͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏ ͏

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

How Not to Deliver Your Manifesto

Choosing Your Point Over Your Partner

Keith R Wilson

Dec 23

READ IN APP

Often when I'm counseling troubled couples, the trouble is caused by the way they're trying to deliver their manifestos.

I’m talking about a manifesto like the one written by Luigi Mangione, the guy charged with killing United Health’s CEO, Brian Thompson. He was found with a 262-word handwritten statement, which read:

…these parasites simply had it coming… these [indecipherable] have simply gotten too powerful, and they continue to abuse our country for immense profit because the American public has allwed [sic] them to get away with it.

I gotta say I agree with his assessment of the health insurance industry and the American political establishment, if not the public. I have a problem with his delivery. He apparently thought if he shot the CEO, people would read his manifesto and take its message seriously. He was partly right. People can read his manifesto; but he discredited himself by the way he chose to deliver it. Consequently, it won’t be taken seriously. If found guilty, he’ll just be seen as a crazed terrorist who should be locked up. The thing is, if found guilty, he will be a crazed terrorist who should be locked up; but his manifesto should be taken seriously.

That’s what I often see in troubled couples. One or both parties has a point they’re trying to make. Often it’s an important point. A true one, but it’s the mode of delivery that obscures the message. Sometimes it appears that they are more attached to the point they’re trying to make than they are to the relationship.

Let’s take a situation for example, so common it’s stereotypical. A wife believes her husband should take more responsibility around the house. She relates this to a larger point about double standards and the exploitation of women in a patriarchal society. On both points, she’s speaking truth. It’s hard to argue with her assessment about society and she is probably right about the division of responsibilities around the house. The trouble with this point is, she never fails to take the opportunity to make it. She drives the point home continuously, whether it’s accurate in the particular case at hand, or not. She doesn’t read the room or seem to care whether it’s a good time to press the point. She seems to care more about her manifesto than she cares about her husband.

For her husband’s part, he may have his own manifesto. He believes he has taken responsibility, but he does things his own way. He says she’s controlling and wants everything her way. If she wants to make life easier for herself, perhaps she can start by letting go of the need to boss him around. He might make a larger point by saying that, even in patriarchal societies, nothing is as simple as portrayed. On all points, he’s speaking truth. The trouble with this point is, he never fails to take the opportunity to make it. He drives the point home by doing things his way, on his schedule, whether he needs to, or not. He seems to care more about his manifesto than he cares about his wife.

If I were to ask them, they’d say of course I care more about my spouse than I care about my manifesto. I want to share my manifesto to help my spouse and help our relationship. These are things he or she needs to know.

Well, they need to know that’s not the way it’s coming across. That’s my manifesto to them. You are hurting your partner and ruining your relationship, not with your manifesto, but with the way you’re delivering it.

What is the best way to deliver a manifesto? It’s like delivering a package. There are three ways to do it.

Put the package by the door, ring the bell, and run. That’s the method employed by the husband when he passive-aggressively slow-walks the tasks his wife gives him or does things half-assed as a way of saying she’s too controlling. This method minimizes the chance of a confrontation, but it also makes it likely the message will never be received.

Bust the door down and shove the package at the recipient. That’s the method employed by the wife who nags and complains every chance she gets. It’s also the way used by Luigi Mangione to deliver his manifesto. This creates a confrontation but also makes it unlikely the intended message will be received. The only message they get is that you are a dangerous person and they need to bar the door against you.

Ring the bell, ask if you can deliver the package, politely give it to them, and get a receipt before you go. This is the way that strikes a balance between the other two with regard to confrontation potential and it guarantees safe delivery. If you have a manifesto, ask if you can talk about something important. If they make time to listen, then deliver it in a respectful way. Once you have done so, then make sure they heard you right. Have them summarize what you tried to say.

I suspect that many bearers of manifestos have tried the first and the third method. They failed to get their message across either because they delivered it poorly or the other person wasn’t willing to hear it. That's when they resort to method number two. All the more reason we should take each other’s manifestos seriously when properly delivered and try to hear them when they are not. Otherwise they’ll go all Luigi Mangione on us, and nobody wants that.

Thanks for reading The Reflective Eclectic! This post is public so feel free to share it.