The 2020 Election Is about the Survival of American Democracy, of Historic American Values

The title of this piece may strike the reader as over the top, but it really isn’t.  Because it isn’t about whether the form of democracy will survive.  It probably will despite some dark words from Trump at one point about his supporters not accepting a narrow loss.  This post is about whether the concept of democracy that led to the founding of our country and our founding documents … the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution … will survive.

This concept is what ultimately made America great, made us a beacon to the world.  I love Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  Unfortunately, he has no idea what made America great.  It wasn’t our power, our military, our economy, or our strong middle class.  Though of course in once sense it was.  But what enabled our country to have that power, to develop in this manner compared to other countries, whether democratic or communist, was the concept of American democracy.

What are the key elements of that concept?  Note: These elements, like equality, are clearly aspirational.  They may not have been or be true on the ground, but they have enabled people to have faith and hope and accomplish what otherwise would have been impossible.

Equality:  We all know that the belief in equality was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence although its practice was significantly restricted in the Constitution.  But the concept was there and it was that light that guided us towards the ending of slavery, the emancipation of women, the civil rights movement, and same-sex marriage.  We still have far to go, but that light is still guiding us.

Indeed, it is this central aspiration of equality that drives the other key elements of American democracy.

        Citizenship:  We are all equal citizens of the United States.  Certainly that wasn’t true at      the start, when voting was limited to males who owned property.  But over the years,          America moved more towards the ideal.  Today all adult citizens, whether you were born here or immigrated, have the right to vote.  The concept of one “man,” one vote is central.

        We are equal citizens also in the sense that we all have equal rights, and we each have the right to pursue these rights.   That is why if exercising your right restricts another person’s right, you cannot due that.  That concept is the basis for all our laws, both criminal and civil.  We do not live in an anarchy; one can’t just do what one wants to do.  Even if you are exercising a constitutional right, you cannot in so doing harm another person or restrict that person in exercising their right.  No right is absolute

        Upward Mobility:  We have no caste system in this country.  From a structural standpoint, there isn’t anything that anybody cannot do.  Someone from the poorest layer of society can rise to be President or head of a powerful corporation.  And this mobility is not just theoretical; it has been seen as a reality countless times in all areas of commerce, the arts, the professions, and politics.  Again, this is true for native born and immigrants. and more recently people of color.

        Unity with Diversity:  The United States has been from its very founding a country of immigrants.  And as with any large groupings of people, people have from the start had disagreements, both within the groups but especially between the groups.  One immigrant group vied against another.  And as immigrants became established, they had problems with the next wave of immigrants.  Often even those from the same country.

       Yet despite the animosity and distrust and at times violence between groups, when the country called, all felt that they were Americans.  They may have been hyphenated Americans, they may have felt that they weren’t getting their fair share, they may have felt discriminated against, but they identified as American and were proud of it.

        This shared sense of citizenship led to what’s called the American social contract.  Under that contract, in exchange for the benefits of citizenship, all citizens agree to obey the laws and to share the burden of government through the paying of taxes, each according to his ability.  And when there was a military draft, all participated (except draft dodgers) and supported America, even at the cost of their lives.  Under this social contract, we are  not just responsible for ourselves; we have a distinct responsibility for the welfare of the whole and thus for all Americans.

         In the first half of the 20th century, workers gained significant rights in their employment.  In the second half, overt forms of discrimination that had been practiced against some groups, like Jews and people of color, became illegal.  And all minority groups benefitted from laws that guaranteed equal protection in public accommodations and other areas of commerce.  This does not mean that some level of us v them didn’t exist anymore; it certainly did.  And people were still discriminated against.  But it was far less.  Political correctness has been given a bad name, but there is much to be said for people feeling that it is not socially acceptable to have or utter certain thoughts, or take certain actions.

         In the halls of Congress, this unity/diversity was reflected in the air of civility that existed between people on opposite sides of issues.  People agreed to disagree.

But several decades ago, things began to change.  Ronald Reagan ushered in the “me” generation and a broad distrust of government … “government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem.”  As the years passed, Republicans in Congress became less civil.  They went from having a conservative outlook on what government’s responsibilities were to being antagonistic towards government and the people of color and others that government helps.

Now the Trump presidency has dropped all pretense of being committed to democracy, to governing for all Americans, to being a unifying force.  Instead he has provoked and manufactured grievances that have exacerbated the already existing divisions in our society, to the point where we are polarized as possibly never before.  Where Trump supporters and those on the progressive left truly hate each other.  Where talking and compromise is no longer an option.

The dynamics of American politics and group interaction have deteriorated to such an extent that it raises serious question whether something can return this country and its people back to sanity and respectful coexistence.  But we must try.  The Democratic Party must make returning this country to its true roots the central platform of its 2020 campaign.  It must present a cohesive, positive, vision that speaks to all Americans.  It must drop the strategy of identity politics.

