An olive branch: Resolving Conflict in America

I have been thinking a lot tonight about my feelings that past week ever since the passage of healthcare and the feeling of tension that has been in the air all week. I've gotten into arguments, I've felt like committing violent acts, I've wanted to just scream at certain people and let them know all kinds of wonderful ways for them to degrade themselves. But, I've decided that I'm going to tone things down. I apologize to anyone that I've offended or that I've called names. There was a guy on IMDb.com last night from Australia who was arguing with me about a post I had started, and I was too tired to really care about even trying to explain my point to him or argue and I almost immediately turned to childish arguing and name calling. And the thing is, I know he was just trying to be a troll and get me to do just that so that he could have the final say and feel like he had won the argument. the truth is neither of us won. He doesn't care what I have to say and I don't really care what he has to say. That is what is happening in America. The radical liberals (and I'm not saying that because you're liberal you're radical, I'm qualifying that what I'm about to say does not apply to all liberals) are the trolls. The media are the trolls. They are just trying to piss us off so that they have more to discredit us with. They are accusing conservatives in general as being out of control and violent simply because some teenagers smashed a window in AZ and some racist in a crowd of fifty thousand people shouted a racial slur. I wish racist people didn't exist, but they do and they are on both sides of the fence so come off it already. I wish we could work together to solve our differences. Conservatives, be peaceful. Its ok to protest, but do so peacefully and non-violently. No matter what happens, turn the other cheek. Think of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and other great leaders who did nothing but turn the other cheek and practice non-violence.

As a Mormon, I can't help but think of my religious history. When Joseph Smith was martyred, Nauvoo Illinois had the largest militia in the state made up entirely of really pissed off Mormons, and who could have easily wiped out the state. And many of them wanted to. But they stayed home. They had done everything they could to be treated fairly by the government and fellow citizens, but they were driven from their homes time and time again and they were killed. They were ultimately driven out of their own country. They left, like the Pilgrims, to find somewhere they could live in peace without being oppressed. They are such an example to me of letting the Lord handle judgement in His own time. That knowledge helps me to let things go when I can't do anything about it. If some jerk flips me off, its not my responsibility to follow him until he stops and punch him. I often get angry, but I have to remind myself that there's no point to it and I have to just let it go and hope that things turn out for the best.

I have the right to vote for whoever I want (at least for now) and I will use it. But, I will not try to force others to believe what I believe. I will simply try to educate them as best I can. Many will disagree with me, but its ok to disagree with people. Just keep the bigger picture always in mind. It seems like things in our country are often viewed as win-lose situations. Only one side can get their way. And right now Republicans are losing. Why can't it be a win-win? I'm taking an Organizational Behavior course right now, and last night I read a chapter on intergroup behavior and conflict. Is that not what we have in D.C.? Let me lay out some principles here as best I can.

I could go into a lot of details and concepts but I want to focus on intergroup conflict. There are two types of conflict: functional and dysfunctional. Functional conflict is when competition between two teams encourages each to produce better results. It also creates cohesiveness within the teams. Dysfunctional conflict is when competition between groups ends up hindering productivity. You can only have functional conflict, which we want because it results in high overall organizational performance (ie, the whole country benefits), when the level of conflict is neither too high nor too low but as Goldilocks might say, "just right." Right now our nation is at a level of high conflict. This is bad because it keeps us from getting anything done. But the answer is not to get rid of those evil "No Republicans" or to completely vote out the incumbent liberals. When there is low conflict, which would be the result of completely discrediting either party, you once again have low performance because whoever is in charge just does whatever they want because no one is there to keep them from doing it. This seems to be the goal of a lot of radical socialist groups simply because they want the power to sit around and do nothing and get paid for it. Republicans were terrible too when they had a huge majority and I am against those who insist that we must vote out all the Democrats. Some people who I've argued with in the past few days might raise their eyes at that statement, but I've been thinking a lot about it and that is what I have come to. I realize I have the tendency to shoot off my mouth too much and that is why I am contradicting myself. Back to the point: conflict is good when the level of conflict is just right.

What are the consequences of dysfunctional conflict? I've already mentioned some. Here they are in detail.

Changes within the group
Increased group cohesiveness and increased loyalty: Liberals all become more liberal and conservatives become more conservative. The plane can't fly too well if you're jamming both of the rudders down as hard as you can. You want to keep things in the middle so you can fly straight. The eagle can't flap its wings if the only feathers it has are on the very tips of its wings.

Rise in autocratic leadership: Here is the direct quote from my text book on this one:

In normal conditions, democratic leadership methods are popular because they allow group members to participate in making decisions and to satisfy their needs for involvement and affiliation. In extreme conflict situations, however, democratic leadership is generally perceived as time-consuming and ineffective. Members demand strong leadership and not only tolerate, but seem to prefer, autocratic leadership.

