In last week’s newsletter, I reflected on the election results. Several people sent me private and thoughtful comments. There were a few critiques that I was not looking at the macro level and I was responding to these events as “an abused spouse.”
This week, I will publicly respond.
First, here is a summary of what I said last week:
I talked about how stunned and disappointed I was at Harris’s loss. I kept asking myself: What had I missed that I was caught so unawares?
To better understand the outcome, I turned to two news sources, Straight Arrow News and Tangle, which offer perspectives from both sides of the political spectrum. I chose those two because I firmly believe in seeking out multiple viewpoints, rather than relying on sources claiming objectivity or those that support my echo chamber.
Tangle's analysis highlighted the following:
- From the Left: Jonathan Chait attributed Trump's win to the electorate's rejection of the Biden-Harris administration, citing concerns about inflation and immigration.
- From the Right: Robby Soave argued that Biden's unpopularity stemmed from his policies, particularly on the economy, inflation, and immigration.
It was striking to me that both sides attributed Harris’s loss to concerns about inflation and immigration.
I then relayed a conversation prior to the election with a Black Uber driver from the Islands, who supported Trump due to his own concerns with the inflationary high cost of goods and the threat of immigrants flooding the ride-share market.
At the time, I dismissed what he had to say. In hindsight, I wondered if I had truly listened to his pain rather than dismissing him as ill-informed and anti-immigration, I might have been able to anticipate what eventually did happen.
My takeaway was how vital it is to consider multiple perspectives rather than stay stuck in our own narratives.
Appreciative comments from subscribers
Several readers reached out to thank me for this perspective. Here is a sample:
|
“This article is the most helpful one I’ve read as I tried to sort out my thoughts about what happened. Thanks.”
“Thank you for setting a same tone for these perilous times. I appreciate all you said about individuals and how they were experiencing things.”
“This is a thought-provoking analysis and productive approach to both the political polarization and the election fatigue that many Americans are experiencing in the after that math of November 5, 2024. Your book is a perfectly timed publication for such a time as this. Particularly as it raced the reality that we all, regardless of political ideology, principalities and the “isms”, must find a way to move forward. My takeaway is that in order for each of us to actualize Conscious Change (a practice imperative), multicultural humility, empathy, and acceptance is crucial.” |
I am so appreciative of these comments and grateful to those who took time to make them.
Some people also took exception with some or part of what I have to say. Their comments were equally valuable to me.
The first critique
|
“Thank you for setting a same tone for these perilous times. I appreciate all you said about individuals and how they were experiencing things. I have to say though that I think there are more in sinister invisible things going on…. Anyway I hope I’m wrong but I do think we are on grave danger of becoming an extreme oligarchy/dictatorship and it is much bigger than Trump. Didn’t put this on a public forum as I don’t want to argue with people. I just wondered if you are holding this thought too.”
|
As part of my response, I said,
|
“I wasn’t trying to solve the problem because it’s above my pay grade. As you say, the problem is much bigger and I’m also convinced there’s increasing solid consolidation around an oligarchic form of government.”[1] |
My main point in writing that newsletter, I explained, is that what is in my pay grade is to pay greater attention to random individuals, including Uber drivers of the world, whose perspectives and sources of information which may be different from my own.
The second critique:
One reader wrote:
|
“This makes me furious. The election was not about decent people having different perspectives. This column sounds like an abused spouse saying, “it’s not my fault for not making his eggs properly.” We’re not perfect, but we’re not at fault. You cannot ignore the amount of disinformation blasted at Americans. As Kruschchev said in 1956, “We will take America without firing a shot. We will destroy you from within.” |
I responded:
|
“Disinformation doesn't negate what the Uber driver said. It was his experience that mattered and that I ignored, even if it meant he was operating under false premises. I also didn't talk about how he and others were low-information voters and therefore highly susceptible to misinformation.
