- Why ideology matters The disagreement, in brief The progressive message What woke me, personally Electoral politics (T)errors of conservatism : greedism , bullying , lies , fear , malice Who I'd like to meet
The Worldwide Progressive Movement has no official manifesto, no leadership council, no unifying organization. This essay is merely the personal view of one zealot and self-appointed spokesperson (hi, I'm Eric). Nevertheless, we are a movement. Paul Hawken's Blessed Unrest reports a hundred thousand grassroots organizations starting up independently all over the world, arriving at similar views.
WHY IDEOLOGY MATTERS
Because the world is a mess, and because we can do something about it, though success is not guaranteed.Sure, we're facing war, ecocide, poverty, a hundred kinds of bullying, and a thousand other ills. But all these problems have a common root, and until we face it our advances will be superficial and temporary. The world is being shaped by an ideological struggle whose outcome is not yet determined, so no one can afford to be just a spectator. Join the global conversation, if you haven't already. This page joins two revolutions: This page for peace and love is more contentious than most. Love all people, but not all ideas; don't confuse love with sleep. Some devotees of harmony will say " this divisive essay, attacking the cons, is not helpful; it would be better if pros and cons could just live together in peace. " But cons will not permit peace . This essay is not an attack on the cons personally, but rather an attempt to counter their insidious ideology, which is corrupting and destroying us all. This page for justice and freedom is more reflective than most. I'm not concerned with exposing secrets — after all, PNAC, WTO, SPP have their own web pages; they're not hiding. The oligarchy is perpetuated less by its cabals than by its propaganda . Even the Paulists, vocal opponents of the New World Order, have swallowed its underlying economic principles (more about that later ). We must understand our revolution, or it will merely replace one oligarchy with another. This essay doesn't say much about sustainability, because I don't see that as controversial. Sure, we must care for our environment, but that's obvious to anyone who is sane. What is not obvious, and what I try to address in this essay, is why our society and government are insane. Yes we can end poverty, halt global warming, etc. — we walked on the f*cking moon, fer crisakes! — technologically we're very clever; we just need to become wise.THE DISAGREEMENT, IN BRIEF
The world is shaped by our views of human nature. Many people on either side have little understanding of the other side. (And that's true of me, more than I had realized; I'm going to read more about it and then revise this essay.) summaryby↓ of→ progressive view (leftist, liberal, "politically liberal," freedom for humans) conservative view (right wing, neocon, neoliberal, "economically liberal," "classically liberal," freedom for big business) Waldman We're all in this together. You're on your own. Altemeyer Question authority. Obey authority without question (at least in public); attack anyone who questions authority. Hartmann Optimism about human nature: hope, love, creativity. Build more schools. Pessimism about human nature: greed and fear. Build more prisons. (By the way, USA leads the world in incarceration; we're not the "land of the free.") These views are self-fulfilling. Thus our task is not just to describe the world we see, but to choose the world we want. One-dimensional terms such as "right-wing" are misleading , but we have no better words. Here in the USA, my opponents call themselves "conservative," and I'll follow that terminology even though they don't actually conserve anything. The pro/con split isn't strictly along party lines; more about that later . Admittedly, most people who call themselves "conservative" fit only parts of this page's description, but they are dupes of the extremists. And they would give you different definitions; but as Orwell and Lakoff point out, words are not neutral carriers of information ; whoever controls the vocabulary, controls the world. Alienation, apathy, and consumerism are rampant. They distance us from one another; "oh, I'm not a joiner" is a common response to recruitment efforts. Our society has lost its heart; we need to find it. Some quarrel about the nature of god in heaven, but that is a distraction — our real concern should be the actions of humans on earth: What values do we choose to live by? As Michael Lerner has explained, people hunger for meaning in their lives, and the religious right has grown only because the left has not understood that hunger. People want to see themselves, not as meat robots chasing money in an indifferent universe, but as caring players in a drama bigger than their own lives. That drama can be found in any religion or philosophy. We need to replace the vengefulness of Leviticus with the love of Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad . But it won't be easy: The cons, projecting their own motives onto others, will assume that anyone espousing altruism is lying. Faith is optional. Dennis Kucinich says "peace is inevitable." I envy his certainty; in its place I have only hope. Martin Luther King said "human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable." Understanding never un-spreads, but our growing global awareness is racing against the development of destructive technology and the consolidation of ancient greed. I don't think it's predetermined which side will win — we may end up with utopia, or a slow sizzle, or kaboom. That's why the efforts of each and every one of us may be needed, and none of us can afford to just sit back and watch.
