Molly, my sister and I fell out

And what do you think it was all about?

She loved coffee and I loved tea,

And that was the reason we couldn’t agree.

Mother Goose’s nursery rhyme Coffee and Tea seems silly, doesn’t it?  I mean, there’s no reason to fight over coffee and tea.

I’ve recently visited two political websites: The Tea Party Patriots and The Coffee Party USA.  I’m afraid both websites, and both movements, fall into the Enlightenment trap of reason.  (Hold on.  I’m not against reason, so please stick with me.)  For example, The Coffee Party’s “About Us” page claims, “We encourage deliberation guided by reason amongst the many viewpoints held by our members.” 

As I mentioned, I’m not against “reason.”  In fact, I try to be a reasonable person, but I’m afraid the Enlightenment’s dictum to “Think for yourself” has caused more harm than good, especially when it comes to relationships.  This emphasis on “reason” neglects one of the crucial aspects of being human: we are emotional.  We are guided by our emotions just as much (if not more) as we are guided by our reason.

In his wonderful book The Genesis of Desire, French psychologist Jean-Michel Oughourlian comments on the difficulty of marital relationships.  His statement also speaks to the difficulty of political relationships: “What makes couples therapy very difficult is that there is no third party to expose other than the symbolic third party, which is the power that each lusts after” (page 123). 

“Reason” is too often used to justify an emotional lust for power.  It’s not about coffee.  It’s not about tea.  The primary reason we can't agree is that we are emotionally attached to the feeling of power that comes when our cause wins.  The lust for power and the desire to win inevitably lead to scapegoating those who don’t “reason” the way we “reason”.  As inclusive as the Coffee Party claims to be, their Mission Statement betrays this ideal: “… we will support leaders who work toward positive solutions, and hold accountable those who obstruct them.”  But what if, after we have both reasoned, we simply don’t agree about the best positive solutions?  Will we make a power move and cast out those who disagree with us?  Will we claim that our reasoning skills are superior to our opponent’s reasoning skills?  Will we point the finger at them, claiming that they are obstructing what we have reasoned to clearly be the best “positive solutions”?          

Again, I’m not against reason.  I think reason is a valuable tool, as long as it’s not used to bat our opponents over the head.  Reason can help us understand that, while we may have some policy differences, we are each primarily driven by the same desire to win - what Oughourlian describes as "the power that each lusts after."  That desire means we are prone to scapegoating our opponents who “obstruct” our cause.     

The only way forward is the transformation of our desires.  Anything less will take us backward.  How is that transformation possible?  First, we must admit that we are driven by the same emotional desire to win as our opponent.  Second, we must begin to live in the spirit of forgiveness; otherwise we will become consumed by bitterness. Third, we must open ourselves to the desire for reconciliation with our opponent.  Those three steps are difficult, and possibly painful, but they are the only way to heal our broken (political) relationships.