[Dialogue] MIcahel Lerner on Cindy Sheehan

[KroegerD at aol.com]

_The Network of Spiritual Progressives_ 
(http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=354441728&url_num=1&url=http://www.spiritualprogressives.org) 
_A Project of the Tikkun Community_ 
(http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?key=354441728&url_num=2&url=http://www.spiritualprogressives.org) 
Rabbi Lerner responding to Cindy Sheehan's Resignation from a  Leadership 
Role in Anti-War Work




{A note from Rabbi Michael Lerner: 

I've contacted Cindy Sheehan to ask her to  reconsider her decision, but I 
certainly understand much of what she is  talking about in the note below 
describing her decision to leave  activism.

When I invited Cindy Sheehan to speak at my  synagogue, I was deluged by 
people telling me that she was an anti-Semite.  When I invited her to speak at our 
Network of Spiritual Progressives  conference in D.C., again I was deluged by 
communications from people  telling me that her motives were impure, that she 
was just wanting to get  publicity, that she was an opportunist, and that I 
was hurting our own  credibility by having her speak.

I didn't give credence to any of that because the same  and worse has been 
said about me, so I always suspect that anyone  receiving that amount of 
personal negativity is either really bad, or, as  I found out in personal contact 
with Sheehan, someone who has so much  goodness and decency
and idealism pouring out of her, mixed with  righteous indignation, that s/he 
elicits fear, anger, competitiveness and  a desire to eliminate her from 
public life even by people who agree with  her. 

Peter Gabel and I have analyzed in Tikkun the way that a  hopeful movement or 
leader often unleashes a complex of feelings, partly  of hope, but partly of 
fear. People remember, either consciously or  unconsciously, moments
earlier in their lives in which they opened  themselves to love, kindness, 
generosity or hope, and then were deeply  disappointed when it was not 
reciprocated in kind,
or when they  actually felt humiliated for making themselves vulnerable. 
Fear that that humiliation or deep disappointment may  happen again leads 
many to defend themselves against such an outcome by  doing everything they can 
to negate the feelings of hope that are being  elicited by a hopeful movement 
or a leader who is hopeful. Sometimes this  will manifest in "acting-out" at a 
meeting,insisting that "the plan"  (whatever it is) cannot possibly work, or 
that there is no evidence that  it will, or that everyone who is involved in 
the project at hand is really  missing the point, or that there is the wrong 
leadership (the people  providing it are deficient in their sensitivity to 
racism, sexism,  homophobia,
egotism, process, psychological sensitivity, people who are  physically 
challenged and otherly-abled, or some other similar fault in  them). Or they will 
attack the leadership personally ("she is just out for  power") or they will 
attack the underlying ideology even though they knew  what it was before joining 
this particular group. Or they will complain  that a fabulous and brilliant 
teacher or speaker is speaking too long, or  that the email are too long to 
read--even though they often read books  with less substance that are longer or 
listen to dumb television programs  or movies for much longer. People are 
endlessly inventive in ways to  protect themselves from feeling the humiliation 
that they fear might come  back if they were to allow themselves to hope or to 
believe and work for a  world of love, and then act lovingly toward fellow 
members of their  movement or the leadership of the movement. 


People tell me that they believe most of my  generation "sold out" after the 
60s because they wanted the material  advantages of the society. But in my 
experience the most talented, caring,  sensitive and creative people I met in 
movement activities, particularly  those who were willing to take the extra 
personal risks involved in  becoming leadership and spokespeople for peace and 
justice, left the Left  not because of a desire for material success, but because 
they felt abused  by others on the Left and in the liberal world who, while 
agreeing with  their ideas, nevertheless found ways to be inhumane, 
insensititve, and  put-downish to others in their movement.
Rumors were spread that claimed that the most  idealistic of these people 
were "really" just out for power, fame or  ego-gratification of some sort, and 
that undercut the effectiveness of  these leaders because others responded to 
them not by listening to their  ideas, but by treating them as suspect because 
of "what they had heard."  
Few of those who spread these negative stories really  bothered to get to 
know the people about whom they gossiped, and few ever  bothered to acknowledge 
how destructive this behavior was. But for those  who were the objects of this 
kind of abuse, the feeling of being undercut  by people who should have been 
allies caused personal pain and eventual  despair that anything really could 
ever change. A few of us hung in and  remain involved, in my case at least 
sustained by a personal spiritual  practice, but for each 60s activist still 
involved, there are thousands  who are not, who could not stand this way of being 
treated, and who, when  they stick their nose into the dynamics of the present 
movements of the  first decade of the 21st century, quickly discover the same 
kind of  dynamics operating in the Left and in the liberal world. 

