Posted on

Solution-Oriented Politics

All too often the word “politics” is a dirty word. But in reality it is the art and science of dealing with the affairs of people groups, governments, and civics. In essence, it is helping people get along and create culture together. It is the art of creating rules for a society that will strengthen that society and not pull it apart.  When we frame it this way, we see that it can be a beautiful thing. So instead of shying away from the word politics, we can see it as a unique part of what makes us truly human. 

Most of the time we focus on the power side of politics. We read books like Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and study famous politicians of old that asserted and maintained political power by dishonest,  manipulative, and sometimes brutal means. And it’s true. Power is a very important aspect of politics. We forget that many of our political heroes like Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were also very shrewd politicians— and yet they operated from a very different framework. They were strategic about the people they brought together, about the principles they stood for, and about the tactics they used for specific times and specific places. 

One great example of a positive political figures is the Bible’s Queen Esther along with her uncle Mordecai. Using their unique perspectives, strengths and positions, they mobilized an entire people group and came up with a plan to expose the biggest scandal of their day. If we look at the positive side of politics, we can see that it involves a focus not on tribalism for tribalism’s sake. It has a focus on solutions. Solution oriented politics does not first focus on WHO is wrong, but it needs to start with WHAT is wrong. 

But even before the WHAT and WHO are addressed, we need to lay the groundwork with the WAY we go about building and sustaining relationships. Using the example of Queen Esther, you’ll notice that a huge problem had come to her attention. The problem was that a law had been put into place that was going to annihilate the Jewish people. That was the big WHAT. Mordecai raises Esther’s awareness to get her awakened to the problem that was in her very kingdom…the kingdom that she had presided over as queen for only a short time. She really didn’t have much power as a woman to stop this, but she did have one thing: favor with the king. It was that relationship with the king that she would leverage and wager her life upon. The only problem was that the king’s signature was on that detestable edict. At face value, the king was the obvious WHO of the problem. The king had all the power. It would have been easy for her and Mordecai to become enraged and to turn against him. But turning against the king was not even a thought in their minds. They knew that they needed to solve the problem, not make it worse by throwing the whole kingdom into bloody anarchy. 

Mordecai was angry— righteous anger though it was. His anger alone wouldn’t solve the problem. Mordecai needed access to someone in position who could influence and effect real change. That WAY would come from his niece, Esther. It would come from Esther rallying the Jews of the land to pray for success on her mission to put an end to the terrifying consequence of this edict. 

Today, when I consider the people who are my political allies, I see a lack of understanding on the HOW. On social media I often see would-be allies vilified before they’ve even chosen a side because they didn’t pick one soon enough. I see name calling and suspicions being raised without considering what is at stake for the other parties involved— what they would have to lose if they acted the way we wanted them to. Solution-oriented politics involves creating allies and bridging divides every bit as much as it involves drawing a line in the sand and standing up for truth. Wisdom and courage are both necessary components for the solving of political problems. If we want to win the long game, we have to make it as easy as possibly for people to jump their ship and swim to ours. Instead of handing them a life preserver, we shoot them in the water.

Is there ever a WHO to confront? Are people ever the problem? Absolutely. In this story of Esther it was found that the true culprit of the edict was the vile Haman, who sought his own exaltation at the expense of the entire Jewish race. There are people who have truly evil intentions in this world and they need to be exposed. However, I believe that most people believe that they are in the right, and on the side of truth and justice, and want to be good people. They are just a bit mixed up on the principles that make a nation and society strong. There are compelling social, economic, and emotional reasons that they pick one camp or the other. At the same time, there are people who ultimately do jump their ideological ship for another. Why do they do this? I have found it is usually because of the WAY that someone treated them followed by the WHAT of their arguments that just made sense. 

The WAY Esther used was not a war with arrows and swords, but three strategically planned parties with wine and delicacies. The WAY first, the WHAT next, and the WHO didn’t come until the final act. This method works great for moving toward positive “solutionary” politics. If we cannot establish a loving WAY of approaching people, nothing that we say will be heard. If we don’t put the WHAT next, we won’t even know what problem we have to solve. After the WAY and the WHAT are established, it is then that the WHO can give a proper reckoning for their misguided errors or downright corruption. 

You can follow the way of Machiavelli and desire that people fear you, or you can follow the way of love and build bridges while holding your values strong until the parties involved come closer and closer to a solution. Strong words are sometimes necessary, as are bold and decisive actions. But at the end of the day, you want your opponents to admire your conviction, your tenacity, and your ability to treat them with respect. Defeating them is a win-lose. Winning them is a win-win. Some will need to be defeated, but many more will need to be won. 

Posted on

The Straw Man

Whether you label yourself a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or Democrat, a Trump Supporter or a Never-Trumper all of us are prone to the dangers of misconception through the labels we use to describe ourselves or others. Labels will always be with us, but we must use labels with caution and care. They have the propensity to contribute to the building and perpetuation of the Straw Man. 

