We, the undersigned, commit to serve humanity, the environment, and life itself  by promoting holistic democracy, which addresses the whole person, the whole society, and our interwoven social system. Currently, this movement is primarily cultural; many seeds are being planted to advance these principles. We urge the development of more organizations committed to these goals, whose members:

• identify as co-equal members of the human family, respect the essential equality of all human beings, affirm individuals’ multiple identities, recognize each individual’s unique personality and particular skills, and work together to weave our diverse peoples into one nation; 
• aim to overcome unconscious bias and resist discrimination based on race, gender, class, sexual orientation, or any other similar identity;
• promote partnerships, nurture democracy throughout society, empower people, support freedom for all, and oppose arbitrary efforts to dominate others;
• work to prevent social problems by correcting root causes and standing up for each other; 
• love others as they love themselves, avoid selfishness and self-sacrifice, rely on love and trust rather than hate and fear, channel anger productively, and decline to scapegoat or demonize opponents; 
• attract people with contagious joy, face-to-face community, and caring friendships;
• honor their nation’s accomplishments, maintain its highest traditions, criticize its failures, and help build a more perfect union;

• push for compassionate policies supported by strong majorities, recognize the value of visionary campaigns focused on goals not yet supported by strong majorities, and engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and consumer boycotts when needed;
• encourage members to improve their emotional reactions, engage in honest self-examination, support each other with their personal and spiritual growth, and avoid oppressive or disrespectful behavior;
• seek to help transform their nation into a compassionate community rooted in healthy families that:
  • establishes everyone’s equal rights and their equality under the law;
  • one way or the other, assures everyone a meaningful, living-wage job opportunity and provides a non-poverty income for those unable to take advantage of those opportunities or entitled to retire;
  • cultivates shared leadership, assists the development of worker-owned businesses, and supports labor unions and worker representation on boards of directors;
  • protects free speech, makes it easy for everyone to vote, reinforces the rule of law, and defends individuals’ freedom to engage in activities that don’t deny freedom to others; 
  • stops global warming and lives in harmony with the natural environment;
  • ends animal cruelty;
  • forms supportive relationships with other countries, affirms their right to self-determination, promotes human rights, and advocates peaceful resolution of conflicts with mediation and negotiation.

In these ways, using specific tools such as those included in the Systemopedia, step-by-step, person-by-person, family-by-family, community-by-community, nation-by-nation, we pursue the eventual, evolutionary transformation of our social system into a compassionate community that serves humanity, the environment, and life itself. 

+++++

NOTE: Feedback welcome. My latest draft will always be here (with its date in the title). Feel free to take it, modify it, gain signers (perhaps using Google Forms), and post their names (perhaps using Airtable). Signers could then be invited to horizontally collaborate concerning next steps. 

In San Francisco and Austria, recent successful experiments with the Open Topic Dialog format have been encouraging. You’re invited to experiment with this mechanism. 

These dialogs nurture democratic equality, democratic dialog, and respect for others’ equal value as a human being. The hope is that others will adopt this format as a way to enrich lives and prepare the soil for more effective, compassionate, grassroots movements. Following are the format’s guidelines:

Open Topic Dialog

A conversation group based on the “talking stick” principle. Enter a safe, respectful space, speak from the heart, and express what’s on your mind. It’s an opportunity to talk, listen, learn and brainstorm with others.

• The person holding the “stick,” which may be any object, speaks for up to two minutes without interruption.
• The speaker then passes the stick to someone who raises their hand, who responds to the previous speaker and then perhaps takes the discussion to another topic. 
• Speakers can use their two minutes to ask a clarifying question (and may interrupt the answer).
• The Timekeeper convenes the dialog, reviews the guidelines, selects the first speaker randomly if more than one person wants to speak first, sets a timer when each person begins speaking, facilitates the selection of the next Timekeeper, and adjourns the dialog. At the end of each dialog, the Timekeeper facilitates the selection of the Timekeeper for the next dialog — or continues to
• that role. 
• People with mobility difficulties can ask someone to give the stick to the next speaker. Everyone is encouraged to: 
• be respectful and avoid personal attacks or name-calling; 
• avoid going back and forth repeatedly with the same person, and;
• call on people who haven’t spoken or spoken less and perhaps ask: Does anyone who hasn’t spoken wish to speak?

