Is it Blog-Worthy? Also: Get Both Sides of the Story.

img_2359

Exploring the Rules of Engagement for Healthier Political Discourse, Second Query

Another RoE I have adopted lately is Do It In Person.  I’m still waiting for my conservative friends across town to take me up on my offer, and I’m extending invitations to other conservative friends to “talk” over coffee.  In December I signed up on Hi From The Other Side, a site that matches people from divergent political persuasions to meet locally and talk about it!  I’m still waiting for a match…

In the meantime, I’m still posting stuff on Facebook.  I’m exercising more discipline, though–sharing less impulsively, and taking time to add an interpretive (and hopefully thought-provoking) preamble, rather than hitting “Share now” all the time.  And I make sure to request of my friends often:

  1. Read the entire article before commenting.
  2. No ad hominem (learned this from Fr. James Martin)
  3. Keep it civil and respectful; I reserve the right to remove any and all shitty comments.

Tonight I worked on a post for a long time, looking up articles and comparing perspectives.  It turned out how I wanted it–biased and also a good attempt at objectivity, overall positive in tone.  Since I have allowed myself to write about politics on this blog, I wondered if this FB post would be worthy to publish here?

I generally consider blog posts to be more thoughtful and deliberate than Facebook posts.  But then, this FB post was both of those things.

So I ask you, my readers and fellow bloggers: Is the piece below worthy of this blog?  If so, maybe I can consolidate some work in the future!

Thank you in advance for your kind feedback!

********

This is interesting.

Fox News is saying that the left is organizing to disrupt and bully at Republican town halls. I lost the link to the video, but here is an article that basically says the same thing.

Here is the document they reference, from the Indivisible group.

The Fox and NY Post reports make it sound like Organizing for Action is staging a series of coups at Republican town halls only to disrupt (and presumably not to address concerns that have meaning to people).
The left says it’s taking pages from the Tea Party playbook.

So I Googled ‘tea party protest strategy’ and got a page full of references…

I opened this one first, from August, 2009.

It mentions a Tea party strategy memo, but the link does not work.

But it does include: “The memo, authored by Robert MacGuffie, who runs the website rightprinciples.com [apparently defunct now, from what I can tell], suggests that tea partiers should ‘pack the hall… spread out’ to make their numbers seem more significant, and to ‘rock-the-boat early in the Rep’s presentation…to yell out and challenge the Rep’s statements early…. to rattle him, get him off his prepared script and agenda…stand up and shout and sit right back down.'”

Then I opened the Wikipedia page on Tea Party Protests.

Under the ‘Tactics’ section:

“Some Tea Party organizers have stated that they look to leftist Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for inspiration. Protesters have also appropriated left-wing imagery; the logo for the March 9/12 on Washington featured a raised fist design that was intended to resemble those used by the pro-labor, anti-war, and black power movements of the 1960s. In addition, the slogan ‘Keep Your Laws Off My Body’, usually associated with pro-choice activists, has been seen on signs at tea parties.[129]”

Of note, in the Indivisible instructional document, it does say to spread out to make it seem like there is more widespread consensus in the room. It does say to enter quietly and NOT be disruptive, and wait until the floor is opened to questions, so that you are more likely to have a chance to speak. It does say to be respectful, polite, and persistent. It does say to make your comments specific to, and to briefly summarize, a particular issue or piece of legislation, because there are so many bills that not all legislators will know all of them (which I thought was both practical and thoughtful). It does say to ask a specific but open-ended question, such as “What will you do about…” instead of yes-no questions.

So, it looks like these strategies get traded one side of the aisle/spectrum to the other, but each tries to blame the other for being disruptive and disrespectful.

I am so glad I took the time to see what ‘the other side’ is saying. It does not surprise me that they would see the same words I see and interpret them very differently. And, with just a little digging, I was able to see that none of this is new–these tactics have been in use for decades if not longer (maybe all of you knew this, but as my political interest has only skyrocketed recently, I’m still on the steep part of the learning curve).

