Blog 16
February 9, 2017
The Blind Men and the Elephant
It always interests me when different parts of my life converge. Right now in my sculpture studio, I am finishing a bas relief of the Six Blind Men and the Elephant, based on the old Sufi story of the discovery of an elephant who wanders into a village and is happened upon by six blind men. Each of the men touches a different part of the elephant and believes that he knows what is the essence of the beast. It is possible for me to imagine Donald Trump as the elephant and us as the blind men. The New York Times expanded this image for me as they described Trump lumbering around the White House, alone, at night, in his bathrobe, searching for light switches and doorknobs.
I am working hard on not being blind. I see the dangers to our democracy, although I have to admit the who, what, why and how of Donald Trump, eludes me, even with all the analysis. So how do I remain clear-sighted. I accept the notion of multiple points of view and multiple realities. I search for analyses that hold historical, psychological and political perspectives in mind and offer complex explanations. I read multiple sources of news and then when my head is spinning I read the Dalai Lama. Most important for me is to take action every day in the direction of social justice, which has been my compass for as long as I’ve had a conscious mind. I also listen to the words of friends like the message I received from Patrick in Belgium:
“What people say is often not what their real motives are. The motives/convictions of people who do not want to think inclusively are, I think, very varied, ranging from anxiety to greed, the only thing they have in common is their conviction that they can only secure their well-being by excluding categories of people (one could say: excluding them categorically). I do not think there has been one major case in history where such a policy was indeed successful in the long run.
Why do judgments go astray so easily (true for all of us, I guess)? People who struggle have no time to think clearly. They feel comfort from joining a flock that offers support even if it moves in the wrong direction. Hearing Trump’s inaugural speech, it reminded me of similar speeches in the early thirties, not only in Germany, but all over Europe (Hugo Claus, a famous Belgian author wrote a book in which the phenomenon is described: `The Sorrow of Belgium’ (Penguin) He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize many times but never received it, most likely because he was a strident atheist and altogether too lucid.).
I believe there is no alternative to `inclusive thinking’ (I have been thinking a lot about this and wrote about it), namely to empathy that extends to all, even including our environment and our planet, and this with the best of our ability. This does not seem easy to motivate at first: why should one or society care for sick people, elderly people, people with major disabilities? Why should the rich share with the poor? And the strong with the weak? Why should one care for the interest of others? The Americans for the Mexicans and vice versa? Or the Israelis for the Palestinians and vice versa? It seems at first and superficial glance to go against natural evolution and selection. I see the development of what I call `healthy ethics' as a new and major step in the evolution of mankind: it means `care of the well-being of the humankind-world organism as a totality' (one argument among many for this: why would other people care for me when I am in need, when I am not willing to care for them? Another: it even makes economic sense: how much medicine and the economy has profited from setting up good health care, not to talk about meaningful employment). It is not so difficult to understand what is destructive and what can be considered healthy: one just has to think the consequences of one’s attitudes and decisions through; not an easy job for politicians, who often limit consequences to the next election (or to their loss of power).
Wise Words
Sent from reader Richard Adler:
In “Americanisms” Adam Gopnik sums up the last two weeks, with historical references from 1940s Europe to the 18th Century.
Gopnik affirms the necessity to dissent and to react, spontaneously:
Such actions are called, a little too romantically, “resistance,” but there is no need, yet, for so militant a term. Resistance rises from the street, but also from within the system, as it should, with judicial stays and State Department dissenters. Opposing bad governments with loud speech, unashamed argument, and public demonstration is not the part that’s off the normal grid: it’s the pro-American part, exactly what the Constitution foresees and protects. Dissent is not courageous or exceptional. It is normal—it’s Madisonian, it’s Hamiltonian. It’s what we’re supposed to do.
Excerpt:
If President Trump’s first tumultuous weeks have done nothing else, at least they have again made us a nation of readers.
As Americans grapple with the unreality of the new administration, George Orwell’s “1984” has enjoyed a resurgence of interest, becoming a surprise best seller and an invaluable guide to our post-factual world.
On his first full day in office Mr. Trump insisted that his inaugural crowd was the largest ever, a baseless boast that will likely set a pattern for his relationship both to the media and to the truth………
……Mr. Trump and company seem to be betting that much of the electorate will not care if the president tells demonstrable lies, and will pick and choose whatever “alternative facts” confirm their views.The next few years will be a test of that thesis.
