Perhaps the oldest, most manipulative rule in the game of civilization is the one that makes members of a particular tribe embrace the idea that only this tribe is right.

It's not truth. It never was truth. It's a survival tactic. A control mechanism. A power play.

My mom converted to Catholicism when I was in 2nd grade. Until then, we had been children of a Jewish mom and Lutheran dad who attended bland but cheerful Sunday services at  the Lutheran church and otherwise went about our secular ways. I'll never forget being 8-years-old in the Catholic school I had just been transferred into and hearing that only Catholics could go to heaven. Worse, even unbaptized infants couldn't go to heaven.

I can't remember what I ate yesterday, but I can still remember what I was wearing, where I was sitting, and who was sitting on each side of me when I was taught that 'lesson'. I can still feel the heat flush across my face. I was dumbfounded. It was my first awareness of injustice. And I knew it was wrong.

But as a control mechanism, the our way or the highway approach really works.  It works in instant and harsh ways (I ended up missing recess and having to write 100 lines for having the audacity to argue with Father Sullivan), and in insidious and long-term ways (as so many Catholics only marry Catholics to ensure their children do not suffer this same fate).

This isn't just a Catholic issue. Many other religions enforce similar rules for their followers. And not just religions. One of the scandals on my paternal side was that a Norwegian married a Swede. That was intermarriage and it wasn't allowed (even if to everyone else in the world they are nearly impossible to tell apart). It's an economic issue (people who couldn't explain the practical application of capitalism or socialism still take rabid positions on both), a political issue (does anybody really know what conservative or liberal mean anymore?), and now even a health issue (masks anyone?).

These rules do a fabulous job of preserving cultures, religions, and political and national identities. But at what cost? Most people assume that for one way to be right, the other ways must be wrong — and when it comes to something as important as heaven, the stakes are pretty high. So the cost of this control mechanism isn't just right versus wrong, it becomes us versus them.

It is possible for two different things to be right, just as one can usually take several different routes to travel from one point to another. In the case of a road trip, most people are open to considering all the possible routes. But when it comes to cultural, religious, political, and national identity, it takes more conscientiousness, more open-mindedness, to consider the equal rightness of another way.

Many religious, political, economic, and cultural leaders fear that holding multiple belief systems as equally valid will lead to loss of followers. So they'll fight it. And when they do, it's not because they're worried about individual souls, incomes, or holiday traditions. It's because they're worried about loss of power and control.

Rules and traditions are comforting. They provide structure in a complex and confusing world, and structure provides stability. Stability is good for children, for families, and communities. But choosing to follow one set of rules doesn't invalidate someone else's choice to follow a different set of rules (though some rule books — like the Taliban's — need to be burned and forever banned IMHO). 

We're no longer barely-more-than-primates, running around the savannah trying to figure out why the sky keeps booming and flashing.  The majority of the world's people are not subjects of  Theocracies, Kings, and Queens, who can take away rights as frivolously as they bestow them. We can choose.

We can say, "I choose to follow this religion, this tradition, this rule-book, not because it's the only right way to live, but because it's the right way for me to live. I don't accept that it is inherently superior to all the other choices. It is just the right choice for me."

Imagine that world for a moment. Imagine the world where the people consciously chose for themselves, and denied the powers-that-be (in the modern world, often our peers) the coercive power of fear and control.

Even after I heard that Catholics were the only ones allowed in heaven, I loved the Catholic church for many years. I was able to hold in my 8-year-old brain the idea that the Catholic Church was undoubtedly wrong on that point, while choosing to love its other aspects. I could be a good Catholic in all ways — from attending Sunday mass to going to confession, to praying my rosary, to following the teachings of Christ, and still reject the notion that only Catholics could go to heaven. That rule wasn't part of being —acting — as a good Catholic. It was an extra, unnecessary suggestion thrown in for the sake of control. 

But here's what those-in-control fear most. Because I rejected the idea that I had to be Catholic to go to heaven, I was willing to question other things about the Catholic rule-book. When man-made (as opposed to Christ-given) rules about women priests, abortion, and gay marriage piled on, I was willing to walk away from a system that wasn't consistent with my  beliefs. Because I wasn't afraid that I would have to go to hell if I did.

Catholicism is just an example. Insert any cultural, religious, political, or national hegemony here, and it's the same story. Rules can have great benefits and they make things easy, but they don't inherently make us better. We can live with dichotomy. We can see both sides of the coin. And when we do this, we can also be agents of change.

For the first Christmas in my lifetime of Christmas memories, I slept past dawn. Until today, I was either a child awake at first light, rushing downstairs to look in my stocking; a parent waking to get my coffee made before the children woke; or a grandparent with grandchildren sleeping over.

After all, anyone raised in the Christian tradition (and I was, along with the Jewish tradition) knows that Christmas marks the beginning of salvation for humanity – at least for the people who believe in the child whose birth is celebrated on this day. We already know the full story; the virgin birth, the child’s intelligence and character from a young age, his charisma and leadership as a young adult, his new message about a loving God who wants us to minister to and respect one another, his willingness to die for his beliefs, and his resurrection – which saves us all.

So we celebrate his birthday as a way of celebrating the 31 years of his life and the promise fulfilled at the end of it.

But I’m sure that Mary did not feel any of that on the first Christmas. For her, the day her son was born was filled with, well, childbirth. Having a baby is certainly joyful, but only once it’s done and you know everyone is healthy. Until then, it’s frightening and painful and exhausting.

Mary was young, probably 14 or 15 years old. In the weeks leading up to Jesus’ birth, she didn’t get to stay home, plan baby names, and paint the nursery. Instead, she spent those weeks walking, far from home, with no idea where she would be if her labor began. Today, the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem takes two hours in light traffic. But in Mary’s time, it was at least a five day journey on foot. Whatever the reason for the trip (historians dispute the timing of a census demanded by Caesar Augustus), she would not have wanted to travel at that point in her pregnancy. It was a time of political and social agitation. Their ruler, Herod, heavily taxed the people, squandered their tax dollars, had an army of spies who constantly monitored them for any evidence of disloyalty, and capriciously murdered those he perceived to be a threat (including a wife and three of his own sons). Mary lived during a time of social tension, insecurity, and political theater.

