “had sex” with Monica Lewinsky. It was about obstruction of justice. Clinton lied, as was argued, to protect both his privacy and that of the young woman. But the legal issue of a trial, even an impeachment trial, is sometimes a mask for more profound issues, as countless episodes of Law and Order have now taught us. The Clinton trial was about the relative importance to the republic of Clinton and Lewinsky. Recent Republican strategy has sought to make the Kavanaugh hearings about the same issue. The participants have not cooperated to the fullest extent, but there remains tremendous cultural pressure to protect the norm which decrees that the life and the reputation of an entitled white male transcend in importance the life and reputation of any woman, however accomplished she may be or however wronged by said entitled white male. Many who defend Kavanaugh are resorting to claims that Dr. Blasey Ford’s memory is faulty, or that she was paid to lie as part of Democrat conspiracy. May they continue to be comforted by these rationalizations as events unfold; for if the present FBI investigation turns out to be the whitewash many of us expect, the facts of Kavanaugh’s young life will continue to emerge as enterprising reporters dig for them. The bottom line is that Kavanaugh’s privilege is the privilege of his historical moment and also both deeply and tragically human and deeply and tragically American, as Clarence Thomas’s privilege was in 1991, as Bill Clinton’s was in 1998.

Which leaves me where?

The culture of violence against young women and the drinking cultures of many American prep schools and the colleges and universities to which their graduates regularly gain admission are widely known and widely tolerated in the liberal establishment. This toleration crosses political boundaries and is as prevalent among voters for liberal political candidates as among those who voted for the present regime. I say these things on the basis of long experience. They constitute an open scandal. One cannot with integrity deny or defend it, no matter one’s political persuasion. Graham’s attack on women and the Democrats is wrong, not so much wrong headed as wrong hearted, expressive of an almost sociopathic absence of empathy, but it points to a discomfort that all of us, male and female, who gave Bill Clinton a pass must feel. And beyond the Clinton experience, such discomfort is the condition of our time. It is exacerbated on every hand by the inhumanity of the present regime, but it is a discomfort in which we all know, or ought to know, ourselves implicated—all of us who are part of the privileged liberal political class, who vote, or contribute, or organize, or protest. We may seek innocence in driving hybrid automobiles, in working to overturn discriminatory laws and policies, in opposing rape culture, in striving to redeem our public schools, in helping to feed the hungry and clothe the naked. But there is no innocence to be had in these pursuits. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t follow them, only that we should understand that our hearts are not pure.

It seems more than a month since the funeral of John McCain, for that remarkable social event is now a world away. But for me what was most remarkable about the McCain funeral and what keeps the memory of it fresh in my mind was not only that it illustrated the vitality of American civil religion and its clear opposition to the anti-religion of right-wing piety, but also that it was seen to do so. It was heartening for a while as I thought about it, but the cultural fissure it revealed began to trouble me almost immediately. Marilynne Robinson persuades me in her new book, What Are We Doing Here (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018) that American liberalism, whether religious or not, has its roots in English puritanism, which gave rise to the abolitionist movement as well. But there were also those Anglicans, Methodists, Baptists, and members of smaller groups who embraced the southern cause during the civil war, some of whom remained outside the national consensus even if they participated in postbellum reunifications. I was baptized in the Methodist Episcopal Church South, that is the historically pro-slavery southern Methodist church. I was a member of a Methodist Church in Durham, North Carolina in the 1960s that nearly split apart over whether it would admit African Americans to attend Sunday services.

We live now—I live now, with the deep conviction that the political and legal fixes we installed in the last century hoping to create a more equitable and just society than the one we had inherited have in some crucial way failed. They have changed some behavior, but they have not changed our hearts. As a thinking citizen, I can adjust my behavior to reflect a decent respect for demands for equality from those marginalized and oppressed by the social system in which we all live. I have been doing so all my life as I have come to understand those demands and desire to be allied with those who make them rather than with those who oppose them. But at eighty something I understand that my managed behavior is on the social surface. My heart is not the heart of a man who hates women or persons of color or practitioners of religions other than my own, but it remains tainted by the bigotry that is built into the social milieu within which I act and whose assumptions I internalized as a child. My education as a social being over the past forty to fifty years has been an embarrassment of occasions upon which I have been forced to recognize the casual homophobia, the casual sexism, or the casual racism, of my behavior and to know what these casual misbehaviors reflect. I think sometimes that I remain a religious person, in spite of a broad area of apostasy in my makeup, because I remain profoundly aware of sin, mostly in myself, trapped somewhere in the wisdom of Solomon—“As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he.” I can no more shed this awareness than I can shed the privilege that sometimes masks it.

So if I were to find the poem I seek, it would be a poem of the heart, a poem that would evoke some moment of meaning in which a speaker and an invisible polyglot audience fold themselves into one another like lovers, heeding neither the craft nor sullen art of any language, certainly not mine. A poem that would evoke a moment of love we fail to find as citizens. Prayer aspires to it.