The Straw Man is the stereotypical picture we build of our opponents. The Straw Man is made out of straw, so he is very easy to defeat in the imaginary discourse of our minds. We invite the Straw Man into our echo chambers— our conversations with like minded people. The Straw Man is consistently inconsistent. The Straw Man has bad intentions. The Straw Man lacks morality. The Straw Man is stupid, full of stupid arguments and flawed logic. We can throw darts at the Straw Man all day long without any consequences. In an argument with the Straw Man, we always emerge triumphant. It feels good. It’s actually kind of fun. But what we don’t realize is that the Straw Man is laughing back at us. He knows that as long as we are merely throwing darts at him, that nothing real will ever change. He knows that by avoiding conversations with real flesh and blood people, we will never understand the needs, thoughts, concerns and hopes of the real people who wear the labels we abhor.  As long as we’re entertaining the Straw Man, we’ll never challenge ourselves to address the weaknesses in our thinking. We’ll never root out the hypocrisy in ourselves. 

Who is your Straw Man? What does he or she look like? Do they have a certain race or accent or manner of dress? The first step to overcoming the deception of the Straw Man is to recognize that you have one. The second step is to begin to question your assumptions about your Straw Man. The third and most important step is to begin to trade your Straw Man conversations with real conversations with real people who might look, act and talk like your Straw Man. Find out what they really think. Let them challenge you. Let them refine your thinking and perhaps you find that your influence with these real people will begin to grow and you can begin dismantling the Straw Man they’ve built of you. 

To help dismantle the straw man, join our local Anchorage group “Brave Conversations.” Click here to receive email notifications of upcoming events. Or if you want to join in the conversation from right where you are, you may request to join our private Facebook group.

Posted on

Schools or Students? Education Reform in Alaska

It sounds really altruistic and selfless to forgo a PFD in favor of education. I mean, after all, it’s all about the children. And a cut to education seems very much like an affront to children everywhere. How could Governor Dunleavy be so cruel? 

But let’s calm down and take a step back for a moment. When we use the word “education” what are we really talking about? As a former public school teacher, “education” brings to mind to a myriad of activities— only a fraction of which were devoted to actual learning. I used to think, “If I only had enough time to actually TEACH as a teacher, I could accomplish so much more.” I realized that teachers like me were doing the best they could under the circumstances. It was the circumstances that bothered me. There were extra-curricular responsibilities, there were very detailed expectations, there was school spirit, there was new technology, new school wide initiatives, meetings, the inevitable behavioral issues— the list went on and on. I realized that much of the theory I had been taught in my college courses was very difficult to actually accomplish in this type of environment. 

The problem I found was that the educational system I was a part of had become somewhat of a beast. You know how it is. Most of you have attended public school at some point in your life. School is generally all about the system. All about getting to your class on time, all about getting the assignments in, all about the grade, understanding expectations, surviving socially. Only precious few moments was it about your interests, your capacity, the rate you needed to learn, or who you were going to become. I know it sounds like I’m dogging on schools, but I’m not. I’m sure there are many great public schools and maybe some of you are part of them. We should reward thriving schools, and I’ll get to that in a bit. 

In industrial age of our nation, public schooling was patterned in such a way that its purpose was to train people to work in factories. Everyone learned the same basic skills and were put into neat little rows with cookie cutter expectations. Today, as much as we try to spice up the system, the system (as systems do) has remained largely the same. The more the system grows, the more money we feed it— the more of a beast it becomes. Subtly the children, and even parents, are there to serve the beast and not the other way around. 

I know we don’t like to talk about it, but there is very real politicking that goes on in schools, such that it makes it hard for educators or parents to make bold changes in favor of student outcomes. As the monolith beast grows, more rules and red tape gets rolled out. In order to put all those directives in place, more support staff are hired. The more support staff are hired, the larger the beast grows. 

I am a valley girl— from the San Fernando Valley in LA county, California. For my first four years of school, I attended the LA Unified school district. A school that poured tons of finance into their schools. And yet, you wouldn’t know to look at it. We had short blue pencils with no erasers. There was one eraser on a rope that 5 desks of students shared. The soap in the bathroom was grainy and rough—they couldn’t even afford liquid hand soap. The playground was more like a war zone and I was terrified to enter the bathrooms during recess. This was not a place where I could thrive. I realize that this is extreme, and not at all what schools are like here.

My point is that I’ve seen firsthand how more money does not equal better education. We have seen that we as a state that have invested more money into our education than most states in the union— with very little to show for it. If you hired a mechanic to fix your car and saw no change, but actually left your car worse off than when you handed it over to him. You wouldn’t agree to give him more money, you’d take your money elsewhere. 

It’s time that we parents and citizens alike stop falling for the line that funding “education” is the same thing as funding learning. Let’s call it what it is. What we are really talking about is school funding, and in many cases “beast feeding.” And it’s not that we should halt all funding to all schools, but we should begin thinking about new strategies for student success. We should be funding the schools where parents see their kids thriving. Yes, I’m talking about school choice. I know we have great school choice options in Alaska. Great! I am thankful. But we can do better. We can leverage school choice to solve our educational crisis. 

