Redefining what “We” means
Martin Luther King once said, “Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.”
That was a humbling passage for me to read, and lately I’ve been forced to take a deep look into my own heart and ask myself if I am maintaining a loving attitude towards people, and the answer has been that unfortunately, I have fallen short of the mark. I’ve realized that I can get pretty self-righteous at times, particularly towards those that I disagree with politically. During the whole “teabagging” mess during the Townhall debates on Health Care reform and the ensuing related media coverage, I never really thought of why these poor people were showing up at these meetings and protesting. Certainly, I recognized that they were there because they were afraid of change, because they are only aware that their standard of living has decreased over the past thirty years. Yet I never really thought much about the fact that most teabaggers are the ones that need health care reform the most – perhaps only in times where I’d note the irony of the situation and leave it at that.
The states that are most likely to benefit from health care reform (due to the fact that they have the highest percentage of uninsured citizens) are also the ones objecting most loudly against reform. To jump directly to my main point – if progressives such as myself wish to realize the goal of health care for all or other goals (regardless of how these goals are realized, through the private or public sectors), then we must want it not only for those that we easily recognize as allies or to those whom we feel sympathy for, but also those that we may consider political or cultural enemies. The angry woman holding up a sign saying, “ENGLISH ONLY” yelling about immigration, or the man demanding that he “wants his country back.”
It’s tempting to just laugh at people like Pat Buchanan who claim that whites are “losing their country”. Yet while I have much criticism for many of his nativist stances, it’s true that he comes from a position of fear that may be misguided, but is regardless something that needs to be addressed.
I think one of my primary problems with how the Republican Party has been attempting to reform itself is that they tend to ask the wrong questions – I’ll use the issue of the GOP’s general lack of diversity as an example. So it’s been my observation that the Republican Party (like many predominately white organizations, I feel) spend a disproportionate amount of time wondering why more minorities aren’t joining them compared to the time spent on asking themselves *why* they aren’t attracting minority supporters. That is to say, there is this tendency to avoid the fact that a big reason for why the GOP has a hard time attracting minority supporters is because they largely do not address the concerns within these communities. It’s hard for the analysis to go any further than that because it would likely undermine their current base of power.
And that’s why for the past few years, at least, I think the Republicans have been finding it difficult to become as influential as they once were or would hope to be. The question isn’t, “Why won’t these people figure out what’s best for them and join us” but rather it should be “How can we address the concerns of [insert group here] more effectively?” In the former framing, you simply can’t bring anyone new into your coalition or movement because you’ve already defined what exactly is for them and what isn’t, and more often than not, what you stand for is *not* for them. “We”, and what constitutes “our” interests, has already been defined, perhaps too narrowly.
Of course, I’m digressing like I tend to do. Lemme start to get back on track explaining how I felt humbled. I started by confessing that in the past I have too easily dismissed the more let’s say, “passionate” Obama opponents as delusional – speaking primarily of the teabaggers here. Now I think it’s clear that there are too many racist signs at rallies and overtly racist pronouncements within the right-wing media to deny that racism is playing a role in the anti-Obama momentum. But that’s not the whole story. Obama can’t do much about those who oppose him because of his race – even if he were able to turn the economy around and deliver Usama Bin Laden’s head to the American public on a platter it’s likely that their minds are so scarred by prejudice that it wouldn’t change a thing. But there’s a level of angry opposition that the Democrats (and really, whoever is in power) should pay attention to, which is the genuine rage of these who feel like they’ve lost their place in our society and economy and our hurting a lot right now.
Even if neither Obama nor the “big government” is to blame for their anger, they have legitimate reasons for it. Unemployment’s much higher than we ever wish it would be, and the manufacturing industry in particular has been hit hard. And what I’ve realized is that I have to learn how to think about and address these fears and concerns – only then can you reach those who disagree with you. When I’ve talking about “reaching” someone, I’m not necessarily talking about convincing someone of the validity of your position through argument or logic. Rather, I’m talking about doing so through economic and political change that ultimately relieves people of their anxiety and helps to improve their lives. Health care for “everyone” means them too.
