Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Wade’s Weekly: Oct. 27, 2010

An Exchange with Robert Reich
By Wade Hudson

Fighting a rainstorm and competing with the Giants game, on Saturday, October 23, Robert Reich, author and professor of public policy at UC Berkeley, drew more than 100 people to a book-signing event in remote West Marin County. I drove 90 minutes to get there because I wanted to ask him a specific question.

While taking notes on his talk and following the Giants on my phone, I got to ask my question with two outs in the bottom of the ninth. After his answer, which I liked, I checked the score and learned that I'll be going to the first game of the World Series (with a $155 seat behind home plate). I took the timing of these events to be a good omen.

In his opening remarks, Reich highlighted key points from his latest book, Aftershock, and reflected on his recent book tour. What struck him most on that tour was that so many people, both left and right, are bewildered and angry. “I’m not an economic determinist,” he said. “But at least some of that anger is due to the economy.”

Thirty years ago, Reich pointed out, wages began to stagnate. But most people didn’t notice due to certain coping mechanisms they employed. First, more women entered the paid work force, until the limit was reached in the 90s. Second, workers began working longer hours, until this limit was reached. Then, families began to borrow more, until the housing bubble burst.

Now we’re in a predicament. According to Reich, ordinary Americans “don’t have enough purchasing power to get us out of the gravitational pull of the Great Recession.”

Still, we’ve had economic growth. “Where did all the money go?” Reich asked. “To the top,” he answered. During the late 70s, the top 1% took only 9% of the nation’s total personal income. By 2007, they took 23%.

Since 1913, only one other year, 1928, had that concentration of income. That extreme inequality contributed greatly to the Great Depression. “So it’s in the interest of the people at the top to reverse this trend,” Reich argued.

As Reich sees it, the Obama Administration learned that in a financial crisis it is necessary to pump money into the economy. But it hasn’t learned, as FDR did, that “you must reorganize the economy to widen prosperity.” FDR established the minimum wage, Social Security, a more progressive income tax, and other programs to “spread the wealth.”

“I say to the top,” Reich said, “you’ll do better with a smaller share, especially if it fosters a more positive politics rather than demagogues and the politics of resentment, which creates various scapegoats, like China, Muslims, and immigrants. Sixty-one percent of Tea Partiers say global trade is bad for America. This is isolationism. If you do not support broad-based prosperity, you’ll find yourself worse off in many ways.”

Reich concluded his opening remarks on an optimistic note: “This country has demonstrated remarkable resilience when we understand the nature of the problem.”

+++

Reich then introduced Peter Barnes, who led off the question-and-answer period. “I’m not convinced about the optimism. In your book, you say it will take a crisis, an even worse crisis. That’s my thinking.”

Reich replied, “No, actually what I said is that if there’s not another crisis, we’ll eventually see the light but it will take longer.” Where might that crisis come from? Austerity programs, both in our states and in other countries, “with a currency war pending.” And when people realize how much secret funding is going into political campaigns because of the Citizens United ruling, “there will be an outrage and a reckoning.”

Barnes then said Reich’s recommendations constitute a bargain with the middle class. “I’m not sure we need to restore the old bargain based on high paying manufacturing jobs,” he said. “Those days are gone. Shouldn’t the new bargain be based on something other than good high paying jobs?”

Reich responded, “Right. We can’t go back to those days. But we can supplement wages. And education adds to the value people can create over the course of the lives. This is not rocket science. It’s a matter of political will.”

Barnes then asked, “We’ve had trouble selling the idea of percolate up economics. Why?”

“The media is controlled and manipulated by people with great wealth,” Reich responded. “And the right has message discipline, with a handful of wordsmiths who shape their discourse.” The left has no similar mechanisms, partly because of our resistance to authoritarianism, he said, following with an amusing, colorful description of that resistance.

Shifting tone, Barnes asked Reich to identify his recent favorite and least favorite interviews. Reich replied that the most difficult one was “The Colbert Report.” Confronted with a “very funny” interviewer pretending to be a right-wing zealot, Reich found it “hard to keep a straight face.”

He then told the story of a MSNBC producer who kept telling him through his earpiece to be angrier. Reich refused, not wanting to reinforce the coarsening of our political discourse.

Barnes then opened the floor to the audience. The first questioner disagreed with Reich’s reluctance to target China. Reich stuck to his opposition to scapegoating.

Another questioned his emphasis on economic growth and asked, “What about simple living?” Reich said, “I distinguish between consumerism and the capacity to produce all kinds of things.”

Asked about the threat of a peak-oil crisis, he expressed his support for a carbon tax that wouldn’t be regressive because the revenue would go to wage supplements.

An environmentalist argued that we should treat the economy as a subsystem of nature. Reich responded by describing the roots of economics in moral philosophy.

