Compassionate Social Transformation and Economic Justice

At the January 15 Compassionate Politics Workshop, one of the breakout groups will discuss: How can we contribute to compassionate social transformation by promoting economic justice?

The participants will respond to this question, listen to feedback, and then, if they want to, ask others to meet after the workshop to consider their idea more fully. Myself, I plan to present a summary of the following proposal and ask folks to join a team to improve and act on it.

My primary recommendation is that we first define the kind of national organization that we would ideally like to support. Structure and process are important. We need to be careful about how we organize. For many of us, our current methods may not be adequate because they are too impersonal. We want new, more compassionate models.

After we agree on what kind of organization we seek, we can then consider what to do next.

Your comments on our focus question and/or my proposal would be greatly appreciated. I’ll share your comments with workshop registrants beforehand and carefully review them, which may prompt me to amend my proposal prior to the workshop.

I believe a project focused on compassionate social transformation and economic justice needs to:

1. Establish that its governing board and staff will be inclusive, with strong representation from relatively disenfranchised communities. (Often white folks start a project and then try to recruit people of color to join them. In this case, concerning this proposal, I’ve consulted one-on-one primarily with people of color, who’ve been very supportive and helpful.)
2. Seek the comprehensive transformation of our society into a compassionate community dedicated to the common good of all humanity by fostering ongoing self-improvement, mutual support, and cultural change, as well as steady political and socio-economic improvements. (A comprehensive, holistic, systemic approach that nurtures simultaneous personal, social, and cultural change is essential. Having a long-term vision can help hold members together over time. At the same time, we need to be hardheaded and practical by concentrating on winnable, short-term goals.)
3. Promote efforts to establish the social conditions, including living-wage job opportunities, that individuals need to enjoy life, realize their potential, and participate fully in community affairs. (Providing everyone with adequate, decent opportunities to flourish is critical. The economy is the top concern among the general public. Popular movements need to address popular concerns.)
4. Declare that establishing those conditions is both a universal moral responsibility and in everyone’s enlightened self-interest. (Deepening moral commitments is important, but doing so does not preclude the acceptance of self-interest. We can love others as we love ourselves.)
5. Focus initially on promoting tax fairness in order to fund increased federal revenue sharing to local governments so they can hire more public-service workers to meet pressing social and environmental needs. (If tax rates for the superrich were the same as they were in 1970, we could hire millions of unemployed and underemployed individuals to do important work.)
6. Develop small home-based teams consisting of members who live in the same Congressional District and meet at least monthly to share a meal, report on their self-improvement efforts, support one another in those efforts if only by listening to those reports, and decide together how to support the work of the organization. (Such groups could provide members with the opportunity to participate fully in collective projects, grow deep social ties, and nurture spiritual strength through intentional efforts, all of which can help sustain activism over the long haul. Being based in Congressional Districts can facilitate building strong relationships with Congresspersons, who are particularly responsive to local pressure).
7. Enable all members to elect the governing board. (This can help ensure that the organization is member-controlled, which can boost enthusiasm because members know they have a voice in shaping the project.)
8. Be prepared to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience based on the principles of Martin Luther King if and when it helps achieve winnable goals. (King’s principles include a commitment to “justice and reconciliation—not victory.” This refusal to scapegoat “enemies” but rather love opponents is fundamental. However, if sincere efforts to elicit support from elected officials and key organizations are initially unsuccessful, respectful nonviolent actions such as sit-ins can gain their attention, garner public support, and lead to fruitful negotiations.)

Once we’ve agreed on the kind of organization that we want, we could look for one that meets our criteria, or is willing to move in that direction. If we’re unable to find one, we could incorporate a new organization. Or we could engage in public-education efforts to encourage the development of one, while asking individuals and organizations to pledge to actively support it if and when it launches.

This entire project is an ambitious undertaking. I make no assumptions about our prospects. But I believe this effort is urgently needed, want to give it my best shot, and hope that an inclusive team will form to pursue it. The San Francisco Bay Area has sparked new movements many times before. Perhaps we can do so again.

Tax fairness is going to be a major issue for years to come. If we lay the proper groundwork, we may help grow a grassroots movement that contributes to stronger legislation than would otherwise be the case, as a first step toward further reforms that benefit everyone.

Angry Populism and Compassionate Nonviolence

As inequality worsens, anger-driven populism increases. As one of many elements in the political arena, this component can play a constructive role. Progressive populists can help keep key issues in the air, place heat on others to address those issues, and make more acceptable centrist compromises that move society forward. This strategy, however, contains certain inherent constraints that limit its effectiveness.

Other approaches, including the nonviolent philosophy of Martin Luther King, also need to be strengthened. Clarifying the limits of progressive populism could boost the development of compassionate nonviolence, thereby minimizing the risk that progressive populism will undermine prospects for comprehensive social transformation.

Ideally, proponents of all of the various political strategies would respectfully recognize their differences and learn from each other.

Building a large, effective movement requires support from the mainstream. Physical and verbal violence undercut that goal. Many concerned Americans, turned off by negativity, withdraw from activism. Those who are mobilized by hate most often eventually burnout.

Driving taxi the day the Rodney King verdict came down, a number of my passengers spontaneously expressed outrage at the verdict. But the next day, as rioting spread in Los Angeles, my passengers directed their indignation at the rioters. Their attention to the flaws in our criminal justice system was diverted.

The same pattern applies to verbal violence. Leftist websites, pundits, and organizations that consistently hurl angry personal attacks turn away potential supporters, especially when those criticisms are directed at allies. Such “violence of the tongue” prompts many people to ignore those who are chronically harsh, immoderate, and rough.

In 2006 in “Goodbye to All That? Lescek Kolawski and the Marxist Legacy,” Tony Judt wrote,

The moral appeal of some refurbished version of Marxism is likely to grow…. And since no one seems to have anything very convincing to offer by way of a strategy for rectifying the inequities of modern capitalism, the field is once again left to those with the tidiest story to tell and the angriest prescription to offer (my italics).

American progressive populists say they intend to win the class war. With severe judgments, they aim to “kick ass” and defeat the enemy. They often want retribution, to retaliate, to inflict punishment.

Sometimes they want to fight regardless of the chances for short-term success. Moral victories, sending a message, and planting seeds for some distant future are sufficient for them, and at times they achieve those goals. Building a massive movement, however, requires winning concrete victories in the near term.

In addition, transforming our society into a more democratic society requires the development of democratic grassroots activist organizations. As reflected in the fact that few progressive populist organizations are member-controlled, once the right conditions prevail many progressive populists hope to lead the masses to victory with the strength of their wisdom, the power of their passion, their refusal to compromise, and their persistence.

With a deep-seated arrogance, these self-appointed vanguards aim to mobilize a top-down, impersonal machine. They assume they already know what needs to be done. The only problem is how to get others to do it. But when authoritarian organizations are victorious, they impose authoritarian regimes.

The leaders of our populist organizations often have some camaraderie with each other and their troops. Some of their followers form supportive friendships with one another. But check out their websites. Their organizations rarely explicitly affirm a commitment to ongoing self-improvement and mutual support. Nor do they clearly commit to the conscious cultivation of caring community.

Humble dedication to ongoing self-improvement is sorely lacking in activist circles. Though some talk about developing certain skills, very few activist organizations actively encourage constant, open-ended self-improvement (as defined by each individual). Nor do they intentionally foster mutual support for such efforts, which is critical.

This approach leaves many potential activists without the compassionate social support that is needed to sustain activism over the long haul.

Bertolt Brecht acknowledged the common attempt to justify unkind means with the hope of a future grand end when he said, “We, who wanted to prepare the ground for kindness / Could not be kind ourselves.” In The Rebel, Albert Camus detailed how rebellion that is originally morally grounded often morphs into a revolutionary fervor that contradicts the original impulse.

With his criticisms of the brutality of Soviet totalitarianism, Camus isolated himself from his comrades in what was a highly polarized country. Later, he became even further isolated when his commitment to nonviolence led him to refuse to support the brutal Algerian struggle for independence, though he had strongly criticized France’s own brutality for decades and continued to do so. His predictions about the disastrous consequences for Algeria proved true. Later, in South Africa Nelson Mandela successfully adopted very much the same path that Camus proposed for Algeria.

