No permanent allies. No permanent enemies. That was a foundational mantra of a ten day community organizing training that I received nearly 40 years ago. It was a new idea for me, and I struggled with it. Growing up during the height of the cold war, I had been taught that enemies needed to be permanent, and any softening of that conviction was tantamount to treason. But over the years I began to see the wisdom of no permanent allies or enemies, especially when negotiating with various stakeholders over the decades on critical issues: homelessness, AIDS treatment, gay rights, gun violence prevention, political polarization. Change was possible if people on either side of the issue were open to movement. Openness to change also fostered a more compassionate heart.
No permanent allies, no permanent enemies is a perspective that is getting harder to embrace, primarily because more and more people are identifying their enemies as permanent. That certainly was the case with the shooter who murdered one Minnesota state legislator and her husband, and wounded another along with his wife. His victims were regarded as permanent enemies. When it comes to the cacaphony of verbal violence, it is hard to imagine that the targets of the many denunciations and cruel put downs coming from the President are anything but permanent enemies. It is tempting for those being attacked to respond — not necessarily with physical or verbal violence — but by locking in enemies as perpetual.
The prevailing cultural attitude, coming from all sides, is to first and perhaps exclusively to focus on enemies — how to punish, defeat, or get rid of them. Allies then become those who subscribe to the same enemies. The old adage — the enemy of my enemy is my friend — is a transactional relationship, and is not really friendship at all. But if we reverse who comes first and begin by focusing on allies, the dynamics are different, the vitriol and violence is mitigated, and enemies have the potential of being transient.
To my mind, the difference between starting with enemies and starting with allies reflects whether we face the world from the ego or from the soul. We all have both, and when there is a modicum of health in our internal and external environment, the ego and soul are in balance, and can flow in and out of each other. Yet when the stress level is ratcheted up, and fear and anger become the predominant weapons, the ego can take over and insist on maintaining an enforced status quo, which means it can be quick to identify enemies and keep them in one’s crosshairs. The ego resists change, is averse to risk, and seeks to win. In contrast, the soul is the fountain for creativity, and it is from the soul where love emerges. The soul seeks out allies, because it recognizes that we re all related to one another. The soul is committed to protecting allies, which means that yes, there will be enemies, but only because they threaten one’s allies. When the allies are safe, the enemies lose their permanency status. A wariness may remain, but the energy is devoted to the welfare of the allies.
As I listen to those who attended one of the literally thousands of “No Kings” gatherings this past weekend, I am hearing that the focus was more on solidarity rather than on an enemy. People stood shoulder to shoulder, often with a newly discovered ally. The energy was was less about anger — which is the case when people are organized to punish enemies — and more about hope, which is the gift when people can engage in solidarity with each other’s souls.
And the allies may not become permanent, but the solidarity can be more abiding — and transforming. The soul is more nourished, and change becomes more possible.
