Reader’s Comments

In response to "Reflections on Egypt":

Dan said...

I very much appreciate that the democracy movement in Egypt was (mostly) very peaceful, decentralized, secular, leaderless, courageous, perseverant, inspired and inspiring.

Here's what I posted elsewhere:

I'm another Jew against another Pharaoh!

I oppose all dictators from Cairo to the corporate boardrooms, from the Middle East to the Midwest, from Tahrir Square to Tienanmen Square, from Central Asia to Central America, from the churches and temples to the mosques and synagogues, and from Wall Street to every Main Street and instead support political and economic democracy and justice for all.

All dictators AND their thuggish cronies must go NOW!

My response:

Dan, I agree with the thrust of your comments. However, I believe it is wrong to say that the democracy movement in Egypt was leaderless and imply that the notion of a leaderless movement is viable. Our challenge is to develop democratic, collaborative leadership.

I also disagree that Wall Street, even with its many faults, exercises the power of a dictator. Such rhetoric is neither accurate nor effective.

++

Paul Costello said....

Enjoy your posts-love the Dylan stories

and to add to the mix-I have to say when I hear the lauding of the present, presence, be here now, etc etc  I hear that as someone's escape from the clutches of the past or some  fix on some totally unrealizable future. To get back into the now is the antidote when you are not there, but a narrative take is different.

a story works always with the question, "what comes next?" so staying in the present is not what a story ever allows you, it has this inbuilt trajectory towards some realizable or at least imaginable future, which is what I see from the young people of Egypt, or elsewhere.

They decided not to be stuck in the present, where no one was doing anything to shift anything, 30 years, emergency rule etc, there was no future prospect, but when there is, the present becomes charged with possibility rather than acceptance, and maybe that is what you mean,

but I think the compelling story we are grappling with is not the present, but the future, global concerns, the budget, social security, the deficit, terrorism, its how poorly or effectively we tell the future story now that our future depends,

and the present, even as we speak, is already gone, its past, the present is nothing more than the dawn of the next tomorrow, you can't choose today, because its gone by the time you choose it, every choice is about tomorrow.

The young people of Egypt chose a different tomorrow from the present, and it was en masse, not one day at a time not even one kid at a time, (which is another cliche I would like to retire, because social psychology tells us, we rarely do anything, one at a time), but Egypt seemed to be a mass mobilization, they were on the streets for tomorrow, they were sick of today. The present was not enough.

Cheers

Paul

My response:

Paul, I very much appreciate your extensive, thoughtful comment. I agree with your objection to reliance on “one at a time” change and agree that some advocates of being present do so in a way that suppresses a sense of the future. I also agree that “the present becomes charged with possibility” and “the present, even as we speak, is already gone.” In my post, I approvingly quoted Paz saying, “Reflecting on the now does not imply relinquishing the future or forgetting the past: the present is the meeting place for the three directions of time...”

I also agree with your rejection of a total acceptance of the present that precludes working to change that which we have a good chance of changing now or in the near future.

However, I still believe that it is important to “be present” in a way that includes a sense or awareness of the future at least in the back of one’s mind. To use your example of stories, one can be immersed in the story with a sense of dramatic tension about what will happen next, but with a good story, one gets caught up in it emotionally and intellectually, without trying to predict what is going to happen, preferring to be surprised.

What is needed is a both/and balance, rather than getting stuck in head trips about the future, which seems to be a widespread problem and one that is characteristic of ideologues.

Anonymous said:

One of your best essays!

+++++

In response to "A Tax Fairness Campaign":

JaneAnneJ said...

Well expressed. I support you in this, Wade. I will send it to people I think will be interested.

My response: Good to hear Jane. Thanks for the feedback and the re-posting.

++

Anonymous wrote:

You might compare the income tax rates of China and India (fastest current expansion of middle class with decrease of poor) with the US current.  Also the highest expansions in the US of the middle class with a decrease of the poor also were in higher income tax periods.

The fairest distribution of GDP is obtained through redistribution of wealth through progressive income tax.  Otherwise the "Lords and Kings" take all but minimal subsistence for the poor granting a few extra crumbs to begging supporters.  AKA the Dictator mode.

We are slipping into that mode.  It is only a matter of time until the very rich hire their thugs to keep the poor in line.