Now, in a highly polarized America, I identify with Camus and wonder if I too will become similarly isolated. These days, it’s hard to disagree on certain matters without being shunned.

Like Camus, I reject ideology. But many of my peers prefer to apply narrow, single-minded, linear, mechanical abstractions. They fail to appreciate that holistic, interactive systems require many-sided awareness. They talk about “the system,” but don’t engage in systems analysis.

Many populist firebrands charge that the problem is “the oligarchy,” which is "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class." But no elite has all power.

Consider this scenario. The strongest student on the schoolyard brutally beats a weaker boy. Several boys watch and do nothing. Are those onlookers equally responsible? I say yes.

Or better yet, take the song, “Who Killed Davey Moore?” The choruses of that Bob Dylan song point to possible agents of responsibility for the death of a boxer: the referee, the angry crowd, the boxer’s manager, the gambling man, boxing writers, and the other fighter. Dylan thus illuminates that many factors interact to create social phenomena.

A social system is like an ecosystem; there is no single dominant cause. No one element controls a system. The American people collectively are as responsible as any other group. And each of us reinforces the system daily in countless ways.

The temptation to scapegoat is enormous. It feels good to vent. People get depressed, frustrated, and angry, and want to take it out on someone. The process often seems so driven by deep emotions it is beyond the power of reason.

But it seems imperative to discuss these matters rationally. Stepping back and looking at our emotions from some distance helps us get a handle on them. In doing so, we can experience spiritual insight emerging from the depths of our soul that establishes a profoundly nonviolent perspective on these matters.

As one approach of many, this country needs a united, proactive, inspiring, joyous, grassroots movement dedicated to the proposition that we, as a society, are morally obligated to protect all of our people against the ravages of global market forces. When people must struggle to merely survive, they’re less able to contribute to society and often engage in anti-social behavior. Promoting the common good therefore involves enlightened self-interest as well as compassion.

Though free markets produce valuable goods and services, they cannot meet many needs that provide no chance for profit. And poorly regulated markets self-destruct. To ensure economic stability and security the federal government must play a major role.

Our Congresspersons and Senators therefore must establish the conditions that are necessary to assure that all people have a decent opportunity to enjoy life, develop their potential, and participate fully in community life. Doing so will benefit everyone.

To help us move in this direction, we need a movement to re-structure our economy for the common good with step-by-step realistic, positive solutions rather than idealistic dreams, anti-capitalistic rhetoric, personal attacks, and scapegoating.

As I addressed in “Nonviolence: Worldview, Strategy, and Lifestyle,” I’m returning to my roots: Martin Luther King’s nonviolent philosophy, which differs from progressive populism in key respects. This approach:

• Is directed against injustice, not the people who commit it.
• Does not seek to disgrace or defeat opponents, but to gain their understanding and cooperation while achieving both justice and reconciliation.
• Aims to persuade opponents they are wrong with moral appeals to their conscience.
• Involves a willingness to accept suffering without retaliating.
• Affirms that accepting suffering can contribute to a change in the heart and mind of opponents.
• Trusts that justice will eventually replace bitterness and hatred with love.

Active nonviolence requires constant striving in order to develop the emotional and spiritual abilities that are needed to resist injustice. Howard Thurman’s Jesus and the Disinherited, which King carried with him when he traveled, is a manual for how to develop this spiritual strength.

Thurman wrote, “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.'”

Thurman declared that both privileged and underprivileged persons must liberate themselves from their assigned role in society, because “love is possible only between two freed spirits.” They must undo their conditioning, remove barriers, and create “real, natural, free” social situations that enable them to be “status free” and experience their common humanity.

Thurman said, “We are here dealing with a discipline, a method, …an over-all technique for loving one’s enemy.”  He called for those in need to cry out, “The [human being] in me appeals to the [human being] in you.” Whenever a need is “laid bare,” Thurman wrote, “those who stand in the presence of it can be confronted with the experience of universality that makes all class and race distinctions [irrelevant].” He insisted that this “personality confirmation” is essential for “lasting health” in a democracy.

Applying these principles to our current situation will be one of our greatest challenges. How can we create social situations that enable wealthy individuals and low- and moderate-income individuals to deeply encounter one another, witness their needs laid bare, and consider how they can work together to define fair and practical solutions? I’ll address that question next week.

Note

Last week, given the urgency we confront, after consulting some trusted community leaders, I tried to help jump-start a new project by posting “Tax Fairness: An Appeal for a Nonviolent Movement,” which opened with an introductory request for feedback. Seven individuals replied with generally favorable comments and no one expressed clear opposition to this draft proposal.

There’s reason for some encouragement in that response, but since I emailed the piece to about 1,000 individuals in my address book and only five clearly stated that they would endorse a final proposal with much the same substance, I consider the reaction weak. My expectations were low, however, so I’m not disappointed.

I’m sure there were many reasons for the limited enthusiasm. But I suspect a major reason is that the proposal was rooted in the compassionate desire for reconciliation rather than the widespread, angry, populist quest for victory over the hated elite.

I remain dedicated to King’s nonviolent principles and believe that with a new approach, we can attract many concerned individuals who are currently inactive. So in the next Wade’s Weekly I will start over with the basics and pose some open-ended questions that may help those of us who share a similar perspective to begin deciding how to deal with the state of our economy, our nation’s number one concern.

Then I’ll probably rework those questions and present them as the proposed agenda for a breakout group at the January 15 Compassionate Politics Workshop, at which the participants will be invited to determine our next steps. Your participation in this process, including feedback from afar, will be appreciated.

Tax Fairness: An Appeal for a Nonviolent Movement.

Dear Wade’s Weekly Subscribers:

I’d very much appreciate your thoughts concerning the following 1300-word article, “Tax Fairness: An Appeal for a Nonviolent Movement.”

My hope is that you will help improve this proposal and become involved in its implementation.

INITIAL REQUEST FOR YOUR INPUT:

• Would you be willing to endorse this proposal if the substance remains the same as this draft? I am not asking for an endorsement now.

• Do you have suggested changes?
• If you can’t endorse it in its current form, would you be willing to do so if your suggested changes were incorporated?

Please post your comments below and share this post with associates.

After feedback from this email is incorporated, this proposal will be discussed at the January 15 Compassionate Politics Workshop in San Francisco in one of the many breakout groups that are envisioned for that workshop.

If you live in the Bay Area, you are invited to participate in the full workshop, which will be held Saturday, January 15, 8:30 am—5:00 pm at the Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples at 2041 Larkin (near Broadway), San Francisco. Please register in advance by sending an email to compassionate-politics-workshop AT googlegroups DOT com.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

Fellowship Church, which was co-founded by Howard Thurman, a major mentor for Martin Luther King, inspired me to undertake this project. Its presiding minister, Rev. Dorsey Blake, provided precious moral support. Rev. Charlotte Myers, who leads its Engaged Spirituality class, helped write the following article. Jakada Imani, Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights which was founded by Van Jones, offered vigorous support and solid input. Mary Hudson and Melyssa Jo Kelly contributed valuable copyediting.

Yours,

Wade Hudson

+++++

Tax Fairness: An Appeal for a Nonviolent Movement

By Wade Hudson

Thanks to the federal government, for more than thirty years the superrich have been taking evermore of our nation’s income for themselves. Since 1974, the richest 115,000 households, the top one tenth of one percent, have seen their share of the nation’s total personal income grow from less than 3 percent to more than 12 percent, the highest level ever recorded. Contagious greed has corrupted our culture, poisoned our society with resentment, and created great hardship and insecurity.

To reverse those trends, ordinary Americans, with strong leadership, must change national economic policies by mobilizing a nonviolent movement focused on winnable objectives. To start with, we should lower taxes for most Americans and raise taxes on the richest one percent.

With this focus, we can improve economic opportunity for all Americans and help transform our society into a truly compassionate community dedicated to the common good of the entire human family.

Henry Ford famously said, “If I pay a man enough money to buy my car, he'll buy my car.” After World War Two, corporate America agreed with Ford. With support from both political parties, corporations shared a sizeable portion of their profits with organized labor. For decades, this agreement enabled the economy to steadily boost incomes at all levels at roughly the same rate.

