Welcome to From Insults To Respect.
This week, I received a letter from a wonderful pal of mine, Mike Gilmartin, a retired English professor who dabbles in the fine art of poetry. His letter included his most recent effort, which he titled, “The Art Of Trumping The Deal.” To me, it powerfully expresses Mike’s emotion that comes with his disrespect for Donald Trump’s bullying behavior.
Mike views Trump as a bully, as he puts it, “Because a bully blusters and lies and then chickens out when truth is on the line.”
Mike, certainly, is not alone in viewing Trump as a bully. For example, in an article in the The Observer, Arlie Hochschild writes:
To bully someone is to seek to harm, intimidate or coerce another who’s perceived as vulnerable. As the National Center Against Bullying elaborates, there are many types of bullying. Reviewing them, we… can recall times when Trump has exemplified nearly all of them. There is physical bullying – tripping, kicking, hitting; remember his calls in 2016 to oust Black Lives Matter demonstrators in the “old-fashioned way” (with a show of fist in palm). There is verbal bullying – name-calling (Sleepy Joe, Crooked Hillary, Little Mario). There is mockery by imitation. Recall his laughing imitation of a disabled reporter, palsied arms and hands shaking. Then there is social bullying – showing contempt for someone’s social reputation (think of the Gold Star parents, Khizr and Ghazala Khan, ridiculed for the silence of the grieving mother).
These Trump bullying behaviors, according to a Washington Post article,
“has seeped into schools across America. Many bullies now target other children differently than they used to, with kids as young as 6 mimicking the president’s insults and the cruel way he delivers them.
“Trump’s words, those chanted by his followers at campaign rallies and even his last name have been wielded by students and school staff members to harass children more than 300 times since the start of 2016 [to the end of 2019], a Washington Post review of 28,000 news stories found. At least three-quarters of the attacks were directed at kids who are Hispanic, black or Muslim, according to the analysis.”
When I first read Mike’s poem, I liked its poetic expression of the emotional reactions of disrespect that is often experienced when we see someone acting like a bully. An image of giving the bully a good sock in the kisser, understandably, might come to mind, as well as images of other violent acts.
Because of this being a common reaction, I thought it would be worthwhile to share the poem with my readers to aid the uprooting of weeds in one’s mind regarding the nature of bullying. At the same time, I wouldn’t want readers to think that I am recommending that such thoughts should be the automatic proper way to actually respond to bullies. Such violent responses can lead to an assault charge and land one in prison. There are also various other very serious negative consequences when responding violently. A wise response requires considering who is doing the bullying, and the situation in which it occurs. In past posts, I discuss some specific ideas about this (see HERE, HERE, and HERE for a few examples). So, with these prefatory comments out of the way, let’s move on to take a look at Mike’s poem.
The Art Of Trumping The Deal
We were both born in New York City
Less than a year apart.
Thus ends the similarity.
My Dad, a WWII combat Marine
Taught me many things.
And he taught me this about bullies:
“Son, if it’s going down in the schoolyard,
Punch them in the mouth with all you’ve got
And they’ll run home crying for their mamas.
“If it’s going down when you’re young men,
Kick them in the nuts with all you got
And they’ll squeal like little girls.
“If it’s going down when you’re grown men,
Watch if their lips are moving and tell them you know they are lying
And they’ll turn red and orange in whimpering rage.
“If it’s going down when you’re old men,
Listen for their painful moaning at the urinal
Then piss on their shoes
And they’ll try to rub it off on the back of their pants leg.”
My Impressions
The poem leads me to vividly sense the anger and hate many people experience when encountering bullies. Although the body of the poem applies to bullies in general, the title of the poem, “The Art Of Trumping The Deal,” points me in the direction of considering Trump’s particular style of bullying.
Trump’s style has him not actually physically attacking the person he is seeking to bully, but rather, to incite others to do the attacking for him. Thus we hear of numerous articles indicating an increase in violence toward the very individuals Trump verbally attacks in his speeches.
