I’m rarely one for completely rational discourse on subjects I have loads of passion about. However, seeing things heat up so drastically on Twitter and through the news media around the topic of Health Care Reform, I’ve had to take a step back and learn some hard lessons about what the best approach to reform is. Before the internet, revolutions happened in a manner that seemed drastic with a large, engaged public. Now there is so much information mixed in with mis-information mixed in with opinions mixed in with emotionally charged argument that it’s difficult to tell where we are at, who stands for what and where we are going with this.
So, after watching people like Kristie Wells converse on a more rational and compassionate level, I’ve compiled a list of lessons that I am still learning in order to be a more effective agent of change. Here are the new NEW rules for revolutionaries:
- Change happens slowly
MUCH slower than we want it to…and it quite often happens in bits and bobs rather than all at once. People are change-averse in general. Often the best way to make big changes is to start with something smaller with a measurable outcome. When you can prove that the changes you are making are leading to more positive outcomes, you can start to implement the bigger stuff. Of course, sometimes the change you need to make is more fundamental and less actionable. That’s gonna require loads of chipping away…
- Change happens before a majority of people are ready for it.
Some changes are going to happen before everyone feels comfortable with it. Legalizing gay marriage, for instance. That’s one that is happening before everyone feels okay with it. The same went for inter-racial marriage years ago. Funny things happen after the dust settles, though. The people who were dead-set against the change realize it doesn’t have the negative outcomes they fretted and yelled over. That’s what happened in Canada post-gay marriage legalization. It’s a non-issue now. Just realize you can’t convince anyone of how they will think in the future.
- Change has both positive and negative consequences.
Change comes with consequences, both positive and negative, most of the time. Of course when we are arguing our for and against opinions, we don’t want to acknowledge it (and sometimes we can’t see it). Perhaps recognizing the upsides and downsides will be what helps us see more eye-to-eye?
- My opinions are formed by my experience. So are yours.
Speaking of seeing eye-to-eye, I’ve learnt more from debates where I’ve asked where someone’s opinion comes from than asking what their opinion is. Experience molds our opinions. I had a great discussion with Aaron Brazell when I found out that his living in DC for many years had given him seriously unique insight into the current partisan politics. I also found out that Aaron and I agreed on more than I originally thought, which leads me to my next rule…
- Never assume.
I think this may be one of the hardest points of all. Things seem to be so black and white these days that if I hear someone believes in X, that must mean they believe in Y and Z, too. Not the case, really. And probably what leads to us getting our backs up so often. Ask first. And then go back to that ‘what is your experience that led you to this outcome’ question. I’m still learning this.
- Having ‘no opinion’ doesn’t mean you don’t have an opinion.
Maybe you don’t feel educated enough on an issue to say anything? Or maybe you disagree with your friends and don’t want to fight? Or perhaps you just don’t fit neatly into one ‘side’ or another. No biggie. You still have an opinion and it’s okay to have one. Screw Miss Manners for telling us that expressing our opinion is uncouth – it’s the way we express them (disagree without being disagreeable) that is couth or uncouth. If more people like you expressed their opinions rationally and openly (I’m looking at Mack Collier), we’d have a better discourse, IMO. Not forcing anyone, just saying I like hearing from people who are still ruminating.
- Listening is the best strategy of all.
This is pretty self-evident, methinks. It’s especially important when we: disagree, are from very different backgrounds and/or don’t really understand the issues.
- Compromise is the wrong metaphor. Empathy gets closer.
Compromising usually results in some sort of solution where nobody is entirely happy. But getting a feel for and truly understanding the concerns from other points of view may help create better outcomes…or at least be able to explain why you cannot integrate changes. Sometimes people just want to be listened to.
- Extreme anger (and what we deem irrational) comes from a highly emotional place.
Responding from an equally emotional place won’t solve anything, but empathizing with those emotions might. And I’m not talking, “I hear how you feel, but…”. When you empathize, you really take the time to understand where someone is coming from and how they feel. When we can connect emotionally, and then speak rationally, we will probably see more progress.
- Most people really just do want the best outcome for all, we just differ on the route to get there.
I know this is difficult to believe, especially with some of the really heated things flying around (calling people names, etc.). But at the end of the day, the experience that has led to an opinion and the emotion behind the name-calling usually comes from a real place of terror. Sometimes that terror has been created by those whose interests aren’t pure, but it also comes from facing a change to the unknown. People can go to dark places when they get into survival/protection mode. I’ve learnt that there are FUNDAMENTAL differences in the way that people see the world. It’s hard to paint either as good or bad because one approach works well for some people while the opposite approach works well for others. The issue is where we have to agree on a law or a bill that will effect us all. This is a tricky one and where perhaps we need to go back to empathy rather than compromise.
