Four More Years

Originally written after the election results of 2004 to address the depression and despair rampant among liberals and progressives, this article still has a timely message even as we approach the presidential election of 2008.

After over a year of election politics, complete with endless polls and punditry, it should come as news to nobody on planet Earth that the “last remaining superpower” has a very “polarized” population. For decades, Americans have thought themselves immune from the problems that plague other societies, and especially other democracies. At times we have been rather self-righteous about our claim to over 200 years of self-governance. But if the 2004 election did nothing else, it showed Americans that the political problems plaguing the richest country on earth are no different than those suffered by the poorest. We too must deal with our extremist factions, our war-mongers, our pacifists; we too must somehow balance the scales between those who wish to cling to the past and those who are forever seeking the future. Like Lebanon, Iran, or Afghanistan, we have to figure out how our diverse religious beliefs can co-exist peacefully with the rule of law. These issues are never more acutely realized than in a contentious election year, and 2004 was an example played out on a world-class stage.

How do we cope with an America that is so bitterly divided? Is there any merit to becoming an activist, to “fighting” for change? Or should we give up, flee to another country? How does a progressive, enlightened person choose to live with a conservative government that seems hell-bent upon dragging us down the evolutionary scale, rather than up it?

In order to ponder these questions and others like them, two contemporary mystics sat down for a conversation. Metaphors For Life’s Revs. Michael and Alesia Matson D.D., whose collective academic and practical work on changing consciousness spans almost two decades, take a long look at the 2004 election, the exploding differences between liberal and conservative factions, and the potentials for growth and change (yes, change!) in the coming four years.

Alesia’s new book, 7 Mysteries: Contemplative Arts For The Modern Mystic is now available online, and at independent bookstores near you. Michael spent nearly a decade as a lobbyist in both Sacramento CA and in Washington DC. His forthcoming monograph, Fundamentalism: An Integral Definition is scheduled for release in March 2005.

Q: Defining terms is useful, and the disparity between the two primary factions in American politics is a good place to start. How do “liberals” and “conservatives” differ, for the purposes of this conversation?

Michael:

To borrow from Ken Wilber’s Up From Eden, and I’ll have to paraphrase: If you ask a liberal ideologue and a [tag]conservative[/tag] ideologue “why do people suffer?” the conservative will come up with something along the lines of “people suffer because of themselves.” The [tag]liberal[/tag] will say “people suffer because of someone else.”Ask these two political ideologies: “Why are some people poor?” The conservative will answer “laziness, lack of hard work, an entitlement mindset.” The liberal will reply, “oppression, an uneven playing field, victimization, social injustice,” etc.

The conservative ideology places blame within, and thus governs from a philosophy of internal consequences and choices, ignoring the external injustices that prevent the poor and downtrodden (at home or abroad) from being able to better themselves no matter how hard they work. The liberal ideology places blame without, ignoring the role self-responsibility and motivation (at home or abroad) play in individual and social success. Both ideologies create tyranny and injustice. They just manifest different forms.

Alesia:

That’s a definition you won’t find in most political party manifestos. I don’t suppose my definition is any different in that regard, because it looks to me like both parties are too close to their forests to see their trees.I use the word “conservative” for one who wishes to save, or conserve those ideas, traditions, concepts, and practices that have worked, with the understanding that what worked once will always work. “It was good enough for my father and his father, it’s good enough for me. What’s more, it’s good enough for you, too.” They slow the pace of change for everyone by refusing to change until the newness of it has worn off for everyone else. At this point, it may be an acceptable alternative for the old tried-and-true — but only time will tell.

In contrast, a liberal is one who rarely if ever looks back at what has worked in the past. He or she is focused on the new, the different, the cutting edge of evolution, progress. A liberal is never satisfied with the status quo. “There’s got to be something better, and when I find it I will revolutionize the world!” They hasten change by refusing to stand on the old ways, or allowing any situation to rest on its own merits. Never you mind that the changes they’re advocating may be no more practical than pipe dreams – don’t bother them with details, problems can always be patched up later.

Both extremes play valuable roles in a balanced [tag]society[/tag]. In an ideal world, conservatives and liberals would work together to usher in changes at a “comfortable” rate (I use that term with some caution), while preserving the core truths traditions that give context and meaning to any given culture.

In a dysfunctional society… well, I don’t really have to explain that one. It’s rampant all around us.

Q: How do those two definitions work together in this discussion?

Michael:

My definition applies to the political philosophies involved, Alesia’s to the cultural mindset to which those political philosphies appeal. The “Marlboro® Man” will identify far more with conservatism than liberalism. In general, academics, intellectuals, researchers, and so on find the liberal political philosophy more to their liking.

Alesia:

And that tends to be true whether you’re using Michael’s definition, mine, or someone else’s as long as you remember we’re painting with a very broad brush, here.

Q:It seems odd that any society would be able to function, with such inherent tension built right in to the system.

