Breaking the Logjam

The most distressing aspect of trying to cope with the physical, economic, and political crises we face in the world today is our inability to act because of complete polarization of our body politic in the US.  Riding storm-tossed seas in a leaky boat, we are arguing about whether we should paint our oars red or blue.  To define the breach as between Liberals and Conservatives does not even begin to describe it.  “Liberals,” as popularly depicted, are often extremely conservative in their beliefs about such things as human health and nutrition, how we should grow our food, how our activities affect the planet, and government interference in our private beliefs and practices.  “Conservatives,” as popularly depicted, are often wildly liberal in their confidence in such things as the viability of scientific research in the development of industrial farming, genetic manipulation, and free market economics.

Obviously, it is much more complicated than that, and I have no doubt that I will get vehement disagreement from people identifying with one side or the other.  The fact is, though, that a prime determining factor for what side of any particular issue of we will take is determined by who has already taken one side or the other.  It is perfectly legitimate for us to rely on the opinion of people we know and trust in formulating our own opinion about things.  It saves us the time of having to really study an issue, and, more often, we don’t feel that we are qualified to form our own opinion based only on the facts.
 
The concept of moieties in anthropology refers to the tendency of societies to divide into two halves.  In anthropology, the term refers primarily to blood kinship lines, but I think it could apply equally well in describing cultural divides such as our so-called “Liberal/Conservative” divide.  The two-party political moiety which we have evolved is extremely vulnerable to manipulation.  People we do not know gain our trust by expressing their membership in or adherence to certain beliefs that we share.  Such a person can then suggest that another idea is consistent with those beliefs when, in fact, it is not.  They can also suggest that to hold any other opinion is a sign of ignorance or, worse, moral decrepitude.  The hatred and distrust thus engendered is a perfect medium for dividing and controlling.

If you say you are a Christian, what exactly does that entail?  If you are a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Demonist, Naturalist, atheist, or nothing at all, does that mean that all of the other beliefs are illegitimate?  I think most of you would say no, but those that say “yes” or “to some extent” are not recognizing the marvelous variability of human nature. I believe that we each can define for ourselves what is really important in our lives by deconstructing our beliefs into their components.  In doing so, I believe we will find that we all want the same things. The particular way that we each may want to frame the ideas that sustain us should not get in the way of pursuing the common good.  The same procedure needs to be followed in addressing racial and cultural divides.  Is a person that is not white or not Christian more likely to be a criminal or a terrorist?

So, how do we get out of this ideological logjam that is making it impossible for us to make the urgent decisions that we need to make?  We start talking to each other in a non-judgmental and respectful manner.  This will not be easy.  We so want to show other people the error of their ways, because, to us, it is perfectly clear.  Instead, we frankly explain what we believe and listen honestly and openly as others explain theirs to us.  We can then ask what is meant by certain words and concepts.  If we continue to ask and deconstruct and  compare in an open and mutually non-threatening manner, we will arrive at some commonalities.  Those commonalities and the very process itself will produce the beginnings of trust and a way toward working together to address our problems.  

I owe many of these insights to the core group of the All Island Forum with whom  I worked for a while, and especially, to Doug Dolstad who has been passionate about promoting the practice of Nonviolent Communication (NVC).  Also, I am enthusiastic about the possibilities of the Coffee Party, a group that for years now has been promoting open and respectful political dialogue between “Conservatives” and “Liberals.”  The Coffee Party (www.coffeepartyusa.com) consists of a lot of local groups crossing their own divides.  Years ago. I attended a meeting of a branch in Port Orchard and was pleased to see so many people that were willing to listen to each other, and did not allow disagreements on some things to get in the way of agreements on others.  I was told that a Coffee Party group began on Vashon some years ago, but quickly folded because of one or more individuals insisting on lecturing rather than listening.  Ground rules need to be enforced.

Anybody interested?  I’d love to start finding our commonalities and work from there.  Don’t come if you just want to set people straight.  Come if you are curious and really want to make things work.  Let me know if you’re interested and we can start figuring our how to begin:  

terry@vashonloop.com or 463 2812.