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@tikkun.org
A Tribute to My Teachers
16 years ago
