GUILFORD-You say: "But we did not vote for him!"
Maybe so, yet we are still complicit in what is happening, not only in our own country but around the world.
We did not work hard and smart enough to keep him from getting elected. Although we worked on her campaign, we could have done much more.
We could have kept the Democratic Party from becoming controlled by those who lost sight of working-class needs. We could have done more to keep the wealth divide from becoming so wide that the dragon became more powerful, more arrogant, and unbelievably cruel, preying on the vulnerable. So dangerously out-of-control.
There is some value in verbally bashing the dragon but doing so will not slay him; in fact, that only stokes his fire. The only way to slay the dragon is to address what feeds him: wealth.
We must find and actively support people who have a specific plan to begin addressing the massive wealth divide at all levels of organizations and systems. The means not only in elected government positions but in the systems of which we are all a part. These systems include our schools, legal, policing, housing, banking, and more.
We can start at the local level where we can exert some direct influence. The key to creating a meaningful effort is to make decisions that shift the way our systems work so that they are not so wealth-biased.
It is a gradual process to slay this dragon and to prevent another dragon from replacing him. But we had the power to create this dragon, and we have the power to reverse that action, although undoing the harm that has been done will be challenging.
I believe that we, the people, can slay the dragon by simply beginning to address the things around us that we can directly impact. It does start locally, where we all have some degree of influence. Marching in protests is worth doing.
Michael Szostak
Guilford
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.