Read PageEdit PagePage AttributesPage HistoryUpload

Global Transformation: Strategy for Action
Dedication Epigraph Preface Acknowledgments One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Epilogue Comments

Chapter Seven: Strategy -- General Principles

By making explicit what is implicit in earlier chapters, this chapter presents general principles for a strategy to promote global transformation. This plan of action, which calls for the development of a network of holistic, home-based communities, is not intended as the only such strategy, or even the best one. Rather, it’s meant as one approach that could merge with other strategies to help re-shape our world along the lines suggested by the vision statement in Chapter One and the worldview articulated in Chapter Two.

Though to my knowledge no effort to organize a network of holistic, home-based communities is underway, in this chapter I generally speak in the present and future tenses, rather than using subjunctives like “could” and “would.” I recognize this approach reflects wishful thinking, but it reads more smoothly, and sometimes, positive thinking is self-fulfilling.

Systemic Reform

Holistic transformation, by definition, will involve systemic reform, even if it isn’t recognized as such. When progressives have achieved all of their specific goals in every arena, we will have transformed the social system that dominates the world.

By changing that system, we can avoid only placing Band-Aids on gaping wounds. We can correct causes rather than merely attack symptoms. Otherwise, our actions can allow the dominant social system to re-create the same problems. As Atlanta Mayor Maynard Jackson said in 1972, "Ultimately, black and white have only one enemy: not each other, but those economic, social, educational, and political conditions which cause and maintain hunger, neglect, bigotry and disease."

We need to advance reform in every arena, all at the same time. Personal growth, social change, cultural change, and restructuring our institutions – government, media, education, religion, families, parks, libraries, transportation, criminal justice, etc. – are all important. There won’t be a major breakthrough in one arena until there is a major breakthrough in every arena. Simultaneous change throughout society will be mutually reinforcing, because the various components of our social system are mutually reinforcing.

Until there is comprehensive transformation that creates a new global social system that helps us overcome our egocentric impulses and protect the Earth Community, we will continue to be afflicted with one crisis after another. In general, for example, we can’t effectively control the economy in one country alone because, if they can, the wealthy elite in that country will move their capital to where they can operate with fewer restrictions. We need unified, coordinated policies throughout the world.

We need a whole new way of life rooted in a common culture that respects diversity and local attachments, customs and practices – a culture of sub-cultures. We can insist on legitimate rights for all without dehumanizing those who try to deny those rights. We can constantly try to better understand those who criticize or attack us, while working to change the conditions that lead those people to be disrespectful or oppressive. Fear of others may be partly rooted in deep genetic tendencies because tribes were understandably suspicious of outsiders, but now that the world has been globalized, we need to transcend those instincts and realize that we are one human family.

By coming together to transform our global social system, we can fulfill humanity’s promise, reinforce our finest qualities, inspire each other to be better persons, and insist that our institutions live up to their highest ideals. By applying the same approach in every arena, we can create a global society that is truly democratic, just, loving, and peaceful – and protects the environment. Steady, coordinated, simultaneous, mutually reinforcing, comprehensive progressive change can place us on an upward spiral leading to the transformation of our entire society, ourselves included.

We need to talk about systemic reform for many reasons.

Talking about systemic reform will help make it happen because naming a nightmare makes it easier to deal with it.

By placing our own specific work within the framework of systemic transformation, we can clarify our work’s connection with other work and help validate that other work, rather than insist that our issue is the single most important issue.

By elaborating concretely what we mean by “systemic reform,” we can move beyond abstract rhetoric and more effectively connect with people.

Presenting a vision of systemic change will inspire people who want to do more than tinker.

Agreement on a long-term commitment to systemic change will help hold the progressive movement together over the long haul.

A focus on systemic change discourages scapegoating certain elements of the global social system – such as corporations, rich people, politicians, a particular President, the media, the ruling elite, the American people, the Republicans, or whomever. We can’t justifiably place primary blame on specific individuals or groups of individuals. All of us are partly responsible. Without our consent, the system could not function. Moreover, the members of the rotating governing elite are dispensable. They can be replaced easily with no disruption to the normal state of affairs. So understanding that our social system is self-perpetuating helps us let go of excessive anger and resentment and adopt a more positive, more effective attitude.

Understanding and talking about our social system helps avoid the mistake of believing that self-improvement or spiritual growth alone is sufficient (which is a widespread misunderstanding). Changing the world and changing ourselves are complementary and each is necessary. Political action contributes to personal growth and personal growth contributes to political progress.

Understanding and talking about our social system encourages progressives to correct personal and organizational weaknesses that reinforce the system and undermine the effectiveness of our work.

Understanding and talking about our social system helps us maintain many-sided awareness. Life is not a matter of all or nothing, or black-and-white. We can acknowledge and accept our weaknesses without allowing them to control us. We can allow private businesses to make a profit without neglecting their responsibilities to society, their workers, and the environment. We can be aware of future threats while being immersed in the present. We can understand the past without dwelling in it. We can use our rational mind while staying in touch with our feelings. And we can promote government that exercises authority wisely without being authoritarian.

Understanding and talking about our social system helps us avoid trying to predict the future and control others. Living systems are not machines. They are unpredictable, complex organisms, like a garden. Human beings are particularly unpredictable and uncontrollable. By nurturing self-determination and spontaneity, we foster creativity. By being open and flexible, we can resolve contradictions and find balance on a higher path. Life’s not always a matter of either/or. It's often both/and. It’s not always win/lose, it’s often win/win. We can take care of ourselves – and care for others. We can face fears – and shore up faith in the future. We can provide for ourselves financially – and participate in caring communities. We can love our selves – and love all humanity, life itself, and the source of life. In loving partnership with the rest of the world and Mother Nature, grounded in nonviolence as a political strategy and a way of life, we can create a new world.

Understanding and talking about our social system can foster a synthesis between liberal and radical reform because steady change can lead to qualitative transformation. Adding heat turns water into steam. Biological evolution transforms one species into another. Likewise, human social evolution can move humanity to new forms of political and cultural organization. Liberal reforms can eventually lead to fundamental transformation.

By talking about and advancing comprehensive transformation, we, the people of the United States, can forge a new national identity by drawing on the best from all of our traditions. The United States is torn. On the one hand, we hold high ideals and we have achieved remarkable progress. On the other hand, we don’t fully honor those ideals. By being honest about our weaknesses, we can better grow as a nation. We can create a more compassionate, just, sustainable, and democratic society that treats other nations fairly as members of a global community that no one country tries to dominate. We can join hands with other nations in partnership, rooted in the Earth Community, and build a positive upward spiral that will change the world.

For these reasons, I recommend that progressives speak openly and as clearly as possible about transforming the global social system. Theoretically, it would be possible to achieve systemic transformation by just doing it, without talking about it or even realizing it. The new system could be invisible, like our current social system. But it will be easier and more honest if we proceed consciously. By better understanding what we are doing and talking about it more clearly, we can be more effective.

James Baldwin said, “I’m optimistic about the future, but not about the future of this civilization. I’m optimistic about the civilization that will replace this one.” Let us pray that his optimism will be justified.

New Purpose and Worldview

Communities need a sense of purpose and in most cases that purpose needs to be written, even if it is subject to revision. In recent decades, students of social organizations have come to emphasize the importance of clearly identifying, briefly and in writing, an organization’s primary mission. By doing so, the organization can better assure that the organization’s activities contribute to that mission.

Societies also need a central purpose. If we are to transform our global social system, we need a new purpose for our global community – one that is more fulfilling than the primary purpose of the current system, which is to protect the wealth and power of the elite.

Fortunately, on this question, there is no necessity to begin with a blank slate. The problem is not the lack of ideals. The problem is that we have not yet lived up to our ideals. As Edward Said wrote:

In this light, the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America provides a possible starting point. It begins:

I quote from the United States Constitution partly because, as a citizen of that country, I’m familiar with it. But it’s also true that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution have inspired revolutionary movements throughout the world since they were first written. So they have some global legitimacy.

