The DACA-Dreamer-Immigration Debate
This is the final installment of a three part reflection on the DACA-Dreamer-Immigration component of the Senatorial debate that led to the shutdown of the US federal government for a little more than one weekend in January 2018.
This series of posts was precipitated by a ticker line news item stating that House Speaker Paul Ryan wanted to forestall a House debate on the DACA-Dreamer-Immigration question, separate from any consideration the Senate might give to the matter, by calling on his House Republican colleagues to not sign a bipartisan petition that would force such a debate onto the floor of the House of Representatives over the wishes of the Republican Party’s leadership.
As of the date of this posting, the petition has not garnered the required number of signatures to force a House debate. However, there is still some time between now and the the point when the initiative would have to be abandoned until after the 2018 mid-term elections.
This post deals with the subject of resolving the differences liberals and conservatives have about the DACA-Dreamer-Immigration question, in light of the observations raised in the first two posts.
Part III: On Reconciling Difference (confronting the gap between Emotional Politics and Reasoned Argument as it relates to the DACA debate)
About Elephant Whisperers
One may conclude, in light of Haidt’s observations, or at least my interpretations of his work, that there can be no changing the nature of the conversations conducted between the various ideological communities which have formed in response to their innate feelings about the six Moral Foundations he identifies influence our political, ideological, religious, and other affiliations. This perception might evolve from his description of the relationship between the “elephant” and the “elephant rider”, and how this relationship shapes our actions and beliefs in the real world. One might think there is an element of pre-determination to it. First, the elephant reacts to a trigger, then the elephant rider awakens and hangs on for dear life until the elephant stops, and then the elephant rider conjures a justification for the elephant’s behaviour, which is then underpinned by a reasoned argument.
This sequential set of responses to a pattern of deeply ingrained subconscious “images” or triggers, is a cognitive phenomenon evolved over many millennia. The justification and rationalization components of the sequence are a more recent evolution, but they are ones that contain within them the opportunity to reshape our subconscious reactions to the world around us. This reshaping can take place through “rewiring” how our subconscious brain processes the deeply ingrained “images” to which we respond. It is a rewiring that is the subject of “cognitive behavioural therapy”; a form of therapy that seeks to tackle behavioural practices by changing deeply ingrained psychological patterns, that often manifest themselves emotively, in order to alter our behaviour for the better or to treat mental health issues such as anxiety.
There is the adage, often attributed to Socrates, “know thyself”. It has been the subject of much inquiry. What does it really mean? Does it have to do with Plato’s recounting of Socrates comment about the pursuit of wisdom: “The unexamined life is not worth living”? Does it have to do with Alexander Pope’s proposition that: “Know then thyself, presume not God to scan. The proper study of mankind is Man”? Or does it have to do with the Emersonian notion that to know thyself is to know “God in thee”?
Whatever “know thyself” might have meant to the first person to utter the thought, it has been the subject of human inquiry for some time. And it may well be as challenging as Benjamin Franklin declared it, when he wrote the following in his Poor Richard’s Almanac: “There are three Things extreamly [sic] hard, Steel, a Diamond, and to know one’s self.” Regardless of the challenge’s difficulty, it is a matter of critical import to how we engage in conversations with others. And because it is of such significance to how we converse with others, it demands we wrestle with its meaning.
Haidt is a moral psychologist. His thinking is premised on the proposition that communities are shaped by moral bonds and by individual behaviours formed those moral bonds – behaviours (or actions) and choices, of both an intuitive and rational kind. His study is aimed at understanding the complex relationships that shape our lives, worlds, and choices; to help us understand “why good people are divided by politics and religion”, if you will. In so doing, he expresses the hope that people who are divided by politics and religion, as well as by ideologies and other societal organizing constructs, presumably, can find a language that will help us resolve difference.
The purpose of Haidt’s book, The Righteous Mind, is premised on the proposition that by knowing ourselves and how we have come to live in the place we live, we can become more civil in our political, religious, and social discourses. We can find ways to reconcile differences; to develop choices that are respectful of others. He argues this process comes from understanding the psychology of our moral make up. In this, he notes there are three key principles we need to appreciate and bear in mind:
1.) “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second”;
2.) “There is more to morality than harm and fairness”; and
3.) “Morality [both] binds and blinds”.
