Here’s a question for you: “Do introverts commit acts of violence? The only way to try to answer this question is to acknowledge that at least one premise of the statement is probably faulty. It is unlikely that there are individuals who are introverts 100% of the time. It’s more likely that we are all live on the Introvert / Extrovert continuum and depending on the situation we are in; we slide to different points on the scale.
But there clearly are people who spend more time to the left of the center-point (Ambiverts), and ones who spend more times to the right. So, for those people who live more to the left on this continuum (in the comfort zone of being an introvert), it seems likely that they would avoid violence. They would not be the people on the streets of America’s cities who are smashing windows, looting, and possibly even scuffling with law enforcement officers. In fact, they may be far less likely to even be on the street protesting.
To march, picket and protest, someone has to feel pretty confident about going into crowds and asserting oneself. My hunch is that most introverts would much rather watch what is happening through the digital pictures from their televisions, computers, or even phones. But that does not mean that introverts cannot, or do not, engage in actions promoting social change.
Many introverts are frequently in thought about how to change our society for the better. They often put their ideas to paper and provide us with clear purpose and direction as we work to help society clean up its ailments.
One could argue that societal change happens best when there is either formal or informal collaboration between those who are in a frequent state of reflection about what is happening in our world, and those who comfortably take to the streets and other public places to let the world know what they think and the intensity of their beliefs.
But this picture of the thoughtful non-violent introverts has the requisite exceptions to the rule. One of the quietest, most secluded and reclusive individuals in modern American history engaged in over twenty acts of horrendous violence. His name is Ted Kaczynski; also known as the Unabomber. Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 also had many attributes of an introvert.
Maybe if we eliminate from our universe of introverts those who harbor extreme amounts of anger and hate, then we can more clearly state that introverts tend to be non-violent. But in all fairness, we could say the same about extroverts.
It’s all complicated and I certainly do not have clear answers. But, it’s something that I’m pondering now. Can those of us who spend considerable time functioning as introverts, be helpful voices for moderation when are streets are rioting? Can we also be leaders in promoting progressive solutions to problems that send so many others to the streets? As Donald Trump shows us every day, those of us who believe in rational thinking and embrace empathy must take whatever non-violent action we can to help solve America’s and the world’s problems.
Joe Biden had another “foot-in-mouth” moment a few days ago when he agreed to a radio interview with a gentleman who goes by the modest name of “Charlamagne tha God.” Some might say that Biden makes mistakes in his use of language because he is frequently over-energetic, or even hyper. That may be, and at his age (77; 78 by Election Day), it is unlikely that he will develop any more self-control than he already has.
Joe Biden had another “foot-in-mouth” moment a few days ago when he agreed to a radio interview with a gentleman who goes by the modest name of “Charlamagne tha God.” What most of us have heard is what Biden said more than seventeen minutes into the interview, “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” Charlamagne, who is African-American, did not cheer Biden on, instead he said, “It don’t have nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with the fact I want something for my community.”
There are so many ways to take this exchange. It’s possible that what Biden said would have gone largely unnoticed in the decade of the 1960s. The 1960 presidential election was when African-Americans took a commanding step away from the Republican Party (the party of Lincoln) and began voting in huge numbers for Democrats. Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society was largely responsible for this migration. But by 1970, the term “politically correct” came into our lexicon.[1] Such a comment by Biden or anyone would then have been unacceptable.
Regardless of how accurate Biden’s statement about African-Americans voting Democratic might be (approximately 93%), it certainly did not apply to all African-Americans and it assuredly was not politically correct. Generally, it is progressives who are tossing out the allegations of someone or something not being politically correct, but in the case of Biden’s words, conservatives joyfully jump to impugn both Biden’s words and his sentiments.
Biden will pay a price with conservatives for his words, particularly with the millions of African-Americans who do not identify with the Democratic Party. But he also pays a price with segments of his Democratic base because critical thinking, a skill that helps define many Democrats, rarely includes sweeping generalizations.
Some might say that Biden makes mistakes in his use of language because he is frequently over-energetic, or even hyper. That may be, and at his age (77; 78 by Election Day), it is unlikely that he will develop any more self-control than he already has. So, here are two suggestions as to how Joe Biden can minimize making mis-statements that come back to bite him:
Be careful to whom he grants interviews. He does better when his energy and intensity is low, so it would behoove him to limit his interviews to reporters and other members of the media who are especially subdued and restrained in their manner.
