Hi Peter,
Good food for thought.
The vision of all people working together, and understanding and
respecting one another, can be reached only by traveling a perilous
road, strewn with deadly road blocks, mostly devised by the very
People crying out for "Unity".
I recall the gym teacher bringing out a big rubber ball and explaining
the rules for a new game called Soccer. This was back in 1947. After
we understood the rules, we chose up teams and headed for the school
yard. The biggest boy in our class was two years older than most of
us. He was also taller, stronger and meaner than anyone else. He
grabbed the ball and announced the changes in the rules. We all had
the same goal in mind...to win. But he made certain that his side
could not lose.
As I've said before, I believe that the United States has undergone a
quiet coup. We are now being directed by the Military/Industrial
consortium with is no longer directed from the White House, but
rather, from the Pentagon. Just assume for a moment that this is the
case. How do we get the ball back from the bully? Only in this case
there are large numbders of bullies, calling the shots, making changes
in the rules to fit their needs, and not interested in mutual
cooperation. When the bus driver makes a wrong turn and refuses to
listen when all of the passengers cry out, how do you get his
attention and his cooperation. Notice I said, "He". Women are less
apt to ignore the passenger's demands. How do we men set aside our
fierce combative nature? That has been a major factor in Human
domination of a planet on which we were never the strongest or the
fastest. But that very instinct to defend our Clan is going to
destroy us if we can't pick our way down that perilous road. How do
we all play by the rules when one faction ignores the rules and make
up their own? We set up the United Nations following the Second World
War, laying out rules governing our behavior in working together. But
the bullies ignore or twist those rules. And we, like my school
chums, are helpless to make them behave...even when, so often, it is
us.
So, bottom line. How do we agree that everyone has a right to speak
their piece, when the Establishment controls the Media? How do we
express ourselves but avoid forcing others to adopt our positions?
Down through the ages this has been understood as the roadblock to
universal peace. The Holy Bible solved the problem by demanding that
people experience a change of nature, through the acceptance of Jesus
Christ. And then Christians went forth to cram this change of nature
down everyone elses throat.
Anyway, while I wait for answers, I'll split some rounds and pile them
up for firewood, fill in a couple of new pot holes in the road, and
water our bank of 12 large batteries.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/9/18, peter altschul <paltschul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Here's How We Can Create a Common-Good Politics
Simon Greer Independent Media Institute November 7, 2018, 7:22
AM GMT
Way back in 2004, I was in Ohio in the run-up to that year's
presidential election. I had a chance to talk to a woman who was
one of the undecided "values voters" who would become folklore
among political strategists and pundits in the ensuing years.
"I guess I probably like Kerry's policies more than Bush's,"
she said, "but at the end of the day, when Bush is unsure what to
do, I trust that he will pray to Jesus to find his way. And then
America will be more likely to find favor in the Lord."
I shook my head, as I imagine many others do when they
encounter political mindsets like that, and walked away. All
these years later, though, I have been humbled by a decade and a
half of history, and am far more curious today about what that
woman, and the many Americans like her, meant by that, and how we
can bridge the divide between us-in elections and after the votes
are counted.
One way that progressives can do this is to find a new way
forward for our own movement, one that opens space for a wider
range of values and identities. After an important and
polarizing national election, like this one, it is not an easy
time but it is a crucial time to take a step back and ask
ourselves one very challenging question: What role have we played
in creating these deep divisions? Only then, can we examine what
we can do to help heal them.
I'm not talking about "centrist" candidates, watered-down
compromise positions, or some mythical moderate "middle." I'm
talking about understanding the two typologies that are
essentially waging a war over the soul of America.
I believe there's a road to be found toward common-good
politics, where the values that undergird those two typologies
can become compatible, and even complementary. Can we move away
from caricature, away from our fear of the other, and actually
seek to be enriched by taking seriously the building blocks of
each other's worldviews? Can we honor the values that each "camp"
holds dear?
I say we can. The values of others are not a threat simply
because they're different from ours, and it is fundamentally
counterproductive to imagine that they can be "defeated." You
can't defeat the other side's values. In trying to do so, you
only strengthen their devotion to them, and vice versa. Instead,
if we show others that what matters to them matters to us, that
creates the space needed to forge new solutions.
We live in a moment when a narrative has been built in which we
appear to be fundamentally at odds. In this narrative, the
much-talked-about liberal elite is described as:
Global: They enjoy exotic vacations and are more familiar with
plane travel than bus travel. They are legitimately global
citizens, they prize human rights and they believe in larger
interests than the national interest.
