I asked Yezen to correspond with me after hearing him speak about love and empathy at a rally in the wake of Donald Trump’s election win.
The following is the first response he emailed. Further down the page are additional questions and responses.
Yezen: “For myself, and for many in the Muslim American community, the 2016 election was something of a nightmare. To see a candidate utilize xenophobia and Islamophobia so successfully and so unapologetically as Donald Trump did, and then win, was something of a realization of our worst fears.
“Though we have seen these kinds of white nationalist movements in Europe over the last few years, seeing it happen here in America was not only more consequential, but it came to represent a rejection of us by our own country. The sense that we may not be accepted here, or that so many of our neighbors hold negative views of us, has been an ever present fear since 9/11.” [[[Those who support Trump’s immigration policy say it’s not anti-Muslim’ because it’s focused on seven countries, and does not, for include, Indonesia, a populous, Muslim majority nation. ]]]
[[[[I mean no disrespect by this question. To what extent, if at all, might some of the concerns about Islam that non-Muslim US Americans have be reasonable? ]]]]
——
Yezen: “I had spent the better part of the election cycle wallowing in this fear, and in the wake of the result it became sort of unavoidable. It made me worry for the future of myself and other Muslims in this country, and those abroad, if the United States could stomach or hold so much hatred of us.
“But then came an outpouring of support, kindness, and love from my neighbors and friends. That sense of solidarity, that so many people were still saying no to hate, and no to xenophobia, and Islamophobia, and bigotry, pulled me out of that feeling of fear and rejection.
“It helped me look past my own feelings, and the way public opinion was directed at my race and religion, and made me further re-examine myself, and the state of the American people.
“What then struck me is how divided we had become. It wasn’t necessarily that people had become more Islamophobic overall, but more so that people had become Islamophobic in opposition to the political left, and the political left had adopted the tolerance of Muslims as a part of their paradigm.”
[[[[ But if some people become intolerant toward Muslims just to oppose the political left or the Democrats, isn’t that a harsh form of partisanship? Either way, such intolerance seems problematic, wouldn’t you say? ]]]
[[[ Is it the “political left” that has done that or mainstream progressives? I ask because taking a stand against hate and a stand in solidarity with people of targeted groups is good, (ie “FCKH8” regarding Queer folk and “Love trumps hate” regarding the presidential campaign and current demonstrations during Trump’s first 100 days, and “Love Wins” as seen on a billboard in Columbus, Ohio, regarding the June 2015 USSC ruling on same-sex marriage) but maybe not enough is being done to address the social conditions that feed the hate? ]]]]]
[[[[(4) To what extent might mainstream partisan politics (Dems and Repubs) unintentionally or intentionally promote divisiveness, and thereby enable corporate oligarchy? (5) To what extent might the political left be insincere in its support for Muslims? (6) To what extent do you think a grassroots movement to defeat corporate oligarchy requires common ground among the rank-and-file of the political left and the politcal right?]]]]]
Yezen: “Regardless of what we choose to label as right or left wing, politics in America has largely become centered around opposition. Even if you view the democrats as somewhat right wing, typically if you are on the left the Democrats are by default your team. The same applies to people who are right wing and the Republican party. It’s about “in-group” and “out –group.” People identify one party as being representative of them and the people in their in group (people who are culturally and politically similar, and thus share common cause), and one party as being against them, and standing for their out-group (those who are culturally antagonistic toward them). Hence why you see Republicans typically write off entire sections of the US (coastal big cities) as being inherently un-American and immoral, and why you see liberals write off entire swaths of middle America as deplorable, backwards, or racist.”
[[[[But to what extent does this division disappear commensurate with the extent to which we get involved in our communities and get involved in the political process regarding issues that concern us? For example, urban progressives who are pro-choice, pro-Queer, and at least talk about solidarity with Muslims can find common cause with people in rural areas when it comes to supporting small holder farmers, organic farms, and find solidarity with some of the people in rural areas who have stood up to protect public health in their small towns against the corporate interests when it comes to factory farms and fracking. ]]]]
Yezen : “Whether these things are partially true is beside the point. The more important point is that we have chosen teams and everyone who isn’t on our team is seen as being our opponent. [[[It’d probably help if you elaborated on how one might break out of this unnecessary opposition. ]]]]]
“This team affiliation may be rooted in certain policy beliefs (wedge issues like gay marriage, gun control, abortion rights, etc.), and so political parties use them to build coalitions (which I think is a good strategy), but the downside is that the average voter doesn’t actually have a position or an informed opinion on every political issue, and so people tend to take on the entire platform of the party they vote for.” [[[[ By allowing ourselves to bog down in the partisan mentality, especially in a two-party system, we detract from our ability to grow in our understanding of complex issues and how to develop viable strategies for political involvement.]]]]]
