Why I Write Expository Prose:

 "I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means. What I want and what I fear."

- Joan Didion

 Thanks for the Joan Didion quote. It resonates with me. Writers gotta write. All of my life I have been a writer in that I need to write, need to work things out through my fingers. Not writing journals or diaries--that never has worked for me. Writing to share ideas with other people, that is what I am driven to do. Expository prose.

There is a fine architectural structure to expository prose that has always resonated with me. I was fortunate in High School to get to take a class on Expository Prose (we used the Norton Anthology of Expository Prose) and it opened my eyes to the beauty of the form,

Didion hints at something that I so love about the process. When you work out your thoughts in writing for others, your thoughts and words become concrete, out there, and you can look at them and see them more objectively. They are suddenly a lot more inflexible, and the gaps and inconsistencies and fissures stand out in sharper relief than when they are in your head or you are just talking to yourself. The process forces you to go back and wrestle with those gaps, the inconsistencies in your thinking, the weaknesses in your evidence, and I absolutely love this logical revisioning. And when you reach a point where you feel like it is tight and consistent and perhaps others even agree, well, man, that is as satisfying for me as making a super meal where all the flavors meld and folks are quietly happy eating away.

 From the Facebook Page: Spirituality Lab, November 6, 2020

Day 6—Where Do We Go From Here?

This has been a momentous week in a momentous year, and like all of you, I am exhausted, spent, played out, numb, you name it. Perhaps the last thing you want to do is read more about politics. Perhaps you are feeling as dis-spiritualized politically as can be.

That is okay—we are all allowed to take a breather and rejuvenate our spirits. In fact, it is a requirement if we are to remain as effective political actors at any level of our lives. Fifty-four years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr took such a hiatus after over a decade of intense political struggle, retiring to gather his energy and thoughts in a Jamaican cottage with no telephone or television connections to the United States. Selma, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were all behind him—an incredible legacy of rapid social change to American society that had not been seen since the American Revolution.

The success of the Civil Rights Movement for basic Black rights was like a boulder dropped into a previously still pond, and the emanating shock waves were already generating other demands for expanded civil rights. Radical movements were taking root in both the Black community and student organizing. Right wing backlash was gathering organized momentum with the Goldwater campaign of 1964 and the organizations it had spawned.

Alone, in Jamaica, King wrote what would sadly become his final published work that he hoped would set the agenda for the next phase of the Civil Rights Movement—Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community? On the one hand he wanted to resist the voices calling for even faster radical change for Black rights, driven by violent resistance. On the other, he saw clearly that the real problems of America were based in a severely unequal distribution of, and access to, wealth and resources.

King understood that Black American impoverishment was a more extreme example of the far greater problem of inequality that plagued Americans of all races. And the political tactician in him knew that true structural change would only come about if he could convince Americans of all races to see this as their common problem and work together to solve it. If we remained riven by race, then the struggle would focus on race and not on inequality.

We will never know if King would have been successful in this goal. What we do know is that the right has been able to stoke the racial divide as one of its major tools for pulling the nation to the far right. We know that liberal politicians have sometimes demagogued using race as their platform in order to gain their own share of power. And we know that inequality in America has continued to grow more sharply defined, even as the nation as whole has seen an incredible increase in wealth and living standards for many Americans—it is just that the top of the pyramid has seen far more wealth accumulation while the rest of the nation has less wealth and security than they could have.

Joe Biden needed to run against Donald Trump more than against the GOP policies that Trump embodies. If Biden wins, it will be a very narrow victory that comes in part from people who voted against the Trump personality and, perhaps, for Biden’s more calm, responsible demeanor. They were not voting for the Democratic platform in general. The Blue Wave that many liberals hoped for crashed into the reality that Democrats and liberals have still not made their case in a way that will sway close to 50% of the voting population—at least not yet.

I think that one way forward for Biden and liberals is to look to where King was heading. We need to make the case that a more just distribution of wealth is not only morally required, but it is also smart economic policy that will benefit all Americans in the long run. A healthy and wealthy middle class and working class spends a lot of its wealth each year, driving the economy forward for everyone (especially those at the top).

Focusing on taxing the “One Percent” is a nice sound bite, but the reality is that our economic inequality comes from far more than just the three to four million Americans who control the vast majority of wealth in our society. It has as much to do with access to power and a broader culture as it does with simple raw net worth.

It is too easy to simply target the One Percent, and it can leave folks who are not as liberal feeling cold and disconnected to the message. There is also a sense of “othering” the wealthiest, as if they are the only source of our problems, and if we can just tax their marginal income at 75% then all our other problems will be much easier to solve. We should not devolve to that level of othering—it never turns out well for a society, and in any event it is not the only answer to solving issues of inequality. The message needs to be that we all share the burden so that we all benefit.

