Reply #56: "There weren’t the votes when the process against Nixon began. . ."

[pat_k]

From original post:

. . . the anti-impeachment folk continue to hold tight to the "there aren’t enough votes" life jacket that barely holds their argument above the tide of pro-impeachment sentiment. There weren’t the votes when the process against Nixon began. But that didn’t stop those who trusted in the Constitution.

There weren’t the votes for civil rights when that process began. But those who trusted in the Constitution didn’t back down from doing what was right.

The "can't win, so don't fight" rationalization is DEADLY.

At countless critical junctures our leaders have failed to act because they convinced themselves that action was futile.

Those failures are directly and indirectly responsible for the suffering and deaths of countless people.

This is NOT hyperbole.

The "can't win, so don't fight" rationalization seems to be particularly virulent on "our side" (the reality-based community, anti-fascists, Democrats, or whatever your preferred label).

We pride ourselves on being rational, reasonable, realistic, and pragmatic people, but over and over again we are irrationally immobilized by:

• Pessimism disguised as "realism" that crushes hope and blinds us to the reality of infinite possibility;


• Scarcity thinking disguised as "realistic assessment" that generates fear and leads us to choose paths that cut us off from the nearly infinite resources we can tap into;


• Suspicion of spontaneity and untested approaches that suppresses creativity and limits options;


• Analysis and strategic thinking focused on the risks of action, willfully ignoring potential rewards of action and the risks of inaction.


• Fighting for what we think we can get (and achieving far less than that), not for what we want.


• A pattern of avoiding feared consequences by failing to act rather than figuring out how to deal with the feared consequences. (When avoidance -- i.e., refusing to do the thing that might provoke the feared response -- is the only tactic in your toolbox, it doesn't occur to you to think about how to deal the responses you're avoiding.)

The "can't win" part of the rationalization is based on two irrational beliefs:

1. The course of events and the outcome is known (a belief in our own omniscience);


2. In the course of the "futile" fight, there are no benefits or worthwhile intermediate goals.

The reality is:

1. No human can know how events will unfold until they are behind us. At every step, actions and events open new doors. The possibilities between the first step and the last are infinite.


2. Even if the ultimate goal is not achieved, when we join with others to achieve a common goal there are always victories and benefits along the way. We "move the ball." People connect and organize and figure out how to be more effective. People discover their skills. Leaders emerge. We challenge the rationalizations that block our "leaders" (and will block them in the future if they are not eliminated).
   
   Whatever the final outcome, we are winners.

It is heartbreaking to watch idealism and faith crushed by widespread predictions futility and pronouncements that efforts are a "waste of energy." After effectively crushing energy and hope, the pessimists turn around and castigate the public for being apathetic -- completely oblivious of their role in driving people away.

The battle for impeachment is about more than impeachment -- it is about challenging dysfunctional rationalizations; it is about breaking the avoidance habit and acting on basic values and principles, even if we think it will be a "charge of the light brigade;" it is about waking each other up to our own power to act in our civic capacity.

The fight to impeach is built on previous battles -- e.g., lobbying Senators to reject the unlawful Florida electors on January 6th, 2001; and to reject the Ohio electors on January 6th, 2005; lobbying them to filibuster Alito. Future victories owe a debt to every battle that comes before, win or lose.