My response:

I googled “income tax rates in China,” and the top result reported, “The tax on an individual's income is progressive. As at 2010, an individual's income is taxed progressively at 5% - 45%.” India’s rates seem to vary from zero to 40%. So your point seems well-taken. And I agree that the U.S. economy fared better when we had a more progressive tax structure. Redistribution boosts economic growth. The wealthy get a smaller portion of the pie, but the pie is larger.

In many cities, corporations are already hiring security forces to patrol business districts. I would question analogies to dictators and thugs, however.

+++++

In response to "Looking for Holistic Political Organizations":

Empathy Surplus Project http://www.empathysurplus.com/ said...

Hi, Wade, Please check out this website for an idea we're trying to get started in Ohio. Keep up the good work. Chuck Watts, founder

Chuck, your project looks like a valuable contribution. Best of luck.

++

Rhonda McGee commented:

Great post, Wade! As I think you know, I agree whole-heartedly. I admire you for articulating this need, and for putting this appeal out into the world.

Love live Egypt, indeed! In deep support of the people putting their lives on the line for freedom and the possibility for greater self- and societal growth.

My response:

Wonderful to hear, Rhonda. It is heartening to know that my essay makes sense to one who is as astute as you are.

++

Dave Ewoldt commented:

Hi Wade... Jane Ann Jeffries forwarded your latest blog post to me, and I've been

trying to leave a comment on the blog, but blogspot tends to not be too cooperative

sometimes. Anyway...

I've been having similar thoughts for a while myself, and here's an effort I've been

trying to get off the ground <http://www.reststop.net/NCEP/>. Here's another article I

wrote to briefly explain the thinking behind my platform for AZ State Senate last year http://naturalsystems.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-nutshell.html

As you allude to, in an interconnected universe, we must connect the dots among the

personal, social, and environmental. If we concentrate on just one, the others will

suffer. Since building mutually supportive relationships is how the natural world has

been maintaining sustainability for billions of years, it makes sense to me to follow

that model ourselves since we are, after all, part of the natural world. Our artificial

separation causes all kinds of troubles.

My response:

Dave, I find myself generally aligned with your worldview, though I differ on some points. In your statement of values, you affirm “We encourage individuals to act to improve their personal well-being,” but I see nothing about the need for intentional mutual support in those efforts. And in general, your politics seems to be very idealistic and averse to getting engaged in concrete, short-term reforms. I like your formulation, “Since building mutually supportive relationships is how the natural world has been maintaining sustainability for billions of years, it makes sense to me to follow

that model ourselves since we are, after all, part of the natural world.” Best of luck with your efforts!

++

JaneAnneJ said...

Thanks, Wade. There are a few people with whom I will share this post. I will post their feedback.

+++++

In response to "Various Items":

Judith Katz said...

Dear Wade,

Thank you for posting about your discussion with Sanzgiri. I want you to know that I am part of a group of six people in Berkeley who are meeting twice a month to support one another through compassionate listening (NVC). We also engage in worldly actions with the hope of contributing to greater sustainability, peace and well-being. Over the last year we have connected with hundreds of people at public events ranging from the Harmony Festival to the Oscar Grant demonstrations. We are currently comprised of six committed people. Thank you for tracking the evolution of an approach to change that bridges the personal and the social. I look forward to learning from your work and reporting back to you about ours over time.

My response:

Sounds great. Please keep me posted!

Reflections on Egypt

Many progressive-minded activists in the United States could learn a great deal from the youth in Egypt. One important point the Egyptians demonstrated in their recent incredible victory is the power of a non-ideological strategy. They kept their focus simple, concrete, and achievable – “Mubarek must go” – and rallied broad support. In contrast, progressives in this country often push complex, abstract, and/or unrealistic demands.

Ideally, ideas are interwoven with the reality to which they refer and are constantly reshaped by interaction with reality. Too often, however, individuals in the dualistic modern world treat ideas as if those ideas were separate from reality. With our abstractions, we treat a part of the whole as if it were the whole. This approach results in the ossification of ideas.

Ideology is as an organized collection of abstractions. With ideologues, the gap between ideas and reality is enormous. They attempt to fit reality into their previously formed analytical framework and try to forcibly shape the world to fit those preconceptions.

Incremental reforms are sacrificed for some ideal that is assumed to be more beneficial in the long run. Ideologues are determined to impose their theories, with little or no regard for short-term consequences.

Ideologues love people in the abstract more than they do in person. They care more about their theories than what is practical. They engage abstract ideas without reference to concrete examples. As with abstract art, they focus on form and neglect content.

