Archive for Politics

Positive Freedom and Negative Freedom

June 10, 2010 Politics, Values One comment

The Tea Party people keep talking about getting their country back. They don’t make much sense to me so I won’t pretend I understand the nuances of their complaints, if there are any. But I do understand that they somehow think Obama is out to take their freedoms away. They are angry and they think that the president represents a scary sort of big government that is going to take their guns, their hard earned money, and their constitutional rights.

From what I can get, they have a very negative view of freedom—freedom from as opposed to freedom to. They seem to believe that more government equals less freedom. The overwhelming impression I get is that they don’t want government to tell them what to do. The idea seems to be that the government is bad. It’s bad when it does stuff—like collect taxes, keep the economy from collapsing or regulate business. And it’s bad when it fails to do stuff—like protect the Gulf Shore from oil.

There doesn’t seem to be any consideration given to the positive freedoms that government can provide, such as programs to help lift people from poverty so they have the freedom to pursue their dreams. The role of government as I see it is to give citizens the freedom to pursue happiness. How is one free if there are no job opportunities and no affordable healthcare? How is one free if a big company can pollute one’s neighborhood with impunity?

Now I’m not saying that government can’t impinge on individual freedoms. But by focusing entirely on the notion that freedom means freedom from government the Tea Party people are only looking at negative freedom. Their whole movement is negative. It throws off nothing but the negative emotions of fear, hate and anger.

Fear and hate are not ever going to move the country in a positive direction, but anger might. For I too am angry at what has happened to this country. But this anger must be directed at getting government to do more, not less. Positive action is needed to put the brakes on our corporatocracy. But it doesn’t look like that’s in the cards. Most progressives aren’t angry enough and the Tea Party people are frightened of the wrong things and angry at the wrong people.

Under it all however, we all want the same thing—freedom to live a life of our own choosing, without fear.

The Vision Thing

May 4, 2010 Communication, Consciousness, Evolution, Politics, Values No comments

Those of you who are as old as I am may remember that when George H. W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton in 1992, there was talk that he lacked “the vision thing.” Bush was accused of running as a competent manager, rather than someone who had a grand philosophical vision of where the country should go. At least that’s how I remember it.

Clinton’s “I feel your pain” turned out to be a better message than George Bush Sr.’s “I know what I’m doing.” But in truth, neither candidate then, and none of the candidates today, really have the vision thing. The best that can be said is that every four years we have a choice between two opposing philosophies of governance. And both philosophies operate within fairly narrow agreed-upon parameters.

Nowhere, for example, is there a politician who says that he has a vision for how human beings should all live together on the planet—a vision for where evolution is taking us. Politicians don’t even really speak in terms of a global vision. It’s still the U.S. vs. China, or the West vs. the Third World, or the rich vs. the poor.

So it is left to philosophers and activists and NGOs and academic commissions to promote the vision of how all people of the world can live together in peace, harmony and physical security. The shift to a global consciousness is already starting to occur among—dare I say—intellectuals. Articulating this vision in a way that is simple and powerful enough to gain traction in popular culture is the mission of HumansTogether. Despite clear evidence that no one is paying attention yet, I am confident that they will.

Empathy and Compassion

April 20, 2010 Consciousness, Evolution, Politics, Values One comment

Based on what I’ve been reading lately, specifically The Empathetic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin, human beings have evolved into highly empathetic creatures. In fact, an individual’s well-being is highly dependent on the successful transmission of empathy from the mother, or other primary caregiver, to the child. The whole notion that people are driven solely by self-interest turns out not to be true.

I’m only a little way through the book but so far his over 600-page scholarly treatise seems to be providing an extremely well reasoned and well researched case to support what I call “species consciousness.” Rifkin calls it “biosphere consciousness.” The point is that we must identify ourselves with all of humanity on a planetary basis if we are to avoid global catastrophe.

From empathy to compassion is a short side trip. That’s where the Charter for Compassion [http://charterforcompassion.org/] comes in. This site/organization/movement bases its call for global togetherness on the Golden Rule, which it says is at the center of every great religion and spiritual practice.

Rifkin’s book and the Charter for Compassion are part of a growing global meme that we must become one humanity, that we must act as “HumansTogether.” To do this we must first scrape away the layers of cynicism and pessimism we have acquired through our lives and recognize that we and others are fundamentally not “just looking out for number one.”

We must examine the evidence and recognize that we are instead highly social creatures who at our core are much more about compassion and empathy than greed and selfishness. It may take a little digging, but the evidence is there. It just doesn’t get any press. But as Rifkin points out, the only reason our worst behaviors are featured on the news is that they are unusual. Most of the world is actually the opposite of the news, full of loving, concerned people who want to work together to help everyone.

Question Your Beliefs

April 14, 2010 Evolution, Politics, Values One comment

Where do your beliefs come from? Did you get your religion from your parents or did you reject your parents view completely? Did you make a decision to believe what you believe based on logic or did your values come by absorbing the views of your community or culture? Do more highly educated people have different beliefs than less highly educated people?