Human societies are evolving…really…even though sometimes we may look around and go WTF? In those evolving societies, communication tools allow us to express our opinions and share our experiences more widely. And as we explore more, we notice that we don’t all think the same, live the same or believe in the same solutions. This is fine as long as we understand that we’ve evolved to beyond black and white and we are now in a more nuanced world. Perhaps our next evolution will be to realize that we need to also evolve our tolerance to differing opinions and unique experiences, to the non-zero sum thinking that Robert Wright discusses in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny (highly recommended). And perhaps the first step is for us revolutionaries to embrace la difference and empathize with those whom with we disagree. Yes, even those we think are ‘crazy’.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am
“If more people like you expressed their opinions rationally and openly (I’m looking at Mack Collier), we’d have a better discourse, IMO.”
Why are you looking at me? Explain, please.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:16 am
@mack
I thought your insight last night on Twitter was awesome, even though somehow you regretted it. You expressed empathy for all ‘sides’ of the issue and called into question calling any side ‘irrational’ or crazy. I thought your voice was necessary and awesome and I’d love to see you express your insights more. That’s why.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:32 am
Nicely written Tara. Have a post of my own I need to pen as last night’s discussion (that continue into this morning somewhat), have left me feeling a bit raw – but wholly invigorated to step up and do more to bring people together and have discussions – not flame wars.
I do draw my inspiration from Chris Heuer (@chrisheuer). It is his ability to listen to both sides and help mediate discussions that moves me most. He has put my anger in check several times and really helped me think about the language and tone I use in my communications to diffuse situations and get to the root of the issue at hand.
Neither one of us is perfect, and we are the first to admit our emotions still get the better of us at times, but I am hopeful for positive change in this country.
I want us to come together as a Nation and help rebuild America. We must treat one another as human beings. We need to learn it is ok to disagree with someone, but remain respectful in our dialogue.
We all need to take a deep breathe. Read a *balanced* mix of articles on the various issues. Digest. Discuss. Repeat.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am
I am hopeful I will one day remember to re-read a comment I am ready to leave on a blog post to check for grammatical errors. Oy.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@kristie I knew what you meant! And thanks to you and Chris for inspiring me! Seriously. You made me think about this all night and day.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Thank you Tara. From my experience, most political discussions quickly dissolve into finger-pointing from both sides of the issue. And you are right, with most politically-charged issues, such as health-care reform, there is a ton of passion, anger and fear involved on BOTH sides of the issue.
BTW #10 is dead-on and ideally would be the focus of such discussions. Both sides have good intentions and good ideas. Would be great if we could focus on how to make those good intentions and ideas work together, but with so much passion involved, finger-pointing happens far too often and completely undermines the effort.
Some people thrive off these discussions and it energizes them. Seeing how people react and treat others just totally saps my energy and spirit. A big reason why I avoid political discussions. But I do wish more people had your attitude toward them, the discussions would be much more beneficial.
September 7th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Tara, I agree with you for the most part and with the long view. In the current US political climate, I am concerned that this advice is not enough.
There has been aggressive right wing opposition to health care reform, promoting distortions such as “death panels.” Those opposed to health care reform have been louder in their opposition than supporters, even though there are more supporters. The opposition gets more media coverage for the distorted message. The result is that supporters are discouraged, and people who are undecided wind up hearing the views of those opposed to reform.
At the start of the healthcare debate, the vast majority of Americans were in favor of reform. This is an even more positive situation than, say, gay marriage where there are still large numbers opposed. But with healthcare, opponents seem to have been louder and better organized.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has neutralized his liberal supporters, see: http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/van-jones-a-moment-of-truth-for-liberal-institutions-in-the-veal-pen/ for an explanation.
It is not enough to simply be reasonable and polite while the opposition is shouting you down. That is a recipe for losing to bullies. The solution needs to involve aggressive, creative organizing, and humorous but pointed self-defense, as we’ve seen with Barney Frank and Al Franken.
Yes, we need patient listening for long-term change. But listening and compromise is not the tactic for dealing with shouters. That just leads to slow retreat. That’s what brought the norms of US society further to the right for years.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Tara,
Thank you for this post. With the internet we are all exposed to so much more than we used to be. I personally have learned so much from my “virtual” friends who have blown all my stereo types to itsy bitsy smithereens.
Having political discussions online is always challenging though… I saw it happen on Facebook last week with the health care reform. People were sharing their stories in respectful ways but then there was that one person who jumped in with some insults. Learning to handle that one person is my challenge. I agree addressing their underlying emotion and acknowledging it is probably going to go a lot farther than attacking their point of view.
Thank you.
September 7th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Tara, Kristie and Mack,
As suggested, I’m assuming nothing. After reading each of you on the interwebs over the last couple of months, a coupla questions on the Health Care Reform discourse, specifically, and ‘moral’ discourse, generally:
1) Do you maintain an absolute(s)? If so, what in our assessment, without qualification, is the ‘highest’ human value?
2) What do you recognize as the chief authority in your/of your life?
3) Do you maintain individual sovereignty? If so, what is the basis of your individual sovereignty (where does it come from)?
4) Do you identify and recognize the United States as a democratic Republic?
5) Generally speaking, each of you are in business in some capacity. As business professionals, do you regularly pay for your competitors’ and peers’ bad decisions?
Looking forward to your responses, assuming you respond of course.