[[[[ To what extent would you say the majority of people are engaged in their livelihoods and doing what they regard as taking care of their families, in ways that allow for little political involvement ? It probably would be good to think of community engagement and political involvement as part of the process of meeting one’s psychological and physical needs. A prevalent belief is that one is too busy making a living, supporting oneself and one’s family, and too busy preparing for retirement and preparing for emergencies, and too busy trying to relax and spend quality time with one’s loved ones to invest time and energy into ‘politics.’ Yet, how can we believe that, when a system of political freedom requires participation, and when lobbyists and other well-connected people exploit lack of public participation in the political process? Considering how the abuse of power can affect one’s life and affect one’s loved ones such as aging parents, children, and grandchildren, how can one believe it’s more responsible to immerse oneself narrowly into an occupation in order to have a level of material status, and thereby have no time and energy for political participation, and often, also no time to maintain relationships with a network of friends and extended family?
Yezen: “If some people on the other team are saying Black Lives Matter, and some people on your team are saying All Lives Matter, people are more likely to relate to the message of their team. This is beneficial (in my opinion) in the way it’s able to galvanize people for causes like Black Lives Matter, but detrimental (in my opinion) in how it breathes life into All Lives Matter.”
Me: To what extent would you say the process that you describe above is disempowering and that if we are to create real change, toward greater egalitarianism and ecological responsibility, increasing numbers of people have to consciously reject the two-party system and reject the left-vs-right, progressive-vs-conservative mentality ?
Me: (D) In light of your assessment here, to what degree do you think the way to build coalitions, instead of supporting ‘our team’ against ‘their team’, is to (D1) build political relationships based on compatible values; (D2) build political relationships based on issues, and then, (D3) calibrate support for various candidates according to those values and issues, (D4) thereby more wisely working within and, when feasible, working beyond the current two-party system? Actually thinking about this makes more salient the problem with a two-party system.
Yezen: “With regards to grassroots movements of the political right and left to take on corporate oligarchy, I don’t know if it’s about people’s actual political leanings. I certainly think we had a chance to really take on corporate oligarchy with Bernie Sanders, due to his populism appealing to the constituency that lost Clinton the election, but the big takeaway I have here is that Bernie Sanders was actually further left than Clinton, and yet would have had broader appeal. This is a good little anecdote for how broader public appeal has less to do with compromising our political ideals and more to do with perception. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were each viewed as highly unfavorable by their opposition, and both played into the strategy of building a coalition based around opposition much more strongly than Bernie would have. This had little to do with people’s actual beliefs on policy, and far more to do with how Trump was able to hijack the far right with controversy and outlandish statements, and then convince the rest of his voters to vote against Hillary Clinton, while Hillary Clinton attempted to convince voters to vote against Donald Trump.”
Me: How about organized listening projects that include but go beyond FB and Twitter?
Me: (E) To what extent is the following an additional layer to your takeaway about “broader public appeal (having) less to do with compromising our political ideals and more to do with perception”? (E 1) To what extent is the DNC sidelining of Sanders and ‘coronation’ of Clinton related to the mentality of mainstream progressives who dislike Trump’s sexism and demagoguery but do not recognize corporate oligarchy or militarism as being problems, and do not concern themselves with police brutality and mass incarceration, not to mention the problems of post-industrial small-town USA? (E2) To what extent do you think building coalitions to reign in right-wing populism requires white, middle and upper middle class progressives to find common cause with those adversely affected by racism, classism, and religious intolerance? (E3) In other words, we can say “Love trumps hate” but to what extent would those words be more actionable if we build solidarity with which to address the sociological phenomena that feed the hate? (E4) To what extent do you think that an empty, non-actionable denunciation of hate is a symptom of the failure of the so-called Third Way during Bill Clinton’s and Tony Blair’s administrations where they sought to mix right-wing economic policies with liberal stances on cultural issues such as abortion and the rights of Queer folk?
