My Response to AlterNet Commenters
by: Rabbi Michael Lerner on March 8th, 2010 | 11 Comments »
Crossposted from AlterNet where the editors added this introduction:
Editor’s Note: Last week, AlterNet ran an article that featured a piece by Chris Hedges and another by Rabbi Michael Lerner, titled: “Should Progressives Give Up on Obama?” The article incited lively debate in the comments section and now, Rabbi Lerner, editor of Tikkun magazine and head of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, has penned a response to the article’s comments addressed to him by AlterNet readers. It follows here.
The dispute between me and Hedges is about what is the best strategy to rebuild a powerful anti-corporate movement, not about whether or not we like Obama’s policies. As editor of Tikkun, I’ve been outspoken in opposition to his war in Afghanistan, his continuation of the human rights violations of the Bush administration, his handing trillions to banks and investment companies rather than creating a national bank to fund social projects and allowing the privately owned banks to be dealt with by the “free marketplace” that conservatives have been praising all these decades, his failure to support Medicare for Everyone (single-payer) health care reform and instead embracing policies that will further enrich the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals, his support of “cap and trade” rather than a carbon tax to stem global warming, his capitulation to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu rather than using American power to end the Occupation of the West Bank, his rejection of the Goldstone recommendations on Israel’s human rights violations in Gaza, his support for firing teachers in Rhode Island for working at a school that did not meet the teach-to-the-test absurdities of No Child Left Behind rather than question the validity of the goals that are measured by that legislation, and the list goes on and on and on.
These terrible policies are plenty reason to be angry at the Obama Administration. But they have not provoked a huge outcry, even among those most adversely impacted by those policies. Just last week Tikkun received advice from some leading African American progressives that in their community Tikkun was losing credibility by being so outspoken in critiquing Obama, given the widespread perception in that community that attacks on Obama from whatever corner are really expressions of covert racism. Nor have those who have lost their homes to escalating interest rates on mortgage loans or those who have lost their jobs while the money that could have saved them has poured into the coffers of the rich managed to assemble on the streets of our country to demonstrate their outrage.
So when developing a strategy, one must take into account the emotional temper of Americans today including their continued willingness to support the Democratic Party, in no small part because of a perception that had Nader not run in 2000 there would never have been a Bush presidency or a war in Iraq or the irresponsible economic policies that led to the economic meltdown.
So those of us who wish to stop the growing corporate dominance of the world and reverse the destruction of the environmental destruction of the planet and the erosion of human relationships and ethical values in our society that is labeled “the globalization of capitalism” but which I prefer to call “the globalization of selfishness,” need to develop smart strategies to change the consciousness of Americans.
I believe that there are three elements to such a strategy:
1. We need to move from a Left that is identified primarily in terms of what it is against to a Left that is known for WHAT WE ARE FOR. That’s why we at Tikkun created the Network of Spiritual Progressives with its central demand: We need a New Bottom Line. Instead of judging corporations or government policies or our educational system, legal system, health care system or even our personal behavior by how much money or power the generate (the Old Bottom Line), we need to judge all of this to be effective, rational or productive also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and environmentally sustainable behavior, enhance our capacities to respond to other human beings as embodiments of the sacred and to respond to the universe with awe, wonder and racial amazement at the grandeur and mystery of consciousness and Being itself. How that translates into specific programs is detailed in our Spiritual Covenant with America at www.spiritualprogressives.org.
2. We need to insist that the best path to “homeland security” lies not in domination of others around the world, but in a path of generosity based on genuine caring for others plus a rational understanding that our well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet. For that reason, we at the Network of Spiritual Progressives developed a Global Marshall Plan to once and for all end global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education and inadequate health care – and to repair the global environment. This is our positive alternative to the defense budget.
3. We need to build a third party by first organizing a massive progressive voice inside the Democratic Party and then leading it out of that party. Nader could have done that if instead of running as an independent candidate in 2000 he had run in the Democratic primaries for President against Gore, gained the votes of 25% or more of that party’s voters, and then led his constituency out of the Party into an independent force. The Progressive Democrats of American (PDA) and the Progressive Caucus of the House of Representatives are important and impressive steps on this path, but until they actually organize their constituency into a membership-based progressive wing of the party that gets at least 25% of the vote in elections, it is premature for them to split to form a third party or to attempt to transform the Greens from its current political-correctness-dominated politics and its aroma of “we act as though we always will be losers” style to a potentially winning third party configuration. This takes the kind of discipline that would prevent the kinds of personal attacks you can read in the above comments on my article, and the development of an ethos of solidarity among those who share common values but who disagree on strategies and tactics. It is that ethos of solidarity that makes us at Tikkun proud to print Christopher Hedges even when we disagree with him, and to offer criticisms of style without suggesting that there is something fundamentally “off” about those with whom we disagree.
Tikkun and the Network of Spiritual Progressives (and no, you don’t have to believe in God to be a spiritual progressive – you only to have to agree with out New Bottom Line stated above) are hosting a demonstration at the White House June 13 to challenge Obama’s policies and to urge him to join the very movement that he helped congeal in 2008 but which he subsequently abandoned.
