When organizations turn people off....

[OneGrassRoot]

In having a discussion with a lifelong conservative Republican who voted for Obama, I noticed Archie Bunker-type comments were coming out of his mouth again.

I wanted to get to the heart of what that's all about, as he is not a teabagger and he genuinely wants Obama to NOT be like Bush (so, he likes Obama and everything he campaigned on but wants him to be more forceful in calling people out).

I'm not sure I succeeded, but here's one thing that came of it, and I find it interesting.

Without a doubt, my racist relatives always HATED the NAACP, ACLU and the like.

So did my friend. And, he still does.

After talking about it for an hour, what it comes down to -- for him -- is this:

It's not the movement itself; I believe he genuinely supports Civil Rights (if only in the last few years since his conversion to a more compassionate, just human being...lol).

It's the people leading various movements that turn him off. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (the Twana Brawley incident did it for him all those years ago).

And, on the surface they turn him off to discussion ABOUT the movements themselves, as I tried to get past the figureheads of those organizations to discuss WHY those organizations have been necessary and why they're STILL necessary.

Nowadays it isn't just the NAACP and ACLU. It's unions and PETA....and no doubt others. Organizations that have a great cause and serve a great purpose, yet so many won't even discuss the causes themselves and diss the whole thing with all the "do-gooder" snide comments and such.

I have to say, I loved PETA when they first came onto the scene and was an active member myself in the late 80's/early 90's. But I think their militant turn (though radical action is often necessary, so I admit this is a gray area for me) has turned people off, which is a shame because their cause is JUST AS IMPORTANT NOW AS EVER.

Same for unions, NAACP, etc. The core mission is as important as ever, but those who end up leading the organizations can often do a disservice by turning off those who need to hear the message. There's a chance that they will listen (moderates), but the leaders can do more harm than good and take away from the core mission involved.

I don't know. It just seems in order to get the media spotlight to gain attention for your cause, the people in the spotlight -- just like politicians -- can be corrupted by ego and power and they end up veering away from the core cause and mission, doing a disservice to their organizations.

Then again, I suppose it's like everything in our divided country. There are many who are turned off by what moderates may perceive as "militant" actions, while others feel they aren't radical or militant enough.

It's really hard to have legitimate, in-depth conversations because of all these perceptions and misperceptions.

It was an interesting conversation though. Bottom line, it just makes me sad because, with the non-teabagger types (teabaggers are hopeless to me), it's hard to have a conversation about the issues, because they rarely allow themselves to deal with the core issues since they're turned off by what -- and who -- they see in the news.

The media does more harm than good in this 24/7 news cycle...


edit for not having enough coffee yet...

[LiberalLoner]

1. I think too, there are a great many people who are so cynical and mean, they

genuinely do hate and despise anyone who tries to do good in this world, whether it's fighting for civil rights, fighting for the poor, fighting for mistreated animals, or fighting for the planet to survive.

I truly don't understand the people who genuinely hate anyone who has a good and kind spirit and tries to do good instead of harm in the world.

All I can think is, maybe it makes them feel less comfortable about their own meanness and cold-heartedness, and maybe they hate because of that? I don't know.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. I agree....

There is a great thread on DU (I'll try to find and return with it) discussing the attacks on people who are homeless.

I, like others in that thread, believe it's deep-seated fear that leads to such mean-spiritedness. To me, anger and hatred always disguise fear.

I think the teabagger types are terrified, small-minded people who lead lives filled with fear, and thus they are so easily manipulated by others who feed that fear (Limbaugh, Beck, "fire and brimstome" religious leaders).

Their fear of "someone is going to take MY stuff, my life!" leads to hateful, selfish actions and lifestyles.

After a natural disaster, people of all walks of life, all colors and belief systems can come together without a second thought. Survival is at hand. Yet, when it moves beyond sheer survival, human nature -- and whether one chooses to live a life of love versus fear -- manifests.

Of course, there are many people who are simply trying to survive each and every day, but when it's not a common experience, that's when those who are terrified turn away...probably for many reasons, though none of them truly justified, IMHO.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. This is the OP and thread I mentioned....

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8776352&mesg_id=8776738

[NWHarkness]

2. Sounds like making excuses to me

"I support civil rights, I just don't like people who stand up for them."

"I support working people,but I can't stand people who try to help them."


Sorry, I don't buy it.

[OneGrassRoot]

4. It very well could be....

That's what I'm trying to understand now as I ponder this conversation, knowing this person as I do.

That could very well be it though.

:hi:


Edit to add that I don't want to simply dismiss it as him making an excuse. Call me crazy, but I'm genuinely trying to understand where we can find common ground and understanding, stripping away all the crap that distracts. It is hopeless with the teabagger types; but there are others who aren't heartless and completely ignorant and without compassion...I'm trying to find the common ground with them, and find out where the walls exist, in order to move forward.

