Posts
What’s it like in The Age of Trump?
What’s special about the Age
of Trump? I would point to two things.
First, our political leaders (not just the President) no longer feel an
obligation to represent all the people in the district or state that elected
them. Now, they only feel accountable to their “base.” This is a relatively new
occurrence (not just in the United States, but in other democracies as well). It used to be that after politicians were
elected they felt some obligation to represent the interests of all the people
in their district or state. As a result,
we now have districts or states (or countries!) where 49.9% of the electorate
has no representation. This makes them
feel angry, anxious and defense. It also
makes them feel combative.
The second thing that has
changed, and it is related to the first, is that many elected and appointed
officials don’t care what evidence or
arguments anyone on “the other side” presents. They won’t allow
themselves to be convinced by what anyone outside their base has to say. This
means that those in control of the levers of power can pursue whatever agenda they
choose, without having to explain or justify their actions in a manner that “an
independent observer” would agree is reasonable. This adds to the outrage, and
even desperation, of those who feel shut out and unrepresented. They are especially angry that scientific
evidence can be ignored entirely.
So, in the Age of Trump, many
people who have not felt powerless before feel powerless now. They are befuddled by the changes that have
occurred in the rules of the game. In the past, they assumed (maybe somewhat
naively) that their elected leaders would choose the common good over narrow
partisan interests; and, they counted on being able to advocate for what they
believe by presenting credible evidence. Now they assume these things won’t
happen.
Special challenges for Consensus Builders and other
ADR professionals
ADR professionals operate in
ways that are intended to ensure fairness – to ensure that all voices are heard
and all interests are taken into account when disagreements arise. In a decision-making or governance system that
rejects the idea that the interests of all groups matter, ADR professionals are
not quite sure what part they are supposed to play. The reason those of us in the ADR field have worked
hard to add facilitation, mediation and arbitration to public and private
efforts to deal with differences, is to enhance the fairness, efficiency,
stability and wisdom of decisions that must be made. In the judicial, executive
and legislative branches, at every level of government, we have spent decades
demonstrating that adding a professional neutral can, in fact, save time, save
money and produce better outcomes (and give stakeholders greater control over
what happens to them). In the Age of
Trump, ADR professionals now wonder how they can do their job if some of the
parties don’t care what the interests of the other parties are; or, some
parties feel no obligation to listen to or present credible evidence to support
their claims. Many ADR professionals are
extremely upset about these changes. Some are so upset they feel compelled to
invest their personal time in political efforts to put things back the way they
were. When this involves advocacy, though – even when the professionals
involved are operating as private citizens -- it threatens our most important professional
asset – our neutrality.
Neutrality is central to the value
we add as ADR professionals. Our neutrality allows us to earn the trust of all
sides in any dispute. It also means we
can operate in the interstices between the parties and, in so doing, carry
messages and provide cover for parties to come together without appearing to be
weak. My contention is that many ADR professionals are so upset by what is
happening in the Age of Trump that they are ready to risk their perceived
neutrality. While I understand their
motives, I am convinced this would be a disaster for the profession.
Increasing demand for ADR assistance in periods of
heightened conflict
.
The Age of Trump has
certainly generated new conflicts of various kinds. When everyone is escalating their efforts on
behalf of their own point-of-view, and more people feel entitled to act in the
own interests regardless of the interests of “the other side,” there ought to
be increasing demand for our services. So,
in these times, we ought to be able to make a greater contribution (in part
because no one else is offering to reconcile those in conflict or pursue problem-solving
strategies in spite of the conflicts that exist). To succeed in the current context, however,
will require several things:
1.
First, we have to
remind our potential clients that our goal is not to stamp out conflict. Rather, if they find themselves stalemated
and unable to take unilateral action, we can help them find agreeable ways
forward in which no one has to give in.
2.
Second, if well
managed, conflict can lead to produce change. Conflict is not a bad thing. As others have noted, it is the engine of
change. We can help manage conflict in a
constructive way.
3.
Third, the fact
that parties are inclined to express their interests and concerns with more
passion in the Age of Trump, is not a problem for us. In some ways, it should make
our work easier. We need to know what the interests and priorities of each party
are so we can help them formulate mutually beneficial agreements. We do this by
supporting the parties in their search for trades (across issues they value
differently) that produce outcomes better for all sides than their BATNAs.
4.
Finally, we need
to be sure that our clients understand that our job is not to get anyone to
change their beliefs or change their mind.
We try to help parties reach mutually advantageous agreements in spite
of their differences. We do not allow
our own point of view or our own preferences to intrudce.
Harmonizing Interests through dialogue vs. assisted problem-solving
A segment of the ADR
profession has been moving in the direction of facilitating dialogue. Indeed,
there are many who think we should devote a substantial portion of our time to
helping Red and Blue (and others who have conflicting values) learn to talk with
and understand each other more effectively.
I’m personally not convinced that dialogue for its own sake should be a
high priority for the ADR profession. I
don’t think greater understanding is going to lead to harmonization of
conflicting values and interests.
Perhaps we can help people with diametrically opposed views hear each
other, but I’m not sure that’s as important as working out agreements in specific
contexts. I think we should emphasize
problem-solving -- generating “a workable peace” when some action needs to be
taken -- rather than devoting time to generating a deeper understanding of the
sources of disagreement. I don’t think
Red and Blue need to believe the same things to find ways of taking action.
The key is to convince as
many stakeholders as possible that there is a way to meet their interests in a
manner that will get them more than what no agreement (stalemate) guarantees, and
more than they are likely to get if they continue to battle.
Coming back to neutrality
As I have already said, we
must be absolutely diligent about maintaining our neutrality – no matter how
strongly we feel personally – if we want to make a case for the value we add. I’m
convinced that the way we act in our personal lives may shape how we are
perceived in our professional roles. While each of us has opportunities to take
direct political action in our personal lives, remember that if you sign a
petition, march peacefully, write op eds, or lobby for your point of view,
there is no way anyone on the other side will accept you as a dispute resolution
professional they can trust. We need to think very carefully about how we carry
ourselves in public. I promise you that whatever actions we take in our
personal lives will be noted. Being perceived as neutrals in the Age of Trump
is, in my view, the key to contributing to conflict resolution in these
difficult times.
[Based on the keynote presentation I made to the Biennial
Conference of the New England Association for Conflict Resolution (NEACR) in
Waltham, Massachusetts on 9/8/17.]