Holistic Transformation (11/26/16 Draft)

holisticHuman beings are generally compassionate, cooperative creatures. Each day, individuals and organizations relieve suffering and improve the world. But our global social system breeds fear, foments hate, divides people, and undermines community. To steadily transform that System, activists and activist organizations need to change how they operate so they can be more effective.

Our major institutions, our culture, and we ourselves fit together to form the System, which is fueled by the drive to get ahead of others, climb the social ladder, and look down on those below. Hyper-competitive individualism and feverish ambition help preserve the power chain and its dominate-or-submit dynamic.

In our daily lives, individuals strengthen the System with actions like not treating each other with respect, buying cheap products made in other countries, and being seduced by mass marketing. Activist organizations reinforce the System with actions like competing with one another, scapegoating opponents, being dogmatic, and failing to nurture compassionate hearts and minds.

Societies tend to label, rank, disrespect, and discriminate against certain categories of people, which serves to divide and conquer. We pigeonhole people and place them in superficial pecking orders. In ways that are often unconscious, we neglect the equal value of each person and feel superior to some and inferior to others. We learn to dominate or submit. That self-centeredness carries over into nationalism, as nations try to exploit other nations to serve their own self-interest.

To restructure that System, we must learn to care for one another more fully and promote the common good of the Earth Community — all humanity, all living beings, the environment, and life itself — and reform our institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that purpose.  

Activist organizations can unite with one another more consistently to focus on achievable objectives favored by a majority of their fellow citizens, help their members unlearn counterproductive tendencies, inspire and attract members with a positive vision, and make our society more democratic.

Individuals can:

  • Establish a balance between self-interest and the common good.
  • Resist oppression and neglect.
  • Relate to one another as human beings.
  • Remember that no evil deed is a reflection of the whole person.
  • Not allow anger to become hatred.
  • Seek reconciliation when in conflict.
  • Be humble.
  • Develop collaborative leadership.
  • Accept that we cannot achieve everything we want.
  • Nurture helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, and a passion for justice.

By sharing meals, socializing informally, enjoying life together, and listening to peers report on their efforts, activists who belong to the same organization can support each other’s personal growth and political action — and encourage the full membership to do the same. Unaffiliated activists and members of various organizations can also form independent support groups. Occasionally, representatives from all of those groups can compare notes, plan actions, and attract new members.

In these ways, we can grow a network of holistic communities that address the whole person and care for the whole world.

If you agree with these principles and want to be kept informed about efforts to transform the System, please endorse this statement at TransformTheSystem.org (coming soon).

“A Masterpiece from the Muck”

Rafael Chirbes, 2007

Rafael Chirbes, 2007

The last sentence of the New York Review of Books essay, “A Masterpiece from the Muck,” by Norman Rush, which reviews On the Edge by Rafael Chirbes, has haunted me. Here are some excerpts:

Poverty in the West is suddenly, inescapably, around. It’s turning up as a deep problem here and there, even in electoral politics, and, clearly, dealing with poverty by the practice of ignoring it is reaching the limits of its usefulness. People at all levels are forced to deal with poverty in one way or another:…

On the Edge consists essentially of an unending soliloquy, a special case of the standard modernist stream-of-consciousness form….

There is also a moral landscape through which Esteban must make his way. It fascinates and repels the reader. Esteban seems not to be agitated by the morally sordid characteristics of his pals and his family…. The cash nexus dominates to the very end. … The moral substrate of the narrative is rotten overall.

The seemingly universal Hobbesian philosophy prevalent among the characters recurs in Esteban’s world: …

…a book written with art and force need not depend on pleasing subjects. In fact, the tension underlying art and often unhappy narratives can provide a confoundingly elevating aesthetic experience….

I think it must be that the thematic conjunction of the topical and the damnably eternal is especially potent today. We don’t entirely comprehend 2008. Has there been a change in the way the neoliberal dispensation works? We are still measuring the consequences of that debacle, still trying to judge whether it’s over. Since 2008 the world has gone unsteady, and not only in the economic sense. Some academically respectable but apocalyptic readings of the crisis are in circulation. One is Wolfgang Streeck’s “How Will Capitalism End?” (New Left Review, May–June 2014). Streeck sees a destructive convergence of three fixed trends in late capitalism: a declining rate of economic growth, soaring overall indebtedness, and rising economic inequality in both income and wealth. His work interlocks with recent dark conclusions by Robert J. Gordon, Thomas Piketty, and Wendy Brown, among others.

With all its Valencian particularities, On the Edge resonates in a paradoxically bracing (because it’s clear-eyed), apposite way with today’s uncertainties and moods. On the Edge may work as powerfully as it does precisely because it is not a protest novel in the tradition of Zola’s Germinal, Sinclair’s The Jungle, Steinbeck’s In Dubious Battle, or Hugo’s Les Misérables. There’s not a shred of hope here, or any emerging social force to which to appeal, and that feels about right.

That conclusion has stuck with me because it rang a bell. Times are bleak indeed. Not because of Trump and his like elsewhere, but because I fear the resistance will be ineffective.

Then again, Buddhists recommend avoiding hope. Maybe they are right.

Race, Class, and Systemic Reform

intersectionality2Can compassion-minded activists justifiably talk about human rights without also talking about civil rights? Can we justifiably talk about what it means to be human without talking at the same time, in the same sentence, about race, class, gender, and the other pigeonholes that the System uses to divide and conquer? Or can we first affirm universal principles, and then later, time or space permitting, oppose specific forms of oppression? Might we build a broad coalition based primarily, most fundamentally, on universal principles, while also, secondarily, affirming the rights of people whom the System classifies and oppresses based on certain arbitrary characteristics? In order to mobilize the white working class, do we need to emphasize economic issues more than social issues like race?  

Many post-election commentators are saying that class is more important than race. Robert Borosage for example has argued, “Clinton [talked] about removing barriers, with constituency-specific agendas, rather than focusing on a populist economic message that would lift all (emphasis added).” Borosage concluded, “Democrats better learn how to sing from Bernie Sanders’s gospel….”

