Obama won in South Carolina!
I have spent a good amount of time (given my copious amounts of free time due to unemployment) observing the candidates and their campaigns. I have done some research, and I have to say that while Obama had my support from the start, he has only strengthened it. Edwards was also pretty awesome, but he is out of the race now.
Clinton, on the other hand, has always bothered me. It may have to do with the fact that I protested her when she visited Brown because she was to the right of Bush on the war at that time. She was saying we needed to commit more troops. But now she has changed her mind, and unlike Edwards she has not apologized for supporting the Iraq war in the past. That reeks to me of the acrid smell of an unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions. I have heard from friends in the Obama campaign that Clinton is using alot of nasty political tricks, like fake mailers. Clinton's campaign has seemed to be just trying to play the game and win that way. I have no respect for that, nor the use of underhanded politics. I found a webpage that outlines alot of the reasons I dislike Hillary... please refer people to this site: http://2parse.com/?p=210
Piled on top of all this, I recently read "The Left Hand of God" by Michael Lerner. He related the following account. The Clintons ran for the Presidency in 1992 on articulating a new "Politics of Meaning" (the same as the title of another one of Lerner's books). They wanted to make significant change, and had a fairly ambitious agenda. Lerner describes how he was called to the White House to advise them early in 1993. He describes how behind the scenes, they were excessively concerned about poll numbers and what they had support for. Lerner advised them to take a bold stand on issues, that if they made a good argument and appealed to people's moral compass, they would gain the support they need to make those ambitious changes. But, they chose to only do what they thought they had support to do (i.e. not much), to listen to what political consultants said, and abandon their politics of meaning. Especially with health care, Hilary chose to do what was "realistic" instead of taking a bold stand on something she knew was needed. Unfortunately, doing what is realistic is a self-fulfilling prophecy, it is like a runner deciding they will only try to run a 6 minute mile when they are actually capable of running a 4 minute mile with alittle more perseverance and courage. When I read this I understood why I could not support Hilary. She is not willing to be a leader and go against poll numbers. That is what is wrong with the Democratic Party overall, they do not have the confidence in their own beliefs to take stand based on them nor do they have the courage to do what is right even if it is thought to be unpopular. While I disagree with the Republicans on almost every issue, I do wish that the democratic politicians had their level of confidence and courage.
I am ever so thankful that the alternative to Clinton is an inspiring leader. I would hate to have another year when I am just voting for someone because the alternative is worse. I actually WANT to vote for Obama. I WANT to see him in office. He is not afraid to take a stand on issues (although still not as much as I would want), and he is smart. All the debates I have watched have shown the depth of his thinking, and his refusal to dumb it down when he presents it to the public. I feel like Clinton dumbs down her issues and does not believe the American people are smart enough to understand the nuance. Obama's policies, while not perfect, are a huge step in the right direction, and when you look at the details, they are quite different from Clinton's.
I feel that Obama could go farther than what is outlined in his current policies, especially given the way he is able to convey his message. A poorly written book is never read, even if its ideas are phenomenal. An engrossing book, however, will catch one's mind in an un-escapable lust to read it, even if it is void of good ideas. Well, Obama is that rare combination of an engrossing book with good ideas. He articulates his ideas to appeal to people's moral compass instead of their self-interest, which is far FAR more compelling than the typical Democratic party line of appealing to people's self-interest. Great leaders always as you to help others, not to help yourself. It is a far more appealing and engrossing message, and when coupled with good ideas, vision, and courage it will (and has) completely overhaul civilization as we know it.
But I would say the most inspiring thing I have read about Obama is how he treated Richardson during a debate. Richardson spaced out, and did not hear the question. Obama whispered "Katrina" to him. I found this story here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/29/14329/8255/991/445490
To me, this tells me more about who he is, and his ability to be a leader than anything. Understanding people well enough to instantly sense what is on their mind, and the will to help them if they need it is a treasured combination.
