POWER VS. LOVE IN DOING THE HARD WORK OF COMPROMISE
Christopher Ebbe, Ph.D. 4-25
Due to our fearful, divided politics, people in our society can’t live easily with other citizens, but we can’t live without them, either. The U.S. is undergoing a paradoxical crisis of too much democracy and too much free speech, provided courtesy of the internet, which has empowered everyone and his/her brother to speak to the world and feel that what he/she said is important (a feeling derived from the unspoken, pre-internet assumption that what is in print must be true, just like what the anchor of the nightly news said was true). The result of this onslaught has been that now we doubt everything, since much of this democratic free speech is patently untrue, and thankfully many people can see that. Also, our anchors of truth have been revealed to have feet of clay, and we don’t know where to turn. Even NPR has a left-lean sound (clearly college level rather than Fox’s high school level).
Without a shared sense of what is true as a basis for discussion, discussion quickly turns into debate, which turns quickly into simple argument, with the assertion by both sides that what they claim is true and the very possible escalation on to attempts to dominate. Very few can offer any sort of justification or back-up evidence for their opinions. There is no way out of this currently, because the previously less-empowered are now receiving support from the President and from the conservative media, encouraging them to believe everything Pres. Trump says, so that what they think can be true (because the President said it) and not just what they want to believe. Most people are even less equipped to discuss fundamental value differences than they are to discuss government and the economy.
These self-expressions have also brought to light that we have great divides in values. Liberals have been shocked to see that huge numbers of people (40 to 60 percent?) disagree with and just plain reject the standard lines in traditional media that immigration is good, cultural differences are to be celebrated, marriage is optional, intact families don’t matter, the death penalty is bad, religion is optional, and gay and trans people should automatically be accepted.
Governing a country with sharp divides in values and in understanding is difficult, because since recently-empowered people are not going to give up their newly found legitimacy, compromise is absolutely necessary, yet very few people are prepared to do the compromising, largely because the prevailing liberal values have been promoted as being right or rights, instead of being simply a more desirable societal position on the matter according to only a portion of society. This claim of rights has been used by the left to bludgeon all who disagreed and call them uncivilized or worse. Now, in order to compromise on their favorite assertions, liberals have to dial back that notion of what is right, and that is difficult. Those who have been called uncivilized or worse are out for some revenge (although the sharpness of this divide would probably erode if both sides would just stop talking about it).
In cases in which all kinds of people are affected, like politics, the only fair thing to do is to express ourselves objectively, without blaming or threatening, listen to those with different opinions, perhaps explain how you each got to those conclusions (if anyone cares), and figure out the best possible compromise (when compromise is necessary)—the one that gives everyone something desirable but gives neither side everything it wanted. This is exactly what Democrats and Republicans must do to deal with their different policy preferences, but it is equally applicable for decision within families.
Don’t think that that a compromise outcome is unfair just because either the “facts” or the people and emotions involved were ignored by the other side. That’s life. The other person has a different way of thinking and deciding than you do (with different priorities). Both are legitimate. Both of you are Americans.
We currently have a rough divide on preferred method of making choices that coincides to some extent with our MAGA-liberal divide. The MAGA people prefer to make decisions on the basis mainly of emotion, and the liberals mainly on the basis of reason. Both have their good points as well as some weaknesses. The advantage of the reason method is that the person is less likely to be led astray by claims of relationship or by false claims of need or innocence, and his/her decisions are more likely to take into account all of the circumstances and all of the people who will be affected (instead of only those they care about). The disadvantage of the reason type is that in rationalizing, reason people may lose awareness of the daily experience of the people who will be affected by the decision. The advantage of the emotion type is being able to cut through excessive or misleading rationalizing and get to the core of what really counts (to them anyway). The disadvantages of the emotion type are trusting people who shouldn’t be trusted and being more easily led astray by emotional claims with no evidence. The members of a lynch mob are more likely to be emotion types, while stifling laws and regulations more likely to be promulgated by reason types. Both types are likely to lose sight of the impact that their preferred outcome will have on people who don’t think like they do.
Both kinds of people would be more balanced in their decisions if they practiced empathy more, which would require remembering to do so even while unconsciously continuing to use their favorite approach to thinking. People of all persuasions could be more empathic toward those with different opinions and beliefs. In our current political situation, the
MAGA people have felt mistreated and are trying to take care of themselves now in their politics and so naturally are empathy-deficient regarding others who are being hurt in the course of redressing their grievances (all the government workers vilified and fired) , and the liberals are so put off by the non-reasonableness of the MAGA people that it’s hard for them to be empathic regarding the MAGA people’s problems.
