When Does This Ever Work? Standing Rock and the Hawaiian Superferry

I submitted the following post about Standing Rock and the Hawaiian Superferry to an online newsblog last week. The following day, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that they would not be granting the easement that would allow the Dakota Access Pipeline to tunnel underneath Lake Oahe/the Missouri River. It was a huge win for the water protectors. However, the fight is not over. The water protectors remain at the camp for fear that DAPL will take the "better to ask forgiveness than permission" approach and continue construction despite the denied easement. The Army Corps of Engineers will be conducting an Environmental Impact Statement regarding the pipe's construction, and looking for alternative routes. The EIS will include public input, which means the tribes will have a say (finally) but this is a pause, not a full stop. The pipeline could still go forward through the same location, and will very likely go forward somewhere.

In the post below, I tell the story of the Hawaiian Superferry protests, which have been on my mind a lot lately. Many of the issues we have seen at Standing Rock are eerily similar to the events of the Superferry protests. As it happens, the easement denial and implementation of the EIS are more in a series of events echoing the 2007 protests. My timing may have been off for the news cycle, but I still want to share this post because as far as I am concerned, it is still highly relevant.

When Does This Ever Work?

Standing Rock and the Hawaiian Superferry

It can seem hopeless. The Standing Rock and Lakota Sioux have run through every legal, governmental, corporate, and media process open to them to oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Treaties have been broken and the bones of ancestors have been unearthed, all for a pipeline that will put Reservation water at risk for contamination. With no other recourse left, the water protectors have put their bodies in the way of the pipeline.

It seems impossible that this could work. So let me tell you a story.

In August, 2007, the small, rural island of Kauai in Hawai‘i made national news when a massive protest erupted in a classic battle of people versus corporate-driven-state interests. The Hawaiian Superferry launched two massive catamarans from the urban island of Oʻahu to two neighbor islands, Kauai and Maui. They had spent years trying to stop it, but nothing worked. In Kauai, residents decided they had no option left but to put their bodies in the way of the ferry.

On August 26^th, when the ferry arrived at Nawiliwili Harbor, dozens of people jumped into the water and blocked the dock on surfboards, canoes, and kayaks. When the way was eventually cleared for the ferry to dock, hundreds more gathered at the docks to block cars from unloading, again with nothing more than their bodies.

I remember watching the news from urban Oʻahu and hearing reports from corporate and state representatives that these backwards protesters were blocking progress for no reason. But I’ve been a protester before. I know you don’t jump into the ocean to spend hours physically blocking a nearly 400ft long vessel for no reason. So I went to Kauai, and I asked why.

The Superferry and the state were operating illegally. They were required to conduct an environmental impact survey (EIS) before conducting massive harbor renovations on Maui and Kauai to support the ferry, but they didn’t do it. When a lawsuit threatened to force them comply with the law, the state attempted to change it in an emergency session – which was an unconstitutional move. These under-handed actions raised more suspicion and more scrutiny. More concerns were raised, and all of them ignored.

The cars ferried over could easily bring mites, bugs, and seeds in tire treads and undercarriages, transmitting invasive species from island to island and undermining conservation efforts. The high-speed ferry endangered the whale sanctuary surrounding the island. And protesters were concerned about their way of life. The Superferry promised to bring development and urbanization, which Kauaians did not want. It could also bring urban crime across islands; people could ferry from Oʻahu, break into homes or steal natural resources, and bring their loaded cars right back to Oʻahu (which happened).

Kauai residents had spent years saying these things, trying to hold the state and the corporation accountable for the impacts they would suffer. They had attended town hall meetings, demanded an EIS be conducted, called on their legislators for support (who were overruled by the majority from Oʻahu), written letters to the editor (to their own island news outlets), and basically exercised every legal, governmental, corporate, and media process open to them to block the ferry from launching without significant environmental and cultural considerations being address.

All of this fell on deaf ears. And so they put their bodies in the way.

Just like the water protectors at Standing Rock, the Superferry protesters were falsely presented as being violent by the state and corporate interests and by the media, while instead they were met by a grossly excessive police and military response. The protesters held their ground, so to speak, in the water and at the dock. Despite the escalation of state forces, they were unable to subdue the protests. The ferry was unable to get through to dock a second time, and was forced to turn around and return to Oʻahu.

The protesters stayed. And they won.

After two days of resistance, the Superferry halted service to Kauai indefinitely. Simultaneously, an ongoing court battle on the island of Maui compelled the Superferry to suspend service while an EIS was conducted. After years of court battles, the Superferry was permanently quashed.

Let me be clear. Service to Kauai was suspended and never reinstated due to the peaceful but persistent resistance of physical protests blocking the ferry from docking in August, 2007. Meanwhile, legal battles temporarily halted service to Maui, but it began again in December and continue on until March, 2009, when the court finally ruled against the state and corporate actions. It was the long-term legal battle that ultimately defeated the Superferry in Hawai‘i. The physical stance of the protesters in Kauai stopped service to that one location.

Winning at Standing Rock, Winning against DAPL.

The Dakota Access Pipeline was originally slated to be placed upriver of Bismarck. This was blocked due to the threat of water contamination at that location, but the pipeline, its contamination threat to water and ecosystem, and its contribution to fossil fuel-driven climate change, were not defeated. DAPL remains. The fight remains.

