EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- 'We Are Movement, Not a Moment': North Carolina Peaceful Uprising Continues
- Eve of Destruction (or How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying)
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- Is Enbridge Building a Secret Keystone Pipeline?
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Left Needs Soul Searching
To make people care, craft a ‘politics of meaning’.
If progressives, whether in unions, activist groups or political parties, don't soon begin doing politics differently -- radically differently -- they will fail to show that "a better world is possible."
And the price of failure will be catastrophic.
We have known for years that our consumer culture is out of control and our obsession with having more and more stuff has reached the status of a virus. Our consumer-driven global economy is a lethal threat to the planet and every one of its eco-systems.
The lock that consumerism has on Western so-called civilization is formidable -- a virtual death-grip on our culture and our future as a species. It is a kind of madness but one which we can apparently adapt to. This manufactured addiction to more and more stuff undermines community, threatens the planet and doesn't even make us happy. Consumerism, driven by the most sophisticated and manipulative psychology the advertising industry can buy, has had the effect of atomizing us. We are defined more and more by what we have, less and less by our relationships to family, friends, colleagues and community.
One anecdote has stuck in my mind for over 20 years. A friend attending an international peace conference in Edmonton accompanied a group of Filipino women -- all from rural areas of the Philippines -- to the West Edmonton Mall as a "tourist" outing for the visitors. Twenty minutes into the tour the women burst into tears and pleaded with their hosts to get them out. The insanity, the grotesque over-stimulation of the place, no longer obvious to the Canadian women who had grown up with these monstrosities, was grimly apparent to the village activists.
They were right. We should all burst into tears after 20 minutes in a giant mall -- it would be a test of our mental and spiritual health.
Secular fundamentalism and its limits
It's not as if we don't know what the Filipinas knew. It's just that we have adapted to it -- like we might adapt to some physical disability. Yet if we all know this, why is it that we are unable to incorporate our understanding of this all-important cultural disability into our progressive politics -- into the ways in which we try to engage people in the struggle for a better, sustainable, world?
American rabbi and radical Michael Lerner blames what he calls "secular fundamentalism" -- the tendency amongst mainstream activists to stick rigidly to a rationalist and technocratic interpretation of both politics and culture. He calls for a politics of meaning which "posits a new bottom line. An institution or social practice is to be considered efficient or productive to the extent that it fosters ethically, spiritually, ecologically, and psychologically sensitive and caring human beings who can maintain long-term, loving personal and social relationships. While this new definition of productivity does not reject the importance of material well-being, it subsumes that concern within an expanded view of 'the good life': one that insists on the primacy of spiritual harmony, loving relationships, mutual recognition, and work that contributes to the common good."
Secular fundamentalists find talk of spiritualism intensely uncomfortable, probably because they draw immediate connections to either organized 'God' religion and its patriarchal authoritarianism or vaguely to some mushy "self-improvement" sub-culture. Spiritualism seems to fly in the face of the kind of rationalism that has been at the core of socialist and social democratic theory for nearly two centuries.
But organizers for social change face a critical problem. Trying to mobilize people strictly on a rational basis, and in particular with uncritical acceptance of the assumptions of a consumer driven economy, is proving increasingly difficult. On paper it should be working. Intensive values surveys of Canadians consistently reveal that they are progressive in their views about the role of government and the value of community. On the basis of such surveys, over 60 per cent of Canadians could be described politically as social democratic. And yet we see two neo-liberal federal leaders and their parties garnering two thirds of Canadians' voting intentions. Something is very wrong here.
What makes people identify?
It raises the question of why people get engaged. Why is that tens of millions get into an emotional frenzy over the death of a pop star or identify their lives with a professional sports team but can't be convinced to fight for social programs that would increase the quality of life of their communities? Why do further millions identify with right-wing evangelical religion rather than the call for secular social justice?
According to Lerner, they are in a search for meaning and in the context of the destruction of community of the past 30 years, they find in sports and Michael Jackson's fandom pseudo-communities they can identify with. In their quest for community they pass by the door that says left-wing politics. Why? You need not search much further than the typical political meeting -- overly earnest, boring, economistic, gloom and doom and, except on rare occasions, distinctly unwelcoming to the newcomers who have braved their first tentative outing.
