Election 2016 — How Do We Respond?

Part I

by Thomas Neilson

Make the lie big, make it simple, and keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

— Adolph Hitler

We’re about to enter, or may have already entered, an era of corrupt governance unprecedented in U.S. history. What does it mean?

— Paul Krugman, on Twitter

I can’t run no more, With that lawless crowd, While the killers in high places, Say their prayers out loud. But they’ve summoned, they’ve summoned up a thundercloud, And they’re going to hear from me.

— Leonard Cohen

The 2016 presidential election is over and Donald J. Trump has unexpectedly won the presidency. We will soon have a president who makes blatant racist and misogynistic comments, who makes fun of the disabled, who cares nothing about civil discourse, and who completely lacks experience in government. His well-known positions on serious issues are absurd and dangerous — to name a few, he wants to deport 2–3 million Mexicans, build a wall with Mexico, and dismisses man-made climate change as a “hoax” perpetrated by China. He uses dishonesty and deception on a daily basis and on a scale never before seen in a candidate from a major political party in the United States. Trump is already filling his cabinet with extremists and even blatantly racist advisors. The situation in the United States is grave.

Even though Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, Trump’s support among voters was shockingly strong, and more than enough to win the Electoral College. What are we to make of this? How can we make sense of the election of someone so profoundly unsuited for any public office, particularly the presidency? How could there be so much prejudice in the American electorate?

The very real possibility that our president-elect will bring malignant narcissism — evil — to his position as President of the United States and leader of the free world is deeply disturbing. Comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany may be premature — and then again, maybe they aren’t.

Speaking personally, the most worrisome part of this election has been Donald Trump himself. The media has accurately portrayed Trump’s narcissism and sociopathy; his behavior shows overwhelming evidence of both. His orientation toward vengeance and his frequent lying may be the most worrisome of these traits. This combination of narcissism and sociopathy together is known as “malignant narcissism,” and it is the most severe and untreatable form of narcissism. M. Scott Peck’s book, People of the Lie, is based on the idea that evil is a real force in the world, and that evil can be defined as malignant narcissism. I am not going to try to diagnose Donald Trump, which would be inappropriate, but I do believe that it would be dangerous to ignore the blatant manifestations of narcissism and sociopathy in his behavior. The very real possibility that our president-elect will bring malignant narcissism — evil — to his position as President of the United States and leader of the free world disturbs me like nothing else ever has. Comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany may be premature — and then again, maybe they aren’t.

We are already seeing alarming real-life consequences of the election. There is talk among the incoming administration of making all Muslims register with the government, an action that would be reminiscent of the many laws that Nazi Germany passed against Jews. We are hearing stories of increased racial violence across the country. Several mosques in California have received a letter that praised Donald Trump, called Muslims “a vile and filthy people,” and threatened genocide. At a high school in Minnesota, racist-slurs and pro-Trump slogans were found scrawled on a door. An emboldened Klu Klux Klan made plans to march in Raleigh, NC on Thanksgiving Day. We are seeing increased racial violence locally in Nashville, Tennessee as well: after the election, someone carved a swastika in the door of a large, local Methodist church. I have heard numerous smaller stories of election-related aggression locally. One client of mine (who gave me permission to tell this story) was waiting in line at a convenience store behind an African-American woman a few days after the election. A man entered the store, picked up an item, and stepped in line in front of the African-American woman. When my client said something to him about his behavior, he replied that if she continued to act like this, “they” would come and get her. In another instance, a Muslim woman in nearby Murfreesboro was threatened by a group of three men, and only saved at the last minute by a heroic Uber driver. These are only a few of the many stories of racial and ethnic abuse that have occurred since Trump was elected. Trump’s election seems to have emboldened the worst in people; it seems to be feeding hatred, racist anger, sexist anger, and the shadow side of human nature.

