The Compassionate Politics Network: A Declaration for Action

NOTE: The following is the latest draft of a statement of principles for a possible new project that will be launched if and when sufficient interest becomes manifest. Your feedback would be very much appreciated.

We the undersigned aim to help transform our interdependent world into a caring community dedicated to the well being of all humanity.

As wealth and power become ever more concentrated, modern societies are becoming more ego-centered, impersonal, materialistic, fearful, angry, unhappy, dogmatic, unequal, divided, undemocratic, and violent.

To reverse those trends, humanity needs to become more compassionate, warmhearted, spiritual, confident, positive, happy, open-minded, equal, unified, democratic, and nonviolent.

As members of the human family, we seek to make it possible for all people to meet their basic needs, enjoy life, develop their potential, and contribute to their communities.

Many methods can serve that purpose.

This declaration presents one: a Compassionate Politics Network composed of small support groups whose members have good times together and bear witness to one another in becoming better human beings and more effective activists.

As members of this Network, we endeavor to steadily improve our environment, our institutions, our cultures, and ourselves.

We create model communities that point the way toward a more just and peaceful world.

We love others as we love ourselves, treat others as we want them to treat us, avoid both self-sacrifice and selfishness, and spread contagious happiness.

We plant seeds, accept our limits, and celebrate life.

We meet at least monthly to share a meal, enjoy one another’s company, report on both our self-improvement efforts and our communications with our elected officials, make essential decisions, and consider planning a pleasurable social activity for some or all of us to engage in together.

Members might consider themselves libertarian, conservative, radical, liberal, socialist, independent, some other designation, or reject such labels totally. The bottom line is endorsement of this declaration.

Members respect and accept others’ decisions concerning how to implement their commitment.

Members set their own self-development goals.

The monthly support groups simply ask each person to report on their recent efforts concerning self-improvement and political action, if any, as well as their plans for future efforts.

In this way, these groups serve to hold members accountable to their commitments. Knowing they will be asked to report on their endeavors at the monthly support group, members are more likely to follow through on their pledge.

In these and other ways, our Network aims to attract more participants in the creation of a qualitatively different, much improved society rooted in a new higher purpose.

When we achieve those goals, humanity will have fundamentally transformed its global social system into a compassionate society that operates in harmony with the natural world.

Those who support this declaration are encouraged to invite friends and relatives to participate in a self-directed support group composed of individuals who endorse the declaration.

We invite you to sign this declaration and help build the Compassionate Politics Network.

The Personal is Not Political

As discussed in Wade’s Journal: July 31, 2011, I remain convinced that society needs compassionate communities with members who are committed to both ongoing self-development and regular political action (which might be only occasional letters or phone calls, for one can be a political activist without it being all-consuming).

In response to that post, Marcella Womack offered the following comment:

I'm glad you have returned to the dialogue. It is evident that you are continuing to read and deepen your own understanding of how we make change. In your own paper [Evaluation of the Residence College (1967)]” about the experimental nature of the program you were asked to critique, you said: "Individuals are not encouraged to develop, to create their own vibrant sense of meaning and direction. Inner strength is seen as a threat; so the ground for a stable sense of autonomy is undercut." In other words you seem to be advocating for personal development of the inner self that would result in greater strength and a greater capacity to "act in the world."

Your quoting from one "feminist Leader" about the two dimensions of consciousness-raising (“The Personal is the Political”) leaves one thinking that you believe "the Women's Movement" came to "the" conclusion that it was one or the other. You need to grasp the fact that one "feminist Leader" was sharing what she had discovered for herself and expressing that. She was the one who saw it as "either/or."

My own experience as a feminist leads me to know it is BEYOND either/or and is truly "both/and." Through the experience of consciousness-raising done then with my "feminist” sisters, or later with my therapist, or with my best friend, I continue to find that the personal IS the center from which I come and actually the only place that personal change happens at its most profound level. And always, the personal actions - directed at systems change and greater respect for all peoples - come out of the consciousness that the self-exploration has generated.

Is your call to all of us to take political action in one certain way? Or are you wanting to stress that "political action" must come out of a personal stance that commits to justice and right human relations? Every person must make the individual choice within themselves in terms of where they place both their attention and their action. This, to me, is an integration between the "personal and the political."

Given the definition you have of “the political" (the activities of governments), you may actually be calling for colleagues who are developed, "creating their own vibrant sense of meaning and direction" and who have “inner strength and a stable sense of autonomy." Way back when, you were already out-picturing those who would be needed to make change in the world.

I suspect all of us who read your column would say "yes" to that. And I, personally, would say, "Don't limit this need to people choosing to focus on the activities of governments." All areas of our Earth life need change-makers.