Then, forty years ago, a radical faction of the wealthy elite resolved to overturn that post-war consensus. They steadily recruited more of the superrich to join them and eventually took over the Republican Party, with Democrats usually struggling to play catch up. With wealth-driven leadership, their well-oiled machine persuaded the federal government to raise taxes on most households, lower taxes on the superrich, help big business bust unions, deregulate entire sectors of the economy, allow campaign cash to flow freely, and let lobbyists move quickly back and forth between government and corporations. In short, the federal government restructured the economy to benefit the superrich, with little regard for others or the environment.

As a result, money that workers need for basic necessities now goes to people who don’t need it.

This extreme concentration of wealth makes our economy so top heavy it may be unable to stand because ordinary consumers don’t have enough income to sustain steady growth.

This development is due to politics, not natural economic forces. No other modern economy has witnessed a similar shift to the top.

Throughout this upward redistribution of wealth, most activist organizations have failed to address pocketbook issues of greatest concern to middle-class, working families. Those few organizations that do deal with national economic issues don’t engage in grassroots organizing.

The need is urgent therefore for middle-class and low-income workers and wealthy allies to grow a new, strong, democratic movement to promote broadly shared prosperity in the United States of America.

In building this movement, we should avoid placing blame on any one group. Everyone is responsible. Our society is a self-perpetuating social system. Any lasting solution must involve the comprehensive transformation of our institutions, our culture, and ourselves.

With this attitude, we should seek alliances with small business. What is good for Wall Street and giant corporations is not always good for Main Street.

Another key will be the recruitment and training of individuals who are prepared to engage in civil disobedience rooted in the nonviolent principles of Martin Luther King, Jr.—including a commitment to “justice and reconciliation, not victory.” Applying these principles to our tax fairness campaign will be one of our greatest challenges.

Development Strategy

The following scenario describes one way that this movement might develop. It suggests a basic framework to illustrate how we could move forward. As others get involved, they would likely modify this plan.

In early 2011, a strong, inclusive, representative governing board forms. The initial directors decide whom to invite to join. Later, active members elect the board.

The board adopts a long-term mission statement, a name for the organization, and written policies to guide the project. These policies include the following:

• Our initial general focus will be to increase economic opportunity for all Americans by impacting national policy with regard to tax fairness.
• We will periodically adopt specific, short-term, winnable goals.
• Rather than scapegoating “enemies,” making personal attacks, and using hate to mobilize supporters, we’ll assure that our public communications are dignified and grounded in compassion.
• We’ll appeal to everyone’s enlightened self-interest in broadly shared prosperity and urge everyone to acknowledge their moral responsibilities to others and the environment.
• All members will sign a statement of nonviolent principles, including a commitment to engage regularly in self-development and support one another in those efforts.
• We’ll engage in nonviolent civil disobedience as a last resort in order to prompt key individuals to engage in serious negotiations concerning how to resolve our differences.
• The board will not micromanage but will focus on adopting written policies to guide the project, select the Executive Director (ED) or co-directors, and regularly evaluate the ED.
• Financially, we’ll rely primarily on members’ dues.

Once the board has selected the ED, the staff will:

• Compose a Tax Fairness Pledge, create a website, recruit partner organizations, and establish membership requirements.
• Write a Home-Based Team Manual with guidelines concerning how to form and sustain home-based teams, which will consist of members who live in the same Congressional District (CD) and meet in members’ homes or a community center at least monthly to:
• Share a meal.
• Report on their self-development efforts.
• Support one another in those efforts (if only by listening to those reports).
• Make decisions concerning how to advance the project’s primary focus.
• Establish methods for home-based teams to select representatives to a District Chapter and District Chapters to select representatives to a State Chapter.

The Launch

A nationally prominent individual announces the project in a widely circulated article that invites readers to sign the Tax Fairness Pledge, become members, and participate in the organization’s first membership meeting, which will stream live on the Web and be shown to gatherings of members in numerous cities. 

Following this meeting, the members gather signatures for the Pledge and the national staff forms a broad, representative, well-informed Legislative Task Force. While seeking input from the membership, this task force identifies one clear-cut legislative focus for the organization.

Chapters ask key officials, community leaders, opinion-shapers, and organizations in their region, including the local Chamber of Commerce, to sign the Pledge and support our top-priority legislation. In particular, chapters establish ongoing relationships with their Congressperson and Senators.

If and when a key official or organization fails to sign the Pledge, the chapter invites them to discuss the issue in a carefully structured, thoughtful, respectful public form. If they decline, the chapter organizes a series of demonstrations at their office and the media is notified. If they continue to decline to discuss the issue publicly, some members enter their office and refuse to leave, risking arrest, while seeking to enter into good-faith negotiations concerning our issues.

In 2012, the organization focuses on the November election, engages candidates for national office, and asks them to sign the Tax Fairness Pledge and support our top-priority legislation.

After the election, the organization evaluates prospects for the next session of Congress and the national office re-convenes the Legislative Task Force, which determines next year’s primary focus.

By speaking the truth, improving our own attitude, character, and skills, and developing small, supportive communities, we persistently focus in a disciplined manner on our goal to enhance economic opportunity for all Americans, as one way to grow a truly compassionate national community.

We’re all in this together. A true benefit to one benefits all. We must inspire our neighbors to step up and join us.

More Excerpts from Winner-Take-All-Politics

Chapter 2: How the Winner-Take-All Economy Works

…Most economists on both sides of the political spectrum argue that government policy is at best a sideshow to the inequality circus….

On the liberal side, economist and former Clinton Treasury official Brad DeLong of the University of California at Berkeley says: “I can’t see the mechanism by which changes in government policies bring about such huge swings in pre-tax income distribution.”

This skeptical response, however, makes three elemental mistakes.

The first is to miss the strong evidence that government…policy has grown much more generous toward the fortunate….

Equally, if not more, important is what we call “drift”—systematic, prolonged failures of government to respond to the shifting reality of a dynamic economy…turning the other way…when fast-moving economic changes make existing rules and regulations designed to rein in excess at the top obsolete….

The third problem…. Government rules make the market, and they powerfully shape how, and in whose interests, it operates….

Just stop for a moment to contemplate how different economic affairs would be in our nation without basic property rights or government regulated financial markets and you begin to appreciate how pervasive the role of government really is….

Computers, increased global capital flows, and the development of new financial instruments have made it possible for savvy investors to reap (or lose) huge fortunes almost instantly…. But such technologically driven explanations have little to say about why the hyperconcentration of income at the top has been so much more pronounced in the United States than elsewhere. Nor do they come close to explaining just how concentrated economic gains have become….

After all, plenty of the so-called financial innovations that their complex computer models helped spawn proved to be just fancier (and riskier) ways of gambling with other people’s money, making quick gains off unsophisticated consumers, or benefiting from short-term market swings…. Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker was no doubt channeling a widespread sentiment when he said in 2009 that the last truly helpful financial innovation was the ATM.

What is more, government policy not only failed to push back against the rising tide at the top in finance, corporate pay, and other winner-take-all domains, but also repeatedly promoted it. Government put its thumb on the scale, hard. What’s so striking is that it did so on the side of those who already had more weight. We can see this most clearly in the most transparent case of government abetting inequality: the gutting, over the course of three decades, of progressive taxation at the top of the economic ladder….

When you take into account all federal taxes—including payroll taxes, which only hit the rich lightly, and corporate and estate taxes, which once hit the rich much harder than they do today—tax rates on the rich have fallen dramatically….

[Looking at] the effective average federal rate—what people actually pay—those in the top 1 percent pay rates that are a full third than they used to be despite the fact that they are much richer….

The federal tax code is still progressive overall. But what used to be a key feature of the code—its steep progressivity at the very top income levels—has simply disappeared. The richest of the rich now pay about the same overall rate as those who are merely rich. Indeed…, the upper middle class…are paying an average federal tax rate not much lower than that paid by the superrich….

If the effect of taxes on their income had been frozen in place in 1970, a very big chunk of the growing distance between the superrich and everyone else would disappear.

This dramatic change in tax policy didn’t happen magically….

