By now most of you have seen numerous examples of Donald Trump taunting rally interrupters. If you haven’t, there is a collection of them put together by the New York Times that you can see HERE. Early on we see Mr. Trump stating, “I certainly don’t incite violence.” But then there is a video clip showing security going through the process of removing an interrupter at a rally, while Mr. Trump cries,
“I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They would be carried out in a stretcher, folks. I’d like to punch him in the face. I tell you.”
At another point, we see Mr. Trump, during another rally disruption, tauntingly crying out,
“All right, get him out, try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it.”
There are many other similar examples that you can see in the NYT‘s collection, but it is hardly complete. In one such case, while security officials are trying to do their jobs, Mr. Trump is shouting at an interrupter derisively, “Why don’t you go get a job!” And in another, again while security personnel are trying to handle things, Mr. Trump is seen baiting a protester, “Get out! OUT!”
After an incident of this kind, Mr. Trump, when questioned about it by a reporter, stated, “This guy started screaming by himself, and, I don’t know, roughed up, he should have, maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing.” Then he said, “Violence would help to deter protesters.”
In perhaps the most disturbing example that I have seen, Mr. Trump is seen defending a guy who sucker punched an interrupter who was being escorted out of an arena. Thus, when Mr. Trump was asked about this incident by a reporter, he answered, “He obviously loves this country, and maybe he doesn’t like seeing what’s happening to the country.”
To be fair, Mr Trump sometimes says he doesn’t condone the violence. 
But then he says things like, “In the good old days this doesn’t happen because they used to treat them very, very rough. And when they protested once, you know, they would not do it again so easily.”
So, if he thinks those were the “good old days,” it sure sounds to me that he wishes we could be doing this type of thing today.
Now, as president of the United States, he faces a lawsuit for inciting violence at his rallies. Judge Hale has ruled that the lawsuit can go forward. Trump’s lawyers argued that the lawsuit should be dropped based on free speech, free speech, but Judge Hale rejected that, saying speech that incites violence is not protected and Trump’s words “at least ‘implicitly encouraged the use of violence or lawless action.'” Plus, the judge wrote, the plaintiffs successfully lay out at least one prior example of protesters being attacked at a Trump rally.
From my own perspective, given the context of how Trump has been handling the very types of incidences being discussed in the lawsuit, it sure seems that he indeed supports being violent toward rally interrupters. But be that as it may, my question for today is, When rally interrupters do indeed interrupt, is it helpful for the candidate to be seeking to taunt the interrupter?
To help answer this question, let’s first look at the situation that we have been discussing as a type of conflict.
The Trump Supporters versus the Trump Rally Interrupters’ Conflict
On this blog, when we discuss conflicts we utilize the DIG Conflict Model. The word DIG reminds us to look into the situation to see if we can identify the three conditions of a conflict, the “desire,” the “interference,” and the “guilt.” When we do this for this situation, we see that the Trump supporters, which includes, of course, Mr. Trump, desire that at the rallies that they attend for Mr. Trump they get to hear what he has to say. They view the interrupters as interfering with this desire when Mr. Trump is trying to speak at the rally and an interrupter begins to shout anti-Trump sentiments. Trump supporters typically would say they believe interrupters are guilty of doing something wrong when they interrupt.
This conflict statement is my best guess of the perspective of Trump supporters. I have derived it from discussions that I have personally had with a few of his supporters and what I have heard from them during TV interviews.
When we use the DIG Conflict Model to describe a conflict, we try to get the perspective of not just one side of the conflict, but from both sides. Unfortunately I have not personally met any of the interrupters, nor have I seen any interviews with them. 
So, hazarding a guess, perhaps it typically involves one or more of the following three desires: the desire to discourage people from voting for Mr. Trump, the desire to express their anger at Mr. Trump for stirring up hatred toward groups of people they care about, or the desire to get attention.
My Views On Resolving This Conflict
First of all, at the outset, let me say that I have some sympathy for the Trump supporters regarding their perspective on this conflict. I hold the position that regardless of who the rally is for, those who come to hear the candidate should be able to do so without people interrupting him or her.
There are fair opportunities for demonstrators from the full spectrum of opinions to put forth their views as people file into the site of the rally and when people leave. As long as this is done peacefully and without interfering with the flow of people into and out of the site, this seems consistent with principles of free speech, which is something I personally treasure.
