I've quoted this passage from Margaret Wheatley’s book Finding Our Way: Leadership for an Uncertain Time before. I found myself thinking about it again the last few days:
The playwright Arthur Miller noted that we know an era has ended when its basic illusions have been exhausted. I would add that these basic illusions not only are exhausted, they are exhausting. As they fail to produce the results we want, we just repeat them with greater desperation, plummeting ourselves into cynicism and despair as we lock into these cycles of failure.
Perhaps the most difficult part of the last few years has been watching the American political system spend greater and greater resources on increasingly desperate attempts to maintain our era's exhausted illusions (which I discussed here:/oneutah.org/2010/12/11/our-exhausting-illusions). Time and again, pursuing a course of action whose only outcome would be failure, our elected leaders at almost every level have done their utmost to maintain the public illusions that have fueled American life for the last few decades. Those illusions are most firmly held - oddly enough - not by the most dedicated political partisans (who have their own set of illusions), but by the so called independents and moderates. The most exhausted and exhausting of their illusions is that of "bipartisan America."
George Lakoff generously calls such persons biconceptual - meaning they simultaneously hold positions consistent with both strict father and nurturant parent views on a variety of issues. Such persons may hold a strict father view on drug control or immigration but a nurturant view on child rearing, education, and welfare programs. Biconceptuals accept as a fundamental premise the idea that both sides have good ideas and not only can but must compromise, such compromise will yield superior outcomes and that such compromises inherently result in great social harmony and unity. This illusion is built around the idea that bipartisanship is an inherent ideal whose pursuit inherently benefits everyone and that partisanship is inherently damaging to the nation. Republicans have shrewdly exploited this illusion by refusing to provide bipartisan support even to programs they once supported; it has created the impression of partisan rancor. The biconceptuals among us have responded with a predictable cry of "a pox on both their houses."
The Blue Dogs and Senate ConservaDems are exemplary biconceptuals. Dedicated to the notion that both sides must work together they have again and again bypassed obvious policies and political opportunities in the name of bipartisanship. If you look at the health care reform debate, again and again they'd opt for trying to create bipartisan support rather than what was good policy - because the illusion under which they operate says that bipartisan support means a policy is better than one without it.
This illusion has exhausted us, it has sapped much needed energy and time from the political system. We've entered in a baffling period of policy drift when bad policies stay in place (i.e. the Bush tax cuts) because changing them requires abandoning the illusion under which we labor - frankly we're not ready for that yet. Not that it isn't time, but we're talking about moving away from an accepted political idea which has been fundamental to the way US politics has operated for decades.
Generally, at this point, I would bemoan the fact that so many "independent" voters can't distinguish Democrats from Republicans but that's actually not the problem. Biconceptual voters aren't confused in the traditional way of thinking. Instead, they operate from a place in which both conservative and progressive approaches make sense depending on the issue in the foreground. All of politics is a longterm campaign to shape the national discourse and awareness by keeping specific issues at the forefront of national discussion. As the issues shift, different narratives are activated and people's voting habits can shift.
What has happened, interestingly, has been that biconceptual voters have elected biconceptual dems but strict father Republicans. The result is a national policy that moves noticeably right. Opposition to things like Social Security is a classic conservative position; the most ardent conservatives have always supported it. Such conservatives succeed in Republican primaries because the most ardent conservative vote in those primaries. By contrast, the Democratic base tends to be more ideologically heterogeneous. So you get biconceptual Democratic office holders. It's important to note that in terms of actual policy, even most Republican voters hold a host of positions that are to the left of many Republican politicians.
Republicans are more ideologically unified than Democrats. Operationally that has allowed them greater speed and flexibility. To go back to Margaret Wheatley, they know who they are, what their resources are and what they want. It allows them to respond more quickly to changing circumstances without losing sight of their goals. The rapid rise of the tea baggers in early 2009 is a good example; these are just Republicans who are angry. Having lost the White House, they simply shifted tactics without ever shifting their strategy.
