The Extraordinary Arrogance of "Kamikaze" Kenney

Lorne Gibson, Alberta's elections commissioner, has had his differences with the province's Conservatives. In 2009, he was Alberta's chief electoral officer and, unhappy with the 2008 election, he recommended 182 reforms to the province's electoral system. The Conservative government of the time was not amused and failed to renew his contract. The NDP, however, admired the cut of his jib and hired him for the new office of election commissioner created under the Act to Strengthen and Protect Democracy in Alberta.

Now Gibson has got under the skin of the Conservatives again. He has been investigating the so-called "kamikaze" campaign of Jeff Callaway for leadership of the newly-formed United Conservative Party (UCP). Callaway allegedly entered the race to discredit Kenney's chief rival, Brian Jean, only to drop out and endorse Kenney weeks later. So far Gibson's investigation has resulted in fines against 15 people totaling $207,223. The investigation now may be coming to an end. The UCP has introduced Bill 22 which, among other things, will eliminate the position of elections commissioner.

The election commissioner is an independent officer of the legislature and to fire him in the midst of an investigation of the governing party is an act of extraordinary arrogance. Furthermore, the UCP intends to invoke closure on the bill limiting debate to three hours, all while Premier Kenney ducks the debate entirely with a visit to Texas.

The UCP has said that the chief electoral officer could rehire Gibson or a replacement and continue the investigation. However, there is no timeline and, in any case, the current chief electoral officer's contract is up in April. The UCP will then choose a new officer which, considering they are under investigation, is rather like a defendant in court choosing his own judge. The RCMP is also investigating the UCP leadership race. Fortunately Kenney doesn't have his own police force, but of course he's looking into that as well.

Kenney is ruling Alberta more like a strongman than a democrat, perhaps taking a cue from the pipeline-loving president of our good neighbour to the south.

Democracy or Putinism?

Vladimir Putin has been quoted as saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." Whether or not his words have been interpreted correctly is a matter of dispute; nonetheless, his compatriots apparently agree with the sentiment. According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, over 60 percent of Russians consider it a "great misfortune that the Soviet Union no longer exists," an increase in 13 points since 2011. The sentiment was strongest among older Russians, those who spent most of their lives in the USSR, but even half of millennials agreed.

Fewer than a quarter of Russians say ordinary people have benefited since 1991, while most say life is worse than it was under communism. Two-thirds are dissatisfied with how "democracy" functions in Russia.

Does this reflect badly on democracy? Not at all. As I pointed out in a previous post, people in most East European countries believe their lives have improved since the Berlin Wall fell, and are supportive of democracy and free markets. And they certainly don't miss the Soviet Union. Of the eight former Soviet bloc countries surveyed, only Russians are growing more convinced that the economic situation was better under communism.

This would be a real concern if what the Russians are experiencing was democracy, but it isn't even close. It's a combination of rigged elections, political intimidation, suppression of civil rights and economic gangsterism. In a word, it's Putinism.

Unfortunately democracy is increasingly getting a bad name among people who think they are living in a democratic state but in fact are ruled by some form or other of Putinism. The confusion is understandable in societies that have never experienced democracy but are told by their rulers that is what they have. Simon Tisdall, writing in The Guardian, observes that "instinctively undemocratic, oligarchic and corrupt national elites find that an appearance of democracy, with parliamentary trappings and a pretense of pluralism, is much more attractive, and manageable, than the real thing." Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary proudly refers to his increasing authoritarianism as "illiberal democracy." Illiberal it certainly is, democratic not so much.

Unfortunately, we frequently hear these corrupt regimes referred to as democracies even in this country, apparently for no other reason than that they have elections. This does neither the word nor the practice any favour. It creates the impression that democracy is somehow failing when in fact it is about as strong in the world as it has ever been. And it helps give a variety of unsavoury characters a status they don't deserve.

Time for Evo to Go?

