Category Archives: politics

Two Buttock Riding

Posted on by
5

 

Continued from last week…

My objective for the coaching session was to figure out where I really want to put my energy for the foreseeable future.  I felt essentially torn between my paraprofessional activities (writing and speaking on physician health, patient-physician relationship, bridging silos in medicine) and my nascent political activism (community involvement, calling and writing to Congress, thinking of running for office someday??).  It felt like I should choose, and yet something told me they could be integrated.

Highlights from the call:

What is your goal for the end of this session?

Clarity and direction; movement.  Readiness to act.

How close are you already?

85-90%

How will you know when you have it?

Hard to describe…  It will be a dual certainty, like choosing furniture, knowing whether I like a person: cognitive and visceral.  It will feel decisive.

How are you feeling now?

Overwhelmed, distracted.  [Recall Doug the dog, in the movie, “Up”—Squirrel!]  OMG there is too much to keep up with: Healthcare, Russia, immigration, refugees, border security, Russia, EPA, what-the-hell-did-he-just-say-and-what-the-hell-does-that-mean?, racism, misogyny, intolerance, Russia, free speech, NIH funding, science, climate change, women’s rights, the Persisterhood, congressional seats up for grabs across the country, and oh yeah, the rest of my actual life.  Every day five new things to look up, articles on both left and right to compare notes, filtering facts from spin, trying to stake independent and educated positions backed by evidence!  GAAAAHH!

What would happen if you didn’t do that?

I do what do, spend hours a day reading and trying to engage in discussion (in person and on social media), in order to be credible in my conversations, to engage from a place deeper than superficial rhetoric or simple emotional reactivity.  My big fear: If I don’t do it, I will become one of those loud-mouthed, uninformed ranters who has no evidence for my broad-brush, oversimplified generalizations and ad hominem attacks.

What is the 98% truth about that?

Not likely to happen.  That’s just not me, I don’t do that.  I always look for evidence to back up what I say, and when I don’t have it, I own up.  If I don’t know what I’m talking about, I listen more and ask more questions, or I don’t engage until I have something useful to contribute.

And the 2% truth?

There is still a risk.  I may spew sometimes—when I get triggered and e(motionally)-hijacked.  I feel particularly susceptible right now, with all of my core values and our generation’s social progress seemingly under attack.

AND, I never live here.  I may wallow a few days (1-2 weeks, max), stewing in cynicism and resentment.  But I always rise up, usually with the help of others, with writing, and with time.  I always come out having learned something, and resolving to apply the learning (usually about myself and my relationships) to whatever comes next.

***

Insights gained:

I’m okay.

In reviewing my time spent on my screens each day, I realize most of it edifies me and connects my mental dots of current events, social science, and personal meaning.  I know not to spend time on baseless rants and otherwise rhetorical opinion pieces.  I choose articles with links to data, history, and primary sources, and ones that challenge my thinking or oppose my positions (sometimes).  I look for nuance, complexity, examples of collaboration and compassionate leadership.  This is what I spend my time and energy on; it broadens my perspectives and integrates the knowledge and ideas I already have.  It fosters my own creativity and philosophy.  This is who I am.

It’s the blog.

This is what I want to spend my energy on.  It’s my platform, my thing.  All the paraprofessional stuff I do was born of this: What gives doctors meaning is the relationships we get in our work—mostly with patients, but also with one another and society at large—status, respect, contribution.  Physician, wellness/resilience, the intersection of health and leadership, bridging silos (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, insurers, hospital administrators)—it’s all about relationships.  And, so is politics.

Therefore, I will use this blog for all of it. I can share my letters to Congress.  I can continue to write about physician-patient relationship.  I know I have written about this before, but somehow it required some reinforcement:  It’s all connected, and it’s all me.

FEAR.

Of course, that’s what really holds me back (yup, written about that before, too).  Fear of attack, rejection, overwhelming engagement obligation and getting sucked into negative, counterproductive exchanges with strangers.  Fear that I have nothing useful to say.  Someone else has already said it better and reached more people.  Who am I to think that my words matter?  It’s all so paralyzing.

I got this.  

I’m ready.  It’s time.  Because: Nothing I say or write, at work or on Facebook or anywhere, is anything I would not say or write in public.  Integrity is important to me—to be the same person in private that I am in public.  I’ve been practicing, and getting better, as evidenced by the civil exchanges I facilitate on my Facebook page (which I will also share more of), bringing together friends from different walks of life in meaningful conversation.  We exchange important ideas, always concluding cordially, all relationships intact and even, I daresay, strengthened.

And, my blog is my space.  I get to manage who comes on (into my house), and I make the rules for how we engage (no poop flinging).  I don’t comment on public sites like Washington Post or New York Times, or large Facebook groups (usually) because that is like leaping into a flash mob of the worst kind.  There is no meaningful exchange or benefit for anyone.  Here, threads can be more personal, meaningful, and transformative.

***

New Goals:

Shift the Boundaries.

I can push my fearful limits and present myself more confidently to the world.  I can choose to plant more color and texture in my front yard.  I can also dig it up and throw it out if I realize it clashes with the house.  It’s all good.  And I must also mind the costs, especially to my family.  So, I can bring them closer by putting the screens out of arms’ reach when I’m with them.  Easier said than done, and definitely worth the effort.

Focus on the WHY.