A national network of holistic, home-based communities could update that statement slightly by stating:

Alternatively, a network of holistic, home-based communities could include a global perspective by declaring: ”Our purpose is to serve the common good,” or “Our purpose is to protect the environment, make the United States a more just and democratic nation, and serve the common good of the entire human family.”

These options are offered as examples of the kind of mission statement that is needed. Regardless, however, once a national network adopts its primary mission, it will need to adopt secondary goals to serve as means for achieving that end. I suggest that that mission statement and secondary goals be expressed in the form of a concise worldview affirmed by all members of the network when they join, with the understanding that they can later help reshape that worldview as needed.

This worldview needs to be:

• Substantial and clear enough to minimize divisive debates so it helps hold people together over time
• Grand enough to inspire people who want major change in the long term
• Practical enough to attract those who want to make a difference in the short term.
• Short enough to be read easily
• Clear, honest, and coherent so members and potentials members trust where the network is headed

A written worldview like this will help recruit new members and inspire them to recruit their friends, relatives, and co-workers to join.

Holistic Change

In ”Reflections on Organization Development Through the Lens of Social Justice Change Methodologies,” a group of organizational-development practitioners associated with the Movement Strategy Center in Oakland reviewed four styles of social change work: Organization Development, Community Organizing, Spiritual Activism, and Power Analysis. Each of these often overlapping approaches has value.

Organization Development helps groups “align their vision, values, structure, and purpose, and enact democratic principles of power sharing” rooted in an affirmation of the “dignity, worth, and subjectivity of each individual.”

Spiritual Activism “offers tools and practices to build authentic connection with oneself, with others, and with the outer world. In the context of spirit and healing, one’s full humanity is recognized – emotions, intuition, creativity, motivations, desires, and struggles.”

Community Organizing “translates community concerns into collective action. It holds a distinct understanding of systemic injustice and the transformative power of outrage.”

Power Analysis provides activists with a “deep understanding of the broader context… – the social, economic, and political systems that shape our material, personal, cultural, and even spiritual realities.” Activists apply Power Analysis to their own organizations as well as the external world.

The report contrasts these approaches and considers tensions between them. Though the authors suggest the possibility of a synthesis of these approaches, they don’t explicitly propose one. It seems to me that with some modifications in these approaches, they can in fact be merged into a holistic strategy.

To achieve this synthesis, we need to amend the Organization Development approach by affirming that we can’t change the world one organization at a time. To achieve our goals, we need personal growth and simultaneous change throughout society, which requires a shared vision to address structural inequalities of power and wealth everywhere.

We need to amend the Spiritual Activist approach to clarify that spiritual awareness will not automatically lead to comprehensive transformation. Progressive social change also needs disciplined, collective, political action focused on short-term, measurable objectives, which requires taking risks and learning from mistakes.

We need to amend the Community Organizing model by recognizing that anger is neither the only nor the best emotion that is available to motivate activists. Moral outrage rooted in self-interest is one motivation, but love, the desire to improve the world, and the longing for intimate, spontaneous community are also available motivations.

And we need to amend the Power Analysis model by recognizing that concentrated power can be legitimate and accountable, capitalism can justifiably be saved from itself, and we can make step-by-step reforms toward a more democratic society by forsaking abstract ideologies that attempt to control unpredictable realities.

With these modifications, we can merge these approaches and affirm accountable authority, communal power (democracy), and personal power. Again, it’s not either/or.

We can, for example, as practiced by proponents of Organization Development and Spiritual Activism, encourage all people including “people with enormous access to power [to] grow, change, and willingly become more open to power sharing approaches.” As the report asserts, some people with “power and privilege are actually capable of giving up that power.” How many will do so is unknown, but some will, and they can make important contributions.

When this approach is too slow, community organizers and power analysts can justifiably “use force…in the form of direct actions or strikes [and legislation] to achieve a more power-with orientation from power holders.”

Those approaches are not mutually exclusive. People who generally use one or the other can respect and support one another without insisting that their own approach is “the most effective way to transform systemic injustice.”

By combining these approaches, we can grow a network of holistic, home-based communities dedicated to global transformation consisting of small groups of people who:

• Embrace the same written worldview
• Agree to regularly engage in self-improvement, community service to those less fortunate, and political action to reform their nation’s public policies step-by-step
• Meet at least monthly in a member’s home to share a meal, enjoy each other’s company, and provide support to one another in these efforts

Rather than starting from scratch, this network can emerge primarily by members of existing organizations who already know each other agreeing to modify or supplement their existing activities. In addition, informal groups of friends can decide to devote several hours a month to these group activities.

With this approach, people can deepen and enrich their sense of community, with each member constantly moving toward becoming more whole. Key dimensions of being human can be in balance with one another, while guarding against the tyranny of communities that violate privacy and individuality.

In this kind of community, all members don’t share every experience. Each individual still has his or her own life. Those who live with a partner continue to communicate more deeply with that partner. No one is pressured to share all secrets with every community member. But all members share meaningful experiences regularly, which is rewarding and fosters ever-deeper community. Most of us in the modern world would like to share more experiences with close friends, share peak experiences as well as ordinary moments, share the pain of trying along with the joy of success.

Self-improvement, community service, political action, and mutual support don’t directly address all that it means to be whole. There’s much more to being human than what’s explicitly included in those activities. Intimate personal relationships, creative expression, communing with Nature, re-creation, and having fun, for example, are other endeavors that are pretty much essential to being whole.

But the holistic communities proposed here will provide concrete support for these other activities by giving their members space and time to talk about any of their experiences during their regular support groups. Just being able to share with others and reflect on their significant experiences is inherently valuable. And it helps people make improvements in those pursuits. So, by being open to the whole of experience, these open-ended support groups and shared meals help make these communities holistic. Self-improvement, community service, and political action are highlighted because of their primary importance given our current situation.

Small, home-based communities can be extremely valuable. Christian churches in the United States use regular gatherings in members’ homes to facilitate mutual support. Proponents of liberation theology in Latin America have used similar base communities in their organizing. The women’s movement used small consciousness-raising groups as an instrumental part of their strategy. The movement against nuclear energy in the States used home-based affinity groups, as did the movement against military intervention in Central America. Political campaigns routinely use house meetings to boost their efforts.

The reasons this approach works are obvious. Meeting in members’ homes requires no rental fees. People are more relaxed. Sharing food and drink is easier. Mutually supportive friendships form more easily. Participants feel freer to speak up and exercise leadership in smaller, more relaxed groups. Having more of a voice, they’re more likely to follow through on commitments.

The holistic strategy proposed here will deepen the time-proven, home-based model by explicitly fostering self-improvement, community service, political action, and mutual support that enables members to assist one another in these efforts. By agreeing to take on these tasks, over time these small, home-based groups deepen their sense of community.

Self-improvement

A clear commitment to self-development is important. Most people want to be better persons, but it seems to me, they often don’t work on it in a disciplined way. They rarely think about it and seldom talk about it. They make their New Year’s resolutions and soon forget about them. As people in the modern world need to budget time for exercise, we also need to set aside time to focus on self-improvement and moral fitness, both privately and with others. In particular, we need to consciously cultivate the ability to relax and be present, attentive, spontaneous, and responsive to the needs of others.

Marcus Aurelius told himself:

The Dalai Lama has written:

The Roman ex-slave Epictetus reflected:

Snapping out of egoism can happen instantly, like waking from a dream, but often it’s not easy. Resolving to work steadily on self-improvement and discussing our efforts with others can help.