[PassingFair]

8. What union leader pisses him off?

What does he have against unions?

If he's like MOST people, the only
union leader he's EVER HEARD OF
is Jimmy Hoffa.

[OneGrassRoot]

10. He no doubt buys into the general meme...

that union leaders are thugs and criminals. He didn't give a specific example.

Now that I'm typing this out, that's pretty much what it comes down to. And it's not just people like him...it's many people who have this perception.

That the organizations themselves -- and general members -- are admirable and necessary. But, many of us do indeed have the perception that those who lead organizations are taking advantage of things. Organization leaders tend to make a LOT of money in these times -- it's why non-profits have such a black eye, because people are learning more and more about how much of their donations go toward administrative fees and such.

So, maybe this is just a power issue? A resentment against those in power, even if their power is in the form of leading a worthwhile organization?

A spin-off of the haves and have-nots and that widening gap?

I'm rambling here...typing/thinking out loud...as I try to understand. ;)

[loudsue]

6. It reflects the success of the propaganda machine.

I wish more people would study the Powell Doctrine of the 1970's. Everything that is going on now is reflected in the intentional take-over of the national debate starting back then.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Could you direct me to where I could find out more about this?

The only thing I find regarding the "Powell Doctrine" are hits regarding Colin Powell and the Iraq War.

I've never heard of this.

Thanks! :hi:

[loudsue]

9. This isn't the best site, but I can't find the best article on it right now.

Here is some good info, but not the best.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html

[OneGrassRoot]

11. Thank you very much! :) n/t

[AnArmyVeteran]

17. Thanks for the link Loudsue...

[loudsue]

18. You are both very welcome!

Thank you for showing interest. The Powell Manifesto, or Powell Doctrine, has had far reaching repercussions.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. He's fine with liberals, just not with liberals who have lawyers

Always remember to make such people be specific. Example, you say about Al Sharpton "the Twana Brawley incident did it for him all those years ago". First that phrasing makes it sound as if this person knew of Sharpton prior to that event, and changed his mind accordingly, when 99.9% of the county met Sharpton around that event. Second, I'd ask him to recall that event, what actually happened, and what Al's role in it was. Timelines. Names of other players. Your pal will not know any of that. He knows to say 'twana Brawley'. And that is all and you frame it for him as if he had engaged you in a rational explanation of his views on Sharpton. What was it about that event that was the deciding factor? Etc.
This is just so much excuse making.

[OneGrassRoot]

13. Gotcha

I hear you. Point well taken. :)

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Specifics are always the key

[lunatica]

15. Your friend's thinking has been manipulated because he allows it

Don't forget to always include the power of manipulation and how prevalent it is. It almost seems as if it's quite normal and benign until you start questioning the source of what you're hearing and the message itself. You seem to be quite savvy about organizations, whereas your friend's knowledge seems to be based on what he hears about their leadership. Yet you're approaching him as if he is also self-informed on the issues.

He may genuinely be more compassionate now, but to dismiss an organization based on the leadership is shallow and shows ignorance of the issues. And I would like to add the question of exactly what is so bad about Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Their leadership has kept Civil Rights front and center. Can you imagine what the situation would be like if no one kept the fight up? What would happen if the NAACP had claimed victory and dispersed 30 years ago?

The leadership may not be perfect but the organizations are strong, and they're fighting because they need to fight.

The same goes for unions.

My suggestion is to inform your friend of all the good things that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have done so he can make a much more informed judgment. If he still feels the same way it's because that's how he wants to feel.

[OneGrassRoot]

16. I couldn't agree more....

In fact, what I was trying to get to the heart of is what I perceive as racism.

I've written here many times how I was raised in a very racist family, surrounded by other racists, and find myself -- no matter where I live -- surrounded by racists, some overt, some more veiled. Usually it's very obvious to me when that is the underlying reason for people acting and behaving as they do.

Yet some have racist worldviews yet truly don't realize it. They've never been made to question or examine their beliefs.

That's what I was trying to get at with my friend...and I honestly think that's at the heart of the attitudes about Jesse Jackson and others, though that doesn't speak to the knee-jerk reaction about unions and PETA, for example.

Racism and bigotry abound, in so many ways that have become accepted, especially in those over 40. People don't examine why they feel what they feel. I'm hoping that in encouraging those who are at least open to discussion, the truth of why they feel what they feel can come out and we can learn together.

[Edweird]

19. Where do ya draw the line - The Dead Kennedys

"The Party Line says no.
Feminists can't wear fishnets."
You wanna help stop war?
Well, we reject your application
You crack too many jokes
And you eat meat
What better way to turn people off
Than to twist ideas for change
Into one more church
That forgets we're all human beings
Where do ya draw the line?