Horse sense for politics

Only by not resorting to violence can you develop a relationship built on trust and respect.

Melanie Stetson Freeman/Staff/File
Wild horses spar at a sanctuary in Lantry, S.D.

The day of the midterm elections in the United States, I was reading a book that seemed the furthest thing from American politics. The story of how a man domesticated a wild mustang, after all, stirs the thought to contemplation of wide-open vistas and cowboy chaps, not control of the Senate. Yet as I read, one thought kept recurring to me: This is about more than horses.

“Shy Boy: The Horse That Came in from the Wild” is essentially a plea. Author Monty Roberts has spent his life trying to convince anyone who will listen that the old way of training horses – coercion and fear – is cruel and ineffective. His book shows how he taught a wild horse to take a saddle and rider in a few days solely by understanding its view of the world and working with it.

There’s a parable in that, I think. Yes, humans are not horses. But what is the model of action we often see in politics today? I would argue that it is not many degrees removed from the old-school ways of breaking a horse. When we can’t persuade others of our view, politics can become not an open hand, but a whip.  

In some cases, this is breaking through into actual violence. But more often, I would argue, it is a latent mental violence – the poison of intolerance, anger, impatience, frustration not overcome and bubbling below the surface. The question of politics today – from the US to the Philippines to Brazil to Germany – is this: What do we see as the most effective way to respond?

That’s where Mr. Roberts’s approach struck a chord for me. At the core of his philosophy is something that seems simple and logical but is actually hard. Only by not resorting to violence, he says, can you develop a relationship built on trust and respect. Then a horse becomes “a willing partner instead of your unwilling subject.”

How much of politics today is driven by the willingness to make those holding opposing views “unwilling subjects”? In his book “Non-Violent Resistance,” Mohandas Gandhi writes that the “belief that there is no connection between the means and the end is a great mistake.... Your reasoning is the same as saying that we can get a rose through planting a noxious weed.” 

Whatever mode of thought is present in the motive, he argues, will be present in the result. Martin Luther King Jr. makes the same points in “Strength to Love.” The only way to the “blessed community” is higher motives and actions, he writes: “We shall so appeal to your heart and conscience that we shall win you in the process, and our victory will be a double victory.”

Roberts’s most difficult horse, which had suffered catastrophic trauma from previous handlers, nearly killed him. But he never had a thought of giving up, though it took him 80 days to “gentle” the horse. 

Each election is a reminder of the need for similar persistence in love for members of our own species.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.