With this approach, the Dialog is horizontal, self-regulating, peer-to-peer, leaderless, and leaderfull. Everyone is a leader. Each Dialog can become self-perpetuating. Any group can easily learn and adopt the Dialog format.

Existing organizations can supplement their current activities by scheduling a Dialog to enable their members to get to better know each other, share whatever emerges, and perhaps explore issues related to their organization’s work that emerge spontaneously. When in the course of their normal business an organization becomes “stuck” with members not really listening to each other, it can be helpful to pause and conduct a Dialog, which can help members better appreciate different perspectives. Individuals who don’t belong to the same organization can invite friends and relatives to form a Dialog as a way for individuals with various perspectives to communicate and better understand each other.

There’s no pre-defined specific agenda. The focus is simply to “speak from the heart, and express what’s on your mind.” The only content that’s prohibited is “personal attacks or name-calling.” This open-ended focus encourages spontaneity and authenticity — and allows for unexpected issues to emerge, such as a timely current event or recent personal experience. The participants may, however, end up focusing on a specific topic.

This format enables participants to practice listening and respecting each other, which encourages the development of those skills. It’s not “therapy” and it’s not problem-solving. There’s no commitment to try to “fix” anything. Nevertheless, the Dialog may prove to be “therapeutic.” The talking stick gives everyone a voice — a chance to speak freely and be heard without interruption, which cultivates self-empowerment. 

Being asked to respond to the previous speaker encourages listening and dialog (an exchange of ideas on a topic). Nevertheless, participants are free to change the topic if they wish. Clarifying questions should be honest questions, not rhetorical or argumentative. Speakers are free to disagree respectfully. 

Each participant is equally responsible for the conduct of the group. The two-minute time limit helps assure everyone has a fair chance to participate. The Timekeeper is merely a functionary.  Anyone can perform that easy-to-perform role, which rotates from time to time. Each Dialog can determine the frequency and length of its meetings. It seems 5-12 is a good number of participants. A group of more than twelve can divide into two groups.

There’s no need to go through a time-consuming decision-making process to decide on what to talk about. There’s no decision-making process led by one person or a few persons. Everyone has an equal voice. There’s no trained facilitator. Anyone can initiate a Dialog, make copies of the guidelines, and serve as the first Timekeeper. 

According to the wikipedia, many aborignal tribes, especially Native Amerians, have used the talking stick as an “instrument of democracy”. According to the First People site:

The Talking Stick is used…when a council is called. It allows all council members to present their Sacred Point of View…. Only the person holding the stick is allowed to speak…. Every member of the meeting must listen closely… Indian children are taught to listen from age three forward; they are also taught to respect another’s viewpoint…. Since each piece of material used in the Talking Stick speaks of the personal Medicine of the stick owner, each stick will be different…. The Talking Stick is the tool that teaches each of us to honor the Sacred Point of View of every living creature.

The Open Topic Dialog is not based on this spiritual understanding, though we honor it. We express our gratitude to Native Americans for developing this tool, which we adapt. We encourage others to use it to conduct Open Topic Dialogs as a way to cultivate democracy.

Wade Lee Hudson
2/22/2020

How Trump Wins Again
Are Democrats going to give this election away?

By David Brooks

“…This is the year to run a values campaign, one that champions policies to make America more socially mobile, caring and interdependent….”

The Dishonesty of the Abortion Debate
Story by Caitlin Flanagan
The Atlantic

By Wade Lee Hudson

The impeachment has been both necessary and diversionary. The battle may help defeat Trump in November. And it’s exposed the growing power of the Imperial Presidency. But the impeachment battle has also obscured that trend. The centralization of power preceded Trump. He’s merely a symptom. 