THE PROGRESSIVE MESSAGE
Cons love to march in lockstep, and are united by a few basic talking points. In contrast, uniting us progressives is like herding cats. We have fragmented into special issue liberal organizations (silos) competing against one another for members and money. But facts alone won't awaken people, and issues can't inspire and motivate; only basic values do that. We must learn to present our policies as parts of a single unifying vision. Waldman summarized that vision aswe're in this together,
where "we" means all people. That is, we care about one another, and our fortunes are bound together. I want my neighbor's kid to get a good education, for both altruistic reasons (I want the kid to have a good life) and selfish ones (it will make the kid more likely to pay taxes and less likely to steal my car). Contrast that with the cons' "you're on your own," discussed later ."We're in it together" is not a specialized message, like "replace incandescent bulbs with fluorescent ones." It is framing at the deepest level; its consequences include all our views. Indeed, once we've agreed on this fundamental value, we can eventually work out our lesser differences on specialized issues (e.g., which fluorescent bulbs are best? and how soon will mercury-free LED 's be cheaper?). So "we're in it together" is the meme I most want to promote; it's what I'm putting in bumper stickers and web pages and conversations every chance I get.- Some people prefer a longer, more detailed platform. Don Hazen lists these tenets of progressivism: "fairness and equality; human dignity and the ability to earn a living and support a family, no matter if it is gay or straight, married or not; corporate responsibility and an end to the rampant political corruption and corporate cronyism that so dominates the Republican party; affordable healthcare for all; green economic development; cutting back a bloated military budget and investing in infrastructure and education, and real security without fear-mongering." To those, I would add greater transparency in government and wider involvement by citizens; the last few decades have proven that secret democracy and spectator/consumer democracy don't work.
- maintain shared infrastructure (construction and maintenance of roads, courts, schools, postal system, levees*, etc.),ensure mutual aid in the case of illnesses and disasters (including hurricane and flood*), andprotect ourselves against bullies, both foreign (other countries) and domestic (e.g., abusive corporations).
- Is violence necessary? Some progressives think so . Jefferson said "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Mao said "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." The Internationale ends "change will not come from above." Other progressives believe violence may be unnecessary, useless, or even detrimental to the cause. Buddha said "you will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger." Gandhi said "Victory attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary." Lennon's Imagine ends "I hope someday you'll join us, and the world will live as one."Would Gandhi's tactics have prevailed against Hitler? I don't know. But I'm leaning toward nonviolence for our current situation in the USA. A rush of adrenaline may help in the face of physical danger, but it is useless against propaganda. And the day may have passed when armed insurrection could be feasible. It will avail us nought to swarm their castle with pitchforks and torches; they would mow us down with tanks. We will win only when our ideas have converted the tank drivers. Their commanders think people are motivated only by greed and fear, but you and I have found something better in ourselves. It's in them too, if we can just awaken it — they are the same flesh and blood as us. The bureaucracy of brutality can only function with the cooperation of its middle class employees; if we can open their eyes I believe it will fall without a shot.But if it turns out that finally we must fight, let us remember our love, and not become the mirror of our enemy.At any rate, whether our path be violent or peaceful, our first step must be reading and talking. History has shown that even a seemingly successful overthrow of tyranny will simply lead to new tyranny if the revolutionaries are not sufficiently enlightened and organized.
WHAT WOKE ME, PERSONALLY
Before 2006 I was among the sleepers, leaving matters to the "experts," not concerned about what was going on in the world. Much of political rhetoric is intended to confuse and thereby immobilize, and certainly it had that effect on me. Indeed, part of what attracted me to mathematics as a career decades earlier was its clear, objective procedure for determining truth: In math you don't have to be persuasive; you just have to be right. (Contrast with Waldman's book, below .) But finally I saw that the most important questions in our lives are not mathematically objective and precise. Understanding begins when we accept schematics in place of precision, like road maps in place of aerial photographs. We seek a collection of overlapping oversimplifications; the good ones are those that make sense to us.Several things woke me. Some were purely personal, e.g., finishing a 7-year textbook project and a 23-year marriage. Some were consequences of new technology, e.g., finding Alternet on my cellphone and Lakoff on my cable tv. And some were news items, e.g., learning that the White House lied about Iraq and global warming . War is a terrible thing that we should never enter without a really good, clear reason, and science is the closest thing to objective truth that humans can get. To lie about either is monstrous. This page is dedicated to the thousands of brave soldiers maimed or killed for the lies of their own government, and to the millions of harmless civilians whose lives they've destroyed.After joining rallies, meetings, internet, etc., I no longer feel isolated and powerless. My voice and vote are no longer alone. Now I am part of a community, and part of the discussion steering that community. This page is part of the effort to rouse sleepers and unify activists.- What do we want? A fresh new rally chant, and not this painfully tired old one! When do we want it? Now!!