Mary-the-Christian-icon had another burden to bear. She knew she was carrying a child who was meant for greatness, but that would not have given her any peace. Great men lived lives of increased risk, and were frequently murdered to remove them from the political playing field. Most mothers don’t desire for their children to be great at great risk – they desire for them to be happy and to live long, healthy lives. The purpose and path of her child’s life must have weighed terribly on her mind.

So by the time Mary went into labor, she had been walking for days, and was likely exhausted, hungry, thirsty, and dirty. She probably had little security or control over her life, and she must have been deeply worried about her child’s future. Merry-Christmas-and-let-the-gift-giving-and-feasting-begin couldn’t have been further from her mind.

Until the second half of the 20^th Century, very few of earth’s citizens had enough excess to throw a pile of gifts under a tree. Even in the 20^th Century, the Christmases of 1914, 1915, 1916, and 1917 were overshadowed by WWI. People probably were looking forward to the Christmas of 1918, but the Spanish Flu arrived and quarantined people for the Christmases of 1918 and 1919.  There were about ten good years, and then the Great Depression took away Christmas for everyone from 1929 – 1932. A few more years of recovery, then WWII made for very little to celebrate during the Christmases of 1939 – 1944.

Our notion that we have a right to big, bright, celebratory Christmases filled with cheer and holiday spirit and piles of presents is barely 80 years old. Just one lifetime.

We have all felt the drag of global pandemic, economic insecurity, and political uncertainty this year, and those feelings have been heightened when juxtaposed against a holiday that we have come to expect to be a cheerful respite, a time of largess, decorations, parties, and romance. Even my non-Christian friends are all complaining that this year just doesn’t feel like Christmas

But those are all very recent expectations of Christmas. If you put Christ back in Christmas from the Christian perspective, then it’s about the idea that God sent spiritual salvation in the form of a child. That child’s birth was the beginning of a new covenant between God and man, and the key to receiving that salvation was embracing the lessons that child would eventually teach. The birth wasn’t the point, the party, the achievement. It was just the beginning of learning a new way of being.

For those who are not Christians, there can still be meaning in this holiday. Take away the literal son-of-Godness, the prophesies of the Old Testament, the virgin birth, and the subsequent resurrection from the dead, and what do you have? A great philosopher, like Aristotle, Plato, or Socrates, who had some really interesting suggestions about what it takes to live a meaningful life.

So I’m going through a Christmas reset. Apparently, the universe doesn’t owe me the kind of comfort and security I crave. Cheer and conviviality are not a birthright. The presence of our children and grandchildren, or parents and grandparents, is not guaranteed.

What is guaranteed is that life will be hard at least as often as it is easy. Look a little deeper, and we can see that the hard times are almost always the result of selfishness and greed, failure to care about others at least as much as we care for ourselves, and unwillingness to inconvenience ourselves for the benefit of others. Sure, nature throws in her bit of bad luck in the form of hurricanes, blizzards, and pandemics. But it is our response to those things that ultimately determines how miserable – even devastating – those experiences will be.

We can save ourselves. The teachings of Jesus (messiah or philosopher – you choose) were for each of us to establish a more direct and loving relationship with God and not defer to the (possibly unwise) interpretations of those who set themselves up as intermediaries between us and God. Jesus implored us to love our neighbors, serve one another, demonstrate compassion. In his philosophy the fundamental virtues are kindness, service, and generosity. Taken as a whole, the real message of Christmas is that in a world that will often be hard, we must take it upon ourselves to make it better. For each other.

If we think about Christmas in this way, about the idea that salvation is most called for – indeed, birthed – during the dark times of need, then this Christmas may be the truest I have ever experienced.

So Merry Christmas. Now let’s go out and save each other.

A lot of people are expressing surprise at how terrible people are. They are disappointed in family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers who refuse to wear masks, or who refuse to stay in and avoid socializing, or who appear to be racists or, at the very least, unconcerned about racism (which really are the same thing, but that’s another discussion). I think all this awareness is because we are in a strange moment in time, facing many existential and identity challenges at once. Though it seems shocking to see how selfish people are, I think we’re just experiencing people outing themselves right and left as zero-sum-gamers.

I have a theory that the two kinds of selfishness and hatred we’re seeing right now are all wrapped up in the same origin. I don't know if it's correct or not, but it seems to me that there are two types of people: People who think life is a zero-sum-game, and people who don't. For people who think life is a zero-sum-game, then life is a ledger made up of a “me” column and an “everyone else” column. To zero-sum-gamers, deposits that go in the “everyone else” column require a withdrawal from their own column.

I think there have always been a lot of zero-sum-gamers (let’s call them ZSGs), but the stakes aren't usually so high, nor the results so obvious. For ZSGs, typical types of generosity have a strong component of self-interest. Giving to the church reflects on them and their reputation (and maybe buys a space in heaven). Acting like they care about others makes them more respectable. As long as none of that encroaches on their belief that they are building deposits in the "me" column, they are OK. But when it comes time to do something simply for the good of others, at the cost of their own inconvenience, they balk. They start thinking, "but how will this affect ME? What does this take away from ME?" They can’t see how putting a deposit in the "everyone else" column benefits themselves enough to make up for the discomfort or inconvenience of doing so. So they start looking for rationalizations to support their selfishness, because none of us really want to admit how selfish we are. And this is why it is SO HARD to get through to us when we act in purely self-interested ways. Because self-awareness hurts.