Haidt states that the explanation for why people are divided by politics and religion is because “our minds were designed for groupish righteousness. We are deeply intuitive creatures whose gut feelings drive our strategic thinking” which “makes it difficult – though not impossible – to connect with those who live in other [moral] matrices, which are often built on different configurations of the available moral foundations.” Understanding and being consciously sensitive to the existence of these different configurations is where the process of civil engagement begins.
So, how can we overcome our innate drive to react before thinking; to disavow truth and facts rather than acknowledge their authenticity? How can we meet the challenge America’s founding fathers laid before the nation they sought to create some 250 years ago – that is, to be a civil, enlightened society, governed by an enlightened people, served by an enlightened government – when we are creatures driven more by “gut feelings” (intuitions and emotions) than by reasoned argumentation? These be fair questions.
The answers to them are found in the development of self-awareness. And this comes from honest self-reflection motivated by a desire to understand how we react to innate triggers, the discovery of what those triggers are, how we form our initial judgments about our reactions to those triggers, and finally, how we develop reasons to confirm or justify our initial judgments.
These self-conversations, Haidt observes, can come from personal or “private reflection”. But such, he notes, “doesn’t seem to happen very often.” Self-reflection asks people to independently stop, reflect objectively on their behaviour, identify the innate causal triggers that sparked their behaviour, and then to develop a program of self-recognition that involves developing alternative responses to the triggers identified. This process is very rare and requires great self-discipline. But it is possible.
“Far more common”, says Haidt, “than such private mind changing is social influence.” We are influenced by other people who share their likes and dislikes with us. Constantly listening to those in the group with whom we most identify can confirm our beliefs and shut the beliefs of others out. So, how can we establish relationships with those we shut out?
Haidt states that: “Many of us believe that we follow an inner moral compass, but the history of social psychology richly demonstrates that other people exert a powerful force, able to make cruelty seem acceptable and altruism seem embarrassing, without giving us any reasons or arguments.” This external force, he asserts, is the “social persuasion link” within his “Social Intuitionist Model” depicting the relationships between the formation of the personal and social judgments that inform the arguments we develop to buttress our beliefs.
What is interesting to note about the “social persuasion link” he describes is that it can confirm our innate biases or alter our perceptions and understandings. The trick to circumventing the easy trap of affirming “confirmation bias” is to avoid speaking to the “elephant rider” when we engage in conversations with those holding different biases to the ones we hold. Rephrasing David Hume, Haidt argues that: “If you want to change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants. You’ve got to use links 3 and 4 of the social intuitionist model to elicit new intuitions, not new rationales.”
Link 3 in the model involves conversations with friends; with people we trust or respect. “We make our judgements rapidly [in response to triggers], and we are dreadful at seeking out evidence that might disconfirm those initial judgements. Yet friends can do for us what we cannot do for ourselves: they can challenge us, giving us reasons and arguments (link 3) that sometimes trigger new intuitions, thereby making it possible for us to change our minds.” This link is what Haidt calls the “reasoned persuasion link”. Link 4 in the model, the “social persuasion link”, involves the power of other people to cause us to reconsider our judgements about trigger events “without giving us any reasons or arguments.” These voices can come from outside the community to which we most identify if we can be “enticed” to open ourselves to them.
These openings happen when we engage in conversations with others who avoid directly confronting us. Haidt references Dale Carnegie, who he describes as “one of the greatest elephant-whisperers of all time”, and his book, How to Win Friends and Influence People, as someone who has developed a way this can be done. Instead of confronting people argumentatively, Carnegie “… advises people to “begin [conversations] in a friendly way”, to “smile”, to “be a good listener”, and to “never say ‘you’re wrong’”. The art of persuasion, of being an elephant-whisperer, Haidt intimates, involves conveying “respect, warmth, and an openness to dialogue before stating one’s own case.” In this, Haidt observes that Carnegie urges his readers “to use link 4, the social persuasion link, to prepare the ground before attempting to use link 3, the reasoned persuasion link.”
The path to change is never an easy one. Ask any mental health therapist. Their challenge, as a therapist who is not known to the person seeking therapy, is to develop a relationship with the patient. This entails being patient, attentive, persistent, non-judgemental, and adaptive, among other things. A level of trust needs to be established before the patient will begin to engage in the honest personal reflection required before beginning the transformative process of rewiring how he or she reacts to the triggers that cause reactive responses. It begins with self-awareness discovered through conversations with another person who helps us develop our sense of self. And what is interesting about this process is that it may involve engaging in conversations with people who hold very different points of view to the ones we hold.
