In the days after Donald Trump emerged victorious in the 2016 presidential election, Paula Green watched as the shock and disbelief gripping her small New England community began to give way to a deep, dismal sadness.
The residents of liberal Leverett, Massachusetts, where Green lives, had overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton, and many were struggling with the same questions: What had inspired their conservative countrymen to vote the way they had? And what, if anything, could help them find common political ground in the future?
Green, a psychologist with more than 30 years of field experience as an international peacebuilder and facilitator in war-torn communities across Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, wasted no time. Together with other members of the Leverett Peace Commission — the local organization she and a few friends had formed years earlier to protest America’s seemingly ceaseless wars — Green organized a get-together at the local library. Somewhere between 60 and 70 stunned residents turned out to talk and mourn, but also brainstorm a way forward.
Within a few months, the Leverett residents formed Hands Across the Hills, an organization dedicated to bridging partisan divides through structured dialogue. In October 2017, more than a dozen of them met face-to-face with a sister coalition of 11 members from Letcher County, Kentucky — a conservative coal-mining community nestled deep in the heart of Appalachia — for three days of music, potlucks and discussions. The results from that weekend, and another between the two groups in the spring of 2018, exceeded even Green’s expectations about the transformative power of compassion — especially in an America that seems more polarized now than at any time in its history.
NationSwell spoke with Green about the ways in which simply initiating a conversation can impact relationships and promote empathy, and how Hands Across the Hills plans to help bridge the deep-seated political divides that define today’s America.
NationSwell: It’s just after the 2016 election, and you’ve decided that you want to partner with a sister city to have this dialogue series — what was it like even trying to find a community willing to do that, given the political climate?
Green: We looked for conservative people in our own town or a neighboring town and discovered pretty rapidly that we couldn’t find anyone who wanted to talk to us. People’s emotions were pretty raw from the election, and polarization had set in already. That’s when one of our members found Ben Fink, who works for [the Appalachian arts nonprofit] Appalshop in Whitesburg, Kentucky, and who was writing about dialogue and similar work. We reached out to him and eventually formed a partnership, and that’s how we wound up with a coal community in Kentucky as our first partner.
NationSwell: What specifically about the election was so troubling to you, besides the obvious partisanship of it?
Green: We saw immediately that people were splitting into enemy camps, and those enemy camps were demonizing each other. Because that’s been my work internationally, I recognized the danger signs of so much dehumanization happening in the country. I wanted to step in, and this provided me with the perfect vehicle to do that.
NationSwell: What was the thinking behind having conversations as a means to bridge that divide?
Green: My international work has focused on supporting people in local contexts, in war-torn and war-recovering countries, who invited me and my organization to help them sort out how they could restore what had been before the war. That of course was extremely difficult, because there had been armed conflict in most of these places, and people were very fragile and frightened. But they also knew that unless they joined with the other side of the conflict, they would not be able to rebuild their community.
NationSwell: I’m sure some issues are bound to spur some extreme reactions. What do you do to deescalate the situation when people’s temperatures get hot?
Green: Those three-day dialogues were all very carefully designed to maximize interaction between the Kentuckians and the Massachusetts people. Each day we’d have potluck meals and music and dance and art and theater games and homestays. Each of those activities was carefully chosen to enhance relationships so that the transformation occurred not just in the dialogue but in all the activities that contributed to that feeling of goodness and well-being that emanated from the group.
Nevertheless, tempers do rise in these situations, and my role as the facilitator is to manage that anger so that it doesn’t spill over into an attack. Sometimes it calls for a moment of silence and reflection, or for people to reframe their statements in a way that is non-attacking, or it involves people going from being in a big circle to being in small groups of three or four. We make sure that nobody feels they need to withdraw from the group because they’ve been too hurt, while at the same time keeping us really honest about our feelings.
NationSwell: If you could zoom ahead into the future, what does Hands Across the Hills ultimately look like to you? Do you have plans to scale, at this point?
Green: If I could wave my magic wand, I’d want to spread these dialogues all around the country to tackle the different issues that are polarizing us. I’m actually working with an institution called the Alliance for Peacebuilding to see if we can do some spreading of dialogue around the country. We’re only in the talking stages right now — there are many organizations attempting dialogues across divides, and I’m in support of all their various efforts. But most of these groups only allot a day or two, and what I like about the model we’re working with is that it can take people deeper because it allows for more time.
NationSwell: You mentioned that you recently led a second dialogue series in South Carolina, which focused on race. What that was like?
Green: It was very challenging. Race is a fundamental divider in our country and has been a national tragedy for 400 years — it needs to be dealt with on every level. We had people from Massachusetts and South Carolina, and I also brought in some of the Kentucky people to keep them in the loop. Each group was of mixed race, and we spent three days having deep, often painful, but very, very productive dialogues. We didn’t talk about Trump or politics — the only topic was race and racism.