In 1939, as the nation still grappled with the Great Depression, 35 percent of Americans agreed with the (very strongly worded) statement that “government should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich.” In 1998, 45 percent agreed; and in 2007, 56 percent did….

Just as Willie Sutton robbed banks because “that’s where the money is,” tax evasion by the rich is where the money is…. Yet…audits of high-income taxpayers and businesses have plummeted….

Another way:… loopholes… Take one of the more egregious examples: the ability of private equity and hedge fund managers to treat much of their extraordinary income as capital gains, subject only to a 15 percent tax rate….

Policy has become less generous toward the vast majority of Americans who have been on the losing side of rising inequality….

In the majority of rich nations for which we have evidence…, inequality created by the market has been significantly softened by a greater government role….

Can the absence of a government response to rising inequality really be treated as a forum of policy? Absolutely—when it takes the form of “drift,” the deliberate failure to adapt public policies to the shifting realities of a dynamic economy….

Government has rewritten the rules of the market in ways that favor those at the top….

Governments do redistribute what people earn. But government policies also shape what people earn in the first place, as well as many other fundamental economic decisions that consumers, businesses, and workers make. Practically every aspect of labor and financial markets is shaped by government policy, for good or ill….

Even the word “redistribution”…suggests the refashioning of a natural order by meddling politicians…

Beyond the stunning shifts in taxation already described, there were three main areas where government authority gave a huge impetus to the winner-take-all economy: government’s treatment of unions, the regulation of executive pay, and the policing of financial markets….

In the private sector,… unionization plummeted from nearly a quarter of workers in the early 1970s to just over 7 percent today….

In 2005, more than half of nonunionized private-sector workers said they wanted a union in their workplace….

In short, American unions did not just happen to be in the way of a fast-moving economic train. They were pushed onto the tracks by American political leaders….

The pay-without-performance world of executive compensation….

In 1965, the average chief executive officer (CEO) of a large U.S. corporation made around twenty-four times the earnings of the typical worker. By 2007, average CEO pay was accelerating towards three hundred times typical earnings….

CEOs have been able to take advantage of a corporate governance system….

Stock options are used in other nations too, but they are much more often linked to long-term rather than short-term performance, as well as to firm performance relative to industry norms….

The financier John Bogle has contended that instead of an “ownership society” in which managers serve owners, the United States is moving toward an “agency society” in which managers serve themselves….

Another possible check on managerial autonomy, private litigation, was radically scaled back by mid-1990s legislation engineered by congressional Republicans….

When the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which oversees accounting practices, tried to make firms report the costs of stock options like other compensation in the early 1990s, it was beaten back by a bipartisan coalition in the Senate galvanized by industry opposition….

Corporations were able to beat back the sorts of reforms that would have put the most effective checks on managerial autonomy…. They quite effectively resisted efforts to increase the ability of shareholders to influence the governance of firms, including compensation practices….

…complex new financial products that, for most Americans, offered limited benefits and sometimes real economic risks. For the financial sector, however, the new instruments and expanding freedom to use them created astonishing opportunities: to increase the number of transactions (with intermediaries taking a cut on each one), to ratchet up leverage (and thus potential profits), and to increase the complexity and opacity in ways that advantaged insiders. Not coincidentally, all of these developments increased the risk to the system as a whole…. As Martin Wolf of the Financial Times observed acerbically in 2008, “No industry has a comparable talent for privatizing gains and socializing losses.”…

The net effect was not an idealized free market, but a playing field tilted in favor of those with power, connections, lack of scruples, and the ability to play the profitable but systematically risky new game….

Suddenly, and increasingly, financial professionals were earning much more than similarly educated workers. Perhaps as much as half of their expanding pay premium, Philippon and Reshef calculate, can be linked to the deregulation wave….

The real story…is what our national political elites have done for those at the top, both through their actions and through their deliberate failures to act….

Americans have found themselves buffeted by dislocating market forces while their government has seemed mired in gridlock and beholden to concentrated economic power….

+++

From Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class, by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson.

December 1, 2010

CONTENTS:

--Excerpts from Winner-Take-All Politics

--Reader’s Comments

--Frankly Quoted

--Editor’s Note

Excerpts from Winner-Take-All Politics

Selected by Wade Lee Hudson

INTRODUCTORY COMMENT:

To grow a massive, grassroots movement that is able to make a real, positive impact in this country, it is imperative to meet the greatest number of people where they are at, on their own terms.

Clearly the issue of greatest concern in this country is the economy.

Most of the American people realize that the superrich are manipulating the government to shape the economy for their own apparent short-term benefit, with little or no regard for others or the environment.

Middle- and working-class people hold progressive positions on issues of economic policy and they constitute a decisive majority. If public policy reflected their opinions, our country would be greatly improved.

So with great interest I recently read Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer—And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class by Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, an excellent, important book.

Following are some excerpts.

Introduction: The Thirty-Year War

For those working on Wall Street, 2009 was a very good year. At the thirty-eight biggest companies, investors and executives earned a staggering $140 billion in all—the highest number on record…. That same year the top twenty-five hedge fund managers raked in $892 million on average….

Consider the astonishing statistic. From 1979 until the eve of the Great Recession, the top one percent received 36 percent of all gains in household income—even after taking into account the value of employer-sponsored health insurance, all federal taxes, and all government benefits….

[Paraphrase:] From 1979 to 2005, the top 100,000 households received more of the nation’s total income gains than the bottom 60 million households.

Like a raging fever that announces a more serious underlying disease, rising inequality is only the clearest indicator of an economic transformation that has touched virtually every aspect of Americans’ standard of living….

Corporate managers…along with Wall Street bigwigs, make up more than half of the top 0.1 percent….

+++

Part One: The Puzzling Politics of Winner-Take-All

Chapter 1: The Winner-Take-All Economy

Those on the very highest rungs of the economic ladder…are, in general, no better educated or obviously more skilled than those on the rungs just below, who have experienced little or none of these meteoric gains….

They have managed to restructure the economy to shift the risks of their new economic playground downward, saddling Americans with greater debt, tearing new holes in the safety net, and imposing broad financial risks on Americans as workers, investors, and taxpayers…. Our economy stopped working to provide security and prosperity for the broad middle class….

[From 1974 to 2007,] if you include capital gains like investment and dividend income, the share of the top 1 percent has gone from just over 9 percent to 23.5 percent….

The top 0.1 percent (the richest one in a thousand households) collectively rake in more than $1 trillion a year including capital gains—which works out to an average annual income of more than $7.1 million…. In terms of the share of national income earned, the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow from 2.7 percent to 12.3 percent of income—a more than fourfold increase….

From less than $4 million in average annual income in 1974, the average member of this select group [the top 0.01 percent ] now earns more than $35 million…. This is the highest share of income going to this group since the data began to be collected in 1913….

The rising share of national income captured by the richest Americans is a long-term trend beginning around 1980. It is a trend, moreover, that is not obviously related to either the business cycle or the shifting partisan occupancy of the White House….

Most Americans experienced extremely modes gains over the era in which the rewards at the top multiplies…. The fallout of the winner-take-all economy has reached broadly and deeply into the security of the middle class—and, as recent events reveal, the entire American economy….

The rich are closing the locks behind them to capture resources that would otherwise have enhanced the living standards of everyone else….

The bottom went nowhere, the middle saw a modest gain, and the top ran away with the grand prize….

American households are working many more hours today than they were in the late 1970s…. (406 hours) in 2000, as compared with 1979….

The average after-tax income of the richest 1 percent of households rose from $337,100 a year in 1979 to more than $1.2 million in 2006—an increase of nearly 260 percent….

Between 1979 and 2005…, the average after-tax income of households in the top 0.01 percent increased from just over $4 million to nearly $24.3 million….

If the economy had grown at the same rate as it actually did yet inequality had not increased, the average income of the middle fifth of households would be over $12,000 higher today….

GDP per hour worked—perhaps the best single measure of a country’s economic health—actually rose faster in Europe than in the United States between 1979 and 2006….

The 2000s…were awful even before the economy began to crumble in late 2007….

American [upward] mobility may well have declined since the last generation, even as inequality has risen…. In 2004…only around one in ten [in the top 1 percent] had risen from the bottom 80 percent—down from around one in seven in the 1970s.