Towards creative fidelity,
Jason
September 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
@alevin (Adina)
I know it’s tough and the blows have turned into actual effects (ie. Van Jones), but I’ve seen a disturbing trend occur when we try to shout back: an escalation of anger that leads nowhere. I am tempted to shout back constantly…and I have! But it hasn’t led anywhere but to me feeling awful and nothing being resolved. I suppose that’s what I’m getting at. Escalation seems fruitless. I’m not talking about backing down, just opening our minds and approaching discourse from a really ‘we want positive change’ perspective. I’m actually quite frightened at the ‘death panel’ hyperbole and where that could lead.
September 7th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
@jason stoddard
Great and deep questions! Man…I’ll give them a whirl:
1) Do you maintain an absolute(s)? If so, what in our assessment, without qualification, is the ‘highest’ human value?
I endeavour to not think in absolutes, but I do personally value human life and equality at a very high level. Have you seen Jonathan Haidt’s TED talk?
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html
and here is the paper it’s based off of:
http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php
I definitely fit into the liberal camp of emphasizing: harm/care and fairness/reciprocity.
2) What do you recognize as the chief authority in your/of your life?
My chief authority? Egad. I don’t know. I’m influenced by so many thought leaders, but I go with ‘my gut’. Does that make sense? I think this is where I fall outside of the authority/respect camp on the morality issue. And I may, at times, have too much faith in human nature.
3) Do you maintain individual sovereignty? If so, what is the basis of your individual sovereignty (where does it come from)?
I try to maintain individual sovereignty. I think it comes from a deep-seeded belief in reciprocity as being a strong part of my moral compass. Again, I refer to my gut, but my gut is guided by my experience with communities of people.
4) Do you identify and recognize the United States as a democratic Republic?
This one I can kind of answer. I don’t think so. Or if it is, it’s not a workable democracy. It’s too tied up in individualism and riddled with the lack of good information (or moreso, an abundance of confusing information). I believe democracy relies on an informed/educated public and a sense of community. But that POV is totally clouded by my being raised in Canada.
5) Generally speaking, each of you are in business in some capacity. As business professionals, do you regularly pay for your competitors’ and peers’ bad decisions?
Absolutely. I watch people exploit the tools we use daily for personal benefit and it makes it tougher for those of us who are trying to be ‘good neighbours’ to forage ahead. After a while, I end up being a bad neighbour just to get ahead in the game. Sort of like the Tragedy of the Commons. Actually, a lot like the Tragedy of the Commons. I’m a total idealist, though. I keep thinking that people will figure out that we can all get ahead together if we don’t abuse our community goodwill. Is that what you were asking?
Thanks for these!
September 7th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Yes, shouting back isn’t the right solution. We need to find other ways to galvanize supporters and communicate with those who are interested in learning.
There is a problem with communications that focuses on fervent opponents – it under-values communication with supporters and those who are lukewarm/undecided.
This is one of the things that is frustrating Obama supporters – we feel he gives more credence to his opponents than to his supporters, even though he has a majority. It is one thing to be empathetic to opponents to win them over. It is another to focus attention on the minority of opponents who seek to derail discussion.
We need a combination of communication to those who are not strongly persuaded (for example Paul Schreiber’s wonderful videos); working with strong advocates to pressure congress and help with person to person outreach; and having a really strong message in the media.
Shouting back also puts too much focus on the rabid opponents.
September 7th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Awesome! thanks for posting this! I really needed this reminder today.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:47 am
In re: to #4 – I don’t know if any of you are familiar with Dr. Paul Farmer. He is the world-renowned (can I insert awesome here) doctor whose story is written in a book by Tracy Kidder called Mountains Beyond Mountains. This man has dedicated his life to curing people from (among everything else) TB, malaria and AIDS. He is the co-founder of the non-profit organization, Partners In Health, and this agency (led by Dr. Farmer) runs a hospital in the poorest conditions, in the middle of Haiti, where no one is ever turned away. He recently sent a declaration to the Obama administration on the proposed steps we should take to administering *global* healthcare. His recommendations apply not only to patients in Peru, Haiti and Siberia, but also anywhere. Please take the time to read it. It will probably give you a new perspective on healthcare in the U.S., no matter which side (liberal or conservative) that you are on.
http://www.globalhealth2009.org/globalhealth2009_fulltext2.html
What I like about his recommendations is that money is only part of the issue, but money alone will do nothing to help. His plan is holistic and includes eliminating poverty, hunger; providing primary education; promoting gender equality and empowering women; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health; combating diseases; and ensuring environmental sustainability (giving access to clean water and sanitation). He fights the root causes of poor health while giving aid to those currently affected.
His last point concerns the need to address the least developed countries’ special needs. I know we are talking about the U.S. in this discussion, but this point reminds me that it is pretty darned silly to fight over whether or not a person on welfare and medicaid should have the same insurance as a congressman, when Haitians travel for 2 days by donkey for antibiotics for TB (and often die enroute). Before Dr. Farmer, even that was impossible.
I think if I had to add to this, I’d say it is important to get a good perspective on the real issue and not be so intent on choosing “a side”.
September 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Nice post. Points 1,2 & 3 are particularly good. Change is hard, and it is never clear until after it has happened, or in most cases, not happened.