I’ve decided to remove a few posts from this blog.* This might be a blogging no-no. I remember reading that once you’ve posted something, the damage is done—it’s out there in cyberspace somewhere, or on other people’s computers. But to that I say: This is my blog, and I can do what I want!
(*A note from 2021: I’ve since put the removed posts back in! See the note at the bottom of this post. I’ve also added links to the formerly removed posts in the next paragraph.)
The posts I’m removing are those in which I chose to lambast certain people or groups—posts about my scathing letter to the editor or my disappointment in the Democrats. I want to reshape the tone of this blog, and I think these removals are the first step.
Now that I’ve been blogging for a while, I’m finally ready to decide on my approach. I’ve decided I want to put the gloves back on and be gentler.
This has been a back-and-forth for me. Do I use my blog as a platform for exposing problems and those at fault? Or does that undermine my mission of promoting dialogue?
While I still want to discuss problems I see in politics or society, I want to do so in a way that reduces “Othering” and promotes understanding. Burning bridges can’t be part of that equation.
I’m a very flawed person, and impatience is one of my greatest flaws. Sometimes, when I describe this flaw to people, it seems hard for them to imagine. I’m often very agreeable and earnest.
But my closest friends, my family, and Ron all know I can be extremely impatient. I can be snappy or condescending. I want things done now; I get irritated fairly easily. I become articulate and aggressive in an argument with a loved one—in another life, I might have made a decent attorney! The truth is, I’m a fundamentally sweet, compassionate person, but patience is often a struggle for me.
That’s why I so admire gentler, more patient people like Ron and many of my closest friends. I surround myself with quiet, wise souls and hope I’ll someday be like them.
My impatient nature has sometimes gotten the better of me in my writing as well as in life. I often think best by writing, and when I’m angry, I vent by writing. At times, it has felt natural to publish my anger in this blog.
And I’ve received praise for my angry posts! From liberal friends when I bashed a conservative in the Isthmus: “Good for you; that’s exactly what I was thinking.” From conservatives when I bashed the Democrats: “You are a very brave person for speaking truth to power.”
But although the praise felt good, the posts never really felt right. They represented a choice to follow my anger rather than my gentler nature.
In the future, I do still hope to courageously stand up for what I believe in. But when criticizing someone else, I’ll aim to do it privately, not publicly, and in a gentler way.
What really hit home and led to this decision is my growing awareness that I now represent Reach Out Wisconsin. Reach Out is lately getting some publicity: we’ve been mentioned in the Isthmus and the Cap Times and may soon be mentioned in the Wisconsin State Journal. (More on all that soon!) Although my blog is my own, it’s easy for people interested in Reach Out to find their way here. As we try to build relationships with other groups, one of our founders—I—can’t go around lambasting people.
So my decision is twofold: I’m removing these posts to protect the interests of Reach Out Wisconsin…and to become more like the person I want to be.
Note from 2021:
Rereading the two posts I removed ten years ago in 2011, I think I was being overly cautious. I’ve put them back into the blog, because they both have something useful to say.
The post about my scathing letter to the editor may have criticized Larry Kaufmann, it’s true. However, the main message of that post was my guilt about the tone of my letter—I didn’t know Larry, and I felt I’d been too harsh with him in too public a way. What’s more, soon after I wrote that post, Larry introduced himself to me at a Reach Out Wisconsin forum! He was indeed very nice. We are still friends on Facebook!
The post criticizing Wayne Bigelow and the local Democratic Party was also reflective. I was taken aback to realize that my own people, the political left, appeared to be more closed-minded about dialogue than those on the right. I was particularly put off by Wayne’s apparent disdain for our group’s mission. It seems useful to include that post too. Ten years later, we on the left still have a long way to go when it comes to reaching out.
And I’m leaving this post up as well. It’s interesting to read about my inner dilemmas. When is it right to take the step of publicly criticizing someone? What tone is best when we choose to do so? Does the leader of a peacemaking organization have to play by different rules, withholding criticism of either side?
As we in 2021 debate cancel culture, accountability, and whether civility is useful, these are thought-provoking questions.