As Jacob Needleman wrote in Why Can’t We Be Good?,

Needleman argues that with honest self-awareness and “letting yourself become quiet inside so that your scattered attention is drawn back toward you,” one is better able to be moral without being moralistic,

True self-knowledge, according to Needleman, includes facing and accepting that “the confusion and the profound unsatisfactoriness of his day-to-day life [is] not due to something missing in him, but to something missing in Man,…the degraded state” of our being which is inherently plagued with ignorance. Self-awareness includes honestly acknowledging when:

• You don’t do the “right thing”
• You violate your neighbor’s humanity by acting like an “ethical robot…who obeys moral principles through external or internal compulsion or habit”
• “Your mind and heart are in the thrall of your appetites and your actions are in the thrall of your tyrannized and tyrannizing mind”
• “The slightest scratch” from life or from your neighbor “turns [you] upside down”
• You are “swallowed” by your life so that you “simply do not remember [your] deeper questions”
• You are controlled by “egoism, fear, self-pity, self-will, suggestibility”
• You are unable to feel
• You fall victim to “toxic misunderstandings of duty and obligation”
• Hypocrisy haunts your life, enabling you “to go on and on betraying [your] ethical ideals while at the same time believing that [you] are doing what is good”
• You indulge in “moral fantasies” and “moral self-deception” and become hypnotized by “delusions of moral power,” and deny that the same hypocrisy that you have criticized in others infects you as well
• You are afflicted with ”the painful insincerity of guilt”
• You practice self-concealment, which is “one part of the psyche hiding from the other”
• You realize that “all of mankind without exception has lost its way and stands condemned [because] we are not morally developed men and women”
• You realize “the possibility that the entire human mind…breathes in an atmosphere of egoism”
• You realize that “down deep we are all more alike than we imagine”
• You realize that you need “to learn how to be able to love”
• You forget that “no man does evil intentionally (Socrates)”
• You assume that true morality “is accessible to us and is ours simply for the asking without the great inner struggle to become fully human selves,…simply by wishing for it – almost in our spare time”
• You fall victim to the influence “of the herd morality, the influence of the mass mind, the unthinking, passive craving of mankind to be told what fantasies, religious or otherwise, to believe in and act upon”
• You intellectualize and rationalize “the ideals [you] violate in [your] heart”

This honest self-awareness is “the hidden root of ethics and morality,” which enables us to

This inner struggle, detached self-reflection, and self-acceptance, “through the intentional activation of a certain quality of inner silence,” tends (as a by-product) to be liberating because this

Too often, however, progressive activists, like most modern humans, lack this visceral, critical self-awareness and willingness to be vulnerable that is necessary for liberation. So we become arrogant, judgmental, self-centered, self-serving, power-hungry, fearful, angry, agitated, strident, vitriolic, dogmatic, impatient, unrealistic, competitive, lifeless, intellectual, uptight, racist, sexist, homophobic, domineering, and/or dehumanizing. Because these tendencies make us less effective than we could be, we need to integrate the personal and the political by uncovering these weaknesses and working on them.

Progressive organizations that aim to foster a sense of community among their members need to openly, honestly, clearly affirm that among their top-level goals is the promotion of self-improvement. Even progressive faith-based organizations that are politically active typically fail to explicitly identify self-development as a goal. Consequently, their political work reinforces the task-oriented objectification perpetrated by the dominant society, which undermines the sense of community that will be required for sustained transformation.

Since our primary purpose is to promote the fulfillment of life, it is also helpful to keep in touch with the universe by communing with nature on a regular basis, rather than merely observing it from a distance or visiting a National Park on vacation. With a sense of awe, respect, and mystery, we can feel our interconnection with all our relations, both human and non-human. Actually being in nature helps in this regard. Loving the universe is essential to self-development, and there’s no better way to love nature than to be in it.

Lack of attention to these issues glosses over problems with how progressive activists relate to each other and to the people we try to recruit. We often treat people as disposable tools to be used and manipulated until they are used up. My anger and my desire for power become central and the needs of others become secondary. These actions reinforce the dominant social system and its culture, for they perpetuate individualistic, competitive ways of relating.

In order to boost our effectiveness and build deep community, progressives need to overcome these tendencies.

Community Service

Another component in the holistic approach proposed here is direct engagement on a regular basis in assisting strangers who are in pressing need of assistance. Middle-class political activists easily get caught up in an abstract world of ideas and lose touch with reality. And dedicated practitioners of self-development often become addicted to self-centered navel-gazing.

Disciplined, regular service to others can be a moral practice that cultivates self-awareness, awareness of the external world, and the ability to become capable of a deeper morality. Needleman calls traditional moral standards

For guidance on this point, Needleman points to Hillel the Elder, who lived in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.

For these and other reasons, people benefit from venturing away from their comfortable circle of family and friends and, for example, delivering Meals on Wheels or working on a soup line or a food bank. (VolunteerMatch is one project that informs people about nearby volunteer opportunities according to 28 categories of services, most of which cover social services to individuals in need). Among other benefits, providing such services can prompt one to notice instinctive prejudices, which can facilitate overcoming or controlling those judgments.

The principal reason for providing these services, however, is that so many people need assistance. Working to help people indirectly through political and cultural change is essential. But it is also imperative to lend an immediate, direct helping hand to individuals who are severely disadvantaged. Even if one’s own community is deeply involved in providing mutual support to people in great need using a peer-support model, it is still helpful to reach out to people outside of one’s own community because it broadens one’s experience and understanding.

For practical reasons, members of the holistic communities envisioned here will generally provide this community service as individuals or in small groups, even though sharing experiences deepens community. Most social service organizations aren’t prepared to incorporate large numbers of volunteers at the same time. And assistance is generally more valuable when it is on a smaller, more personal scale.

Political Action

Political action is another component of the holistic strategy proposed here. Personal growth, developing healthy relationships, public education, community service, and cultural change are key components in a strategy of transformation. But the political sphere demands attention as well. Governments are unique, because they monopolize police power and use that power to enforce public policies that have a major impact on people’s lives.

Helping individuals cope one-by-one or in small groups is not sufficient. We also need to correct the root causes of suffering that drive so many people into desperate situations. We need prevention as well as service. Even if it were possible to recover completely from all the damage that is done to them (and it often is not), why should people suffer needlessly due to social conditions that are imposed on them against their will?

If we see young children drowning in a pool, we are moved to rescue them. But if a playground structure sends a never-ending stream of bodies into the pool, we are compelled to try to change that structure. If we can do so quickly and easily, the choice is simple. But structural change usually is not easy, which makes decisions more complicated.

Shall we merely help individuals cope, or shall we try to change public policies that cause suffering? I recommend doing both.

If we care about the many forms of needless suffering that billions of people endure every day, including the 40,000 people who die prematurely every day due primarily to the public policies that have been perpretrated by the United States government, we are compelled to do what we can to change those policies and provide everyone the means to a peaceful, meaningful, and happy life in a safe and sustainable environment. So, it seems to me, engaging in political action regularly is a moral imperative.

Doing so with other members of a supportive community deepens the bonds between members of that community. People yearn to share meaningful experiences with close friends. As one cannot make love alone, neither can one make politics alone.

Short-term victories that move society toward long-term goals can improve living conditions and build momentum toward global transformation. The bottom line is that we must do what is right, regardless of consequences, while doing our best to be successful, bearing in mind that a victory that is certain at the outset is probably worthless.

One can never predict the future. Hardly anyone envisioned the rapid nonviolent overthrow of apartheid in South Africa, for example. But people felt compelled to try and eventually the pieces fell into place.

It seems to me that part and parcel of being a whole human being is to accept one's responsibility for helping to shape public policy by engaging the political sphere intentionally. We are responsible for more than just voting during elections.

I believe I can make that assertion without being moralistic or judgmental. If you are inactive politically, I assume you have good reasons for your passivity, so I don’t presume to condemn you as a morally inferior being. But I do encourage you to keep your eyes open for ways that you might be more active.

If enough people were to dedicate two hours a month to unified political action, we could persuade our elected officials to respect majority opinion and be well on the way to truly amazing achievements.

Mutual Support

To improve our effectiveness and enrich our experience, we need easy-to-use structures that foster mutual support in these personal, social, and political efforts. By not utilizing such methods, progressives fail to maximize personal and collective strength.