A common aspect of the ideological approach is an absolute, all-or-nothing stance. Another frequent characteristic is utopianism, the belief that perfection is possible, which means that anything less than perfection is inadequate and therefore not worthy of celebration. A third trait of ideologues is dividing the world into us vs. them (which often involves projecting onto others tendencies that the ideologue refuses to acknowledge in himself). Another feature is labeling the opposition “evil,” or applying some other similar judgment.

Because ideologues care more about winning their war of ideas than they do about improving actual living conditions, they spend more time preaching than they do listening and shade the truth or lie. The ideologue always wants to prove a point or establish some grand principle for the sake of the future.

Describing what is distinctive about the ideological perspective is not easy. But we know it when we see it, as when people are unwilling to consider other points of view. It’s usually reflected in a tone that is shrill, loud, piercing, preachy, and arrogant.

A non-ideological, pragmatic approach affirms many-sided awareness. It sees the real world as complex and filled with contradictions. It accepts reality for what it is and affirms universal values that flow from the heart rather than the head. Talking from the heart merges ideas and feelings. People who talk from the heart are willing to acknowledge various points of view and learn from them, rather than always trying to convert others and recruit them into one cause or another. Being pragmatic does not mean that one has no convictions. Rather, it refers to the nature of one’s convictions.

Pragmatism does not preclude clarifying fundamental values and enduring principles. Nor does pragmatism conflict with dreaming about the long-term future. But dreams are best treated as dreams. We divine the meaning of dreams through interpretation and translating them to apply to our current situation. To pursue dreams as actual goals is fanciful. To regard dreams as concrete is to fall into ideology.

In his Nobel lecture, which he titled “In Search of the Present,” Octavio Paz objected passionately to “ideologists intent on introducing principles derived from a political theory.” Toward the end of his talk, Paz pointed the way toward a different stance, a focus on the present, which is filled with presences. He said:

With good sense, we tend more and more towards limited remedies to solve concrete problems. It is prudent to abstain from legislating about the future. Yet the present requires much more than attention to its immediate needs….  The twilight of the future heralds the advent of the now.... Reflecting on the now does not imply relinquishing the future or forgetting the past: the present is the meeting place for the three directions of time....

Tomorrow we shall have a philosophy of the present.... The poets do know one thing: the present is the source of presences....

We pursue modernity in her incessant metamorphoses yet we never manage to trap her. She always escapes: each encounter ends in flight. We embrace her and she disappears immediately: it was just a little air. It is the instant. That bird that is everywhere and nowhere. We want to trap it alive but it flaps its wings and vanishes in the form of a handful of syllables. We are left empty-handed. Then the doors of perception open slightly and the other time appears, the real one we were searching for without knowing it: the present, the presence.

When one is present, if one can’t change or escape a noxious reality, one accepts that fact and concentrates on changing what can be changed. One embraces imperfection. As Leonard Cohen wrote, “There is a crack in everything / That’s how the light gets in.”

When one is present, in attendance, one is open to presences, available, alert, attentive, spontaneous, in touch with feelings, intuitive, and ready to respond.

Most people today, however, are almost always engaged in a train of thought, whether remembering past events or imagining the future, scheming and dreaming, weighing the merits of various options, or speculating on how to make a difference by shaping the world according to their own ideas. Those who are present, filled with presence, merely want to do some good – one day at a time.

When Bob Dylan rejected being a servant for the Movement, he reflected a similar perspective. According to Dylan, “An artist has got to be careful never really to arrive at a place where he thinks he’s ‘at’ somewhere. You always have to realize that you’re constantly in the state of becoming.” That’s one reason we need artists and poets and musicians to inspire us to deeper, pre-verbal understanding.

In his 1964 song “My Back Pages,” Dylan recalled how with great pride he had used “ideas as my maps” and had screamed “lies that life is black and white” like the romantic Three Musketeers, based on what he had memorized about “ancient history.” He had adopted a “soldier's stance,” not realizing that when he started to preach, he became his own worst enemy. “Abstract threats” made him defensive and rigid. But now, he declared, good and bad were not so clear and after having been “so much older then,” he’s “younger than that now.”

Dave Von Ronk, one of Dylan’s early mentors, said that he and his fellow ideologues attacked Dylan for being unsophisticated in 1964, but he later concluded that Dylan was far more sophisticated than they were. Many progressive ideologues in the United States, however, still don’t get it.