NationSwell: I’m impressed that you can have a dialogue like that go off without a hitch.
Green: It was beyond my expectations. This one worried me, because this is a 400-year-old history with such endless suffering. People talked about their first experiences of discovering race and racism, and the wounds of African Americans who have been at the mercy of racist attitudes in this country. We talked about racism as the water we all swim in, which we don’t even necessarily notice all the time because we are all swimming in it, and its total, pernicious effect on the members of our society.
NationSwell: More so than exacting a political agenda, is that the endgame here? Seeing and understanding diverse perspectives for what they are?
Green: What we are ultimately aiming for is for people to rehumanize the “other.” There was a tremendous gap — the people from Kentucky, their region was the opposite of ours, going 85–90 percent for Trump. We didn’t run away from the issues but had conversations in the spirit of, ‘We’re not here to change each others’ votes, or change each others’ opinions on the controversial issues of our day. We are here to listen and learn and deepen our understanding.” Everybody wants better medical care, everybody wants better schools, everybody wants safer streets. The question is, how do we talk together to find common ground on how to get them?
NationSwell: But just to push back on that a bit — you’re naming things that are pretty unambiguous in their popularity. What do you do with issues like climate change or gun control, where not everyone agrees on how or whether we should approach them?
Green: Climate change is pretty black and white at this point, of course, but we understand why people whose only livelihood has been coal for a hundred years defend the industry. Defending coal means objecting to climate change data. So we understand where they’re coming from — it’s not out of stubborness; it’s out of desperation for jobs, for work, for feeding their families. Understanding that helps us to be compassionate toward their situation and work together to find policies that will change their situation.
People have attended our [dialogue series] in numbers far exceeding our expectations. It may look like we’re hopelessly divided, but we want to show people that there are ways to bridge that and to act together for the common good.
NationSwell: So in other words, there’s a way to change yourself without changing your worldview — or changing your mind.
Green: People change their minds. They expand their worldview, they open up to things they hadn’t seen or understood before. The way I think about it is that these encounters are a wonderful prelude to a commitment to institutional change. It’s about standing up for each other — realizing we’re in this together. We are tied together in this, we’re not separate.
More: 9 Strategies for Talking Politics — Without Picking a Fight
Tag: Donald Trump
This Nonprofit Offers a Lifeline to Transgender People — Just as They Need It Most
When the news broke last week that the Trump Administration is considering legally defining gender as biologically fixed at birth, a panic took hold in the transgender community.
“Trans people are not new to dealing with bullies,” says Elena Rose Vera, deputy executive director of the suicide prevention nonprofit Trans Lifeline. Yet when the memo was released, Trans Lifeline’s call volume “immediately quadrupled,” Vera says. “After decades of work to build a more compassionate and equitable society, [these] attacks seek to punish them for the joy they have found, to drive back progress by any means necessary.”
The memo, drafted by the Department of Health and Human Services, is the latest in a series of statements and legislation issued by the administration that have left the transgender community feeling under siege. In the face of this news, Trans Lifeline views their work as more critical than ever. “I have lost many friends and loved ones in the community to violence and suicide — people who faced systematic and constant deprivation, humiliation and trauma,” says Vera. “Every one of those lives was precious.”
Other activists agree. “The erasure of your identity and your very existence makes you panic at your core,” Zeke Christopoulos, a transgender man and director of the advocacy group Tranzmission, told The Guardian. “It felt like a kick in the stomach.”
We must not give up the fight. But in the face of this affront on my existence and the existence of my community I choose love not fear. We exist and always have.
Trump Administration Eyes Defining Transgender Out of Existence https://t.co/G4rKB1mVfe
— Laverne Cox (@Lavernecox) October 21, 2018
Trans Lifeline, which Vera says is the only crisis support hotline program run completely by and for the transgender community, aims to both support people on the brink of crisis and empower them to live healthier and more financially stable lives. A recent study found that 29 percent of transgender people in the U.S. live in poverty, more than double the national average, while housing and employment discrimination can push transgender people into less-than-legal forms of employment to make ends meet.
In 2017, Trans Lifeline merged with Trans Assistance Project, a microgrants program that helps pay recipients’ legal and administrative fees and guides them through the process to attain documents like passports, driver’s licenses and immigration papers. The goal is to give transgender people the tools that “make a happy, hopeful and honest life more possible, reducing the circumstances that lead to crisis and despair,” says Vera. Thus far Trans Lifeline has distributed over $166,500 to transgender people in need and have answered over 55,260 calls for help.