I truly believe that he is running because he thinks he has the chance to do good for people, not out of self-interest or ambition. I can count the number of politicians who seem to possess this treasured outlook, on one hand. I still do not think he will be able to do too much because of the way the government is structured (even Eisenhower couldn't end an infant military-industrial complex). However, if he can manage to employ his movement organizing powers while he is still in office, than I can catch a glimpse of the ocean of hope through the oil slick of cynicism.
I have been writing this post over a few days, and in the course of this my Grandpa has passed away. He was a kind and generous man who placed his family above all else. I am reminded of Exodus Chapter 19-ish, where it is explained that living a mean and selfish life will have ill effects lasting three or four generations in one's family, while living a generous and loving life will see rewards unto the thousandth generation. My Grandpa is a prime example of this, I can see the glow of his love reflected in my family, strengthening and helping us throughout our lives. Thank you Grandpa.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Reflections on Organization
I am convinced more and more that effective organization combined with a vision for the future are essential to changing this society. Nothing short of this will have the ability to shift the debate decisively toward justice. My college experience has taught me this vital lesson.
The first student group I started in college failed because it was all vision and no organization. I learned so much about organizing by doing that, and taking that responsibility. It was a crash course in organizing, and I am so glad that I had that experience. The next clubs I helped found showed me the importance of organization. Operation Iraqi Freedom (Brown's anti-war group, abbr. as OIF) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) gave me a good contrast to look at what effective organization can do. As much as I love OIF, it does not have as much of a vision as SDS, mostly because it is narrowly defined as an anti-war group. SDS is multi-issue and is able to articulate a much broader and more compelling dream of a better world. OIF was able to draw alot of attention to the war issue, but I think it has been unable to significantly shift the debate about the war in the Brown community (yet!). It is almost like preaching to the choir. Brown students already mostly agreed that the war was terrible and needs to be ended, so raising awareness did not need to be the primary goal. The primary goal would have needed to be trying to mobilize people, creating a forum for people to discuss what they could do, and setting goals to achieve. I feel that OIF has not managed to do that, and I think that is because its politics did not embrace a vision for the future that would have spawned goals.
SDS was better able to push the public dialog because it could look at a problem, apply its vision to the problem, and come up with a novel goal that was generally new to the dialog on Brown's campus. Presenting new ideas and giving people a concrete, local goal to "hope for" and work toward will mobilize people. And if there is effective organization behind that mobilization, it can really do amazing things (like signing up 1/6 of the student population into a new student union in two weeks. YEAH SDS!).
So, having had experience with groups that had vision, but no organization; organization but no vision; and one with both organization and vision, I have found that having both is far more effective at changing things. These groups are also more appealing (to me).
Governments are an interesting entity to analyze through this lens. They have plenty of organization, but no vision. Even when certain politicians have vision, and actively express it, the organizational inertia of the government often seems to be unmovable. This may be why so many people are cynical about government, because even if you have strong organization, you cannot do much without the proverbial compass of vision to point you in the right direction. However, like all organizations, governments are movable through outside pressure. A large movement of people can push a government toward doing something.
But this is not the way governments are supposed to be. Theoretically, a government is supposed to be a forum to discuss the issues on people's minds, a representation of the collective will of the society, and the organ which is supposed to act on that will. People always blame the government when social problems arise and/or continue to exist. That is because
the government is the institution charged with protecting, reinforcing, helping and stabilizing society (and the people within it). It seems that the current governmental structure in these United States does not fulfill its goal. I think that part of the reason for this is because government is no longer defined as just another institution in society that has a specific purpose.
I am not sure what the government is now defined as, but I have the feeling it varies between different groups of people.
Anyway, I want to figure out how to structure a government so that it can really be what it is supposed to be.
The first student group I started in college failed because it was all vision and no organization. I learned so much about organizing by doing that, and taking that responsibility. It was a crash course in organizing, and I am so glad that I had that experience. The next clubs I helped found showed me the importance of organization. Operation Iraqi Freedom (Brown's anti-war group, abbr. as OIF) and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) gave me a good contrast to look at what effective organization can do. As much as I love OIF, it does not have as much of a vision as SDS, mostly because it is narrowly defined as an anti-war group. SDS is multi-issue and is able to articulate a much broader and more compelling dream of a better world. OIF was able to draw alot of attention to the war issue, but I think it has been unable to significantly shift the debate about the war in the Brown community (yet!). It is almost like preaching to the choir. Brown students already mostly agreed that the war was terrible and needs to be ended, so raising awareness did not need to be the primary goal. The primary goal would have needed to be trying to mobilize people, creating a forum for people to discuss what they could do, and setting goals to achieve. I feel that OIF has not managed to do that, and I think that is because its politics did not embrace a vision for the future that would have spawned goals.
