[Dialogue] MIcahel Lerner on Cindy Sheehan

[Charles or Doris Hahn]

Hey Dick,
Thanks for putting this on.  I understand better now
why Cindy has resigned her leading roll.
Charles Hahn

--- KroegerD at aol.com wrote:

>      
> _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 
> 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Dialogue mailing list
> Dialogue at wedgeblade.net
>
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/dialogue_wedgeblade.net
>