Responding to need
Steph Turner
Career coaching online around the world, ‘anankelogist’ understanding your needs, author, ‘need-responder’ serving your needs where detached institutions fall short.
Your pain lingers only where needs remain unresolved
You read a tweet that instantly annoys you. Then you realize it doesn’t quite say what you first assumed. Your first reaction gives ways to understanding, and peace. You move on.
Next?
How you react, or respond, to a need determines how long it will likely last. Often enough, your first reaction resolves your need. You react to thirst by drinking water, and your thirst evaporates.
Other times, your reaction fails to resolve your needs—or the needs of others affected by your reaction. A thought out respond would do better to respect the affected needs. Politics seeks to replace our reactions with a different response.
This need-duration cycle mirrors the focal cycle previously introduced. In both directions. If all goes well, each need spins through these complementary cycles. Needs fully resolving under current norms require little to any politics.
1. Report: becoming aware of triggered need - prefocal
2. React: automatically reacting to need - focal
3. Respond: respond reflectively to need -defocal
4. Result: ideally, your need resolves - nonfocal
1. Report: prefocal
As soon as the news of the latest mass shooting hits your ears, your gut sinks. Imagine your experience graphed on a chart illustrating your level of focus. The line starts at zero, representing no emotion prior to hearing the news.
A need gets triggered.
Then abruptly, your pain level rises. Your emotion triggers your awareness of a need.
- If wide-oriented leaning politically leftward, your first thought is likely about the targets. Was the shooter a xenophobe trying to kill minorities?
- If deep-oriented leaning politically rightward, your first thought is likely about media distortions. What can you trust about the reports pouring in?
Your concerns over gun safety get awakened—prefocal. The discomfort level rises.
2. React: focal
As details become clear about this horrific violence, you brace for its politicization. Of course, you care deeply about the victims, no matter what side of the political fence you’re on.
You automatically react.
Your reactions diverge.
- If leftward wide-oriented, you wonder how did this violent person ever got a hold of such a lethal weapon. Gun safety, to you, requires some government authority limiting access to firearms, to prioritize our public safety.
- If rightward deep-oriented, you brace for what you see as kneejerk reactions. You agree gun safety is a vital issue, but react sharply at the other side’s insistence we punish the vast number of gun owners for the violent actions of a few.
You both agree gun safety is important—focal—but agree on little else. The discomfort level tops out.
3. Respond: defocal
More clarity reduces some of the initial alarm. The shooter was apprehended, or shot by police. This threat is over, but its effects linger for those immediately affected—mostly the victims of yet another mass shooting.
You reflectively respond.
Something must be done to prevent these horrific shootings from recurring. But what?
- If wide-oriented, you likely want to close loopholes in the law that permit bypassing of background checks. You may even respond by challenging the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.
- If deep-oriented, you likely want to find solutions that don’t punish responsible gun owners for the irresponsibility of a few. You may even respond by waiting for the sensation of the news reports to wane before saying too much.
You both can agree reacting too irrationally can create more problems than solutions. A disciplined response comes easier when not suffering under any direct threat. The tension fades and becomes defocal as you trust something rational is being done about this. Your discomfort level finally falls.
4. Result: nonfocal
As other news takes center stage, the latest mass shooting fades from view. Unless personally affected by it in some way, you are already moving on.
Your need resolves sufficiently enough.
You feel safe enough to wonder in public.
- If wide-oriented, you take courage in activists and political leaders saying they are doing something to close the gaps. Bills are drafted to close the gun show loophole, and other ways to ensure public safety.
- If deep-oriented, you take courage in activists and political leaders ensuring your right to responsibly own firearms. Bills aiming to improve gun-related public safety are kept accountable to your gun rights.
After cycling through this alarming experience, you step back from any catastrophizing. You entrust the matter to others as the issue for you becomes completely nonfocal. Life goes on, with your discomfort level over gun violence likely returning to zero.
Next time, how this cycle looks when not returning to zero.
Applying to your politicized needs
Now consider how this looks at other politicized needs. The current back-and-forth over impeaching Trump over the whistleblower compliant follows much the same pattern.