It’s all about cultivating productive, contributory relationships–first with myself, then with others, and then between all of us, for more peace, love, and joy for us all.

Publish Weekly.

If this is where I want to put my energy, then I want to have something to show for it.  Plus, it’s therapeutic.  Writing calms me, which I need now more than ever, as you can see.  For now I can stop chasing conference presentations, formal leadership roles, Daily Actions to prove I am an engaged citizen.  I can simply write when I am moved—and I am always moved—and share it here.

See you next week!

 

Sharing an Emotional Request

Posted on by
15

htc-postcard-screenshot-cropped

Exploring the Rules of Engagement for Healthier Political Discourse, Third Query.

I’m still working on how to balance it all.  Every day I wake up and before long I feel tense, asking myself, “What can I do today to make a positive difference to our country?  How can I make my voice, calling for collaboration and connection, heard?”  It’s a struggle to extricate myself from that, and be present to work, family, chores, etc.

But I think I’m doing better.  Every day I feel an urge to write.  I have ordered postcards with the Healing Through Connection photo, title, and URL, to write to Congress.  I figure, if I’m going to write to them, they might as well know who I am and what I stand for (which, I hope, this blog makes pretty clear).

I’m never sure how effective it is to send emails via senators’ and representatives’ web pages, does anyone know?  Well anyway, it probably can’t hurt, and it makes me feel better that I’m doing something.  Today I started with my US representative, writing about Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest and ties to Russia.  I then copied, pasted, and edited to send to each of my senators.  I noticed that each time I revised, I added a sentence or two that brought my personal perspective on government into clearer relief.  It’s not just about policy.  It’s about how policy gets negotiated–which is about communication and relationships.  Finally, I wrote to Senator John McCain, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The letter is below.  Ironically, I forgot to include the link to this blog.  But that’s okay, I’ll probably write him again soon.

I’m pretty proud of this letter (email).  I think it’s respectful and validating, while also challenging.  I tried to imagine Senator McCain actually reading it.  I want him to feel seen–to understand that though I am not his constituent or a member of his party, I still appreciate him as a person.  We are all in this together, and I want him to feel supported by people ‘on the other side.’  I want to embolden any part of him that wishes to make an emotional appeal to his colleagues.  Whenever we see the word ’emotional’ we immediately, subconsciously, also think ‘hysterical.’  They are far from synonymous, and I want to take that stigma away.

Two articles I read this week support my conviction for taking an emotional/limbic approach to political conversations.  The first was a detailed piece in The New Yorker that describes the science behind why facts don’t change our minds.  Second was an October article in the Harvard Business Review on how to engage and make it safe for people (Trump supporters in particular) to change their minds and positions.  It does not specifically reference the Harvard Negotiation Project, but it reminds me in many ways of the book Getting to Yes, written by HNP founders William Ury and Roger Fisher.  I plan to write more about principles from this book in the coming weeks.  I have listened to it again since the election, and it helps ground me.

I thought about sharing my letter on one of the many secret, liberal groups on Facebook, and/or on my personal page.  But somehow it felt more appropriate to share here.  I am aware that this makes me vulnerable to public attacks on my politics and positions.  With engagement comes risks, so boundaries are in order.  My boundaries here are the same as on Facebook:

  1. No ad hominem.
  2. Keep your comments respectful and civil.
  3. Read the entire post before commenting.
  4. I reserve the right to remove comments that violate the requests above.  Commenting on this blog is like coming into my home and talking to me.  I would not allow you to fling fecal words in my home, at me or my other guests, and the same principle applies here.

What do you think?

*** *** ***

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for your decades of service to our country.

I am a liberal independent from Chicago, a woman, a daughter of immigrants, and a physician.

I remember the 2008 campaign and how you treated Barack Obama with respect and professionalism.  I remember how you corrected the woman at a debate when she claimed he was an Arab.  You made a deep impression on me that night, for manifesting integrity with unwavering conviction.  I see you doing it again now, as we face the profoundly alarming and appalling existential threat of the new administration.

I write today to request that you consider how best to use your influence and credibility, with your longstanding tenure in the military and the Senate, to encourage and empower your colleagues, especially those on the right, to stand up for the conscience of the nation.  We need a comprehensive, bi-partisan investigation into Donald Trump’s many conflicts, and especially those with Russia. I know you already support this.

I have no idea what it must be like in your work.  But as a primary care physician, I talk to people for a living, trying to help them change their behavior to more closely align with their long term health goals.  It takes kindness, persistence, patience, presence, and trust.  Simply arguing facts and positions does not work.  We need to appeal to people’s emotions–to their deeply held (and perhaps forgotten or buried?) values of integrity, responsibility, accountability, and conscience.  We humans are emotional decision-makers, though we think ourselves so rational.  Research tells us that much of the time, we simply rationalize.  Thus, to change people’s behavior, we need to shed emotional light, with compassion and empathy, on the discrepancies between their actions and their integrity.  And we need to make it safe for them to admit to those discrepancies, rather than shame them for it.  Only then will they, slowly, make meaningful change.

I imagine that over the years, you have cultivated the relationships with your colleagues that paved the way for the important conversations that must happen now.  Please, for all our sakes, engage with your colleagues around your common humanity and shared mission of protecting our democracy, and of showing the world that our government is one of integrity.

Thank you, and best wishes to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Catherine Cheng, MD FACP

 

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

Posted on by
13

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?