But the Egyptian youth movement did. Perhaps we can learn from their example about how to go beyond ideology – that is, be present, pay attention to the whole of experience, focus on changing what we can, and really listen to the people we encounter.

Another key principle of the revolt in Egypt was a commitment to participatory democracy. Especially in the planning of the uprising, polling members on Facebook was instrumental. That particular mechanism is no magic bullet. Other methods are available. Eye-to-eye deliberation among elected representatives is also important. But the Egyptian youth demonstrated a remarkable degree of open, active participation on the part of potential demonstrators. Americans, it seems to me, could learn from the Egyptian dedication to internal democracy.

Perhaps the most important characteristic reflected in Egypt was a remarkable degree of courage. That example is relevant not only for those confronting a dictator. It also applies to ordinary daily life in the United States.

Far too often, we withhold our thoughts and feelings out of fear that others won’t like what we say. We become worried that others will punish us in some way, perhaps by simply ignoring us. We become embroiled in efforts to establish our worth, both to others and to ourselves.

American society fails to fully affirm the essential goodness of every individual and the equal value of each person. Rather, the primary message most children learn is “you are a loser” (because someone else is “the winner.”) This message undermines self-confidence and the sense of self-worth. Consequently, children grow into adults feeling that they must prove themselves by proving that they are superior to others.

We become overly competitive, egocentric, go on ego trips, play power games, and become overly focused on our families, our workplace, our circle of friends, and ourselves. We want to protect our position so we can move up the ladder of “success.”

We fail to lovingly confront those with power by challenging them to transcend their assigned roles and fully acknowledge everyone’s common humanity. We go on head trips and fail to experience the spirit within and the future that is breaking in on the present. So we neglect to profoundly love our neighbor by challenging oppressive power structures, not knowing what the results will be. We become hypocrites, for we neglect our conscience.

To be true to our deepest self, we must risk speaking truth to power – truth as we best understand it, power wherever we confront it. The youth of Egypt inspire me to take those risks.

A Tax Fairness Campaign

The lack of a progressive tax system in the United States is a critical problem that must be corrected. And Barack Obama’s campaign promise to reverse the federal government’s recent decision to continue the Bush-era tax cuts on the top 2% guarantees that tax-reform issues will be a major part of the 2012 election.

Yet there is no grassroots force pushing for strong action on tax fairness. That void needs to be filled.

One argument against reversing the Bush cuts for the wealthy is that taxation on the top 2% of U.S. households affects some hard-working lawyers, doctors, and other professionals. To some degree, that argument undermines potential support.

But a focus on the top 1% of households avoids that vulnerability. And the top 1% is where the money is.

The top 1% now takes about 25% of the nation’s total personal income (compared to 9% in 1974). In 2004, the wealthiest 1% had an average net worth of nearly $15 million.

In 2009, 99% of households, whose incomes averaged $56,000, paid 28% of their income in total taxes (federal, state, and local). The top 1%, with average incomes of $1,300,000, paid only 31% of their income in taxes and actually paid taxes at a lower rate than did those in the 91-99 percentiles. Their effective tax rate in 2006 was one third less than it was in 1970.

Since 1979, in large part due to lower federal taxes, the average after-tax income of the top 1% has increased 260 percent (while most incomes stagnated).

One result is a dangerous increase in economic inequality, which is eroding the broad-based purchasing power that is needed to sustain prosperity. With the economic growth we’ve had over the last three decades, the average annual income of the middle fifth of households would be more than $12,000 higher today without this immoral redistribution of income upward – that is, if each segment received the same percentage of the nation’s income.

About half of this increased inequality is due to changes in the federal tax code.

Another result is that governments are starved for resources. Federal aid to state and local governments has diminished as our ongoing Great Recession has devastated revenues for those governments. Consequently our state and local governments are firing workers who are needed to provide essential public services. These cutbacks are creating great hardship for many, both for those who need services and those who need jobs. Especially hard hit are the poor and homeless.

Given this urgent situation, which calls for strong grassroots action, I’ve written the following draft of a proposal for a Tax Fairness Campaign that I’m now circulating for feedback. The heart of this proposal is a pledge that reads: “Until this nation has a progressive tax system based on the ability to pay, I will support raising federal taxes on the top 1%.”