If we, as a nation, are to work for more true equality and access to resources, we are all going to have to take some risks and make some sacrifices. It may well mean you or I pay higher taxes; there will certainly be those who get social benefits without doing their share of the work (the great fear of conservatives); there will still be super wealthy people and corporations that get social benefits without paying their fair share of the burden (the great fear of liberals). But if we all work towards a vision of more equality—of wealth, of resources, of access—with a spirit of getting better one day at a time, we will make this a much better nation and we will have a more self-sustaining economy that benefits us all. Moderation and sharing the burden need to be the message.

This is where I want to leave my week of moderating this Lab on the Spirituality of Political Practice.

I ask that we all resist the temptation to reach for easy answers and sound bite politics. Do the very hard work of listening with an open mind and open heart to the fears, needs, wants, and world views of people you disagree with politically. Find areas of overlap with your own fears, hopes, and views and work to support policies—and politicians—who seek to find compromises that many can accept as legitimate. Advocate moderation because that is the way forward. Read and educate yourself on issues and do not succumb to click-bait politics either--especially where it conforms to your own biases. Be skeptical and question things and look for solid answers.

Get involved in local politics and local organizations if you can. Rub shoulders with your neighbors, talk to your local politicians, and understand the views of different people in your own community. This is actually a form of spiritual practice that will make you, and our nation, more serene and fruitful.

https://www.uni-five.com/upload/doc/82818file.pdf

 From the Facebook Page: Spirituality Lab, November 4, 2020

Day 5—The Morning After

Well, here we are on Wednesday morning and, unfortunately, we wound up where many of us feared we would—no clear result for the Presidential election, and the GOP clinging to a slim majority in the Senate. There are still millions of mail-in/drop-off ballots to be counted in a few critical swing states—Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona being the ones most likely to be impacted.

Assuming more Democrats voted by mail/drop box than Republicans (a reasonable assumption), it is likely that Biden will be called the winner by the end of this week. The GOP is already gearing up for challenges in the courts and the outcome may not be known for weeks to a month or even more.

Starting last night as the Florida returns started to show that Trump would do well there my FB newsfeed started lighting up with liberal-left friends wringing their hands—first with a sense of disquiet, then open disbelief. Meanwhile, my conservative-right friends are saying “I told you so”, their own pre-election jitters having calmed down a lot.

Since this is my week of thinking about a spiritual practice of politics, I wonder how to approach an uncertain morning like this? I started with yoga stretching and tried a bit of meditation, but my mind would not settle down. Perhaps had I turned off the news it might have helped, but I could not and cannot—I keep watching, hoping that something major would break for Biden and the Dems, even as the reality is staring me in the face in clear blue and red graphics.

One way for me to find serenity is to try to process what I am seeing with as clear a mind as I can. Here are some early reactions.

1. Incumbency has tremendous power in presidential elections. In almost any other second term election we would expect the challenger to have an uphill struggle to oust the incumbent. So from this perspective, Biden would normally be seen as being successful to keep it this close. Yet, even as Joe sent out text after text to me saying that it was closer than the polls appeared, a large part of my mind felt that Biden was going to win, and win pretty convincingly. And take the Senate along on his coat-tails.

Clearly this was on the minds of many liberal voters. We saw the immense increase in early voting in urban areas, we read the polls and reports about how white suburban women voters were turning against Trump with a vengeance, and we dared to talk about things like ending the filibuster and expanding court appointments.

The disappointment among liberals is palpable. Even if Biden eventually wins and Trump eventually leaves, McConnell and the GOP Senate will be able to frustrate most Democratic initiatives, no matter how moderate. But this is the reality we are facing, and it does no one any good to stay with the bitterness and disappointment—in fact, it will likely impede whatever positives liberals can achieve in coming years.

2. The last three election cycles bear out something I have been saying for a while now—even the best polls systematically undercount GOP voter support. I am not sure the reason for this: could be GOP voters lie when reached by pollsters; might be that GOP voters are less likely to be reached by pollsters. But whatever the reason, no one can rely on polls alone to gauge where elections will go, at least at the statewide and nationwide level. There is no replacement for the hard work of getting out the vote of the base, especially in swing states. Where Democrats did a superb job of this—such as Arizona—they can turn a red state purple. But the GOP also did a great job of mobilizing its base.

3. The GOP is very strong with Trump at the top of the ticket, and all of the GOP realized this. How things will fare for the GOP with Trump as a lame duck or out of office will be interesting to watch.