Are Americans getting better benefits tied to their jobs? Not when it comes to retirement benefits….

In 2004, the wealthiest 1% of households had an average net worth of nearly $15 million….

Strikingly, over the entire period between 1983 and 2004, only 10 percent of all wealth gains went to the bottom 80 percent of Americans, an even more skewed pattern of growth than seen in income….

For government was no mere bystander in many of these developments. It actually pushed them along. Why?…

Tune into the cable money stations or read the business press and you are likely to hear an account of rising inequality that goes something like this:

“Education is the key to understanding broad inequality trends.”

“To explain increasing inequality we must explain why the economic return to education and to the development of skills more generally has continue to rise.”

“We have an economy that increasingly rewards education and skills because of that education.”

Those quotes were not chosen at random. They are the pronouncements, respectively, of the former head of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke (another economist, formerly of Princeton), and, finally, former President George W. Bush himself….

The fact is, however, that these three quotes express what was, until recently at least, the overwhelming consensus view on inequality among economists, a view somewhat summarized in the ungainly acronym SBTC….”skill-based technological change.”…

Those are the top are often highly educated, yes, but so, too, are those just below them who have been left increasingly behind.

There’s more: The college educated did well relative to those below them, but not because they experienced massive economic gain. Rather, they merely managed to avoid the devastatingly slow growth at the bottom….

If SBTC did it here [in the U.S.], it should have done it elsewhere, where the same technological and global shifts were taking place…. Yet gaps in skills, as measured by years of schooling, are not larger in the United States than they are in other affluent nations….

SBTC’s alibi appears even stronger when it comes to the meteoric rise of earnings at the very top, because that rise has been substantially more meteoric in the United States than in other rich nations….

The United States did not look at that exceptional in the early 1970s….

The English-speaking world has certainly emulated the American pattern more closely than other nations have. But this is hardly proof that government policy doesn’t matter, since these nations have also generally emulated U.S public policy more than other nations have….

Companies in English-speaking nations compete for these workers, and thus have faced the most pressure to match the massive salaries on offer in the States….

The hyperconcentration of income in the United States—the proximate cause of the death of America’s broad-based prosperity—is a relatively recent development. It is also a development that sets the United States apart from other rich nations, calling into serious doubt the usual explanation for America’s winner-take-all economy, SBTC.

But if SBTC didn’t do it, who did? Enter the unusual suspect: American politics.

+++++

Reader’s Comments

Concerning “Esalen Celebrates Dick Price,”: http://wadeleehudson.blogspot.com/2010/11/wades-weekly-nov-24-2010.html

Thank you Wade ! Great to meet you and share in the celebration of Dick's work and his legacy ! A lovely day it was...more sweet than bitter, for sure !!!

-- Johnnycoyo

   

Wow! Wish I could've been there. Thanks for sharing it in this post.

-- Steven

I am so grateful that you shared this moment, this precious piece of life, with all of us. May we hold this treasure in our hearts, for an eternity, with love.

-- John Callahan

A general comment:

Thought you might be interested in this. I volunteered a lot on this campaign, holding a house party in late July, working 3 precincts in my neighborhood and walking in parts of a number of others, from wealthy Trestle Glen to blue-collar-to-grinding-poverty in the San Pablo-Golden Gate neighborhood flatlands and the area west of the MacArthur BART. Jean Quan http://www.jeanquanforoakland.org/ beat Don Perata and his political machine money, in spite of being outspent by 7:1 (and maybe as much as 10:1--the final campaign donation and expenditure reports have not been submitted to the Secretary of State and the City Clerk). She is now the first woman mayor in Oakland's 158 years, and the first Asian-American mayor of a major U.S. city.

In the meantime, I am proud of Oakland. We did not allow ourselves to be bought. A thousand volunteers outweighed nearly $3 million and a lot of hit pieces in the mail.

I am unable to participate in your more global-scope project, but I assure you that I am not sitting at home eating bon-bons!

All the best,
--Valerie Winemiller

+++

Frankly Quoted

A safe maxim might be, “If you have to ask if it’s right or wrong, it’s probably wrong.”

--Andrew Ross Sorkin

(From Leonard Roy Frank’s monthly column. To subscribe, email <lfrank AT igc DOT org>.)

+++

Editor’s Note

Please share this post with others. To do so, you copy and paste into an email the link embedded in the title above. Or you can go to the blog at http://wadeleehudson.blogspot.com/ and click on one of the buttons at the bottom of the post, such as Facebook to add it your feed.

You can publicly comment on a post by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of the post at http://wadeleehudson.blogspot.com/ .

Wade’s Weekly: Nov. 24, 2010

Contents:
--"Esalen Celebrates Dick Price"
--Frankly Quoted
--Editor's Note

Esalen Celebrates Dick Price
By Wade Hudson
On the evening of November 17, an overflow crowd of 150 people crammed into a meeting hall at Esalen Institute, the fountainhead of the human potential movement, to celebrate the life and work of its publicity-shy co-founder, Dick Price, twenty-five years after his sudden death. Former friends and colleagues from as far away as Germany came to participate in the event at “God’s Little Half-Acre” on the Big Sur Coast.

As the only person to have recorded an interview with Dick about himself for publication (an excerpt was published in the Esalen catalog), I was a featured speaker. Presenting my remarks proved to be more difficult than I expected. Two or three times I broke down crying. At one point, I wondered if I could finish.

When Chris Price, his former partner, introduced me, she described the abuse that Dick had received while locked up in a mental hospital in the 1950s, when he was subjected to electroshock and insulin coma treatments five days a week for twelve weeks. She then explained that he and I held a common interest in alternatives to psychiatry and referred to my interview.

I began by saying that since “Dick didn’t do publicity” I felt deeply honored that he had allowed me to interview him and hoped that some day his thoughts would gain wider distribution. I then said:

Concerning his experience in the institution, he told me:

Rather than seeing someone through a particular type of experience, [those treatments] were an effort to suppress and negate in every possible way what I was going through. There was a fundamental mistake being made and that mistake was supposing that the healing process was the disease, rather than the process whereby the disease is healed. The disease, if any, was the state previous to the “psychosis.” The so-called psychosis was an attempt toward spontaneous healing, and it was a movement toward health, not a movement toward disease. (It was the power of those words that prompted me to crack up.)

His experience led him to co-found Esalen with a strong personal commitment to finding alternative ways to respond to altered states of consciousness.

When I asked him, “What would have been helpful for you at that time?” he replied:

Well, a space like Esalen, where it’s possible to be outside and not locked up, a place where it's possible to get a good diet, a place where it's possible to live through experience rather than having it blotted out, a place where there aren't the same negative self-definitions of someone going through this type of experience. Also, people available who are not doing what psychiatrists, or at least many of them, characteristically do.

In 1968, Dick’s dedication led Esalen to convene a series of workshops and seminars entitled “The Value of Psychotic Experience” that were designed to integrate and extend the theories of John Perry, R. D. Laing, Fritz Perls, and others.

The next year, in a nearby California State mental hospital, Esalen launched the Agnews Project, a three-year study of drug-free alternative approaches.

Two years later, Loren Mosher launched the Soteria Research Project, also in San Jose, an alternative, drug-free residential community for individuals who would have otherwise been institutionalized.

These efforts likely helped John Perry obtain city funding for Diabysis House in San Francisco, another psychosocial rehabilitation community.

In 1973, Esalen convened in San Francisco a remarkable conference titled “Spiritual and Therapeutic Tyranny: The Willingness to Submit.”

In 1976, Stan Grof and Joan Halifax-Grof with many prominent faculty led a month-long seminar at Esalen on "Schizophrenia and the Visionary Mind."

In 1980, Stan and Christina Grof founded the Spiritual Emergence Network, with Esalen sponsorship, and developed a referral and information network with a worldwide presence and thousands of members.

From 1981-88, Larry Telles convened seven invitational conferences at Esalen on "Alternatives to Institutional Psychiatric Treatment.”

In the mid-1980s, some associates and I obtained a half-million dollar contract for the Tenderloin Self-Help Center in San Francisco. Esalen helped train the staff for that program.

And from the time that Dick and I first met in 1973 at the Network Against Psychiatric Assault, my colleagues and I many times accepted his invitation to visit Esalen and participate in workshops free of charge at any time.