As I’ve suggested in the past, the best way of doing that is to turn America’s focus to the Declaration of Independence and base the Party’s vision on those words which are familiar to every American.  It is those words that are the heart and soul of the concept of American democracy.

I therefore suggest the following mission/vision for the Democratic Party:

To build a country of greater opportunity where:

• each and every American has the best chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … “to secure those rights”, within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and 
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to his ability.

This statement will speak to all Americans.  Most specifically, it will speak both to those aggrieved Midwestern whites who voted for Trump in 2016 and to those disillusioned blacks who did not turn out to vote for Hillary.  

There is no need for identity politics.  For there is no real conflict between the interests of the various groups in our society, so long as no group is greedy.  The right mix of policies will provide all groups with the opportunity they deserve in our democracy.  What they make of that opportunity is then up to them; that is the American way.

All the policies of the Party must flow from this mission statement.  Whether the issue is health care, immigration, education, jobs, defense, civil rights, or religion … the Democratic position must further the greater opportunity of all.  For a more detailed explication of this concept, see my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

Sex - Misused and Abused - A Different Perspective

The reader might well ask, what does sex have to do with preserving American values?  Well, for one thing, as we know from the #MeToo experience, the male craving for sex often impacts the independence and integrity of women.  Their freedom from such abuse should certainly be an American value.  

But also regarding the male, when an individual has a craving for anything, let alone sex, he is not free  He may be free in the political sense, but he is not free in the sense of being the master of himself. of being able to decide and do what is in his best interest.  The American value of freedom goes beyond the political.  Your ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness is not just impacted by external forces, it is greatly impacted by one’s own internal forces.

And while healthy committed relationships or marriages may not be an American value as such, it is certainly something which society says it wants to foster.  And should.  It is critical that future generations of Americans be raised in supportive families, free of neurotic dynamics.  Free of the craving for “sex, drugs, and rock and roll.”  We must cleanse ourselves of the scourge of addiction.

Here is the case against sex as we know it.  The lust for sex is a huge force in directing man’s actions.  Second only to the craving for money and power.   As such, it is a major source of stress, it comes between people as much as it binds them together, and it is an antagonist to spirituality.  It has ruined relationships.  It has ruined more than one political career, and in the #MeToo generation, it has brought many powerful people in different sectors of our culture low. 

Sex is a function critical to the survival of almost all species of life on Earth.  How then has sex become such a negative factor for man?  

With the exception of man, evolution has developed the function of sex to be discreet in its purpose and limited and particular as to its timing.  It’s purpose is procreation and survival of the fittest; Whether one looks at plants, fish, or even man’s closest animal relative - the apes - this is the limited function of sex.  And it can only occur during finite periods of time.

For man, however, sex has become something very different.  How did that come to be?  While women have been found to be more “lusty” during their fertile days, women, contrary to females of all other species, are “available” for sex throughout the year.  

And since males of most mammal species are horny beasts (we’ve all experienced a dog arousing himself on someone’s leg), the human male certainly takes advantage of that, even when procreation is unlikely.  Why?  Because we derive pleasure and other satisfaction from the sex act.  

That men and even women derive pleasure from sex is hardly a new phenomenon.  But in our contemporary culture, pleasure has become the primary purpose of sex … consistent with the pleasure syndrome which predominates our culture.  It also serves various psychological needs as noted below.  Procreation is now only a tangential function since through the use of various means of contraception, sex typically only results in pregnancy when you want it to, which is rarely.

The result is that sex is now one of the leading problems in relationships.  Basically said, if men especially aren’t finding sex pleasurable anymore, they either look elsewhere for that satisfaction and/or it becomes one of several factors that leads to a failed relationship and divorce. 

A related problem is that if a couple does have good sex, that gets confused, especially in the early stages of a relationship, with feeling they are in love or loved.  And that just isn’t the case.  It just means they have good sex.  Lust does not equal love.  But nevertheless couples get married based to a large extent on whether they have a good sex life because modern man does not know what love really is.  Feeling loved is thus dependent on having good sex.  When that’s gone, we want to move on.

The other ways in which sex is used in relationships to meet psychological needs are also not conducive to a healthy attitude towards sex and relationships.  For men especially, but also for women, the use or withholding of sex is an expression of power in a relationship where otherwise one may feel inadequate or weak.   When there are problems in a relationship, using sex to patch things up puts a burden on sex and rarely works for more than a limited time.  And for people who are unhappy with their work or other aspects of their life, the pleasure or release of sex is a respite, a distraction.  For all these reasons, the general attitude is that good sex is an essential part of a healthy relationship. 

Using sex primarily as a source of gratification, power, or bonding makes sex a source of major stress for man and is harmful to relationships.  Sex is used in the search for something which is essentially a fleeting illusion.  At the same time, its role in the procreation process is mostly negative, in that  most of the time people want to make sure that pregnancy does not result from sex.