What do we have to really measure public schools? Test scores. Test scores have their place, but test scores are limited. Who knows whether their kids are thriving in their environments? It’s the parents. When we move toward school choice options, parents get to put their money where the learning is. 

Instead of blindly relying on the failure of the beast, it’s time for us independent Alaskans to roll up our sleeves and begin opening our minds to creative possibilities for how we are to train the next generation of thinkers. I applaud Governor Dunleavy on his commitment to empowering students and their parents with school choices. Maybe now is the perfect time for a radical overhaul of the system that has become the beast. 

In Alaska we spend upwards of $20,000 per child for one year- the second highest in the entire US. Parents, can you imagine what you could do with that money if you had the choice to educate your children the way you saw fit? Or even half of those funds?

Instead many of you are made to feel guilty if you don’t seem as though you are “supporting the school.” Never feel guilty for putting your child’s learning concerns ahead of the school system. Alaskan parents of public school students need to rise up and say, “Enough is enough. We should have the rights as individuals to decide where and how our kids our educated, regardless of our resources.” 

We know that Alaska is very supportive of homeschooling. If you register with a homeschool charter, you can get funding for your child’s education. It’s only a few thousand a year (a mere fraction of what the public school spends), but it’s very helpful for struggling families. A few years ago a study followed Alaskan homeschoolers who were low income and what they found was that, compared to higher income families, the low income students gained the most from those homeschool funds being directed right into their homes. Think about it. They are surrounded by books and curriculum that hasn’t been there before. The results are particularly pronounced in reading, which is the area that has been our biggest educational deficit. Maybe parents opt to use the funds to take an online class or get a tutor. Maybe it’s just peace and quiet that they need away from all the school drama, to get a chance to get more rest in the mornings— that they are really able to thrive. We don’t have all the reasons for why they excel, but the data is clear that they do. 

And it’s not just homeschoolers. All over the nation, we find that the more school choice options there are, the better lower income students fare. See this simple slideshow for the data. Countries around the world are benefitting from the success of schools who are competing for the privilege to educate each child. Many families cannot put the time into educating their children at home, but they could be empowered to choose any school they desired that was the best fit for their child. 

Now, let’s join that conversation with the one about PFDs. The fact that PFDs are given to every person in the state is rare but wonderful part of our way of life here in Alaska. It celebrates the empowerment of the individual. In Alaska, the PFD empowers families. Some families put away their PFDs for their child’s continuing education. Some families use the PFD to go to work right away to pay bills and put food on the table. PFDs benefit families, benefit the economy, and give power to the individuals INCLUDING the children of Alaska. 

Making cuts in school funding is not hurting children— not unless we let it. Sure, it might hurt administrators and superintendents and all those who’ve come to rely on the school for its financial reason for existing, but it won’t harm our students unless parents decide it will. It doesn’t need to hurt teachers, unless teachers buy into the line that it will. As a teacher who cared about real education and real learning outcomes for students, I longed to get out of “the system” and work in a place that was on the cutting edge of educational strategies. I longed to leave the establishment and embrace a long overdue step forward in educational advancement for a new generation. 

It doesn’t have to be all about the government or the school board or even about test scores unless we want it to be. It’s about educational outcomes for each individual student. Some students thrive on competition, while others loathe it. Some students are made for engineering while others are made to stand on a stage and perform. If we continue to feed the voracious beast, who knows what genius we will have left untapped? Who knows what passions will be silently snuffed out? Let’s feed our kids what they need instead.

We are in both an educational and a financial crisis in Alaska. Perhaps this is a great opportunity for the government to agree with our willing Governor to step back a little and give power back to Alaskans and watch us solve each of these crises for ourselves. 

Posted on

The Top Tog/Underdog Phenomenon

Show Notes for Podcast Season 1, Episode 3

How People Live Around the World

Check out how your income measures up to people in the rest of the world.

Here’s an article on why virtually everyone thinks they’re middle class.

If you haven’t listened in yet, listen here:

The Top Dog/Underdog Phenomenon

Many thanks to Dan Jurusz for being a brilliant sounding board for all of these ideas!

If you’d like to send me a clip telling me how it became a disadvantage for you to be so advantaged, you can email me at leigh@leighsloan.com. Or visit me on my Facebook page and message me there!

Don’t forget to subscribe to the podcast and rate it on iTunes!

Posted on

Blacklisted

Show notes for Season 1, Episode 1.

Click the link above to listen to this episode.

Or Koran 4:47 “O you who were given the Scripture, believe in what We have sent down [to Muhammad], confirming that which is with you, before We obliterate faces and turn them toward their backs or curse them as We cursed the sabbath-breakers. And ever is the decree of Allah accomplished.”

In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 The Apostle Paul says this, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. …” 

James Walpole says it like this: “Public shaming enforces outward compliance, not internal change.”

To learn more about my guest, Gene McConnell, visit his website, authenticrelationshipsint.com.

Click above to listen to the entire interview with Gene Mc Connell.

For more on Jack Dorsey eating at Chick-Fil-A, click here.

“Neuroscientists have found that social rejection is experienced much like physical pain — connected to the same neural circuitry. People who perceive that they have been rejected or excluded by a group are more likely to harm multiple persons if they become violent.”

The study finds that when we ostracize others, we suffer a similar degree of pain as the person being ostracized. While those being ostracized felt more anger, the one who did the ostracizing felt more shame, lack of connection, and especially loss of autonomy. So when we inflict pain on others, we ourselves suffer too. 

“The imposition of silence is a power play that expresses the ultimate contempt for the target: as George Bernard Shaw put it, “Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn.” The one giving the silent treatment — whether it’s not answering email, turning away in the middle of a conversation, or pretending not to hear a question — gets to feel control. In not explaining the cause, the perpetrator delivers particular pain. The message is loud and clear: “You do not matter.”

Janice Harper says it this way, “Shunning is a non-action — to shun is to avoid, not to interact.”

To quote James Walpole again, “Shaming galvanizes opposition and makes people dig deeper into their own positions (to defend their egos, of course).”

Posted on

Talk is Expensive

Show Notes from Brave Conversations Episode 1

If you didn’t get a chance to listen to it, check out the podcast here.


Seinfeld Episode Clip: “Yada Yada“

7 English Words that Nobody Uses Anymore

According to dictionary.com, more than 300 new words (*correction: the actual number is closer to 1,000) are added to our vocabulary every year. Unfortunately the article I used is no longer available. However an updated list is here.

Here are just a few: woke, mom jeans, lumbersexual, manspread, intersectionality, and ghosting. 

There are 50 Eskimo words for snow.

The language you speak changes the colors you see.

How this tribal culture discovered a new emotion. Here’s a link to the explanation. In the article, you’ll find a link to the Invisibilia podcast episode.

Lera Borodiski’s Ted talk on how language shapes the way we think.

Michael Knowles: Control the Words, Control the Culture

Closing Thoughts to Ponder:

Words are the currency of the information age. He or She who creates the language gets to create the rules. Whatever your politics, think about this. What gets talked about and written about and tweeted about gets heard.

  • Which words are erecting unnecessary cultural walls and which are tearing them down?
  • Which words are persuasive and which words are ineffective?
  • Church leaders, educators, and bloggers, are the words you use really working?
  • Are you in control of your words or are you a victim of the words you hear?
  • Are they working to point out truth or to soften a lie?
  • Are there new terms or phrases we need in order to bring clarity where there is now confusion? 

Notice the words that you see or hear today. Do they make your blood boil or do they draw your attention? Could it be that those “trigger” words for you don’t even mean the same thing to another person who uses them? 

Chris and Liv talk about the word “privilege.” View the entire conversation here.

If you’re ready to participate in our private Brave Conversations group, join us here!

Thank you to Chris Mellen and Live Davis for entering into this brave conversation.

Special thanks to Dan Jurusz, Portia Noble, and Jake Sloan for helping me get this first podcast off the ground!

Posted on

The Identity Game

If you’ve ever studied the art of argument, you’ll know that there are very specific ways we get it wrong when we engage in an argument. There are specific ways that our logic becomes, all of a sudden, not so logical. Among these are the fallacies of ad hominem (or being a jerk and name calling), straw man (mischaracterizing the opposite side), slippery slope (assuming that one thing will necessarily lead to another and another), circular argument (this one baffles me in that it seems to ignore all logic), or the red herring tactic (What I like to call the “Squirrel!” tactic. It’s the art of distraction from the issue at hand by drawing attention to something else.) There are many of these, but the one I see most often in society has not been articulated clearly enough in my opinion. You could make the case that one of the other 6-15 fallacies covers it, but for the sake of clarity, I suggest on giving this one a category all its own. 

I’m going to call this the “identity fallacy.” You may know where I’m going with this. You may have heard the phrase “identity politics.” It is mostly used by moderates and right leaning people to disparage what I think of as the identity fallacy. Even though people who are concerned about this have a right to be concerned, I think we have some work to do in defining the issue. We have a tendency in today’s culture to just slap a label on something when it feels out of bounds without using logic to underpin what we are doing. Not clearly defining terms allows us to maintain our hypocrisy because we cannot effectively judge ourselves by the same standards if we don’t know what those standards are. 

I see both people on the right and left and in between committing this identity fallacy. Let me explain now what I mean. 

In this new millennium, we are less focused on facts and figures and more and more interested in stories. This is not a bad thing altogether. It helps us understand each other in a more culturally diverse society. If you know the stories of another person, it’s a great way to quickly and effectively understand them. So, while this may be a good practice for enriching the fabric of society, it can cause a logical breakdown in our ability to reason and argue effectively. 

As our culture gets more interested in cultural differences, we can tend to judge everything that comes out of that persons mouth through the lens of their most obvious characteristic. After all, we are accustomed to reading the opinions of people we’ve never met over social media. Rather than chatting with the guy down the street and becoming familiar with his particular story, we have to make assumptions about people from what we see. The first thing we see is the color of someone’s skin or that person’s physical attributes. We see the type of clothing that they wear. We hear the type of language coming out of their mouths and the accent with which they speak. Then we make assumptions about his or her (or some androgynous “them”) based on all of these assumptions. I’ve written before on the caution against labels and assumptions, and I think we are all aware of those to one degree or another. But how do we break the wrongheaded cycle of assumption when we have no mechanism to catch ourselves in the fallacy of it? 

