A Better Politics

After President Obama's speech ended last night, I spent a few minutes listening to TV pundits react. The basic line was: "The President talked about a better politics. But he didn't offer any conciliation to Republican ideas."

I had to turn the TV off after just a couple of minutes because I was so frustrated that none of them seemed to even remotely grasp what the President said. The assumption was that the only way to achieve a better politics was for him to agree with Republicans.

Here's some of what the President actually said:

So the question for those of us here tonight is how we, all of us, can better reflect America’s hopes...

Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different. Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine. A better politics is one where we appeal to each other’s basic decency instead of our basest fears. A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives...

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.

Too many pundits (and Americans in general) assume there are only two options: agree or demonize your opponent. That's the kind of politics we've been living with for far too long. It's what President Obama calls our "empathy deficit." He is saying that we can disagree strongly with each other AND still address the heart of the matter.

I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny...

So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scapegoating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others - all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face - war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.

This is truly President Obama's unique contribution to our politics today. Unless/until we can begin to grasp what he's saying...the poison will continue to infect our system.

Lighthouse and Crossroads

In order to dispel any notion that by promoting unity/empathy/Ubuntu, the great leaders I mentioned previously are simply calling for the accommodation of our most profound beliefs/principles, I'd invite to to listen to or read President Obama's remarks at the 2009 Notre Dame Commencement.

For some context, when it was announced that the President would be the commencement speaker, anti-abortion activists on campus engaged in protests. But rather than dismissing them, President Obama went right to the heart of the matter and addressed the topic head on. It was a profound exhibition of strength, courage and empathy.


Here's how he concluded his speech.

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you’ve been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It’s the belief in things not seen...

And this doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It’s no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth...

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away -- because life is not that simple. It never has been.

But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived...

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God’s providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other’s burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union.

The Heart of the Matter

When most people talk about globalization and income inequality, the talk about policies to alleviate the problem. That is an important part of the equation. But Pope Francis recently addressed the heart of the matter.

I recognize that globalization has helped many people to rise from poverty, but it has condemned many others to hunger. It's true that in absolute terms it grows world wealth, but it also increased the disparity and the new kinds of poverty.

What I notice is that this system is maintained with the culture of waste, of which I have already spoken several times. There is a politics, sociology, and also an attitude of rejection.

When at the center of the system there is not anymore man but money, when money becomes an idol, men and women are reduced and simply instruments of a social system and an economy characterized, indeed dominated by deep imbalances.

That reminded me of something David Simon said a few years ago when he talked about why he created the HBO series The Wire.

We are in the postindustrial age. We do not need as many of us as we once did. We don’t need us to generate capital, to secure wealth. We are in a transitive period where human beings have lost some of their value. Now, whether or not we can figure out a way to validate the humanity of the individual, I have great doubts...

The Wire is certainly an angry show. It’s about the idea that we are worth less. And that is an unreasonable thing to contemplate for all of us. It is unacceptable. And none of us wants to be part of a world that is going to do that to human beings. If we don’t exert on behalf of human dignity at the expense of profit and capitalism and greed, which are inevitabilities, and if we can’t modulate them in some way that is a framework for an intelligent society, we are doomed. It is going to happen sooner than we think. I don’t know what form it will take. But I know that every year America is going to be a more brutish and cynical and divided place.

And finally, I was reminded of what Derrick Jensen wrote in The Culture of Make Believe when he talked about the similarities between hate groups and corporations.

He said, "They're cousins."

I just listened.

"Nobody talks about this," he said, "but they're branches from the same tree, different forms of the same cultural imperative..."

"Which is?"

"To rob the world of its subjectivity."

"Wait - " I said.

"Or to put this another way," he continued, "to turn everyone and everything into objects."

