Category: Talking to the Other Side

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Ethics: General, General Commentary, Gratitude, Innovation, language, People Helping People, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , ,
Here’s a true incident from my teenage college years. I made a mild request to a group of people and one of my dorm-mates lit into me about how I was always so selfish and didn’t care about other people. It hurt like hell to hear this–but I reflected on it and decided that he had a point. So I changed my behavior. Decades later, I saw him at a reunion and thanked him. He had no memory of the incident, but to me it was a key turning point.

Paths of apology and Forgiveness

Criticism usually has a grain of truth (or sometimes a bushel)–so start by expressing thanks, even if it’s delivered nastily. Especially, then, because listening and appreciating is the only way you’re going to get into a positive outcome with someone who’s hostile. Listen, let them get their feelings out, acknowledge their feelings, meaningfully apologize for your action if that’s appropriate. And even if you don’t feel a need to apologize for the behavior or policy, apologize for upsetting them or making them feel unvalued. Don’t try to explain or justify your action yet. Just listen.And whatever you do, don’t say, “I’m sorry, but…”–that’s not an apology. Keep an ear out for the opportunity to take a specific step that will help, and offer, out loud, to take that step. That might just be informing them ahead the next time, or it might be completely undoing an action. You have to decide how much of the criticism is justified and figure out what the real issue is (which may not be the expressed issue).
Once the other person is done venting and you’ve apologized or de-escalated, you might (but might not) want to ask, “would you like to know why I did it that way? Maybe we could think together about how I could do it differently next time so both of our needs get met.” With this, you make them a partner in your growth, and you increase the likelihood of finding a viable solution for both of you, building a relationship of cooperation, not hostility. But you’re really asking. if they decline, drop it. They don’t want to be your partner in potentially changing their behavior, or maybe they are just tired of doing the work of educating others on an issue that is a sore spot for them.
Abundance thinking applies not just to stuff or lifestyle, but to relationships. This is a strategy to create abundance by welcoming even the nay-sayers. Not only do you get to build a relationship, you discover flaws in your thinking, planning, and action that you might not have seen and can now work around. Who knows–maybe your critics will even become your friends or your business partners.
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Branding, Consumer Issues, Corporate Social Responsibility, Democracy, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Environment, General Commentary, Green Living/Green Lifestyles, Green Marketing, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, Politics, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , ,

A lead story in my local paper covers a proposed ordinance banning plastic in local businesses, with special attention to food businesses, in the small city of Northampton, MA (a big restaurant destination).

The sponsoring City Councilor is someone I know, and I wrote her this note:

Thanks for your good work on the plastics ordinance. As you know, I’ve been a green guy for 50 years, write books and give talks on greening business. One of my talks is called “Making Green Sexy.” Thus, the concerns I have with the plastics bill you’re championing are not about the intent. I would like to see potential problems addressed before it becomes law–so we avoid a debacle like the one we just had over the Main Street improvements (which I loved) and their sad, swift demise).

My big concern is that “recyclable” food containers aren’t recyclable, because paper and cardboard with food waste is not recyclable. We already know we’re not supposed to recycle pizza boxes. Any food waste in paper for recycling could cause the whole batch (potentially thousands of pounds) to be landfilled. It would make more sense to 1) require compostable, and 2) provide city composting stations in several neighborhoods as well as multiple ones downtown. It makes no sense to require compostable and do nothing to encourage composting. Many people will eat their food while still downtown and won’t be bothered to bring their compostable containers to their home compost pile or may not have access to composting at home.

Second, on the straw issue [banning plastic drinking straws]. Why not simply make an exemption for people with motor disabilities in their arms or mouth. For most businesses, a box of 100 plastic straws would probably last months.

Please share this note with your committee at today’s meeting.

We see over and over again that good intentions, not thought through, create more problems than they solve. The Main Street issue involved the city making its extremely wide Main Street much friendlier to bicyclists, pedestrians, and patrons of restaurant outdoor dining areas (which, in the pandemic, have increased in number tremendously)—but failing to get buy-in from (or even consult with) affected business owners, who agitated successfully, and the mayor removed all the improvements. This was sad, as a better situation returned to a worse one, wasting significant money in the process.

In my mind, the lesson was to think things through before acting.

I got this response, which shows that the councilors are indeed thinking about these issues:

Hi Shel- thanks for your support and counsel! Straws for those with disabilities are exempt. We are requiring reusable or compostable and are working on composting services and bulk buying.