Let me first define the identity fallacy. Any time someone takes into account the personal attributes of the person who is making the statement to judge the validity of the statement, that is an identity fallacy. To be sure, The practice of jumping to conclusions about what a person says based on what we know about them is actually helpful in our everyday lives. I mean it’s natural and even wise not to put a lot of stock into what someone says if we don’t trust them or if they have less knowledge about a topic, etc. However, in a logical argument, the person’s background has nothing to do with the truth value of what they are saying. 

We pride ourselves on the pursuit of equity in our nation. Just think about how much the principles of logic contribute to this sense of equality. Any person (young/old, rich/poor, famous/unknown) should be able to come to the table of conversation with something valuable to offer. But these wonderful ideals begin to break down when we engage in the identity fallacy. 

Let me start with race. As of late, there have been some brave African American individuals who have said some things that have questioned the stereotypical views of their culture. We all are well aware that there are things that a black person can say that a white person cannot. The fact that this is true is evidence that we have an epidemic of this identity fallacy. 

Take sexual orientation or gender expression, or take income levels. We know that people who have a more traditional expression feel that they have very little voice to speak into issues of sexual identity. Those with more money feel that they cannot speak to issues of poverty (at least not out loud). We are finding ourselves with a soft cultural form of censorship. We are censoring ourselves out of fear of being disqualified and judged according to our outward identity. And by doing this, we are having weaker and fewer conversations. 

You’ve seen evidence of the identity fallacy on those “gotcha” videos in which statements from Hitler’s speeches were attributed to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Depending on the person’s politics and who they thought said it, they would praise whatever was said without really stopping to consider the logic or thought process behind what was being said. 

On the right, people may be silenced for not knowing anything because of their youth or their lack of experience and so we stop listening. On the left, people are silenced because they are not a member of the oppressed population. On the right we stop listening to a person because they are “entrenched in politics.” On the left we stop listening because a person has been irrevocably labeled as some kind of “—phobe.” 

In days of old, our labels may have looked different. They may have been slave and freeman, aristocrat or commoner, clergy or layperson. We think we are more sophisticated now. Now we prize ourselves on a sophisticated web of terms that we lay one over the other, to describe one another. And as I said, these have some value. But when engaging in a logical argument, we need to work hard to put these aside. Laziness will cause us to always shift toward a more identity oriented approach, but this will lead us down a path that leads to more and more ignorance, fewer and fewer productive conversations, and ultimately toward less and less understanding. 

The easiest way to test how much you are being influenced by identity is to ask yourself, “What would I think if this argument/logic was coming out of another person’s mouth?” What type of person would have to say this in order to make me okay with this? If your answer changes based on the identity of the speaker, you need to question the way that you come to conclusions. You may have an identity paradigm that needs to shift. You never know when the wisest insight you need in the moment may come out of the mouth of a person that you may at first reject by simple virtue of their identity. 

What is more important to you, who said it or what is said? 

Posted on

What We Get Wrong About Politics

Here I am, 1:24 am. Just 3 days ago my husband announced that he was throwing his hat in the ring for our State Legislator, representing our Anchorage District 15 as a write-in candidate. Never did I think this would happen. Never did I imagine the circumstances that would lead up to such a nail-biting race as this. If you’re interested and want to read more, you can google it or go to his campaign page. 

But in all the whirl of activity, I catch a quiet moment and I have to think about the why questions. I have this incessant need to draw deeper to understand what is really happening as the external world around me is spinning. 

It’s hard to keep up with the world, national and local news cycle— all the controversies, the boycotts, the people who are “incensed” about something or other. Not saying there’s nothing to be incensed about, but it can get overwhelming after a while. We can get fatigued from being expected to care about everything. 

There are a lot of normal people walking around who are just trying to mind their own business and get on with their peaceful lives. These are what I call the “white gloved” citizens. They don’t want to get into an argument and risk hurting someone’s feelings. Seeing all that is happening can put us on overload— the passionate pleas of people around us to share this thing, get involved in this other thing, or participate in one campaign or another. 

On the other side of the spectrum, politics can be a little addictive. We could call these people the “boxing gloved” citizens. You’re getting involved, you’re uncovering bad guys and fighting for the good. You’re feeling like you identify with the significance of what you are doing. You feel the triumph and defeat. You feel a little scared, yet a little more “woke” and alive. People get involved in politics for different reasons. You get a little of the good mixed with the bad, not usually in equal portions. 

Politics is messy because it involves people. So you may lean more white gloved or more boxing gloved naturally. I know what it’s like to be the former, and now I am learning to ride the wave of the latter.

I want to use this opportunity to clear up some things I think we get wrong about politics. Those places where the mud turns into quicksand.

One big thing we need to keep at the forefront of our minds is that the government isn’t everything. 

