Some Thoughts On How To Organize And Lead In A Time Of Crisis-- Be Subjective, Or "The Facts" Alone Won't Register-

Some Thoughts On How Organize And Lead In A Time Of Crisis-- Be Subjective, Or "The Facts" Alone Won't Register-- (Part 3 of a series) 

September 4, 2022

Little Old Me, A Leader? Pffft!

Many Americans of conscience now feel impelled to take their first steps to get active in a campaign, one which is a desperate effort to defend our system of democracy. We all heard what our President said on Thursday, and the green light has gone on for most of us. For people struggling with what to do in these circumstances, here is where I think I can help. This despite the fact that I have no tactical campaign advice or manual for what to do. We've never been here before.  It's a mindset, and it's a venture into the unknown. For today, I'll try to be a Virgil to your Dante, and give you a guided tour through the minds of the people we are both fighting and trying to organize.  

Nobody is on point all of the time. Like most people I have occasional rough days. And as I've mentioned, writing doesn't come easy since I had no training. With all of the political organizing experience that came with fundraising, I was not an intelligence specialist, and preferred history as my area. To put it simply, I loved drawing upon examples from the past, good and bad, and using them to give perspective on events in the present, as a possible helpful guide to navigating the future. That was my method of educating, organizing, fundraising and recruiting throughout a very unconventional political life. That, along with some slightly twisted Jewish humor.

In a sense, every organizing situation, whether on the phone or in the field was an intervention, to help a nation which was in the process of destroying itself to find a way out, as we saw many years ago the dangerous path set by US policies at home and abroad.  I raised millions of dollars for political campaigns, the object of which was policy, not pandering for votes in elections we had little chance of winning because we were outsiders.  Political impact was what we went for, not electioneering, because axiomatic change was what was needed, not a  "changing of the guard." This is where Martha and my political organizing experience was unique, if not obviously history making. 

Changing The Physical World From Virtual Space

Attempting to sort out events in today's complex world is kind of a slog, but I do it now almost as a natural inclination, not a hobby or a job. Social media is like an electronic Bar or club without food and alcohol, where people go for friendship, family connection, fun, games, sharing creative experiences, but also to argue, compete, gossip, confront, and sometimes even present a little fakery to impress others. As for myself, I mostly avoided discussing politics in actual Bars with strangers because the mix of alcohol and Testosterone is often a toxic and highly flammable cocktail, and nothing good can come of it. (We might consider a new Cabinet level Bureau of Alcohol, Testosterone and Firearms, ATF, to deal with MAGA)  As a wise man once said, "nothing good happens after midnight when you go out."

Speaking of Bars, especially "dive Bars," (don't ask) you would sometimes see some yokel wander in (likely bounced out of other Bars in the neighborhood) who you knew was trouble from the get go. They just had a look about them and you would keep your guard up and awareness high. These were the guys who literally got off on starting arguments, spreading rumors, seeking out people who were insecure and vulnerable, profiling them to find their weak spots, then waiting for the right moment to make a cutting remark which would keep bothering you even after you got home later. Often they would pretend to be buddies, try to get you to confide, while they were telling some other person your wife was hitting on them, or that you stole their drink. And sometimes they would provoke an argument between two others that would turn into a fistfight, only for three or four people to later realize after the melee that their cash and phones which were left on the bar had disappeared. On the internet, we now call these people Trolls, with some being more destructive than others. 

Despite the initial friendly veneer and seeming empathy, these types are wearing a mask of deception to cover their boiling hatred, resentment, prejudice, or victimization. (Ironically, these folks also join the opposition to actual mask mandates out of pure selfishness) Hatred born of injury, real or imagined does that to people, who look for scapegoats to blame for their empty lives, and feel the world owes them something, or everything. They feel justified in making mayhem and committing crimes big and small because they feel robbed themselves. Sometimes you see them coming from a mile away, and other times they are really slick and fool the crap out of you.