Michael:

Well, I’m not sure what system you’re referencing, but political party tensions are almost as old as the nation itself. That would cause our founding fathers to sigh in exasperation, no doubt; they despised political parties with their inherent fundamentalist tendencies.But if you’re asking about our political system, those divisions were built in from the beginning to create gridlock and prevent any single branch of government from assuming total power. It’s a strange system that’s uniquely American, and poorly understood by the rest of the world. It’s also what has allowed us to survive similiar attempts to seize power, and similar instances of division amongst the population. (Remember the horrible scrimmages over slavery, and later civil rights.)

Alesia:

The bipolar nature of this country and its political parties isn’t new. What we’re seeing in this country once again is a nation that is truly divided against itself. As with the Civil War, we are a nation trying to make up its collective mind about who we want to be when we grow up. We tend to do that slowly, actually. It’s not quite as bad as an evolutionary time scale (read: millenia). We actually manage to make these kinds of societal decisions within or between generations. But it’s still a glacial pace when contrasted against this silly 24 hour news cycle.There’s the crux of it, the paradox that makes it all divinely ordained: We live with a media-driven 24 hour news cycle, but we humans don’t like that kind of pace. It makes us crazy. Collectively, we can’t keep up. So we polarize, and polarize so deeply that nothing gets done quickly. It would be hysterically funny if it weren’t so tragic.

Q: Are you saying that individual Americans are doing this? It makes Americans sound schizophrenic.

Alesia:

I sometimes think we are schizphrenic. And I think the rest of the world is convinced of it. They’ve got a nation of schizophrenics with the largest arsenal of lethal weapons in the history of the world. No wonder everybody’s nervous.Time for another definition: Collective consciousness vis a vis individual consciousness. I’m going to assume that everyone already knows what individual consciousness is — you’ve got one, more or less, if you’re reading these words.

Collective consciousness is an entity generated by a group of beings. This group can be as small as a standard marital unit (2) or as large as you can imagine. Worlds, solar systems, galaxies. Each individual’s consciousness contributes to the collective consciousness. And each collective entity generates new levels of consciousness that can’t be traced to any single individual in that collective. The cells of my body, for instance, are single points of consciousness, or awareness. Together, they create my body, which has levels of consciousness not accessible to any individual cell. The same is true of cities (ever said you didn’t like the “feel” of a certain town?), States, countries — you can postulate it’s true of worlds too.

It’s a dizzying thought, that the [tag]collective consciousness[/tag] of the United States of America has access to levels of awareness that I, as an individual, do not.

Michael:

This isn’t as far fetched as it sounds. Quantum physicists have now pretty thoroughly modeled the relationship between consciousness and this weird, wonderful world we experience every day. But it’s something we humans intuitively understood long before the Einsteins of the world could scrawl long equations on blackboards to explain it. Every democratic form of government is made up of collectives large and small. A lower house made up of small collectives, an upper house made up of much larger collectives, and some kind of head of state that represents the entire collective.So what you’re seeing when you look at the [tag]government[/tag] in power in Washington — not just the President, but the all three branches of federal government, is a snapshot of the American collective consciousness. A snapshot that starts at the last election and traces its way back through the years to the time when the eldest [tag]Supreme Court[/tag] Justice was appointed. (The same is true for state and local government too, of course.)

Alesia:

That, of course, makes liberals want to melt down into little blue puddles of despair. They wouldn’t be so depressed if they’d just borrow from their Big Red Buddies and take a look into the past. Eight years ago, they were little red puddles of despair when [tag]Bill Clinton[/tag] was elected for a second term — despite their best efforts at character assassination.This is one point I want to make clear for everyone: The current prevailing politics doesn’t make conservatives “correct” and everyone else “incorrect.” It just means they get to run the show for awhile. In another few years it will change again — something the Republicans ought to keep in mind before they shift too much power to the majority party in [tag]Congress[/tag].

The other point derives from what I said above: The collective has access to levels of understanding that we, as individuals, do not. I may not care much for the NeoCons running this country right now (and I don’t), but I am working on the assumption that our collective knows more about what needs to happen than I do. Which means running off to Canada or New Zealand for the next four years probably isn’t the best favor I could do for myself and my country. Right now, America needs us right where we are — sowing the seeds of transformation that will help us evolve beyond our little nation-sized sandbox.

Q: Can you talk some more about this urge to leave the country? If your collective no longer reflects your mindset, doesn’t it make sense to join a collective that does?

Michael:

I’d beware throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.We Americans started fighting amongst ourselves before the ashes of the Revolutionary War were even cold, and the only times in our history that we’ve ever slowed down is when we have someone else to fight for awhile. I honestly think bitching and bickering amongst ourselves is our favorite national pastime.

But seriously. We’re nowhere nearly as bad off today as we were, say in 1800, when the political rhetoric became so vitriolic that no matter who won the election, the other side was sure it was the end of the country. Nor are we as polarized as we were in the 1860s when we were brewing up to civil war.