An example of a progressive sliding scale would be if the following groups continued to pay taxes at the same rates they pay now:

Bottom 20%	15%
Next 20%	20%
Middle 20%	25%
Next 20%	30%

And the top 20% paid at the following (higher) rates:

Next 10%	35%
Next 5%	40%
Next 4%	45%
Top 1%	50%

I’ve gathered input from a wide range of individuals concerning the following proposal. Ideally, I’d like to take more time to engage in a more deliberate planning process with more people participating simultaneously. But time is short. To impact candidates in the 2012 election, we need to start now.

This plan is based on five stages. Moving from one stage to the next will depend on meeting specific targets in each stage. Whether we reach stage five is far from certain, but I think it's worth a shot.

I’d be interested in your thoughts.

+++++

Tax Fairness Campaign Proposal

Mission: Help transform the United States into a more compassionate community dedicated to the common good of the entire human family.

General Method: Foster ongoing self-development, mutual support, and political, social, and cultural reforms that improve living conditions so people can more fully enjoy life, realize their potential, and participate fully in community affairs.

Initial Specific Goal: Help make the tax system in the United States more progressive – that is, households with higher incomes pay taxes at higher rates.

Primary Methods:

Stage One:

·        Form a multiracial governing board with at least five members to guide the project by adopting written policies.

·        Select the staff responsible for implementing those policies (initially a volunteer Coordinator).

Stage Two:

·        Form an advisory committee that offers occasional email input.

·        Write a Tax Fairness Pledge. Latest draft:

Until this nation has a truly progressive tax system based on the ability to pay, I will support raising federal taxes on the top 1%*. [* In 2009, the top 1% had average incomes of $1,300,000 and paid 31% of their income in taxes (federal, state, and local), compared to the other 99% whose incomes averaged $56,000 and paid 28% of their income in taxes.]

·        Seek fiscal sponsorship by an existing community-based organization.

·        Create a website featuring the Pledge.

Stage Three:

·        Ask the general public, organizations, elected officials, governmental bodies, and candidates to sign the Pledge. (Possible target: 100,000)

·        Ask key organizations with strong Internet roots to promote the Pledge.

·        With an auto-reply, inform signatories about the future action plan and ask them to ask others to sign the Pledge.

Stage Four:

·        Expand the governing board to make it more inclusive.

·        Adopt an operating budget specifying the revenue required to move to the next stage.

·        Invite signatories to become one of the following:

o       A Supporting Member who pays annual dues.

o       A Continuing Member who donates monthly.

o       An Active Member who builds support for the Pledge as an individual.

o       A Voting Member who joins a “home-based team” with other signatories who live in the same Congressional District. These teams will:

§         Meet monthly in a member’s home or a community center.

§         Share a meal.

§         Open with a period of silence for members to reflect, pray, or meditate.

§         Ask members to report on their efforts and plans with regard to self-development.

§         Plan activities that will promote the Pledge in their district.

Stage Five:

·        If and when the revenue specified in the budget is raised, hire paid staff to assist local organizing.

·        Build toward a national membership meeting on April 15, 2012 when candidates for the governing board will present themselves, after which voting members will elect the governing board.

·        Persistently ask candidates for Congress during the 2012 election to sign the Pledge.

·        Be prepared to undertake nonviolent civil disobedience based on the principles of Martin Luther King if and when it helps achieve winnable goals.

+++++

If an initial governing board forms, it could, to whatever degree it chooses, modify the draft policies that are included in the above proposal. Thereafter, I anticipate that so long as the board approves the Coordinator's actions, there would be little demand on the time of board members, though they would be free to contribute as much as they want. If and when there were objections to the Coordinator's actions, the board would engage in the process of adopting new policies to guide the Coordinator.  These board responsibilities would therefore probably take no more than an hour a week on average.

While communicating that understanding, I’ve recently invited a few individuals to form the board. So far none have accepted it. It is my intention to continue discussing this proposal with potential members while gathering feedback and refining the proposal as much as possible until a governing board is formed or I am persuaded that the project is not feasible.

I would be available to serve as volunteer Coordinator.

Once the board is formed and the Coordinator is selected, the Coordinator could ask Tides Foundation (or some other strong community-based organization) to serve as fiscal sponsor for the project. This affiliation would assure donors that their money would be handled responsibly and relieve the Coordinator of bookkeeping responsibilities.

Some of the key organizations with strong Internet roots that could be asked to promote the Pledge include groups such as MoveOn and Color of Change.