4. As I have been saying all week in this series, and before this on my own pages, there is actually broad support across the nation for Trumpism and Democrats cannot ignore this. Democrats cannot ignore the very real fact that for two major cycles in a row close to 50% of the electorate chose Donald Trump and all he stands for and has done. Even with his horrible personality and his terrible handling of the pandemic and the tanking economy a large portion of Americans voted not only for Trump but for the entire GOP ticket.

Liberals and Democrats (not always the same things) must accept this reality and deal with it. We cannot be talking about democratic socialism or a green new deal or Medicare for all and expect to win the big elections, at least not in the near term. The message to me is clear—a large portion of Americans, for whatever reason you want to name, simply are not in tune with a more liberal message. I am not saying that Democrats and liberals need to drop these policy goals, but they clearly need to recast them in the context that we live in.

We need to listen closely to the concerns and worries of voters who went for Trump and the GOP and address those as much as we do the concerns and worries of Blacks and Hispanics. The message for me is that if you want to govern America as a nation, you have to recognize that the nation as a whole is no where near as liberal as you want it to be, and if you keep holding only to liberal perspectives then you will struggle to win the state and national elections.

Does this mean capitulating to the right wing? No. But it does mean finding ways to speak to middle America in language that it can accept. There is no guarantee they will listen, but we need to try. Yes, it will mean deferring some liberal programs and ideas, but reality says that the nation as a whole is not ready for them. (I stand ready to be shot by the liberal firing squad now).

5. Following from the point above, what we are seeing is a political cultural divide in America that has been growing for decades. To counter it, Democrats and liberals need to do what the GOP did in the wake of the Goldwater loss—start building up local Democratic support and create a general state-level culture. More on this later, need to get to work now.

 From the Facebook Page: Spirituality Lab, November 2, 2020

Day 3—Trusted News Sources?

The other day I asked people to message me with answers to two questions:

1. Where do you turn to for news when something big happens?
2. What are your top three regular sources for news?

Not surprisingly for this group, when things get crazy more turn to the Washington Post or New York Times than any other sources. Other mentions were CNN, BBC, Guardian, and CBC (from the one Canadian who responded).

Your sources for general news were more varied, however. Washington Post, NPR, and the NY Times were the most frequently cited. BBC and CNN were next most frequent. Also mentioned were 538, Google, Facebook (to see what friends were talking about), MSNBC, AP, Reuters, Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, CBS, and two mentioned Fox—one to check in periodically on how they covered things, and one noted their non-political coverage was often good.

One of the biggest problems I see in our polity is what I call the “fact gap”. The majority of folks on the liberal-left spectrum firmly believe that the right wing has stopped acknowledging facts. But if you listen to right wing news sources, which I try to do each week, you hear the exact same charge leveled against the liberal-left—that we are peddling “fake news”.

Facts and truths have become so malleable that there is precious little agreement on them. Clearly this is a danger to our democracy. It is one thing to disagree on policies, but if we cannot even agree on basic facts then we can never move forward together as a nation.

Often when we find ourselves faced with someone who has totally different “facts” about a situation our response is to harden our own position, to grab onto our own “facts” so hard that we cease to examine them ourselves and we cease to try to truly evaluate the other person’s “facts”.

The internet has put more information at our fingertips more quickly than ever before, but this has caused as much confusion as it has broadened our ability to search for information. We are hit with an overload of data, facts, and opinions and we do not have the time nor the ability to sift through them to evaluate or deeply understand what we are reading. The tendency is to narrow down your searches to a few trusted sources so as to try to handle the tidal wave of alternatives out there.

Many members of this Lab are political liberals, and I bet that while reading this you are thinking about all sorts of Trump-generated “facts” that are completely incorrect. Several of you told me in messages that you sometimes tune into Fox News to see the lies they are spreading. When we go looking for facts to help us understand what is happening, we head to similar sources—Washington Post, New York Times, NPR. And these are generally solid sources, but they also report from a similar perspective—and a familiarly comfortable one for liberals. Our conservative friends and families do the same with their trusted sources. And we wind up talking past each other, each convinced that we have a firmer grasp on the truth.

The Trump era has made clear to many what philosophers have been wrestling with since pre-Aristotelian times—Truth is relative, not absolute. It is time-bound, perspective-driven, and pliable. This can lead us to lose our “spiritual political serenity” as we get frustrated when even the clearest of facts for us—such as, wearing masks stops the spread of COVID19—is challenged by alternative facts—such as, no one that I know personally has died of COVID19, let alone been hospitalized, so masks are not needed. Then we tend to lock down our minds and dismiss the positions of others.

On a broader scale this can lead to political authoritarianism, forcing the viewpoints of some on the rest of society. It can cloud our ability to take in new information and pivot our policies to reflect deeper understandings.