Does that sound familiar? I'm not making this stuff up folks this is out of a text book on group conflict and based on research and studies! Is this not what is happening in our nation? We want our party to have all the power and we just want them to do everything for us. Liberals prefer socialist concepts in which the government takes care of everything and conservatives prefer facist concepts because once again, the government takes care of everything. Do you see the problem? They both involve big government! What happens when the nation is in a state of extreme danger? Martial Law! Autocratic leadership! What happened to Germany in their depression after WWI? Hitler! What happened to the US after our great depression? FDR! Its a natural reaction in times of great conflict. I think I've beaten that horse enough now. By the way, I just realized that my above statement might seem like I'm comparing FDR to Hitler. I'm not. I'm saying that tough times lead people to seek autocratic leadership.

Activity Orientation:

Groups in conflict tend to focus on achieving their goal. Groups are more concerned about identifying what it is they do well and then doing it. Talking or visiting is not allowed and is viewed as a waste of time because it keeps the group from achieving their goal.

So all you democrats who are against this healthcare thing, you better shape up and vote for it unless you want a mark on your back! And you Republicans who insist on pointing out flaws in the Republican Party, you'd better shut up and support the party or else the other guys are gonna win! Where's your loyalty? (I'm of course being sarcastic here to make a point)

Inflated evaluation:

The perceptions of group members become distorted and they tend to over evaluate themselves and under evaluate their opponents. You have a halo-effect creating a bias within the group so that members almost unconditionally consider other group members as good.

Republicans/Democrats are always right because I'm a Republican/Democrat so I'm just gonna vote for the R/D people and I don't really need to pay attention to current events or worry about whether my incumbent is corrupt or whether he represents my values or not. In fact I love how they have the option at the very beginning of the ballot to just vote all R/D so I don't have to waste my time deciding if I'm actually for or against what I'm voting on. (Once again... sarcasm intended) I think another term for this could be selective perception.

Changes between groups
Decreased communication:

At times when the groups have the greatest need of open communication to enable them to discuss the problem and resolve the conflict, the communication process becomes most strained. As the conflict increases, communication tends to decrease...The frequency of communication between the two groups continues to decline until it finally breaks down entirely.

Wow. I don't know if I need to elaborate much on that one. We're all guilty of it. I'm guilty of as much as anyone else and maybe more so. "Why should I even bother arguing with you crazy Democrats, you're only interested in calling me names. I'm just gonna listen to Glenn Beck and feel good about being on the right side." (sarcasm again)

Distorted Perceptions and Negative Stereotyping:

• "The tea party people said the 'N' word and broke a window!"
• "Glenn Beck is a terrorist and hates Jesus!"
• "Republicans are all racists!"
• "Liberals are all communists!"
• "Obama is the antichrist!"
• "Vote out all incumbents and prepare for war!"

Come on now people. Are we really getting anything accomplished with all the name calling and finger pointing? Obama himself has engaged in such practices! We are in big trouble when not only does the media and the citizens engage in this but our own President!

Now, what can we do to fix the high level of conflict in our nation? How can we resolve conflict? There are a number of methods.

Avoidance Strategies: Such as ignoring the conflict or physically separating the groups. Unfortunately these aren't really a choice unless you are taking care of two fighting siblings. Most parents it seems prefer to simply ignore them until either they snap or someone draw blood. But we need some other solutions. I guess sometimes we do tend to ignore some conflicts but we all know that they only go away for the time being and they come back later.

Power Intervention Strategies: Regulated interaction (I thought that's what the House and Senate rules were for...) and political maneuvering (we all know how well that one is working). So both of these are already being tried and not working too well. The main problem with political maneuvering is that it intensifies a win-lose situation.

The source of the conflict has not been eliminated, and both parties feel more committed to their position. Even after fair elections, the losers may feel resentment and continue to oppose the winners

Wow, so this basically describes what got us into our current position of conflict. Look at the two Bush elections. Look at the Iraq war and the whole WMD thing! And now look at the same stuff with the stimulus and healthcare! I think both parties are more committed to their own positions right now! Why? Political maneuvering.

Finally we have a few good solutions.
Diffusion Strategies
Smoothing: Accentuates the similarities and common interests between the two groups and minimize or rationalize their differences. Unfortunately this one is only a short term solution, and it isn't really going to work well on huge issues like healthcare or immigration or abortion because people feel very strongly about them. You aren't going to be able to convince people that you're really all on the same side when you come to issues like abortion! I'm pretty sure we disagree on that one. (But even on abortion we were able to reach a compromise in the Hyde Amendment)

Compromise: Well...? I think we know what that is. You give up some of what you want in exchange for another thing you want. You allow for some government regulation in the healthcare system as long as it is limited and there is open interstate competition with private companies. You allow for federal funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger. I haven't really seen much of that going on. Republicans are a party of No remember?

