Category: Current Event

Posted on

the great divide

I can’t think of any other way to say it. Our government simply isn’t accomplishing very much right now.

Before the Trump-haters start cheering or his apologists take offense, I’m not talking about The President. This dynamic has continued to evolve in the last two administrations, Republicans making it their stated goal to obstruct Barack Obama at every turn, and now Democrats so unwilling to work with the Trump administration that they are calling themselves “The Resistance.”

It didn’t used to be this way. Politicians from both parties used to go after each other pretty hard during their campaigns, but even in the most contentious contests, once they were elected, they put the campaigns behind them and got on with the vital work of governing. The consideration of various issues did not involve who won or lost, only what was best for the American people. In fact, some of the best examples of legislative achievement have been partnerships that reached across the aisle:

  • Democrat George McGovern introducing food stamps with Republican Bob Dole to control costs and help the truly needy
  • Bob Dole again with Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan in an attempt to save Social Security
  • Bill Clinton working with a bitterly divided Congress to pass welfare reform
  • Conservative Orrin Hatch providing children’s health insurance with ultra-liberal Edward Kennedy
  • Socialist Russ Feingold creating campaign finance reform with maverick John McCain so neither side would view it as the other’s solution
  • Indiana Republican Richard Lugar collaborating with Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn on nuclear disarmament, and later with Illinois Democrat Barack Obama

That’s not the way things work today. I don’t know if it’s the Internet, Twitter, or 24-hour cable news, but we are now in constant campaign mode. Every issue is seen as an opportunity to win points against one’s opponents for the next campaign. We never get around to governing! I don’t know which side wins, but it’s the American people who lose.

We saw it in the last administration, when Mitch McConnell stated, “My number one priority is making sure President Obama is a one-term president.” And we saw it again during the recent health care debates, when every Democrat voted “No” on everything, and Republicans couldn’t find a solution to which 50 of 52 Senators could agree.

We’ve lost a number of elements critical to public service in this transformation into constant-campaign mode: no one is governing anymore, we aren’t making any progress on anything, and civility is completely out the window.

It’s this last point where I think the discussion needs to begin. Because politicians are in constant-campaign mode, they have to keep their bases energized, engaged, and most importantly, sending money. So they speak about those on the other side in the vilest terms, be it the Democrats who want to kill children through abortion or the Republicans who want to kill children by taking away their healthcare.

I’m pretty sure no one want to kill children. But how can the two parties be expected to work together when they talk about each other as if they were evil?

That’s where we’re going this week. With The Intramuralist away getting some much-deserved R&R, we’re going to do a 4-part series on how to quit talking about people who have different political views than we do as if they were mal-intentioned or misinformed. There are legitimate reasons one may choose to be liberal. There are legitimate reasons one may choose to be conservative. Following this introduction, we’ll explore each of these viewpoints.

One of these will come more easily to me. But I’m hoping you can’t tell which.

And I’m asking each reader not to focus on their own viewpoint and say, “Yeah, that’s right!” but on the other viewpoint and say, “Ok, I can understand why one might feel that way.”

Then in conclusion – and I don’t even know yet whether I can do this – we will seek common ground. Is it possible to focus on the things upon which we can agree rather than where we differ? Can we combine the best of each into solutions that would be better for all?

I don’t know. But we’re not making any progress the way things are. Let the journey begin….

Respectfully,

MPM

 

Photo by Jonatan Pie on Unsplash

Posted on

accepted the way we are?

Early in our relationship, my wife and I debated the proposition that people have the ability to change who they are — the attributes and characteristics that are most deeply ingrained in their being — personalities and orientations, so to speak. The way we respond to situations, the way we compose ourselves in different circumstances, the lifestyle choices we make that bring definition to our lives; all originate in the roots of our natural dispositions. Earthly wisdom tells us that we are who we are and we should learn to accept that, because once we do there is no greater freedom. And why? Enjoy this life, find total carnal happiness for yourself — live your life according to you. The notion of American distinctiveness has been culturally entrenched since Hoover, but because of an increased desire for uniqueness and personal happiness, this country has seen an unprecedented rise in individualism on the social landscape. People, now more than ever, not only believe that they wield total autonomy over their lives (as opposed to the sovereignty of a higher power), but they desire such control for others, which, in turn, has contributed to the development of a sweeping trend of increased tolerance of unorthodox lifestyles, behaviors, and viewpoints. This might lead us to assume that religious belief would see a gradual decline in society, but ironically, nine out if ten Americans still believe in God.

