politics

I often find myself thinking, “What the hell is wrong with Texas (or South Carolina, or Kansas . . .). But after I think that, I feel ashamed. Yes shame. Strong word. But it’s apropos, because one of the hallmarks of small mindedness is clumping people together with generalizations.

Besides, I know and love people from all of those places. So I happen to know that for every dim-witted, racist, anti-poor, anti-Muslim, fundamentalist Christian thing that Texas or Kansas do at their State Capitals, there are thousands of right-thinking people in each of those states who are deeply pained by the action. In fact, I suspect (based on polling data) there are more people in each of those states who disagree with the way their legislators are behaving than who agree.

Republicans Play This Game Better

So why is this happening?

Because the Republican Party is very good at doing two things: 1) pandering to the social phobias and ignorance of their conservative base, and 2) getting those people out to vote every two years.

That’s right. The difference between functional federal and state governments and the disappointment we have now may be as simple as two years. Every two years, social conservatives take their compliant wives by the hand and head to the polls. And every mid-term election (the elections in-between the Presidential elections) they drive a bunch of cynical, corporate-pandering, women-marginalizing, science-denying, Christian militants into office. Overall, not very many people show up to mid-term elections. But since the small turn-out is heavily skewed to a handful of well-educated Birkenstock-wearing Baby Boomers and the base of the Republican Party, conservatives have a disproportionate effect on the outcomes of those elections.

Change is In Our Power

People keep asking when things will change. When will we have meaningful gun control? When will we stop infringing on women’s freedoms? When will we stop inhibiting minority access to the voting booth? When will we stop fighting gay marriage? When will we stop demonizing immigrants, the poor, and anyone else who doesn’t fit a certain Eurocentric middle-class mold? Those questions are often asked with an air of helplessness-infused rage, like it’s all someone else’s job to fix this stuff.

What we need to do is go to the polls. Every two years, not every four. Even when the weather is bad. Even when we have to take a few hours off work. Even when the line wraps around the block and down the road. Even if we have to get a babysitter. Even if it means teaming up, watching kids, car-pooling, or running a personal shuttle bus. Bring a folding chair, an umbrella, and a good book, and vote every two years. We could see major change in a very short time.

The GOP is now pushing for a birth-control measure as part of their negotiation over the debt ceiling. Let's analyse this . . . this is a political entity that is willing to jeopardize an issue of domestic and international economic concern just so they can try to force their personal agendas on women? Since when was legislating the bedroom and women's medical decisions a form of SMALLER government?? And most importantly, why do they have so little respect for women that they don't believe we are capable of making moral, medical, and religious decisions based on our own belief systems?? There are thousands and thousands of Americans who follow religions that ban the use of immunizations, but I don't see them trying to make insurance companies stop covering them . . .

Certainly we are all entitled to our own opinions. Even the most radicalized communist government can't take away the ideas in someone's head without collusion by that someone (though they can certainly deny them of access to information, but that's a different sort of discussion).

And yes, the 1st Amendment prohibits anything that abridges the freedom of speech, with the understanding that subsequent Supreme Court rulings have recognized several categories of speech that are excluded from freedom of speech, as well as recognized that governments may enact reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions on speech (also another different, and interesting, discussion).

So, personal opinions + freedom of speech = ???

Ideally it would result in a fully informed discourse. But people are forgetting something. We are entitled to our own opinions, but we aren't entitled to our own facts. While some things may be up to interpretation, others simply are not. So I will be bringing up Factoids as they punch me in the nose and insult my intelligence.

Here we go with Factiod 1: Obama let the people of Janesville, Wisconsin down by . . . what exactly?

Initially (at a speech in Ohio on August 16) Paul Ryan criticized Obama for the closing of the GM Plant in Janesville, WI. by suggesting that it was somehow Obama's doing. Well, that factoid won't fly. The Janesville plant was closed in December, 2008, and Obama wasn't inaugurated until January 19, 2009.

Upon reflection (also known as a major bashing by all intelligent folks including many in Janesville who remembered when the plant closed), Paul Ryan tried a little mis-correction. He said, "Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said, 'I believe that if our government is there to support you . . . this plant will be here for another hundred years.' That's what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day."

Good grief, an elipsis is a powerful thing isn't it?

The actual quote was this:

"I know that General Motors received some bad news yesterday (they had announced a $38.7 billion net loss), and I know how hard your governor has fought to keep jobs in this plant. But I also know how much progress you've made -- how many hybrids and fuel-efficient vehicles you're churning out," Obama said. "And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years."

So, that's my GM Plant rant for the day. I'm sure I'll have another Factoid Rant soon. . . or sooner.

As people tire of social unrest, there are those who would suggest that this is a culture "war." That kneeling is somehow a form of disrespect. That broken windows are worse than a life ended. That trying to elevate one group of people somehow oppresses another group of people.

Don't let them fool you for a moment.