How to improve the stability and nourishing nature of marriage and other committed relationships?  The answer is to base relationships on true love (more on that below), return sex to its primary purpose of procreation, and realize that there are other, more stable ways to establish a loving, intimate bond with a spouse/partner that do not involve the sex act.  “What?!”  the reader will undoubtedly exclaim.  “How absurd.”  

That is the ego-mind reacting.  Bear with me while I explain.  There is great comfort, satisfaction, and intimacy to be had within a loving relationship from hugging and various types of non-sexual touching … not as foreplay to sex, but just for the warmth and intimacy it engenders.  

I speak from experience.  I am in a deeply-loving, long-term relationship with my partner who is my best friend.  We are family.  We do not have sex.  But we do have a very physical relationship.  I feel more loved and more secure than in any relationship I have ever had.  I should note that we are totally committed to our relationship and are not looking for sex elsewhere because we have all the love we need and understand that to be happy sex cannot be used as a source of pleasure.

I know this will sound crazy to most readers, whether straight or gay, but that is the truth.  Sex has become so deeply engrained in our ego-drives, our self-image, that we cannot imagine life or a relationship without it; it is a craving.  But as with all other cravings, that is just a product of the ego-mind.  Yes, sex has a biological function.  But what man has turned sex into has little to do with that function.

NOTE:  The often-held belief that ejaculation is essential for a man’s health is just not true.  There is no clear evidence of a health benefit to ejaculating or risk from not ejaculating.  There is some very weak evidence that frequent ejaculation may help prevent prostate cancer, but that’s all it is.  Arousal, however, does release certain chemicals which increase feelings of wellbeing.  But those same chemicals are released by hugging and other types of touching connected with sincere affection.

For gays and lesbians, this would mean that while their relationships would be very physical and loving, sex would not be part of the relationship.  To be blunt, orgasm would not be part of their relationship or their lives.  As for their raising a family, having a sex-less relationship will obviously not impact that since sex was never part of that for them anyway; gays and lesbians have found methods to have biologically-related children without engaging in procreative sex,.

What about teenagers and older uncommitted individuals?  For them, sex would no longer be part of the right of passage into adulthood or a means of satisfying oneself or coarsely expressing oneself or having the pleasure of someone’s company by hooking up.  These are measures, often desperate, that people take to fill an emptiness in their lives.  We must instead raise children so there is no emptiness that needs to be filled.  (See my book, Raising a Happy Child.)

I am not underestimating the huge change this would entail for most people.  The initial gap in their lives.  Again people would have to be taught that there are other forms of physical interaction which are very satisfying and far less problematic.  People will have to be taught to have a different relationship with themselves.

With sex returned to its biologically-intended purpose … procreation, sex will then regain real meaning and be a source of growth and maturity.   Both male and female will be making a statement, a real commitment to the future, when they have procreative sex.  The ecstasy of sex will be connected with the desire to create a family, not satisfying some ego-desire for a high.

But there is another real kicker in my proposal … most people have no clue as to what true love is.  Yet this must form the basis of the new relationship.  

This is unfortunately not something we typically learn through our experience … not from our parents, movies, or any aspect of our culture.  Since love not sex will be the cornerstone of a relationship, this means that couples will need to learn what love really means and how to develop it between two people.   

Simply said, love develops from mutual feelings of trust, respect, caring, and thoughtfulness.  One will have to be taught this or learn it from a book since it is not part of our culture.  Shedding the cultural connection between sex and love will be difficult.  But these mutual feelings I listed are the sine qua non of a loving, lasting, relationship.  Of course issues of character and interest compatibility also play an important role in a relationship’s longevity.

I should say that I do not mean to imply that there are no lasting relationships based on true love that have sex as an integral part of the relationship, not just used for procreation.  What I’m saying is that our current attitude towards sex is for the most part destructive both to the individual and to relationships.  And so the dynamic needs to change.

The benefits of this change to both the individual and society would be significant.  For individuals, couples and their children it would bring an increased feeling of security and peace, which would in turn substantially change the dynamics within a typical family, benefiting the psyches of all.  For society it would mean a decrease in both illegitimate and unwanted pregnancies/births, a substantial decrease in the divorce rate, a decrease in all forms of spousal and child abuse, both physical and psychological, and a substantial decrease if not elimination of sex addiction.  Just for starters.  Spiritually, it would enable man to overcome a major barrier to being a master of himself.

While my proposal will sound absurd and futuristic to many, the argument that a marriage or other committed relationship should be based on true love rather than sex/lust, and that sex is actually detrimental to a relationship is not a new thought.  To my surprise, although I shouldn’t have been since Montaigne is always wise and amazingly pertinent, I discovered that the French 16th century philosopher/essayist had the following to say, after I began writing this post:

 “I see no marriages that sooner are troubled and fail than those that progress by means of beauty and amorous desires.  It needs more solid and stable foundations, and we need to go at it more circumspectly; this ebullient ardor is no good for it.”  

“A good marriage rejects the company and conditions of sex.  It tries to reproduce those of friendship.  It is a sweet association of life, full of constancy, trust, and an infinite number of useful and solid services and mutual obligations.”