Though the self-esteem movement of the 1980’s gained some traction, there is an even more popular movement of self-love and acceptance that has swept American society in recent years, driven by one defining factor — we do not like to be judged. We believe that we are who we are and for others to criticize our ingrained attributes is offensive and hypocritical. And the influence is suffocating. Pop culture icons write songs about it; secular and Christian authors write books about it; and our favorite movies and shows formulate storylines that embrace it. Lady Gaga seemingly incorporates her beliefs in a universalist God in her chart-topper “Born This Way”; Joel Osteen reminds his readers of their unlimited potential in his best-selling The Power of I Am; and as arguably the most influential person on TV, Oprah promotes 10 day plans on “how self-acceptance can crack open your life.” While these examples might seem harmless to most, this constant stream of vanity stimulation has helped to create an over-developed sense of narcissism. We need to feel important, valued, accepted, affirmed. This movement teaches us that we are the priority; that we should put our own happiness and well-being first (the mission statement from the “self-love movement” website). Even the widely valued Five Love Languages takes one of our deepest human-based egotistical insecurities, the need for affirmation, and promotes it as an inherently endearing quality that should be not only accepted, but nurtured. This mindset naturally leads us away from religion because the onus is no longer on any deity to preserve us; we are responsible for ourselves. But, since 89% of Americans still believe that God exists (Gallup, 2016), there is clearly a philosophical conflict waging in us about how much control we have over our own lives. We want what we want, but in the back of our minds we are uncertain about the end. But, since the percentage of people who still believe that God exists is so surprisingly high, let’s assume, then, that there is a God and quickly indulge a putatively uncomfortable question: Does God accept us the way we are?

As this movement has gained steam, people have departed from the traditional, uncompromising legalism of the Christian religion (found in both the Old and New Testaments) that permeated much of American culture for centuries and flocked to the more groovy, “progressive” teachings of Jesus, who even modern secular scholars believe was a great moral philosopher. This forward-looking perspective focuses almost exclusively on God’s boundless love, while omitting the reminder that God is still capable of great wrath. But because of their increased levels of tolerance for unorthodox social behaviors that derive from “who people are,” the potential for wrath doesn’t make sense to millennial Christians. If there is a God, why would he have programmed someone in such a manner to innately defy his edicts? If we believe that we are were simply born a specific way — that God made us this way — there is nothing to change. We are who we are.

First of all, God wove an intricate web of elements together to make you who you are – and for a purpose. But, unless one believes strictly in moral relativism, Christians and non-Christians can agree that people do bad things, making them inherently imperfect. Let me be clear; this is not a piece on the concept of “original sin,” but if God is perfect and we are imperfect, and perfection is the absence of imperfection, then prior to a relationship with God, “the way you are” is separated from him. Logically, then, it is not possible for us to be in the presence of God while covered in our iniquities, so how could God accept us the way we are prior to entering into a relationship with him? Because of our innate imperfection, then, something has to change for us to engage in communion with God. This is not meant to be dismal or condemning; this is the reality of God’s holiness against our deficiencies.

The most significant flaw in the movement for limitless acceptance is that it equates tolerance with love. Why do we think that just because God loves us, he accepts lifestyles, actions, and decisions that are contrary to his teachings and nature? If God had simply established an underlying, universal acceptance of human beings, there would have been no need for Jesus, the man who even secularists invoke when justifying their choices to Christians. My wife loves me, but she would confidently affirm that there are things about me that need to change. Consider, for example, that, sometimes, I can be driven by pride. Scripture consistently and frequently speaks against pride. So, if I know that God would rather me not rest in my pride, why wouldn’t I strive for humility? Because he made me the way I am?

