Advertisement
I had another post prepared today, but yesterday I read Cindy Sheehan’s letter of resignation as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. I tried to read it aloud to my wife, but I couldn’t do it with composure. Even now alone at my desk, it has the effect of real heartbreak, not heartbreak that just hurts, but heartbreak that cannot maintain its composure — mine, that is, not hers.
Cindy’s letter stands, as she has always stood, on a clear and honest principle. Her principle used to be “that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of ‘right or left,’ but ‘right and wrong.’” In resigning, her principle has become the principle of all families who have ever watched a loved one’s self-destructive addiction and come to the conclusion that a line must be drawn.
Cindy writes, “Good-bye America…you are not the country that I love and I finally realize no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it. It’s up to you now.”
One thing is clear to me: There is one truly principled person in our nation, a mother — a mother who lost a son, and who put everything in her life aside to stop the pointless killing being committed by the United States of America in Iraq. She lost her husband for it. She neglected her children and her health for it. She put all her personal resources on the line for it.
How deaf must the humanity in our society be that we should have no compassion for the illness, financial hardship, and emotional sacrifices she has made to stand on the principle that it is wrong to wage an unprovoked war, that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for no reason, and that it is wrong for our American democracy to stand by while the administration of George W. Bush hides its crimes behind our flag?
How callous must the heart of the American public discourse be that we should abuse such a heroic example of motherhood with slander and venom?
Cindy fell out with the Democratic Party. She found the Democratic Party unwilling to stand on the principles she held dear. There are many reasons for the American people to reject not just the Republican Party and its leader, George W. Bush, but also the Democratic Party, which has no capacity to stand on Democratic principles. But today, I have one more reason for rejecting the Democratic Party—it failed to stand up for Cindy Sheehan. What kind of a people’s party allows a heroic and grieving mother to be maligned for challenging the status quo we have come to know under George W. Bush?
And as for the progressive movement, we too must make a change. We must let down our composure in this truly heartbreaking moment and find a more enlightened response. Briefly, let me call attention to three responses we should have to Cindy’s resignation.
First, we should rally around Cindy. We should thank her for her leadership. We should raise statues in her honor. The progressive movement must let Cindy Sheehan know her work was not in vain and that she leaves behind her a powerful legacy. We must show her that we regard her as a teacher from whom we are still learning, whose wisdom we continue to revere. She deserves this. It is our duty to carry with us forever gratitude and respect for those who teach us important lessons. If we neglect this duty when our teacher is in heartbreak, we never belonged in her class in the first place. Let’s not leave Cindy Sheehan in a class by herself.
Second, we need to take her resignation as a warning that we are repeating the self-destructive pattern of the anti-war and progressive movements of the 1960s. Rabbi Michael Lerner and Peter Gabel of the Network of Spiritual Progressives carry the experience of those movements and have studied the group psychology involved in the disintegration of progressive movements in which struggling human beings work to achieve principled ideals. When we fail to live up to our ideals, the psychology often turns acrimonious rather than compassionate. We need now, in this crucial moment, to resolve to be compassionate with each other.
Personally, I believe these two options, acrimony and compassion, make the difference between a corrupt political process and a political process with integrity. Acrimony turns defeatist when people fall short of our ideals. Compassion remains patient, focused on improving the discipline of the process by which we pursue a brighter political reality. Like Lerner and Gabel, we all need to become more sophisticated in understanding the psychology of the political process through which progressive movements achieve and sustain a successful momentum. We need to stop turning on heroes like Cindy Sheehan. We need to acquire the skills to respond to each other’s perceived flaws in a constructive and compassionate way and to remain open to receive each other’s unvarnished perspective as just a perspective. The only way to do this, is to have a strong faith in the integrity of the process being employed by the progressive movement. Where we turn on and malign each other, no such faith can exist.
Third, and last, we need to resume Cindy’s work; we are still at war, and we, the people, don’t want to be! We want to be the country Cindy Sheehan loves and it is up to us now. We have a long way to go. We will need to be patient and compassionate with each other. We will have to develop a process for disagreeing with, learning from, and cooperating with each other. We will need teachers and models like Cindy Sheehan. And we will need the capacity to honor what they offer, rather than to disdain it, as though we are somehow endowed with a superior virtue.
I am so sorry Cindy we put you in the position of having to resign. May we still have time to regain your love and trust and to achieve the changes necessary in these terribly troubled times.