I know it sounds too simple, but if more people knew this, we’d have far fewer problems. I say this knowing that the government may be my life’s focus over the next two months or more. I say this knowing that people live and die based on some of the governments actions or inactions. The government is important, but it cannot be everything. 

Most of the “white gloved” people who “stay out of politics” understand this principle. These people know that their families matter. They know that their churches, schools, and communities matter. They know that they can make a difference at their job or right where they live. I believe that these people make up the vast majority of people. They are just people trying to make their lives work the best they know how. 

We have this handy dandy little doc called the Constitution that spells out exactly why the government exists and what it should not do. The Bill of Rights outlines the freedoms that the government should always protect. We know that the three branches of government are supposed to stay in their lane and do their best to make sure that the government keeps doing what it is supposed to do and not doing what it’s not supposed to do. 

What we don’t always talk about enough is this the softer side of politics: the people. We have a government that is BY the people, OF the people and FOR the people—but the government does not replace The People. The People are the People. We so often forget this very simple but profound component of any good society: What the government does not do, we as individuals are supposed to be doing. All activity that surrounds and supports this principle is what I call “cultural cultivating.” We could call this the “green glove” of society. Many kinds of institutions participate with us as individuals in the cultivating of our culture. Arts and entertainment, media, education, business, religion— all of these enterprises shape and mold our culture. Each and every one of us, what we do in our everyday lives, from minute to minute shapes and cultivates something within that culture. Every dollar we spend promotes something and de-emphasizes something else. Every click on a website, or like on social media is like a chisel exposing the cultural edifice we are creating together. 

And here’s where we sometimes get mixed up on the dance we do between us as citizens cultivating culture, and the relationship with have with our literal or “hard” government. The culture is the “soft” governing force that is actually much more powerful than the brute strength of elected officials. So often we want our government to reflect the art of what we are creating with our lives. We want the government to  look like us, act like us, and talk like us— to be a mirror image of ourselves. But our particular government was never designed to do that. In fact, when we look for cultural ideals for our government to implement, the original intention of our government is thwarted. It’s like trying to expect a boat to fly us to the moon or the family dog to cook our meals just like Mom. Only in Neverland, my friend, only in Neverland. 

Often, our attitude toward government can reflect the responsibility or lack of personal responsibility we take to cultivate our own culture. For example, if we want something done, we scream for a law to be made to make people conform to the culture we want. Instead of taking time to cultivate it ourselves, we want to legislate it. When we have a problem that needs to be solved, we automatically look to the government to fix it effectively and efficiently. Because that idea has worked so well for us in the past…right… 

Or, we can err on the other side: we don’t trust the government to do anything at all and so we withdraw our support from all government related issues and stand on the sidelines, mocking and shaking our heads. We conclude that politicians are all a bunch of liars and power mongers. We push off the responsibility for the state our nation is in to all the bad politicians and conveniently away from ourselves.

Sometimes we think we are “rising above” all the muck of politics, when we are really just abdicating our own important role. Instead of “rising above,” I suggest going underneath. The fruit on top of the tree is obvious. When we rise above, it’s easy to see the fruit. But it’s what’s underneath that makes the fruit rotten or sweet. Up above, we may enjoy a little more fresh air and distance from the mess, but we will not impact the tree unless we get underneath. It is only by going into the soil and cultivating our culture in active ways, will we begin to see the fruit begin to change. 

How is it that we can so categorically shift all the blame for what’s in our culture to a political figure or a celebrity or a corporation? The cultural cultivating is ours to bear. If a tweet from a political figure can rip your community apart, then the individuals in the community have abdicated their role of cultivation a long time ago. 

Our communities need to look away from the government and empower ourselves. Once we can empower ourselves to bring solutions to the problems we face in the here and now, then we can enter into this dance with the government as a strong partner. 

Let me spell it out a little bit clearer. Some things the government can do, other things you and I are especially equipped to do. Here are just a few. 

The government’s job: Protecting speech, making laws, protecting religious expression and diversity of thought, promoting security and tranquility, spending the money we allocate to spend to benefit the people. 

Our job: cultivating speech that is beneficial, choosing our own beneficial religious expression, choosing to think and educate ourselves, helping provide safety to ourselves and those around us, and holding elected officials responsible for handling our money well. 

Neither list is exhaustive. What would be on your list? I want to get you thinking, not to do your thinking for you.

Our relationship with public servants is going to have to change for things to get better. I know that sometimes it takes a crisis to get people to get out and get involved. Maybe instead of reacting to crisis, we need to change our value system to always being mindful of our communities and the part we play in them. Our representatives need us to help them think and ask the right questions and have the quality conversations. As we demand more of them, we also need to demand more of ourselves: to put more into our role as cultivators and curators of thought, to educate one another and our children— to seek truth and clear the way for the truth to be heard. 

Next time you have a political conversation, stop and think. Is this the job of culture or is the this the role of government or both? Now go put on your green gloves. You can start by engaging in a brave conversation. 

Posted on

We’re Not Fighting, We’re Discussing! (How to recognize the difference between a debate, a discussion, and a fight.) 