And after the meeting? Nothing. No nurturing. No ongoing connection. No community.
While the U.S. example does not apply as clearly here, Lerner's analysis of why the Christian right in the U.S. has been so successful has lessons for Canadian activists.
"We find thousands of Americans -- from every walk of life, ethnic and religious background, political persuasion and lifestyle -- with lives of pain and self-blame, and turning to the political Right because the Right speaks about the collapse of families, the difficulty of teaching good values to children, the fear of crime, and the absence of spirituality in their lives. The Right seems to understand their hunger for community and connection." Lerner clearly acknowledges the destructive and often vicious politics of the right but argues most people vote for the Christian right because they feel understood and cared for by it, not because of its policies.
Nothing exciting here, move on
The left, on the other hand, fears that the people it is trying to persuade and mobilize aren't capable of imagining or accepting a truly radical vision of the future. So the NDP, instead of developing and presenting such a vision (assuming it is still capable of imagining it) that addresses people's need for a broader meaning, reduces that vision to a package of disconnected, minor reforms that doesn't offend the media power brokers. Of course, it doesn't inspire anyone either, as evidenced by its inability to get beyond 20 per cent support. Social movement organizations are in some ways even more trapped in the single issue incrementalism that fails to inspire all but a relative handful of politically conscious followers.
Convinced that "ordinary" people are incapable of radical change, says Lerner, too many left activists themselves retreat into a middle-class, consumer existence that they know deep down is not only unsustainable but deeply unsatisfying. We fight the good fight -- and then drive home, turn on the TV and watch the news report on a world that does not acknowledge our existence.
'These are radical needs'
Lerner's call for a politics of meaning is truly revolutionary given the extent to which consumerism is embedded in our lives and our culture, and the failure of our organizations to address the coming catastrophe. Who will be amongst the first revolutionaries to challenge the system? We will -- the activists who are now exhausted, demoralized and convinced there is nothing new they can do to make change.
Says Lerner, "Having been burnt by past failures, these former activists will not quickly jump into new political movements. Yet, as a meaning-oriented movement gains momentum many of them will feel a homecoming that reconnects to their deepest hopes. They will become the transformative agents who move these ideas into the mainstream... These people respond out of a real inner need, not from a commitment to an abstract idea, nor out of a sense that someone else ought to be treated differently..."
"These are radical needs," writes Lerner. "Unlike needs for economic well-being or political rights, these cannot be fulfilled inside our society as it currently is constructed."
It's time for reconstruction. The economic and climate change crises can serve as an enforced breathing space: an obligatory opportunity to get off the consumer/wealth accumulation/hyper-individualism tread mill for long enough to realize it was taking us over a cliff.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
97 Comments so far
Show AllSo true. The left needs to find their soul...but, so do all other political persuasions. Let it be our intention that it is NOT TOO LATE. And that will take a huge amount of intention.
Been to the Philippines lately? They have malls there, the likes of which I have never seen in this country (not that I have been all over the US). And that was Cebu (although they do have a fabulous, lush muntainous area)....I shutter to think what Manilla must be like.
"I shudder to think what Manila must be like. "
You're welcome, cynical. I was in Manila around 20 years ago, and recently read another's description of the place that sounded like the pollution and traffic chaos I remember.
I love the statement "The left needs to find their soul...." Aloha to you.
My wife is from Cebu, and many in the Philippines seem to want everything American, to emulate our culture. ABS-CBN (a Filipino TV network) has a variety show where all the music is basically from the USA. A shame, really, considering that they must have a rich culture as well, which is all but excluded.
Lerner . . . argues most people vote for the Christian right because they feel understood and cared for by it, not because of its policies.
Fear is the prevalent human emotion. People vote for the reactionary/fascist right because the black shirts scare the shit out of them and make them fired up with anger. "Understood and cared for". What bilge!
Yes, to this article's message! Thank you, Murry Dobbin, for saying it.
Industrialism has to go the way of the dustbin of history.
Very good commentary.....being on the (I guess) far left as I am, I see so many organizations that I identify with that fail to support each other!!!
For example....there is a homeless org. near me that has been advocating to overturn an illegal ordinance that bans street people from sitting on the sidewalk in a section of town where the snooty people shop. Instead of allying with like-minded orgs. they recently joined a local business association (the group that is strongly supporting the legislation) and their rationale is that they think they can convince other businesses in the association to change their minds about homeless people.