Both Democrats and Republicans have contributed to the centralization of power, and most Americans embrace it. Like Stanley in A Streetcar Named Desire, we would like to be able to say “I’m King here.” We worship celebrities, the rich and famous, the powerful. We believe some one person must always be in charge. We climb one social ladder or another, look down on those below, and envy or resent those above.

When we learn how to be democratic with each other, we’ll be better able to use people power to establish democracy in Washington.

Presidents, Revolution, and Organizing
By Wade Lee Hudson

Leadership is commonly defined as the ability to mobilize followers. This definition prevails throughout society — with grassroots activism, private businesses, foreign policy, and elsewhere. But President Franklin Roosevelt adopted a different perspective. He told activists, “I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.” 

Many activists want a revolutionary President, Bernie Sanders, though most Americans don’t support many of the policies he advocates. These revolutionaries envision President Sanders using the “bully pulpit” to change hearts and minds. 

But if radicals move too quickly, without popular support, they can provoke a counter-revolutionary backlash that sets back the revolution indefinitely — as we Sixties radicals, with our arrogance, contributed to the emergence of Reaganism. 

The tone of the Sanders’ campaign, set by Sanders himself, inflames anger, amplifies rage, and contributes to his supporters harassing opponents, even fellow progressives. His campaign echoes the Sixties, when he formed his unchanging political dogma.

Elected officials don’t lead lasting revolutions. The people lead. Leaders follow. The President’s role is to help the majority realize its will — if it’s compassionate and consistent with America’s highest ideals. 

If Sanders wins the nomination, it will be a gift to Republicans. If Sanders wins the Presidency, it will likely be with a small margin and the backlash will be overwhelming. The grassroots foundation to counter that reaction has not been built.

Rather than focus on top-down, temporary, electoral campaigns, Sanders could help organize democratic, sustainable, grassroots organizations. He might, for example, join the Democratic Party and encourage its transformation into a precinct-based force engaged in face-to-face organizing year-round.

The revolutionary’s role is to build grassroots support for concrete reforms that prepare the soil for the never-ending process of evolutionary revolution — holistic, systemic transformation. How to move in this direction is complicated. The Systemopedia collects and constantly updates ideas and information that can contribute to this effort. You’re invited to help develop this “encyclopedia with a point of view.”

Reflections on Elizabeth Anderson
By Wade Lee Hudson

NOTE: Following is the text used in my January 12, 2020 “Democratic Equality and Democratic Dialog” PowerPoint presentation at the Humanists and Non-Theists committee of the San Francisco Unitarian church.

The article that had the biggest impact on me last year was “The Philosopher Redefining Equality” in The New Yorker. The subtitle reads: “Elizabeth Anderson thinks we’ve misunderstood the basis of a free and fair society.” That profile of Anderson begins: [play audio]

She ended up studying political and moral philosophy at Harvard under John Rawls and teaching at the University of Michigan, where she stayed, despite being heavily recruited by other universities.

In 1999 the esteemed journal Ethics published her path-breaking, widely reprinted article “What is the Point of Equality?” She’s also written three books, including Value in Ethics and Economics, which argues that some goods like love and respect should not be sold on the market or otherwise treated as commodities, and The Imperative of Integration, which examines how racial integration can lead to a more robust democracy. Her many podcast interviews include a great one with Vox.com founder Ezra Klein.

Last year Anderson received the no-strings-attached $625,000 MacArthur “Genius” award. Included in their announcement was this [play video].

Anderson’s primary concern is social equality — equality not just in politics and economics but also equality in social relations throughout society — how to treat each other as equals, without trying to dominate, or being willing to submit. She calls this democratic equality.

READ MORE

Essays

Guaranteed Public Service Employment
By Wade Lee Hudson

Growing interest in a federally funded public-service job guarantee — as reflected in the Job Guarantee Manifesto — challenges the assumption that avoiding poverty is primarily an individual responsibility. In fact, a personal deficiency is not the main reason workers can’t find a living-wage job.