Bernie’s post-election message is: “One of the struggles that you’re going to be seeing in the Democratic Party is whether we go beyond identity politics,” which, according to wikipedia, “refers to political positions based on the interests and perspectives of social groups with which people identify.”

In The Guardian, Heather Long says, “As I re-read King’s addresses, I can’t help but think that if he were alive today, he would be preaching and organizing first and foremost about income inequality…. The most pernicious problem in society today is the haves and have nots”

On NPR, Mark Lilla cited as a positive example a man who reported:

I belong to a bowling team with black and Latino coworkers. And when we get together and we talk about politics … we don’t talk about Black Lives Matters. We talk about what matters to our families. We talk about jobs, and we talk about the fate of the country. That is America, and you can reach those people.

In his “The End of Identity Liberalism” essay in the Times, Lilla objects to the proposition that “we should become aware of and ‘celebrate’ our differences.” He argues that “the fixation on diversity” has encouraged people narcissistically “to keep this focus on themselves” and that “younger journalists and editors [believe], that simply by focusing on identity they have done their jobs.”

Lilla criticized Clinton’s campaign for

calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.G.B.T. and women voters at every stop. This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. If you don’t, those left out will notice and feel excluded…. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals…. Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it….

National politics in healthy periods is not about “difference,” it is about commonality…. We need a post-identity liberalism,… As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale.

But as Steven Shults posted on Facebook, “You can draw attention to the plight of the poor without pitting the issue against other issues. This is not a zero sum game. (It’s not a game at all.).” It’s not either/or.

As I see it, Clinton’s mistake was not her calling out to specific constituencies. Rather, it was not calling out to more of them — as examples of a larger problem. Society systematically labels, ranks, and discriminates against countless categories of people. It’s systemic. The problem is the System, which serves to divide and conquer.

If one has only a sound bite, it’s not feasible to present a long list of examples. But in a standard stump speech, it is.

Economic populists, however, want to heavily emphasize economic issues and reject that intersectional approach. Intersectionality” argues:

We should think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one’s identity…. The classical conceptualizations of oppression within society—such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and belief-based bigotry—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the “intersection” of multiple forms of discrimination…. Socially constructed categories of differentiation interact to create a social hierarchy…. There is no singular experience of an identity. Rather than understanding women’s health solely through the lens of gender, it is necessary to consider other social categories such as class, ability, nation or race, to have a fuller understanding of the range of women’s health concerns…. Seemingly discrete forms and expressions of oppression are shaped by one another….  [This] analysis is potentially applied to all categories (including statuses usually seen as dominant when seen as standalone statuses).

Or you could use Bob Dylan’s “Chimes of Freedom” to make the point:

Flashing for the warriors whose strength is not to fight

Flashing for the refugees on the unarmed road of flight

An’ for each an’ ev’ry underdog soldier in the night…

Tolling for the rebel, tolling for the rake

Tolling for the luckless, the abandoned an’ forsaked

Tolling for the outcast, burnin’ constantly at stake…

Striking for the gentle, striking for the kind

Striking for the guardians and protectors of the mind

An’ the unpawned painter behind beyond his rightful time…

Tolling for the tongues with no place to bring their thoughts

All down in taken-for-granted situations

Tolling for the deaf an’ blind, tolling for the mute

Tolling for the mistreated, mateless mother, the mistitled prostitute

For the misdemeanor outlaw, chased an’ cheated by pursuit…

Tolling for the searching ones, on their speechless, seeking trail

For the lonesome-hearted lovers with too personal a tale

An’ for each unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail…

Tolling for the aching ones whose wounds cannot be nursed

For the countless confused, accused, misused, strung-out ones an’ worse

An’ for every hung-up person in the whole wide universe

It’s not easy to talk about intersectionality. Some may believe that I as a white man have no right to do so. But partly because what I have to say, I believe, echoes what I’ve learned from people of color such as Howard Thurman, Dr. Martin Luther King. Jr., James Baldwin, and Mahatma Ghandi, I feel compelled to speak.

To transform the System, we need to set aside labels and affirm our universal humanity, while also opposing specific forms of oppression. The various identities the System inculcates in us overlap and reinforce one another. In that way, the System is integrated, combined into a whole. We can better transform that System with communities that are integrated in the same way — that is, communities whose members acknowledge and accept their multiple identities. From that perspective, if one talks about class one generally needs to also talk about race, and vice versa. However, it is also justifiable at times to go deeper and talk only about our essential humanity. One can hope for the emergence of a broad vision that inspires a massive human rights movement that also affirms civil rights.

I’m not fully comfortable with that approach. It may be wrong. But for now that is the perspective affirmed by the latest draft of the Holistic Transformation statement of principlesI envision that additional publications will address specific forms of oppression.

Criticisms and suggested changes for that work-in-progress are welcome.

Feedback on “Transform the System” (11/24 Draft)

systemJames Vann:

Wade, there is nothing in your long struggle to form “compasssionate communities” to object to– certainly a noble objective. My reticence is not with the objective, because, foundationally, that is the way thigs are supposed to be (“mom’s apple pie”). Admittedly, it is my failure, but I do not foresee how compassionate relations lead to political transformation on a mass scale. Being a “nice neighbor” does not automatically eradicate racism, sexism, xenophobia, imperialism, nor propagate progressive politics .

Wade:

Thanks much, James E Vann, for your thoughtful, supportive response and for your long history of nonviolent struggle. You address a key problem: how to translate compassion into effective action. There is no easy solution and nothing is automatic. But it seems to me that it would help if existing organizations operated in a more compassionate manner. Regardless, to borrow your formulation, I do not foresee how uncompassionate relations lead to political transformation on a mass scale. Comments are welcome on the latest draft of the Transform the System statement of principles, which proposes some concrete steps. It’s at https://goo.gl/YXS8u9…. If my quest is, as James E Vann said, as obvious as “mom’s apple pie,” why does no such organization exist (so far as I know)?

+++++

Steve Leeds:
This statement is fine. Il’l be interested in hearing about your meeting.