The holistic organizing strategy proposed here is based on consciously facilitating open-ended mutual support with formal structures. Caring for one another best happens spontaneously. But fostering friendships informally, though essential, is not sufficient. Simple structures can facilitate natural human support by countering modern-day pressures toward atomization. To grow deep community, special time needs to be set aside for meetings that pay attention to feelings – loosely structured, open opportunities where people can talk from the heart about whatever emerges at the moment. In this way, each group’s own culture – its own attitudes, beliefs, and behavior patterns – can emerge.

Solving issues in these meetings is not necessary. Merely providing time and space for feelings to surface is valuable in and of itself. These expressions can enable people to better know each other, and just being understood can be extremely helpful. When needed, people can address issues that emerge later, perhaps in a conflict resolution session or in deeper personal work.

To help build a network of holistic communities, one such method will be a shared meal in a member’s home following which everyone forms a circle and shares with one another what has been happening in their lives, minimizing interruptions, with one person talking at a time. During this time of sharing, perhaps after agreeing that what they say will be kept confidential, members report on how they feel about their efforts at self-improvement, community service and political action, as well as personal bad news and good news in their personal lives.

So, as one element in our overall strategy, progressives can develop support mechanisms that others can learn to use quickly – and inform others about what methods work for them. In these ways, we will grow holistic communities that reflect the kind of society we want. We will live as we want others to live, while respecting their need to do the same, which means compromises are essential.

We will help improve our global community step-by-step and contribute to its eventual transformation into an improved, qualitatively new form – a form that itself will later be transformed in the never-ending process of social change.

Positive Attitude

We need not wait for crises to worsen. Current troubles are all the motivation we need. The whole world cries out for action.

Positive, life-affirming attitudes enrich life in the here and now. “Martin Luther King, Jr. didn’t get famous giving a speech called ‘I Have a Complaint’ (Van Jones).” Fear-based frameworks focused on some future apocalypse breed more fear. Anger-based frameworks geared to defeating enemies breed more anger. Life-affirming movements rooted in nonviolence, love, forgiveness, reconciliation, the celebration of life, cultural creativity, caring communities, and cultural enrichment counter the impersonal, dehumanizing aspects of modern life. They cultivate deep communities that help us become better human beings, without aiming to make everyone the same. With a foundation of unity, they welcome differences, while discouraging actions that harm others.

Instead of blaming specific individuals or groups for our problems, we can address our underlying social system, which is the root of our problems. We can rise above our fears and resentments about the past, trust that people are basically good and wise, and find our way forward. We can stop creating scapegoats. Rather than spreading fear and anger, we can expand hope and love.

Corporations aren’t the problem. We created them and we can redefine them as needed and insist that they be partners in progress. The government isn’t the problem. We created it and we can redefine it and insist that it be a partner in progress. Terrorists aren’t the problem. They are symptoms of underlying problems that we can correct, while at the same time effectively dealing with immediate threats.

The ideological approach is an egoistic, abstract, divisive approach that undermines the vibrant solidarity that is essential for global transformation. Though I am closely aligned with Dennis Kucinich’s politics and hope that be builds his base of support, and would welcome John Edwards or Al Gore winning the Presidency, it seems to me that Barack Obama uniquely understands this need for a new approach to politics rooted in a non-ideological, moral worldview and a pragmatic strategy that concentrates on finding common ground and building momentum by winning victories. He effectively integrates morality and progressive politics, and addresses the need for deep, personal growth and supportive communities by calling on people to rise above our egocentric culture. With this approach, which wisely shifts emphasis toward heart-level morality issues and away from intellectual policy ideas, he comes close to adopting the positive perspective presented in the “Beyond Ideology” section of Chapter Two.

Progressives who are mystified by Obama’s appeal reveal, it seems to me, their own limited, ideological, overly confrontational approach to politics – an approach that tends to reject anyone and any project that is not perfect. Their vitriol toward Obama reveals what is wrong with the progressive movement. We can be critical without being judgmental. We can choose our own path without condemning those who seek to find common ground and affirm common values with as many people as possible. When others decide to oppose us, we can stand our ground without demonizing them.

A divisive economic populism that inflames class warfare would likely win the Presidency and Congress in 2008 with a slight majority. But a more inclusive progressivism as articulated by Obama could win the Presidency with a strong majority and elect a Congress with an overwhelming mandate for major change. With a new, more positive approach, we could open doors not yet imagined.

Politics involves interacting with opponents, but we don’t have to needlessly aggravate polarity. We can recognize the kernel of truth in all points of view. We need not demonize our opponents and treat them like mortal enemies. We need not set out to provoke more polarization and partisanship. We need not go looking for confrontation. If others oppose our reasoned suggestions for positive change, we can appeal to their enlightened self-interest, while standing our ground and moving forward.

If others try to polarize with meanness, we can point out what they are doing and respond firmly with kindness, patience, and respect. Without inflaming the culture wars by launching personal attacks on those who disagree, we can, for example, strongly support affirmative action, equal rights for gays and lesbians, and the right to have an abortion.

As Casey Nelson Blake wrote, after commenting on the “politics of forgiveness” displayed by the civil rights movement:

We can avoid getting addicted to the adrenaline rush associated with fighting enemies. We need not take our campaigns too seriously, as life or death matters, for the world will not collapse if we fail on our next effort. 40,000 people will still be dying needlessly every day even if we win that campaign. And nothing that I do is going to prevent my own death. So we need to set aside our ego and keep matters in perspective. We need to remember to enjoy life, even though 40,000 people are dying needlessly every day and some day, I too will die. Since transformation is a never-ending process, no defeat is the end and no victory is final.

Political action can lead to a deep, rich sense of community. By learning how to use a positive attitude to inspire people, progressives can become more confident, which will lead to being even more positive. This increased confidence will help us be more honest in our self-criticism, which will lead to new, more effective ways of operating. By being honest about our weaknesses and accepting them, we can better move beyond them and grow as a movement, a nation, and a global community. This increased optimism will lead us to pay more attention to what is needed to sustain progress over time, such as communities that are filled with positive energy.

Active Listening

When progressives come to respect and understand people more deeply, we’ll be better able to communicate more effectively. And when it comes to good communication, learning how to listen is more important than learning how to talk.

As a student in one of Jacob Needleman’s classes said, “I really can’t hold on so tightly to what I believe if I’m constantly releasing it in order to listen to what she’s saying.” Really listening to the other usually prompts us to respond in a less doctrinaire way that better appreciates the basic values we share in common. Doing so, however, requires the acceptance of uncertainty, and many people, fearful of uncertainty, cling to certitude.

Conscious listening enables us to better understand the other’s interests, which can make it easier to find common ground. Simply listening to another often helps them answer their own questions. And assuring others that they’ve been heard can help build solidarity.

Most people aren’t doctrinaire radical-right ideologues. Though they may support “conservative” positions on specific issues, they are largely open-minded and willing to listen to alternative viewpoints – if others are willing to listen to them.

By engaging in respectful dialogue about what methods can be most effective to reach shared goals, progressives can garner more support for our proposals, learn how to wisely modify our positions, and open our hearts through listening closely to others.

Progressives also need to slow down and take the time to do a better job of listening to one another. We can pay closer attention to what others say without interrupting them – perhaps by pausing a moment to gather our thoughts and make sure that the other is finished. We can ask more questions to deepen our understanding of each other. We can let others know what we heard them say so they can correct misunderstandings. We can refrain from giving so many lectures and remember to learn from others.

Rather than always trying to convince others to do what we want them to do, we can more often find out what they want to do and forge a plan for joint action, perhaps a new plan not previously conceived by anyone. We can remember that those who are most silent often have the most to say. By being a good audience and responding honestly, we can help others find their own words and their own voice.