Stop the bragging. In his interview with Charlamagne, he dwelled on his accomplishments. This can be unseemly, especially to political introverts and others who measure words carefully. Biden needs to work with advisors to help him identify when he goes into “bragging mode.” The best way for him to avoid blowing his own horn is for him to focus on the future rather than his past. Let others promote his accomplishments. Biden should be the messenger for rational and empathetic policies in the future; essentially the opposite of everything that comes out of the Trump Administration.
Donald Trump is probably chomping at the bit to debate Biden. Trump always aims at the jugular, and the way to combat that is with calm reasoning and well-placed sarcasm. Biden has to avoid the boorishness of bragging and the echo chamber of laundry lists about this and that. Barack Obama may not have been the world’s best debater, but he never lost his cool. If Biden can stay calm, he will avoid doing anything that is self-defeating. Whether we’re talking politics, sports, or any other kind of game, the wise competitor knows to never defeat oneself. Joe Biden has yet to show that he can avoid undermining himself. Let his interview with Charlamagne stand as a reminder that he needs to chill, or be as Trump would say, “low-energy.”
Q: Is there a certain demographic of non-voters we should target? [Jean Dugan – STL League of Women Voters]
A: This is a tough question because it really depends on your reason for asking. Let me posit four possibilities with suggested answers to each:
You are asking because you want to promote democracy.
In this case, you probably want to get the most likely non-voters to flip the switch and vote. This would be regardless of their political persuasion. I would suggest that political introverts would be a good group to target, because with our current “shut-down,” it is within the power of politicians to communicate in more of a “quiet” way to them.
Another group would be those who are angry. We see that on both the left and the right. Anger is a good motivator as opposed to apathy which by definition is never a motivator. Conventional wisdom is that college-educated non-voters would be a good demographic to target, but their reasons for not voting may be more philosophical than laziness. It is my contention that if we want more people to vote, we need to reform schools so that students naturally identify with the political process and come to see engaging in politics is the way to promote their own interests as well as that of society as a whole?
You are asking because you want to benefit the Democratic Party.
In recent years, Democrats have appealed to identity groups, racial minorities, women, the young, the elderly, the economically disenfranchised, others whose civil liberties have been abrogated. Democrats indeed try to reach these groups by trying to offer something to virtually every one of these groups. But one of the great failings of the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016 was insufficient appeal to what she called “the basket of deplorables.” FDR would have referred to them as the core to his base, blue-collar workers.
Democrats need to understand that the FDR base, which has now morphed in part to the Trump base, is just another minority among the patchwork of groups that make up the body politic. Appealing to white working class voters and non-voters is not mutually exclusive from working to enlarge the traditional bases of modern Democrats. Bernie did that well; others can as well. Most policies advocated by Democrats will be of economic benefit to any subsection of Americans. Therefore, it is wise for them to appeal to all.
You are asking because you want to benefit the Republican Party.
In 2016, Donald Trump brought many people who previously had rarely or never voted into his coalition. Most of these people were white, not well-educated, and struggling economically. Many were also angry, and also lived by what Kellyanne Conway called “alternative facts.” Quite frankly, they were fodder for a demagogue. There are more of these people who did not vote in 2016 and who could join the ranks of voters in the future.
Reaching them is a key part of Trump’s strategy. However, if you are a non-Trumpian Republican, you have to find other strategies. These probably include appealing to wealthy people who think that the best way for them to remain wealthy is through “trickle-down” economics as well as others who may subscribe to a “rational non-hateful libertarian” philosophy.
You are from a third (or other alternative) party.
The answer here depends on what issues are most important to your party and how you think that you can interest non-voters in joining your ranks. The Green Party has a natural constituency in environmentalists, but the party has a long record of not winning, in fact, not even coming close to winning elections (though at times play the role of spoilers as Ralph Nader did in Florida in 2000).
