I think that more than left and right, which I think of as primarily a dispute about the boundaries of ownership, there is a divide between those who glorify predatory violence and those who reject it or see it as a last resort. And I don't just mean direct physical violence. Violence can be indirect, such as limited access to food or healthcare. There is social violence in prejudice, or child abuse or spousal abuse that leaves no visible marks. A "civilized" society stands in solidarity against such assaults and teaches citizens to see the victim's perspective, the perspective of others in general. Growing up male in socially "conservative" Ohio I saw, and even experienced abuse of vulnerable kids by adults in supervisory roles who demanded conformity to their own, arbitrary and narcissistic values, with "road rage" for trivial deviations. As in the story of "1984" I think the reason that largely amiable, and frequently bright and educated people can compulsively regurgitate MAGA talking points despite abundant counter-evidence, is that their thought process is constrained by PTSD. Taught by terror to love Big Brother. The alternative is collaborative liberty and justice of ALL.
JL, what a powerful article. Thank you. I have been having difficult email conversations with a relative who is a Trump supporter. All the things people say about not relying on sharing facts are true. It doesn't help. (It's also not helpful that we communicate through email but we haven't been able to meet in person for some months.) I don't learn what draws him to MAGA.
I would love to know from others in this community of HCR devotees how you respond to the dailykos article here. Dealing with family is tricky because in contrast to the author, the hospice nurse who wrote the article, I already have a long-time relationship with the person I'm trying to understand better. I know a lot about his good side. It doesn't seem to help. His views still alarm me. Maybe that's as it needs to be. Anybody got some ideas?
I'd say that meeting people where they are and just being yourself is a good start.
I met some friends through an on-line motorcycle forum, one of whom was (coincidentally) my Subaru mechanic. He and I have become friends; he's someone who would get up, in foul weather, drive to your location, give you the shirt off his back, and help you with whatever you needed. As we got to know each other through riding, we'd to these "I have to take something to Florence; want to do a loop ride with me?" calls, and go for a ride, which always involved sharing a meal.
At one of those meals, he told me that he had rethought his position on gay marriage based on his getting to know me. He said it caused him to do some deep thinking, and shared with me that what he had really objected to was the privileges that marriage granted for everyone. He was a an enlisted USAF mechanic who, for his 12 years of service, had to live in barracks because he was single, and as a crew chief had E2's who were married that got to live off base. He married after he left the service, and said that he could understand why, as a couple that had been together for 25 years, my wife and I wanted some of the "for granted" married couple advantages; inheritances, decision making at time of death, and spousal medical insurance that marriage gave us.
Back well over a decade ago my wife and I stopped at a place in Florence called the Windward Inn that had the best pecan sticky buns we ever tasted. We were there 4 times, but the last time we were there the place had been sold and the food disappointing.
I find the social justice aspect of law to be generally well intentioned (but not always) and often uneven in the degree of advantage and protections it provides. I am glad to be married, but am aware it is a privileged category. There are many things we that could use a rethink to refine "liberty and justice for all".
I recall when Republicans took over Wisconsin, they made a big thing out of public employees getting benefits that others did not. Their solution was to take those benefits away. Heaven forbid we should consider broadening them. Meanwhile the 1% cried "Feed me!"
Great story of people getting to see the better sides of each other. My favorite for decades has been from a Bill Moyers' book.
Franchot тАЬFranтАЬ Buhler was one of the most inspiring people Bill Moyers described in his book тАЬListening to America: A Traveler Rediscovers His CountryтАЭ He accomplished most by doing what seemed the least.
тАЬтАжAlthough Fran served in full time ministry for over two decades as the Associate Pastor/Director of Ministry at First Baptist Church Tallahassee, he was a ministry leader his entire life. His life's mission of "recycling human potential from the field of broken dreams" is woven through his every professional opportunity and personal experience. Fran mentored returning Peace Corp volunteers in Transition Centers and directed a national municipal task force of mayors for the National League of Cities and US Conference of Mayors. He was called a "national asset" by a former White House Press Secretary for launching a transformative community development project in a South Carolina community of 1,100 people in the heated civil rights era of the late 1960'sтАжтАЭ
If you get a chance to read Bill Moyers "Listening to America" (which I have a treasured signed copy of) look for the part at the end about his frustration trying to interview Fran Buhler, a community organizer hired by the President of Wellman Industries in Johnsonville South Carolina. Buhler almost never spoke, and always had a way of listening, waiting for anyone and everyone else to talk. Moyers found the secret to his success was more due to opening a community center and getting the wives of Black and White workers to volunteer to make curtains and do other little things to prepare it for the start of the "real" community organizing meetings.