Which then says to me that they’ve got a marketing challenge. The general public doesn’t know about this exemption. They also had a marketing challenge with the Main Street improvements. Getting affected parties to participate in decisions that affect them is always a good strategy. Putting in improvements only to discover that vested interests will fight them is not. The trick is to win over those vested interests before they dig in their heels.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, propaganda, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , ,

Dear Republican senators,


Before you vote not to convict, please consider a few things:

  1. If you are worried about a primary challenge from Trump supporters, put those worries aside. If you vote to acquit, you will face a challenge from at least one person who believes in the Constitution. It might be in the primary, it might be in the general election, and it might be both. If you are worried about death threats if you vote to acquit, that is one of the strongest reasons not only to convict but to make sure that those identified as committing violent acts on January 6th are swiftly brought to justice and serving long prison terms. Appeasement of bullies didn’t work with Hitler, didn’t work with Trump, and won’t work with a bunch of white nationalist hoodlums. Giving in will only embolden them and make it less safe for you as you try to do your job in a climate of increasing street violence by heavily armed thugs.
    Noose erected by rioters at the Capitol. January 6, 2021
    A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.
  2. It is in your self-interest to make sure as many as possible are identified, arrested, and convicted. Potential future rioters must know ahead of time that they will face major consequences for threatening the lives and safety of our elected representatives and for vandalizing our public spaces. And for those of you considering a run for president in 2024, you don’t want to face him again i the primaries.
  3. If you are one of those who voted to impeach or convict President Clinton for not keeping his pants zipped and lying about it, recognize that what the 45th president did was far, far worse. He even tried to turn House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s desperate plea for help during the insurrection into  “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are.” I don’t justify Clinton’s conduct. I only ask you to look at why you were willing to throw one president out of office for something that only affected himself, his family, and Ms Lewinsky but are not willing to hold accountable another who is entire presidency was mired in corruption, ending in clear incitement to overthrow our system of government.
  4. If there were pipe bombs planted in advance of the January 6th insurrection, doesn’t that only provide more evidence to the Impeachment Managers’ argument that the incitement didn’t start on January 6th? It started well before the election.
  5. This is your last chance to have history cast you in a positive light. Do you want to be remembered for understanding that your country, your republic, is more important to you than being loyal to a man who has been loyal to no one, even willing to throw fiercely loyal Vice President Pence and Attorney General Barr to the wolves because he saw even them as so insufficiently loyal that Pence’s personal safety was not a matter of concern? Or do you want to be remembered as such a coward that you put your chances of re-election–which will be no sure thing even if you vote to acquit, as I’ve noted above–ahead of your oath of office?

The choice is yours. History is watching. Do the right thing. Vote to convict.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Democracy, Ethics in Government, Politics, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Talking to the Other Side, Transparency vs. Secrecy Tagged with , , ,

Dear Republican Senators:

The man who was President at the time incited a seditious mob that tried to have you captured and possibly killed, just a few weeks ago. Yet 45 of you just voted to ignore this and act as if this was okay.

A gallows hangs near the United States Capitol during the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol. Photo by Tyler Merbler, licensed under Creative Commons.

Four years ago, you told us you would hold this man’s worst instincts in check. Instead, you’ve appeased and enabled almost every whim. What has that brought us? Here are 10 of hundreds of low points:

Frankly, you have everything to gain and little to lose by voting to convict. Several of you would like to run for that seat in 2024–and once you convict, you can ban him from holding public office in the future. You can’t win if he is in the race as a third-party candidate, and you also can’t gain that office if he is the nominee.

What few restraints we saw against this man’s megalomania came when the public resisted. Like most bullies, he will stand down if challenged–but gather strength and power if encouraged.

Yet you cower in your virtual basement as you cowered in the physical basement on January 6. You give in to your own fear. Fear of what? That he’ll badmouth you? He has zero loyaty. Sure, he’ll badmouth you. He’s been badmouthing anyone he sees as crossing him all along, even long-time allies from Bill Barr to Governor Kemp. He even wants to stiff Rudi, as he’s stiffed so many small businesses in his long and dishonorable career. So what? If 80-year-old Dr. Fauci can take the heat, so can you–especially now that he’s lost his platforms on social media.