Evo Morales has done great things for Bolivia. Perhaps his most important contribution has been giving Brazil's indigenous people their country back. For centuries after the conquest, as has been too often the case in Latin America, the country was dominated by its European-descended people, the heirs of the conquistadors. Indeed, in a country with an indigenous majority, he is the first indigenous president.

Morales has accomplished many of the goals he set for his presidency. The country has prospered with an annual economic growth rate of 4.6 percent, over twice that of all Latin America. He instituted social programs that helped lift over two million people out of poverty. The poverty rate has dropped from 60 percent to 36 percent. In a show of diversity familiar to Canadians, he included women, indigenous people and labor leaders in his cabinet. Working with leaders of Andean, lowland and Amazon tribes, he drafted a new constitution, approved by 60 percent of Bolivians in a 2009 referendum. He even changed the name of the country from the Republic of Bolivia to the Plurinational State of Bolivia to reflect the diverse ethnicities that had, for centuries, felt like second-class citizens. His success has been an inspiration to first nations’ movements worldwide.

He was lionized as a result, his name gracing schools, stadiums and cultural centers. He was re-elected three times and in 2019 for a controversial fourth. But recently his star has begun to fade. Tensions with indigenous people first emerged in 2011 when he proposed a road through the Isiboro Sécure Indigenous Territory, enraging native groups and environmentalists. Protesters marched for over a month before the project was suspended. Adolfo Chávez, former president of The Confederation of Indigenous People of Bolivia, said “When Evo took office we thought indigenous people would never have to march again.” In 2013, the government announced it would permit hydrocarbon exploration in the country's national parks, seriously affecting Morales' formerly impeccable environmental credentials.

Signs of grandiosity have emerged with the opening of a $7-million museum in his hometown telling Bolivia's recent history through his achievements and a $34-million presidential palace in La Paz. The civil service has become politicized with its members dragooned into demonstrations of support for Morales, and there is suspicion of corruption in the awarding of state contracts. A cooling economy has not helped.

But of greatest concern from a democratic perspective is his reluctance to give up power. Despite his own constitution setting a limit of two five-year terms, Morales asked voters in a referendum to let him run again in 2019. When they said no, he convinced the Constitutional Court, consisting of judges nominated by his allies in Congress, to let him run anyway. The ruling on term limits has fueled continuing demonstrations, and questions have arisen about the recent election.

Morales is accused of using state resources to promote his campaign and packing the electoral tribunal with his supporters. The election result is suspect. With over 80 percent of the votes counted, it looked like a runoff with the second candidate would be required, then the tribunal went dark for 23 hours, after which it announced Morales had won a clear victory. While Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico and Argentina have supported Morales, the EU (Bolivia's biggest funder), the U.S., Canada and a number of Latin American countries have refused to recognize the result and are demanding a runoff. An Organization of American States observer mission, backed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, will audit the election. Morales has said he will go to a second round if fraud is found. In the meantime, violent protests rage across the country.

Regardless of the outcome, Evo may have simply outstayed his welcome, as politicians all too often attempt to do. Latin America in particular has seen a host of politicians who rose to power as men of the people and did good things, but eventually were overtaken by their egos and slipped into the role of strongmen. It would be a great tragedy if Morales' historic contributions were undermined by his country descending into another Venezuela.

Eastern Europe happy (mostly) with democracy and free markets

In November, 1989, the world's most infamous wall came down and the "Evil Empire" crumbled away. The communist regimes of Eastern Europe collapsed like dominoes and by 1990 free elections were held, the free market was adopted throughout, and Germany was whole again.

And how do the citizens of these former totalitarian states feel about the transition now? The Pew Research Center has attempted to answer that question with a comprehensive survey of nine Eastern European states. The answer is general approval with some reservations.

For example, in all the countries surveyed, except Russia, more people approved than disapproved of multiparty elections and free market systems, most strongly. Most agreed that education, standard of living, and pride of country have benefited; law and order is about the same; while health care has slipped. Those in nations that joined the European Union generally believe membership has been good for their countries.