In all of these ways, Dick pursued his original mission with remarkable vigor and great impact.

While preparing these remarks, I discovered in the Schizophrenia Bulletin a review of studies on the Soteria method. That report concludes: “Interest in this approach is growing in the United Kingdom, several European countries, North America, and Australasia…. The studies included in this review suggest that the Soteria paradigm yields equal, and in certain specific areas, better results….”

This instance and the workshop that our friends from Contra Costa County will hold here in December are only some of the many ways that the work of Dick Price lives on.

As I left the microphone, Chris tapped me on the shoulder and we embraced for a long time, with me sobbing in her arms. Afterward, numerous people approached me, expressed their appreciation for what I had to say, and discussed related issues.

My presentation was only one of many emotional moments during the celebration, which began at 2 pm with early arrivals joining a weeklong Gestalt Practice workshop led by Chris Price and two associates. This group of thirty or so introduced themselves by recalling special moments with Dick.

One such report was by Rick Tarnas, who talked about when R.D. Laing turned up for his Esalen workshop on an alcoholic binge. Once, when Laing was very late for a session, Dick invited two of my associates and me to join him at the front of the room to lead a discussion. While Dick was talking, Laing walked behind him and poured champagne on his head. Without moving, Dick responded, “John the Baptist,” which reflected not only his quick wit but also his ability to stay centered.

After a break, we gathered on the lawn in front of the office, where some other members of the Esalen community joined us to walk down to the meditation house by the creek where a bronze plaque reads:

Tao follows the Way of the Watercourse
As the Heart Mind through Meditation
Returns to the Sea
In Memory of Richard Price
Behind the house, there is a Chinese ting, a large brass bowl, which is a sacred vessel used to cook food for offering to the spirits and ancestors. Symbolically it is created to contain a process of transformation and refinement. One by one, we lit candles and placed them to float on the water in the ting.

The participants were then invited to share tea and socialize in the nearby house where Dick and Chris had lived, after which we gathered in the front yard to witness Chris rededicate a long wooden staff onto which she and others had attached items of symbolic significance. The erect staff was secured with a piece of the large rock that had apparently killed Dick in an avalanche while he was hiking in the mountains nearby.

During the evening presentations, Steve Harper spoke vividly about his many hikes with Dick in the Big Sur wilderness. Steve reported that Dick was fearless, often darting off the trail into unknown territory to lead them into fascinating new regions. In combination with soil erosion from a recent major fire, this audacity likely contributed to his death when a falling boulder hit him.

Esalen had barely escaped the fire, but the water line had been damaged and Dick became immersed in the messy repair of the line. One speaker voiced his belief that Dick had gone into the mountains to check on the water line.

Many speakers told touching stories of their encounters with Dick. Some of those accounts particularly stick with me.

Michael Murphy, Esalen’s other co-founder, described Dick as “free from status” and reported on his long, unbroken partnership with Dick. “Over the years, many people tried to get between Dick and me,” he said. “One thing stands out about those people. No one remembers their names, because Dick and I took care of the family business.” Murphy then told the crowd that the governing board had decided to rename the house where Dick and Chris had lived and presented Chris with a sign pointing to the “Price House.”

Another former staff person reflected on how during budgeting sessions, Dick, who inherited some money, always placed zero in the space for his salary. Numerous others commented on his generosity. And many individuals, including the Governor-elect of Minnesota, Mark Dayton, who sent a touching letter that Chris read, reflected on the joy and benefit they experienced working with him in Gestalt Practice sessions.

One aspect of his life not addressed at the celebration was that he was keenly interested in politics, which we often discussed. He (and Chris) very much enjoyed the audiotapes of contemporary acoustic music, much of which contained social commentary, that I would bring or mail to them. .

The one thing about Dick that most amazes me, however, is that never once did he mention to me that he conducted Gestalt workshops, much less that he was Esalen’s principal Gestalt teacher. During my visits, Dick and I would engage in long, energizing conversations, usually over a meal, but it took me at least a few years to discover that Gestalt Practice, as he named it, was a major part of his life. I assume he just didn’t care to evangelize.

I had observed the founder of Gestalt Therapy, Fritz Perls, conduct “open seat” sessions and respected his basic methodology. And having participated in Esalen workshops in San Francisco, I greatly appreciated Esalen’s many innovations in bodywork, meditation, sensory awareness, spirituality, group dynamics, and many other fields.

But when I started visiting Esalen as Dick’s guest, I hardly glanced at the catalog of workshops. Soaking in the tubs on top of the cliff, eating their marvelous food, reading, socializing, and just relaxing was all I needed. As soon as I found out, however, that he led Gestalt groups, I began participating and found them to be immensely valuable.

I suspect that Dick’s extensive, deep work with Gestalt probably helped him become remarkably free of bitterness and anger about his encounters with psychiatry. One of the features of Gestalt Practice is role-playing that involves imaginatively sitting in the other person’s seat and articulating that person’s thoughts and feelings. Getting more deeply into that person’s reality in that way often results in a new understanding that dissolves resentment. Regardless, as a speaker at the celebration commented on, his lack of bitterness was remarkable.

In our time of great social discord, I suspect there is much we could learn from Dick Price. Maybe I should go find an “open seat” and dialogue with him.

+++

Frankly Quoted

Net domestic profits earned by U.S. corporations since the fourth quarter of 2008: $609,000,000,000. Net decrease since then in the amount these companies spent on wages and benefits: -$171,000,000,000.
--Harper’s Index
(From Leonard Roy Frank’s monthly column. To subscribe, email <lfrank AT igc DOT org>.)

Editor’s Note

You can publicly comment on a post by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of the post at http://wadeleehudson.blogspot.com/ .

You can share posts with others by clicking on one of the buttons at the bottom of the post and/or copying and pasting the link embedded in the title of the post and sending that link elsewhere.

Wade’s Weekly: Nov. 17, 2010

Contents:
--“Nonviolence: Worldview, Strategy, and Lifestyle”
--Frankly Quoted
--Editor’s Notes

+++++

Nonviolence: Worldview, Strategy, and Lifestyle
By Wade Lee Hudson

Prior to 1964, the civil rights movement displayed an inspiring, effective spirit. The growth and decline of that movement is instructive. We can learn a great deal from that history.

By tapping deep spiritual power (especially with music), focusing on winnable objectives, seeking reconciliation as well as justice, appealing to the enlightened self-interest of their opponents, and engaging in dignified civil disobedience when necessary, that movement achieved major progress.

Those gains, however, led to rising expectations, unrealistic hopes, demands for instant change, inevitable frustration, and counter-productive anger. The mammoth conflict at the 1964 Democratic Party national convention between the party establishment and the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) brought that rage to a boil.

Challenging the official all-white Mississippi party, the MFDP conducted their own primary to elect delegates to the convention and demanded that their delegation be seated. President Johnson offered a compromise under which the MFDP would receive only two non-voting, at-large seats. Martin Luther King was willing to accept Johnson’s offer, but the MFDP delegates were furious and rejected the offer. Many grassroots activists, myself included, were also outraged. (At the next convention, the Democratic Party was largely integrated).

Thereafter, our impatient anger led many of us to try to impose our convictions by force. As Mario Savio said at the Free Speech Movement in late 1964:

There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all!

For decades, I embraced that affirmation of the swift, intense application of physical force (that is, violence). Even many of us who never threw a rock or picked up a gun romanticized armed struggle. Many Third World wars against colonialism had achieved liberation, which provided violence with a certain appeal. We supported the Black Panther Party because we believed that rampant police brutality justified violent resistance. We disrupted “business as usual,” alienated workers by blocking traffic, and provoked police riots, falsely believing that “repression (always) breeds resistance.” And many Alinsky-style organizers often advanced a narrow notion of power-over.

The world now is much different. In 1985, Nelson Mandela began negotiating a nonviolent end to apartheid in South Africa and in 1986 the Philippine “people power” revolt overthrew the dictator, Ferdinand Marcos. Since then, many other grassroots struggles throughout the world have been inspired by these examples and have made progress with nonviolent methods.