Are you worried about being primaried? Let me tell you a couple of things:

  1. You are far more at risk of losing a general election to a Democrat who can call you to account for your four years of enablement and appeasement than you are at risk of losing a primary challenge by an ultra-right fringe candidate whose credibility you can easily undermine. Just ask your former colleagues in “safely Republican” Georgia.
  2. Despite his baseless campaign to overturn the results, there’s nothing dishonorable about losing an election. Thousands of former legislators have found excellent positions with major corporate or institutional employers, or started their own successful businesses (often consulting or lobbying businesses). Yes, you’ll lose your Medicare-for-all-style healthcare that only Members of Congress get to enjoy–but you can lobby your former colleagues to finally join the rest of the world in treating healthcare as a right.

This could be your last chance to show that even if you came late to the party, ultimately you were willing to honor your Oath of Office. That the Constitution and the idea of a democratic republic are ultimately more important to you than fealty to a would-be authoritarian dictator who has coddled our enemies, attacked our allies, and repeatedly attempted to shred anything in the Constitution he doesn’t like that day. Vote your princples, not your fears!Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Business Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, General Commentary, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , ,

Wall Street bull statue
Creator: Sam Valadi
Credit: ZUMAPRESS.com/Newscom
Copyright: via ZUMA Wire

A friend–my ex-boss, in fact–sent me this article on how 30 billionaires had vastly increased their wealth during the pandemic.

I wrote back:

While this is a good tool for generating outrage, it’s not where I will put my own energy. First, because I think one of the mistakes the Left makes is to try to divide ourselves to the super-rich and make them targets. Much more productive IMHO to work with them, make them allies, to fund necessary research and actions (as several of these people are cited as doing).

Second, to work for a tax structure that helps redistribute toward those in need. Harness the class anger toward this, rather than generating enmity toward people who we make less likely to do the right thing by shaming them and having demonstrations at their offices. Guilt and shame are lousy motivators. Let’s find ways to honor their virtue rather than shame their success.

On that second point, it would not be hard to find one-percenters who would join and be a public face for that movement. Many multimillionaires and even a few billionaires have come out for income equality, offered to pay higher taxes, donated much of their fortunes, subsidized social change movements. Do the names Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, or George Soros ring any bells?

I have a relatively modest 5-figure income, but I travel in circles where a lot of people have seven- or eight-figure annual incomes. My life is full of abundance and blessings, and I don’t begrudge them their wealth. I do begrudge those who push for corporate welfare policies that penalize the poor while adding unnecessary zeroes at the end of their own already large bank balances–people whose goal in life seems to be transferring as much wealth as possible from the poor to the super-rich. And I don’t believe those few people, powerful though they are, represent the majority of the one percent.

In fact, I believe that smart corporations recognize that labor and consumers are partners in their success who deserve to share in the wealth they help create. They embrace social responsibility, partner actively with neighborhood groups, and grow their businesses by finding ways to serve.

But there’s an element on the left that sees wealth as inherently evil, and the wealthy as always the enemy.

I remember when a philanthropist and peace activist I know lost her house in a fire. Some of the public comments on the news stories were not only not compassionate, they were downright vicious: how dare she accumulate wealth and live in a mansion?

Well, sorry, but making her the enemy is just plain stupid. She’s an activist and philanthropist who chooses to use her money for good. And even if she were totally selfish, she still wouldn’t be the enemy. Rich or poor, we all want dignity and respect. And when we pigeonhole her as an enemy, what we do is alienate not just her but others in her cohort. So non-activist wealthy people who might have funded our causes are instead pushed into the arms of those who proclaim respect for the wealthy. If their politics are not strong, they may even choose to fund causes that actively defend their privilege.

WordPress is not letting me link properly, so here are the sources:

  • Billionaires who got richer during the pandemic: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/12/01/american-billionaires-that-got-richer-during-covid/43205617/
  • Public face: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/what-billionaires-said-about-wealth-inequality-and-capitalism-in-2019.html
  • Donated: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/warren-buffett-donates-2-9-billion-to-gates-foundation-family-charities/ar-BB16u7tr
  • Income inequality: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/warren-buffett-donates-2-9-billion-to-gates-foundation-family-charities/ar-BB16u7tr
  • Corporate welfare: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ten-examples-of-welfare-for-the-rich-and-corporations_b_4589188
  • Penalize the poor https://talkpoverty.org/2014/10/07/punished-for-being-poor/ . For a specific discussion of the subsidy wealtheir people get from low-paid immigrant labor, https://www.stltoday.com/opinion/mailbag/underpaid-immigrants-help-poor-subsidize-the-rich/article_2f1d8094-9700-5f8b-8d38-562fd75a7657.html
                                                                                                                          • Donated their fortunes: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/warren-buffett-donates-2-9-billion-to-gates-foundation-family-charities/ar-BB16u7tr

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, Activism, Demographics/Psychographics, Diversity, Energy & Sustainability, General Commentary, Innovation, language, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

interracial couple in US flag regalia
interracial couple in US flag regalia

As the United States of America marks its 244th birthday today, it’s a good time to look at the state of this nation.