If we change our system of voting, it will be friendlier to third parties and beyond. In Political Introverts, we mention Ranked Choice Voting. This makes it much easier for alternative parties to thrive, while still vesting considerable power in the two major parties. Andy Bossie and Anna Kellar are both very knowledgeable about Ranked Choice Voting with information on the Maine Citizens for Clean Elections web site. – Response from Arthur
Q: What is the biggest misconception about people who are introverted. [Anonymous]
A: The biggest misconception is that introverts do not like people. The general belief is that extroverts get energy from being with others and introverts get energy from solitude or quiet environments with one or two people. The truth is all people get energy and feel better after being with others. This information was discovered through a study quoted in Quiet: The Power of Introverts by Susan Cain. Introverts struggle with high levels of stimulation, which may or may not come from people. – Response from Brenda
Q: Can you name any current, well-known elected officials who you would call introverts? [Anonymous]
A: From Brenda: First one to come to mind is Barack Obama. Some say Hilary Clinton is also an introvert. Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, also fits the description of an introvert. A former Trump administration official referring to Trump and McConnell, said, “It would be hard to find two people less alike in temperament in the political arena.” McConnell is known for saying as little as possible but thinking a lot. – Response from Brenda
A: From Arthur: Technically, he may not be current, but the first who comes to mind is Barack Obama. He is a prolific writer, and thrives on loneliness when he is doing that. My hunch is that when he was making policy, he rarely made decisions in a group; rather he would take in others’ ideas and then make his choices in solitude. We’ll learn more about that when his memoirs come out, hopefully shortly after the 2020 election.
Others who might lean towards being more introverted than not might include Montana Governor (and Senate candidate) Steve Bullock, Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono, Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot – but these are all conjecture; labeling is clearly an inexact science. – Response from Arthur
Q: What can we do to get more people to vote in this pandemic? [Anonymous]
A: There is a natural connection between “stay-at-home” life and vote-by-mail.” There are five states in which vote-by-mail is not only legal; it is the norm (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington and Utah). Since many voters in these states are currently living domesticated lives, it is likely that they would have ample time to vote from home. Interest level should be high because so much of what happens in their lives is determined by governmental decisions. However, returning their ballots to election authorities may be a hurdle. Most voters would have to venture out to a mailbox, post office, or Ballot DropBox (similar to mailboxes). Some would be able to avoid even leaving their homes if they have one of those mailboxes in which they can leave outgoing mail for pick-up.
In other states, many voters can request absentee ballots. But that is different from vote-by-mail because rather than automatically receiving a ballot at home, these voters have to request the ballot. Also, states vary in terms of what are valid reasons for voting absentee and whether the ballots need to be notarized.
For those who would vote by going to the polls, there will be countervailing forces. Many will be reluctant because of the risk of coming in contact with other voters or poll workers who might be infected with COVID-19. On the other hand, it is hard to imagine an election in which the stakes would be higher than in 2020, and in which there will be such a clear choice among the candidates.
Elections in 2020 should be much more attractive to political introverts. Most of the “noise” in politics will be diminished without big rallies, and possibly without conventions. If there are debates, they may not be in front of audiences, which again would make them quieter. Issues should become more important; image less so. All of that would be appealing to political introverts who may find politics more inviting than they have in the past. Many political introverts would also like to vote from home rather than going to the polls. – Response from Arthur
Q: Do political introverts donate to campaigns, as a way of participating behind the scenes? [Anonymous]
A: Excellent question, but I have seen no evidence to either affirm or deny this contention. Since the definition of a political introvert is vague, it will probably be difficult to determine. – Response from Arthur
Q: Back to education. What role do parents play in the competitive climate of high school? In my teaching experience, I sensed lack of empathy often came from home. [Stephanie Gavin]
A: It takes a strong person to live a life in which competition and empathy are mutually compatible. I’m far from good at this, but when watching a sporting event, I usually feel as bad for the team that I root against as I do feel good for “my team.” We tend to demonize opponents. I don’t believe that this phenomenon frequently occurs in elementary school, but it ramps up in middle school and often becomes close to out of control at the high school, college and professional levels. In this regard, the United States is no worse than the countries in which soccer is the be-all and end-all of sports, and to a certain extent, life.
Competition in schools goes far beyond sports. There are constant races to get ahead – grades, test scores, admissions to private schools and then to college. Parents often stoke the fires within their children. In a sense, the parents, and then the children are being rational. After all, a student can rise to be the valedictorian only if other students get lower grades than he or she does. A student’s chance of getting into the college of his or her choice with a good financial package not only requires him or her to do well, but also for others to do less well. If a parent is thinking about the best interests of his or her child, then it makes sense for that parent to not be empathetic towards the competition.
