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

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

You say you hate Labels…or do you?

Labels. We are surrounded by labels. Our businesses depend upon labels: from demographics, to political affiliations, to fan likes. There is such a “niche market” today that we have become very label happy. Once we discover a new label, we are quick to apply that label liberally to anyone who might fit. And I totally get it. Labels help us make sense of the world around us and connect the dots. Labels don’t only convey an aspect of reality, they can, in fact, create reality. A label on a pair of jeans might not seem like much, but it ends up translating a social construct into real behaviors—which amount to real dollars and cents.

Labels are essentially categories. The original Greek definition of the word “category” comes from the word “kategoros” which means “accuser.” The Greek word “kategoria” meant “a statement or accusation.” Now, I understand that over time this word has evolved into a nicer more neutral word, but I wonder if there is something in the essence of the word category that subtly accuses others and undermines us as human beings.

Categories are like the little organizational boxes that we put things into when we are trying to make sense of all our stuff. If we are really organized, we wield that empowering label maker with glee, deciding which category to put all our little doodads and then shoving them in the appropriate drawers. It is a feeling of power and control that we get by creating a place for the things we own. It is even a way of setting boundaries with our stuff in order to dominate our stuff so that our stuff doesn’t dominate us. We are essentially “accusing” our pens of belonging where we want them to belong. We are making a “statement” about their identity. Our pens don’t mind if we categorize them by color or separate them from the sharpies or not. They don’t jump out of the boxes and say, “I don’t want to be labeled and put in this box here with all these sharpies!”

But people are another story. A large company of influencers in society have created categories for people in an effort to help us make sense of the world. I was elated when someone finally told me that I didn’t have to choose between being an introvert or an extrovert, but I could now become an “ambivert,” who is basically right in between an introvert and an extrovert. After jumping in and out of the “introvert/extrovert” categories, I realized that I could reject the two categories that were offered me and find solace in a third category. It never really occurred to me that I could reject the man-made categories all together.

We as people all want the ability to choose our own categories. Why? Because, counterintuitively, it gives us a sense of belonging. Some of us even reject obvious categories that are put upon us (ie: trying to not to be lumped in with our age peers and working ever so hard on a youthful appearance). It makes us feel powerful to deny even the most basic of categories, categories that are ordained by God and nature, not by man, such as the category of age.

Even as independent as we claim we are, we all want to fit into some type of people group even when, and especially when, that people group is marginalized or beaten down. In all our pain and rejection, we just want to know that we are not alone. And so we add another initial to the LGBT…. Or we create another diagnosis in the psychological textbook, another foundation to support another cause.

The downside of categories and labeling people is that human individuals are not really made for labels. Labels comfort us, but they also stifle us. They are the security blanket that claims we belong to someone or something. There have been people who have even killed themselves because they were living under a label that they could no longer endure. Every so often someone will lament, “Why can’t we just get rid of all the labels?” Well, we’ve tried but it hasn’t worked yet. Some of the people that say they reject labels the most are also the most adept at creating them. Take tattoos for an example. Tattooing is essentially an attempt to reject all previous labels and to express one’s own labels of choice, quite literally.

These days words as simple as “liberal” and “conservative” have become, not just descriptive, but so electrically charged that they evoke instant feelings of kinship or contempt depending on the audience. Assumptions are made instantaneously, and along with these assumptions come…you guessed it— accusations. Maybe there is something to that Greek etymology after all.

The ideological war we are engaging in begins with the art of conversation. In our conversations, I don’t pretend that we can get away from labels altogether, but I do think we need to take another look at how we are using them.

Using labels to ask someone how they would describe themselves is fine. As I said, I am now a self-proclaimed ambivert.  I may be one, I may not be one–if in fact ambiverts really do exist at all. Nevertheless, it’s the word I’m choosing for now to define what I think about myself. So, what does one do with this information? Asking people clarifying questions as to what they mean by the use of the label is a helpful way to go, as it causes the person to examine the use of the label and it causes you to understand that person better. We always need to keep in mind that a label is only a feeble attempt to describe something.

Using a label to write someone off and end the conversation is counterproductive. Labeling someone while in the midst of a heated debate is also not helpful. Denying someone their equal voice in a discussion through the use of a label does nothing to move connection forward.

Talk about labels with your friends, coworkers and families. Use them if you need to describe something, but please don’t fall into the trap of using labels to accuse. Don’t use labels to control people just because you are uncomfortable grappling with the complexity of the person standing in front of you.

Also keep in mind that in this label-happy world, if you say anything of consequence, you will definitely be labeled. If people don’t know what to do with you, they will stick a label on you to make themselves feel better about your existence. But no matter what labels you choose for yourself, or no matter what labels others choose for you, only your Creator knows the truth about you. I hope you will begin a lifelong pursuit of your true identity and I hope that you will no longer live and die by the tyranny of the label.