Our resistance to DAPL must be at multiple fronts: 

• The water protectors at Standing Rock are providing our country an essential service by placing their bodies peacefully and persistently in the way of construction. If you can join them, join them. If you can’t, support them so they can maintain their work on our behalf.
• It is simultaneously essential that we make our voices heard that this pipeline is not in our best interests. Sign the petition urging the federal government to halt pipeline construction. 
•  Contact your elected officials, tell them what you (their constituents) believe so they can best represent you. Tell them about your support for the water protectors, your support for a clean environment, your support for efforts to move away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. Ask them to take the same stance. Contact them repeatedly. Be heard. 
• Support the lawsuits against DAPL and the legal defense funds supporting the water protectors.  
• Write letters to every media outlet that is poorly covering this fight and demand they do better.

And don’t let up the pressure. Ever. Not until our water is safe. Not until DAPL is gone. Not until we are pouring money into solar and wind instead of oil and gas. Not until we have the future we want. Not until our water protectors are safe from militarized police, not until they have won.

And when all else fails and your voice is not being heard, put your body in the way. Make a stand.

Ain't Just a River

I've been thinking about the Black Lives Matter movement. I've been thinking about black and brown folks being shot during what should have been a routine encounter with police. I've been thinking about the videos I've watched of these encounters. I've been thinking about the trials, the outrage, the demonstrations, the facebook hashtags. I've been thinking about other folks saying "it's just a few bad apples" or some other dismissive remark. I've been thinking about how many times I've let my outrage go, moved on to other things.

I've been thinking about Standing Rock and the protectors out there. I've been thinking about how the pipeline was moved from upriver of Bismarck to upriver of the Res because it was thought to be a threat to water quality. I've been thinking about how minorities are disproportionately exposed to environmental pollutants, environmental devastation. I've been thinking about the treaties we've broken with the Natives here, and yet still we take, still we demand, still we pollute, still we leave nothing but devastation. I've been thinking about other folks saying "but that wasn't me, it's not all America" or some other remark minimizing our gain. I've been thinking about how many times I've let my outrage go, moved on to other things.

I've been thinking about Muslims. And Mexicans. And immigrants. And refugees. And trans folks. And queer folks. And women. I've been thinking about how much discussion there has been in our public and political spheres these past two years about our various rights, as people, our various experiences, as people, our various oppressions, as people, our various threats, as people. I've been thinking about other folks saying "yes, but" over and over and over again.

Trump bragged about assaulting women and outrage arose, and sustained, and I felt it personally and professionally because suddenly sexual assault permeated every moment of my life at home and at work and on the internet and still, still, still. I couldn't help wondering.

Why is this worse than the other things? Is it just because it finally touched straight, cis-gendered white people? Did I care?

Because here is something else I've been thinking about. In May 2015, when Rep. Keith Ellison said that Trump might wind up leading the Republican ticket, George Stephanopoulos and the others at the table laughed. And later, some pundit or comedian, maybe John Oliver or Trevor Noah I'm not sure, made the point that you know, minorities have been saying for months, for years, forever, that things were bad in this country. That racism still exists, and is still bad, and is still impacting our everyday lives and permeating our existence. Maybe we should have been listening.

Finally, it seemed, people were listening.

And then it still wasn't enough.

Last week when Trump surrogates started using the Japanese Internment Camps as proof of legal precedent for a Muslim registry program, I heard a pundit on NPR (apologies, I don't know who or what program) say that he believed we may be one traumatic event away from the mass hysteria required to make something like this a reality in our country again. The host responded with frank disbelief. I thought back to Rep. Ellison's comment and the hosts' laughter and I thought, "We're still not listening."

I've been walking this line lately as I think. I'm trying to avoid alarmism. I'm trying to avoid not listening. I think it is time to take this seriously, this undercurrent of desperation-fueled hate that is gripping our country. Because I see white supremacists re-marketing themselves "alt right" and flooding back into the mainstream with blatantly neo-Nazi slogans and chants and speeches and memes and news media. And I want to say things like "it's just a few bad apples" or "that's not me, that's not all America" or "yes, but" over and over and over again.

I don't want to dismiss this, diminish it. I don't want to deny the information before my eyes, stand firmly in denial of the truths that have been repeated again and again by Black and Native and Muslim and Latino people, by immigrants and refugees and trans folks and queer folks and women.

In psychology, the term "denial" doesn't mean to say something doesn't exist or is not happening. If I am in denial about losing my job, it does not mean that I show up to work on Monday. Rather, "denial," in psychology, means to minimize the importance of something that is important. If I am in denial about losing my job, I say it is the best thing that ever happened to me even has my electricity gets shut off because finally I have me-time.

Are we in denial about how racist this country is? How sexist? How xenophobic? Saying "yes, but" and dismissing it in this way or that so that we never take seriously the severity of the problem that remains?

Are we in denial about Trump's policies, his appointments (white supremacists, climate change deniers, oh and a new billionaire secretary of education who wants to defund public schools), his plans?

Are we being realistic by saying "this isn't America" or are we dismissing real concerns? Are we being reasonable by saying "few bad apples" or are we diminishing the true implications of these steps?

I don't want to be an alarmist. But I don't want to be in denial.

How To Be An Ally 101

I made up the following into brief hand-outs to share at a rally at the State Capitol today.

How To Be An Ally 101

Generally in life:

• Get involved in political actions. Be visible through demonstrations and community meetings so others know they are not alone. Bonus impact: you learn that you are not alone.
• Educate yourself and others. It is NOT the responsibility of the oppressed to educate the oppressor. We all have google. Use it.
• “Act from a place where you are not the center.” Find out what oppressed groups need from you and do that. Don’t make decisions for them on their behalf. They know their lives and their needs better than you do – this is not a judgment on your knowledge, just a fact of their life experience. Don’t know what they need? Ask.