Yes, We Have An Adversary

Now, what was that all about? Some might recognize the traits of our resident dive Bar provocateur as being similar to those of the current "Mata Hari" of Mar-a-Lago, someone whose sole purpose in life is to validate his own sordid existence by leaving a trail of bodies, carnage, chaos and division on top of a mountain of criminal acqusition. Likewise with his Army of aggrieved, self-absorbed, tantrum throwing, Camo-diaper wearing acolytes who follow the "Made in Russia" hairball in his descent to the bottomless Id of MAGAtism. That outlook is personally and institutionally our adversary, right there, and those who see this equivalence are not wrong. 

Actually, it also fits the description of Shakespeare's character Iago from the Tragedy of Othello, which Martha and I watched a good film version of the other night. The play is the subject of an article in progress which should be out soon, and we can revisit it together. It is relevant and important for today on many levels, not the least of which have been the attempts to mislead President Biden through operations which fall under the category of "palace politics," attempts which have been forcefully rebuffed by him this week.

Martha and I had our own "Iagos" in our lives when we were deeply involved in international politics. These are anecdotes and stories for our book. We and our offices were targeted for stings and entrapment by the FBI and Intelligence Community by the circles of Bush 41 and his allies. We had FBI informants sent into our office to "volunteer," and were at times under surveillance. The CIA ran operations to try to set us up in foreign entanglements to be used against us. We had long-time associates profiled, leveraged and "turned" who worked against us as agents on the inside, then left to join our adversaries. Many of our old "New Left" friends will remember Hoover's "COINTELPRO" programs against anti-war groups during the Vietnam era. This also goes on in modern corporate espionage as well, so it is not an entirely novel concept. It was like that.  Some of our stories (backed up by FOIA docs and our personal recollections) are even now unbelievable, years later. 

Know Your Role,  Know Who You Are Organizing

So, after years of this stuff and constant security issues we had to deal with, plus our day to day organizing experiences, we developed a good "sniffer" for sizing people up, discerning their intentions, openess, honesty, and willingness to learn and be active. The more conversations you have the more insight into people you will gain. There's a fine line however between situational awareness, security consciousness, and paranoia. And that line is drawn by our own passion for truth, educating others, recruitment and noble aspirations. Paranoid people are constitutionally unable to function in a role which requires a disposition toward selflessness. They can exercise power but rarely do anything good with it, except by accident. That's the "self-checking" mechanism with which to avoid paranoia when there are hostile forces working against you, so you can still see the goodness in people and work to strengthen that which is the best in them. 

As the noted Chinese General Sun Tzu is credited with saying, "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." It's an apt precept for those conducting war and statecraft, but somehow has become the mantra for today's conqueror stockbrokers and day traders who sit around in their beds in PJ's running swaps and selling NFTs, trying to channel Gordon Gekko from Michael Douglas's film "Wall Street." Since Reagan inaugurated the era of "shareholder value," making money itself is war, and everyone in finance is a combatant, literally "The Monster's Ball." 

That said, given today's political crisis you can't be at war with everyone. In fact, it is more vital now than ever that we remember we are fighting a war of ideas, not against the people who hold them. If people hold rotten ideas, it is an act of mercy and charity to liberate them from them. They might fight you, but keep in mind that drowning people often fight against the Lifeguard trying to rescue them. It's part of the job and you train for it. 

You can't judge people by how they look, what they belong to, where they've been, because as we all know but too often forget, People. Can. Change. In truth, the only hope which democracy has of surviving hangs upon that very simple idea. It's one of the very few ideas worth betting your life on. It's the primary idea which if you give up on for a minute, you are simultaneously giving up on yourself, because your welfare is bound up with theirs.  You have every right to intervene in people's lives, for the sake of saving them. That's what has been my focus throughout my political life, and for which I've taken great risks, as has Martha. If you don't think people can change, stay home and sit this one out. And if it helps you feel better, post a bunch of memes. 