“As for the abused spouse thingy — well, I have been emotionally abused. As long as I stayed in my anger and inability to get out of that situation, I was stuck in it. It was only when (with the help of a therapist) I saw my part that I was freed up enough to leave. I have another friend who gave talks on that phenomenon — her anger and sense that her spouse was more powerful than she was kept her trapped. When she realized what she was doing to herself, she was psychically freed up from him. |
Both critiques have elements of truth in them. I totally agree the situation is much bigger than what I talked about in the newsletter. I also agree we should not take on irrational self-flagellation.
What I was saying in my response to them is that the purpose of this newsletter is not to engage in sociopolitical analyses. My intention is to provide guidance to myself -- and anyone else who is interested in my point of view -- on how I might enhance my effectiveness within my sphere of influence. As my friend Stephanie Foy often says, What is mine to do?
Accept Responsibility for My Own Contributions
What’s mine to do is to accept responsibility for my own contributions (Conscious Change Skill #22). Being responsible for my part does not imply that I’m the sole guilty person and others are innocent. My co-author Jean Ramsey and I say this again and again in both our books.
✅ Owning your part does not mean owning the whole thing.
✅ Owning your part doesn’t let anyone off the hook.
✅ Talking about your part does not mean ignoring the system.
I frankly get discouraged in conversations where the focus is on what “They” should be doing. No one with the power to enact macro level solutions has called me up on the phone to ask my opinion. All I can do is act within my sphere of influence.
Yes, it’s interesting and even fun to examine what’s going on at the macro level so I don’t want to discount that. It’s how we get informed-- by keeping up with what is going on at the macro level. I read Heather Robertson (the historian) and Tangle and multiple others who provide such analyses.
But in this newsletter, that’s not my focus. I’m focusing on what I can do within my sphere of influence in hopes of inspiring you to think about what you can do in yours.
Would it have made a difference if I had listened to that Uber driver and allowed myself to feel his pain?
At minimum, I would have given more credence to his perspective and not have been as surprised at the outcome of the election. I would’ve understood better that many, many people were genuinely concerned about inflation and immigration because maybe they didn’t have access to all the indicators and reports of the booming economy. Or if they had access, it was so far from their reality, it made no sense to them.
At maximum-- if I had listened to him and let him know that I could appreciate why he would hold such concerns, who knows if I might have introduced cognitive dissonance into his firm convictions that Trump was going to solve his problems?
I can’t rule out that possibility, even while I acknowledge that it’s a long shot. Note, I am not talking about changing his mind – just introducing cognitive dissonance – in hopes that he might consider another perspective.
Still, longshots become realities, but my closed mindedness to his perspective nixed that possibility. Next time I hope to be more attentive.
Now what could I have done differently (my part to do) so that critics would not have wondered if I was putting too much blame on myself or on individuals without acknowledging systemic forces? If my intent was not completely understood, I definitely played a part. I learned…
- By not explicitly talking about the macro perspective, or pointing out that I was focused on my sphere of influence, people paid attention to what I didn’t say and drew conclusions.
- This is such a blaming society that the idea of owning your part still means owning it all to many people. I will have to continue clarifying this again and again.
Time and again, clients and students have said to me “But if I own my part, won’t others think I’m owning the whole thing? Won’t they shift the blame to me and think I’m letting them off the hook?”
Yes, that possibility exists for sure. It’s happened to me. I then have stood my ground and said that I’m owning my part, not the whole part. It’s up to the other person to own theirs. And often, but not always, that shifts the conversation between us.
What I do know is that we can’t shift the narrative without repercussions from those accustomed to the current narrative.
If we want to see a change, we have to be the change we want to see – and to be ready to be patient with the fallout from people who have lived their lives according to the status quo.
[1] Parenthetically, I might add that since I wrote that, Jon Stewart, the comedic political commentator, and Heather Robertson, the acclaimed historian, had a fascinating conversation on whether democracy was viable in this multicultural country of 332 million people