People like to think that since God created them, they must be perfect in his eyes —  otherwise, why would he have created them only to reject them because of something that is out of their control (personality, orientation, etc.)? In this confidence, we convince ourselves that we are fashioned with a natural righteousness that provides us with an ultimate, unconditional acceptance as long as we not only maintain, but even cultivate that outward righteousness toward others. But Jesus offers a different outlook on this and because 71% of Americans still believe the Bible to be a holy document and God-inspired, it would seem worth the look. In his parable of the Pharisee and tax collector, which was given specifically for people who think highly of their own righteousness while looking down on others, the Pharisee thanked God, through prayer, that he was not like “robbers, evildoers, and adulterers,” — sinners — and reminded God of his own righteousness in regularly fasting and tithing, which the Pharisee would have considered part of God’s law. The tax collector, meanwhile, stood further back, in shame, unable even to lift his head, because he knew that he was a sinner. Instead, his prayer was simple: “God, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus told the people that the tax collector went home justified before the Lord because of his humility, prompting that “all who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.” To the world, this self-love movement is exactly what we need to help us achieve true happiness for ourselves. To God, we have made ourselves the idol.

Respected author N.T. Wright notes an important point in his biblical commentary regarding the half-truth that God simply accepts us the way we are: “will ‘God’s acceptance’ do as a complete grounding of Christian ethics? Emphatically not. Grace reaches where humans are and accepts them as they are, because anything less would result in nobody’s being saved… but grace is always transformative. God accepts us where we are, but God does not intend to leave us where we are…” If you are prepared to justify questionable actions, lifestyle decisions, or personality quirks based on the premise that because God is full of love, he unconditionally accepts you — guess again. Thankfully, we have pop icon Alessia Cara to remind us everyday on the radio: “you should know you’re beautiful just the way you are; and you don’t have to change a thing; the world could change its heart….”

We are not a God.

Respectfully…
Z

Posted on

introducing our annual guest writer series

Since the inception of the Intramuralist nine years ago, we have enjoyed a spirited discussion covering hundreds of — actually, well over a thousand — topics. It’s been thought-provoking, encouraging, and often challenging… sometimes all at the same time.

As stated here frequently, the goal of this blog is not that we persuade one another into all thinking the exact same thing. We don’t. We can’t. And I don’t believe such clonal thinking is wise nor necessary.

The goal of the Intramuralist is to learn to communicate in such a respectful manner that others can actually hear what you have to say. The reality is that if a person isn’t willing to communicate respectfully, the chances of them being heard readily diminishes.

The Intramuralist desires to be heard. I desire to hear you. I desire for each of us to actively listen to one another. And if we listen well, ask good questions, and interact respectfully, each of us can and will be sharpened.

I desire to be sharpened. And yes, I desire to grow.

Exemplifying that desire to listen to others, for nine years, we have offered our infamous Guest Writer Series at the end of summer. The series is a collection of insight, opinion, and offerings from someone other than me, published in late July/August of each year. If we are going to be sharpened, we need to listen to persons other than one — or rather, other than only the insulating likeminded.

I believe this year’s writers to be excellent. They are intuitive, thoughtful, and diverse. They hail from various professions all over the country… from a business executive to a stay-at-home mom… from a writer to a nurse… from a student to a salesman…

They speak with different styles, using varied tones.

Collectively, no less, they have chosen a wide variety of subjects — subjects in which each of the respective writers is individually passionate. For example, beginning Tuesday, in the next few weeks, you will hear opinions on evolution, climate change, adoption, etc. You’ll hear from one about the importance of our individual, physical health — encouraging each of us to take sincere stock in such. You’ll hear from some articulate millennials — one on what it’s like to live in a foreign land this summer — and another talking to parents about what it’s like to grow up with depression.

We learn from the varied angles… angles different than our own.

You’ll also hear several commentaries on current challenges affecting our society, culture, and government. I appreciate the varied approaches to how we navigate through the seemingly increasing incivility. That is a theme mentioned by many.

Also planned is a multi-part series on why a person would choose to be a Democrat or a Republican. It is logical and well thought out and not inflammatory in any way. Remember that each perspective is sincere and respectful; hence, we can be sharpened and grow.

Let me also be clear to state that the perspectives shared may or may not be opinions I agree with. But again, agreement has never been my goal. My goal is for respectful dialogue. I am committed to respectful dialogue. Always.

Additionally, during this time, I will be taking a bit of an intentional respite, resting and reflecting and being recharged. Rest is good, my friends. It helps us do what we’re called to do; it’s important to rest intentionally. I thus look forward to the break, but I look equally forward to being back and penning multiple (exceptionally witty) posts upon my return.

So sit back. Enjoy. Learn. Be sharpened. 

Let the author know what you think.

But do so respectfully. Always.

Here’s to the 2017 Guest Writer Series, introducing 15 expressive guest writers, starting Tuesday. I can’t wait. The broad diversity, the sincere articulation, and the mutual respect…

This, my friends, is good.