In a moment of confrontation:

• Physically move your body to stand with the person being threatened or harassed.
• Speak to that person to make it clear you are standing with that person. (Ask them if they are okay, or talk to them about the weather – direct your conversation to that person, not to the aggressor)
• If there is violence, physically protect the person if you can. Otherwise, call 911 and/or video record the attack for evidence. 
• Stay. Stay to provide testimony. Stay to provide emotional support – as the adrenaline of the situation subsides, other emotions arise.
• Remember the bystander effect: When others are standing idly by, they may be looking for cues from others present about what they should do. The very act of someone doing something makes it more likely that others will act as well. It only takes one person’s action to break the bystander effect. Remember that you can be that person to act.

The Thought Experiment

A few months ago, Michael agreed to humor me on a thought experiment I needed to work through. I had been hearing a lot of folks saying things like, "Surely conservatives will see how crazy and dangerous Trump is. Surely they would choose to vote someone they disagree with who at least knows what they're doing."

And I wondered: "Surely?" Can we really say "surely?" Would they? 

If the tables were turned, truly turned, would I?

If nothing else, this thought experiment has revealed to me that the politics in our country have taken a sincere turn toward the ridiculous.

What follows is a recreation of the thought experiment we devised in order to help me find that answer (would I do what we were asking conservatives to do in voting for Clinton). And what follows that is the update of that thought experiment -- namely, were I in their shoes via these turned tables, what would I do now?

Full disclosure, what follows is ridiculous. Further full disclosure, this ridiculousness really is the closest I was legitimately able to create to give myself the full emotional and cognitive 'turned tables' experience. If nothing else, this thought experiment has revealed to me that the politics in our country have taken a sincere turn toward the ridiculous.

Premise: Were the tables turned, and liberals had a Trump-like figure and Conservatives had a Clinton-like figure, would I vote for the "other side's" Clinton-like figure once it became clear that "our" Trump-like figure was crazy and incompetent and dangerous?

Michael points out that Clinton is a moderate, though she toes the party line on many things as well. Would a Clinton-like figure be someone like Mitt Romney?

And no, Romney wouldn't do it. Not for me, not for this thought experiment. You see, conservatives disagree with many of Clinton's policies, that is true. But it's not just that. Additionally, they have a profound hatred for her, a base-level distrust. To get the full emotional punch of casting that vote, not even rich-dude Romney is sufficient. Not even any of our elected officials whose policies I really, really disagree with. To fill this "Clinton-like" role, I needed someone that I view with profound hatred and a base-level distrust. And for this thought experiment, the answer was clear:

Karl Rove.

Here's the thing about Karl Rove. I have no doubt that he is politically knowledgeable and savvy. The qualifications are obviously there. I have no doubt that I disagree with close to 100% of his policies. Honestly, we may overlap in some places but the very idea of agreeing with Karl Rove on ANYTHING is so odious to me that I have trouble admitting that possibility. I truly believe that Karl Rove is a prime example of what is wrong in politics today. He plays dirty, legally and illegally. He started his career by fake-bugging his own office right before an election just to cast doubt on the other side. He knew he'd get caught, but he knew it'd be too late and people wouldn't care too much after the fact. He was right. And it only got worse from there.

I believe him to be a slimy, untrustworthy person. I believe everything he touches in our nation becomes less honest and less good. You wanna get that vitriolic, visceral, emotional reaction from me... the reaction that seemed to be driving so many conservatives away from Clinton even when, you know, she's kind of a Republican? Karl Rove's your man.

And so I had my Republican, Clinton-like headliner: Karl Rove.

Eugh, even just typing his name that many times has made my heart dirty.

And so what about a Democratic ticket? A liberal Trump-like figure who would be actively dangerous to many people in our country, who says scary things, incites violence and hatred among some of his followers, who makes up ridiculous policies, and who inspires some while making others fear for their literal lives and safety?

We couldn't come up with anyone, not anyone who was charismatic and terrifying in turns. Trump is unprecedented in our country, at least in our modern times.

So what did we do? We made someone up. More accurately, we took a real someone and then fictionalized that someone into something Trump-like. Hear me out on this one, because we're taking that turn toward the ridiculous now. I proposed R. Kelly.

I know, I know. And I apologize to R. Kelly and his family and friends and fans for what I'm about to do. It's not fair and it's not real. But it's the best I could do in this thought experiment.

To stir up the legitimate fear that many Americans have of Trump and his policies, to make the liberal equivalent of those policies and a conservative equivalent of those fears, we had to seriously fictionalize this bid for the Democratic ticket.

Let's start with the reality of R. Kelly. R. Kelly the real person is already Trump-like in the following ways: he's charismatic, he's talented, he's successful, he's got a mainstream following as well as a cult-like following. He's got a problematic personal background. You know, Trump is known as a womanizer, a bigot, and screws people over in his business practices for the purposes of his own success. R. Kelly has peed on minors. Their fans are apparently willing to overlook these things because of the aforementioned charisma and talent and success. People who are not fans but who also don't hate them... kinda don't care about them for the most part. For those folks, R. Kelly and Trump are folks that you mostly ignore while you pay attention to politics or other important things. Periodically they pop up on your radar, but they don't stay there, and they certainly aren't people you would expect to seriously run for President.

But. But. But. It's not enough. Real R. Kelly gives us a baseline candidate walking into the primaries. But to really stir up the legitimate fear that many Americans have of Trump and his policies, to make the liberal equivalent of those policies and a conservative equivalent of those fears, we had to fictionalize R. Kelly and his bid for the Democratic ticket. So let me tell you the story of tRump Kelly's candidacy:

1.
Trump mocked a disabled reporter, which is pretty odious.
tRump Kelly, what?, mocks old people that criticize him? Sure, he does that.

2.
Trump said Mexicans are rapists, criminals and drug dealers, and some, he assumes, are good people.
tRump Kelly says White men are rapists, alcoholics, and drug addicts, and some, he assumes, are good people.

