My twin brother and I have defined our career paths as opposite signs of the same coin. His career as a Navy officer and a civil engineer and my own trajectory in social justice and policy advocacy can also be seen as parallel lines- on the same course, but never meeting. For a long time, there were real barriers between the lives we set for ourselves- when I first met Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba and told him that my twin brother served in the Navy, he asked me why I wasn’t in the military. I didn’t skip a beat and said, “Sir, I like to think I defend the Constitution in a different way.” As an openly gay civil rights advocate in the days of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I was fighting for, among other things, the right to serve in an institution that I couldn’t serve in, and that in many ways, I have grave misgivings about.
From L-R: Maj. Gen. Tony Taguba, USA Ret.; me; CMDR Roland de Guzman, USN
My service on the Executive Committee for the Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education Project to correct the injustices of the U.S. government’s failure to keep its promises to Filipino WWII veterans who served in good faith has been one important way our paths have crossed. On a practical level, working with members of Congress to pass the Congressional Gold Medal and before that, the creation of the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund has allowed me to work with members of Congress who have a particular stake in our nation’s military, members who also work with my brother’s service in the Navy from the Pentagon to the territory of Guam. On a deeper level though, we both pursue our work in service of something larger than ourselves. If the metaphor of parallel lines breaks down here, I like to think that public service is the intersection of the Venn diagram of how we’ve lived our lives.
By focusing on specific outcomes and working to address specific inequities, I have been able to hold in balance my conflicting opinions about the military and the need to recognize military service. I have been able to fight inequities in institutions, while recognizing that those institutions uphold other inequities that I am unable (or unwilling) to address at this particular moment. By no means do I claim to have the right algorithm of ideological purity, but I hope that I can show my work and demonstrate why what I do serves a larger purpose.
Words and symbols are important here. As an example, the notion of liberty demonstrates how a concept can be semantically and operationally framed to serve opposing ideals. While “liberty” has been a theme of the right to demonstrate freedom from the constraints of government and regulation, “liberation” has been invoked by the left as a means to transcend oppression and inequity. In a climate of contested ideologies, the snake eats its own tail and accusations of politicization are themselves politicized. While I am very clear about my own personal politics of gun control and do not want to suggest a broader false equivalency, the recent horrific shooting in Alexandria, VA of Congressmembers and staff resulted in finger pointing that at times, became a politicized act of accusing the other side of politicizing the attack.
In these times where real political differences are fueled by a 24 hour news cycle and a social media landscape that turns a microscopic lens into a landscape portrait, arguments over ideology and symbols can be both beside the point, and be the point exactly. The contested meanings over how inclusive the iconic rainbow flag is for the entire LGBT community and whether new or different iterations of that flag are divisive remind me that, as in the case of contested meanings of the Confederate flag, or the burning of the Stars and Stripes, that bickering over symbols is more than just distraction from larger “more important” issues. While I do think that individuals don’t get to decide unilaterally what these symbols mean, the dialogue matters in helping shape the culture and determining which meanings and symbols will endure. What’s needed is a dialogue that reminds us that while we must own our own feelings and opinions and share them, we must respect the right of others to own and share contrary opinions. A dialogue that forces us to balance both conviction and empathy to come up with real solutions to real problems is one worth fighting for.
Ben de Guzman serves on the Executive Committee for the Filipino Veterans Recognition and Education Project and is a Co-Chair for the National Host Committee for the 2018 Creating Change Conference. For more information about FilVetREP and its “Remember, Register, Recognize” campaign, visit our website at filvetrep.org or find us on Facebook or Twitter.