+++++

Larry Walker:

Your 2-page document reads well. A couple of suggestions:

Make the document fit in 2-pages.
Consider dropping the paragraph on the national convention (not needed at this time).
Can you provide links to LinkedIn profiles for your Colleagues/Team? (I have one.)
Good job.

+++++

David Hartsough:

Thanks Wade. I like the statement, but am not sure it will draw/folt many people into action. Many people will agree with it if they read it, but the question is what they can do after they read it or feel inspired enough to help bring bring this new society into existence. Too many people have given up hope that we can bring about social transformation.

Wade:

Good to hear. Thanks.
If and when you have suggestions about what folks can do after they read it, I’d welcome them.
The latest draft may address that issue a bit more….
I agree that people giving up hope is a problem.

I’ll send another report with the latest draft soon.

Can you send it to Joanna Macy and solicit her feedback?

+++++

Sharon Johnson:

there is a greater need for a community to find love – shelter – hope and solidarity. Especially for those who do not work within the structure of a church…. It is more than ever that a community you suggest is a must in our Nation. I(we) have seen our starving residents respond to a false god in their need to feel safe, secure and deservingly cared for by our government and other institutions. Clearly, the system is not working for the majority and the beast in us is roaring for our country of people to stand tall against the harming ways of our system of care.

Going towards, building up is a healthier way to forge in transformation and in the process we must be kind and gentle to ourselves and others. As you know this transformation has been building for years and years. It is time for leadership(in all forms ) to capture this time and lead towards peaceful resolution for the common good.

The below statement outlines issues and offers solutions. The dedicated few leaders – one step st a time – can bring this together.

+++++

Bob Anschuetz:

Responding to your request for feedback, I think you’ve done a great job in creating the short-version “manifesto” for the movement you’ve envisioned. I’m always as interested in the clarity of the writing in such documents as I am in the content being conveyed, and I honestly believe you’ve now got that just right.

For what it’s worth, however, I don’t share that same faith in the rightness of the project you’re proposing. In my own view, no reform effort that starts entirely from scratch with a relative handful of people can achieve through its own efforts the monumental goals you set: namely, the worldwide transformation of human behavior from predominant egotism, selfishness and individualism to predominant empathy, caring, and community. If such a transformation is ever to be achieved, my own notion is that it will be by means of very gradual organic improvements in national cultures. In the U.S. such progress has already occurred to a modest degree with respect to the social status of blacks, gays, and women. The place of each of these groups has been strengthened by a mix of government anti-exclusion legislation and positive changes in society’s attitude toward them based on their emergence from the shadows and the subsequent recognition that they share with all Americans important social values and a common humanity.

In contrast to the document you’ve called on us to review, I thought the main purpose of the social action you were proposing was not to reform mankind from its affinity for dehumanizing “systems,” but to advance federal legislation in the U.S. that could help meet real human needs and in so doing help shift the focus of Americans from selfish–and, for the great majority, unrealizable–aspirations to ascendance in the “system” to a human concern for the common good. The outline of the strategy to do this was clear: In each congressional district in the U.S., folks of both conservative and progressive political outlook would get together and agree on meaningful policies they believe the federal government should pursue; they would then invite their congressional representative to meet with them on a monthly basis to urge him or her to push one particular policy in Congress. Because the policy proposed by the people would represent a left/right consensus, and because the congressperson’s re-election would likely depend on how honestly and fruitfully he/she strove to promote the people’s will, this seemed to me a wonderful plan: it could help shift the attention of politicians away from the system of cahoots with wealthy corporate donors and lobbyists, and to the people they nominally represent. A very similar plan has in fact been laid out by Ralph Nader in his latest two books, Breaking through Power and Unstoppable.

Wade:

I do not envision starting from scratch. Rather, I hope to encourage existing organizations to change how they operate.
I agree that social transformation will be organic and gradual — at least until a critical mass is reached.
I agree that progress with the status of blacks, gays, and women is a good example of such evolution.
Advancing federal legislation is still an element of the statement.
I’ve read Nader’s book and generally like it, but like most progressives, he only talks about the government and the economy. I think we need a different strategy to be more effective. Changing hearts and minds is essential.

+++++

Yahya Abdal-Aziz:

Very interesting project!  I’ll be watching your progress intently.

One thing often stands out to me in your blog posts: your emphasis on America, and fixing whatever ails her.  Yet so much of what you write about applies equally to other places in the modern world, all equally enmeshed in the transnational system that American ingenuity and drive has contributed greatly to bring about.  For example, you wrote:

What is the system and how can the American people change national policies to transform it?”

As an Aussie, I could equally write:

What is the system and how can the Australian people change national policies to transform it?”

And the same applies to, say, Britons or Swedes; or anywhere in the Western world and increasingly, in the developing world, e.g. the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China).  Of course, I realise that change has to “take place” – in accordance with realities – in specific places.  By “places”, I mean nations, communities, economies, healthcare systems, social support networks, political institutions – the myriad ways we organise human life – rather than in geographical sites.  And so you’re absolutely right to be agitating for and organising change within those systems you belong to as an American.

And yet, we’re all a part of the evolving transnational world system, aren’t we?  Yet how much influence does any of us have over its processes and transformation?  Increasingly, the World System (caps on purpose – there is really only one!) is becoming our de facto government throughout the modern world.  Many years ago – maybe 50 in fact – it put a smile on my face to read that somebody had started issuing passports to “Citizens of the World” (or some similar phrase), beginning with themselves.  I believe the young fellow had some trouble boarding a plane for an international flight …  Still, I was hopeful that some time during my life, we might achieve an effective and freely elected global government.

And the “United Nations” was first organised about 70 years ago, but its unity still in no way matches that of the “United States of America“; nor does it adequately represent us; nor do we, the individual people of its member nations, have a vote on it nor any real say in its deliberations and policies.  Whether any of this will happen during our lifetimes, we have reason to doubt; but surely this was the ultimate vision?  A government of, by and for the people – of the world!

Wade:

Well put. Thanks.