Identifying a common enemy: Look what happened after 9/11. Really! Look! Here is a chart (thanks to pollster.com)!

And another...

See that spike right at about 2002? That's 9/11 and Congress coming together to decide to work as one unit and not two parties, because there was a common enemy to focus on instead.

Resolution Strategies
Intergroup Interaction: And not just interaction, but bringing leaders together and letting them express their concerns and trying and come to a solution together. Not Pelosi and her cronies kicking doors closed and not allowing Republicans to have any say in what goes on. The term bi-partisan and the phrase "reaching across the aisle" come to mind.

Superordinate Goals: These are goals that are important to both sides and cannot be achieved without cooperation of the other side. The text book talks about a Robber's Cave study where a boy's camp was split into groups and pitted against each other, and the most effective conflict resolution strategy was superordinate goals, such as having groups work together to pick a movie, push a stalled truck supplying food to the camp, and preparing a joint meal.

Structural Change: This is one that I hope we never come to. Suddenly I'm being barraged with memories of "Change you can believe in!" ads. We don't want to change the structure of our country. Trust me. The Constitution is not perfect, but it is also definitely not "outdated". The Obama administration seems bent on trying to convince the American people that this is the only option. "How's that Captialism workin' for ya?" Well it was fine until the socialists came and messed it up! Why are we not taking the issues of our country and looking at them as superordinate goals? Aren't they problems we all feeling strongly about and want to have solved? Just because we have differences in how it should be done does not mean that the majority should just force their idea on the minority. In the Robber's Cave example, what happens if there are four boys from one group and one from another group involved in the discussion of what movie to watch? Should the one boy's opinion be completely ignored because he is only one? He represents more than just one! He represents a group of boys who are just as many in number as the other group who simply has more representatives. It is time for Congress and the Senate to stop representing their parties and start representing their constituents. And it is time for the Executive Office to stop inducing conflict and start working to diffuse and resolve it. Obama himself has said that without bi-partisan support, he cannot govern effectively. Yet he forces legislation down our throats with only bi-partisan opposition. It would appear that this is a President who can not govern. One who cares more about his own agenda than compromise and bi-partisanship. I don't believe I mentioned any strategies that included going to Iowa to try and blow hot air at people hoping it will change their minds. We've heard it all before. We don't trust you. We can't get straight answers from you and we have consistently been lied to. We are looking at a president who is as bad as or worse than that evil President Bush (and trust me I'm not defending Bush's policies at all). It is my opinion that this President is not interested in diffusing or resolving conflict, but seems to be intent on doing nothing but incite more of it.

I guess I'll conclude. This was a lot longer than I expected it to be. But I'm glad I wrote it. I realize I focused a lot of attention at the Obama administration and the current situation in Congress. I only do so because it is a relevant and current example and honestly, I was one of the sheep of the Republican Party during the Bush era and didn't pay attention to things as much. I admit that was a mistake and I will not let it happen again. My main goal is not to tear down one party or the other, but to point out where I see error. Be you a Republican or a Democrat or whatever else, I would hope that instead of being two groups with biases and prejudices against eachother we can find a common enemy: ignorance. Let's all fight against ignorance and try to work together to resolve our nations issues. I hope not too many of you are asleep at this point. Thanks for reading.

*Note: The text book I have been citing from is called "Creating Effective Organizations" and was written by David Cherrington and W. Gibb Dyer.

Mormons, other Christians decry Glenn Beck comments on social justice

I've been sitting here for the past couple of hours listening to Glenn Beck defend himself from attacks by Christian groups who are criticizing him for telling listeners to leave their faith if their church is linked to social justice groups. I also read one of the articles on the topic. I happened to also have listened to the show the day he made those comments and I can tell you that this is a pretty obvious mis-construction of what Glenn Beck was trying to tell listeners. I have a number of problems with the article.

First of all, I will mention how annoying it can be at times to get the news in Utah. "Our top story tonight: some dude's cousin who used to live in Utah was in New York two days before 9/11!" Gasp! Who cares!? The story is not the dude from Utah. The story is 9/11! So I have a problem when the headline of the article is "Mormons, other Christians decry Glenn Beck comments". The main antagonist of this whole thing is a man named Jim Wallis. Who is Jim Wallis? We'll talk about that in a minute, but for now we should know that he is NOT a MORMON. So the first problem is how the Utah media always tries to make EVERYTHING about MORMONS! I am a Mormon, but I don't think that everything that happens is about me. Page two of the article focuses on the Mormon reaction.

