NOTE: Following is the first draft of “A 16-Point Step-by-Step Program,” which will be included in “Transform the System: A Declaration.” To my knowledge, no organization of the sort envisioned here currently exists. As stated in the Preface:

A widespread commitment to that goal could help unify a broad array of forces into a “transform-the-system movement.” Various organizations could fight for specific causes while doing so for the sake of the larger cause. We could affirm both/and, within a shared commitment to systemic transformation. We could build momentum by occasionally supporting one another on timely priorities when victories are near. With that approach, we could inspire discouraged, inactive people who want to have a short-term impact. And we could inspire idealists who want long-term fundamental reform.

Feedback is welcome.

A 16-Point Step-by-Step Program

The following presents a scenario for how a coalition to transform the System might develop. These ideas are a “thought experiment.” There’s no assumption they will be fully implemented.

1. A diverse organizing committee forms with the intent to find or help develop a multi-issue national coalition that:
   1. Helps members undo the System’s divisive conditioning.
   2. Stays together over time and quickly mobilizes large numbers of individuals nationwide to fight for priority issues one at a time.
   3. Promotes a new common purpose for our society.
   4. Aims to help reform all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves to serve that mission.
2. The committee drafts a brief statement of principles to guide its work. To whatever degree it chooses, it draws on material presented in this booklet.
3. The committee widely circulates that draft, solicits input, and modifies it.
4. The committee looks for an existing national organization that already embraces the approach presented in that statement of principles.
5. If it’s unable to find one, it seeks a local branch of an existing national organization, such as a local Democratic Party, that’s willing to adopt the project as a model that could be used to persuade its national body to take it on.
6. If it’s unable to find such an organization, the committee explores forming a new organization itself with the following methods:
   1. It requests individuals to endorse its principles and pledge to join the organization if and when a certain number of individuals, perhaps 100,000, sign the pledge.
   2. The organizing committee also asks a broad array of organizations to endorse the statement of principles and pledge to mobilize their members for joint actions (perhaps once a month if needed) if and when the organization is launched.
   3. The committee tells organizations with more than a certain number of members that they will be able to designate a representative to the organization’s governing body.
   4. When the individual-member threshold has been crossed, the organizing committee forms a governing body.
   5. The governing body launches the coalition and collects membership dues, which will be the coalition’s only source of income.
   6. The governing body guides the Coalition by adopting written policies and delegating to staff the responsibility for implementing those policies.
7. Individual members reach out to neighbors who live in the same voting precinct and form a precinct-based club with two or more members.
8. Those clubs:
   1. Meet at least once a month.
   2. Share a meal.
   3. Organize and convene social and educational activities that enrich members’ lives.
   4. Open meetings with each member briefly reporting on one of their self-improvement efforts.
   5. Discuss how to engage other neighbors in mutual learning dialogs and recruit them to join the club.
   6. Unless its local Democratic Party already engages in year-round precinct organizing and fights for the Party’s national platform year-round, the clubs work together to persuade the Party to do so — and to persuade the State and national Party to do the same.
   7. Work with other organizations to develop slates of candidates for local and regional elected Democratic Party positions who agree that the Party should engage in year-round precinct organizing and fight for its platform year-round — and promise to push the state and national parties to undertake that kind of precinct organizing.
   8. During elections, engage in voter education and get out the vote.
9. The coalition’s national office publishes a list of precinct clubs on the Web so new members can join their local club.
10. When a few clubs in the same Congressional District (CD) have formed, those clubs select one or two members to participate in a CD action team. Democratic Party members who do not belong to one of the coalition’s precinct-based club may also participate in those CD action teams.
11. Those self-governing CD action teams may engage in one or more of the following activities, as well as others:
    1. Send representatives to meet at least monthly with one of their Congressperson’s staff, ideally the chief of staff, to explore ways of working together to advance the coalition’s goals.
    2. As a model for the rest of the nation, persuade the Congressperson to convene an open-ended monthly community dialog at the same time each month to enable the Congressperson’s constituents (randomly selected if need be) to ask questions and make statements to the Congressperson.
    3. Persuade the national party to undertake a nationwide Precinct Organizing Project and dedicate itself to fight for its platform year-round.
12. Each month, the coalition’s national office, after soliciting input from members and conducting straw polls, identifies a timely top priority winnable issue and asks all of its members to communicate with their Congressperson about that issue (which may or may not be an issue being advanced by the Democratic Party).
13. If their Congressperson resists supporting the coalition’s position:
    1. CD action teams will gather support from other community-based organizations, elected officials, and local governmental bodies.
    2. If necessary, CD action teams may conduct public demonstrations and if needed and feasible, nonviolent direct action.
14. If their Congressperson supports the coalition’s position, the CD action team works with the Congressperson to raise funds for the national Precinct Organizing Project and takes on other projects to strengthen the Party in other regions.
15. When that issue has been resolved with a complete or partial victory, a defeat, or a stalemate, the national office undertakes a campaign on another timely issue. Regardless, from the outset, the Coalition will affirm that no victory and no defeat is ever final. The work is never-ending.
16. The coalition moves toward being a bottom-up, member-controlled organization with the following methods:
    1. After the coalition has operated for two years, each CD action team will be invited to send one or two representatives to a regional advisory body. Each such body will represent 15-20 CDs. The national office will establish a method for maximizing diversity on that advisory body.
    2. Those bodies will meet every three months to evaluate how the Coalition is operating and send advice to the national governing body.
    3. After another year of operating, those regional advisory bodies will select representatives to a diverse national advisory body.
    4. After another year of operating, the national governing body will be selected democratically in a manner that assures diversity, either with a direct vote by the entire membership or by a vote by the regional advisory bodies.