And then we have the incident in which Trump summoned like-minded bullies to come to D.C. on January 6, his incendiary rhetoric provoking a violent attack on the nation’s capitalAlthough he recently pardon them, those carried out the violence were left to suffer for four years its consequences. Hundreds lost their jobs, others had to bear the cost and time of acquiring lawyers to defend themselves against criminal charges, many of them paying large fines, and some served time in prison. Meanwhile, Trump was bathing in the sun at his Mar-a-Lago country club.
But, somehow, I kinda think that all is not so perfectly rosy in Trump’s mind these days. It is just possible that images of numerous criminal investigations just may by provoking anxiety at the consequences of his recent actions.
Well, that’s my post for today. I’ve written it with the hope that it might encourage any of you who might be tempted to try to achieve some goal by bullying your way through various obstacles to pause and consider the value of employing less anger and hate promoting alternatives
My Best,
Jeff.
In several previous post we discussed suggestions for responding to insults in a positive manner. For example, we discussed Abe Lincoln’s wise approach (see 
Welcome to From Insults To Respect. Today’s post offers an approach for respectfully helping someone experiencing hopelessness during a first-hour counseling session. I commend it to you for I have found it remarkably helpful over my many years providing counseling services.
However, there are some who will not be able to do so because they have very little patience in the presence of anyone feeling hopeless. Such persons might cry out, “Enough with this helplessness crap. Snap out of it and get the hell on with your life for crying out loud!”
That said, it just so happens that some people who begin with the lack of sympathy approach end up seeing it has been far from helpful. They may yet be left harboring some desire to be helpful in some way. If they didn’t end up completely severing any subsequent relationship with the person feeling helpless as a result of their demanding approach, they might, through a turn of mind, come to say, “Well, I guess I have the ability to try a more supportive approach.” Such persons might still be able to utilize the Jamesian approach.
The first two types of situations one can utilize this approach involves a professional counselor or psychotherapist. The client arrives for an appointment. The professional then begins the session by asking the client, “What concerns would you like us to address?” The despondent person might reply,
“I’ve been feeling stressed out and hopeless and I heard I might qualify for disability benefits. I can sure use the extra money.”
You begin by asking the person you hope to help, in a soft, caring manner, “How have you been doing?” Over the course of the next half hour, your job is to listen with all the empathy you can muster, to whatever your counselee wants to share with you.
Listening in a sympathetic manner during the first half hour is time well spent. During this time you will be modeling for the counselee an alternative to how he or she might want to respond to the situations that currently has been leading to angrily insulting oneself. People learn a great deal by observing others. Your job in this first half hour is to be a superb model of reacting to very human mistakes by remaining supportive to the notion that we all goof-up from time to time.
“I’d like to pause here for just a few minutes, if that is ok with you. I would like to tell you a story that many people who are going through a similar experience as you, find helpful. In referring to these experiences as similar to you, I recognize each person’s experience is unique. That said, with us being fellow humans, we can often see certain similarities that might help us make some useful connections with our own unique situation. So, would it be ok if we pause here just for a few minutes so I can tell you this story?”
But as a young man of 25, while studying for his Harvard medical degree, he suddenly dropped out. As he explained the reason, “it was as if something hitherto solid within my breast gave way entirely, and I became a mass of quivering fear. . . . I awoke morning after morning with a horrible dread in the pit of my stomach.”
He said several things: the reading of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will) and Wordsworth, whom he has been feeding on now for a good while; but especially his having given up the notion that all mental disorder is required to have a physical basis. This had become perfectly untrue to him. He saw that the mind did act irrespectively of material coercion, and could be dealt with therefore at first-hand, and this was health to his bones.
We see in the above that at this time James had viewed his distressful experience that led to his departure from medical school as a “mental disorder” that he had to accept as due to something wrong with his body and therefore he could do nothing but accept that he had this condition. Then, his conceptualization began to develop from a physiological pathology model to one that gives at least some freedom to the will.