The US was the first modern constitutional democracy, just shy of 26 years earlier than second-place Norway. That’s a terrific achievement that makes many Americans proud–including me. But the founders of this country were White, male property owners, some of whom saw human beings as part of their property. And the democracy they created was an unequal one that gave voting rights only to White, male property owners. It took all the way until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to extend that franchise all the way down to Black women in all parts of the segregated South.

Americans think of ourselves as a “can-do” people. Over the course of its history, the US has often been in the vanguard, with the rest of the world playing catch-up later. The US was especially good at technology, pioneering innovations ranging from the interchangeable parts that made mass production possible to the amazing moon missions that took less than seven years from JFK’s speech at Rice University to Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap for mankind” as he became the first person ever to set foot on the lunar surface, to enormous leadership in green energy from the 1970s into the 1990s.

And Americans often see ourselves as the greatest country in the world. In many ways,  that image is correct. We have amazing natural and scenic resources, a wide diversity of people, cultures, ecosystems, and more. We are very resilient, even scrappy at times. We have a democracy that has not only lasted but expanded. We’ve birthed may popular movements for justice and liberation, and experiments in new ways to form community, that went around the world.

As one example, it’s hard to imagine the LGBT movement globally without the strength of that movement in the US starting in 1969 with Stonewall. Stonewall didn’t magically spring up out of nowhere. Little-known homosexual-rights advocacy groups like the Mattachine Society (for men) and Daughters of Bilitis (for women) had been around since the 1950s. The Gray Panthers, founded in Philadelphia, took on agism. Disability activists pushed through the Americans with Disabilities Act.

But we also lead in many areas where leading isn’t a good thing. 73 percent of US homicides involve a firearm, and per capita firearms ownership is more than twice the number of #2 Yemen. The US is the only country to have more guns than people. We have the highest healthcare costs in the world but far from the best outcomes. And of course, new cases of Coronavirus are raging in the US, while Europe and Asia have done a much better job on control.

And despite the perception of American exceptionalism–that we’re a beacon to the rest of the world–there are many areas where the US is far, far below “the best in the world.” This could be a much longer list, but here are a few examples:

The US has enabled an enormous transfer of wealth from middle-class and working-class people to the 1 Percent. People of color have faced numerous additional institutional barriers to participating in that wealth.

The US has also been a hotbed of hatred, where for centuries, people have been attacked and often killed for their real or perceived skin color, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and other factors. The FBI’s most recent statistics, for 2018, document 7,120 hate crime incidents (this list taken verbatim from the site):

  • 59.5 percent stemmed from a race/ethnicity/ancestry bias.
  • 18.6 percent were motivated by religious bias.
  • 16.9 percent resulted from sexual-orientation bias.
  • 2.2 percent stemmed from gender-identity bias.
  • 2.1 percent resulted from bias against disabilities.
  • 0.7 percent (58 offenses) were prompted by gender bias.

My guess is that these terrible statistics don’t even count police murders of people of color.

What is the Real America?

Technically, America is much more than the US. It’s everything from the northern tip of Alaska to the southern tip of Argentina–and Americans live anywhere within. But right now, I’m just talking about the US.

And the answer is…all of the above, and more. Our diversity is part of our resilience and our strength. But our education (in school and out, and that includes social media) tends to sharpen our existing divisions and make it hard to find people who disagree with us–let alone have those meaningful, structured conversations that explore how we can work together with people who are not like us.

And it hasn’t helped that the current president has repeatedly and publicly embraced racism,  misogyny, ableism, and difference, while promoting suppression of real news and science, monolithic social mores that ignore or (sometimes even physically) attack different perspectives, and dictatorships in other countries. A president who has put children in cages, essentially closed the borders to legitimate asylum seekers (long before COVID), slashed the safety net, appointed a likely child abuser to the Supreme Court, and made a mockery of our cherished democracy.

