Mike’s Story

As I drew my fieldwork this quarter to close, I took the opportunity to thoroughly acquaint myself with the deep-story of Mike (again, this is a pseudonym). This involved me focusing far more on basic biographical information instead of just political information. This revised approach did two things for me. First, it made me realize that human beings are political beings. Everything we do is somehow related to politics. Even completely isolating oneself from everyone else to avoid politics is political because it denotes a belief that one’s actions should not be controlled or influenced by others. All human interactions are political actions. The second thing it made me realize is that just learning more about him as a person helped demolish some of my empathy walls. Getting to know Mike on a deeper level has led to deeper findings.

As I mentioned in my last fieldwork blog, Mike grew up on a farm. He didn’t have a lot to say about the actual experiences he had on the farm, but it was as plain as daylight that his time as a young farmer influenced his beliefs a lot further down the road. For example, Mike told me that FDR’s time in office as a very destructive time for the country because of him meddling with things that the Constitution gave him no business to meddle with. When I asked him what specific things FDR “meddled with,” he immediately cited the law that was passed during the great depression that prohibited farmers from feeding themselves or their livestock with their own crops because Roosevelt was attempting to get cash into the market and pull the Nation out of the depression. The discussion expanded to property rights in general, and he said that he felt that people should have the right to do whatever they want with their land. Farmers should be able to drain water out of swampy sections of their land so they can grow crops even if the government doesn’t want them to because it would destroy the natural habitat of certain wildlife and mess with the environment. So although Mike didn’t share any specific stories about his life on a farm, his upbringing as a farmer has really impacted his way of thinking – more than he realizes.

I then asked him about his work experience. Most of my questions led to a political discussion, but this one did not. Was it useless to ask about his work experience then? Absolutely not. Knowing simple things about Mike made his character more three-dimensional to me. I began to see him not only as someone who has political views that are vastly different than mine, but as an ordinary person. Mike’s job is actually pretty cool and I admired him for the work that he did. He develops computers that do menial tasks so people don’t have to waste their skills on something that a computer can do in a fraction of the time (he still isn’t retired even though he is sixty-nine years old). He said that he worked for a photo lab where even the most efficient workers could only process two hundred photos a day, but the introduction of his computers to this business bumped the number up to 1500 photos a day. The company made a lot more money, and the workers were free to work on stuff other than simply processing the pictures. That’s pretty awesome.

I asked him who his friends are, and who he likes to avoid. I asked this question thinking I already had the answer: birds of a feather flock together. I figured that he was mostly friends with republicans, and that he avoided democrats. I was totally wrong. Mike told me that his two best friends were staunch democrats. Discussing politics with his friends is one of his favorite things to do. Mike said: “We discuss philosophies and ideas, not people. We don’t insult each other because we have very different beliefs, we just enjoy the debate.” My respect for Mike went up a thousand percent after I heard that, and I had to inwardly repent for making such a blatant assumption about him. Mike’s friendship immediately reminded me of Sally Cappel and Shirley Slack from the first chapter of Arlie Hochschild’s Strangers In Their Own Land. If some of you don’t recall, Sally and Shirley were best friends that lived on Lake Charles together. Their political beliefs couldn’t have been more different; but their beliefs didn’t get in the way of their friendship. I would submit that their political differences actually strengthened their friendship. They loved each other dearly despite political differences and because of their political differences. I echo Hochschild’s statement that “I believe that their friendship models what our country itself needs to forge: the capacity to connect across difference” (Hochschild 13). I think that Mike’s friendship also reflects what this country needs. In a country that is so divided, we need people like Mike to connect across difference. “I try to get along with just about everybody,” Mike told me. And I believe him.

This actually leads right into the next question I asked him, which was “What do you think the future of America will be?” He told me that the country is more divided today than ever before, and that the division and moral degradation between people and the government will continue to worsen until the country is no more. He didn’t actually quote Abraham Lincoln, but he essentially was saying that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Mike proceeded to explain why he thought a divided future was inevitable by looking into the past. He said that when he was a younger man, people in both political parties were united about certain things. He said that abortion was pretty much universally seen as wrong in the past, and that most people agreed that a baby had the right to be born. Now people are incredibly divided about the issue of abortion. Some still maintain that a baby has the right to be born and that abortion is murder, and some say that a woman has the right to do what she will with her body. He said that this division came about because of the moral degradation of the United States. When the country was founded, the Constitution was built on high moral principles and laws. Mike is of the opinion that people just don’t have the same standards as they used to, and this is leading us to an increasingly divisive country.

I alluded to some of his beliefs in the previous paragraph, but abortion is only one of the issues Mike feels strongly about. He also believes that people in the United States almost unanimously stood for traditional heterosexual monogamy in the previous century. Mike strongly believes that homosexuality is wrong, and that same-sex marriage should have never been legalized. He says that the legalization of same-sex marriage has undermined the majority of people who practice monogamy, and favored a minuscule minority. “It’s a ‘tyranny of the minority’,” Mike said, “and the federal government issuing marriage licences is not constitutional.” He also believes that the majority used to believe that marijuana was a gateway drug and should not be legalized. “Now people are giving in to the attractive idea that “we can do whatever we want.’ Do we give in to this popular culture, or do we protect our children from substances that can lead to harmful addictions?” Mike said.

After I listened to Mike talk about his beliefs for some time, I realized that there was an obvious commonality: all of his beliefs are morally based. He believes that the Constitution was inspired by God. He feels the way he does about all of the issues I mentioned in the previous paragraph because of his moral compass. He believes that abortion is morally wrong. He believes the same thing about gay marriage, and homosexuality in general. He believes that substance abuse is wrong. For Mike, religion and politics are closely connected and he believes that God should be at the center of this this country like He was when the Constitution was written. Mike ultimately believes that this country is so divided and that problems are so severe now because the people of the United States are abandoning Christian ideals.

Because of this moral degradation, Mike feels it is his duty to be very outspoken about his beliefs. He frequently uses social media to say where he stands on a particular issue. Mike said, “I always strive to express my thoughts in a way that is firm, but open ended and in a way that allows for further discussion.” He also regularly goes online and discusses his beliefs with others in the comment section on newspaper websites. It’s really interesting to me that Mike feels so strongly about his political stance, but has healthy friendships with people that have very different beliefs, and shares his thoughts in a way that doesn’t try to force people to think the way he does. “I feel it is my duty to speak my mind, and then people can do what they will with what I say,” Mike told me.

So here we have Mike’s story. Mike is 69 years old, and lives in South Jordan, Utah. He is a loving grandfather who deeply wishes for his grand children (he has twenty-seven!) to be grow up in a morally safe country. He has struggled financially throughout his entire life – a lot of that was due to him having eight children – but he never once looked to the federal government for assistance (with the exception of social security). Mike thinks and feels deeply about politics, and he actively uses his voice to try to make the country better. He is a friend to all, even though a lot of his friends have very different political beliefs. Getting to know Mike better has been an absolute pleasure. We may not agree about everything politically, but I see a strength of character in him, and we have become friends that have been able to “connect across difference.”