According to conventional wisdom, the cause for poverty is lack of skill, lack of discipline, or emotional instability. The solution therefore is assumed to be more education and training, better habits, or mental health treatment — so poor people can get a job, gain experience, and find jobs that pay a non-poverty wage.

Based on these assumptions, society only provides minor, stigmatizing relief, claims its apparent lack of compassion is justifiable tough love, and denies any responsibility to prevent poverty. People say to the poor, Get your act together. Climb the ladder.

If you focus only on the individual, there can be some logic to this argument. Any one individual may be able to do more to improve their situation. But if you look at society as a whole, the flaw in the argument is clear. There aren’t enough living-wage jobs for everyone. If one individual finds a living-wage job, countless others can’t get that job. It’s a game of musical chairs.

READ MORE

Our primary problem is not “conservatism” or Donald Trump. Our most pressing problem is the Republican Party: an anti-government cult based on racist, populist resentment that serves the interests of would-be plutocrats. This cult scorns compromise, ignores fact, demonizes the opposition, and will accept virtually any abuse of power by the President. This dereliction of duty will open the door to untold abuses in the future unless Trump loses in November. Even then, the dogmatic, irrational Republican cult will remain intact and more effective leaders could be more dangerous.

Republicans frame this conflict as “liberalism” vs “conservatism,” and hurl “liberal” as a label to rile up their base. But this frame is false. Trying to place all political opinions on the left-right spectrum creates confusion. No one spectrum can capture the full range of political beliefs. Multiple spectrums intersect. 

The conflict is actually between autocracy and democracy. If Democrats accept the left-right frame and attack Republicans for being “conservative,” they reinforce the Republican strategy. In so doing, they undermine the potential for gaining support from people who embrace a “conservatism” that includes (at least some) positive values. 

Weaponizing left-right labels inflames destructive polarization. Not all polarization is destructive, but the polarization we witness today is asymmetrical—only the Republicans are cultish. Alternative frames that are more accurate could counter the Republican strategy.

The Democratic platform is labelled “left,” or “liberal,” and the Republican “right,” or “conservative.” Partisans use these labels to tarnish the opposition and motivate supporters. Aggravated by winner-take-all elections and single-member districts, “liberals” want to crush “conservatism,” and vice versa. But there’s no clear agreement on the meaning of the terms “liberalism” and “conservatism.” 

The Democratic and Republican platforms are cobbled together for tactical reasons—to form diverse coalitions of interest groups large enough to win a bare majority in the next election. The planks in their platforms are not tied together with a coherent abstract philosophy rooted in concrete beliefs. 

Rather than talk about certain candidates wanting to “move the Democratic Party to the left,” it would be more accurate to say those candidates are more transformational, expansionary, ambitious, aspirational, idealistic, radical, revolutionary, extremist, utopian, or some other similar term. Given the distinctiveness and stability of Republican Party policies, Democrats can simply call objectionable proposals Republican, radical, dogmatic, doctrinaire, ideological, or some similar term. There’s no need to rely on the left-right spectrum. 

Issues can be placed on one of many spectrums with polar opposites at each extreme. When issues are considered concretely, positions often do not correspond to the traditional left-right spectrum. When they do so correspond, there’s no need to use left-right terms. Regardless, the assumption that “liberals” or “conservatives” must defeat the other side due to irreconcilable differences is incorrect. Consider these examples.

Income equality/Concentrated wealth. On one end of this spectrum, unrestrained capitalism allows wealth to accumulate with no governmental intervention, even if the rich get richer and the poor get poorer forever, and corporations form monopolies and set prices at whatever level the market will bear. On the other end of the spectrum, everyone would hold the same amount of wealth and receive the same income. At various points on this spectrum, economic egalitarians advocate more or less progressive taxation and enlightened capitalists accept more or less income redistribution. 

