A political conversation with Steven Fesmire, Associate Professor & Chair Environmental Studies & Philosophy

by Dawn Sarli, and Kyle Callahan

Kyle: What do you think of this election and how do you think it will effect the future of America?

Steve: I agree with all of the e-mails that come flooding across my computer that it's the most important election of my lifetime, and certainly one of the most of the twentieth century, because of the implications. I think the country is going to make a choice about — we're sort of at a cusp of our identity. We're going to be determining who we're going to become, more in this election than in any other election that I'm aware of in recent history. The choice whether to elect the President or Senator Kerry will determine the way the nation is perceived in the world.

Dawn: Do you feel if Kerry is elected that it will show the world that America is more conscious of doing good than it is perceived at this point in time?

Steve: It will be perceived that way. It brings a bit of, hopefully not cynicism, but perhaps realism, that if we elect Senator Kerry, the policies that have been put in place by recent administrations, including the Clinton administration, are not one that are going to be perceived by the wider world as policies that are keeping with international harmony, perhaps. I think we're going to see Senator Kerry, if he is elected, endorsing policies that will upset progressives, just as in 1992, when Clinton was elected, progressives were very excited. We really believed that a new day was dawning. We felt something big was going to change after 12 years of having Republicans in office. And we were disappointed. Things didn't change very much. Progressives will, in general, vote for Kerry, obviously, and have high hopes, I think reasonable hopes, but I think that in 4 years, we might see a whole bunch of people voting for Nader again.

Alex: In four years, if Kerry does anger the progressives and the Republicans have a neoconservative running again who will try to reinstitute the policies of the last four years, what is your opinion on how to vote, as a progressive?

Steve: It's hard to say. I voted for Nader in '96 against Clinton, but that was because I knew Clinton was going to win. 2000 was a very hard time for me. I did vote for Gore. I was a strong supporter of Gore and I think he would have been a good president. Environmentally, he would have a better job than Clinton did. His record was not ideal, he was a great compromiser, but I think he would have been a good president. I did not support Nader. I actively discouraged people in swing states from that, though I respect people who voted for Nader. He represented their values. Like the way people who supported Kucinich say he represented their values.

Alex: Given the fact that Democrats and Republicans have marginalized politics, is there a discernible point when it's okay to take your support from the Democratic party and vote for a third party? It seems to me after the example provided by this President, they know this works. For the conservatives, this is further proof after Reagan. This is about as blatant as they can get with it. And as long as they retain power, as they seem very good at doing, it seems to me they'll keep putting the same platform forward every single election year with a different candidate. Are we going to be just trapped into voting Democrat for the rest of our lives?

Steve: I don't know if we'll be trapped for the rest of our lives. I think, right now, what Nader called a "Republocrat" in 1996 is not true. That is, for the year 2004, we have choices that make a tremendous difference. On the day of the first debate, 34 children were killed trying to get candy from American troops and those troops were bombed in Iraq. Someone is responsible for that, and I believe the President holds the ultimate responsibility. As was famously said, "The buck stops here." And the responsibility really does ultimately rest on the person who made that decision. And we're going to see more decisions like that. The President so believes in the rightness of his actions. I think he really buys this idea of a world carved up into good and evil. I don't think he has any ability to discriminate any gray areas, no tolerance for ambiguity in his moral life. I think the great test of a civilization and its leaders is whether it is able to perceive and respond to complex situations. And that's the world we live in. It's ever more complex every year. We have a president who has shown an inability to do that, and as a result, tens of thousands of people who are needlessly dead today did not have to be dead. Sometimes, death is inevitable. I am not a pacifist: I do believe war can be justified, but this was not just. I don't think it is appropriate, in this election, to say we just have "Republocrats." I think we have a fairly clear decision, and I think there are going to be two clear differences in policies. I think, with Kerry, the healing will begin. And I think, quite literally, fewer people will die. There are clear choices. And there are consequences of those choices. And to give it a bottom line, fewer people will die.

Kyle: Changing topics, you're running to be a justice of the peace in Poultney. While it's not really a political office, it is an elected office. Do you have any interest in going into the political game?