So instead of self-awareness, we humans go to all kinds of lengths to justify our selfish behaviors. In some cases, the level of selfishness seems so small, yet we go to Herculean efforts to defend it. Refusal to wear a mask is the most absurd, yet perfect, example. Wearing a mask makes one look funny (until it’s normalized). It is a bit uncomfortable. It requires getting used to. But look at the extremes people will go to, to defend refusal to wear a mask! Embracing wacky scientific theory that it’s bad for you (literally no science supports this), that it encroaches on individual liberty (then why wear seat belts?), that it doesn’t work (when all the science says – and always did say – that it does) are all extreme ways of defending one’s right to . . . what? Look cute? Not steam up one’s glasses? Not smear one’s lipstick? ZSG behavior isn’t necessarily rational, but it’s full of rationalizing, along with the hunt for experts to support your opinion so you can feel justified.

Of course, there are some who are casual, unthinking racists who will wear masks. There are some who won't wear masks, but support Black Lives Matter. I don't think this breaks my theory. I think it supports it, by acknowledging that self-interest is still at the core of their un-empathetic behavior. It just depends on what they're comfortable with and/or worried about. If they have a deep personal fear of Covid-19, then mask-wearing and staying at home serves their self-interest. If they are personally comfortable with people who are different than them (or if it helps their public persona to be perceived as broad-minded), then there's no discomfort in supporting BLM. But to embrace ALL the ways we need to help our fellow-man requires being the other type of person.

The other people are the ones who believe life is the opposite of a zero-sum-game. For this group of people, anything that benefits the group benefits the self. So wearing a mask may be inconvenient and slightly (so slightly) uncomfortable, but the greater good makes it worth it. Staying home may be boring and even stressful, but making personal sacrifices to increase the chances of survival for people they don't even know makes sense to this group. This group also accepts that eliminating systemic racism would improve the world for everyone. This group believes that investing tax money in health care for all means a healthier society and a healthier economy for everyone. This group believes that selfishness actually harms the self, that putting deposits in the "everyone else" column is a way of improving everyone's life, and that the individual can never be whole if the group is broken.

I don't think my theory is so radical here. All major religions and philosophies encourage us to look at life this way, to accept that the good of the group is really the good of the individual. But putting others before ourselves is hard work, and requires constant recalibration and self-awareness. It requires the ability to delay personal gratification for greater good. And it challenges us to embrace individual failure when we falter (because we all do), to laugh at our human frailties, and to pledge to do better next time.

I don’t know what the answer is to all this. I’m not even sure if my theory is correct. But it helps me to understand why I am seeing so much disappointing behavior all at one time right now. And maybe it will lead to insight about how to influence more people to consider putting deposits in the “everyone else” column, and to embrace the idea that what is good for all is ultimately what is best for me.

Dear White People,

I’m glad we’re discussing race. As the heirs & beneficiaries of the systems that limit people of color, it’s our job to end institutional racism. We must examine our attitudes, prejudices, behaviors, and fears, and understand how they contribute to stereotyping, exclusion, and violence. Yes, we need to talk.

Honestly, it should be largely a white conversation. We’re not talking to Black people – they already know more about racism than any of us could ever handle. We’re not talking for Black people. They speak eloquently and profoundly for themselves. In fact, there are several things that are happening that really, really, need to stop.

Don’t use Black icons to defend your fears and opinions. Saying, “I can’t imagine what Martin Luther King would think about this rioting;” and posting Black leaders’ or celebrities’ quotes to support your anti-BLM or anti-protesting position is wrong. And you're right - you really can't imagine.

What you're actually saying when you do this is, “See! Black people agree with me on this!” But they don’t. They really don’t. Using Black voices to promote a white perspective is a form of appropriation and an act of privilege. If you don’t understand this, read this paragraph over and over again until you do.

Don’t say, “I’m (gay, female, fat, short, etc.), so I understand.” Not the same. All discrimination is bad, and we must eliminate all of it. But it’s not all the same. The sooner we realize we don’t understand, the sooner we will begin to.

Get over the “I have Black friends/I’m not racist” false equivalence. If you do have Black friends – as in, the kind of friends who would lean on you in a crisis like family – then you wouldn’t even use this defense. Most likely, you have Black acquaintances. One can certainly be a racist while playing nice in a meeting room or at the gym.

“I don’t see color” is not a thing. Of course you do. We all see color. Our ability, as white people, to ignore color is part of our privilege. Those arrogant, angry, white McCloskeys pointing a pistol and semiautomatic at peaceful protestors in St. Louis last week are alive now because they are white. Everyone sees color.

When you defend confederate monuments, you’re not defending history. What you’re really saying is, “I don’t know why they have to be offended about glorifying racists and why I have to care.” Here is a parallel for you to consider: The devil is an important part of Christian teaching. The lessons are regularly taught, and remembered. But you won’t find monuments to Satan in Christian churches. We can teach about evil without aggrandizing it.

Don’t use any Black person — ever — to make your point. If you’re offended by looting and rioting, don’t use looted Black store owner to suggest that “his Black life didn’t matter.” You don’t get to speak for — or assume to understand — Black people who suffered losses during the riots.

We don't get to point out conflict between Black liberals and Black conservatives and say, "I guess Black conservatives' lives don't matter." This is just a cynical, appropriating way of using Black people to support being offended by Black Lives Matter. 

We don't get to suggest Black cops are hurt by Black Lives Matter. Do you even KNOW any Black cops? People in the Black Lives Matter movement (including cops — Black and white) don’t see it as “Black vs. Blue.” That’s a white construct. Stop it. It’s not real.

We don’t get to complain about how tired we are of all the stress and confusion and angst. You know who’s tired? Talk to any Black mother. She’s fucking tired. Of asking, and praying, and giving the talk, and kneeling, and watching her loved ones suffer. And go to jail. And die. All the dying. Black moms are all so tired.

If you mean well and you’re committed to change, but you've just made some rookie white ally mistakes, then OK. You can learn and do better. We all can. If I’ve offended you so far, then I have news for you. You’re not a white ally. You’re just posing as a white ally. Does this surprise or hurt your feelings? Then do better! We have lifetimes of deprogramming to do. Let's start now.