In stark contrast, the Democratic party couldn't seem to get out of the starting gate in opposing the Bush administration or responding to the tea baggers. Like many voters, Democrats haven't clarified who they and what they stand for, and the rare occassions they do so, the unity is built around a specific issue rather than a broad moral vision. A good friend who does a lot of work on institutional and organizational change argue that every five to seven years, every organizatio needs to revisit and articulate its core values and positions. Those positions may or may not change, but they have to be reaffirmed and kept fresh. Sometimes just restating old positions in new language serves the purpose.
In Leadership and the New Science, Margeret Wheatley makes the counter-intuitive argument that the most effective organizations are those which are constantly shifting and changing in response to the environment. She recounts stories of companies that grew more successful when they realized their organizational membrane needed to be permeable - open to the surrounding environment in such a way that it received constant input, but which also allowed it go to more deeply into its own identity. Counterintuitively, success depends on being deeply in touch with your own identity while also being deeply committed to change.
Identity is not the same thing as process. Identity is about the way in which core values are embodied in who we are and what we do. If you go back to the exhausted illusion of bipartisan America, you see a profound commitment to the idea that we all need to get along - that getting along is a core value. In response to the very public disagreements of the 1960s, this illusion emerged to tell us that we're really past all that unpleasantness. I believe you can make a compelling case that this illusion is a pathological response - papering over real differences in an attempt to comfort people rather than solve national problems. At the same time, the illusion itself is, or should be, instructive. The desire for national unity is grounded in a healthy patriotism, a genuine desire to forge an national identity that can be shared by all Americans. Held in tension in this view is the idea that blacks and racists should be able to have a constructive discussion and walk away with respect for one another, that gays and conservative Christian can and should engage in constructive discussion and walk away with respect for another, that labor unions and corporations can do the same. Confrontation is seen an attack on that dialogue. The resonance of the dishonest Republican line about "class warfare" makes sense when seen in that light.
The illusion itself is leading us deeper into a cycle of failure. The Republican governors and state legislatures pursuing unpopular legislative strategies are doing what conservatives always do - we can't be too surprised at it, yet many voters are precisely because they were trapped in an illusion. And so these Republicans will probably be chased from office. But the damage will have been done and their replacements won't be able to fix it fast enough and the cycle will begin again. Democratic yearning for a new New Deal, a new FDR will be frustrated by politicians held captive to a way of thinking that cannot work. Government dysfunction feeds the notion that the problem is a lack of bipartisanship, a lack of compromise and cooperation. We've fallen into a systemic feedback loop in which failure begets failure. It's a systemic problem, fed by systemic forces and assumptions that create strong momentum to not change.
How do you make systemic change?
This is where I wander into strange territory.
Our system has become disconnected from itself. Think about it - the priorities of our leaders are not the priorities of our citizens. In some cases, it's a matter emphasis - health care reform rather than job creation; in other cases it's a matter of complete inversion - tax cuts and union busting for instance both of which are very unpopular. A system that is disconnected from itself will always deliver flawed results.
We have to start by connecting with ourselves. The 2008 election was breathtaking and exciting because it felt as if the Obama campaign was in touch with Americans. They were. But after the election, that changed; the disconnect grew. Americans wanted a transformational leader and elected one who become transactional. He cut deals and got legislation passed but that's not enough. We want more and better. We got more of the same. Republican voters voted for transformation, like the rest of us they were yearning for something better. It's difficult not to see tea baggers protesting against programs they love and realize that something far beyond policy has gone wrong.
We have to clarify our values and keep telling them over and over again. We are moral animals and we are storytelling animals. We have to make are values known and we have to connect them to America at its best because they are American values at their best.
In her writings, Margaret Wheatley recommends a period of cooling, a time to reflect on situations. Our cycle of failure makes that difficult. Circumstances keep arising that demand response. We can't just stop. But we can create intentional times and places of calm. We have to move from crisis mode to something else - yes, we have situations which require us to act, but we must make haste slowly.