Robbing the world of its subjectivity means removing empathy and our feelings of mutuality. It means creating distance between "us" and "them." It is also what Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was addressing when he said this:

We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

When people accuse President Obama of being too accommodating with his opponents (liberals accuse him of being too accommodating with Republicans and conservatives accuse him of the same thing with global opponents), they fail to see that this is exactly the challenge he is attempting to address.

Here's how candidate Obama talked about it back in 2008 on Martin Luther King Day.

Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.

I’m not talking about a budget deficit. I’m not talking about a trade deficit. I’m not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.

I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny...

We are told that those who differ from us on a few things are different from us on all things; that our problems are the fault of those who don’t think like us or look like us or come from where we do...

Every day, our politics fuels and exploits this kind of division across all races and regions; across gender and party. It is played out on television. It is sensationalized by the media...

So let us say that on this day of all days, each of us carries with us the task of changing our hearts and minds. The division, the stereotypes, the scapegoating, the ease with which we blame our plight on others - all of this distracts us from the common challenges we face - war and poverty; injustice and inequality. We can no longer afford to build ourselves up by tearing someone else down. We can no longer afford to traffic in lies or fear or hate. It is the poison that we must purge from our politics; the wall that we must tear down before the hour grows too late.

Because if Dr. King could love his jailor; if he could call on the faithful who once sat where you do to forgive those who set dogs and fire hoses upon them, then surely we can look past what divides us in our time, and bind up our wounds, and erase the empathy deficit that exists in our hearts.

Here's how he talked about it on a global scale during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.

The President reminded us of this when he memorialized Nelson Mandela.

Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa- Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us...He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.

There are those that say Ubuntu is impossibly naive and unrealistic. To them, I simply respond:

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us (John Lennon, Pope Francis, David Simon, Derrick Jensen, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, President Obama)
And the world will live as one.

Anger and Empathy

My first professional job out of college was as a counselor in a residential treatment program for chemically dependent adolescents. One young man I remember told some pretty horrific stories of physical abuse by his mother. When she came in for family counseling, it was my task to do the initial interview. Having heard her son's stories, I went into it loaded for bear.

But something unexpected happened. She cried while telling me stories of her own abuse as a child that made her son's pale in comparison. I was still very clear with her about the fact that she could NEVER cause her son harm again, but my anger had dissipated. We became partners in working together to end the cycle of abuse that had been passed down from one generation to the next.

This is one of the reasons I eventually decided to become a family counselor...I learned that people's behavior is most often best understood in context.

By the time I retired as a family counselor, I noticed that I very rarely got angry. While I was comfortable holding people accountable for their behavior, being willing to see things from their perspective aroused a kind of "there but for the grace of god go I" response. It becomes hard to judge someone once you've heard their story.

That's what empathy does.

I say all that because - while I know that President Obama's personality naturally leads him to remain calm - that reaction is bolstered by the fact that his mother was so successful in teaching him to be empathic. He would have been a great family counselor because he always wants to hear everyone's side of the story - even those we tend to blame and label as "the problem."

In this politically polarized climate we live in - our reaction most often is to point at something awful the "other side" did and fuel our anger. There are times when that is warranted. But when it becomes the only way we ever relate to those we disagree with, we lose our empathy, fail to hear each other's stories, and simply demonize our opponents.

I don't know about you, but that pretty much sums up what I think is wrong with our politics today.

What drives both left and right ideologues crazy about Obama

He's said these kinds of things many times in the past. In response, leftist ideologues respond with rage and those on the right studiously ignore it because it decimates their narrative. He did it again at the rally for Mary Burke in Milwakee, WI this week.

And let me say this: Republicans are patriots, they love their country just like we do. But they’ve got some bad ideas. That doesn’t mean that we don’t appreciate them as Americans. I’ve got family members who have got bad ideas -- they’re still part of the family, but you don’t want to put them in charge, right?

This President has made a habit of trying to teach us that disagreement doesn't need to lead to demonization - something our politics has assumed for far too long. Its gotten so bad lately that all we ever do is lob insults at each other from our own epistemically enclosed media outlets.