The latest draft is not tied to the USA

++++++

Posted later, from Larry Walker:

Transform the System (11/24/16 Draft)
Human beings are compassionate and cooperative creatures. Each day, individuals and organizations relieve suffering and improve the world.
Larry: I like this statement a lot.  It is reinforced by the fact that ‘violence’ on a global basis is going down — steadily.
Larry: I think media does a disservice by focusing on the ‘bad’ news.  A whole lot of good is happening, but does not capture headlines.
Portions of our global social system breeds fear, foments hate, divides people, and undermines community. The need to transform that System is urgent.
Larry: Again, violence on a global basis is going down — but gets few headlines.
Larry: Trump used media to magnify himself — no one has done that better in the political realm.  It continues today as medias decries his use of Twitter, and that very fact greatly magnifies his presence on the national, global scene.  Stop repeating his negative stories — only repeat his positive ones.
Larry: Shunning would destroy Trump in the blink of the eye — as he feeds on attention.
Larry: ISIL operates just like Trump — and the media magnifies their messages as well.
Larry: So bad things are happening, but they cannot win in the long term as they only destroy, not build.


Our major institutions, our culture, and we ourselves fit together to form the System, which is fueled by the drive to get ahead of others, climb the social ladder, and look down on those below. Hyper-competitive individualism and feverish ambition help preserve the power chain and its dominate-or-submit dynamic.
Larry: Yes, this part of our system.  I do not agree that it IS the system.
Larry: Teil de Chardin has said that the history of the world is driven by the ability to evolve as social beings.  This is why humans have risen above other species as our level of socialization exceeds that of all other species.  He also states that that this social evolution is evolving toward Unity (which ultimately would be God).
Larry: I read the above many years ago.  Then came the Internet creating a social web on a global scale.  We are still only on the edge of what is possible.
In their daily lives, individuals strengthen the System with actions such as buying cheap products made in other countries, failing to treat one another with respect, and seeking to be King of one Hill or another.
Larry: If you look at the big picture, the buying of cheap goods carried 400 million people out of poverty in China alone.
Larry: The US is creating as much wealth as ever, but we have failed to define a distribution of wealth that recognizes the impact of automation, so the bulk has flowed to the 1%.  This does not need to continue.

Labeling people and discriminating against those considered inferior serves to divide and conquer. In ways that are often unconscious, we neglect the equal value of each person and feel superior to certain people and inferior to others. We learn to dominate or submit. “What’s in it for me” prevails. That self-centeredness carries over into nationalism, as nations try to exploit other nations to serve their own self-interest.
Larry: Divide and conquer does take place — but there are alternatives.
Larry: With immigrants for example, we try to ‘help’ them — and America does this generously.
Larry: Again, however, if we look at the big picture: 1) What does it take to be successful in a global economy?  Relationships, ability to deal with cultures different from us, and language skills that most Americans lack.  2)  What assets to our immigrants bring?  Relationships, comfort with other cultures, and other languages.  3)  The alternative is to Partner with our immigrant communities to encourage global trade, relationships, treaties, etc. etc.  This is win-win.
Larry: America has exploited many other nations.  We have also done well by even more — e.g. the Marshall Plan.  We could have a Global Marshall Plan that would lift others out of poverty while also doing well here.
Larry: My bottom line from all this is that we need a positive message to move ahead, not one based on fear, fighting evil, etc.

To restructure that System, we must learn how to love one another more fully and promote the common good of the Earth Community — all humanity, all living beings, the environment, and life itself — and reform our institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that purpose.
Larry: Excellent.

Individuals can establish a balance between self-interest and the common good, make our society more democratic, promote justice, develop collaborative leadership, set aside labels, relate to one another as human beings, place ourselves in other’s shoes, remember that no evil deed is a reflection of the whole person, not allow anger to become hatred, seek reconciliation when in conflict, be humble, accept that we cannot achieve everything we want, acknowledge mistakes and try to avoid repeating them, and nurture helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, and a passion for justice.
Larry: Another excellent paragraph.

By sharing meals, socializing informally, enjoying life together, and listening to one another report on their efforts, teams of individuals who endorse these principles could support one another with their personal growth and political action. Public gatherings of representatives from those teams could attract new participants with contagious joy, affection, and commitment. With that approach, we could grow caring communities and create models for the society we seek.
Larry: Again very good.
Larry: Given 3 excellent paragraphs in a row. why are they buried at the bottom of your message.  You lead with negatives which can discourage and dishearten people before they get to the inspiring part.

Activist organizations could help their members unlearn divisive, oppressive tendencies the System drills into us, which would help them be more effective. And those organizations could be less competitive with one another and form alliances with other organizations to focus in a sustained manner on winnable objectives that a majority of citizens support.
Larry: ‘unlearn’ is a negative perspective.  Why not just suggest following  a number of very positive ideas and simply overwhelm those who practice hate and fear?

If you agree and want to be kept informed about efforts to advance these principles, please endorse this statement at TransformTheSystem.org. Let’s join together to promote the common good of the Earth Community!
Larry: Happy to stay engaged.

 

Transform the System Report

I just emailed the following to folks that have been contibuting to the Transform the System project.

Dear Colleagues:

Following and attached is a much shorter, 487 word, version of the statement. Your comments would be appreciated, preferably prior to Saturday, 11/26, 11 am. The latest draft will always be at https://goo.gl/qndCYb.

Transform the System (11/24/16 Draft)

Human beings are compassionate and cooperative creatures. Each day, individuals and organizations relieve suffering and improve the world. But our global social system breeds fear, foments hate, divides people, and undermines community. The need to transform that System is urgent.

Our major institutions, our culture, and we ourselves fit together to form the System, which is fueled by the drive to get ahead of others, climb the social ladder, and look down on those below. Hyper-competitive individualism and feverish ambition help preserve the power chain and its dominate-or-submit dynamic. In their daily lives, individuals strengthen the System with actions such as buying cheap products made in other countries, failing to treat one another with respect, and seeking to be King of one Hill or another.

Labeling people and discriminating against those considered inferior serves to divide and conquer. In ways that are often unconscious, we neglect the equal value of each person and feel superior to certain people and inferior to others. We learn to dominate or submit. “What’s in it for me” prevails. That self-centeredness carries over into nationalism, as nations try to exploit other nations to serve their own self-interest.