Is It Worth It, And What Is "It" Anyway?

Many people are risk takers who put their lives on the line daily to do their jobs, which is both heroic and defines them as unique. They do it for the good that it does, but they are able to sustain it because their results are tangible for the most part. They can see the people whose lives they've saved or improved, they can see the bridges and buildings they've built, or saved from fire or collapse. They live with the pain of losing people everyday, and the happiness of making a difference in people's lives. That's why many people love election campaigns, because you can see and verify through counting the results of your good work, whether or not it succeeds. And conversely, you can see the damage done by Trump, who has ripped to shreds that sense of assuredness in the integrity of our institutions. He is at war with civil society and citizenship itself. 

But the question for politics (or philosophy) becomes "should we risk ourselves for an idea which is both beautiful and efficient, but intangible, which we hope will either save or improve people's lives in the future, the results of which we may never live to see?"  How do you know if you can change people, or if it's even the right thing to do? How do you know if you've succeeded?  Is it worth the stress and aggravation, or am I wasting my time trying to help total strangers who don't even want to change? "Oh, don't try that religious crap on me Lance, I've heard it all before, sacrifice for the future blah blah blah, I live in the moment because there might not be a future! YOLO, remember?" These are all questions we might ask ourselves before taking the plunge and trying to organize under these circumstances, in an environment where many of our adversaries are psychotic and violent.

Expect The Unexpected, Don't React, Get Engagement First, Then Strike While The Iron Is Hot-

You will run into a variety of reactions when having real discussions, whatever the particular issues or predicates. Openess, curiosity, agreement, indifference, despair, resentment, desperation, rejection and so forth. 

In cases where you have immediate and substantial agreement with another person or more, move quickly to make plans and set objectives. Consolidate their inclination to take action. Don't blab on endlessly about everything you both agree on. All you are doing is giving them more time to talk themselves out of doing something, because there exists a very real fear factor. Be concrete and programmatic, and define activities which make sense as opposed to grandiosity. Take small steps to do things that will build your confidence, but are designed to inspire others to do the same. Trying to make a "big splash" is the leading cause of drowning. Make sure both friends and enemies know you are there. This is how the Civil Rights Movement built themselves up step by step, and it still works. 

In many cases when people react, get pissed off, or shut the discussion down, it is because they've run up against their own internal wall of conflict between their altruistic better self, versus their narrow small world of parochial self-interest. Yet, if unwilling to face that internal conflict, they will divert, deflect, nitpick, attack, or even react with fury over some perceived micro-aggression, trigger or slight. They will deconstruct your argument like one of the sophists of ancient Greece to turn it into it's opposite, in order to impute to you malign intent. Or, they'll simply dig in because of too much ego investment in their long held opinions, which just happened to be proven no longer valid.  They might question your credentials, credibility and sources, or accuse you of disinformation. And of course there is the "whattaboutism" trap, always there lying in wait. Anything but dealing with their own fears, confusion, or vacillation in the face of a crisis which they have made a lifestyle of avoiding, which now is right in their faces. In other words, don't personalize rejection or acceptance because it's not about you. If their reaction is negative it's not because they don't like you, it's because they reject both the reality and necessity for action which you are presenting to them. However, try to keep the door open for a next discussion, because they will think about what you said and might see things differently the next time you talk.  You can speak with the confidence of knowing, in the words of a famous French Vietnam era anti-war activist, "The 'streets' will come into their houses through the living room window." 

These are things you mostly already know, but need to have uppermost in mind if you are trying to organize other people, because "getting into their grill" of fixed opinions or questioning "their way of doing things" is a minefield. In an initial discussion, you will find that most people will offer up various opinions like an anti-aircraft gun which is throwing up flak, because they are uncomfortable with having their beliefs messed with. It is mostly avoidance behavior. Don't bite, wait it out. Obviously you would like others to commit to something right then, whether it's volunteering, phone calls, giving or raising money. But not everyone is ready to move with you when you are. So, with every discussion you have, always lay the groundwork for following up with the next one. Keep the process open ended, immediate results or not. Intrigued, even provoked, the discussion they've had with you continues in their head for hours after it ended, because that's how the human mind works. Don't have "one night stands," building a relationship is how you recruit. This is where organizing people, including the jousting back and forth to resolve disagreements is great fun and a potential source of happiness. Helping people solve problems makes them happy, and will motivate them to do the same for others. 

