Since the initial run of the show ended, I've gotten a lot of feedback about it from friends, family, coworkers and filtered through other cast members. One of the questions I've been asked by a few people is "why are you doing this show? What do you hope to accomplish? Aren't you just preaching to the choir?"
I admit it, there are probably very few hard-core Bush supporters who would see this show. That's fine. If there were a play called "Kerry is a Hymie Like Sharon" (as one of our readers suggested there should be), I probably wouldn't see it. And I certainly would have decided (without ever seeing it) what the show was about and its viewpoint.
No, a show entitled "Burning Bush: A Faith Based Musical" is probably not going to be the uniting force behind the disparate political views in this country, nor is it intended to be.
I asked the people who made comments like the ones above 1) if they learned anything they didn't know already and 2) if they had a good time. The answers have consistently been yes and yes. There are a few very special people in this world (the brilliant and intellectually sponge-like Noah Diamond among them) who I believe could have watched the entire show and not learned one new fact about George W. Bush, the Bush Administration, the 2000 and 2004 elections or the war in Iraq that he or she didn't already know. But the rest of the audience, and definitely the rest of the cast and crew, were definitely educated beyond what they'd learned from the news or their friends. The show does not simply say "Bush is bad" and stop there. It has been carefully written and fact-checked with the main goal of providing facts that support the views summed up in the title and overall attitude of the piece.
Noah and I could have written brief histories of the administration and its crimes; we could have tried circulating treatises on democracy in America and the slow disintegration of civil liberties apparent in our country today. We could have simply written essays to get these points across, but...oh WAIT. We do - it's called the blog! And I'm highly suspect that any hard-core Bush supporters have been "converted" by reading that, either.
When Governor Hutchinson agreed to remove the British troops from Boston, it was not because he was converted by Samuel Adams' fiery rhetoric in the square. It was because the American colonists, his choir, were impassioned by Adams' speech, fired up, and unwilling to rest until their concerns were addressed.
When Thomas Paine sought to bolster support for American independence from the British, he knew he would not be converting the supporters of reconciliation to his cause. Paine knows his audience, and he has no illusions that the Tories will suddenly be convinced through logical debate.
Paine writes: "I have been tender in raising the cry against these men, and used numberless arguments to show them their danger, but it will not do to sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness. The period is now arrived, in which either they or we must change our sentiments, or one or both must fall...every Tory is a coward; for servile, slavish, self-interested fear is the foundation of Toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave."
Paine called the proponents of reconciliation with the British "interested men, who are not to be trusted, weak men who CANNOT see, prejudiced men who will not see, and a certain set of moderate men who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this Continent than all the other three."
Doesn't sound like his sole purpose was in trolling the market for converts, does he?
Neither is ours.
Believe me, if I thought that what I perceive to be the crisis in America could be solved by trotting off to D.C. or Crawford and sitting down face to face with the guys who hold opposing viewpoints and talking things out, I'd be all for it. I'm much more comfortable talking to someone privately than I am putting all of my opinions on display. But, as Cindy Sheehan has shown, this approach does not and will not work. (This is, of course, not to discount anything Cindy Sheehan has done - the point here is that if she cannot get an interested sympathetic audience with the administration then god knows, neither can I.) The time to be "tender in raising the cry against these men" is over, for we cannot afford to "sacrifice a world either to their folly or their baseness."
A friend of mine asked me why this show should not be taken as Americans who hate America. If I hated America - if I really didn't like this country - why the hell would I have spent two years of my time, parted with vast sums of money (okay, for me, this is like $20) and put in the time, sweat, tears and stress that this show took to mount? Why would I care?
Why would working people give up one of their weekends to get up early, travel miles on an uncomfortable bus, spend the entire day on their feet in all kinds of weather, marching through Washington DC if they simply hated America? It just doesn't make sense.
Why would Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Adams and on and on and on risk execution and public scorn if they simply didn't like England? No, it is more than that.
Revolutions start on little pieces of paper and through whispered scraps of information. Revolutions begin when enough people realize that their fears and concerns are not without value and are shared by others. Change happens when people understand they're not alone.
Paine said of revolution
"As revolutions have begun (and as the probability is always greater against a thing beginning, than of proceeding after it has begun), it is natural to expect that other revolutions will follow. The amazing and still increasing expenses with which old governments are conducted, the numerous wars they engage in or provoke, the embarrassments they throw in the way of universal civilisation and commerce, and the oppression and usurpation acted at home, have wearied out the patience, and exhausted the property of the world. In such a situation, and with such examples already existing, revolutions are to be looked for. They are become subjects of universal conversation, and may be considered as the Order of the day."
We preach to the choir, as they say, because it's the only way to make them sing. We go to rallies so that we can show our numbers, so that we can be a part of something, so that we can get our necessary spiritual and emotional refill we need in order to keep doing what it is we're doing. If preaching to the choir were useless, no one would preach. If preaching to the converted is to be assumed a worthless endeavor, it would have to be assumed that no man will ever suffer a crisis of faith. And we all know from our own experiences that this is not true.
My mother, one of the most devoutly Republican people I know, called me the day after our show (which she could not come to see, though she wanted to). We spoke for over two hours of politics, religion and America. Toward the end of the conversation she asked me if I would sit down with her and explain why people had such an extreme dislike and distrust of George W. Bush. Exposed only to Fox News (which she watches because she says "it makes her feel better - all the other stations show bad news), she has no idea why I am so angry. But she sincerely wants to know. And I sincerely want to tell her. I do not think my mother will ever advocate the impeachment of George W. Bush. But I also did not ever think we'd have a calm rational discussion about why I think he's a criminal.
Thomas Paine died poor and friendless, his outspoken criticism of religion destroying the respect afforded to him for being one of the great independence-minded American colonists. But his work survives, and much of it is still incredibly valid and moving.
While I'd never compare myself to Samuel Adams or Thomas Paine, I can look to them for inspiration when I'm starting to have my own crises of faith - that we are only talking to those who agree with us, that we will never make a difference because no one besides our own are listening. Number one, that's just not true. Others are listening. And number two, when those who agree, when those who want change all step forward together, when they are given the opportunity to act as a force and not as individuals, things start happening. All we can do is keep telling the truth as we see it - and telling it as often and as loudly as we can.
If the time comes that we are undermined, slandered and attacked, it must mean we're doing something right. I close with a final quote from Mr. Paine - a statement he wrote about the monarchy of England, but which now strikes me so closely to the heart, I got chills when I read it:
"Let them call me rebel and welcome, I feel no concern from it; but I should suffer the misery of devils, were I to make a whore of my soul by swearing allegiance to one whose character is that of a sottish, stupid, stubborn, worthless, brutish man."
Isn't it amazing how the words of HAMLET so perfectly fit every conceivable situation? For instance, how could Shakespeare have known that one day Noah would read "Singing in the Aisles" and say as Rosencrantz did:
