MysteriousFaith

The Political Movement of Tomorrow

Americans poorly grasp that what is best for us may not be best for others, particularly those that are disadvantaged or already exploited. One of the best hopes for humanity is the broad cross-cultural recognition that no nation’s sovereign rights extend above the inborn rights of being a member of the human race. My being an American does not make me more worthwhile than someone born in the Third World; what other implication can someone in the Third World make when we say our country is not to be held to the same standard as theirs is? It is time our government accommodate our own compliance with international law as evidence we understand that law and democracy go hand in hand.

The Shape of Tomorrow’s Political Movements

It does not take much insight to grasp the impasse modern liberal thinking finds itself in, especially as evidenced by the Democratic Party’s current malaise. After declaring he no longer wanted to be considered for DNC Chairman, former congressman Tim Roemer cautioned his party that “I got into this race five weeks ago to talk about the devastating loss we experienced in November … It was not about 60,000 votes in Ohio. It was about losing 97 of the 100 fastest growing counties in the country. If that’s a trend in business or politics, you’re in trouble.” Conservative politicos find the rudderless DNC humorous, missing the deeper warning that history teaches us the combination of a weak competitive ideology coupled with singular strength from another political party almost always marks the defining moments of a new political movement. History holds out an even darker lesson that when one particular political ideology becomes broadly dominant, it is prone to take steps that suppress dissenting voices in the interest of maintaining its political power. This suppression typically takes place just before a grotesque over-reaching that leaves behind a damaged country and if egregious enough, a reeling world. I fear the power of the Republican Party, coupled with the weakness of the Democratic Party, marks a low point in American politics.

As the Republican Party moves to further consolidate its control over the House, Senate and Judiciary, the DNC seems to have become increasingly irrelevant to Americans. Once the party of FDR and JFK, the DNC now is a party lacking both leadership and the core of its ideals - the parts of liberalism that draw many to it. Perhaps today’s liberalism is struggling to project itself authoritatively because it has degenerated into a party without any internal structure other than opposition to those currently in power. Minus a set of defining ideals, liberalism is difficult to maintain as politically viable because at its worst it argues that all voices have equality regardless of competency, clarity or capability. At its weakest, liberalism dances with a broader distrust of authority, which ultimately causes the ability to organize and project ideals to become compromised. Today’s conservatism, by its very nature, values conformity under the banner of maintaining political power. The Republican Party is better organized and more consistent in communicating its message than the Democratic. Unless the Democratic Party can find within itself new leadership, reacquaint itself with the core ideals of liberalism, and recognize that how it handles itself will be as important as what it has to say, I fear the future of the DNC is to be relegated to the trash-bin of history. I am unclear if the DNC can be saved. I suspect its core constituency (the unions and special interests like that of the AARP) are going to fight against the DNC remaking itself as strong as will the Republicans. But perhaps the DNC failing will not be a bad thing for America. Perhaps what America needs is an entirely new party, a party that takes the best of all political thinking, choosing to focus most on what is needed to genuinely find solutions, not just gain power. And perhaps the only way this viable party can come into being is if one of the two major political parties fails miserably.

If we are to look into the future and attempt to determine what tomorrow’s political movements might look like, it is valuable to first ask ourselves what the most critical shaping forces will be on society. I see the single most critical issue the world will face in the next twenty years to be the implications of inhabiting an increasingly smaller and smaller world. We have all heard the point be made enough times that we have grown tired of listening; however, the reality that the world is connected through pretty much 2-to-3 flights is a metaphor for how quickly ideas, disease, and conflict can spread. If we peel back the layers of media-rich stories about flesh-eating diseases spreading in days born on the backs of air travelers, we could catch a glimpse of the more deeply unsettling question of how we can come to live peaceably in a smaller world populated by people whose beliefs stand at odds with my own. In an increasingly small world, the difficulties of living in a pluralistic society become more important. As we are forced to interact with people of different faiths and politics, we can choose to both dialogue and cohabitate with others, or isolate ourselves. Seeing how few of us would be willing to live with the economic implications of isolationism, most would gravitate towards the dominance of their particular idea believing conquest to be less costly than isolationism. You may rightly ask why we would seek dominance and not co-habitation among equals: because it has typically been easier to fight over my beliefs being superior to yours than it has been to live in harmony with those whom I disagree. For whatever reason, graciousness is perceived as being more problematic than conquest.

