Thanks, Pat Hunt!

Pat Hunt - ready to march! (May, 2012 - NATO Summit protest, Chicago)

In 2011, I was interested in getting involved in antiwar work . . . but I didn't really know where to find it. Then I met Pat Hunt. As so many people have testified in recent days, the minute you met Pat, there was no longer any question about that.

Pat welcomed people into the movement, and made sure they continued to feel welcome.

Pat's sudden passing has made me stop and notice how important she has been in my life. I met her at a time when many people in Chicago were involved in planning protests marking the 10th anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan and the NATO Summit, and in supporting the Occupy movement. Many of those people are important in my life. But Pat was special.

"I support anti-war candidates! (Know any?)
Pat Hunt style activism -- with a dash of wit included.

I remember Pat coming to meet me numerous times at the Panera in Lincoln Park (where I used to sit hour after hour, working on my laptop) to ask about what I was working on and to encourage me. B.P. (before Pat) I wasn't always so sure about whether it was worth it to do all that blogging and tweeting and everything else I was doing. A.P. (after Pat) there was a voice in my head saying "keep at it!" Even after I was two thousand miles away in Berkeley, Pat found ways to nudge me forward with encouragement on social media.

I remember the way Pat made meetings run smoothly. In a room full of people with strong opinions and strong feelings, she found ways to keep everybody working together. (Her tremendous good will and hearty laugh were two of the secrets of her success.)

I remember Pat's willingness to entertain new ideas. To this day, whenever I'm feeling fearful about suggesting something new, I hear Pat's voice in my head: "If the 'way we've always done it' hasn't gotten the job finished -- maybe we should consider something new!"

I often find myself wondering: how can we encourage more people to devote themselves to the antiwar movement? I'm realizing today that most of the answers to that question have come from Pat Hunt.

Thanks, Pat!


MORE: Pat Hunt Improver of the World on Facebook

Visit Congress in Person

The best cure for the post-election 2016 blues (and coming-of-Trump trepidation is to go meet with your member of Congress (and/or other representatives) in person and feel your power . . . !

Alexander Calder's Mountain and Clouds
inside Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC
(Richard Nowitz/National Geographic)

 I was just looking at the impressive array of posts on the Desert Beacon blog, and I saw this admonition:

Citizens Have More Power Than They Realize. Most of the staff surveyed said constituent visits to the Washington office (97%) and to the district/state office (94%) have ‘some’ or ‘a lot’ of influence on an undecided Member, more than any other influence group or strategy.

(All of the advice in this post is useful - see "Communicating With Congress: Some Advice".)

It inspired me to make a resolution: in 2017 I'm going to get in front of my representatives more. (I got a good start in 2016 - see On Nuclear Weapons: We Need Tenacity and  NUKES: Your Call to Your Congressman Matters.)

This reminds me that I once wrote some suggestions of my own for communicating with Congress. Here are some best practices for groups making office visits to representatives. I wrote it several years ago in connection with my work with No Drones Network.


(1) Build relationships

One of the secrets of effective lobbyists is that they know that the positions on issues that the politicians take rest on the shoulders of their staff.  To be effective, build relationships with the staff.

It is often confusing to find oneself in a meeting with a staff person, when one is under the impression that the really IMPORTANT person to talk to is the officeholder. However, the staff person is almost always the resident expert on a topic.  The road to "yes" has to pass through the staff person.

I have frequently found that it is the staff people who have the greatest appreciation for the issue knowledge that I am able to bring, and have the deepest commitment to doing the right thing on the issue.  And certainly they know the keys to convincing the officeholder.

Imagine the staff as your "inside" advocate . . . and then try to solve the problem of how to make that a reality.

So ... cultivate those relationships!

(2) Practice time management

One of the best ways to be taken seriously by the people you meet with is if they can see that you have prepared what you are going to say, and who is going to say it, and that you are going to make extremely efficient use of their time.

I have frequently seen how staff people begin to warm up to the group when they see this done.  In my experience, it is extremely effective to proceed as follows:

* start with a quick round of introductions: name, how connected to the district, affiliation;

* then present ~ 3 main points.  For instance, one person might give an overview of the presentation, then 3 other people in succession each speak BRIEFLY AND SUCCINCTLY to one of the main points.  Then the person you are meeting with should respond.

