Greetings from
The Publisher . . .
The Underlying Radical Ideas that Unite
and Divide us/U.S.
As I looked ahead to writing this month, I kept thinking about the topic of participatory democracy. I talked to former California State Senator John Vascon-cellos, who recently retired after 38 years in the legislature, with this in mind.
We first talked about the profound sense of disconnect with our Federal government that many of us are experiencing now.
According to the polls a large majority of us/ U.S. are against many proposed and passed programs, such as social security reform, health care programs that mostly benefit drug companies and an energy bill that rewards traditional power companies and cuts funding for alternative, sustainable energy programs and research. Unfortunately this majority view does not translate into legislation.
Even the war in Iraq has 50% of us dissatisfied.
What to do and how to participate to make a difference seems a natural focus right now, and there are many projects worth supporting. The Apollo Alliance, for one, is attempting to bring people together and create jobs by becoming energy independent. Visit: apolloalliance.org We'll look at that more in the future.
As I said, my motivation in talking with the Senator revolved around finding ways to participate in the democratic process and gain clarity on the issues that affect us now. His Web site, The Politics of Trust (PofT) at politicsoftrust.net is one way to bring people together and is beginning to look at various issues (see interview this issue). Talking with the Senator, however, was more like talking with John. It was very human. That was something he also added to the politics.
As we talked, my original focus shifted. I didn't expect my conversation with him to leave me thinking about principles more than participatory steps, but it did.
The obvious underlying principles of our government and society are our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yet there are so many differences, even battles, over how to interpret and apply those founding principles. Our view of the world has everything to do with how we view the relationship between our government and the people. Is that addressed in the Constitution?
The ongoing legacy of Senator John was that he introduced and got legislation passed that created a commission to study what role self-esteem, or the lack of it, plays in contributing to social ills and its cost to society.
While that appears uncontroversial enough, the concepts he introduced were revolutionary because they brought up for review how we look at the world.
Sen. John really introduced the principles of the leading “humanist visionaries.” He presented to the State legislature, California and beyond the views of Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Rollo May, Sidney Jourard, Erich Fromm and Virginia Satir on the human condition.
The view of the human potential movement “marks a departure from conservative beliefs that human nature is basically evil, sinful and must be controlled by force and strict authority. A humanistic worldview sees humanity as innately inclined toward goodness, deserving of liberation and capable of being empowered through love and nurturance to become ever more life-affirming, constructive, responsible and trustworthy.” (from PofT).
Viewing underlying principles or views of the world and people, leads the discussion away from the typical Democrats vs. Republicans partisan debate. Do you view people cynically and suspiciously, or do you have faith in people and trust people? Should government focus on liberating and freeing its citizens rather than controlling them? Should people be shamed and punished? Or inspired? Does our political conversation integrate or divide? Should government be closed and secretive or transparent?
These are basic underlying expressions that come from whether we view people, ourselves, as whole and worthy or flawed and untrustworthy. Does a government that is suspicious and closed—that seeks to control and punish—really fit a democracy? Or does it represent the old-world view more typical of one with a King or dictator ruling their subjects? How well does our government represent its citizen's worldview?
“A negative and cynical view of human nature undermines our better intentions to bring about a truly inclusive, co-creative and equitable system of government. It corrupts the very heart of our democracy by taking political power away from the People and placing it in the hands of selfish special interest groups and ineffective governmental bureaucracies.” (PofT)
The sad truth is that it's common to see special interests rewarded these days. That's another topic, but it was interesting that Deep Throat came in from the cold last month. What he consistently said was “follow the money.” Who does that today?
While some may have trouble with a humanist view and consider it a Democratic view, it isn't, necessarily. If the Democrats simply want to replace one power structure with another acting the same, they miss the point. This is about cooperation.
We've heard this outside of politics. Look at the principles Stephen Covey teaches in The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People . His principles include being proactive rather than reactive; thinking win-win in our interactions compared to win-lose; valuing synergy and differences; and “sharpening the saw.” The later, is described as being involved in self-renewal and self-improvement in the physical, mental, spiritual and social-emotional areas. These ideas are widespread, just not applied to politics.
In California there's no mistaking that we are a stronghold for those known as Cultural Creatives, those creating their own culture based on the humanistic principles mentioned above. The federal government, however, seems to ignore them.
With Independence Day coming we'll hear more about the principles that unite or divide us. After talking with John Vasconcellos I have to say I want to see how these ideals are applied to people.
Given the normal way of governing at the time, the principles our Founders put forth were out-the-box thinking with a humanistic focus on the individual and collective well-being. Coming to an agreement about a new direction took time. What was not as difficult for them was recognizing that they had had enough of the controlling, punishing, dividing and closed ways of King George (of Great Britain ). Not very humanistic.
Don't forget to celebrate Independence Day this month,
Steve Hays
TOP OF PAGEHOME - FEATURES - NEWS - FROM THE PUBLISHER
LETTERS - COLUMNS - MUSIC REVIEWS - BOOK REVIEWS
PLANETARY CYCLES - CALENDAR - ABOUT TLC - CONTACT US
CLASSIFIEDS - RESOURCE DIRECTORY
ARCHIVES - SUBSCRIBE - ADVERTISE - SEARCH