This has not worked out well as a strategy for Democrats. Then-Senator Barack Obama explained why way back in 2005.

A polarized electorate that is turned off of politics, and easily dismisses both parties because of the nasty, dishonest tone of the debate, works perfectly well for those who seek to chip away at the very idea of government because, in the end, a cynical electorate is a selfish electorate.

Igniting a conversation based on empathy and respect for those we disagree with is a core value for President Obama. Those of us who have been paying attention from the beginning have always known that.

Throughout his career, Obama has refused to demonize his opponents. Instead, he has sought them out and listened to them. He has tried to understand how they think and why they see the world as they do. His mother encouraged this sense of empathy, and it’s a lesson Obama learned well...

Although Obama’s reform agenda echoes aspects of those advanced by many Democrats over the last century, he has admitted—and this is the decisive point in understanding his outlook—that his opponents hold principles rooted as deeply in American history as his own. “I am obligated to try to see the world through George Bush’s eyes, no matter how much I may disagree with him,” he wrote in Audacity. “That’s what empathy does—it calls us all to task, the conservative and the liberal … We are all shaken out of our complacency.” Obama rejects dogma, embraces uncertainty, and dismisses the fables that often pass for history among partisans on both sides who need heroes and villains, and who resist more-nuanced understandings of the past and the present.

The truth is, very few people "get" this about President Obama. Until they do, they'll never really understand him. His message has always been the same to his opponents, whether they are foreign or domestic.

When that offer is mocked and/or abused, the counter-puncher steps in.

The limits of empathy

Its clear that President Obama believes that empathy is a necessary ingredient for solving our differences. That's why in his book The Audacity of Hope, he wrote:

I am obligated to try to see the world through George Bush’s eyes, no matter how much I may disagree with him. That’s what empathy does—it calls us all to task, the conservative and the liberal … We are all shaken out of our complacency.

As we've watched him over the years, this is not the empathy of weakness or surrender. It is about recognizing your own limitations and combining that with a deep understanding of your opponent.

And yet, when I hear him talk about ISIS, I hear the limits of empathy. He's come to the conclusion that they must simply be defeated via force, not understood.

I am reminded of what he said in his Noble Peace Prize acceptance speech:

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason...

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly.

Frankly, this is something I struggle with. The folly of war is so immense. I remember this coming home for me in my 20's when I shared my apartment with a young woman who was visiting from Germany. We watched a war movie together and afterwards talked about the fact that if our fathers had been born just a few years earlier, they could have met on the battlefield...trying to kill each other. That was unthinkable to us.

On the other hand, one of President Obama's favorite philosophers - Reinhold Neibuhr - gave up his commitment to non-violence when he witnessed the ravages of Nazi Germany in Europe. In many ways it was a case of the lesser of two evils rather than a moral justification...an acceptance of "the world as it is rather than as we want it to be."

And so, I want to continue to struggle. That's why I appreciate the thoughtful way this President approaches this kind of decision. And its why I find Bill Kristol's "lets just bomb them for awhile and see what happens" to be morally repugnant.

I'll admit that I find no empathy in my heart for ISIS at this point. But engaging in war - while sometimes necessary - is always "an expression of human folly."

The power of "You Belong"

In response to the events in Ferguson, President Obama said this yesterday:

I know that emotions are raw right now in Ferguson and there are certainly passionate differences about what has happened. There are going to be different accounts of how this tragedy occurred. There are going to be differences in terms of what needs to happen going forward. That’s part of our democracy. But let’s remember that we’re all part of one American family. We are united in common values, and that includes belief in equality under the law; a basic respect for public order and the right to peaceful public protest; a reverence for the dignity of every single man, woman and child among us; and the need for accountability when it comes to our government.

The bolded phrase reminds me that for years now he has been talking about empathy and expanding our moral imagination. His focus on that is totally validated by this video about the possibilities of an empathic civilisation. Please take a few minutes to watch this. I promise you won't regret it.