The second great shaping force of the world is going to be the apex of American power, and how the resulting parity of geo-political power shakes out. America’s current neo-conservative politicians are arguing for what they call “full spectrum military dominance,” the belief that we can outspend the world (note here the stakes have gone up since Reagan argued we could outspend the Soviet Union) and gain generational military superiority so great no other nation will attempt and challenge our uni-polarity. This is the height of hubris and folly which will no doubt result in precisely that which it was designed to prevent - international conflict. How that conflict will come, and what its implications will be, are not the point of this essay; however, the likelihood that an increasingly small world will have to face the strain of reshaping geo-political power among very powerful nations is almost certain. These two forces, cohabitating a smaller world and the apex of American power, are going to shape the future of American political discourse.

One of the consequences to diminishing American power is going to be the recognition on the part of Americans that we no longer can have our way simply because we say so. At some point it will dawn on Americans why international law, as embodied in international agencies like the UN and the International Criminal Court, are more important to smaller countries than they are to Americans. I fear this realization will come only at a moment in time when Americans have over-reached. People in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, Latin America and Asia view the legitimacy of international law as being central to their ability to live peaceably. We should not be surprised that history records law as being one of the only safeguards humanity has against the abuses of naked power. Americans do not understand, usually because we can not imagine others not implicitly trusting us, that most people feel the need to have international law all of humanity and all governments are held accountable to. American political power (on both sides of the aisle) has resisted compliance to the standards of international law because we fear being held accountable by a standard other than that which we feel best protects us and is “best for us.” Again, Americans poorly grasp that what is best for us may not be best for others, particularly those that are disadvantaged or already exploited. One of the best hopes for humanity is the broad cross-cultural recognition that no nation’s sovereign rights extend above the inborn rights of being a member of the human race. My being an American does not make me more worthwhile than someone born in the Third World; what other implication can someone in the Third World make when we say our country is not to be held to the same standard as theirs is? It is time our government accommodate our own compliance with international law as evidence we understand that law and democracy go hand in hand. Where one group resists being held accountable in a fair court of law, it is highly likely that it will similarly redefine what is meant by democracy. I believe tomorrow’s American political movements will be heavily influenced by an advocacy for international law shaped by the democratic processes, not a simple hierarchy of power. I hold out great passionate hope that within my generation the world will have a debate similar to the debate that framed our American Constitution and Bill of Rights. I choose to believe that America will play a critical role in the world choosing to establish a standard of law that applies to all men in all countries equally. Our country was founded by men schooled in these same questions, but applied only to domestic issues. The world of today mandates that we take these lessons and apply them to international law. Unfortunately, I believe it is no coincidence that the tragedy of World War I led to the ill-formed League of Nations, or that the barbarism of World War II led to the now illegitimized United Nations. While I greatly hope for the future international forum of law and equality I have presented here, I also recognize that this may only come through conflict, war and genocide.