About the Act of Doing
In his book, Collaborating with the Enemy: How to Work with People You Don’t Agree with or Like or Trust, Adam Kahane offers insights into how to work with people with whom one may have little in common. His thinking dovetails with Haidt in that both suggest that change involves the power of active listening, the power of avoiding judgement, the power of self-awareness, the power of empathy, and the power of persistence. Kahane recognizes that at some point, after what may have been years of intense and even violent conflict, enemies can come to realize their actions are leading them to nothing more than the same repeated outcome. And when that outcome is nothing more than continued conflict, sometimes the participants in the conflict come to realize they are engaged in an never ending cycle of sameness. It is at this point, people begin to look for alternative conversations than the ones they have long held. Instead of the language of bullets, for example, they may begin verbal dialogues.
These dialogues can be facilitated by third parties, but ultimately, they require the participants in the conflict to speak and listen, and to co-construct alternative paths to follow. Kahane speaks of a process he calls “stretch collaboration”. In it, he offers a way to realize an outcome that allows people to escape the negative places within which they dwell and find new healthy places of promise within which to live. It all begins with doing, of a stretch collaboration kind, and through the process of doing and reflecting on the product the doing produces, momentum can build to bring change that is effective and valued, and long-term.
Think of a sports team (or an orchestra or musical group if you wish). As a former footballer (soccer player) and coach, I tend to think in soccer-football terms. All teams are made up of individuals. Professional and amateur teams alike may be made of players from different neighbourhoods, villages, towns, cities, counties, provinces or states, countries, or continents. They may be of different cultures, be of different races, or speak different languages. They may hail from different socio-economic backgrounds or have different levels of education. They may adhere to different religions and customs. They may come from places of strife and conflict, even from countries or regions at war with each other. They will undoubtedly have different skills, abilities, attitudes, and their approach to playing the game may be different having grown out of their different personal experiences.
If a team made of such diverse players is to be successful, its players must find a way to play together. This can only be achieved in two ways – by practicing together, and by communicating with each other. These engagements can be facilitated by a third party, a coach, for example, or by the players themselves if they share a common goal such as playing the beautiful game, beautifully well. And if they play the beautiful game, beautifully well, their chances of winning are exponentially multiplied. But if they play the game as individuals, their chance of being successful falls significantly. They may win a game or two on the basis of individual brilliance, but over time, teams with less talent will overcome the individual brilliance if they play effectively as a unit.
So, how can a team of great diversity turn that diversity into a strength? The answer is not dissimilar to what Kahane suggests, with a pinch of the wisdom of Haidt added to the mix. It entails doing something and this may begin when a leader emerges from within the team or through the facilitation provided by a coach or manager.
The doing often begins with a conversation; one in which a leader speaks to each player’s elephant about who they are and what they can be. If the elephants heed what they hear, they can be convinced to try something new. And trying something new may entail doing something never tried by any of the team members before.
Smart leaders look to build a strategy and set of tactics that affords everyone the opportunity to make a recognizable contribution to the team’s effort, even if it asked players to control their natural inclinations differently than the strategy or tactics require. This process is developed through practice, and through that practice, building routines and trust among the players. As the trust among the players grows and they begin to automatically execute what they practice in game situations, their performance as a team will more often than not improve. And as performance improves, trust among the players builds momentum; a momentum that encourages the team to do more of the same, maybe even collectively try new things.
This was a lesson I personally drew from a team I once coached made of adults from across the world, some of whom had played semi-professional football in their countries of origin. The team was made of immigrants and visa students from Poland, Mexico, Brazil, Cameroon, the Netherlands, and England. There were Canadians of different origins – some players’ family roots were deeply entrenched in the story of Canada; some were born abroad, and others were only first or second-generation Canadians. Players spoke different languages. Some could not speak any of the languages other players spoke. The education and work histories of the players varied widely. Some were barely in their twenties and others were in their mid- to late-thirties. The socio-economic and cultural backgrounds of the players were diverse. Their playing styles varied. And their skill levels ranged from recreational to semi-professional. It was a hodgepodge of people who were thrown together because there seemed to be no other place for them to play. They came to the team like I had, searching for somewhere to play and being directed by the League to contact the team’s representative.
I thought of the team as symbolic of what Canada was – a country made up of diverse peoples working at the challenge of building something special on the idea that diversity can be a strength; that a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-racial, officially bilingual country could be fashioned in accordance with the vision of Lafontaine and Baldwin – one constructed on the basis of the acceptance of diversity, civil discourse, and persistence. Just because the modern western Eurocentric view of nationhood was founded on the idea of sameness, did not mean that a nation could not be developed in which sameness was not a requirement. This was the team into which I was welcomed, and it was the team I came to be asked to coach.