The women had casually come together (with subtle request to each individually as he gathered more helpers), with light enough work that they could talk to people they had never talked to before, forming friendships and eventually getting their husbands to come along. Buhler seemed a "poor" organizer, mostly "wasting" a lot of time during which the men started discussing what they thought the problems were. Buhler never seemed to offer any solutions, instead asking them to discuss what they thought would work. The man who hired him, Wellman, wouldn't offer solutions either, though he did tell his managers that they had to build their homes well distributed in the communities of their workers. They didn't offer solutions either, but did live among them and mingle enough to know what their concerns were. The community members "gave up" on waiting for solutions from the "organizer" or company management, and implemented all their own best solutions.
The book reveals a lot of problems the country was going through back then (1970) and many of the issues were not resolved well if at all, but Johnsonville did a far more acceptable job of allowing people to improve their lives more realistically and peacefully through 4 decades of Wellman's life, keeping an company and the community viable when so many others left that were more loyal to the industries than the industries were to their communities.
Wellman could easily have made far more money moving to Mexico but he seemed a great answer to my daughter's favorite question, "Is he rich or does he just have money"?
I read a very convincing, detailed article (Atlantic?) about the shoddy work that went into the authorsтАЩ predetermined thesis. DidnтАЩt consult the experts they claimed, cherry-picked data, etc. ItтАЩs a book designed for progressive buyers, but mostly тАЬfake news.тАЭ
They are simply fools exploiting ignorance.
I think the folks doing most of the exploiting are sociopathic opportunists motivated by greed and unaccountable power. I think a lot of the rank and file are trapped in mental malware, many since birth. Here is an interesting perspective: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/4/6/2233194/-I-work-with-dying-Trump-supporters-It-s-confusing
Thank you for sharing this article.
JL, that is a powerful article. Thank you for it.
I think that more than left and right, which I think of as primarily a dispute about the boundaries of ownership, there is a divide between those who glorify predatory violence and those who reject it or see it as a last resort. And I don't just mean direct physical violence. Violence can be indirect, such as limited access to food or healthcare. There is social violence in prejudice, or child abuse or spousal abuse that leaves no visible marks. A "civilized" society stands in solidarity against such assaults and teaches citizens to see the victim's perspective, the perspective of others in general. Growing up male in socially "conservative" Ohio I saw, and even experienced abuse of vulnerable kids by adults in supervisory roles who demanded conformity to their own, arbitrary and narcissistic values, with "road rage" for trivial deviations. As in the story of "1984" I think the reason that largely amiable, and frequently bright and educated people can compulsively regurgitate MAGA talking points despite abundant counter-evidence, is that their thought process is constrained by PTSD. Taught by terror to love Big Brother. The alternative is collaborative liberty and justice of ALL.
JL, what a powerful article. Thank you. I have been having difficult email conversations with a relative who is a Trump supporter. All the things people say about not relying on sharing facts are true. It doesn't help. (It's also not helpful that we communicate through email but we haven't been able to meet in person for some months.) I don't learn what draws him to MAGA.
I would love to know from others in this community of HCR devotees how you respond to the dailykos article here. Dealing with family is tricky because in contrast to the author, the hospice nurse who wrote the article, I already have a long-time relationship with the person I'm trying to understand better. I know a lot about his good side. It doesn't seem to help. His views still alarm me. Maybe that's as it needs to be. Anybody got some ideas?
I'd say that meeting people where they are and just being yourself is a good start.
I met some friends through an on-line motorcycle forum, one of whom was (coincidentally) my Subaru mechanic. He and I have become friends; he's someone who would get up, in foul weather, drive to your location, give you the shirt off his back, and help you with whatever you needed. As we got to know each other through riding, we'd to these "I have to take something to Florence; want to do a loop ride with me?" calls, and go for a ride, which always involved sharing a meal.
