Stormy

I seem to be amongst of a lot of conflict these days.
Doesn’t everything seem to have a political connotation to it?
The car you drive,
The food you eat,
The phone you use,
The movies you see…
You mention certain words and tempers flare.
Reactionary tendencies resulting in snap judgments.
There’s even conflict amongst my long time friends and family.
Just the other day, a co-worker said something about the elections.
I said something, and… FIREWORKS!
The tension in the back room has been high. People are frustrated.
I should have… well, you know.
After the incident, a coworker said, “I agree with you. You just picked the wrong audience.”
Maybe she is right?
I can easily see how my comments were seen as inflammatory.
As far as I know, most of my coworkers are liberal; some trending towards hard line. We represent a diverse group of people who have successfully worked together for years. Asians, whites, blacks, gays and straights, women and men, young and old. The diversity of culture is impressive in a group of fewer than fifty.
I appreciate that.
A coworker said I’m the most neutral person she knows; “I don’t know if you’re a democrat or a republican.”
I laughed, and said, “That’s the nicest thing someone has said to me all day.”
She suggested I must really be in conflict deciding who to vote for?
This is where it came off the rails.
Feeling a bit jaded from all the political hyperbole, I said, “It doesn’t matter. The presidential election isn’t a popular vote anyway.”
Enter the metaphorical shit storm!
The conversation sped into a vitriolic cesspool of ranting.
I was told, “Not voting is incredibly irresponsible!”
Wait, what? “I didn’t say I wasn’t voting!?”
I tried to interject, “I was referring to the electoral college…”
More anger, “You’re irresponsible!” “That’s a lie.”
Not recognizing this wasn’t going anywhere, I continued asserting my perspective.
“The electoral college varies state by state; it’s got its positive and negative points like…”
“The electoral college has elected a president that didn’t win the popular vote.”
Fully agitated, a co-worker said, “That’s a conspiracy theory!”
“What?” My head was reeling.
I tried to explain the popular vote doesn’t need to be adhered to by the electorate in all states.
More people interjected, “Why wouldn’t you vote! It’s so important! Don’t you understand how important it is?!”
Another person, “This year? This election!? Don’t you understand how irresponsible you’re being?! I’m over you!”
I was sweating as though I was being deposed in a criminal investigation.
Reasserting myself, “I never said I’m not voting!”
Someone else said, “If you vote third party…!”
Holy shit, what’s happening! How did I get here? My co-workers are furious with me!
I was aggravated with myself that I got caught up this argument.
Beaten, I slinked out of the back room just as a few more people curiously came in to see what was going on.
My head was spinning. Did I get it wrong? Do I really not understand how our president is elected?
Doing what I do, I start to dig.
Nope, the electoral college does exist, it is a thing. They do choose the president and the way it’s set up does allow for the possibility of the electorate to supersede the popular vote outcome.
There also seems to be a lot I didn’t understand.
The electoral college is confusing. There are a stunning amount of variables that are subject to change, state by state, year by year.
It’s no wonder there is so much confusion about the how our president is elected.
I think the argument I had at work was truly born from the divisiveness we are all bombarded with on a regular basis.
This political polarity is akin to sweaty old dynamite.
It appears as though our community is crumbling, and I don’t mean my work place.
I’m speaking about the community at large, on a national scale.
The stress, fear and blaming is fracturing relationships, new and old.
Political ideologues are creating walls.
I hear people swearing off anyone who supports the opposition.
Our ability to speak openly, without fear of reprisal, is waning.
The electoral college is very complex and I don’t claim to understand all of it. The shame is the electoral college might be worth discussing. Especially if you believe in a one person, one vote system.
The presidential election is not a popular vote.
It just isn’t.
For better or for worse, we are a nation governed by laws.
From my perspective, the Patriot Act destroyed many components of the US Constitution that made our nation great.
My lack of understanding of the Patriot Act doesn’t make those laws any less real.
As “they” say, ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The Patriot Act might be something worth discussing, don’t you think?
We know it was passed without being fully read or understood. Do you think it’s wise that we continue to maintain our ignorance regarding a document that fundamentally changed our nation?
The problem that I see is that we don’t even discuss certain vital topics during elections.
As though they don’t exist.
Isn’t it ironic that what we don’t discuss has the largest consequences?
For example, the drone program. It’s not even on the table.
No one is talking about it?
Is the perceived safety of the drone program worth the “collateral damage” and the “radicalization” that’s regularly occurring do to “collateral damage”?
Listen to those words. What do they even mean?
What an obscure way of talking about the consequences of killing innocent people.
Is it worthwhile to discuss global nuclear proliferation and the treaties we ignore as a nation?
Is it worthwhile discussing the covert war that has been taking place over the past 15 years led by joint special operations command, otherwise known as J.S.O.C.?
Whistleblowing? Is it worth while discussing? Why as a nation are we so willing to marginalize the whistleblower?
When did reporting criminal activity become a crime? When the crimes are committed by those in power?
Yet, we as a nation don’t demand this be a part of the national discussion.
In my experience, people are limiting the conversation by engaging at one of these three levels:

1) Righteously regurgitating rhetoric to the like minded.
2) Arguing with a closed mind, and adamantly adhering to forgone conclusions.
3) Avoiding controversial topics all together.

Have any of these ever resulted in the change we all aspire to?
If it has, you have to admit, it’s extraordinarily rare.
So if this doesn’t affect change, what will.
Change is a personal choice.
Growth is a personal choice.
Accepting that it’s literally impossible to understand every side of every topic with regard to every perspective. That’s humbling, right?
Which leaves you with what?
What you think you know is likely one sided and possibly wrong.
So, incorporating doubt into your ideology would be logical, don’t you think?
What does doubt offer? Humility.
It’s difficult to recognize, there are likely many ways to say the same thing.
Humility opens you to alternative perspectives.
The Spanish word “agua” doesn’t make water any less watery. Do you see the analogy?
Often times, we all want the same thing, but it’s our perception, and our inability to communicate that perception, that is the barrier between us and the view point we see as oppositional. That is to say, perspective is often times an insurmountable wall.
You and I will never have the same perspective.
You cannot stand where I stand and I cannot stand where you stand.
No matter how righteous you feel about your perspective, your perspective is yours alone.
Recognize that.
Now think about what that does to our ability to communicate.
The only thing that can help us communicate is radical empathy.
Push yourself, however uncomfortably, into the oppositional perspective.
This is not to say you have to surrender your perspective…
If you can just see them, for a moment.
If you can just be them, for a moment.
Then you can just honor them, for a moment.
Then you can have compassion for them.
This is a place that compromise is possible.
This is a workable model for change.
But, it’s up to us…