Respectfully…
AR

 

[Photo by Thomas Martinsen on Unsplash]

Posted on

the “together”

Seasons are good because they don’t last forever. With eternity being the only thing that lasts, wisdom is gleaned by maximizing the seasons… recognizing what’s present while it is there — not immobilized by pining for the past nor reaching only for the future. Seasons give life value.

I’ve been struck by the seasons shared in my current community, seasons that surpass our individual differences, differences we too often choose to use as a divisional source or force.

Together, we have experienced the tenures of presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump.

Together, we have watched seven summer Olympics — in Barcelona, Atlanta, Sydney, and Athens… in Beijing, London, and most recently in Rio.

Together, we cried the day Diana died… maybe, also, for Michael or Pres. Reagan. At least then our heads were bowed, our voices softened, and our hearts were full of respect.

Together, still, on 9/11, we stared at the television in shock but no awe. That remains one thing seemingly still so huge to attempt to wrap our heads around.

But the experiences within these seasons shared have not always been so “big”…

Together, we have celebrated the birth of our children, their noted growth and accomplishments — ours, too — both personal and professional. We have huddled, too, in some heartbreaking moments of mourning. I will never forget, for example, our “Best Friends for a Day” post, where a series of planes, trains, and automobiles in the middle of a blizzard in the wake of my sister’s death on the eve of one of my son’s greatest successes led to a precious, shared experience. Again, it was together.

The beauty of shared experience is the “together.” The value is that it comes and goes in seasons.

Are you maximizing where you are while that you are there?

The moving vans soon come to pack up my stuff and haul it away. No worries; the Intramuralist will continue… just from a new home base. We are moving to a new community.

While there is excitement in all the newness that accompanies a move, this isn’t, obviously, totally easy. It’s hard, in fact, for we have maximized our seasons. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

This thought keeps swirling in my head, such seemingly simple words…

“There is a place where the sidewalk ends
And before the street begins,
And there the grass grows soft and white,
And there the sun burns crimson bright,
And there the moon-bird rests from his flight
To cool in the peppermint wind.

Let us leave this place where the smoke blows black
And the dark street winds and bends.
Past the pits where the asphalt flowers grow
We shall walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And watch where the chalk-white arrows go
To the place where the sidewalk ends.

Yes we’ll walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And we’ll go where the chalk-white arrows go,
For the children, they mark, and the children, they know
The place where the sidewalk ends.”

“Where the Sidewalk Ends” is one of those iconic Shel Silverstein poems written to children but yet so poignantly also written to us. We often miss the joy that children inherently have; we let obstacles and other stuff get in the way. We thus miss the beauty of the seasons. Silverstein encourages us to go to the place that children know… stepping back, sensing the joy, seeing what our kids see.

What do they see?

Seasons.

And they see the value of sharing them together.

Respectfully…
AR

 

[Photo by Joseph Young on Unsplash]

Posted on

motive

mo·tive
ˈmōdiv/
noun
1. a reason for doing something, especially one that is hidden or not obvious.

_____

No doubt the Intramuralist is fascinated with much — from the big to the small, serious to silly. I am fascinated with much. For example … how the media has morphed into a generous giver of editorials as opposed to an unbiased sharer of news… how even the intelligent seem to utilize extensive hyperbole and exaggerated rhetoric… and how my very friendly dog continues to ferociously bark at any under the grand height of three feet tall… (watch out, Yogi…).

But one aspect that fascinates me time and time again — recognizing that fascination is not necessarily good or bad —   is the all too frequent assumption of motive.

We assume we know why someone does what they do or says what they say. We assume we know the why. In other words: we assume we know — and… we know with certainty the motive of another.

Excuse me, but may I be so bold to repeat the above definition?

A “motive” is a reason for doing something, especially, one that is hidden or not obvious.

Hence, if it’s hidden, that means we — you, me, Yogi, etc. — can’t actually see it. And if we can’t see it, we can’t confirm it to be true.

What is true is that sometimes we can make an educated guess. But educated as it is, a guess remains still at its root, only a guess; it will never qualify as fact. Because a person’s motive is hidden, we cannot confirm a guess as fact without the other’s verification.