To restructure that System, we must learn how to love one another more fully and promote the common good of the Earth Community — all humanity, all living beings, the environment, and life itself — and reform our institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that purpose.  

Individuals can establish a balance between self-interest and the common good, make our society more democratic, promote justice, develop collaborative leadership, set aside labels, relate to one another as human beings, place ourselves in other’s shoes, remember that no evil deed is a reflection of the whole person, not allow anger to become hatred, seek reconciliation when in conflict, be humble, accept that we cannot achieve everything we want, acknowledge mistakes and try to avoid repeating them, and nurture helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, and a passion for justice.

By sharing meals, socializing informally, enjoying life together, and listening to one another report on their efforts, teams of individuals who endorse these principles could support one another with their personal growth and political action. Public gatherings of representatives from those teams could attract new participants with contagious joy, affection, and commitment. With that approach, we could grow caring communities and create models for the society we seek.

Activist organizations could help their members unlearn divisive, oppressive tendencies the System drills into us, which would help them be more effective. And those organizations could be less competitive with one another and form alliances with other organizations to focus in a sustained manner on winnable objectives that a majority of citizens support.

If you agree and want to be kept informed about efforts to advance these principles, please endorse this statement at TransformTheSystem.org. Let’s join together to promote the common good of the Earth Community!

+++++

I’m sending this to the 13 of you who’ve asked to be kept informed. Please let me know if you want me to remove you from this list.

So far, though largely positive, the feedback has been weak. I’m not at all sure how to proceed, or even whether to do so. But I did buy some domain names for websites just in case.

At this point, only Joan Greenfield has said she will participate in the Nov. 26 meeting. It being Thanksgiving Week is likely one factor. Another is that some people are tuning out to politics due to the election disaster. Concerning this project, one respondent said:

I (sadly, cynically) do not believe [it] can cut through the current state of things. I also feel it is reinventing the wheel. There are dozens of great causes and groups I/we could already be getting on board with. Also, in the wake of the election, it is painfully obvious that there is no middle that we will never overcome the noise of the loudest and most partisan voices. I am hopeless about this endeavor. I am going to stick to my little world…. God bless you for pursuing this, though. And do feel free to send me drafts to reply leisurely to with comment, before the Stasi come kicking in our doors and the missiles fly.

I too don’t know if this project can cut through the noise of the loudest voices. But I disagree that it is reinventing the wheel. I’d love to join such an effort, but have not found one. On Facebook, I posted a faux personal ad that reads:

Looking for Holistic Community. Straight white male, 72, seeks a democratic activist organization that: 1) pushes for compassionate national policies supported by most Americans; 2) is willing to form an alliance with other activist organizations to focus on winnable objectives in a sustained manner, and; 3) helps its members support one another in their efforts to unlearn the System’s conditioning. $100 reward for information leading to a rewarding connection. Contact info: Wade Hudson on Facebook.

So far it’s elicited 8 Likes and 2 Loves, but tellingly (I believe), no Shares. And no referrals to any such organization. For many years, I’ve circulated similar messages and I’ve searched the Internet, with the same result: no such organization.

Some other comments about this draft:

  1. I excluded content related to specific public policies and tried to limit it to basic principles, structure and process.
  2. Prompted by a comment from ab Australian friend, I deleted references to America and added “the global social system.”

Concerning a website, a passenger suggested I consider using Squarespace instead of WordPress. After reviewing this article, it seems that Squarespace is even easier and better for this project.

I could build a website, with resources to related material, but I don’t know if I want to do it if the interest and support will be minimal. If I were able to raise money with Kickstarter, or in some other way, to free up more of my time, the effort might be more viable. And it could prove useful at some point in the future, even if I build it slowly with my current limited time availability. So I’m torn and unsure.

One ally said she’d be available for some dialog in mid-December. I’ll ask her to host a small gathering in her apartment. Maybe we can devise a plan then, including, perhaps, a public event next year.

Thanks, again,

Wade

“Can We Have a ‘Party of the People’?”

In a recent New York Review of Books article that comments on Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People by Thomas Frank, Nicholas Lemann summarizes Frank’s strong, solid critique of the Democratic Party, but reaches a different conclusion.

According to Lemann,

Frank puts considerable blame instead on a manifesto written … by a prominent Washington Democrat, Fred Dutton, titled Changing Sources of Power. It called on the Democratic Party to reorient itself from blue-collar to white-collar workers, from the high school–educated to the college-educated, and from the middle-aged to the young….

Frank’s collective villain is highly educated “professionals,” who “undertook a mass migration from the Republican to the Democratic Party” beginning in the 1950s:….These people, by his account, think of themselves as meritocratic and virtuous—indeed, superior—and as having transcended any fundamental opposition between capital and labor that may once have existed….

[Their] unifying cause is not to reduce economic equality but “to defeat the Republicans, that unthinkable brutish Other” whose voters don’t believe in gay marriage or gun control or legal abortion or the threat of climate change.

But Lemann concludes by affirming a sensible strategy that is not exclusively economic:

The idea of a Democratic Party that is truly consistent and unified around the fight against inequality—Frank’s ideal—is too much to hope for, and it may not even be a good idea. Better to have the Democrats’ prosperous leadership struggling to hold together an unruly coalition of labor, minorities, and social movements than to trust that any group leading a unified party won’t turn into just the kind of self-regarding, self-dealing insiders that Frank so much dislikes.

Transform the System: A Statement of Principles (11/20/16 Draft)

system-gifSupportive, holistic communities that nurture the whole person and care for the whole world can help transform our social system and turn the United States into a compassionate community.

Our major institutions, our culture, and we ourselves fit together to form the System, which is fueled by the drive to climb the social ladder and look down on those below. Those inter-locking elements overlap and reinforce one another, which makes the System self-perpetuating. No one person or group controls the System, which individuals strengthen by buying cheap products made in other countries, failing to treat one another with respect, and seeking to be King of one Hill or another.

