I Vote for Them

Many say they do not vote out of objection -objection to the ineptitude of candidates on the ballot, objection to the position of both of the major parties in this country, objection to our current political system as a whole, Others do not vote out of a simpler apathy. In the past, I did not vote because I knew the outcome, either way, would not affect me personally. I am a well-educated, middle-class white male. There's very little in our political landscape that truly threatens the comfort and privilege that genetics and tradition have afforded me. I can always find a job, I have a large network of support to help me out, I face no real discrimination, and my health and safety are as good as it gets. elections don't affect me.

But I do vote. I vote for those who will be hurt by one outcome and helped by the other. I vote so the poor and disadvantaged might be granted greater support in this world, so their job prospects increase and everyone who works hard will receive a wage sufficient to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. I vote to help minorities realize a world where they are not disproportionately targeted by the criminal justice system. I vote so women have the right to choose what to do with their own bodies, where they are given easy access to effective birth control, and are not taxed for having a different biology. While I realize that terrorism poses less threat to me than household furniture, I vote because others are not so lucky. I wish for an outcome that will limit the violence in the world, that won't lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the quest to discover if sand glows. I choose a world where the families of those who commit wrongs won't be tortured and killed in revenge, where neighborhoods won't be policed and secured because of the religion of those living there. I do not vote to make the world a better place for myself - it's a very good place for me already - I vote to help those who need it, those who have less access to the voting booth, those who have no option at all.

If you feel your vote will not affect anyone else, that abstaining will somehow make things better, or that things can't get any worse, then I respect your right to do so. But I urge you to look beyond yourself. Look beyond the simple political rhetoric that exists. Study a little history, accpet a little responsibility. Voting does matter, if not for you then for everyone else. Vote for them. 

Incident Management

I spend a lot of time in the outdoors, and as a responsible person I have taken several wilderness first aid classes from which I've learned some important general lessons for life. The basic concept behind wilderness first aid is that you have found yourself in a situation where you have limited resources, someone is hurt, and help from the outside is not going to get to you anytime soon. Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a lot like political life in this day and age. Maybe the proper use of a tourniquet won't solve all our problems (or maybe it would?), but some of the concepts of problem solving I've learned can be directly applied.

One important idea that has served me well in many situations beyond life-or-death emergencies is the realization that a good solution started quickly is much better than the perfect solution applied too late. Perfect is a high bar. It takes a lot of time to come up with perfect, and it's also very hard to get agreement on what perfect is. If perfect is your goal and you hold out for it, you will probably never get there, and in the mean time lots of bad stuff is likely to get worse. If you settle for something that is pretty good and you spend your time putting it into practice and working to improve your plan as you go, you'll probably end up with good results.

There are normally multiple workable solutions. They'll all have their positives and negatives, but there isn't only one way to accomplish what you need. A solution that worked one time in one situation might not be applicable in another situation where the resourses or the environment are different. If you get too caught up in the details and too rigid in your thinking, you will miss out on the bigger picture and be unable to adapt to changes in the world around you. An open mind and a group working together, even if the plan is imperfect, will accomplish far more than endless bickering over inflexible ideas.

The flip side of that is: there are bad ideas. Not every approach is a good one. Some are very clearly wrong. Not everyone and every voice will contribute to finding a good solution and you have to be ready and willing to speak up, to point out specific flaws and limitations, when someone makes a bad suggestion. It's still important to listen. You can't dismiss things because you didn't think of them, or because of the person who did. Ideas need to get weighed on their own merits, experience is often the best evaluator, and common sense plays a vital role. Input and communication are good because the collective intelligence of the group is always greater than any one individual's contribution, but not every idea merits inclusion.

Along those lines, a stressful incident is best handled by a calm and capable incident commander. Decisions are reached quicker and plans are executed more smoothly if one voice is directing the group. If each person is doing their own thing, even if that thing is a good thing, but they aren't working off the same playbook, then chaos results. The incident commander doesn't have to come up with the plan - a good one will take input from everyone and synthesize it into a cohesive plan with simple instructions for each person to follow. They will also be ready to adapt the plan, not only as the situation changes but as new ideas are brought forward. What sounded good to everyone at the start (mandatory prison sentencing) might turn out to be a bad idea. The incident commander's job is to stay above the details, not to get caught up in the nitty-gritty but remain on watch for changes in the big picture and guiding the group accordingly. They can't afford to put their head down and trudge forward - though that is what most folks need to do to keep the group moving.

Sometimes you need to be the worker bee. It's good for everyone to have input into the plan. It's also good to recognize areas where others might be more knowledgeable, where their experience is more useful, and to accept that you will lose some arguments. Even if you know in your heart of heart that your plan would be better, there comes a time when you need to go with the group decision and stop fighting a solution that will work, even if not as well as your own would. Once again, a group accomplished much more working together on a mediocre plan than when each person holds out for their perfect solution.