Special note here -- I'm trying to play to a couple of stereotypes here. First, let's say that many conservatives do not actually think that Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers. But we'd also have to say that they're okay voting for someone to be President who says that they are. The equivalent here is the assumption that most liberals do not actually think that White men are rapists, alcoholics, and drug addicts, but perhaps they'd be willing to overlook or minimize that statement as "no big deal" since to seriously consider the weight of that statement would mean we'd have to vote for Karl Rove. Meanwhile, White guys and their allies across the country are screaming, "Did you not hear what tRump Kelly said? How could you vote for that guy? That is a disqualifying statement."

3.
Trump says he'll build a wall along the southern border and Mexico will pay for it.
tRump Kelly said that under his Presidency, there would be a hiring freeze on White people until every person of color had a job.

A bit of a leap, I know, but here's my rationale: both of those policies are racist and frankly, economically unsound. The wall is meant to stop Mexicans from ruining the country, which means there is a racist presumption that latinos would ruin the country. It's not about security or drug trafficking, because this is a blanket hatred cast over every latino man, woman, and child no matter who they are. The hiring freeze would be meant to undo white supremacy, cast blanket over every White person without regard to their individual personhood.

Presumably, real conservatives were able to overlook the fact that this racist policy, if implemented, would bankrupt the country because in reality-land, we'd be the ones to pay for it. Maybe they think it's all talk and wouldn't really happen.

Presumable, fictionalized liberals would be able to overlook the fact that this racist policy, if implemented, would drive the economy into the toilet. Maybe they'd think it was all talk and wouldn't really happen.

4.
Trump says he'll create a Muslim registry.
tRump Kelly says that all religious leaders will have to register, and swear an oath of loyalty to the state (à la Mussolini making teachers swear an oath to the state).

Again, here we're trying to find something that most liberals would think was a bad idea, for many, many reasons, but may possibly be willing to overlook or discount or minimize in the right conditions (ahem, alternative is voting for Karl Rove). But a bad idea that specifically strikes fear into the hearts of conservatives, who would never, never overlook it because to them it is so obviously terrifying.

5.
Trump says he'll have the military conduct war crimes, including torture and killing family members of terrorists.
tRump Kelly says he'll imprison Wall Street bankers who created the 2008 financial meltdown in Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghraib.

Seriously, is there anyone for whom you would really look the other way if they were tortured or killed? There's not for me, but I might not take my fictional candidate seriously if he said this, even if he said it over and over and created sample policy that would make this happen.

6.
Trump brags about sexually assaulting women, and then a dozen women allege he sexual assaulted them.
tRump Kelly, physically assaults men and brags about it.

Would I take these things seriously? Would I trust the checks and balances of our system to temper the crazy?

Eh, I could go on, but I think here is enough for the sake of this thought experiment. In this fictionalized world, we have two major political candidates.

On the Republican ticket, we've got Karl Rove, a man whom I believe to be knowledgeable and politically savvy, but whom I distrust and who makes me feel a visceral, nauseating sort of hatred-suspicion whenever I hear him talk politics.

On the Democratic ticket, we've got tRump Kelly, a charismatic, talented, and successful non-politician with an unsettling personal background who let's say for the sake of argument puts forth a lot of normal Democratic policies, says he'll clean out the corruption of the party and Washington in general, but who also says and does crazy, incompetent, and dangerous things. He doesn't seem to understand the Constitution or how the government works. He says blatantly racist things and talks about policies that would target specific groups of people in ways that would diminish their rights and liberty as protected by the laws of our country and the Geneva Convention. He brags about beating up men, riles up his supporters to attack bankers and white people, to distrust and maybe even attack religious leaders.

Would I take these things seriously? Would I trust the checks and balances of our system to temper the crazy? Would I shrug and think, 'he's all talk, and at least he's not Karl Rove?'

Would I uphold my actual principles and my actual believes in equality and justice... and vote for Karl Rove?

Would I?

To be honest, I never quite figured out an answer to this hypothetical, which maybe makes it a good hypothetical. Maybe. I made up a bunch of far flung, ridiculous possibilities in an attempt to develop a commiserate gravitas in situation and ethics and emotionality. I tried to develop ideas of things that I might be willing to think, "that can't be real; it's all talk." Threats to people I might dismiss as not serious. Proposed policies whose importance I might diminish, or might think "that could never happen; why are people afraid?"

But when it comes down to it, it's all stuff I made up. It's NOT real. It's NOT serious. It's NOT going to happen. And so I could not ever trust myself to make a real decision about this ridiculous thought experiment because it just wasn't real.

Then last week, Trump got elected. And since then, people I know and thousands of others have been threatened, harassed, and made to feel physically unsafe because they are liberal, or women, or people of color, or immigrants, or queer, or multiple of the above. The country has actually become less safe because so many people were galvanized by the victory of Trump, the real Trump, who really did do all of those things linked above, and who really is moving forward with policies and rhetoric designed to stir up hatred and fear and to take away the rights and liberty of Americans.

Many of us have been galvanized to response action -- joining protests, speaking out, attending meetings, donating to advocacy groups, and more.

This led me to The Thought Experiment, Part II: What if tRump Kelly, fictionalized crazy candidate as outlined above, actually won the election? What would I do?

Would I call for everyone to forget the past and come together now?

Would I continue to dismiss the crazy as "just talk," or diminish its importance?

Would I call on folks to give him a chance because not all of the stuff he says is unconstitutional war crimes?

Would I blame his followers, liberals mind you, who are now going out an harassing and threatening priests and bankers and spray paining "Whitie" on people's cars, calling them just a few fringe nuts? -- most of us aren't like that so could you stop saying it's all liberals who supported these things?