It was a recreation team in the bottom division of the city league. It was made of people who played the game as a pastime. They were not specifically competitive except in the moment of the game. But, they were all interested in trying to find away to enhance their experience by developing a style of play that could allow everyone to contribute from the most to the least gifted. And they were prepared to discuss how this could be done and were willing to practice and try things new, even when some of the things did not make immediate sense to them. They bonded as a team and shared in efforts of their teammates. They came to trust one another. And the barriers that could have torn them asunder, such as language, origins, talent, ethnicity, race, personal affinities and identities, and the like, did not surface.
Together, the team we fashioned out of the mix we were, proved to be a team capable of knocking off the third place First Division squad in a provincial competition equivalent of that of the F.A. Cup in English football. It was an achievement the team did not expect per se; but it was one that did not surprise them – they knew they stood a chance if they played well and got a break or two, such was their confidence and belief in each other. And it all began with a commitment to try something new; to take a risk and do something different.
The Kahane message that programs for change can begin by the simple act of doing something and doing it as a “stretch collaboration” exercise is one that can alter outcomes and transform the game. It can affect the way we act and perform; the way we interact and work with others, even with those we may not believe we have anything in common. And in the doing, leaders will emerge, often more than one, and they can help facilitate positive change, even ones of an unimagined kind.
About Leaders and Leadership
When one looks back over the canvas of history, one can identify periods of “conversational shifts” that produced unimagined change. Historians and other social scientists spend their lives dissecting these periods in the hope that they can reveal some truths about human relations which can be put to good use in the present and future for the benefit of all humanity, depending on how global they might make their observations, or for the benefit of the communities from which they come.
There are many theories and approaches that underpin these explorations. Among them is the “great man” approach, premised on the idea that single individuals can make large differences. While there is much debate about the place of this approach to the study of history, it may be that these “great men” are people who represent a larger undercurrent flowing beneath the surface of a society and become that current’s voice or are people who either wittingly or unwittingly catch the wave of a society’s shifting sentiment and become the wave’s voice. Regardless of whether these individuals lead or reflect the forces of the conversational shifts, they do become voices that stand out in their time. The words they speak and actions they take shape conversations and attitudes.
It can be argued that Martin Luther King Jr. is representative of the former. His rise grew out of a gathering force within the world of his southern reality that beckoned change. His contribution to the conversation shift was in how he voiced a program for change. He spoke of a specific vision and embodied that vision in his person, words, and actions. He led by giving voice to the change he sensed was both coming and required. He sought to exemplify the essence of what he hoped the change could be, even sacrificing his life for the end he sought.
Reverend King’s message of action was a simple one: the end is always a reflection of the means by which the end is realized. The end he envisioned was a humane one; one that embraced inclusion, welcomed difference, sought harmony, and embraced civility in both action and word. The means he championed involved the application of these ideals – peaceful, civil disobedience. It was an approach that challenged the existing order without inflicting physical harm. He sought to bring his envisioned change into being non-violently while, at the same time, exposing the existing order’s inherent violent nature. His call was one of liberation achieved civilly. His voice was an optimistic one, though he knew of the obstacles. He spoke of what could be, beyond what was, for he knew that dwelling on what was, wasted energies the people would need to build things new.
Reverend King’s vision, as was Mahatma Gandhi’s before him, was one echoed by Ted Kennedy at his brother’s, Robert F. Kennedy’s, funeral. Quoting his brother, Ted Kennedy shared the essence of who his brother was with the congregation and the nation: “Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.” This was true of Reverend King and Mahatma Gandhi. They were leaders who shared a vision of what could be with their followers and others and said, “why not”.
On the other hand, President Trump caught a wave that had been building for some time in America. It was a wave of alienation. A significant swath of Americans felt increasingly apart from their government. This sense had been gathering momentum among conservatives for most of the post-WWII era and became pronounced within liberal circles following the financial crisis of 2008. It involved a feeling that the political voices within the US had moved away from them, much in the way Ronald Reagan explained his shift from the Democrats to Republicans – “I did not leave the Democratic Party,” he said, “the Democratic Party left me.”