We can recover the art of open-ended conversation, with no script and no known ending. We can get to understand others as they understand themselves, rather than filtering what they say through our own preconceptions. We can appreciate the uniqueness, the genius, of each individual. We can relish the surprise of discovering the unexpected. We can hear the sounds of silence and value the limitations of language.

Frances Moore Lappe¢ offered the following summary of what she and others have called “active listening”:

• Hallmarks:
  • Stays engaged
  • Is supportive of the speaker’s efforts whether or not there’s agreement
  • Searches for underlying meaning
  • Is nonjudgmental
• Benefits:
  • Uncovers deeper interests
  • Permits the discover of mutual interests
  • Spurs creativity
  • Changes the speaker as well as the listener
  • Creates positive bonds

And she offered the following “how-tos” for active listening:

• Reach Out for the Ideas of Others: Listening to the concerns of others
• Sometimes, Just Be Quiet: Pausing after the other person speaks to be sure that the other person has finished
• Be Encouraging and Feed Back What You Hear: Take the time to summarize what you’re hearing and check in to see whether the speaker thinks you “got it”
• Ask Probing Questions: Such as, what do you mean?
• Take in More Than the Words: Register and weigh facial expression, tone of voice, and body language
• Make Sure the Speaker is Comfortable: For example, go to where people feel most comfortable

Universal Language

The progressive movement needs to use language that welcomes both secular and spiritual people. For many people, personal growth involves “spiritual” growth. For others, it does not.

Progressives who don’t consider themselves spiritual need to respect spiritual traditions that aren’t oppressive. Historically, religious leaders have played a prominent role in most progressive movements, but in recent decades, many progressives have been strongly critical or even hostile toward expressions of faith at public gatherings. This intolerance weakened the progressive movement because it violated core progressive principles.

One manifestation of this attitude has been an insistence on a total, complete “separation of church and state,” even though that phrase is not in the Constitution and it does not reflect the attitude of the Founders, who were concerned about the freedom of religion. The first two phrases of the First Amendment to the Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” It is no coincidence that this defense of religion was mentioned first. This amendment thus prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish one religion as the official religion, prefer a certain religion or religion over irreligion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

So the Supreme Court has understandably declared unconstitutional laws that require Bible reading in public school, but has accepted opening sessions of the legislature with a prayer and it has accepted the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The extreme opposition to any expression of spirituality in public affairs on the part of many progressives set a tone that adversely affected all progressives.

More recently, progressive-minded spiritual people have reacted to this anti-spiritual tone and insisted that spiritual progressives should once again play a major role in the progressive movement. This development is encouraging.

At the same time, however, some of these advocates sometimes seem to suggest that the progressive movement should identify itself as “spiritual.” This attitude makes idols of words. The deepest realities can’t be expressed with words. By clarifying what we share in common, we can find universal language that makes sense to the greatest number. Those who consider themselves spiritual need not insist that others use their own language.

Fortunately, many scientists, especially in astronomy, cosmology, and nuclear physics, are making discoveries that resonate with spiritual traditions. Many of them find that they must resort to language that is very similar to spiritual language to express what they are discovering.

Science will never prove the truth of spiritual convictions. Though they are overlapping, science and religion are fundamentally different. Science relies on controlled experiments concerning measurable, predictable reality and spirituality relies on intuition concerning matters than can’t be measured or predicted. Nevertheless, scientists, as well as poets, artists, and songwriters who use metaphors to communicate, can point to conclusions that lead secular people to at least sympathize with spiritual people, for virtually all of us value nonmaterial realities.

Spiritual traditions have relied on myths, especially stories, to express their convictions. These myths emerged from specific historical contexts and told their story based on the understanding of reality that prevailed at the time. Over time, as the historical context changed, the meanings attached to myths changed. So people re-interpret myths into contemporary language in order to get at the pre-verbal truths addressed by those myths. Different myths work for different people at different times, but all people use symbolic stories and metaphors to make sense of their world. Respect for this diversity of interpretation is essential to the progressive worldview.

For secular people to object to any use of spiritual language at public events is to make the same mistake that fundamentalists make when they insist that their language is the only language that works. It is a form of worshipping words, or trying to make words holy.

By making the effort, we can find universal language that all non-dogmatic people can appreciate. At times others will use language that doesn’t make sense to us, but there’s no need to get pushed out of shape about it.

Majoritarian Politics

If and when it emerges, the network of home-based communities envisioned here will mobilize support for specific progressive demands already supported by a majority of people nationwide. So the political strategy proposed here is “majoritarian.”

As briefly touched on previously, by exercising different kinds of leadership, different people play different roles in the process of progressive social change. Vanguard organizations persuade people to do what they would otherwise not be inclined to do. Guides lead people on a path after they choose to take it. Teachers open minds to new possibilities. Mentors give occasional useful advice on request. Innovators lead by example, finding new paths. Spokespeople, whether formally selected or anointed by the press, give voice to others. Writers and other cultural workers expand awareness and inspire action. Gadflies provoke and goad others into action. Prophets and witnesses hold communities accountable to their professed ideals. All of these roles are helpful.

This proposal, however, is based on another approach: bringing together people who want to focus on winning objectives that already have majority support, even if it involves compromise. Some people are more willing to compromise. Others prefer to take strong stands (including symbolic moral witness) that will hopefully build momentum for more substantial gains in the future. Being clear about an organization’s approach in this regard minimizes divisive arguments. Those who are willing to compromise can find each other without constantly arguing about it. Myself, at this point in my life, I agree with Michael Moore, who recently said, "I'd rather put my lot down with the majority of Americans who know that something is wrong and want things to change.”

By affirming revolutionary evolution, the approach presented in this book aims to bridge the gap between liberals and radicals. Through a series of gradual reforms, we can eventually alter the basic structure of our society, create a qualitatively new world, and empower all people.

We need not waste time and foment divisiveness by attacking liberals mercilessly. Instead, we can support liberal demands that move in the right direction, while urging liberals to take their thinking to the next logical step by supporting structural changes that will prevent problems and eliminate the need for stopgap measures.

With this approach, we can support short-term reforms that improve people’s lives as one step toward fundamental transformation. Advocating a short-term reform without at the same time advocating longer-term reforms promotes the impression that only the short-term demand matters, which leads people to being satisfied when they win that demand (or discouraged when they lose). Instead, we can make it clear to everyone and constantly remind ourselves that we will never be satisfied (or disheartened). Even after the transition to a fundamentally transformed global society, we’ll still need to make further progress and work to protect our gains.

Rather than waste time and energy condemning others for not being radical enough, we can focus on building support for strong measures that move toward changing the structures of our institutions. We can clear from the outset that we will continue to push for more improvements.

We see what is on the horizon only vaguely. From the distance of time, the future is unclear. By the time we get to where we’re headed, what we see will change. Only ideologues claim to know precisely what will work best down the road. As conditions change, our proposals for reforms in public policy may need to change. So flexibility is essential.

Emerson said, “Human life is made up of two elements, power and form, and the proportion must be invariably kept, if we would have it sweet and sound.” And Thomas M. Allen wrote, “If the power of our desire overruns the form of the world in which we must make our lives, then our best qualities become noxious.” I relate to this balance between idealism and pragmatism, as described by those authors.

In the 1960s, however, I resonated with Jim Morrison, the lead singer and songwriter with The Doors, when he declared, “We want the world and we want it now.” Maybe that exuberance is a natural part of youth. Regardless, though my strategic sense has changed, my goals are still much the same and I still see transformation, or revolution, as a never-ending process.

I now sense that the pendulum of history is swinging. We need to get in synch with it and push that pendulum so hard that it breaks the historical pattern and keeps moving in a progressive direction without swinging back.

If we build a mass movement that generates real momentum by winning major victories one after the other, we can expand what seems possible and open the door to reforms that are now minority positions. Exactly which minority positions will garner majority support in the future remains to be seen – a matter that will surprise and hopefully please us.