The posted link below from On The Media, by Bob Garfield, is a good example of how the liberal media—and its consumers—can succumb to wishful thinking and ignore what is actually happening. For the last five years (starting during the 2016 campaign) major liberal sources have been reporting on how the GOP is abandoning Trump. Over and over we have been given evidence that this is happening—only to find that the GOP has stuck with him through thick and thin. I recall reading some of these articles and taking heart myself, rather than reading them critically.

Confirmation bias is strong. The best remedy I can suggest is to try to read as widely as you can in sources outside of the usual ones you turn to. Try to triangulate the “facts” you are reading and use your best judgment leavened with a strong dose of cynicism about everything you read. Keep an open mind that the “other side” might be correct, or at least have as much a piece of the truth as your side does.

Here are some sources of journalism that offer relatively well-supported reporting and which often strive to be as objective as they can:

· The Economist—moderate, factual, economic oriented

· The New Yorker—takes the time to dig into stories

· The Atlantic—like The New Yorker, deep dives

· National Review—a conservative take with good reporting

· Axios—shorter pieces but generally well-supported

· Politico—solid reporting from former Washington Post journalists

· Wall Street Journal—some very fine reporting , and the editorials will challenge your liberal biases

· Bloomberg News—moderate slant, well-researched

· Forbes—surprisingly objective views on current GOP policies

I find it is also a very good practice to read more conservative right-leaning journals, and to do so with an open mind. Their starting assumptions are different from mine, and so it is a healthy thing to challenge my own biases.

Some of the better ones are:

· Reason magazine—Libertarian, with some very good articles at times.

· American Conservative—trying to forge a conservative vision for our times that sometimes hearkens toward traditional conservative thought and not the radical right stuff

· National Review

· Washington Examiner

Finally, I try hard to fact-check stuff as best I can, be it left or right. It is amazing how often when I read something that feels off and I look it up, I find that my instinct is correct. As some of you know, I try to do this with liberal posts that I see as much as I do with right wing posts, and I think it is very important to let folks know by PM or adding a post when they are trafficking in a news story that may be factually incorrect or significantly skewed.

There are many websites dedicated to unbiased fact checking, among them: Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, and Fact Check (Washington Post).

Yes, this is all time-consuming and potentially frustrating. But it is the only antidote I know for the factual confusion that surrounds us in this overly-saturated information environment. It is the new price of working for a more democratic society and for fighting off the ignorance that undergirds the authoritarian impulse, both right and left.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/.../great-pumpkin-hunt-on-the...

 From the Facebook Page: Spirituality Lab, November 3, 2020

Day 4—It Can Happen Here

So, here we are. Today is THE day—unless it isn’t. If Biden wins Florida big, it is all over by 10 PM. If Florida is too close to call until mail-in ballots are counted, or if Trump wins Florida big, then all eyes will turn to Pennsylvania. Trump is said to be planning on declaring victory tonight regardless of what happens. It is his way—try to force reality to bend to his insanity.

Even if it is a clear loss, Trump is already saying he is going to court to challenge the votes in many states, which tells me that he is reading the polls the same way we are. With the delays in counting mail-in ballots in several key states, it could be weeks before we get a clear result.

And even then there is the very real possibility that Trump refuses to concede.

This summer I came across an editorial in The New Yorker by Bill McKibben about Gene Sharp. At Colgate University in the Peace Studies Program we had the opportunity to not only read Sharp's works on the Politics of Nonviolent Action, but we also got to hear Gene speak many times. McKibben talks about Sharp’s theories of resistance in relation to a possible Trump putsch.

As McKibben warns us, I have also been cautioning about what might happen as Trump and his minions feel more and more desperate to hold onto power. Trump has shown time and again that he has no compunctions against overthrowing democratic norms; and even worse, those who support him in the administration, in Congress, in the military, in police departments, and on the High Court seem to share in his disdain for respecting the processes and traditions of democracy.

Imagine, if you will, that Trump loses the election by a relatively narrow electoral college count, and he refuses to concede defeat, claiming that the election was fraudulent. Even if the Supreme Court were to rule against him, if he refuses to leave the White House which arm of government will step in to enforce the ruling? Neither Congress nor SCOTUS have police arms that can physically force him out. That is the problem with our balance of powers--it relies on the different parts to respect the authority of the other parts.

If the Executive flagrantly flaunts the authority of the other branches, and if there are divisions on the issue within the military and police apparatuses that paralyze them from action, then what happens?

Add to this hundreds, if not thousands, of armed right wingers who will set up a protective camp around the White House and vow to shoot to kill anyone who approaches to remove Trump.

This is not a crazy fantasy. It is a very real possibility based on how Trump, Barr, et al have acted to date.