Poles, Czechs and Lithuanians, and more than four-in-ten Hungarians and Slovaks, believe their economic situation is better than it was under communism; however most Russians, Ukrainians and Bulgarians believe things are worse. People in the two nations that have not joined the EU, Russia and Ukraine, are less supportive of democracy and capitalism, and less satisfied with their lives than those in nations that are now members.

Perhaps the survey’s most positive finding is people's increase in life satisfaction. Asked if they would rate their lives 7 to 10 on a scale where 10 represents the best possible life, the citizens of all countries showed a dramatic increase over their response to the same question in 1991. In East Germany, for example, the per cent answering yes jumped from 15 per cent to 59 per cent, close to that of West Germany.

On the negative side, there is apparently a widespread perception that politicians, and to a lesser extent business people, have benefited much more than ordinary people. In addition to a certain pessimism about the functioning of the political system, there is worry about economic issues such as the future of well-paying jobs and inequality.

Nonetheless, in every country half or more agreed with the statement “Voting gives people like me some say about how the government runs things.” And young people generally hold a stronger belief that shifting to a market economy has been good for their country, are more satisfied with the current direction of their countries, have more favorable opinions of the EU, and are more optimistic about their economic future.

The shift from communism to freedom in Eastern Europe has been one of the most momentous revolutions in the history of the continent, and an almost entirely peaceful one. It is early days, barely three decades old, nonetheless it appears that in the eyes of the great majority of the people affected so far it has been a success. Score one for democracy.

A bad night for politicians, but not so bad for the country

It was not a good night for political parties. Clearly, the voters were not about to commend the Liberals for their four years in power. And just as clearly, they weren't about to replace them with the Conservatives. The only party that came out laughing was the Bloc.

Personally, I am quite content with a Liberal minority government. I am tired of being governed by political parties that only have the support of 40 per cent of us, as has become the habit lately. When 60 per cent of the citizens don't want the party in power governing them, you may have an electoral system but you don't have a democratic system. Now we can look forward to a government that more accurately represents the will of the people.

I wouldn't have minded a majority Liberal government. After all, they did a lot of good stuff: appointed a gender-balanced cabinet, legalized pot and assisted suicide, negotiated an improved NAFTA, introduced a new child benefit, reinstated the long-form census, unmuzzled government scientists, signed the Paris climate agreement and instituted a carbon tax—a long list. However, despite the latter two items, I was disappointed overall with their global warming efforts and, of particular interest to me, they betrayed their promise of voting reform. So now they are stuck with a minority government anyway—poetic justice.

Most importantly they will need the support of the NDP, my party, to pass legislation. The combined seats for the two parties total 181 (53 per cent) with 49 per cent of the popular vote, not perfect but a big improvement. Add the Greens and it's 184 seats (54 per cent) with 55 per cent of the popular vote—even better. Or they could enlist the Bloc?

Now let's hope the progressive parties behave like adults, recognize the will of the people, and work together. I will now dash off a letter to Mr. Singh with exactly that message.

War Rooms, Secrecy and a Little Patronage—Democracy in Alberta

Former journalist and conservative lobbyist Tom Olsen was the UCP candidate in my riding of Calgary-Buffalo in this spring's Alberta election. Tom lost to Joe Ceci of the NDP, but his loss was only temporary. Recently it turned into a handsome reward. He was named by Energy Minister Sonya Savage to the position of managing director of the newly-created Canadian Energy Centre, otherwise known as the "war room." Olsen will be paid $195,000 a year in his new job, a cut above the $120,931 he would have got as an MLA. For some people it's all horseshoes.

The war room will have a $30-million budget and work to counter what the government considers to be misinformation about Alberta's resource industry. One suspects it will apply a broad definition for "misinformation."

The new centre was set up as a private corporation which means much of what it does will not be subject to freedom-of-information legislation. This lack of transparency was explained by Christine Myatt, Premier Kenney's press secretary, as necessary to avoid providing "a tactical and/or strategic advantage to the very foreign-funded special interests the CEC is looking to counter. For example, we would not let those foreign-funded special interests seeking to attack our province see our detailed defence plans."