We’ve all avoided conversations or steered it another direction because we were afraid that the conversation would get out of hand and become destructive to the relationship. Many of us have heard our parents getting heated over something and we’ve said, “Why are you guys fighting?” Then we hear back, “We’re not fighting, we’re discussing!” 

All of us have different thresholds for intense conversations. But what are the real markers of whether or not a conversation is going “out of bounds” and no longer moving the people towards understanding and connection? After all, we don’t want to pursue brave conversations if we think they are going to be destructive or a waste of time. 

I’m convinced more and more that an understanding of boundaries is key to our ability to have not just debates, but real, productive dialogues and discussions.

The goal of the debate is to “win” which means that the conversation partners are, by definition, opponents. In a debate, each partner is trying to defeat the other by means of a combination of logic and rhetoric. Debates are common in American culture. So common that we believe that it is impossible to have a conversation about something controversial without a debate. It is common to see debates among people who presumably should have extended knowledge and expertise on a subject. Politicians, religious leaders and other public figures can debate in a public place to represent the views of many and to rally people to their cause.  They are challenged to produce valid information to prove to everyone that they know their stuff. 

Many people do not like debates because they don’t feel qualified, equipped, or invested enough in a topic to engage in it at that level. They are rightfully afraid of being defeated and shamed. Therefore, many steer clear of all conversations that might become a debate.

But there is a different way to engage in important, though controversial topics. And that method is called discussion. Unlike the fighting parents who insist that they are “discussing,” real discussion has some key elements that move us forward in culture and in relationship. When you know the elements of discussion vs. debate, you can follow these ground rules and bow out when the discussion becomes more of a debate or an outright fight. 

By contrast to a debate, with the goal being to win, the goal of a discussion is connection and understanding. Whether this conversation is being done one on one or in a group, the goal is mutual understanding of the other person’s stream of logic and the meanings of the words and phrases that they use. You will know someone is ready for a discussion when they have a value for you as a person as much as they have a value for their own opinions. Common ground is sought and built upon. Often, new ideas will spring forth from a discussion as possible solutions to the problem at hand. 

While debates may be appropriate for politicians and other public figures, discussions should be the preferred mode in day to day life. Discussions make up the fabric of a peace loving society and can help provide solutions to very real and troubling dilemmas. Discussions can also involve high emotions. Discussions can be quiet or loud, so don’t judge a conversation by it’s volume. People have different cultural ways that they engage in discussion. Another important element of a discussion is that it acknowledges the human dignity of each individual no matter what level of education, racial background, or experience. 

There is a third ugly type of conversation that we should be willing to acknowledge. Sometimes, without realizing it, our conversations devolve into verbal fights. Debates can easily sink to this level through tactics such as name calling, threatening, and devaluing the humanity or dignity of individual. When people stop listening, debates and even discussions can sink into the territory of verbal altercations. Fights, though some forms are and should remain protected under the first amendment, are rarely productive. Any time we see fights ensue in the media or in our own lives, it is time to call “foul.” I am incensed when I hear fighting language such as the dehumanizing of an individual in a so called “intellectual debate” and then I hear the audience respond with applauding. No matter how much we agree with the offender of the cheap shot, applauding behavior like this does nothing to help society or to encourage serious thought. We should require our political pundits, politicians, and other thought leaders to work harder to maintain our respect in the public arena. In the same way, when we choose to rise above such tactics ourselves, we can slowly create a better world. 

So the next time you feel afraid that you’re getting swept into a debate, don’t run away or put up your dukes. Instead, ask the person if they are willing to engage with you in a respectful conversation. If you are unsure how to navigate such a conversation, bring along a friend who knows how to disagree peaceably. Then feel free to end the conversation if it becomes disrespectful or if your partner stops listening. Don’t let your voice be silenced just because of fear. Your perspective, your voice, your opinion matters. 

Posted on

Empathy is the New Compassion (and why that’s not a good thing)

Everywhere I go I hear about the need for empathy in our society. Empathy has this sort of wide appeal to almost everyone. It is used in popular social psychology. It has been wielded by politicians, religious clergy, fundraisers and salespeople. 

But where did this word come from and why did it become so widespread? 

The word comes from Greek roots, literally meaning “in feeling.” It was coined by a German philosopher in 1858, more widely translated in 1909. It was first applied to the way a person views artwork. It was applied to anyone with the ability to project his or her personality into the artwork. Thus, “feeling in” the piece. 

Today, the concept of empathy has morphed. We have heard the contrast between sympathy and empathy. Sympathy is said to feel FOR someone. Empathy is to feel WITH someone. Obviously, the latter is preferred as a mode of connection with a person. No one wants to be pitied or felt FOR. They want to be felt WITH. 

And so, our infatuation with the word “empathy” has grown over the last hundred years. 

Empathy is very engaging. That is why we watch movies. We want to enter into a character’s world, to feel what it is like to be them, to experience the things they experience and to have to make the choices they face. 

When people raise money for charities, the smart ones don’t only rely on big picture facts and figures. They will inevitably pull out a single story, one that showcases the plight of a single individual. The communicator knows that if he or she can get you to enter into someone’s story— to engage and project your own experiences on to the story, you will be much more likely to engage your emotions and, in turn, your pocketbook. 