Or consider another equally plausible scenario--that Trump and the GOP openly conspire to steal the election in an even more blatant manner than they did in 2016. They have already set in motion the mechanisms for voter suppression by closing down polling stations in mainly Black communities, cynically using COVID19 as a naked excuse, and restricting access to county ballot boxes in urban counties. The closer he gets to losing this election, the more desperate and bolder he and his enablers will become. You can count on that.

Either way, I see far too many potential authoritarian outcomes for the rest of society to be complacent. We--all of us, liberals, principled conservatives, moderates, anyone who loves democracy and America--have to be prepared to fight a civil war to defend our democratic institutions. I mean that in all seriousness. It will not look like what happened in the 1860's, but it is a civil war nonetheless and we have to think of it in those terms.

Because one side will win, and one side will lose, and if the Trump team wins, we will be even further down the road towards living under a totalitarian state where our personal and political liberties will be more and more eroded.

And this is where Gene Sharp comes in for me. There is no way that liberals can or should try to confront Trump and the radical right violently. As President, Trump commands far too much firepower to even think about such a thing. And the radical right is truly and deeply armed. Further, the destruction such a fight would cause to everyone is too great to consider, and the specter of violence would alienate a lot of potential supporters and motivate the police and military.

What Gene Sharp taught me is that power does not come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from being able to get other people to do what you want them to do. "Power" comes from the Latin "potere". meaning "to be able". As in being able to get folks to do what you want.

The key to power is to get people to acquiesce, which at its basic level means to get people to cooperate with you. If people do not cooperate, then you do not have power. Ergo there is tremendous power in wide-spread and coordinated non-cooperation. We can deny those in power the ability to exercise that power if we act together against tyranny.

Cooperation is given and gained in many ways. Usually we cooperate with laws and norms as a regular way of life. We willingly obey laws, respect private property, treat people decently because that is how civil society works. Of course, society also has police powers of the state to help enforce laws, and society has acceptance and ostracization to enforce norms, but by and large we tend to want to cooperate economically, legally and socially, especially in a democracy like America.

It may seem that violence is the ultimate form of power, since it is such a strong means to get people to acquiesce. But in the end violence is self-defeating if your goal is getting even grudging cooperation out of people--it is hard to get dead or severely injured people to do your will. It is far more effective, and efficient, to earn or encourage cooperation without the application of violence.

Many of us think that the fear of violence is what motivates people--kill the guy next to me and you can bet I will believe you will kill me if I do not comply. But what happens when people are willing to be hurt and even die in order to not cooperate with an authoritarian regime? Ha, you may think--no one is that brave or foolish! Yet the ultimate sacrifice is exactly what we expect from soldiers and freedom fighters. We must expect the same courage and willingness to sacrifice from nonviolent resisters who refuse to cooperate with an unjust regime in a time of civil war.

As Gandhi said (and I paraphrase), nonviolent resistance is not for cowards.

It is at this point that most people raise the Nazis as the definitive example of why nonviolent resistance against oppressors cannot work. Sharp noted that there were lots of successful acts of nonviolent resistance during WW II, including many Danes wearing gold stars to better hide their Jews and other bold acts of resistance.

Still, I am willing to agree that there are probably some situations where violence is the best response to oppression (Google "Buber's Letters to Gandhi" to see some excellent words on this specific matter). But Nazi Germany is an exceptional case, and we are not talking about an openly genocidal regime in America--we are looking at an anti-democratic regime that is still susceptible to the withdrawal of cooperation by a large segment of the population.

COVID19 and the BLM protests have demonstrated tellingly that we can shut down large swathes of the economy through concerted efforts. Imagine if this were to be used as an organized tool for struggle should Trump try to steal the election or refuse to concede?

Nonviolent resistance can work when it arises spontaneously, but it works best when it is coordinated and part of an overt strategy, People need to be trained in how to resist peacefully but with determination. They need to understand that a violent response by the police, army, or vigilantes will almost certainly happen. Resisters will be hurt, even killed, just as would happen in a violent civil war--only a lot less will be injured or killed, and the wounds to society will be less deep and easier to eventually heal.

Sharp teaches that nonviolent resistance does not require saintly leaders like King or Gandhi (who were anything but saints in their personal lives, but who were devastatingly effective political strategists). It does require strategic leaders who can keep the resisters focused on their goals and disciplined in the face of reprisals, who understand that withdrawing cooperation from the polity and from the economy is powerful political jiu-jitsu that uses the weight of the oppressor against himself.

It is not easy to hold a nonviolent movement together. It takes amazing guts to stand up to (or sit down to) phalanxes of police in armor who are wielding clubs and violently arresting people. Leaders will face forms of torture such as being singled out and thrown into dank prison cells with predators. Nonviolent resistance is a form of battle in a longer-term war, and people will get hurt just as they do in armed conflict. This has to be understood.

