Tag Archives: compromise

A Whole New Politics: What Better Time To Blow It Up & Start Fresh?

DSC_0406“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.” –Mark Twain

Hello friend,

On Monday night, I turned on the television to take my little peek at CNN. I wanted to see what the hot election topic of the day was. Of course, it was another Donald Trump night, this time centered on his refusal to disavow the Ku Klux Klan in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper the previous day. It created an absolute firestorm in the political world, most interestingly in the Republican party, which Trump is leading for the nomination to be our next President. With everyone intensely aware of the sensitivity around race relations in this country and not wanting to be dubbed a racist, it seemed that every politician in the party was—if they had not already, that is—blasting Trump and distancing themselves from him as much as possible. The chorus of Republican leaders chanted, “He is not one of us! We don’t support him!”

Watching that night, I had a glimmer of an idea.

The next night was Super Tuesday, when so many Presidential delegates get divvied up by the multiple primaries across our great land. When I returned from voting, I popped on CNN to see how it was all going, with one big question on my mind: Would any of Trump’s comments and the passionate condemnation of him by his Republican leaders have any effect on the actual voting? After all, so far in this campaign, the voters have shown a remarkable unwillingness to listen to the party leaders and pundits. If all had gone according to plan, it would be decided by now that Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush were the nominees for our two parties. Obviously, reality lies elsewhere.

The fact that the voters supported Trump by a wide margin on Tuesday only seemed to infuriate the Republican leaders more, forcing them to face the reality of their Doomsday Scenario. I pictured them wringing their hands and wondering: What are our options if HE is now the face of our beloved party? He’s not even a real Republican! And even though Clinton won a majority of states on Tuesday and is holding the lead for the Democrats, I have no doubt that their party brass has, along the way, had a few tense (though certainly not as horrified) moments of wondering: Is Bernie Sanders really the face of our beloved party? He’s not even a real Democrat! 

The manic few days since Tuesday in the Republican party have reinforced what has become clear over the entire course of this campaign cycle: We have two very fractured political parties on our hands. And here is where my glimmer of an idea turned into a most amusing thought experiment!

Imagine, if you will, five politicians who, deep down inside, hold these views:

  • Politician A: Stereotypical ultra-conservative on all fronts. Think Tea Party.
  • Politician B: Stereotypical ultra-liberal on all fronts. Socialism plus.
  • Politician C: Sees herself as literally “pro-Life” in broad terms. Against legalized abortion. Against capital punishment. Favors strong gun control measures. Favors publicly-funded, universal health care. Strong on environmental protection. Against massive military spending. Against major Wall Street reform. Against same-sex marriage. Against campaign finance reform. Tough on immigration/does not favor a path to citizenship for people already here illegally.
  • Politician D: Against strong gun control laws. In favor of legal abortion. In favor or capital punishment. No strong feelings on the environment. Against publicly-funded, universal health care. In favor of massive military spending. Against (or indifferent to) major Wall Street reform. In favor of same-sex marriage. In favor of campaign finance reform. Moderate on immigration and open to the possibility of a path to citizenship.
  • Politician E: Favors strong gun control measures. Against legalized abortion. In favor of capital punishment. In favor of strong environmental measures. In favor of publicly-funded, universal health care. In favor of massive military spending. In favor of major Wall Street reform. In favor of same-sex marriage. In favor of campaign finance reform. Tough on immigration/does not favor a path to citizenship for people here illegally.

In our current, two-party system, in order to rise to some level of real power, each of these five politicians has to choose to be either a Republican or a Democrat. Unfortunately, the way things are working—or, more accurately, not working—in Washington these days, whichever party the individuals go with, they would have to swallow the blue pill or the red pill and toe the party line. For Politician A and Politician B, choosing the appropriate party might be relatively easy, even if they didn’t believe the party was leaning far enough in their direction.

But what about the other three? Each holds some views that would plant them firmly on the Republican side and other views that are firmly on the Democrat side. In today’s political game, though—you know, the one we are all so disgusted by—these folks would have to choose one side and swallow all of their other beliefs that don’t go along with the party rule. If they don’t, they would be ostracized and told they weren’t a real Republican (or a real Conservative) or a real Democrat (or failed the “Progressive test”) by their party members and shut out of the system.