SDS was better able to push the public dialog because it could look at a problem, apply its vision to the problem, and come up with a novel goal that was generally new to the dialog on Brown's campus. Presenting new ideas and giving people a concrete, local goal to "hope for" and work toward will mobilize people. And if there is effective organization behind that mobilization, it can really do amazing things (like signing up 1/6 of the student population into a new student union in two weeks. YEAH SDS!).
So, having had experience with groups that had vision, but no organization; organization but no vision; and one with both organization and vision, I have found that having both is far more effective at changing things. These groups are also more appealing (to me).
Governments are an interesting entity to analyze through this lens. They have plenty of organization, but no vision. Even when certain politicians have vision, and actively express it, the organizational inertia of the government often seems to be unmovable. This may be why so many people are cynical about government, because even if you have strong organization, you cannot do much without the proverbial compass of vision to point you in the right direction. However, like all organizations, governments are movable through outside pressure. A large movement of people can push a government toward doing something.
But this is not the way governments are supposed to be. Theoretically, a government is supposed to be a forum to discuss the issues on people's minds, a representation of the collective will of the society, and the organ which is supposed to act on that will. People always blame the government when social problems arise and/or continue to exist. That is because
the government is the institution charged with protecting, reinforcing, helping and stabilizing society (and the people within it). It seems that the current governmental structure in these United States does not fulfill its goal. I think that part of the reason for this is because government is no longer defined as just another institution in society that has a specific purpose.
I am not sure what the government is now defined as, but I have the feeling it varies between different groups of people.
Anyway, I want to figure out how to structure a government so that it can really be what it is supposed to be.
Monday, January 14, 2008
The Small Things in Life
It is my sincere belief that everything, and I do mean everything, is interconnected. I have come to the conclusion that whatever I do, even if I do nothing, it will affect the way the world is, even if it is a very small affect. Still, I think people underestimate the importance of the small things in life. One of my favorite quotes from Gandhi was "It is always the small things that catch your breath." Looking at my life, I can see the wisdom of his statement. There may be a few major things that have affected me, but more often it is the accumulation of small experiences that build into something more. I have hundreds of memories of small things that people did which have had an incredible impact on me and my thinking. I remember someone making this statement expressing sadness over a relative's actions, "The greatest sin is to intentionally hurt someone else." Now, if I was to venture a guess, the person who said this probably completely forgets saying it, and doesn't realize the incredible impact it has had on me. There have also been a few times in my past when I have been walking around, feeling kind of down for whatever reason, and someone I am walking by smiles at me. It is amazing how such a simple act can raise my spirits. I doubt they would remember smiling at a stranger, but I certainly remember their kindness. In fact, these small acts have had a lasting impact on who I am.
If I universalize this principle (i.e. assume that people would react the same way I do when confronted with similar circumstances), then I am struck by the impact that the smallest action can have one others. Doing small, seemingly unimportant things may not give one the sense of accomplishment or appear on the surface to be important , but I think they are actually more important than the large things we do in life. It is, of course, wonderful to make a point of doing something good for others, like volunteering or giving a donation... but I put more stock in how people act towards others on a daily basis. That is a much more effective way to improve the world, since it is, afterall, becoming the change you wish to see. So, don't underestimate the impact your smallest actions can have on the lives of others. I remember one part of the 6th book of Harry Potter, where Dumbledore was trying to explain to Harry why he had the choice to fight Voldemort or not. He was saying that despite the prophecy, it was always his choice. Harry likened it to having the choice between being dragged into a gladiatorial arena to fight, or walking with your head high into the arena. Many people would not believe there was much difference, and that there was no real choice since you have to fight whoever or whatever is in that arena. But, there is a choice. We have a choice about how we confront the obstacles life throws at us, and how we chose to deal with them does, in Harry's words "make all the difference."