Progress and unity have an uncomfortable relationship to each other. By concentrating on advancing progressive positions that have majority support, we can resolve that tension. The science of public-opinion polling can help in that regard.

There is no necessity to support any position that has majority support. We can be selective by choosing only those positions that are progressive. By adopting a majoritarian strategy, however, we can adopt the visionary stance of affirming “systemic change” without losing our credibility with the mainstream, because we will illustrate what we mean by backing positions that have majority support.

Mixed Economy

In the United States, as I see it, this progressive network of holistic, home-based communities will need to clearly affirm a mixed economy that is reformed to better meet human needs, rather than socialism or anarchism. Total opposition to all forms of capitalism, globalization, or hierarchy strikes me as irrational dogmatism. Insisting on the use of any word, like “socialism,” is another way to treat a word is if it were an idol. Being “anti-capitalist” doesn’t hold water logically and isolates from the mainstream those who use that word. If one aims to be a vanguard, a gadfly, or a prophet that stance can make sense. But if one aims at revolutionary evolution, it doesn’t. The problem is not capitalism per se, for capitalism can be regulated to serve the common good.

“Socialism asked the right questions but gave the wrong answers (William Sloan Coffin).” Socialists have properly challenged the notion that property rights are absolute and God-given, when in fact they are conditional and defined by society. Socialists have properly challenged the notion that the “free market” solves all social problems, for the economy always has been and must be regulated by the government. Socialists have properly challenged the harm that is inevitably inflicted by capitalism, for under capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer until some countervailing power intervenes to reverse that process. But socialism, with its emphasis on government ownership of the means of production and centralized control of the economy, offered an inadequate solution.

Likewise, anarchism has challenged assumptions that domination and submission are inevitable. But the absolute, idealistic rejection of all hierarchy embraced is no more realistic than socialism is.

Unfortunately, debates about socialism and anarchism repeatedly tear apart progressive coalitions. So at the outset, the organizers of a new, holistic project will need to make it clear that their project is not “anti-capitalist,” “socialist,” or “anarchistic,” without trying to exclude or purge people who subscribe to those philosophies. This new project could say to socialists and anarchists:

***

If I were a socialist or an anarchist and I encountered this project, I would give it my support – without trying to change it to fit more closely with my own views. I would welcome the achievement of the goals envisioned by this project as a step toward my own vision, but I would not give it my heart and soul. Most of my time and energy would still be devoted to educating and organizing people to support projects that were more closely aligned with my goals.

I would recognize that this strategy involves certain risks. Progressive reforms as envisioned by this project might “save capitalism from itself.” It might be wiser to simply sit on the sidelines, wait for the system to collapse, and be prepared to lead the masses to a more revolutionary solution.

But doing so would be morally unacceptable, for it would involve not only desiring but also aiding and abetting (if only by inaction) the amplification of suffering. And this approach would be politically ineffective, for it communicates indifference. Most people aren’t inclined to rally behind others who are callous.

In terms of capitalism, if one accepts that a musician should be able to start his or her own record company and maybe even make millions of pre-tax dollars with it (if we had a progressive tax system), if one accepts that some entrepreneurs should be able to collect capital to invest in a new software company, if one accepts that most businesses should be able to set their own prices for their goods and services, and if one accepts that society should use the profit motive to motivate people to steadily improve the quality of their goods and services, then it seems to me that one is not “anti-capitalist,” though one can vehemently oppose the form of capitalism that is dominant today.

So far, the only label that makes sense to me to describe the kind of economy that we need is a “mixed economy.” One could coin other phrases and try to make one stick, as people are doing in other countries. And maybe one that works here will catch on. But labels aren’t all that important and they ossify experience. For me, “mixed economy” works well.

That phrase leaves open what the mix between the public and private sectors will be. But that’s fine, for the mix will change over time. And one needs to describe what kind of economy one wants concretely, anyway, rather than rely on abstract labels. Clearly public ownership is needed in certain areas. Close public regulation is needed in other areas. Worker-owned businesses, a form of capitalism, make sense in many arenas.

Being concrete carries with it the advantage of flexibility. Countries and regions understandably alter the mix from time to time, depending on what is determined to most effectively meet human needs. So let’s try to be concrete and specific. Let’s not worry about labels and dogma. We can merely insist that we need a “mixed economy,” not some mythical “totally free market.”

Words carry different meanings in different countries and with different people in the same country. In other countries, many organizations and even some governments who call themselves “socialist” advocate policies that are much the same as what progressives support in this country. If I lived in one of those countries, I might join a “socialist” party, for those parties accept “capitalism” as a major characteristic of their economies.

But I see no need in this country to insist that others affirm certain words like “socialism.” That kind of obsession strikes me, like religious fundamentalism, as an insistence on the alleged magical powers of certain words.

In this country, socialism is understood as a political theory advocating state ownership of industry. So I see no need to use that word, especially since the theory associated with it does not make sense to me logically. Perhaps the meaning of the term in this country will eventually be redefined. But I see no need to bother with that effort at this time.

So if you’re a socialist, or an anarchist, my colleagues and I welcome you, so long as you aren’t disruptive. You can circulate your literature and recruit members for your own organization at our events. You can comment (briefly) on how you support this project as a step toward your own goals. But we insist that you accept that this particular project does not advocate socialism or anarchism and it never will. Please don’t try to change the politics of this organization. Build your own organizations for that purpose.

Let’s stop engaging in so many divisive battles geared to establish our superiority over less politically correct positions. The bottom line is that we need broad-based unity so that we can build momentum by winning victories that improve the quality of people’s lives.

***

With this approach, a new progressive network of holistic, home-based communities can minimize divisive battles without being exclusionary. Trying to exclude people would be neither ethical nor practical. Some people will exclude themselves, of course. But the network can be open to all who declare that they agree with the network’s basic principles.

National and Global Focus

Americans hold the federal government, and in particular the President, accountable for the state of the economy, the protection of civil liberties, the common defense, and other basic functions. In terms of the economy, the nation-state is a key refuge against the ravages of unbridled capitalism. Only the federal government prints money, stimulates the economy by spending more than it collects in taxes, controls interest rates, limits immigration across its borders, prohibits people from leaving the country in order to avoid paying taxes, imposes taxes on everyone within its borders (residents of a particular state can move to another state when that state raises taxes but leaving the country is more difficult), regulates inter-state commerce, prevents the formation of illegal monopolies, and sets tariffs on imports to protect certain industries. In short, only the federal government can regulate the economy.

Because it can generate more income than can state and local governments, the federal government, partly through grants to state and local governments, can more easily finance valuable services (and thereby create needed jobs). Social Security, highway repair, public transit, childcare, health care, environmental restoration, and job training are merely some examples of vital public services supported by the federal government.

Americans understand and accept this reality. Any President who fails to produce prosperity is in trouble.

A progressive movement for global transformation must address the federal government. Local, regional, and state efforts, as important as they are, are not sufficient by themselves. Without corrective action on the national level, local and state governments will continue to be overwhelmed by an avalanche of human misery and environmental disaster created by the federal government. In particular, the federal government, including the Federal Reserve, consciously limits the number of jobs that are available in the country as a whole. The ramifications of this decision are enormous.

Consequently, Americans need to demand that the federal government assure that every adult who wants to work is able to find a meaningful job that pays a living wage. Methods for achieving this goal include increasing the minimum wage (and linking it to inflation), increasing the Income Tax Credit for low-income working families, and increasing funding for public-service jobs until those jobs go begging due to lack of applicants.

Other methods for establishing economic security include assuring universal health insurance, expanding affordable childcare, and assuring that retired and disabled people have enough income to avoid poverty. Support for these positions, which is already strong, could grow stronger with a grassroots movement for economic justice.

This movement will include removing restrictions on the ability of workers to organize unions, because effective unions can improve working conditions and enhance economic security by protecting workers against layoffs.

A growing movement for economic justice also needs to reverse many of the so-called "free trade" policies that have been established in recent years. These policies aren't truly "free trade," for governments continue to regulate trade and the flow of capital. The only question is for whom governments intervene, not whether they will.