Or would I stand up and speak out against the wrong actions, the wrong policies, the crazy, dangerous rhetoric and Cabinet choices and policy agendas?

Would I be able to find a way to say, Okay, I support this policy, but this other one is crazy and does not represent us?

Would I find a way to block the crazy we'd just voted into office before it got even more dangerous?

Would I speak out against the people harassing and threatening others?

Would I do any of these things?

Would you?

De-meme-ifying: Moving from rhetorical to actual

"That's crazy" or "That's wrong" or any other iteration of "That's not how I do things and I don't like it" judgment... those things are boring and they're not allowed in my class.

In the very first lecture of every one of my Psych 100 classes, I explain the importance of the question Why to psychologists. Psychologists, I tell them, are curious. We're noticers. We want to understand, truly understand, people's behaviors, thoughts, actions, preferences, values, emotions, choices, understanding, and experiences. I give my students the contrast of the rhetorical why -- when we say "Why would someone XYZ?" but we really mean "That person is wrong for XYZ." That's not an actual why, that's a judgment, and a surface-level one at that. That is us recognizing that something is different than how we are, and then stopping there.

For psychologists, and all critical thinkers, the noticing of the difference is the starting point, not the ending point.

"That's crazy" or "That's wrong" or any other iteration of "That's not how I do things and I don't like it" judgment... those things are boring. They're boring and they're not allowed in my class.

When we notice differences and we don't understand them, the noticing is the first step. The next step, the interesting step, is to ask Why, to truly ask, and to truly seek answers.

I've been thinking about this again and again this past year because I've been faced with the Rhetorical Why -- Why would someone vote for Trump? It's a Rhetorical Why because for me and many others, the question was already weighted with judgments about bluster and inexperience and bankruptcies and crooked business practices and racism and sexism and actual sexual assault. I want to be clear here -- these are my judgments of this man, this person on the ballot, this person who got elected. These are some of the many reasons I would not vote for him, and why many people I know who ask this Rhetorical Why would also not vote for him. The answer is in the question, in these judgments. The answer is 'no one should vote for him; it is so very wrong to support the things represented by this man.'

And yet he's been elected. And so if I stop at this Rhetorical Why -- Why would someone vote for Trump? -- the answers I come up with would be rooted in those judgments: people who voted for Trump support bluster and inexperience and bankruptcies and crooked business practices and racism and sexism and actual sexual assault. And again, let me be clear, I know actual human people in my life for whom this is true. They support those things. And I know actual human people in my life who have been harassed and assaulted by racist and sexist Trump supporters -- their existence is not a straw man; it is reality. But could that really be an apt description for like HALF of American voters? Are 60 million American voters actually pro-rape and pro-racism?

I have trouble believing that. It would be a ridiculous assertion (though many people are making it). In the context of Psych 100 -- that answer is boring and it's not allowed in my class.

So let's move away from the Rhetorical Why, and instead ask the Actual Why: Why would someone vote for Trump?

He'd throw out some place-holder talking points that don't have actual substance to them, stumble about with an ADHD-Sarah-Palin-esque jumbled rant of random words, and then... nothing. 

A month or so ago, I came across this link ("In the interest of facilitating the open exchange of views that make for objective political dialogue."): 25 logical reasons to vote for Trump. Don't bother following it -- it's a cheap joke because the website just keeps loading, trying to find a reason, until finally it declares that it's stumped. When I came across this link, I naively clicked on, actually wanting to exchange views for objective political dialogue. When it turned out to be a cheap joke, I didn't laugh. I was disappointed. I had wanted to read someone's rational thoughts on the topic.

I was disappointed, but I also didn't look further for ACTUAL reasons to vote for Trump. Or, I should say (to be clear), I didn't actively LOOK for things others were saying. When I came across lists or commentary, they were all just so patently false (Trump supports women? Are you kidding me?) or focused in on policies that are rife with institutional if not blatant racism (border wall, banning Muslims, etc.) that it was useless to me getting to an actual why. I did look for Trump's policies. His budget was so extremely out of balance it would make our economy much, much worse (for us 99% -- the wealthy would benefit greatly). And his other policies? I couldn't really glean anything from his speeches. He'd throw out some place-holder talking points that don't have actual substance to them, stumble about with an ADHD-Sarah-Palin-esque jumbled rant of random words, and then... nothing. And so, no, I didn't look further. All evidence before me said there wasn't anything to find, nothing that would be worth my time at least because it wouldn't be likely to convince me to vote for him.

The purpose driving my Why before the election was not to understand why others would be voting for him; my purpose was to understand if there was any possible reason I might vote for him. And, honestly, no. I've hated Trump for years -- his business practices are terrible for folks he does business with. He's racist. He's sexist. These are deal-breakers for me. I might have been able to say "Eh, okay" to some policies, but again, I found none that spoke to me. My Actual Why stopped there, and I stuck with my Rhetorical Why until the election.

At this point in the race, the DNC had given Clinton the nomination. Bernie Sanders supporters had been told to suck it up and vote for a viable candidate who they could at least work with even if they didn't like her.

Now, I'm a bit of an odd duck with what I'm about to say. In terms of Clinton personally, I actually kind of like her. She's an over-prepared strong woman geek-nerd who works too hard and knows too much and keeps pushing no matter how many barriers get thrown in her way. How could I not like that? Her policies, though. Ugh. We diverge drastically. For some things, she skews left, but so many other things she skews center-right and I am far, far left on most items.