It is actually a good practice to have your talking points on paper, and to provide a copy to the people you are meeting with.  That encourages them to focus on what you want, and to try to give it to you.

It is extremely important to know what role each participant on your team is taking, and to have discipline.  Meetings become de-focussed if people are interrupting each other to make points and emphasizing issues that are not the most important one to emphasize at a given moment.

There should be a clear leader, and the team should take direction from the leader.

(3) Present logical arguments

Some of the best advice I ever received was, "Start to plan your meeting by writing a very well-argued, logical, informed letter of about two pages. You are talking to people who respect well-structured, well-thought-out argument."  This was very helpful to me, because I had somehow imagined other factors being more important -- for instance, impassioned rhetoric.

The other practices recommended here take their power from being done in connection with such a clear set of arguments.  This forms the core of the entire office visit.

And when you think about it, it makes sense: these are people whose work, day-in, day-out, involves laws, briefs, debate, and the process of legislation.  Naturally, they feel most comfortable when they can see a clear set of arguments presented.

(4) Speak from personal experience

People in congressional offices love to hear about the real experiences of real people.  I have very distinct memories of being in meetings, and when a member of our group started to say, "I've been interested in Pakistan ever since I went there for my junior year in college . . . " or "I've visited Pakistan every 2 years to visit my grandmother . . . " they perk right up and smile and start to ask questions. 

Think about how you can connect what you want to say to your personal experience.  Your lived experience matters!

(5) Emphasize community commitment

Ideally, you will be visiting with a small group, including multiple people who live in the district and/or have involvement in the district.  This is where your small-town location is an ASSET.

If you can, in the course of your remarks, rope in additional members of your community, that makes your position even stronger.  (e.g. "When we held an event about drones attended by 35 members of St. John's church, it was surprising to see how concerned all those people were about this issue . . . . ")

(6) Have an "ask" (or "asks")

Every visit should climax with the presentation of one or more "asks," and the response of the person you are meeting with. 

A good strategy is to include a doable "ask" in every visit.  This begins to establish a pattern of you making "asks" and them saying "yes." 

Sometimes an "ask" is very easy and concrete:  attend a community event (or send a representative).

Sometimes an "ask" is legislation-specific:  vote "YES" on such-and-such a bill.

Sometimes an "ask" is broader:  e.g. "work with your colleagues to hold hearings on the drone killings in (location)."

And, of course, there are overarching "asks," as well:  e.g. "work with us to bring about a total ban on drone killings."

(7) Be in it for the long haul

Every visit should involve the exchange of business cards, and a provision for follow-up.

It is a good practice to offer to supply specific information resources in the course of the meeting. (Example: I would like to send you the link to the article about our public meeting on drones killings in (town).)  This offers an opportunity for follow-up.

At a minimum, an email should be sent within a week of the meeting, thanking the people you met with for their time. 

If you are willing to put in a little extra effort, send a written thank you. (Believe me, it will be remembered!)

And then: get out your calendar and start planning in advance for your follow-up visit. ;-)


Related posts

When it comes down to a question of war, Congress must decide. And when Congress must decide, that means people's voices must be heard.

(See Illinois says "No U.S. Attack on Syria" (Is Congress Listening?) )










Let's focus for a moment: what might be accomplished if there was a concerted and effective push by antiwar people in precisely those states that swing election after election?

(See An Antiwar Thought Experiment: Swing the Swing States?)







The decision about whether to live with the threat of nuclear annihilation is our decision. And that is why the entire country is mobilizing for mass action for nuclear disarmament in 2015. Are we capable of making sure the messengers -- Obama, Putin, the other agents of government -- hear their instructions from us clearly?

(See NEEDED: Heroes to Bring About Nuclear Disarmament )

The Mind of the "World Beyond War" Activist

Adopting a "world beyond war" frame -- saying "war is going away; the question for me is how fast" -- implies optimism-realism, outcome orientation, and humility.

The path ahead . . . .
(Image: Trail Racing Over Texas)

"A lot of people are opposed to war, but what might look different when a group of people approach war as a soon-to-be-obsolete institution?"