Just like the time I heard Dennis Kucinich tell me to my face that he is staying in the Dem. party because he thinks he can "change the party from within"....he is either naive, stupid or a con-man (I don't think it is the first two..personally).
Oregoncharles
Maybe his role is stalking horse?
Yeah, one can become quite cynical in this Orwellian age of ours.
Or, more simply, it is a purely a practical consideration. If Kucinich left the Democrat party and ran as an independent or Green, he would most likely lose the election - them what good could he do?
Too true.
It's not the soul that's missing. And the inability of progressives to unify isn't caused by oversight or selfishness. The problem is that one by one, every social movement accepted its larger slice of the system's pie, and/or entrance into the system, rather than focusing on changing the system, and in so doing, ended up with a major stake in preserving the system.
Unions aren't interested in the environment, government-paid health insurance, or reductions in consumerism, car use, coal mining, or greenhouse gases. All of this conflicts with their core mission, which centers around jobs and sufficient compensation for those jobs so as to allow meaningful consumption levels for their members. Similarly, anti-poverty and most redistributive social justice efforts are overwhelmingly pro-consumption movements, as that's the yardstick for success. And consumption means garbage, resource depletion, global warming, and trade with repressive nations that actually undermine domestic employment, compensation, and environmental prospects.
What the left needs to do is face up to the fact that a century's worth focusing in almost exclusively on buy-in as success has left advocates for various issues, well, bought in, and therefore at odds with each other, and even themselves, and easily triangulated out of the electoral equation. Religion doesn't have to worry about this because their product is the afterlife. That's why they appeal to suffering people better than leftists do -- they don't pretend they can solve the problem, they sidestep that completely and offer you the prospect of eternal bliss starting from whatever point nature terminates your suffering. That's why they can be so welcoming and supportive and can treat everyone with equal love and expectation for productive capacity regardless of their capacity to understand the complexities of the mission when they first walk in the door. There is no program. You just follow instructions and in around fifty years you go to heaven forever no matter how much earthly suffering you endure between now and then.
But progressivism is centered on improving THIS world, and is therefore rational and complex, therefore not hard-wired for easy appeal to the masses, and as previously explained, in serious need of unraveling itself from its entanglements with the systems it needs to change before it can move forward. To tell you the truth, I think it's too late. It may have always been too late. All end of times prophecies and good science fiction were/are based upon close examination of human nature and its consequences, and then just charting that up a curve to its inevitable conclusion. Whether your starting point on that curve was 3000 years ago, after war was industrialized in the late 1800's, or after global warming became measurable, the end point of the curve is the same.
I think you are right on the nose about the afterlife vs earthly life dichotomy of the left/right dilemna.
Most people are worried about death: what it is, what it means, what (if anything) awaits us after our bodies no longer exist.
I'm not a believer in heaven or in reincarnation, but there are enough mysteries in the universe that I could well be surprised.
Still, it's hard not to be fearful of death.
If I were more gullible, or emotionally desperate, those faith messages would be much more attractive.
The challenge for lefties is, as you say, not in promising something in the ever- after, but helping people's lives be fulfilling and pleasurable while they are right here, now, today.
That our progressive & left political organizations so rarely offer anything even remotely fun (unless we're organizing a fundraiser!) is a sad commentary on how well we even understand basic human nature.
If we can't get the fundamental aspects right, how can we hope for societal change?
We better figure out some new ways to organize- and QUICK!!
You make a number of good points, but you seem to imply that religion and the social-justice left are largely exclusive. If you were engaged in much activism, you would know that much, perhaps most, of social activism that is inspired by religion. The Quakers, Pax Christi catholics, Unitarians, liberation theology in Latin America, the close the SOA movement, the ploughshares movement, the Thomas Merton Center in my local town, and many urban churches.
The space for most activists organizing and meetings from single-payer to peace, is provided by churches in my city.
pjd, Great comments. I am sure sure we share a very similar back ground in Catholic social and peace activism. I marched with Fr. John Dear 3 years ago from Gethsemane to Louisville, in memory of Gandhi and Merton. But any church I have been affiliated with in FL or No CA have done absolutely nothing. But I knew the Churches were very active in Louisville. I also have marched and demonstrated with Kathy Kelly and Fr Louis Vitale and attend many conferences at the Fr. Richard Rohr's Center for Action and Contemplation in Albuquerque, See my post below.
