No one has picked up on my central point: That political activity is so often angry and hostile, and that coverage of it as a slugfest or a horse race too often dominates the news.
I suppose we ignore those points because we can't do anything about them. So, yes, let's keep on keeping on, for all the causes that matter.
I am sitting in a hotel waiting for friends to meet up with me as we leave the women’s Comvention in Houston. It was full of energy and ideas. Voting is important but we need to focus more on local elections, too. We talked about practical policies, the math behind the family rights act in California- it is a big win for myriad stakeholders and much more. My niece led delegates from Indiana so I came to support her and I am so grateful I attended. People shared how to get permits for protests, how to run for office, why it is okay to disagree, how to engage with opposing positions, how some groups contributed to new policies and more. There are so many ways to productively engage with the world and I feel hopeful. Someone at the conference said hope is optimism plus hard work and it is a discipline. I am not sure if that is hope but I like the idea of combining optimism with hard work!
Lovely. I've been thinking a lot about hope lately -- what does it look like, in times like these? I want to go back to the chapter I wrote on it, in -Worldly Virtue-. Did I talk about it as habitual action? That's the central element in any virtue. Your phrase, optimism plus hard work, gets at that. Thanks.
I had a lot of cancelled flights on this trip and I couldn't read the kindle on my iphone, which is the version of your book I have that I purchased in 2019! I vaguely remembered that you wrote about hope as a virtue and the difference between hope and optimism. I just reread the chapter now that I am back home and I like the idea of open hope. I understand skepticism, but if I study social movements in the United States I am grateful for those people that were hopeful and did the hard work. I am sure it would be easy to be skeptical regarding if women could ever get the right to vote, if slavery would ever end and on and on. But people believed it was a possibility and worked to create policies that were less cruel and unfair. If they could do it, then why can't we do it? Some of the activists at the convention have worked on issues such as family medical leave, reproductive rights, and environmental policy for decades. Their hearts broke when some important care provisions were taken out of the recent bill, but care is on the radar now. It likely wouldn't be if it weren't for people with relentless hope. They also have policy successes. Would the bill that recently passed have done so without so many people willfully holding a belief that it there is a possibility it could pass if we all work hard to make it so? I think if we believe in at least some human free will, then we have to acknowledge that the possibility for change exists. I agree with you that hope is a virtue.
I talk politics more than most. But most of my conversations are with friends who are at least somewhat compatible in outlook. I am impatient with those who can easily but choose not to vote, because huge issues are at stake; perhaps the biggest is action to stem climate change, because surely none of us wants to hand off a fatally damaged world to our grandchildren. I have on occasion been confronted by acquaintances who are hostile to my views, aggressively so, and I can usually hold my own, by just stating what my values are: I think we are all in this together, I am my brother's keeper, I am willing to have the government redistribute my wealth to make our community (local, regional, national, and international) more healthy and more equal, I don't think I am or my nation is exceptional. If my conversational partner can state his values then we can look for points of agreement. Often the conversation goes no where because there is no overlap, but at least we heard each other. I am currently wondering what is meant by a "values voter." Is this not every voter? And, if so, then what does this say about the non voters.
I tend to avoid discussing politics with my spouse whose views almost diametrically oppose mine. We always vote , usually canceling each other. Most of my friends ‘ opinions mirror mine,but I prefer to listen rather than actively engage in discussions. Smile more, talk less.
The thing is, you vote. And you think about what you vote. That's what matters. And I have to admit that listening (especially with a smile) is often the best contribution to any discussion.
No one has picked up on my central point: That political activity is so often angry and hostile, and that coverage of it as a slugfest or a horse race too often dominates the news.
I suppose we ignore those points because we can't do anything about them. So, yes, let's keep on keeping on, for all the causes that matter.
I am sitting in a hotel waiting for friends to meet up with me as we leave the women’s Comvention in Houston. It was full of energy and ideas. Voting is important but we need to focus more on local elections, too. We talked about practical policies, the math behind the family rights act in California- it is a big win for myriad stakeholders and much more. My niece led delegates from Indiana so I came to support her and I am so grateful I attended. People shared how to get permits for protests, how to run for office, why it is okay to disagree, how to engage with opposing positions, how some groups contributed to new policies and more. There are so many ways to productively engage with the world and I feel hopeful. Someone at the conference said hope is optimism plus hard work and it is a discipline. I am not sure if that is hope but I like the idea of combining optimism with hard work!
Lovely. I've been thinking a lot about hope lately -- what does it look like, in times like these? I want to go back to the chapter I wrote on it, in -Worldly Virtue-. Did I talk about it as habitual action? That's the central element in any virtue. Your phrase, optimism plus hard work, gets at that. Thanks.
I had a lot of cancelled flights on this trip and I couldn't read the kindle on my iphone, which is the version of your book I have that I purchased in 2019! I vaguely remembered that you wrote about hope as a virtue and the difference between hope and optimism. I just reread the chapter now that I am back home and I like the idea of open hope. I understand skepticism, but if I study social movements in the United States I am grateful for those people that were hopeful and did the hard work. I am sure it would be easy to be skeptical regarding if women could ever get the right to vote, if slavery would ever end and on and on. But people believed it was a possibility and worked to create policies that were less cruel and unfair. If they could do it, then why can't we do it? Some of the activists at the convention have worked on issues such as family medical leave, reproductive rights, and environmental policy for decades. Their hearts broke when some important care provisions were taken out of the recent bill, but care is on the radar now. It likely wouldn't be if it weren't for people with relentless hope. They also have policy successes. Would the bill that recently passed have done so without so many people willfully holding a belief that it there is a possibility it could pass if we all work hard to make it so? I think if we believe in at least some human free will, then we have to acknowledge that the possibility for change exists. I agree with you that hope is a virtue.
Well put. I agree.
I talk politics more than most. But most of my conversations are with friends who are at least somewhat compatible in outlook. I am impatient with those who can easily but choose not to vote, because huge issues are at stake; perhaps the biggest is action to stem climate change, because surely none of us wants to hand off a fatally damaged world to our grandchildren. I have on occasion been confronted by acquaintances who are hostile to my views, aggressively so, and I can usually hold my own, by just stating what my values are: I think we are all in this together, I am my brother's keeper, I am willing to have the government redistribute my wealth to make our community (local, regional, national, and international) more healthy and more equal, I don't think I am or my nation is exceptional. If my conversational partner can state his values then we can look for points of agreement. Often the conversation goes no where because there is no overlap, but at least we heard each other. I am currently wondering what is meant by a "values voter." Is this not every voter? And, if so, then what does this say about the non voters.
It is so important, at the person-to-person level, to get beyond hostility, and to listen. Thanks for ideas about how to do that.
I tend to avoid discussing politics with my spouse whose views almost diametrically oppose mine. We always vote , usually canceling each other. Most of my friends ‘ opinions mirror mine,but I prefer to listen rather than actively engage in discussions. Smile more, talk less.
The thing is, you vote. And you think about what you vote. That's what matters. And I have to admit that listening (especially with a smile) is often the best contribution to any discussion.