Is It Time for a Genuine New Politics Beyond Left and Right?
© 2004 by Corinne McLaughlin
Regardless of what actual percentage either side won by—honestly or not--is there a deeper message in the fact that the country seems evenly divided between Red and Blue—Republican and Democrat—with no truly neutral umpire referring it? Might there be a real opportunity now to create a new politics? Despite the talk in Washington about the need for bi-partisanship and policies that transcend left and right, there seems to be little real insight into what might be found in the new lands beyond liberal and conservative that can actually solve our social problems.
To transcend left and right and create a better world, a fundamental shift is needed. We must address our polarized, adversarial way of thinking and create a profound change in consciousness at a deep level. Einstein reminded us that we can’t solve a problem with the same level of consciousness that created the problem. “Two sides disagree,” he noted, “because they’re both wrong.”
Behind each of our major parties today is a key principle or essence, even though our modern Democratic and Republican Parties may not clearly embody these essential principles. The liberal or progressive party theoretically represents the future, the next evolutionary ideas and the need for government-initiated change. The conservative party theoretically preserves the best of the past, makes sure that change isn’t so rapid that “the baby is thrown out with the bath water,” and emphasizes personal change. Clearly there is wisdom in both of these principles, and each is needed to balance the other.
Although there may be many good political arguments for third parties (as has been so effective in European politics), the two party system can embody polarities for us to see differences clearly. Often in life we can best perceive one polarity by experiencing the contrast of the opposite –e.g., the color red is more vibrant when seen at the same time as the color blue. The alternation between opposites is what creates consciousness or awareness on a higher level. On a material level it’s what creates electricity. The great poets know the secret of polarity and often put two words with opposite meanings side by side, as Shakespeare did in his sonnets. Just as each atom needs both positive and negative particles to be complete and create a physical object, so we need the best of both sides of a political issue to construct a clearer picture of reality and be more effective.
“All great truths are paradoxes” was a profound teaching of the ancient philosophers. In the great mystery schools of Greece and Egypt, the initiates were given training in paradoxical thinking — how to hold two opposing truths in their minds at the same time and then resolve them into a higher synthesis. Learning to do this could be an important skill for today’s politicians seeking to bring together the best of conservative and liberal ideas.
This is not to say that fighting and partisanship is always wrong or that all polarities must always be resolved or that common ground (or even compromise) is always the highest spiritual path. Each party has the responsibility to present their point of view with clarity and reason and allow the people to decide how much of their viewpoint to embrace. Also, there are clearly times to advocate for one side of an issue or to fight against injustice and mostreligions have a tradition of the spiritual warrior who defends the weak, for example). Although peaceful conditions can be fruitful for nurturing the spiritual development of a nation, for example, if the peace is an enforced, authoritarian one without justice, than forcefully challenging the status quo can be an act of spiritual power.
If the motive for bi-partisanship is not genuine—when it’s merely a power move disguised in idealistic language -- then it should be challenged, not embraced. Too often there are too many wolves in sheep’s clothing, cloaking their nefarious goals in ideals such as bi-partisanship. The motive needs to be to serve the highest good of the nation, as we saw with the facilitators that organized the bi-partisan Congressional Dialogues at Hershey, PA in recent years.
When the motives are at least relatively pure, there can be a real opportunity to find higher common ground and synthesis despite differences on policy, philosophy, values, etc. More effective and creative policies can result from a synthesis of the best ideas on both sides of an issue.
Synthesis is very different from compromise. Compromise is not the most effective way to deal with polarities, as sometimes the deeper wisdom in each side is lost. Compromise usually includes half of each position and can be seen as the midway point between two polarities:
LIBERAL __________________________________ CONSERVATIVE
^
COMPROMISE
We must broaden our consciousness so that we can appreciate the best in both liberal and conservative perspectives on an issue, and hold the highest aspects of both in our consciousness at the same time. We can use our intuition to raise them up to a higher level -- a true synthesis (visualizing a triangle with liberal and conservative at the base and synthesis at the apex.)
SYNTHESIS
LIBERAL - CONSERVATIVE
Then we see that a polarized political issue that seems to be an apparent paradox on a lower level actually resolves into a greater wisdom on a higher level. Georg Hegel described this approach over a century ago as: “thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.” From this perspective, we can craft more effective and creative public policies.