Me: How about ecologically-based global solidarity?
Yezen “I think the primary values I am interested in right now are understanding and empathy, specifically as a tool to create constructive dialogues. That’s not to say that I’m not in favor of the idealism of international solidarity, environmentalism, and more, seeking collective good, but I think it’s important to consider that simply having those values doesn’t necessarily bring about change.
“We have to get to a place, locally and nationally, where we are promoting a culture of empathy so that we reign in the sort of extremism that has not only thrived within the last several years, but taken over our government.”
Me: Your point is interesting in that the personal and ‘spiritual’ mentality that involves empathy, compassion, and kindness are important to democracy. It would seem obvious in that if we work from a foundation of basic respect for one another as inhabitants of Earth, we can disagree with, be angry at and have other negative emotions regarding others, yet we can strive to not allow hatred to take over our thinking; and thereby we can reduce, if not avoid, extremism.
Would you please comment on the following idea? Part of the reason extremism occurs is that some of us who are proponents of a cause think we are being more serious and more dedicated to it if we take an ideology or a dogma to its logical extreme. But MLK Jr spoke of being extreme about the right things such as love. He referred to ‘radical unselfishness.’ So, maybe extremism, per se, regarding at least some principles is not bad, but rather what is bad is when our extremism demonizes and scapegoats human beings, and thereby tends to result in some of us thinking that it’s ok to abuse, oppress, and murder them. But there is an element within activism such that we ought to distinguish destructive extremism, on the one hand; from, on the other hand, an intense clarity and integrity about the core principles of a cause. For example, within the vegan movement, there are those who call themselves abolitionists. It’s a radical view, but it doesn’t need to be destructive. In fact, it can be powerful in terms of expanding, as Einstein said, “our circle of compassion.”
Me: Good point; it doesn’t necessarily bring about change. But to what extent do you think that we are better able to build coalitions if we maintain a mentality of global
solidarity, as much as is feasible?
Me : To what extent do you think a “culture of empathy” requires a (B 1 ) cause-and-effect understanding of economic, political, and cultural phenomena; and that (B2) without such an understanding, we cannot effectuate our empathy; that is, we may care about someone’s problems, but lack the political, economic, and cultural knowledge to help? (C ) Sorry if I seem to belabor this point, but to what extent would you say global solidarity is the framework for thinking thru, to the furthest degree possible, political, economic, and cultural phenomena ? (C 1) Why stop at the national level, when problems such as right-wing populism, corporate oligarchy, militarism, and ecological destruction are global phenomena? (C 2) To what extent would you say socialists seem to have a broad analysis, but get bogged down in ideology, in that socialism ends up as yet another form of ‘limited unity’ with its emphasis on class struggle, where the working and middle-classes are in conflict with the capitalist master class? Or is there a type of socialism that does not involve this sort of dogmatic ‘limited unity’?
Me : (7) What strikes me when you say that Islamophobia is an aspect of opposition to the political left is that the US actually doesn’t have a politically organized left, because Democrats are in many respects right-wing. (8) Maybe part of the right-wing strategy is to continue moving the political baseline to the right. Consider rightwing propaganda that depicts a corporatist such as Obama as a radical socialist. That right-wing narrative is double-edged: it’s full of complaints about the liberal media and liberal academia and the threat of socialism, all the while moving rightward the ideological baseline as for what is considered left and what is considered right wing?
Me: How about non-traditional alliances that defies the left-vs-right mentality?
Yezen: “It’s a tall order, and perhaps idealistic, but I believe that even before we make efforts to find common ground on policy, the left needs to become far less alienating and far more empathetic.”
Me: To what extent might it be more strategically robust to think twice about referring to ‘our’ social movements as ‘leftist’, not out of fear or euphenism, but instead based on a fundamental reevaluation of how best to organize, for the promotion of egalitarianism and ecological responsibility?