So no, Clinton was far from my ideal candidate, but the system threw her up there and she was one of our two major party options. And the other guy, well, I already told you I couldn't find anything he actually stood for except for making himself richer and increasing institutionalized racism. I was prepared to vote for Clinton and then fight her every step of the way on her right-wing, hawkish policies. I made jokes about how she was clearly the best Republican candidate. I did actually kind of believe that the GOP establishment was secretly throwing their support behind her because in reality she was a pretty good Republican candidate. I decided I would vote Fauxpublican because at least she knew what she was doing whereas Trump so very clearly did not.

The fact remains, a lot of people's voices were actively disenfranchised to get Clinton the nomination.

Before the election, I didn't really need any further Actual Why vis a vis the voting of Trump. I had enough for my own decision. However, after the election, I find myself bombarded with the Rhetorical Why. Why would someone, other people, 60 million of them, vote for Trump? (the embedded judgment being that 60 million people are racist, sexist assholes).

I can't buy that. I can't. I NEED an Actual Why. I can't move forward in a country where 60 million people voted pro-racism and pro-rape. I NEED there to be more than this driving the decision-making processes of my countrymen. I NEED to understand this.

Last night, a conservative friend of mine posted this commentary (rant, really) titled "Dear Democrats, Read This If You Do Not Understand Why Trump Won." (You can click on it, it is actual commentary and not a cheap joke.)

Despite some rant-fueled fact-twisting (ahem, no, Russia is not behind Wikileaks, but it WAS behind the DNC email hacks which were released through Wikileaks, and Trump REALLY DID encourage Russia to spy on Clinton, an American leader with access to classified information) the argument underlying this rhetoric is actually pretty damned apt. [the video of Trump's statement in that second link autoplays]

The truth is, the leaks DID in fact confirm what many progressives had been alleging all along -- the Democratic party undermined the candidacy of Bernie Sanders so that Clinton won the nomination. And hey, maybe she would have won anyway; we'll never know that. But the fact remains, a lot of people's voices were actively disenfranchised to get Clinton the nomination.

Another major point that came up a lot in the campaign -- Clinton mishandled classified information with her private server.

And another point: a lot of people who supported Trump never recovered from the Great Recession, and they placed the blame for that lack of recovery on Obama administration policy (and vicariously, Clinton). They blame their underemployment and poverty on Obamacare and jobs going overseas and immigrants coming in.

Another point in the commentary/rant (though I don't remember hearing this from anyone during the campaign, but maybe it just didn't cross my radar) -- Clinton illegally coordinated with Super PACs, meaning big money was illegally and unethically driving her campaign.

The Rhetorical Why explaining my vote makes me look like a really unethical and possibly criminal person.

So first, let me flip this around to an outsider perspective on my vote: Why would someone vote for Clinton? With the Rhetorical Why, the answer is a judgment -- people should not vote Clinton, because pro-Clinton means pro-cheating, pro-mishandling our nation's secrets, pro-poverty, and pro-corporate money driving politics. And hell, we're not even getting into the pro-baby-death abortion issue or the pro-weakening-population-security-against-martial-law-by-taking-away-everyone's-guns issue.

That's pretty bad. The Rhetorical Why explaining my vote makes me look like a really unethical and possibly criminal person. So let me Actual Why that question -- Why, actually why, would I be willing to overlook, or at least de-prioritize, these very serious issues?

(fair warning, I'm going to swear a lot in this next segment)

Pro-cheating: Dude, a few folks in power made terrible choices that disenfranchised so many of us. But I live in reality-land, and a) I'm used to voter suppression existing in this country, which sucks and which we must work against, but which exists nonetheless, and shit, it's not like the Republican party is anti-voter suppression, so where am I supposed to go? and b) I could go third-party (I'm actually registered third-party) but to me, electing a racist rapist is worse than electing someone who misuses the system in a way in which the system is commonly misused. Voting third-party in this election would put more strength toward the racist rapist's chances.

Pro-mishandling of our nation's secrets: I've used government computers and they suck, so I can excuse someone opting for an easier way with work emails. With classified emails? Wow, that is some bullshit, agreed. But also, I live in a world where our former Vice President outed a CIA operative for political revenge. This is bullshit, but it's same-old-same-old government bullshit. Again, not my highest priority given the pro-racism platform Trump was building.

Pro-poverty: We COMPLETELY agree that this is a huge problem in our country. However, we disagree where the blame goes or what we should do about it. I put the blame on de-regulated banks and corporations who have been screwing Americans for generations. And I believe what we should do about it is fund social services for food, housing, and health care (and especially health care because that is the number one driver of bankruptcy in our country). We disagree on what to do, but all sides agree this is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Pro-poverty, jobs overseas: We COMPLETELY agree on this one too, but disagree on blame and what to do. I blame corporate lobbyists creating policy loopholes that allow them to screw American workers and America in general. I believe we need to reform policies to stop letting corporations screw us. And also, Trump, corporate entity that he is, creates jobs overseas and not in America. That is who he is and what he has done for decades. So no, I don't believe for a second he'd do anything to stop that from happening, when he hasn't done that in his own business dealings.

Pro-poverty, immigration: I don't agree that poverty is caused by immigrants coming in and taking our jobs/living on our social services. The data doesn't bear it out; they actually bring wealth into this nation, they pay taxes and start businesses. Other issues like drug trafficking and human trafficking overlap with, but are ultimately separate issues from, immigration. I am ALL FOR addressing issues like drug trafficking and human trafficking.

Pro-corporate money overtaking policy: One of Clinton's plans was to overturn Citizen's United. Trump has bragged about bribing politicians. They are no different from each other in this regard as far as I'm concerned, though she has at least paid lip service to actions that would reduce future corruption in this area. From Trump I got nothin'.

