“…the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.” Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address
Since I knew I would be starting my Obama year soon, I couldn’t imagine a better way to jump in than by listening to the audio book of Dreams From My Father, the autobiographical writings of of Barack Obama read by the the President himself. Still full of my conservative predispositions I gritted my teeth and pressed play on my ailing MP3 player fully expecting not to enjoy what I was about to hear. As turns out, I was wrong. I’m sure it won’t be the last time.
You see, there was a time (a.k.a a couple months ago) when thirty seconds of the President’s voice coming out of my radio was enough to make me want to switch the station. It set my teeth on edge listening to “that liberal” talk and I just assumed that whatever he said would be lies and spin. I assume others felt the same way when hearing George W. Bush’s voice just a few years ago.
Having decided, however, that I was going to give whatever he said a fair hearing and being committed to finding the good wherever it was, I was surprised to find that after a few chapters I actually found myself looking forward to my commute and the chance to hear more of the President’s story. This is, perhaps, less of a testament to my own will power and more of an indication of exactly what powerful things stories can be.
Stories contextualize. Stories visualize. Stories humanize.
It turns out that there was much more that Obama and I held in common than I had known. He grew up on an island. So did I. He spent time abroad absorbing a completely different cultural context. So did I. Suddenly as I listened I wasn’t hearing “that Democrat” anymore, I was hearing the story of a boy who they used to call “Barry” who had hardworking Midwestern grandparents and a dad from Kenya. He was a child who grew up seeing poverty and struggling with his identity in a world that can be a very cruel and unjust place to live. So was I.
Of course, switching sides of the aisle shouldn’t make us naïve. Personal histories are a tricky thing and we all tend to filter our memories through the events that happen later in our lives. The important bit here, though, is that this is the narrative that Barack Obama uses as his personal starting point. This is the story as he recalls it and it’s an amazing tale that gives me a new way of looking at a man who I once only saw as the collection of his policies instead of seeing that underneath the office stands a person.
Suddenly, I discovered to my surprise that I actually liked this guy. Imagine that.
It might have seemed strange if people I passed on the street had known that the white guy in old pickup truck with an NRA sticker on the rear window was thoroughly engrossed in listening to Barack Obama’s personal story. It would have seemed stranger if they had known that only a year ago I never would have bothered. Perhaps there is no better image that sums up this entire project than that.
Has a story every changed your opinion about somebody?
First!
I really think this is an interesting (experiment? not sure what to call it).
Reminds me of experiences I had in college. I was a conservative to the right of Jerry Falwell in one of the most liberal schools in this part of the country. Had several friends/classmates/professors during that time who disagreed with me on just about every issue. But we got along great, mainly because they were gracious people. And you’re right. Once you’ve heard someone talk about struggles they’ve overcome to get to where they are or pain that they are currently experiencing, politics seem not to matter.
I may be a couple of years ahead of your experiment… but my process began (as a GOP loyalist) when I read Dreams of My Father and Audacity of Hope. Getting a personalized view of the individual makes a lot of difference in trying to understand the goals he is striving to achieve. I too, have an IFB (GARBC) background and am a regular reader of SFL. But I think the D in me may be stronger now than the GOP, which spent over 30 years trying to make sense of the nation’s policies and for me, failing.
Separately, I have been listening to Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. In the audio book, Habit 6 – Synergy – he calls 2 people from the audience to try to come to a solution on environmental issues. It was an amazing exercise because the people began at extreme opposites, using offensive-minded language and attacking. He forced them to apply Habit 5 (seek first to understand, then be understood) before coming to a solution. The method for Habit 5 is being able to articulate, without subjective interjection and with great empathy, what the ‘other’ side believes. Only when we understand, are we then able to seek to be understood. Good luck this year as you seek to understand! Synergy, then, is taking opposite viewpoints and coming to creative solutions that blend ideas from both sides. What a grand idea for our leaders!
I recommend adding 7 Habits to your list of reading, if you have not already (or recently) read it!