Now let’s talk about what we should do. First, we should listen to Black voices, even when it’s uncomfortable, even though it hurts. If you feel defensive, that’s human, but not useful. So let’s do the hard work, open our hearts, and hear and try to feel the pain.

We can be accountable for our reactions and feelings. Why did the protests scare you if you didn’t live anywhere near them? Why does the phrase Black Lives Matter make you squirm? What impulse makes you insist All Lives Matter when you hear Black Lives Matter? Why do you feel tense when you approach a group of young black men? Why do you wonder to yourself if the Black mom in the supermarket checkout line is about to use a WIC card (pro tip here — white families account for the vast majority of food stamps dollars in the US)? What assumptions and biases and beliefs are you clinging to that perpetuate the problem? Dig deep.

We can be brave and say something. Don’t let any small or large racist comment or action go without challenging it. If white people object to racism and racial stereotyping every time we see it or hear it, we can end it. Silence in the face of tyranny is . . . tyranny.

We can rethink what we’ve been taught and study what we don’t know. Study the Black Panthers, read the New York Times “1619 Project,” “White Fragility” by Robin Diangelo, or “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White.” Watch “13th,” “Teach Us All,” or “Malcolm X.” There's more! Explore the websites Racial Equity Tools, or Not in Our Town. Yes, do this even if you already have Black friends . . .

There’s so much more. Vote. Organize. Support. Join. Make change happen. Yes, let’s talk about racism. Let’s have a big old white conversation, informed by Black history, perspectives and voices. Let’s take responsibility for a 500-year-old problem. Let’s fix what’s broken. Let’s own it.

As people tire of social unrest, there are those who would suggest that this is a culture "war." That kneeling is somehow a form of disrespect. That broken windows are worse than a life ended. That trying to elevate one group of people somehow oppresses another group of people.

Don't let them fool you for a moment.

What is happening now is not about war. It's about LOVE. Love for our fellow humans. Love for our children and grandchildren, who deserve better than the world we've created so far. Love for the earth, which is straining from our demands.

Do you know what love is? Love is not a feeling or an emotion. Love is behavior. Love is a choice, backed by commitment. The drama of protest can be an exciting, dynamic, essential precursor to change. But for change to occur, there must be a pivot from expression to action. From emotions to practical, clear-eyed strategy. What do you choose to do next? Here are some choices to make right now:

1. Choose to vote. Yes, both foreign and domestic entities are interfering with our right to vote and our access to vote. That's why it's more important than ever that you exercise this right. Register today if you haven't already.
2. Choose to vote in every single election from now on - not just the presidential elections. Social and political change happen at the local level first. Make a pledge now to never miss an election ever again.
3. Choose to talk with all your friends and family about registering to vote. Be that person who won't stop bringing it up. These talks matter.
4. Choose to take the next best step in every election, not waiting for perfect candidates to appear. Because perfect candidates never appear. But there's always a next best step in our path to healing this country from the abomination we elected in 2016, and the excesses of greed and lack of social conscience that have been at play for decades in our political institutions.
5. Choose to get involved in one issue, action, or organization. Make calls for your local Democratic party. Join a local committee exploring redistribution of funding for social support programs. Actively monitor your own unobserved biases and make sure that you are voting for women, people of color, LGBTQ, and people of broad cultural and religious backgrounds to office, in order to make sure we achieve proper representation of all types of people in elected office. Create lists of local and industry Black/POC owned companies as a way to spread economic benefits. Drive voters to polls, or participate in efforts to make standing in line at polls less difficult (because one of the ways the opposition is trying to reduce Democratic voting is to make voting in person almost unbearable). There are so many things you can do (more suggestions welcome in comments). Choose one way to make a difference, and DO it.
6. Choose to also act with your your money. Not everyone can do this, but you probably can - a little bit goes a long way. Choose one important organization: Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU, MS Foundation for Women, Unsilence . . . there are literally thousands of under-funded, beneficiant organizations that work locally, regionally, and nationally. Pick one, and give $10 each month if that's all you have. If we all did that, we could fund major change.

There's more, but let's end with this one - perhaps the most difficult one: Choose to think deeply about the issues, your reactions to them, and your own fears. Pursue self-education, and be open to the discomfort of self-awareness. There are cynical and destructive actors, and lazy/unthinking/defensive re-actors surrounding you. You cannot allow yourself to be manipulated by the one or influenced by the other.

We have seen how easy it was for us to become a nation of thoughtless, refusing-to-care-for-our-neighbor, forgiving-of-amoral-behavior, shallow, defensive meme-throwers. Fixing it will be more difficult.

It will require an Activist Corps. It will require people committed to thinking deeply about the issues, committed to self-education, committed to participation, committed to voting, and influencing others to vote. It will require sustained, active, choice to fix it.

The protests were a way to amplify the message and command attention. But if we don't follow them with meaningful action, they were just drama. Don't stop at drama. Let's take all that energy and turn it into action.

And remember every step of the way that this is about Love. The choice to act is the choice to love.

I choose to act, because I love you all.

At the end of every project, we take time for reflection, during which we look for insights that will allow us to improve in the future. I like to do this with my life as well. I’ve never been one for New Year’s resolutions, because improvement should be a year-round endeavor. But I am a fan of year-end reflection, to review what I learned from the past year and what I can do better in the next.

To say this has been an interesting year is to invoke the Chinese curse. Now I understand better than ever why interesting isn’t always a good thing. Like about half of us (plus 3 million), I started off 2017 deeply unsettled about our president in specific and our national judgement in general. The 2016 presidential election weighed heavily on my assessments of others and my reservations regarding our collective wisdom throughout 2017. This is a filter that did not fade following the emotional aftermath of the election.

This exercise in looking back has been a good one for me. I am now able to see a few patterns and themes, many of which started long before the last presidential election cycle, and all of which I can use to make better decisions in the years to come.