In a society in which it is equally important to promote the common good as it is to protecting individual liberties, we need to be sensitive to the needs of others. American schools are not designed to give students the skills to strive to be the best while concurrently being empathetic to the needs of others (at least those who are not in each students’ “inner circle”). If schools can look at their communities as being a microcosm of the world at large, then students can have the opportunity to learn to value each individual student with respect. If a school is successful at that, then the students will be more likely as adults to be empathetic towards others in their localities, their nation, and the global community. – Response from Arthur
Q: What’s your observation on how introverted students respond to the competitive environment of the school you work in? [Anonymous]
A: Academically, they are competing just as diligently if not more so than extroverts. They feel the pressure and, in my opinion, experience a lot of anxiety. There is a lot of inner turmoil trying to complete assignments, speak frequently in class (a common requirement), take part in extra-curricular activities (often mentally and physically draining) and maintain a high GPA. It helps if they find an understanding teacher and activities that align with their preference for quieter expression like in a drawing class or writing class. I see many introverts in the AP classes, especially the math classes. Technology classes also give introverts a place to thrive. – Response from Brenda
Q: Has cheating really changed that much from 30 or 40 years ago until now? I’m not sure I think so. [Dan Weinberg]
A: My hunch is that cheating has increased from what it was 30 or 40 years ago, and much of that is confirmed by Rutgers study on cheating that we cited in the forum. In my mind, there are two reasons why.
First, there seems to be a multiplier effect to the acceptance of cheating. The more frequently that people do it, the more acceptable that it becomes. If we go back further than 30 or 40 years; let’s say before the Vietnam War, I think that it is likely that students had more respect for the schools that the attended, and the values of honesty that many schools seemed to promote (though did not necessarily faithfully practice). In my mind, the Vietnam War opened the door to much great cynicism about our society. Cutting corners became more acceptable, and that is central to cheating. Add to this that the competition has become fiercer, and I think that there are more reasons for students to think that cheating is almost a necessity. In most cases, they do not have to look far to find someone else who is cheating.
Second, technology obviously makes cheating easier. Plagiarizing was more difficult when it was not so easy to copy and paste. Students can see much more of one another’s works now with shared platforms such as Google docs. Hacking is something that hardly existed 30 or 40 years ago, but now it is an option for many students who want to access information that provides them with a shortcut. Hacking can also be an avenue for students to actually change their grades.
I’ll take the risk of saying that if pressure to achieve and to match the accomplishments of peers is reduced, then the “need” and desire to cheat will diminish. There is an element of rationality (not necessarily to be confused with morality) in cheating. If students are more motivated to learn because of their individual inquisitiveness rather than external pressure to perform well, then I suspect that cheating will diminish. Regrettably, I’m not sure that very many educators are looking at it that way. – Response from Arthur
Q: Do you think that any of the election reforms that are being discussed would encourage introverts to vote? [Anonymous]
A: Voting by mail makes it easy for introverts to not have to leave their homes. This is convenient and avoids small talk at the polls. J Candidates more like themselves might encourage introverts to vote as well. I’m not sure if rank choice voting or changing political funding laws will convince an introverted non-voter to vote. –Response from Brenda
Whenever
anything unexpected happens, there are unintended consequences. Such is the
case with the coronavirus and its impact on American politics. Rallies are out,
and for good reason. Whoever heard of a rally in which supporters had to comply
with six-foot social distancing rules?
Debates
without audiences are in. No more pandering to the audience; no more
interruption of the natural exchange of ideas because some in the audience has
to have their “Whoo” moment.
This
is unintended good news for those among us who see ourselves as political
introverts, or perhaps those who are not admitted political introverts, but
prefer to keep their distance.
There
are various terms used to describe introverts. One is “quiet.” Who thought that
they would ever get to experience Bernie Sanders with the decibel knob turned
down? (Well, I was wrong about that, based on the Sunday, March 15 debate with
Joe Biden).
But
with the “present normal” of politics, and not withstanding Bernie, we are less
physically assaulted by sound waves. More
of his energy can go into putting together thoughtful sentences rather than
edgy slogans.
This
is an excellent time for all of us to consider how we wish to be approached by
those running for office. The Coronavirus has put the plug on rallies. It will
be interesting to see if politicians can scale down their intensity and connect
with voters in a way that is so vitally needed in these difficult times.