Sioux Rose
STEVE: Interesting and refreshingly honest post. Thank you for sharing it.
Steve Greenfield,.........you make a great point in your first paragraph.
Yes, to a politics, and lives, of meaning. Yet, having studied and been involved with Lerner's work, I continue to grapple with what feels missing for me in it. Perhaps it is the over-reliance on words, concepts & ideas -- all of which are good ones, but perhaps not with enough room to encourage other unique inspirations or perspectives which could broaden, enhance and ACTIVATE the concepts.
And as Derrick Z. Jensen states on these CD pages, it isn't about shorter showers, but fundamental, systemic CHANGE.
And how we do that is a very big question, hopefully with many diverse answers, from Arundahti Roy to the "Church of Stop Shopping".
How do we balance the vision/the commondream with practical actions/lives that bring it into being?
I can't help but think of CODEPINK as an beautiful example of an organization that has grown into the kind we need. It nourishes it's members with enthusiasm, vision and amazing actions that recognize that all issues overlap. It gives it's members easy, meaningful ways to participate, even from a distance, like sponsoring a gift basket to be personally delivered with others to the women & children of Gaza, or knitting a square of a giant quilt in front of the Whitehouse on Mother's Day which stated: "I will not raise my child to kill another mother's child".
We need more organizations like CODEPINK -- or perhaps more members OF Codepink! Check it out at:www.codepinkalert.org
More organizations like CODEPINK to marshall the sheep into voting for the Democratic presidential candidate every four years?
This is your conception of visionary change?
No thanks.
Medea Benjamin is a relentless self-promoter, and a loyal corporate Democrat when the chips are down.
I quite agree with the assessment of Canada's NDP Party. The NDP Is not visionary any longer. It has decided that in order to gain power it must COMPROMISE with the Center and the right.
Tommy Douglas would not like what the NDP has become, nor would the founders of the CCF.
Dobbin talks a talk, but he doesn't walk much. When the Green Party was trying to establish itself in Canada, Dobbin had nothing but negative things to say about it, and stubbornly stuck with the NDP (tired, old socialist party that had consistently shifted to the right and therefore irrelevance), trying to change it from within. Instead of supporting new ideas and new energy, he just trashed it.
Funny thing is, I agree with him. I just don't trust him to present or support the next big movement.
The Green Party is not the only party on the left.
q
quickstepper- The Green Party of Canada wasn't even promoting itself as 'left', but rather progressive and radical, and Dobbin was too mired in traditional politics to even lend conditional support to this new concept that might have attracted new and vibrant energy (it has anyway, incidentally, without him). Their ideology was, in a nutshell, "who cares if it is left or right, if it makes the world better, it's good," which Dobbin should see as a bright light:
"If progressives, whether in unions, activist groups or political parties, don't soon begin doing politics differently -- radically differently -- they will fail to show that "a better world is possible.""
If Dobbin means what he says here, then it would make sense that even if he didn't want to support the Greens openly, he would have admired their attempt to do something differently.
And hey, I don't mean this be an anti-NDP rant, nor a banner for the Greens. I'm an anarchist. Any group of people that advances progressive ideas is okay in my books. But I like consistency from political commentators, and Dobbin writes one thing and does another. He would be a much more credible analyst if he were more positive of things that are already making a difference.
Cheers.
Oregoncharles
What are the other progressive parties?
The American Communist Party is fairly progressive in its goals, from what I remember on their website. There are at least 3 nation-wide socialist parties in America I think. There is also the Ecology Party, which Nader ran under in Florida, but I think it exists only in Florida.
This article really strikes a chord! Time to go to the library and borrow Michael Lerners book, the Politics of Meaning. I live opposite a "Christian" church and see all the activity there. People seem very friendly toward each other and I have wondered...I imagine these people to be on the right as far as politics are concerned. I agree that those who consider themselves as on the left activists have a difficult time not feeling isolated as I do, especially in regards to religion or spiritual practice. I would love to find the key that brings us together in community, with faith that we can avoid the visible cliff without sticking our head in the sand.