So let’s not be so quick to judge and vilify, eh?  We are all just trying to get seen, heard, understood, and accepted.  And when I write ‘all’ I mean we *all*–left, right, up, down, gay, straight, male, female, child, adult–ALL of us!!

If we want ‘the others’ to listen, shouldn’t we *all* try to lead by example and listen well first ourselves?

Train to Withstand the Discomfort

img_4564

Exploring the Rules of Engagement for Healthier Political Discourse, First Query

How fascinating!  I thought this series would be so easy to write…  I spend so many hours every day deliberating on how to talk to people, fantasizing about successful encounters, and preparing mindful defenses against verbal attacks.  Yet crickets have chirped here for two weeks, and even now as I type, I feel almost overcome with apprehension.

The Better Part of Valor…

I had this lofty goal last month to seek out and engage in person, all of my friends on ‘the other side.’  I even sent a card to a couple of them on the other side of town, asking if I could come to visit and “talk.”  I feel an urgency to reconcile and reconnect.  But today I realize that you can’t force it.  Sometimes it’s just too uncomfortable.  You never know what the other person will say, or what you will say, that will trigger one or both of you and emotionally hijack the whole encounter.  So sometimes it’s best to just not go there.

Meanwhile, Back At the Ranch

But what can we do in the meantime?  How can we train now, to make it easier in the future?  It seems somewhat like exercise to me.  There is an app called TRX Force (I have no interests in this business), a twelve week progressive strength and interval training program using those torturous straps that hang from the ceiling.  When I first started the program with my trainer, I dreaded every session.  The shortness of breath, the shaking, the pain, gaaaagh!!  Every session early on, I secretly hoped she would let me off the hook.  But I also knew that with her support, I could overcome the discomfort and finish.  I have gotten through every session, some more easily than others.  Last Tuesday was Day 2 of Week 11. I felt so much weaker and less motivated than usual that day (all this stress, grrrr), and it was the hardest workout yet.  The ‘during’ part SUCKED.  My biceps and quads felt like jell-o melting off of their bones.  Then afterward, the victory of accomplishment filled me with pride.  It lit a new intrinsic fire, and my home workouts now are harder and longer than ever before.

Maybe it’s the same for talking politics.  Just thinking of encounters with ‘the other side’ can fill us with dread and tension.  We catastrophize immediately, not only about what they might say, but at how it might unleash torrents of our least controllable emotions.  So we instinctively run the other way.  What if we could train to withstand this discomfort?  What if we could find a safe space to practice, so we might feel stronger when challenged for real?  I propose two methods here.

Desensitize

We all know the satisfaction and comfort of echo chambers.  Seeing, hearing, and reading that which validates our existing positions feels so good.  But the farther we regress here, the harder it becomes to tolerate a dissenting view.  We must resist this temptation; we are called to be more disciplined than this.  I have friends and family who post articles and videos from sights like Conservative Fighter and Red State.  I find the headlines inflammatory, and my initial reaction is to cringe, dismiss, and move on.

Lately I have resolved to open at least one of these posts every few days.  To walk the talk of reaching across the divide, I must try seeing from others’ point of view.  These are my friends, people I grew up with, my colleagues.  What about these stories and articles appeals to them?  In the privacy of my home, at times of my choosing, I can practice opening my mind to a potential partial truth from any source.  I learned from life coaching a long time ago that, “we are all right, and only partially.”

In no way does opening my mind to possible other truths mean that I abandon skepticism or critical appraisal.  It does mean, however, that I practice excluding prejudice.  It means looking and listening with objectivity as much as possible.  “I have to pace myself,” a friend told me recently.  Yes.

In a recent episode of Bill Maher’s show, he interviewed the controversial alt-right figure Milo Yiannopoulos, during which he admonishes his audience, “Don’t take the bait, liberals.”  I think I agree.  The goal here is eventually to rise above the reflexive, emotionally hijacked state.  When I feel my brow furrow, lips curl, heart rate accelerate,  and armpits sweat, I know I’m close to my limits.  I can choose to disengage and try again next time.  Just like with TRX Force, my tolerance and openness core will strengthen the longer I stick with the program.  I can then engage with an intact and rational intellect, guided by my core values of connection and shared humanity, seeking common interests and goals.

