Senator Flake and His “Complicit”

In all of the thoughtful words that Senator Jeff Flake articulated in his assessment of statesmanship and leadership, and the lack thereof in Donald Trump’s presidency, the word that put me on a course of deeper consideration was complicit.  Flake was obviously implying that those among his colleagues in both Houses who have withheld honest assessments of Trump’s behavior, demeanor and dissembling actually form and promulgate the basis for the dysfunction of United States governance and the decline of America’s international reputation.  And apparently his remarks triggered very little refutation among those colleagues…so far.

When one word jumps out from hundreds in a single communication and sticks in my head overnight, I wonder why.  Does the word have special significance?  Is it just a curiosity for me?  And in a larger sense, had Senator Flake chosen it to associate more than his colleagues in his denunciation?  When I suffer these kinds of questions, I resort to an etymology source to try to figure out what’s going on.

My search discovered that the derivations of the word’s construction and the course of its usage have taken significant turns over the centuries.  From the Late Latin and Old  French, the compl- root meant coming or working together, or partnering to achieve a goal.  Similarly, the -plicit part of it has roots in Greek, Russian, Old Norse, High German and Old English—all suggesting or meaning a folding or plaiting together into a single unit. (Online Etymology Dictionary)  All of this raises the question of how this word could come down to twenty-first century American English as a pejorative or negative marker, indicating a kind of shared coming together in order to separate or to disunite, rather than to combine or literally entwine to form a stronger unit.

So contemporary usage implies that Senator Flake’s direct purpose was to scold and/or shame his colleagues.  And, I think, based on their apparently timid responses, he accomplished his purpose.  The proof will be if their inaction turns to action.  But then, I got thinking some more.  Perhaps, consciously or unconsciously, the senator had us in mind.  I could be projecting here, but so much of what he said applies to the current state of our national consciousness or lack thereof, that it unmistakably resonates with the disarray of civic purpose and direction that encumbers our communities large and small.

We don’t seem to know what to do or to care about our 17 year old forever war in Afghanistan.  We don’t seem to know how to stop the cancerous scourge of opioid addiction and death across the land.  We don’t seem to be able to muster the desire to call out the bad and horrific behavior of some men toward women.  And in the midst of all this and more, we seem to be satisfied to burrow our eyes and our minds into the small and large screens we are addicted to because they reinforce our insular and isolated thinking and beliefs.  The so-called social media blinds us and desensitizes us to the others surrounding us, because that media comprises anti-socially ensconced echo chambers.  We prefer navel gazing and sharing to seeing and thinking beyond our cubicled lives.

Yes, Senator Flake must have had all or some of this in mind as he chose his words.  The tone of futility and exasperation boosting those words clearly meant them to reach beyond the halls of Congress and into the minds and souls of his fellow citizens.