"... most people vote for the Christian right because they feel understood and cared for by it, not because of its policies."
The appeal of far-right (and other right-wing) movements and candidates has always been grossly exaggerated by media discourse. Most people don't vote for the Christian right - certainly not in Canada and, as evidenced in the last presidential elections, not in the U.S. at this point, either. I think it's the popularity of neoliberal figures like Obama and Ignatieff that poses the real, seemingly intractable problem for the left. And insofar as this is the case, this article does not offer any insights or arguments.
I respect and admire the writings of Michael Lerner and his Network of Spiritual Progressives.
But after 10 years in social peace activism, I feel I am beginning to understand fundamentalist Christians or the conservative right. They are basically authoritarians. Their God as well is an authoritarian, not a loving and forgiving God. I think this mindset has split America down the middle, including the church in Rome. What kind God you worship makes for your politics.
But I must say, from my perspective in the ecumenical Emerging Church Movement, I find a good percentage of the faithful to be maturing and coming to understand the mind of Christ and less concerned with the absolutes of the particular denomination. By this I mean the faithful caring more about poverty, the environment, peace activism, injustice, the way the system is rigged for the rich. It is about bringing the kingdom of God here on Earth. More and more of the faithful no longer beleive in a vengeful God who will burn your ass in hell for all eternity. It is Christianity maturing.
Stephen V. Riley, thanks for your posts. May I inquire, do you think Max Lucado worthy? I'm reading In The Grip of Grace....something I surely am not, clumsy sinner that I am, I recall that you are a priest* I believe, and value your opinion. Cordially twice, heck thrice, joe
*forgive me if I err here please
azjoe: Thanks for your nice comment. I have heard of Max Lucado, but have not read any of his books. And no, I was never a priest, but I graduated from Jesuit University and have been an active liberal left wing catholic peace and justice activist for the past ten years. I honestly believe radical social change is best achieved through an inclusive ecumenical movement. Only until you experience the spiritual dynamics of such action can you understand it. And I believe Christianity was meant to be a counter cultural minority faith. Unfortunately, to increase its numbers, Constantine took things over in 325AD and made Christianity part of the system, not a critic of the system.
Bring America Back !!!!.......!...Dobbin is most correct, and the time is now for Progressives to Act !
***The past 6 months has proven that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties can give America what it needs: Total Reformation. The US 2 major party system is a complete and abject failure ! Our faith in Obama and his lies and promises has been betrayed.
***It is time for a strong Progressive Leader and Party to step forward, take charge, and begin growing strength for the 2012 Election. I would nominate Dennis Kucinich, if he denounces the Democrats, changes affiliations to the Progressive Movement, and encourages all other minority parties to change as well ! Greens are welcome.
***As Dobbin predicts, let us strive and hope we succeed in the Reformation, and mostly that the 2 major parties, that have destroyed our Nation, never get supreme power again !! They've proven time and again, they cannot handle it !!
Yes, Doinit, follow up on it.
It was very inspirational to me, when I attended the first Network of Spiritual Progressives conference in Berkeley several years ago, to see how diverse the participants were. And to experience such unity and agreement across the large group regardless of our diverse spiritual inclinations: Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, non-affiliated, Sufi, even atheist. We were all united as far as our vision for a just, peaceful and sustainable future --and one could palpably feel that unity.
Also, I discovered that many folks inside the churches are working hard to bring "the left hand of God" into their communities.
Best to you on your exploration.
"But organizers for social change face a critical problem. Trying to mobilize people strictly on a rational basis, and in particular with uncritical acceptance of the assumptions of a consumer driven economy, is proving increasingly difficult."
-our society isn't rational, so how can they mobilize on a rational basis?
If you could just give the sheeple the facts and then have them vote, Dennis Kucinich, Nader or McKinney would be president. People aren't motivated by reason. People are motivated by spin, slogans, feel-good phrases and platitudes, words like "democracy", "freedom", "liberty", "change" and "hope" in spite of the fact they have absolutely nothing to do with the candidate.
Witness Obama running as the "anti-war" candidate in spite of having a record of supporting the war. Witness Obama running against Big Brother in spite of having voted or FISA. Witness Obama run on "change" and then select the ultimate establishment insider, Joe Biden as VP.