In our two-party system and with the current toxic climate in Washington–in which politicians are demonized by their own party if they make any sort of compromise with members of the other party—there is no room for a complex set of beliefs. To make it there, and especially to stay there (that is, to get re-elected), you have to act exactly like a Republican or exactly like a Democrat. You reject whatever the other party proposes on principle, whether it has value or not. You support whatever your party proposes on principle, whether it has value or not. The principle being: We are right; they are wrong. No exceptions.

But imagine again, if you will, that there was a separate party for each of the five politicians above, and a party for others with different combinations of positions on the important issues. In my thought experiment, I was picturing four to six parties (at least two that would form out of each of our current parties, and then another one or two with relevant distinctions from them) roughly equal in size. Aspiring politicians could be open and honest about where they stand on the various issues with no worries that they would not find a group of relatively like-minded folks to band together with.

In the ideal world of my mind, this new system would create and encourage a whole new attitude in Washington and thereby a whole new attitude of us citizens toward our leaders. You see, if our Congresspersons knew that the five parties were proportioned almost evenly, they could be certain that in order to get anything accomplished, they would have to work together with members of the other parties and compromise. There would be no more shame in that. No one group could stonewall the others with any effectiveness. And since there would be enough options so that everyone could be honest about their positions, and enough cooperative work to ensure exposure to multiple points-of-view, it wouldn’t be such a scandalous thing to change parties at some point in your lifetime. You could actually be authentic, because becoming a member of one party wouldn’t make you much more powerful than being a member of another party.

Imagine how much more you could trust the folks in Washington if you thought they were being completely honest, were genuinely trying to do what they pledged to you, and were voting on principles that you could support rather than strictly along party lines. With multiple parties, your representatives could actually be complex individuals and good public servants simultaneously. How cool would that be! And even better, it might make the idea of running for public office more appealing to more and better people, giving us a much more attractive pool of candidates than the rag-tag bunch we have up there right now.

Obviously, this is merely a thought experiment, and I understand that blowing up our entrenched, two-party system would be unfathomably difficult and messy. But what if we could? This moment, with both parties as splintered as they seem to be, seems like that one fateful moment in time when there is a window of opportunity for a revolution to occur. Do we dare blast that window open and start anew? I, for one, think it would be pretty cool if my kids grew up having reasons to trust our elected leaders, or, better yet, aspiring to become the leaders of their generation. I would blow it up for their sake.

How about you? What ideas do you have for improving our political system and restoring the public’s faith in Washington? Open up your journal and your imagination. Of course you know that your ideas are highly unlikely to be implemented in the near future, and hopefully that frees you up to consider your most idealistic fantasies. If you could give a letter grade to how you think the current system is working, what would it be? (I am waffling between a “D” and an “F”.) Does it seem like the animosity grows more and more every year and the parties cooperate less and less? What do you think it says about the public’s faith in our government and politicians that the “outsiders” Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders have far surpassed everyone’s expectations in this Presidential campaign? What do you think their success says about the health of our two political parties? If we could put this situation in a vacuum and ask the members both parties simultaneously, “Would you agree to split your party in half if they agreed to split their party in half, creating four parties in similar size?” do you think they would go for it? Which party do you think would be more eager to start dividing? In your opinion, what effect would it have on our politicians if we had several different options for them, seemingly all with an equal chance of allowing them to reach their goals? Would they, as I suggested, become more honest with their positions and more willing to work with all of the others? What effect would it have on you as a voter and citizen? Would you have more faith in your elected officials? Finally, what effect would it have on the next generation who would grow up in the new political climate? Would it be worth the pains of transition? Could it be any worse than our current mess of mistrust and obstruction? Would you be open to trying? If you had to join a party with one of the five politicians mentioned above, which one would you choose? Write down where your heart stands on each of the issues I listed—free yourself and listen to your heart, not your current political party—and see if you are the leader of your own political party. What would you call it? Leave me a reply and let me know: Are you ready to hit “RESET” on the political system in America?

Value your voice and your choice,

William

P.S. If this thought experiment made you wonder, share it. We all need to re-imagine our world anew sometimes. Have a blessed week!