It is unfortunately impossible to imagine such a change happening on a society-wide basis.  It would require a major change in the way many aspects of our culture operate, the experiences people have as they are growing up.  

But we as individuals have the ability to make these changes on our own, to listen to a different drummer, regardless what is going on around us.  It “just” requires making a commitment first to oneself and then finding another compatible soul to enter this journey.  This is something that is within your power to do.  Think about it!

This post is dedicated to my partner to whom this concept of sex was revealed recently and who shared it with me.

New Name - Same Mission

I suddenly have become aware, duh!, that the name I originally created for this blog, Preserving American Greatness, is not really appropriate to its mission statement.  That’s pretty bad for a writer.  But better that realization later than never. 

One problem with the original name is its connotation.  It sounds like the blog is a proponent of American exceptionalism, which it certainly is not, or that it promotes a right wing “America right or wrong” perspective, which also clearly does not apply.  Beyond being misleading, this connotation would naturally be offensive to many people around the world for whom we have long ceased being regarded as “the beacon on the hill.”

The other problem is that although the seeds of greatness are in the American story, our country has unfortunately not fulfilled the promise shown in the Declaration of Independence.  We are certainly a powerful country, the biggest economy in the world, the strongest, or at least biggest, military force in the world.  We have made huge advancements in many different areas.

But on a human level, we have failed rather miserably.  The curse of slavery that was embedded in our founding documents remains with us despite the Civil War, despite all the laws that guarantee equality.  While women have had full rights (well, almost) now for a century, and they have advanced far in the work world, their position vis a vie men is still very unequal in fundamental ways.  People’s attitudes have changed, but only by degree, not fundamentally.  

We live in a most unequal and divided society … not just between black and white Americans, men and women, the rich and most everyone else, but in ways without end.  The promise of “success” (as defined by our culture) is tantalizingly held out to everyone by the marketing media, but for the majority in this country the Declaration’s guarantee of the unalienable right to the “pursuit of happiness” remains a cruel joke.

So just what are America’s values?  To me they are encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed . . .”

Greed, a consuming self-interest, and a lack of concern for others may be the values of our contemporary culture, but they are not the values that our Founding Fathers gave America at its birth.  While the words of the Declaration may seem on the surface to champion self-interest and the right to do whatever one wishes, they are tempered by the spiritual statement that we are all created equal and that we all were endowed by the Creator with unalienable rights.  Thus, if the exercise of one person’s right harms another or inhibits his right, then there needs to be a check.  The Declaration does not proclaim an unfettered right to anything.  That would be anarchy.

This is why I wrote the book, We Still Hold These Truths in 2004 (years before the conservative author Matthew Spaulding wrote his take on things under the same title, oddly fulfilling the statement I made on the book’s first page that “in [the Declaration’s] interpretation lies the core of both the Liberal and Conservative ideologies that have run through American political life and the tension between them).  This is why I started this blog several years ago.

This blog is a celebration of those profoundly liberal American values.  It is dedicated to insuring that the promise of the Declaration becomes a reality for all Americans and beyond that, that these values impact our dealings with other nations.  Let me repeat here the mission statement that was my first blog post:

Our nation stands under attack … not from without, but from within.  Both our politics and our culture have been corrupted.

Politics on both the right and left are ever more polarized.  We cannot be a great or strong country if the people and their politicians view fellow Americans who happen to have opposing points of view in an us v them mode, as the enemy; we can only progress if we are united, albeit with differing perspectives on how to go about things.  And our culture caters to the worst aspects of capitalism with ethics and concern for the common good falling to the demands of greed and competition.  The same issues are present throughout much of the world today.

One central aspect of the problem is that our country and much of the world is bereft of spiritual values.  Now right here we have a definitional problem.  I am not referring to the values hawked by born-again Christians in this country, or Islamists in Muslim countries, or the ultra-Orthodox in Israel.   Because interestingly, in almost all cases, the “spiritual” or “moral” positions taken by these self-righteous people go against core tenets of their own religion.  

On the other hand, you have the majority of people, at least in the United States, who claim to believe in God but are not spiritual in any meaningful sense; their lives are totally a creature of contemporary culture.  Their spiritual core is if not empty sorely depleted.

It will be the mission of this blog to look at current events, be they political or cultural, from a spiritual, not religious, perspective, with relevant support from our founding documents, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.   Remember when it was popular for Christians to wear bracelets that said, “What would Jesus do?”  That’s basically the question that this blog asks, but from a larger spiritual perspective.

I will take as my perspective the common teachings that are at the core of the spiritual/moral constructs of all the world’s great religions … Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Greed is the root of all evil.

Put away lying; speak every man truth.

Only when these maxims are followed will we achieve “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” and realize the goals set forth in the Declaration of Independence, that “governments are instituted to secure” the equality of all men and their “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Our Culture Is the Serpent in the Garden of Eden

As told in Genesis, in the paradise that God created, man and woman were naked, but they were not embarrassed by their nakedness and they were one with all things.  The only thing forbidden to them was to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.   They lived in a world where there was no knowledge of right or wrong, good or bad.  Interestingly, the paradise of Genesis is virtually identical with the Buddhist Nirvana.

But once they ate the fruit of the tree, they became aware of and were embarrassed by their nakedness.  They now had knowledge of value judgments; they were no longer innocent.  They lost God’s favor and were forced out of the garden into a world full of the frustrations of cravings, fear, and strife.

The Abrahamic faiths’ take on this story is that man is a sinner because he violated God’s commandment.  And that women are the causal source of sin because it was Eve who listened to the serpent and tempted Adam to eat the fruit; it is thus also a cautionary tale regarding sexual temptation.  Man can only be saved by obeying God, which is to obey the multilayered moral and ritual strictures of His religion (take your pick as to which one).  

But if one looks at the story with fresh eyes, without all the layers of religious interpretation by rabbis, monks, imams, and others, a different lesson takes shape.

The real lesson here is that the world of God is the world of innocence, where there is no good and evil.  There is no evil because there is no desire for what one does not have.  There is no good because man does not compare himself to others.  There is no good or evil because man is one with himself and all things.  This is the world of freedom from the known.  The point is not so much that God’s commandment was broken, but that because it was broken, mankind lost its innocence and the world was never the same.

Speed forward several millennia to the current age.  The world is filled with serpents, those who seek to entrap mankind with the knowledge of good and evil, of beauty versus ugliness, of every duality one can create.

The consumer culture on which our capitalist economy depends is based on people being manipulated by marketing into wanting more of what the masters of the world want them to crave and into thinking that a product will in some way give them entry to a better life by satisfying that craving.  We have all been taught that happiness comes from having what we don’t have and thus we have become creatures controlled by craving.

The political culture is based not on bringing people together but by dividing them into opposing camps.  Often fomenting ill will and at times even hatred towards those “others,” thus again manipulating the populace.  Political rhetoric today, such as it is, appeals mostly to the emotions, even when it is put in a form which sounds rational.

Even the prevailing religious cultures provide no refuge.  Religion, which theoretically should be the main advocate for peace on earth and goodwill towards all, instead has over the millennia been perhaps the major source of strife among mankind.  It has been, together and in concert with nationalism, the greatest divider and thus the greatest source of conflict.  And how convenient to fight others, exploit others, dominate others in the name of promoting God’s law, when in truth it is always about promoting the power of nations and individual men.  And to the extent that the fight was against “savages,” ironically those who were being “saved” often lived a life and had a culture much closer to the garden of eden than the warriors of religion.

Towards its own, religion has never really been a force to bring mankind back to the state of grace that existed in the garden of eden.  Instead, it has created a system of fear, using its own concept of good and evil to control its flock and build power and influence.  

In truth, though, none of this should be surprising.  Religion is after all, despite its protestations to the contrary, a product of man, not of God.  If it were the latter, why would there be so many different religions, all at odds with each other?  

Is there then no force in the world to help mankind return to a state of innocence, which is its birthright, and live in peace?  The only force I am personally familiar with is found in the teachings of the Buddha.  His teachings seek to enable man to perceive that all his suffering is caused by what he has learned from family and culture and that all this learned experience is empty of any intrinsic existence and has no inherent value.  When he perceives these truths, he experiences all things without the intervention of thought and emotion ... he is once more free of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  And when he reaches that state, all suffering and doubt cease.  (I must acknowledge that I am a practicing Buddhist.)

The Buddha was a historical person.  The Buddha saw his role as relieving mankind’s suffering by putting him back in touch with his true pure nature, thus ending his craving and bringing him peace.  Jesus sought to achieve a similar aim by putting man back in God's grace.

But even here, the teachings of the Buddha are one thing ... Buddhism as an organized religion can at times be something quite different, witness the Buddhist mobs doing harm to Muslims in Myanmar, or even at times vying groups of Buddhist monks fighting with each other.  These are cases of men being Buddhists in name only.  They have strayed far from the teachings of the Buddha.

Indeed all religions ... including Judaism, Christianity, Islam ... have at their core the basic moral teaching of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and most sought in their own way to bring mankind back to a state of grace because they are all based on the teachings of truly holy men.  But the basic teachings of most religions also created an us v them culture, and in the hands of less holy men the religious establishment has turned this aspect into the dominant theme of our world.

If we want to free ourselves from having tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, if we want to experience peace and happiness, there is only one way, and that is to turn our back to the dominant culture and follow the simple truths of the teachings of the Buddha and the other religions, while disavowing any teaching that your religion is the only path to God.

One final note ... Eden was a place here on Earth, not a paradise one accessed in heaven upon death.  While there is no way, given the dominant forces and the conditioning of mankind, to ever achieve that state of innocence again here on Earth, we can each in our own small way create waves of Eden that spread out from each of us.