Strategic advantage? Attack our province? Defense plans? Is our new government paranoid or have the premier and his energy minister simply been playing too many war games on their PCs? In any case, this secrecy when they are spending taxpayer dollars is offensive. As Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch put it, "Exempting any government public organization from the access to information law is a recipe for waste and corruption and abuse of the public and the public interest." Amen, Duff.

And then there is a very real question about what this war room will actually be used for. After all, you don't need an annual budget of $30-million and secret strategies to counter misinformation. You only need one, very open strategy: tell the truth. What the UCP has set up sounds very like a propaganda centre, and indeed concerns have arisen that it will be used to stifle free speech and demonize those who express views critical of the industry and its contribution to global warming.

Paranoia has a history in Alberta. In 1937, Premier William "Bible Bill" Aberhart's Social Credit government introduced a bill that would have forced newspapers to print government rebuttals to stories the provincial cabinet deemed "inaccurate." The bill was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. This would be a fitting future for Kenney's war room nonsense.

One Gem in the LIberal Package

With promises flying about right and left as the election approaches, one gem emerged from the Liberal package: "We will establish the Canadian Centre for Peace, Order, and Good Government, which will lend expertise and help to people seeking to build peace, advance justice, promote human rights and democracy, and deliver good governance."

With Canada's contribution to creating a more peaceful, just and democratic world order having faded to a shadow of what it was in Lester Pearson's day, it's encouraging to see a promise to re-establish a centre for peace. We have done this sort of thing before but it didn't last. The Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, established in 1984, was shuttered in 1992 by the Mulroney government. The Pearson Centre, established in 1994, was abandoned by the Harper government in 2013.

In addition to our fading diplomatic influence in world affairs, our once formidable contribution to international peacekeeping with boots on the ground has also dwindled. From the late '50s through the early '90s, we were often the single largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions. According to iPolitics, in 1992 we had 3,285 peacekeepers abroad. By mid 2018 we had 41. In 1995 we ranked 6th among nations contributing to missions. We now rank 78th. In 2016, the Liberals promised up to 600 troops and 150 police officers for UN peace support operations. Another promise unfulfilled.

Perhaps the new centre will help put us back in the game. According to the Rideau Institute, a non-profit dedicated to revitalizing Canada’s peace-building role in the world, the centre is "the most interesting new proposal—and one which could yield long term results in strengthening Canadian foreign policy development." And it could indeed use some strengthening.

Is Universal Suffrage Logical? Is it Moral?

Not everyone is a fan of democracy. Other than those who outright prefer dictatorship of one kind or another, some critics simply don't trust all citizens having equal power over their governors. Jason Brennan, a Georgetown University political philosopher, expresses just such a view in his book Against Democracy. Brennan believes that because most people are ignorant of the issues allowing them to impose their will on everyone is immoral. He particularly takes issue with universal suffrage, i.e. one citizen /one vote. As alternatives, he offers various methods of rule by the knowledgeable, which he calls epistocracy.

The idea that only the well-informed should guide society has always been around, dating back at least to Plato. Brennan's book is, nonetheless, well-timed. The two most prominent modern democracies, Britain and the United States, are both currently being run by buffoons. Of course neither buffoon was elected by the people—Trump by the electoral college and Johnson by the Conservative Party—so we can't really blame all the ignorant voters, just some. Nonetheless, both countries are becoming travesties of democracy largely because of voters who were angry but ill-informed, a dangerous combination.

Still, I remain loyal to one citizen/one vote. Although there are those who couldn't care less about voting, I think to most people it has great symbolic value. It says they are as valued as citizens as anyone else. This I think is important, even though Brennan  is quite right that most people have a poor grasp of most issues.

But this is a personal conceit. It's just me. Is there some fundamental reason why people would cleave to democracy? Why the vote has symbolic appeal?

