Hochschild, a Berkeley progressive, spent five years interviewing Republicans in Louisiana. She turned off her judgmental "alarm system," really listened, tried to feel they way they feel, and found ways to bridge the divide because "empathy does not make our judgment cloudy."
She was surprised that most of the people were very willing to talk, are much less strident than Fox News (which they follow closely), are disturbed by extreme polarization, and are also, as is she, looking for cross-over issues.
My takeaway is that the people she interviewed are driven by two factors. First, they feel condescending liberals on the coasts disrespect them for their life-style choices, such as preparing dinner for their husbands. Second, they feel the federal government is indifferent to their economic condition and the pollution being inflicted on their environment by large corporations.
Examples of potential crossover issues mentioned on the program include:
- Campaign finance reform
- Addressing global capitalism and getting industry to stay
- Environmental pollution
Hochschild's main message, however, is : "Build an empathy bridge so we talk respectfully to one another and don't polarize more. There are many people on the other side eager to do it."
+++
Last week I posted the following to Wade's Wire:
Today on The Takeaway, on “Analyzing the Roots of Inequality,” John Hockenberry interviewed Per Molander, author of a new book, The Anatomy of Inequality: Its Social and Economic Origins- and Solutions.
They discussed: Why does inequality exist, and how can societies get closer to equality? Do some people just work harder, as conservatives maintain, or are liberals right when they say the government needs to step in to level the playing field?
Molander said all societies have a tendency to slip toward inequality. Even if you had equality at the outset, small differences would magnify over time and be reinforced.
So democracies in capitalist economies must rectify those advantages so that weaker parties can at least approach equality without punishing those who are more successful. To do that, a variety of methods are available. If you do nothing, the differences will become dangerous if you want a workforce that can make the economy function.
To listen to the complete interview, click here.
Back when my children were still in elementary school, I sometimes drew looks when, at each holiday pageant, I would stand for the pledge of allegiance but always with my hands held behind my back –never across my heart; for in truth –and though I deeply love my country— my allegiance is not first to a nation but to the human family.
So it ever shall be; for I can cherish my country while refusing nationalism, and do.
Such personal choice of expression –as would one to the contrary— falls within my ownership and ultimate authority; and any who might deem otherwise hasn’t understood the concept or its fierce intention.
I come by my citizenship honestly, and by the happy accident of my birth; and thus require no one’s permission to have the relationship with America that I authentically both enjoy and wrestle; refuse the invitation that I leave if I cannot, in fact, love it to the prescribed satisfactions of another. My “marriage” to my culture and nation of origin, then, is as mine to my beloved: private, complex, and –with all due respect— wholly resistant to your concern and druthers.
Likewise, Colin Kaepernick will express his national alignments and the lack thereof as his heart, experiences, and the brutal histories of his peers and elders direct. And those throwing flags suggesting otherwise should go back to saluting their own if so moved –wherever it happens to fly.
Silent and seated observance is neither disrespectful nor unpatriotic; but any insistence that it might be most definitely is.
However, American taxpayers lose more than any other country to tax dodging by multinational companies—up to $135 billion this year.
Today, the European Union (E.U.) signaled that it is engaged in a serious conversation and is willing to take steps to address aggressive tax avoidance and tax haven countries that facilitate the problem.
Unfortunately, the U.S. Administration and Congress have been less willing to do the same….”
+++++
From “Apple Ruling Puts Emphasis on Need to End ‘Deferral’—the Biggest Tax Dodge,” By Clark Gascoigne, FACTCoalition
He included the following excerpt:
…the language of common values has lost common meaning. It doesn’t help that some students disengage from people who aren’t on their wavelengths. But the reason for that disengagement, some tell me, is that public conversation has begun to seem performative, incapable of producing results.And added the following comment:
A good piece, but this is a weak link. It’s not that public conversation is “incapable of producing results.” It’s that there’s no consensus on what constitute valuable results. Fox News, the Trump thing, the alt-right, various “left” (not really, but never mind) phenomena like Judith Butler saying that Hamas is part of the “global left,” all vomit on truth. They exchange truth-results for a cheaper currency–grotesque in-group solidarity.I also found the essay thought-provoking. What struck me was the author’s challenge to the normal use of ideology when he concluded:
Abstraction [can’t] exercise much useful influence on the everyday problems of civic life for a truly pluralistic population.
The “No Nothing Party” was familiar to me, but I didn’t know the origin of its name, or that they were a Trump-like nativist party. Rachel reported that their name came from the fact that the large national party was founded by various secret societies, and when people asked a member about its activities, he was supposed to reply, “I know nothing.” As wikipedia states, “Outsiders called them ‘Know Nothings’, and the name stuck.” In 1856, they nominated former President Millard Fillmore in the presidential election.
More importantly, Rachel reviewed the history of nativism in this country and argued that anti-immigrant momentum has repeatedly emerged when our two-party system was not working well when we did not have two strong, effective parties that could contest issues and negotiate compromises. That situation, she argued, has led to frustration and a power vacuum that has allowed minority voices to grow.
Her comments reminded me of the compelling analysis offered in The Atlantic’s “How American Politics Went Insane.” Unfortunately, it still seems that rather than rebuilding either party into a strong, grassroots organization, most people, including Bernie Sanders, are focused on short-term self-interest: winning the next election.
To view Rachel’s powerful, full commentary, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment