Wars are Arguments #2

Building on my last post, I would like to explain more about Satyagraha which is a method of conflict that goes to the very roots of social ills. Satyagraha's focus is to change society at a very basic level through organizing the populace to both improve their own lot and to act in concert to improve the society. This can take an infinite variety of forms, from encouraging better diet and exercise habits to developing and implementing better political systems. It even takes the form of civil resistance and disobedience. But the main thrust is a transformation of society itself, which is not the government, but the population. Changing minds and people's daily activities is the primary goal. Everything else is secondary to that focus.

Many may question why one should prioritize changing society instead of focusing on taking over the institutions that run society and then use those as a tool to change it. A careful look at history will show that whenever a movement focuses on taking the reigns of power, it always loses sight of the initial goal of improving society and becomes corrupted by the very means they sought to achieve their end, and in most cases fail to achieve the end anyway. Focusing on direct programs and campaigns to improve society has a two-fold benefit. It actually achieves the end of improving society and it brings the added benefit of building political power almost unconsciously. This political power will then almost naturally bring the institutions of power into its orbit over time.

But this is a slow process and not for the weak. A movement must be strong-willed as well as undogmatic in their approach to how to change society. Ever-improving the methods through practical application and revision is essential. This work will bring a movement into conflict with many groups, but through the judicious use of non-violence, these groups can be successfully turned to either acceptance or support. The weak will resort to violence while the strong remain indomitable in the face of oppression. Oppression and other such evils must be met with principled resistance. I found this sweet video introduction to civil resistance from Waging Nonviolence here is the article: http://wagingnonviolence.org/2010/08/a-succinct-introduction-to-civil-resistance/ the video itself is embedded below. I agree with most of it, but, similarly to what was said in Waging Nonviolence, I disagree with the supposition that nonviolence is not about winning over your opponents. Most successful revolutions whether they are violent or not have won over atleast large parts of the military and police. Look at the French Revolution, there was basically no internal military support for the King. Anyway, the video is still a good watch.

Civil Resistance: A First Look from ICNC on Vimeo.

Wars are Arguments

All wars are arguments about something.  This principle can even be expanded to conflicts. These arguments are about a wide variety of things... in the context of war between governments, the arguments are often over the assets that help create power; land, resources, rights to use common resources, and public perception of the government's credibility.  Revolutions and insurrections are often an argument over the role of government, how it treats people, and the government's and rebel group's credibility.  Even personal conflicts are arguments about something, such as money, or one party feels insulted and the other party refuses to apologize (which can also be boiled down to the perception of credibility).

Violence is not inherent in conflict, arguments are.  Conflicts end when the argument is resolved in a way that both parties can agree on.  Historically, the majority of both parties believed that if your armies were defeated in violent war, then you were defeated and should defer to the victor's will.  For the most part, war was seen for over two millennia to be the ultimate arbitrator to resolve international conflict.  This was possible thanks to the simple fact that everyone involved made an unspoken agreement that if you were defeated in violent combat then you stopped resisting.

This stopped being the case on the international scale around the time of the Napoleonic wars when the democratic and industrial forces changed the nature of warfare.  Famously the Spanish, who were defeated by Napoleon's armies, simply refused to be defeated.  They had shaken loose the mental straight-jacket that said violent war was the ultimate arbitrator.  Their resistance, while often violent, was a sign of things to come, where simply defeating an army was not enough to bring a solution to the argument.

You are not defeated as long as you still have the dignity and will to resist.  Threats of death and even death do not produce obedience or even an end to the argument.  "Fearful people do not act well."    The logic of violence presupposes that the opponent will act in a certain way, which is obedience.  This social construct is entirely escapable.  Refusing to embrace it confounds the violent opponent, because they simply do not know how to respond; conferring a significant advantage both tactically and strategically.

When a violent force confronts a non-violent opponent, it is the violent force's objective to provoke the non-violent opponent into becoming violent.  The violent force always has the advantage when it comes to violence, so it is to their advantage to deprive their opponent of the advantage of being non-violent.  If the non-violent force has the discipline to maintain it's dignity and remain non-violent, it deprives it's opponent of the ability to use violence in a legitimate way.  When violence is used against a stubbornly non-violent force, the violent organization loses its legitimacy and credibility, and is often shamed into surrender.

It may seem odd that a violent enemy can be defeated through non-violent means.  But remember, all conflict is an argument.  The point of the conflict is to get the other side to concede to a mutually agreed-upon conclusion.  Convincing the other side to agree will never again be as simple as it was before the Napoleonic Wars.  Non-violent resistance to violence will always sway the opinion of onlookers in favor of the non-violent party, it is a principle of human nature.  It will even go so far as to make the violent party question themselves and their actions.  That is the power of non-violence, it creates allies who pressure the other party, it undermines the other party's power (support from their population/allies), and makes the other party question itself about its own actions and motives.  This pressure, both external and internal, will always lead to a more beneficial agreement to the conflict for the non-violent party.

Thoughts on "Diversity Of Tactics: The Noise Before Defeat"

This is a fascinating read:  http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/07/26/diversity-of-tactics-the-noise-before-defeat/
It discusses the Black Bloc's use of violence and repressive tactics to silence debate about their violence.  It goes on to discuss the movement's failures to really develop a solid foundation of nonviolent resistance culture and institutions that promote and support it.

Here is an excerpt:

"That there are good reasons why it is difficult does not make the fact that it is necessary go away. We may not have the time for it, but we most certainly do not have the luxury of not doing it. Diversity of Tactics and the Bloc are simply one manifestation of how we fail to take our role seriously. A far more important consequence is that we are far less effective than we should be.

I like to use the metaphor of a craftsperson. They assess a particular task and choose a tool suitable to what it is they wish to do, be it a saw, chisel, or router. In the same spirit we should look at a particular political situation and choose one of the 198 different forms of nonviolent action because it will do the job that needs to be done.

The Bloc is a product of our collective ignorance; theirs and ours. We have a responsibility to them, to ourselves, and most particularly to the issues we claim to care about to be truly professional in our political work. Professional in the sense of being competent, knowledgeable and capable. That the Bloc exists is a testament to our failure to live up to that responsibility. "

Personally I have always found it odd how so many people who claim to be anti-war for a litany of reasons turn around and are willing to be violent toward property and people.  War is simply an extreme application of the same principle that legitimizes this violence and anger.  I can see no justification for war or even its effectiveness, so I see no justification for anarchist violence even though I would agree with many of its aims.  But I can understand how, in a culture so dominated by the justification of violence and the use of violence in attempts to achieve ends, that so many on the left would fall victim to this false prophet.

Content from a letter to Sarah #2

Written in late June 2009 as part of a letter to Sarah

To continue where I left off with Mammoth cave... there is a cathedral sized room in there that is just indescribable in beauty. It is an aptly named cave. I have gone on a bunch of tours there, one for 5 hours. There is still a good percentage of it that is unmapped. For part of one of the tours, they turn off all the lights. It is the darkest black I have ever experienced.

Looking back on this letter, it took a turn toward describing my mental life, so I thought I would throw out that category for this letter... except the previous paragraph.

My school experience was certainly interesting. I was kind of nerd. Academic team, Gifted and Talented program, you get the picture. I got contacts in 6th grade, and wore them everyday for nearly 8 years before they started to bug my eyes too much and I gave them up. I remember being really self-conscious of my glasses for a long time. Freshman year of college I started feeling much more comfortable with myself, more confident and more willing to let people judge me for who I am.

Tracking my mental development is, for some reason, really interesting to me. In 7th and 8th grade I began to question myself about who I was, who I wanted to be and what trajectory I wanted my life to take. This thought process culminated in 10th grade when I started really feeling lost and was kind of depressed for 6 months. Thinking about one's purpose in life will do that to you. But after being lost in that desert of melancholy for so long, I somehow stumbled upon an epiphany that has been the foundation of my world since then. At the time I couldn't really articulate it, but I had decided that the answer to the question "what is the meaning of life" is "people." (yeah, I am also a stubborn contemplater of unanswerable questions... I am still contemplating the meaning of life a decade later)

It was during this contemplation of myself that I began my core spiritual practices... these are all inherently interconnected but i have kind of broken them down in my own head to include: deep self-reflection, self-improvement processes, emotional and behavioral shaping practices, redefinition of my identity, my experiments with the truth (Gandhi is a big influence on me), my endeavors to understand and empathize with people, and my adherence to a philosophy of generosity. There might be more of them, but those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

I began my experiments with truth during 7th grade. My first and longest running experiment is with the idea of ends and means and their connection. I have always heard that "the end does not justify the means." Most people take this to mean that even if you get the end you want, if the means was bad, you should feel guilty. I do not think that is what the phrase means. I think it means that if you are seeking just ends, you can never fully reach them if you use unjust means. It is just simply impossible. Now, if you have an unholy end, or a narrow end you *can* achieve it with unjust means. And by "narrow end" I mean you want one thing, only that thing and don't care about the effect on other things. The CIA term "blowback" is an example of this... when they achieve a narrow end but the surrounding environment becomes worse. I have done countless experiments on this hypothesis, through observing my behavior analyzing the results, changing my behavior, seeing what happens, etc. I have been doing this since 1997-ish, although not consciously at first.

The first part of this experiment that I can isolate in my memory is my dealings with bullies. Now, I got picked on alot as a kid. But I had great parents, and they told me to try to understand the bully. So I did. I began consciously struggling to empathize with my attackers. And boy did this pay off. I started naturally acting nice to them, even when they were horrible to me. This just confused them, most of the time. But after awhile I wore them down with my kindness. I remember the turning point with a kid named Anthony Berta. He had a canker sore in his mouth and was complaining about it. I sympathized with him, told him I got those sometimes and they hurt like hell. I offered advice, telling him he should try applying hydrogen peroxide to it. He tried it and about two days later he thanked me. I remember feeling so good from that. And as I observed his behavior from then on he was generally nicer to me. He still made jokes at my expense on occasion, but nothing compared to what had gone on before. This is one reason I have such faith in non-violence. I have seen it work from a very early age.

Another bully named Brad something used to bug me in middle school. He was a big guy, rather aggressive and insecure about himself so he felt the need to act out. I don't remember any specific turning point with him, but I slowly won him over. I won him over so much that sophomore year when he was sitting at our table, being a jerk, and everyone asked him to either stop of leave, he was really surprised when I joined in the request. Reflecting on that whole situation, I think he saw me as his only friend at the table and felt very betrayed when I united with the others to try to get him to stop being a jerk. I felt bad about it for awhile afterward. Apparently kindness is a double-edged sword. I wonder what happened to him, I wish I remembered his last name so I could friend him on facebook.

So, building on this very practical and beneficial application of my experiments, I started toying around with a good percentage of my life. I started applying more and more control over my behavior, learning to let go of anger and to communicate my feelings effectively to de-escalate and conflict-resolve. And as I did this, the predictions emanating from my hypothesis about ends and means were all coming true. If I wanted a better life, treating people well seemed to be the most effective strategy. When I slipped up and conducted myself bady, I could sense tremors in my world in that direction as well. I built up my mind as much as I could into an analysis machine to tease out little cause and effects and after years of doing this I see patterns in the chaos, and they all fit my initial hypothesis. Of course, it could be analytical bias, but either way, it makes me happier than I would be otherwise (this could also be a placebo effect... but who cares).

And so, I came to the conclusion that the ends do not justify the means because you can never get the a truly good end using evil means. I am still conducting this experiment on and off these days, re-testing my conclusion.

My second longest experiment, which I have been conducting in conjunction with the first, was testing the golden rule. As you can see, it fits in very nicely with the first experiment. If I am trying to treat others as I would have them treat me, then I am almost always using good means. It is amazing the good feelings and good fortune that come your way when you try your hardest to follow this rule... but it is damn hard. I started this one in 10th grade, I believe... or maybe I just consciously recognized it in 10th grade. I start alot of things within myself without realizing it, sometimes it goes on for more than a year or two before I recognize it. At this point I was way WAY into Gandhi's philosophy, and it buttressed my analysis from a personal level to a societal level and a method of struggle.

While those are my two major experiments, I have a bunch of smaller ones... probably more than I can remember. I have experimented with leadership styles, conflict resolution, democratic processes, communication processes (both appealing to large audiences and interpersonal), etc. Usually with these experiments, I was the only variable I could change. So, I got really good at controlling my behavior and emotions so I could see what would happen when I acted a certain way. This coupled nicely with my intention to improve myself.

Changing myself has been another one of my major life projects. I don't remember exactly when I started, but I have always had a goal, at first nebulous but now quite clear. This general goal in changing myself is to make the lives of the people around me better. When I was young I remember being selfish, somewhat uptight and arrogant. Well, one day I decided I didn't like those traits in other people, and that I should try to change myself to get rid of those undesirable traits. I think it has been like 10 or more years since I really started working on myself, and I am proud to say I have made alot of progress. I still have problems with arrogance, but I do a good job of hiding it behind a veil of modesty. (For these letters, I feel like I have lifted my veil of modesty somewhat, and it is actually making me anxious to have done so... please don't judge me too harshly as arrogant or self-absorbed). I am also so much calmer than I once was, it is a huge relief.

It is very hard to describe this process for change, it is not explained in English in my head... it is a series of emotions, urges and bulbous shapes (representing concepts and cause and effect relationships) interacting with other bulbous shapes in a kind of weird fluidic space in my mind's eye. But when I find that I am acting in a way that I don't like, I will start a long thinking process, analyzing it and trying to set up triggers in my own mind to prevent me from acting that way again. One of my favorite attempts to change my behavior and thought patterns (because in involves my endeavors to fight sexism in my own mind) is to successfully be aware of the gender dynamics at gatherings, to comment on them to the group, and to break them through my actions. So, that house dinner where Lapedis and Caely came over (you were in Marin with a friend), I commented how, after the meal, Liz and Caely started making cookies and all the men were sitting in the living room talking. I offered to help make cookies, but I was un-needed. It bothers me when people aren't aware of how easily people fall into gender roles, which often means women end up doing alot more work. I will talk more about my feminist tendencies later.

This process also comes with reinforcing good traits, like generosity. I like to think I have achieved a pretty good level with that, I am always on the lookout for ways to be generous to other people... there is a chapter in the book The Prophet that has had an IMMENSE impact on my direction in life, especially when it concerns giving... have you ever read "The Prophet"? Here is a taste:

Then said a rich man, "Speak to us of Giving."

And he answered: You give but little when you give of your possessions.

It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.

For what are your possessions but things you keep and guard for fear you may need them tomorrow?

And tomorrow, what shall tomorrow bring to the over-prudent dog burying bones in the trackless sand as he follows the pilgrims to the holy city?

And what is fear of need but need itself?

Is not dread of thirst when your well is full, thirst that is unquenchable?

Here is a link to it: http://leb.net/~mira/works/prophet/prophet5.html
I will probably talk about generosity more later... One of my conclusions about life is its inherent dynamism. Things and people change. I change, and accepting my own dynamic self has allowed me to give it some direction. I think far too many people see themselves as static, and don't realize that they can and should deal with unpleasant feelings that arise so that they do not burden one's life. I know all my emotions come up for a reason, and until I know that reason and have dealt with the root of the emotion, it will not dissipate. And it is within my power to do that. I feel very empowered when it comes to defining myself and pushing myself to be my highest vision for myself. I wish I could give that confidence and technique to other people. I credit a great deal of my happiness to the fact that I am able to deal with unwanted emotions and behavior in a productive and healthy way. Looking back at KY, I realize how much of a difference it would make in people's lives to be able to do this. I wish I could make a constructive campaign around it, like Gandhi did.

Defining myself has been an important journey that, like everything else I have described in this letter seems to, underpins a large swath of my beliefs. When I was in 10th grade, I came to the realization that I did not like identifying myself as an individual. It did not hold any appeal to me. If I defined myself that way, then I should want to acquire at other's expense, and that did not make me feel good. That identity meant selfishness as a way of life, and I was already seeing its negative effects in my own life and the lives of those around me. So I endeavored to shed my individual identity in favor of a more collectivist model. The best way of describing this is to look at your hand. Now, I can think of myself as a finger, or I can think of myself as part of the hand. I prefer to think of myself as part of the hand. My well-being is inherently tied to my community, and everyone in the community is tied to each other. Seeing ourselves as isolated individuals is just out of touch with reality. Defining myself in this way has made it not only easy to give, but made it the only logical thing to do.

There are alot of interesting manifestations of this identity. For example, when I am somewhere with unemployed friends... I feel like if they pay that I am somehow getting more hurt than if I pay. (I, here, refers to my identity as a part of a group) They have a finite pool of money that is not being recharged, so if they spend money it is more detrimental than if I or someone who has income pays. It is hard to explain, and I don't think I am doing the best job. but suffice to say this identity has really motivated me to protect/help my community, even if i have to sacrifice a disproportionately high number of things myself. I think many American's don't understand this mentality even when some of them subscribe to it in their own communities... and our world would be a much better place if they did understand it.

I have actually found that playing with my identity is one of the more powerful things I can do to change myself. I am generally kind of shy, but I have made great strides in changing that through trying to define myself as a more outgoing person. This is especially effective when I am in roles where I think other people expect me to be outgoing... like as a camp counselor or a host of a party. There is so much potential for how I could change myself, I have pushed my identity toward more generosity, more kindness, more willingness to forgive, less anger and more calm. And overall, it has made me a thousand times more happier. It is an incredible tool for self-improvement. I think most people, especially kids, simply take up the identity that other people ascribe to them. I wonder what would happen if I could teach this to repeat prisoners and motivate them to see themselves differently. Religion often has this effect, from what I have seen with prisons.

Part of all this interconnected mess is self-reflection. I think about myself alot, maybe too much. I observe my emotions, my behavior, my thoughts, and my motivations. When I first started doing this, I looked at everything and spent years thinking about it. But now, I think I have examined most of myself that I want to reinforce, so I mostly stick to things that bug me, and new things that arise. I mull them over, then over again. As you can see by this series of letters, I can write way too much about myself when I have an interested audience. This process has become second nature to me now, as with most of my spiritual practices. I do it without even trying, and often have to quiet it down to get to sleep at a reasonable hour. It is this process that gives me the strong sense of who I am, which has not really been shaken since maybe senior year in high school.
Anyway, that's enough for this letter... to be continued.

Thoughts on Non-Violence

Social proof, that is what it all comes down to. Without a significant number of people believing something, it isn't going to happen. Non-violence needs more social proof to be seen as a mainstream solution. Luckily, even the under-developed ideas that currently constitute non-violent thought show how powerful it can be at creating social proof.

The best way to do this is to develop a body of knowledge on how non-violence works, as well as a group of people to go around and exercise these methods. It is only in acting on these ideas and principles in a very public way that we can prove their effectiveness. So, we need to both develop an institute to study the subject (already a few in existence!) and a systematic group to practice and refine methods. There are plenty of groups using non-violence out there, but they do not do it systematically and experimentally, nor do they take meticulous notes on it. Non-violent Peaceforce comes as close to this as I have seen. As much as I love them (they are friggin' amazing!) I wish they would put more effort into smaller scale trainings that would empower locals to fight their own battles as well as be part of the NP network. While I totally dig their interventions in the Phillipines and Sri Lanka, I think there is so much more potential than only in those two places. I want something with the capacity to train thousands in the U.S. every year.

I also think that NP focuses too much on peacekeeping as a third party activity. Part of what makes non-violence so powerful is employing it to fight a conflict, not just as a third party peacekeeper. I want to prove to the public that we can fight and win a war non-violently. And to do that, I think it will take thousands of people across the country using non-violent techniques against violent attackers and winning... and making the point that the only reason they won was because of the use of non-violence.

I will give some examples of what I have in mind... I want an organization that can train:
Unions to be more effective at their struggles.
Groups fighting for civil rights issues (racism, sexism, homophobia)
Poverty fighters
College activists
Copwatches - I want them to have the legal authority to intervene if a police officer is doing something illegal, and they will have to win that.
Environmental activists.
People to deal with day to day conflicts in their own lives...
The list could go on for awhile.

I want to help develop an alternative to the violent military and something that can win against the military-industrial complex. I want to disabuse the global public of its infatuation with and belief in violence. I want to give the movement a weapon more effective than violence so that we can transform this world.

Jubillee!

What we need to help fix this financial crisis is a Jubilee. I am not suggesting a full scale Jubilee (if you don't know what a Jubilee is, read the Bible Lev 25), but merely a small, simple Jubilee to repair some of the damage. It would not fix everything, but it would go a long way to restoring confidence. I am suggesting that instead of injecting nearly a trillion dollars into the coffers of banks to push them to lend, we simply remove the damage-dealing toxic assets. Yes, the government should pay off the mortgages (or part of them anyway) of all the people who owe on these toxic-assets.
I think republicans should like this, because it is the same idea as tax-cuts, a direct infusion of funds into the hands of people (smaller loan payment=money in pocket). Although I am sure they will complain about giving to the "undeserving." But that is just an arrogant, elitist argument that I will address at a later time. Democrats... well, I think if it didn't look politically costly to do this, they would do it.
A Jubilee has the same benefits as the previous examples of generous government policy has had. The GI bill returned an average of 7 dollars for every 1 dollar spent. The Marshall Plan after WWII is the reason that Europe has a functioning economy. The New Deal built a large percentage of our current infrastructure, without which we would not have as strong an economy. Generosity not only makes more sense, it makes financial sense. And a Jubilee is the ultimate shot of generosity.

Politicians and power

Real power is not a commodity, it is consent.  Specifically, consent from large groups of people. Power can only be bought when people consent to being bought off, and it can only be stolen when people consent to giving it up through some form of intimidation.  But there is a difference between active consent and apathetic consent.  Active consent produces real, tangible power that can move mountains and change the wheel.  Apathetic consent produces the shadow of power, people go along with it, but their hearts aren't in it.  Consent to the activities and policies of politicians fall into the second category.  Only half the population is motivated to spend one hour or less to do something as easy as voting, now that is apathetic consent to be governed.   

Too many people believe politicians are able to do things, that they have power enough to make decisions themselves.  That is not the nature of the beast.  It was the nature of Monarchs and Emperors, back when people put more stock in the authority of their leaders and were much much more willing to act on their leader's wishes.  But it is not so today.  If a politician asked me to do something, I doubt I would do it unless it was something I was going to do anyway.  I bet the same is true for most of you out there.  We are forced to apathetically consent to their existence, because there is no alternative, as of yet.  Because they receive this type of consent, politicians do not have latitude to do what they wish.  We have stripped them of that power by our lackluster enthusiasm.  Like most of us, their hands are tied, they are stuck in Weber's iron cage of rules and regulations, and without support, they are unable to do what they want just as much as we are unable to create what we wish. 

I am reminded of a story about FDR.  During the early days of his administration, he met with labor leaders, they gave a presentation to try to convince him to adopt their policies.  At the end, FDR told them that they had convinced him and he completely agreed with what they were saying, and that now they had to go out into the public arena and force him to do it.  Hating politicians for being spineless and unable to do what we want is like hating grass for being unable to remain rigid against the wind.  If we want to shift the way the grass bends, we have to change the direction of the wind.  

I don't bother getting angry at politicians anymore.  Not worth the effort, they just do what they do and that won't change until we change our system of government.  Getting some active consent going for a policy will change policy, but it will not change the anti-participatory nature of our republic.  

It seems to me that too many people on the left focus on the people at the top levels of our government, and focus on them for failing to live up to America's ideals.  But they don't have the real power.  The population that apathetically consents to their existence has the REAL power, and they nullify it by being apathetic.  If we ever want to change our society, we have to change the minds of the population and get them organized and acting.  Politicians are a moot point, when the population's minds are changed, the minds of politicians will be changed. Just look at the environmental movement's success in converting the general population.  Even Republicans are now trying to appeal to green-minded voters.  We shouldn't waste our emotional energies decrying politicians and fighting the power-structures unless these activities are aimed at changing people's minds and mobilizing them.  And unfortunately, they often are not aimed at this, they are aimed at forcing authority figures to do what we want.