Once in the arena, I believe the candidate should be treated civilly. Interrupting the candidate’s speech is not in the interest of the supporters who took the time to get to the site, nor is it in the interest of the interrupters.
Interrupters, by their actions, will only succeed in hardening the positions of the supporters who tend to become infuriated at such interruptions.
Now, when I began to think about how this conflict can best be resolved from the perspective of Trump and his supporters, the first thing I thought about is that this is a common conflict that candidate supporters have been facing for years. Apparently, the best minds in professional arena security personnel and law enforcement have designed a process to deal with these types of situations. The process varies slightly from place to place, but basically it goes like this:
Typically, whenever someone begins to create a disruption, security officials hustle over and firmly inform the interrupter that if he or she continues to do anything that seeks to disrupt the speaker, he or she will be ushered out of the rally site. This usually takes a few seconds and is sufficient in most cases to settle things down.
If not, several additional security officials are called for. When they arrive, they now are an overwhelming presence and are well trained to handle aggressive conduct.
The disrupter is then told, “You have a choice, either agree to be ushered out of the rally site with us, or law enforcement will be summoned. If law enforcement is summoned, you will be placed in handcuffs, arrested, charged with disturbing the peace, taken to the police station, and you could end up facing a fine and/or imprisonment. 
Moreover, once law officers arrive, any effort that you make to avoid the law officers’ arrest will lead to the far more serious charge of resisting arrest. So, those are your options–either you now come peacefully with us as we usher you out of here, or deal with law enforcement. We recommend coming with us. Let’s go.” Then the security officials firmly, but not violently, lead the interrupter away.
This message to the interrupter takes less than one minute and in the vast majority of incidents it is sufficient to peacefully resolve this type of situation. In my opinion, Mr. Trump is not doing security any favors when, during this process, he begins to taunt the disrupter.
The effective use of the technique I just described works best when the disrupter is in a state that he or she can think somewhat reasonably. Mr. Trump’s baiting the disrupter while the process is going on increases the probability of igniting rage within the interrupter, and the probability of violence goes up. Even well trained security personnel can become injured dealing with this, and the whole process can take far more time to resolve.
Moreover, Mr. Trump’s actions tend to drum up rage against the interrupter, and as we saw in one incident, this led to a Trump supporter sucker punching someone. Now law enforcement has to deal with this incident at considerable cost to taxpayers. Finally, the rage that is produced at the rally, when witnessed on TV leads to increased rage of others who oppose Mr. Trump’s candidacy, and thus they begin to show up to subsequent rallies seeking to create a commotion. We saw this happening on March 11, 2016 in Chicago shortly after Trump’s taunting was televised. Trump supporters and protesters clashed so viciously that the event had to be cancelled. Then, the next day, at another rally, this one in Vandalia, 
Ohio, a furious man jumped a barrier and rushed the stage. No one was hurt, but Mr. Trump was obviously shaken up from the incident, sweating profusely. Since then, he has been more vocal about not supporting violence. I hope he has learned to let security and law enforcement do their job without interfering by wildly throwing out taunts.
———————
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
This blog seeks to empower its readers, many of whom are directly involved in the mental health arena or will become so in the future. Others are, or will become, involved indirectly because of someone they care about. Thus, it makes sense to spend some time learning how to effectively engage with mental health service providers.
One way to achieve this is to be aware of some of the arena’s major ethical challenges. Today, we will focus on four involving psychiatric diagnoses.
The American Psychiatric Association provides a definition of a “mental disorder” in its most recent version of the Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Let’s take a look at it:
Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities. An expected or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder. Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above. (p.20) 
Notice how broad this definition is. It makes mention of a “disturbance” that reflects a “mental dysfunction in the individual.” We all run into some disturbances in our life. How can a professional reliably tell if the disturbance is due to a “mental dysfunction?” We are left in the dark about this. The process described in the DSM-5 for assessing the subjective notions of “clinical significance,” “disturbance” and “dysfunction in the individual” provides clinicians an opportunity to include anything that benefits their set of values.
If the social deviance or conflict results from a “dysfunction in the individual,” then a mental disorder exists in the individual. Once again we are left in the dark about how this distinction is made. It is left to the subjective judgment of the clinician.
An expected or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder.