Yezen: I will be the first to admit that I’ve spent the last 8 years as the ultimate smug internet liberal, and have gone so far in valuing intellect that I’ve sort of lost sight in education being a privilege in and of itself. We need to break through the echo chamber of social media and create a conflict where we are able to leave a disagreement with a heightened sense of understanding and a mutual respect for one another.
Me: This reminds me of a hostile interaction with a pedicab peer that actually involved him considering physical violence toward me. A day later, I texted him to ask him what he thought of Elan Musk’s opposition to Trump’s immigration ban. Earlier I had resolved to keep my distance fromm this person, including not talking with him. Yet, I reached out because of having a mental focus that takes precedence over our conflict. This reminds me of how situations that are hostile and where we would otherwise risk ‘losing face’ or facing our pride and dignity wounded from insults and other shows of disrespect, are turned into situations where we ovrerlook the conflict. Maybe we can do so while keeping our dignity in tact because we have a sense of priorities that is more important than the interpersonal insult or injury.
To what extent do you relate to this? To what extent do you think that a political consciousness is important for this, but that a ‘spiritual’ consciousness that includes a political consciousness is also essential for this?
One of the reasons I mention this is that an ethic of empathy or love or compassion or kindness is good but that for it to be carried out rigorously, a causal understanding of the relationships among life on Earth must exist. Otherwise, an ethic of kindness may be limited to interpersonal contexts, which are good, but not enough. This relates to the claim that organized kindness is essential in that random acts of kindness are not enough if we are to live at our moral potential.
Me : To what extent would you be interested in public venues for people to engage those we agree and disagree with?
Yezen : “This is understandably hard to stomach for many on the left because we associate our opposition with the worst of Trump’s rhetoric, or even the worst of his supporter’s rhetoric. But I believe we need to start thinking about the consequences of our actions, and realize that the alternative is worse.
“Being uncompromising and vindictive in our righteousness tends to just breed resentment. When we are leaving disagreements with hatred of our opposition, and leaving our opposition with the sense that we view them as our enemy, then we actually color their perception of our cause in a negative light. The logic or facts of it are almost secondary. If every interaction someone has with a feminist or a Muslim results in them being shamed for racism or sexism, then they are [[[MORE LIKELY TO ACTIVELY SEEK THAT OUT INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR SURE, GIVEN THAT THERE ARE MANY VARIABLES IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR? ]]]] going to actively seek out only information which justifies their racism or sexism, and so we end up fostering bigotry. Essentially we have to treat public discourse less like combat and more as a platform to create a culture in which extremism cannot thrive. You don’t have to convince the opposition that you are right, you just have to encourage them to care about you, and that in and of itself will moderate their opposition to your perspective, or even gradually help them come to see your way of thinking.
ME: Or would it be more accurate to say it may result in that person being more likely to at least consider our point of view, though she may not adopt it as her own?
YEZEN : “I know this is turning empathy into something like tactical psychological warfare, but I think we really do need to look at love and kindness not just from a moral perspective, but from a utilitarian one.”
ME: How about adding “not just from a interpersonal but also a political one” ?
Me : [[[[[ Empathy toward adversaries is an asset if we see it in terms of putting into practice our sociological and psychological understanding of humans, including ourselves; and also see empathy as a way for increasing our knowledge. In the heat of conflict, we might think we don’t want to understand our opponent, but we can get past that self-limiting mood by training ourselves. To what extent do you see loving kindness as a sort of ‘art of conflict’ if not a sort of art of war? To what extent do you think through a self-discipline of loving kindness we become less afraid of conflict and in turn, all else being equal, more effective at helping to build ‘positive social change’? To what extent do you think conflict is essential for ‘positive change’ but how we engage in that conflict is important?]]]]]]
Yezen: (9-13) “I don’t think we need to worry so much about getting republicans to come to our marches. Finding common ground between the right and left is actually a lot easier than it seems. What prevents us from finding that common ground is the combatative nature with which we view arguments, especially when they don’t happen in person. I think that being informed is endlessly important, but so is being critical of one’s own views. Having that willingness to question our own rightness can be a really good thing because we need to engage in a more civil and constructive method of conversation.
“That said, of course there will be people for whom this will not work. Some people are either too set in their views, or too combatative themselves, or even just having a bad day, and will neither want to listen to you or respect you. It’s best to meet someone who is coming across as an agitator with the benefit of the doubt, while also kindly refusing to play their game. Sometimes choosing not to argue is the best argument you can make.