There's a lot to digest. But its a powerful idea to consider that we are soft-wired to be empathetic and that our first drive is to belong. That explains why this writer - who had never been interested in poetry before - was totally hooked by this line from David Whyte the moment I heard it:

It doesn't interest me if there is one God
or many gods.
I want to know if you belong or feel
abandoned.

Its also why the most telling reaction to the election of Barack Obama as President came from Whoopi Goldberg, who said, "I've always thought of myself as an American. But today, for the first time, I feel like I can finally put my suitcase down."

When it comes to what is happening in Ferguson, compare and contrast these two images (top from the local police response on Wednesday and bottom when Capt. Ron Johnson took over last night) on what they say about sending a "you belong" message.

Is it any wonder that last night's response was so much more effective?

Its important to note that in the midst of this highly charged situation,  President Obama talked about being one American family. We all know that being family doesn't mean we all agree. Instead, it means that we tell each other, "no matter what you do or say, you belong with us." That's where empathy gains a foothold.

Learning to live with ambiguity

David Cole provides us with a fascinating review of Glenn Greenwald's book No Place to Hide. Here is the money quote:

Part of the problem is that Greenwald sees the world in black and white. As he puts it, “There are, broadly speaking, two choices: obedience to institutional authority or radical dissent from it.” For him there is apparently nothing in between. Anyone who does not share his radical dissent is, therefore, a tool for the political elite.

I have to say that as I pondered that for awhile this morning, I got some fresh eyes about why it is that Greenwald pushes my buttons so effectively. The reality is that the choices he limits us to - obedience or radical dissent - are the two I have spent much of my life trying to avoid.

I've mentioned before that I spent my childhood in a family, church and community that embraced obedience to fundamentalist Christianity. When the cognitive dissonance became too much to bear, I specifically avoided the route that most others had chosen - that of radical dissent. Instead, I started asking hard questions. That's why I've always found Sara Robinson's description of the process of leaving the authoritarian mindset so powerfully affirming.

Internally, it requires sifting through every assumption you've ever made about how the world works, and your place within it; and demands that you finally take the very emotional and intellectual risks that the entire edifice was designed to protect you from. You have to learn, maybe for the first time, to face down fear and live with ambiguity.

Niether obedience nor radical dissent allow for ambiguity. In my experience, they are both boxes we lock ourselves into that give the keys to independent thought away for others to control. Its easier to see how that happens via obedience. But radical dissent locks us in as well. It takes away the option of ever agreeing with someone in a position of power/authority (remember: Greenwald said that he always assumes that people in power are lying).

What keeps us inside those boxes is fear. David Whyte captured what that fear is all about in a poem titled Revelation Must Be Terrible.

Being far from home is hard, but you know,
at least we are exiled together.
When you open your eyes to the world

you are on your own for
the first time. No one is
even interested in saving you now

Being "on your own" means deciding for yourself rather than the black and white of obedience or radical dissent. But it also means making peace with yourself (go read the rest of Whyte's poem).

The hard part is that the boundaries of labeling others as heroes or villains are not so clear anymore. You actually have to listen to what they say and decide for yourself whether you agree with them or not.

This is why I find it so fascinating that - just as Greenwald's heroism is being extolled with the release of his book - the same crowd is having a field day demonizing the villain President Obama chose to be his Treasury Secretary (Tim Geithner) on the day his book is released. And what was Geithner's greatest sin? Not villainizing Wall Street sufficiently. When you follow the path of either obedience or radical dissent, your heros and villains are chosen for you. It is imperative that you listen to the former and dismiss the latter. That's what passes for political discourse these days.

I believe that - more than anything else - this is what absolutely confounds people about President Obama. As James Kloppenberg wrote back in 2010:

Obama rejects dogma, embraces uncertainty, and dismisses the fables that often pass for history among partisans on both sides who need heroes and villains, and who resist more-nuanced understandings of the past and the present...