Although he survives, he suffers the loss of a leg and an arm. Moreover, in the attack, two of his closest team members had burned to death in front of his eyes. This soldier seeks psychological help. He tells his story with tears running down his face and his one hand that he has left is shaking. He reports having nightmares and difficulty functioning in social situations. The clinician is well aware that such stressful experiences are fairly common under the set of circumstances faced by this soldier. And yet can anyone imagine the clinician denying services to this soldier because his response to the stressor is expected and culturally approved? If the clinician does agree to provide services, he or she would have to provide some mental disorder “diagnosis” on an intake form.
In my view, clinicians routinely ignore the “expected or socially approved” clause. It might have sounded like a good idea to insert into the mental disorder definition for those who developed the DSM-5, but I think few people genuinely believe that in practice clinicians are turning away paying customers when someone seeks help after having experienced the death of a loved one, or any other common stressor. To see such clients, clinicians are required in most mental health settings to assign a mental disorder “diagnosis.”
Most clinicians have a financial interest in deciding whether or not those seeking their services have a “clinically significant” condition. When they judge that their clients’ conditions are indeed significant, they indicate this on the third party intake forms by assigning a mental disorder “diagnosis” and this allows them to continue to see these clients and to get paid for additional visits.
Clinicians refer to mental health service users with “mental illness” and “mental disorder” terminology. These are the same terms that many people use as insults and the media regularly pairs with the most heinous crimes. The stigma associated with such terminology is well recognized. There would be some justifiable reasons to continue to use such terminology if it provided scientific precision to those who wish to communicate about those utilizing mental health services, but as we have seen, this is not the case.
The current psychiatric diagnoses approach focuses on the “dysfunctions” of individuals accessing mental health services rather than human strengths within a cultural context. Moreover, it seeks to legitimize the privileging of the “expert” who supposedly has access to the truth and who can see the truth of the truth. We see this reflected in the mental health arena when we find that it is the clinician that makes the so-called “diagnosis.” The expert is thus seen as always equipped with technical knowledge and jargons without which the truth of knowing would be imponderable. This perspective can paralyze the power of choices for mental health service users.
Although the CSM has not yet been fully developed, becoming familiar with its basic ideas are empowering. Combining these ideas with knowledge about the three psychiatric diagnoses ethical challenges–conflicts of interest, stigma, and violating the respect of mental health service users–can assist people to become far more effective in interacting with mental health service providers.
The idea that certain actions that violate societal norms are mental illnesses like any other illnesses is attractive to many people because they believe it helps to reduce this guilt and shame. To understand this a little better, let’s take a look at a quick parable:
Rachel, the mother of five-year old Jonathan, recently went through a very sad divorce. Now, at Jonathan’s parent-teacher conference, his Kindergarten teacher expresses some serious concerns. “Your son is very hyperactive and he has a great deal of difficulty paying attention. Have you considered taking him to a doctor? He may have ADHD.”
“There is no need to blame yourself,” the doctor explains. “ADHD isn’t caused by bad mothering. It is an illness very much like diabetes. Just like insulin is a drug that treats diabetes, the drug I’m prescribing for your son’s ADHD will treat his medical condition.”
But when she tells her father what the doctor has said, he grumbles and says that the doctor is full of crap. “Jonathan is angry and upset because of the divorce and not having his father with him any more. Anyone can see that!”
“Well, Rachel, I certainly don’t think you are to blame, but I don’t think Jonathan has an illness. I’m sorry to hear you are thinking about putting him on one of those ADHD drugs; they have a whole bunch of side effects.”
“You did your best, Rachel. I think it makes sense that you take some responsibility for what has happened, but blaming yourself isn’t being fair, nor is it helpful. When people blame themselves a lot of the time they think they deserve some type of punishment. In my opinion, a better way to take responsibility for what went wrong is to accept the strong emotional experiences that go along with taking responsibility, accept that you played at least a part in what went wrong, and then set yourself on becoming determined to take steps to improve. The genuine sad, heartfelt feelings that come with taking responsibility leads us to do a search for making improvements.”
In the above parable, a doctor tries to reduce the shame and guilt that a mother is feeling about her son’s behavior by framing the behavior as an illness. Although this initially appears to help, she runs into some people who refuse to go along with this anti-shame/mental illness notion. Let’s explore this notion a little more thoroughly with the help of some of the writings of psychologist and philosopher, William James.
In an 
To suggest personal will and effort to one “all sicklied o’er” with the sense of weakness, of helpless failure, and of fear, is to suggest the most horrible of things to him. What he craves is to be consoled in his very impotence, to feel the Powers of the Universe recognize and secure him, all passive and failing as he is.