Fear vs Courage

One of the biggest lessons for me from 2017 is regarding the battle of fear versus courage. My friend and mentor-from-a-distance, Suzanne Wade, calls this the battle of fear versus faith. I started off 2017 fearful, and that is not a familiar place for me. I hid from news for the last few months of 2016, and the beginning of the new year felt blighted, pessimistic. Then, on January 21, the women of the world gathered to march, wearing pink pussyhats and reclaiming respect and power, and I got my mojo back. I wasn’t marching that day – I watched the march in Chicago from a hospital window high above the park where the crowds gathered. And as I sat there with my mom, at the bedside of her husband who would die a month later, I remembered that giving in to fear and pessimism is an act of cowardice.

My 20/20 hindsight can see the myriad ways in which fear dominated 2017. There is absolutely no rationale that can justify the racist, sexist, elitist behaviors of Donald Trump. So why does approximately 30% of the country still support him? Fear. Fear of being wrong in the first place about Trump. Fear of becoming irrelevant (i.e., losing privilege they were historically able to count on). Fear of those who are different from them in looks, thoughts, and lifestyle. From ratcheting up tensions with North Korea to demonizing immigrants; from the Mueller investigation to Roy Moore, this was a year of fear-based decision-making, fear-mongering, and cowardice.

Like the Women’s March, the #MeToo movement was an act of courage. Insufficient to change the culture on its own, but a meaningful milestone. The defeat of Roy Moore was also an act of courage, but one that we will not be able to sustain unless we get behind issues that matter to Black women and families, and support Black women running for public office. In fact, every noteworthy act of courage this year was committed by women.

Lesson learned. In 2018 I will consciously, deliberately, daily, act from a place of courage and faith. I will rigorously reject fear and pessimism. And I will support other women even more energetically.

Selfishness vs Grace

I have long worried (and opined) that our culture is too selfish for its own good. I would like to have been wrong about this, but 2017 was perhaps the most selfish year on record. Not by everybody – I saw a lot of grace this year – but certainly among those in power. What is selfishness but a common form of narcissism? Just look at the word. To be “self-ish” is to be about the self more than about others. The recently passed tax legislation was the most self-ish economic move in a generation, and that is but one example of selfish behavior from those who were elected to represent the interests of the voters – the vast majority of whom struggle to reach or maintain middle class status.

But selfish also shows up throughout the populace. Those who would say “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” in response to “Black Lives Matter” are not denying that Blacks have a much harder life than the rest of us — they’re just claiming that their personal hardships are still more important. Instead of saying, “I can see how that would be terrifying to know that the color of your skin means you might die if you are pulled over for a traffic infraction or are caught running down the street,” the selfish drown out that conversation by shouting, “Well my life is hard too!! Don’t forget about me! Think about me first!” “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” are responses born out of selfishness.

Men who whine about not being able to be themselves at work anymore, for fear of being perceived as a sexual harasser, are being selfish. Instead of recognizing that somewhere around 50% of women have been abused in some way just because of gender, and that all women experience the institutionalization of preferred status for men, they demand their continued privileged status by claiming that addressing institutionalized gender bias is hurting them. Because, nobody wants their toys taken away – not even the kid who stole the toy in the first place.

Why do I feel that Grace is the opposite of selfishness? Because “self-less-ness” isn’t quite on the mark. I think it’s beautiful, in a Mother Theresa sort of way, but I don’t think “self-less-ness” gets us to the cultural change we need.

But Grace. Grace is about giving assistance without expectation of something in return, other than the common good. Grace is about kindness, and acting out of a sense of rightness. Grace is about recognizing that sometimes, we have something that we did not earn, and that we should be grateful for it while also ensuring that others can share in it as well. Thoughtfulness, openness to the experiences of others, and a desire for equality are all characteristics of grace. The person with grace is capable of thinking, “It’s not my turn right now. It’s been my turn in the past, and maybe it will be my turn again in the future, but in this moment, it’s not my turn.”

More grace in 2018. That’s a good plan.

Growth vs Decay

I saw this issue played out at the national level this year, but I also observed it at the industry and personal levels. We often credit the statement if you’re not growing you’re dying to Lou Holz, but the principle has been around for thousands of years. From ancient philosophers to the Bible, wise humans have long advised us to keep growing or risk decay.

Fossil fuel companies are driving bad policy related to environmental rollbacks and disruption. Why? Because they aren’t working hard enough to figure out what’s next. Although everybody knows fossil fuel sources will run out and that extracting them hurts the environment — and often, the laborers who do the work — these companies cling to their current economic models, and as a result they decay from within, affecting everything from their morality to their economic sustainability.

Small business owners are discovering that they can either grow or go out of business. To be successful, a business owner must either embrace a future of continuous reinvention or die a slow (and sometimes, not so slow) death.

And at the heart of all this decay is people. Going back to the election last year, I’ve wondered time and time again, when did people stop thinking? Why don’t people seek facts, rather than reinforcement? Why do they willingly support behaviors that any broadly accepted moral code, and even their own religious practice, tells them is wrong? The most vital place to address the growth vs decay issue is not at the corporate or community level – it’s the self.

The self doesn’t naturally grow – it requires intention and effort. Decay can happen by accident. When I moved to Wisconsin nearly 10 years ago, and stopped my every day running around a 186,000 square foot building, my body paid the price of inertia. Later, I realized my own thoughts weren’t very interesting, as I was filling my downtime by reading news on my smart phone, instead of reading literature or more philosophical works. I was thinking entirely in current events, which isn’t really thinking at all. And one night several years ago, when I started to sing to my new grandson, I realized I could barely squeak out a song because it had been so long since I used my instrument. Music had been my life until my 30s, and somehow I had forgotten to sing for several years.

How many of us are running around not thinking, not learning, not practicing? That is where decay begins, and though it seems small, it results in massive tragedies, like the Fall of Rome, both World Wars, the Great Chinese Famine, the rise of fanatical fundamentalism, and the election of people like Donald Trump.