This has been a very difficult time for me. I am scared about darkness in the presidency of the United States itself. I hurt for all the immigrants who came to the U.S. the only way they could, in order to seek the American dream, who now face the loss of everything they have worked for. My heart hurts for women who now find themselves in a world where misogyny and sexism are becoming the norm. I worry for all of us as the country begins to turn back the humane and decent policies of the last few years and ignore desperate situations like our climate change crisis. I have had trouble sleeping at night, waking with anxiety, finding it difficult to breathe. In my work as a psychotherapist, it has been difficult at times to sit with the overwhelming pain, grief, and anger of many of my clients. It has been my privilege to work with these good people, and it has also at times stretched me beyond my comfort zone. Since the election, I have been at times filled with great anger, some of which feels constructive (the urge to resist and speak the truth to power), and some of which does not (the urge to break something). I have felt tremendous grief for the serious wounding our country and our people have experienced. I am concerned for our future. The following words are my attempt to make better sense of this situation, and find some decent way to move forward. In the following pages I will discuss how we might respond wisely and forcefully to malignant narcissism in our government, and how we might deal with our own personal reactions to it. In Part II of this essay, I will discuss Spiral Dynamics, a larger psychological and sociological perspective that may help us make greater sense of politics, the election and how we might respond to it.

Political Activism from the Heart

As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever.

— Clarence Darrow

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive our hate; only love can do that.

— Martin Luther King, Jr.

Anybody can become angry — that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose — that is not within everybody’s power and is not easy.

— Aristotle

I believe we must respond to Trump’s election immediately. There is no time to waste; Trump’s agenda of racism, misogyny, and hatred is already having negative effects on minorities, women, and the entire country. Climate change has reached a crisis point and we cannot afford more delay in taking action. I believe that it is time to begin protesting, time to write letters to our elected representatives and to our newspapers and Internet news sources, time to do whatever we can by legal means to express our alarm over the impending presidency of Donald J. Trump. I plan to begin this process by attending the Women’s March on Washington the day after Trump’s inauguration, to support women and express my deep concern about the election of Donald J. Trump. This protest will only be the beginning of my resistance to the presidency of Donald Trump.

It is possible that Donald Trump will govern differently than he campaigned, and it is important to stay open to this possibility. If his approach to government turns out to be open, respectful of diversity, moderate, and fair, then he will have some support from me. But he will have to demonstrate such an approach first, and I don’t expect that to happen. His approach to campaigning, his public statements, and now his choice of advisors and cabinet members strongly suggests more of the same divisiveness is coming.

Nonviolent resistance is more complex than it may seem at first. Usually, our first impulse is to respond to aggression with more aggression.

Protests will be one of the most important ways to respond to Mr. Trump, and it will be important for the protests to be as nonviolent as possible. Responding to violence with violence is simply more of the same; it will perpetuate the violence that Trump has stirred up. Violent protest also flies in the face of Martin Luther King’s accurate observation that hate cannot drive out hate. However, it is inevitable that some protesters, being human, will act out their anger violently. This is unfortunate, because this violence will only feed the existing violence in our political atmosphere. In addition, violent responses will give the Trump administration the chance to play the “law and order card” against those who are rightly protesting. (In advocating non-violent resistance, I am not referring to Nonviolent Communication or NVC, which is a specific approach to speaking in a nonviolent fashion. NVC is a valuable tool that is useful in many situations, but in my opinion the rules of NVC can sometimes undermine a strong and assertive response to aggression).

There is an important and little understood distinction in emotional life: the difference between reactivity and affectability. In affectability, the open heart allows itself to be impacted by its world. Reactivity, on the other hand, is a defensive and egocentric response to the impact of the world. When we are reactive, we take things personally and respond reflexively and unhelpfully, often with aggression.

Nonviolent resistance is more complex than it may seem at first. Usually, our first impulse is to respond to aggression with more aggression; this is problematic, but it is a natural and human response. Our emotionally-charged reactions are complex and powerful; we often don’t understand them in the heat of the moment and they have a driven quality that can lead us to act in ways we later regret. Because of this, it is important to discern which of our emotional reactions are wholesome and helpful, and which are not. For example, self-righteous anger is anger that is smugly moralistic and intolerant of others’ opinions; it devalues the opinions of others and can encourage violence. It is neither wholesome nor helpful. Envy is another example of an emotion that is not constructive — it involves coveting what others have, and can leads to betrayal or larceny. It is important to discern the difference between these unwholesome emotions and our more nourishing and honorable emotions, like compassion and gratitude, through which we embody what is best in humanity. Mindfulness, with its emphasis on witnessing the workings of the human mind, can be helpful in bringing clarity to our emotional lives.