Basically, all of these things that make me out to be a crazy, sneaky, unethical and possibly criminal voter who is ardently pro-ruining our country... These things just don't compare in my mind, my values, my hierarchy of priorities to the fundamental problems with Trump as a person -- hatred, racism, sexism, and sexual assault. I recognize the issues, but they're not as important to me as the issues I prioritize.

But maybe, just maybe, they are not actually voting pro-racism and pro-sexual assault, maybe they see these things as just typical, regular American bullshit. Things that suck, but not as much as cheating, national security, and wealthy establishment politicians not having their back.

And so now, let me turn back to the Rhetorical Why and the Actual Why for voting for Trump. Do 60 million people really vote on a pro-racism, pro-sexual assault platform? Do they really put racism as their number one priority for voting? Or, or, or... are they willing TO LIVE WITH this guy spewing racism, spewing sexism, bragging about sexual assault, bragging about bribing politicians, bragging about not paying small businesses and contractors for work done, bragging about not paying taxes (rich folks not supporting our country like the rest of us)... because they more strongly prioritize things like corruption, cheating, and national security?

These things, these things embedded in the Rhetorical Why are intolerable to me. I am willing to live with other political and rhetorical bullshit because I cannot tolerate these things. I cannot abide them. I do not consent to them. I am entirely unwilling to overlook them and prioritize corruption, cheating, and national security.

But maybe, just maybe, my friends who voted Trump, those ones who are not actually voting pro-racism and pro-sexual assault, maybe they see these things as just typical, regular American bullshit. Things that suck, but not as much as cheating, national security, and wealthy establishment politicians not having their back.

I don't get it. I won't lie. We have a fundamental divergence in our hierarchy of values. And at the core of it, OBVIOUSLY I don't get why someone's priorities would fall so vastly different from my own -- because obviously my priorities fall so securely where they do.

But I do get THAT our priorities our different. I believe that at the core of it, we are all seeing the same, or at least similar, problems and issues that need to be addressed. I believe that we diverge in what causes those problems and issues, and what we should do about those problems and issues. I also believe we are mostly on the same page about the fact of those problems and issues.

I've been thinking about how to move that dialogue forward... the Actual Why.

The Rhetorical Why's... I think we have our answers. I think we have our judgments. I think that's all we talk about anymore, locked inside our various echo chambers. The Actual Why's... those are the conversations that actually need to happen. And they need to happen across party lines. And they need to happen sincerely, and thoughtfully, with listening and clarification questions and an earnest desire to understand so that we can stop diverging quite so much when we talk about where to place blame and what to do moving forward.

I've been thinking about how to move that dialogue forward... the Actual Why. And I've been thinking about how could I possibly move that conversation forward when the centermost core and heart of my values is saying that I must firmly, and stubbornly, and loudly resist the hatred, the racism, and the misogyny that are so strongly embedded in our dialogue moving forward.

I don't have all the answers. I have very few answers. But I have one answer that I'm going to try out for awhile and see where it takes me: I am going to stop relying on memes, and on other people's words and commentary and jokes and arguments to make my points. From my perspective right now, posting "link to thing THIS" without any additional thought or articulation of reason -- it's cheap. It's boring. It takes away from real conversation. It is catharsis but nothing more. We may enjoy that, but we don't need that right now. America needs Actual Why conversations for understanding.

I'm de-meme-ifying my life for awhile. No political or social commentary in one-sentence jabs. If I have something to share, I'm going to explain why it matters to me, what I think about it, in my own voice. No more cheap, boring, Rhetorical Why judgments about 'why I'm right' as self-evident, self-satisfying, momentary, thoughtless, echo chamber agreement. I'm adding myself back into this conversation.

*****

This is my long-winded post about my need to understand what is happening. I'm a psychologist and an academic, and I need to do these things in part because it's who I am. I'm also intellectualizing what is happening in our country and our world in a classic ego-defense to process my grief that racism and sexism are making such a loud come-back. I'm also white, so I have the privilege of trying to sort through the Why's rather than simply fearing for my safety. But also, I'm white and an academic and I'm privileged and I have a responsibility to use these things to make the world better.

My mom posted a quote from Toni Morrison about how great art is made in times like this. Artists are driven to create during tough times. And sure enough, my art is writing, and I can't stop writing right now. My art is thinking, and I can't stop thinking right now.

There will be more posts to come, and hopefully in some of these posts I'll find ways to explore the Actual Why's of what is happening. But also, there will be posts on social justice, and on racism, prejudice, and discrimination; and on sexism and sexual assault. There will be posts on how to be an ally to folks whose actual physical and bodily and political safety has been put at risk with this election. There will sometimes be strongly worded discussions about my perspectives on justice issues that leave little room for other priority hierarchies of values. I can be both of those things in turns -- understanding, and uncompromising. It's part of the human condition.

The Best of Who We Are

It's been a long night, and now it seems that we have a Trump Presidency supported by a Republican House and Senate. As a liberal, pacifist person, I feel like this reality should be hitting me like dismay -- you know, because politics and my guys versus your guys, and what direction do we want America to go in, etc. But it's not. Not really. I feel calm. The fear I have is deep-rooted, soul deep. I keep thinking about the word "survival" and I keep thinking about what we need to do to survive and I keep thinking that that path has just become that much more difficult. And it wasn't an easy path to begin with.

Right now, the next morning over coffee as I'm looking back over the past year, it seems like this race has been a struggle for survival. Some pundit last night -- I don't remember who, sorry, there were so many -- made the case that this surge for Trump might have been because he tapped into this deep-seated fear that the traditions and the values and the demographics of American had changed too much, too fast. Trump is the manifestation of a white majority clinging to their ever-fading majority status. The rise in numbers and efficacy of minorities, the rise in power of women... these things are too far away from our traditional way of life to be comfortable, and coupled with economic collapse and slow recovery, the loss of manufacturing jobs, etc., all culminated into this soul deep appeal to stop the change and bring back all the strengths of who we have always been.