When Ego Drives Politics, Can There Be Any Hope?

We can rant all we want about the insufferable and destructive attitude and policies of the Tea Party and its fellow travelers, but truth be told, virtually all politicians are sorely lacking.  

A politician should be first and foremost a public servant ... there should be no greater interest than to serve the interests of his or her constituents and the greater public good.  And where the greater public good conflicts with the interests of constituents, politicians should back the greater public good because the welfare of the nation should always take precedence over the narrow interests of a locality.

Why is it that there are no, or at best a handful, of politicians today, and for that matter in the past, who encompass this ideal?  The short answer is that all politicians, and indeed all people, are driven primarily by their ego ... which is to say the sum of their learned experience that forms how they view themselves and the world around them.  All people and all politicians are programmed by their upbringing and societal environment to look at things a certain way.  They cannot really do otherwise.

And what is the primary lesson that our culture teaches?  Is it that we must work for and if necessary sacrifice for the good of the community, or is it that we should insure first and foremost that #1, ourselves, is taken care of first.  During much of our history there was a balance between these two messages.  But over the past 30-40 years, it has become increasingly the latter.  Everything else is secondary, at best.

When one combines the self-centeredness of politicians with their programmed view of the world, the result is often disaster for the nation they are supposed to be serving.  In the past, while politicians and people have always been driven by ego, most people were exposed to a strong centrist tradition ... for example the news broadcasts of the three networks and most major newspapers ... and that formed the core of their political learned experience.  Thus they were able to see it in their interest to come together, not on all issues but with sufficient frequency, to serve the public good.

But as the power of corporations has increased in politics and as the attitude of the people has become more extreme, especially on the right due to the emergence of right-wing cable news and right-wing radio talk shows, there remains virtually no issue on which the two Parties can come together in the nation’s interest.  The result is the total dysfunction that we’ve been seeing in Congress.  The result is a growing fissure in our society.  The public good and the interests of those most vulnerable suffer.

Our political system is a mess.  The electoral system is a mess.  Our society is a mess.  Is there any hope out of this morass?  There is no hope so long as even well-meaning politicians and people seek to find answers within the system as it exists because within those constraints there can be no real change.  There is no hope without being willing to examine the concepts that lie at the very core of our culture.  For it is these concepts that make people what they are and make our system of government what it is.

What in the world am I talking about, you might ask.  It means going back to basics.  The core moral ethic behind all the world’s great religions is, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Yet there are few people, even among those who profess themselves to be ultra-religious, who practice this core ethic.  

Why is that?   The bottom line reason is that most people are insecure, both individually and as groups.  If you are insecure, you only think of yourself, not others.  Yes, many people, groups, and nations may appear to have strong egos and are full of bluster and bravado, but deep within, people whether low or high are insecure.  That’s why those on top are typically so imperious.  It’s a mask.

And why are people so insecure, even those who have “made it” in our society and have so much?  The answer is that most people were not brought up with unconditional love and compassion.  

I know this sounds very new age, but don’t laugh.  We are all cursed with the learned experience that we have to be someone other than we are, we have to be better than we are, in order to be loved and respected.  We learn this in childhood from our parents and later from our peers and the broader culture that bombards us with messages that we need to be or do more.

If on the other hand, we were all brought up with the constancy of unconditional love and compassion ... and mind, this does not mean no criticism; it means that criticism is done with loving kindness; children need direction, but there’s a way to do it and a way not to do it ... then we would not be insecure as children and we would not grow up to be insecure adults.

This atmosphere of unconditional love and compassion would not be limited to the family, but would extend to all people in the community, in the country, indeed to all mankind because we would be taught that all of humanity is one.  We are all children of the same God (if there is one), we all suffer in the same way, we all are programmed by our learned experiences to act the way we do.  No one is innately bad or evil, but history has shown that it is surprisingly easy to teach people to be bad or evil.  With that knowledge we can have compassion and love for all, even those who seek to harm us.  

This new attitude does not mean that we would not defend ourselves, as a nation or individually.  But with this new attitude we would have a chance to break the cycle of hate with love.   To show those who are insecure that they have nothing to fear from us; that there is no need to be aggressive.  And with time, this new force of love would gain in strength, encompassing ever more people and nations.  Slowly but surely the aggressive traits that we have assumed are part of the human condition would be replaced by a more spiritual perspective based on unconditional love and compassion for ourselves and for all others.

Martin Luther King said, "Someone must have sense enough and religion enough to cut off the chain of hate and evil, and this can only be done through love."  To that I say, "Amen."

Strengthening America by Changing from a Consumer Economy to a Nation-Building Economy

While our culture of consumerism has been a boon to corporate America, it has been bad for our citizens, bad for our economy and bad for our nation. 