It’s hard to answer these questions, at least for someone who hasn’t read a lot of scholarly literature about the subject. The point is that beliefs come from a lot of places for a lot of reasons and most of them are not acquired based on a logical evaluation of all possible alternative beliefs.

Religion and culture are good examples. There are probably people who chose a religion after carefully evaluating and comparing all the tenants of the world’s spiritual practices. But more than likely the religion you have is the one your parents had, and you adopted it without really being aware that there were alternatives. And even without exploring the alternatives, there are many Christians who believe they have a handle on the ultimate governing principles of human reality. Those who were raised in other traditions believe just as fervently that they are the most righteous.

In this country, it kind of goes without saying that “America is the best country on earth.” Many, if not most of us, simply except this. We have an ingrained bias against anyone who is not American, even if we know intellectually that being born in any particular location doesn’t make a human being superior to another human being.

The fact is that beliefs drive behavior and if we are going to pull together as a species to solve the imminent planetary crises that we face, we have to take control of our beliefs. They can’t be random. We need to come together around a set of beliefs that recognizes that we are more alike at the core than we are different. Before we think of ourselves as Americans or any other nationality, we have to think “I am a human being on planet earth.”

This bigger picture vision locates us more appropriately for working together and appreciating our common humanity.

Lost in the Flood

March 28, 2010 Communication, Evolution, Politics, Values No comments

I wear my iPod when I go for a walk. Today, when I heard Springsteen’s “Lost in the Flood” off his first album from way back in the 70’s, a new meaning occurred to me: Lost in the flood of thoughts.

All of us, unless we take great pains to step outside them, are lost in a flood of conscious thoughts that prevent us from connecting with our true selves. We’re focused on the things that are right in front of us, right off the front bumper of our awareness, instead of looking down the road and getting a more comprehensive view of what’s actually affecting all of us.

We get absorbed with our own self identities instead of the fact that we are all human beings on planet earth. We are all the same.

All of the hate and separation we feel from others is based on a belief that we are all different and that those differences are dangerous. They are dangerous because the others may want to hurt us, or because the others have ideas that if correct, would make us wrong, or cause us to question what we believe. And no humans are really in love with being wrong or having to change.

And that’s the point, under the superficial differences of appearance, culture, religion, class, gender and politics; we are a single species that is way more the same than different. We are all here together on this planet, an infinitesimal oasis in a cold and empty universe (so far as we know). After billions of years, we are the highest example of life-based, matter-connected consciousness that exists (so far as we know). And we’re in danger of destroying ourselves because we see our own personal survival and that of our group as being in competition with other humans who are exactly the same as us.

I believe the highest calling we have as humans, is to recognize that all of us are responsible for getting our species through to the next stage of evolution. This can be a world in which we cooperate together by acting from a set of beliefs based on we are all the same, we are all valuable, and we are all deserving.

The alternative is a set of beliefs based on I’ve got mine, good luck to you. That belief is not going to move humans forward. That belief will keep us divided and invested in fighting with each other, because it is based on a fundamental untruth—that I, my family and my group are better and more deserving than all the others. It is based on denying the truth that we humans are all the same underneath.

Not Equivalent, but the Same Underneath

March 26, 2010 Evolution, Politics No comments

Sarah Palin is right. There is a major problem with the main stream media. The problem is that they assume an equivalence between the right and the left. I’ve heard people I respect say that the problem is polarization. That we have the rantings of Glen Beck on the right and Keith Olbermann on the left. That’s not the problem. The problem is that the insane, deranged, lunatic ramblings of Glen Beck are given equivalence to the insightful, beautifully written, calls to inspiring action of Keith Olbermann. One guy from the left and one guy from the right and their views are supposed to be equally valid. They’re not.

A friend of mine told me something he thought was particularly insightful. The Democrats are playing Jeopardy, trying to be smart about the facts. The Republicans, on the other hand, are playing Family Feud, trying to figure out what a random selection of not too well educated people might answer based on their gut instincts. These things are not equivalent. One is based on rationality and one is based on fear, superstition and the propaganda of Fox News.

But here’s the thing. Underneath, at the core, all human beings are the same. Emotionally we all want validation and respect. But what we don’t realize is that we don’t have beliefs, beliefs have us. Once we adopt a belief that government is bad, or that liberals are trying to take away our freedoms or that Southern fundamentalists are unsophisticated rubes, we are trapped in beliefs that make dealing with those with opposing views very difficult, if not impossible.

However, if we remember that all humans have the same need for love and validation, and we understand that the beliefs others are acting out of represent what they have become as a result of their circumstances in life, it is easier to be tolerant.

Republicans are currently lying about healthcare reform (government takeover) because they are angry that they are no longer in control. Their belief is also because of their parents, their church, and the superior attitude they picked up from those who could afford to go to an expensive college. Whatever.

The point is that they are feeling bad about themselves and acting out. Underneath they are humans that need love, just like all other humans.

It’s the same with Israelis and Palestinians. They are born as totally equivalent human beings and they become hateful toward each other as they absorb the beliefs of their culture.