The Fine Line Between Compromise & Cowardice

DSC_0144“Accepting all the good and bad about someone. It’s a great thing to aspire to. The hard part is actually doing it.” –Sarah Dessen, What Happened to Goodbye

Hello friend,

A couple of nights ago, my wife shared with me some wonderful news about one of her oldest, dearest friends. Then she followed it with, “She is just the sweetest person on Earth. It is too bad she is incredibly homophobic.” Huh??? My sensibilities had just been completely offended by such a statement, and my mind started spinning with questions and challenges. How could you call someone “sweet” in one breath and then point out her severe intolerance in the next? How can you claim to be so close with someone who embraces such bigotry and not even challenge her on it? Even more, how can you even be friends with that person? What does that say about you?

These questions were flooding my mind, and I had to take a step back from the situation to keep my blood from boiling. I am probably on the extreme end of the spectrum when it comes to how quickly I am offended by intolerance and bigotry. I am highly sensitive to racism, sexism, classism, and in this case, heterosexism. Thus, I had to fight myself to keep from pouncing on my wife’s statement about her friend’s seemingly contradictory personality traits of sweetness and homophobia.

You see, I hold my wife to a very high standard. She runs a multicultural center and is a highly conscientious and brilliant educator in the field of tolerance and diversity. She has been a shining example for me to follow in the many years we have been together, so the bar is set high regarding the people I expect to find in her inner circle. Thus, even as I was struck a bit sideways by the mere idea of a “sweet homophobe”, I was shaken even more by the fact that this walking contradiction was her dear friend. How could she fraternize with a bigot? Where were her high-minded ideals of tolerance and inclusion? Had they been compromised? Was my wife–this paragon of virtue–actually a spineless coward?

Before I let my idealistic image of my wife crumble in front of my eyes, I needed a reality check. I needed to understand just how glass my own house was before I started throwing stones at hers. I started combing through my mind and my history to dissect my closest relationships. I wanted to know if, and to what degree, I had compromised my own standards to make friends and to keep my loved ones dear to me. Maybe I was spineless, too?

I didn’t have to look far to find examples. My family is the greatest. Of course I love them all, but more than that, I genuinely like and respect each of my siblings and my parents. I very much look forward to every chance we have to get together; these are my favorite times of the year. BUT—there just had to be a “but”—there are definitely things that don’t get talked about for fear of upsetting the applecart. Several years ago at Christmas, I mentioned casually that I was no longer a Christian. BOOM!!!!! It was like a silent bomb went off. No one has spoken about the topic in my presence since. Then there is politics. I grew up in a house that worshiped Ronald Reagan and all things Republican. As far as I can tell, the rest of the gang (and their extended gangs) has remained pretty far—some very far—to the right. I, on the other hand, lean heavily the other way on pretty much everything. So, do we have a dialogue on the important issues of our time and the way our country is going? Heck no! We stay as far away from that as possible. Nobody wants to start a fight or to risk thinking less of someone that is going to be in his life for a long time. Avoiding the conversation keeps everyone from exposing themselves. Our silence keeps the peace. Denial runs deep.

My dearly departed father-in-law wanted nothing to do with his Black daughter dating—much less marrying—a White man. It wasn’t personal–it didn’t matter that I knew him before we even dated and never had a problem with him—the rule was for any White man. He openly denounced the relationship from the start, and carried it to the point of not attending his daughter’s wedding. He was always kind to me when I visited his house after our marriage, and my wife continued to dearly love and even admire him to the day he died. Still, it was tough to wrap my mind around, and despite his friendly actions, I never quite got myself to the point of real comfort around him because I could not untangle the web that could hold such extremes of belief and action. My wife, though hurt by his disapproval, remained as loyal and loving to him as ever.

It reminds me of the way we idolize people and want to see them one way, subconsciously blinding ourselves to the not-so-heroic stuff. We see Christopher Columbus as the brave explorer and discoverer of America, neglecting the land-raping, slave-taking parts. We see Thomas Jefferson as the author of our Constitution, top-tier President, and one of the most brilliant men in our country’s history, conveniently looking right past his history of holding (and having children with) slaves. We see Martin Luther King only as the great Civil Rights champion, ignoring his infidelities. We shield ourselves from the truth in order to make things fit more comfortably in our minds. Caricatures are easier to deal with than complexities. This goes as much for our heroes as for our loved ones.