Referring to the report that two Supreme Court justices participated in a seminar funded by the Koch brothers that may have focused on crafting campaign messages, a questioner asked about the significance of that event. Reich said he found it hard to believe that Supreme Court justices would be so blatantly political but if they were, it would be grounds for impeachment. And he said the Citizens United decision was as bad as Dred Scott and Gore vs. the U.S.

Another audience member said, “I’m one of those mad people. I thought we could make progress but I only see small progress, so I’m disenchanted with the Democrats.” Reich replied, “I don’t want to be a defender of the Democratic Party, but I do want to speak about against cynicism. I know there are limits to what any President can do without a highly energized, well-organized citizenry. What really appalls me is the failure of progressives to mobilize, like when Clinton decided to support welfare reform.”

Reich then described how it was widely known that Clinton had not decided whether to veto welfare reform when one day Reich went to a meeting and urged Clinton to oppose it. As Reich left the White House, he hoped to see a demonstration on the issue outside the White House. “But no one was protesting,” he said. “Not one placard. It’s that failure that I find most frightening.” Clinton later signed the legislation.

The last questioner referred to a New Yorker article on the Koch brothers and asked, “Given the media concentration, how can we get our democracy back?” Reich offered an upbeat response. “It’s not that bleak because most people under 30 get their evening news from Stewart and Colbert. We used to be dependent on yellow journalism and bribery was even worse. Then we had the Progressive Era, which included support from some elites who knew that otherwise there would be a backlash.”

“The choice is whether to concede to a politics of fear,” Reich concluded. “The long-term thrust of our history is an expansion of opportunity and the franchise. That will be the long-term trajectory of the future.”

+++

Early in the discussion period, I asked, “Given your interest in building political will and establishing message discipline, do you think it might help if the economic justice movement focused on a proposal to tax the top 1% to fund a federal revenue sharing program to enable local governments to hire workers to help meet pressing social and environmental needs?”

I then elaborated, “The top 1% currently pay only 23% of their income in income taxes. If they paid 26% it would generate about $50 billion annually for a revenue sharing program. And giving local governments unconditional grants would avoid complaints about ‘big government.’”

Reich responded, “Revenue sharing is a great idea. Other taxes are possible too, like a tax on financial transactions.” He then presented a list of tax ideas and concluded, “Your idea is good, and I can add on to it, but no good idea can compete with an Orwellian idea that is repeated over and over.”

After the public forum, when he signed my copy of his book, I asked him if he might meet with some community-based leaders to discuss the idea of how to push for a revival of revenue sharing. He replied, “I don’t know. Write me at [email address].”

Several weeks ago, I raised the subject of developing a nonviolent action arm for the economic justice movement with Rev. Dorsey Blake, head of the Church for the Fellowship of All Peoples. He responded positively and said he’d be willing to host a meeting at his church.

Then, after doing some research about the General Revenue Sharing program that operated successfully from 1972 to 1986, I wrote Jakada Imani, Executive Director of the Ella Baker Center, and asked him, “Might you be willing to organize and convene an exploratory meeting to consider developing a national economic-justice movement rooted in the principles of Martin Luther King? An initial focus might be on taxing the super-rich to revive the federal revenue-sharing program.” Jakada responded, “I think this is super interesting and would love to talk to you more about it (in November).”

Greatly encouraged by these responses, I wanted to confirm the viability of a new federal revenue-sharing program with Reich. I figured if there were any serious glitches with the notion, he would likely point them out. His response reassured me.

His comments about the “appalling” and “most frightening” lack of a “highly energized, well-organized” progressive movement also struck me. Leaving the hall, it dawned on me that the fragmented, impotent nature of the progressive movement had been on full display that night in Point Reyes. The discussion was largely about policy, rather than how to build a movement.

+++

Nonviolent action focused on economic justice could help coalesce and strengthen the progressive movement. At this point, taxing the top 1% to fund revenue sharing seems to be the best initial focus. It’s clear, concise, and politically viable.

My plan is to continue to develop these ideas into an action plan, solicit broad feedback to help refine them, and seek to identify individuals who, like myself, would be willing to act if and when a strong, inclusive leadership group forms to guide the project, whatever its initial focus.

My hope is that Robert Reich will be involved in this effort.

+++
NOTES:

1) I've just created a blog at http://wadeleehudson.blogspot.com/, where I’ll post Wade’s Weekly and perhaps eventually other items. Feel free to share your comments publicly there and "follow" if you wish by clicking on the link in the right column.

2) Feel free to share your reactions by emailing me at wadeATwadehudsonDOT.net. If you do I may quote your comments and identify you as the author.

3) Eighty-five individuals, many of whom expressed enthusiasm, subscribed to Wade’s Weekly in the first week, which I very much appreciate.