Politicians play to empathy when they talk about their own life experiences and those of the people groups that they want to fight for. 

Empathy is part of the human experience. It is a very important part. People who have no capacity for empathy are not healthy individuals. We feel with people. Even little babies will cry when they hear another baby crying. Empathy stretches our intellect. The ability to see outside of our own skin and put ourselves in someone else’s shoes is very helpful. Children who are avid readers can experience greater empathy than those who read less. It can lead to greater levels of compassion and altruism. 

However, new research has come to the surface to suggest that empathy has a downside too. A recent paper published in the Personalty and Social Psychology Bulletin states that people who felt empathy toward another person were more likely to engage in aggressive behavior when they thought that the person they felt empathy towards was threatened. 

Prabarna Ganguly writes, 

“Participants were, to a surprising degree, willing to inflict pain on a certain person to help a distressed individual they felt empathy for. What’s more, it can be activated even “in the absence of wrongdoing or provocation from the target of aggression.” That party doesn’t have to be doing anything wrong; he or she simply has to pose a problem for the person you empathize with.”

Did you read that correctly? It says, “That party doesn’t have to be doing anything wrong; he or she simply has to pose a problem for the person you empathize with.” 

So it seems that empathy can cause scary ethical problems for us in its real life application. 

Well, as a Christian, I would like to use the Bible, particularly the example of Jesus, as my standard for character, virtue, and morality. We just learned that the word empathy was not circulated until 1908, so it would stand to reason that the word is not used in the Greek text of the New Testament. However, a comparable word is used— compassion. The word compassion is an emotional word in the Greek. It means to have an altruistic feeling in your gut toward someone. 

Moved by compassion, Jesus was about to go about his business, but compassion moved him to stay a little longer teaching the crowds. Compassion moved him to heal their sick. Some translations will say, “he had pity on them” because they were like sheep without a shepherd… But we don’t like that word, pity! It makes us feel too… well, pitiful.

Compassion differs slightly from empathy in that the person having the emotion remains distinct from the object of the emotion. When Jesus had compassion on the crowds, he felt their emotions, but he wasn’t consumed by them. He remained himself, a distinct person who was presumably, not one of the sheep, but in that moment, the shepherd. Of course, he would go to the cross as a lamb, fully identifying with us in his death, burial and resurrection. He felt all the feelings of humankind, and yet he did not succumb to our moral weaknesses. 

Part of the problem with empathy is that it can only be directed specifically. While logic can be applied to all people under all circumstances, empathy can only feel for one person (or people group) at a time. After all, looking at the original use of the word, it’s pretty hard to engage in multiple pieces of art all at one time. Compassion, then, is that unique ability to feel for multiple individuals or groups of people at the same time. Jesus was able to see the big picture. He saw his overarching mission and he was headed in the direction of his mission. However, when his compassion moved him, he stopped what he was doing and he met that need. He didn’t instantly take on every problem that the particular group faced. He didn’t lose sight of his mission for the whole of humanity just to “feel with” that one group. I’m sure there were many who wanted him to stay and fight every battle for them, but he didn’t. Because his compassion allowed him to see both emotional suffering and big picture logic simultaneously. To understand the plight of the poor, while allowing the woman to “waste” her expensive alabaster box of perfume preparing his body for burial, to risk offending a woman by calling her a dog but then healing her daughter anyway, to having compassion on his mother at the cross while forgiving his murderers saying, “They know not what they do.” If Jesus’ goal was empathy (rather than compassion) he might have gotten swept away in the problems of others and not been able to offer them a way out of the messes they were in.

It is conceivable that a person full of empathy for unborn babies could place a bomb in an abortion clinic. They so over-identify with the poor little babies that they lose their powers of reasoning and big picture principle that all life is valuable. It is conceivable that the statistics of illegal immigration could get lost on someone who has their empathy directed toward only “undocumented immigrants” or only toward “legal Americans.” Empathy is insufficient in that it can cause a person to lose their big-picture critical thinking skills that are needed to solve big societal problems. Suddenly, the person who serves the poor begins resenting the middle class or upper class for just “not getting it.” The businessman who begins identifying only with other wealthy businessmen no longer has any patience for someone who cannot “pull himself up from his bootstraps” and make something of himself. Immature forms of empathy can have a tendency to pull us to the lowest common denominator. We allow our own experiences to get jumbled up in the experiences of others and it clouds our logical thinking. I believe that compassion is the mature and full expression of the more underdeveloped emotions of empathy. 

Logic and emotion do not have to be enemies. We just have to know where to place them and the reasons they exist. In the meantime, I would encourage you to pursue, not empathy as your ultimate goal, but compassion— the ability to feel for another deeply, and and to yet remain distinct from. Can you help me bring compassion back in style? 

Please share and engage in our conversation. I plan on discussing this topic more in my soon to be released podcast. Also, you can join a real face to face conversation on this and other interesting topics at Brave Conversations on Facebook!