The emotional reason must arise somehow from what we, a social species, evolved to be, our natural morality so to speak. Evolutionary biologists talk about reciprocal altruism, “a behaviour whereby an organism acts in a manner that temporarily reduces its fitness while increasing another organism's fitness with the expectation that the other organism will act in a similar manner at a later time.” In other words, I do you a favour when you need one, you do me a favour when I need one, and if we don't cheat we are both better off. (Cheating is the other half of the story, and an interesting half it is.) From reciprocal altruism perhaps comes our sense of fair play and from fair play, democracy, bequeathed you might say by evolution. ... Perhaps.

The logical reason may simply be recognizing that democracy is essential to a free society. There is no absolute freedom. As long as we live in groups we must have rules. The question of freedom in a society of rules becomes a question of who makes the rules. If one man makes them, or a group of men make them, then we are servants of that man or those men. We are not free. The only way we can be free is to make the rules ourselves. And it follows that we must all have an equal say, i.e. democracy, in making them. If one person has less of a say then that person is that much a servant of the rest of us, that much less free. To accept epistocracy is to accept a diminution of freedom. And that I’m very leery indeed of doing.

As for those who are willing to give up their freedom, well .... they choose to be servants and that's a whole other thing. They will have their own justification both emotionally and logically. Ultimately each person's choice will depend on their personal genetic and cultural history and mine tilts me toward freedom and democracy.

Even if we were to choose those citizens we thought qualified to vote, would knowledge be the best criteria? An important one, yes, but how about judgment, honesty, tolerance, compassion or even simple common decency? You can always gain the knowledge you need, but can you gain compassion?

In any case, people don't vote on issues (except in a referendum); they vote to elect representatives to vote on issues. And they don't vote in isolation. They are greatly aided by political parties who present platforms outlining their positions on issues. This is in fact one of political parties most important functions. Almost everyone I know votes by party, not by candidate, and even people who don't pay a lot of attention to issues have a general idea about what the parties represent.

And once representatives are elected, they are well paid and provided with ample resources to thoroughly familiarize themselves with the issues. They have the entire civil service to draw on, and the civil service contains experts in all the areas they will have to deal with. Indeed, some might argue that a good civil service is more important to a healthy democracy than the elected representatives.

And once legislation is drawn up, it must pass scrutiny in the cabinet, the brightest and best of the representatives (one hopes), then survive three readings in the House of Commons and finally face review in the Senate, before receiving assent. It isn't as if policy was concocted by the ignorant masses on a whim and imposed willy-nilly.

Certainly democracy as it is practiced can use a lot of improvement. But overall it has done better than any other form of government, so it would seem sensible to improve it before leaping into some form of epistocracy. Interestingly, one form Brennan discusses, the "enfranchisement lottery," which involves choosing a random set of voters by lot and immersing them in a competence-building program, sounds very similar to citizens' assemblies, a form of decision-making I consider quite democratic and think should be used a great deal more. I have discussed citizens' assemblies elsewhere.

As long as lots of room for improvement is available, allowing everyone the equal right to simply pick a candidate they think mostly shares their values, or favours their interests, and letting those selected candidates deal with the issues—with experts at their elbows—would seem to be the sensible choice. Democracy has proven to the best of all the many systems we've tried so jumping to something new before we have given it every chance would be a risky venture.

My Reluctant Strategic Vote

Here's an irony. I'm forced to vote Liberal (again) because Justin Trudeau betrayed me. No, it doesn't make any sense and, furthermore, it pisses me off. But that's just the way it is.

In his 2015 campaign, Justin promised that that election would be the last under the grievously undemocratic first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting system. He reiterated his promise in the throne speech. He then established a committee to study the issue and they did, thoroughly, spending hours of their time and effort, and that of others, on the project, and concluded by recommending a referendum that would propose a "proportional electoral system." Trudeau then flushed the recommendation down the toilet, in effect dismissing the entire exercise, including his promise.