From my discussions with people in Alcoholic Anonymous, it seems to me that many of its members found themselves in a state similar to what James describes in his letter. The program seems to provide them a way to stop blaming themselves by using the “I have a real sickness” idea. It also offers a sense that they could put themselves in the hands of a higher power, while, at the same time, they receive a great deal of support from peers who have managed to recover.
It is in no other way that we overcome balkiness in a horse: we divert his attention, do something to his nose or ear, lead him around in a circle, and thus get him over a place where flogging would only have made him more invincible.
By apperceiving the case as neural pathology, what does James hope to gain? He does not explicitly say. The technique that he describes of dropping the subject, diverting the mind, then springing it on the pupil later, is stated plainly enough so that many individuals can employ it without first apperceiving the case as neural pathology. I have done so, myself, on numerous occasions.
When I called on him, he said, “Dr. Rubin, how would you resolve this? This here Tina (he points to her) and I were dating, and now I decided to end it. I’m seeing another girl. But Tina, she keeps calling me even though I told her to stop.”
But seeing the emotional reaction of Tina, and noticing the escalation of feelings that were being expressed by others in the classroom, I quickly explained to the students that it is usually best to work these types of conflicts out in private. I offered to meet Tony separately, and then Tina, and then, if they both agreed, I would meet with both of them together without the rest of the class watching on. I then asked the rest of the class why this might be the best way to work this out.
They suggest that people are more likely to escalate an argument into a fight when spectators are around (see, for example, “Impression Management and the Escalation of Aggression and Violence,” R. B. Felson, Social Psychology Review, 1982). There are, of course, exceptions to this. For example, if two people agree to have a third party mediator help to resolve a conflict, the presence of the mediator tends to reduce subsequent aggression. 
And in a courtroom, the public has a right to observe the legal proceedings involving certain conflicts for a number of valid reasons. To protect everyone in this process, there are courtroom officials on hand that help to assure that disagreements don’t escalate to violence. Moreover, if the presiding judge sees audience members interfering with the legal process, he or she can order them removed by trained security personnel.
As my classroom discussion continued, it became clear to me that the topic raises four relevant questions worth thinking about:
In my opinion, usually as soon as you recognize that some tension is beginning to surface, it’s time to ask for a private meeting. I say this because even if you think you can tolerate the tension, others around you may not. In many situations, in addition to the participants in the conflict beginning to feel uncomfortable with what is going on, others are also feeling roughed up. People may feel as if they are walking on egg shells in the presence of the antagonists.
In a business environment, this can create a hostile work environment for the other employees not directly involved in the conflict. Many supervisors are trained to intervene in such situations in order to put a stop to this, and for some, they hate this part of their job. Thus, they may just choose to get rid of one or both of the antagonists. Additionally, some supervisors may be less inclined to promote employees that can’t get along with one another.
In a school setting, it also usually makes sense for a student to seek to work out a conflict with another student as quickly as possible. As in the business setting, in addition to the two antagonists in the conflict being affected by the mounting stress, other students can start to feel uncomfortable. For example, one party in the conflict might say something to the other party, and when this is overheard by others, some may be torn between two friends. 
Sometime one of the two parties may insult the other who is a relative of the insulted party. Before long, the whole school climate can be adversely affected.
However, in my opinion, the ideal place is a semi-private place such as a coffee shop or fast food restaurant that is unlikely to have present anyone either party knows, and at a time when the place would be relatively quiet. In such places, you can find a seat that if you speak softly you are unlikely to be overheard. And even if you are overheard, it is very unlikely to really matter.
Now, I understand that for high school students, setting up a meeting in an ideal place might not be possible. Many students live far from a convenient meeting place. If there is no public transportation available, setting up a phone conversation might be your best option.
Looking directly into Jill’s eyes, say, “I’m beginning to feel some tension between us, Jill.” Then pause, to see and hear how Jill reacts. Listen carefully, and look like you are listening carefully, by looking up to her eyes from time to time. 
When she appears to be finished, summarize what she has said without trying to defend yourself in any way. Then pause to see if she wants to add anything more or to correct something you said in your summary. Then say, “I think I understand, Jill. Listen, not only am I concerned about what feels to me like tension between us, but the others around us are going to start to feel pretty uncomfortable about it as well. That’s not good for them, and for a number of reasons it’s not good for either of us. So, I think it makes sense that we discuss this fully in private.” Then tell her where and when you want to meet.
