1. Don't let the media frame this as a defeat of progressives. Had Obama embraced and fought for a progressive agenda, even if he had passed none of it, he would have entered the 2010 elections as the champion of the huge idealism of the American people that was elicited in 2008 and which would have led the Democrats to an electoral sweep in 2010. Being seen as fighting for the needs of ordinary people -- never letting anyone forget for a moment that he had inherited the mess that Republican and pro-corporate Democrats had created, positioning himself as the champion of those who resented the Wall Street and corporate interests -- his popularity would have grown; he could have won a much bigger victory for the Democrats in 2010, and that would have allowed him to actually legislate the policies of a progressive vision.
Had Obama refused to give more money to the banks and Wall Street unless equal or greater amounts were allocated for a visionary New Deal-style program for jobs and a freeze on mortgage foreclosures; had the Democrats refused to fund the escalation of war in Afghanistan; had they advocated for "Medicare for Everyone" instead of passing a plan that forced 30 million people to buy health care, but puts no serious restraints on the costs that insurance companies or pharmaceutical can charge; had Obama fought courageously for a carbon tax and ended the bargain taxes for the wealthy; had the Democrats insisted on stopping the harassment of immigrants; had the Obama Administration called for a national effort to overturn Citizens United, such as the ESRA -- Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Had Obama set up public forums at which his supporters could give him public feedback and used the web creatively to allow his supporters to weigh in, and had Obama consistently spoken honestly to Americans about the constraints he was facing and who was putting pressure on him to do what -- there would have been no electoral defeat. It wasn't the progressive agenda that got defeated, it was the corporate-military accommodation of the Democrats and Obama who couldn't address popular outrage, not only at the economic problem, but at the way we had been manipulated in 2008; and the humiliation many felt at having allowed themselves to hope that someone in politics would fight for what they said they would fight for.
2. Challenge the elitism in the Left. Whenever you hear someone saying that it is the stupidity or reactionary nature of Americans that led to this defeat, remind them of why, absent any other voice that they would encounter expressing their outrage, it was rational for Americans to be attracted to the right-wing voices that were expressing that outrage (albeit with programs that will actually make things worse). When Americans thought they had a chance at progressive change, they voted for it in 2008 -- so they are neither stupid nor reactionary.
3. Challenge the religo-phobia in the Left. As long as the progressive world seems to be aligned with those who think that anyone who believes in God must be either stupid or at a lower stage of psychological development, we will get nowhere with an American public sincerely committed to a spiritual worldview. Allow yourself to explore the various spiritual progressive communities and movements that currently exist.
4. Do not demean those who disagree with us. Act as though every person, no matter what their politics, is created in the image of God or deserves fundamental respect, and only challenge their ideas and policies, but without attributing bad motives to them. And do not demean your own leaders -- stop the back-biting and competition that so often drives the most creative thinkers and activists out of the movement! Make the progressive world focus more on taking care of each other in its meetings and public events.
5. Take time every day to rejoice in the grandeur and awesome mystery of the universe -- and remember that the world is filled with loving people who would be there with us if they knew that we took love as seriously as we take critique.
6. Build a unified political movement that calls for A New Bottom Line in American society so that instead of judging institutions, legislation or policies rational or productive only to the extent that they maximize money and power, they are judged by how much they maximize love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological behavior and awareness, and the extent to which they tend to encourage us to be more caring toward each other and the earth and more able to respond to the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement at the grandeur of being and consciousness and to experience true gratitude at being alive.
7. Build within the Democratic Party an opposition to the corporate-oriented leaders of that party, from Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi to Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumner. Create a spiritual progressive caucus in every city. Run candidates in the primaries against that leadership -- follow the example of the Tea Party in their effort to move the Republican party to the Right.
8. Build outside the Democratic Party a separate political party that talks about love, kindness, generosity, and The Caring Society -- Caring for Each Other and Caring for the Earth. Let that party be based on the notion of A New Bottom Line as expressed in Commandment Six. Let this party talk explicitly about building a world that supports love and generosity! Stop speaking the language of the bureaucrats and the technical manipulators -- start speaking the language of the heart. End the time in which Democrats believe that progressives have "no place to go" and hence will support their corporate-oriented candidates no matter how far they are from progressive ideals.
If the Greens are able to transform themselves to a party that puts love and caring and the language of the heart at the forefront of its public identification, rather than a primarily technocratic, issues-debating, hard-nosed "realistic" from the left, policy-but-not-love-generating social force, then it could be this. But at the moment it is not, and it may be easier to create something new than to reform the inner workings and political culture of the Greens,
9. Create a United Progressive Fund so that all the different progressive organizations stop competing with each other for funding and instead allocate according to how many people belong to any given progressive organization.