ELECTORAL POLITICS
"Progressive" or "liberal" does NOT mean "Democrat." Garrison Keillor's beautiful book Homegrown Democrat is a paean not to the present Democratic Party, but rather the liberal ideals that the party has sometimes espoused and sometimes lived up to. In recent years Democrats increasingly have been cowed by conservative rhetoric, and have followed Republicans into the pocket of the corporatocracy. Nearly all of them have supported the recent thoughtcrime bill and continued funding the occupation . But corruption is hard to avoid: Getting elected nowadays requires expensive television ads , which can only be paid for by big corporate donors .The presidential race. Kucinich's Department of Peace and Gravel's NI4D would transform our society. McKinney, Nader , and Edwards were also very progressive candidates. Ron Paul's views on race and economics were all wrong, but at least he spoke for peace. But these people were sidelined and silenced by the mainstream media, so some dropped out of the race, and the others have no chance of being elected; at this point voting for them would be like not voting.Perhaps by 2012 we'll have a strong third party, but I don't think we'll be there by this fall. Spreading the message is something to do between elections, 364 days per year. But I don't believe in "protest votes"; election day itself is for measuring how much progress you've made — for cashing in your chips, for accepting the best compromise you can get, for trying to have at least some effect on who actually wins the office. Some of my friends say "voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil," but I believe that backing an electable, imperfect candidate is the only effective vote against the greater evil, and that's evil only if you're doing nothing else. So who am I backing? Well, Clinton isn't much better than a Republican: She has taken more money from military contractors and health insurance companies than anyone else in either party. Her campaign shows her to be a liar , a bully , and a fearmonger . I take that personally: fear and lies are what bullies use to jail dissidents, and I'm a dissident. Thus: I voted for Obama in the primary, and I urge you to do likewise if your primary is still to come. He is not preaching fear, but hope — something our society has needed for a while — and a movement is forming around him . So far, he has avoided being crushed by the corporate media . And the campaign seems to be transforming him, making him more progressive — he has begun to rail against corporatocracy, and his "More Perfect Union" speech was FANTASTIC .Some people (including Nader) say Bush's disasters have made a Democratic victory certain. But Republicans may simply walk away from Bush, saying he is "incompetent" or "not a true conservative." They will liken themselves to Reagan, whose lies are still believed by half our country. Watch for swiftboating, fearmongering, an "October surprise," and betrayal framing . And don't be distracted: We must fill not only the White House but also congress with progressives. And this is all assuming that the elections are not stolen on a massive scale , or simply postponed altogether on some pretext .(T)ERRORS OF CONSERVATISM
As a mathematician I know better than most people that abstract ideas are seductive. But anyone who can take his head out of his theory books long enough to look at the evidence will see that conservatism hasn't worked. Cons of both political parties have been in power for several decades, and the result is a wrecked economy, wars without end, and an ecosystem on the verge of collapse. Cons sabotaged government and then said "see, it doesn't work, let's kill it." Smooth-tongued Reagan, working for the plutocracy, didn't want ordinary working people to unite, so he persuaded them that government and organized labor were the enemy. But government should be by and for the people. Government regulation has been our only bulwark against the much greater corruption of corporations. Removing it to cure society's ills would be like removing the heart to cure a cardiac patient.greedism
Progressive economics, discussed earlier , is based on the idea that we're in this together. In contrast, cons proclaim " you're on your own ." They 'd like to see more toll roads and pay toilets. They want to lower taxes and privatize everything, and to hell with our shared infrastructure; they ignore Katrina's lesson . They feel only the wealthy deserve good education and health care.Cons claim greed is good, increasing a society's wealth and efficiency and encouraging the evolution of new innovations. That myth has persisted because it does contain a small particle of truth: the market does indeed increase the measured wealth of a few people, those who control the market. But those people are becoming fewer, everyone else is getting crushed, and our unmeasured wealth — e.g., the sustainability of the ecosystem — is getting trashed; the gilt veneer cannot hide the rot for much longer. The unregulated market perpetuates the enormous inefficiencies of war, poverty, and disease. And in any abruptly altered environment, the first innovations to evolve are hellish parasites .A misguided 1886 Supreme Court decision gave corporations the rights of people but not the vulnerabilities or responsibilities (you'll never see a corporation sleeping under a bridge or executed for murder). By both competition and its legal charter, any business is compelled to maximize profit for its stockholders by whatever means necessary. Thus any large corporation inevitably will seek to externalize (i.e., get someone else to pay for) as many of its costs and risks as possible, and to disregard or even cover up its disastrous side effects on its workers, neighbors, consumers, the environment, and the economy. It becomes a mindless plunder machine , though its public relations department is a friendly mask. The murders by Union Carbide , Halliburton and Coke are not exceptions. Corporatists praise unregulated competition, but it is unstable. It quickly degenerates through mergers, until all wealth and power ends up in the hands of a few greedy psychopaths. Those few seek to preserve and extend their own power by any means, including poverty, prisons, and war for the rest of us. They've profited from frequent war, but they're thrilled with the stability of the newer business model, endless "war on terror."Competing against one another, corporations race to the bottom of the wage scale, exploiting the desperation of the poor, who are free in name only. Cons see the market as a moral absolute, and its perpetuation of poverty not as a systemic problem but as a proof that poverty belongs in this world. They urge the poor to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps — even while the cons are privatizing the bootstraps. Their mythical "self-made man" is a lie : businessmen have succeeded only by relying on public infrastructure. "Trickle-down economics" would be callous and inhumane even if it worked, but it doesn't: the market, gaining in "efficiency," permits fewer and fewer crumbs to fall. In principle, economics should not be a zero-sum game ; when the pie gets bigger then everyone should get a bigger piece. But in practice, as the rich become stronger, they become more proficient at stealing pie. The rich will never be satisfied by their enormous consumption — as The Greedy told Raggedy Ann, "without a sweetheart, I never get enough ." Their gated community can never be as comfortable and secure as a caring community. Besieged by enemies of their own making, it becomes a spiritual prison. And their plan is shortsighted: when the ecosystem collapses, do they intend to eat their money? The mindless juggernaut of consumerism will destroy them along with the rest of us if we do not change course soon.- Liberty is not libertarian. Ron Paul has gained a large following here on MySpace, so it is appropriate for me to explain why I'm not part of it.I agree with their main point: they are exposing the lies of the corporatocracy, and calling for its end. I am glad that they are awake and rebellious. Like me, Paulists are at the antiauthoritarian end of the chart , actually much more so than Paul himself. But their rush to revolution appears unsophisticated to me, with too little knowledge of history. Their dark, hard-to-read web pages sport a plethora of guns, eagles, and jingoistic flags, but a dearth of peace symbols; they're eager to kill for peace. Their guns may be crushed by Blackwater's tanks. Or perhaps they'll replace the current oligarchy with a new one, as in 1917 Russia. Please, can't we plan the revolution a little better? I will put aside Ron Paul's racist past , because he now claims it is not his. My big disagreement with Paul is over economics. He is, and long has been, on the far right; see the grid . This is mentioned in few of his supporters' web pages; perhaps few of them have thought about it. Libertarian economics is similar to conservative economics , which has kept us embroiled in war and moving steadily into corporate feudalism for years. It would continue to do so even if managed by people expressing an apparently sincere desire for peace and freedom.Marxists underemphasized individual freedom, but libertarians overemphasize it. They idealize a gun-toting hermit defending his hoard against unwanted neighbors. Their view isolates us from one other and weakens us, leaving us prey to bullies, particularly corporate ones. "Liberty, equality, fraternity" is the French motto (my apologies for the sexism); if you omit the third one then the other two won't last. Libertarians naively dream of an honorable capitalism of small businessmen who follow rules. They somehow have not noticed that deceit is a commodity on the unregulated market, and that small businesses are gobbled up by larger ones ignoring the rules.
bullying
Conservatives believe in bullying (they call it "disciplining"). They apply it as a foreign policy (e.g. the occupation of Iraq), as a domestic policy (e.g., the Patriot Act), and in the streets (police brutality, which they call "law and order"). Culturally, it also extends to the home (domestic violence). But they see it as a virtue, not a vice. I confess that I don't understand that very well yet, but I'm working on it. George Lakoff has some explanation for it, which I'm now in the process of reading. Lakoff explains that we see much of politics metaphorically in terms of parent-child relations, because that is the first power relationship we experience in our lives. He distinguishes between nurturing and authoritarian styles of child-rearing. Researchers in child development have determined conclusively that the nurturing approach produces healthier, more productive, more socially adjusted people; nevertheless Dobson and the religious right — with no credentials or expertise except their own mean-spirited interpretation of the bible — have been pushing the authoritarian style. It took me a long time to begin to understand authoritarianism; here is how I would describe it now:- You should trust and obey Father and never question him. That's because Father is wise, Father knows best, Father knows things that we can't possibly know and don't need to know. Checks and balances slow Father down, so they should be discarded. Father may sometimes hide things from us, lie to us, or hurt us, but that's okay — it's for our own good. He must have good reasons, even if they are beyond our understanding; the end justifies the means. Evil people, different from us, are plotting against us, but Father will protect us. People are basically lazy, greedy, and violent, so fear of punishment is the only way to maintain order. Helping people diminishes self-reliance, so social programs are evil and should be cut. Any difficulties or obstacles are your own fault, not the system's; suck it in.