That is why Obama won the award for the best marketing campaign in 2008. He beat out the likes of Coca Cola and Ginsu Knives. And the sheeple bought it hook-line-&-snicker. The sad part is that 61% of the public is STILL BUYING IT.
Want to appeal to reason? Good luck.
Ric,
Well put. I have met plenty of closed-minded people from both the Obama and Mccain/Palin camps and even amongst the Obama supporters, when I try to bring up the issues with them many of them respond violently and think that I'm some paid Republican operative. Even on the issue of single payer, yesterday on Dave Lindorff's article I shared my story of unsuccessfully trying to convince my friend of the benefits and she would have none of it. She has been unemployed for 3 months as of recent but I don't know that she would now take the idea seriously. A week and a half after I got pied for bringing up that issue, I stumbled across a staunch Obama supporter and told her about it and she said "Well, maybe you're sounding too liberal. What is single payer anyway? Obama is working on reforming health care so just be patient and maybe you wouldn't have been pied !" So now, between a rightwing hick and a blind Obama shill, I can't even tell who's worse.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
"So now, between a rightwing hick and a blind Obama shill, I can't even tell who's worse."
-The Obama shill is worse. The rightwight wing hick can be spotted a mile away. In other words: A Republican will put a knife in your eye, a Democrat will stab you in the back.
I feel for you my friend. I am in exactly the boat. Most of my co-workers are Obama shills that now justify what they ostensibly opposed under Bush.
Conclusion: Most Americans are just plain f^%king stupid! Sorry if I offended anyone. My sincere apology.
"The Obama shill is worse. The rightwight wing hick can be spotted a mile away. In other words: A Republican will put a knife in your eye, a Democrat will stab you in the back."
Come to think of it, you're right. I would generally vote Democrat in the past but up until the Democratic Primaries, I have never seen so much aggressive campaigning and maneuvering by the party. I was concerned about Obama's aggressive smearing against Hillary but since I thought she was Guliani with a bra and there wasn't Kucinich by the time I could vote, I chose Obama only to find him and his team getting even more violent minded once the general election started. The more Obama switched his positions to Republican, the more aggressive his cultist supporters turned out to be. Even Mccain didn't feel quite as comfortable trying to touch Obama for fear of being called a racist. With Obama switching positions and his followers getting more cultist and aggressive, I was totally put off and decided that there's nothing to lose by voting Nader for what this election was worth. Obama had no chance of winning LA anyway. Mccain was already being given a low rating in the polls and maybe that's why he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate to perhaps offset his special status as "minority". Well, we saw what the Republican establishment did to Palin and still is doing to her not that I like her either. However, it's starting to look like even Palin wouldn't look this bad as president. She might eventually be a neoconservative but not so corrupt so fast. I don't know what tricks and strategies Obama learned but I don't like the looks of it so far. In sharp contrast, on the other side getting yelled "commie" in my face for bringing up single payer looked "harmless" in pale comparison. Only after I went through enough trouble trying to discuss an issue did I get pied. I can now see that the rightwing hick is easier to spot a mile away.
Your conclusion isn't offensive to me. :)
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Oregoncharles
In 2004, I saw an article in Seattle Post Intelligencer by guest columnist, Neil Starkman. He suggested that the force hurting us the most is the "S factor." Stupidity.
Oregoncharles
Everyone loves a winner. A winner in US contemporary politics is some vetted corporate lacky the media fauns all over, while marginalizing the steadfast, true leader who has worked all of his/her life for peace, social change and decency. Yuk, how sexy is that?
THANK YOU Murray ! Finally, an article that gets straight to the heart of what's fundamentally wrong and what we can do about it. When people try taking too many quickie fixes deluding themselves into believing that they didn't have to do all that work to get there, what they fail to realize is that they have only set themselves up for long term loss. I wished I was a little free yesterday so that I could have responded to a newcomer on this site, benn_miller, on how to overcome that feeling of getting pied by a madman who was probably thinking he could have a quickie fun. Yes, even social conservatives can be part of the left too when you get them to open their hearts and minds on non-social issues such as the economy, foreign policy, health care, etc ... On the issue of identifying, I vote on the issues when I vote for the candidate and that means voting closer to who one identifies with rather than voting based on personality, money, electability by sellout standards, and party affiliation. And thank you Murray for exposing the lack of understanding people of different religions. Religion is often misused as nothing more than a tool to financially and physically bully and control others as they see fit. I may be a weak Christian but since I'm a peace-loving one, I'm likely to get pelted at by both sides for being one be it the war mongers or the atheists. Besides, even social conservatives can be against bloody wars and even supportive of single payer health care when they are enlightened of the details and convinced that a lot of it actually matches their beliefs in reduced government spending.