What is happening now is not about war. It's about LOVE. Love for our fellow humans. Love for our children and grandchildren, who deserve better than the world we've created so far. Love for the earth, which is straining from our demands.

Do you know what love is? Love is not a feeling or an emotion. Love is behavior. Love is a choice, backed by commitment. The drama of protest can be an exciting, dynamic, essential precursor to change. But for change to occur, there must be a pivot from expression to action. From emotions to practical, clear-eyed strategy. What do you choose to do next? Here are some choices to make right now:

1. Choose to vote. Yes, both foreign and domestic entities are interfering with our right to vote and our access to vote. That's why it's more important than ever that you exercise this right. Register today if you haven't already.
2. Choose to vote in every single election from now on - not just the presidential elections. Social and political change happen at the local level first. Make a pledge now to never miss an election ever again.
3. Choose to talk with all your friends and family about registering to vote. Be that person who won't stop bringing it up. These talks matter.
4. Choose to take the next best step in every election, not waiting for perfect candidates to appear. Because perfect candidates never appear. But there's always a next best step in our path to healing this country from the abomination we elected in 2016, and the excesses of greed and lack of social conscience that have been at play for decades in our political institutions.
5. Choose to get involved in one issue, action, or organization. Make calls for your local Democratic party. Join a local committee exploring redistribution of funding for social support programs. Actively monitor your own unobserved biases and make sure that you are voting for women, people of color, LGBTQ, and people of broad cultural and religious backgrounds to office, in order to make sure we achieve proper representation of all types of people in elected office. Create lists of local and industry Black/POC owned companies as a way to spread economic benefits. Drive voters to polls, or participate in efforts to make standing in line at polls less difficult (because one of the ways the opposition is trying to reduce Democratic voting is to make voting in person almost unbearable). There are so many things you can do (more suggestions welcome in comments). Choose one way to make a difference, and DO it.
6. Choose to also act with your your money. Not everyone can do this, but you probably can - a little bit goes a long way. Choose one important organization: Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, MS Foundation for Women, Unsilence . . . there are literally thousands of under-funded, beneficiant organizations that work locally, regionally, and nationally. Pick one, and give $10 each month if that's all you have. If we all did that, we could fund major change.

There's more, but let's end with this one - perhaps the most difficult one: Choose to think deeply about the issues, your reactions to them, and your own fears. Pursue self-education, and be open to the discomfort of self-awareness. There are cynical and destructive actors, and lazy/unthinking/defensive re-actors surrounding you. You cannot allow yourself to be manipulated by the one or influenced by the other.

We have seen how easy it was for us to become a nation of thoughtless, refusing-to-care-for-our-neighbor, forgiving-of-amoral-behavior, shallow, defensive meme-throwers. Fixing it will be more difficult.

It will require an Activist Corps. It will require people committed to thinking deeply about the issues, committed to self-education, committed to participation, committed to voting, and influencing others to vote. It will require sustained, active, choice to fix it.

The protests were a way to amplify the message and command attention. But if we don't follow them with meaningful action, they were just drama. Don't stop at drama. Let's take all that energy and turn it into action.

And remember every step of the way that this is about Love. The choice to act is the choice to love.

I choose to act, because I love you all.

People are resentful that radical jihadi terrorism has caused us all to live in a Code Orange world. Women have been living in a Code Orange world for a long time. Sometimes you figure it out when you’re really young, and you carry that wariness and those high cortisol levels around with you for the rest of your life. Other times, you don’t realize you live in a Code Orange world until your boyfriend beats and rapes you over buying the wrong kind of beer, or a stranger yanks you into the bushes on your college campus. But eventually, most women come to realize that we live in a Code Orange world.

One out of every 5 American women will be raped in her lifetime.

One in 4 girls and one in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.

It’s hard to come up with clear statistics for sexual assault, because in some states the assault statistics are included with the rape statistics, and in many other states they are not. Additionally, a very large percentage of sexual violence goes unreportedWhat we do know, is that somewhere between 35% and 60% of American women will experience some type of sexual assault in their lifetime.

This means that you most definitely know a woman who has been raped or experienced some form of sexual violence.

This is why “locker room” talk (whatever that is) is not acceptable. Ever. When people banter about sexual violence toward women, they reduce the gravity of it to something the level of a joke. Rape is never a joke. Getting your body groped as if you were an item on a grocery shelf is not a joke. Going through years of therapy so you can actually feel as relaxed as you try to look when you go to work or walk outside your house is not a joke.

Want me to lighten up about this? Oh, hell no. Not until you’ve experienced that sexual assault in my shoes. Not until you’ve walked into a crowd of people, quieted the monkey voice in your head, and counted off each woman you see as follows:

Raped.  Assaulted.  Assaulted.  Not assaulted.  Not assaulted.

Raped.  Assaulted.  Assaulted.  Not assaulted.  Not assaulted.

Raped.  Assaulted.  Assaulted.  Not assaulted.  Not assaulted.