We’re told we can become whatever we want — so if we fail, it’s our fault. Hyper-competitive individualism and feverish ambition help preserve the power chain and its dominate-or-submit dynamic. Labeling people and discriminating against those considered inferior enables the System to divide and conquer. In ways that are taken for granted and often unconscious, cultural conditioning and other forms of soft power complement mass incarceration and other forms of hard power to instill conformity. As a result, we live in an America that is greedy, power-hungry, hateful, corrupt, and immoral.

“Me First” leads to “America First.” The United States tries to dominate, expand its influence, exploit low-wage workers and the environment, engage in “regime change,” and use its power to persuade other countries to serve America’s self-interest.

+++++

We who endorse this statement pledge to help transform the System by promoting the common good of the Earth Community — all humanity, all living beings, the environment, and life itself — and helping to reform our institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that purpose.

Our goal is to establish a balance between self-interest and the common good, become more altruistic and less materialistic, strengthen both individual and community empowerment, seek win-win solutions, make our society more democratic, and develop collaborative leadership. We will set aside labels, relate to one another as human beings, love others as we love ourselves, and avoid selfishness.

We will remember that no evil deed is a reflection of the whole person, place ourselves in other’s shoes, and not allow anger to become hatred. We will decline to condemn others by calling them less than human and refuse to seek revenge. When in conflict, we will seek reconciliation.

We will aim to be humble, accept that we cannot achieve everything we want, remember that everyone is equal in the eyes of God, try to do what is right, and learn to listen well. We will acknowledge mistakes and try to avoid repeating them. We will form close, trusted friendships and help one another become more effective activists and better human beings, as defined by each individual. By growing holistic communities, we will unlearn the System’s conditioning and nurture helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, and a passion for justice, which are widespread but suppressed.

We intend to take big money out of politics, assure that seniors have enough retirement income to avoid poverty, guarantee that everyone who wants to work can find a living-wage job, provide needed human services, clean up and protect the environment, and offer everyone the opportunity to find dignity and value in work.

A foundation of economic security will greatly improve the quality of life and the tone of our culture. Rather than feeling pressured to work long hours to earn enough money to guard against catastrophe, Americans will have more time to enjoy life, take care of one another, and be creative and productive. Greater economic security will also diminish the fear that inflames racial divisions. Americans will be better able to acknowledge deeply ingrained problematic bias and more easily tell one another when words and actions are offensive.

A commitment to compassion will lead the United States to adopt a realistic foreign policy that recognizes the limits of our power and understands there are no military solutions to many problems. We will make clear our own values without trying to manipulate other countries to follow our path. We will work with other nations to solve problems, affirm the principle that no nation should interfere in the internal affairs of other nations, accept that nations may choose to establish trade barriers to protect their interests, and hesitate to take sides in complicated conflicts. We will support economic development elsewhere as best we can when other countries want assistance, because as members of the human family, we’re all in this together.

+++++

To help achieve those goals, we:

  1. Urge Americans to participate in activist organizations that pressure Washington to establish compassionate national policies, especially policies that a majority of Americans support.
  2. Urge those organizations to join together in broad coalitions that focus on priorities in a sustained manner.
  3. Urge those organizations to encourage their members to unlearn divisive, oppressive tendencies the System drills into Americans.

That unlearning must happen internally, within each person’s heart. But many of us also benefit from supporting one another in that effort. So we encourage compassion-minded activists to experiment with ways to facilitate personal growth, mutual support, and political action.

Toward that end, at least once a month we who endorse this statement will share a meal with two or more other endorsers to discuss the statement and how to advance its principles. Eventually, we hope an inclusive team will organize a national gathering to form a network of holistic communities to explore together how we can best transform the System.

If you agree with this Statement of Principles, please sign it on the Transform the System website, report on your efforts there, and occasionally review what others report to see what you might learn. Let us join together to promote the common good of the Earth Community.

NOTE: Please send comments or suggested changes to this statement to Wade Hudson.

You are also invited to discuss it with Wade and others Saturday, November 26, 10 am. Please RSVP, <wadeATwadehudsonDOTnet>.

The Resistance Begins: What Shape Will It Take?

trump-demoFor fifty years, I’ve been waiting for a sustained, multi-issue, multi-racial, grassroots movement focused on national policy. Now Trump’s election may have sparked one. Afraid he’ll do what he said, a broad range of folks have been in the street — not just for themselves and their own people, but for others as well. That is very encouraging.

No doubt the resistance will take many forms. Critics of Trump have voiced various opinions about how to react to his election.

Elizabeth Warren has said, “If Donald Trump will advance the kinds of policies, the kinds of measures that can be helpful, then man let’s jump up and work with him. Let’s make that happen because these are things, not just that Democrats want, these are things that Americans want.” Examples she cited were infrastructure spending, social security, raising the minimum wage, and paid family leave. She also said, “But on those core issues about treating every single human being in this country with dignity, on that we stand up and we fight back. We do not back down. We do not compromise, not today, not tomorrow, not ever.” I tend to support that approach.

As best I can, I try to understand the anger directed at Trump. As a relatively privileged white man with a college degree, I cannot fully understand the fear of those who are most vulnerable, especially people of color. And I would decline to argue with or try to persuade people who choose to adopt an anger-filled, uncompromising stance, partly because I affirm, “One struggle, many fronts.” Nevertheless, I feel obligated to echo counsel from people of color with which I agree. In a nutshell, it seems to me that if we allow anger to harden into hatred, it tends to be counterproductive.

I just re-read, as I have countless times, Jesus and the Disinherited by Howard Thurman, which Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. carried with him when he traveled. The last two chapters are “Hate” and “Love.” I posted excerpts here. The following quotes seem most relevant:

Above and beyond all else it must be borne in mind that hatred tends to dry up the springs of creative thought in the life of the hater, so that his resourcefulness becomes completely focused on the negative aspects of his environment….

To love the Roman meant first to lift him out of the general classification of enemy. The Roman had to emerge as a person…

No evil deed — and no good deed, either — was named by him as an expression of the total mind of the doer…. No evil deed represents the full intent of the doer….