We could choose to honor the welfare of all citizens by working on seeing things from the point of view of others better. Resolve to look at the issue from the other person’s perspective before you discuss it or make your conclusions. Take responsibility for considering the other person’s legitimate viewpoint, even if that gives a different outcome than you would get using only your preferred method (reason or emotion). To do this, you will have to accept that while you are not “wrong,” you are not “right” either, but really just have your own preferences and opinions. This is the only way for democratic decisions to be made regarding which all parties feel “heard” and respected. If we all could do this, it would erode our need for having to even have opposed political parties duking it out, because each would be acknowledging and taking into account the views and thinking style of the other!
You might object that there are some things that cannot be compromised (like following the Constitution). Perhaps so, but almost everything can be the subject of compromise if we are willing to value this kind of process (instead of fighting over opposing views and seeing who wins).
An Alternative Approach to Working Together
American politics has descended into being simply a power game, each side trying to get a better situation for only its own followers instead of having platforms and programs that look out for the outcomes of every American. If your party has the votes, to hell with the other groups.
Our adversarial method pushes us to see the opposing views as wrong (as opposed to just different) and the opposing partisans as enemies rather than fellow Americans. A better alternative would be to see all the people involved as friends and Americans. The only reason not to see all the people involved as friends and Americans is when someone insists on getting his/her own way regardless of the impact on people who have other needs and other preferences on the issues. This is the “power alternative,” exemplified by Pres. Trump, Newt Gingrich, and the Progressives, who really don’t care about other people involved (beyond those they intend to help) and believe that their way will be better for everyone regardless of what those other people think is better for them.
The alternative way of approaching politics presented here could be called the “love alternative,” because it takes into account the needs of others and expects compromise so that everyone can feel heard and at least taken into account. People using this approach do care about how others feel about outcomes and are even sometimes willing to give up a little bit of their advantage with respect to the issue so that others can benefit more. I believe that Pres. Carter was in this camp and probably Pres. Obama. My impression is that Pres. Ford favored this approach as well. I certainly favor it myself, because I want to live in a country where everyone feels equally valued rather than a country made up of opposing sides.
Essential principles of the love alternative are treating everyone as equals (with equal “rights”) and treating everyone with respect and courtesy at all times. This would make for a much better working environment for all of us, especially those elected and would lead to getting more done because time is not wasted fighting.
If this approach would be so advantageous, you might wonder why more politicians haven’t favored it. The primary reason is that people who see enemies everywhere and who think strongly that they are right (and that no other view has any value) are the most likely to work in politics and to want to fight for their views (where fighting means alienating and trying to destroy those with other views), so they become the visible face of politics. People who care about everyone don’t want to fight and so don’t want to get involved in the dirt of politics and don’t do things outrageous so as to get into the press. (I tried to present and to exemplify the love approach in my efforts toward candidacy in the 2024 election and got nowhere, though this was due more to my quiet approach than to my platform. See my website www.ebbeforpresident.com and my platform A Compassionate, Moderate Political Platform for 2024.)
Since Pres. Trump hit a nerve with his support for those who have felt mistreated by society and since he offered them people to blame for their mistreatment, we have seen an upsurge of the power alternative with its frantic efforts to radically change the Federal government. Power clearly has no concern about individuals being harmed by power actions, and the administration gives the (unstated) promise that government would be simple if people just had the right values and goals (making those who differ into enemies). Paradoxically, Pres. Trump shows little love for his own voters, except for his determination to reboot manufacturing in the U.S. by collecting tariffs from all U.S. citizens and using this money, to cajole businesses into doing more manufacturing here to benefit his MAGA voters. Trump voters by and large are vulnerable to Pres. Trump’s claims and pitches because they do not understand how government or business or the economy works. Unfortunately, the world is not simple, which will be demonstrated soon by the longer-term outcomes of the Trump tariffs.
Many voters will have to become disenchanted with the outcomes of the power alternative before they will be interested in a softer alternative. Moving in the direction of the love alternative would take showing up to vote in all elections, including primaries, in which, again, power voters are more likely to vote (because they are more angry and/or more afraid).
The essential switch in attitude for this change would be leaving behind a combative, fearful attitude toward our fellow citizens and moving toward one of concern both for ourselves and for all other citizens, too. It would allow for more equality and sharing and would mean that discussions and actions in Congress would also take into account the needs of all Americans. It would mean more honest, heartfelt discussions of basic issues (the role of the Federal government, American capitalism, etc.) without resorting to shouting or denigrating anyone in an effort to dominate and get our own way, and it would mean a positive attitude in Congress toward compromises that can benefit everyone. All we have to do is elect Senators and Representatives and a President who think that this love alternative is the best way for us to go as a country!
Essays\powerlovecompromise