I have also noticed that small things have a way of coming back to you. Since they can have such a large impact on others, they can reverberate through social networks like a wave. Making people feel better makes them more likely to make others feel better, and that makes others more likely to make others feel better... which means that you will inevitably be hit by successive waves of small things that make you feel good if you do good things. Of course, anger and hatred work the same way. Being mean to someone can reverberate through the community just as easily, and come back to bite you. Atleast, that has been my experience, and the findings of my countless observations of those around me.
This brings me back to everything being interconnected. It is an inescapable and omnipresent fact of reality... atleast reality as I have observed it. This is not only true of our actions, but our ideas and mindset are just as interconnected. That is one reason that I am not especially fond of single-issue advocacy groups. Social problems are all connected, you can't fight poverty without fighting environmental destruction. You can't fight for democracy without fighting to stop racism, sexism, and other prejudices. You can't fight for peace without fighting for democracy. And so on and so forth.
My excessive amounts of contemplation on these theoretical issues have provided some practical value. I not longer take it for granted that what I do does not matter, and I have tried to become constantly conscious of how my actions can impact others.
If I universalize this principle (i.e. assume that people would react the same way I do when confronted with similar circumstances), then I am struck by the impact that the smallest action can have one others. Doing small, seemingly unimportant things may not give one the sense of accomplishment or appear on the surface to be important , but I think they are actually more important than the large things we do in life. It is, of course, wonderful to make a point of doing something good for others, like volunteering or giving a donation... but I put more stock in how people act towards others on a daily basis. That is a much more effective way to improve the world, since it is, afterall, becoming the change you wish to see. So, don't underestimate the impact your smallest actions can have on the lives of others. I remember one part of the 6th book of Harry Potter, where Dumbledore was trying to explain to Harry why he had the choice to fight Voldemort or not. He was saying that despite the prophecy, it was always his choice. Harry likened it to having the choice between being dragged into a gladiatorial arena to fight, or walking with your head high into the arena. Many people would not believe there was much difference, and that there was no real choice since you have to fight whoever or whatever is in that arena. But, there is a choice. We have a choice about how we confront the obstacles life throws at us, and how we chose to deal with them does, in Harry's words "make all the difference."
I have also noticed that small things have a way of coming back to you. Since they can have such a large impact on others, they can reverberate through social networks like a wave. Making people feel better makes them more likely to make others feel better, and that makes others more likely to make others feel better... which means that you will inevitably be hit by successive waves of small things that make you feel good if you do good things. Of course, anger and hatred work the same way. Being mean to someone can reverberate through the community just as easily, and come back to bite you. Atleast, that has been my experience, and the findings of my countless observations of those around me.
This brings me back to everything being interconnected. It is an inescapable and omnipresent fact of reality... atleast reality as I have observed it. This is not only true of our actions, but our ideas and mindset are just as interconnected. That is one reason that I am not especially fond of single-issue advocacy groups. Social problems are all connected, you can't fight poverty without fighting environmental destruction. You can't fight for democracy without fighting to stop racism, sexism, and other prejudices. You can't fight for peace without fighting for democracy. And so on and so forth.
My excessive amounts of contemplation on these theoretical issues have provided some practical value. I not longer take it for granted that what I do does not matter, and I have tried to become constantly conscious of how my actions can impact others.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Left and Religion
For anyone who is wondering why the right has come to dominate politics, i would suggest you read "The Left Hand of God" by Rabbi Michael Lerner.
The main point of his book is that the left is failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the American people. By spiritual needs, I mean people's need to be part of a support community where they are valued for who they are and where they can escape from the often soul-crushing workplace that capitalism has created. Spiritual needs also encompass people's desire to have a meaning in their life, a purpose that they can turn to when they are despairing about the horrors of the world. Unfortunately for the left, the Religious Right has managed to monopolize the political landscape when it comes to appealing to these needs. Of course the left has not helped itself, being anti-religious and demeaning to toward the American public. Having an aversion to religion is destroying the left. And there is no reason for it. Over half the Bible is about poverty and there is no reason why the left should not start appealing to people's moral and religiousness when it comes to fighting for social justice. Religion need not be oppressive, as so many people find it to be. It is just another institution in our society that the left has lost its influence over.