I wandered lonely as a cloud
This exuberance with being in nature, for Wordsworth, spilled over into his life even when he was not in nature as we see in the following lines:
For oft, when on my couch I lie
Later in his life, William James added another element to his understanding of the disturbing experiences he had as a young man. It was prompted by a quarrel.
But it breaks down importantly as soon as melancholy comes; and even though one be quite free from melancholy one’s self, there is no doubt that healthy-mindedness is inadequate as a philosophical doctrine, because the evil facts which it refuses positively to account for are a genuine portion of reality; and may after all be the best key to life’s significance, and possibly the only openers of our eyes to the deepest levels of truth.
To James, people confront events daily that create feelings of helplessness, pain, sadness, horror, and dread. James argued that the feelings that go along with these kinds of events can lead toward truth. Thus, he counteracts any tendency to assume that those referred to as morbid-minded are automatically inferior to those referred to as “mentally healthy.”
Through being counseled by reading the writings of Renouvier (specially his vindication of the freedom of the will), along with discovering the health promoting effects of spending time in nature and with some people who shared his developing love of nature, he found this was health to his bones. As the years went by, he came to understand that there can be some benefits that come from the experiences many so called healthy-minded people view as morbid-mindedness or, more frequently in today’s culture, “mental illness.”
Here this ten-minute story ends. At its conclusion, gently ask if your counselee would like to share any thoughts or feelings that came about upon hearing about William James’s experiences and ideas about what people today often refer to as having a mental illness. Then, in the few minutes left of the hour, begin again to listen in the caring manner I described above.
Consider a press conference held by Senate Republicans this past July. At that time, they blamed the “insane tax and spending spree of President Biden and the Democrats for six straight months of raging inflation.”
As another example, on 3/10/22 I read this tweet by Florida Republican 
Story 1: Last summer I was in the mood to play a round of golf, so I checked the weather report. Seeing there was only a twenty percent chance of rain, I called three of my friends to see if they wanted to join me, informing them of the most recent weather report. They agreed to play.
We put our heads together, and finally got to the game, but only after the second inning. Obviously, the driver was largely responsible for our being late, although any one of us could have double checked the directions, rather than just assume the driver was not mistaken. In any case, after a few good natured teasing comments, all of us hastened to be supportive of our driver friend, saying things like, “Hey, everyone makes mistakes,” and then sharing incidents in which we were late because we had gotten lost in the past. I respect how we handled the situation.
Dismayed at the blaming of Biden, whom I do believe is trying to do his best during terribly tough circumstances, I did some research on the causes of the current inflation situation. Checking multiple sources, which are readily available for anyone really interested in this issue, this is what I found.
Supply Chain Issues: By all accounts that I can find, shortly after the pandemic struck, and before Biden was sworn in as president, the annual inflation rate for most American purchases had already risen to the highest level in a decade.
Moreover, rising inflation isn’t just hitting the US. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, inflation among its 38 member states is heading higher. As 
Lack Of Real Competition: About two-thirds of the largest publicly traded US companies reported fatter profit margins in the first nine months of 2021 compared with the same period in 2020, 
Challenging Problem for the Feds: The department in the Federal Government that has the responsibility to guide the US through troubled waters is the Federal Reserve System. Among its most central roles is to promote the effective operation of the U.S. economy and, more generally, the public interest. It conducts the nation’s monetary policy to promote maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates in the U.S. economy.
Jerome Powell, with impressive credentials, is the chair person of this system. Nominated for the position by former President Donald Trump in 2018, he was confirmed by Democrat and Republican Senators by an 84 to 13 vote. He is still serving in that position under President Biden.
The last time the US had a serious inflation problem began in the mid-1970s and ran through the mid-1980s. It threw the country into a recession and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The national debt at that time was less than 1 trillion dollars. At least with the current bout with inflation, unemployment is currently below 4 precent.