Oh, yes, I’ve heard the convenient, clever logic, posing a thoroughly thought through motive for another and then attempting to reinforce our, uh, guess with the logically porous, “well, what else could it possibly be?”

It could be lots.

In fact, it could be something that we don’t know or are incapable of knowing.

On last week’s edition of “The Rubin Report,” a YouTube political commentary created by Dave Rubin, the self-identified classical liberal interviewed author Andrew Klavan, who shared that he’ll often opine about the current President, assessing what he feels  the President has done either right or wrong; he sees some of both.

Klavan and Rubin then discuss the many who can see only right or only wrong. And then they address the assumptions we make about the motives of others — supporters, detractors, or none of the above. Here’s the part of their conversation that yes, fascinated me [emphasis is mine]:

KLAVAN: “… People think that if they disagree with you, their reasons are rational and your reasons are personal — that’s what they think…”

RUBIN: “… that concept of impugning your intellectual opponent’s motives is such a sad thing that has seeped into everything.”

Yes. We tend to think there is only one right perspective.

We tend to think we can accurately identify the motives of another.
And when we find others who don’t hold our same perspective, we are often tempted to impugn their motives.

We then also tend to forget that motives are hidden and not obvious.

That, my friends, is, well, fascinating.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

community

Yesterday was my birthday. It was full of all sorts of precious moments…

… waking up, thanking God for a beautiful, mild temp day in the smack-dab, middle of summer…
… indulging in toasted coconut donuts — a treat — also a favorite…
… attending a baseball game — with sweet seats — an all time favorite pastime…

There was some work, too, to complete this day, as my current “to do list” remains ongoing and especially active. But work is a necessary part of life; it made sense that some would be true on my birthday, too.

But the simple key I wish to speak of this day stems from the warm and witty wishes shared with me throughout the day…

… cards in the mailbox…
… calls and texts on the phone…
… meetings face-to-face…
… greetings via social media…
… from the moment I awoke until I went to bed…

It was so fun to hear from hundreds…

… my family…
… friends…
… persons I’ve treasured for decades…
… persons I’ve treasured for days…

But here’s the part that made me scrap what I previously intended to share this day…

I am a big believer in community: a feeling of fellowship amid a group of people, doing some sense of life together, with a common interests or set of values. Yesterday, I got a sweet sense of authentic community.

I heard from all sorts of people…

… from 9 to 95…
… men, women…
… children, teens, college kids, adults, and the elderly…
… my college friends, my kids’ friends…
… friends from elementary or high school…
… friends from baseball, show choir, church or even my favorite vet’s office…
… singles, married, widows, and divorced…
… gay, straight…
… black, white, Latino, etc…
… Christian, Jewish, Muslim, even agnostic and atheist…
… Democrat, Republican, and WBNRN (“Want to Be Nothing Right Now”)…
… white collar, blue collar, and varied levels of education…
… friends from all across the globe.

My point is this: none of the above differences diminished the community experienced yesterday. None of the above differences got in the way. In other words, we didn’t let our individual differences trump what’s most important… that is — dare said on my birthday — loving one another well.

I felt the love, respect, and appreciation that all people deserve regardless of individual difference.

I felt community.

And it was good.

Thank you to those of you who reached out yesterday. Thank you even more for the contagious example of authentic community you modeled to the rest of us. 

Let’s not allow differences to obstruct what is good. Let’s not choose that. Instead, let us allow those differences to educate and sharpen one another.

Respectfully… always…
AR

Posted on

indivisible

The meeting was called to order. Together they recited the Pledge…

“… one nation under God…
… indivisible…
… with liberty…
… and justice…
… for all.”

And then the small city’s mayor, after four minutes of sharing only his own thoughts, ended the meeting due to a public comment on a fellow council’s member’s Facebook page — a member with whom he shares multiple dissimilar views. The comment suggested that another council member’s behind be kicked. This was then referred to as the “straw that broke the camel’s back” and “threatened violence.” On a hotly contested night by a hotly divided vote, the meeting was abruptly adjourned. There would be no governance taking place that night.

“… one nation under God…
… indivisible…
… with liberty…
… and justice…
… for all.”

In my sweet, small town, we seem to currently be having trouble getting government right. We seem to have trouble remembering that those in charge only have said position and power due to the consent of the governed — all of the governed… not just the ones with similar views. And then we justify a lot of fighting. The fighting obstructs the fixing of the challenges they were elected to address.