This can be done in a couple of minutes by calling Jill over to a relatively quiet area and speaking softly. If Jill refuses to meet with you, let her know that that is her choice. Then, just end by saying softly that you hope she thinks about the concern you raised and let her know that you hope she changes her mind about meeting to discuss this.
I suggest writing out a statement in advance describing the situation in your own words. If there is someone you respect that is not involved in any way with what is going on between you and the other party, consider showing that person what you have written. Then have a discussion about the situation with this respected person.
Above all else, you want to give the impression that you are a good listener. This involves looking, from time to time, into the eyes of the other party and summarizing what he or she says.
Regular visitors to “From Insults to Respect” know that from time to time I like to select one of Bob Dylan’s “Theme Time Radio Hour” shows to help enrich our understanding of an important topic. Bob’s shows have so far helped us to take an insightful look at why people might seek to insult us by calling us certain types of names, and at how crying, happiness, luck, and being rich or poor is related to respect.
Today, we turn to Bob’s show that explores the theme of “laughter,” a topic that is related to insults and respect in a number of ways. For instance, some people throw insults at us in a playful way in the hopes of provoking laughter. If we learn to take it well, laugh along, and show we don’t take ourselves too seriously, this potentially can enhance our reputation. 
Then there are situations during which someone throws out an insult in the hopes of humiliating us, and it leads to derisive laughs from those who are listening. In such situations, if we can learn to keep our heads up high while making allowances for the level of maturity of the insulter, this too can potentially enhance our reputation.
The song deepens our understanding of both laughter and sadness because it reveals how some people think they might lose some respect if they appear, even to themselves, to be sad over the loss of a love. Better, they think, to appear to be laughing and joking about the whole mess. And yet, the song became a big hit in large part because in actuality most of us can deeply relate to someone who experiences at such times genuine sadness. Meanwhile, some may actually see through your pretense of taking the breakup so lightly. If they do, might this enhance or diminish the respect they have for you?
“A lot of people laugh and joke no matter how they feel inside. The tradition of the sad clown goes back to at least 1892 when the opera “Pagliacci” was first performed. The opera is about the saddest of clowns. Enrico Caruso’s recordings of the arias of “Pagliacci” were the first records to sell over one million copies.”
Next up, Bob plays us a little number by Clyde McPhatter, called “Everyone’s Laughing” that has a related theme. Let’s take a quick look at some of the lyrics:
The singer of the song just labels the laughers, “fair weather friends.” Perhaps it would show more insight if he realized that perhaps the laughers were laughing because they knew deep inside that this type of breakup either has happened to them, or may very well at some point in their lives happen to them. Thus, they laughed because they are relieved that they are not the only ones that have to go through such a heartbreaking experience. Some sympathy for the laughers would be a mark, for me, of a higher level of maturity than the simple name calling that appears in the song’s lyrics.
In an earlier post (“
However, as we think upon this a little more, it may suddenly occur to us that we do have some reasons to feel threatened. At this point our emotional center, having already been sensitized from the earlier threat perception, leads to our laughter quickly turning to sadness.
However, something about the joke might bring up a memory of something sad. Since the threat region of our brain has already become sensitized from the fear of not getting the joke, we may quickly fall into sadness.
Don’t mind the rain drops
The song is in a lively tempo, and is pretty cheery. Moments afterwards, however, Bob waxes philosophical with a quote from the Nobel Prize winning writer, Herman Hesse–“Seriousness is an accident of time. It consists in putting too high a value on time. Eternity is a mere moment, just long enough for a joke.”
They have that warmth, they have that dynamic, that relationship; you love them, you want to hug them. I think comedians should never be better than the audience. I hate a comedian that comes out and he’s slick and he’s cool, and he’s got these one liners. It won’t resonate, it won’t mean anything to me. I want a comedian that gets their hands dirty. You know, I like someone to laugh at them. I love everything about them. They were just lovable geniuses.”
In a past post I asked the question, “
“My ears buzzed, my leg muscles spasmed, and my throat closed. What was worse: I did not know where — not even who — I was.”
For months my symptoms swept in and out like pernicious tides. One day I’d be able to savor a meal or talk to my sister on the phone without crying; the next, nothing would seem real, including me. I’d be lost in a fog — numb and dull. Travel, meeting new people and unstructured time all made me uneasy, which quickly morphed into a vague feeling of free-falling, then anxiety, then hopelessness about ever feeling normal again. Indeed, merely anticipating what I saw as the next inevitable bout of panic seemed to bring one on.