It never occurred to me until recently that the Democrats might have a
candidate who generates something akin to the blind loyalty of Trump
supporters.
Yes, I knew that Bernie supporters were fervent, but I did not fully
sense how many in his base follow the mantra of “Bernie or Bust.” My
awareness of this increased in recent days, first when my
thirty-six-year-old niece said that she had switched from Elizabeth to
Bernie because she was so impressed with the energy and commitment of
her peers’ support of Bernie. It was not the transitory type that
Elizabeth had, but rather more of the “to-the-very-end” type that Bernie
has. Later, another relative told me that much of her life was on hold
while she was immersed door-knocking for Bernie in her home state of
California, which wisely this year moved its primary from June up to
Super Tuesday (March 3).
It is hard to imagine Joe Biden generating deep loyalty and, as good
as Pete Buttigieg might be, he seems to have a knack for saying things
that gratuitously piss other people off. If Amy Klobuchar gets the
momentum that she has earned and deserves, then she may too develop
followers who will go to the mat for her.
But as things stand now, Bernie is the one Democrat who has something
akin to a cult following, one in which it is virtually impossibly to
pry away supporters. Does that sound familiar? Well yes, the fact that
Donald Trump’s popularity with his base actually increased during the
impeachment process shows two clear things: (1) it is virtually
impossible to get his base to waver, and (2) these things called facts
don’t mean a whole lot, if anything, to his base.
This is where there is a fundamental difference between the Bernie
Cult and the Trump Cult. There is a rational foundation to why Bernie
has such a strong following. We can see it in two dynamics:
Bernie’s policies are based on reason and empathy. Trump’s are based
on insecurity and fear. Bernie wants to finish the work on the social
and economic safety net for Americans that Teddy Roosevelt began, his
cousin Franklin Roosevelt institutionalized, and Lyndon Johnson
expanded. But the United States is unlike other industrialized
democracies because there are enough Americans who resent the idea of
“security for all.” For an excellent explanation why, I suggest reading Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project in the New York Times Magazine.
In a nutshell, it is that many white Americans do not favor extending
equality to people of color and other minorities. It might be helpful to
watch a recent guest appearance of Hannah-Jones on the Daily Show with
Trevor Noah.
Unlike Trump supporters, Bernie supporters will not give their
candidate a blank check to do whatever he wants. While Trump is all over
the map, Bernie is consistent, perhaps to a fault. What you see is what
you get. In fact, what you see is essentially what you’ve seen from him
for the past forty years, with the one exception of gun control, where
in his early years he [had to] pander to his gun-loving Vermont
constituents. Bernie’s supporters’ commitment extends beyond him
personally and stretches to the concept of a fair and just society. If
he should waver in his commitments, his base would begin to unravel. If
Bernie was one percent as corrupt as Trump, he would offend many in his
base, and they would likely leave the reservation.
Last Friday evening, Bill Maher said on “Real Time” that Donald Trump
had just had his finest week (in terms of popularity). Maher and others
are becoming more scared that the dreaded “four more years” might
happen.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democratic Party does not have a
candidate who can go toe-to-toe with Trump. I don’t believe that. I
think that the intensity of Bernie’s base support gives him a far
stronger foundation than other Democratic candidates. Should it become
likely that he will win the nomination, the fervor of his support could
grow exponentially. It will have to, because the nastiness of his
opponents will also multiply. While I have my reservations about Bernie
(I don’t like being yelled at), I still think that he is our best bet
(along with possibly Klobuchar).
Jim Jones, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, these are the cult leaders who can scare anyone who has the ability to engage in rational thinking. Trump may not have reached their levels, but he’s scary and unhinged. But perhaps in this unique moment of 2020, we have a leader who has a semi-cult following who wants to truly improve the quality of life for Americans and all global citizens. It’s odd that things have developed this way, but for the time being, we may want to go with our “semi-cult leader,” Bernie.
Yes,
there is no evidence that the cause of the tabulation fiasco in Iowa was
because of Russian hacking. But the elephant in the room (besides Donald Trump)
has to be Vladimir Putin, who put the fear of disruption in the hearts and
minds of all “woke” Americans.