After almost two years as president, Obama has failed to satisfy the left for the same reason that he has antagonized the right. He does not share their self-righteous certainty.

In other words, at some point Barack Obama learned to face the fear and live with ambiguity. As his law school students have said..."he was in the business of complication." That is something that those who are determined to see the world through the black and white lens of obedience vs radical dissent will never be able to comprehend. But it is exactly what is necessary if we are ever going to expand our moral imagination.

President Obama: "I am obligated to try to see the world through George Bush’s eyes"

Yes, President Obama wrote those words. Not only did he write them, he did it in 2006 - during the Bush administration. If you are a Democrat/liberal/progressive, they are jarring, aren't they? Here's a little more context to what he said:

I am obligated to try to see the world through George Bush’s eyes, no matter how much I may disagree with him. That’s what empathy does—it calls us all to task, the conservative and the liberal … We are all shaken out of our complacency. 

Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

I've often thought that one of the most powerful - and least known - speeches of this President is the one he gave at the 2009 Notre Dame graduation (that link is to the transcript, the video is here). In case you've forgotten, his invitation to do so sparked a pretty big controversy over the issues of abortion and stem cell research.  And yet, as the Aikido Way requires, he used the opportunity to "enter into the very center of the conflict" by using the divide in this country over these issues to make the same point he did in the quote above.

In this speech, President Obama scrambled the order of storytelling outlined by Marshall Ganz. He began with the "story of now" and the urgency of the tension we face.

For the major threats we face in the 21st century -- whether it’s global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease -- these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history. Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy...

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonetizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

President Obama then went on to tell the "story of self" about a time when a constituent called him on his lack of open-mindedness about abortion.

And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that’s when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

Throughout the speech the President reminded the graduates of the "story of us" as it has been demonstrated at Notre Dame. But then he connected that story to one that tied the "us" to a larger one.

I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God’s children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame’s retreat in Land O’Lakes, Wisconsin where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

Finally, he called us to the kind of empathy that he talked about in that first quote up above:

Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.

What he's telling us is that the challenges that encompass the fierce urgency of now will only be faced when we can "try to see the world through George Bush's eyes." That is a high calling for any of us to accept. But it is one this President has answered in the affirmative.

Desperado

If I had to pick one song that is my number one favorite of all time, it would probably be this one:


The whole thing is packed with wisdom, but think about this line for a moment.

Freedom, oh freedom, well that's just some people talking. Your prison is walking through this world all alone.

I initially fell in love with this song when I had come to care very deeply for a young woman I was working with in a group home who was experiencing all the pain and hunger that come with being a desperado. She, like many other teenagers, clouded her pain in a desperate cry for freedom.

But I think we can broaden the application of this song and think about it as a lament for much of our political discourse these days. We're constantly subjected to cries from the libertarians and conservatives about "FREEDOM." I don't necessarily have a problem with that. But as an emphasis that excludes our need (as human beings) for each other, it is just another prison of its own kind.

This is a theme to which President Obama constantly returns.

We, the people — recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.

Whatever name we chose to give it: citizenship, empathy, ubuntu,  e pluribus unum, expanded moral conscious - I believe that this is the defining issue of our time. The cultural march towards individualistic independence that was once a healthy development is beginning to show its limits. Its time to climb down from our fences and open the gate.

And so I say to America: You better let somebody love you, before its too late.

What the wonks among us don't get

Yesterday Ezra Klein launched his new media venture Vox. His opening piece of writing is a doosey titled: How Politics Makes Us Stupid.

There’s a simple theory underlying much of American politics. It sits hopefully at the base of almost every speech, every op-ed, every article, and every panel discussion...It’s what we might call the More Information Hypothesis: the belief that many of our most bitter political battles are mere misunderstandings. The cause of these misunderstandings? Too little information...If only the citizenry were more informed, the thinking goes, then there wouldn’t be all this fighting.