I am deeply troubled by the current infatuation in America with what I will all the cult of business. I have lived my life in business and enjoy the challenge of applying strategy with the goal of profit, market share gains and development of new opportunities; however, I also recognize that business is not the end-all be-all in life. It is an important idea, even an idea with certain inherent nobility; however, like most ideas, allowed to run without the proper checks and balances, business will become prone to the same over-reaching most ideologies are. Business is susceptible to this weakness as are religion and government. History has marked the moments in time when various societies decided for themselves that the enmeshment of religion and politics needed to end. History has also marked the moments in time when economic systems of once mighty strength folded in on them, showing that no system allowed to embrace greed can sustain itself. History has, perhaps more than anything else, marked the multiple occasions in time when citizens turned on their governments, participating in political revolution and redefining their expectations from government. I believe that one of the future guiding lights of the next important political movement in America will be to restore to Americans their belief in the nobility of government. Americans now believe they can only hope to have politicians lead them, not statesmen. Americans now understand they are only going to hear enough about an issue to get and keep political power, not really fix problems. Sadly, the nobility of service in government, and the nobility of genuinely great leaders have been lost. I believe this could be restored if Americans were to find again within ourselves a willingness to elect men and women who did not have to tell us only good news, and who had to disagree with the opposition just because it was expected of them.

The best example Americans can look to at this moment in time is the great Greek city-state of Athens. Thucydides’ comments about what marked the degeneration of Athenian democracy is worth repeating at length here: “Practically the whole of the Hellenic world was convulsed, with rival parties in every state - democratic leaders trying to bring in the Athenians, and oligarchs trying to bring in the Spartans … To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member; to think of the future and wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward; any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one’s unmanly character; ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defense. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became a suspect … As a result … there was a general deterioration of character throughout the Greek world. The plain way of looking at things, which is so much the mark of a noble nature, was regarded as a ridiculous quality and soon ceased to exist. Society became divided into camps in which no man trusted his fellow.” The solution to the problem the Athenians then faced, and Americans now face, is multi-dimensional. At one level we need to find leaders who can handle complexity and whose call to service is genuine and noble. At another level, as citizens, we owe it to our democracy to accommodate leadership that will not tell us what we want to hear. At another much more complicated level, Americans must stop sucking at the teat of the contemporary media whose very existence relies on hyper-politicized dialogue taking place in increasingly compartmentalized forums. The shape of tomorrow’s political movements will be people willing to fight these battles, and leaders capable of the selflessness only great men can rise to.

It may be no great surprise that I hope within me lays first the willingness to elect leaders who will not placate me with news I want to hear. It is probably not unexpected that I view my own responsibility for being educated on the issues as a necessary part of being a productive component in a democratic pluralistic society. What may come as a surprise is that I hope to be one of the leaders that tomorrow’s political movements calls on. Why? In large part because I believe in the nobility of service. I believe that government, as should business and religion, exists for the betterment of humanity. I do not believe government, business or religion is at its best when any of them are seen as the ultimate good. They are good only as long as they make the world better and as long as the avoid becoming an end unto themselves. Where fall prey to these foibles, they mark the beginning of their demise. Plato had this to say about what citizens should look for in their leaders; “Then tell me, Cratias, how will a man choose the ruler that shall rule over him? Will he not choose a man who has first established order in himself, knowing that any decision that has its spring from anger or pride or vanity can be multiplied a thousand fold in its effects upon the citizens?” We have lost both the idea that government can be noble, as well as the fact that leadership is not about power, but about service. Tomorrow’s political movement will inspire people, as did JFK in his presidential inaugural speech, to do things for others because it is right, not because it will gather towards them political power.

We have discussed what positions tomorrow’s political movement should take, but I would suggest lastly that the most important contribution this new movement can make towards shaping domestic and international political discourse is how liberalism engages contentious issues. Neither conservatism nor liberalism have solitary claim to the ideas of graciousness, mercy and forgiveness; however, conservatism’s dance with fundamentalist religion is going to yield an increasingly brittle political ideology probably incapable of these attitudes. Whoever can find within its movement strong leaders who are willing to take strong positions and defend them intelligently, articulately and graciously, will find people gravitating to it. People are tired of bickering. People want not only solutions, but they want to sense that a deeper graciousness exists underneath, a graciousness born of confidence, a willingness to be wrong, and a deeper desire that solutions for really helping people can be found through dialogue.

previous post: Thoughts on the Iraqi Elections
next post: Hotel Rwanda

• Posted in Politics
• no comments
• Trackback
• February 7, 2005

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website