Haidt might explain this shift as resulting from a feeling that both political Parties in the US, and their leaders, had betrayed them. These leaders broke the bonds of loyalty that bound them to the political class. Within conservative America, this sense of betrayal extended to their rejection of not only the political class, but also to the institutions of government they believed were beholden to the political class. Trump voiced this betrayal within the conservative fold while Bernie Sanders did the same within the liberal community, though the ire of progressive liberals was reserved more for Democrats who failed to address, what they considered were, the criminal actions of corporate Wall Street and large banks.
Trump offered a leadership estranged conservatives within the hinterland believed reflected their sense of alienation. Many of the American hinterland’s industrial conservative community, which had once voted religiously for Democrats, felt the same way. Through Trump, they felt the bonds of community, which they believed had been severed by the political leaders of the two dominant parties in America, could be mended. And so, they rallied to his side and remain loyal.
What the examples of King and Trump demonstrate is that communities look to leaders to not only speak for them, but to represent them; to be their voice. When leaders establish an affinity with their communities, the communities will remain bound to them so long as they believe the leader is true to them. But, leaders can also influence choices and the way communities react to events and triggers that stir the elephants within them. They can be agents of change, for good or not. In this regard, they can be a voice that plants the seeds for self-reflection and/or transformation, or they can be a voice that simply confirms bias. In the former case, such voices are more often humble as well as persistent, while in the latter case, the tendency is to espouse self-centred, righteous rhetoric.
Think of how President Franklin Delano Roosevelt dealt with the question of the Great Depression’s uncertainty upon his election in 1933. People were living in a traumatized state at the time; paralyzed by an uncertainty about their survival, about where they might get their next meal. Roosevelt addressed their innate apprehension head on. Said he: “… the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” He added that fear is a “nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”
Roosevelt first spoke to his constituents, and all other American who were suffering in the wake of the Great Depression and the collapse of the economy, about that which most affected them emotionally – the loss of their lives and families to forces well beyond their control. He spoke to their fear which was an intuitive response to their plight. He recognized that if he did not speak to the fear they felt, he could not convince them of the merits of his plans for change. He spoke to the people’s elephant and asked them to see the world as it could be. He framed his rational argument in language that appealed to their sense of resilience and family. His was a message of support for, and belief in, the people of America. They, everyday Americans, had it within them to conquer the paralyzing power of fear, he told Americans, and he asked them to trust in his election to the Office of the President. Together, they could build things new and reverse the tide of the Great Depression.
“In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves, which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”
Leadership matters. Leadership can shape how we respond to the world around us; how we react to triggers. This is what Roosevelt provided America at critical times when it was confronted with what were thought to be insurmountable and perilous challenges – economic survival and war; times laden with fear and uncertainty. He demonstrated that he listened to his constituents, that he understood their concerns, that he sympathized with them, and that he shared their worries. And in doing so, he earned their trust, and with that trust, he shared a vision about how to tackle their fears and challenges rationally. He was able to persuade the majority to follow a course that had not been blazed before in America; to try something new; to take a risk most might otherwise have been unwilling to take.
About Beginning a Conversation on the Politics of Resolving Difference verses the Politics of Disruption: Where Elephant Whisperers, the Act of Doing, Leadership, and the DACA-Immigration Debate Meet
Within their own communities, leaders are kin. They belong to the same ideological, social, political or religious communities as their followers. They are among the fellowship. They share a common sense of belonging. But their status within these communities is different from others within the fold. They hold positions of “authority” and that authority grants them privilege. This privilege gives them a voice more prominent than others within the community; a voice that can shape individual and communal beliefs, opinions, and arguments in the way Haidt suggests a friend can influence others to change their opinion and how they respond to triggers. Because this authority grants leaders more than just privilege, it places obligations and responsibilities onto their shoulders.
In the case of the DACA debate, there appears to be a group of House Representatives, on both sides of the political divide, who believe the voice of bipartisan civil discourse must be registered. For too long, partisan voices uttering polar positions have held sway. These latter voices have paralyzed all efforts to address both the DACA-Dreamer issue and the question of immigration reform.
Since the election of President Trump, there has been an unwillingness within the offices of those who control the legislative agendas within the House of Representatives and Senate to address the DACA-Dreamer question directly. This reluctance represents a failure to engage in uncomfortable political discussions with their own constituents. Reports suggest Republican Party leaders, both within Congress and the Republican National Committee (the RNC), fear political repercussions from the “base” within their Party, ones that would almost certainly be fanned by the President if he felt the legislation placed before Congress did not comply with his preferences. It could also be that their reticence to tackle the question is because they share the beliefs of the Party’s base on the matters of DACA-Dreamers and immigration. Or, it may simply be that the congressional leadership within the Republican Party is more concerned with other priorities ranging from “tax reform” to the politics of the 2018 mid-term elections.