Psychologically, mass marketing images have led to a nation of individuals who are constantly dissatisfied with their lives ... whether it’s how they look, the job they have, the amount of money they make, the home they live in, etc.  There is not a single aspect of our lives that escapes this need of ours … not to be better individuals in some meaningful way but to project success or power/popularity, mostly through the acquisition of material things.  And we always want more; it’s never enough.

You won’t find evidence of this in polls because our culture places a premium on having fun, being happy.  Since people feel that they’re supposed to be having fun and be happy, that that state is valued by our culture, people put on that façade … not knowingly but in an act of self-deception. 

While I know of no studies that document what I am about to posit, I believe that the huge increase in the extent of depression in this country stems not from more awareness of the problem as has often been stated but results from this constant dissatisfaction that people feel about themselves.  Indeed, it is not uncommon when people are feeling down to get a “fix” by going out and buying something.

Our economy has also become addicted to consumerism.  70% of our GDP is derived from consumer spending. But consumerism is a very unproductive use of the nation’s wealth.   It does not move our country forward.   And since much of what we consume is no longer produced here but overseas, it doesn’t even help employment like it used to, just the revenues of American global corporations.

Meanwhile, the United States is falling behind other countries and entering a dangerous period because we cannot afford to do what needs to be done to keep this country strong … and I don’t mean military spending.   I mean spending on infrastructure … both maintenance and new.  I mean spending on education.  I mean spending on cutting edge research and development, investment in new industries that will drive our economy in the future. When measurement is taken of national and individual wellbeing, the United States typically finds itself towards the back of the pack of developed countries.  Not in front as we like to believe.

In order to find the money to invest in our country’s wellbeing, we must switch our economy from one that is primarily based on consumerism, to one that is based primarily on building our country.  This involves changing the components of our GDP but not lessening it or our growth.  Actually, because it mostly would involve projects that must by their very nature be accomplished in the geographic United States, it means a greater bang for the buck when it comes to job creation.

To get from the consumer economy to the nation-building economy, we will need to wean ourselves from the need to constantly buy things to be happy.  And instead of using discretionary income for self-gratification, we will need to learn to be comfortable with that money going to the government in the form of taxes to be used for projects that will benefit the nation, and thus ultimately ourselves.

Many will howl at this suggestion, but we must remember that the United States has by far the lowest tax rate of any developed country.  Yet, and this bears repeating, the people of these other countries nevertheless prosper and have a higher level of wellbeing … whether it’s their health, education, or other measures … than we do.

Making such a change in our culture will take principled leadership and preferably a united political front.  This must be approached like a war used to be … all hands on deck and united.  And everyone must be prepared to sacrifice. At this point in our history, that concept … a united political front … seems impossible to imagine.  And yet we must strive toward that end if America is once again to regain its global strength and provide its citizens with a secure and high standard of living.

American Exceptionalism, Bullying and Mean Girls – An Excess of Self-Esteem Or Just the Opposite

As much as I respect and admire David Brooks, he got it wrong this time.  In his March 10 op-ed piece, “The Modesty Manifesto,” he notes how we have turned into a culture of self-aggrandizement.  How we have become a society of individuals who think they are special and that they are entitled to things, rather than having to earn it.

While I would agree with Brooks’ observation, he is mistaken when he equates this common bravado for an increase in Americans’ self-esteem.  On the contrary, it is yet further evidence of how insecure and hollow Americans’ lives have become.

It is a well-known psychological fact that having a huge ego is typically a façade, a coping mechanism for deep feelings of insecurity and anxiety.  And the size of the ego and extent of aggression is directly related to the amount of insecurity.

Brooks sites several writers who point out that the generation of people now in their 20s grew up bathed in praise and messages that they are special.  While it may well be that such action on the part of parents was meant to increase self-esteem, in fact it increases insecurity.  When a child is told he is special, but knows deep down that he is not and that the praise is not grounded on anything specific, he feels he is being told that he is expected to be special and thus feels under pressure to indeed be special, creating huge insecurities.

If we were to search for a poster child for this American feeling of exceptionalism, we would have to look no further than George W. Bush.  While I have no idea how he was raised, he certainly would have had the burden of feeling that he was supposed to be special because of his family’s history. 

Instead, he knew he was a nothing and failed at one thing after another.   But he did find the gift of gab; of giving the impression that he was very sure of himself.  As President, he certainly displayed great bravado and certainty … he was “the Decider” … but it was such a pathetic façade.  One just had to look into his eyes, and watch his facial expressions to know that here was a man who felt totally insecure and out of his element.

Brooks is correct when he wonders whether this phenomenon is connected to the “social and political problems we have observed over the past few years.”   But the cause is our increased insecurity, not an increase in our self-esteem.

Which brings me to an article that I had just completed yesterday before I read David Brooks’ piece:

"The Societal Cost of Low Self-Esteem"

If you look at all the suffering in the world, at the people who do bad things to their fellow man and environment as well as to themselves, you will find a person who has low self-esteem. 

