I used the term “voice in the wilderness” in a recent e-mail to several Texas legislators to whom I was protesting the redrawing of the voting districts that would have eliminated Democratic representation in most of the state. Austin, a liberal bastion that gnaws at the craw of the Republican Party, would have been divided into four voting districts, robbing us of a voice and ending the career of Congressman Lloyd Doggett, a liberal Democrat. I closed my e-mail to the legislators with something like, “the enlightened voice of Austin has traditionally been merely a voice in the wilderness. With this redistricting map, there will be only wilderness.”

The phrase “voice in the wilderness” creates a vivid and touching picture in my mind. Think first of wilderness: desolation, isolation, vast expanses of uncivilized wasteland, a wind that howls through the shadows, yet no air seems to move. Then, imagine a voice, a thin, lone voice crying out from the desolation, hoping to connect, to be heard by someone else. There’s a song from a musical, in which a man sings plaintively, “Is anybody there? Can anybody hear?” It’s quite sad.

There’s a Chicago-based organization called Voices in the Wilderness that has been in the news quite a bit lately. I heard one of their representatives speak at a forum on Iraq months ago. He was very eloquent and sensible (my definition of a liberal) as he explained that Voices in the Wilderness was formed when the sanctions against Iraq took effect. There were apparently two kinds of sanctions: those levied by the UN and those created by the Daddy Bush administration designed to cause such misery among the Iraqi people that they would rise up and overthrow Saddam Hussein. They were only half successful in reaching those two goals. One of the US-sanctioned commodities was medications. Voices in the Wilderness members made countless trips to Iraq, smuggling in medications that they would deliver directly to hospitals.

I looked up on Google to see what other information I could find on the phrase “voice in the wilderness,” and discovered there are quite a few organizations that have adopted that moniker, including a rock group, a Canadian group that answers questions about Christian customs such as is it ok for women to wear men’s clothes and should a woman be allowed to attend church if she’s menstruating and therefore unclean; also a fundamentalist group that proudly proclaims that recent inexplicable photos taken by the Hubble telescope prove that the cosmos was indeed created by God.

The earliest reference I found for the phrase was in the Bible. According to the Gospels, it was foretold by Esaias, the prophet, that there would be one whose voice would cry out from the wilderness, preparing the way for the savior who would come later, and John the Baptist identified himself in that way, “I am only a voice in the wilderness, preparing the way for He Who Is To Come.”

We know many other people from history who could be categorized as being VIPs among the VIW: certainly Copernicus and Galileo would be in that pantheon, having had the courage and the unfortunate timing to announce that science had indicated that the world was round and that it was not the center of the universe, respectively. Winston Churchill was a VIW before the Second World War, trying to alert the unsuspecting British population about the suspicious buildup of the German navy. There was Rachel Carson with her battle against DDT and the powerful chemical companies that made it and Dorothy Dix who fought to improve treatment of the mentally ill. The epitome today of a voice in the wilderness might be Aung San Suu Kyi, the brave advocate for human rights and unity in Burma, what is now Myanmar. Her role as focal point for the opposition to the despotic military rulers has kept her often under house arrest and separated from her dying husband (he did die recently) and children. Only her Nobel Peace Prize, which she was not allowed to collect, and her worldwide notoriety have kept her alive.

For my part in the voice-in-the-wilderness campaign, I send e-mails, I make phone calls opposing redistricting, I voice my opinion on other political issues, I march in protest rallies, send money to political organizations, I’ve written hundreds of letters supporting my opinions, and of course I vote. And I have felt often throughout my life and especially the last three years, as if mine too is just a voice in the wilderness. Is anything I do making a difference? Is anybody there? Can anybody hear?

Before I hurt myself, patting myself on the back, let me say that I am acutely aware of how easy it is for me to do all those things today in the United States. The hardest part, quite honestly, is making the time to do it. It’s quite another thing to voice an opinion that could lead to death or torture, to place yourself in front of the tank. Aung San Suu Kyi’s father was murdered for his enlightened political views, she risked torture and death by opposing the brutal, drug-financed military regime in Burma. She chose service to her people above even her own family. Would I be able to make such a courageous choice? I doubt it. But the little I do is something, and it’s important to do something.