4) Please tell others they can subscribe at http://npogroups.org/lists/subscribe/wadesweekly.

5) For background on revenue sharing:

End of Federal Revenue Sharing Creating Financial Crises in Many Cities, Lindsey Gruson, The New York Times, 1/31/87

General Revenue Sharing: Background and Analysis,” Steven Maguire, Congressional Research Service (2009)

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Wade’s Weekly: October 20, 2010

Contents:
-Reflections on the Compassionate Politics Workshop
-Reflections on Dick Price
-A Response to Taj and Marianne
+++

Reflections on the Compassionate Politics Workshop
By Wade Hudson

On September 12, twenty-two social-justice activists came together at the Compassionate Politics Workshop to explore how to cultivate compassionate political activity. Before adjourning, participants gave the workshop an average rating of 4.2 on a scale of 1 to 5. The eight Action Groups that met during the workshop adopted a lengthy list of decisions concerning how we might best move forward.

As became clear when Lenel deEmma facilitated a round of one-minute personal introductions during lunch, the workshop participants reflected a remarkable wealth of experience. The spirit, dedication, and energy were heartwarming, uplifting, and inspiring. Many folks who had connected online were able to meet face-to-face and found the experience to be rewarding. John Testa stated afterward, “I did not observe the presence of egos in any of the sessions in which I was involved. Everyone respected the other person's point of view.”

The flexible format of the workshop, loosely based on Open Source Technology, enabled the participants themselves, rather than the planners, to define the issues that were addressed. This openness enabled the participants to express their strongest passions, which contributed to the liveliness of the event. Six individuals volunteered to plan another, similar event in the near future. The joy and laughter during the closing spiral group hug was a real treat.

For me, however, where the workshop fell short also stands out. I agree with Brenda Salgado, who told the planning committee for the next event:
I would love to have us include shared practice, meal or movement a little more than we did in our last meeting. In my tradition and culture, it is important to build relationship and not always be in such a rush, or spend most of our time in our head/minds/talking.  Though this is an important part of us, we must remember to balance it with body and spirit. We are so unconsciously conditioned to live primarily in our heads/minds/talking, we unconsciously structure meetings this way as well.  I know I am somewhat preaching to the choir here!
And one comment expressed to me during lunch sticks with me. I asked one of the participants how she felt about her breakout group and she responded, “It was productive, but I don’t feel that the discussion really addressed how to integrate the personal and the political.”

Prior to the workshop, the initial planning committee framed its concerns as follows:
If activist organizations that aim to improve public policies incorporated more lessons concerning self-development, spiritual growth, productive group dynamics, and community service from the personal and social spheres into their political efforts, might they attract more compassion-minded individuals and be more effective? If so, how might they best do so?

Thus, the focus is not on those personal and social (including cultural) lessons in isolation. Rather, the focus is on the relevance of those lessons to political activism.

“Political activism,” as defined here, includes efforts to persuade administrative agencies to change their policies and efforts to elect candidates committed to certain changes in public policies, as well as legislative lobbying and demonstrations.
Reviewing the Action Group reports, it seems to me that most of the methods that were affirmed are very general and could be applied throughout society. Thus, it seems that participants, perhaps due to lack of time, did not specifically address how politically active organizations might incorporate those methods into their efforts.

Some exceptions include the following concrete suggestions:
  • Conduct a public sitting meditation on Oct. 17 in opposition to Proposition L that would restrict sitting or lying on sidewalks.
  • Explore the start of a Circle of Compassion in your region.
  • Participate in movements led by people of color.
So one option for consideration by the planning committee for the next workshop might be to aim to develop similar concrete proposals that activist organizations might incorporate into their work.

And given that the Sept. 12 workshop was predominately White, the next one needs to be much more inclusive.

Hopefully the planning committee for the next workshop will build on what happened at the first workshop and facilitate an even richer experience next time. If we do, we might well continue to contribute to the cultivation of compassionate political activity dedicated to social transformation.

+++

Reflections on Dick Price
By Wade Hudson

    NOTE: I wrote this in response to the "Dick Price Celebration" page recently established on Facebook. Dick was co-founder of Esalen Institute.

I first met Dick when he came to San Francisco for the fantastic “Spiritual and Therapeutic Tyranny: The Willingness to Submit” conference in 1973. Joe Adams brought him to the offices of the Network Against Psychiatric Assault, where I worked. We had a long, lively conversation and as he left, Dick told my associates and me that we were welcome to visit Esalen free of charge whenever we wanted. He also told us we could participate in workshops if we wished.