At one of those meals, he told me that he had rethought his position on gay marriage based on his getting to know me. He said it caused him to do some deep thinking, and shared with me that what he had really objected to was the privileges that marriage granted for everyone. He was a an enlisted USAF mechanic who, for his 12 years of service, had to live in barracks because he was single, and as a crew chief had E2's who were married that got to live off base. He married after he left the service, and said that he could understand why, as a couple that had been together for 25 years, my wife and I wanted some of the "for granted" married couple advantages; inheritances, decision making at time of death, and spousal medical insurance that marriage gave us.
Back well over a decade ago my wife and I stopped at a place in Florence called the Windward Inn that had the best pecan sticky buns we ever tasted. We were there 4 times, but the last time we were there the place had been sold and the food disappointing.
I find the social justice aspect of law to be generally well intentioned (but not always) and often uneven in the degree of advantage and protections it provides. I am glad to be married, but am aware it is a privileged category. There are many things we that could use a rethink to refine "liberty and justice for all".
I recall when Republicans took over Wisconsin, they made a big thing out of public employees getting benefits that others did not. Their solution was to take those benefits away. Heaven forbid we should consider broadening them. Meanwhile the 1% cried "Feed me!"
Thank you for the link to that terrific story.
Great story of people getting to see the better sides of each other. My favorite for decades has been from a Bill Moyers' book.
Franchot тАЬFranтАЬ Buhler was one of the most inspiring people Bill Moyers described in his book тАЬListening to America: A Traveler Rediscovers His CountryтАЭ He accomplished most by doing what seemed the least.
For a bit on the modest Fran Buhler besides what Moyers describes in his book, see: https://www.tallahassee.com/obituaries/tad058120
тАЬтАжAlthough Fran served in full time ministry for over two decades as the Associate Pastor/Director of Ministry at First Baptist Church Tallahassee, he was a ministry leader his entire life. His life's mission of "recycling human potential from the field of broken dreams" is woven through his every professional opportunity and personal experience. Fran mentored returning Peace Corp volunteers in Transition Centers and directed a national municipal task force of mayors for the National League of Cities and US Conference of Mayors. He was called a "national asset" by a former White House Press Secretary for launching a transformative community development project in a South Carolina community of 1,100 people in the heated civil rights era of the late 1960'sтАжтАЭ
If you get a chance to read Bill Moyers "Listening to America" (which I have a treasured signed copy of) look for the part at the end about his frustration trying to interview Fran Buhler, a community organizer hired by the President of Wellman Industries in Johnsonville South Carolina. Buhler almost never spoke, and always had a way of listening, waiting for anyone and everyone else to talk. Moyers found the secret to his success was more due to opening a community center and getting the wives of Black and White workers to volunteer to make curtains and do other little things to prepare it for the start of the "real" community organizing meetings.
The women had casually come together (with subtle request to each individually as he gathered more helpers), with light enough work that they could talk to people they had never talked to before, forming friendships and eventually getting their husbands to come along. Buhler seemed a "poor" organizer, mostly "wasting" a lot of time during which the men started discussing what they thought the problems were. Buhler never seemed to offer any solutions, instead asking them to discuss what they thought would work. The man who hired him, Wellman, wouldn't offer solutions either, though he did tell his managers that they had to build their homes well distributed in the communities of their workers. They didn't offer solutions either, but did live among them and mingle enough to know what their concerns were. The community members "gave up" on waiting for solutions from the "organizer" or company management, and implemented all their own best solutions.
The book reveals a lot of problems the country was going through back then (1970) and many of the issues were not resolved well if at all, but Johnsonville did a far more acceptable job of allowing people to improve their lives more realistically and peacefully through 4 decades of Wellman's life, keeping an company and the community viable when so many others left that were more loyal to the industries than the industries were to their communities.
Wellman could easily have made far more money moving to Mexico but he seemed a great answer to my daughter's favorite question, "Is he rich or does he just have money"?
I read a very convincing, detailed article (Atlantic?) about the shoddy work that went into the authorsтАЩ predetermined thesis. DidnтАЩt consult the experts they claimed, cherry-picked data, etc. ItтАЩs a book designed for progressive buyers, but mostly тАЬfake news.тАЭ
Indeed!
And cashing their checks from the fossil fuel industry and the appliance lobby.