10. Don't be realistic! The powers that be in the media, politics and economics define "realism." The most important changes in our country have come about because people were willing to fight for what everyone supposedly knew to be "unrealistic" (e.g. ending segregation, ending ten thousand years of unchallenged male supremacy and sexism, legitimating gay and lesbian lives, building an environmental movement, and the list goes on).
Realism is idolatry -- believing in God is believing that there is some Force in the Universe (some of us call it God) that makes possible the transformation from "that which is" to "that which could and should be." Support a Global Marshall Plan to once and for all end global poverty, hunger, homelessness, insufficient education or health care -- and pay for it through a Tobin tax on all international financial transactions of over $1 million. End the domination of money in politics and challenge the irresponsible environmental policies of corporations -- through the ESRA -- the Environmental and Social Responsibility Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Follow these ten commandments and the progressive forces will finally be able to reshape this country before it is too late. If you wish to help us do this, please join and help create a local chapter of the Network of Spiritual Progressives here. But if you like these ideas but don't want to work inside our organization, then bring these ideas into whatever organization you are already part of and insist that they debate these ideas, align with us in our campaign for the ESRA and for our proposed Global Marshall Plan, and insist that they develop the kind of broad strategy we are presenting here.
Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine, a Jewish and Interfaith Critique of Politics, Culture and Society; chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives, and rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue.
The ideas given come from organized religion, philosophy and theories of altruism. While they will prove an ideological bridge too far, they are critically important as the benchmark by which all politics should be played.
I can only hope to see such realized - who'd have thought Obama would have been elected to the US presidency and thus prove Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's words right? - either in my lifetime under this president, or in future under any other.
I no longer believe he is capable of this. He has never embraced a "progressive agenda" and will not fight for anything.
From his recent CBS interview:
Obama on healthcare: ". We thought that if we shaped a bill that wasn't that different from bills that had previously been introduced by Republicans ..."
The historical trend of civilization is from concentration of power to distribution of power. Conservatism is resistance to this trend; its basic goal is to conserve the concentration of power, whether in wealth, state violence, or moral despotism. Reactionaries wish to see power reconcentrated.
Concentration of power by "the few" is almost always harmful; it is abused and it hinders "the many" from managing their lives by their wishes. Therefore, concentration of power must always be suspect of being immoral in the sense of causing suffering. And conservatism must always be suspect of being immoral in the sense that it perpetuates suffering that could be relieved through *progress* in the more *liberal* distribution of power.
This thesis is complex, uncomfortable, and subject to misleading counter-examples. Power is often seen as murky and unpleasant. However, the concentration and distribution of power, and the suffering or relief they engender, can be analyzed down to the last heartache. Conservatives play the power game very well in the silence of the Big Taboo. Are progressives willing to change the game? If moral leaders like Rabbi Lerner don't see or won't break the Taboo, who will? Who will **question the morality of power** ?
Engaging the issue of power directly is not enjoyable. Seeking only joy, we avoid dealing with power. The purest joy is found in compassionately focusing on the reality of how the world works, and that includes looking directly at the consequences of over-concentration of power.
Again, it is right there, in the open, ready for analysis: where exactly are the overconcentrations of power, and what exactly is the suffering that it causes? The simplest way to answer this is to reverse the analysis: where is there suffering, and where is the over-concentration of power that contributes to it?
This will get easier with practice. It's time to start practicing. Just try it one time, to start. how about "suffering from lack of affordable access to quality health care"? And "the power of doctors and insurance companies in dictating health care economics?"
How about questioning the morality of that over-concentration of power?
Then choose another suffering, or another over-concentration of power.
Don't worry about running out of things to choose from.
Let's have a discussion about power in which we keep things as simple as possible. The people with power would like that, because it would prevent us from ever getting a glimpse of how they have tied up the world with their exercise of power.
So, following the libertarian logic, let's let people keep slaves, work children to death, spew poison into the environment and treat millions of jobs like casino chips, because those are expressions of individual conscience. Let us further de-concentrate power to the furthest possible extent, and give everyone their own atomic weapons, so that the can defend their individuality to the furthest possible extent.
Or, we could deal realistically with the complexity and consequences of the existence of power in the world.
Can conservatives abhor the obvious wide-spread suffering that is caused by the over-concentration of power in, yes, *individual* plutocrats, demagogues, and religious extremists?
Can conservatives consider that they enjoy the fruits of modern civil society because power has been distributed to them...BY the federal government?
Liberty, Constitution, Individual: these are precious realities.
And in the hands of power, they are cynically used as mere scales on the great shield of the Taboo: do NOT **question the morality of power**.
Name one instance in which big business has stood in defense of my rights as an individual?
It is the individual that has polluted the water I drink.
It is the individual that has polluted the air I breath.