Though it’s hard to know, because Trump has exhibited multiple personalities, I suspect those words apply to Trump. At his core, he probably has some humanity. The Autocratic Trump will likely be on frequent display, which will intensify the resistance.  Trump is a dangerous man who will likely accumulate as much power for himself as he can. I suspect his moral compass is very weak.

But let us remember. When Richard Nixon tried to create a virtual police state with his Huston Plan, within a year or so Congress forced him from office. Americans love liberty. We do have some checks-and-balances. Several Republican Senators never endorsed Trump. Hillary Clinton got more votes than Trump did. Only about 25% of the electorate voted for Trump. Most of his voters did not do so because they supported any specific policy that he advocated. Rather, they are mad as hell and had a primal scream. And I pray that his desire to be loved will restrain his fascistic tendencies. Regardless, if Autocratic Trump prevails, and the resistance remains largely nonviolent, I trust the American people will prevail.

In the meantime, collaborating with him when he supports something positive makes sense to me. Others disagree. They refuse to “give Trump a chance” and are unwilling to seek any “reconciliation.” On Nov. 10, the New York Review of Books blog posted Autocracy: Rules for Survival, by Masha Gessen, who was a guest on the Rachel Maddow Show. Gessen recommends: “Believe the autocrat….Do not be taken in by small signs of normality…. Institutions will not save you…. Be outraged…. Don’t make compromises….Remember the future….”

If the Autocratic Trump asserts himself full bore, Gessen’s advice may be warranted. And when he pushes oppressive measures, Warren’s uncompromising approach will be justified.

Otherwise, what other options are on the table? Trump crushed what was left of the Democratic Party Establishment, which I argued here and here has long been more myth than reality. Hopefully progressive populists will fill the void left by Clinton’s defeat and transform the Democratic Party into a grassroots activist organization that fights for its platform year-round, as I argued here. Merely electing progressives to public office is not sufficient. The Party needs to redefine its purpose and modify its structure. If Keith Ellison is selected to head the Democratic National Committee, taking over the Democratic Party is a possible focus for effective progressive activism on the local level.

The Next System offers another option. Three days after the election that project posted, “Dark times call for brighter new visions of the world we want to see.” In that statement, they declare:

We must defend what we mistakenly thought was secure, or what we already knew was in jeopardy…. At the same time, we must not allow ourselves to be trapped on the defensive…. Our response must begin with a new politics but also recognize the need to build a new system – one that offers a new vision and new institutions to support a new politics as we go forward.

Backed by an impressive group of supporters, The Next System has announced:

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be introducing you to some of our work to date, including a series of papers that elaborate on possible models for the next system, short format videos that highlight critical elements in alternative system models, and ways to engage with us to help bring about the next system.

Supporters can subscribe to their newsletter and sign their statement of principles at their homepage, as I have. I believe they’re doing great work, especially in terms of spreading the word about community-based alternatives.

But as is the case with most people who talk about “the system,” they address only the economy and the government. And I still favor a holistic approach that aims to better understand how the System consists of all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals, who reinforce the System in our daily actions. According to that perspective, we need personal, social, and cultural change as well as political and economic.

So I continue working with colleagues to write a statement that articulates that perspective and presents a proposal for action. We are focused on answering this question: What is “the system” and how can we help build a national grassroots movement that is powerful enough to transform it? The current working title is “Transform the System with a Purple Community.” The latest draft will always be at https://goo.gl/BystxR. You are welcome to share feedback and attend our next meeting, Saturday, Nov. 19, 11 am. Please let me know if you’re interested.

Howard Thurman on Love and Hate

thurmanFrom Jesus and the Disinherited by Howard Thurman, who was a key mentor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Chapter Four: Hate

Christianity has been almost sentimental in its effort to deal with hatred in human life. It has sought to get rid of hatred by preachments, by moralizing, by platitudinous judgments. It has hesitated to analyze the basis of hatred and to evaluate it in terms of its possible significance in the lives of the lives of the people possessed by it….

In the first place, hatred often begins in a situation in which there is contact without fellowship…. Much of modern life is so impersonal that there is always opportunity for the seeds of hatred to grow unmolested….

In the second place, contacts without fellowship tend to express themselves in the kind of understanding that is strikingly unsympathetic…. I can sympathize only when I see myself in another’s place. Unsympathetic understandig is the characteristic attitude governing the relation between the weak and the strong….

In the third place, an unsympathetic understanding tends to express itself in the active functionin of ill ill….

In the fourth place, ill will, when dramatized in a human being, becomes hatred walking on earth.

Hatred, in the mind and spirit of the disinherited, is born of great bitterness — a bitterness that is made possible by sustained resentment which is bottled up until it distills an essence of vitality, giving to the individual in whom this is happening a radical and fundamental basis for self-realization….

Hatred becomes for you a source of validation for your personality…. Your hatred gives you a sense of significance…. Hatred may serve as a device for rebuilding, step by perilous step, the foundation for individual significance; so that from within the intensity of their necessity they declare their right to exist, despite the judgment of the environment…. Hatred…establishes a dimension of self-realization hammered out of the raw materials of injustice. A distinct derivative…is the tremendous source of dynamic energy provided…. A strange, new cunning possesses the mind, and every opportunity for taking advantage, for defeating the enemy, is revealed in clear perspective. One of the salient ways by which this expresses itself is the quality of endurance that appears….

When hatred serves as a dimension of self-realization, the illusion of righteousness is easy to create…. It is a form of the old lex talionis — eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth… Thus hatred becomes a device by which an individual seeks to protect himself against moral disintegration…. Hatred will immunize them from a loss of moral self-respect as they do to the enemy what is demanded of them…. Every [injustice] gives further justification for life-negation on the part of the weak toward the strong….

It is clear, then, that for the weak, hatred seems to serve a creative purpose…. As long as the weak see it as being inextricably involved in the complicated technique of survival, it cannot be easily dislodged….

Despite all the positive psychological attributes of hatred we have outlined, hatred destroys finally the core of the life of the hater…. Hatred bears deadly and bitter fruit….  Once hatred is released, it cannot be confined to the offenders alonge…. Hatred cannot be controlled once it is set in motion….