This is a question I posed a few weeks ago in WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?

In that post, I talked about the growing community of people who share a conviction that the world will get to the point where war is a discredited, abandoned institution (like slavery) ... and they see that it makes a difference how quickly (and in what manner) the world gets there. And then I asked, What is different when a person adopts this new frame -- "war is going away; the question for me is how fast"?

Three differences come to mind . . . .

A new relationship to optimism and to realism.  One of the greatest challenges we face, as we work for a better future, is to live in hope while at the same time not underestimating the challenges we face.  I think one of the benefits of this new frame -- "war is going away; the question for me is how fast" -- is that it is grounded in optimism, while at the same time establishing a basis for cold-eyed analysis of what's working and what isn't. (That analysis includes an understanding of the extreme depth and breadth of the current war system.) 

To put it another way, I think this is a frame that encourages us to be hopeful but not naive; realistic but not cynical.

We can disagree on the path. A good friend once told me a word that refers to the way different pathways may be taken and still successfully reach a given result: "equifinality." I think that, as more and more people adopt this new frame -- "war is going away; the question for me is how fast" -- we will become better and better at respecting different approaches, and figuring out how to gain strength from each other.

When we act from a place of frustration, it is difficult to see the value in differences. When we act from a place of hope, difference can spark inspiration.

When we act from a place of oversimplification, there is no room for people who don't fit our model. When we act from a place of realism, differences don't catch us off guard.

To put it another way, we adopt a respectful curiosity about outcomes. What we all sincerely agree on is that we're hoping for the same result in the end.

Humility. We are basing our work on a belief about the future, and that requires us to adopt a posture of humility. We simply can't know for sure how the future will pan out; we don't get to say, "I'm right and you're wrong."


I believe these three differences -- optimism-realism, outcome orientation, and humility -- are important. I think they put us in a much better position to address the next question: How might adopting this new frame enable people to see more clearly the strategic points of impact to cause the more rapid disappearance of war?


Related posts

There is a growing movement of people focused on the "world beyond war." To many of these people, the question is not "if" but "when?" They share a conviction that the world will get there, and they see that it makes a difference how quickly (and in what manner) the world gets there.

(See WAR: Headed for the junkheap, yes . . . but how quickly?)




The strategic challenge we face is to wake up to the fact that -- globally -- we are pursuing peace work in diverse ways . . . and then figure out a way to take advantage of the inherent strength in the existence of these diverse approaches.

(See Global Peace Movement: Big, Networked, Diverse)





Rachel Bauman asks: "How can we manage to talk successfully with people who believe different things than we do?"

Curiosity, leaning into conflict, humility, respect . . . .
(See 4 Aids for Those Important, Difficult Conversations)

"We can choose to abolish war" (The rest is just details)

A Global Security System: An Alternative to War from World Beyond War

On March 8, World Beyond War published A Global Security System: An Alternative to War.

This document is important to World Beyond War because it helps us speak more clearly about what we are trying to do together.

Specifically, if lifts up two distinct aspects of our effort:

* On the one hand: we recognize, together with activists working on diverse issues around the world, that we confront massive intertwined systems of oppression, and that it will not be possible to achieve a solution to the problem of violent conflict without also achieving a solution to problems of economic injustice and environmental destruction.

* And yet: we recognize the enormous power of a simple idea, the starting place that enables us to take all the necessary steps that follow: "We can choose to abolish war"

A Global Security System: An Alternative to War appears in about 60 short-to-medium length sections on the World Beyond War website. A lot of people start with the very first section -- the Executive Summary -- and then plow forward from there -- and you can do that, too, if you want.

But I think that there's a different way to read A Global Security System: An Alternative to War.

I think "A Global Security System: An Alternative to War" becomes an effective tool when people ask themselves the question, "If I really believed that it's true that 'we can choose to abolish war,' what would I do differently?"



Speech Acts

Opening your mouth to say "we can choose to abolish war"
inevitably means becoming a war myth buster.

I believe an enormous number of people will conclude that, if they really believe "we can choose to abolish war," then what's required is to speak it.

I believe large numbers of people saying out loud that "total abolition of war is possible and necessary" will have large consequences, and I think many others believe this, too.