More fundamentally, as the country of Bhutan suggests with its Gross Domestic Happiness standard, we need new ways to measure progress. The traditional Gross Domestic Product fails to include many costs associated with conventional economic growth. Measures like the Ecological Footprint and the Genuine Progress Indicator, developed by Redefining Progress, can help us understand the impact of business practices on the environment and social equity. With such understanding, we can better develop policies that promote genuine progress. With their True Cost project, AdBusters is taking these insights onto college campuses.

All of us need to learn from these efforts and apply them to the federal government. Citizens in many other countries can adopt a similar strategy focused on their national legislature. By coordinating actions with one another based on shared values and a common vision, progressive movements within each country can establish policies that enable each country to maximize local, regional, and national self-sufficiency, while supporting one another. We can learn how to cooperate for the benefit of the Earth Community.

This shift will require the people of the United States to clearly recognize and accept that the “American moment” is over. If the American Empire ever did exist, it no longer does. We might as well get over it. The United States is no longer the planet’s top dog. We should stop playing global puppet master by trying to control other nations and exploiting them so that wealthy elites can enrich themselves. We must exercise leadership, but we also need to follow the leadership of others.

Most Americans need not suffer severely from this transition, other than reducing their chance of striking it rich. With a progressive, sustainable economic policy, all Americans will still live comfortably and securely, most will advance themselves over time, and we can preserve the environment. But the wealthy elite will have to share more of their wealth (which will hardly cause them to suffer). And the power-hungry will have to relinquish their addiction to the adrenalin rush that comes from conquering people.

Accepting these realities and forming cooperative alliances with grassroots forces in other counties, we can build a unified, global, progressive movement.

Limited Time Commitment

Especially if they get paid for it, many community organizers dedicate their entire life to political activism. They seem to think that since their opponents work 80-hour weeks, they must do the same. They become workaholics, consumed by one cause of another. For them, the personal is political, literally. Battles become life-or-death. They’re consumed by politics and leave little time for enjoying life and taking care of themselves and each other.

Unfortunately, they pressure others to do the same, often in the name of a “participatory democracy” that injects politics into every aspect of personal life. This style borders on totalitarianism. Politics is total, the only thing that really matters. It’s no wonder that these fanatics also tend to be arrogant, judgmental, and authoritarian in their dealings with others. I should know. I’ve been one.

This obsessive approach to politics can’t be justified morally, for the personal and the political, though inter-related, are distinct spheres. Neither is this approach an effective organizing style, for potential recruits are either turned off or intimidated, and intimidation is no way to inspire others to be leaders, be true to themselves, and inspire others to do the same.

Modern life is filled with time-pressure. The demands on time, real and perceived, are enormous. A strategy for comprehensive transformation that aims to involve large numbers of people by attracting those who are currently inactive must recognize these pressures and articulate a plan of action that won’t ask people to do too much. Yet, at the same time, people must commit enough time and energy to make a difference and enable the growth of deep community.

So my suggestion is to ask for a minimal commitment of six hours a month. Most people can find six hours monthly for a particular activity if it’s meaningful. In six hours, members of a holistic, home-based community can have a two-hour support group meeting, engage in community service for two hours, and participate in a political action for two hours.

Within this framework, many people will end up doing more, especially in terms of informal social interactions. But asking only for a commitment to six hours a month will make it easier for inactive people to break the habit of passivity.

Moreover, for people who are already engaged in community service or political action, this minimal monthly commitment will enable them to supplement their existing activities in a way that will deepen and enrich their work, especially by sharing a meal and participating in a support group during which they report on their efforts at self-improvement, community service, and political action.

For these reasons, clearly articulating a minimal requirement of six hours a month seems important.

A Million Member Monthly Mobilization

Impacting the federal government will be easier than many people think. Given the relatively small size of the 435 Congressional districts, the House of Representatives offers a strategic focus for change. Most Congressional districts are small enough to enable grassroots campaigns to rely more on inexpensive, personal contact and less on expensive television ads.

On average, there are 270,000 registered voters per district. Only about 200,000 of these people vote for their Congressperson. So candidates who get only 100,000 votes have a good chance of winning. Congresspersons are well aware of this reality, so they tend to be more responsive to their constituents than are Senators and the President.

Moreover, most Congressional districts are dominated by one of the two major parties, so candidates who win that party’s primary usually win the general election. Primary victors typically win with only 40,000 votes.

So a Democratic Congressperson who consistently fails to represent his or her constituency well is vulnerable to a progressive challenger who mounts an effective challenge to that Congressperson in the primary election. And mounting such a challenge is feasible. Grassroots hard-right conservatives certainly did it with the Republican Party. That’s how they’ve been able to enforce party discipline, when modern political parties in the United States tend to have little unity.

If each member of a group of 20 people in one Congressional district recruits 10 people, and each of those new 200 people then recruits another 10 people each, they will have a group of 2,200 people. Given strong motivation, a good program, and some determination, building a force of 2,200 people is achievable, for those 2,200 people will be only about one of every 200 eligible voters (there are about 400,000 per district).

If you go door to door in your neighborhood talking to strangers, I suspect you can recruit one of every 200 adults to support a viable, strong progressive candidate over against a wishy-washy incumbent. And if you recruit your friends in the district, you can recruit an even higher percentage. One way or the other, you can recruit 10 new supporters.

If they act in unison, a group of 2,200 people in any Congressional district can have an enormous impact, for the Congressperson knows they could easily become 22,000 in number, or half of what is required to win a primary. If each of these 2,200 people, for example, writes a personalized letter to their Congressperson at roughly the same time each month urging a particular action, their chances of being persuasive will be enormous.

And if 2,200 people per Congressional district, or one million Americans nationwide, combine forces in support of winnable demands on a regular basis, Congress will listen.

There's no good reason why this can’t happen, especially if the organizers of a Million Member Monthly Mobilization directed at the House of Representatives adopt a majoritarian strategy. When it does, the progressive movement will be able to affect national policy – which, as we’ve considered, is crucial.

Given the enormous number of issues on the table, the broad range of progressive-minded people must unite on occasion to accomplish together what we can never achieve separately. We need mechanisms that enable the many fragmented elements of the progressive community to unify occasionally to support one another with massive, simultaneous action, while continuing to work the rest of the time on their particular issues. By unifying, each organization can achieve far more than they can alone.

Because we need to give more effective support to one another quickly when a particular issue becomes "hot," we need broad coalitions that stay together over time and support one another regularly with massive action. With that unity, we can generate real momentum by winning victories.

Many progressive-minded Americans are discouraged. But when we mobilize a million people to take united action regularly, we’ll inspire millions more to take action occasionally. Most people want to know that there’s a good chance that their efforts will make a difference before they invest their time, energy, or money. When they are confident that enough others will be joining them in a particular action, they’ll be more inclined to participate.

Members of oppressed groups often need to separate, at least temporarily, in order to support one another in overcoming the internalized oppression absorbed from the dominant culture. In this way, they create the solidarity that is needed to confront social injustice, such as unconscious racism among white progressives. Even those who do separate periodically, however, generally conclude that real coalitions are also needed to advance their cause. Complete and permanent separation only plays into the elite’s divide-and-conquer strategy.

So progressives need to create a Million Member Monthly Mobilization – a new, large, national, democratic, multi-issue, multi-racial, inclusive progressive coalition with a workable strategy for building momentum by focusing resources in a timely manner to win concrete victories.

Organizations belonging to this coalition will pledge to give support to other organizations, even if it’s on an issue beyond their normal focus because they know that over time, the coalition will likely support them when they really need it. No ironclad promises will be made. The traditional quid pro quo or “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” approach to politics is inauthentic. Rather, people should simply do what they think is right. But all members of such a coalition will know that their request for assistance will be given very careful consideration.