I suspect he intended a form of ranked voting system to win the day because it would favour the Liberals, but when he lost control of the process he lost interest in the whole idea. Under a proportional system he wouldn't have gained 100 per cent of the power with the support of only 40 per cent of the people, and politicians really, really don't want to give that up.

So why am I voting Liberal? This week the Liberal candidate in my riding, Kent Hehr, knocked at my door and I explained it to him. I chastised his leader for betraying us on what is a very important issue, but assured him that he would still have my vote, even though I'm a member of another party. Two reasons. One, because he has represented me as both an MLA and an MP and I think he has done a good job. And two, most importantly, because he is the only candidate who can beat the Conservative. He assured me that he too felt betrayed on voting reform and would take my opinion back to Ottawa.

Under a democratic voting system I could vote for the candidate that most closely represents my views but under FPTP, in my riding it's either Liberal or Conservative. My preferred parties simply don't get enough share of the popular vote to win the constituency. A vote for one of them is a wasted vote. It does nothing but help the Conservative. So, once again, I' m back to second-rate democracy and strategic voting. Thanks, Justin.

Inhabiting the Radical Middle

While I take an active interest in politics, and have always been a member of a political party (sometimes two), I no longer get directly involved in election campaigns. My reason is one that many people share—politics just seems to bring out the worst in people. Enter the world of political activity and you enter a world of self-righteousness. Your guys are always right and the other guys always wrong. You see this on peacock display on the election campaign trail and in question period in the House of Commons.

I confess to suffering from no little political self-righteousness myself. I am guilty of confirmation bias, i.e. selecting those facts that support my view and ignoring those that contradict it. I am inclined to put winning a political argument over sincerely trying to understand what the other guy is saying. And, yes, I mansplain. (Hey, I'm a blogger!)

I was delighted therefor to discover a set of self-correctives that I can use to keep my attitude in better balance. Aids to critical thinking, one might say. The set appear in a Linked In article entitled "Top Ten List on How to Inhabit the Radical Middle"  by Maggie Hanna, geologist and "consulting innovator." In case anyone may find Maggie's list as useful a tonic for bias as I do, I'm including it in full below. I intend to refresh my mind with it from time to time when I find my tolerance slipping. I tripped over a few bits, such as the Dalai Lama's comment on truth, but for the most part ... well, read on.

Maggie defines the radical middle as seeking to find common ground rather than trying to convert the opposition. She explains, "Occupying that space opens up the possibility for people in a divided debate to not only sincerely speak with each other, but also to form partnerships. What if those partnerships could form, not in spite of each person’s passionately held convictions, but because of them."

1. Temporarily loosen one’s grip on one’s own point of view. When we recognize that our own point of view has evolved over time, then we recognize that it can never be absolute. How is your perspective different from when you were 16 years old? Pretty different I bet. What will your perspective be in 10 years’ time? Not sure yet, but it will be different. We can always come back to our basecamp after ranging out, and return to the specialness of our own hard-won moral compass.

2. Ask oneself a BETTER question. The quality of our questions determines the quality of our lives. Our brains are hardwired to immediately go to work on whatever question we pose to it. If you ask yourself a disempowering question like, “Why is this person such a dip-turd? Or caustically annoying, or dumb as a bag of hammers?” … your mind will tell you why, but it will not advance your understanding of that person, their position, nor yourself. Instead we might ask a better question like, “Is there something, a word, an image, or a metaphor, in what this person is saying that is meant for me?” or “How could the opposite of what I think actually be true?” Those are questions worth turning one’s mind towards.

3. Occupy both your head and your heart at the same time. Wisdom is the marriage of knowledge and emotion; the head and the heart. Knowledge can be defined as our ability to organize categories in one’s mind. It is significant, but it is not wisdom. Real wisdom requires both mind and emotion. If one runs only on emotion without clarity, it is not wisdom. If one only has perception without heartfulness, it is not wisdom. It is the heart that provides those flashes of lucidity, recognition of resonance, and the acuteness of knowing that is undeniable. It is when we overcome the artificial barriers that separate the mind and heart that we can be in both places at once, 100% in our mind and 100% attuned to the information being shared with us from the heart. It is not an “either/or” proposition. It is a “both/and” way of being.