Prominent individuals who could be asked to serve on an advisory board include Robert Reich, who has already expressed strong support for the concept. At the 2011 Earl Lectures, on January 25, during the question-and-answer period following Reich’s lecture, I summarized this proposal, read the then-current draft of the Pledge to him (which was very similar to the current one), and asked him what he thought. He responded, “I like it.” (Nevertheless, it is far from certain that he would serve on an advisory board.)

If we don't obtain the number of signatures required to move to the next stage, we could continue to maintain the project as a low-cost Internet-based operation, with limited expectations in terms of effectiveness. If we do meet the target, however, we could then ask signatories to become dues-paying members, help raise other funds, and begin organizing locally.

Then if we generate enough money to meet our budget, we could hire paid staff to assist local organizing and represent the project to the public and media.

This proposal is thus based on some key principles. One is a commitment to achieving specific objectives before trying to achieve more ambitious goals. In this way, the project can remain realistic.

Secondly, to the best of my knowledge, this approach is unique in that it is rooted in holistic politics. With a systemic perspective, it explicitly affirms the whole person and recognizes that individuals are profoundly interconnected with one another and their environment. Therefore inner and outer change reinforce one another.

This project would enable members to commit to ongoing self-development and supporting one another in those efforts. But it would do so without laying a trip on anyone. It would not demand that all members make such a commitment. It would merely stipulate that those members who want to have a full vote in controlling the organization would need to commit to working on their self-development and providing certain close fellow members with eye-to-eye mutual support – partly in order to steadily improve their political effectiveness.

There is no assumption that the home-based teams would necessarily engage in collective problem-solving on personal issues, though such efforts might take place informally with selected members outside of group meetings. But merely reporting verbally on one’s self-development efforts and being heard by close friends would be supportive, and knowing that one would be asked to report on one’s efforts would serve to remind members to pay attention to their commitment to self-development work.

Another key principle is that the strategy embraces both a long-term vision and short-term achievable objectives. The emphasis is on a particular activity (reforming the tax system), but that focus is within the context of a comprehensive worldview rooted in universal values. So while the name “Tax Fairness Campaign” could be highlighted, it would likely best be conducted by an organization with a broader name, such as the Association for Comprehensive Transformation (ACT-NOW).

If it evolves successfully, this effort could help build a new community-organizing model for the modern Internet world that would both maximize spontaneity and self-determination, and establish efficient structures with elected representatives. It would not aim to be the only such model, but it could contribute to the development of new sustainable, democratic structures.

The Egyptian people’s movement has once again demonstrated the power of the Internet. But it has also demonstrated the importance of structure. In honor of their martyrs, let us design more effective ways to organize so we can help grow a movement dedicated to the common good of the entire human family.

Looking for Holistic Political Organizations

If you ‘re familiar with a holistic political organization, please tell me about it. At this point, I’m not aware of any.

By “holistic politics,” I mean an effort that aims to both directly impact public policy and foster personal growth, healthy group dynamics, cultural change, and a compassionate sense of community rooted in mutual support.

Many religious institutions affirm holistic politics in their declarations. The mission of the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco, for example, is “to be a sanctuary for individual religious growth and learning, to celebrate life and worship in diverse fellowship, to bear witness to suffering and joy, and to work for peace and justice in our world.”

And the Congregation Emanu-El is “dedicated to advancing our members' lifelong involvement in Judaism, engaging them in communal prayer, the study of sacred texts, and the performance of compassionate deeds.”  That Congregation serves its mission by “providing experiences that serve to deepen our members' involvement and faith…[and] providing opportunities and encouraging actions that respond to the call for social justice through tikkun olam (healing of a broken world).”

These projects assist their members with personal growth by offering suggestions, structured activities, materials, and encouragement. In addition to nurturing personal growth with their own members, they also discuss the need for self-development when they communicate with the general public.

As addressed in “Why Some of Us Seek a New Strategy,” harmful social conditioning is deeply engrained. One example is our tendency toward competitive, arrogant assumptions of moral superiority. Political activists need to undo our harmful conditioning with what Buddhists call “skillful effort,” which requires a disciplined commitment.

Because of their tax-exempt status, however, religious bodies are limited in the degree to which they can engage in political activities. They are unable to fully practice what they preach.

But religious leaders do initiate independent, community-based, political-organizing projects. It would seem natural for them to do so with the holistic perspective that is reflected in their spiritual worldview. But for some reason, they don’t.