First, his tax cut that wasn’t matched with any spending cuts led to a trillion dollar increase in the national debt the following year, as was predicted by all of the major economists. Then came the pandemic during his administration and he quickly signed into law a $2.2 trillion relief package, followed by a $900 billion relief package. When we combine the increase in debt from Trump’s tax program with his pandemic relief spending, we come up with over 4 trillion dollars. All of this money sloshed into the economy before Biden took the oath of office.
His proposal, as expressed during his State of the Union Address, involves capping the cost of insulin to $35 a month and letting Medicare negotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. Child care cost, that has been weighing heavily on families, would be cut in half for most families. This would help parents, including millions of women, who left the workforce during the pandemic because they couldn’t afford child care, to be able to get back to work. The enhanced Child Tax Credit, which was beefed up for 2021 as part of the American Rescue Plan Act, would be extended.
As you might imagine, people who are viewed as wise tend to be more respected than people who are viewed as foolish. With that in mind, let’s take a look at a few suggestions for improving our wisdom.
“Much better…if our companion views a thing in a light different from what we do, to leave him in quiet possession of his view. What is the use of rectifying him if the thing be unimportant; and if important let it pass for the present, and wait a softer moment and more conciliatory occasion of revising the subject together.”
So, when deciding whether to acquiesce to the opinions of others, remaining silent, or taking up the challenge of presenting your alternative views, consider the wisdom of first assessing if the person you are interacting with has an “open minded” or “close minded” personality.
Therefore, when with people you don’t yet know whether or not they are open minded and you hear them express an opinion with which you disagree, you might want to first assess where they are on this open minded-close minded continuum. This can be easily done by you by first summarizing their opinion, showing an interest by asking a few clarifying questions, and then saying something like, “I heard a different opinion about this topic, and I’d like to get your reaction.” Then, after briefly describing the alternative view, see if the person indicates an openness to discuss this. If he or she starts to get defensive by saying something like, “That’s stupid,” and, “Only idiots think that way,” it may be wise to take the discussion no further.
Notice that with this approach, you don’t initially claim that the alternative position is correct, or that it is something you firmly believe, thus avoiding leading people you are talking with to feel you have attacked them for their belief.
In many social situations, if you find that you don’t enjoy them, it is a simple matter to avoid them in the future. Not so in many workplace situations, or at school where attending is mandatory. Also, when invited to a social party, you may want to keep getting invited to future parties with these folks even if some of the attendees are not your cup of tea. This may be so because you enjoy most of the attendees, or your regular participation at attending provides valuable information about what is going on in the neighborhood.
Then, over the next few days, search on the internet, or go to the library to find some well thought out views on each of the topics by some respected writers. Seek to find some great writers who have different views on the same topic.
When this research is complete to your satisfaction, write out what you want to say about the topic with an eye of balancing short term and long term goals, and how different situations might call for different approaches. Your opening paragraph is best framed as something you can say in a couple of minutes. Finally, have someone you respect critique what you wrote. By doing this, your comments at your social gathering will tend to be far wiser than if you just jump into expressing your opinion without utilizing this technique.
When you do provide your opinion, begin by noting that you have found that different respected authorities have come to very different conclusions on this topic. Be prepared to be able to summarize these different views, but your opening statement is best kept to the one or two minute paragraph that you crafted when you wrote out your entire position, because typically people don’t appreciate a long lecture. If people you are talking with are really interested in delving into the topic, they will make some reply, perhaps presenting an alternative view.
After giving others an ample opportunity to comment, you can then provide more of your opinion in a two or three minute segment. Then, once again, let others respond, and continue in this give and take manner. Present your own conclusions in a humble, tentative manner, while remaining open to hearing critiques of what you offer. Avoid, getting defensive, and if someone raises a good point that you have not yet considered, reply humbly with a statement such as, “I think there is some merit in what you have said.” Then summarize it, and say, “I’d like to give this some thought and then I’ll get back to you.”
