| |
|
On the other hand, I don't really agree with Flyboy. I don't think that an 'us and them' mentality is going to help.
That map of Purple America doesn't just show that the country isn't as divided as I thought. It also shows that the country, as a whole, even in the purportedly Blue states, is far more conservative than I am.
So the political agenda I favor doesn't fly with the wish of the majority of voters. And I'm not sure which is a more appropriate reaction: to accept that, in a democracy, sometimes you've just got to shrug and accept that your views are the minority views, and you're not going to win this one, or to decide that you have to polarize the electorate further, redrawing the boundaries of the spectrum so that the center shifts to the left.
Thich Nat Hanh was (is?) a Buddhist Monk from vietnam in the 60s. In his book Being Peace, he offers some interesting ideas on the Peace Movement.
"In the peace movement there is a lot of anger, frustration, and misunderstanding. The peace movement can write very good protest letters, but they are not yet able to write a love letter. We need to learn to write a letter to the congress or to the President of the United States that they will want to read, and not just throw away. The way you speak, the kind of understanding, the kind of language you use would not turn people off. The President is a person like any of us.
Can the peace movement talk in loving speech, showing the way for peace? I think that will depend on whether the people in the peace movement can be peace. Because without being peace, we cannot do anything for peace. If we cannot smile, we cannot help other people to smile. If we are not peaceful, then we cannot contribute to the peace movement."
I really believe this - that the language of peace cannot be the same as the rhetoric of war. In a certain sense, we can't be intolerant of intolerance. But what's the alternative? If a "rescue mission" is going to be effective, it can only be effective between people. Not among groups. For me, at least, understanding why someone would choose to vote for Bush becomes harder when I have watched so much propoganda from the left. Partially, just because as fas as I can tell everyone with a sense of humor is on the left, and partially because the propoganda from the right isn't targeted at me, so I don't really get it.
In another talk I found on google, he offers the following advice:
"We may have enough good will to listen, but many of us have lost our capacity to listen because we have a lot of anger and violence in us. The other people do not know how to use kind speech; they always blame and judge. And language is very often sour, bitter. That kind of speech will always touch off the irritation and the anger in us and prevent us from listening deeply and with compassion. That is why good will to listen is not enough. We need some training in order to listen deeply with compassion. I think, I believe, I have the conviction, that a father, if he knows how to listen to his son deeply and with compassion, he will be able to open the door of his son's heart and restore communication. "
The reason I bring this up is, basically, I think (1) that 'reconnaisance' is a better first step than rescue, and (2) 'rescue' as a purpose isn't going to work. People who voted for Bush didn't accidentally hit the wrong button. They meant to vote for Bush and if we treat them like people who have made a mistake, or people who are unfortunately not intelligent enough to realize, as we have, that they're being duped - if our approach is from that kind of stance, it's destined to fail. |
|
|
