This is on you. Beto O’Rourke, gubernatorial candidate confronting Texas Governor Greg Abbott, Uvalde press conference
I can’t believe that you’re a sick son of a bitch that would come to a deal like this to make a political issue. Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin in response
The latest horrible child massacre – Uvalde, Texas. The latest act of rage, revenge, blame, or what – directed to innocent victims who did nothing to the perpetrator other than just show up for school Tuesday. Just the latest of countless, senseless acts of mass violence.
How are we to respond this time? Perhaps nothing defines a society more than its ability to address its biggest problems – which are always difficult or they would not have grown so big. We face this most recent tragedy with our own understandable anger, desire for revenge, our own opinion of what needs to be done and often in the process, placing blame on the other side. If anger and blame worked, we would have resolved this repeated problem long ago. Yet aside from compassion, the most visible response to date is one side blaming the other for doing something, or nothing or for politicizing the issue.
The question is how shall we respond differently this time in a way that will yield a different outcome? Everyone is incensed. To get a different outcome however, will require different sides – like pro-gun and anti-gun – who see the world very differently to break the gridlock to get to constructive action. Each side has their curated view of the problem to be solved and much of that involves blaming someone or something else who stands in the way.
At the core, our inability to act constructively to stem violence is not a gun problem, or a mental health problem or lenient judge problem or even a legislative problem. It is first and foremost a relationship problem. Stakeholders such as parents, gun owners, teachers, mental health experts, politicians, law enforcement all facing a compelling problem, have lacked the collaborative relational capability to pool their expertise and to work through their differences to develop a comprehensive set of constructive actions.
Differences of opinion are not new; we have always had those. But, why have we been unable to muster the relational lubricant to get past the friction and the relational glue, to use Bowling Alone author Robert Putnam’s terms, to stick together? Although very different, we were able to greatly diminish airline hijacking a few decades back.
Psychologist John Gottman, noted for his ability to spend 15 minutes with married couples and predict with 90% accuracy 15 years later whether they would still be married, considers contempt to be the most defining factor in killing relationships. He defines contempt as trying to speak from a higher level while attempting to push another down to a lower level and as closely related to disgust and completely rejecting and excluding someone from the community. Contempt toward other concerned citizens who see it differently than you – no matter how noble your intention – is a form of violence and destruction for getting to constructive action. Relational violence precludes corrective action for addressing physical violence.
In true relationship there exists purpose that is higher than being right, winning an argument, getting our way or always being boss. If you want to be always right, to win all arguments and get your way, be boss – live alone on a desert island. But here in the real world – at home, work, in politics and faith – to get to the “good” that comes with our differences we must endure the other’s “bad” that stretches and confounds us.
I have often quoted former General Peter Pace when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who commented on the bloody sectarian violence in the midst of the Iraq war, “If the Iraqi people as a whole decided today that, in my words now, they love their children more than they hate their neighbors, … this could come to a quick conclusion.” Sectarian violence, used to describe Iraq in 2006 seems an apt description for much of our nation today. Can we love what unites us more than we hate what divides us? Can relationship trump contempt.
How about for once we all look in the mirror and decide the higher purpose of taking constructive action is so important, that we are willing sacrifice something sacred – our sense of being right and even our contempt of those who see it differently – in order to make progress. The most salient question is not who is right or how to win the argument or get the other side to do what my side thinks is right. We have proven that does not work. The better question is what can me and my side do, or offer-up, that will enable both sides to take action. How can we craft a winning response that works for both sides? This will only happen when each side is willing to sacrifice something near and dear – their own perfect solution and any anyone else’s along with giving up blaming the opposition.
Rather than blame the other side, over which we have virtually no control and to which our blame just hardens their resistance, how about we look at our own side over which we exercise influence and do the hard work of repairing our own actions that directly or indirectly contribute to the inaction of the others. Just as dysfunctional violence kills our kids, dysfunctional relationships and hatred toward each other kills any hope to fix the problems. It is not as if there is a perfect solution, but what is most despairing, is that in recent years – as the problem has gotten worse, we have been virtually unable to take any constructive action, even in areas where there is relatively strong agreement. Contempt leads to placing more value on stopping the other side than taking small constructive steps together.
We are all hopeful that laws and regulations can make us a safer, more caring society. Yet most of the research like that reported by the Washington Post show that most proposed solutions around assault weapons and large ammo magazines, registration and background checks, mental health, and red flag laws that restrict gun access by identified threats and even bolstering of security have proven individually to produce relatively limited results. The reality is that it is our culture that is most broken and in need of repair. So much of our response of name calling, accusing and blaming the other side only contributes to the cultural warfare.
What If
At this point agreeing to small actions that would yield even limited results in addressing mass killings would be a huge step in the right direction. Further, combining a set of broader, more comprehensive actions might provide a true source of hope and a foundation for future progress while making a step-forward in healing our cultural divide.
What if the pro-gun group were so incensed with what has happened that they no longer look at the narrow gun issue as a war to be fought but rather mass violence as a broader menacing problem to be solved? Rather than direct their energy and venom to fight anyone who would take a single inch of gun freedom away, what if they were to say: Look I think there is way too much attention on the single issue of guns but my heart is so broken by what has happened that I am willing to concede a couple or three issues that might help a little. I am willing to consider some restrictions on deadly assault weapons, to make some concessions around background checks and who is eligible to purchase certain weapons and to support red flag laws that allows intervention when there are clear signs of potential mass violence. These may not even be the right issues, but some concession, that they can make – not their opposition – in the cause to move forward. What if they were to be willing to do this, not because they think it is the best right answer, but because by giving some ground here they can enlist the other side so that combined they can get to the best right action.
What if those who are anti-gun were so pained by what has happened that they examine how their contempt toward gun owners has actually made pro-gun supporters hardened-targets for conceding on gun issues. Blaming law-abiding, children-loving gun supporters in the midst of a tragedy might feel righteous in the moment, but it is not a smart or caring strategy to gain concessions from gun supporters. Rather they might consider how their progressive stances such as “defund the police,” lenient judges prematurely releasing weapons-related offenders, lack of border security and its attendant gang and drug issues is seen by many as contributing to the largest spike in homicides in 2020 since the FBI started keeping records, up 30% over 2019 and rising again in 2021. Accordingly, the FBI reports that U.S. gun sales have almost doubled since the Covid-19 pandemic started, rising from an average of 1 million guns sold monthly in 2019 to nearly 2 million a month in 2020. No surprise firearms were the leading cause of death for children and teens in the U.S. in 2020. Anti-gun supporters may really question if altering their stance on any of these are close to the right answer. But, some combination of these or similar issues might help get us to a better set of actions.
As we have repeatedly demonstrated, neither side can unilaterally move to a better set of constructive actions. It will take both sides conceding – both sides doing something they really don’t support in order to get something that they really do.
Years ago, a highly respected executive said to me, “There’s no telling what you can get done if you don’t care about who gets credit.” Let me add to that: “There’s no telling what hard and important things you might get done if you are willing to stop blaming the other side and look for what you can take responsibility for, what you can do on your side that just might enlist the other side.”