We can make moral appeals to the privileged few to share more of their wealth and power.  We can point out that their long-term enlightened self-interest dictates that they should support measures that produce broader prosperity and greater democracy. Some of those elites will join us as allies.

But by and large, massive pressure is needed to persuade the power elite to negotiate sincerely. Especially in a society dominated by short-term thinking, most people don’t give up privileges on their own. As Adam Kahane said in his excellent book, Power and Love: A Theory and Practice of Social Change, “The problem has to be felt strongly and closely enough so that it cannot be ignored.” Or, as David Brooks wrote, “As in the civil rights era, politicians won't make big changes unless they are impelled and protected by a social upsurge.”

In general, organized popular pressure from below is necessary to expand economic opportunity and democratize political power. Absent effective opposition, the administrators of our key social institutions use their position to accumulate evermore wealth and power for themselves, their families, and their colleagues.

When key decision-makers refuse to budge on a significant issue that has broad public support, a nonviolent action arm of the economic justice movement, for instance, could get their attention with actions like a sit-in the office of a Congressperson or the local Chamber of Commerce (most local chambers are controlled by small businesspersons who are potential allies).

The willingness to be arrested can get decision-makers’ attention and generate media coverage, which can help build support. And the willingness of some activists to be arrested can elicit support from others who can help push decision-makers to negotiate an agreement.

Basic Principles

Given the potential of nonviolent action, it may be fruitful to review the basic principles of the early civil rights movement and consider how we might adapt them to deal with our current number one issue: the economy.

A good first step would be to agree on a long-term goal that could hold us together over the long haul. In his first speech in the United States after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, Martin Luther King expressed one of his basic motivations, which may point us in the right direction. He said:

Somehow, something reminds me, millions and millions of God's children – and many of them are white – are caught in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society, and because of my concern for humanity I've got to go back to the valley and try to help them!

This statement suggests that we could declare that our ultimate goal is to promote the common good of the entire human family by transforming our global society into a truly compassionate community. This principle could form the foundation of our nonviolent worldview.

From this perspective, to build momentum, we could focus on our own nation first, with the attitude that we don’t desire to improve ourselves at the expense of others. We could insist that our nation’s economic policies benefit the whole world. We’re all on this boat together and need each other.

To better achieve our mission, a basic code of conduct would likely be helpful.

The 1960 Nashville lunch counter sit-ins used the following written rules of conduct:

Do Not:
Strike back nor curse if abused.
Laugh out.
Hold conversations with a floor walker.
Leave your seat until your leader has given you permission to do so.
Block entrances to stores outside nor the aisles inside.

Do:
Show yourself friendly and courteous at all times.
Sit straight: always face the counter.
Report all serious incidents to your leader.
Refer information seekers to your leader in a polite manner.
Remember the teachings of Jesus Christ, Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King.
Love and non-violence is the way.

In spring 1963, participants in the Birmingham demonstrations led by King were required to sign a written pledge that read:

I hereby pledge myself, my person, and my body to the nonviolent movement. Therefore I will keep the following ten commandments:

1.    As you prepare to march meditate on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2.    Remember the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.
3.    Walk and talk in the manner of love; for God is love.
4.    Pray daily to be used by God that all men and women might be free.
5.    Sacrifice personal wishes that all might be free.
6.    Observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7.    Perform regular service for others and the world.
8.    Refrain from violence of fist, tongue and heart.
9.    Strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10.    Follow the directions of the movement leaders and of the captains on demonstrations.

In 2003, Soulforce, a gay rights organization, slightly amended King’s principles as follows:

1.    As I prepare for this direct action, I will meditate regularly on the life and teachings of Gandhi and King and other truth-seekers.
2.    I will remember that the nonviolent movement seeks justice and reconciliation - not victory.
3.    I will walk and talk in the manner of love and nonviolence.
4.    I will contemplate daily what I can do so that all can be free.
5.    I will sacrifice my own personal wishes that all might be free.
6.    I will observe with friend and foes the ordinary rules of courtesy.
7.    I will perform regular service for others and for the world.
8.    I will refrain from violence of fist, tongue, and heart.
9.    I will strive to be in good spiritual and bodily health.
10.    I will follow the directions of the squad leaders and other Soulforce leaders on our nonviolent direct actions.

Three points about these pledges strike me as particularly important. First, by referring to “myself, my person, and my body,” the preamble to King’s pledge affirms a holistic attitude that engages the whole person.

Second, all three pledges establish a respectful tone that opens the door to dialogue and makes it more likely that observers will listen.

Third, the thrust of these pledges, especially King’s, is to uphold the need for constant self-improvement. Specifically, when the pledge affirms the need to “strive” to be in good spiritual and bodily health, that formulation implies the need for steady effort in that regard.

None of us are perfect. From time to time we all fall short or backslide. As the Dali Lama said, “"There are two things important to keep in mind: self-examination and self-correction. We should constantly check our attitude toward others, examining ourselves carefully, and we should correct ourselves immediately when we find we are in the wrong." Along this line, we should make more explicit what is clearly implicit in King’s pledge: an ongoing commitment to personal growth.

One principle, #5, does concern me, however. Rather than say, “I will sacrifice my own personal wishes that all might be free,” I would prefer, “I will sacrifice my selfish desires that all might be free.” Total self-sacrifice, as suggested by the original statement, isn’t viable in the long run. We need to take care of ourselves so we can better care for others. But total selfishness is irresponsible. A balance is in order.

Regardless, these pledges could be a valuable starting point for an updated pledge.

Nonviolent Communities

By learning methods like nonviolent communication and compassionate listening and engaging regularly in meditation and other practices that strengthen us individually and collectively, we can develop a thoroughly nonviolent lifestyle and grow compassionate communities that indicate the kind of society we seek. We can steadily improve our society, our culture, and ourselves.

Along the way, from time to time, most of us will suddenly feel like a new person, our communities will take on qualitatively different characteristics, and our cultures will manifest new values.

We can’t fully know in advance what the results will be. Works of creation aren’t pre-determined. Nor will the results be locked in concrete. Transformation is never-ending.

Nevertheless, we can immerse ourselves in the process, accept our responsibility to participate, frequently remind ourselves that we may be mistaken, and celebrate “evolutionary revolution.”

+++++

Frankly Quoted

“We think our civilization near its meridian, but we are yet only at the cock-crowing and the morning star. In our barbarous society the influence of character is in its infancy.”
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
(From Leonard Roy Frank’s monthly column. To subscribe, email <lfrank AT igc DOT org>.)

+++++

Editor’s Note

You can publicly comment on a post by clicking on the "comments" link at the bottom of the post.

You can share posts with others by clicking on one of the buttons at the bottom of the post and/or copying and pasting the link embedded in the title of the post and sending it elsewhere.

Following this issue, I’ll temporarily pause discussing how we might develop a nonviolent action arm for the economic justice movement. Instead, I’ll comment on some other issues, while I summarize some draft ideas for an organizing plan for that project.  When it’s ready, I’ll share that draft here. I’ll also likely present a draft at the January 15 Compassionate Politics Workshop.

Thanks for your interest. I look forward to our conversation.

Wade’s Weekly: Nov. 10, 2010

Contents:
--Race, Class, Status, and Leadership
--Special Program On Thurman - Nov. 13, 2010
--Frankly Quoted
--Reader’s Comments
--Editor’s Note

Race, Class, Status, and Leadership
By Wade Hudson

Nonviolent action to advance economic justice in the United States could grow into a movement that would stay together over time to help transform our global society into a truly compassionate community – if this project is based on a clear long-term vision, solid strategies, effective structures, and strong leadership. At first we may need to primarily focus on our own nation, but we can couch our concerns within the context of a commitment to the entire human family.

Granted, the odds are long. But civil-rights activists engaged in lunch counter sit-ins for more than 20 years before four Greensboro students in 1960 conducted a sit-in that soon grew, garnered national attention, and sparked the struggle to a higher level.

Economic injustice is more ambiguous than Southern segregation, but our economy is so terrible and affects so many people, with no relief in sight, the time may be ripe for nonviolent action. Every day the need for an effective, grassroots movement able and willing to engage in sit-ins, boycotts, strikes, and/or general strikes becomes more urgent.