A Revolution is Just a Spinning of the Wheel

I mistrust the notion of revolution.  Far too many people put stock in it as an effective way to change society, but even a brief gloss-over of history tells me that it is not particularly effective. Take Russia for example.  They have had several revolutions in the past 200 years both violent and peaceful, yet they still have an authoritarian government, it may be composed of different people, but it is still essentially the same as the Tsar monarchy or the Soviet-style government. China too, several revolutions, still authoritarian.  Then there are countless third world countries that have had revolutions galore, and we can see how well that has worked out for them. We could take the French revolution as the archetype of revolution.  They overthrew an absolute monarch and large, powerful factions such as the Sansculottes pushed for direct democracy.  The core of the intellectual support for the French revolution supported more democracy, and indeed has inspired the rest of the world with its idealism.  Yet they ended up empowering Napoleon in the near absolute power of an Emperor.   If there were to be a revolution in the typical sense in America, I do not believe it would achieve the ends we desire. 

I am reminded of the analysis provided in 1984 about before Oceania's type of government:  there were always revolutions that would overthrow one group of oligarchs and replace them with another group.  Indeed, a republic is designed to institutionalize this process, stabilizing the switching of control and reducing disruption.  It also stabilizes the groups who maintain power, allowing them to entrench themselves more effectively and simply change places with each other every few years.  Kind of scary to think that a republic, what we have now in America, is an institutionalization of the cycle of revolution.  I am not particularly interesting in changing who has the reigns of power, which may be why I am never had a particular interest in working to elect politicians or bothering rich people to do things.

  

True to its definition, revolution is just the spinning of the wheel, you always end up where you started.  Myself, I am not interested in spinning my wheels... what I want to do is change the wheel itself.  History, again, can aid in understanding this.  There have been numerous wheel-changing events in history, among the most prominent are the industrial revolution and the enlightenment.  They both defined the lenses that the world has been seen through since they came about.  What is phenomenal about them is that they were not specifically directed at the power structures themselves, they were simple shifts in our view of the world and how one acts in it.  

I have come across the idea of wheel changing events before; something that happens that changes everything.  For indigenous populations, exposure to western civilization has been wheel-changing, their cultures are disrupted, and they are often forced to abandon their way of life.  Forced in the military sense, or in the generational shift-sense when the next generation has to stop living the way they did to survive.   But, the best description of a wheel-changing event that I have come across yet comes from literature.  The Riverworld series describes how an ancient society accidentally developed an artificial soul generator that automatically bound souls to new sentient beings.  So, this society changed its newborns without even knowing it, and in the space of only a couple generations, all the beings without these souls were gone because of old age.   This is a great metaphor for generational change.  One generation develops something, the next generation is imbued with it and it becomes an indestructible part of our society.

This seems to be the main wheel-changing method that humanity has at its disposal, and it can be boiled down to mass education, motivation, and changes in each of our ways of life.  To change society, you really have to change the way people think and act, because what else is society but the aggregate of all of our thoughts and actions.  

The industrial revolution was a revolution of mind, it shifted the priorities in life more directly toward profit, productivity and self-interest away from the typical human priority of social networking and the reciprocal economy.  It manifested itself in the day to day behavior of people and in their way of life.  It was compelling enough to spread like a plague across the earth, infecting all those it touched.  

I also think that the 60s was a wheel-changing event in opposition to the industrial revolution's, as it prompted people to change their priorities away from profit.  In fact, I believe that the old sds's long-haul strategy of radicalizing (educating) young people was key in the effectiveness of this specific event.  Without a de-centralized yet organized education and motivation effort, wheel-changing events are much harder to produce.  

Without this hard work of changing minds, we will not see success in our movement.  In the eternal words of Monty Python: "Power is derived from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony."  Too often people on the left focus on the power structures in a society, when we should be focusing on the real power in human society - each other.

A Glimpse of the Ocean of Hope Through the Oil Slick of Cynacism

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.

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.