DUCKPOND

Rabbi Michael Lerner reaches a conclusion that has relevance to people outside the USA as well.

We look down on people who hold some opinions we do not agree with, and they get it. Then they seem irrational, but we forget they have accurately read the psychodrama we have chosen to ignore, or even as the case may be, chose to remain ignorant. We might think that peoples hurts and grievances should not get in the way of rational policy, and there is truth in that proposition.

It seems to me that one purpose in a democracy is to communicate, and by doing so create a sense of the meeting, a sense of community and common purpose to find positive policy directions despite the disagreement that is essential to the democratic process. I ought to be the last person, perhaps on the planet to talk about communication and shared understanding, but as you might have noticed I am not going to let such considerations stop me. Maybe that is the way to go.

Michael Lerner provides advice and counsel to Obama:

. . . he needs to articulate how his specifics flow from a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with the selfishness, materialism, “looking out for number one” and militarism that has dominated national debate and which always tips in favor of Republicans or conservative Dems. If he keeps hammering at the differences in worldview, and does so in ways that employ the language of the spiritual progressives and the religious traditions of the American people, we will see the expected surge in his support because of the economic meltdown turn into a permanent and landslide-ish level victory.

The answer of liberals has typically been: “the American people are too selfish, stupid or reactionary, so Obama has to be careful and just hint at what we fully believe. They would never buy these lovely ideas that we believe in.”

Here we get to the second major mistake of the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Their contempt for the American people, manifested in their unwillingness to say clearly what they really believe (e.g. that the war in Iraq is not just a tactical but a moral error, or that a budget that under funds the needy is an ethical distortion, or that allowing the marketplace to destroy the global environment is a sin not just a question of differences in economic theory) is immediately understood by the rest of the population as elitism and disrespect.

What I learned in my research was that a large group of Americans feel disrespected at work and disrespected in many of the encounters they have with others. They can feel that the Republicans are telling them their own truth–that militarism and self-interest are the key to a good world, but that Democrats are not telling their truth–that love and generosity are the key to a good world–because the Democrats disrespect them so much that they feel that “ordinary Americans” couldn’t possibly respond to their message if they told it straight. It is this disrespect that gets triggered by Democrats’ caution (they even pick a vice-presidential candidate like Joe Biden who has been hawkish rather than peace- and generosity-oriented whereas the Republicans pick a woman who actually embodies their values). It’s not which of these sets of values are better that matters to many people as much as which choice reflects respect for the American people. To the extent that the Dems hide who they are, it’s easy to tag them as elitist scum.

Look at the coming debates through this framework: how much has Obama challenged the fundamental worldview of the Right versus how much is he trying to show that he can manage the existing military and economic system within its current set of assumptions. And how much does he speak to the heart of people, not just to their heads, appealing to their better instincts while clearly defining what is wrong with the market materialist and militarist worldview.

So it comes down to this: recognizing that our well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet, affirming that love and caring are not “soft” but powerful ways of living as individuals and as a nation, rejecting fear-based ideologies (that people will always only care about themselves), and developing respect rather than dismissive elitist attitudes towards those with whom we disagree politically. Until the Democrats get this and convince everyone else that they do, the once again put themselves in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

I read that Bush was asking his generals for evidence of people murdered to confirm the success of his policies in Iraq. When existential craziness drives the politics of war and peace, not to mention environmental policy making, we are in deep trouble.

Still if the choice in political practice was between Lerner and Rove, most would chose Rove, even without the guidance of the media – or am I completely wrong?