In part one I examined the "direct lessons" learned from Half the Sky. In this post I'm going to examine some of the more "indirect" lessons. Some of these are going to be critical of the way some of us think / act, but I think that's the point. Kristof's unafraid of calling out liberals, and I think we should be too, as long as it's constructive and not calling us all little Hitlers or Maos or whatever the extreme conservative element likes to call us. As you read the following, I should put up a caveat: the lessons learned have, in some cases, been transferred to contexts quite unlike the original one. Please don't over-read the base comparison - two of the lessons are from the abolitionist movement, but I am not equating the abolitionist movement and the issues I examine.
Anyways, on with the lessons...again.
Lesson one: A cause worth fighting for may come with sacrifices.
Context from them: Great Britain's abolition movement.
Extension by me: both health care and climate change.
What I mean: In health care, we may need to sacrifice a bit to get a great goal done - either in terms of what the bill covers, perhaps some of us may get a monetary hit, maybe we'll need to wait another day for the appointment with a specialist, whatever. To me, the security of knowing I have options should my employer fail me is worth some small sacrifices.
In climate change, a small sacrifice in GDP - or paying a bit more for energy - may be the price we need to pay to get a handle on the climate change. To me, it's worth it. This ignores that we may have the very same GDP sacrifice, or more, in dealing with the costs of not doing anything, but that's another matter - progressives are often up against people who only consider one side of the balance sheet in any given debate.
Lesson two: Don't exaggerate. Make the case for our causes based on "best facts".
Context from them: Britain's leading abolitionist in the late 1700's / early 1800's was, if anything, extra careful to make sure everything was well documented.
Extension by me: somewhat health care but especially in climate change. In health care, it isn't helpful to get caught exaggerating - like some Democrats have been in citing figures such as the number of bankruptcies and the like. The more figures that Democrats cite that are backed up credibly and the more that Republicans object using "death panels" and other hysteria-inducing lies, the better our case looks. Don't give the Republicans free ammunition.
That being said, I'm much more concerned about the framing in the debate about Climate Change. When we start predicting doom and gloom, we need to ensure that it's backed up by the best possible evidence. Any "cracks in the armor" allow a "look over there, that's wrong so the whole thing must be wrong" attack line, and that's not helpful. An ongoing example is the use of Hurricane Katrina to show that hurricane intensity is going up. As most of us know, single storms cannot be traced to climate change - so holding up Katrina is a major mistake. I hate to call out Al Gore on this, but when he went to Copenhagen and said that the polar ice caps may disappear during the summer within the next 5-7 years, that wasn't helpful. I can almost guarantee that five to seven years from now some skeptic is going to come along with a satellite photo of the ice cap during the summer and point to it and go "hey, it's still here, it's all a hoax". This'll distract from what will almost assuredly be a worse climate outlook then, and we'll likely have to spend time combating some stupid objections. Not helpful.
Another, thankfully much more rare exaggeration on "our part": while certainly having 6-7 billion people on earth has made the climate thing worse, be very careful with how you phrase the sentiment that overpopulation isn't helping. Crossing the line into "forced" territory is very bad, to me, and it doesn't help the main message.
Lesson 3: If a cause is worth fighting for, don't give up. Don't ever give up. (Quoting Jimmy Valvano)
This is sort of a general life lesson and there's no specific point in the book where he notes this, but it's certainly a theme. And it's a lesson well-worth learning. Thus, when I advocate taking what we can get within the current climate in health care, climate change, and other debates, it doesn't mean I think we should rest on our laurels. Get what we can - and immediately turn around and start fighting for more and to improve it. And, if we don't get anything, to turn around and give up entirely is to let the other side permanently win. That's not helpful either. So, to quote Jimmy V again: Don't give up. Don't ever give up. (aside: when I figure out youtube linking into posts I'll do a top-ten inspirational sports links / stories / youtubes. Jimmy V is top-3 along with 1980's Miracle on Ice and a TBD).
Lesson 4: Be open to unconventional solutions to problems. This is another overriding theme, and while I cannot point to any given thing out there now, I think that it's a great lesson to learn. An open mind is a prepared mind, and it helps dramatically to be flexible since solutions often present themselves in unusual ways.
Lesson 5: Even when people are diametrically opposed to each other, it doesn't mean they don't have some good ideas to offer. Putting aside distrust can lead to a lot of good. A great example of this would be the abortion debate, where both sides want to reduce the number of abortions and want to improve the situation of women in Africa, yet the opposing ways of going about it ends up being counterproductive.
There's more lessons - maybe even enough for a part 3 at some point - but I've done enough soapbox-by-proxy for today :).