In this spirit, I would like to discuss an important and little understood distinction in emotional life: the difference between reactivity and affectability. This distinction can be useful in sorting out our emotions and choosing which emotions are nourishing and helpful, and which are not. We can then choose which emotional responses we want to nurture. Affectability refers to a state of openness in which we allow the world to affect us. In affectability, the open heart allows itself to be impacted by its world. From this place, we are likely to experience grief, compassion, and pain in reaction to others’ pain. We may feel anger when we see abuse and injustice in the world, but it is a constructive anger that moves us to help. Affectability is not egocentric; our responses are not exclusively or even primarily about us. Affectability, in its complete form, is the pure response of the loving and intelligent heart/mind. Here is a hypothetical example of affectability: you see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab being harassed by a group of men, and feel grief, compassion, and anger. You step in to help her get out of a dangerous situation. Or you are harassed and find yourself in danger, you feel your vulnerability in the moment, and you take action to get out of the situation. Perhaps you call the police on your mobile phone, perhaps you retreat, or, if necessary, perhaps you protect yourself with physical force. In these examples, affectability leads to taking appropriate and compassionate action; there is no lashing out for retribution. Sometimes physical violence is an appropriate part of action guided by affectability, but only in self-defense or in the defense of others. Reactivity, on the other hand, is a defensive and egocentric response to the impact of the world. When we are reactive, we take things personally and respond reflexively and unhelpfully, often with aggression. For example, someone insults you and you lash back with insults or with your fists. Or you feel danger, real or not, and react reflexively with panic and frantic attempts at escape or with aggression at the source of the perceived danger (and aggression that is not simply self-defense or the defense of others). When we feel a lower level of danger and have no immediate recourse for self-protection, we may engage in other forms of reactivity, such as obsessive worrying. For example, you may respond to a diagnosis of a significant but treatable illness with rumination and catastrophic thinking, which serves no productive purpose and only serves to exaggerate your concerns and cause more anxiety. Worrying is a subtle type of reactivity, but it can lead to much avoidable suffering: as Mark Twain said, I’ve lived through some terrible things in my life, some of which actually happened.

To give an extreme example of the difference between reactivity and affectability: imagine learning that your spouse has been badly hurt in an accident with a drunk driver. Would you rather experience the intense rage and despair of reactivity, or the grief and steely yet compassionate anger of the affectable heart? The latter option is appealing to me, and I have spent much of my adult life trying to take the path of affectability. However, it can be a difficult path; I still work with my own reactivity on a daily basis. Sometimes the path of the open and undefended heart is more painful than we can bear in the moment. One of the reasons we become reactive is that it seems to bring relief from the overwhelming pain of the open heart. Angry reactivity often includes a sense of satisfaction that feels good; despair involves giving up and seeking refuge from engagement with a challenging world, worry often stems from the unconscious superstition that we will somehow control our problems by thinking about them constantly. Reactivity can bring relief in the moment, but it is relief based on illusion and in the long run reactivity creates more pain and conflict.

Some might object to what I’ve written, saying that I am being too rational and that I am intellectualizing at the expense of valuable emotion. One version of this perspective glorifies self-righteous anger and sees it as a necessary motivating force to address injustice in the world. However, affectability isn’t merely “being rational”; it involves deep feeling. Affectability without reactivity (or with less reactivity) isn’t mere rationality; it is maturity. Becoming less reactive is one way of participating in the world in a more adult fashion, and can be a powerful force for responding to injustice in the world. I would like to emphasize that it’s not my intention to moralize against reactivity. Reactivity is human, we are all reactive at times, and we will be until we are very, very mature. I find myself reactive at times, and continue to practice with it. My point is simply that reactivity causes suffering and conflict, and it is possible to be much less reactive.