Uphold the Devil’s Advocate

Since the election, I often feel attacked by people on ‘my side’ whenever I suggest that ‘the others’ may not all be racist and misogynist xenophobes.  It’s not safe in some of my own circles to consider the humanity of the other side.  This refusal to consider multiple points of view, even among those who mostly agree with us, seriously threatens our capacity for meaningful discourse, from the inside out.  The echo chambers reverberate ever louder, drowning out our intellectual and emotional calling for generosity and connection.  Us vs. Them group-think oppresses, and it’s dangerous to our dialogue.  I wonder if moderates on the right also experience this.

Hereafter, I resolve to stand up a little taller in defense of people in general.  When I hear broad brush generalizations, I will play Devil’s Advocate and speak up for a valid alternative point of view.  I will ask questions starting with phrases like, “What if they also…” and “What is a more generous assumption we can make about…”  I hope more of us can practice holding this precious space.  Making room for another’s point of view does not weaken our own.  Respectful debate of dissenting opinions makes us more agile and articulate.  And the best place to practice is first within our own tribes.

Moving Forward

I had a list of ideals for this series, like “Rehumanize the ‘Others’” “Mind your limits,” and “Stay in Curiosity.”  It’s hard to separate and prioritize them; as I think of any one, the others inevitably intertwine.  So it will take me a while between posts to disentangle my thoughts.  Thank you for your patience and your feedback.  Maybe we can all be training buddies on this long journey.

Exploring the Rules of Engagement: A New Blog Series

dsc_0158

The Descent and the Rising

The past two weeks have assailed, masticated, consumed, digested, and expelled important parts of my psyche.  A week after basking in peaceful solidarity at the Women’s March, I found myself losing sleep and breaking out—both signs of acute distress.  My mind swam with questions of identity, purpose, and action.  I wrestled with fears around policy, violence, and integrity.  All of a sudden I wasn’t enough, I wasn’t doing enough.  Resist!  Call your representatives now!  Support this march and that protest!  And on the internet, rage escalated everywhere.

I read this article, which I highly recommend, on how to stay engaged and not lose your mind.  The author recommends that we focus our actions on one or two issues, and gives useful self-care tips.  After a few days, I was surprised to find that no particular issue moved me enough to passionate advocacy.  I began questioning my dedication.  But thank God for therapy (which the author also recommends), hallelujah!  I had a breakthrough in session last week, wherein I realized that I am, actually, enough.  And I do actually affirm one key interest: Relationship.

Duh.

For me, it’s less about specific issues than it is about how they’re addressed.  While generally I favor a progressive social agenda, I abhor the entrenched, partisan, winner-takes-all attitude that infects our government operations and civic discourse.  I also deplore the rhetorical, broad brush generalizations that people make about one another, based only on how we voted or an oversimplified position on one issue.  I wrote about this recently, though I buried the thesis in what should have been a separate discussion of healthcare reform.

Looking back, of course, relationship and communication have always been my core concerns—I launched this blog specifically to discuss them, for crying out loud!  Over and again I find myself in the role of mediator—between family members, Chinese and American culture, conventional versus alternative medicine, and between patients, physicians, and the healthcare system.  My whole life I have practiced, sometimes under duress, the art of mutual understanding and negotiation.  Maybe I’ve just been training for this moment in history.

How Talking Politics Is Like Eating Healthy

We could all learn and apply better practices.  We know the theories—more vegetables, less judgment, whole grains instead of processed, less name-calling and more calm, reasoned debate.  But so often the opposite happens:  junk food, sugary sodas,  pointless shouting and blaming—especially on social media.  We feel ashamed and frustrated at the futility of it all.  We figure screw it, I’ll never change (and neither will they), so why bother, it’s too much work, and anyway, it’s not the end of the world.

Never mind that your rising blood pressure and glucose accelerate the formation of atherosclerotic plaque each passing year, and that your risk of dying from a heart attack or stroke escalates exponentially as a result.  Never mind that the less we engage one another in meaningful ways, the farther apart we drift and the more we allow the most extreme factions of our parties to run the show.