Activism and advocacy within the transgender community are critical, but everyone has a role to play in making the country safer for trans people, Vera says. “We all have friends, family, neighbors — perhaps a religious community, or a union, or a school or workplace — who we can talk to about treating trans people with respect,” she says. “Trans people have always existed, everywhere in the world, and no power in the world could keep us from existing.”
MORE: Rising Violence Will Not Deter the Transgender Visibility Movement
The History of the Leaked Climate Report
After a draft copy of the 2017 Climate Assessment Report leaked recently, people are left wondering exactly what it is and why it’s important.
THE CLIMATE REPORT: EXPLAINED
Under the Global Change Research Act of 1990, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, an inter-governmental agency, is required to research and produce a report that shows the impact of global climate change. The study is conducted by hundreds of scientists and reviewed by multiple government agencies, including NASA and the National Science Foundation.
Despite federal policy mandating an assessment to be released every four years, only three have been issued: once under President Bill Clinton in 2000 and twice under President Barack Obama in 2009 and 2014. (President George W. Bush’s administration was sued for delaying the report’s release.)
There’s speculation whether or not the current White House will sign off on the report’s official release (which is scheduled for the fall), given the Trump administration’s pullback from the Paris climate accord and its push to increase fossil fuel production.
The leaked version of the 2017 report, which was first published by the New York Times, repeats similar warnings of increased greenhouse gas emissions as earlier assessments. But it also uses extremely blunt language regarding the cause, stating that humans are “extremely likely” to be the dominant producers of this pollution.
And according to the latest report, global temperatures have risen 1.2 degrees, in the past 30 years — human involvement accounting for at least 1.1 degrees of that increase.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has publicly said that he does not think carbon emissions cause climate change, writing in the National Review that, “scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.”
Regardless of political actions or ideologies on global climate change, these reports are accepted by the scientific community as a whole and are used to inform policymakers.
PAST FINDINGS
All issuances of the climate report have been in consensus: Global greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures have increased dramatically in the past century, due in large part to humans burning fossil fuels.
“The human impact on [global warming] is clear,” states the 2000 analysis — the first published report. “[Increased carbon emissions] resulted from the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, and the destruction of forests around the world to provide space for agriculture and other human activities.”
The initial report gave warning that U.S. temperatures would rise by up to 9 degrees within the next 100 years if greenhouse gas emissions weren’t curbed.
The 2009 report echoed the same language, stating that human involvement was the largest contributor, but its findings were more dire as carbon emissions continued to rise during the years of the Bush administration. That report concluded that there could be an increase of up to 11 degrees by 2100.
By 2014, when the most recent report was officially published, the evidence was clear to scientists that action needed to be taken, as authors of the report found that certain areas of the U.S., specifically within America’s heartland, were going to experience 2 to 4 degree increases in temperature over the next few decades.
THE REPORT MAKES AN IMPACT
The Obama administration seemingly worked to make climate change policy its primary legacy. In 2009, after the second climate report was released, Obama pledged to reduce the U.S.’s carbon emissions by 2020 and reduce its carbon emissions levels 17 percent below 2005 levels.
Four years later, when the third climate report was under consideration by Obama, the Executive Office of the President released a broad action plan aimed at specifically cutting carbon emissions.
These reactions to the climate reports were dramatically different to actions taken by President Bush. That administration hastily exited the Kyoto Protocol (a global climate change treaty), partnered with Exxon-Mobil‘s leaders to craft U.S. climate change policy and cast doubt among the public that humans were to blame for global climate change.
In contrast, polls conducted during the past three years reveal that more Americans believe humans are to blame for climate change. Furthermore, a March 2017 Gallup poll found that more than 70 percent support alternative energy over traditional fossil fuels.
Which means that Americans are likely to continue curbing greenhouse gas emissions, regardless of whether or not the climate assessment report receives an official stamp of approval.
MORE: Can the U.S. Reduce Its Carbon Emissions?
Your Great-Grandma’s Public Transport Is Making a Comeback
When Elon Musk announced his plans to build a Hyperloop that would travel between New York City and Washington, D.C., in 29 minutes, Twitter had a field day, with users imagining the ways the technology could be used in their cities (take a bow, NYC subway).
But in the more immediate future, there are a number of cities that have taken up something old as a way to bring about the new: streetcars.
Streetcars — which differ from light-rail systems in that they share the right-of-way with cars, pedestrians and bikes — were used heavily post–WWI in cities like New York, San Francisco and Philadelphia. These urban hubs found that the electric wiring of cars for mass transportation was more effective than the mechanical cable cars of the the previous century. But after General Motors financed a national campaign in the 1930s for the use of buses, streetcars went the way of the buggy. By the mid-’50s, they were considered obsolete.
But then something strange happened: Since 2000, streetcars have seen a resurgence in popularity. Cities like Portland and Seattle set off a national trend by using streetcars less for tourism, as they are in San Francisco and New Orleans, and more for general public use. Most are currently financed by federal and state grants. And the benefits have been measurable, from rejuvenating formerly blighted neighborhoods to offsetting carbon emissions.