Putin
did not need to do anything in Iowa except let his reputation precede him. The
powers-that-be in the Iowa Democratic Party, organizers of the caucuses, wanted
to try a streamlined method reporting results from each of the 1,681 caucus
sites to the central tabulation center in the state capital of Des Moines. They
chose to use a new app on smartphones that would immediately communicate
results from each of the venues to headquarters.
If
this was as recent as the Iowa caucuses four years ago, months before the
public learned of Russian efforts to destabilize American democracy by probing
and poking into our system of digital communication, there would not have been
a problem. The app would have been thoroughly tested and coding errors or other
glitches would have been resolved well before the actual caucuses began.
However,
in the world of 2020 electronic reporting, we know that Vladimir Putin in
Russia and cyber-stalkers in other countries are looking for ways to penetrate
American vulnerabilities. When they actually hit a home run, they are able to
steal or manipulate data and use if for their disreputable purposes. But they
can also be very effective with a “doubles offense” in which the only impact that
they have on the United States is to reinforce the fear that exists about the possibility
of hacking.
The
“doubles offense” is what happened in Iowa this past Monday night. The Democratic
caucus organizers did not want to engage in beta testing of their new app in
advance of the gatherings for fear that Russia, or some other country or groups
of cyber-hackers would engage in nefarious conduct and try to disrupt the
system. By not testing the system, they went to a default assumption that it
would work fine.
Had
it worked as anticipated, everything would have gone smoothly in Iowa. However,
there was some sort of an error in the app, perhaps in coding, perhaps in
compatibility with the outside world, that brought chaos to reporting the results
from around the state to the site of central data tabulation.
The
apparent work-arounds did not work. Phoning results in from the field to the
central office did not work because there was not a high capacity phone bank at
Des Moines headquarters to handle calls from over 1,500 remote sites. In some
cases, representatives of nearby caucuses chose to jump in their cars and
literally drive their results to the Des Moines headquarters. That did not work
because the officials were not allowing outsiders to enter the building.
It’s
easy to mock what happened in Iowa and the individuals who designed and
implemented the strategy for the evening. But they were in a place in which
many of us currently find ourselves; overwhelmed by the complexities of modern
computing power. This time it was the Democrats of Iowa who made the seemingly
avoidable mistakes; next time it will be someone else.
Two quick lessons that can be learned: (a) we cannot be vigilant enough, and (b) KISS [Keep It Simple, Stupid]; i.e. a straight-up popular vote elections makes counting and recording much simpler than the likes of caucuses or even the Electoral College. Let’s be smart out there!
This article in cross-posted in Occasional Planet.
Presenting at League of Women Voters Forum in October, 2014
Twice
I have run for Congress, as a Democrat, but I might as well have run as an
introvert. You may have heard of me had I won, but it’s important to note that
the real reason that an introvert like me got the Democratic nomination was
because nobody else wanted to run in a strongly Republican district (which
fortunately is changing now and may turn blue this November).
I am
passionate about politics. I find it very troubling that in the United States
we leave millions of people behind. For many, it is economically; for others it
is socially; still others educationally. You know the drill; there are a myriad
of ways to be left behind in any society. I became more aware of this around
the time that I was seven years old. Many Sundays I would go to St. Louis
Cardinals games with my father in what was the first if three iterations of
Busch Stadium. I knew that something was wrong by what I saw as we walked five
blocks from where we parked to the stadium. North St. Louis was different from
the suburb where I had grown up. Virtually everyone was African-American, most
of the homes were in disrepair, and the looks on many faces were ones of
despair. Why was this so? I wasn’t sure, but I knew that somehow, some way,
when I “grew up,” I would try to do something to in some small way remedy the unfairness
in our society that I was experiencing for the first time.
I
first visited Washington, DC when John F. Kennedy was president and then became
even more committed to wanting to be a positive agent of change. My career
choice was a teacher, because (a) it was an opportunity to try to provide
empathy and support to young people, and (b) by teaching in inner-city St.
Louis, I was exempt from the draft, and this was during the Vietnam War.
I
have enjoyed virtually most minutes of teaching. However, by 2010, I wanted a larger
platform from which I could address national and global issues. But I was
scared to run for office; I did not think that I belonged. There were things
that were absolutely abhorrent to me, fund-raising for example. As a person who
largely sees himself as an introvert, I could hardly think of anything worse
than asking another for money. Let me begin to count the ways: (a) I don’t want
to be beholden to anyone else, (b) the person whom I am asking may well need
the money far more than I did, and (c) what gives me the right to argue that
giving money to me or my campaign is a worthy endeavor?