(The only way to discover if it is true is to encourage it to happen and then observe the consequences.)

For anyone who is preparing to speak, the best part of "A Global Security System: An Alternative to War" (in my opinion) is "Debunking Old Myths about War." That's because, the minute you open your mouth and say "we can choose to abolish war," you become a magnet for pushback.

"Debunking Old Myths about War" is the gateway to all the tools available within A Global Security System: An Alternative to War for people who are unleashing the power of their voice.

Think there's no
way for you
to help? Think again.

Work

I also believe an enormous number of people will conclude that, if they really believe "we can choose to abolish war," then what's required is to do work.

I believe large numbers of people swelling the ranks of diverse peace-related initiatives will have large consequences.

(As state above with respect to the power of speech, the only way to discover if this is true is to encourage it to happen and then observe the consequences.)

For anyone who is determined to roll up his or her sleeves and really work, the best part of "A Global Security System: An Alternative to War" (in my opinion) is the Table of Contents. Scroll through the Table of Contents and within a minute you'll spot one or more section dealing with a center of effort for war abolition that fits your skills and interests, and all those sections have links to groups to get involved with.



Withholding Consent

I also believe an enormous number of people will conclude that, if they really believe "we can choose to abolish war," then they will need to put their bodies on the line.

"Nonviolent Direct Action Campaigns" compel the political
decision makers and those who make money from the killing
machine to come to the table for talks on ending war and
replacing it with a more effective alternative security system.

I believe large numbers of people withdrawing consent from the war system will have large consequences.

It is for these people, I believe, that it will sooner or later make sense to read A Global Security System: An Alternative to War front to back, absorbing it like a novel, and, when they're done, reading it all over again, slowly.

Each time, they'll end up on the final section: "Nonviolent Direct Action Campaigns."





You may not necessarily believe the same things I do. Maybe you think it will take something else to abolish war. Maybe you think there's yet another way to delve into A Global Security System: An Alternative to War. 

What's urgent is that all of us try something.

Comments welcome.


Related posts

Yesterday was the UN International Day of Peace. The day nudged me to think about what -- if anything -- I feel I really know about peace and the movement for peace. Here are 10 things that are true for me . . . .

(See #PeaceDay 2015 - Ten Thoughts on Peace)

What I'm feeling particularly energized about is the potential for the thousands of people who have already signed on as supporters of World Beyond War -- as well as millions more who are expected to do so soon -- to become active participants in spreading this good news.

(See News Worth Spreading: "There IS An Alternative to War!" )

Violence or nonviolence? If you're interested in radical change, look at the hard facts on what's worked worldwide.

(See Chenoweth on Why Nonviolence Gets Results (The "Cliff's Notes" Version))

Invite More People into Activism! (Pass It Along!)

A few years ago, I stumbled on a book called Thinking Recursively. It opened my eyes to the power of things that propagate in a self-imitating way.

Recursive thinking is very familiar to computer scientists; it needs to be on the radar screen of social activists.

In a way, Malcolm Gladwell touched on some of the ideas in this book in his own work, The Tipping Point, with which many of us are familiar. The essential connection that Gladwell makes in his book is that for an idea (or organism or movement) to propagate, it needs to be reproduced at a rate equal to or greater than 1.0 (on average) by each entity that encounters it. Otherwise it peters out.

That's why the archetypal activist structure is the phone tree. (Imitated and amplified, of course, by newer technologies like Facebook and Twitter.)

(Of course, American revolutionaries of an earlier era were all about getting the word out!)

So I've realized that when we ask ourselves, "What is it that we hope people will do?" we must include an element of recursivity: One of the things we want people to do is to involve more people in doing it. In a way, that element of recursivity -- dare I say "evangelism"? -- defines what it means for people to really become part of a movement.

I conducted an interesting experiment with this a few years ago: a group of us committed to tweeting about ending the war in Afghanistan every week, on Tuesday -- #AfghanistanTuesday -- and the hard core called ourselves "Tuesdayistas".  The hallmark of a Tuesdayista? The commitment to encouraging others to be Tuesdayistas, of course!

In 140 characters or less, that can be expressed as:

@(friend's screen name here) PLEASE! Become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista and ask 10 more folks to (become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista and ask 10 more folks to (become...