But President Donald Trump recently argued to cut federal funding for streetcars, saying they should be built using local dollars. As more cities plan to lay tracks and federal funding appears uncertain, here’s what to consider before ordering a whole fleet of streetcars.
Neighborhood Renewal
For any government official interested in implementing streetcars, the gold standard can be found in Portland, Ore., which launched its system in 2001.
There, streetcars connect two major universities and hospitals, and have been credited with building up the artsy Pearl District, a former industrial neighborhood that saw millions of private-investment dollars pour into the development of mixed-use buildings along the streetcar line (though PolitiFact pointed out that a sizable chunk of those buildings were already in the works).
Former Portland Mayor Charlie Hales paid tribute to the streetcars’ effect on the Pearl District’s popularity in 2013, saying that the city “no longer [has] to provide subsidies for downtown development.”
Other cities have reaped similar rewards. Since announcing the launch of its KC Streetcar system, which began operations last year, Kansas City, Mo., has seen an increase in businesses, such as hotels and restaurants, that line the route, along with a sales tax growth of 58 percent.
Kenosha, Wisc., built its system in 2000 with a $6 million grant, and has seen its downtown perk up in the years since. A hotdog shop owner told the Associated Press in 2013 that before the streetcar, the area “was very dark. Now it’s lit up more, there are businesses,” with shops, bookstores and cafes bordering one side of the line.
Not hailed by all
Despite their popularity and proven economic benefits, not everyone is on board with the streetcar.
Less expensive than putting down light rail systems, a Federal Transit Administration report found that Portland’s streetcar system — the one lauded by transit advocates — cost $60 million per mile to build. The same study, though, gave an example that Little Rock, Arkansas’ streetcar helped spur $800 million in development between 2000 and 2012.
Jeffrey Brown, a Florida State University professor and public transit researcher, told Future Structure that investing in streetcars is “just the latest variance of that downtown revitalization agenda” and that buses — though not as trendy — would be more effective in keeping transportation costs down.
Another study done by students at the Florida State University found that compared to other modes of public transportation, streetcars underperform in bringing in transit revenue.
And streetcars are also more expensive to operate compared to buses. The Federal Transit Administration in 2014 found that streetcars cost $1.50 per passenger for every mile they ride. That cost is cut to $1.05 for buses. Another FTA report said that “regular bus service improvements are likely to be the least costly of all measures to increase transit capacity.”
So why the appeal? In Kansas City, for example, they were cheaper to build and more environmentally friendly than traditional buses. When its LEED certified streetcar started service, the system was lauded by local and state press for bringing an “eye-popping” edge to the city’s developing downtown area, and for being part of a larger city infrastructure plan committed to eco-friendly design and development.
Want more? Check out these reads on the challenges and rewards of streetcars:
All-American Streetcar Boom Fuels Urban Future
Tram wars! Why streetcars are back — whether you like it or not
Homepage photo courtesy of Courtesy of Portland Streetcar
What to Do During ICE Stops
President Trump and the Department of Homeland Security are strictly enforcing immigration laws. Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly recently said, “There will be no, repeat no, mass deportations,” but by law, anyone living in the United States without permission, is at risk. Even a clean criminal record doesn’t ensure protection.
“There’s effectively no prioritization,” says Andre Segura, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants Rights Project. “We’re going to see people who would not normally be detained, be detained.” Only DACA recipients (illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children and were given work permits under a 2012 Obama administration program) are excluded.
If you witness immigration officers questioning someone, or are stopped yourself, here’s what to do:
[ph][ph][ph][ph][ph]
Additional reporting by Hallie Steiner
The Most Meaningful Literature, Entertainment and Art of 2016
In a late-night victory speech, President-elect Donald Trump called his base “the forgotten men and women of our country,” and he promised they “will be forgotten no longer.” His line embodied the spirit of 2016: This was the year that nationwide events put a spotlight on plights that can no longer be overlooked. Beyond Trump’s core base of white working-class voters, there was an assortment of marginalized communities making headlines, from the gay Latinos targeted at an Orlando nightclub to the black men confronted by police in Baton Rouge and suburban St. Paul; from indigenous peoples protesting a pipeline in the Dakotas to those fleeing climate change in Alaska and Louisiana; and from hijab-wearing victims of hate crimes to unemployed veterans.
But it wasn’t all doom and gloom, because where there is strife there is also powerful art to make sense of it. And 2016’s collection of books, movies, TV, plays, music and other works was no different, helping us see these groups, to understand their grievances and develop a response. After polling our staff, here is the art that most moved us at NationSwell in 2016.
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]
[ph]