The Challenge

In the coming weeks, I will share my own key learnings on healthier engagement practices.  I make no claims to have all the solutions, and I do not mean to be preachy.  These posts will serve mainly as reminders to myself, aspirational pieces to hold my own feet to the fire, marshaling my highest ideals of thought and behavior.  I will try to minimize promoting my own political views, though I suspect they will surface one way or another.  I hope you will follow with an open mind, and a heart that yearns to connect with the best of humanity, especially in those with whom you may disagree.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  It’s our relationships that save us.  Right now they desperately need repairs.  So let’s get to work.

An Aside

Hello friends.

Though I intend not to make this blog political, it’s more and more clear to me that I cannot exclude my social and political views from this forum.  If I am to be an authentic  writer, I must disclose certain values and beliefs that I hold dear.

My personal and professional missions are to maximize open communication, mutual understanding, shared vision, and collaboration for common good (basically world peace) between all people.  It will take my whole life to find and try different paths to that goal. Today I tried a new one for me.  It felt powerful, and I’ll reflect for a while on the experience.  Below are my initial impressions.

I marched with an estimated 150,000 people in Chicago today, a sister event of the Women’s March on Washington.


* * *

Beautiful day for marching.
The energy was positive, strong, and welcoming. It’s not every day that we get to participate personally in an actual, physical expression of a movement. I’m so glad we went.
I hope this day can be remembered in history like Woodstock–gatherings of people in peace, more to express what we are for than what we are against. Because we marched today FOR inclusion, solidarity, generosity, and the dream of a peaceful life for everybody.

Acts of violence, intolerance, hatred, or contempt by any of us marchers, regardless of the circumstances, would undermine the message and wreck the credibility of the movement.

Onward.

from a friend’s Facebook page…

Inspired

img_5403

…by a friend of a friend.

It’s okay to lament the darkness. Grief is normal and healthy.

But then go get a candle and light it.  Then go about lighting other people’s candles with yours.

The best part is, the light just multiplies. Your light shines no less brightly for giving some away.

And pretty soon darkness gives way to all of our light.

Peace and hope, friends. 

Inaugural Intentions

estes-2011

Things are feeling a bit dark again…  Reminds me of October, when I got emotionally hijacked by current events and found myself anxious and angry, but wouldn’t admit it for a while.  On the eve of a new presidential administration taking office, tensions run high once again and I’m challenged to avoid a similar decent into despair.

It really helped to take the Holiday Break and write to my friends.  I did it by hand, with colorful pens, stickers, and rubber stamps (I love rubber stamping).  I intended to connect more personally, and that’s exactly what it felt like.  As I see and hear expressions of fright, dread, sadness, anger, and pessimism among them, I intend to continue corresponding by pen and paper.  There’s just something more tangible about it, more intimate and permanent than email, text, or Facebook.  I have included excerpts below—the ones that felt particularly inspired.  They represent my intentions for managing myself in the coming years, of reinforcing my core values and focusing on my highest aspirations.  As Simon Sinek posted once:  “Fight against something, we focus on what we hate.  Fight for something, we focus on what we love.”

To my friends who have expressed, “get over it,” and “stop whining,” I respectfully request that you try to empathize with those of us who feel despondent.  Nothing will improve if we keep ridiculing and belittling one another.  If you experienced this from ‘us’ before the election, remember how it felt.  Rise above our worst collective behavior and help us overcome our fears and disappointment by showing us that we really do share more love and connection than we might think.

Unity and true indivisibility require all of us to pitch in and reach out.  I hope that by one year from now, we can all look back and feel proud of the connections and relationships we strengthened, from left to right and otherwise.

***

What a crazy year…  All bets are off, no one can possibly predict what will happen now—so much anxious uncertainty surrounds us all over the place!  …And yet I feel hopeful and optimistic.  This is the time for our best selves to truly shine—the perfect opportunity to call on everything we have trained for—all of the grit, the kindness, the curiosity, the openness, the brave vulnerability~~~all of it, in service of connection, mutual understanding, and forging a way forward to a BRIGHTER future!  Because we now know, again, in humanity’s history, what darkness looks and feels like.  We can’t stay here, and we won’t—we can each shine a light.  And if we stand close, the light amplifies exponentially.

