29 October 2024
Never let a problem to be solved become more important than a person to be loved.
Fay Angus
One month ago, neighbors across Western North Carolina saved each other’s lives. We supported each other through the storm; we are still doing so. We need to do it even more. We need stand up against tyranny: the tyranny of the majority.
In every election, we are pitted against each other. For each office, we are forced to choose between two candidates, two parties. No matter who wins, the country will still be divided. Half of us will be resentful if not enraged.
We can’t go on like this. We can’t keep living in a half-civil civil war. Let’s vote for BOTH candidates. That way, they will have to work things out.
Of course, I don’t see that happening. That’s just not the system.
The system is majority rule. Majority rule is might makes right. The stronger side wins; the weaker one loses.
Life, however, isn’t arm wrestling. We can’t have winners and losers. If people aren’t happy with a decision, they will sabotage it at worst and drag their heels at best.
Today, much of America is quietly quitting; some, not so quietly. Fortunately, democracy and fascism are not our only choices. There is another way.
One system designed to make sure everyone accepts the outcome is consensus. Consensus is not unanimity. It doesn’t mean everyone likes the decision. It means everyone consents to it.
The consensus process has been used successfully by groups numbering in the thousands. Congress has 535 members.
But even consensus wouldn’t necessarily change things. It sounds revolutionary, and that’s exciting, but it’s not the system that matters. Consensus can be manipulated too.
What matters is this: do you want what’s best for everyone, or do you just care about yourself, your family, your tribe? Would you enter a sweepstakes or play the lottery if the money would be divided up equally? If everyone offered to empty their bank account, sell all their assets, put it all in one big pile and split it up equally, would you do it?
Usually, rich people say no and poor people say yes. And that’s basically how we’re divided. It’s not just about money. Every issue — immigration, abortion, gun control, the economy, the environment — boils down to one choice. That choice is always between two things: love and fear.
If you’re afraid, you won’t share. If you’re not afraid, you will. You will share decisions. You will want everyone to be happy. That’s what love is.
This isn’t a moral issue; it just makes sense. If you don’t care about them, they won’t care about you — and vice versa. Simply put, we need to get along. Fear doesn’t see that; it points in the opposite direction.
You can’t just choose not to be afraid. Fear is built into our bodies. Fortunately, so is love. Fear screams louder; it’s our survival instinct. But love runs deeper. We will die for those we love, including our country.
In a few days, the struggle to impose our will on each other will reach a fever pitch. Let’s remember that in Nonviolent Communication, another system for resolving conflict, one thing that inevitably blocks agreement is attachment to outcome. As long as we want something more than we want to get along, if we value our preferences more than the relationship, we will never work things out. We will just flip-flop in a stalemate until it’s too late. It’s all for all or none for all.
It’s said that Jalaluddin Al Rumi, the 13th century Sufi mystic, was once publicly challenged.
“You claim to be at one with 72 religious sects,” his opponent asserted. “But the Jews cannot agree with the Christians, and the Christians cannot agree with Muslims. If they cannot agree with each other, how could you agree with them all?”
Rumi replied, “Yes, you are right. I agree with you too.”