Yezen : 14.) I think that is a really important point. We have to be willing to accept that we don’t know everything, and that we have something to learn from even people who we disagree with, and even people whose views we see as abhorrent (in the sense that you might understand what those views are and the perhaps twisted logic behind them.) I think that if you can’t make your opponents argument for them, then you probably don’t understand enough. But even just the act of empathetic listening will have the effect of not only humanizing the other side, but also humanizing you in the eyes of someone else, and by extension humanizing the group you represent (whether that is Blacks, Muslims, LGBTQ people, etc.).”
Yezen: 15-16.) “I certainly see how it comes across to many as weakness, both on the left and the right. I think this is mainly due to global patriarchy. We’re conditioned by our society to see that which is confrontational and aggressive as strong, while the forgiving and subversive is seen as weak. But I think these dichotomies of strong and weak are arbitrary and distracting. There is strength to being able to manage our own emotions.
“In the wake of the Trump win there is a growing sense on the left that we have had enough, and that racism and sexism have crossed a line and cannot be reasoned with, but instead must be fought. That perspective really makes me think about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and I imagine that attitude could lead us down a much darker road than anything we’ve seen in my lifetime in America. I think that I may not share that attitude because the Muslim American community is in a bit of a different position in this country, and trying to combat perceptions of hate by presenting ourselves as a peaceful and loving people has been seen as necessary to our survival. I understand if other people don’t agree with that strategy or don’t see it that way, though I do have to note that democracy is about building coalitions and bringing people over to your side. If you insist that you don’t need to bring over those who disagree with you in order to create change in America, then you should ask yourself what that your endgame actually is and whether or not it involves democracy.
Me : [[[[This reminds me that some activists have called for a ‘diversity of tactics.’ To what extent do you think violent revolution for social and ecological justice is inherently flawed, both in terms of the ends not justifying the means and in terms of violence being doomed to fail in the face of a technologically advanced state apparatus, and therefore maybe the only viable option for a revolution for social and ecological justice is one in which participants strive to be as nonviolent as possible? To what extent do you think if there is a violent revolution, it’s likely to be one based in anger and hate?
Yezen: 17.) “I would say that Van Jones has been putting it really well (though the #LoveArmy is a bit on the cheesy side). We need to have constructive disagreement. Listening is important. So is being true to your beliefs. Though it might come across as not genuine, it’s important to ask yourself before you say something, not only whether or not it’s true, but whether or not it’s constructive. If calling someone a racist isn’t going to make them less racist, then maybe addressing their racism or sexism in a different way is better for everyone.
“I realize this puts the burden of discussions regarding race and gender on minorities. But I think this is a burden we are better off accepting than not. Oppression is inherently unfair, and it’s our struggle to deal with it by whatever means necessary.”
Yezen: 18-20.) “I think that marches are largely about spectacle, solidarity, and speaking to the people who attend the march. In the wake of the Trump win, marches were important to show off that Trump did not have a mandate, that millions of Americans welcomed and respected immigrants and refugees and did not adhere to Trump’s way of thinking, as well as to begin the process of political organization. If there are ways we can build off of those marches to reach those who do not agree, then I’d be very impressed, though I think that’s a really challenging thing to do. Right now I think the marches are accomplishing most of what they need to, and I think focus really needs to be on what kind of organization can come about, and what kind of educational effects can these political actions have for those in attendance.
“I will say that the trouble with marches being used to reach out to those who voted for Trump, is that marches tend to take place in large metropolitan areas, and those places are inherently liberal leaning anyways due to the diversity and culture of those places. I think this is an important distinction we have to make when we compare marches against Trump with the sort of historic civil rights actions we saw in the 60s.”
Yezen: 21.) “For me the primary change I have made in my life is how I approach political discussion, and how I engage with my opposition. I’m doing my best to get past my own emotional responses to certain things, and to be empathetic and have constructive disagreement. Beyond that I am making a point to attend marches, donate to causes that I believe in, and am trying to stay involved with local organizations (Columbus United, CAIR Ohio, Socialist Alternative, etc.)”
Yezen: 22-24 and 29-30) “Well there are of course spiritual reasons for a person’s theology, but from a more every day practical perspective I would contend that being culturally a Palestinian Muslim American has had everything to do with my emphasis on love, kindness, and understanding as both a moral and political practice. It’s important to note that being Muslim is not only a statement of theology, but also a statement of cultural identity, and I think it’s a cultural identity America is very much in need of right now. I think that for the past half century, the (white) American view of war and conflict (and really the Western view of conflict) has been fundamentally shaped by World War II, and we view all conflict through this lens. This essentially allows us to view war through the lens of good guys and bad guys, and necessary collateral loss of life. But for myself, because of my cultural identity, I view all conflict through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a conflict which is far more about oppression and apartheid, but also about hatred and how the unwillingness to compromise and empathize spirals and has long term destructive effects. I think living as a Muslim in America and having that view of what conflict is, and knowing that the American people are my people just as much as the Muslims we bomb are, has placed me in a world where war is not about “us vs. them” but rather “us vs. us” and really forced me to look beyond nationalism and see the importance of empathy which transcends nationalism.”
Yezen: 25-26.) “Absolutely. I think everyone likes to think that they are rational and their opinions are rooted in facts, but we are really so susceptible to our own biases and seeking out information that validates our worldview or appeals to us emotionally, that it would be silly of us not to take that into account when trying to build a coalition.
27-28.) “Well mainstream media has always needed ratings and thus needed to charge people up with controversy, but if anything I think mainstream media has become more divisive in the wake of competition with internet media which is able to be far more divisive and validating. Though fake news, inability to understand the political climate, and inability to understand the effect of new media, are all factors in the Clinton loss, I think that first and foremost the fish rots from the head. The Clinton loss was so much about Clinton as a candidate, who for whatever reasons be they legitimate or illegitimate, was seen as unlikable, dishonest, uncharismatic and had clearly come to represent establishment politics.”
Yezen : “And though I’m deeply grateful to those who have stood for tolerance and understanding of Muslims, that dynamic of my identity, and my religion, and my status with regards to my home having become a political football was both troubling and informative.” [[[[(9) To what extent does the support from the political left seem insincere? Or am I misunderstanding what you’re saying ? ]]]]]]
“It became troubling in the sense that hatred of Muslims had become a key part of American right wing nationalism. But by that same token it informed me that radical Islamophobia could be treated alongside the rest of America’s growing political and cultural divide. [[[[ (10) What might be some of the other issues along that “growing political and cultural divide” with which to build coalitions for holding Trump and both major parties accountable? ]]]]]
“A big part of the past election, and the growing political divide in America, has actually come from the expansion of media through the internet. While before people typically got their news from the same few mainstream sources, the rise of social media and internet news has expanded people’s options in terms of what media they have at their disposal, while also limiting the actual media consumed. This can be summed up in the echo chamber.
“People who tend to read and subscribe to left or right wing commentators, news sources, or even friends, will primarily receive those same news sources on their social media feeds. So the left becomes more left, and the right becomes more right, and this occurs for both sides in something of a bubble, because social media tunes out opposing views for the most part. [[[[ (11) But to what extent do you think we could use social media with the clearly stated purpose of promoting common ground, so as to build grassroots power for egalitarian and ecologically responsible goals?]]]
“As someone who has always been pretty far left, I at first enjoyed all of my left leaning friends coming over to my way of thinking, but this has unfortunately come at a price.
“The majority of the right and left have become relatively extreme versions of what they used to be, and the notion of being politically moderate is less and less prevalent, which is problematic not as any preference to moderate political thinking, but because people have become increasingly unable to communicate with those who aren’t on the same “team” from a cultural and political standpoint, and this lack of communication actually fuels an increased divide. It’s a very harmful situation, both in terms of the lack of empathy between people it creates, and how it has made it increasingly easy for demagoguery to prevail over rational political discussion. Note, the two presidential candidates this year were the most unpopular and received the highest unfavorability in recent history.