So thanks for being a fellow light shiner, (my friend)!  May we keep our connections with each other and our other fellows ever close—we need us—the world needs us—now more than ever!!  Keep it lit, my friend.

***

…Hope this card finds you well and HOPEFUL.

Because I have decided that that is what we all need to practice more now than ever—HOPE.  Those of use who strive for conscious living and more connection than the superficial have TRAINED for this moment in history—to PRACTICE OUT LOUD and IN FRONT of everybody—to lead by example and make the difference we were born to make!  We don’t need to do big things—we just need to keep the faith and stay the course!

’Small things with great love,’ I think Mother Theresa said?

Please know I am here to support your efforts, as I know you are for mine!  Let’s get together and hold each other up again soon!

***

…Because I know so many people whose core values represent the BEST of our shared humanity—equality, compassion, community, connection, love, and forgiveness.  The world needs these qualities and practices by us more now than ever—so if we hold each other up, we’ll all be able to do the work better—TOGETHER!!  So here’s to long friendships and deep love!

***

I received this handwritten response from an old friend today.  It warms my heart and holds up my hope:

“While we may snarl a bit at anticipated political shenanigans, let us remember we have strength in numbers and determination to keep life in this country respectful and fair—simply by the ways we live and interact.”

***

And finally, I’m also encouraged that our international leaders express a similar optimism:

Angela Merkel: “I am very much convinced that we as partners benefit more if we act together than if everyone solves problems for themselves, and that is a constant fundamental attitude on my part.”

Peace to all of you, dear friends.  Let us manifest our best every day.

Getting Past ‘You Suck’ as Dialogue

img_4284

Hello again friends, and Happy New Year!  It feels good to be back.  Diving right in with long form again…

This recent article from Wired got me thinking (again), there are so many layers and moving parts to healthcare reform, that no one player stands to lose all or benefit all from any changes.  And yet so much of what we read and hear has an, ‘it’s so simple, they just don’t care about you, but I do’ tone.  The piece describes why insurance companies, who may have advocated most fervently against implementing ACA regulations, actually have a stake in maintaining its current status.  Nothing in our healthcare system is black or white, all good or all bad.

So when I see politicians (and friends) speaking and writing in oversimplified sound bites, and vilifying a whole group (all liberals, all Republicans) over one aspect of their point of view, it really frustrates me. That is exactly the opposite of productive dialogue.  It just makes people stop listening, because they don’t feel heard or understood.  So they have no incentive to hear or understand you.

Many use the car insurance analogy to explain health insurance.  It’s not exactly parallel, but it makes some sense.  The law requires every car to be insured.  (Drivers of) cars that don’t violate traffic law get lower premiums, the longer they stay ‘safe.’  The more traffic law violations, the higher the risk, the higher the premium.  I have an actuary friend, who works for a health insurance company, who advocates, in part, for higher premiums for those who ‘use’ the healthcare system more—like the higher risk cars (drivers).  I understand this logic.  But this idea of making older and sicker people, and women pay more, just because they ‘use’ the system more (and thus financially speaking cost more), does not sit well with me.  People are not cars.  Not everybody maintains their cars well.  But poorly maintained cars do not necessarily lead to increased accidents and traffic law violations.  Poorly maintained health often leads to a human body’s multi-car highway pile-up equivalents.

My friend advocates for insurance coverage for catastrophic care (also aligned with the car insurance model), but not necessarily for preventive or primary care.  There are different ways of ‘using’ the system. If you get preventive care, like recommended cancer screening and annual exams, it may cost more at the time. If you seek help for your back pain early, from your PCP, chiropractor, and physical therapy, that costs money.  But if these early interventions prevent future, more catastrophic and costly outcomes, should we really penalize those who make them?  Illness and infirmity come with age.  So, often, do fixed incomes.  Is it right to make our elderly pay more for their care?