When I was in junior high, I became obsessed with The Interior Castle, written by St. Theresa of Avila. It was my introduction to the idea that an interior life was essential to a life well-lived. As an adult I have re-read the book many times, each time becoming more aware of how easy it is to let one’s interior life atrophy, and reinforcing my understanding that growth begins inside. 2017 reminded me of the importance of commitment to conscious growth, even when it seems exhausting, because the opposite is untenable. Plus, I need to get my weight down and my vocal range back.

Apathy vs Love

My dad likes to quote Elie Wiesel’s statement that the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. It’s a potent motivator on those days when you just don’t have the energy to face the issues. Lately, I’ve been hearing people say, “I’m just so tired of caring so much. It’s exhausting.” But a life without convictions and passions is a life not lived (see above; growth vs decay).

A dear friend, now departed, once admonished me for being so political on social media. She was genuinely concerned that I would drive potential clients away because of my politics. I gave her concerns serious consideration, because I respected and trusted her. But ultimately, I continued sharing the things that matter to me, business-be-damned. Why? Because if I have to hide my beliefs to make money, then I’ve fallen on the side of apathy (and fear, and selfishness, and decay).

Perhaps more than any other shortcoming, apathy defines our current society. Unless an issue has direct and immediate impact on one’s self, home or paycheck, a plurality of people appears willing to ignore important topics that ultimately will affect them.

Of course, the hard part of committing to a life of love is that it must be applied to everyone. Just spend one day trying to see the face of God in everyone you meet, online or in person, and it’s clear that love is a radical sport.

Now, I don’t see love as a Pollyanna-ish thing. To me, good love, substantial love, readily coexists with argument, disagreement, and directness. Truth is often brutal, but it’s still love. I don’t think love has to come with sugar-coating or baby-talk. I don’t think we need to sell it when we love.

People who never talk about hard things, who don’t tell one another important truths, who don’t call out bullshit when they hear it, they’re not being kind to each other — they’re being apathetic. It’s much easier to get along superficially. Teflon isn’t love, it’s a poison.

From Reflection to Action

The more I think about 2017, the more I realize the state we are in now (for those of us who worry that we are in a state), is due to failures at the level of the individual. When we cruise through our lives excessively concerned with our selves, preserving our energy at the expense of the common good, gorging on gossip, drama, and near-news instead of thinking and learning, looking for approval and — even more insidious — approbation, we end up where we are now.  So, what did I learn from this review of 2017?

• To cultivate Courage, because facing things head on leads to positive change.
• To practice Grace, because people who live in communities must consider the wellbeing of the community.
• To commit to personal Growth as if it is a workout that must make you sweat to be worth it.
• To act out of Love, knowing that real love is neither passive nor easy.

I also know that I must attach these principles to every layer of my life. It’s not enough to Love at home, be Courageous at work, and practice Grace at when doing something charitable. I have to Love my community, commit to Growth at home, be Courageous online, and practice Grace at work.

2017 was a pretty tough year. But we arrived at this difficult time after years — maybe decades — of personal choices. So I’ve decided to own it, and invite others to join me. I won’t make bets on how fast we will change things, but I know that we can. And 2018 is as good a time as any to start.

##

We are who we lead. If the Republican Party doesn't want to be considered the party of racism, anti-Semitism, misogyny, and bigotry, it must stop catering to those who embrace those values.

I have opinions about social policies and politics; opinions that I work hard to inform with fact and data. I consider myself to be informed about these things, but not an expert.

When it comes to leadership, however, I am an expert. I have spent 30 years studying leadership; assessing, improving and refining my own leadership skills; cultivating leadership skills among my employees; and advising companies and individuals on the growth of their leadership talent.

When business owners call on me to solve a sticky problem, they are rarely asking me to help them fix their leadership style. Yet leadership problems are often at the heart of business deficiencies. When I discover that to be the case, one of the first questions I ask people to consider is, “Who is choosing to follow you?”

This can be a tricky question. The fact that you are the boss means that most employees will do what you want most of the time. That’s called obedience, or respect for the chain-of-command, which is very different from making a conscious choice to follow. So how do you know if someone is following you versus simply obeying you? You know because of the energy, enthusiasm, and accountability that people bring to their work. You see, one of the most important things leaders do is to inspire others to join them in pursuit of a shared goal. Leaders ignite the small fires of passion that turn into shared accountability and motivation. Really strong leaders inspire that devotion not to themselves, but to a cause or to an organization.

It is not possible to make someone follow you. You can make someone obey you, if you have the right leverage – like a paycheck. This is why the first measure of a leader is not in what they do, but in the quality and the actions of those who choose to follow them

So I ask the question, “Who follows you?” If nobody follows you, if you are surrounded by people who do the minimum necessary to succeed, if your employees do not step up to the level of motivation or contribution you want from them, then you are functioning as a boss, not as a leader. This is a scenario I regularly encounter. On occasion however, I encounter a slightly darker reality. I see a boss who does have some followers, but when I assess the character, behavior, and motivations of the people who choose to follow them, I question the ethics, the kindness, or the integrity of those followers. Which makes me question the leader.

We are who we lead.

We draw to us the people attracted to what we represent. The people who choose to follow us choose to do so because they see in us a useful path to an outcome that is meaningful to them. We can see this at the simplest levels of human organization; for example, in a high school cafeteria. Each group of students will have a natural leader. That leader may be vocal or quiet, may or may not be conscious of their influence as a leader, may or may not be particularly interested in having followers. Because followers choose leaders, not vice versa. The angriest child in the school is just as likely to have a following as the class president or star football player is likely to have a following.