I've written about this in my book Surplus  Powerlessness and in The Left 
Hand of God, so I'll only say that  here in the case of Cindy Sheehan, once 
again, this movement has pushed  away a very decent and ethically-motivated fighter 
for peace and justice.  I only wish I could promise her that she would not 
experience again the  pain that I and others personally experience every day in 
being involved  in social change movements that do not show adequate caring 
for their  activists and leaders.

I'm happy to report that this is not the dynamic  in the Network of Spiritual 
Progressives, and that I'll do everything I  can to make sure that it never 
becomes the dominant reality here. Our  spiritual framework, our willingness to 
talk openly about love, and about  the need for compassion for all the ways 
that each of us fails to be an  embodiment of our highest values (including, of 
course, me and other  leaders of our movement) helps a lot. Our message pulls 
for a more gentle  way to be with each other.
But, that's no guarantee: I've watched people  verbally beat each other up 
over who is not compassionate enough?i.e. When  people have an unconscious fear 
and need to protect themselves from  opening up to a world of love, they can 
turn the very idea of love or  compassion into a weapon to hurt each other. 
Nothing protects us but our  constant awareness and rededication to embody our 
values as much as we  possibly can, and to be gentle with ourselves and others 
when we fail in  this.
There is another element in Cindy's story that isn't  really under our 
control. The Democratic Party has within it some very  idealistic people. But it 
also has many "realists" who have decided that  the only way they can accomplish 
their
idealistic goals is to work  within the parameters of "realism" set by the 
eltes of wealth and power  who control funding for campaigns and own the media. 
Such people, often  because they want to accomplish something very good and 
decent
like  ending the war, feel that they must distance themselves from the most  
idealistic people who have put their bodies, reputations, future chances  for 
employment or money on the line and taken to the streets to challenge  the 
system. Those who do so are often quoted by the media only when it  sounds as if 
they are saying something unreasonable or extreme. and then  the "realists" 
working inside the Democratic Party or the Congress or the  liberal media feel 
that their own chances of influencing events
will be  weakened if they are identified with the more seemingly "extreme"  
statements of those who have been most courageous in challenging  irrational 
and destructive
policies. 

So the "realists" try to distance themselves from the  idealistic activists, 
often by putting down the very people who were the  first to respond to the 
ethical crises--the shall we call them  "prematurely ethical people." So, the 
"realists"
make it harder for the  ethically sensitive activists who first recognized 
the ethical crisis (and  were willing to take personal risks to talk about it) 
to function  politically or be taken seriously by anyone who hasn't personally  
encountered them. 

Democrats who actually do agree with ethically  motivated activists end up 
distancing or even attacking us, or making  off-handed remarks to the media 
whose import is "stay away from her or  him--they are too irresponsible or extreme 
or flakey."
The irony is that the people whom the realists  
dismiss this way are often the very people whose writings and  formulations 
were what broke through the ethical deadness of the  "realists" and made them 
aware of the need to change  policies.
But instead of honoring those who are first out there,  the realists instead 
resent these "prematurely ethical" people and diss  them whenever possible, 
insisting that it is only they, the realists, who  can make any real changes in 
the society. Imagine how disappointing it was  to millions of activists when 
MoveOn began to talk the language of the  realists and defend the Democrats for 
trying to work out compromises with  Bush and then eventually capitulating to 
fund the war. We know how  disappointed we were when we couldn't get Move On 
to send out our message  about the Global Marshall Plan and our alternative 
strategy to end the  war. "Spiritual" ideas are also "unrealistic" to the 
realists, and so they  ignore or put us down. And yet, the very ideas that we 
advance today will  be those that in a few years these same people will be telling 
you that  "they always agreed and supported these same goals." Meanwhile, 
people  like Cindy Sheehan get batted around till its hard to remain in that kind  
of vulnerable public position. 


Blessings to all who continue to  struggle, each in their own ways, as Cindy 
Sheehan certainly will, for  peace, justice, generosity and love to prevail on 
our  planet.

Rabbi  Michael Lerner
_RabbiLerner at tikkun.org_ (mailto:RabbiLerner at tikkun.org)  }
To Join the Network of Spiritual Progressives, go to _www.spiritualprogr
essives.org_ (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/)  and join on line or email  
_Pete at tikkun.org_ (mailto:Pete at tikkun.org)  or call. We need your  
support--please 





************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/dialogue_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20070530/9d8c57e6/attachment.html