Linked in service,
Marcella R. Womack
NEW DAWN LLC
Project Consultant, Workshop Facilitator, Writer, and Speaker
Kansas City, Missouri

THOUGHT FOR TODAY:
"...to freely bloom - that is my definition of success." Gerry Spence, 1929

I very much appreciate Marcella’s kind words and agree that all areas need change-makers. I also agree that everyone must make their own decision about their priorities. If someone chooses to be completely apolitical and concentrate on other forms of service to humanity, I accept that decision, don’t desire to lay on guilt trips, and don’t want “all of us to take political action in one certain way.”

I do, however, suggest that we ask ourselves, “Should I communicate more with my elected officials?”

Myself, I feel a moral responsibility to vote and let my elected officials know what I think between elections and I regret that I don’t do so more often. Most Americans feel the same way: they wish that others and themselves were more engaged politically.

Concerning the women’s movement, I agree with Marcella that many other feminists in the women’s movement have taken positions other than those articulated by Carol Hanisch in “The Personal is Political.” That’s why I referred to Hanisch and her colleagues as “this element of the women’s movement.” The National Organization for Women (NOW), for example, has definitely focused on governmental policy.

But NOW has not adopted a holistic approach. In fact, as I expressed in “Looking for Holistic Political Organizations,” to my knowledge no progressive political organization in the United States intentionally helps their members support one another in open-ended, self-determined personal-growth efforts.

Hanisch was far from alone in her rejection of individual solutions. Some time ago, in a private meeting a prominent leader of the women's movement in San Francisco commented, “We were not about self-improvement."

In “The Personal Is Political: Widespread Slogan of the Women's Movement,” Linda Napikoski reports that by the time Hanisch’s essay was published in 1970, “‘the personal is political’ had already become a widely used part of the women's movement and was not a quote attributable to any one person.” She also states, “Consciousness-raising was a form of political action... Hanisch noted that ‘political’ refers to any power relationships, not just those of government or elected officials (emphasis added).”

Power dynamics in personal relationships are critical and must be addressed. Social patterns are greatly influenced by governmental policies. And those who attempt to change governmental policies need to deal with those issues.

But “political” refers to activities directly related to the government. The attempt to re-define the word by asserting that “the personal is political” strikes me as a confusing abstraction. In general, we should use commonly accepted definitions, especially when those words are rooted in concrete reality.

More importantly, with its narrow focus on “consciousness-raising,” that redefinition denigrates both politics and self-improvement. It proclaims that only awareness of broad social patterns and collective action really matter. In the meantime, from this viewpoint, incremental political reforms and individual solutions to personal problems are insignificant (or actually undermine prospects for revolution).

Awareness of far-reaching feminist issues and a sense of direction are important. We owe the women’s movement a great deal for its contribution in that regard. But as we move toward long-term systemic transformation, we can pursue short-term political reforms and individual solutions that improve lives and move us in that direction.

Those of us on this path need to find one another so we can better advance our efforts.

The American Dream Movement: Integrating the Personal and the Political

The recent release of the brilliant Contract for the American Dream  by the American Dream Movement may offer an opportunity for like-minded individuals to pursue both personal and political transformation within a potent, national effort.

The preamble to the Contract affirms the “pursuit of happiness” and the first national summit will include “arts to lift the spirit.” Those elements suggest that the Movement may be open to using methods that enhance the nonmaterial world, which could make for a more effective effort than is usually the case.

One option would be for a “personal-political caucus” (perhaps named differently) within that Movement to integrate the personal and the political. While experimenting with how to enrich our lives personally and socially, we could provide others in the Movement with information they might find useful.

More than 250,000 people have already signed the Contract, which was produced with input from 131,203 individuals. As a next step, the Movement is calling for August 2011 Recess Actions to challenge politicians who want more budget cuts. Then the Movement will convene a Take Back the American Dream Conference  October 3-5 in Washington, DC.

I have signed the Contract and will participate in the conference, where I hope to explore with others how we can pursue a fundamental, comprehensive transformation of our society by incorporating lessons from the personal/social/spiritual spheres into our efforts.

The Conference invitation declares, “There will be…sessions organized by you.” So those of us who are concerned about both personal and political transformation and already know each other might invite other participants to address our concerns, goals, and hopes.

The personal is not political. Those two realms are different but not separate. They need to be fully interwoven and consciously integrated.

One way to do that would be for political activists to incorporate into their work some simple, best practices developed by those who concentrate on personal-growth work. That is what I’d like to pursue with fellow participants in the American Dream Movement.

Wade’s Journal – August 7, 2011

Contents:
--The American Dream Movement
--Happiness Research
--5 Ways To Listen Better
--Obama and the Debt Ceiling
--My Birthday Videos
--My New Declaration

+++

The American Dream Movement

Two months ago, Van Jones, whom I hold in very high regard, initiated the American Dream Movement with support from scores of prominent progressive organizations. They declared “the American Dream is under siege,” called for a new national movement to fight back, solicited ideas for policy positions to advocate, and convened house meetings to evaluate the enormous numbers of proposals that were submitted online.