I’m a not-very-good member of Amnesty International because I think the work they do is so vitally important. [Are any of you members?] In their mailouts, they frequently tell about individuals who have been imprisoned, often it seems on a whim or for speaking out against injustice. They quote these people as saying things like, “I lost count of the number of days, months, years I had been locked up, with nothing to interrupt the emptiness of my life except intermittent torture. I frantically tried to remember details about the faces of those I loved. I was forgetting them, as I was sure, they were forgetting me. I prayed for death. Then, I received a card from Cindy Lou Who, an American member of Amnesty International, that read, ‘We know who you are and where you are, and we reach out to you in our thoughts and prayers. You are not alone.’ That card became my greatest treasure and my hold on life.”

The knowledge that one is not alone does not win the war, but it makes it so much easier to keep on fighting. Look at the war on Iraq. If England had not supported the war, would it have happened? If the U. S. had stood totally alone against the rest of the world? I suspect not.

Since I moved to Austin, adhering to a liberal point of view has become easier than it was in Longview. I still find myself in trouble and at odds with some of my clients and co-workers who disagree with my views, (not EVERYBODY in Austin is a liberal), but there are plenty who populate my camp. It’s so nice to know that many Unitarians share my political views as well as my spiritual ones, and those who don’t are open to a lively discussion that forces me to discuss my ideas, intelligently rather than emotionally. I’ve brought a few, not all, of the publications I found in my favorite local bookstore that reflect the liberal viewpoint. It is so emotionally fulfilling to see how many intelligent, eloquent people are willing to speak out publicly on these issues. It makes me even more proud and appreciative of the liberal community in east Texas who risk more by voicing their opinions than I do.

These are very scary days. Every issue seems to instantly polarize, and we look to see who is for us and who is against us. Free speech is hanging by a thread. Even fame is no protection. Look at the Dixie Chicks. When I heard that conservatives were destroying their Chicks CDs, firing deejays who play Chicks music, and vandalizing the homes of the Chicks and their families, I e-mailed them words of support and bought all the Chicks CDs that I didn’t already have, just to firmly position myself on the “right” side, the free speech side.

Those of you who have heard me speak before know that I often use Dr Seuss stories as illustrations for my presentations. In fact, one entire so-called sermon was devoted to The Sneetches. I think next time I’m asked my religion, I’ll say I’m a Seussian. So, it will come as no surprise that he has a story that beautifully illustrates the “voice in the wilderness-worth of the individual” concept. It’s Horton Hears a Who. For those who are not familiar with the story, it begins with Horton the Elephant, a favorite character of the good Dr. Seuss, who is splashing in a pool in the jungle of Nool when he hears a small sound that appears to be a cry for help. Looking around, he sees nothing. Eventually, we learn that the small voice in the wilderness comes from the entire population of Whoville which resides on a dust speck that was floating willy-nilly through the air, headed no doubt for certain destruction. Horton comes to the rescue and protects the residents of Whoville from various enemies throughout the rest of the story.

Initially, there was one Who who realized the danger that threatened the entire population. His was the lone voice in the wilderness. He convinced others. They started clamoring for help, adding more and more residents to their campaign. It wasn’t enough. The Mayor ran through Whoville, searching every house to make sure every Who was helping. He found Cindy Lou Who, a child who was unaware of the situation. When she added her small voice to the throng, it proved to be the tipping point. It was loud enough for Horton with his big ole elephant ears to hear their voice.

The idea of a tipping point is an interesting concept. There’s a book by Malcolm Gladwell called, The Tipping Point, How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference that discusses the phenomenon, citing anecdotal examples from history, law enforcement, business, education, sales, and more. When does a virus become an outbreak? When does an outbreak become an epidemic? When does a fad become a trend? When does an idea become a policy and a policy become the law of the land? The answer shifts. With some tipping points, it’s an obvious numbers game: more people spoke out against the Vietnam War than were for it, so it stopped. With some, it’s a single influential person who can start a trend, like the Jackie Kennedy look in hairstyles and clothes.