Whether it’s the bully on the school playground, the mean girls in the classroom, the drug addict, the father who verbally abuses or just isn’t there for his children, the business manager who is a tyrant in the office, the politician or commentator who is a demagogue, spewing hatred against those who do not think as he does and not believing in the American social contract, or even the terrorist … all of these people suffer from low self-esteem.

“Now wait a minute,” you might be thinking, “these are people who often exhibit huge egos.  Where does he get off saying that these people have low self-esteem?” 

Having a huge ego is typically a façade, a coping mechanism for deep feelings of insecurity and anxiety.  This is a well-known psychological fact, with the size of the ego and extent of aggression being directly related to the amount of insecurity.

I make this point because we live in a world with so much suffering at so many levels … not just now but throughout history.  These problems seem overwhelming and not susceptible to easy or even hard and costly solutions.  Certainly force, whether military or societal, is not an answer.

Is there a way to apply our knowledge regarding the effect of low self-esteem to address this large societal issue?  As a Buddhist, I believe that there is.

First let me state, briefly, the Buddhist perspective on suffering.   We are all born essentially perfect with the true Buddha nature inside us.  What happens after birth is that we are exposed to numerous environmental factors, first from our immediate family and then our peers and the broader society, that cause us to put labels on both ourselves and everything in our lives. 

These labels create conflict and stress, they are the causes of our neuroses.  Over the years, these layers of learned experience form an almost impenetrable barrier between us and our true Buddha nature … and between us and the world around us.  They are the clouds that keep us from seeing the blue sky that is always there.  We come to think of ourselves as being our ego.

The Buddha taught that the way to end suffering is to first be aware that we suffer, then understand the causes of suffering, realize that there is a path to stop our suffering, and finally follow that path.  Central to this process is understanding the impermanence of all things and the illusory nature of all perceptions, because they are all dependent on our learned experience. 

When we experience something, we see and feel it as filtered through our mind.  A key part of Buddhist training is to become able to experience things directly as they really are without the intervention of thought.

I need to note here that while Buddhist philosophy is not inconsistent with Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, it is at odds with the concept of original sin in Christianity, under which man is seen as being born into a general condition of sinfulness.

But regardless of that doctrinal difference, all would agree that no child anywhere in the world, no matter what culture they are born into, are born with low self-esteem.  For that curse we have to thank the impact of their families, their peers, and their culture on their development.

Now don’t misunderstand me.  I am fully aware that people are born subject to all sorts of things … their socio-economic status, IQ, physical or mental condition, etc.   But none of these is inherently a source of low self-esteem.   It is how either the family, peers, or culture react to those conditions and what the child learns from that experience that cause low self-esteem.

So if our families, peers, and culture cause low self-esteem, then those same forces have the ability to not cause low self-esteem.   The question, however, is, since one is not starting with a clean slate where to begin to break the vicious cycle that we are in?

Because the older we are, the more invested our psyches are in our ego-driven low self-esteem, creating more of a challenge both to be aware of our suffering and to free ourselves of it, it makes sense starting to break the cycle with the newly born and young children.

The key to self-esteem for the newly- born and toddlers lies with parents.  Unfortunately, parents receive no training in being a parent, other than their own experience as a child, which rarely provides a good role model. And they are usually not well equipped to deal with the stresses of child rearing because of their own self-esteem and psychological stresses.  This is true even for those parents who read child-rearing books assiduously, because the implementation of any recommendations depends on their own mental state.

So the first step is to educate parents, both regarding the importance of childhood self-esteem, but also to boost their own self-esteem.  This can happen at various junctures.  One is when they apply for a marriage license.  All prospective parents should be required to undergo a course in parenting skills.  Another juncture is secondary education.  All seniors should take a course regarding functioning in an adult world, part of which would include lessons on parenting skills.  In both these instances, the process should include building up the individual’s own self-esteem.

Regarding young children, the forum for improving self-esteem needs to shift primarily to the school system because that is where the greatest chance for affecting change lies.  There is no shortage of stories about teachers who expect nothing of their students, berate them, and treat them like they were stupid.  But, there are also models of schools that have no tolerance for that type of teacher behavior and that foster positive self-esteem among their pupils.  To date, this has primarily been looked at from the perspective of how to improve student performance.  Equally important is how good self-esteem will impact their interaction within their future families, with colleagues, and with the world at large.

To the extent possible, parents of these children need to be brought into the self-esteem program through parent-teacher conferences and other mechanisms. This will increase the likelihood that the children will benefit meaningfully from the program.

Some conservative critics may say that this is an example of government stepping in where it has no business.   I would strongly disagree and say that government has few tasks more urgent than ensuring that children grow up to become good productive citizens.  And increasing self-esteem is an essential part of that process.

It will take generations to affect such a change in our psychological health across all age groups.  But if we want to achieve anything even approximating peace in the family, peace in schools, peace in the workplace, peace among citizens, and peace in the world, then we have no choice.  If we continue as we have for generations, nothing will change.  The path is clear.  We have but to embrace it whole-heartedly and with dedication.