Hierarchy/Equality. At the ends of this spectrum are totalitarianism and anarchy. Authoritarianism and egalitarianism are near the ends. Their position on the spectrum is determined by the degree to which established power is unquestioned. Authoritarians nurture domination and submission. Egalitarians nurture co-equal partnerships and cooperation, want to delegate power democratically, hold representatives and administrators accountable democratically, and develop collaborative leadership as an alternative to traditional leadership, which defines leadership as the ability to mobilize followers. “Liberals” are said to favor equality, but in fact they rarely talk about social equality and often favor policies that are paternalistic, meritocratic, and elitist—and some “leftists” have been very authoritarian. “Conservatives” are said to favor hierarchy, but they agree that all people are created equal and should be equal under the law. Almost everyone accepts that some hierarchy, or power inequality, is essential. 

Permissiveness/Cruelty. On one end: an emphasis on compassion, lax discipline, and few boundaries. On the other: strict, harsh punishment and torture. Toward the cruel end: policies like separating migrant children and cancelling Native American treaties. Near the middle: private charity, tough love, and the “success sequence.” 

Small government/Big government. “Conservatives” are said to oppose “big government,” but many support “strongman leaders,” the “imperial Presidency,” military spending, and massive programs such as Social Security. “Liberals” are said to favor big government, but oppose governmental powers on many issues and want to limit government to needed functions. Arguments about small government versus big government tend to be disputes about abstract ideologies disconnected from opinions about concrete realities. 

Individualism/Communitarianism. On one end: isolated, selfish individuals. On the other: tight-knit, oppressive communities. Both “liberals” and “conservatives” affirm both individualism and strong communities. Supportive communities that affirm mutual responsibility.can nurture self-determination and avoid being oppressive. Strong individuals can build strong communities, and strong communities can build strong individuals.

Unconditional welfare/Personal responsibility. On one end: unconditional cash. On the other: oppressive work requirements. Many “conservatives” who are said to oppose government spending for poor people support the Earned Income Tax Credit, Medicaid, childcare subsidies, and Social Security. Many “liberals” who are said to favor welfare prefer assuring good, living-wage job opportunities and argue that traditional welfare has often been a debilitating tool of social control.

Free Speech/Censorship. Absolutely no limits vs very tight control. With regard to the government, private institutions, and informal social interactions, there’s no clear distinction between “liberals” and “conservatives” that predicts what stance an individual or group will take on specific issues. Both affirm individual rights and free speech.

War/peace. “Liberals” are said to be anti-war, but many supported the Vietnam War for years and more recently have supported the War Against Yugoslavia and the War Against Terror. “Conservatives” are said to be pro-war, but many are isolationist.

Local/Federal. What position “liberals” and “conservatives” take on specific questions about the relative powers of different levels of government depends more on the concrete issue than it does on abstract notions. Almost everyone agrees that a balance of powers within “federalism” is viable, federal revenue sharing can minimize wasteful bureaucracies, and only the federal government has available the resources to fund many valuable programs. 

Socialism/Capitalism. On one end: government ownership and control of major businesses. On the other: totally free markets. In fact, almost everyone accepts a mixed economy with some government intervention, regulation, and ownership, as with water supplies. The differences derive from various opinions about the degree and nature of government intervention. On this spectrum, there’s no clear dividing line between “liberalism” and “conservatism,” as reflected by “left-wingers” who want to strengthen free markets by busting up monopolies, and “right-wingers” who want the government to weaken free markets by imposing tariffs on China. 

Materialism/Quality of life. “Conservatives” are said to support the accumulation of wealth, while “liberals” are supposed to be less materialistic. But most “liberals” strongly affirm economic growth and social mobility, accept an extreme concentration of wealth, and merely seek to equalize opportunity at the starting gate. Almost all Americans are very materialistic. 

Many other similar spectrums could be addressed with the same result: No one spectrum can capture the full range of political beliefs and left-right terms are not necessary. The rational position seems to affirm multiple identities. Nevertheless, a coherent political program needs to “market” a single identity. At the moment, my option is to affirm libertarian-communitarianism — supportive communities that affirm individual rights and nurture self-development.

Originally posted here.