|
|
|
home about archives |
04/27/2008 All you have to do is stoke anger, fear and prejudice by using oversimplification and misinformation. The hardest thing in the world is to bring people of differing opinions and ideologies together. I should know. I was a marriage counselor for thirty years. When I was a young and inexperienced therapist, it was quite easy for me to feel more aligned with one spouse than the other, and thus to be ineffective in reuniting the couple. Some of the time it was because of the personalities or grievances of the individual spouses, but a lot of the time it was because of my own history, personality and beliefs. You might think I would always take the woman's side in marital arguments, but here you would be mistaken. It is true that it was sometimes easier for me to identify with the woman, when her gender specific complaints resonated with me as a woman, but at times it was easier for me to feel the most compassion for the husband, when I could see the needs, complaints, and vulnerabilities of the men I loved reflected in his concerns. Sometimes it was easier to side with one or the other spouse simply because they were more likable. Sometimes one person really was more to blame than the other for the problems in the marriage. But it was extremely rare for one spouse to be all right, and the other all wrong. With the possible exception of extreme abusiveness on the part of one spouse, there was always something valid about each spouse's concerns, as well as something in each of their behaviors that needed confronting. The hardest thing for me at first – fortunately with practice it got much easier – was to see the validity of the concerns of the spouse who was least likable, or had the weakest (in my opinion) argument. As I got better and better at this, I was more successful in helping couples stay together. On the occasions when I wasn't able to do this as skillfully, one of the spouses terminated therapy and often the remaining spouse continued to see me for individual therapy. And while I may have helped the one spouse move on with his or her life, it was no longer marital therapy, and I had lost an opportunity to help each spouse have empathy and see each other's perspective, and preserve the marriage. One of the reasons I am supporting Barack Obama is that he has the perspective of the skillful marriage counselor. He wants to do the hard work of bringing people together, even people who have vastly different ideologies in many areas, even people who have ideas with which he disagrees ideologically. The main reason I am not supporting Hillary, no matter how good her policy positions, no matter how much experience she claims to have, is that Hillary does not want to do that work. She wants to win, and she believes she has to divide people in order to do that. Hillary Clinton doesn't even pretend to want to unite the country. In fact, she and her husband are more than willing to alienate Obama supporters with their rhetoric, jumping on him whenever they hear something they think will further divide the American people. She stokes fear and prejudice, and offers half-truths and dishonest propaganda to convince voters that Obama is an elitist, cannot appeal to certain segments of the population, has poor judgment, and cannot win against John McCain. She attacked him for his mention of Ronald Reagan as a change agent. She vehemently disagreed with his willingness to dialogue with America's enemies (whom she says she is willing to "obliterate.") She demeaned him for not rejecting Jeremiah Wright. She castigated him for what he said about voters becoming bitter because they have lost their jobs and been left behind. She is now attacking him because he knows and sat on a board with a current college professor, and former member of the Weather Underground, a man whose crimes occurred when Obama was only eight years old. Every one of what the media call Obama's "gaffes" have occurred because he was trying to be a uniter. When he refused to condemn Jeremiah Wright it's because he knew that though his pastor might be an imperfect person, he was not the monster the media, Hillary, and the Republicans are trying to make him out to be. While he condemned some of his pastor's unfortunate rhetoric, he indicated the Jeremiah Wright he knew was deserving of respect and compassion. He also knew that as a uniter, it would not be appropriate for him to condemn Rev. Wright and by association, all those who attend that church. When he praised Ronald Reagan's ability to bring about change, it's because he was willing to recognize that conservatives, as well as liberals, have accomplished things in government and politics, and that to reflexively condemn their opponents is not helpful to liberals. When he expressed a willingness to speak to the nation's enemies, he was proposing a different approach to foreign policy, one which reaches out rather than lashes out. He was expressing a desire to find common ground, however small, with other nations, the opening of a door that could perhaps be the beginning of peaceful coexistence. (That is, after all, what Ronald Reagan did when he began a dialogue with Gorbachev.) When he talked about the "bitter" voters in Pennsylvania, he meant no disrespect. He was attempting to understand why they might not vote for him, a black man, and not just chalk it up to racial prejudice. He was trying to understand, but imperfect candidate that he is, he bungled it. When he did not snub William Ayers, nor refuse to sit on a board with him, nor refuse to go to his home, it was not because he approves of domestic terrorism. It is because he is trying to reach out to every citizen, and is unwilling to condemn and judge those who may have done grievous wrong forty years ago. And now, some bloggers are condemning Obama for breaking his year long boycott of FOX and agreeing to an interview. And further, they are castigating him because he didn't attack FOX for its attacks on him. This is small thinking, Hillary Clinton and Republican type thinking. This is the kind of thinking that gets us nowhere if we want to work together as a country. There are lot of people who