Maybe then, when you leave that crowd and all its tragically violated women behind you, you’ll know that locker room talk isn’t a thing. It’s just another form of violent foreplay.

Yesterday I shared the following post on Facebook:

“I just read that there is not one Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election who accepts the theory of evolution. How can this be true? This is the worst thing I read all day.”

This statement elicited a number of responses, one of which was this:

“I don’t know what the Republican candidates actually believe when it comes to their views on evolution, nor do I know what the Democrats believe. I don’t really care that much about what they believe as far as evolution is concerned. I am more interested in immigration, economy, healthcare, infrastructure, environment, and foreign policy.”

Three Reasons Why Belief in Evolution Matters

So here, in three points, is why what our candidates believe about evolution matters.

Science is Key to our Future Prosperity

Let’s start with a basic premise. “An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.” (Delgado, 2006). Furthermore, “Serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent.” (Rennie, 2002)

People who reject evolution rely on a few primary arguments to advance their cause. I won’t try to address these arguments here – there are many people far more qualified than me who have done so already. I suggest reading these two reasonably brief online resources:

Rennie, J. (2002, June 17). 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. Retrieved from Scientific American : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Delgado, C. (2006, July 28). Finding Evolution in Medicine. Retrieved from National Institutes of Health: http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm 

If you are a person who doubts evolution, and if you just read the two references above, then you may now understand something very important: In order for a person to reject evolution, they must have a weak or nonexistent understanding of science and the scientific process. If a person understands science, they can instantly see the logic failures in the arguments against evolution.

Science isn’t just a class you were required to take in high school, breathing a sigh of relief that you didn’t flunk. Nor is it simply a lab experiment to test a chemical or electrical reaction. One of the failings of science teaching in the United States as that we teach science as an activity or a series of projects, and not as a way of thinking. And more than anything else, science is a way of thinking.

Unfortunately, this has led to America ranking close to last in math and science (math is also a way of thinking rather than a ream of worksheets) among industrialized countries. International comparisons put the United States at the bottom of rankings for math (21 out of 23) and science (17 out of 19). And the majority of graduate students studying science and technology in the United States are from China and Korea.

At the same time, the Texas GOP 2012 platform includes an element that seeks to remove any curriculum that promotes critical thinking (which is a principle of scientific thought) among students, out of the expressed fear that students should never be taught to question things their parents teach them.

I will cede that international tests are not the only indicator of national success, but there is no doubt that technology and science will be the basis for nearly all economic and social innovation in the foreseeable future. To have a President of the United States who does not believe in evolution, effectively rejecting a key tenet of scientific thought that is agreed upon by 99.9% of scientists worldwide, means that we risk not having the foresight and the leadership in the White House required to help our country stay in a global leadership role.

Critical Thinking Skills Must be a Minimum Standard for Presidential Candidates

“The world is swiftly changing. With each passing day, the pace of life and change quickens. The pressure to respond intensifies. New global realities are rapidly working their way into the deepest structures of our lives: economic, social, cultural, political, and environmental realities – realities with profound implications for thinking and learning, business and politics, human rights, human conflicts. These realities are becoming increasingly complex; many represent significant dangers and threats. And they all turn on the powerful dynamic of accelerating change.” (Richard Paul and Linda Elder, “Critical Thinking").

In order to lead in this world of change, our leaders must be able to wrap their minds around all the angles of many issues, succeed at understanding problems outside their own cultural context, and find ways to communicate with other leaders whose social, political, and cultural view of the world are dramatically different from their own. To do this requires the highest quality thinking, thinking skills that have been honed over many years by challenging what they believe, examining their own assumptions, and pursuing depth of understanding in addition to breadth of understanding. Our next President must have profound critical thinking skills.

"Critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth.” Daniel T Willingham

A President who rejects evolution for reasons that cannot be supported by objective, critical thinking strongly suggests that he (or she) is a person who does not value critical thinking. This person cannot be trusted in such an important leadership role in such a complex world.

Honesty Shouldn't Be an Afterthought

Some people have suggested that many of the 2016 GOP candidates actually do believe in evolution, but they are unwilling to say so because they fear the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. 

Of course, we’re not accustomed to much forthrightness from our politicians. But when Americans are polled, we talk about how we want to change Washington and the political mess it has become. So if some or all of the GOP candidates are lying about what they believe before the primary is even over, we certainly are not getting the change we say we want. At the very least we could count on these non-believers to continue to support policies cherished by the far right wing but at odds with the needs of much of the rest of society. As my friend (John P. Jackson, Jr., PhD; University of Colorado at Boulder)) stated, “It doesn't matter if they "really believe" it or not. What matters is their actions and the kinds of policies they enact.”

Perhaps individual Americans have the luxury of engaging in low-quality thinking (and I just say perhaps – I don’t personally believe that to be true). But our leaders, particularly our President and the leadership at the highest level of this country do not have that luxury; we cannot grant them that luxury. Our future depends on electing leaders who are skilled in the act of thinking.