Our political world, unfortunately, is rife with reactivity. Both sides of the political spectrum are to some extent caught up in self-righteous anger, reactive fear, and despair. In the last month, I’ve witnessed more of this reactivity in myself; writing this essay has helped me see my own reactivity more clearly, and it has helped me begin to respond to the election in a more mature fashion. It has helped me realize that nurturing the more adult perspective in myself is going to take commitment and personal work over the long haul.

One blatant example of the overwhelming reactivity in the political sphere is the name calling and threats that have become so prominent: calling one’s political opponents “baby killers,” “Neanderthals,” “unpatriotic,” “treasonous,” “stupid,” “libtards,” and “a basket of deplorables,” and calling for the arrest of members of the other political party. Both sides of the political fence can be reactive, and the reactivity tends to be amplified these days by each side’s echo chamber of Fox News, MSNBC, and various partisan web sites. However, I believe that the far right has deliberately made an art of feeding and encouraging reactivity for its own political benefit. This has benefitted the far right; self-righteous anger has fed the Tea Party and the success of Donald Trump — and it is terribly irresponsible and harmful to our country. Rush Limbaugh is a good example; he has made a career of stoking reactivity and encouraging the worst in human nature. I will let a few of his many offensive and reactive quotes speak for him. Please note that the reactivity is accompanied by significant racism and misogyny.

A Few Rush Limbaugh Quotes:

Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women access to the mainstream of society.

Let the unskilled jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do — let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work.

A feminazi is a woman to whom the most important thing in life is seeing to it that as many abortions as possible are performed.

From this day forward, somebody propose it, liberals should not be allowed to buy guns.

Some people are born to be slaves.

Holocaust? Ninety million Indians? Only four million left? They all have casinos — what’s to complain about?

Rush Limbaugh and his fellow extremists like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Rudy Guiliani, Michael Savage, and all of conservative talk radio have been building up their extreme version of conservatism by stoking reactivity, and in the process they have been poisoning the country. (In contrast, mainstream conservatives like David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and the late William F. Buckley seem to be no more inclined to reactivity than the rest of us). These extremists have a right to free speech and therefore a right to say what they want, but they are doing enormous damage to the country and the world. It is worth repeating; they are encouraging the worst in human nature. It goes without saying that Donald Trump has also been doing the same thing; in fact, Trump’s success is partly due to his skill at feeding the public’s reactivity.

What do we do about this? How can we respond? First we need to work with our own reactivity. Becoming less reactive is absolutely necessary in responding to the reactivity in the political world. The world becomes a kinder, wiser, and more responsive place when we are less reactive. We become kinder, more responsible, and wiser people when we are less reactive. Al Franken’s 1996 book, Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations is an example of responding to reactivity with more reactivity. I don’t mean to pick on Al Franken; he’s an intelligent man who has made important contributions as a U.S. Senator, but the title of his book is a classic example of what not to do.

So how do we become less reactive? There are several suggestions I can make.

1. It is important to be able to see our own reactivity. There isn’t much we can do about our reactivity if we aren’t aware of it. I hope that what I’ve written above will help you see your own reactivity. Look out for righteous anger, despair, panic, and the desire to lash out. It can also be helpful to ask a wise friend or family member when you think you might be responding reactively.

2. If you feel an urge to act out reactively — don’t do it. Try your best not to act out. Take a “sacred pause,” as described by Tara Brach, before acting. In other words, if you can, stop and take some time — perhaps a few days — before responding.

3. Try to fully feel the impulse to act, without acting on it and without feeding it with rumination. If you are being reactive, the impulse will likely lose much of its power if you feel it in this way and wait. If it isn’t reactivity, the feelings probably won’t fade. If it is too difficult to feel the impulse and not act on it, look for healthy distractions. Do something you enjoy, spend time with your loved ones, work out if you enjoy exercise.

4. Do practices to nurture an open heart. Buddhist Metta (lovingkindness) or Karuna (compassion) meditation can be helpful, whether you are Buddhist or not. Christian Centering Prayer can be invaluable, whether you are Christian or not. Reading the compassionate poetry of Rumi can be helpful, whether you are Muslim or not. All of the major religions have practices that facilitate an open heart.

