An Open Challenge ...

Arnie Rowland, PhD. writes:

To my Community.

My town, my community, like the country, is a divided community. After the elections, some feel heady success, and others, dismal failure. But, in common, I think that many of us are all struggling to understand what is happening to cause such a schism, and what can be done to repair and re-unite -and some are even questioning if that is possible. Those of us over a certain age schooled in the United States shared a meaningful experience. Every day, with our hands over our hearts, we pledged our faith to a country 'undivided'. Those that have adopted this country made the same pledge in their rites of citizenship. We now have to face the challenge to stand up for our pledge, or accept that our assertions of allegiance were meaningless. It is time to get involved for the community and for the country – regardless of your 'political' party identification. The kind of involvement I'm talking about isn't Red or Blue, Republican or Democrat, urban or rural –but American.

I have a suggestion that I will put forward for the community. If we were to drop the inflammatory 'labels' ('left wing liberals', 'progressives', 'brain-dead conservatives', etc.), drop the clichés, drop the trite, denigrating assertions, and drop the mindless catch phrases, I think that we could have a more open exchange and perhaps, enter into a truly meaningful dialogue. There is so much that we have in common, and we (all Americans) need to talk it out. Everyone seems so entrenched in their 'positions', and buttressed by the seeming truth of their favorite 'catch phrases' –that they aren't listening to each other any more.

As some have said, and so many of us are aware, our community, our country
is in real danger. And the greatest danger comes from within. People's fears
are being exploited in order for the moneyed and powerful interests to
consolidate their control (our fears of terrorism, racism, bigotry, loss of
employment, loss of 'freedom' -to name just a few.) This exploitation serves
no interests of the 'people', it has no 'party' loyalty (it serves only
those in power at the moment.) And it is destroying the country by pitting
good minded and well meaning folks against each other –when if fact, our
interests are more alike than different. This derision and division keeps
the populace from re-discovering their commonality and extolling against the
exploitation.

My own plan for the next four years is to engage with folks of all political
persuasions and try to find common grounds to move our political discussions
forward in a way that is ultimately good for the country and for each of us.
I've long held the belief, tempered in the hot fires of life's experience,
that if two people would only listen, and truly listen, to each other, both
will be changed as a result. Some issues may be difficult to reconcile, but
by not listening, we'll never have the opportunity to find out if there are
ways in which we can, with concern and care for our fellow humans,
peacefully coexist.

When I send someone an essay or article to read, I hope and trust that that
they will cut though the trite and denigrating catch phrases the author may
have inserted to get the approval of his/her intended audience, and get to
the true 'meat' of the essay. I hope and trust that they will recognize that
it represents the opinion of the writer, and was sent to provide some
background or support for a, perhaps as of yet, unclear or unspoken idea or
concept that may be worthy of our joint conversation. I challenge and hold
myself to the same standard when receiving materials from others.

For example, in a recent Slate article, Jane Smiley wrote about how good
minded, god-fearing, religious folks are having their religiosity used to
exploit them. Last week in the Boston Globe, Hiawatha Bray had an short note
about moving on, taking personal responsibility and not gloating in success,
and equally, taking personal responsibility for failing to be successful. In
The Nation, an essay from Howard Zinn was about one's choice to enter into a
state of pessimism or optimism as a result of recent events. There are many
good writers out there, from all sides of the discussion. (And of course,
there are those that seem to derive their satisfaction, and income, from
fanning the flames of anger and hatred. Some will say and write anything to
keep the discussion away from the 'real' issues, perhaps being encouraged
and used to divert us from 'looking behind the curtain'.)

I'm suggesting that we each give the other room to exchange thoughts and
ideas, perhaps not yet well formed –perhpas even 'half baked'. That we each
offer the other essays from those that would seem to resonate with us,
hoping that the other isn't inflamed by the partisan rhetoric, but able to
cut through the catch phrases and derive the underlying meaning. For
meaningful changes to occur, we have to engage with each other, opening
ourselves to the possibility of really learning what concerns the other and
therefore also becoming invested in the other's plight.

Who knows, even 'friendship', the kind where you can talk politics,
disagree, and still enjoy dinner together, may develop.

This is my opening, I hope you jump in.

Arnie Rowland, PhD
WestWood Consulting, Inc
Portland, Oregon USA
arnie@1568.com

Posted by Jock Gill at November 7, 2004 2:13 PM | TrackBack