Defensiveness, and its cohort, Unnecessary Struggle, reside in the core of the pain and undesired outcomes many of us face every day. Often we feel that defensiveness and struggle are necessary elements of self-preservation, particularly in the realm of personal relationships. The prevailing idea is: If we don’t defend ourselves against a perceived threat, we will lose power in the relationship and set an unhealthy precedent that will only magnify and do us further harm over time. What we often don’t see in the moment of responding to perceived attacks and the corresponding ensuing conflict, is that participating in the conflict itself by way of “defending” ourselves usually results in only making the situation worse.

A word of distinction here – I’m not talking about defending ourselves against a physical threat or against a situation that will truly do us mortal harm. I am talking about the more mundane moments of conflict that we experience on a day-to-day basis, usually involving our spouses, significant others, co-workers, fellow commuters, and other acquaintances or strangers who may get under our skin from time to time.

What are the “hidden costs” of struggle? This is the phenomenon of destroying ourselves or our objectives in the interest of protecting our values, our sense of self, or more accurately, our ego itself. To illustrate this point, I’ll use an example from politics…

Losing a Battle That Was Already Won

I woke up this morning to read a rather shocking statistic: according to a recent (3/13-14/08) Zogby poll, Americans prefer John McCain over either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton if the election were to be held today. This is shocking to me based on the widespread dissatisfaction the American electorate has for George W. Bush, and by extension, the policies of the Republican Party, the overall lack of support for the war in Iraq, the impending American economic crisis, the overwhelming turnout we’ve seen for the Democratic candidates during the primaries, and the clear message we’re hearing from many voters (Democrats and Republicans alike) that a huge factor in the upcoming election is the desire for change.

Now, I have a problem with polls in general, as we’ve seen in recent years how they can be an unreliable predictor of contest outcomes. Recently we saw this phenomenon in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire, in which Senator Obama held a high single-digit to low double-digit lead over Clinton in all of the polling but went on to lose the primary later that night. In my earlier post in which I predict a Landslide victory for Democrats in November based on primary voter turnout numbers, I discuss my concerns with polls in a little more detail. I highlight how polls often ignore an entire demographic of the population who don’t maintain a home landline, as current established polls don’t reach potential voters by way of cell phones, which more and more are becoming the primary means of communications for many Americans, young people in particular.

On the contrary, I argue that a more accurate measure of the will of the electorate are primary results, actual voting contests, which require to supports to do more than simply answer hypothetical questions on the phone. They actually have to get dressed, leave their homes, and cast an actual ballot in an actual election. In this type of “poll,” the results our astounding, with the major Democratic candidates receiving about 26,804,737 votes to 15,505,780 votes for the major Republican candidates. In other words, 63% of the people who came out to vote in the primaries voted for Democrats, compared to 37% for Republicans.

Lest I digress, let’s put those concerns aside for a moment and assume this poll is an accurate snapshot of the will of the American people. In this case, the message is clear: “something” has caused likely voters to turn away from the Democratic candidates still vying for the nomination, despite indications that up until this point, it was practically inevitable that the Democrats would build on their success in the 2006 midterm elections and assume control of the White House.

So What is This “Something?”

Looking at this situation through the lens of defensiveness, this “something” is the self-destructive sniping that has gone on between Democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. They have spent more time and energy tearing each other apart, rather than focusing on the greater challenge – John McCain – and the true prize at stake, which is the fate of the country, not necessarily their rear end behind the desk in the Oval Office. Instead of simply making a case for themselves and allowing the voters to decide, they have attempted to discredit their immediate rival in a misguided attempt to make themselves appear “less unappealing.” The emotional response to this strategy on the part of swing voters, or the “Golden Middle” both sides must win over in order to succeed in November: disgust and repudiation. The result: a migration towards John McCain, a candidate who is currently making a case for himself, rather than defending himself.

The Law of Unattraction

To think about this on more personal terms, how many times have you been in the presence of a married couple or pair of friends or co-workers who are in the midst of a heated exchange of “tit for tat,” in which you urged them to just shut up and get on with it? How unattractive are two people engaged in verbal sparring? Doesn’t verbal conflict bring out the worst in people? And don’t forget my Immutable Axiom of Presidential Voting Patterns: People vote for candidates who appear likeable and/or familiar. Right now the Democratic candidates are doing an excellent job of making themselves appear unlikeable.

And in terms of personal relationships, haven’t we heard the phrase, “Would you rather be right or happy?” Wouldn’t many of like to ask this question to Barack or Hillary? “Would you rather be right or be the President? Because at this rate, neither of you will be President, without an ounce of personal power to stand up to the Republican election machine come November.” Republicans may not know how to run a government, but they’re pretty skilled at winning elections.

In their efforts to discredit one another, the Democrats are doing the unthinkable: making John McCain appear pretty attractive in comparison. And if you believe that getting a Democratic candidate elected is the only way to put an end to the insanity in Iraq, turn around our economy, overhaul our healthcare system, and restore integrity to our national identity, than what’s at stake here, amidst petty personal attacks between candidates whose policies are virtually indistinguishable, couldn’t be more significant. What is revealed is hubris in its most primal sense, in which one’s pride is unbecoming, disempowering, and self-defeating.

The Nader Factor: The Sequel

Some pundits blame this shift over to McCain on the emergence of Ralph Nader as the periennial “spoiler,” as the Zogby poll put support for the former consumer advocate at 6%, ostensibly drawing his support from Democrats who would have otherwise voted for Obama or Clinton. My Monkey loves this idea…of blaming others for our own inadequacies. The reason McCain leads the polls isn’t because Nader is poised to ruin things once again for the Democrats, it’s because the Democrats are currently proving themselves to be unattractive candidates.

The point that Nader is trying to make by running is not to win the election. Obviously that’s impossible. The point he’s trying to make is that the American Presidential election is not a “true or false” question, but in fact a multiple choice question. In essence, he’s challenging the notion of duality, of white & black, right & wrong, left & right, and red & blue, that forms the basis of the current political paradigm. Nader sees the world in shades of gray. While it seems as though he might spoil the race again and help put another Republican into office, what he’s actually doing is placing a call for the Democrats to follow their higher selves in this campaign. He wouldn’t need to put a bid in, and he certainly wouldn’t receive very much support if only the Democrats were better candidates. He’s only there to challenge the sniping, the partisanship, and the self-defeating mechanisms that are inherent in the structure in our two-party system, the result of which being a flawed Republic, a failing health care system, a stagnant economy, and a dishonest Middle East policy.

Bringing It Home: The World Is My Mirror

I am learning a lot by watching the Democrats self-destruct. While there’s still time to avert this pattern before November, the lesson is clear to me. What manifests in the external world is merely a reflection, or a mirror, of what occurs within ourselves. If we want to avert disaster in the upcoming election, it would behoove us to look inward and discover how we might be behaving defensive, argumentative, and sniping, especially in terms of our personal relationships, in which the stakes are the highest.

Defensiveness is unattractive, repellant in nature. It wards off the things we desire and ultimately destroys us. In order to achieve change, we must BE the change we wish to see.

I guess that means this whole thing is just an inside job. Sorry, Ralph.

RELATED POSTS: Obama VP to Clinton’s Prez?: Brilliant, Beguiling, Bufdoonish, and Overcoming Defensiveness.