When I learned of the project, I sent Van the following email:

****

Dear Van,

I signed up for a July 17 event and like your call to build an American Dream movement.

However, two points seem to be missing: the need to nurture spiritual growth and mutual support.

As reported in the abstract of "The Polls—Trends" by Sandra L. Hanson and John Zogby in Public Opinion Quarterly, Sept 2010, Vol. 74 Issue 3, pp 570-584: "Results from a number of U.S. public opinion polls collected in the past two decades [concerning] attitudes about the American Dream … suggest that a majority of Americans consistently reported that the American Dream (for themselves and their family) is more about spiritual happiness than material goods."

The pursuit of happiness is at the heart of the American Dream. Building the American Dream movement therefore needs to be rooted in contagious happiness and a deep concern for how we treat each other. Promoting happiness requires more than changes in public policy.

Far too often, progressive activists are too materialistic, task-oriented, impersonal, intellectual, and arrogant, among other weaknesses. We need to learn how to steadily correct those mistakes and improve how we treat people, which requires self-improvement.

My hope is that the American Dream movement will clearly, explicitly affirm a commitment to spiritual growth and mutual support.

With great respect,

Wade Hudson

****

My house meeting was cancelled at the last minute, but Paul Loeb reported that about 20,000 people participated in events throughout the country. Since then, Van has spoken at events and to the media representing the movement. Their website has a frequently updated blog, asks supporters to “help spread the word and show our strength with … American Dream signs and logos,” and states “If we can get these signs to start popping up everywhere, nationwide, we'll show the public and the media that our movement is gaining steam fast!”

I’ll continue to follow the development of this project and hope for the best, but it strikes me as largely more of the same, whereas new strategies are sorely needed.

+++

Happiness Research

According to a report from three Italian researchers, data from 1975 to 2004 collected by the annual General Social Surveys that monitors change in U.S. society through interviews with thousands of Americans reveals that Americans are less happy today than they were 30 years ago thanks to longer working hours and a deterioration in the quality of their relationships with friends and neighbors.

Studying the same data, a University of Chicago professor “noticed definite upticks when the nation flourished economically. For example, she found that 1995 was a very good year on the happiness scale.”

In 2010 a Conference Board survey of 5,000 U.S. households showed just 45% of respondents say they are satisfied with their jobs, down from 61% in 1987, the first year in which the survey was conducted, according to the Wall Street Journal, which concluded:

Lower job satisfaction over the past 20 years has come as more companies have dropped or cut pension benefits and asked employees to contribute more to health care. Meanwhile, wage growth has been relatively stagnant. Ironically, the two-decade decline in happiness has coincided with substantial increases in worker productivity. Gains in the tech sector have ensured that even as workers become more unhappy, they have become more productive

+++

5 Ways To Listen Better

An excellent TED Talk. To watch, and listen, click here.

+++

Obama and the Debt Ceiling

Evaluating Obama’s performance in the debt-ceiling battle is not easy. But what is clear to me is that a major problem is the lack of an effective movement to pressure him to take stronger stands.

I believe Obama probably made certain mistakes on the debt issue. Those decisions appear to be rooted in deeply held incorrect convictions, as William Greider argued in “Obama's Bad Bargain“ when he said, “I think Obama has at last revealed his sincere convictions.” Ironically, Obama who has talked so much about transcending ideology seems confined by his own ideological bias, which Jim Sleeper summed up as “neo-liberal” in his thoughtful “The Republic After Obama.”  Obama seems to really believe his rhetoric when he brags about the federal budget being as small relative to the overall economy as it was under Eisenhower. So he has failed to clearly argue that the deficit is best dealt with by establishing tax fairness and restoring economic growth, even if we have to wait a few years to reduce the deficit substantially.

And Ray Teixeira may be right when, in “Obama’s Unhealthy Obsession With Independents,” he charges that when Obama and his team look at independent voters they “want to see teeming hordes of voters who are above the partisan allure of party, untroubled by the bad economy (or, at least, not planning to vote on that basis), and pining for a Washington where the parties, darn it, just work together. So that’s what they see.” In fact, however, most independents are less concerned about the deficit than they are about the jobs situation. So Teixeira faults Obama for accepting “the GOP framework that cutting debt, not creating jobs, was the country’s central problem.” The consequence, he argues, is that “we have a deal that severely undercuts Democratic policy priorities and cuts government spending just as the economic recovery is showing signs of tanking.”

But the debt ceiling issue gets complicated upon closer look.