This Moment: A Time for Action

Many things are changing in our society this year:

  • The pandemic has changed the way we interact–and created a ridiculous ideologically based divide between those who take precautions and those who don’t
  • Anger around police mistreatment has created a mass movement
  • COVID has shown that our entire society can pivot, that all those “impossible”changes around issues from climate change to racism are actually less drastic than what we’ve already changed

In short, the cauldron is bubbling. What emerges depends on what we put in–but this could be a time to Make America Great, finally.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Democracy, Ethics in Government, language, People Helping People, Politics, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , , ,

Like many on the Left, I was disappointed that a whole slew of brilliant progressives with the skills to be president failed to get traction. And I was dismayed by the Biden campaign’s sneak-attack success at undermining Elizabeth Warren’s chances just before Super-Tuesday, with the very public withdrawals and endorsements by Klobuchar and Buttigeig. If we had Ranked-Choice Voting and other long-overdue electoral reforms in place, this would not have been a problem.  (Note: that second post is something I wrote back in 2007, outlining seven important reforms. At that time, Ranked-Choice was usually referred to as Instant Runoff.) But it left a lot of us feeling angry and left out.

With the withdrawal of Bernie and Elizabeth and their eventual endorsement of Biden in the weeks following, things shifted from who do we want as our ally to who do we want as our adversary? This is a very important distinction, brought to my attention by Erica Chenowith, who is known for her work showing that nonviolent struggle by just 3.5% of the population is enough to bring down a government. We will make more progress in a Biden administration than the current administration. We have already pushed Biden’s rhetoric well to the left and have given him the space to make the recent statements condemning DT’s racism.

Effigy of "the Donald," photographed by Shel Horowitz at the Climate March, April 2017, Washington, DC
Effigy of “the Donald,” photographed by Shel Horowitz at the Climate March, April 2017, Washington, DC

I already voted, on super Tuesday. But if I lived in a state that was yet to have its primary, I would absolutely vote for Sanders in order to increase that leverage from the left. But that’s all it will do. Sanders will not be the nominee. That dream is over! While giving more strength to the Sanders coalition, we have to recognize that in November, barring some kind of miracle or catastrophe, Biden’s name will be on the ballot. And the more out of control DT gets, the more he tilts actively toward fascism as he has been doing with increasing strength ever since the impeachment failed, the more urgent it is to make the margin of victory so big that DT cannot steal it this time (the 2016 results will be under a cloud forever).

We need to fight for every vote in swing states even if that means having recounts. To delegitimize the current administration in every way possible.

The absence of DT’s actual name in this post is deliberate. It is one small way we reduce his legitimacy, and his bragging rights.

I was on an Indivisible NoHo call with our progressive Central/Western Massachusetts congressman, Jim McGovern, this week. He noted that Biden was not his first choice, or even his fourth choice. That’s true for me as well. I think of the 22 original candidates, I had him at about 17. But we lost that one. Again!

Yes, Sanders would have made a fine and successful nominee that I could have supported with a lot more enthusiasm. He was my second choice, after Warren. Yes, absolutely vote Sanders in the primary but recognize that Sanders will not be the nominee and this is about giving strength to the left to negotiate with Biden.Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Eco-friendly, Energy & Sustainability, Entrepreneurship, Environment, Ethics in Government, Innovation, language, Marketing Techniques and Philosophies, People Helping People, Politics, poverty, Protests and Crackdowns, Psychology, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , , , ,

Erica Chenoweth, nonviolent activism researcher
Erica Chenoweth, nonviolent activism researcher

Yesterday and today, I’ve listened to a bunch of the EarthDayLive2020 conference. It’s exciting to see this intergenerational, intercultural, and very smart group of activists and performers  attracting thousands of viewers over Zoom.

One speaker, Erica Chenowith, tossed off a remark that changed everything I think about the 2020 US presidential election. She said—and this is so clear after all the progressives exited the race—that we get involved with this election not to choose our ally but to choose our adversary (she used the term “enemy,” but I think my term gets her meaning more accurately).

This, to me, might be the secret sauce for getting progressives to come out and vote. In this scenario, Biden migrates from lesser evil to far, far better adversary. With a moderate and relatively honest Democrat in the White House, progressives will have a much easier time moving our agenda forward. Biden will be more pliable on economic issues, on the social safety net, and on the environment. He is no Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, but he is someone who does listen, and who occasionally changes his mind—as he did on same-sex marriage. In the Bill Clinton era, he supported the horrid DOMA, but he pushed Obama well to the left when marriage equality came to the tipping point.