How many people does it take to tip the scales in favor of an idea? That too seems to vary dramatically. All along during the pre-war months, as I saw more and more influential people speaking out for peace, I thought surely we would prevail. Representatives of every major religion, including every major Protestant religion with the possible exception of Baptists, and including even the President’s own Methodists spoke out strongly against the war. Former presidents, respected journalists, almost every country on the planet including many of our closest allies, millions of demonstrators in hundreds of cities around the world, several of the administration’s own ambassadors, Walter Cronkite, and even George Sr. questioned the wisdom, legitimacy, legality, and even the basic ethics of a pre-emptive attack on another country supposedly because of a potential threat that could not be substantiated. None of that seemed to matter. All were just voices in the wilderness, hoping that the one ear they wished to reach was actually listening.

I heard a radio interview during which some administration guru was asked what it would take to stop the war. He said the President’s approval rating would have to be in the 30’s before he would listen to the opposition. I’d call that a tipping over point.

Since many of us see similarities between today’s collective fear of terrorists and the national fear of Communists that preceded McCarthyism, I decided to look up the McCarthy Era on the Internet and see if I could find information as to how the tipping point was reached that placed the twisted Senator on the high side of the scale. It’s quite startling to note the similarities.

Fearing enemy infiltration, Congress created the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1938 to investigate people suspected of unpatriotic behavior, assuming such behavior to be a possible precursor to an attempt to overthrow the government.

The Alien Registration Act, passed by Congress in June, 1940, required all alien residents in the US over 14 years of age to file a comprehensive statement of their personal and occupational status and a record of their political beliefs. Within four months, a total of 4,741,971 aliens had been registered.

In 1947, fearing a possible Communist take-over, the House Un-American Activities Committee began an investigation of the motion picture industry, interviewing 41 people who subsequently accused 19 people of holding left-wing views. Ten of the 19 refused to answer the Committee’s questions, claiming protection under the First Amendment. This was denied, and they were sent to prison for contempt of Congress. Lee J. Cobb was one of those who was originally blacklisted; he eventually agreed to do a deal with the HUAC. He said, “When the facilities of the government of the United States are drawn on an individual, it can be terrifying. The blacklist is just the opening gambit—being deprived of work. Your passport is confiscated. That’s minor. But not being able to move without being tailed is something else. After a certain point, it grows to implied as well as articulated threats, and people succumb. My wife did, and she was institutionalized. By 1953, when I agreed to talk with the HUAC, I was pretty much worn down. I had no money. I couldn’t borrow. I had the expenses of taking care of my children. I thought, ‘Why am I subjecting my loved ones to this?’ I asked myself if this was worth dying for and decided it wasn’t. If talking to the HUAC was the way to get out of the penitentiary and go to work again, I’d do it.”

In 1950, McCarthy claimed he had a list of 205 people in the State Department known to be members of the Communist Party. He targeted Democrats associated with the policies of the New Deal. He accused Harry Truman, George Marshall, and Dean Acheson of being soft on communism. Truman was portrayed as being a dangerous liberal. The smear helped propel Dwight Eisenhower to the presidency.

McCarthy’s researchers discovered 30,000 book titles written supposedly by communists, pro-communists, former communists, and anti-anti-communists that were on the shelves of American libraries. They were removed.

What finally stopped the madness was a series of events: In 1952, an article appeared in the paper citing evidence of McCarthy’s homosexuality. In 1953, McCarthy began investigating communist infiltration into the military, targeting the Secretary of the Army. Eisenhower was furious and determined to bring McCarthy down. The administration leaked negative information to journalists about the Senator. Vice-President Richard Nixon was directed to publicly criticize McCarthy. Political cartoonists began ridiculing him; Edward R. Murrow lambasted the Senator, newspaper columnists Walter Lippmann and Jack Anderson continued the attacks. He was finally censured by the Senate in December, 1954, more than a decade since he started his fear and hate campaign.

I came away with three questions in my mind after I’d read all that: why didn’t people speak out sooner, why did it take so long to get rid of him, and why have we forgotten the lesson of that relatively recent period of our history?

Fortunately, today, people are continuing to speak out about things that concern them in our government’s policies, ignoring the (there’s no other word for it) stupid charge that to do so is unpatriotic. Even if it seems as though ours is only a voice in the wilderness, it is vitally important that we keep crying out against injustice, intolerance, prejudice, hate, and fear of others that incapacitates us. We must all voice our opinions even if it appears that no one is listening.

I’m going to close with a song that is one individual’s expression of what’s going on today. I bought 10 copies. I’m doing all I can to spread his voice everywhere.

Kathy Lansford
5/18/03