So these are three very big reasons to care about whether or not the people seeking our vote believe in evolution. Because science itself matters. Because critical thinking – the basis of the entire scientific process – matters. And because telling the truth matters.

I think if politicians had to wear their sponsors as patches on their little blue suits, things might change. I'm going to start sewing. Humana first, then Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Oh, wait, we probably need a sweatshop in China to make all of them . . .

Many of my friends and family are Republicans (doesn't that sound alarmingly like "I have a black/gay/Mexican/athiest friend" LOL?). I say this to point out that I am aware that many Republicans have views that are largely moderate. They prefer States policy over National policy, they prefer smaller (which does not mean nonexistent) government, they lean toward more pro-gun, law-and-order, sometimes hawkish positions. But they are reasonable people who understand that civilization has a cost and we must all work together to pay that cost.

I'm pretty sure that Mitt Romney is so cynical that he doesn't believe those Republicans exist. Moreover, he has apparently decided that the way to win the office he so covets is to completely pander himself (no surprise) to the furthest right, anti-everything, failed-to-ever-take-a-civics-class faction of the Republican party. And in doing this, he rains further damage on the Republican Party.

This dismays me.

I don't believe a one-party government is a healthy thing (honestly, I have deep reservations about having a mere two). We need a healthy Republican Party to create balance and dialog with we folks who are the more-dovish, regulatory-friendly, big-government-safety-net sort of people. But dialog can't happen between the extremes of a position - it takes not just cooler heads, but more open heads, to nurture a conversation to a productive conclusion.

Check out Kathleen Parker's article today in The Daily Beast for an excellent overview of everything wrong with the current Republican Party platform. And let's all - Democrat and Republican alike - start looking for those cooler and more open heads.

We Americans aren't particularly fond of subtleties. We like our politics black and white and our issues right or wrong. I once thought this was indicative of lack of intellectual energy, but lately I've been thinking we just like to fight. The problem is, most significant social issues are messy, and there are no perfect - or even near-perfect - solutions.

Most of us accept the basic messiness of intimate relationships and we take the good with the not-so-fun. So why do we think really big relationships - 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 strong - would be easier to manage?  I'd wager that folks who hold out for the perfect lover end up either single or bitter. If you're one of those I'm not talking to you, because you're not wired to understand the next thing I'm going to say.

We need to start embracing messy solutions. We need to get to the point where we're OK with making progress, even though it's not perfect. Most of all, we need to stop arguing at the polar ends of the issues, and instead start inching our way to the middle and one another. Society's great leaps have always looked huge in retrospect, but at the time each was more like putting one foot in front of the other. 

It's time for all lawmakers and wanna-be lawmakers to denounce Michelle Bachman's Muslim witch-hunt. After six people were murdered for being perceived to be Islamists in Wisconsin yesterday, and a mosque in Joplin burned to the ground today, it's time that our leaders take responsibility for their part in even tacitly supporting this most UnAmerican of behaviors. Any insanity in the name of "God" and "country" is still insanity - and we are no better for behaving violently for those reasons here than those we denounce for behaving violently for those reasons elsewhere.

The problem with being stupid is that you can't even assess if the people you are hiring are smart - as evidenced by Palin not having a single writer or producer who could tell her what blood libel really is. The problem with massive ego is that you don't even know you're stupid.

I was delighted to see Meryl Streep, Sally Field, Glenn Close, and Bette Midler tonight on the Oscars. I recognized them. And though I am hardly in-the-know about whether or not they have had cosmetic surgery, if they have, they've kept a light hand about it. They are beautiful women past the age of 55 who look past the age of 55.

Which is brave in a society that still primarily values women based on bust size and curve ratio. Particularly in Hollywood, where sex appeal still matters at least as much as talent, the women who refuse to try to look 20 years younger are practically taking a stand.

The majority of women still spend the first 20 years of life learning what the world expects, the next 25 years devoted to families, and finally, finally, we get to ourselves. What we expect ourselves to be. What we now have time to become. But at that exciting moment, with all the time and potential in the world before us, too many women look in the mirror and see only the wrinkles, the gray hair, the softened jaw line, the extra pounds. We fail to inspire ourselves because the reflection in the mirror doesn't live up to society's expectations of fuckability.

As if that's all we're good for. As if that's what we aspire to.

Poor Kim Novak. She doesn't need kissable puffed-up lips, a wrinkle-free face, she doesn't need to look 35 to remind me of her glamor. She could have walked out on that stage with a face that bragged of her 81 years and held our attention. I don't think for one moment it was vanity that drove her decision to hit the botox hard. I don't think it's ego that causes Goldie Hawn to keep going under the knife. It's lack of self-worth. If the only value you've placed on yourself is society's meter of youth and fecundity, then you can't look in the mirror and take pride in the woman staring back.