So two or three times a year, I visited “God’s Little Half-Acre” for rest and recreation. Though I had participated in a number of Esalen and Esalen-style workshops in the Bay Area and elsewhere, initially I did not explore participating in any at Esalen. Simply relaxing and soaking met my needs. Usually Dick and I would at least share a meal. Without fail his warmth and humor refreshed me.

He never even mentioned that he was the principal Gestalt teacher at Esalen, nor did he invite me to participate in a workshop. But after a few years, after finally reading the catalog closely, I started participating in workshops occasionally with Dick, Chris, and others. Without fail, I found these experiences to be deeply rewarding. I still do Dick’s “Basic Practice” as a part of my meditation routine.

One particular workshop with Dick has stuck with me. When I sat on the hot seat, I shared the discomfort I felt about my reaction when one of the “beautiful people,” a gorgeous blonde, had gotten into a hot tub with me. My gut reaction was judgmental and I sensed I was being unfair. Dick led me through a long process of reflecting on parental influences, pounding on pillows, weeping convulsively, and such. At the end of my session, he picked up on one of my conclusions and asked me to repeat it as a “Gestalt Mantra” – “I can be critical without being judgmental” – a phrase that has guided me ever since.

After I finished, Dick asked others in the workshop to offer feedback. With one exception, all of the feedback was supportive. But the blonde who had prompted my introspection was in the room and, offended by what I had said, she laid into me with a vicious diatribe. Others then balanced her with positive comments, but I felt uncomfortable about her reaction. We then adjourned and as we left, outside the room with a smile on his face, Dick told me, “Great work. And forget what that bitch said.” I laughed, and noted his stepping out of his neutral role.

Thereafter I’d participate in one or two workshops every year. Once Dick invited some of my associates and me to a workshop with R.D. Laing, who had greatly influenced all of us. In the middle of it, when Laing was late and everyone was waiting, Dick asked us to present to the workshop. After 30 minutes or so, Laing arrived, apparently drunk, and lacerated us. “Who do you think you are? This is my workshop.” Dick managed to defuse the situation, Laing left, and we continued. Filling R.D. Laing’s shoes was an awkward experience. I recall that I spoke about why I was shifting from dealing with individual issues toward focusing more on political action to correct the conditions that foment so much individual suffering.

Knowing that Dick shied away from publicity, I was greatly honored when shortly before his death he agreed to have me record a lengthy interview with him for publication. Though I never got the intended article published, I greatly appreciate the excellent editing and publication of the interview in the Esalen catalog, which is linked on the wikipedia site. It seems to hold up as an excellent summary of his thinking.

My recollection of my last encounter with Dick, a birthday party in his house, during which we discussed another of the recurrent, internal political battles at Esalen that disturbed others but did not seem to faze him, is bittersweet.

As I recall with affection, at the memorial service at Esalen, someone sang one of Dick’s favorite Bob Dylan songs, “Restless Farewell,” which concludes, “So I’ll make my stand and remain as I am / And bid farewell and not give a damn.” Even if my memory is wrong, whenever I hear that song, I think of Dick. 

Dick was a wonderful human being. He holds a featured seat in my pantheon of heroes.

+++

A Response to Taj and Marianne
By Wade Hudson

    NOTE: The following is a reply to “Movement Building and Deep Change: A Call to Mobilize Strong and Weak Ties,” Taj James and Marianne Manilov, Huffington Post, Oct. 16, 2010.

Thanks much, Taj and Marianne, for an important, cogent, and convincing piece. I agree with all that you say (and do not believe that Gladwell rejected online tools outright). My primary concern is that the following crucial elements seem to be missing in what you say in this essay.

First, we need a concise, comprehensive long-term vision of fundamental personal, social, and cultural transformation that can hold together the disparate elements of our social-change movement and inspire them to support one another from time to time.

Second, we need to explicitly affirm ongoing self-improvement. Martin Luther King’s “Nonviolence Pledge” is instructive in this regard. It reads as follows:

   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 friends 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.

Most of those principles address the need for a deep commitment to working on inner issues.

Third, we need to develop structures that enable us to support one another in our efforts at steady inner transformation. “Systems of daycare” are valuable. We also need systems that consciously nurture personal growth. In today’s hectic, task-oriented world, mutual caring tends to fall by the wayside. Rick Warren may be “blending small (supportive) circles with a clear over-arching purpose (dedicated to self-development as well as collective growth),” but you describe no similar efforts among social-change movement groups.

Fourth, we need to revive the methods employed by the early civil rights movement, with a focus on winnable goals, sincere negotiations aimed at reconciliation, and the use of nonviolent civil disobedience as a last resort.

And last, it seems to me, our most pressing priority is to build a national economic-justice movement dedicated to enacting federal legislation that will begin to address the horrible state of our economy.

With these elements, as well as the methods you describe, perhaps we can grow a truly effective movement to transform our global social system.