lies
The terms "left" and "right" suggest symmetry, and our news media depict the debate between pros and cons like baseball, an even-handed and honest contest whose outcome doesn't really matter. Much of our society has been suckered by "conservative values" — if not to the point of completely embracing them, then at least to the point of politely tolerating those "values" and being less than fully unaware of their role in creating the devastation that now surrounds us. But things are not as they appear , and moreover that's nothing new .The debate has not been even-handed. Conservative policies help the rich, and they in turn have invested heavily in think tanks and news media, which are now in few hands and lean to the right . The news media's spin, outright lies ("Clear Skies Act," "Healthy Forests Initiative," "liberal news media," "the surge is working," etc.), and massive omissions all favor the right. Perhaps they justify this to themselves with their "father knows best" philosophy, explained above . Their most effective tactic may be their subtle twisting of language: Over and over, they repeat phrases implicitly containing their assumptions about economics and human nature, drilling those assumptions into people's brains. Progressives have been largely unaware of this subtle but effective system, but we're starting to catch on, partly due to George Lakoff's writings. He said:When the facts don't fit the frames, the frames are kept and the facts are ignored. — It is a common folk theory of progressives that " the facts will set you free ." If only you can get all the facts out there in the public eye, then every rational person will reach the right conclusion. It is a vain hope. Human brains just don't work that way. Framing matters. Frames, once entrenched, are hard to dispel.
Lakoff also says "respond by reframing"; if you accept your opposition's terminology, you've already lost. For instance, if you say "end the war on terror," then you've strengthened the notion that a "war on terror" exists, that "terrorists" are different from "freedom fighters," that expensive bombs dropped on Pac-Man targets are morally superior to improvised devices delivered personally by people of faith. Facts cannot be separated from interpretation. Lakoff's insight is echoed in Paul Waldman's book, Being Right is Not Enough . (Contrast that with my earlier discussion of math .) "It's easy to be discouraged by how much more funding the right wing think tanks have. But ... they need that money, because they have a really tough intellectual job: Their job is to convince people that [altruism is bad and selfishness is good]. Crazy talk. Very expensive to convince people of something so deeply counterintuitive. It is much cheaper to convince people that to do good is good; bad, bad." Naomi Klein said that while talking about her recent book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism , which explains some of the cons' brutal tactics. Milton Friedman, the professor of greed, said that the only way one can impose an unpopular economic system is by stealth and force, during moments of crisis. One of Klein's numerous examples is New Orleans, now being privatized in large bites. Klein says "These tactics work ... for the same reason it works to pick someone's pocket at a car accident."fear
Most people become more sheeplike — obedient and unthinking — in times of crisis. For instance, right after the attacks of 9/11/01 people were more willing to blindly follow Bush. Martha Stout, author of The Paranoia Switch, says that this change in behavior actually reflects a chemical change in the brain. Traumatic experiences get stuck in the limbic system (irrational), and never reach the cerebral cortex (rational). It cannot be accidental that Bush scores 10 out of 10 on Stout's checklist of fearmongering ; evidently we are engaged in limbic warfare — i.e., the intentional use of fearmongering in order to weaken our society's resistance to manipulation.malice
The "father knows best" philosophy described earlier involves benevolent dictators; the end justifies the means. But Edward R. Murrow said "A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves." Altemeyer refers to these wolves as "dominators"; his research shows that they have no concern about being benevolent. Some may feel justified by social Darwinism (they see themselves as a higher species) or Calvinism (God has chosen them to rule).The villains in Orwell's novel 1984 are not concerned about justifications at all. They unabashedly love power and want to dominate others. And logically, it makes sense: Unless gentle people unite and take precautions, power will end up in the hands of the few people who truly lust for it. See the discussion in the "books" section in the left column of this web page. Look around: time may be running out. Naomi Wolf's recent book lists 10 steps that every dictator has used to shut down a free society. She points out that all 10 steps are already in play in our own society — as are Laurence Britt's 14 points of fascism . Fascism doesn't always wear a swastika; Sinclair Lewis said "when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." In Germany they came first for the Communists,and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me --
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
-- Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945