Survival, yeah? This metaphorical struggle for "us" to "survive" as "who we are." That's a powerful piece. I don't think I've ignored this piece, but I do think I've underestimated the depth and breadth of it. Many people in our country feel that this has been a fight for our way of life.

Right now, the next morning over coffee as I'm looking back over the past year, I'm thinking about the type of survival I've been faced with this year.

Trans folks I know have experienced an upswing in violence along with the policies about where they are allowed to pee -- a general pervasiveness of a social sentiment and norm that 'you may not be safe anywhere because of who you are.' Physically safe, that is. This is not a way-of-life metaphor. This is a literal life and bodily safety reality.

Black folks have been striving to make visible the invisible and systematic killing of their young men during routine police encounters that would not have threatened my physical safety because I am white and small and female. Their very existence as black people is threatened, again, not in some way-of-life metaphor, but in the literal 'being disproportionately killed' reality. Couple this with disproportionate incarceration, underemployment, and other metaphorical way-of-life blockades and barriers thrown up every step of the way in their life's journey because of systemic and institutionalized racism, and you see that Black Lives Matter means stop killing us, and also means let us live.

Latinos, and I think Mexicans specifically, have faced an uptick in racism and xenophobia lobbed their way with all of this conversation about walls and border security and Mexicans being drug dealers and rapists. The thing is, the reality of this conversation is conflating two very different issues -- drug cartels and people moving to America for a better life. They have the same color skin and speak the same Spanish, so I can understand how people who don't bother to look past those things could naturally assume that every Latino is possibly a drug cartel assassin... no. No hyperbole. The drug cartels are a major problem on our continent, and one that needs to be addressed. Full stop. Somewhere else we can argue about how. Simultaneously, our country is becoming more brown as more and more Latinos who are just people, looking for a better life for them and their children, good solid citizens and Christians to boot, are coming to America and staying here. And they are harassed by police, by politicians, by laws, by citizens. Literal survival. Can I be physically safe in America my home? Will my children be physically safe in America my home?

Muslims (as well as, frankly, anyone who looks Muslim -- hijabs and turbans aren't just Islam; Middle Eastern features aren't just Islam) have received xenophobic hate and rhetoric about internment camps and locked borders because of their religion. Some dismiss this as just rhetoric, but that ignores the history of internment camps we have here in our country, and it ignores the more recent history of conflating violent religious extremists who are Muslim with all Muslims (3+ million in our country; 1.6 billion in the world). I got pepper-sprayed at a counter-demonstration against a KKK rally once; even as we're running away in chaos, no one turned to me and said, "she's a white Christian -- she's one of them!" No one has tried to block my churches from being built; no one has harassed or assaulted me for the religion I was. But this fear and hatred for extremists (justified) is being cast with blanket injustice against people who are just people.

And women. It seemed the country went crazy with understanding the daily danger that women are in, the daily harassment we face, the constant threat of violence and assault, the entitlement that men we do not know feel to our bodies. In reality, I personally have experienced no noted upswing in threats to my person since Trump's comments on that bus went viral. No upswing, just the same threat as always. But I have felt scared and unsafe almost every minute of every day as our public and political discourse rushed to explore, to expose, to minimize, to dismiss, to criminalize even the stories that women share of this constant harassment and assault. I feel physically unsafe in this world anyway, because women must feel physically unsafe in this world in order to be vigilant enough to hopefully remain safe. But now, now I also feel slandered and dismissed, long before ever speaking up.

For LGBTQ folks, people of color, religious minorities, and women, this election has largely become a struggle for survival -- the literal kind, where we want for physical safety and are not assured we can have it. And for others, we have the struggle for survival of our way of life as Americans -- the survival in which you won't die or be physically harmed, but life will change and you don't want it to. Objectively, these issues of survival are false equivalencies -- lifestyle versus actually staying alive? Not the same at all -- but psychologically speaking, these issues of survival all feel the same. People whose metaphorical survival is threatened feel (physiologically, psychologically, emotionally, cognitively) as though the are in a struggle for literal survival. Those who actually are in a struggle for literal survival... well, how could we possibly accept that your fear of change is commiserate to my fear for my physical safety, since, you know, it is not the same thing at all.

That's what I'm thinking about this morning. It is not that the people who brought Trump into office are literally fine with threats against LGBTQ, Black, Latino, Muslim, and women people... it's just that they feel like they too are under similar threat, that are threats our equivalent, and that this is just politics. I'm telling myself this because I'm not yet ready to entertain the idea that America is a place where half of the country actively wants to harm LGBTQ, Black, Latino, Muslim, and women people. I can't believe that yet. Right now I have to believe that this is not about America's desire to harass, assault, kill, and legislate against us, blocking us into perpetual unsafety and uncertainty.

We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of healing to do. If it is true that pretty much everyone in our country feels like they are under threat (literal or metaphorical), we've GOT to fix that. In my ideals of America, the best of who we are is a diverse group that works together to find the best way forward. And we have politics and infighting and everything else because there is no way 300+ million people could all possibly agree on the best path forward. But the best of who we are is that we try. I don't trust that this kind of healing could possibly come from the very top of our government, not with this President. Other politicians, maybe. From us, the people? Yeah, we can do this.

We've got work to do. And we've got to be the best of who we are while we do it. And we need to do this together.

That's all I got in me today, optimism-wise. Because in my reality, half of the country just voted to decrease the physical safety LGBTQ, Black, Latino, Muslim, and women people. So here is my mantra, again and again:

We've got work to do. We've got to be the best of who we are. We need to do this together.