Above and beyond all else it must be borne in mind that hatred tends to dry up the springs of creative thought in the life of the hater, so that his resourcefulness becomes completely focused on the negative aspects of his environment….

Jesus rejected hatred because he saw that hatred meant death to the mind, death to the spirit, death to communion with the Father….

Chapter Five: Love

The religion of Jesus makes the love-ethic central…. A man must love his neighbor directly, clearly, permitting no barriers between…. To love those of the household he must conquer his own pride….

To love [the Roman, the ruler] was to be regarded as a traitor….

“The enemy” can very easily be divided into three groups. There is first, the personal enemy, one who is in some sense a part of one’s primary-group life…. To love such an enemy requires reconciliation, the will to re-establish a relationship. It involves confession of error and a seeking to be restored to one’s former place….

The second kind of enemy comprises those persons who, but their activities, make it difficult for the group to live without shame and humiliation…. To love the Roman meant first to lift him out of the general classification of enemy. The Roman had to emerge as a person…. If [the Jewish person] wanted to know the Roman for himself, he ran the risk of being accused by his fellows of consorting with the enemy….

Once the status of each is frozen or fixed, contracts are merely truces between enemies…. The religion of Jesus says to the disinherited: “Love your enemy. Take the initiative in seeking ways by which you can have the experience of a common sharing of mutual worth and value. It may be hazardous, but you must do it.”….

Once an attack is made on the enemy and the individual has emerged, the underprivileged man must himself be status free…. Love is possible only between two freed spirit…. There cannot be too great insistence on the point that we are here dealing with a discipline, a method, a technique, as over against some form of wishful thinking or simple desiring…..

Such a technique may be found in the attitude of respect for personality…. A whole group may be regarded as an exception, and thus one is relieved of any necessity to regard them as human beings…. On the same principle scapegoats are provided, upon who helpless heads we pour our failures and our fears….

By implication he says, “…I am stripped bare of all pretense and false pride. The man in me appeals to the man in you.” …Wherever a need is laid bare, those who stand in the presence of it can be confronted with the experience of universality that makes all class and race distinctions impertinent….

…”Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” That is how Jesus demonstrated reverence for personality….

Before love can operate, there is the necessity for forgiveness…. There is in every act of injury an element that is irresponsible and irrational. No evil deed — and no good deed, either — was named by him as an expression of the total mind of the doer…. No evil deed represents the full intent of the doer…. The evildoer does not go unpunished. Life is its own restraint….

There is a spirit at work in life and in the hearts of men that is committed to overcoming the world. It is universal, knowing no age, no race, no culture, and no condition of men. For the privileged and underprivileged alike, if the individual puts at the disposal of the Spirit the needful dedication and discipline, he can live effectively in the chaos of the present the high destiny of a son of God.

Transforming the System

purpleThe 2016 campaign shows the need to answer this question: What is “the system” and how can we change it?

Several colleagues and I have formed a team to help answer that question. By posting a comment here, you can join this effort, share your own answer, or refer us to other answers.

Election campaigns are money-making machines. They generate income for the media, campaign consultants, other professionals, and elected officials who use their status to enrich themselves. As discussed in “Seven Other Nations That Prove Just How Absurd U.S. Elections Really Are,” other Western democracies demonstrate sensible alternatives to that madness. Options listed in that article include:

  • Make elections shorter
  • Limit how much money can be spent
  • Limit television advertising
  • Use public financing
  • Automatically register all eligible voters
  • Hold elections on weekends

Our election system is one element of our larger social system. During a speech at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Elizabeth Warren brought the crowd to its feet when she declared, “People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here’s the painful part: They’re right. The system is rigged.” During the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump built campaigns based on that theme.

When most people address “the system,” they only talk about the government and the economy. But some sociologists and other systems thinkers adopt a more comprehensive perspective. That approach makes sense to me.

As I see it, the self-perpetuating System consists of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals who support the System in our daily lives. Those elements of the System fit together, overlap, and reinforce one another.

Americans can best restructure the System by reforming all of its elements and shifting American society away from the drive for money and power toward compassionate action.

Our greatest division is top-versus-bottom, not left-versus-right. As Arlie Hochschild addressed in Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right, most Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on many proposed changes in national policy that would move us in the right direction.

Yet, despite widespread agreement on those  “crossover issues,” the American people are fragmented and have a gridlocked Congress. Countless activist organizations are doing good work on many specific issues, but they rarely unite to focus on a priority demand and build the sustained pressure that is needed to impact Washington.

If enough organizations and individuals, while continuing to work primarily on their own particular issues, choose to devote some time and energy to working together to promote legislation that is supported by a majority of Americans, we can grow a Purple Community that is powerful enough to persuade Washington to respect the will of the people. We can win victories, build momentum, restructure the System, and transform the United States into a compassionate community.

Forging that unity will require activists to acknowledge and control personal weaknesses that foster division — such as arrogance, dogmatism, and prejudice. Dealing with such issues can happen internally, with each individual addressing issues of concern to them. But it often helps to talk about one’s mistakes with trusted friends or family members. Regardless, learning how to work with others respectfully is essential to serving as an effective activist.

Building a Purple Community will not be easy. But my colleagues and I are determined to help make it happen. We’re talking about the following five-step process:

  1. Write a 1-2 page proposal-for-action that addresses: What is “the system” and how can we change it?
  2. Meet in small groups to discuss drafts of that document. The next meeting is Saturday, November 19, 11 am.
  3. Seek online feedback.
  4. Convene a workshop with community leaders to evaluate the proposal.
  5. Convene a public forum with nationally prominent speakers to gather more feedback.

Throughout that process, we’ll incorporate feedback into our 1-2 page proposal-for-action. At some point, we may invite potential supporters to sign a pledge to participate in this project if and when a certain number of others sign the pledge.

Eventually, a separate, fully inclusive team may organize a national Purple Community founding convention, with highly regarded speakers who will lend credibility to the project and help attract participation.

Along the way, I’ll post links to related resource material and, with help from my review team, write a small booklet that elaborates on the thinking behind this project.

What do you think? If you might like to join in this effort, please let me know.