As McKibben notes, we need to start preparing for this potential civil war NOW. We have to get people to understand that the power of the people lies in our cooperation with the larger polity, and with our willingness to withhold that cooperation when the polity has been hijacked by anti-democratic thugs. We have to brainstorm creative means of withdrawing cooperation, from boycotts to protest marches to street theater and more. We need to be thinking about this right now, or we are going to be too far behind the eight ball to perhaps be able to use this power effectively to reclaim our democracy should Trump refuse to step down.

https://www.newyorker.com/.../if-trump-goes-even-lower...

 From the Facebook Page: Spirituality Lab, November 1, 2020

Day 2—We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us

Okay, so on Day 1 I spoke to the nexus of the spiritual and the political, and I greatly appreciate all the feedback and the direct messenges that folks provided. There was some good sharing around the topic, and even a couple of really neat quotes from Didion and Wallace that I will keep in my bag of tricks. While some wrestled with the concept of whether spirituality applies to political action, those who were able to muscle through my long treatise seemed to be mostly okay with what I said.

Today on Day 2 I may ruffle your feathers a bit.

A key part of my personal spiritual political practice is to listen with as open a mind and heart as I can to people who support President Trump and his politics. In fact, I would argue that it is incumbent on us to do this as much as we can if we are ever to mend the deep fractures that have rent our polity. We have to do this even if those on the other side will not, or cannot, reciprocate in kind.

This is my vision of a spiritual approach to political practice. As Gandhi and King taught with regards to nonviolent struggle, how you fight for justice is as important as the fact that you are fighting for justice in the first place. When you fight with violence, you lose sight of the humanity of your opponent, and they yours. When you struggle with nonviolence, you can see their humanity and they have a chance to see yours. A society that comes out of a nonviolent civil war will look far different and heal faster than one that rises from the ashes of violence.

Make no mistake, we are currently engaged in a civil war for the political, economic, and cultural soul of the USA. How we fight it matters.

White supremacy, power politics, anti-immigrant hatred—these did not start with Donald Trump. These have all been present in the American political zeitgeist since the founding of the nation. They will be with us when he finally leaves office.

Resentment politics in its current incarnation has been a feature of the American landscape since the McCarthy era of the 1950’s. It has sunk deep organizational and institutional roots over the years, rising from the ashes of the Goldwater campaign; gaining power in the Reagan era; flexing it muscle in the Gingrich period; and later being coddled by George W. Bush and even John McCain (recall that he chose Palin to appease the powerful Tea Party wing of the GOP). It is not going away anytime soon.

Trump had the personality and the out-sized presence and the damn-the-torpedoes attitude to hop on that tiger and give it voice. This is the reason why so many of his followers idolize him—he says what they have wanted to say for a long time, and he could not care less how he looks to “libs” or “Europeans” or anyone else. Trump personifies all those years of resentment, and they adore him for it. They are not nuts (or at least not most of them)—they have what are for them legitimate grievances and we need to acknowledge them.

We have to understand the sources of this resentment politics if we are to find a way to move America away from its current path. We have to find a way to continue to move towards a more inclusive and diverse society and economy, empowering those who have been cut out for too long, while simultaneously not marginalizing the White middle and working classes who had benefitted from unjust systems in the past. It is not a zero-sum game—there is plenty available for all to have a decent share. We need to cast our policies in this light.

If the Trump era has taught us anything, it is that better arguments and valid facts do not matter all that much when both sides are speaking in language that is completely foreign to the other. This is a culture war, a civil war in the sense that it represents the fracturing of our civil society. The only way to end it is to find ways of speaking to the “other side” that speaks to their very real concerns, and in concrete and acceptable ways. This seems to be nearly impossible today, but we have to try if we are going to have a politics that heals all of America, and not just certain portions of it.

Here is a post making its way around Facebook these days—you may see it if you have pro-Trump friends or family.

"I still love my democrat friends and family but...See it your way... I'll see it my way!