It is the individual that tramples on my freedom of speech (see Keith Olberman)
It is the individual that sells me dangerous drugs, both legal and illegal.
It was "big government" that stepped in to end legislated segregation.
It was big government that defended my right to vote.
It is big government that inspects the food we eat and tests the drugs we are sold.
I believe this may well be the best Political Article I have seen. And it certainly does not compliment me.
Keep telling it like it is.
There are probably quite a few lawyers, engineers, celebrities, etc. who vote republican, and I may not like their profit before people attitude toward life, but I can see the method to the madness.
But most average Americans, who are wage slaves, like myself, are so going to be screwed over when republicans give big corporations the green light to not only discriminate against employees but customers as well. Rand Paul thinks businesses should be allowed to refuse service to black people and even admitted he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act.
Republicans favor a repeal of the Americans with Disabilities act. That would negatively affect a LOT of people.
I hate that most corporations treat their employees as disposable.
I hate that it's nearly impossible to earn a living wage.
I hate that the cost of living goes up while salaries go down.
I hate that some people are have died and are going to die needlessly because insurance companies refused lifesaving treatment.
I hate that I pay for Medicare in my taxes but it won't be there for me when I am older.
To sum it up, I hate Republicans!
Republicans won't be happy until we are dragged back to the Victorian era. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Remember I started saying this back in the 60s ,and now I'm getting Social Security.
Everything else I agree with, maybe not the 'hate'.
"Why is this so hard to understand?" I believe the right for some reason is better at name calling and hanging labels . All they had to do was make everyone afraid of "Commies".
Then they hung the name Liberal and "Commie" on anyone who dissagreed with the Big Business Right.
You can talk logic,and principles till your blue in the face. And when they say "The Left is leading us to a Socialist/Commie Government", None of the people on the right will remember anything you said. Ever see an educated 'nice guy' argueing with a loudmouth streetsmart Bully ?
Yes, many people are irresponsible, but mainly the problem is that "conservative" economic policies have driven tens of millions into poverty. Google "Data on Income & Tax Distributions" to see them and how it's been massive "flow up", not "trickle down".
And "conservative" policies also manipulate the labor market to assure there are more people who need jobs than there are jobs, google "There's no 'free market' for Labor". When the system fails due to destructive policies, individuals fail, too ... through no fault of their own. So yes, millions of people are being forced to be wage slaves.
The ugly aspect of America is that people like you practice a politics of envy that perverts "government helping people through hard times" into "giving deadbeats a handout". Yet you don't give a damn that policies favor the wealthy.
An example: dividends are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. "Time is money" in general parlance ... except that people who invest their money to make money don't have to pay as much tax as people who invest their time to make money. That's sick!
Progressives raise their heads in Congress about once every generation. Historically, they have surfaced during economic downturns and recessions when people are frightened and unsure about the future. They use fear and false hope to advance thewir agenda.
But, Progressive ideas have always been quickly, and soundly, defeated once the American people realize they been duped by the inherent Socialist concepts of Progressive ideology. We do not want Socialism; we do not want a welfare state. And, guess what? We just proved it -- again -- last Tuesday.
What was the 3/4 Trillian Dollars GW gave the banks with NO Strings attached before he left?
Oh wait that wouldn't be Socialism would it? He gave that to Big Banking. Oh, Yeah That would be Facism wouldn't it. Don't tell me about Obama's gift, there were strings there and they are paying or have paid it back.
Does Microsoft finance a group within their organization that wants their present administration to fail? Would any corporation financially support a special interest group within their company? The answer is no.
When Barack Obama and their party took office, imagine that prior to that they were not kept in the loop as to what the previous administration had done. They take office from an administration that created big problems and it can't be fixed in a couple of years. Politics isn't supposed to be party before the public they represent.
I support sustainability and economic growth sustainably so we don't complicate our children's future with what we do today. We can't rage forward as the previous administrations have done so we can create wealth. Building development is a science first, not an economy.
Who really won in this election if they don't understand the basics that they are on the same team with the same employer called the public?
He has yet to walk the walk of it. Unfortunately he will have a harder row to hoe
He tried to facilitate bipartisanship and his place in history instead of lead a nation to greatness and out of its woes
Progressives need to unite within the Democratic Party, not outside of it, to consolidate our agenda. As a fiscal conservative who is a social progressive, I think it is imperative that we remember the most vulnerable of our society, children, the disabled and the infirm elderly, who need societal help.
Society owes a decent life to those who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide it. This is a tenet of all Judeo-Christian based religions, that we must give charity. Everyone deserves a safe home, decent food and decent medical care.
And please, Mr. Obama, speak up, stand firm and remind us of the idealism that led to your election. You said it would take time and a lot of work. I agree, but most of us need frequent reminders in a society that runs on nano-seconds.