This site is about understanding that we are all the same. We are unbelievable miracles of evolution—the highest level of consciousness that the universe has produced (so far as we know). So no matter how unequivalent various notions of reality may be, underneath, all humans are exactly as valuable as each other. Seeing that core truth is what will save us from destroying each other.

America the Dysfuntional

January 12, 2010 Politics No comments

I found this article in the Nation to be particularly on target. It rings true, but brings no joy.  http://www.thenation.com/article/melting-america

Obama at One

January 11, 2010 Politics No comments

President Obama, or just Obama, has been the most powerful man on the planet for about a year now and it seems like he’s not really as powerful or as visionary as I might have hoped. I am disappointed by just how pragmatic and centrist he seems to be. But I am truly appalled by the both the Republicans and the media that allows them to get away with saying whatever bullshit they want.

Cheney, who I think should be in jail as a war profiteer, continues to spout off with statements about Obama that are simply untrue. The non-fact based world of Republicans has gotten even more non-fact based, more divorced from reality, meaner, stupider, and uglier.

Don’t people remember how systematically they ran this country into the ground and how incompetently and corruptly they governed? Apparently not. Apparently most people think the fact that Obama could not snap his fingers and make it all better within a year makes it OK to vote for Republicans who will go back to the aggressively stupid policies that caused the debacle in the first place.

Look, I like a thoughtful, intellectual president. I recognize that there are some sincere Republicans and that some conservative values do promote the greater good. But good lord, isn’t there anybody but Rachel Maddow and Keith Obermann who can muster the proper sense of anger and disbelief at the Republican strategy of simply vilifying virtual anything Obama says that isn’t about more military spending? Sheesh.

No Free Market

July 29, 2009 Politics One comment

I have a niece who is a junior at college. She’s very bright and articulate and politically engaged. However, she seems to be a libertarian. So I sent her The Shock Doctrine, by Naomi Klein to start a discussion with her. That was in April. Here’s the follow up email.

I have been delinquent in engaging in the discussion I intended to start with you about politics via The Shock Doctrine. I understand that you became disillusioned with it after a while and decided it wasn’t worth the time. No matter. The point is that the last time we spoke, you seemed to have some libertarian-like ideas that gave me the impression you believed in free market capitalism. I wanted to engage you on this point because there is no such thing as free market capitalism, unless you mean that those with the capital are free to call the shots and everyone else should believe in the myth that they too can become rich and keep their mouths shut.

The Shock Doctrine shows that many of the dictators in the recent past, such as Pinochet, who used torture and murder to maintain power, was secretly backed by the free-market capitalists of the University of Chicago and the IMF. This capitalism, in essence, delivered state assets and the country’s natural resources into private hands at the point of a gun. Free market capitalism equaled brutal dictatorship. The brutality—the shock—was a necessary accompaniment because without it, in a democratic system, the populace would never have allowed such pillaging of the common national resources.

The official story in the US media was that we were of course against this brutality, as most human beings are. However, when you dig down, as the author did, you find that all of the financial institutions of the capitalist world—IMF, banks, and others—were supporting the brutality for economic gain.

The point being that free market capitalism is not free, not virtuous, and not in the best interests of most humans in most countries. Capitalism that is properly managed by governments elected by the will of the people, as we have in this country, is superior to free market capitalism because it brings other important values into the equation.

When capitalism is not regulated aggressively enough, it runs amuck. That’s why we’re in the economic mess we’re in now. And yet, we remain committed to a system where less than a year after they were allowed to drive the economy of the world into the ground, the capitalist demigods of Wall Street are once again reaping bonuses that total more that what most people make in ten years.

I suggest that this money has nothing to do with the value these demigods delivered to society. Which is OK. Neither do the salaries paid to sports stars or entertainers. It is natural to want to be a demigod. But we should not be confused that the type of capitalism being practiced in this country, and indeed since kings and noble people controlled all wealth, is the best way to organize societies concerned with things like social justice and ending human suffering. There needs to be a careful nurturing of the instinct that allows people to transform themselves into demigods along with the authority to keep these demigods from controlling the system solely for their own benefit. For that is the natural course of free market capitalism.

Rigid Ideology Is Oppressive

June 22, 2009 Politics One comment

In Iran we are witnessing the latest conflict between two constantly battling world views: the idea is that there is one correct set of beliefs and behaviors that human beings should follow and the idea that humans should be at least somewhat free to believe and behave as they desire. It’s a battle between the open and closed minded—the very religious vs. the less dogmatic.

It shows once again that religion is often a surrogate for earthly wealth and power—in this case a particularly virulent form of power.

In this country it’s the Republicans that I identify with the type of closed minded power that seeks to tell everybody else how to live. The fact that they want to loudly declare the righteousness of the protester’s cause in Iran is exactly the opposite of what they would do if we had mass demonstration in the streets against some future unpopular right wing war or a more disastrous economic collapse that represented “letting the market work.”

If you look at the battle in Iran as being between the proponents of change and the keepers of the faith, it’s the Republicans who are most similar to the hard-line Islamists.

« Older Entries   Recent Entries »