Is it even possible to have it all one way, though: to see our loved ones as entirely commendable and agreeable, to sit comfortably with everything they do and stand for? As it turns out, human beings—all of us—are complicated creatures. We are not cartoon characters, so plainly hero or villain. No one is completely clean or completely dirty. Despite our greatest efforts to paint each other entirely black or white, it turns out that we are all a big, messy rainbow of grays. If we chose only to love the pure, we would all surely be lonely souls.

So, we do our best. We love those whom our hearts can’t help but love. We love our family members through some cosmic-genetic-magnetic force that pulls us together in that “no-matter-what” way that we can feel but can’t quite explain. We love our friends because we fell in love with their best qualities when we met and now cannot simply choose to fall out; they are residents of our hearts whether we like it or not.

For all of these residents of our heart, we find a way to make peace in our mind. It is a delicate balance of trying to see the good in them without being in total denial of the less savory elements. We become managers of our interactions, chemists desperately trying to avoid a combustible mix. We choose to steer clear of conversations that will explode in our faces, only dealing with certain issues if they are thrown hard at us to the point of inevitability, and even then only briefly and tactfully. We choose our battles.

There is no doubt that it requires a certain level of denial. There are just things we don’t like to think about when it comes to our loved ones. Even more than thinking about it, we definitely avoid actually confronting the offending companion. Be honest, do you really want to have a dialogue—either internally or with the problem person—about your father’s racist comments? Do you want to address your best friend’s homophobia? How about your sister-in-law’s belief that poor people are poor because they are lazy? No, as repulsive as all of these things make us feel inside, there is no doubt that our tendency is to deflect them as best we can, steering instead toward safe harbors of conversation in the service of keeping the peace.

But how much can you swallow—how much can you compromise your principals—before you reach the point where you feel entirely spineless? The answer, of course, is different for everyone. Much, I suppose, depends upon how much we feel like we “need” the relationship (frequency of visits certainly plays a role as well). If we are willing to let it go—obviously not as convenient with family as it is with friends—we may be more willing to take the risk. Sometimes we take the risk because the relationship cannot be let go of (e.g., if you and your sibling have fought and made up a million times before, you might think one more round for a good cause is worth the family drama).

Whatever the justification, it seems that we, more often than not, pretend that our loved ones’ unacceptable views do not exist. We sweep them under the rug. It is, whether conscious or not, a compromise of our beliefs in the service of keeping the relationship. But perhaps it is really much more than a mere compromise. Maybe that is putting a nice face on it. Perhaps it is more accurate to call it cowardice or spinelessness. After all, if you are not sharing your Truth or not addressing your loved one’s Truth for fear of disliking each other, aren’t you living like a coward? It takes a lot of courage to be who you are and accept others for who they are.

That was the one part, in hindsight, that my complicated father-in-law had down. He may have openly disapproved of my relationship with his daughter, but he didn’t shut her out or stop loving her because of it. They both spoke and lived their Truth—and agreed to disagree on how she should live her life—and kept right on loving and admiring each other despite their differences. They were able to meet each other right where they were and accept the other’s beautiful complexity rather than living in denial and pretending everything was wine and roses. Perhaps that is the courage we should all aspire to. Yes, I think I will start there.

What about you? How do you justify spending time with/accepting/loving someone who holds views so antithetical to who you are and what you stand for? Get out your journal and write about your relationship with your loved ones. Which ones can you share your Truth with and fear no drama? Which ones do you not even want to hear their Truth?  How willing are you to challenge someone on their actions or beliefs? Does it make a difference if that belief regards you (e.g. your race, sexuality, politics, etc.)? Are there people you avoid at family gatherings, knowing they will say or do something that will make it hard for you to hold your tongue and keep the peace? What issues are off-limits when you get together with family? Are those issues different when you gather with your friends? Which of your relationships could withstand a challenge like this? Which relationships would crumble? What does the answer to those two questions say about how you should value the relationships in each camp going forward? Maybe you would be doing both parties a favor with a challenge. Is there one relationship in particular in which, if you don’t challenge them soon, you will pass from the point of compromising for the sake of keeping the peace to the point of feeling like a spineless coward for not telling your Truth? Leave me a reply and let me know: Where do you draw the line between compromise and cowardice? 

Surround yourself with Love,

William