One trait shared among great leaders is a commitment to introspection. Having followers is very ego-boosting, even to those who are not particularly ego-driven. Great leaders ask the question, "what is it that I am projecting that draws people to me? Is it noble, is it worthy, is it something that will benefit others?" When great leaders see undesirable traits or behaviors emerging among their followers, they look to themselves first to see how their own behaviors and choices contributed to their followers believing that those things were okay. Are there leaders who effectively lead followers to terrible ends? Sure there are. Caligula, Stalin, Hitler, and Hugo Chavez were all powerful leaders. But we won't refer to them as "great," because terrible is never great.

So you can judge leaders by the qualities and behaviors of their followers. I teach this every day in business. I help business owners understand that they must transform themselves into effective leaders if they want to inspire motivation beyond simply collecting a paycheck. I help business owners and managers recognize when it is their own leadership contributing to dysfuntion within the organization.

We are who we lead.

And it is for these reasons that I am comfortable with stating that the Republican Party is the party of racism. This shouldn’t be too surprising, since the modern Republican Party was largely formed based on racism. Today’s Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. It is the party of what came after. The party of Jim Crow, the party of segregated schools, the party of white flight. And this shows up very clearly in its followers, from indifferent whites who choose not to reflect on how racism affects our country, to closet racists who use coded language when expressing their racism, to white supremacy groups who don’t even bother to hide it. It’s not that there are no racists who are also Democrats. It’s that the Democratic Party refuses to cater to them. There are no skinheads rallying for Democratic Party candidates.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party has become the party of anti-Semitism. It’s not even relevant that Donald Trump has Jewish grandchildren. What matters is that a noteworthy subset of Donald Trump’s followers are anti-Semitic, or simply don’t care if there are anti-Semites among them. It matters that Trump refused to even mention Jews on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and the Republican Party was noticeably silent about it. Remember, the leader doesn’t choose the followers, the followers choose the leader based on something the leader is projecting that inspires them to follow. So clearly, something inspires anti-Semitism. And why do I lay this responsibility for anti-Semitism at the feet of the Republican Party, and not simply at the feet of Donald Trump? Because the party can do something about this, and they have chosen not to. Are there anti-Semites among the Democratic Party followers? Unfortunately, yes there are. But when anti-Semitism rears its ugly head in the Democratic Party, the party is pretty effective at policing itself.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party is the party of misogyny. Step away from the abortion issue for a moment. For one-issue voters, this is often the one issue that matters.

Instead, look at the ardent followers of the Republican Party who believe that there is such a thing as legitimate rape versus illegitimate rape, who push bills that refer to women as merely hosts of new life, repeatedly reject legislation that supports equal pay for women, who call out the Girl Scouts as a radical organization because they encourage young women to be informed and independent, and who  work diligently to defund Planned Parenthood, the primary provider of health care to women who live under the poverty level (the vast majority of Planned Parenthood services are not abortion-related). This is a tricky issue, because undoubtedly there was a measure of misogyny at the heart of people who would otherwise have voted Democratic in the last election. So while the Democratic Party does not put forth the kind of legislation – or rhetoric – that is anti-women, it is in a fight for its soul after the recent election. I’ll be watching closely to see how the party proceeds from here. It’s recent support for women’s marches across the country tells us the Democratic Party embraces its role as a force for women's rights.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party promotes selfishness. A large percentage of their followers detest regulation, social services, higher minimum wages, and more equal distribution of wealth, while supporting tax breaks for the wealthy. The Republican Party is allowing the current president to reap enormous personal financial gains as a benefit of holding that office. That they have not stepped in to stop this activity speaks volumes. Trump’s historically low approval ratings demonstrate that any approval he does enjoy comes almost entirely from the Republican Party faithful. Do Democrats abuse power? Definitely. Abuse of power tends to be a human problem more than a party problem. But at all levels of the Republican Party membership, the overwhelming message is Me! Me! Me!.

We are who we lead.

The Republican Party is anti-gay. Nearly all opposition to equal rights or equal marriage for LGBTQ citizens comes from the Republican Party membership. And all contemporary legislation designed to discriminate against LGBTQ citizens comes from the Republican Party. In contrast, support for the LGBTQ citizenry is built into the Democratic Party platform, and it is one of the elements that draws followers to the party.

None of the issues I’ve mentioned here may bother you. It’s entirely possible that you were uncomfortable with a Black man being president, that you think the Jews make too much noise about the holocaust, that your own cultural forbears were slaves at some point in history, that you hate paying taxes for people on welfare, that you think women don’t need equal pay legislation, that you believe trickle-down economics works, that you believe raising the minimum wage will damage the economy, or that you think regulation is terrible for business. I don’t intend to argue the merit of any of these points with you.

All I am saying is, that if those are your beliefs, then you are more than likely Republican.

And we are who we lead.

People are resentful that radical jihadi terrorism has caused us all to live in a Code Orange world. Women have been living in a Code Orange world for a long time. Sometimes you figure it out when you’re really young, and you carry that wariness and those high cortisol levels around with you for the rest of your life. Other times, you don’t realize you live in a Code Orange world until your boyfriend beats and rapes you over buying the wrong kind of beer, or a stranger yanks you into the bushes on your college campus. But eventually, most women come to realize that we live in a Code Orange world.

One out of every 5 American women will be raped in her lifetime.

One in 4 girls and one in 6 boys will be sexually abused before they turn 18 years old.

It’s hard to come up with clear statistics for sexual assault, because in some states the assault statistics are included with the rape statistics, and in many other states they are not. Additionally, a very large percentage of sexual violence goes unreportedWhat we do know, is that somewhere between 35% and 60% of American women will experience some type of sexual assault in their lifetime.

This means that you most definitely know a woman who has been raped or experienced some form of sexual violence.

This is why “locker room” talk (whatever that is) is not acceptable. Ever. When people banter about sexual violence toward women, they reduce the gravity of it to something the level of a joke. Rape is never a joke. Getting your body groped as if you were an item on a grocery shelf is not a joke. Going through years of therapy so you can actually feel as relaxed as you try to look when you go to work or walk outside your house is not a joke.