I suppose we shouldn’t be shocked. Our quaint suburb of 12,000 plus is merely a microcosm of what we’re seeing on a grander scale… the finger pointing, the indignant offense, and the vast hyperbole articulated in the offense… and then, of course, more resulting division.

Have our leaders forgotten what “indivisible” means? Have we?

And what will it take to end the fighting and start the fixing?

One of the movements the Intramuralist has been watching is a group called “No Labels.” It’s an organization that began some seven years ago, as over 1,000 citizens from each of the 50 states gathered together, sharing their frustration with Washington’s “business as usual” way of doing things. And so Democrats and Republicans convened for the purpose of launching a movement that would prioritize our entire country over any party. Party affiliations need not be shed, but fixing America’s problems is more important.

I appreciate, especially, this stated belief: “As long as they are intellectually honest, we respect conservatives, liberals, and anyone in between who has a sincere desire to address the nation’s problems. No Labels supports a diversity of viewpoints; we think it’s one of America’s strengths.”

Agreed. Allow me to share more…

“No Labels is building a movement for the legions of people who are tired of a political system that simply doesn’t respond to the priorities of the vast majority of the American people.

We believe that to solve a problem — any problem — leaders first need to unite behind goals, and then commit to a rigorous process to achieve those goals.”

So when I see the diverse co-chairs of Jon Huntsman and Joe Lieberman… the varied viewpoints, backgrounds, etc. of vice-chairs Charlie Black, Lisa Borders, Al Cardenas, and Mack McLarty… when I see the left and right come together — with no place for the yellers, screamers, nor disrespectful — I’m encouraged (www.nolabels.org). I also think they know their Pledge.

What again does “indivisible” mean?

It means to stop fighting, start fixing, and commit to being respectful.

Together.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

death to our relationships

On the recent holiday, columnist Christine Emba wrote an insightful piece for The Washington Post. She shared that “in between the flags and fireworks, such a major milestone is as good a moment as any to take stock of how our relationship is doing.” And then she spoke of the deteriorating communication in our country. Utilizing the research and wisdom of The Gottman Institute, co-founded by married doctors John and Julie Gottman, and respected for years by the Intramuralist, I thought her application of the Gottman’s “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” — communication styles that can predict the end of a connection — was excellent. Said Emba, “These four — criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling and contempt — spell death when it comes to interpersonal relationships.”

Death to our relationships. What a sad state of society.

Emba continues in her analysis… (Note: please remove all partisan hats… know, too, that the added emphasis is mine…)

“… Unfortunately, today’s United States has all four in spades.

Start with criticism: Making ad hominem attacks on a partner’s character, rather than discussing specific behaviors. C’mon, #Resistance: It can’t possibly be true that every Republican who supports stronger border vetting hates Muslims, or that anyone who opposes federal funding for Planned Parenthood is a creepy misogynist bent on instituting a ‘Handmaid’s Tale’-style forced-reproduction regime. Yet moral disparagement is too often the go-to stance. We’ve all but abandoned the harder path of seeking to understand the real reasoning behind an opponent’s views.

Then there’s defensiveness — self-protection in the form of performed victimhood or righteous indignation. ‘The media is lying about us,’ cries the right. ‘The news is fake, the papers are frauds, and all of them are conspiring to undermine us. And how dare reporters attack our president this way — have they no respect for the office?’ But Russia might have interfered in the election; the president might be profiteering from the Oval Office. Instead of addressing the real problems at hand, we seek out someone to blame.

Stonewalling, when one listener simply withdraws from the conversation, is one horseman that has been at a full gallop for years. In 2009, even before Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, Republicans resolved that, in the words of one former senator, ‘If he was for it, we had to be against it.’ The policy held through two full terms. In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) blocked confirmation hearings for Obama Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland for an unheard-of eight months. A recipe for productive give-and-take? Not so much.

The most destructive of all is contempt: true meanness, statements handed down from a position of superiority and meant to disrespect. In marital relationships, contempt is the single greatest predictor of divorce. In our national debate, it’s become all too common. Hillary Clinton famously lamented the ‘basket of deplorables’ opposing her during the election; as the new administration moved forward on its agenda, one New York magazine analysis was headlined ‘No Sympathy for the Hillbilly.’ To many on the left, Trump voters are fools. A loss of dignity, autonomy and health care is exactly what they deserve.