But that’s been the hard part – to honestly and sincerely (not begrudgingly) wish the best for those waving around birth certificates or those carrying assault rifles to rallies and understand that their anger – while I believe misdirected – stems at least in part from true pain and suffering that their leaders of whichever political stripe have failed to acknowledge or solve. You may be mistaken about *why* you’ve lost your job but the visceral pain and sense of loss is very real. I could point out that the standard American conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, instituted policies that generally redistributed wealth and opportunity upwards away from the middle class, but that’s not a stance or argument that one can or should rely on.
I think the issue is the fear of being taken for a “nobody”. Hatred spawns when one’s dignity is disregarded and one’s fears remain unaddressed. Imaginary indignity in those circumstances can hurt as much as real ones do, and this has an effect on people’s behaviors. In a dispute, one party must stop returning indignity in kind and begin to allay the fears of its counterparts. Meet indignity with dignity for however long it takes, keeping in mind that one should avoid compromising the process by taking undue pride in your own forbearance. Maintaining civility doesn’t mean that you necessarily just give in to other’s demands, but you do have to deal with them with respect.
People living in states hit hardest by job loss, lack of access to health care, and economic disparity have already been treated as “nobodies” by 30 years of conservative policies, to the extent that “pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and if you can’t… well, it’s just your own fault” fails to acknowledge the fact that we don’t all have the same likelihood of success based on circumstances both within and outside of our control. I should not be treating them as “nobodies” even when I find some of their beliefs or stances laughable. That doesn’t excuse callousness and cynicism. I have to learn to look past the anger held towards me by those holding different views and see their shared humanity with myself. I guess that’s what I’m trying to talk about in this long-winded post - expanding “we” to include “us all”. I can’t afford to just be sarcastic and cynical, though it’s comforting, fun, and easy to do. Ultimately, it can ignore the humanity of those that need help the most, and that’s something that I’ve resolved not to do.
That was a humbling passage for me to read, and lately I’ve been forced to take a deep look into my own heart and ask myself if I am maintaining a loving attitude towards people, and the answer has been that unfortunately, I have fallen short of the mark. I’ve realized that I can get pretty self-righteous at times, particularly towards those that I disagree with politically. During the whole “teabagging” mess during the Townhall debates on Health Care reform and the ensuing related media coverage, I never really thought of why these poor people were showing up at these meetings and protesting. Certainly, I recognized that they were there because they were afraid of change, because they are only aware that their standard of living has decreased over the past thirty years. Yet I never really thought much about the fact that most teabaggers are the ones that need health care reform the most – perhaps only in times where I’d note the irony of the situation and leave it at that.
The states that are most likely to benefit from health care reform (due to the fact that they have the highest percentage of uninsured citizens) are also the ones objecting most loudly against reform. To jump directly to my main point – if progressives such as myself wish to realize the goal of health care for all or other goals (regardless of how these goals are realized, through the private or public sectors), then we must want it not only for those that we easily recognize as allies or to those whom we feel sympathy for, but also those that we may consider political or cultural enemies. The angry woman holding up a sign saying, “ENGLISH ONLY” yelling about immigration, or the man demanding that he “wants his country back.”
It’s tempting to just laugh at people like Pat Buchanan who claim that whites are “losing their country”. Yet while I have much criticism for many of his nativist stances, it’s true that he comes from a position of fear that may be misguided, but is regardless something that needs to be addressed.
I think one of my primary problems with how the Republican Party has been attempting to reform itself is that they tend to ask the wrong questions – I’ll use the issue of the GOP’s general lack of diversity as an example. So it’s been my observation that the Republican Party (like many predominately white organizations, I feel) spend a disproportionate amount of time wondering why more minorities aren’t joining them compared to the time spent on asking themselves *why* they aren’t attracting minority supporters. That is to say, there is this tendency to avoid the fact that a big reason for why the GOP has a hard time attracting minority supporters is because they largely do not address the concerns within these communities. It’s hard for the analysis to go any further than that because it would likely undermine their current base of power.