Can you refer me to an article that compiles the many ways Bannon and Trump are trying to establish an authoritarian regime? Ten or fifteen such attempts come to mind immediately. I may post more on that soon.

After concluding that the talk about Trump’s personality diverts us from that more important strategic question, I couldn’t help but notice that last night MSNBC went on and on about his alleged irrationality and did not talk at all about the underlying strategy.

Inflaming chaos is the only way they can smash the state (as Bannon has acknowledged is his intent) and replace it with their State.  Nixon’s “crazy man” strategy has been updated. Beware Trump the great showman, who adores P.T. Barnum. Just because you’re not paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

On tonight’s Newshour David Brooks summed up the issue clearly:

And there are sort of two theories of why [Trump] tells things that are false all the time. Is it because he’s sort of an Orwellian figure, an authoritarian figure who is twisting words in an Orwellian manner, “1984,” to exercise power and control people’s minds, or is he a 5-year-old who has an ego that needs to be fed, and the universe has to warp around his ego needs so he can feel good about himself, and everybody has to produce photos to make the monarch feel like he’s made of gold?

MARK SHIELDS: Which do you vote on?

DAVID BROOKS: I vote on the 5-year-old kid.

As I’ve argued here and here, I vote for Orwell. And the more we present the 5-year-old thesis and similar ad hominem arguments, the less we present and analyze the Orwellian thesis. We simply cannot do both at the same time, and the personal attacks divert from the political analysis.

Fortunately, however, sales of 1984 are number one on the Amazon bestseller list!

It may well be that Donald Trump is neither a pathological liar, deluded, mentally ill, indifferent to truth, nor diverting attention from other issues.

On November 4 in “Beyond Lying: Donald Trump’s Authoritarian Reality,” Jason Stanley argued:

Donald Trump is trying to define a simple reality as a means to express his power. The goal is to define a reality that justifies his value system, thereby changing the value systems of his audience….

The simple picture Trump is trying to convey is that there is wild disorder, because of American citizens of African-American descent, and immigrants. He is doing it as a display of strength, showing he is able to define reality and lead others to accept his authoritarian value system.

The chief authoritarian values are law and order. In Trump’s value system, nonwhites and non-Christians are the chief threats to law and order….

Trump is thundering about a crime wave of historic proportions, because he is an authoritarian using his speech to define a simple reality that legitimates his value system, leading voters to adopt it. Its strength is that it conveys his power to define reality….

Trump is, as Frankfurt asserts, certainly openly insensitive to reality. But he is not carelessly insensitive….

Denouncing Trump as a liar, or describing him as merely entertaining, misses the point of authoritarian propaganda altogether. Authoritarian propagandists are attempting to convey power by defining reality. The reality they offer is very simple. It is offered with the goal of switching voters’ value systems to the authoritarian value system of the leader….

Describing what Trump has done requires us to talk not just about the importance of honesty and accuracy, but also about power, value systems and in-groups vs. out-groups. It also requires us to confront the failures of elite policy that have led to an erosion of democratic norms, primarily public trust, that make anti-democratic alternatives suddenly acceptable.

Trump’s approach is in harmony with the widespread postmodern belief often reflected in contemporary culture (and the image above) that it’s impossible to know what is true or right.

Trump’s strategy is reminiscent of the Bush White House. In October 2004, Ron Suskind wrote in The New York Times Magazine:

In the summer of 2002, … I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. … he told me something that at the time I didn’t fully comprehend — but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

That senior adviser was later revealed to be Karl Rove.

Trump’s effort to create in-groups and out-groups may work partly because our society systematically divides-and-conquers by labeling people and exaggerating the importance of those social categories. Being judgmental and disrespecting others is drilled into all of us. Only the names of the enemies change.

The mainstream media is doing a good job of talking “about the importance of honesty and accuracy,” as Stanley recommends. That’s helpful. But so far, it seems to me, they aren’t addressing his other recommendation: to talk about “power, value systems and in-groups vs. out-groups.”

Barack and Michele Obama have launched the Obama Foundation at obama.org. That site includes a video and the following:

Your Voice

The Obama Foundation is a living, working start-up for citizenship — an ongoing project for us to shape, together, what it means to be a good citizen in the 21st century. The Foundation is based on the South Side of Chicago, and we will have projects all over the city, the country, and the world.

To help us get started, we would love to hear from you. Send us your ideas, your hopes, your dreams about what we can achieve together. Tell us about the people who inspire you and the organizations whose work you admire.

This will be your Foundation just as much as it is ours.