Backstories can give a bit a context to a person’s actions, but I am far less concerned about “why” someone did what they did than the actual actions themselves. All of the good intentions in the world are no excuse for improper actions. Many times when we try to cast things “in context” to a person’s history, it is a thinly-veiled attempt to justify otherwise indefensible deeds. And this goes for both the left and right. I think we are much safer evaluating a person by “what” they do, not “why” they did it. To give you an example of how that applies to the right, over on SFL we castugate the unorthodox teachings/practices of fundies, even though some of the propogaters may truly believe they “are doing the Lord’s work”. The same holds true for the left…I don’t care how “well meaning” some of them are, there is no defense for the unconstitutional federalism they are implementing.
I think that clearing a path to understanding a person helps us look at their ideas without the noise of personalities getting in the way.
Some of Obama’s ideas are probably good. Some are probably bad. The same could be said of Bush, Clinton, Reagan or me. But when we look at somebody and feel immediate revulsion just based on them being [fill-in-the-blank-here] (liar, idiot, pervert, redneck cowboy, etc.) then we never even get to the place of giving their ideas a fair shot.
Sometimes it helps to remember that these are people not so very different from ourselves or our neighbors. They may be wrong. We may be too. But it can’t possibly hurt to get rid of our misconceptions.
I am in 100% agreement that we need to set aside pre-conceived notions about everyone and evaluate them strictly upon their actions. But this gets back to my basic point. I don’t need to “understand” someone in order to opine what they do….it they are right, they are right and if they are wrong, then they are wrong – regardless of all other considerations. I am as quick to criticize Rs as fast as I am Ds depending on what they do. Example: I happen to personally like George HW Bush. I think he is genuenly a good person. But I can never excuse and/or trust him because of reniging on his promise to not raise taxes (an obvious election-year ploy). Speaking for myself, if Obama would cut spending, reduce marginal tax rates, stop trying to federalize everything and stop demonizing those who are opposed to his policies, I would support him. His upbringing, religion, race, etc would have no bearing on any of that. I know that you are not insinuating this, but “understanding” is a prototypical defense gambit in criminal trials when the evidence is damning…if they can get the jury to feel empathy towards the accused (hey, I am a lot like him/her), the odds of an aquittal skyrocket.
I am interested in your views once you’ve spent a year on the other side. I know that you will be intellectually honest enough to give a fair assessment.
You may wish to do some research. Obama actually has cut federal spending per capita. I’m assuming by “cut marginal rates” you mean “tax cuts for high-income earners”, which he’s never going to do (nor should he, taxes are too low on the top income earners in our country), he isn’t trying to federalize everything (I don’t even know what that means, it sounds like a throwaway phrase that has no actual meaning), and he’s never demonized anyone for anything — he’s never said anything that’s nearly so vitriolic as the level of anger that’s flung at him on a daily basis by Republican representatives and pundits.
What you’re saying is “I wouldn’t hate the President if he’d just stop doing things that I’m imagining he’s doing”. You’re upset about an imaginary person who doesn’t actually exist, and bears only the vaguest resemblance to the President.
I think it’s a great thing when we start seeing people as people & not “liberals & socialists”…that attitude dehumanizes & unfortunately causes an us vs them mentality which is not healthy.
I too was a fundamentalists for almost 2 decades…since leaving that church over 5 years ago I am amazed at how far I’m come! It’s good to be able to think outside of the box of dogma.
I’d like to be seen as a person too and not just a “conservative gun-nut” or a “Bible-thumping ignoramus” or an “ignorant homophobe” or whatever other demeaning terms people on the left have used to marginalize and discredit people like me.
And I think you should be. So how do we get from here to there? Some quote about “be the change you want to see in the world” comes to mind.
I’m going to try really hard not to make this response sound snarky, so please don’t take it that way. Sarcasm can be hard to parse in text, and vitriol easy to assume, so please take me at my word when I say that’s not what I’m going for.