Sure, the human attraction to fertility has a strong biological basis. But in other cultures, other times, a deep appreciation for survival, contribution, and the wisdom one gains over time have also played an important part. I gratefully traded my flirtatious and slightly wild years for my child-bearing and nurturing years. And now I've traded that role for my next phase. Maiden. Mother. Crone. All powerful archetypes, equally valid.

I'm not saying that one's 50s and 60s can't be vital and exciting. Just that we don't need to look 25 or 35 to experience the benefits. Will I still use my eye cream and my skin tone corrector? Certainly. That's a bit of vanity. But I will also celebrate my laugh lines and every reminder that I am older and therefore wiser. That's self worth.

Dear White People,

I’m glad we’re discussing race. As the heirs & beneficiaries of the systems that limit people of color, it’s our job to end institutional racism. We must examine our attitudes, prejudices, behaviors, and fears, and understand how they contribute to stereotyping, exclusion, and violence. Yes, we need to talk.

Honestly, it should be largely a white conversation. We’re not talking to Black people – they already know more about racism than any of us could ever handle. We’re not talking for Black people. They speak eloquently and profoundly for themselves. In fact, there are several things that are happening that really, really, need to stop.

Don’t use Black icons to defend your fears and opinions. Saying, “I can’t imagine what Martin Luther King would think about this rioting;” and posting Black leaders’ or celebrities’ quotes to support your anti-BLM or anti-protesting position is wrong. And you're right - you really can't imagine.

What you're actually saying when you do this is, “See! Black people agree with me on this!” But they don’t. They really don’t. Using Black voices to promote a white perspective is a form of appropriation and an act of privilege. If you don’t understand this, read this paragraph over and over again until you do.

Don’t say, “I’m (gay, female, fat, short, etc.), so I understand.” Not the same. All discrimination is bad, and we must eliminate all of it. But it’s not all the same. The sooner we realize we don’t understand, the sooner we will begin to.

Get over the “I have Black friends/I’m not racist” false equivalence. If you do have Black friends – as in, the kind of friends who would lean on you in a crisis like family – then you wouldn’t even use this defense. Most likely, you have Black acquaintances. One can certainly be a racist while playing nice in a meeting room or at the gym.

“I don’t see color” is not a thing. Of course you do. We all see color. Our ability, as white people, to ignore color is part of our privilege. Those arrogant, angry, white McCloskeys pointing a pistol and semiautomatic at peaceful protestors in St. Louis last week are alive now because they are white. Everyone sees color.

When you defend confederate monuments, you’re not defending history. What you’re really saying is, “I don’t know why they have to be offended about glorifying racists and why I have to care.” Here is a parallel for you to consider: The devil is an important part of Christian teaching. The lessons are regularly taught, and remembered. But you won’t find monuments to Satan in Christian churches. We can teach about evil without aggrandizing it.

Don’t use any Black person — ever — to make your point. If you’re offended by looting and rioting, don’t use looted Black store owner to suggest that “his Black life didn’t matter.” You don’t get to speak for — or assume to understand — Black people who suffered losses during the riots.

We don't get to point out conflict between Black liberals and Black conservatives and say, "I guess Black conservatives' lives don't matter." This is just a cynical, appropriating way of using Black people to support being offended by Black Lives Matter. 

We don't get to suggest Black cops are hurt by Black Lives Matter. Do you even KNOW any Black cops? People in the Black Lives Matter movement (including cops — Black and white) don’t see it as “Black vs. Blue.” That’s a white construct. Stop it. It’s not real.

We don’t get to complain about how tired we are of all the stress and confusion and angst. You know who’s tired? Talk to any Black mother. She’s fucking tired. Of asking, and praying, and giving the talk, and kneeling, and watching her loved ones suffer. And go to jail. And die. All the dying. Black moms are all so tired.

If you mean well and you’re committed to change, but you've just made some rookie white ally mistakes, then OK. You can learn and do better. We all can. If I’ve offended you so far, then I have news for you. You’re not a white ally. You’re just posing as a white ally. Does this surprise or hurt your feelings? Then do better! We have lifetimes of deprogramming to do. Let's start now.

Now let’s talk about what we should do. First, we should listen to Black voices, even when it’s uncomfortable, even though it hurts. If you feel defensive, that’s human, but not useful. So let’s do the hard work, open our hearts, and hear and try to feel the pain.

We can be accountable for our reactions and feelings. Why did the protests scare you if you didn’t live anywhere near them? Why does the phrase Black Lives Matter make you squirm? What impulse makes you insist All Lives Matter when you hear Black Lives Matter? Why do you feel tense when you approach a group of young black men? Why do you wonder to yourself if the Black mom in the supermarket checkout line is about to use a WIC card (pro tip here — white families account for the vast majority of food stamps dollars in the US)? What assumptions and biases and beliefs are you clinging to that perpetuate the problem? Dig deep.

We can be brave and say something. Don’t let any small or large racist comment or action go without challenging it. If white people object to racism and racial stereotyping every time we see it or hear it, we can end it. Silence in the face of tyranny is . . . tyranny.