4. Be here now. The present is the only moment there is. Instead of obsessing about the past which has already happened, or worrying about the future which isn’t here yet; have a real interaction… now. We have to be to very much here to hear what otherwise would be missed.

5. Use one’s intuition to sense behind what a person is saying. Everyone has intuition. Intuition is the norm and the natural. It is not something that happens to us… it is us. When someone speaks against our firmly held belief or position, our tendency is to react, attack, defend and convince that person otherwise. What if, instead, we got quiet for a moment, checked in with our intuition, and asked a clarifying question? What common need or concern underlies their position? Why is this point so important to this person?

6. Seek to find the commonalities between their position and your position. This requires a flexibility of mind. Even world religions are over 80% the same stuff as each other. Why focus on the 20% that is different? Rather focus on the similarities and not the differences. Find something you can genuinely agree on. For example, one might use the phrase, “I know exactly what you mean”. It affirms the other’s position and does not dilute one’s own. Such a phrase makes safe space for the other person to open up more, and unpack the deeper reasons and experiences that have formed their position, which enriches the conversation.

7. Leave some space to consider and reflect on what the other person has said. This is hard to do when part of us is feeling challenged, feisty, and uncomfortable. It is a practice. Leave a moment of space, instead of crafting one’s response while the other is still speaking, which means we are only listening with half an ear. Receiving another’s point of view doesn’t mean we must abandon our own.

8. See the wrong in the right, and the right in the wrong. We often divide the world into two parts, the part we like, and the part we don’t. There are many other sides to every story besides our own. In what way are the other person’s assertions right? In what ways are my assertions wrong? It is liberating to not identify with what you seem to be. What if we suspended our point of view for even a day and embraced the opposite view for a day to see what it is like to walk a mile in that person’s shoes? This requires a flexibility of mind, a level of respect, and a recognition that we are all human beings with a beating heart, born of a mother, and destined to die. We all need food, water, medicine. We all appreciate conviviality and shared interests, and we have each suffered ordeals that we cannot know in another. What if, as an infant, you were switched at the hospital into this person’s family and raised that way? You could be talking to yourself! The Sufi teacher Pir Vilayat was fond of saying: “To become what I might be, I have to see myself in another myself, who shows me who I truly am.”

9. Embrace Discernment over Judgement. Discernment is the evolving ability to recognize ever more nuanced distinctions between two things that are very close to each other. Whereas Judgement is about making someone’s position “good, right and true” or “bad, wrong and evil” depending on how it relates to one's own position. A rule from the Knighthood of Purity (…google it... it’s profound and cool) states, “My conscientious self, judge not another by your own law.” No one likes to feel judged. It shuts down the conversation really fast. It is also unhelpful to use one’s position like a big stick to beat someone up who disagrees … tempting sometimes…but never ultimately useful. The Dalai Lama said, “The truth is always kind. If it is not kind, it is not the truth. It is cruelty”.

10. Make it personal in a good way. When a person acts in a certain way that we don’t like, it is not personal unless we choose to make it personal. There are two ways to make it personal; an unavailing way or a profitable way. The first way is to react poorly as if attacked… we argue defend, attack back, become agitated, blow a gasket…. not useful. The second way is to really hear a person’s stories because there is abundant information in them which is ours to witness. We are being shown something. That person could become our “Angel in Jackboots” teaching us a hard lesson about ourselves and/or about human nature that we can be grateful for, if we allow the lesson. In the Hindu tradition, there are stories about Krishna stealing butter as a metaphor for gleaning wisdom from everyone’s stories. The way of wisdom is to learn from everyone else, and I do mean EVERYONE, as grist for the mill of our own evolution.