The super-rich increasingly earn their income with nonproductive financial transactions, such as buying and selling currencies or gambling on future prices. Almost 30% of our nation’s income goes to the top 1%, as most people either barely break even or fall behind. From 1980 to 2005, more than 80% of the nation’s total increase in personal income went to the richest 1 percent. Average wages haven’t increased significantly for 40 years. Widespread unemployment is persistent. More and more homeowners are losing their homes.

These conditions did not happen by accident. Wealth (and power) becomes increasingly concentrated unless social forces, generally acting through the federal government, effectively counter that tendency. Instead, for decades, the government has consciously encouraged greater inequality. We must change those federal policies to grow a more productive economy that benefits everyone.

With support from individuals who do not risk arrest, a grassroots nonviolent action arm for the national economic-justice movement would likely need to focus on a clean, simple, popular demand. Once we’ve identified that demand, we could identify dramatic targets, like local Chambers of Commerce, that should prefer a healthy, productive economy with widely shared prosperity. Then, if necessary, we could engage in civil disobedience to press our concerns.

The success of Jon Stewart’s Rally to Restore Sanity suggests that while building this movement, we shouldn’t take ourselves too seriously and should keep a healthy sense of humor. Many concerned individuals are turned off by self-righteous, angry activists who preach too much and listen too little. By expanding our circles with a humble, kind attitude, we can grow a compassionate, joyful community that reflects the kind of society we seek.

For this project to be effective, it will be critical that the leadership includes strong representation from relatively powerless groups, such as persons of color, low-income communities, and individuals without a college degree. For me, such leadership is essential. My recommendation is that the project not be launched until such a leadership body with a diverse group of talented individuals is in place to guide the effort.

Representatives of relatively powerless groups should have proportionately greater representation in the leadership, but no one should be excluded or disrespected because of their background. Wealthy individuals, for example, who are dedicated to the mission should be fully welcome. Input should be judged on its merit, not its source.

One important tension is the gulf between individuals who have a college degree, which in the U.S. is only 40% of the adult population, and those who don’t. The common assumption is that people with a college degree are more intelligent and therefore deserve a greater voice. Their speaking and writing styles reinforce those assumptions. Individuals with degrees often adopt an air of superiority, which alienates others. And those without a degree often accept their alleged inferiority. These erroneous assumptions of inferiority and superiority based on educational level promote passivity, resentment, division, and conflict. In fact, there are many different kinds of intelligence.

Styles learned in school do not necessarily reflect the skills that are needed on the governing board of a community-based activist organization. The debating skills of a lawyer are largely irrelevant in those matters. Members of such governing boards need to know their communities. They need to be able to listen well and engage in discussions respectfully. They need to be reliable and consistent in their participation. They need to be sober and clear-headed. These skills do not require a college degree.

Democratic leadership is not defined by the ability to mobilize others. Leaders should not manipulate others to follow them out of blind loyalty. We need neither a single charismatic leader nor submission. We need collective leadership and democratic structures that empower all members, which increases prospects for sustained participation.

Democratic leadership involves the ability to facilitate collaborative problem solving. Democratic leaders identify questions that need to be addressed and guide the group in answering those questions. At any time, any member of the group might voice an opinion that others accept as helpful. That is leadership.

Establishing a partnership between board and staff based on a co-equal separation of powers enables individuals with limited free time to play a meaningful role. Recognized community leaders who already have major commitments can join such a board without being worried about getting bogged down in time-consuming administrative details. Having such leaders on the board enables them to bring their special wisdom to board decision-making and boosts the organization’s credibility in the eyes of the general public.

Neither the governing board nor the board chair should micromanage. Rather, they should focus on adopting written policies and priorities to guide the organization strategically, select the executive director (or co-directors), and evaluate the director’s performance, while delegating to the director the responsibility for achieving the board’s goals and instructing the director to maximize democratic management methods internally. The board should leave tactical decisions (like whether to accept a particular legislative compromise) to a team formed by the director.

Board and staff deliberations should be fully transparent on the Internet and members should have ways to voice input. Within two years or so, a mechanism should be established to enable the general membership to select board members responsibly. National conventions could enable representatives from local groups to help shape the organization.

Within the framework of the national organization, local groups would work together democratically to design creative actions that advance the national priority. These local groups could consciously foster a sense of community with activities like shared meals, volleyball games, nonviolence training, and support groups that nurture steady self-improvement.

Initially, to provide the project with stability and assure diversity, the national leadership body may need to be self-perpetuating, with two or more individuals forming the first governing body and then the whole group inviting others to join. When a strong, diverse board is formed, initial policies are adopted, and an executive director is selected, the project could be launched.

All these details may strike some as boring and overly bureaucratic. But sustaining an effective organization over time will require inclusive, strong leadership and clear, democratic structures. These preliminary thoughts are meant to highlight key questions and suggest possible answers. Future issues of Wade’s Weekly will present additional thoughts about how to proceed.

If we get our act together, we may be able to help unify and strengthen the national economic-justice movement. Then, after we deal with the economy, we could stay together to tackle other issues.

It’s worth a shot. Let’s do what we can to be successful and let the chips fall where they may.

Special Program On Thurman

On Saturday, Nov. 13th at the Museum of the African Diaspora in San Francisco from 2:00 - 4:00PM, there will be a special program facilitated by Dr. Liza Rankow celebrating the life and work of Dr. Howard Thurman, and the release of the Thurman audio collection. Please see the OneLife Events page or the Museum website for details.

Frankly Quoted

“You’re being religious when you believe in Jesus or Buddha or any other truly holy being, but... you’re being spiritual when you become the loving, compassionate, caring being they all inspire you to be.”
--Robert Thurman
(From Leonard Roy Frank’s monthly column. To subscribe, email <lfrank AT igc DOT org>.)

Reader’s Comments

Wade, Greetings from Maryhouse Catholic Worker in NYC.  It's good to think of you and to recall your steady wisdom while in Baghdad during the Shock and Awe bombing.  David Smith-Ferri, Jerica Arents and I landed here three days ago after a three-week visit in Afghanistan. Wade, I just don't manage to keep up with reading, study, writing and speaking plans.  The inbox is sometimes so full that I can only randomly answer items.  I think that, for the time being, I shouldn't subscribe to your weekly, but I'm glad you are working on it, and I'll be grateful to be kept on your mailing list.
--Kathy Kelly, Voices for Creative Nonviolence

CONGRATS & MAHAO 4 UR PRECIOUS BEGINNINGS.
--John Vasconcellos, Former Dean of the California State Legislature

Yes! These conversations must be had. As many of us engaging in as many of them as possible, all over the country, translating into action.
--Karen Dolan, Fellow, Institute for Policy Studies

Sign me up. After yesterday's election we especially need a progressive analysis. I just read an editorial in the Times of a book, A Winner Take All Society, by Robert Frank, which should be required reading by every citizen earning less than $100,000
--Daniel Fisher

Count me in! I'm looking forward to sharing your outlook on all things progressive in our sadly misshapen world.
--Juli Lynne Charlot

I loved "The Seat Not Taken" and "Making of Mahatma." Gotcha bookmarked! Love & Peace.
--Melyssa Jo Kelly

I'll stay on your list for now. Here's my two cents on how to raise about $10 to $20 trillion per year -- a 1% sales tax on Wall Street. It's also called a Tobin Tax. But Mr. Tobin set his at 0.05%, and only on forex.   You can google to learn more.
--Mike Coppas

I am so thankful you sent this post [on Howard Thurman’s birthday] and the links - I have recently discovered Dr. Howard Thurman and I am profoundly interested in his teachings and their application to our current political conditions - I am feeling ever more pulled to investigate how we can involve the spiritual dimension of our beings and have it inform how we do the social justice work we are doing in the world - the PBS interviews about him are sending me out to the library to pick up Meditations of the Heart. Thank you!!
--Molly McKay

This [post on Howard Thurman’s birthday] is great, Wade. Thanks for the posting. I had the honor of shooting the video of Dorsey Blake's installation as the new Pastor. Mrs. Thurman was there and gave the blessing. The entire ceremony was deeply moving. A true historic moment.
--Ellison Horne

Editor’s Note

180 individuals, including many with well-known talents and strong connections, have subscribed to Wade’s Weekly.