We can rethink what we’ve been taught and study what we don’t know. Study the Black Panthers, read the New York Times “1619 Project,” “White Fragility” by Robin Diangelo, or “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White.” Watch “13th,” “Teach Us All,” or “Malcolm X.” There's more! Explore the websites Racial Equity Tools, or Not in Our Town. Yes, do this even if you already have Black friends . . .

There’s so much more. Vote. Organize. Support. Join. Make change happen. Yes, let’s talk about racism. Let’s have a big old white conversation, informed by Black history, perspectives and voices. Let’s take responsibility for a 500-year-old problem. Let’s fix what’s broken. Let’s own it.

And now, for something completely serious . . .

We are who we lead. If the Republican Party doesn't want to be considered the party of racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and bigotry, it must stop catering to those who embrace those values.

I have opinions about social policies and politics; opinions that I work hard to inform with fact and data. I consider myself to be informed about these things, but not an expert.

When it comes to leadership, however, I am an expert. I have spent 30 years studying leadership; assessing, improving and refining my own leadership skills; cultivating leadership skills among my employees; and advising companies and individuals on the growth of their leadership talent.

When business owners call on me to solve a sticky problem, they are rarely asking me to help them fix their leadership style. Yet leadership problems are often at the heart of business deficiencies. When I discover that to be the case, one of the first questions I ask people to consider is, “Who is choosing to follow you?”

This can be a tricky question. The fact that you are the boss means that most employees will do what you want most of the time. That’s called obedience, or respect for the chain-of-command, which is very different from making a conscious choice to follow. So how do you know if someone is following you versus simply obeying you? You know because of the energy, enthusiasm, and accountability that people bring to their work. You see, one of the most important things leaders do is to inspire others to join them in pursuit of a shared goal. Leaders ignite the small fires of passion that turn into shared accountability and motivation. Really strong leaders inspire that devotion not to themselves, but to a cause or to an organization.

It is not possible to make someone follow you. You can make someone obey you, if you have the right leverage – like a paycheck. This is why the first measure of a leader is not in what they do, but in the quality and the actions of those who choose to follow them

So I ask the question, “Who follows you?” If nobody follows you, if you are surrounded by people who do the minimum necessary to succeed, if your employees do not step up to the level of motivation or contribution you want from them, then you are functioning as a boss, not as a leader. This is a scenario I regularly encounter. On occasion however, I encounter a slightly darker reality. I see a boss who does have some followers, but when I assess the character, behavior, and motivations of the people who choose to follow them, I question the ethics, the kindness, or the integrity of those followers. Which makes me question the leader.

We are who we lead.

We draw to us the people attracted to what we represent. The people who choose to follow us choose to do so because they see in us a useful path to an outcome that is meaningful to them. We can see this at the simplest levels of human organization; for example, in a high school cafeteria. Each group of students will have a natural leader. That leader may be vocal or quiet, may or may not be conscious of their influence as a leader, may or may not be particularly interested in having followers. Because followers choose leaders, not vice versa. The angriest child in the school is just as likely to have a following as the class president or star football player is likely to have a following.

One trait shared among great leaders is a commitment to introspection. Having followers is very ego-boosting, even to those who are not particularly ego-driven. Great leaders ask the question, "what is it that I am projecting that draws people to me? Is it noble, is it worthy, is it something that will benefit others?" When great leaders see undesirable traits or behaviors emerging among their followers, they look to themselves first to see how their own behaviors and choices contributed to their followers believing that those things were okay. Are there leaders who effectively lead followers to terrible ends? Sure there are. Caligula, Stalin, Hitler, and Hugo Chavez were all powerful leaders. But we won't refer to them as "great," because terrible is never great.

So you can judge leaders by the qualities and behaviors of their followers. I teach this every day in business. I help business owners understand that they must transform themselves into effective leaders if they want to inspire motivation beyond simply collecting a paycheck. I help business owners and managers recognize when it is their own leadership contributing to dysfuntion within the organization.

We are who we lead.

And it is for these reasons that I am comfortable with stating that the Republican Party is the party of racism. This shouldn’t be too surprising, since the modern Republican Party was largely formed based on racism. Today’s Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. It is the party of what came after. The party of Jim Crow, the party of segregated schools, the party of white flight. And this shows up very clearly in its followers, from indifferent whites who choose not to reflect on how racism affects our country, to closet racists who use coded language when expressing their racism, to white supremacy groups who don’t even bother to hide it. It’s not that there are no racists who are also Democrats. It’s that the Democratic Party refuses to cater to them. There are no skinheads rallying for Democratic Party candidates.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party has become the party of anti-Semitism. It’s not even relevant that Donald Trump has Jewish grandchildren. What matters is that a noteworthy subset of Donald Trump’s followers are anti-Semitic, or simply don’t care if there are anti-Semites among them. It matters that Trump refused to even mention Jews on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and the Republican Party was noticeably silent about it. Remember, the leader doesn’t choose the followers, the followers choose the leader based on something the leader is projecting that inspires them to follow. So clearly, something inspires anti-Semitism. And why do I lay this responsibility for anti-Semitism at the feet of the Republican Party, and not simply at the feet of Donald Trump? Because the party can do something about this, and they have chosen not to. Are there anti-Semites among the Democratic Party followers? Unfortunately, yes there are. But when anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in the Democratic Party, the party is pretty effective at policing itself.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party is the party of misogyny. Step away from the abortion issue for a moment. For one-issue voters, this is often the one issue that matters.