There is some evidence to suggest all may be simultaneously true, though chief among them seems to be their reluctance is tied to electoral fears which are tethered to how they think the Party’s “base” will react to any proposal that does not ban a path to citizenship for DACA-Dreamers or is deemed to be “soft” on immigration. Republican Party leaders, it has been intimated, see a political benefit in keeping the immigration question unresolved. It has been suggested that they have calculated that an unresolved DACA-Dreamer-immigration question could be used by the Republican Party to galvanize voter turn-out among the Republican-Trump base which, in turn, might stem the rising Democratic blue wave tide that has been building in America since the election of Trump in November 2016.
This may be the thinking behind Speaker Paul Ryan’s call for Republican House Representatives not to sign the petition to table a debate on immigration, and the thinking behind Senate Leader Mitch McConnel’s unwillingness to debate the question in the Senate as promised in January 2018. They are, after all, the chief strategists for the Republican Party, and they seem to believe that the best path to the continued control of Congress is one that follows the one blazed by the President.
But it appears there is some unwillingness within the Republican Party to remain silent. There appears to be a group of Republicans who have decided the time may be right to challenge their leadership’s position on the DACA-Dreamer-immigration question, and they appear willing to run the political risk of confronting the Party’s “base” on the subject. And, to bring this internal debate forward, these Republicans have reached across the political aisle to create the congressional condition that would spur the discussion. Those Democrats willing to facilitate a bipartisan congressional debate on DACA-Dreamers and immigration, are ones willing to do the same within their own Party. They are willing to challenge those within the Party who would prefer to disconnect the DACA-Dreamer issue from the larger immigration question, though truth be told, this divide may not be as problematic for the vast majority of congressional Democrats as it is for their Republican counterparts.
These bipartisan Republican and Democratic leaders may be motivated by more than just the obvious, though the obvious is most often critical. They may be motivated by what they collectively believe is their duty to legislate and govern on behalf of America’s entire complex and diverse society. They may have intuitively responded to the partisan approach to law-making practiced by the Speaker of the House and Majority Senate Leader and deemed it to be destroying American civility and the practice of enlightened and reasoned political discourse. They may also have read the polls and realized there is a thirst within the body politic of America for a compromise resolution to the DACA-Dreamer-immigration conundrum. And in this, they may have determined it might be in their best political interests to push the DACA-Dreamer-immigration debate forward now, given that a majority of America’s independent and non-independent voters seem to want the question resolved. Accordingly, they may feel the time is right to offer a resolution that avoids the zero-sum game the White House and some within Congress seem to be playing and offer a win-win program instead; one that may well serve their own electoral interests while at the same time addressing the preferences of most Americans.
These House Representatives are engaged in a political discourse of two kinds. And while it may well be a program spawned by political interests tied to the 2018 mid-term elections, it is one they know involves risks. But, politics is all about taking risks from time-to-time, and sometimes, the risk to be taken involves following a path not traveled before or, maybe, not traveled for many a year. This may be one of those occasions; an occasion in which the risk of challenging the status quo and prevailing political winds is deemed necessary.
The effort to force a DACA-Dreamer-immigration debate in the House of Representatives reflects the approach Adam Kahane suggests – a collaboration in which the parties to a conflict, or within a dysfunctional organization, agree to take an action, even if they are not necessarily sure where the action will take them. By engaging in the act of doing, these leaders place themselves in a position that has the potential of achieving an outcome that serves each party’s concern more effectively than simply trying to force a partisan program that only appeals to a small segment of the larger community from which they all come. If they can make kinetic the bipartisan approach, they might be able to offer an alternative approach to law-making that everyday, ordinary Americans might come to value over the present polarized one promoted by the Republican congressional leadership and increasingly favoured by the President, his advisers, and political apostles.
The second aspect of the bipartisan call for a House DACA-Dreamer-immigration debate is that it may provoke internal discussions within both Parties, and among those who consider themselves independents, about what is best for their Parties and the country. It may precipitate a conversation on the practice of “disruptor politics”.