It’s a seductive model. It suggests our fellow countrymen aren’t wrong so much as they’re misguided, or ignorant, or — most appealingly — misled by scoundrels from the other party. It holds that our debates are tractable and that the answers to our toughest problems aren’t very controversial at all...

But the More Information Hypothesis isn’t just wrong. It’s backwards. Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become.

This one is right up my alley because its something I think about all the time. Perhaps because I spent over 20 years questioning the religious orthodoxy under which I was raised, I am particularly fascinated with our human ability to fool ourselves into maintaining our belief systems in the face of evidence.

Not too long ago I wrote about scientific research that labelled this tendency motivated reasoning.

The theory of motivated reasoning builds on a key insight of modern neuroscience: Reasoning is actually suffused with emotion (or what researchers often call “affect”). Not only are the two inseparable, but our positive or negative feelings about people, things, and ideas arise much more rapidly than our conscious thoughts, in a matter of milliseconds...It’s a “basic human survival skill,” explains political scientist Arthur Lupia of the University of Michigan. We push threatening information away; we pull friendly information close.

What Klein adds to this discussion is the work of Yale Law Professor Dale Kahan who helps us understand what motivates this emotional response to threatening information.

Kahan calls this theory Identity-Protective Cognition: "As a way of avoiding dissonance and estrangement from valued groups, individuals subconsciously resist factual information that threatens their defining values." Elsewhere, he puts it even more pithily: "What we believe about the facts," he writes, "tells us who we are." And the most important psychological imperative most of us have in a given day is protecting our idea of who we are, and our relationships with the people we trust and love.

I am reminded of something Sarah Robinson wrote about honoring the process of those who abandon an authoritarian mindset.

We must never, ever underestimate what it costs these people to let go of the beliefs that have sustained them. Leaving the safety of the authoritarian belief system is a three-to-five year process. Externally, it always means the loss of your community; and often the loss of jobs, homes, marriages, and blood relatives as well. Internally, it requires sifting through every assumption you've ever made about how the world works, and your place within it; and demands that you finally take the very emotional and intellectual risks that the entire edifice was designed to protect you from. You have to learn, maybe for the first time, to face down fear and live with ambiguity.

That is a daunting task to ask anyone to undertake - and almost impossible to do alone.

In many ways Kahan is right - protecting who we are and our relationship with those we love and trust IS more important than facts and data. As human beings we can't survive without it. That kind of reality leaves a wonk like Ezra Klein pretty despondent as he tries to find a solution to the gulf that separates us.

Its interesting - because my mind immediately went to this:


The answer isn't - as Kahan suggests - a better "science communication strategy." It starts with broadening the definition of "we,"...an expansion of our moral imagination. When we make our circle of concern big enough to include even those we disagree with - facts are no longer a threat to our identity. It is captured by the African concept of Ubuntu.

Mandela understood the ties that bind the human spirit. There is a word in South Africa - Ubuntu – that describes his greatest gift: his recognition that we are all bound together in ways that can be invisible to the eye; that there is a oneness to humanity; that we achieve ourselves by sharing ourselves with others, and caring for those around us...He not only embodied Ubuntu; he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. It took a man like Madiba to free not just the prisoner, but the jailor as well; to show that you must trust others so that they may trust you; to teach that reconciliation is not a matter of ignoring a cruel past, but a means of confronting it with inclusion, generosity and truth. He changed laws, but also hearts.

Overcoming the empathy deficit

A theme emerges when you pay attention. Can you spot it?

President Obama on "expanding our moral immagination:"

Bernice Johnson Reagon on coalition politics:

We’ve pretty much come to the end of a time when you can have a space that is “yours only”—just for the people you want to be there...To a large extent it’s because we have just finished with that kind of isolating. There is no hiding place. There is nowhere you can go and only be with people who are like you. It’s over. Give it up...