In fact, it seems that the left has been unable to even admit to itself that most of its members are indeed motivated by loving, caring, generosity, and other values that are spiritually based. No, they delude themselves into believing their altruistic and spiritual tendencies exist because they are simply in their own self-interest. I am guilty of this myself, looking for my own self-interest in my altruistic nature. If we put ourselves out there and stopped trying to rationalize our motivations as self-interest, we would probably see a massive upsurge in the left.
I hope one day the left will stop being so anti-religious. Certainly religion has been used to do alot of evil in this world... but so has every other belief system. The left itself has its Stalins and Maos who murdered and corrupted society. But, those atrocities are not representative of the average person who is a member of that belief system. Most people are inherently good, intelligent and human. To assume that one group of people is stupid, evil, or somehow less than equal to oneself is a VERY slippery slope, and will only bring woe and contempt. I always seem to find myself trying to convince people of that. They tell me I am not realistic. Well, I think I am the one who is being realistic. It is unrealistic to think people are not inherently good. For one thing, you will always end up alienating them if you see them that way. On the other hand, if you believe people to be good, then they will often (not always, but often) try to live up to that belief. It is both morally right and practical to see people as inherently good. And, this extend to the institutions they are a part of. Certainly those institutions can be used for ill. But, at their core, there is good. We must search for and embrace that goodness. There is no reason why the left should continue to be anti-religious... it is a stereotyping that has similar negative social consequences to racism and sexism (although currently less severe than those).
I say this with full knowledge that some people may be religious themselves, but find evangelicalism to be offensive. I encourage such individuals to purge those feelings, because if you get to know evangelicals you will find that prejudice against them is socially and personally destructive.
The main point of his book is that the left is failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the American people. By spiritual needs, I mean people's need to be part of a support community where they are valued for who they are and where they can escape from the often soul-crushing workplace that capitalism has created. Spiritual needs also encompass people's desire to have a meaning in their life, a purpose that they can turn to when they are despairing about the horrors of the world. Unfortunately for the left, the Religious Right has managed to monopolize the political landscape when it comes to appealing to these needs. Of course the left has not helped itself, being anti-religious and demeaning to toward the American public. Having an aversion to religion is destroying the left. And there is no reason for it. Over half the Bible is about poverty and there is no reason why the left should not start appealing to people's moral and religiousness when it comes to fighting for social justice. Religion need not be oppressive, as so many people find it to be. It is just another institution in our society that the left has lost its influence over.
In fact, it seems that the left has been unable to even admit to itself that most of its members are indeed motivated by loving, caring, generosity, and other values that are spiritually based. No, they delude themselves into believing their altruistic and spiritual tendencies exist because they are simply in their own self-interest. I am guilty of this myself, looking for my own self-interest in my altruistic nature. If we put ourselves out there and stopped trying to rationalize our motivations as self-interest, we would probably see a massive upsurge in the left.
I hope one day the left will stop being so anti-religious. Certainly religion has been used to do alot of evil in this world... but so has every other belief system. The left itself has its Stalins and Maos who murdered and corrupted society. But, those atrocities are not representative of the average person who is a member of that belief system. Most people are inherently good, intelligent and human. To assume that one group of people is stupid, evil, or somehow less than equal to oneself is a VERY slippery slope, and will only bring woe and contempt. I always seem to find myself trying to convince people of that. They tell me I am not realistic. Well, I think I am the one who is being realistic. It is unrealistic to think people are not inherently good. For one thing, you will always end up alienating them if you see them that way. On the other hand, if you believe people to be good, then they will often (not always, but often) try to live up to that belief. It is both morally right and practical to see people as inherently good. And, this extend to the institutions they are a part of. Certainly those institutions can be used for ill. But, at their core, there is good. We must search for and embrace that goodness. There is no reason why the left should continue to be anti-religious... it is a stereotyping that has similar negative social consequences to racism and sexism (although currently less severe than those).