Universal: They are committed to multiculturalism. They have a
belief that all ethical, spiritual and civic traditions have
"shared values" that everyone can agree to. They are
conceptually committed to a wide circle of concern that
ostensibly includes equal treatment for all, regardless of
background. They wear a fairness badge proudly.
Secular: They believe in reason. Science and rationalism carry
the day. They appreciate relativist values that are
context-dependent. They are spiritual, but not religious;
ethical, not moral.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have come to be defined by
localism, particularism and religion:
Local: Their specific place matters: the pond where they fish,
the town where they grew up, the church where they worship. They
value the way life was in these places in the old days.
Particular: They are loyal to their tradition, obligated to their
community, rigorous in their faith, and committed to their team.
They don't believe all faiths, communities, and traditions are
the same, and they don't expect everyone to be as interested in
theirs as they are.
Religious: They believe in God. They are in a meaningful
relationship with a higher power. Their theology animates their
decisions. They work hard every day to live by a moral compass.
They might even trust in the candidate who will pray to Jesus to
find his or her way.
Through my experience, I have become all too familiar with how
little tolerance there often is for the liberal side of this
typology among conservatives, for sure. And, while the
caricature might be unfair, what has been so surprising to me is
how intolerant liberals have become of the conservative typology
and the lived experiences of those who subscribe to it. For
example, it wouldn't be out of the ordinary to hear one of my
progressive friends saying, in reference to outsourced
manufacturing jobs in the heartland:
"Those towns have been left behind, and there is nothing we can
do about it. Technology, globalization and now automation are
the new reality. If people can do well in school, relocate and
retrain, there's lots of opportunity out there."
Or on climate change:
"Science tells us that carbon emissions are causing global
warming. We know it is man-made, and if those backward-looking
evangelicals would stop hiding behind their irrational claims
about God and the end of days, we could deal with this
rationally."
Or on religion:
"America was formed from many faiths and ethnic traditions, and
we must give them all space in today's conversations. In the
end, all the great traditions say the same thing about how we
treat each other and what is fair."
Democrats elected in Washington are typically perceived by
conservative voters through this framework: global versus local,
universal versus particular, and secular versus religious. This
contributes to the splintering of the coalition progressives need
to build in order to enact the policies they've been pushing for.
Without a broad majority, there is no action on climate change,
gun violence, income inequality, or any of the dire issues that
we face. We can build that coalition-if we take seriously the
pillars of a worldview that has been ignored for too long: the
local, the particular, the religious.
The reality is, forging a new common-good politics requires
finding a way that you can love your local place, be particular
about your own tradition and believe in God, and still be at home
with our shared values. Rather than looking across the ocean,
the conservative voter is likely to be concerned about the pond
where his dad taught him to fish; rather than believing that she
will be the beneficiary of international cooperation, this voter
is more likely to be concerned about how her own town thrives
again; rather than seeking ecumenical interfaith experiences,
these voters remain interested primarily in their own religious
background and the moral compass it gives them.
Many of the reforms and causes progressives have championed are
compatible with conservative Americans' devotion to the
specificity of place, a patriotic dedication to the unique
American experiment, the particularity of community, and personal
faith traditions.
If we can't get inside this worldview and weave it together
with our own, many Americans will have little reason to trust the
important social programs and reforms that the progressive
movement is committed to. The longer we dwell on these
questions, the more obvious it becomes how vital it is to develop
a political typology where the religious and the secular, the
global and the local, the particular and the universal can be
woven together authentically.
Closer to home, I've seen an encouraging example of how this
can work: My wife is as progressive as they come, supportive of
all the issues that define modern-day liberals, progressives, and
Democrats-and she is also Jewish, born and raised in Baltimore.
She loves her hometown, and is committed to seeing it succeed.
It's equally important to her that our children be raised not
only with generic universalist values, but within the Jewish
tradition-the Hebrew Bible, the Exodus story, the history that
belongs very particularly to us. She reconciles the two
typologies.
Working-class Americans of all races wake up every day caring
about God, family and country (and sports), and if we can't get
inside that worldview, and see the wisdom in it, we will always
sound like our ideas are outside of the realm of common sense for
too many people.
Millions of people just went to the polls. Many of them felt
that there was no room for them in the progressive movement.
It's our job to prove them wrong.