Jennifer,
I could not tell if he was happy or not to have smacked that pie in my face like that but to see him violently fighting against good policies such as single payer even while he is poor and in serious need of it is really sad to watch. I didn't know that there could be social conservatives who support single payer because I can't find any in my state. Even amongst the progressives and liberals left in the state all I'm stumbling across are mainly partisans but very few supporters of single payer. Worse, half of the progressives and liberals I stumbled across either don't know it or tell me that it's somehow unfeasible because that'll make Obama "too liberal". Lord knows what will set them free of their sick thinking.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Revolution is where the politics of meaning is most fully realized, as anyone who experienced for however brief a time the social transformations undertaken during the 2nd half of the 20th century in Cuba, Nicaragua, Grenada, Mozambique and Vietnam. Seems that for the searching and disillusioned, nothing can be more uplifting (religion no exception) than being part of a movement that aims at building a better world. Has to do with the revolutionary high - that feeling derived from being on the upward slopes of freedoms majestic heights. An added attraction is that there are no prerequisites to one's participating, only a willingness, on the basis of one equals one, to join with others in exploring the frontiers of human progress. What's especially convenient and nice is that no pre-planning is necessary, since it's plan & build as we go.
yourstruly, ..... Yes I agree. There is unbelievable energy in the dynamics of civic activism and the new spirituality of liberation.
If many people respond to the far right, as Mordechai says, because it uses fear tactics that "fire people up with anger," maybe that is because fear is the most primal human emotion--and therefore it provides a sense of belonging to the larger community. Dobbin said the right makes people "feel" understood and cared for, not that they genuinely are understood and cared for by the right.
I think Dobbin has pinpointed the fact that the left doesn't offer anything as powerful to people as the unifying "warmth" of shared fear and anger. Sharing fear with other people makes it a little less personally frightening. And from my own experience, I have to agree with him that meetings of left-wing groups tend to be boring, bureaucratic, and filled with a self-importance that excludes newcomers rather than making them feel they've found a home or even a shared passion. That shouldn't be, and it's important to explore it.
Oregoncharles
Read "Whats the Matter With Kansas" (Thomas Frank) for an idea of how the religious right got suckered into believing that Republicans would overturn roe v wade, get prayers and religion back into the schools, etc. Ha! As if these politicians don't have daughters and wives?
The left fell for the sweet talk coming out of the mouth of the other head of the fascist monster.
If we could form coalitions with the right (ya never know!) it would scare the livin' daylights out of the PTB.
The soul searching the left (as in left without a clue) needs to do is into its own ignorant arrogance in supporting an easily documented fraud and crook for president, someone obviously then and obviously now a tool of wall street, the health insurance industry, and the patriarchy.
And into its gleeful participation in the campaign's violent misogyny and caucus and election fraud.
These actions are so shameful and embarrassing you should all be hiding in caves somewhere.
There is something deeply disturbing about the conflation of the consumer culture with a rational explanation of the world.
True, the left needs to speak to the masses on their own terms. They are tired, angry, trampled upon and manipulated. Surely we can cook up rhetoric that stokes the fires of those emotions to a progressive agenda.
But we must understand that the emotional appeals the right has used to manipulate the Christian Right is itself part of a very logical strategy that facilitated their domination for decades.
No, for far too long there has been a general disdain for science and technical analysis on the left, a belittling of logical thought as the cloistered province of "wonks," which apparently is supposed to be a word that refers to skilled human beings.
And who was it who wrote that "peace is more than just a strategy" on commondreams recently? They are correct, but it was the strategy part the left forgot about, not all that pie-in-the-sky crap that falls flat again and again. That stuff gets trotted out on common dreams over and over again, but I can't remember a single piece that seriously discussed peace as the winning and workable strategy that it is. The Right and the corporations must love that.