It’s an equal-opportunity problem, and, no, it isn’t all about President Trump: Both right and left have engaged in the breakdown-inducing behaviors that have put our democracy on the edge of divorce. While the right has been the source of some of the more obvious offenses in recent years, these aren’t new phenomena — and the fixes aren’t, either.

Though the Gottmans were speaking to unhappy couples, their advice suggests a way forward. The antidote to criticism is to offer a critique of the specific problem at hand, rather than resorting to attack. To end defensiveness, take responsibility. Building a culture of respect can end contempt. Boorishness has an equal and opposite reaction, but breaking the cycle of anger requires that someone — from either party! — step up and take responsibility for change, even if the results aren’t immediately apparent.

While a national political system isn’t quite the same as a marriage, it’s built on the same foundation: a commitment to shared values, a positive approach to conflict, strong communication.

Perhaps for our 242nd anniversary, we can trade a few horsemen for an attempt at harmony. Our relationship may be on the rocks, but it’s still worth saving.”

Amen and well said.

Take off the partisan hats, friends… as neither side is anywhere close to cornering the market on wisdom, integrity, and especially, communicating consistent respect to all.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

using words wisely

The following sad story caught my attention — for its unique, potential legal precedent — and — for its broader application…

A young Massachusetts woman, Michelle Carter, who was 17 at the time of the incident, was found guilty Friday of involuntary manslaughter in the suicidal death of her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III. Both struggled with depression, and Roy had prior suicide attempts. And when Roy was set to attempt it again, he had stepped out of his truck filled with carbon monoxide, but was in touch with Carter, who encouraged him to get back in.

The case, as noted by observing legal experts, hinged primarily on hundreds of text messages between the two. For example:

Carter: “If you want it as bad as you say you do, it’s time to do it today.”

Roy: “Yup. No more waiting.”

Carter: “Okay. I’m serious. Like you can’t even wait ‘till tonight. You have to do it when you get back from your walk.”

In a trial where the 6th Amendment’s right to a jury was waived, the judge held those words against Michelle Carter. Said the judge, “She admits in … texts that she did nothing; she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family. And, finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: get out of the truck.”

Her words were viewed as a weapon.

As I ponder the tragedy of the families involved above, I can’t help but focus on that perspective: her words were used as a weapon. The court saw it as such. Said Massachusetts ACLU lawyer, Matthew Segal: “This is saying that what she did is killing him, that her words literally killed him, that the murder weapon here was her words.”

Pause here for a moment.

Think not simply of our teens and tweens.

Think of us.

How many times have we seen on social media especially (where it’s easier to boldly rant without looking your audience in the eye) where we use our words as a weapon? Where we rant, rave, insult, judge, assert how evil or idiotic another is, or tell someone to go [expletive-inserted-here] themselves?

 We — not just our teens — are using our words as a weapon.

Friends, using words as a weapon doesn’t make another want to be like us. Beating another up with a vicious, rhetorical two-by-four is not an effective means of winning friends and influencing people. Beating them up only injures further.

Said international speaker and author Yehuda Berg:

“Words are singularly the most powerful force available to humanity. We can choose to use this force constructively with words of encouragement, or destructively using words of despair. Words have energy and power with the ability to help, to heal, to hinder, to hurt, to harm, to humiliate and to humble.”

In other words, whether on Facebook or face-to-face, we have a choice in how to use our words. We can use them to build up or tear down. We can use them to affirm or insult. We can use them to reflect upon self or point fingers at another. The wisdom in our words depends on how we use them.

As Michelle Carter awaits an August sentencing, there is no doubt her situation is a sad story with no easy answers. It’s heartbreaking. Unfortunately, what’s currently playing out on social media and elsewhere — between adults not necessarily suffering from depression — is also, often, equally sad.

May we use our words wisely… always.

Respectfully…
AR

Posted on

deserving to be shot?

Over the weekend, Democratic pollster and former Bill Clinton consultant, Doug Schoen, wrote an insightful, analytical piece about Democrats and Republicans increasingly “loathing” one another. Can it be fixed? “Can anyone lead us to compromise?” Or do too many no longer associate any kind of compromise with wisdom?

Schoen began by detailing last week’s intentional gunfire directed at Republicans only. What was scary about the shooter is that he was not an “extremist.” Like many of us, he did “make a habit of criticizing [in this case] conservative viewpoints and projecting his own militantly liberal ideas across social media. His spiral downward into violence is a blatant depiction of the extreme rage that now permeates both extremes of the American political spectrum.”