I say this with full knowledge that some people may be religious themselves, but find evangelicalism to be offensive. I encourage such individuals to purge those feelings, because if you get to know evangelicals you will find that prejudice against them is socially and personally destructive.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Iowa Caucus Aftermath
The iowa caucus turned out exactly the way I wanted it to. Obama won by a large margin, and Edwards came in second. I hope things go well in New Hampshire. I have a good feeling about this race, I think Obama can go all the way, and I think it is his style of politics that is driving the large democratic turn-out (that and the fact that everyone is upset about the direction Bush has taken the country). But Obama is giving them an outlet for that feeling of frustration, and giving them a meaningful vision that they can believe in. Overall, I am very skeptical of politicians, and their ability to affect change (even well-meaning ones), but Obama has sparked hope in me.
I think part of his appeal is that he addresses what Rabbi Michael Lerner called "the meaning needs." The right has been very adept at appealing to the American people's search for meaning. The religious right has essentially monopolized talking in moral terms and appealing to people's spiritual needs, and the left has been left politically castrated. Atleast, until Obama. His rhetoric and style do appeal to the meaning needs of people. His concentration on hope and unity are very inspiring, and if he can walk the walk as president, I believe he would go down as one of the great presidents. IF he can walk the walk.
Still, it is very inspiring to see an organized and enthusiastic youth movement backing him. WE HAD THE SAME TURNOUT AS SENIORS IN IOWA!!!! How awesome is that. We equalled the numbers of the age group that always has the most turnout. Take that establishment, and chew on it for awhile. The youth are starting to find their political voice, and we will no longer be known as the silent generation. Like our forefathers in the 60s, who were too once know as the silent generation, we are going to stir things up and try to achieve lasting positive change. And Obama could be a huge part of that. It always helps to have a sympathetic person in power.
I am certainly excited to see how the democratic primary will turn out. If Obama receives th nomination, I have no doubt he will win. I have alot of conservative friends who like him enough to vote for him. It is also interesting to see a republican field that resembles the democratic field of 04. There is really no one there that people like. In 2004 I didnt really like anyone but Kucinich. And now so many people are saying they dont like anyone except Ron Paul, the republican equivalent of Kucinich. It is almost like a party will put forward a weak field for elections they do not think they can will. And, of course, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They tend to lose when they put forth a bad field.
It is an exciting time to be politically involved, let me tell you.
I think part of his appeal is that he addresses what Rabbi Michael Lerner called "the meaning needs." The right has been very adept at appealing to the American people's search for meaning. The religious right has essentially monopolized talking in moral terms and appealing to people's spiritual needs, and the left has been left politically castrated. Atleast, until Obama. His rhetoric and style do appeal to the meaning needs of people. His concentration on hope and unity are very inspiring, and if he can walk the walk as president, I believe he would go down as one of the great presidents. IF he can walk the walk.
Still, it is very inspiring to see an organized and enthusiastic youth movement backing him. WE HAD THE SAME TURNOUT AS SENIORS IN IOWA!!!! How awesome is that. We equalled the numbers of the age group that always has the most turnout. Take that establishment, and chew on it for awhile. The youth are starting to find their political voice, and we will no longer be known as the silent generation. Like our forefathers in the 60s, who were too once know as the silent generation, we are going to stir things up and try to achieve lasting positive change. And Obama could be a huge part of that. It always helps to have a sympathetic person in power.
I am certainly excited to see how the democratic primary will turn out. If Obama receives th nomination, I have no doubt he will win. I have alot of conservative friends who like him enough to vote for him. It is also interesting to see a republican field that resembles the democratic field of 04. There is really no one there that people like. In 2004 I didnt really like anyone but Kucinich. And now so many people are saying they dont like anyone except Ron Paul, the republican equivalent of Kucinich. It is almost like a party will put forward a weak field for elections they do not think they can will. And, of course, that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. They tend to lose when they put forth a bad field.
It is an exciting time to be politically involved, let me tell you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)