Wisdom is a prized characteristic. Avoiding angering close minded people for no substantially good reason is one technique that can raise the estimate of your wisdom. Utilizing the “Summarize and Delay” technique will not only increase how others view your wisdom, it may also very well actually increase your wisdom. In your discussion, avoid coming off like you are trying to humiliate those with different views. Rather, empathize with them, and above all, be kind.
“Crazy” is a concept used when people are puzzled about the actions of others or themselves. By using this type of name calling, it really doesn’t provide any clarification, but to some, they think it does. So, we might hear something like the following conversation:
Nevertheless, I would like you to consider the following possibility.
Trump’s supporters, in addition to being called crazy, have repeatedly been called mentally ill as a way to make sense of what seems to be irrational. Because the mental illness concept is supported by many doctors, including many psychiatrists and psychologists, some folks have been left with the impression that it must be a more sound, scientific concept than “crazy.” Is it?
When psychiatrists use their mental illness classification system and call it a diagnostic system, they do so despite numerous scientific arguments about its shortcomings (see 
You have trouble starting your car. You bring it to Fred, your friendly local mechanic. On hearing your concern, he provides an initial theory of what is causing this—perhaps your car needs a new starter. This is the initial “theoretical” diagnosis. Then, Fred inspects the starter and finds that it is in fine shape. Thus, his original theory of what is wrong proves incorrect. He then theorizes that your spark plugs are dirty. He takes a look and finds that they are indeed dirty. He cleans them up, puts them back in their proper place, and the car starts right up. In the end, he “diagnosed” what was wrong with your car—it had dirty spark plugs.
The psychiatric mental illness diagnostic system is described in a manual published with the title, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). There it refers to itself as a manual for making diagnoses. This masks the difference between the following three types of statements:
The DSM does not claim its so called “diagnostic classifications” are just a theory of what the cause is for the expressed concern; it doesn’t even provide a theory. The manual’s developers explicitly say it is theory neutral. The DSM labels are just type 3 statements, that is, just statements that restate expressed concerns into medical jargon. Thus, the lack of reliability and validity for the DSM classifications and applying the word “diagnosis” to them in a misleading, imprecise manner are just three of its many serious principles of science violations.
Contrast psychiatry’s DSM “diagnosis” system with a diagnosis system used by other doctors. If someone comes to a virologist expressing a concern about being feverish, having difficulty breathing, and loss of taste, the doctor will label these as the patient’s medical complaints, rather then simply translating the complaints into medical jargon and then claiming the jargon constitutes the diagnosis. Instead, the virologist, after writing down the various complaints, will then look for the cause for these complaints. If it is found that there is the presence of the Covid 19 virus, the doctor will say the diagnosis is a Covid 19 infection.
On one fine spring day, I was sitting on a Central Park bench and two women were sitting one bench just to my right reading their newspapers. Suddenly, one of them cried out, “Sophie, can you believe this! The story I’m reading here, oh my God! This young boy, seventeen years old mind you, the same age as my Jonathan, he’s struggling with ideas about suicide. Seventeen years old, his whole life before him and he wants to kill himself. What would lead a boy to this?”
With that explanation, the two women nodded to one another, and continued on to another story, seemingly satisfied that they now knew why the boy was dealing with this issue.
In my opinion, even a play, which lasts but two or three hours, can only provide in its narrative a simplified account of what real life stories are all about. And yet, in today’s world, for many people a very different type of play is sufficient for providing the reason why someone is dealing with a challenging concern. This new type of play begins with the curtain rising. A character says to the audience he is struggling with feelings of suicide. A psychiatrist then proclaims the character has the mental disorder known as major depressive disorder, and then the curtain comes down. That’s the whole play. And people walk away fully satisfied that an adequate explanation has been provided.