Organizations are reluctant to join a coalition, however, because coalitions can diminish their own efforts. This reluctance is understandable. These concerns can be addressed in a number of ways.

First, the Million Member Monthly Mobilization will only ask individuals to take one brief action each month in support of a specific demand that had previously been presented to Congress by other activist organizations with expertise on the issue (generally one or more organizations belonging to the Monthly Mobilization). This self-imposed limit of one action per month will be strictly enforced. So the rest of the time, individuals affiliated with the Monthly Mobilization will be free to give as much time and energy as they want to other organizations.

Second, the Monthly Mobilization will concentrate on the House of Representatives. Other organizations and coalitions will deal with the Senate, the President, and components of the executive branch.

Third, the Monthly Mobilization itself will not negotiate with Congresspersons about acceptable compromises. These negotiations will be left to lead organizations that focus on that issue. If those organizations fail to achieve their goals in the weeks following the monthly action, the network might later repeat its demand, or a slightly modified demand, following the lead of their member organizations that work on the issue. But the staff of the Monthly Mobilization will not be involved in those negotiations.

Fourth, the Monthly Mobilization, in its own publicity and outreach efforts, will encourage people to join the organizations that affiliate with it. In this way, these organizations will benefit from belonging to the Monthly Mobilization.

Fifth, when it engages in advocacy on an issue, the Monthly Mobilization will rely on the research and literature of its member organizations with expertise on the issue. Again, these efforts will benefit member organizations.

Sixth, member organizations will boost their own credibility by affiliating with the Monthly Mobilization. They’ll tell potential members that by joining their organization, they can gain a voice in a potent coalition with the ability to impact national policy.

Seventh, because the Monthly Mobilization will limit itself to only one action a month, its budget will be fairly well-defined. Once its initial infrastructure and staff are in place, there will be no need to raise a lot of additional money. So the network will not be a financial threat to its affiliated organizations.

For these reasons, the Monthly Mobilization won’t be a threat to existing organizations, but rather a support mechanism for them.

The organizers of the Monthly Mobilization might at first ask organizations and individuals to merely endorse the project and pledge to participate if and when a certain number of others have done the same. In this way, people wouldn’t be asked to take action with the Monthly Mobilization until they know that their action would make a difference.

Given a comprehensive vision that incorporates the concerns of all segments of the progressive community and a viable decision-making structure, existing progressive organizations will encourage their members to sign up with the Monthly Mobilization and take its brief monthly action (unless they have some serious reservation about that month’s action). Each individual will choose the form of his or her action from among options such as:

• Telephone their Congressperson’s office in support of the monthly demand
• Write a letter or send an email
• Visit their Congressperson’s office in person, either alone or with others
• Go to a public forum in which their Congressperson or a staff representative participates and advance the demand there
• Join a rally or picket line in front of the Congressperson’s office
• Participate in civil disobedience in the Congressperson’s office
• Conceive of some other way to nonviolently, respectfully express their convictions

Regardless, one way or the other, at roughly the same time each month, more than one million people will place the same demand on Congresspersons throughout the country. As analyzed above, these actions will have great impact.

By participating in the Monthly Mobilization, the network of holistic, home-based communities will provide its members with a meaningful form of political activity. If no one else does so first, the network, once it is operating, might initiate the Monthly Mobilization.

Conceivably, this Monthly Mobilization could include the Democratic Party and agree to focus on advancing the platform of the Democratic Party. In this way, the Democratic Party platform would become more than a temporary campaign vehicle. Rather, it would be the basis for ongoing political action throughout the year. If this approach were to develop, the platform would become an important document, which would make the further democratization of the Democratic Party even more important so that ordinary members could select representatives who would have more voice in the shaping of that platform. By joining in a democratic coalition with other organizations to advance its platform, the Democratic Party could exercise strong leadership toward real progress.

Democratic Leadership

Democratic control of the network of holistic, home-based communities will be important. Assuring members a real voice in shaping the direction of the organization will boost enthusiasm and increase participation.

First of all, to be democratic, from the outset the leadership and the membership will need to fully include all segments of the nation in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, income, level of education, age, geography, and disability.

Given the enormous divisive impact of racism in the United States, inclusive leadership is critical. Whites need to understand that in order to effectively address the conditions faced by people of color, this network must have people of color fully represented. And whites need to pay close attention to the insights held by people of color and learn from them concerning how best to proceed, especially with regard to issues that affect their community. Blind obedience based on color is not called for. Automatically following the leadership of any particular person is unwise. But whites need to listen to people of color carefully and support structures that enable people of color to have a strong voice in multi-racial coalitions.

Clarification about the nature of legitimate power, or authority, is also central. As Lasch wrote almost 30 years ago, “A 'conservative' respect for order and authority has now become an essential ingredient of any radical movement that seeks to transcend the progressive and socialist pieties of an earlier time."

The left, as Lasch put it, chose “the wrong side in the cultural warfare between 'middle America' and the educated or half educated classes, which have absorbed avant-garde ideas only to put them in the service of consumer capitalism." Lasch therefore recommended that progressives focus on our "proper constituency – the people who cling to family life, religion, the work ethic, and other ostensibly outmoded values and institutions."

To counter narcissism, Lasch recommended a respect for authority, loyalty, and obligation. Common sense, he said, is not enough to build "communities of competence” motivated by "the will to build a better society." Authoritative ideals are also needed to “withstand the corrosive effects of skepticism and a liberationist worldview,” as Boyers put it in his reflection on Lasch. Boyers also wrote:

By grounding itself in democratic home-based communities, a national network of holistic communities as proposed here will be immersed in this traditional culture of “obligations and moderate satisfactions.”

An emphasis on connecting with church- and labor-related organizations will strengthen this grounding in the real world of mainstream America, as will persistent outreach to organizations like Presidential campaigns, the P.T.A., and the League of Women Voters. Each small community will be primarily composed of friends, relatives, and friends of friends and family, so they will be connected with people who share “ordinary customs and attitudes.” And each community will be committed to global progressive transformation, which will require self-discipline as well as organizational discipline – solid traditional values.

The home-based approach is egalitarian. People come together in their homes as equals, like the “priesthood of all believers” in early Christian churches. There is no paid staff person to manipulate outcomes at these gatherings. The members participate not for money but for fellowship and to help make a difference in the world. Each group is a self-governing, autonomous unit with a life of its own. With this non-elitist structure, the network will more easily become a democratic community, rooted in the life of ordinary Americans, as Lasch recommended.

The national office will suggest simple methods for how to conduct gatherings, but each group will choose its own methods for pursuing their shared commitment to self-improvement, community service, political action, and mutual support.

The national office will suggest a timely, important monthly action, but each group and each individual will decide whether to follow that suggestion.

Each group will be free to speak in the name of the national network without prior approval so long as their statements and actions are consistent with national policies and they let others know what they are doing so any disputes can be addressed (any groups that seriously violate national policies will be removed from the national coalition, in line with the need for organizational discipline).

In these ways, democratic home-based communities will be the foundation of the national coalition.

The democratic nature of the national network will also be protected by relying on small contributions from individual members to cover expenses, rather than foundations that can shape projects or undermine them, intentionally or not, by withdrawing support.

Eventually, a national governing board will be necessary, which means that mechanisms for democratic control of that board will be essential. Regardless of how the national governing board is selected, however, of utmost importance is that the board not micromanage the daily affairs of the organization. As John Carver and others have recommended, the board should focus on adopting written policies to guide the organization, selecting an executive director to lead the implementation of those policies, and evaluating that staff person by how well the organization fulfills its goals.

Within this framework, the network will o develop a mechanism that gives members a voice in modifying the organization’s official policies. Options include working conferences, online discussions, a national convention, straw polls, nationwide votes on proposed resolutions, and relying on elected representatives to debate and decide those issues, knowing that they can be replaced if their actions are unsatisfactory.

With methods like these, a national network of holistic, home-based communities can be democratic as well as efficient and effective.