Want me to lighten up about this? Oh, hell no. Not until you’ve experienced that sexual assault in my shoes. Not until you’ve walked into a crowd of people, quieted the monkey voice in your head, and counted off each woman you see as follows:

Raped.  Assaulted.  Assaulted.  Not assaulted.  Not assaulted.

Raped.  Assaulted.  Assaulted.  Not assaulted.  Not assaulted.

Raped.  Assaulted.  Assaulted.  Not assaulted.  Not assaulted.

Maybe then, when you leave that crowd and all its tragically violated women behind you, you’ll know that locker room talk isn’t a thing. It’s just another form of violent foreplay.

And now, for something completely serious . . .

Yesterday I shared the following post on Facebook:

“I just read that there is not one Republican candidate for the 2016 presidential election who accepts the theory of evolution. How can this be true? This is the worst thing I read all day.”

This statement elicited a number of responses, one of which was this:

“I don’t know what the Republican candidates actually believe when it comes to their views on evolution, nor do I know what the Democrats believe. I don’t really care that much about what they believe as far as evolution is concerned. I am more interested in immigration, economy, healthcare, infrastructure, environment, and foreign policy.”

Three Reasons Why Belief in Evolution Matters

So here, in three points, is why what our candidates believe about evolution matters.

Science is Key to our Future Prosperity

Let’s start with a basic premise. “An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.” (Delgado, 2006). Furthermore, “Serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent.” (Rennie, 2002)

People who reject evolution rely on a few primary arguments to advance their cause. I won’t try to address these arguments here – there are many people far more qualified than me who have done so already. I suggest reading these two reasonably brief online resources:

Rennie, J. (2002, June 17). 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense. Retrieved from Scientific American : http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

Delgado, C. (2006, July 28). Finding Evolution in Medicine. Retrieved from National Institutes of Health: http://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm 

If you are a person who doubts evolution, and if you just read the two references above, then you may now understand something very important: In order for a person to reject evolution, they must have a weak or nonexistent understanding of science and the scientific process. If a person understands science, they can instantly see the logic failures in the arguments against evolution.

Science isn’t just a class you were required to take in high school, breathing a sigh of relief that you didn’t flunk. Nor is it simply a lab experiment to test a chemical or electrical reaction. One of the failings of science teaching in the United States as that we teach science as an activity or a series of projects, and not as a way of thinking. And more than anything else, science is a way of thinking.

Unfortunately, this has led to America ranking close to last in math and science (math is also a way of thinking rather than a ream of worksheets) among industrialized countries. International comparisons put the United States at the bottom of rankings for math (21 out of 23) and science (17 out of 19). And the majority of graduate students studying science and technology in the United States are from China and Korea.

At the same time, the Texas GOP 2012 platform includes an element that seeks to remove any curriculum that promotes critical thinking (which is a principle of scientific thought) among students, out of the expressed fear that students should never be taught to question things their parents teach them.

I will cede that international tests are not the only indicator of national success, but there is no doubt that technology and science will be the basis for nearly all economic and social innovation in the foreseeable future. To have a President of the United States who does not believe in evolution, effectively rejecting a key tenet of scientific thought that is agreed upon by 99.9% of scientists worldwide, means that we risk not having the foresight and the leadership in the White House required to help our country stay in a global leadership role.

Critical Thinking Skills Must be a Minimum Standard for Presidential Candidates

“The world is swiftly changing. With each passing day, the pace of life and change quickens. The pressure to respond intensifies. New global realities are rapidly working their way into the deepest structures of our lives: economic, social, cultural, political, and environmental realities – realities with profound implications for thinking and learning, business and politics, human rights, human conflicts. These realities are becoming increasingly complex; many represent significant dangers and threats. And they all turn on the powerful dynamic of accelerating change.” (Richard Paul and Linda Elder, “Critical Thinking").

In order to lead in this world of change, our leaders must be able to wrap their minds around all the angles of many issues, succeed at understanding problems outside their own cultural context, and find ways to communicate with other leaders whose social, political, and cultural view of the world are dramatically different from their own. To do this requires the highest quality thinking, thinking skills that have been honed over many years by challenging what they believe, examining their own assumptions, and pursuing depth of understanding in addition to breadth of understanding. Our next President must have profound critical thinking skills.

"Critical thinking consists of seeing both sides of an issue, being open to new evidence that disconfirms your ideas, reasoning dispassionately, demanding that claims be backed by evidence, deducing and inferring conclusions from available facts, solving problems, and so forth.” Daniel T Willingham

A President who rejects evolution for reasons that cannot be supported by objective, critical thinking strongly suggests that he (or she) is a person who does not value critical thinking. This person cannot be trusted in such an important leadership role in such a complex world.

Honesty Shouldn't Be an Afterthought

Some people have suggested that many of the 2016 GOP candidates actually do believe in evolution, but they are unwilling to say so because they fear the extreme right wing of the Republican Party. 

Of course, we’re not accustomed to much forthrightness from our politicians. But when Americans are polled, we talk about how we want to change Washington and the political mess it has become. So if some or all of the GOP candidates are lying about what they believe before the primary is even over, we certainly are not getting the change we say we want. At the very least we could count on these non-believers to continue to support policies cherished by the far right wing but at odds with the needs of much of the rest of society. As my friend (John P. Jackson, Jr., PhD; University of Colorado at Boulder)) stated, “It doesn't matter if they "really believe" it or not. What matters is their actions and the kinds of policies they enact.”

Perhaps individual Americans have the luxury of engaging in low-quality thinking (and I just say perhaps – I don’t personally believe that to be true). But our leaders, particularly our President and the leadership at the highest level of this country do not have that luxury; we cannot grant them that luxury. Our future depends on electing leaders who are skilled in the act of thinking.

So these are three very big reasons to care about whether or not the people seeking our vote believe in evolution. Because science itself matters. Because critical thinking – the basis of the entire scientific process – matters. And because telling the truth matters.