Instead, look at the ardent followers of the Republican Party who believe that there is such a thing as legitimate rape versus illegitimate rape, who push bills that refer to women as merely hosts of new life, repeatedly reject legislation that supports equal pay for women, who call out the Girl Scouts as a radical organization because they encourage young women to be informed and independent, and who  work diligently to defund Planned Parenthood, the primary provider of health care to women who live under the poverty level (the vast majority of Planned Parenthood services are not abortion-related). This is a tricky issue, because undoubtedly there was a measure of misogyny at the heart of people who would otherwise have voted Democratic in the last election. So while the Democratic Party does not put forth the kind of legislation – or rhetoric – that is anti-women, it is in a fight for its soul after the recent election. I’ll be watching closely to see how the party proceeds from here. It’s recent support for women’s marches across the country tells us the Democratic Party embraces its role as a force for women's rights.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party promotes selfishness. A large percentage of their followers detest regulation, social services, higher minimum wages, and more equal distribution of wealth, while supporting tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican Party is allowing the current president to reap enormous personal financial gains as a benefit of holding that office. That they have not stepped in to stop this activity speaks volumes. Trump’s historically low approval ratings demonstrate that any approval he does enjoy comes almost entirely from the Republican Party faithful. Do Democrats abuse power? Definitely. Abuse of power tends to be a human problem more than a party problem. But at all levels of the Republican Party membership, the overwhelming message is Me! Me! Me!.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party is anti-gay. Nearly all opposition to equal rights or equal marriage for LGBTQ citizens comes from the Republican Party membership. And all contemporary legislation designed to discriminate against LGBTQ citizens comes from the Republican Party. In contrast, support for the LGBTQ citizenry is built into the Democratic Party platform, and it is one of the elements that draws followers to the party.

None of the issues I’ve mentioned here may bother you. It’s entirely possible that you were uncomfortable with a Black man being president, that you think the Jews make too much noise about the holocaust, that your own cultural forbears were slaves at some point in history, that you hate paying taxes for people on welfare, that you think women don’t need equal pay legislation, that you believe trickle-down economics works, that you believe raising the minimum wage will damage the economy, or that you think regulation is terrible for business. I don’t intend to argue the merit of any of these points with you.

All I am saying is, that if those are your beliefs, then you are more than likely Republican.

And we are who we lead.

##

 

Simply, it costs to much. In America. During these days of emotional, largely uninformed, often ignorant, and completely politicized discussion, I can only hope it will be useful to pass along information that has been fact-checked. I realize that many people don't care about facts these days, but I remain hopeful . . .

Thanks to Upworthy for this video:

John Green is kind of amazing. He knows his facts way better than you or me. And they are mindn-blowing, and/or horrifying . . . 

Social safety net or no social safety net?

OK - please help me understand this.

1. Tea-party leaning Republicans claim that providing Federal benefits to constituents is a form of social safety net (they call it socialism, which is a strong indication that they have never actually studied the concept) and must be avoided at all costs to reduce the Federal deficit. OK, that's their opinion and they are entitled to it (though they should spruce up a bit on their social organization theory).
2. The Republican-dominated Congress - highly influenced by this very vocal Tea Party constituency - does not have extension of Federal Unemployment Insurance on the docket. Federal extensions will expire at the end of December.
3. I have now heard not one, not two, but several Tea-Party leaning, high-deficit concerned acquaintances actually complain that the Federal Unemployment Insurance extensions are about to run out, and from where will they get their unemployment support??? Really? Now they want a social safety net?
4. No matter what happens with these folks, Obama seems to lose. Why? Well, if he pushes for an extension of benefits, they get to scream that he is making the deficit worse through social programs. If he does not push for an extension of benefits, they get to scream that he denied them their livelihood.

It seems to me that you either believe that the Federal government should not provide benefits to people and that the states should cover all or most of it, or you believe the Federal government has a role in the social safety net. But you don't get to believe that the social safety net should exist when you need it, but not when it's just others who do.

And no matter what you believe, everyone needs to remember that beliefs are not facts. Facts - like dates when the deficit grew to such massive proportions (think two unfunded wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - all George W), economy crashed (summer of 2007), dates when unemployment shot through the roof (summer of 2007 - January 2008), comparisons of European austerity results to American stimulation results (they are in a nightmare of recession, we are recovering, albeit slowly) - facts are things that can be checked and validated. So just because you want to be upset with Obama doesn't mean it's rational.