There are costs and benefits to care other than money, which is where health insurance and car insurance diverge sharply, in my view.  I know they are harder to quantify and assign, but they matter.  That secure feeling that I can get care when/if I need it, that my children and I have access to professionals dedicated to my health and well-being, a sense that in our society, I matter just as much as the next person, regardless of my net worth—these things all matter.  Each individual’s health or illness contributes synergistically to the health or illness of a society.  A mother’s depression, untreated and uncontrolled because her health plan does not cover mental health services, can negatively affect every aspect of her and her children’s lives, emotionally, physically, financially, and socially.  We cannot only look at healthcare on dollar spreadsheets of ‘use.’

Maybe it’s about priorities and philosophy—ideology?  Do we feel all people have an equal right to equal care, or do we differentiate what people deserve based on particular group memberships or other characteristics?  Do we feel we should only be responsible for ourselves, or are we called to look out for one another?  I personally believe in equal access to care and ‘look out for others as yourself.’

I also believe that people need to understand–personally and concretely–that everything does cost money, we all pay for one another’s use (and disuse, and misuse) eventually, and more care is not necessarily better.  So I understand and partially agree with my friend’s argument that people need to have ‘skin in the game’ to control overuse of services for no benefit.  One great example is end of life care.  I like this article from Fobres, which describes the conundrum succinctly:

According to one study (Banarto, McClellan, Kagy and Garber, 2004), 30% of all Medicare expenditures are attributed to the 5% of beneficiaries that die each year, with 1/3 of that cost occurring in the last month of life.  I know there are other studies out there that say slightly different things, but the reality is simple: we spend an incredible amount of money on that last year and month.

Dr. Susan Dale Block, Chair and Director of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care at the Dana Farber Cancer Institute and Brigham and Women’s Health Care, recently shared some data with her colleagues.  In the Archives of Internal Medicine, a study asked if a better quality of death takes place when per capital cost rise.  In lay terms … the study found that the less money spent in this time period, the better the death experience is for the patient.

 
Cost, longevity, quality of life, quality of care, value, perceptions, public health—these and other aspects of health and medicine are all inextricably enmeshed, though definitely not integrated.  Any decisions about one must be made in the context of all the others, carefully, transparently, and honestly.  Whenever we hear, ‘if we just do this, everything will be better,’ red flags should fly.

I wrote the first draft of the paragraphs above on my Facebook page.  I ended the post with, “So let’s each educate ourselves on the facts, as well as we can, and try to look at the big picture. It’s so messy.  And it’s what we’ve got, so let’s deal with it–with maturity, patience, professionalism, and equanimity.”

Another friend, a fellow liberal, commented, “This has nothing to do with healthcare. It’s about reducing taxes on the wealthy, reducing benefits for the poor, and denying the democrats credit for anything good. If they actually cared about healthcare, they would fix the obvious problems with the ACA. And because the ACA was the republican plan, they will continue to tie themselves up into pretzels to disown it and put something else in place. That being said, I hope the American people continue to demand access to affordable healthcare for all. It’s a right, not a privilege.”

I had to reply: “(My friend,) I understand your point of view, and I share your passion for equality.  But your statement exemplifies exactly the broad brush, ‘you suck’ attitude that I see holding us all back.  I refuse to believe that all Republicans are only motivated by making the rich richer, and that none of them care anything about the poor, as so many of us on the left say.  We must extricate ourselves from this destructive narrative and learn to hold space for everybody’s complex views and experiences.”

My point here is that nothing is as simple as we’d like.  It’s so much easier to blame those who disagree with us for being stubborn, selfish, or evil, than to cope with the discomfort that our system is deeply flawed, there are no easy answers, and our fundamental philosophical differences make it that much harder to agree on the best way forward.  And yet, this is what we are called to do.  It’s up to each and every one of us to change our language.  Each of us has, I believe, the opportunity and the responsibility to create an environment in which open, respectful discussion and debate are the norm, rather than echo chambers and verbal warring.

I am only one person.  I have no designated leadership titles or widely visible platform.  But my words have power.  So do yours.  Please use them wisely.