There will certainly be a place for anger at that rally, but our task is not to “change Obama’s mind” but to help people who are being hurt by his policies to feel that it is ok to challenge his policies and the corporate takeover of the world without supporting the vile discourse and racist assaults of the Right wingers or the Tea Party conservatives.
We will be crafting at our conference in DC that weekend of June 11-14 two Constitutional Amendments: one that is narrowly framed to overturn the recent Supreme Court “Citizens” decision and to declare that corporations are not persons and money is not protected speech; and a second more broadly conceived amendment, the Environmental and Ethical Responsibility Amendment to the Constitution that will require corporate social responsibility and enforce it. I hope that if you agree with the need for a nuanced strategy that doesn’t dismiss our potential allies in the struggle for a world of peace and justice and love and caring or assault them verbally, you’ll sign up for the conference and come to the demonstration at the White House.
I am more than a little concerned about the utter passivity of most people with respect to what is going on in the national government. Here in San Francisco there were thousands of people in the streets expressing their concern about what is happening to the schools in California (that is a separate subject. We are in the midst of a literal governmental meltdown in California. We need to startover again from scratch with a new state constitution, but that’s enough on that.)
These people are organizing now to change the schools at a local level.
So, if people are out organizing with the local government, why not with the federal?
I think for three reasons:
1. They perceive that the Federal Government is owned by special interests who are skillful enough to block any genuine attempt at change.
2. They perceive that Obama tried and failed to make a change or that he was never genuinely interested in making a change. I agree with Michael. I think he wanted to change things but wasn’t skillful enough to do it.
3. They think the Presidency has become symbolic only. It doesn’t rule the country. It is enough to have someone who is sympathetic, seems to care, and is Black. That is a symbolic change and that is the best we are going to get.
In order to challenge this, we as progressives (actually I am a radical. I think we need to make significant changes, with a system that is as dysfunctional on the federal level as it is on the local) to be able to challenge the power of those who own the government. The closest we have come to this recently is the movement Obama built to get elected. That is the most impressive thing about him for me. That movement.
What wasn’t said to that movement was that it had to be a permanent organizing group to insist on radical and thorough going change. (Lip service was paid to this notion, but without a platform or program.)
Rabbi Michael Lerner has a program and a platform. That is why I am a member of the NSP. What we don’t have yet is the power base. We can’t challenge government’s operation nor do we have the media attention to generate the attention we need for our message to be heard.
I think Michael sees the SF conference in February and the conference in Washington as the first steps in building a new base. I hope this is true. But where the argument needs to go is what will generate the power to challenge the current monopoly. We are not there yet and until we can get there, nothing will change significantly.
Rev. Jim Willems, SF
Now I have a much clearer understanding about R. Lerner’s position in the conversation. The concepts and assertions in item 3 present me with considerable frustration because there are so many factual and rhetorical errors in the text and I find myself needing “leaders” to be at least factual (more so than I). I wanted very much to hear from R. Lerner why the Greens have troubled him so much and have those reasons be linked to factual reality not misperceptions and factual errors (or at least disputed facts–when we cannot agree on what facts are legitimately facts, it’s pretty tough to reach a consensus on the implications arising therefrom). There are kernels in the text that reveal to me for the first time what the real reasons might be, but they’re obscured by the cognitive dissonance I read in the rest of the text of that item.
I feel like items 1 & 2 are so razor sharp while item 3 is just fog. The only other explanation I can intuit from item 3 is that there is just something about the Greens that has stuck in R. Lerner’s craw and that is something that only he can resolve or figure out. I can live with that and know that with time, even fog will clear. I’m grateful that R. Lerner clarified things as he has. I certainly find the first two items as deeply rich common ground.
I couldn’t find the above “Response to Allternet Commenters” on Alternet. That’s disappointing because I wanted to see specifically the comments there that this Response was written to.
Overall, I’m not supportive or enthusiastic of the “either-or” notion of the “debate” between Chris Hedges and R. Lerner. I realize that’s the “American” thing to do (we’re a culture obsessed with binarism, especially when they’re false binaries) but I don’t think it’s accurate to the ideas and the discussion at large. I see Hedges and Lerner as merely two prominent and valued voices articulating their ideas, beliefs and values in the face of a very pressing dilemma we all face. It’s more of a “both-and” proposition, IMHO. We need more voices to add to theirs in order to paint a fuller more vibrant picture of where we are at now and where we might go from here to solve our dilemma. In a more expansive focused conversation process, I’m sure we’ll find some novel solutions.
It would be fabulous to attend the conference and protest at the White House. All it takes is all too precious and currently rarified money.
Jack, I added the link to the AlterNet blog where Rabbi Lerner’s response was posted (on the first line of the post).
Cool. Thanks, Dave.
When is Mr Lerner going to stop it with his “love, caring and awe of the universe” starry-eyed discourse that he repeats ad nauseam? I do not think he realises how ridiculous he sounds outside the confines of the Tikkun network.
Marco
I dunno. I don’t think it’s starry eyed at all. Sounds pretty good to me. I’m all for that new bottom line. The guys at the bar on the corner think it sounds good too… and they’re about as outside of the Tikkun network as a body can get.