OK, maybe that's a very nerdy expression of the idea of recursivity. But it started me thinking about the need to find the right balance between activism that consists principally of doing something, myself, and activism that consists of involving more people in doing that something. And to be sure that what I really do is "involve more people in doing that something (including involving more people in doing that something (including . . . . . ) )."

All of us are familiar with the need in our groups to do "outreach." How many times do we return to this issue, only to drop the ball?

There are lots of tools available today for conducting activism, many of which fall under the rubric "social media." There are many techniques for using social media effectively. But the most important is to understand how to propagate "recursivity."

What you can do

EASY: Share this post with people in your affinity group and discuss how you will put "recursivity" into action consistently.

EASIER: Personally invite one person to be an activist today. (Show them how you do it!)

EASIEST: Tweet this post to several people (including @scarry) and ask them to share it with others.



Related posts

This exchange has always stuck with me, because once you peel away the hopeless competitiveness and lack of compassion of these two characters, you are left with a grain of truth: if you want to succeed, you need to go where the conversation is taking place. The question for us: are we willing to check our egos at the door and get busy talking to people?

(See Antiwar Agitation in 2014: Less Mercutio, More Larry Levy )


There is an eerie similarity between events in the book Paul Revere's Ride and events in our world today. I'm thinking particularly of how a network of mass resistance springs into action.

(See American Rebellion: Just Think What They Would've Done with Twitter!)












Those words -- "I became a peace worker" -- stuck with me. What might it mean for someone to become "a peace worker"? At the time I was not involved in activism at all. Could it really be that people were called to this work the way Kazashi described? It was quite clear to me that he had devoted himself -- heart, mind, body, and soul -- to this work.

(See Obama in Japan: How About a Pivot Toward Peacemaking? )










Tuesdayistas are people who (a) take time each week to participate in a national (and now global) conversation about ending the war in Afghanistan; AND (b) help spread the word by reaching out to others (who will reach out to others (who will reach out to others .... to do the same!

(See I'm a Tuesdayista!)

In "USA Today Goes Viral" (New York Times, July 14, 2014), we learn that the paper with one of the largest daily circulations in the country has seen the handwriting on the wall and is requiring all its journalists to learn to drive readership via social media.

(See Social Media: If It's Good Enough for USA Today, It's Good Enough for Me)

How YOU Can Become a "Tuesdayista"! (Twitter Activism on Steroids)

I'm a Tuesdayista. Are you?

Perhaps someone has sent you this message on Twitter:

@(your screen name) PLEASE! Become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista & ask 10 more folks to (become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista & ask 10 more folks to (become...

Tuesdayistas are people who (a) take time each week to participate in a national (and now global) conversation about ending the war in Afghanistan; AND (b) help spread the word by reaching out to others (who will reach out to others (who will reach out to others .... to do the same!

"Tuesdayistas" mark their calendars 
for Twitter activism every Tuesday
. . . and invite OTHERS!

The easy part is part (b) - which you can accomplish by sending 10 specific people (using the @ sign) a Twitter message like this:

@(friend's screen name here)PLEASE! Become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista and ask 10 more folks to (become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista and ask 10 more folks to (become...

The fun part is part (a) - because you are participating in a real conversation based on what you think is important and what you think will be effective in bringing about an end to the war. The important thing is to show up!

Why do people make time on their calendars to work to end the war in Afghanistan on Tuesdays?

For me, I'm not doing it because I like thinking about war. I like thinking about other things -- a lot of other things! Films and flowers ... poetry and painting ... just take a look at the A-Z list on the lower right hand side of this page!

But a series of events have happened that have made me realize we are going to be in a state of perpetual war unless a lot of us get serious about stopping it. Maybe it was the drones .... Maybe it was Guantanamo .... Maybe it was the way our military adventures have come to resemble those of the worst villains of the past ....

Whatever it was, I decided I needed to put a stake in the ground. The way I do that is by working together with others in my city who are active trying to end war, and by joining hands every week with people around the country and around the world via Twitter on #AfghanistanTuesday.

#AfghanistanTuesday is important for me because it reminds me to focus, and because seeing so many other people working enthusiastically to end war gives me hope.