There's a story from China. A young student sets out, late in the day, on a journey from his teacher's house to the nearby city. If he doesn't arrive by dark, the gates will be locked and he will be unable to get home. As he bundles his papers, the teacher tells him to make haste slowly. The student sets out for the city; at first he walks, maintaing a brisk but not exhausting pace; as it nears dark, he picks up his pace; within sight of the city gates, he begins to run. At that moment, the tie binding his papers breaks and they scatter to the ground. By the time he gathers them up, night has fallen and the gates have been locked.
Unnecessary haste can be the enemy of progress. Progressives need to be the public voice of reason - countering the conservative voices that push us toward crisis and show down.
Hiking into Havasupai from Hualapai Hilltop can be a challenging hike. The first mile is steep, downhill, with lots switchbacks and little shade. That means coming back to Hualapai Hilltop, the last might is steep, uphill, with lots of switchback and little shade. The first two miles out of Havasupai are beautiful - trees and streams and shade. You want to linger. It's beautiful in the morning. But if you linger, you'll be at the shadeless switchbacks in the hottest part of the day. Knowing that, you have to make a choice. You can thoroughly enjoy your morning stroll or you can avoid the heat.
We have to plan all the way to the end. Progressives need to know that there will be an almighty shitstorm from conservatives every time we propose anything. We have to include that in our plans. We also need to know it's mostly show and not get distracted by it. Too many Democrats got spooked by the tea baggers, distracted from what matters. The conservative tactic isn't to make a point, it's to make a fuss and confuse independents and intimidate conservative Dems. It works because we keep getting caught flat footed. Lots of times, we could head off the shitstorm if only we planned for it. Remind people what happens, tell them people are going to do it, and then remind them you told them - the impact will diminish greatly.
In the Uinta Mountains, Bald Mountain climbs above the treeline. It's an easy hike to the peak, almost 12000 feet elevation. From the top of the mountain, you have stunning views - I swear you can see almost all the way to Salt Lake City on a clear day. There's a spot - just near the top - where you traverse a relatively short distance but which is always the most difficult for me. On the right, there's a sheer drop. On the left, rocks. It's almost at the top and its dizzying and terrifying. Take a deep breath, walk slowly and you're there. It's easy to get turned back, to think it will be too hard or too scary.
Keep your eyes focused on the goal and keep moving. On Bald Mountain, the goal is amazing. And if you turn at the last minute, you miss it. You gotta keep going.
Many years ago, we took our horses up the canyon for a day of riding. When it was time to come home, my sister's horse (as my sister had trained her to do) turned straight down the hill, flattened her ears back and charged down the hill in a minilandslide of rocks and dust and branches. My horse, trained by me, worked his way down the hill, kept his balance and criss crossed back and forth, finding a route that used my horse's natural skills. My sister arrived at the bottom of the hill about 60 seconds before I did. She was covered with dust, had scratches on arms and her horse's sides were heaving. My horse and I arrived, calm and unharmed.
Know your resources and how to use them wisely. As progressives, our resources are great ideas and great people, networks of people across the country. We need to active those things. We can outfundraise the Republicans if we have to, but we don't have to. We have the people power.
My sister and her horse didn't pay attention - the trees they were going through were covered in stickers. It took my sister hours to groom them out of her horse's coat. I saw the stickers and my horse and I walked around them. My sister didn't pay attention to her environment, didn't "listen" for its feedback. I did. We both got down the hill, but only one of us didn't have scratches and sticker everywhere.
To win, to break the cycle of failure, we have to know who we are as a nation and we have to connect ourselves; that's a story progressives can tell and tell convincingly. We have to know what we want. And we have to know our resources and pay attention to our environment. We have to break the cycle by doing better as progressives. We have a clear vision and it's one that persuaded millions of Americans in 2008. We lost that vision in 2009 and 2010 and paid the price. We have to get it back; we have to change the public discussion. We can't change biconceptuals, but we can persuade them by changing ourselves.