Public
speaking was something in which I had experience; it’s hard to teach without
doing it. But I’ve never had a day of teaching when I wasn’t anxious about
getting in front of the students and even more unnerving was my time as
director of an independent school when I had large audiences of, can you
believe this, adults.
So,
in 2010, when I first ran for Congress in MO-02 (against the infamous Todd
Akin), I wanted to reach voters, but I didn’t want to have to do it by reaching
voters. Does that sound familiar to any introverts? Fortunately for me, the
expectations of what I should do were low. As far as party Democrats were
concerned, the only thing worse than me running would have been for there have
been no name on the Democratic side of the ballot. I limited myself to three or
four campaign appearances a week.
Nobody endorsed me, but that was fine because it would have meant standing on a stage and saying disingenuous things about the endorser as he/she did likewise about me. There were no rallies to attend, because the Dems were just that down in the ‘burbs of St. Louis (as I said, fortunately that is changing now). There were “meets-and-greets” and gatherings at voters’ homes. While those were never easy, they were small and contained. I had chances to recharge my batteries both before and after.
I
like to say that what I did was to run a campaign with integrity. I say this
with reservations, because it strikes me that integrity is like honesty and
courage where there is no clear sense of what it is and what it is not. But
let’s use the term ‘integrity’ as a handle to describe what I was trying to do.
Attempting
to run with integrity meant that I did not force myself to do “stupid human
tricks” the sorts of things that so many politicians are forced to do. I’m
talking about mindlessly waving at everyone at a parade, kissing babies who
might most of all want distance from a stranger, and dressing up in team colors
regardless of where one’s loyalties might lie.
I
had the freedom to run this way, with a certain reckless abandon. Had I been in
a competitive district, that would not have been the case. The Democratic Party
would have cast me aside and gone with the traditional candidate, the one who
is an extrovert and does not mind, perhaps even enjoys, the silly things that
politicians have to do, including asking others for money and turning that cash
around to run misleading or excessively self-promoting commercials.
Those
of us who see ourselves as introverts often think that we have a special wisdom
on the world. I feel trepidatious about saying that; I would prefer that introverts
have different kinds of insights from people who live more of their lives as
extroverts. But introverts’ preferences for quiet, for space, for thought and small
group conversations strike me as entry-ways for those who run for public office
to communicate clearly with voters. They can resonate with voters in a way in
which substance takes precedence over image. There is room to have
give-and-take about the issues that our society faces and to explore ways to
try to solve them.
The
more candidates running for office who choose to either let “their inner
introvert out” the more politics will be acceptable, perhaps welcoming, to the
25%-50% or whatever the correct percentage is of the people who fall on the
introverts end of the intro-extro scale. It’s my contention that this would be
a very good thing, not only for introverts, but for the country at large.
Recently, I published a book, Political Introverts: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics. A basic premise is that our electorate does not seem to be up to the task of providing the country with the quality of leaders who we need. It fascinates me that in 1968 the country elected Richard Nixon and forty-eight years later Donald Trump won a majority of the vote in the Electoral College. During those intervening forty-eight years, we have reformed our educational system to presumably give us a wiser electorate. But no matter how much standardized testing we do, how many AP courses students take, how credentialed teachers are, we did no better in 2016 than 1968. So, my book advocates three types of change:
Make politics more welcoming to introverts. What do we have to lose? Introverts are frequently more thoughtful, deliberative and empathetic (not always, but enough to make a difference). How do we make politics more introvert-friendly? Part is by making it easier for introverts to run for office, but also to downplay “silly politics” like rallies and give greater importance to thoughtful conversation. Another big step would be to drastically shorten the length of campaigns, because two-year campaigns make it virtually impossible for introverts to recharge their batteries. In England, campaigns are generally six weeks long.
Acknowledge that changing schools is the gateway to changing politics. We need to make it easier for “natural teachers” to get into the classroom. Forget the credentials; look for individuals who are primarily concerned about the well-being of each student, individuals who communicate well, who have senses of humor, particularly the self-deprecating kind, and who most of all are empathetic.