On another note, an organizing mistake which is common is to accept the initial response as representing what the person actually believes, because unfortunately their opinions are mostly like a borrowed suit of clothes or uniform they put on for the occasion, not owned. When a person can say they have endured hardship and adversity for their beliefs, that's when they can rightfully claim ownership of them. Otherwise much of what people say they believe, they've never really put to the test.  People are not stupid, they are however creatures of habit. Whatever their background, education and experience, when faced with the unknown and asked to do something about it, they will go through some kind of song and dance to break the tension.  Be patient, listen, wait for the person's actual thoughts to come out and then address them, not the things which come out first which they might have absorbed through media conditioning or peer group conformity. Then you can have a real dialogue. 

Who Are We To Tell Anyone What To Do? 

Start with the fact that we are not, should not be limiting ourselves to pandering or cajoling people to "vote for our guy."  Even in the best case outcome for the elections nationally, the crisis will likely escalate beyond the imaginable afterwards. "The bad man is not going away Mommy." We need to recruit people to a movement which is bigger than ourselves which will endure beyond the election.  Recruit activists and leaders at a high level now with this in mind, and the vote will take care of itself. The vote is the measure of the impact of ideas in the real world, it is not a Facebook thumbs up emoji signifying "Like"  on some celebrity's post, or a product survey crowdsourcing a new instant Cappuccino. I think most of us know this but wish it were otherwise. Don't hold back or water down what is at stake in this election, get out the vote, but do it with an eye toward what happens in the aftermath. 

It is the war of ideas with MAGA and the outcome of the 2022 election which will determine whether democracy survives. Only ideas will move people in sufficient numbers to overcome the threat of MAGA terrorism, as was the case with the 20th Century Civil Rights Movement in fighting Jim Crow. 

In order to recruit and organize people you can't be shy about invoking your authority as a knowledgeable person. If you are a car mechanic, you don't argue with a customer about how to install a new manifold or exhaust, or let them tell you how. Patiently explain, yes, but defer to someone with no training or background, no. Another perfect example is why no one should listen to the millions of self-taught covid experts whose "research" on YouTube led them to drink Clorox and Camel piss as a cure. You are not being egotistical, authoritarian, or arrogant if you refuse to take counsel of their unhinged neurosis and childhood bathroom trauma as if it is a legitimate opinion. Speak with people about those things they need to hear, not necessarily what they want to hear.

We are in a political crisis verging on a shooting war, and you the reader are an anti-fascist defender of democracy, not "some random dude on the internet." If you know what you are talking about, pull rank with others and get them moving. If you are unsure, do the work, become assured, and get up to speed. Tell people to "shit or get off the pot" because we have only two months to work with. Be patiently impatient, to coin a phrase. The truth itself is your authority for moving others. You know better than most people what that truth is because you are here, taking the time and trouble to read this, to read Professor HCR, Robert Reich and others, because you want to know what is true. Be bold!  Be like young Abraham Lincoln, cut down a tree, mount the stump, and speak your truth to the ages. And make sure to take some friends with you. 

Where democracy dies is where its leading defenders come up small at the moment of truth. That is the history of tragedy, both in Shakespeare and in real life. Because we are human, we can find the good which comes from tragedies and use those lessons to improve our own lives and those of others. And as those whose eyes are open can see, there is more than enough tragedy in this world to learn from that we should now be more able to overcome it. That is the hope at least. 

(Photo, young Lincoln, Decatur Illinois)