Schoen asserts that even though America’s history has not always been peaceful, “we are approaching uncharted waters in terms of the stark ideological polarization in our country. Wednesday morning’s tragedy was a manifestation of the aggressive hatred that is fueling the schism between the left and the right.” The middle ground is gone.

Schoen then shares the data over the past two decades, sharing how increasingly more engrained partisan loyalty has become… how significantly fewer identify as “moderate”… how many would be deeply unhappy if their son/daughter married someone from the other party. We even think less of the other party. As the NY Times summarized last week, “Americans in 1960 were more likely to allow that members of the other party were intelligent, and they were less likely to describe opposing partisans as selfish.’”

No more. We are so judgmental now. Writes Schoen: “What these people fail to realize is that their own accusation towards the opposing party is, in itself, a threat to the well-being of our nation. The alienation of fellow Americans and their ideology discourages discourse, it discourages understanding, and it discourages unity. Disagreement is perfectly healthy. The two parties, with different philosophies, are bound to present different plans for health care reform, and to have different tax priorities, and to approach paying for infrastructure differently. But the idea that these differences are unbridgeable, that the two sets of ideals are so alien to one another that it is simply impossible to negotiate with our fellow Americans, is absurd. We have a common philosophical foundation. We are not Sunnis and Shiites, or Fascists and Communists.

Or are we? As we saw on Wednesday, incessant, dehumanizing intolerance shown towards opposing ideologies breeds something closer to blind hate. [Shooter James] Hodgkinson made a target of the Republican baseball practice, acting on his expressions of displeasure regarding the current administration’s values. An unspeakable act of violence stemmed from a simple difference of opinion.”

Can we no longer handle differences of opinion? Are those opinion holders stupid? Are they evil? Do they deserve to be shot?

The Intramuralist, for one, has been pleased with the pleas for unity and bipartisanship after the shooting, but let me be clear: I want it to happen for more than one week. I want it to happen consistently. I want change from our leaders — change from us. I want us to listen to one another. As Schoen advocates, “We will not move forward as a country if we cannot find a middle ground. I say this not as a political analyst offering advice, but as an angered citizen, hopeful about everything that this nation could do and be.”

Both parties/partisans take turns resisting and refusing, with adults even resurrecting the old playground mantra that because “they did it first,” it must be ok.

Presidents, leaders, and legislators from both parties have contributed to this political divide. Many have also called to heal it. Again, as said by Schoen: “[Trump’s] response to Wednesday’s shooting, however, was a step in the right direction. Trump made a powerful statement that demonstrated that he has the capability of leading a united coalition against partisan hostility. He said that ‘We may have our differences, but we do well in times like these to remember that everyone who serves in our nation’s capital is here because, above all, we love our country.’

And it wasn’t just the President that suggested a message of unity. Politicians from both sides of the aisle corroborated the importance of reduced polarization. Speaker Paul Ryan urged his colleagues ‘to show the country — show the world — that we are one House. The people’s House — united in our humanity.’ Soon after, Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, echoed the words of Ryan, her political opponent, calling his statement ‘beautiful’ and exclaiming that the shooting was ‘an injury in the family.’”

But Schoen’s final point is perhaps his strongest. While last week’s bipartisan pleas were healthy, the current election process for presidents and House representatives specifically magnifies the division; the divisions are growing. Hence, Schoen’s point is that we must stop blaming those who represent us and look first to ourselves…

“If the American people continue to drift further and further apart, it will be impossible for our elected officials to genuinely represent the extremism of those constituent opinions while also compromising to the extent necessary to enact bipartisan policy.

When a democratic government loses touch with its constituents to the extent that the United States government has, a sense of public betrayal is inevitable. Party leaders need to take more responsibility to represent their electorate in a way that moves the country forward…

Without popular support and some degree of trust, government faces a tragic crisis of legitimacy. As we saw on Wednesday, this can manifest itself in inexcusable ways. It is absolutely imperative that our country disrupt our current trajectory towards further polarization, division, and hate. We must come together as the United States; our country depends on it, our well-being depends on it, and our children’s future depends on it.”

We can no longer excuse the inexcusable. The rhetoric. The disrespect. The judgment. It starts with us.

Respectfully…
AR