When I recently went to the Pacific School of Religion to participate in the 2011 Earl Lectures and Leadership Conference on “Our Daily Bread: Faith, Work, and the Economy,” I listened carefully for the speakers and workshop leaders to advocate holistic politics.

This conference brought together about 150 religious and secular leaders from throughout the country to “teach, preach, and strategize about issues of economic justice.” Its purpose was to “seek to answer tough questions: How can an understanding of the economy help people of faith and goodwill advocate for change? What can we do together in difficult times to improve lives and empower futures?”

But I did not hear one speaker say one word about the need to encourage and support personal growth. 

Toward the end of the conference, I commented on this void to one of the main speakers. She replied that she and most of her fellow activists have their personal practice and she begins her staff meetings with prayer. I responded by saying that I believe we need to more explicitly affirm self-development as a major goal, build structures into our work that foster such growth, and talk about it with the general public. As we concluded our exchange, I repeated that throughout the conference I heard not one speaker mention self-development. She replied that it sounded like a good topic for an ongoing conversation. I’m encouraged by her response and look forward to further discussion.

Another source of encouragement at the conference was the two-day workshop led by CLUE (Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice). They did talk about building “holistic communities” whose members care for each other. And they did affirm speaking deeply to member’s visions, dreams, and values in relation to justice, rather than just seeking short-term power for the organization. I applaud those goals, but I have concerns about their methods.

My main unease is that their understanding of leadership seems to be based on the traditional, elitist notion that the goal of a leader is to mobilize followers. Their workshop only touched on what they mean by “leadership development,” so my impressions are tentative. But their approach seems too narrow and top-down.

Much of their workshop, for example, was devoted to demonstrating how an organizer can recruit potential members by tapping into feelings expressed by those individuals. And the organizer can note the potential member’s interests and skills so he or she can suggest roles for the new member to assume. “Organizing is manipulation,” my small group leader asserted.

This method differs from transparent collaboration between equals who jointly develop solutions to acknowledged problems, which relies on mutual inspiration rather than manipulation – that is, hidden agendas, flattery, and half-truths – to get others to do what one wants them to do.

The CLUE facilitators summed up their leadership development as efforts to “equip” leaders with needed skills. The risk here is that trainers assume they know what their students need and proceed to give it to them.

And they reported that they work on “sustaining the leaders.” But what about members sustaining each other?

A commitment to leadership development is not the same as a commitment to open-ended self-development. The former focuses on teaching specific skills, while the latter involves each individual defining their own focus for their personal work, on any issue.

With a commitment to self-development and mutual support, the community would, at least to some degree, support other members with regard to any need. And the community would be clearly committed to sustaining all the members, not just the leaders.

To my knowledge, the only example of political organizing that has adopted this kind of openness to whatever needs are presented by the members are the base-communities organized by proponents of Liberation Theology in Latin America.

At their workshop, CLUE did not advocate ongoing, self-development (or personal growth, or whatever language one prefers). And their website makes no such affirmation. The website does affirm that “workers must successfully overcome their own fear and grief,” but that goal is narrow. It’s not open-ended self-development as defined by each individual. Fear and grief are only two of many pressing issues.

Neither does their site affirm mutual support to one another in personal growth efforts. The site does state that “religious leaders can act as ‘chaplains on the field of battle,’ encouraging workers to remember their deepest values and providing emotional/spiritual support,” but that feels top-down and one-way.

A holistic community is mutually supportive. We are all inter-connected. We need to nourish one another directly. Support must not merely be one-way, from leaders to members, but also multi-directional and horizontal, which is at the heart of a holistic perspective.

Though I offer these constructive criticisms, I remain encouraged by the evolution of community organizing that CLUE has developed with its “faith-rooted” approach. It definitely seems to be moving in the right direction.

Another source of encouragement is the work of organizations, such as Stone House, Social Justice Leadership, Movement Strategy Center, Rockwood Leadership Institute, One-Life Institute, and Center for Transformative Change, that are providing training to political activists to utilize various personal- and social-growth tools. I look forward to learning more about how their clients are using the tools that those organizations utilize.

Issues related to holistic politics are in the air. Many people are exploring possibilities. Seeds are being planted. If there aren’t any full-grown holistic political organizations operating now, I suspect there will be soon. And if there are some that I don’t recognize or with which I’m unfamiliar (please let me know if you know any), I suspect there will be more in the future.

Let’s encourage these developments and learn from them, so we can more fully embody holistic politics in our own lives.

Long live Egypt!