Her second psychiatrist, a Dr. Verhulst, at one point, upped her “antidepressant” dosage, which gave her dry mouth, constipation, and fatigue but quelled her panic. She felt that to live without all the angst was worth the side effects.
Ms. Grant’s efforts to get off the drug that she was taking at that time, Prozac, was not easy. She first tried cutting her dose in half. She learned that these types of drugs can lead to a very uncomfortable withdrawal syndrome. She experienced muscle cramps in her thighs, trembling hands, a dry lump in her throat, obsessive thoughts about going crazy and being locked away in a mental hospital.
I remember those four years free of antidepressants as a cheerful but busy blur of baby-raising — decorating a nursery, changing diapers, hiring a nanny — while balancing my career. But after the birth of our second child, a strapping son, signs of a relapse appeared.
A researcher at NIMH, a Dr. Rudorfer told her, “It took many years to figure out that the older antipsychotics could cause tardive dyskinesia — a terrible, permanent neurological disorder. There does not seem to be anything that drastic with these antidepressants, but we’re talking about medications we are intentionally getting into the brain — and that should be taken very seriously.”
Dr. Rudorfer, did offer Ms. Grant some words of encouragement. In his opinion, “The risk of untreated depression is greater than the risk of any adverse effect of antidepressants.” Toward the end of her story, Ms. Grant states that she recognizes there are more ways to treat depression and panic experiences than with the drug that she was taking, but she came to believe that she could never have recovered without it.
It occurred when Dr. Rudorfer told her that in his opinion, “The risk of untreated depression is greater than the risk of any adverse effect of antidepressants.” As someone who has participated in a number of debates on the use of psychiatric drugs, I have heard a number of physicians make the same claim. Whenever I asked these doctors what risks they were referring to regarding untreated depression, the answer has always been an increased risk of suicide. The doctors’ statements about this imply that if treated with “antidepressants” this can decrease the risk of suicide enough so that the depressed patient, by taking the drug, is better off than facing the risk of any adverse effects of the drug. But the doctors don’t know what the long term effects of taking the drugs are. What’s more, the scientific evidence currently available indicates that these drugs do not reduce the risk of suicide; for some, they may actually increase it. So, I did want to clarify this issue a bit.
There was, early in the Trump presidency, a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian military on its citizens, and based on the advice of the same generals who served under Obama, our new president ordered an airstrike on the airbase from which the chemical attack originated. Afterwards, the Trump administration resumed the basic Obama approach.
On December 6, 2015, President Obama, who refers to ISIS as ISIL, explained to the American people how he intends to deal with this conflict:
And since the attacks in Paris, our closest allies — including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — have ramped up their contributions to our military campaign, which will help us accelerate our effort to destroy ISIL.
We’re working with Turkey to seal its border with Syria. And we are cooperating with Muslim-majority countries — and with our Muslim communities here at home — to counter the vicious ideology that ISIL promotes online.
Some want to impose a no fly zone over Syria despite the objections of the Russian government. Others want us to bring back a full scale ground invasion similar to what we did during the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, but now we would have to expand it into Syria and several other countries where ISIS currently has a presence. Then there are those who would like us to do less than what Obama had us doing. The range of opinions that fall under this type of proposal include ending the bombing while continuing to offer support to those in the region willing to fight ISIS; to those who believe we should let those living in the regions that ISIS is operating work out their problems without any US meddling in their affairs.
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a brilliant book by Harvard University professor of psychology, Steven Pinker. In the course of reading its 700 plus pages, we learn that human violence has not only dramatically declined, support for civil rights has surged. As we become familiar with important aspects of these trends, we also begin to discover clues about the factors that foster these developmental changes.
In the earliest period that humans thrived, they were chiefly hunters and gatherers. At that time it has been estimated that death came as a result of one person killing another about twenty percent of the time. Evidence for this was obtained by looking at the skeletons from that period. Quite often we find arrowheads imbedded in chest cavities and fractured skulls.
Another dramatic decrease occurred around the Age of Reason and the European Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. It saw the first organized movements to abolish slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killings, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals.
Reflecting on the changes that have occurred, note that the United States is made up of 50 states, and since its Civil War 150 years ago, none of them have violently attacked another. To the US’s north is Canada, the largest undefended border in the world, and yet over 200 years have gone by without a war between these two countries. To the south is Mexico, a country that the US has managed to live in peace with for over 150 years.