Promote structural change in American politics such as eliminating the Electoral College. Get rid of gerrymandering and voter suppression. The houses of Congress should not be fiefdoms in which a Mitch McConnell can stifle not only the will of the minority, but also of the majority. Distribute the power equally among all members of Congress. The electorate will be more interested in government if they sense that it operates in a fashion that is fair and comprehensible.
Change
has to be thoughtful and deliberate. That is largely consistent to the ways in
which introverted people operate. So, to all of my fellow people who spend much
of their time on the introverted side of the continuum, consider trying to find
ways to engage in politics and still be in your comfort zone. It’s not easy,
but I think that that the country is really at a loss when our political
process keeps introverts to the outside. Let’s try to work our way in and
concurrently maintain our dignity. It’s not easy, but well worth trying.
If
you happen to have a very stern father, or know someone else who does, wouldn’t
Mitch McConnell telling you “no” about anything be housed in your collection of
worst nightmares? Here’s this grizzled, remote, empathy-challenged man
undermining your hopes for the future.
Why
does McConnell have so much power? Hint: although his persona can be
very intimidating, the real reason why he strikes fear in the hearts and minds
of Americans is not because of who he is. It is because of the power
that has been bestowed upon him as the current majority leader of the Senate,
power granted through the rules adopted by all one-hundred members of the U.S.
Senate.
Our
founding fathers and those who followed them as legislators in the federal
government threw caution to the wind when it came to distributing power in a
democratic fashion in the U.S. Congress. Why is it that the Senate Majority
Leader, one of one hundred, can singularly determine such essential to
democracy decisions as:
Which bills
introduced by other Senators can be brought up for discussion, assigned to
committees and voted upon.
Who gets to serve
on each committee within the Senate?
Empower committee
chairs to once again determine which bills will be considered, whether or not
witnesses will be called, and if so, who will be included and who will be
excluded.
Determine when
the advice and consent process of confirming presidential nominees for vital
positions, including Justices of the Supreme Court, will be considered by the
Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate (remember Merrick
Garland).
Bernie
Sanders talks about a revolution of the people, but it’s amazing how much would
happen if there was a revolution of ninety-nine Senators other that Mitch
McConnell to strip him and other leaders of the entire body and its assigned
committees of their currently prescribed powers. There is less democracy in the
Senate (and the House) than there is among the populaces of the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, the Russian Federation, or the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Individual senators have less power than their own children in a 5th
grade class or their older children who are privates in the U.S. Army.
Hell,
yes to this revolution. But for some reason, it’s not going to happen. Senators
and Members of the House are powerless simply because they choose to be. It is
almost as if the status quo has a special gravitational pull on them and
they are locked into the current positions.
Among
the forces that perpetuate the worst elements of our political process are
money and mindless tradition. We know that the only real way to wash the
insidious role of money in politics is to eliminate private donations and have
a system of public financing. When it comes to mindless traditions like the
system of seniority in the U.S. House and Senate, the non-empowered Members
need to become the voice of the people and amplify their own personal voices in
their chambers. It’s not just about the right to talk; it’s about determining
the subjects that can be discussed, studied and voted upon.
As
the impeachment trial of Donald John Trump begins, it behooves us to notice the
loci of power in the process and to think about how things could be different
if each individual senator was (a) not intimidated by “leaders,” and (b) was
free to operate as the individual that he or she is.
It
probably won’t happen this time, but if we as vigilant citizens enhance our
awareness and express our concerns to our elected officials, in time, things
can take a positive turn towards legislative democracy.
According to 538, the candidate who spoke the least in the December Democratic Debate among presidential candidates was businessman Andrew Yang. Not only did he say few words, but he did not interrupt and he never raised his voice.
Andrew Yang in July, 2019
Is there a correlation between his subdued tone and the fact that he offers a special vision of the future that includes a recognition of the reduction of jobs that are available, replaced by artificial intelligence and robots. He asserts that American citizens need not be penalized by higher unemployment because a guaranteed income provides family revenue which essentially pays adults to engage in important tasks from parenting to being active citizenship.
If you think that you might be a political introvert, it might serve you well to follow Andrew Yang and his campaign. Just a thought.
![Political Introverts: How Empathetic Voters Can Help Save American Politics by [Lieber, Arthur]](https://i2.wp.com/politicalintroverts.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Cover-Jusha-2019-11-13-c-scaled.jpg?fit=692%2C1024&ssl=1)