watch FOX News, my relatives among them. And while some in Obama's camp wanted him to go after FOX News, just as many wanted him to go after Jeremiah Wright, this isn't his way of doing things. Why alienate all those Americans who watch FOX News just to score some points? Some wanted Obama to channel Bill Clinton and attack Chris Wallace as the former president did a few months ago. But that is how the Clintons operate, not how Obama operates. Obama has made it very clear he is not your typical campaigner, he is running for president not to outdo Bill Clinton or play the gotcha game better, but to end the game. Isn't that one of the reasons we support him? Hillary Clinton is trying to imply that Barack Obama's approach makes him a wimp, that if he can't stand up to FOX or to tough campaigning by getting down in the dirt with her, then he will be a weak leader when it comes to foreign policy, but this is absurd. As a uniter, Obama's mission is to retain his cool in domestic situations, just as a marriage counselor retains her cool in the counseling office. However, my being able to avoid taking sides and refuse to chastise either spouse did not mean that I could not have stood up for myself if I needed to. In fact, on two occasions when husbands yelled at me because they had such serious personality disorders that they could not participate rationally and civilly in counseling, and the self-refelction that it requires, I invited them to leave my office and find another therapist. And if someone tried to attack me while I was working, you can be sure I would know what to do to defend myself. Just because Obama doesn't turn to Hillary on the stage of a debate and slam her for not leaving a husband who publicly humiliated her by cheating on her and having the whole sordid mess played out on television, when she is slamming him for not leaving a church where his pastor said some controversial things, does not mean he could not defend the country if it were attacked or on the verge of being attacked by another country or a band of terrorists. Just because Obama wants to unite the red and blue sections of America, the conservative and the liberal, just because he is willing to reach out to those who are ideologically opposed to his views, doesn't mean he is a wimp. It means he knows the value of empathy and understanding. He has the sophistication and wisdom to realize the policies that can be implemented, not to mention the healing that can take place within the country, if he doesn't freeze out one side. Yes, it is a risk to support Obama. It is always a risk to support a uniter, a peacemaker, and a diplomat, because it is so much easier and sometimes even satisfying, to want to have a stand-off with those you are in disagreement with. It is always hard to convince those who reject cooperation and empathy that you are not a wimp because you promote such things. Obama has this mountain to climb if he is to become a great statesman like FDR and Abraham Lincoln, who worked effectively with members of both parties. But before he even gets there he has other mountains to climb to even secure the nomination. He has to overcome his supporters' disappointment that he is not taking the easy way of dividing the country with negative campaigning. He has to overcome the lingering racism of a large segment of the population. He has to overcome the problems with a name that reminds the nation of the former dictator of Iraq. He has to overcome the Clinton playbook, Clinton opposition research, Clinton narcissism, and the Clinton machine. He has to overcome the pincer movement that is poised against him: the kitchen sink strategy of Hillary Clinton, and the swift boating by John McCain. He has to overcome a media that gives John McCain a pass, and loves watching Hillary fight him until they are both bloodied. It is a lot to ask of this 46 year old politician who is, after all, only human. Yes, it is a risk to support someone who not only wants to change policies in Washington, but wants to change the entire way politics is done. But it is important to remember two things. Bill Clinton won each of his elections with less than 50% of the vote, because of the help he got from third party candidates. Hillary Clinton is not likely to get 50% either, because of her high negatives. But this time, there is no third party candidate to help her. So no matter what she says about how tough she is, she could easily lose to McCain. Obama could lose as well to John McCain. But Obama is the only democratic candidate who could also win big. He is a new kind of candidate, one that democrats supposedly have been waiting for. How long have we democrats been bitching and tearing our hair out over the unfairness of Karl Rove, the negativity of campaigns, and the dirty tricks of the Republicans? How long have we wished for a candidate that could really lead us past all of that? For at least eight years. Now we have that candidate. Now might be our chance, not just to take back our country but to change our country, to pass the torch to a younger, more tolerant and less screwed up generation than that of the baby boomers. Now might actually be our chance to see much of what we hoped for come true. Yes, it is a risk to choose empathy and cooperation over continuing animosity and division, just as being willing to engage in marriage counseling is a risk. But marriage counseling is a risk worth taking, because if it succeeds, it transforms one's marriage and one's life. Voting for Obama is a risk worth taking as well. If he is able to do even half of the things he hopes to do, our country and our world would benefit beyond anything we can imagine. Hillary may change policy, but she won't change the country. Barack is the only candidate who can do that, because he's the only candidate who wants to do that, the only candidate who has the skills to do that, the only candidate who is already doing it. As a marriage counselor who's taken a risk and succeeded with countless couples, even those who only chose to visit my office on the way to the divorce attorney, I'm willing to take that risk. All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com |