To the extent that we are bound up with our own ego, we will also be without a long view. Even if our ego concerns seem to us better than Trump’s ego concerns, we can still be missing a long view—a view for something larger than our own selves or our own tiny concerns.

So Who Does Have a Long View?

The writers of the Old Testament had a long view. They reflected back hundreds of years and they reflected forward centuries as well—seeing their peoplehood as a servant body on behalf of all the nations of the world.

Jesus had a long view. In laying down his life for the people of Israel, he was laying down his life for the restoration of this servant people and thereby for the whole of humanity.

Paul had a long view. Augustine had a long view. Martin Luther had a long view, Paul Tillich had a long view. The priest and author, Thomas Berry, had a long view. He not only had a long view for Christianity, Berry promoted a next Christianity that has a long view for the whole of humanity. He viewed humanity as an integral part of the planet. He saw humanity as Earth’s champaign of deep awareness and joyous celebration on behalf of this wondrously unique planet that can sustain life, including human life.

The Battle of Two Regimes

We who comprise the progressive portion of the United States voters and activists need a simple and easy-to-teach narrative about where we are as a society and how the various types of Republicans and Democrats relate to some “big story” of our existing conditions and our possible futures.

Before the beginnings of the industrial revolution in about 1760, there was only one regime of governance headed by a King or perhaps by a Queen, or perhaps by a Royal Council. These high class members of the traditional caste system controlled both political and economic life. The rise of the industrial revolution assisted by colonialism enabled the accumulation of great pools of privately controlled wealth. This wealth-power had significance in both the economic and political governance over the course of events. The economist and author, Robert Heilbroner, called these pools of wealth “the regime of capital,” This second regime of governance initiated a tension with the regime of state —a fight between these two regimes of powerful governance.

As the regime of capital became more independent, the regime of royalty was weakened and social space was opened for the more democratic form of state initiated in the United States and elsewhere. The democratic state retained legal and coercive force, but the regime of capital with its powers of investments and conditions of employment also possessed a strong governing reality in the lives of people and in direct influences upon the decisions of the state.

These elemental dynamics of history are important for seeing clearly the historical options we face today in the United States and elsewhere. Here are five styles of governing that are being pursued in our world today:

option 1: This style of governing is illustrated by the Vladimir Putin type of control of both the regime of the state and the regime of capital—both regimes are in the hands of very wealthy oligarchs of which Putin is one as well as head of state. This is the option that Donald Trump and his cronies favored and still favor. They lie about their poorly hidden dictatorial direction for their governing. Lying, misinformation, and deception in order to assemble support is a characteristic of this option for governing. When taking this option, democracy becomes a social veneer that has no real power over the course of events. Option one policies seek support from the super wealthy and from the long-enduring forms of the caste system—racism, patriarchy, gender, and so on.

option 2: This style of governing is illustrated by those U.S. conservatives who are quite critical of various aspects of the reigning caste systems, but who insist that the regime of capital must manage the regime of the democratic state. The policies of this political constituency are crafted to benefit big business leaders and their corporations. They claim that “business friendly” policies benefit everyone with a “trickle down” of prosperity. Many anti-Trump Republicans hold this view. A number of Democratic Party leaders and thinkers also hold this view. The majority of the Democratic Party, however, now hold the view that the “trickle-down” of wealth is microscopic compared with the “siphon-off” going to the upper classes. Option 2 style governing persons are also typically uneasy about a “too powerful” democratic government regulating the regime of capital “too severely.” In the view of U.S. option 2 policy-makers, “small” government, which they favor in the regulations department, does not exclude, “large” outlays for the defense industry, or “large” tax give-aways to the fossil fuel industries, and other governmental perks to the existing economic powers.

option 3: This style of governing is illustrated by those who view the need for a strong regime of democratic governing that sets the rules and enforces fairly and strongly the rules that structure the economic playing field for the players of the regime of capital. Option 3 policy-makers expect the capital-owning forces to control the micro-economic choices, but they maintain that the macro-economic choices are to be made by a democratic government focused on serving all the people. The still valued regime of capital takes on a secondary role with regard to the basic ecological, economic, political, and cultural directions for the society. The regime of capital is expected to be obedient to these large-direction choices made by the representatives of a democratic government.

option 4: This style of governing is more aggressive than the option 3 style with regard to the role of democratic government in regulating the regime of capital. The option 4 style of governing applies especially to those portions of the society that are fundamental for everyone. Currently, these topics include healthcare, education, energy provision, water quality, soil quality, air quality, basic transportation, internet fairness, and the building of a whole new infrastructure designed to moderate the climate. Option 4 directions on such topics currently include specific policies like: Medicare for all, the Green New Deal projections, and the long-range energy polices that will compel oil companies to submit their business plans for how they are going to phase out their product from its current massive use to a mere trickle in the next three decades. According to option 4 voices, this huge, but necessary, energy transition cannot start someday; it must start now. Under this option, energy companies (such as oil, coal, and nuclear) would start now facing severe penalties if they do not assist rather than oppose these necessary directions of energy transition.

option 5: This style of governing is illustrated by those members of almost every society who support some form of the “dictatorship of the proletariat”—the style of governing that we now find manifest in China and Cuba. This option has a slim following in the United States, but we do find a significant amount of appreciation for the accomplishments of China and Cuba in their ecological policies and in their ability to sustain a solid social order that is not ruled by the regime of capital. The obvious downside of option 5 is the absence of an ever-deepening democracy. Concern for the working population does not make a dictatorship into a democracy. Even if we agree that a strong state government may have been required in China or Cuba to put a ruthless regime of capital in its subservient place and keep them there, option 5 still amounts to a revival of a strong economic caste system—a “new class” as some critics have spelled out, a new form of dictatorship that resists serious challenges to democratize.

Naming Some U.S. Names

Richard Nixon in the U.S. story might be viewed as a bridge person between options 1 and option 2 politics. While Nixon had a strong enough hold on democracy and on international affairs to remain an illustration of option 2 polices, he leaned into “the unitary executive” strongly enough to be a preview of Trump’s more thoroughgoing option 1 authoritarianism. Also, Nixon’s “southern strategy” was a move toward Trump’s more fully developed white-nationalist appeals. And, Nixon’s “tricky Dick” politics pre-stage Trump’s more incredible lack of respect for truthfulness and fair dealing.

Ronald Reagan is a good historical example of option 2 policy-making in U.S. politics. He consistently supported the regime of capital over the regime of the democratic state—viewing regulative government as a “problem” and democracy as a process that needs to be “managed” by big business experience and loyalties.

Option 3 policy-making has been given prominence by Barack and Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and in 2021 is being carried on by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Whatever be the leanings that any of these competent persons have toward Option 4 policy making, Option 4 policy-making is better represented by Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ortega Cortez and an expanding “squad” of young women of color. Many other persons might be named as strong voices in one or the other of these two types of politics, but these well-known persons approximately define the trends of these two styles of policy-making.

Cooperations

Option 3 and 4 political styles can currently work together in their common love of a competent, strong, and thoroughgoing democracy—of, by, and for the people.
However passionate the differences between option 3 and 4 persons may be, they are currently able to cooperate on many measures of good government. They also cooperate well in their firm opposition to an option 1 autocracy laced with racism, patriarchy, or other forms of caste system.

The cooperation between option 1 and option 2 policy holders is much more strained than the cooperation between option 3 and option 4 policy holders. Indeed, following Trump‘s take-over of the Republican Party, those persons of option 2 leanings have become a much slimmer group of people. In fact, most option 2 Republicans are now conflicted between (1) their need for support from option 1 citizens in order to “manage democracy,” and (2) their reluctance to support option 3 and 4 lovers of a more aggressive democracy in their regulation of the regime of capital. Option 2 persons find themselves choosing between: (1) remaining a Republican voter in a Party that remains a Trump-ruled authoritarian body, and (2) choosing to become more strongly democratic, yet bringing some of their conservative leanings with them into the Democratic voting constituency.

If the cooperation between option 3 and option 4 remains strong enough to actually accomplish a large number of systemic changes, then a coalition of political power may come into being that remains in power for a very long time. However frightening large systemic changes may be to millions of people, not making these changes is becoming even more frightening to increasing millions of getting-wiser people. Also, realism in social affairs, however frightening, is also a source of joy and confidence—especially among the young, the oppressed, and the steady students of history. Reality in its Wholeness of Power is on the side of those who are living realistically. Though a tough taskmaster, Reality is producing our best case options. Fighting with Reality creates the maximization of our suffering, and realistic living, in spite of our setbacks, includes the benefits of more freedom and of simple joy.

Option 5 members within our U.S. society will, at least for now, tend to go along with options 3 and option 4 policies. But even for the long haul, I believe that the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will continue to be viewed by most U.S. citizens as a ditch of doom—an avoidable destiny almost as grim as the Trumpian ditch of doom. I do not believe that U.S. citizens will go along with or need to go along with the option 5 route.

“Democracy rather than authoritarianism” has become our core political conflict, all across the planet. “Capitalism versus socialism” has become less severe. Everyone is a socialist now, in some ways. And everyone is a capitalist now, in some ways. All realistically thoughtful persons are drinking water from both of these fountains of economic and political discoveries and action policies. Option 5 members of our U.S. society will do well to join the consensus building going on between the option 3 and option 4 democracy lovers, and forget any dreams they may have for a working-class dictatorship.

Ecological Democracy

If ecological solutions are to be forged and carried out for the big ecological challenges, a fuller and fuller democracy is the key correction that must be made in each society on the planet. Climate moderation is the biggest of the big matters among these ecological challenges. Without a solution to the climate crisis, we face irresolvable difficulties afflicting progress in all our other challenges. We have already delayed solutions to the climate crisis so long that many catastrophes are now unavoidable. But if we are to bet our lives on the emergence of possibilities for the survival of our species, we must now put the climate crisis first on our list of challenges and see every other challenge in that context.

I understand writers and teachers who recommend that we turn our attention to accommodating to the inevitable collapse of our current societies before the impending climate impacts. But instead of any mere accommodation to the collapse of current societies, let us imagine investing trillions of dollars in the search for ways we cannot yet see to replace these collapsing societies with better ways of doing human socializing. Several years ago I began advocating “building Eco-Democracy societies.” In order to be successful, building Eco-Democracies must not wait until after the current societies finish collapsing. Rather, we can take charge now of our collapsing civilizations—transforming the energies of these societies into opportunities for designing and building societies that are substantially better.

The great transition from hunter/gather societies to civilized societies took thousands of years. The transition from agricultural societies to industrial societies took hundreds of years. We now face the opportunity, and the necessity of doing our great transition in a few decades. In the next three decades, we might get half way there. Two hundred years form now, we may still be finishing up some elements of this transition, unless, of course, we have missed the turn with our further delays. This is a “long emergency” as David Orr calls it in his book Dangerous Years. We are being challenged to exercise our freedom in the light of this living now—to form right now a long view about which we can continue to be more specific.

The post Freedom and the Long View first appeared on Realistic Living.

Political freedom is something granted by a human government to its citizens. Essential freedom is something granted by an “Eternal Government” to its human beings. This is a big difference.

Political freedom is created by human beings. It is the gift of a human creation—the governments that we humans create. But our essential freedom is provided by the Profound Reality that we confront in every event of our lives. We typically flee from this freedom and get stuck to the places to which we have fled. Nevertheless, the miracle of being restored to our essential freedom remains a possibility. We don’t have to create or achieve this essential freedom. We don’t have to do anything to have it. We only have to surrender to the essential freedom as given to us in the events of our lives.

Essential Freedom

Essential freedom comes to us as a package deal with an essential trust in Profound Reality and an essential type of love (the agape that Paul says is the greatest gift). Ultimate Trust, Total Affirmation, and Complete Freedom come to us as an enigmatic wind—blowing through our fragile lives. Christians have called this package-deal “Holy Spirit.”

“Holy Spirit” is Christian vocabulary, but Christians do not own the real Holy Spirit. This Trust, Love, and Freedom is our human essence—accessible to persons practicing an other-than-Christian religion, or no religion at all.

In order to manifest our essential or Holy Spirit freedom we have to relinquish our flight from freedom—our fatalistic excuses; our compulsive addictions; our clinging to self-justifying moralisms, beliefs, delusory safety, and raw cowardice.

To understand the reality of Spirit freedom we need a deeper view of the word “Reality.” This capitalized word “Realty” or “Profound Reality” points to the Eternal Governing of all events. Such Governing is providing to humans their limited, but real freedom. Such freedom is itself awesome and downright terrifying because it entails uncaused choices, raw responses of our primal “response-ability.” The only justification for our free deeds is freedom itself. To manifest this essential freedom, we have to embrace forgiveness for all our un-freedom, and for all the consequences of our unfree deeds and even of our free deeds. To live in such an obedience of free responses to Reality requires trust in the forgiveness of Reality before, during ,and after each action.

Living within this Eternal Governance is opening to the reality of a perpetual fresh start on the other side of all our choices that were well or poorly conceived, well or poorly enacted. We never arrive at a state different than the one indicated by this phrase: “sinners saved by grace.” Such humility is the nature of the obedience of being our Spirit freedom.

Political Freedom

A human government does not grant Spirit freedom, and a human government cannot prevent Spirit freedom no matter how hard it strives to oppose it. So what sort of freedom can a human government grant? It can grant freedom to participate in the processes of governing, freedom of participation in the fruits of social living, and the freedom to quest for truth and to live by the truth we find.

Government can grant us the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government can grant us the right to own property that is our very own. Government can grant us the right to share in common properties such a air, water, parks, streets, buildings, transportation systems, economic systems, healthy environments, safety, protection from harm, etc. All these granted rights or freedoms are limited by definitions that protect such rights for other people and that promote the stability of the society to grant rights to anyone. “Justice” is a word that is used to indicate appropriate distribution of these freedoms to all people.

So how is the Eternally-Granted Freedom related to
these Human-Government-Granted Freedoms

Citizens of a democratic government are entrusted to use their Eternally-granted Spirit freedom to create and maintain the human-government-granted freedoms. The imperfections in the citizens access to their essential freedom limits the success of the democratic vision. Also, those citizens who choose to see themselves as elites who rule over rather than with and on behalf of all the other citizens, limit democracy or openly oppose democracy in favor of a more authoritarian, or even totalitarian form of society.

So democracy is always a work in progress. Democracy is never complete, even when a democracy has moved from democracy for male property owners to an inclusion of black former slaves; an inclusion of women voters; and on safety-nets for the struggling, the old, and the disabled. More democracy can also be about who is empowered politically and who is and is not given economic opportunities.

The idea that society must be a monopoly-game competition in which there are huge winners and big-time losers is an anti-democratic notion. A fully democratic society of citizen freedoms will manifest a balance between cooperation and competition, between empathy and personal striving, between personal power and personal benevolence.

Such an understanding of a perpetually improving, freedom-granting democracy is more revolutionary than our typical pessimism can easily embrace.

Pampering aristocracies while controlling commoners is not the only possibility for a sociological mode for human societies. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were beginners—escaping from total tyranny to a bare beginning of democracy for a some white, Protestant, male, property owners—a freedom that did not trickle-down, but had to to be fought for on behalf of both slaves and women, and it is still being fought for descendants of both these two groups and many other groups.

The expansion of democracy is a battle not yet over, and a fuller democracy is strongly opposed by powerful authoritarian forces. No one can openly watch the current news without seeing that a fight needs to be won for Muslims, for Hispanic immigrants, and for a huge number of unemployed, underemployed, and underpaid citizens. How can we revere the earlier victories for democracy and still let the U.S nation coast into a reactionary-white-nationalist authoritarianism?

So how is our Eternally-granted Spirit freedom related to our government-granted political freedom? It takes the exercise of our Spirit freedom to insist upon a political freedom for ourselves and for all others who neighbor us. If this sounds like Biblical scripture, it is because it is. Such activism is part of what was once called “being the people of God.”

How a practitioner of Christianity can combine their so-called Christianity with being in a hate group is just plain weird. If we do not want for all human beings the political freedom we want for ourselves, we have lost sight of the fact that God-and-neighbor is a hyphenated phrase in Christian scripture. If we do not care for the neighbors we see, we do not care trust, obey, or care for the unseen Profound Reality that is confronting us in the provision of these neighbors. So-called Christians who claim that their religion is separate from their politics have overlooked the very essence of Christian faith.

The post Freedom first appeared on Realistic Living.

Nevertheless, power-over is not in itself evil. Parents have power-over their children. This benefits the children, if such power is well used. Our political leaders (however they are selected) are granted power-over a wide scope of citizen life. Such political power can also be used in service of the citizenry, and such power can be misused very badly.

Power is an important factor in all social actions. As Paul Tillich spelled out in one of his most creative books, there is no Justice without Power and there is no Justice building Power or empowered Justice without Love (Tillich, Paul; Love, Power, and Justice).

Defining Power

The very word “power” includes the meaning of power-over something as well as the power to do something. The sun has gravitational power-over the Earth. The Earth has gravitational power-over our bodies. Inclusive Reality has power-over every partial reality. If we designate Inclusive Reality with a devotional terms like “God” or “Creator,” then it is clear that this Creator has power-over us and over all other creations. God is, therefore, appropriately symbolized as “Almighty.” Picturing this Almighty Creator as a character in a story or myth is poetic talk about Inclusive Reality. Such symbolic talk means that this Almighty Power of Inclusive Reality is the “God” that we have chosen to trust.

In Christian faith, the Almighty Power of Reality is trusted to be for us humans. That is what it means to say that “God is Love.” The Power we always face is for us. Realistic living is our best case option for the living of our lives. Making up a reality we like better is courting disaster. By “trust” we mean that we are willing to be submissive to being realistic rather than creating our own fabrication of Reality that we like better. Trusting in God means being realistic in our living before the All-Powerful Giver of our past, present, and future. That we humans are given a certain amount of limited power over our future does not in the least subtract from the fact that the outcomes of our acts (freely rendered or otherwise) are ultimately out of our hands.

Speaking poetically, we offer up our acts of freedom as prayers to a Power-Over us that will or will not answer our prayers of freedom in exactly the way we ask. All religious talk of an intimate dialogue with a trusted Inclusive Reality is poetry, but it is meaningful poetry about the essence of realistic living. Realistic living is an obedience to Realty—both the realism of facing our limits and the realism of engaging in our possibilities. Obedience to Reality includes accepting the gift of freedom and using that freedom in a realistic or responsible manner. And “responsibility” means something deeper than obedience to social law. It may mean creating better laws. It may mean enforcing current laws. It may mean disobeying laws when that is realistically appropriate.

Such realistic living acknowledges that our freedom is a limited power provided by the Absolute Power over which we have no control other than the limited freedom being granted to us by this Absolute Power-Over us.

Using Our Power-To Serve

Our lives are a gift of power to use in many different ways. With or without our consent, our lives are being expended day by day. Conscious living means taking in the power to expend, and then intentionally expending that power. That is, consciousness includes knowing our power, being our power, and doing our power. Like breathing we take in all the powers of our lives, and then we expend the powers we have taken in. Taking in our being born is the first taking in of our lives. Dying is the final expending of our lives. Taking in and expending is living in agreement with the truth of Reality. Our lives are given without our control. And our lives are expended with or without our intentions. Obedience to Reality includes expending our lives. We have named this intentional expending of our lives “love,” when we are willing to expend our lives for causes other than our own status, pleasure, honor, and foolish attempts at immortality.

In Luke’s Gospel Jesus is pictured as saying these last words, “Into Thy Hands I commend my spirit.” This can be interpreted to mean that the realistic person lives their whole life in the following style, “I give back all my gifts to the Giver of all my gifts—my life, my powers, my consciousness, my contributions and hopes for the future.” This giving back to the Giver of my gifts from the Giver can be seen as the basic essence of agape love, of Christian sainthood, of servant leadership in the use of my powers of life.

Such sainthood is not a stoic resignation or a fatalistic submission, but a practice of freedom—a creative, intelligent, freely selected life of service to whatever I choose to serve with my gifts in my personal, social, and historical situations of living. We can speak of being called, and we need to notice that we have always chosen our callings.

Political Power

Political power is often sought as an indulgence in pleasure, as a trophy of status, as a hope for unlimited control, as an opportunity to promote bigotry, or even as an excuse for debauchery. But it is equally possible for political power to be sought as a means of service, as a hope for having influence for good to the causes that call us. We see both of these political styles in the history of the world, often in the same person.

Political power is power-over other people and over institutions of governing, systems of economics, and modes of culture. One of the key issues that humans now face is about using well the political power that is granted to the citizenry and about granting adequate power to each and every citizen. Democracy means that political power is granted to representatives by the consent of the governed, rather than bought with money, inherited from a family, rewarded by an oligarchy, or conquered by violence? Democracy is a social process that favors consent of the governed. If democracy is truly practiced, then power is being delegated to power figures by the people who are then governed by that delegated power-over us. This citizen origin of social power has the immense advantage that citizens can insist that the power-over us is in the hands of servant leaders who serve the people who bestow upon them their political power. When these conditions are adequately met, leaders can be held accountable. If leaders fail to serve us, we replace them. And if it is big money rather than the citizens that is making the leadership choices, then we do not have democracy.

This democratic ideal is open to becoming a mere veneer on the surface of an undemocratic mode of governing. For example a particular so-called democracy can be limited to white-skinned property owners. Wars have been fought and power movements waged to extend in the U.S. political participation to people of color, women, and others. This means that democracy is always a work in process. Full democracy is always a future state. And the democracy we already have is always a fragile reality that the citizens of that democracy need to continually defend from the forces of tyranny that are constantly working to undo the democratic gains already established.

The deep reason why a fuller democracy is so threatening to some people, is that democracy means an undoing of at least 5000 years of kingly developments and practices. Similarly, fully honoring women and the feminine aspects of human consciousness is undoing at least 5000 years of patriarchal lordship over our feminine aspects. Democracy and feminism are two entangled revolutions in social practice that will not be completed in the lifetimes of anyone now living.

Sorting out the good from the tyrannical in our currently existing civilizations is a critical part of the complex social revolution that agape-care is calling upon us to support, invent, create, and finish.

Building political power-over the “maladies” of our continuing civilizations is a central factor in this planetary revolution. If we love this planet and its humans, we cannot reject embracing power-over the “wrong” directions of our societies. Rather, we must capture power-over the existing political fabrics on behalf of democracy, feminine liberation, and a long list of other malady corrections including many ecological emergencies—especially the urgent climate crisis being created by the massive burning of fossil fuels.

Building political power-over the powerful forces of reactionary revolt is the work of love. It takes love operating with power-over to create justice. We the democratically committed citizenry must hold accountable every institution of political power-over citizens—insisting upon servant leadership that serves the citizenry. Surely by now, our awakening citizens are fed up with hypocritical political non-servants who care only for their own egos and the wealth that public office can channel. We the citizens of our emerging democracies are being called to use our power-to-serve to build power-over these forces of injustice toward ever “more perfect” democracies on planet Earth.

The post Power first appeared on Realistic Living.

In the four years preceding 2011, five unknown visionaries, Ben Ball, Marsha Buck, Ken Kreutziger, Alan Richard, and myself, wrote a book entitled “The Road from Empire to Eco-Democracy.” This book named ten positive trends toward a viable and promising future for humanity on planet Earth. Trumpism manifests the opposite of all ten of these trends. If there were a Trumpite book on such topics, it might be titled “The Retreat from Eco-Democracy to Anthropocentric Empire.”

I am going to name those ten trends examined in The Road and give names to Trumpism’s ten retreats that are reversing those positive trends.

1. The Primacy of the Ecological Crisis
& The Denial of Earth Emergencies

2. The Energizing of Full Democracy
& The Undermining of Democracy

3 . The Replacement of the Fossil-Fuel Economy
& The Clinging to Fossil-Fuel Profiteering

4. The Reversal of the Population Explosion
& The Neglect of the Population Plight

5. The Liberation of Women and Girls
& The Continuation of the Drag of Patriarchy

6. The Completion of the Racial Revolution
& The Normalizing of the Curse of Racism

7. The Death Throes of Theocracy
& The Pampering of Religious Bigotry

8. The Obsolescence of War
& The Expansion of Military Industrialism

9. The Regulation of the Banking Crisis
& The Tyranny of Phantom Wealth

10. The Ending of the Horror of Poverty
& The Enrichment of the Outlandishly Rich

Trump and his hypocritical fellow travelers do not admit to these horrific retreats from these summaries of common sense and social sanity, but this deep conflict is what we see when we see the vision of Eco-Democracy. In this fresh view of the world, we see ourselves existing in a time of huge conflict in basic directions and values. This current condition of our history makes impossible the so-called bipartisanship of the earlier post-Roosevelt Era in the United States. We live in a new sort of “civil war”—waged not with rifles and cannons, but with words and protests and votes. We can also wage many decisive battles with fresh viable economic innovations, with local community organizing of activist energies, with court cases, with demonstrations, with innovative press coverages, with educational programs, with e-matter campaigns, with imaginative nonprofit agencies, and with more such available openings in the cracks of this crumbling world.

Primary to all of this is being very clear about the deadliness of lying, and the futility of being unclear with our words. For example, the words “capitalism” and “socialism” are so corroded with hate, exaggerations, misinformation, and down-right lying that these words have become almost useless. Trump’s actual cabinet of executives, in spite of their “capitalist” overemphasis, support “government give-a-ways” for the very rich with a very big government on their behalf. Reagan’s phrase “government is the problem, not the solution” may be the most misleading slogan ever uttered. Without government rules and regulations, there is no free market, no functional capitalism or socialism or any other economic pattern we might imagine. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is indeed a huge part of the solution to every one of the problems we are confronting. Such solutions do not mean turning over our freedom to the government, but turning over our government to our freedom as citizens. We the citizens are the government of a full democracy. To speak of government as “they” rather than “we” is a violation of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and yes even the flawed-but-gifted Constitution of the United States. Government becomes “they” when “we” stop being democratic citizens and expect strongmen oligarchs like the wealthy Donald T to resolve our issues.

Yes, we can be understanding of how frustrated working people can be when our so-called democratic institutions manage to neglect the crucial issues that commoners face, while also pampering the moneyed few with ever-expanding power, wealth, status, and contempt for the needlessly hurting citizens. Socialism is not the reason for this. Capitalism is not the reason for this. The reason for this is citizen apathy, foolishness, and gullibility to the lying, thieving, corruptions that we the citizens have tolerated for way, way too long.

We the citizens need to admit that we are too dumb for this job, that we have been dumbed-down by very, very clever oligarchs of the propaganda world. We have to start our revolution within our own minds, eliminating all the crap that has been infused into us. We are capable beings with capable minds, and the intelligence to use these resources of our amazing biology to shape a viable new world.

And if we want to even pretend to be servants of God in the Jewish, Christian, or Muslim sense, we have to become thoughtful about what is the truth that comes to us from that Final Reality we face, rather than from the liars that we must learn to defeat.

The Global Warming Climate Catastrophe is not a hoax PERIOD. That sentence expresses the sort of God-serving, Truth-telling citizenry we need to become—become NOW through simply surrendering all our foolishness and letting the truth flow into us.

To all you true atheists reading this spin, I want you to understand that I agree with not believing in the gods that you do not believe. I am attempting to describe what it means to trust in THAT Final Reality that none of us can escape.

For more information on The Road from Empire to Eco-Democracy, visit:

http://www.realisticliving.org/books.htm

The post The Road and the Retreat first appeared on Realistic Living.

I Love Politics

Ronald Reagan was wrong
to make “regulation” a curse word
and create disdain for government,
politics, and politicians.

I say, let us love politics
and piss on the private sector.

Let us make business obey the rules.
and let us create better rules—
stricter rules—and enforce them
immaculately.

If any business persists in
believing that it has “no limits,”
let us take away its incorporation.
Let us outlaw its very existence.

If billionaires insist on doing
whatever they like with the
billions that we earned for them,
let us tax them into millionaires.

And welfare?
Let us put everyone in society
on welfare.
Let us build everyone parks
and common facilities
and schools, and environmentally
clean places, and fresh air,
and fresh water, and sound ground
and nutritious food,
and safe products of every sort.

Yes, let us put everyone on welfare
by giving everyone a minimal safety net,
for all may fall, at any moment,
in this fast changing era,
into dire needs.

Yes, let us assure everyone
of a minimum of elemental support
whether they wish to work or not
whether they can work or not
whether they are sane or not
drunk or not
children or not
elderly or not

Let us decide together
county by county
what that minimum support
shall be,
and let us take pleasure
(those of us who have
more than the minimum)
in sharing our more
with those who have
less than the minimum.

And let us also honor work,
socially meaningful work.
Let us spread the privilege of work,
and let each of us be properly
rewarded for our meaningful work.
Let those who work receive more
than the minimum of social support.

But as we work for our proper remuneration,
let us not loose sight
of the truth that good work is fun,
that good work is a privilege,
the privilege of serving
our sister and brother humans
and our sister and brother living beings
with contributions
that are meaningful
to them
and therefore to us.

Work is not a curse
or a necessary evil—
the not doing of which
makes us unworthy—
unworthy of social support,
unworthy of basic esteem.

Our existence alone
makes us worthy of support.
Work, meaningful work is a privilege
and meaningful work needs
to be economically supported
so we can keep on doing
this meaningful work.

If our work is not meaningful,
if it is destructive or unnecessary,
let us refuse to do it.
Let us starve;
let us go homeless;
yes, let us even walk, rather than ride,
before we do meaningless work.

But more than that, let all of us
who have the privilege of meaningful work
make certain that no one starves
that no one goes homeless
that no one is denied the minimum
of transportation, health care
cultural enrichment, and meaningful work.

Yes, that is my politics:
PUT ALL OF US ON WELFARE,
for each of us may need it.
And let us make this welfare
an affirmation of our existence
not a disgraceful condition
or a temptation to
lazy indulgence.

And let us admit that all of us are lazy,
that all of us are indulgent,
the billionaire as well as
the impoverished dope head
roaming the streets
in a daze.

Let us admit that the
billionaire is also in a daze
the daze of having no limits.
Let us cure the billionaire
of this daze
by assisting him or her
to support the minimum
needs of everyone who exists,
as well as the needs of the Whole-Earth dynamic
that makes serving human needs
(and frog needs)
possible.

Let us convince
the billionaires
and even the millionaires
that only a small part
of their wealth is their very own
to do with whatever they like.
The rest of their wealth
is a public trust
a pool of public, not private, possibilities
which they must work out
with the rest of us.

Indeed, let us move toward
the realization that all
accumulations of wealth
are a public achievement
and a public trust
with which to serve the public
and to serve the public
as the public itself
chooses to be served.

Yes, let us piss on the private sector,
to whatever extent the private sector
does not voluntarily
abolish its private omnipotence
in public
service.

The post The Cry for Equity first appeared on Realistic Living.

We also need to provide a widespread forgiveness for everyone involved. And this “everyone” includes every U.S. citizen. All of us have tolerated this situation for decades. It is too late for us to be pious and righteous about lawbreaking. We, all of us, are the lawbreakers. And even worse, all of us are the passive, thoughtless irresponsible people who have tolerated these bad laws. So let us allow the past to be past and the future to be open to something fresh.

The notion that we should enforce more strongly these bad laws before we repent for having these bad laws is surely unethical thinking. From my perspective, it is unChristian thinking. Too many people ignore the plain truth that Jesus spent his entire ministry fighting such moralism.

Many of us are mistakenly worried about threats to the jobs currently held by African-American and Euro-American workers. The truth is that the threat to these jobs comes from a different direction; it comes from the typical attitudes of current employers toward all workers. Rather than support the rise of wages and respect for hardworking people throughout all the Americas, these employers work overtime to find the most destitute people to work for them and thereby drive down wages for everyone as well as export jobs to the cheapest places. This is the enemy, not Hispanic families that are so desperate that they send family members away from home through dangerous passages to foreign lands to put bread on their tables.

Also, we need to confess that along with self-righteous piety about lawbreaking, there exists an admixture of racial intolerance. Too many of us are too worried about seeing our English-speaking, coolly-rational culture invaded by Spanish-speaking hot-emotional, passionate people who might challenge our status-quo styles of living. In addition to having our new neighbors learn English, let us ask our children and grandchildren to learn Spanish. That would be the friendly thing to do.

If we want to actually resolve all these problems rather than massage our legalistic piety and unacknowledged prejudices, we have to open ourselves to making new laws and forging new attitudes, including a general forgiveness toward all the stupidity that has been operating for so many decades. So let’s not call this “amnesty,” let’s call it “Love.”

The post Repenting for Some Bad Laws first appeared on Realistic Living.

If the U.S. presence in Iraq is making matters worse, then those who are now dying and will die because of our continued presence are indeed dying in vain. If this war is a mistake, then the tens of thousands who have been wounded have made these sacrifices in vain. Again, this is not their fault, but the fault of all those who have promoted and permitted this war. These wounded warriors have a right to our respect and gratitude and to our provision for them of the best healthcare services money can buy. Doing this for them is a valid part of our nation’s commitment to conduct this war. But it can still be true that all this sacrifice has been in vain. And if so, then each veteran, citizen, and politician needs to face up to this truth, no matter how painful this truth may feel. Going forward, our policy decisions about this war cannot be made on the basis of protecting someone, anyone, from having some bad feelings. Our issue is a moral one and a practical one about what must now be done. Anyone who claims that this nation should stay in this war longer in order to protect persons from realizing that their sacrifices have been in vain shows their idiocy as a moral thinker. Deeper still, they can be charged with overt wrongdoing for manipulating the pained feelings of U.S. citizens with this ridiculous political speech. If this war has been in vain, then it has been in vain. We can even ask if it has been worse than being in vain. Has it been utterly delusory, incredibly incompetent, and even downright wicked? And if so, then the sooner we confess this and accept our forgiveness for this, the sooner we will have enough moral sanity to make good decisions going forward.

Also ridiculous is the political speech that claims that “supporting our troops” means “staying the course.” This is another instance of wrong-headed manipulation and outright disrespect for every veteran and every U.S. citizen.

The use of such political speech for justifying this war is an admission that good reasons for this war are missing, or at least secret. Using the above justifications for this war is clearly a ploy to stir the feelings of U.S. citizens in support of a policy whose true reasons are not being stated. So what are our true reasons for being in Iraq? Here is my carefully considered view. The true reasons for our being in Iraq were designed long before 9/11, long before the first Iraq war. The true reasons have to do with protecting the oil supply of this oil rich sector of the world from falling into “other” hands. It is ironic that some promoters of this war can also say that this nation should wean itself from its oil addiction. That is like an alcoholic saying he should wean himself from his alcohol while making big sacrifices to acquire a whiskey factory. Let us have some straight talk here. Do we want to expend ourselves getting off the oil habit, or do we want to expend ourselves protecting our oil supply? This question at least raises an honest moral issue.

There are other bits of political speech that need debunking. We are told that we are in Iraq to do something for the Iraqi people, “helping to maintain social order long enough for them to stand up so we can stand down.” There is a sector of the Iraqi people who want us to stay, namely those who believe that their current political empowerment would be vulnerable without our support. But there is a larger sector of the Iraqi people who suspect that our motives for being in Iraq are entirely in our own self interest and who feel violated that we presume to make for them key decisions about their destiny. If a fair vote could be taken among Iraqi people about our staying or leaving, we would be asked to leave. The same result has taken place and will take place as such votes are taken in the United States. Promoting democracy at home or abroad has never been the goal of our being in Iraq. We are there to control the oil. If we the people, whose government this is supposed to be, admit this basic oil-related purpose, then much clarity emerges.

So let us face this question directly, “Should we control the Iraqi oil?” We don’t want the Chinese to control it. We don’t want the Europeans to control it. We don’t want Iran to control it. But let us face the big picture: none of these nations want us to control that oil. And the Iraqi people, most of them, do not want us to control it. So if we want to make a positive contribution to the dilemmas of this part of the world, the very first thing we should do is renounce our right and our intent to control this oil. This includes tearing down our permanent bases in Iraq or at least turning them over to Iraqis. Then, there might be some chance of reaching some kind of international agreements on how this oil supply and the wealth derived from it might be best used on behalf of all the people of the planet. Our go-it-alone imperial nationalism does not please anyone in the world, including most U.S. citizens. Cutthroat competition with big military back-up is not the way to work these things out.

One last item of bad political speech needs our attention: “losing this war would be a national shame.” Losing or winning can have a thousand meanings. This is not a game of football where winning is clearly defined and the home team is loyally rooted for. If winning means controlling the oil, then winning is a tyrannical outcome. If winning means establishing by force a form of government for a people who do not want it, then winning is again both inadvisable as well as impossible. If winning means establishing an international consensus on how to conduct affairs in this West Asian, Middle Eastern part of the world, then winning could include a rather prompt withdrawal of U.S. military forces from that part of the world. When our political discussion focuses on this sort of winning, we might discover something for the U.S. government to do that is not in vain.

The post Dying in Vain – A Political Rant first appeared on Realistic Living.