I was checking the job board there @lunch time and even heard an old salt using the term, “we need a new bottom line, is all I’m sayin’. The one we got now ain’t workin.’” I don’t know if it’s the copy of R. Lerner’s books we stocked on the shelf a few years back or what, but I think people have a decent side under all the armor. And that decent side doesn’t mind talkin’ fancy once in a while.
Love, caring and awe of the universe can accomplish a lot. I greatly prefer these values to uzis.
To Lauren Reichelt: Why must you “spiritual” people automatically compare your exagerated emphasis on “love caring and awe of the universe” to uzis and so-called war-mongering? Isn’t there a middle way? I have a feeling pacifists and very war-like people are in a strange perverse symbiosis. I prefer a middle way of just wars, with no exagerated sentimental talk about love and caring. Most people are caring, why over-emphasize it (unless you are compensating for some inner demons)?
Marco
I prefer love and caring to New Mexico’s nifty new concealed carry in alcohol-serving restaurants law. Not sure why wars without sentimental talk is a middle way between uzis and caring. Sounds like A LOT of uzis to me.
I guess I should thank my lucky stars (no spirituality intended) that Rabbi Lerner does not allow concealed weapons in his comment thread. Makes it harder to water the statue of liberty with bloody fire ants and all that jazz.
I can’t help but wonder what it is about “love, caring, and awe of the universe” that is so sentimental, ridiculous et al.? I can’t answer that question but to me, it is hardly a context that should upset anyone. I know scientists, people who tend to be associated with cold, rational mindsets express “awe of the universe”, and an awareness of the mystery of life. For me, it is the bottom line that I would hope to see.
Your response Marco to Lauren, “you spiritual people” reads aggressively…as if we aren’t all affected by the events of our world…as if it is “you”, not “us” who have the “right” way to go about this.
Would love to meet and talk w/your bar friends JustJack.
I think Jim makes some valid points about the lack of response from people re: the government policies.
Ultimately – what needs to be recognized is that if people are living in a state of anxiety, it is difficult if not down right impossible for them to process events without feeling threatened. This is neurologically determined. Our left pre-frontal cortex is what separates us from the animal world but when threatened (even if it is perceived) it is out of our amygdala that we react (the so-call “reptilian” brain). We “REACT” instead of “RESPOND.” Until we understand that this is how humans engage we will continually be working with the proverbial brick wall. Until the anxiety level in the individual and the community is reduced, the ability to engage in civil discourse and solution focused conversations will be sorely lacking. (See work done by Bowen, Friedman and Steinke – on family systems)
Please allow me to relate a story. On Friday, I passed along True Majority’s Tell-A-Friend appeal to Call the House About the Health Care Bill! to my SIBLINGS list. My oldest younger brother, a teacher in Massachussetts, who counts Ayn Rand among his mentors, replied: “Totally agree. Let’s kill this thing now while we have the chance, and start over with a bill the American people want!! We the people of Massachusetts have spoken!!” This prompted my older sister (a Buddhist in Nova Scotia) to email both of us requesting that we think twice before sending out political statements and “find some common ground … rather than relating purely on the basis of polarized political views.”
My brother and I actually get along far better than my sister imagines, despite our political differences. I called him yesterday and we talked for two hours, catching up on family stuff and finally getting around to the health care issue. He’s thinking of running for Congress as a “new kind of Republican,” and told me that I’m going to see a lot more like him. He said he thinks Bush was “one of the worst President’s we’ve ever had” and that the war in Iraq was a horrible, colossal mistake – though he stopped short of taking exception, as I do, to the so-called “War” on Terror. His main concern, however, is the economics of the federal government. Every state and city, he told me, is required by law to run a balanced budget – but the feds get to run up a huge debt and print as much money as they like. Everyone thinks the solution to all their problems is to have Washington pay for them. He doesn’t think that’s what the founders had in mind at all, and he wants to rein in the spending. He likes Ron Paul on this.
I relayed my concern over the militarization of America and the huge chunk of the discretionary budget spent on the military. He thinks the major problem is the mandatory spending, and looks at the total budget pie, where he says military is only 1/3, and out-of-control entitlements are 2/3. We’ve re-started our long discussion about economic theory.
In this context, my comment on Rabbi Lerner’s three points centers especially on Point 3. Why should our “massive progressive effort” have to begin in the Democratic Party? What about my brother? He’s a very sensible and ethical guy, a very good teacher and a very good father and husband. Are we just going to leave him behind? Not “spiritually progressive” enough? Sez who?
My brother believes that the electorate is 1/3 Dem/left, 1/3 Repub/right, and 1/3 independent / in the middle. It seems to me no third party has a possible chance of getting anywhere unless it identifies itself squarely as independently in that middle, open to Dems OR Republicans. Beyond the fact that any effort that starts within the Dems and “marches out of it” will never be identified as anything but Dems in Disguise, and never get anywhere with the folks in the middle (they’re much smarter than that), the question is, is there really any substance to Spiritual Progressivism that’s truly deeper than the insolubly divisive dichotomy of left/right (right/wrong, I/IT, WE/THEM) labeling?