And that’s why for the past few years, at least, I think the Republicans have been finding it difficult to become as influential as they once were or would hope to be. The question isn’t, “Why won’t these people figure out what’s best for them and join us” but rather it should be “How can we address the concerns of [insert group here] more effectively?” In the former framing, you simply can’t bring anyone new into your coalition or movement because you’ve already defined what exactly is for them and what isn’t, and more often than not, what you stand for is *not* for them. “We”, and what constitutes “our” interests, has already been defined, perhaps too narrowly.
Of course, I’m digressing like I tend to do. Lemme start to get back on track explaining how I felt humbled. I started by confessing that in the past I have too easily dismissed the more let’s say, “passionate” Obama opponents as delusional – speaking primarily of the teabaggers here. Now I think it’s clear that there are too many racist signs at rallies and overtly racist pronouncements within the right-wing media to deny that racism is playing a role in the anti-Obama momentum. But that’s not the whole story. Obama can’t do much about those who oppose him because of his race – even if he were able to turn the economy around and deliver Usama Bin Laden’s head to the American public on a platter it’s likely that their minds are so scarred by prejudice that it wouldn’t change a thing. But there’s a level of angry opposition that the Democrats (and really, whoever is in power) should pay attention to, which is the genuine rage of these who feel like they’ve lost their place in our society and economy and our hurting a lot right now.
Even if neither Obama nor the “big government” is to blame for their anger, they have legitimate reasons for it. Unemployment’s much higher than we ever wish it would be, and the manufacturing industry in particular has been hit hard. And what I’ve realized is that I have to learn how to think about and address these fears and concerns – only then can you reach those who disagree with you. When I’ve talking about “reaching” someone, I’m not necessarily talking about convincing someone of the validity of your position through argument or logic. Rather, I’m talking about doing so through economic and political change that ultimately relieves people of their anxiety and helps to improve their lives. Health care for “everyone” means them too.
But that’s been the hard part – to honestly and sincerely (not begrudgingly) wish the best for those waving around birth certificates or those carrying assault rifles to rallies and understand that their anger – while I believe misdirected – stems at least in part from true pain and suffering that their leaders of whichever political stripe have failed to acknowledge or solve. You may be mistaken about *why* you’ve lost your job but the visceral pain and sense of loss is very real. I could point out that the standard American conservative hero, Ronald Reagan, instituted policies that generally redistributed wealth and opportunity upwards away from the middle class, but that’s not a stance or argument that one can or should rely on.
I think the issue is the fear of being taken for a “nobody”. Hatred spawns when one’s dignity is disregarded and one’s fears remain unaddressed. Imaginary indignity in those circumstances can hurt as much as real ones do, and this has an effect on people’s behaviors. In a dispute, one party must stop returning indignity in kind and begin to allay the fears of its counterparts. Meet indignity with dignity for however long it takes, keeping in mind that one should avoid compromising the process by taking undue pride in your own forbearance. Maintaining civility doesn’t mean that you necessarily just give in to other’s demands, but you do have to deal with them with respect.
People living in states hit hardest by job loss, lack of access to health care, and economic disparity have already been treated as “nobodies” by 30 years of conservative policies, to the extent that “pull yourself up by your bootstraps, and if you can’t… well, it’s just your own fault” fails to acknowledge the fact that we don’t all have the same likelihood of success based on circumstances both within and outside of our control. I should not be treating them as “nobodies” even when I find some of their beliefs or stances laughable. That doesn’t excuse callousness and cynicism. I have to learn to look past the anger held towards me by those holding different views and see their shared humanity with myself. I guess that’s what I’m trying to talk about in this long-winded post - expanding “we” to include “us all”. I can’t afford to just be sarcastic and cynical, though it’s comforting, fun, and easy to do. Ultimately, it can ignore the humanity of those that need help the most, and that’s something that I’ve resolved not to do.
Comments
Post a Comment