I've learned these lessons in class, but I've seen them in action in real life. Concussions in remote river canyons, dislocated shoulders far from an ambulance, a broken kayak in the middle of the ocean. Consistently what happens is a moment of disbelief and panic. It takes everyone a moment or two to comprehend what is happening. Normally followed by half the group shouting out instructions and the other half frozen through indecision or lack of purpose. But when one voice speaks clearly, calm and certain, with simple directions and a willingness to listen, people start to fall in line. Those who know better choose to go with the flow as long as it's aimed in the right direction; those with no clue decide to trust someone else with the responsibility. Leadership is what carries the day, and leadership works best when it's reasonable and inclusive, patient yet purposeful, poised and practical. What we could all use is a little more leadership in the world, and a little more accepting of our own limitations and lack of experience. Life is one big incident - manage it well.

Choose Your Friends Wisely

Let's start with an assumption, supported by my personal experience, that many Republicans claim to belong to the party for their economic ideology and not for its social positions. In other words, they are good and decent people who believe in capitalism and free market enterprise, and they vote Republican out of economic self-interest and the belief that growing the pie will improve everyone's life (I'll deal with the cognitive dissonance embedded in there later). They are not racist, they are not ignorant, and they have a political opinion that is as valid and morally solid as any other. Like I said, let's assume that is true.

But let's look at the Republican Party. Not Conservatives. Not those who might vote Republican. Let's look at the card-carrying folks and the positions of the Party itself. First off, Republicans are pretty much white. Depending on the poll, 40-50% of Republicans believe President Obama is Muslim. That's racist. About 20% of Republicans believe inter-racial dating is wrong. Racist. Voter ID laws, gerrymandering, religious liberty protections - all based on bigotry and prejudice (bible-based discrimination is still discrimination). Voting Donald Trump your candidate for President - well, that puts all the hatred for anything 'other' right out in the open. The policies, principles, and rhetoric of the Republican Party is racist.

Once again, that doesn't mean that every member is racist. But very clearly a large percentage of Republicans are. A significant amount of their platform is based on ideas that discriminate or unequally disadvantage minorities. The very fact they claim this is not so, that they blame the first black President of being the cause of divisiveness, that they ignore the racial disparity that exists in our society and our criminal justice system in particular, all only proves their racism.

So I can accept that you are a non-racist Republican. That you don't feel cutting aid programs that disproportionately help minorities is wrong. That you don't buy into the false narrative that immigrants are more likely to be criminals and that black people would be better off in 'slower-track' schools. Maybe that's not you. But I question the priorities and moral judgment of anyone who chooses to be part of an organization that is so clearly bigoted and prejudiced. If you claim the name Republican, you claim it's racist underpinnings. That I cannot respect.

It's not You, it's Everyone Else

It is completely natural for human beings to see the world from their personal perspective. We make judgments based on our own experiences, we validate truths in reference to our own knowledge base, we approve morality based on our upbringing and beliefs. We take everything personally because our fundamental instinct is one of personal preservation. It's natural and normal, but it's limiting when discussing the broad concepts involved in a large and complex society.

When we talk about gun safety in this country the first response of most gun owners is the insistence of their responsibility and rights. If we discuss race issues, everyone has to establish that they aren't racist. If you talk to someone on the other side of the aisle about their party's position the response is 'that doesn't apply to me'. No matter the topic or the side, any attempt to analyze group behavior gets redacted to a personal experience. Which misses the whole point.

Of course there are responsible gun owners. There are non-racist white people, hard working and honest Mexicans, kind Republicans, generous millionaires, and efficient public and private entities. But there are also racist jerks in this world, criminal immigrants, slothful workers of all colors, and wasteful government programs. The point isn't the existence of a thing, but the prevalence of it.

In order to have a discussion of societal issues - what's wrong with our country, how do we improve it - it's necessary to look at statistics, actual hard data, in order to see the truth beyond our individual experiences. I'm a middle class white male. I don't really experience racism. Or sexism. Food stamps don't play a role in my life and the insurance that I have (through my wife's work) is pretty good. If I look through my own lens, life is good and doesn't need much change. I can understand how those in similar circumstances resist the suggestion to 'improve' things by taking from us to redistribute to others. But I can also understand how people in a different position face a much different reality. It's the empathy for the other that is ultimately the most important aspect of rationally assessing the world and recognizing unfairness where it exists and devising solutions that represent the greatest good for the largest numbers.

So if someone talks about an issue and your response is personal - not me; I don't see that; I don't think that's true; not among my friends - you've already given up any grounds for a productive discussion. It's hard but absolutely essential to try to remove ourselves from the equation and acknowledge everyone else in the world. No one does it completely. We all have our biases. But if we start from the personal perspective there's no hope of arriving at the general answer.