American politics has become less and less a rational endeavor, and the electoral map reflects that. Cities are blue, rural areas are red. Politics has become highly emotional, and people vote according to identity, with people who they feel represent them, and who will oppose those who do not. “Big city liberals” view “white rural conservatives” as the other, and vica versa. Though I personally want to do everything I can to bring about an administration that reflects my ideology in 2018 and 2020, winning an election won’t stop the division from increasing any more than the victory of Donald Trump. And that division is potentially a highly destructive thing. [[[[ (12) What might be some ways to help build common ground ? If the two major political parties, as well as mainstream media, unintentionally or intentionally promote divisiveness, maybe part of the solution is to engage fellow community members in-person, in public venues, such as street corners, college campuses, churches, street corners, schools, and so on, while being more careful about how, if at all, we use mainstream media? This would be doable if there is a genuine focus on promoting common ground. ]]]]
“Which brings me to love and kindness. In thinking about how we can bring people to stand against xenophobia and hate, I’ve come to reconsider how I myself have contributed to the culture of opposition and of defining ourselves in terms of who we are against, rather than what we are for. [[[[ See question #2 ]]]]]]
“I came to realize that for years I have treated political discussion as a purely combative activity, and treated with contempt those who opposed my ideals, or those who I felt were intolerant of me and the people who I stand with.” [[[ (13) To what extent do you think that if you have a foundation of loving kindness or respect or empathy with those you disagree with, you can learn more from the interaction by empathic listening, and in turn have more knowledge with which to promote the causes you care about? ]]]]]
” For years I had rationalized this contempt with the justification that I was “right” and thus I blamed my opposition for my anger. [[[[ (14) During the past few years of talking with people about love as it pertains to social movements, I get the sense that some people see it as weakness. It’s interesting how we can sometimes assume that we need to hate our enemies in order to be true to our cause.]]]]]]
“But that sort of self moralizing anger and contempt doesn’t actually solve anything. I’ve come to realize that I had used political discussion as an arena to vent my feelings and disapproval with the way things are, while using a strategy that didn’t actually produce results or fix anything. People don’t understand when they feel attacked, and people don’t listen when they don’t feel listened to. When I look at myself I find the same applies to me. Even when I don’t know, I naturally feel an inclination to fight back against views which come across as threatening to my vision of the world, but I feel a desire to listen to and understand people when I feel listened to, and when they come to me with kindness and appear genuine. I think people are like that. Sometimes people are a mirror to what they are presented with. [[[[ (14) In what situations do you find it the most difficult to do this ? ]]]]]
“So I want to change my own way of engaging with people, and encourage other people do the same, so that we can move towards a culture of empathy. [[[[[ (15) How does this apply to the way marches are conducted ? Might we be more likely to engage passersby and onlookers if we’re not chanting as we march done the street? I participated in a silent march a few months ago. I liked that better than chanting, but maybe we’d have accomplished more if we all agreed we’d be able to talk with people along the way who asked what we were marchinng for. (16) To what extent do you think we’d get more support from the community if we were more creative about our demonstrations, using visual art, music, theater, and so on? (17) What do you think of listening projects whereby a large number of us coordinate shifts at various public places around Columbus at which we talk with people on-the-record about what they care about, using active respectful listening methods, instead of preaching to or trying to ‘educate’ them? ]]]]]]
“Though I do not encourage anyone to be silent about issues they care about, or shy away from protest, or dissent, or civil obedience if need be, I want to advocate for a strategy of humanizing one another. [[[ (18) That would be a part of building relationships necessary for coalitions. How are you reaching out to people? What we do for a living affects our ability to reach out. For example, I have a pedicab business. That affords the opportunity to interact with the general public. ]]]]
“Though we may see our opposition as wrong, or may even consider their views worthy of contempt, we can resolve to see the best in each other, knowing that it would be just as easy for others to see the worst in us.” [[[[[ (19) To what extent do you draw your practice of loving kindness from your religious faith? (20) To what extent do you think the world needs a universal ethical system, that includes Islam and all other religions, but is not limited to religion? In other words, why not just focus on loving kindness? All due respect, how is it that you need religion? ]]]]
“We can overcome our own fear and anger and speak to each other in a manner that will inspire empathy, knowing that (for better or for worse), human beings are largely emotional, and we are far more likely to sway people to see things from our perspective by the way we treat them than we are by having the better argument.” [[[
(21) Is it a matter of swaying people to “see things from our perspective” or instead a matter of seeking to honestly and openly engage people and make sense collaboratively? [[[[ (22) Does it have to be one or the other, connecting to people thru arguments or connecting to people emotionally ? We can present an argument to someone when they seem genuinely receptive. Of course, as you would agree, they are more likely to be receptive when we treat them with at least a basic level of respect.]]]