Martin Luther King was one of America's greatest rhetoricians, and he understood the central importance of logical strategy, and using emotional appeals in the context of that strategy. We need a logical strategy that employs the deepest emotional longings of a frustrated and underserved people.
We need to use logic to fight the consumer culture, not abandon it.
It was a great victory for the corporate powers when they convinced the left that it was reason itself, and not reasoning relevant to corrupt and selfish values, that was their enemy. That victory has robbed the left of strategies and logical paths to building a cohesive community. And yes, they were very logical in figuring out what emotions could be evoked to break apart the hierarchies of SDS and SNCC during the 60's.
Clearly, consumerism is not logical, as stated, rather it is a form of madness. Then what is all this baloney about "secular fundamentalism"?
Like Tom Hayden, I too have a vision that all the issues are connected, that it is not only spiritually and morally bankrupt, but also strategically bankrupt, to try solving the climate crisis without also knocking out the corruption and social inequality that coexists with it, without radically changing the institutions that feed it that are rotten anyway.
Thank God these institutions are so rotten anyway! We can take care of all these things at once, but I'm sorry, you're going to need more than just feelings on your side. They are indispensable, but they are not enough and this disdain for reason among the Left is far more dangerous than many seem to realize.
"That stuff gets trotted out on common dreams over and over again, but I can't remember a single piece that seriously discussed peace as the winning and workable strategy that it is."
Actually there was an article fairly recently where the authors showed that in their studies, non violent resistance was more successful than violent resistance.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/31-7
"Secular fundamentalists find talk of spiritualism intensely uncomfortable"
What a load of unsupported rubbish.
I'm an atheist and have no trouble talking about spiritual matters, of meaning, love and life.
Nor of living a spiritual life. I don't need a belief in the supernatural to tell me what is right and wrong or that love is the greatest thing.
I use reason to choose the best way , in my opinion, to facilitate how to live a spiritual life.
There is no war between spirituality and reason.
Exactly. I was gonna go with "Gibberish".
"One world at a time."
H.D. Thoreau
We don't have a REAL left in this country. What we have is scattered and idependent groups, each one of these groups has its own issue, from gender, sexual orientation, minorities, evironment, homeless and treatment of animals etc etc.
Each group cares and only cares about its own issue and doesn't give damn about anything or anyone else.
That so called left is a PHONY left.
A REAL left will have his primary issues is protecting the common folks against the greed and abuses of the corporate powers and the tyranny of a government that these power might control.
It will be calling for jobs with living wages, safe and humane working conditions, health care for all, secure retirement, decent housing and good school etc etc.
That REAL left will be national in scope with a national media outlets. It will have a national headquarter and has a national political platform and with candidates for national and local elections.
It will be calling for civil rights and equality for ALL and not concentrating on single group.
commoner3,
Right you are. I've stumbled across violent Obama supporters who often speak violently or threaten to use force if one tries to bring up the issues with them. They'll keep chanting that Obama's giving us hope and change and that America is becoming more liberal but ask them to explain and they'll froth at the mouth and hiss like mad. They're no different from the rightwing hicks who shout "commie" if I try to bring up single payer health care.
Bennett Miller
Shreveport, LA
Except that he sees consumerism/hyperindividualism as a character flaw arising in the citizen. If you remember Bernays, you will recognize that the onus resides in the media/corporatocracy, who created this as a tool to control the masses.
Remember Chairman Mao's little red book? The media is our little red book these days with its preselection, flashy presentation and subliminal messages - fast, flashy, noisy, sugary, shiny, superficially easy to grasp. It's wall-to-wall propaganda beyond which most people are not able to see. It's often the only "voice" we hear, and it replaces our own by means of its pervasiveness and insistence.
Those Philippinas could still "read" the subtext of the mall culture because their brains hadn't been colonized yet. They must have been overwhelmed by the force of it. It wasn't the citizen who created that message delivery system, corporate claims of responding to consumer demand to the contrary; every gaudy detail of it was carefully designed to elicit beliefs and behaviors that would benefit the designers. (creating demand, creating consensus)
Put the onus where it belongs - on the creators of this mechanism, not on its subjects.
That said, the subjects really need to wake up and stop going for the bait every damn time. Who can wake them out of their trance?