Either these people who now are complaining about their unemployment benefits have had an epiphany that the social safety net has value in our civilization, or . . . what? Can they really be so obtuse as to believe that their desire for unemployment benefits is not at odds with their deficit and socialism rhetoric? Maybe they can, but I don't see how.

A lot of people are expressing surprise at how terrible people are. They are disappointed in family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers who refuse to wear masks, or who refuse to stay in and avoid socializing, or who appear to be racists or, at the very least, unconcerned about racism (which really are the same thing, but that’s another discussion). I think all this awareness is because we are in a strange moment in time, facing many existential and identity challenges at once. Though it seems shocking to see how selfish people are, I think we’re just experiencing people outing themselves right and left as zero-sum-gamers.

I have a theory that the two kinds of selfishness and hatred we’re seeing right now are all wrapped up in the same origin. I don't know if it's correct or not, but it seems to me that there are two types of people: People who think life is a zero-sum-game, and people who don't. For people who think life is a zero-sum-game, then life is a ledger made up of a “me” column and an “everyone else” column. To zero-sum-gamers, deposits that go in the “everyone else” column require a withdrawal from their own column.

I think there have always been a lot of zero-sum-gamers (let’s call them ZSGs), but the stakes aren't usually so high, nor the results so obvious. For ZSGs, typical types of generosity have a strong component of self-interest. Giving to the church reflects on them and their reputation (and maybe buys a space in heaven). Acting like they care about others makes them more respectable. As long as none of that encroaches on their belief that they are building deposits in the "me" column, they are OK. But when it comes time to do something simply for the good of others, at the cost of their own inconvenience, they balk. They start thinking, "but how will this affect ME? What does this take away from ME?" They can’t see how putting a deposit in the "everyone else" column benefits themselves enough to make up for the discomfort or inconvenience of doing so. So they start looking for rationalizations to support their selfishness, because none of us really want to admit how selfish we are. And this is why it is SO HARD to get through to us when we act in purely self-interested ways. Because self-awareness hurts.

So instead of self-awareness, we humans go to all kinds of lengths to justify our selfish behaviors. In some cases, the level of selfishness seems so small, yet we go to Herculean efforts to defend it. Refusal to wear a mask is the most absurd, yet perfect, example. Wearing a mask makes one look funny (until it’s normalized). It is a bit uncomfortable. It requires getting used to. But look at the extremes people will go to, to defend refusal to wear a mask! Embracing wacky scientific theory that it’s bad for you (literally no science supports this), that it encroaches on individual liberty (then why wear seat belts?), that it doesn’t work (when all the science says – and always did say – that it does) are all extreme ways of defending one’s right to . . . what? Look cute? Not steam up one’s glasses? Not smear one’s lipstick? ZSG behavior isn’t necessarily rational, but it’s full of rationalizing, along with the hunt for experts to support your opinion so you can feel justified.

Of course, there are some who are casual, unthinking racists who will wear masks. There are some who won't wear masks, but support Black Lives Matter. I don't think this breaks my theory. I think it supports it, by acknowledging that self-interest is still at the core of their un-empathetic behavior. It just depends on what they're comfortable with and/or worried about. If they have a deep personal fear of Covid-19, then mask-wearing and staying at home serves their self-interest. If they are personally comfortable with people who are different than them (or if it helps their public persona to be perceived as broad-minded), then there's no discomfort in supporting BLM. But to embrace ALL the ways we need to help our fellow-man requires being the other type of person.

The other people are the ones who believe life is the opposite of a zero-sum-game. For this group of people, anything that benefits the group benefits the self. So wearing a mask may be inconvenient and slightly (so slightly) uncomfortable, but the greater good makes it worth it. Staying home may be boring and even stressful, but making personal sacrifices to increase the chances of survival for people they don't even know makes sense to this group. This group also accepts that eliminating systemic racism would improve the world for everyone. This group believes that investing tax money in health care for all means a healthier society and a healthier economy for everyone. This group believes that selfishness actually harms the self, that putting deposits in the "everyone else" column is a way of improving everyone's life, and that the individual can never be whole if the group is broken.

I don't think my theory is so radical here. All major religions and philosophies encourage us to look at life this way, to accept that the good of the group is really the good of the individual. But putting others before ourselves is hard work, and requires constant recalibration and self-awareness. It requires the ability to delay personal gratification for greater good. And it challenges us to embrace individual failure when we falter (because we all do), to laugh at our human frailties, and to pledge to do better next time.

I don’t know what the answer is to all this. I’m not even sure if my theory is correct. But it helps me to understand why I am seeing so much disappointing behavior all at one time right now. And maybe it will lead to insight about how to influence more people to consider putting deposits in the “everyone else” column, and to embrace the idea that what is good for all is ultimately what is best for me.