If you don’t want to be called ignorant, the best way to do that is to not say ignorant things. If you insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old, despite centuries of evidence to the contrary, you’re being willfully ignorant. If you reject the mountains of evidence that the world is getting warmer at a dangerous pace, you’re being willfully ignorant. The idea that thermometers can have political bias is a wholly ignorant one: when you espouse that, you’re being ignorant.
The same goes for homophobia. There isn’t a gay person in the United States who doesn’t know that Evangelicals think he or she is going to hell in a handbasket, so when Evangelicals feel the need to remind them anyway, they’re acting solely to marginalize that person because of their sexuality. If you prefer not to be called a homophobe, then avoid saying things that sound like slightly nicer versions of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Simply put, if you don’t want people to call you ignorant or homophobic, don’t do ignorant or homophobic things.
My husband has a snippet of the audio book as his ringtone.
We typically think about the political process and political discussion as a war of ideals and values. This perspective divorces individuals and sub-groups from their humanity, and not just the people that we disagree with politically. Our values and ideals are based largely upon our experiences. Understanding the context from which a person’s ideals were formed is the best way to humanize those that we disagree with. I believe that this is the crux of your experiment, Darrell. Correct?
In my view, the perspective that Bro Bluto presents is even further dehumanizing. It reduces people to their action or perhaps even further to the results of their actions. Actions and their consequences influence values and values influenced by our actions and their consequences.
There is nothing wrong with evaluating the results of an action or even the results actions. There is nothing wrong with agreeing or disagreeing with a value or an ideal. There is great harm, however, in passing judgement on the person or group of people based upon their ideals and/or their actions.
As much we might dislike it, we are tied to the people with whom we share this country and this government. We are tied to the people that we share this world with. We all affect each other and God values and loves each of us equally.
Understand the context which form someones or some group’s values, ideals, actions and result provide us with the ability to approach them as a person valued by God. In dealing with them, we can validate their worth as God’s image bearers. People are much more receptive to my point of view when I approach them as whole person and not just a set of values and actions. This is the importance of understanding context and story, not to justify a value or to justify an action.
That last paragraph was particularly good, Drew.
When we dehumanize, then we can freely demonize. The worst example to me was my colleagues at Christian school in the mid-90s who insisted that Bill and Hillary Clinton could not possible love or even care about their daughter because they perceived their political beliefs as “evil” and “wrong”, thus they were not normal human beings with normal emotions, and people lacking humanity and emotion do not love their children or anything or anyone, after all. And what absurdity that is. I disagreed with George W. Bush on about every issue I can think of, but I did not ever consider that he does not love his children.
Pingback: Watch Evangelicals Lose Their Young
I haven’t heard or read any of the President’s books (although I think I might enjoy them), but it’s interesting how Mr. Obama’s story reveals him as simply another human being, and a down-to-earth one at that. The impression I have of him is I think I’d like him if could know him in person. Also, I have a favorable impression of the First Lady, as well as their two daughters. I don’t have to agree with all of the President’s policies to recognize he’s certainly personable, and that he has at least as much integrity as any other Washington politician. (I know, that’s not really saying much, but it’s an equal shot at both parties.)
All I can say… good for you!
Stories are important. I was raised in a secular Hindu (emphasis on the secular) home with a pretty negative image of conservative Christians. Then in college, I became a Christian, and my early mentors were all conservative Pentecostals and Baptists… Hearing their stories, knowing them as people, and being challenged by their very real compassion really opened my eyes.
One of the touchstone verses of the Bible for me is “they overcame by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony”. One thing that I find is that when I talk with Christians or other believers in other faiths, when we talk about how we got where we are there’s much more mutual respect than when we try to score debating points.
Good article. Haven’t read the book but always wanted to.
I’d also say that “Dreams from My Father was one of the big reasons I supported Obama in 2008 starting in the primaries. It struck me as the work of someone who had a deeper emotional maturity than many of our recent politicians.
“Has a story ever changed your opinion about somebody?”
Yes, yours – hearing your story and learning of your project this year is changing my perspective. Thank you for a powerful witness.