“If not for idealistic reasons, I encourage people to have compassion for one another because it will serve humanity from a purely utilitarian standpoint.
“An overly divided population is how we end up with candidates with record unfavorability numbers, who don’t need to present arguments for what they will do for us, but merely have to threaten us with the other candidate.
“It’s the culture of opposition which makes it become profitable for the media to ignore real issues, and becomes a breeding ground for all forms of radicalization and extremism. I want to propose a culture of empathy to fight against hate and promote equality. [[[[[ (23) To what extent do you think mainstream media —either unintentionally or otherwise–promotes divisiveness, and that divisiveness enables the abuse of political power?
Me: (24) To what extent does developing a “culture of empathy” require addressing the political and economic conditions, for example class issues, that increase fear, anger, and otherwise make it harder for people have empathy? Part of the explanation for Clinton’s loss (apart from Republicans making it harder to Black Americans to vote, and also possible voting machine tampering, is that Democrats and mainstream progressives have unintentionally fostered rightwing populism thru their neglect of the concerns of working class people ]]]]]
Me: (25) To what extent do you think we can, thru loving kindness, better manage our anger and our fear,
(a) in order to both keep our cool and keep our strategic focus when dealing with adversaries; and
(b) maintain good working relationships with our brothers and sisters in struggle, and thereby be more successful as grassroots organizers, in terms of having less dissension, and being less vulnerable to infiltration and cooptation?
(26) How much do you relate to ‘politically organized loving kindness’ as a concept?
(27) To what extent would you say an ethic of ‘politically organized loving kindness’ is the foundation for a vision of our country and the world that is better than what is being offered by white nationalists and right-wing populists ?
(28) I ask because it seems that a grassroots movement with longterm effectiveness has to be FOR a set of values, and can’t be just AGAINST Trump and other right-wing populists. A resilient grassroots movement must be proactive, not reactionary.
(29) In the vein of being FOR a set of values and not being just AGAINST right-wing populism, to what extent would you say that being FOR ‘politically organized loving kindness’ is better than just being AGAINST hate?
(30) Denouncing hate has been a main theme of demonstrations in the wake of the election, and during Trump’s presidential campaign. But to what extent would you say that we would be wise to not just denounce hate, but to also address the social conditions that feed it ? I ask because, by some accounts, mainstream progressives have unintentionally enabled right-wing populists such as Trump by neglecting the issue of class.
(31) To what extent do you think that ‘politically organized loving kindness’ connects with the values of people of all religious faiths as well as with the values of people who have no religious faith ?
(32) In terms of a universal ethic of ‘politically organized loving kindness,’ to what extent would you say that our common ground as inhabitants of the Earth is a key part of the vision of our country and the world that you are FOR?
(33) To what extent do you think that with an ethic of loving kindness we can improve our political strategies by being more consistent in our values, thereby building long-term credibility with allies, and minimizing hypocrisy?
(34) What’s your opinion about how to put loving kindness into practice thru political organizing on specific issues, so as to avoid ‘happy talk’ and other vague sentiments about love ? To some people, talk about loving kindness comes across as encouraging people to be passive or even submissive amid injustice.
[[[ (1)One of my concerns is that an attack on US soil on US civilians (either from a genuinely terrorist organization or as an inside job from our own government) will provide a pretext for depriving Muslims here of their civil rights, and for depriving non-Muslim US citizens of their civil liberties. But one way I’ve dealt with that fear is to focus my mind on ‘taking a stand for love’ though I’m not sure what that actually means. What it might mean is striving to distinguish my wants from my needs and to meet my needs with as little harm as possible and as much benefit as possible to others. ]]]]
[[[[[ (2) If we are to do more than say “no to hate…xenophobia…Islamophobia and bigotry” by saying yes to better values, what might those values be based on? To what extent do you say yes to international solidarity, as human beings, with those who are oppressed ? To what extent would you say that a good alternative to intolerance is to emphasize our common ground as inhabitants on Earth ? ]]]]
betterecology.wordpress.com 