You see Trump’s arrogance, I see Trump’s confidence. You see Trump’s nationalism, I see Trump’s patriotism. You hear Trump’s unsophisticated words, I hear Trump’s honesty. You see Trump’s racism, I see Trump’s words being misconstrued and twisted by the media daily to fit their narrative. You see Trump as a Republican, I see Trump as a Patriot. You see Trump as a dictator, I see Trump as a leader. You see Trump as an Authoritarian, I see Trump as the only one willing to fight for our freedoms. You see Trump as childish, I see Trump as a fighter, unwilling to cave in to the lies. You see Trump as an unpolished politician, I see Trump as a breath of fresh air. You think Trump hates immigrants, I know Trump is married to an immigrant. You see Trump putting an end to immigration in America, I see Trump welcoming immigrants to America LEGALLY. You see Trump’s cages at the border, I see Obama’s cages at the border. You see Trump with a struggling economy, I see Trump with an amazing economy until the Democrats shut it down. You see the violence in the streets and call it “Trump’s America”, I see the violence in the streets of Democratic run cities who are refusing Trump’s help and call it “Liberal America.” You want someone more Presidential, I’m happy we have someone who finally doesn’t just talk the talk but actually walks the walk. You and I? We see things very differently. 

Copy & Paste if you agree"

When I first read this, I snorted and dismissed it as more right-wing guff. But as I thought about it, I realized that there were a lot of important clues as to what animates Trump’s base. And there are important lessons to those on the left who want to summarily dismiss right wing thinking and lump all Trump supporters in with QAnon and the Proud Boys and David Duke. There are real grievances in this, and they need to be understood and addressed if we are to find political peace.

The Democratic Party and the coastal elites in big cities have largely ignored the white middle and working class when in office. The post cited above speaks to me of the clear resentments that this has generated—held deeply and over a long period of time. I am not saying that these resentments are more important than those of the poor, of African Americans, of immigrants. But the white resentments need to be acknowledged as well—if not, they will continue to erupt in resentment spasms like the one backing Trump. The white population may be waning in the US, but it is still dominant and capable of bending politics as we have seen.

We have to learn to listen to our “opponents” and truly hear their grievances, and truly try to address them. Just as much as we need to listen to the cries of African Americans and Native Americans and women.

What would a politics of reconciliation look like? I actually think that a Biden-Harris administration might be able to start to figure this out. There are clear areas where Democrats can make policies that speak to their own base while also working for reasonable Republicans—for example, setting a clear legal immigration policy that addresses current illegal immigrants in the nation and sets targets for future legal immigration. Investment in infrastructure and building up jobs in America is another area where the two sides can find common ground. It is possible to have a robust and patriotic foreign policy without being adventurous. It is possible to proudly support the police while recasting the roles of police in society (such as having crisis intervention specialists as a separate non-police function). We can speak to the grievances in the post above with positive liberal solutions if we work at it.

It is not going to be easy, that is for sure. The GOP will likely work like hell to sabotage any positive change under Biden, or in any Democratically controlled state. And here is where Democrats have to critique themselves and change their own behavior. In the past there has been far too much inside-dealing when Democrats have been in power, and far too much soft and hard corruption when it comes to publicly funded projects. Yes, I know, Trump Trump Trump; the GOP is far worse; etc etc. But that does not erase the truth that Democrats have also had too many problems.

Can Biden invest in our infrastructure and make his administration an effective and efficient watchdog and manager of public funds? Obama managed to do this pretty well, so I have hope that Biden-Harris can do so as well. Our future may depend on it.

 From the Facebook Page: Spirituality Lab, October 30. 2020

I spend a lot of time writing about political things on Facebook. I know some think I am also wasting a lot of time, but it helps me work out my thoughts. And, so, in this week of THE Epochal Election (which Donald Trump says is “THE Most Important Election Of All Time!), Michele asked me to focus on what it might mean to have a Spiritual Political Practice.

What an assignment! In this era of such extreme social and political divisions, when we are closer to living under an authoritarian regime than at any time since Adams or Lincoln (yes, Lincoln), when Nazis and QAnon and other violent hate groups are openly embraced and abetted by the GOP and Democrats struggle to figure out how to support leftist protests but denounce the violence that sometimes erupts alongside, how is one to approach Spirituality and Politics?

My first impulse is to post photos of puppies and kittens. That might be the best advice I can give. If the photos below work for you, feel free to stop reading now. My task is done.

Anyhow, I will try to address this topic all week, but really what I am looking for is to hear from each of you as to how you approach Spirituality and Politics because I sure don’t have any clear answers here at the outset. Your thoughts and input are critical for all of us to develop a working sense of what this looks like.

The way my mind goes is that I first want to have a working definition of Spirituality before trying to dig into this topic. Spirituality is one of those concepts that seems intuitive until you try to pin it down.

I have always been a fan of the great philosopher, Justice Potter Stewart, who famously wrote in a case on pornography:

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that. (emphasis added)."

Everyone seems to know what they mean when they refer to spirituality, but very few can explicitly define it in a way that works for a majority of others. Yet, they know it when they see it—and feel it.

For me (and only for me—you get to come up with your own definition), spirituality means trying to connect our hearts, lives, souls, and minds with our better impulses, our larger moral capabilities. Pretty much every religious and philosophical tradition has something like this as a central aspiration or question.