1. Report: is whistleblower complaint legitimate OR overly politicized?
2. React: impeach Trump now VS overblowing Trump’s call with Zelensky
3. Respond: currently evolving
4. Result: too soon to tell
Relational knowing
A common reaction to such politicized news coverage charges “false equivalency” where two sides get erroneously compared. Later, I distinguish between “false equivalency”’ and “false dichotomy” by linking the former with how we address needs and the latter with the needs themselves.
The more you react to your pain, the more likely you exaggerate in ways prioritizing relief over what’s best for all.
Politics addresses differing situations, so the novelty of different situations call for more reflective responses.
The more disciplined your response, the more likely to find a solution agreeable across the board.
If the pain of a politicized need lingers, you can be assured there’s something wrong with the politics around it. On a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate the pain you endure from divisive politics.
Raising the standard
Divisive politics entices you to react to each other’s politized needs irresponsibly. You cannot decide to un-experience your politicized needs. You have little leeway in how you experience your politicized needs.
By first affirming the needs on both sides, I raise the standard of our political discourse. Using divisive politics to oppose anyone’s needs—or even be dismissive of how others experience their needs differently—does not come from a place of wellness.
To put it bluntly, any leader opposing the needs of those under their influence lacks legitimacy. Indeed, I’d even say they’re complicit with dysfunctionality, and risk nudging the most vulnerable into a path of certain pathology.
Relating to the “pain” of impeachment
Democrats understandably are on board with impeachment of Trump. The major Dem candidates expressed the predictable. I passed on replying.
Instead, I focus here on Republicans challenging the Democrat-led inquiry. Again, I affirm the underlying needs while challenging the lack of respect of needs on both sides. I include one Democrat who seems to get this point.
1. Senator Mitch McConnell
Keep Dems accountable, yes. But too much exaggerating on both sides undermines accountability. #Impeachment or no impeachment, who or what will not save us from the illegitimacy of #DivisivePolitics? #HarmonyPolitics
2. Rep. Steve Scalise
Accountability, yes. Too much exaggerating on both sides. #Impeachment or no impeachment, who or what will not save us from destructive #DivisivePolitics? #HarmonyPolitics
3. PressSec Stephanie Grisham
Yes! Both sides weaponize politics to serve their own biased ends. That’s WHY populism arose, to oust this swamp of elites. Whether by ballot or #impeachment, #DivisivePolitics now eats their own. #HarmonyPolitics
4. Rep. Chris Stewart
A rush to judgment seems afoot, yes. Also a slow dragging of feet for truth telling. Both sides slipping into stranglehold of #DivisivePolitics. Now who’s draining the swamp? #HarmonyPolitics.
5. Rep. Sharice Davids
Glad you’re giving this careful deliberation. #Impeachment can be a messy political swamp. But they did promise to drain the swamp. The measure applied sets the standard returned (Matt7:2). #HarmonyPolitics
Reviewing hot button issues
How is divisive politics affecting the pain in your life today on any of these issues?
1. Immigration: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
2. Climate change: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
3. Gun safety: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
4. Abortion: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
5. Healthcare: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
6. Criminal justice: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
7. Economy: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
8. Racism: harmonized to need; diversity of positions; unpacking both sides.
HARMONY POLITICS AND YOU
Consider how Harmony Politics could serve your needs. I offer to consult political leaders and influencers to better connect with their constituent’s diverse needs.
Contact me to explore how I can fit this pioneering approach to your particular need to politically stand out more.
- Messaging: appeal to disaffected voters, differentiate from divisive opponents
- Media strategies: earn media for standing up for needs on both sides
- Fundraising: attract donors who see your passion to relate to diverse needs
- GOTV: inspire disillusioned & disengaged voters with reason to come to the polls
- Debate prep: role play all sides, both to your ideological left and right
I am strictly nonpartisan, and offer my services to candidates of any party. Once I contract with a candidate, however, I ethically cannot serve competing candidates in that same race.
I cover much of this material in more detail in my eCourse Defusing Polarization: Understanding Divisive Politics. Check out the free units to see if it serves your needs. Share this link with others you know in need of this fresh understanding of politics.
If you find this article valuable, click “like” and share freely. Add your comments below. Follow here on LinkedIn to keep up with these daily messages for transcending political polarization. Spread the love of affirming each other’s politicized needs.
Together, let’s revolutionize politics with such love. If we don’t, who will?