Steve: I do have an interest in it. I think anyone who really cares about making things happen, changing things, necessarily ends up having an interest in it. It is highly unlikely that I would ever pursue anything other than, well, certainly nothing beyond local or statewide, but nothing national. It's not who I am. I am a philosopher, a teacher, an educator. My sense of what's really important, what's driven me to do what I do for a living (it's great to be paid for this) I think would be compromised by being in a position where all I was doing was compromising with people to get sort of the best policy I can get crafted. I think there are other people who are quite talented at that. I don't think that's for me to do that. Furthermore, in terms of political office, there are requirements that you have certain beliefs, and I find those requirements offensive. I am not going to pretend to believe things I do not believe. And my kind of dumb sense of the way the world hangs together does not include some of the things that Senator Kerry or President Bush or most local and statewide officials are happy to sign onto, regarding religious beliefs for example. And I refuse to believe something I don't in fact believe. It would be disingenuous. I don't manipulate people, or rather, I don't intend to.

Kyle: Especially on religious beliefs, if more and more atheists, agnostics, generally spiritual people (not religious people), if they were to start stepping forward into the limelight, wouldn't it make it more acceptable?

Steve: It would. And there are people such as you describe who have attained political office. For me, it's more a matter of the fact that who I am, and who I wish to continue becoming, is that of a philosopher and a teacher. Someone who is trying to become a better friend of wisdom. And highly-political, volatile situations are not the best place to find truth or wisdom.

Kyle: Wasn't it Plato who wanted the Philosopher King?

Steve: On this test, neither the Senator nor the President pass. Plato believed that the number one disqualification for holding a position of great leadership and responsibility is that you really want to have that power. If you want to have that power, it's almost certain that it's self-interest that is driving you. Only those who don't want to do it should be in the sack to choose from to be president.

Dawn: If it's not a desire for power, is it a feeling of civic duty?

Steve: I think you could call it civic duty. I'm a specialist in ethics, as you know, so I'll use some of the top ethical theories and reframe it. You can think of it terms of duty, but you can think of it as a sense of civic responsibility, as a virtue. It's something you want to teach your children. It's a trait of character that contributes to a good life for yourself and those around you. Also, if you have that sense, it brings about much greater good in the world. All the same, I think you can have these noble motives, and the power is a means to these ends.

Dawn: In this world, it seems that those who do hold those beliefs, who do have a civic responsibility, can't be happy, because there's so much work that needs to be done. I know people who run a non-profit operation for childcare, and they're miserable. They're bitter, angry, and upset. As someone who wants to make this campus better, to bring it home and local, I find frustration in that as well. Do you think that it is an attainable goal, to find fulfillment in filling a civic responsibility in this day and age?

Steve: Those who are most in touch with reality are not likely to be Pollyannas. I think there's a lot of information overload and saturation with all the pain and destruction that we wake up to every morning. Sometimes, I do not listen to the radio. I tune out a little bit to stay human. I think we've become anesthetized, but what we need is to become aesthetically responsive. We need to feel and respond to the world around us. If someone dies in Iraq, we need to respond to that person as a human being. There's a story of that person's life that just came to a close. If you can empathize with that person and plop down in that person's life and appreciate it, what just came tragically to an end, there's no numbness there. That's why we need art. To wake us up. To rescue us from the anesthetizing influences. That's what a novel can do. It's a way of telling the truth, through lies. You've got to have a physical response to the world. You've got to engage your senses, all of them, as much as possible. You've got to respond to the beauty of the world. You've got to be able to plop yourself down in other lives and feel with them. I think novels are the most powerful method for doing that, but certainly all the arts are just intensified human experiences that can rescue us from that numbness I was talking about.

Alex: I've become a bit of an information junkie, and I've noticed, for myself, that I've become a bit depressed. I've become one-dimensional and empty, and I'm wondering what this is a sign of, when to be engaged with our government is to be utterly depressed.

Steve: I often feel hollow when I bother to pay attention to the things that are going on. It's a balance, a delicate balance, as our class has it. It's not just a matter of taking care of yourself like some sort of self-help guide, nothing against self-help guides, but I think it’s a matter of the rhythm. You can't just dwell on the matters that hollow you out, but you can't refuse to engage them. If you don't engage them, it means you don't care enough. It means you're living in that inner space between your ears and behind your eyes, and if you live there too much, that's not healthy either. And not only is it not healthy, but people are dying and it's probably best to take that seriously. But you're a human being too, a living critter, and human beings that are living critters are capable of so much pain and so much joy, and can respond so richly, and are so aware of the world around us, you have to respect that in other people and you have to respect that in yourself.

Kyle: It sounds like George Lakoff's morality structure. You're supposed to make people happy, but you can't do it unless you're happy first.

Alex: It's like when you're in an airplane and you have to secure your own oxygen mask before helping your child.

Steve: I like that.