This form of political engagement was first expounded on, and practiced by, Newt Gingrich in the 1980s and 1990s. It was adopted by Republican congressional leaders following Barack Obama’s election in 2009 and, coincidentally, by Donald Trump as a private citizen shortly thereafter. It was exercised to great affect by Trump during the Republican Primary and later in the Trump-Bannon-Conway led Republican Presidential campaign. It has become a feature of the approach to governing practiced by the congressional-White House triumvirate of Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and President Trump, as well as the institutions they represent – the Republican leadership within Congress and the Executive branch’s leadership, though these latter groups conduct themselves with greater restraint and subtlety than do the President and his surrogate White House spokespersons, legal counsels, and media friendly pundits and propagandists. The language of this latter collection, which reflects the essential nature of disruptor politics, is aggressive and unapologetic.
Disruptor politics makes winning its immediate priority. Victory at all costs. It is an “ends justify the means” political philosophy. It has as its long-term goal the deconstruction of the “administrative state” which can only be realized once all opposing voices are politically and legislatively marginalized. It not only celebrates conflict, it creates conflict by making villains of one’s political adversaries; by besmirching the character of one’s political opponents by whatever means necessary; by negative branding campaigns aimed at one’s foes and institutions if it is deemed necessary to protect or promote one’s own brand. It employs fear mongering, unsubstantiated gossip, false narratives, and code words to generate political support.
Disruptor politics focuses on eliminating all political opposition in order to gain the unrivaled control of the leavers of political power. In this pursuit, for their own reasons, President Trump, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, former Trump Campaign guru Steve Bannon, present Speaker Paul Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and the Freedom Caucus within Congress, are all aligned. They do not want to share the governing of the nation with anyone other than themselves. And to help them in this cause, they appeal to their bases, each in their own way.
However, these Republicans may not be alone in the pursuit of what might be a singular cause. The Democratic Party has its own version of the political disruptor class, though, at this point, it may not be as hardened as that within the Republican fold. This division was exposed during the 2015-2016 Democratic Primary, though its leadership demonstrated a willingness to work with its Party opponents to fashion a platform that was markedly reflective of its own political agenda.
Given that many of Senator Sanders’ supporters reportedly chose not to vote in the 2016 Presidential election rather than cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, or voted for Trump over Clinton, the suggestion one could draw is that the Senator’s base is a fractured one. Some elements within the fold were unwilling to follow Sanders’ lead. They may constitute a force unwilling to cross the partisan divide to work with non-progressive liberal Democrats or compromise on the idea of working with moderate Republicans.
How influential this segment of the Democratic Party is, is an open question. The results of several “special elections” won by Democrats who might well be classified as “conservative-liberals”, suggests it may be a community willing to work across partisan lines, or may not be as politically significant or ideologically ensconced as the Tea Party-Freedom Caucus conservatives and their Trumpian cohorts within the Republican Party. Or it may be that despite the divisions within the Democratic Party between and among progressive social-democrats, mainstream liberals, and conservative-liberals, the election of President Trump in 2016 planted a sober seed within the group; a seed that beckons them to wave their differences with other Democrats in order to wrestle power from the grip of Trump and his congressional allies. If this be true, it suggests the activists within the Democratic Party are more pragmatic than their Republican counterparts. It suggests they may be more open to rational arguments than the ideologically entrenched Republican reactionaries who rose to prominence following the election of President Obama, and who resurrected the disruptor politics of Gingrich.
The effort of those Representatives within the House to spearhead a bipartisan resolution to the DACA-Dreamer-immigration question may be an attempt to reconcile differences between congressional adversaries aimed at bringing political comity, in Washington, back into vogue. To achieve this end, they have determined a bipartisan effort is required; one in which the emotive concerns of all parties might be accounted for in the fashioning of legislation that creates a measure of stability and reduces political tensions. Such would be consistent with the practice of governing the founding fathers envisioned for America; one that called for the conduct of a civil political discourse between the leaders of opposing political communities focused on developing legislation of an enlightened kind that speaks to most of America’s elephants and elephant riders alike.
This is where the DACA-Dreamer debate intersects with elephant whisperers, the act of doing, and leadership. Those Republican and Democratic Party leaders within the body politic of America who are unsettled and disenchanted by the disrupter politics of the present age, can use their elephant whispering skills to begin a conversation with the majority of America’s politically allied and non-allied population who do not support the hostile and negative political discourse of the Trump-Bannon-Gingrich faction within America. This can begin by paying heed to the concerns of these Americans and, in so doing, gain their trust, before demonstrating how their bipartisan program will benefit them and their country simultaneously.