Actually, we find that the vast majority of Muslims who are living under the same set of conditions as other religious groups in the developed countries are in no way more violent, nor are they more likely to violate what are now viewed by most as basic human rights. Also relevant to this question is the fact that people from religious groups other than Muslims, when raised under the conditions that were present in earlier times were every bit as violent as those currently pledging their allegiance to ISIS.
“Violence was commonplace in Nevis, as in all of the slave-ridden sugar islands…. The Caribbean sugar economy was a system of inimitable savagery, making the tobacco and cotton plantations of the American south system almost genteel by comparison. The mortality rate of slaves hacking away at sugarcane under a pitiless tropical sun was simply staggering: three out of five died within five years of arrival, and slave owners had to replenish their fields constantly with new victims.”
England continued, for some time, to use force to maintain its hold on colonial labor, but Mahatma Gandhi effectively used nonviolent resistance to put an end to colonial rule. Soon afterwards, colonialism ended elsewhere.
There are some credible reasons for supporters of ISIS to feel that there has been an ongoing effort to force them to do whatever is in the interest of the US. Years before the creation of ISIS, meddling in Middle East affairs occurred by the US’s CIA. Then came the US invasion of the largely Muslim inhabited Afghanistan and Iraq countries. Now we have the current US bombing campaign while President Obama has been calling for destroying ISIS.
With regards to responding to the enslaving of people, the US would use nonviolent approaches such as boycotting any goods or services that might fund ISIS operations, along with boycotting any country or enterprise that does business with ISIS.
The US would launch an all out peaceful advocacy effort to have the United Nations offer to fund a constitutional convention for all of the stakeholders in the regions that ISIS is operating. ISIS representatives would be invited. UN Peace Keepers would be employed throughout the convention period to help decrease the likelihood that some would seek to violently sabotage such efforts.
Professor Pinker points out that although UN Peacekeeping missions, at times, had its share of failures, when all of the available data is looked at, these missions led to an 80% reduction in the probability of a subsequent war.
In mid-day much of the region is often so hot it could make the Dalai Lama ignite in irritability. Large sections of this region are as parched as the moon’s surface. But the region does have plentiful sunshine. Thus, solar power is a major natural resource. Couple this with plentiful oil supplies, we find that inexpensive energy is one of the region’s major assets. Nevertheless, the region remains rather poor in contrast to the more developed countries.
Professor Pinker notes that prior to the invention of the printing press there were very few books available. Those people who lived in the upper classes rarely had much direct contact with the lower classes. A nobleman’s quick glance while passing by a downtrodden worker often merely left the impression of a filthy, smelly soul, hardly human at all. After novels became available, a nobleman might read of a poor young woman pressed into very sad circumstances by a cruel person of the upper classes, and discover tears running down his cheeks. To discover that people all over the world, in all classes, and other religions have very similar desires, dreams, and feelings that we can all relate to, increases empathy and the desire to deal with a wider range of humanity in kind and respectful ways.
A few story lines that would be particularly relevant with regards to promoting the psychological maturity of those sympathetic to ISIS are:
Okay then, there you have it, my proposal for an alternative approach for dealing with the ISIS situation. In coming up with it, I leaned heavily on what I learned from reading Professor Pinker’s book, but also drew on my own knowledge of psychological development.
To those who feel that they can never forgive such acts as occurred in Paris and San Bernardino, I offer Nelson Mandela’s story as something to humanize their position. No one had more reason to not forgive, than Mandela. In the end, he found a far more helpful path forward for his people, both white and black, from the old South Africa, to a new, less violent, and more just South Africa.
Today, concerns about youth criminal behavior and mental health tend to be addressed in a variety of ways. Placing law breaking juveniles in correctional facilities get them off the streets for awhile, but their interactions in these facilities with other offenders can make serious problems worse. Psychiatric drugs are popular, though their effectiveness and safety are debatable. Counseling and psychotherapy are often helpful but at times they prove insufficient, and, for some, too costly. Results from studies that examined mentoring programs have been very promising, but communities have found that they have been unable to enlist anywhere near the number of mentors to meet their needs.
June is 11- years old and wearing a cute pink dress. She has been brought to see Dr. Goleman, a psychologist in his mid-forties. Wearing gold rim glasses, and a white collared shirt, Dr. Goleman is leaning forward on his desk, clearly very concerned. 