That said, I leave you with the following suggestion: If you have a theory of why people continue to support Trump and his continued claims that he won the 2020 presidential election by a landslide, let those with whom you want to share your theory know it is a “theory,” and forgo the mental illness name calling. By doing so, you may not get as many cheers from people who agree with you. Nevertheless, among people truly seeking to deepen their understanding of this difficult to understand phenomenon, you will be more respected. Moreover, for those who may disagree with your theory, they will appreciate your ability to distinguish fact from theory. You’ll come across, I theorize, as more open-minded and you will be modeling a higher level of discourse than what we have been hearing from many of our political leaders.
Welcome to From Insults to Respect. Today we examine a conflict witnessed by millions that involves U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan at a U.S. House Coronavirus Hearing angrily questioning infectious disease expert Dr. Fauci. It can be viewed on YouTube 
Briefly, Congressman Jordan desired to defend the U.S. Constitution and the liberty of Americans. In his view, interfering with his desire are a set of recommendations developed by the CDC that Dr. Fauci has given voice to as part of the job the current president has hired him to do. Jordan appears to believe Dr. Fauci is guilty of promoting recommendations that interfere with liberty and the Constitution. At the same time, Dr. Fauci desires to do his job without facing personal attacks and a style of questioning that he referred to as ranting.
At first, Dr. Fauci is reluctant to describe the objective measure, explaining it depends on a variety of ever changing conditions, such as the percentage of people who will agree to be vaccinated, how resistant new emerging variants of the virus will be to the available vaccines, and other factors that can sprout up. But, after making clear that any estimate that he gives must be viewed as very tentative, Dr. Fauci finally provides his best guess–when the number of daily infections drop to 10,000 a day, which may very well be reached by early to mid summer if the vast majority of people are vaccinated.
You said that when Texas ended their lockdown, ended their mandates, this was inexplicable and this would, quote, “lead to a surge in cases.” But Texas is at the bottom of the 50 states. But all of the states at the top are lockdown states. So, that guess didn’t look too good. What explains why Texas is so darn low as compared to the rest of the states. Lockdown states have a much higher rate than the state of Texas which over a month ago said that we’re not going to have all these lockdowns and all of these mandates that you say we have to have a lockdown.
Jordan: Dr. Fauci, when is the time? When, in your written statement you say, “Now is not the time to pull back on masking, physical distancing, and avoiding congregating settings. When is the time? When do Americans get their freedom back? 
Dr. Fauci: When we get the levels of infection in this country low enough that it is not a really high threat.
Jordan: What measure. I mean, are we just going to continue forever. When do we get to the point? What measure, what objective outcome do we have to reach before Americans get their liberty and freedom back? 
Jordan, his voice has become louder: You don’t think that American liberties have been threatened the past year, Dr Fauci? They’ve been assaulted, their liberties have.
At this point, Jordan again interrupts in the middle of Dr. Fauci’s sentence and begins to list examples of Americans loss of liberty, and among them, he says, “The governor of our third largest state meets with physicians and that video is censored because it dared to disagree with Dr. Fauci, so I just want to know when Americans are going to get their liberties back.”
Dr. Fauci: My answers are consistent with [cross talk] may I answer the question please. My recommendations are not a personal recommendation. They are based on the CDC guidance and which are underscored by…
Dr. Fauci: Right now we have about sixty thousand infections a day, which is a very large risk for a surge. We’re not talking about liberties, we’re talking about a pandemic that has killed 560,000 Americans. That’s what we are talking about.
Dr. Fauci: Well, you just said people can’t assemble in their own homes. They can. That’s a CDC recommendation. [after some crosstalk Dr. Fauci continues] You are going to see a gradual, from, right now we are at an unacceptable high level, regardless of who you are. We’re going to see, as more and more people are vaccinated and we get over three million people a day, you are going to see the level of infection go down and down, and gradually there will be more flexibility to doing the things you are talking about. 