“Because for all our outward differences, we, in fact, all share the same proud title, the most important office in a democracy: Citizen.”

—President Barack Obama

What do you think makes a good citizen?

What ideals or actions come to mind when you think about citizenship?

Share an idea

What makes a good citizen?

Democracy is all about showing up, diving in, and staying at it. But how? Here at the Obama Foundation, we’re just getting started on what good citizenship in the 21st century means.

Your thoughts and ideas will make our Foundation a better, more powerful force for good. We can’t wait to hear what you’re thinking.

Share your stories with us. Tell us what issues you care about. Let us know what people, organizations, and companies inspire you to be a good citizen.

The site also has a form for input that asks:

What do you think makes a good citizen?

What ideals or actions come to mind when you think about citizenship?

With some formatting changes here, my response was:

Stay informed,

communicate with elected officials and fellow citizens,

listen to others respectfully,

be able and willing to collaborate,

join with and organize others as much as you can,

speak your truth,

acknowledge your mistakes and resolve not to repeat them,

consistently work to be a better person,

avoid name-calling,

tap your compassion more deeply,

commit yourself to the common good of the entire human family,

be present and willing to engage in mutually supportive relationships,

be willing to take risks,

don’t worry too much about failure,

overcome tendencies to be arrogant, judgmental, condescending, self-righteous, dogmatic, fearful, hateful, and deceitful.

The ideal action that comes to mind is participating in a Democratic Party that fights for its platform year-round with precinct-based clubs that enable neighbors to support one another in their self-improvement, with each individual setting their own goals. As I envision it, the Party would:

1) form an ongoing coalition with other groups that support its national platform and identify one priority at a time to focus on;

2) encourage its Congresspersons to work with local groups to raise money for that coalition;

3) hold hearings on and solicit input into that platform at least six months prior to the convention;

4) assure that each state party has a governing structure that is at least as bottom-up as the California party

5) tweak the Party’s structure to make it even more democratic (e.g., fewer superdelegates), and;

6) encourage its Congresspersons to facilitate civic participation by publicizing and convening a “community dialogue” at the same time each month, with the Congressperson or their chiefs of staff, that would select speakers randomly and be structured to maximize the opportunity for constituents to make statements and ask questions, as well as enable community groups to circulate literature at tables.

NOTE: Following is the latest draft of the Preface for a booklet, tentatively titled “Transform the System,” which is a work-in-progress. I welcome feedback. To review the projected contents, click here.

Preface

Imagine. Forty adults enjoy a picnic on a riverbank. They see small children floating downstream and dive in to save them from drowning, but can rescue only half of them.

A man on a raft passes by and reports that one mile upstream a giant monster is throwing children into the river. He estimates it would take twenty adults to subdue the monster.

The party proceeds to discuss what what path to take through the thick jungle alongside the river.  Unable to agree, twenty return to rescuing children, five meditate or pray, five return to eating and drinking, and ten go after the monster. But when the activists find the monster, they can only slow him down.

That scenario is a metaphor for our current situation. If we, the people, united, we could improve national policies and greatly alleviate suffering and injustice. But we’re fragmented, without the power we need.

+++

At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, Elizabeth Warren brought the crowd to its feet when she declared, “People feel like the system is rigged against them. And here’s the painful part: They’re right. The system is rigged.”

During the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump echoed that theme and received strong support. Clearly, there’s widespread concern about “the system.” Advertising and popular culture often refer to “the system.” Following are some images that reflect that perspective.

Does that “folk wisdom” have merit? Does “the system” exist? This booklet is based on the proposition that it does.

When most writers discuss “the system,” they only talk about the government and the economy. Other writers only talk about “systems” and propose “systemic reform” in terms of those specific systems.

This declaration takes a more comprehensive, or holistic, view. We assert that “the System” includes all of our major institutions, our culture, and ourselves as individuals who are conditioned to fit into the System and reproduce it in our daily lives.

Our society is stable because the System, which is  self-perpetuating, provides ongoing coherence and stability. The various elements of the System are interwoven. They overlap and reinforce one another. That underlying consistency is what the popular wisdom refers to when it talks about “the system.”

If we understand the System, expose root causes, connect the dots, and clarify how the pieces fit together, it will help us correct injustices that the System inflicts on the disinherited, reverse the dehumanization suffered by the powerful, and eventually restructure the System.  

A widespread commitment to that goal could help unify a broad array of forces into a “transform-the-system movement.” Various organizations could fight for specific causes while doing so for the sake of the larger cause. We could affirm both/and, within a shared commitment to systemic transformation. We could build momentum by occasionally supporting one another on timely priorities when victories are near. With that approach, we could inspire discouraged, inactive people who want to have a short-term impact. And we could also inspire idealists who are concerned about the need for long-term fundamental reform.

Toward that end, this booklet analyzes the System, proposes basic principles for how we can move forward, and presents a step-by-step plan for how we can restructure the System and transform the United States into a compassionate community.

A variety of social-change strategies will always be needed. That’s a good thing. This work is neither the final word nor a blueprint. But hopefully it will offer a sensible direction that some will find useful and spark new, better ideas.