---
Hank Edson is an attorney, author and activist based in San Francisco. His Blog, MP3 – My Politics and Progressive Perspective and be found at http://hankedson.squarespace.com/.
Cindy’s letter stands, as she has always stood, on a clear and honest principle. Her principle used to be “that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of ‘right or left,’ but ‘right and wrong.’” In resigning, her principle has become the principle of all families who have ever watched a loved one’s self-destructive addiction and come to the conclusion that a line must be drawn.
Cindy writes, “Good-bye America…you are not the country that I love and I finally realize no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it. It’s up to you now.”
One thing is clear to me: There is one truly principled person in our nation, a mother — a mother who lost a son, and who put everything in her life aside to stop the pointless killing being committed by the United States of America in Iraq. She lost her husband for it. She neglected her children and her health for it. She put all her personal resources on the line for it.
How deaf must the humanity in our society be that we should have no compassion for the illness, financial hardship, and emotional sacrifices she has made to stand on the principle that it is wrong to wage an unprovoked war, that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for no reason, and that it is wrong for our American democracy to stand by while the administration of George W. Bush hides its crimes behind our flag?
How callous must the heart of the American public discourse be that we should abuse such a heroic example of motherhood with slander and venom?
Cindy fell out with the Democratic Party. She found the Democratic Party unwilling to stand on the principles she held dear. There are many reasons for the American people to reject not just the Republican Party and its leader, George W. Bush, but also the Democratic Party, which has no capacity to stand on Democratic principles. But today, I have one more reason for rejecting the Democratic Party—it failed to stand up for Cindy Sheehan. What kind of a people’s party allows a heroic and grieving mother to be maligned for challenging the status quo we have come to know under George W. Bush?
And as for the progressive movement, we too must make a change. We must let down our composure in this truly heartbreaking moment and find a more enlightened response. Briefly, let me call attention to three responses we should have to Cindy’s resignation.
First, we should rally around Cindy. We should thank her for her leadership. We should raise statues in her honor. The progressive movement must let Cindy Sheehan know her work was not in vain and that she leaves behind her a powerful legacy. We must show her that we regard her as a teacher from whom we are still learning, whose wisdom we continue to revere. She deserves this. It is our duty to carry with us forever gratitude and respect for those who teach us important lessons. If we neglect this duty when our teacher is in heartbreak, we never belonged in her class in the first place. Let’s not leave Cindy Sheehan in a class by herself.
Second, we need to take her resignation as a warning that we are repeating the self-destructive pattern of the anti-war and progressive movements of the 1960s. Rabbi Michael Lerner and Peter Gabel of the Network of Spiritual Progressives carry the experience of those movements and have studied the group psychology involved in the disintegration of progressive movements in which struggling human beings work to achieve principled ideals. When we fail to live up to our ideals, the psychology often turns acrimonious rather than compassionate. We need now, in this crucial moment, to resolve to be compassionate with each other.
Personally, I believe these two options, acrimony and compassion, make the difference between a corrupt political process and a political process with integrity. Acrimony turns defeatist when people fall short of our ideals. Compassion remains patient, focused on improving the discipline of the process by which we pursue a brighter political reality. Like Lerner and Gabel, we all need to become more sophisticated in understanding the psychology of the political process through which progressive movements achieve and sustain a successful momentum. We need to stop turning on heroes like Cindy Sheehan. We need to acquire the skills to respond to each other’s perceived flaws in a constructive and compassionate way and to remain open to receive each other’s unvarnished perspective as just a perspective. The only way to do this, is to have a strong faith in the integrity of the process being employed by the progressive movement. Where we turn on and malign each other, no such faith can exist.
Third, and last, we need to resume Cindy’s work; we are still at war, and we, the people, don’t want to be! We want to be the country Cindy Sheehan loves and it is up to us now. We have a long way to go. We will need to be patient and compassionate with each other. We will have to develop a process for disagreeing with, learning from, and cooperating with each other. We will need teachers and models like Cindy Sheehan. And we will need the capacity to honor what they offer, rather than to disdain it, as though we are somehow endowed with a superior virtue.
I am so sorry Cindy we put you in the position of having to resign. May we still have time to regain your love and trust and to achieve the changes necessary in these terribly troubled times.
---
Hank Edson is an attorney, author and activist based in San Francisco. His Blog, MP3 – My Politics and Progressive Perspective and be found at http://hankedson.squarespace.com/.