"Public figures who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints represent their own views and do not speak for the church," Scott Trotter said.

Meaning the person who wrote the article or originally got the comment, and who had an obvious agenda, asked The Church for a statement and they gave the typical, "We don't really know about this, its not a part of our teachings, just because someone is a Mormon doesn't mean they speak for the Church, you really can't figure that out after years and years of us telling you that?" Next are comments from Philip Barlow, professor of Mormon history at Utah State.

"I'd have to let him speak for himself," Barlow said of Beck's intentions.

However, he stressed that it's possible to confuse a general principle with a specific strategy and that the terms social justice and economic justice can be loaded phrases, as are "right to choose" or "right to life."

"A phrase like 'social justice' can be hijacked," Barlow said.

Barlow said after the New York Times quoted him Friday in a story on Beck's comments about social justice, he received a lot of responses, pro and con.

"One way to read the Book of Mormon," Barlow told the Times, "is that it's a vast tract on social justice. It's ubiquitous in the Book of Mormon to have the prophetic figures, much like in the Hebrew Bible, calling out those who are insensitive to injustices."

He said some comments he received do suggest that Beck is asking even LDS Church members to leave their faith.

So first he defends Beck saying people are allowed to think what they want, Beck has a point in that all these terms have ambiguous meanings, things always come down to selective perception and individual interpretation of meaning. The fact that people are saying they felt encouraged by Beck to leave the LDS faith says to me that they obviously didn't get it either. Beck doesn't encourage people to blindly leave their church because he said so. He encourages them to ask questions and not blindly accept everything that is said to them. You have to find out for yourself if God exists. The same principle applies here. If someone teaches you something at church, you need to find out for yourself if you believe in it. "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not, and it shall be given him." (James 1:5) Elder Glenn L. Pace put it nicely in a devotional address:

[Elder Pace said,] “The Lord has provided a way for you to be anchored, to put every principle and doctrine of the Church to the test. You’ve received the gift of the Holy Ghost,” he said. He quoted Moroni 10:4: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
Elder Pace then emphasized the fifth verse of that same chapter, “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.” He explained that although those verses are generally used to encourage the pursuit of a testimony, they apply to all doctrines of the Church. “Every principle and doctrine carries the promise that you can have a testimony of that doctrine,” he said.

And finally we have the thrilling conclusion to the article.

The Times also interviewed Kent P. Jackson, associate dean of religion at BYU. "My own experience as a believing Latter-day Saint over the course of 60 years is that I have seen social justice in practice in every LDS congregation I've been in," Jackson said. "People endeavor with all of our frailties and shortcomings to love one another and to lift up other people. So if that's Beck's definition of social justice, he and I are definitely not on the same team."

LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson encouraged members during the church's last General Conference to reach out and help others every day.

"We are the Lord's hands here upon the earth, with the mandate to serve and to lift his children," President Monson said. "He is dependent upon each of us."

So basically, Kent Jackson's comments say that he was presented with some adulterated version of Beck's comments without any context. He clarifies that if Beck's definition of social justice is: "People endeavor[ing] with all of our frailties and shortcomings to love one another and to lift up other people", then he disagrees with him. Anyone who listens to Glenn Beck knows that that is NOT Glenn Beck's definition of social justice! Finally, the quote from President Monson simply verifies the fact that the Church does indeed believe in charity and loving eachother. Ok yeah. And? I don't understand why they are trying to make it sound like Mr. Beck is telling people to stop believing in charity and love for fellowmen. There is a difference between charity and love for fellowmen, and social and economic justice as defined by Glenn Beck. Charity and love is a choice of freewill. Social and economic justice are goals of Marxism where you are forced to share your possessions. You don't have a choice to give to the poor. You are forced to give to the poor by the government.

Now moving on, who is Jim Wallis? "Wallis actively eschews political labels, but his advocacy tends to focus on issues of peace and social justice, earning him his primary support from the religious left." So... a minister who is known for his efforts in social justice is upset that Glenn Beck said get out of churches that preach social justice? No really!? What else do we know about Jim Wallis? Jim Wallis is Obama's newest spiritual advisor. What? So Wallis is a believer in the bringing about of social and economic justice through efforts of government (= communism), and he is a spiritual advisor for Obama. Then get this quote from Wallis about Beck:

Wallis also stated on his blog: "What he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith and Christians should no longer watch his show."

So a progressive advisor to Obama urges people to boycott Glenn Beck's show? That's never happened before.

Please people, get the facts before you decide what someone actually meant. Don't take quotes from a media source (especially the New York Times which originally published the story we've been discussing) as completely pure. If a story comes out making an accusation like this, go to the source. Find out the context and content of the full discussion and then decide for yourself what you think the person meant. That is all.