To her credit, America has proven she can take a lot and not only survive, but thrive; in no small part because she’s made up of people who really have nowhere else to go. Face it folks, we’re all either former slaves, refugees, or malcontents. Or we’re the descendents of same.

So long as America is made up of hardy folk who refuse to give up on her, who refuse to quit fighting for that grand vision of freedom and justice for all promised in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, we all will be fine.

Alesia:

I would add that if someone is getting clear. unmistakable guidance that it’s time for them to go elsewhere, then they’d better pack their bags and go. But if it’s fear, depression, anger, or bitterness that’s driving that decision, my advice would be for them to get over themselves, get their egos back under control and think of ways to re-engage. America really does need to evolve, and so do Americans. We’ve got to understand that this really is a big round world we live on, and that what we do affects everyone else here, too. There are thousands of ways, large and small, to assist that process.

Q: Okay. You mentioned sowing the seeds of transformation. How do we do that?

Alesia:

First, and this is basic to every serious teaching on enlightenment or mastery I’ve ever seen: Keep on with the internal work. This is no time for slacking. If you want to boot the [tag]NeoConservative[/tag]s out of Washington so hard they bounce, you’ve got to start by rooting out every Neanderthalian impulse hidden in your own psyche. Show no mercy, give no quarter — there are times and places where compassion and understanding are admirable traits, but not when you’re going after the enemy within. Second, and please consider this only after you’ve had some serious and consistent successes with the first point: Go out and teach what you know. Don’t bother with rallies and protest marches — they’re good for raising awareness on issues, but Americans have already had their consciousness raised on so many issues that a big fat percentage are on Prozac to help them drown out the noise. Instead, be a bit more stealthy and subtle: Pick a topic that resonates with you and find a way to share what you know.

Now, if you’re already in an urban area, you’re probably in for some travel. No preaching to your local choir, and choirs full of progressives is what you’ve got in most cities in this country. Get out there and talk to those who really need to hear what you’ve got to say. In Idaho, you can talk about sustainable agriculture or organic farming, for instance. In Texas, tell them about recycling and renewable resources to take the place of their dwindling oil reserves. It isn’t so much that you want to convert the masses to either sustainable agriculture or recycling, but that the principles that underpin these “progressive” practices and others like them are at the heart of the evolutionary impulse.

What principles are those? E.g., we all have to share this planet, and it’s no fun to play in a sandbox that’s been befouled by short-sighted, selfish playmates. That your personal wealth is lessened every time a child goes to bed hungry and cold. That true compassion doesn’t back down in the face of terrorism, but understands that poisoning land and water with the radiation from uranium-tipped missiles is only going to create more terrorists.

Third… let me borrow from syndicated columnist Molly Ivins, here — lighten up! Learn how to have some fun with this! Nowhere is it written that saving your country from what Ms. Ivins drolly calls “the [tag]jack-booted fascists[/tag]” has to be dreary, serious business. Figure out how to laugh, first at yourself, then at the situation. Then share that laughter with others. Laughter is more contagious than SARS, and lots more attractive than dour-faced sobriety. What’s more, in some circumstances laughter is a way of showing courage, and it’s going to take a lot of courage to face what’s going on within you, and then what’s going on without.

Whew! I’ll stop hogging the fun, now. Your turn, dear.

Michael:

Well, at least you left me a couple of points worth adding.I would imagine that, having just read Alesia’s suggestions, some veterans of protest marches, campaign drives, picketing, and so on are wondering what’s wrong with obstructionist politics?

Remember: That which you resist, persists.

Protests cause polarity. Polarity means there’s resistance. Yet to win your cause, resistance has to be minimized — yes, your resistance to your opposition, too. (If you still think you own the whole banana, go back to Alesia’s first step.) Therefore protests are a tool best used sparingly. So if you’re of the activist mindset, rather than chaining yourself to a bulldozer, solve the friggin’ problem!

Try coming up with a politically viable solution that addresses the issue as you perceive it, and the reason that issue is allowed to persist by the other side. The process forces you to come to understand, and then address, the very real issues of the opposition. And finding that “common ground,” is tantamount to minimizing resistance to change.

Other things you can do are: Run for office yourself, if you have a background (and stomach) that can stand the scrutiny. Or find someone whose views you respect, and campaign for them. We need good integral politicans in all levels of public office.

You can start a grass roots organization that addresses your issue at the local level, solving the problem and changing minds in the streets, rather than in Washington. Government by the people means if we, the people change, our government must follow. One of the great disasters promulgated by the “protest movement mindset” has been the notion that we must look to government to change us, rather than the other way around.

And finally: remember the Constitution! Not just when it’s convenient and supports your cause, but also when it’s inconvenient, and seems to support your opposition. That document was never meant to be politicized. It was meant to preserve every American’s right engage in the political process.

Alesia:

That [tag]Constitution[/tag], that ideal of peace and freedom and democracy, is worth fighting for, folks. Even if our generation doesn’t manage to realize those ideals, by defending them from enemies without and within, we can preserve the possibility of their realization by our children, and their children.And have a hell of a lot of fun doing it.