Taking a stand: everyone gets there in their own way. This is how I became a Tuesdayista! So . . .

@(screen name here)PLEASE! Become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista and ask 10 more folks to (become a http://bit.ly/Tuesdayista and ask 10 more folks to (become...


Related posts

In light of the upcoming review of the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) and the fact that organizations throughout the country and worldwide are organizing to press the U.S. to substantially reduce its stores of nuclear weapons, it seems like a good time to use social media to get EVERYONE on board!

(See 5 Ways YOU Can Make a Difference on #NoNukesTuesday )

I've realized that when we ask ourselves, "What is it that we hope people will do?" we must include an element of recursivity: One of the things we want people to do is to involve more people in doing it. In a way, that element of recursivity -- dare I say "evangelism"? -- defines what it means for people to really become part of a movement.

(See Invite More People into Activism! (Pass It Along!) )












People assemble every week -- in growing numbers -- to lift their voices together in opposition to continued U.S. occupation of Afghanistan.


It may get loud . . . .

(See #AfghanistanTuesday - ALL LINKS)





Tuesdays . . . think of the possibilities!

(See #Occupy Tuesday! #UNoccupy Afghanistan! )










An election is coming and the handwriting is on the wall: Tuesdayistas (together with the rest of the American electorate) are gonna throw the bums out.

What do Tuesdayistas foresee?

(See Tuesdayistas Are Gonna Throw the Bums Out )

American Rebellion: Just Think What They Would've Done with Twitter!

I'm reading all about Paul Revere. The book -- Paul Revere's Ride by David Hackett Fischer -- is un-put-downable!

Part of the attraction is that the places involved are all ones I've passed through so many times -- though never quite registered their significance or connected the dots.

Pondering more than just silver . . .
Paul Revere by John Singleton Copley

Another is the portrait that emerges of Revere the man -- someone active in several different circles, and pretty good at what he did, and probably a bit excitable (d'ya think?), but not a tremendously important man, relative to some of the "gentlemen" who ran the world he lived in.

And of course, David Hackett Fischer is a riveting storyteller.

But the thing that is grabbing my attention is the eerie similarity between events in the book and events in our world today. Take, for instance, this description of the colonists' reaction to a British military raid about seven months before Lexington & Concord:

"The largest supply of gunpowder in Massachusetts had been secured at a stroke, without a shot fired. It was a model operation in all respects, save one. The British commander had completely misunderstood the temper of New England . . . . "

" . . . Through the day, reports began to fly across the countryside. . . . . "

" . . . All day church bells tolled in the towns. At dusk great fire-beacons that had warned of war against the French were set alight, burning brightly across the open countryside. As far away as Connecticut, the militia began to march toward Boston. . . . . "

" . . . perhaps more than one third the effective men in all New England took arms and were on actual march for Boston. . . . . 20,000 men marched from the Connecticut Valley alone . . . . "

The British commander in North America did the obvious: sent a request to England for more troops -- lots more troops. "If you think ten thousand men sufficient, send twenty; if one million is thought enough, give two; you save both blood and treasure in the end."

More to follow . . .


Related posts

I've realized that when we ask ourselves, "What is it that we hope people will do?" we must include an element of recursivity: One of the things we want people to do is to involve more people in doing it. In a way, that element of recursivity -- dare I say "evangelism"? -- defines what it means for people to really become part of a movement.

(See Invite More People into Activism! (Pass It Along!) )












Because the forces of militarism control the vast majority of the tools of violence -- guns, jets, missiles, bombs, etc. etc. etc. -- on their side, we need to confront them with other means -- ones where we hold the advantage. In order to conduct an effective resistance, we need to ask, "What are our strengths?"

(See NETWORK the Resistance to NATO!)


Tuesdayistas are people who (a) take time each week to participate in a national (and now global) conversation about ending the war in Afghanistan; AND (b) help spread the word by reaching out to others (who will reach out to others (who will reach out to others .... to do the same!

(See I'm a Tuesdayista!)







Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at 3:30 p.m. today (Monday, March 5, 2012) at Northwestern University School of Law - 375 E. Superior on targeted killings of U.S. citizens.

What will Chicago tell Holder?

(See What Will Chicago Tell Holder? )