5. Can you bring compassion to your own reactivity? Compassion is a powerful force for healing and personal growth. Having compassion for yourself and your reactivity can help you be less reactive. Remember, your reactivity is human and it isn’t “wrong.” In fact, reactivity usually serves to bring some respite, however imperfect, from the pain of an open heart.

6. Give yourself time to learn to bear the pain of having an open heart in a world that contains so much suffering. It takes time to develop this capacity; it can be developed and refined over an entire lifetime. The greater our capacity to bear the pain that an affectable heart can experience, the less likely we are to be reactive.

7. Last but not least, try practicing Mindfulness meditation. This practice has its roots in Buddhism, but it has become popular in the psychotherapy field in recent years. Many people have found Mindfulness meditation helpful. Everything I’ve written in 1–6 above is an aspect of the Mindfulness tradition.

You may wonder why I suggest we turn away from reactivity, with its recent success electing Trump and bringing the Tea Party to power. Why would affectability have any chance of rising up and overtaking reactivity? Reactivity’s self-righteous sensationalism and drama certainly are compelling for many people. At the same time, there are several reasons for us to nurture affectability instead. First, as I wrote previously, responding to the reactivity of the right with more reactivity would simply be more of the same; it would continue and escalate the violence of Trump, the Tea Party, and their followers. Second, it would make us like them, willing to use personal attacks, deception, and inflammatory language for personal and political gain. I, for one, sleep better at night when I don’t take that route. Third, the affectable heart/mind has its own strengths; it is wiser and more clearheaded than the mind guided by reactivity. This clarity makes it possible for us to see the big picture, take the long view, and strategize more intelligently. In Part II of this essay, I will discuss one way of responding to Trump from the big picture.

The remarkable power of the affectable heart/mind lies in its resources of clarity, wisdom, compassion, humility, love of the truth, willingness to take responsibility, and an unselfish interest in the betterment of the human race. As we embrace affectability, we become the adults in the room, and adults are desperately needed these days. I believe, as Martin Luther King, Jr. did, that only love can overcome hate. I also believe that only clarity and truth can overcome the big lie that Hitler advocated and that Trump appears to be spreading. As Einstein said: We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. Affectability does not offer us quick and easy solutions, but it does offer a way to address our current problems on a different level.

In the political sphere, therefore, it is essential that we speak up against the reactivity of the right and left, and not respond to reactivity in kind. It is essential that our contribution to the political sphere come from the open and affectable heart, and not from our own reactivity. I am not suggesting some kind of New Age, “let’s sit around and sing Kumbaya” response to the injustice of the world. An assertive, forceful, and powerful response will be necessary. Protesting injustice and wrongs will be necessary. It will mean taking risks and making sacrifices. Our role models are people like Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela, and Stephen Biko. The sacrifices and risks may not be small; in fact, it would be wise to recall that several of these activists paid the ultimate price for their courage. We may be called to do the same.

I would like to finish with some initial thoughts about how we might respond to those who, like Rush Limbaugh, deliberately provoke reactivity in the political sphere. This is a complex problem that does not seem to have an easy solution; it is my hope that we can build on these ideas:

1. Confront reactivity in politics by naming it. The word “reactivity” probably isn’t going to be useful in the political sphere; it isn’t catchy and it won’t work as a sound bite. Nevertheless, we can call out inflammatory, self-serving, and dishonest rhetoric. Reactive anger, with its self-righteousness, can be a powerful force, but over the long haul the darkness of reactivity is dispelled by the light of truth.

2. We need to find leaders of stature and character who can more effectively call out reactivity and the people who feed it. Hillary Clinton, for all her strengths, was not a compelling leader to respond to Trump, due to a combination of the many unfair attacks she has experienced over the years and her personal baggage.

3. Challenge false news vigorously. False news stories were not the real problem in the 2016 election, but they were a symptom of the problem. False news fed the reactivity of the electorate. We need to actively challenge false news and encourage the mainstream media to take back its power (and responsibility) to debunk false news. Too often, the mainstream media presents true and false stories as if they were equally “true.”