He is already likely to reinstate the US into the Paris Climate Accord. Once he understands how the Green New Deal will create jobs, put discretionary spending into people’s pockets, and reduce our vulnerability both to foreign oil oligarchs and to runaway multinational corporations—thus reducing the risk of war—I think he would support it or at least not interfere with it.

And while the Obama administration, where he was VP, had a poor record on immigration justice, the cruelty that DT has consistently shown to immigrants and refugees is orders of magnitude worse. I saw this with my own eyes in a week volunteering at the US/Mexico border in February; my wife wrote this piece about it.

In other words, a Biden administration would be a much more welcome adversary. It would be more humane, more willing to work with other countries, interested in preserving rather than destroying the environment—and far more predictable. And it would be a complete rejection of the apparent main goal of the current occupant: to make himself even richer and everyone else be damned. In other words, Biden will be someone who will respond as we would like him to, at least some of the time—and who is unlikely to ever engage in the viciously destructive hate-based politics we see every day.

There’s ample precedent. LBJ, the long-time Southern politician, not JFK, the liberal icon, was the one who signed several pieces of civil rights legislation and declared war on poverty. Richard Nixon, a Republican and anticommunist extremist, was probably the president who did the most to protect the  environment other than perhaps Obama–not because he believed in the cause, but because public outcry left him no other choice. (Of course, the good work Johnson and Nixon did on these issues in no way gives them a pass around the Vietnam war, domestic repression, etc.)

I’d love to hear from progressives who take electoral politics seriously—is this the way we attract young disillusioned progressives who are ready to sit out the election because we are once again stuck with a centrist candidate who doesn’t really represent us? Please weigh inFacebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Activism, Branding, Democracy, Ethics in Government, General Commentary, Politics, propaganda, Psychology, Shel's Personal Life, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Along with much of the nation, I get to decide what vision for the next four years inspires me. As a progressive, I have many friends in both the Warren and Sanders camps. 

I  think either Bernie or Elizabeth would do well in debates against DT and win big against him, IF the likely Dem voters in swing states are allowed to vote and if ballots are counted fairly. Those are two very big IFs, and they will be an issue with pretty much any Democratic candidate. For Sanders, it’s even more of an issue because the party is so hostile to the idea of his nomination that they will do whatever they can to sabotage it. One only has to look at the dirty tricks the Hillary Clinton campaign used against him four years ago.

But my big worry with Bernie is he may get elected but be functionally unable to govern, because the Dem establishment will block his agenda at every turn, as the Repubs promised but failed to do with DT. Bernie is not a team player or a negotiator and he will get sabotaged.

I also think Elizabeth is smarter and her plans are more well-thought-out. She would prove that HRC didn’t lose because she’s a woman but because she 1) came with a whole lot of negative baggage, such as the pay-to-play scandal, 2) ran a terrible campaign (as just one example: failing to visit Wisconsin even once between the convention and the election, despite losing hugely to Sanders in the Wisconsin primary), and 3) faced a disinformation campaign funded by at least one foreign government. I voted proudly for Bernie in the primary four years ago (and not-so-proudly for HRC in November), but I’m voting for Warren tomorrow. I live in Massachusetts and feel she’s done an excellent job as my Senator.

I do agree with my Bernie-supporter friends that if she does poorly on Super Tuesday, it’s time for her to endorse Bernie and get out.

I have to wonder yet again why the Dems didn’t bring us mandatory hand-countable paper ballots (I wrote that post back in 2007)  and ranked-choice voting when they had the chance in ’09. I don’t think DT would be squatting in the Oval Office if there had not been active voter suppression (see that top link in this post again) and if there were paper-ballot recounts in those three very marginal states that put him over the top–and yet the Dems ignored (and may have actually sabotaged) Jill Stein’s effort to get recounts there. Their failure means I and millions of others do not accept the 2016 results as legitimate. It would have been healthy for the country to settle the question of who actually one.

I also don’t believe DT would be president if we’d had ranked choice four years ago. We might have President Hillary Clinton, President Ted Cruz, or President Bernie Sanders–but we would not have this lying, cheating, mean-spirited sociopathic bully destroying our foreign policy, our environment, our education, and our human rights.

I am proudly voting for Warren tomorrow. And in response to those who say a vote for anyone other than Sanders is ultimately a vote for Biden, let me quote democracy activist and constitutional scholar Jennifer Taub:

Q: Bernie supporters told me that a vote for Elizabeth is a vote for Biden. Is that true?