Dr. Fauci: You are asking for a number. If I have a number, it would have to be my best estimate, and that would be that when the number of infections a day are well below ten thousand a day. At that point, there would be a gradual pulling back of a number of the restrictions you are talking about, particularly when people are vaccinated more and more because a combination of, if you are vaccinated you are protecting yourself for sure, and the more people who get vaccinated in the community, the lower the number of infections will be.
Dr. Fauci: You’re ranting again.
Let’s begin with Congressman Jordan. Most of his questions were relevant and initially he doesn’t sound particularly belligerent. In my opinion, he could have done better throughout by asking his questions in a warm and friendly manner. When Dr. Fauci made a few comments that Jordan objected to, rather than utilizing the conflict resolution skill of disagreeing without being disagreeable, he instead angrily raises his voice and repeatedly interrupts Dr. Fauci in mid-sentence. What would disagreeing without being disagreeable have looked like in their exchange? I think by empathetically providing statements from time to time that indicated he knows Dr. Fauci has been the bearer of bad news throughout the pandemic and that’s a rough situation to be in, could have helped to traverse some of the roughest terrain of this conflict.
Now, let’s turn to critiquing Dr. Fauci’s handling of the conflict. With the exception of three brief moments, I think he kept his tone of voice in a matter of fact manner that was fitting for this occasion. Where he faltered on this score will be discussed shortly.
swered the questions posed to him in a manner that struck me as fair given the number of factors in steady flux. His biggest mistake, in my opinion, occurred by not taking advantage of making a connection with Jordan on their shared values.
I share with you the love of liberty and freedom, Congressman Jordan, and well recognize the enormous frustrations that have been ongoing during this pandemic. The restrictions about family gatherings have been awfully hard, numerous people who have a business ended up with devastating losses, people have lost their job, and on and on, all of this has been terribly difficult to deal with emotionally as well as financially. And yet, according to the best scientific data we have available, if we did nothing to try to decrease the spread hundreds of thousands of more people would have died, and hospital personnel would have been even more overwhelmed than they had become at the height of the U.S. experience with this pandemic. 
In its preamble it states its purpose is, and I quote, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” 
Now we are engaged in providing a common defense to battle this pandemic, a battle that has led to the deaths in one year of nearly twice the total number of deaths that occurred during the four years of World War II. Sacrifices are being made. I’m not happy about them, but I was hired by the president to provide my recommendations based on science and a vetting process involving experts at the CDC, to decrease the spread of the virus. Consistent with our Constitution, it is up to our elected officials to decide which recommendations to make mandatory. Citizens have the right to file a suit in court if they believe their rights are being violated. 
If Dr. Fauci would have made these types of connections with Jordan’s values, it may very well have taken the wind out of Jordan’s sails, tempering his ire.
In conflict resolution we often teach people to make “I” statements rather than insisting on an opinion. Thus, Dr. Fauci might have done better if instead of saying, “No, you are. That is exactly what you are doing,” he said pleasantly, “Well, although you don’t view it as a personal thing, I’m experiencing it as exactly that. To be clear, I did not advocate that the video be censored, and I fully support freedom of speech.”
I get why Dr. Fauci was exasperated at this point. He believed he had provided the best answer available, but I do think Jordan was in his rights to ask for a more specific guess. Dr. Fauci eventually did provide more specifics that came when Jordan made this request.
Dr. Fauci’s frustration with Jordan’s interruptions and his angry tone of voice is understandable. And though ranting may have been an accurate description, most people would view Dr. Fauci’s comment as an insult. Insulting someone in the middle of a conflict just leads to more trouble than it is worth. I think Dr. Fauci would have been better off just saying something like, “Congressman Jordan, I am having a hard time dealing with your tone and frequent interruptions. I understand you have strong feelings about this, as I certainly do. Maybe we need a break so I can deal with how I’m feeling.”
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.