The period during which these conversations ought to begin, given the nature of the legislative process within Congress, is now. Public conversations can be conducted in quiet places, such as on the home front with constituents, or they can begin with disenfranchised marginalized Party members upset with the tone and content of present conversations led, principally, by political disruptors within the Republican Party.
The fact there is a bipartisan push within the House of Representatives to bring the DACA-Dreamer-immigration question to the floor of the House for debate suggests some of these conversations are under way. It indicates they have begun among a bipartisan group of House Representatives and it implies this group have found some common ground.
The move to force the debate onto the floor of the House of Representatives is a statement that they are committed to taking an action even though the outcome of that action is not precisely known. In these conversations and actions, there is evidence that may be, just may be, there are leaders within America willing to go where no one has been willing to go for many a year – down a bipartisan path blazed by elephant whisperers willing to engage in actions and conversations that provide Americans with an alternative to the exercise of partisan, disruptor political discourse.
This effort to reconcile difference, to reengage America in the politics of civility, will not be easy. They will undoubtedly come under attack from those opposed to developing any kind of civility or comity in America’s political discourse. These voices will employ the language of disruptor politics to divide-and-conquer, to whip political anxieties, and fan the flames of negativity. The ability of the leaders who would like to bring a renewed sense of harmony to America’s political discourse will rest on how effective they can speak to the elephants of those who may be willing to reconsider how they might respond to the DACA-Dreamer-immigration question.
In conducting this conversation, the bipartisan leadership within Congress looking to bring about a resolution to the DACA-Dreamer-immigration challenge, might consider taking some lessons from past leaders such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr. Roosevelt spoke to the fears of the nation, acknowledged their validity, and then appealed to the resilience of the American people. He spoke of their fortitude and how they could work with his newly elected government to overcome their fears to build a better world, together. Reverend King spoke not only of what was, but of what could be if everyone joined hands and marched together, peacefully, in unity, in the spirit of faith, and love, and hope, into the promised land. He, like Roosevelt, acknowledged the fear his followers lived daily, and the fear others felt about change, before he spoke of the vision he noted the founding fathers of America sought to establish, and how they could make real that promise. He knew it would be a long struggle, one with pitfalls and setbacks. But, he expressed his faith in the people, and in how they, through persistent non-violent, respectful, civil conversations, could overcome bigotry, oppression, and injustice, and build a beacon of light for the whole world to see; a land of promise.
There is, in the DACA-Dreamer-immigration question, room for liberals to have their concerns about fairness and innocence and justice met while, at the same time, meeting the concerns conservatives have about family and belonging and identity. There is room within the question to find balance between the competing underlying perceptions of what America is, and to reassure Americans about their concerns for safety and identity. The trick will be to include America’s majority as partners in the conversation.
This is the challenge Congress’ bipartisan leaders confront – to create a partnership between them, as elephant whispering leaders, and America’s majority, to co-create an America dedicated to civil discourse rather than the one offered by the proponents of disruptor politics. They need to develop a narrative that appeals to the founding idea that America is a nation of hope and opportunity, not a land of fear and loathing. And they need to demonstrate how the legislation they want to table will grow America as that land of hope and opportunity for those living in America today, and for those who come to live in the country in the future.
The key message might well be that America “has nothing to fear but fear itself”. Americans are a people of strength and common cause, dedicated to building a beacon for the world of what can be, not what was – “to dream things that never were and say, why not”.
This was the thinking that inspired America’s founding fathers to call and fight for the creation of the American republic – the United States of America. They were moved to break the chains that bound them to things that were, in favour of building something new that liberated them; to “boldly go where no one had gone before”, to paraphrase the mission statement of Star Trek’s Enterprise.
These are the emotional strings the congressional leaders who want to resolve the DACA-immigration question need to pluck as they table their legislation. It can facilitate the acceptance of their reasoned arguments in support of their legislation. And, if they can succeed in these conversations and in their actions, they might well change the tone and content of America’s political discourse. They may show America the way the founding fathers envisioned its leaders and citizens ought to conduct themselves in their daily lives and the business of governing.
For now, it can be said, the flames of civility and hope remain lit. They continue to be beacons signaling the way of safe passage through turbulent waters; waters washing over the rocky shoals of a rugged coast. And, it can be said, the disruptors have yet to snuff these flames out, though they are busy trying to do just that.
Scrambled Thoughts 2.0 