In the meantime, we must recognize the magnitude of the challenge. If we want to restore respect for facts and break through the intellectual ghettos on both the right and left, the mainstream media will have to be aggressive without being hysterical and adversarial without being unduly oppositional.
Perhaps just as important, it will be incumbent on conservative media outlets to push back as well. Conservatism should be a reality-based philosophy, and the movement will be better off if it recognizes that facts really do matter. There may be short-term advantages to running headlines about millions of illegal immigrants voting or secret United Nations plots to steal your guns, but the longer the right enables such fabrications, the weaker it will be in the long run. As uncomfortable as it may be, it will fall to the conservative media to police its worst actors.
The conservative media ecosystem — like the rest of us — has to recognize how critical, but also how fragile, credibility is in the Orwellian age of Donald Trump.
Actions
Senator Elizabeth Warren-We will not be Silenced.
Petition to save PBS
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/02/07/1631138/-Postcards-for-the-Narcissist Campaign to send postcards to Trump to let him know we don’t like him and we oppose his policies.
Call your House Representatives to let them know you oppose H.R. 643, a new xenophobic piece of legislation introduced to criminalize "aliens" who overstay their visas for any length of time
-- hours, days -- sentencing them to jail and barring future entry into the U.S. for up to a decade. Let them know that you're going to stand up and fight for the rights of immigrants.
From Talia.Levin
Three takeaways about how to assess true and false news:
1. If an article or social media claim elicits a really strong emotion--rage, hope, fear-- take a second to Google it before sharing, and see if it's replicated in other sources, particularly reputable ones.
2. Don't share unverified or unverifiable information or accounts.
3. Always check the URL of what you share! Click through. Check the byline. Check the sources. Does it seem credible?
Why does this matter? Fake news muddies the waters in a time of information overload. The best resistance is a skeptical, well-informed, thoughtful one. Remember that a top tactic of fascism is to provide "alternative facts" that debase the value of truth.
Resources encouraging progressives to run for office that you should support.
-Check out Emily's List, which supports Democratic, pro-choice women candidates;
-She Should Run, which provides support to women who want to run for office at all levels;
-Run For Something, which encourages young progressives to run for office all over the country;
-and Prolog, sent to me by a reader, which enables folks like you to donate their skills -- from graphic design to writing copy to knocking on doors -- to progressive candidates all around the country.
Indivisible Euclid meeting with Staffer of Congresswoman Barbara Lee on February 15th.
Follow Organizing for Action https://www.ofa.us Used to be Obama for America. He and Michelle support this grass roots organizing group and the group is working with Indivisible.
Dear Ellen,
ReplyDeleteYour references to empathy and multiple points of views raise for me the question of how best to orient toward Trump supporters. In recent months, the need to emphatically oppose has seemed much more urgent and necessary than the need to better understand views I find appalling. I’m not altogether happy staying there for the long-haul, however, especially as I think Trump himself won’t serve out his term, but the profound division in our country will endure.
Recently I attended a training at a school in a rural area. Just down the street from the school stood a massive Trump sign. As the day went by, it became clear that participants shared a political viewpoint—we expressed dismay about what has happened, and many of us described engaging in active opposition to the Trump agenda. We also spoke about the tensions felt between many of us and Trump supporting friends or family. At one point in the day I related that I’d received such an offensive message from a Trump supporting Facebook “friend” from high school that I’d severed contact.
Some attempts were made during the training to inhabit the viewpoint of the other side. However at the end of the training, one of the participants challenged us about not going far enough. She asked how we would have conducted ourselves if some of the training participants were actually Trump supporters. I’ve been wondering since then how the tone and casual speech during the workshop would have shifted. I’m guessing we would have weighed our words more carefully. Comments would likely have been more directly situated in our own experience. I’m also guessing we would have tried harder to engage in making some sense of what seems unfathomable. I’m not there yet, but when Trump himself leaves the White House, it reminds me we still desperately need conversations across the great divide.
Thanks for this Jim. It seems as if we are in the middle of a both/and situation. We have to stand up against the administration and at the same time build bridges with people who may have voted for the president,but do not hold to racist sexist principles or to economic ideas that only fit the rich. I believe that many people who voted for our current president share some concerns with those of us who voted for Hilary Clinton and call ourselves progressive. Complicated to rest and to reach out a the same time,but I do believe that is our current task.
ReplyDelete