Human beings do some incredibly terrible things to each other and to our planet; but uniquely among all other creatures we are able to act socially and communally to do amazingly wonderful things as well. The goal of a spiritual practice is to embrace and enhance this impulse to the good.

Each of us who think about spirituality come at it from our own unique traditional, social, and educational perspectives. Since my tradition is Judaism tempered with a lot of existentialist thought, that is the perspective I will take here. Feel free to find your own path that comports with your own perspective.

In Judaism, there is the concept of tikkun olam—repairing the world. It is an old concept that originally referred to mending laws to make society function more smoothly. But it has been invigorated by modern thinkers to imply that we, as beings endowed with self-awareness and social-awareness, have a responsibility not only for our own moral, spiritual, and material well-being, but also a responsibility for the moral, spiritual, and material well-being of the entire world. (1)

Kabbalists like to say that we are partners with G-d in repairing the world, and that we have a responsibility to continue the work of G-d’s creation as G-d’s representatives on Earth.

Regardless of whether you feel you are G-d’s partner, or if you believe that there is nothing here but us chickens, the concept still holds. We all are connected to a complex interdependent series of webs—be they social, environmental, political, familial, global, whatever. Having a spiritual practice of politics starts with truly embracing this and understanding that we each have a responsibility to try to make this world a better, more complete place for everyone.

Some see spirituality as a lone endeavor--the guru sitting on a mountain for years seeking inner wisdom; the person who gets a sudden jolt of inner enlightenment; someone in a meeting finding a personal connection with their Higher Power. All of these are valid, but for me, they are incomplete. For me (and only for me, I repeat), my personal spiritual development is intimately impacted by the spiritual (and non-spiritual) health of the world around me and all the people in it.

Being politically engaged is a part of my spiritual practice; and being spiritual is a part of the reason I am political. The two are inseparable.

This is the spiritual nexus in which I center my personal practice of politics. And it all sounds so nice and reasonable and warm and fuzzy. Kind of like those cute kitten and puppy pictures. Who, other than a miserable nihilist or perhaps a retired philosophy professor can disagree with this?

But we all know that we live in a world that is not often reasonable and warm and fuzzy, one that is not often agreeable with us and with which we often disagree. In fact, we have received a PhD level education in recent years as to how self-centered and downright mean our fellow citizens can be. As I said above, people can do horrible things to others, often in the name of a higher good. A spiritual practice has to function in a world of Realpolitik (2), a place where, as Trump and the GOP have shown, power and greed can be everything and morality not even a part of the discussion.

Warm, fuzzy thoughts, broad sweeping sentiments, even a spiritual impulse to fix the world, are all useless unless married to a focused and effective political vision and actions. Politics writ large is very real and has incredible implications for real human lives. What you do, what you advocate, and how you do it in the real world can often lead you far from the spiritual center that may have been the genesis of your action in the first place.

There is great power in the ability of communal action to change the world--but that power can be used for good, for ill, or for something in-between. Having an honest spiritual grounding is critical to keeping yourself--and your community--on the right path. Honesty requires self-reflection, a willingness to question your own motives and actions, an ability to critique yourself and your fellow-travelers, and listening to your "opponents" with an open heart and mind. This is not an easy way to be in our politically charged world.

For the rest of the week I will try to speak about ways we can try to maintain our spiritual focus and center even as we engage in the gritty, desultory, and often frustratingly frozen world where spiritual intent meets hardened reality. The stakes are incredibly high—existentially threatening for many—and trying to maintain a sense of higher purpose can be very difficult. But we have to try. Because HOW we engage in political change is as impactful as the change we seek itself. For how we practice is what we become.....

I will end with one more favorite quote that I first learned from Rabbi Hannah Rosenthal who ran the most amazing pop-up High Holiday services in Madison, WI, held in a tiny old synagogue by a lake that had been converted into a City park building. For four days each year Hannah gathered a wonderfully eclectic community of Jews, former Jews, non-Jews, political activists, even a priest who read Torah like a yeshiva bocher--with music by the famous jazz pianist Ben Sidran and Lynette on vocals--and reinvigorated that old shul with a "ruach"—a spirit—unlike any I have ever beheld. (3)

Praying in community at The Gates of Heaven in Madison I realized that we are capable of incredible things when we come together for a common spiritual goal. But we must be very careful in how we come together and how we try to achieve our goals......

“A person will worship something, have no doubt about that. We may think our tribute is paid in secret in the dark recesses of our hearts, but it will come out. That which dominates our imaginations and our thoughts will determine our lives, and our character. Therefore, it behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping, we are becoming.”

― Ralph Waldo Emerson