Leftist critics want Obama to be like FDR and lead an angry assault on the “economic royalists.” They want Obama to be a cheerleader for a left populist attack on corporations and/or the wealthy, to lead a movement that does not exist. They lament that Obama did not transition his campaign organization into an insurgent force that would challenge and threaten moderate Democrats, like the Tea Party confronts Republican incumbents. Many of them want to fight the good fight, organize the masses, and trust that they will win eventually, even if the Presidency is sacrificed in 2012.

But FDR had powerful grassroots force pushing him, whereas Obama does not. If Obama were to act like FDR, he would risk going out on a limb that would endanger his re-election. His left critics focus on what would be ideal policy, but neglect political calculations concerning the impact of various options on his electoral prospects, especially with independent voters. Rather than scapegoating Obama and spending so much time complaining about him, these critics should concentrate on building an effective grassroots movement.

I believe it is important to re-elect Obama, if only due to his court appointments and the many positive, under-the-radar policy changes made by his Administration, as well as the fact that he’s more open to persuasion than any likely Republican President would be. Political calculations therefore are important. Independents can swing an election and Obama’s attention to the deficit could help him with independents who care strongly about the deficit. So I’ve been irritated by most leftist critiques of Obama because they ignore those political concerns, especially when they lapse into ad hominem arguments.

During the debt-ceiling battle Obama did manage to help de-legitimize the House Republicans. His “angry” press conference illuminated key issues. He did use his bully pulpit to flood Congressional switchboard with supportive phone calls. And the American people still disapprove of the Republicans even more than they disapprove of Obama.

In talking about future political battles in Congress, Nancy Pelosi recently said, “[W]e wouldn't let our country default.” This comment touches on the political risk that would have followed if Obama and the Democrats had called the Republicans’ bluff. Republicans would have charged Democrats with indifference to the deficit and creating default in order to protect their “tax-and-spend” ways.

Instead, the compromise protects many programs that serve the neediest, enables the Democrats to project an image of being concerned about deficits, and provides the Democrats with the ability to run against the “Roadblock Republicans.” Even Standard and Poor’s pointed to the Republican-created gridlock as a major problem when they downgraded our credit rating. Most Americans still blame Bush more than Obama for our economic woes and they favor Obama’s economic policies over the Republicans’. Considering how bad the economy is, the fact that Obama’s approval rating has not fallen more than it has indicates that he has operated with considerable skill. So Obama and the Democrats may be in a better position for 2012 than would have been the case if they had refused to settle the debt ceiling issue as they did.

By temperament Obama wants to try to facilitate consensus. As he made clear during his campaign, he is not inclined to inflame conflict at the outset of addressing an issue, but is willing to fight if and when consensus proves impossible. He wants to try to be bipartisan as long as there is hope for agreement. That approach makes sense for a President, who is not Community-Organizer-in-Chief.

But late July may well have been the time to really confront the Republicans on the debt-ceiling issue. I tend to think so.

A key question for me is how far the House Republicans would have pushed their opposition to any increased tax revenue if Obama and the Democrats had insisted that the deficit-reduction plan be “balanced,” a position supported by an overwhelming majority of Americans, including most Republicans. It strikes me as strange that I’ve seen no commentary on that question: would enough Republicans have changed their position in the face of a sustained stock-market collapse?

My cab passengers whom I’ve asked, including well-informed workers in the financial sector, have said that the Republicans would’ve eventually backed down.

My own suspicion is that they would have refused to raise the debt ceiling until the August 2 deadline passed, but after the stock tanked for two or three days, enough of them would have voted with the Democrats to raise it (in conjunction with a balanced plan to lower the deficit). After the matter was settled, Pelosi said, “They didn’t have the votes.” I take that to mean the Republicans would have been unable to sustain their hard line.

That scenario could have enabled Obama to project the image of a strong leader who will fight for his principles and avoid late-night jokes such as David Letterman saying that when Obama celebrated his birthday, he “asked for an iPad, [and] let Republicans negotiate him down to a wad of gum.”

But maybe Pelosi was right. Perhaps it would have hurt Obama and the Democrats in 2012 if they (and the Republicans) had “let our country default.” We’ll never know. But as Pelosi suggests, now that the Republicans are emboldened, we may see similar brinkmanship later this year. And this time it may be easier for the Democrats to stand firm. Regardless, come the 2012 election, we’ll probably see a more combative Obama.

+++

My Birthday Videos

To celebrate my 67th birthday, my sister and brother-in-law communed with Mother Nature in Marin County. Some video that I shot is on You Tube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VRhn0u3mGE and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXsFb6oU8OU and on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2318250113827 and http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=2318296674991.

+++

My New Declaration

I’m working steadily on drafting a new manifesto to summarize my thinking about a new approach to community organizing geared toward social transformation. I look forward to discussing it soon, both online and in person.