The philosophical dividing line between the liberal and conservative positions is a disagreement over whether social problems are caused by economic factors or by a breakdown in individual values, and thus whether government or individual solutions are best. Conservatives argue that the problem is with values, and so see little benefit, for example, in the government spending more on the poor. Liberals argue that having good values doesn’t help if there is not equal economic opportunity for all with a supportive social environment .
The policy deadlock in Congress is based on trying to separate economics and values from each other, with neither conservative nor liberal admitting any wisdom in the other’s perspective. For example, although the poor may suffer from some of their values and lifestyle choices (such as smoking), the poor also suffer from inadequate diet and a lack of access to health care, both of which can be helped by government spending. Liberals accuse conservatives of coercive moralism, and conservatives accuse liberals of moral relativism that allows evil to flourish.
Both liberals and conservatives promote important values: The liberal left especially promotes values of generosity, tolerance and inclusiveness. The conservative right especially promotes values of self-help, hard work and initiative. In recent years, conservatives have been very vocal in lobbying for religious values on issues such as abortion, gay rights and school prayer. Liberals promote government regulation in the economic sphere, but freedom in the personal sphere, such as the right to free choice on abortion or sexual orientation. Conservatives promote freedom in the economic sphere, but government regulation in the personal sphere. Conservatives used to promote states’ rights in relation to federal regulation, but not when it relates to key issues for them, such as gay marriage. Here are some of their opposing views on each side of an issue:
Liberal Conservative
Government is the solution Government is the problem
Corporate sector is the problem Corporate sector is the solution
Strengthening of federal government Protection of states’ rights in most areas
Regulation of the economy Freedom of the economy
Freedom of cultural and sexual expression Regulation of cultural and sexual expression
Protection of the environment Protection of business
Protection through equality Protection of rewards
Governmental redistribution of wealth Governmental protection of private wealth
Economic solutions for crime Law and order solutions for crime
Government spending for disadvantaged Personal charity for disadvantaged
Promotion of social justice Promotion of economic opportunity
Affirmative action for minorities Self-initiative by minorities
Encouragement of collective responsibility Encouragement of individual responsibility
Judicial activism Judicial restraint
Right to choose Right to life
Separation of Church and State Right to prayer in public institutions
President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address was so immensely popular because it was a masterful synthesis of liberal and conservative perspectives, emphasizing, for example, collective and personal responsibility, peace and strength.
Public Conversations Project in Boston discovered that a first step in finding common ground or a higher synthesis on an issue is to refrain from polarizing rhetoric and personal attacks and stereotypes of the other side. Toning down the rhetoric is critical and is also better politics, as it reaches more people, they found
A key approach in synthesizing liberal and conservative polarities is learning to really listen to those with opposing positions, to find the grain of truth in each. For example, Project Victory, based in Palo Alto, California, organized a “mediated dialogue” at the Los Alamos Labs in Berkeley for over 350 peace activists and nuclear weapons designers – the entire spectrum from right to left – asking people to enter a dialogue with a willingness to be changed by it. Because people really listened to each other, and weren’t preoccupied with making their own case of trying to prove the other person wrong, they each discovered new insights. A key step was to explore the interest or goals behind the different positions, and find common goals in their joint quest for peace.
Another technique for helping people transcend the left/ right polarization, used by Search for Common Ground in Washington, D.C., is to show both groups their own and their opponent’s propaganda films. Each side may suddenly realize that they both employ the same exaggerated portrayals to evoke fear of their opponent and to smugly suggest that their own side has all the answers. When supporters of both disarmament and strong defense sat together to view each other’s films, for example, it was harder for each side to hold onto certainty of its own position and act smug about having all the answers.
A synthesis of the conservative position of “right to life” and the liberal “freedom of choice” has been developed by Network for Life and Choice convened by Search for Common Ground. This approach honors the values on both sides-- the sacredness of both mother and fetus – rather than continuing the emotionally devastating focus on abortion. Instead of arguing about exactly when life begins, and whether abortion is murder, they instead reframed the debate to include the causal level (conception), and so found common ground. Both sides wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so they agreed to work together on promoting conscious conception and pregnancy prevention through The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Both sides also found a whole range of options on which they could work together, such as promoting adoption, reducing infant mortality rates, and preventing violence around abortion clinics.
The Character Education Partnership, based in Washington, D.C., has created a synthesis of the conservative interest in teaching values in the schools and the liberal concern for inclusiveness and diversity. Through the use of a common ground, consensus building approach among teachers, students, administrators, parents and the community, diverse schools from Berkeley, California to Kansas City, Kansas have come up with a similar list of values to teach, such as honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, etc.
A synthesis is also emerging from the conservative interest in promoting school prayer, and the liberal interest in separation of Church and State and sensitivity to the diversity of religious expression. One approach is to allow a few minutes of silence to begin each school day (where students can pray or meditate or just do nothing quietly). A second approach is an educational one that is more inclusive than presenting only Christian prayers. This approach develops understanding and tolerance, as students take turns researching and presenting the major beliefs and prayers of different religions (as well as of the non-religious humanist tradition). With each presentation, students can either join in the prayers or just remain silent.
Some effective models of synthesis are emerging in many non-profit organizations around the world. For example, the liberal urge to help the poor and the conservative emphasis on self-help and entrepreneurship has been synthesized by organizations such as FINCA and the Grameen Bank. These organizations give the poorest of poor in the developing world very small loans to start businesses and then depend on peer relations to pay them back, so the next member of the peer group can take out a loan. They have a surprising 98% payback rate.
Conservative principles of individual ownership and liberal principles of central ownership have been synthesized in the model of worker-owned cooperatives, such as the highly successful Mondragon cooperatives in Spain with over 20,000 workers. Mondragon businesses produce major appliances and have their own banks, schools and hospitals.
Liberal and conservative are values are also synthesized in the Social Investment movement – investing in companies that express good social values such as providing good employee benefits, protecting the environment or donating a percentage of profits to their communities. “Doing well by doing good” is their slogan.
The conservative approach to reducing crime through tougher laws and more police, and the liberal approach of providing economic aid to crime ridden areas and rehabilitating criminals has been synthesized into developmental approaches—restraint of negative behavior in the present and education in positive behavior for the future. One example is the Restorative Justice movement where victims and offenders are brought together on a one to one basis for reconciliation. After the victims hear the offenders’ personal experiences, and the offenders face their actual victims and hear about the pain they have personally caused, tremendous breakthroughs and forgiveness often result. The offenders frequently make voluntary restitution, and recidivism is lowered.
In the polarization between protecting the environment and protecting a free market economy, new solutions are emerging. A synthesis of the liberal environmentalist’s knowledge of energy-efficient ways to create products and the conservative industrialist’s knowledge of cost-effective production techniques is reflected in the growing new “market approach” to environmental problems. This synthesis includes approaches such as emissions trading (companies can trade emissions credits based on maximum pollution allowed); extended product liability (producers must recycle their products); performance based regulations; and the inclusion of environmental impact costs in business accounting practices.
A synthesis of conservative and liberal economic approaches can temper free market capitalism with other values such as community, equity and compassion. Balancing market efficiency with social justice could create a better society. Tax incentives could be created for corporations to expand the bottom line from mere profit to profit and values (such as greater employee benefits, “flex time,” or protection of the environment.) Competitive markets could be balanced by government policies that provide workers with access to job training, health care and transportation. Or the rewards of a market economy could be redistributed through a progressive consumption tax that encourages investment and assures a minimum standard of living for all. The government could create greater opportunities for the poor, but those who receive benefits would then be required to live up to certain obligations and give something back to society.
The “communitarian” or civil society movement balances the rights of the individual with the interests of society as a whole, and promotes a return to values and morality fostered by community organizations. The non-profit sector could be strengthened through increasing tax credits for donations from individuals and corporations and for volunteering.
To create a truly new politics that transcends left and right, new ways of thinking are needed. There are, as yet, no complete roadmaps. An expansion in consciousness is required and a developing ability to transcend apparent paradoxes and enfold them into a higher synthesis that will truly solve our social problems. An identification with the good of the whole rather than with just our own group’s needs will take us far in creating a new approach. A spirit of goodwill towards those with opposing views, a win/win rather than win/lose approach, a release of self-righteousness, and a compassionate, healing spirit are the keys to this new politics.
© 2004 by Corinne McLaughlin
Regardless of what actual percentage either side won by—honestly or not--is there a deeper message in the fact that the country seems evenly divided between Red and Blue—Republican and Democrat—with no truly neutral umpire referring it? Might there be a real opportunity now to create a new politics? Despite the talk in Washington about the need for bi-partisanship and policies that transcend left and right, there seems to be little real insight into what might be found in the new lands beyond liberal and conservative that can actually solve our social problems.
To transcend left and right and create a better world, a fundamental shift is needed. We must address our polarized, adversarial way of thinking and create a profound change in consciousness at a deep level. Einstein reminded us that we can’t solve a problem with the same level of consciousness that created the problem. “Two sides disagree,” he noted, “because they’re both wrong.”
Behind each of our major parties today is a key principle or essence, even though our modern Democratic and Republican Parties may not clearly embody these essential principles. The liberal or progressive party theoretically represents the future, the next evolutionary ideas and the need for government-initiated change. The conservative party theoretically preserves the best of the past, makes sure that change isn’t so rapid that “the baby is thrown out with the bath water,” and emphasizes personal change. Clearly there is wisdom in both of these principles, and each is needed to balance the other.
Although there may be many good political arguments for third parties (as has been so effective in European politics), the two party system can embody polarities for us to see differences clearly. Often in life we can best perceive one polarity by experiencing the contrast of the opposite –e.g., the color red is more vibrant when seen at the same time as the color blue. The alternation between opposites is what creates consciousness or awareness on a higher level. On a material level it’s what creates electricity. The great poets know the secret of polarity and often put two words with opposite meanings side by side, as Shakespeare did in his sonnets. Just as each atom needs both positive and negative particles to be complete and create a physical object, so we need the best of both sides of a political issue to construct a clearer picture of reality and be more effective.
“All great truths are paradoxes” was a profound teaching of the ancient philosophers. In the great mystery schools of Greece and Egypt, the initiates were given training in paradoxical thinking — how to hold two opposing truths in their minds at the same time and then resolve them into a higher synthesis. Learning to do this could be an important skill for today’s politicians seeking to bring together the best of conservative and liberal ideas.
This is not to say that fighting and partisanship is always wrong or that all polarities must always be resolved or that common ground (or even compromise) is always the highest spiritual path. Each party has the responsibility to present their point of view with clarity and reason and allow the people to decide how much of their viewpoint to embrace. Also, there are clearly times to advocate for one side of an issue or to fight against injustice and mostreligions have a tradition of the spiritual warrior who defends the weak, for example). Although peaceful conditions can be fruitful for nurturing the spiritual development of a nation, for example, if the peace is an enforced, authoritarian one without justice, than forcefully challenging the status quo can be an act of spiritual power.
If the motive for bi-partisanship is not genuine—when it’s merely a power move disguised in idealistic language -- then it should be challenged, not embraced. Too often there are too many wolves in sheep’s clothing, cloaking their nefarious goals in ideals such as bi-partisanship. The motive needs to be to serve the highest good of the nation, as we saw with the facilitators that organized the bi-partisan Congressional Dialogues at Hershey, PA in recent years.
When the motives are at least relatively pure, there can be a real opportunity to find higher common ground and synthesis despite differences on policy, philosophy, values, etc. More effective and creative policies can result from a synthesis of the best ideas on both sides of an issue.
Synthesis is very different from compromise. Compromise is not the most effective way to deal with polarities, as sometimes the deeper wisdom in each side is lost. Compromise usually includes half of each position and can be seen as the midway point between two polarities:
LIBERAL __________________________________ CONSERVATIVE
^
COMPROMISE
We must broaden our consciousness so that we can appreciate the best in both liberal and conservative perspectives on an issue, and hold the highest aspects of both in our consciousness at the same time. We can use our intuition to raise them up to a higher level -- a true synthesis (visualizing a triangle with liberal and conservative at the base and synthesis at the apex.)
SYNTHESIS
LIBERAL - CONSERVATIVE
Then we see that a polarized political issue that seems to be an apparent paradox on a lower level actually resolves into a greater wisdom on a higher level. Georg Hegel described this approach over a century ago as: “thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis.” From this perspective, we can craft more effective and creative public policies.
The philosophical dividing line between the liberal and conservative positions is a disagreement over whether social problems are caused by economic factors or by a breakdown in individual values, and thus whether government or individual solutions are best. Conservatives argue that the problem is with values, and so see little benefit, for example, in the government spending more on the poor. Liberals argue that having good values doesn’t help if there is not equal economic opportunity for all with a supportive social environment .
The policy deadlock in Congress is based on trying to separate economics and values from each other, with neither conservative nor liberal admitting any wisdom in the other’s perspective. For example, although the poor may suffer from some of their values and lifestyle choices (such as smoking), the poor also suffer from inadequate diet and a lack of access to health care, both of which can be helped by government spending. Liberals accuse conservatives of coercive moralism, and conservatives accuse liberals of moral relativism that allows evil to flourish.
Both liberals and conservatives promote important values: The liberal left especially promotes values of generosity, tolerance and inclusiveness. The conservative right especially promotes values of self-help, hard work and initiative. In recent years, conservatives have been very vocal in lobbying for religious values on issues such as abortion, gay rights and school prayer. Liberals promote government regulation in the economic sphere, but freedom in the personal sphere, such as the right to free choice on abortion or sexual orientation. Conservatives promote freedom in the economic sphere, but government regulation in the personal sphere. Conservatives used to promote states’ rights in relation to federal regulation, but not when it relates to key issues for them, such as gay marriage. Here are some of their opposing views on each side of an issue:
Liberal Conservative
Government is the solution Government is the problem
Corporate sector is the problem Corporate sector is the solution
Strengthening of federal government Protection of states’ rights in most areas
Regulation of the economy Freedom of the economy
Freedom of cultural and sexual expression Regulation of cultural and sexual expression
Protection of the environment Protection of business
Protection through equality Protection of rewards
Governmental redistribution of wealth Governmental protection of private wealth
Economic solutions for crime Law and order solutions for crime
Government spending for disadvantaged Personal charity for disadvantaged
Promotion of social justice Promotion of economic opportunity
Affirmative action for minorities Self-initiative by minorities
Encouragement of collective responsibility Encouragement of individual responsibility
Judicial activism Judicial restraint
Right to choose Right to life
Separation of Church and State Right to prayer in public institutions
President Kennedy’s Inaugural Address was so immensely popular because it was a masterful synthesis of liberal and conservative perspectives, emphasizing, for example, collective and personal responsibility, peace and strength.
Public Conversations Project in Boston discovered that a first step in finding common ground or a higher synthesis on an issue is to refrain from polarizing rhetoric and personal attacks and stereotypes of the other side. Toning down the rhetoric is critical and is also better politics, as it reaches more people, they found
A key approach in synthesizing liberal and conservative polarities is learning to really listen to those with opposing positions, to find the grain of truth in each. For example, Project Victory, based in Palo Alto, California, organized a “mediated dialogue” at the Los Alamos Labs in Berkeley for over 350 peace activists and nuclear weapons designers – the entire spectrum from right to left – asking people to enter a dialogue with a willingness to be changed by it. Because people really listened to each other, and weren’t preoccupied with making their own case of trying to prove the other person wrong, they each discovered new insights. A key step was to explore the interest or goals behind the different positions, and find common goals in their joint quest for peace.
Another technique for helping people transcend the left/ right polarization, used by Search for Common Ground in Washington, D.C., is to show both groups their own and their opponent’s propaganda films. Each side may suddenly realize that they both employ the same exaggerated portrayals to evoke fear of their opponent and to smugly suggest that their own side has all the answers. When supporters of both disarmament and strong defense sat together to view each other’s films, for example, it was harder for each side to hold onto certainty of its own position and act smug about having all the answers.
A synthesis of the conservative position of “right to life” and the liberal “freedom of choice” has been developed by Network for Life and Choice convened by Search for Common Ground. This approach honors the values on both sides-- the sacredness of both mother and fetus – rather than continuing the emotionally devastating focus on abortion. Instead of arguing about exactly when life begins, and whether abortion is murder, they instead reframed the debate to include the causal level (conception), and so found common ground. Both sides wanted to prevent unwanted pregnancies, so they agreed to work together on promoting conscious conception and pregnancy prevention through The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Both sides also found a whole range of options on which they could work together, such as promoting adoption, reducing infant mortality rates, and preventing violence around abortion clinics.
The Character Education Partnership, based in Washington, D.C., has created a synthesis of the conservative interest in teaching values in the schools and the liberal concern for inclusiveness and diversity. Through the use of a common ground, consensus building approach among teachers, students, administrators, parents and the community, diverse schools from Berkeley, California to Kansas City, Kansas have come up with a similar list of values to teach, such as honesty, integrity, courage, compassion, etc.
A synthesis is also emerging from the conservative interest in promoting school prayer, and the liberal interest in separation of Church and State and sensitivity to the diversity of religious expression. One approach is to allow a few minutes of silence to begin each school day (where students can pray or meditate or just do nothing quietly). A second approach is an educational one that is more inclusive than presenting only Christian prayers. This approach develops understanding and tolerance, as students take turns researching and presenting the major beliefs and prayers of different religions (as well as of the non-religious humanist tradition). With each presentation, students can either join in the prayers or just remain silent.
Some effective models of synthesis are emerging in many non-profit organizations around the world. For example, the liberal urge to help the poor and the conservative emphasis on self-help and entrepreneurship has been synthesized by organizations such as FINCA and the Grameen Bank. These organizations give the poorest of poor in the developing world very small loans to start businesses and then depend on peer relations to pay them back, so the next member of the peer group can take out a loan. They have a surprising 98% payback rate.
Conservative principles of individual ownership and liberal principles of central ownership have been synthesized in the model of worker-owned cooperatives, such as the highly successful Mondragon cooperatives in Spain with over 20,000 workers. Mondragon businesses produce major appliances and have their own banks, schools and hospitals.
Liberal and conservative are values are also synthesized in the Social Investment movement – investing in companies that express good social values such as providing good employee benefits, protecting the environment or donating a percentage of profits to their communities. “Doing well by doing good” is their slogan.
The conservative approach to reducing crime through tougher laws and more police, and the liberal approach of providing economic aid to crime ridden areas and rehabilitating criminals has been synthesized into developmental approaches—restraint of negative behavior in the present and education in positive behavior for the future. One example is the Restorative Justice movement where victims and offenders are brought together on a one to one basis for reconciliation. After the victims hear the offenders’ personal experiences, and the offenders face their actual victims and hear about the pain they have personally caused, tremendous breakthroughs and forgiveness often result. The offenders frequently make voluntary restitution, and recidivism is lowered.
In the polarization between protecting the environment and protecting a free market economy, new solutions are emerging. A synthesis of the liberal environmentalist’s knowledge of energy-efficient ways to create products and the conservative industrialist’s knowledge of cost-effective production techniques is reflected in the growing new “market approach” to environmental problems. This synthesis includes approaches such as emissions trading (companies can trade emissions credits based on maximum pollution allowed); extended product liability (producers must recycle their products); performance based regulations; and the inclusion of environmental impact costs in business accounting practices.
A synthesis of conservative and liberal economic approaches can temper free market capitalism with other values such as community, equity and compassion. Balancing market efficiency with social justice could create a better society. Tax incentives could be created for corporations to expand the bottom line from mere profit to profit and values (such as greater employee benefits, “flex time,” or protection of the environment.) Competitive markets could be balanced by government policies that provide workers with access to job training, health care and transportation. Or the rewards of a market economy could be redistributed through a progressive consumption tax that encourages investment and assures a minimum standard of living for all. The government could create greater opportunities for the poor, but those who receive benefits would then be required to live up to certain obligations and give something back to society.
The “communitarian” or civil society movement balances the rights of the individual with the interests of society as a whole, and promotes a return to values and morality fostered by community organizations. The non-profit sector could be strengthened through increasing tax credits for donations from individuals and corporations and for volunteering.
To create a truly new politics that transcends left and right, new ways of thinking are needed. There are, as yet, no complete roadmaps. An expansion in consciousness is required and a developing ability to transcend apparent paradoxes and enfold them into a higher synthesis that will truly solve our social problems. An identification with the good of the whole rather than with just our own group’s needs will take us far in creating a new approach. A spirit of goodwill towards those with opposing views, a win/win rather than win/lose approach, a release of self-righteousness, and a compassionate, healing spirit are the keys to this new politics.