It must become necessary for all of us to feel that this is our world. And that we are here to stay and that anything that is here is ours to take and to use in our image. And watch that “ours’ make it as big as you can...The “our” must include everybody you have to include in order for you to survive. You must be sure you understand that you ain’t gonna be able to have an “our” that don’t include Bernice Johnson Reagon, cause I don’t plan to go nowhere! That’s why we have to have coalitions. Cause I ain’t gonna let you live unless you let me live. Now there’s danger in that, but there’s also the possibility that we can both live—if you can stand it.

David Simon on the death of normal:

America will soon belong to the men and women — white and black and Latino and Asian, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist, gay and straight — who can walk into a room and accept with real comfort the sensation that they are in a world of certain difference, that there are no real majorities, only pluralities and coalitions. The America in which it was otherwise is dying, thank god, and those who relied on entitlement and division to command power will either be obliged to accept the changes, or retreat to the gated communities from which they wish to wax nostalgic and brood on political irrelevance...

We are all the other now, in some sense. Special interests? That term has no more meaning in the New America. We are all — all of us, every last American, even the whitest of white guys — special interests. And now, normal isn’t white or straight or Christian. There is no normal. That word, too, means less with every moment. And those who continue to argue for such retrograde notions as a political reality will become less germane and more ridiculous with every passing year.

This is the reality that is creating such a backlash from the white male patriarchy. The world as we've known it is evolving and, as Simon goes on to say, "change is a motherfucker when you run from it."

So the question becomes: how do we as a society prepare ourselves for that kind of change? I am struck in all this by some of the writing Jim Stuart has been doing on integral development theory. In the past, I've studied things like Kohlberg's stages of moral development and Bennett's work on a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity. While each of these models has its own unique focus, a common theme is that development and growth requires increasing levels of empathy. In order to face the changes in our individual lives, in our country, and around the globe, that is the challenge that awaits us.

Its clear to me that years ago President Obama came to the same conclusion.

“Unity is the great need of the hour.” That’s what Dr. King said. It is the great need of this hour as well, not because it sounds pleasant, not because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exits in this country.

I’m not talking about the budget deficit. I’m not talking about the trade deficit. I'm talking about the moral deficit in this country. I’m talking about an empathy deficit, the inability to recognize ourselves in one another, to understand that we are our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper, that in the words of Dr. King, “We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”

If you'd like more, the folks at the Center for Building a Culture of Empathy have put together a video that is almost 2 hours long of all the times Barack Obama has talked about the need to nurture empathy.

Over the years I've learned a lot from watching President Obama. Most of the time learning involves being challenged - and understanding what it means to "expand my moral imagination" (iow, developing empathy) is one of those times. To do so requires a confidence in our own sense of self that allows us to be curious about the "other." Expanding our moral imagination also means letting go of the confines of our own understanding of the world and being open to something that is currently beyond our imagination. Here's how Nezua talked about that.

...life is not like a series of books in a course on …anything. It fluctuates. We fluctuate. We are not a being, but a becoming, as Friedrich once said. And sometimes ideas are hammered out and we draw lines and walls and are told we fall on one side or the other and so do our thoughts and so does all that follows from them…and so it goes. We buy into these illusory borders, too...

I am far more comfortable navigating the in-between than I am in any Place. I like no thing as much as the coming and going from one to another. It is on the purpling beaches of dusk and the roseing gauze of dawn that my true eye shines lidless and I see so much more than in broad daylight. In the falling away of my tired husk I remember my shape can only be held temporarily. And to cling too tightly to it is to rot.

Being sure is but the borderwall we place around a heart to ward off the skinstripping wind of the next living moment.

We are currently facing that "skinstripping wind of the next living moment" as described by President Obama, Bernice Johnson Reagon and David Simon above. The intransigence of surety is what will prevent us from developing the empathy that is required in this moment. Expanding our moral imagination is what will allow our true eye to shine.