Friday, August 29, 2008

A Lion's Legacy ...


Perhaps it is my age, or the occasional health bumps I seem to encounter more frequently these days, but it certainly seems to me as if there has been quite a bit of “death” going around: James Whitmore (movie actor), Ricardo Montalban (Fantasy Island), Farrah Fawcett (Charlie’s Angels), Michael Jackson (King of Pop), Don Hewitt (60 minutes Creator), and most recently Teddy Kennedy (Lion of the Senate).  When famous people fall, the media makes news to cover the passing.  Media itself seems to become the story, as almost every facet of the deceased person’s life is explored, relived, and commented on, seldom by anyone qualified to do so.  I guess famous death makes good ratings for “news” networks.

What interests me more than the sadness we all feel when someone leaves this mortal plain, is the human tendancy to revise how we feel about them now that they are “gone”.  It is a characteristic almost universally employed to edit ourselves when speaking of the departed.  We tend to show them more mercy.  We tend to speak about them with less negatives, and focus our conversations more around their positive contributions.  When someone passes away who we think “deserved it”, rather than punch up the positives, we simply do not speak about them at all.  It seems in death, even our enemies get some level of reprieve from us.

But why are we generally so much kinder to those who are now unable to appreciate our kindness?  Why is it we only seem to grant mercy to those who are beyond our ability to receive it?  I wonder if it is easier to show love to those who are unable to return it, than to risk showing love to those who may wish to reject it.  But isn’t this the basis for almost all important regret in our lives?  We regret far less the things we did not do, than the sentiments we did not convey to those we love.  Those family members, or close friends we have lost, would we not all wish for at least one more day with them, to tell them how we really felt; to say goodbye better than we did, or perhaps at all.  Yet this lesson goes unlearned with those we still see every day.

It is as if we speak about the dead in only favorable terms, citing all the good they accomplished, in order to convince God that this person was a good candidate for heaven.  Or maybe, more to the point, to convince ourselves that despite our own evil, we may still be spoken of well, once we pass on.  Though the sum of a person’s deeds has no bearing at all on where their final disposition will be.  It only matters whether they had accepted God’s outstretched gift for them or not.  Their deeds, whether seemingly good, or seemingly evil, do not matter against that all important question.

Do we whitewash our memories of the dead the same way we do our speech?  While alive, Michael Jackson was strongly criticized regarding his skin color (was it truly a disease or did he just pay to get it that way), he was condemned by many for the allegations of child molestation (multiple accusations, most resolved with mega-payments and silence), and for his continued relevance as a performer (for which his comeback tour was scheduled to try to change this perception once again).  To say he was controversial was an understatement.  Now dead, the most common tag line associated with him, is the profound self-examination he penned … “man in the mirror”.  Mike did much to bring black music into the mainstream, and donated tons of money to various charities.  He was generous, talented, and reserved.  All of this was true during his life, but only since his death, do we focus on it to the exclusion of all the former controversy.

This week it was Ted Kennedy who fell, losing his battle with brain cancer.  While alive his foibles always accompanied any interview he gave, or any perception offered of him by the pundits.  You could not talk about educational reform legislation, or health care reform without mentioning Ted Kennedy.  This would be followed closely by his history of drinking too much, womanizing, or his greatest folly Chappaquiddick.  His silence during the Anita Hill hearings on sexual harassment was deafening (I presume a subject too close to home).  But for all his foibles, indeed for all his human weakness, his accomplishments and more importantly to me his pursuits are worthy of his title – Lion of the Senate.  He fought for the poor, the disenfranchised, and those in need.  I remember another lion in history with similar concerns who may well have been his example on these fronts.

It is not that I choose to ignore all the mistakes Ted made in his life.  I acknowledge them.  We are ALL plagued by the weakness and addictive power that evil would hold over us.  But despite what may be the evil in our very nature, Ted took a stand for those who had no other advocate.  It is NOT popular to fight for the poor in our society.  The very nature of special interests is to use money to obtain favor.  The poor have none.  It is the very nature of power to subject those less fortunate into increasing the power of those who hold it.  The poor have no power, they are in fact, those who are subjected. 

Ted fought for the poor.  He fought to improve their education and thus give them hope for a brighter future.  He fought to bring them health care, and therefore liberate them from the working slavery of being bound to insurance companies to cover the costs of unplanned catastrophe in our lives.  Ted did something that was truly not in his own personal interests, but in the interests of those who had the greatest of needs.  In this alone I believe he earned his title.  A lion who fought to protect, who roared against the status quo, and the silent bigotry that chooses to ignore the poor, or make their conditions even worse.  Ted was a singular force, pricking the conscience of those who stood with him in the Senate to remember their charge – to represent those back home who have no other voice.  This is the legacy of the lion I will remember most.

This is the beauty of our humanity.  We do not need to have achieved perfection to make an impact on our world.  Ted was far from perfect.  There are a million things you could accuse him of, most would be true.  He was not a saint.  But in his life, he periodically took up the banner of the saints, and did what was not only right, it was remarkable.  Though far from perfection of his character, he took up the battle of perfection, and waged war to benefit those with the greatest of needs.  I admire him, for not just succumbing to his lower nature, for not just throwing in the towel on himself, but for choosing to fight on despite any personal failures.  While he was not a perfect vessel, the fight for the poor, is the very example of the life of Christ Himself.  We should ALL be remembered as such.

God looks for those who are willing to follow Him.  He looks for those who will allow His values to penetrate their hearts, and minds, and very existence.  He looks to inspire passion for helping others back into our nature.  So few heed His calls.  So many fall to expediency and the pursuit of wealth.  So many choose the easy path.  But I would rather be numbered with Ted, and with David, and with Moses.  None of them perfect, but all of them used by God to accomplish great things.  I feel a great loss with the passing of Ted Kennedy, not for myself, but for everyone who like me has no more an advocate in government.  He was not the senator from my state, but was every bit my senator.  He stood for me, and stood up for me.  I only hope that when my life is ended, my legacy will include not only all the evil I have embraced, but a record of striving for others, and the mercy of the God who loved even me …


No comments:

Post a Comment