A: No. A vote for Elizabeth is a vote for Elizabeth. Bernie’s camp is reasonably worried that nobody will have a majority of delegates when they get to the convention this summer?.

There are rules in place that Bernie helped write in 2016. Under those rules, on the first vote at the convention, pledged delegates must vote according to our primaries. If nobody has a majority, then there will be a second vote. On the second vote, delegates can realign. And so on.

It’s quite likely that neither Bernie nor Biden nor Warren will have a majority at the outset. So, all three of them will be viable and there will be some serious horse trading.

Please join me in voting for the future we want, and not any kind of “lesser evil.” We might have to do that in November, but we certainly don’t have to do it now.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

By Posted on Posted in Abundance and Prosperity, General Commentary, Gratitude, People Helping People, Shel's Personal Life, Social and Economic Justice, Talking to the Other Side Tagged with , , , ,

Healing

Sand Mandala by Anandajoti Bhikkhu from Sadao, ThailandThis year, healing will have both a personal and a global component, starting with a deeply moving experience in mid-December. In August, 2018, my stepfather was in the crosswalk in front of his apartment, on his way to his daily 3-mile jog. He had activated the flashing light and was making his way across when a driver, looking at the GPS on the phone in her lap instead of the road, struck and killed him.

On December 16, 2019, we finally got our day in court. In collaboration with my sister and my wife, we had submitted a statement more than a year earlier saying we didn’t feel incarceration would serve any purpose, and we proposed instead that the driver perform community service by speaking about distracted driving to audiences that would include high school students. This came out of our belief in restorative justice, and not out of any human connection with the defendant.

But that connection came when we went to court. I read my statement and added some unscripted thoughts based on information that had come to light since I’d submitted it. She read a deep and sincere apology. We both cried during our statements.

After she was sentenced to three years of probation with 200 hours per year of community service, half of it speaking, I went up and hugged her, and then we all (the defendant, my wife and I, and our respective lawyers) found a meeting room and spent about 40 minutes together, forging a connection that I think will be lasting. Before the hearing, I never in my wildest dreams thought we might become friends. Now I think that’s quite possible.

I wrote up that day in some detail in the Gratitude Journal I’ve posted daily on Facebook since March, 2018. And I heard from several people that my account was one of the most moving things they’d read in a long time. The Gratitude Journal, by the way, has deepened my life in many ways, but that’s for another time.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this hearing was a day after Shonali Burke sent out her newsletter with her three Brogan words, and that she and I have been emailing about her newsletter, and my promise to her that if I came up with the words, I’d share them with her.

So that’s on the personal side. Let’s touch on the global side of healing.

For me, healing is bound up with justice. All of the work I do to make the world better has both a healing component and a focus on justice. Whether I’m attempting to help heal an ill individual (I do send prayers when asked), a threatened ecosystem, or a rift between very different communities with different culture and values, these two parts will be there.

And especially when there’s so much division and even hatred in our society today, it’s very challenging to find the positive, find the places of agreement, and work outward from there to mutual respect even though our conclusions–coming out of those widely divergent values and cultures–may be so different.

This has been a challenge my entire adult life, starting when I was 17 or 18 and at a demonstration at a military base near my college in Ohio. I found myself drawn to the fences, where a few of us were starting to talk with the soldiers on the other side of those chain-links. And I found that this felt really powerful.

I’m far from an expert in cross-barrier dialogue, but I find that the more I do it, the easier it gets. Even with my limited skills, I work really hard to find ways for people who disagree to talk and listen with each other. And the opportunities are all around us. Over these fifty years, I’ve had conversations not just as a progressive talking with conservatives but also as a Jew talking with Arabs and Muslims, a bisexual interacting with and educating both straights and gays (separately), a believer in conscious capitalism working with socialists who have absolutely no use for the business world, a believer in minimum standards of living for poor people who gets into ardent discussions with uber-capitalists who think anyone can claw their way out of poverty, a techno-klutz among geeks and a whiz kid among Luddites. Some of these have been highly structured, others are casual conversations.

As I said, opportunities for dialogue are all around us.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my three words and the rationale and goals underpinning them. You’re welcome to share this with friends and colleagues–and to post your own three words in the comments.

If you missed the earlier posts, please click to read Part 1, Clarity, and Part 2, Justice,

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail