Progressive Chess

Published by OpEdNews.com

A very interesting chess match is developing at the progressive edge of the Democratic Party, far more interesting from a strategic standpoint than debating the minor differences between the platforms of the two Johns.

The composite “John platform” is a middle-of-the-road Democratic platform. It is loyal to the existing power structures with just enough change rhetoric and populist messaging to keep people engaged. It feeds off the fear of the Anybody But Bush camp and is poll-driven since it doesn’t want to alienate anyone in the middle of the party. Both Johns seem to be good men but they are also more typical politicians. Let’s call them the Rooks since they are powerful and linear and represent the existing powers.

The progressive platform is represented by Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Al Sharpton. This platform is willing to challenge the Iraq war on fundamentals, argue for much stronger political reforms, champion universal health care, advocate for gay marriage, and a variety of bolder changes to the status quo. As the more veteran legislator, Dennis Kucinich’s platform is better developed, but he and Sharpton are mostly on the same page. Let’s call them the Horses since they are great for surprise maneuvers, long-term strategy, and non-linear positioning.

It was almost uncanny how the two groups paired off during the CNN debate, with Edwards taking every opportunity he could to touch Kerry on the shoulder or joke with him while the progressive candidates were shunted to the back of the table, with Kucinich almost off the set entirely. When the progressive candidates were given the floor and not merely asked why in the world they were still in the race, they gave refreshing, insightful, bold, and even funny answers. There was a palpable camaraderie between them and Kucinich and Sharpton demonstrated their ability to think outside-the-box, just like good Horsemen.

A telling moment came when Larry King asked everyone whether they would support a constitutional amendment to allow non-native citizens to run for president. Neither John could come up with an answer at first, saying they hadn’t thought about it. Then Sharpton made a great quip. And Kucinich gave a thoughtful, principled answer. For me, this was a defining moment, watching how the carefully groomed candidates couldn’t go off script, whereas the progressive end of the table could. The Rooks could only move straight ahead whereas the Horses could go off in unique directions.

This confirms what political beat reporters have been saying: it is dull to cover the Johns, since they are relentlessly on message. You get the same linear, speech-in-a-box each time. With Kucinich and Sharpton, you’re always going to get a surprise.

Now the Horses would probably not stand a chance of being taken seriously by the Democratic Grand Masters except that a new piece has been brought onto the chess board: Nader. Conventional politicos and Anybody But Bush fanatics are very angry about this and are trying to get people to ignore him or shame him. But regardless of where we stand, that chess piece is now on the board. We’ll call him a Bishop since he always moves at diagonals to the status quo.

My sense is that Nader is mainly in this game to leverage as much change as possible within the Democratic Party. In order to do that, though, he’s got to be willing to torpedo the race entirely. That’s how the power game is played. He wants major change in the system and it’s not going to come through the Republicans. The only way to break the deathgrip of the two parties on power is to reform the Democratic Party, bringing more power to progressives within the structure and then open up the closed system via Instant Run-off Voting.

The way Nader sees it, I imagine, is that two Horses inside the party plus a rogue Bishop starts to make for a fair strategic fight against the two Rooks. The Rooks will have to start taking the Horses and the progressive platform seriously. In this way, Nader gets real leverage, partially because everyone is so afraid of Bush.

The key person to watch as this chess match develops is Kucinich because he holds the power to keep much of the progressive base inside the party walls. Nader said in January that he would not run if Kucinich were to get the nomination. Although Kucinch has pledged his loyalty to the Democratic nominee, many of his supporters do not have that same loyalty. There are a sizable number of them in the ABB camp. But there are others who may or may not vote for a non-Kucinich nominee, depending on how much influence the progressive platform has going forward. These are the progressive swing voters. And there are still others who are Nobody But Kucinich (NBK). They are disgusted with the party, have often re-registered from the Green party just to back Kucinich and will not vote for any of the other Democratic candidates. Many NBK’s are simultaneously supporting the Kucinich campaign and supporting Nader’s efforts.

Try to bracket whatever emotions and judgments you have about the situation on the chess board for a moment and just analyze it as a game. This situation may well turn out to be a great boon to the Democratic Party, which will be forced into some structural and platform changes that will keep progressives more empowered, respected, and loyal. Otherwise, if Kerry, Edwards, Larry King, and pundits were left to run the show, the progressive base would probably just be disrespected in a way that led them to silently leave the party again.

There is thus a huge opportunity to widen the Democratic tent in a substantial way. The strategy that can achieve this is to make sure that Kucinich and his campaign keep potential Naderites within the party as long as possible, which in itself will keep Nader from getting as much traction on the ground. The stronger a Kucinich candidacy is, the more we will see authentic reform and progressive values in the Democratic party and the more likely the Democratic Party increases the size of the tent enough to beat Bush.

The problem is the hubris of some of the players, such as Larry King during the CNN debate. Behavior like his is wedge behavior: by disrespecting the progressive candidates he drives a wedge between the progressive base and the rest of the party. King, and all those like him, are the engine that drives a Nader candidacy. When they act to disempower or dismiss authentic progressive candidates, they drive them out of the Democratic Party. Conversely, if they start showing some real respect, that keeps progressives in. So the Larry Kings of the world either need to be gagged before they detonate the race entirely or become a bit more mature about respecting positions and candidates that are less conventional.

With more respect, media coverage, and votes, Kucinich can ensure that the progressive base is well represented within the party and fight for the serious reforms that will give more power to progressive voices. Nader aids this effort by being the Outside Guy threatening to blow up the race. Sharpton can lend his quick tongue and wisdom, also within the party. As he said in the last debate, his role is to keep Kerry and Edwards honest. With all three working in the same direction for progressive, meaningful change, we stand a chance of revitalizing the Democratic party so that its natural constituencies are energized and galvanized for the fall race.

The way I read it, most of the typical centrist swing voters are not going to be as strong a factor in the fall: Bush has polarized most people in dramatic ways. The real battle will be at the progressive edge to keep them in the party and it is up to the Rooks, the party Grand Masters, and the media to start playing smarter chess. Unless they ramp up the coverage, respect, and power of the progressives, they will be the ones that create another loss to Bush. You can almost here the sucking sound of progressives leaving the party every time Larry King and his ilk open their mouth.

So my suggestion to all the ABB folks out there is that if you really want to oust Bush, you should vote for Kucinich. It’s time to start playing smarter chess.

Kucinich the Kulturbarer

With current polls showing John Kerry leading at 60% for the California primary next Tuesday, I begin to wonder if our culture of innovation, independence and frontier adventure is beginning to fade.
 
C’mon California: Kerry?  
 
Two months ago, Kerry hardly registered on the radar here. Most thought him too patrician, too dull, or at least too conservative on issues from the Iraq war to NAFTA to gay marriage.   Few people in California contributed to his campaign.  Top honors went to Dean and Kucinich in terms of donors and number of volunteers.  Both have revolutionary fire and some shoot-from-the-hip West Coast attitude.   They are bold, authentic, and willing to rattle conventional opinion.  They give speeches straight from the heart and aren’t afraid to go off script.
 
Kerry is safe.  He is the frightened man’s bet for the race against Bush.  He’s the compromise candidate, a man about whom we will say, “I suppose that’s the best we could hope for.” He has the pedigree, the power broker network, the height, and the moderate positions on everything. When many people I know talk about voting for Kerry, it is with a sigh of resignation rather than the hurrah of freedom.
 
It does not have to be this way.
 
Californians have been seduced by the media trance that has ordained Kerry the winner.  However, we in California are supposed to CREATE the spell of the media rather than be seduced by it.  We make the magic of movies and push the frontiers of technology.  We innovate, pioneer, and explore.  We don’t march to the beat of the establishment drum.
 
Next Tuesday, I would like to see some spunk in the California vote, some fire to send to the convention. Let’s tell the party that we want substantial change.  We want a rainbow of color rather than shades of gray.  We want nectar of the gods rather than stale bread.  We want a Democratic Party that doesn’t feel like it has had the lifeblood sucked from it.
 
I don’t want to believe that California has sunk into numb lethargy. This is an oasis of idealism, a Petri dish for the future.  Do we really line up in the Kerry corral just because he’s won the popularity contest so far? Or do we set our own course and chart our own destiny?
 
Here is the simple truth:  if you are interested in positive social change on ANY front, from the environment to trade reform to peace to organic food to health care reform to economic justice to personal growth to electoral reform to busting corporate corruption to reducing discrimination to gay marriage, Dennis Kucinich should be your man.
 
In fact, if you have ever
… shopped at Whole Foods
… stretched into a yoga asana
… carried a protest sign
… read Noam Chomsky
… sung along to Bob Marley
… admired MLK, Gandhi, or Mandela
... bought Julia Butterfly certified products
… resented multinational corporations
… resonated with Ani DiFranco lyrics
… reminisced about Burning Man
… worried about child labor in Indonesia
… approached an issue holistically
… homebirthed
… or any of a thousand other things that put you a bit ahead of the change curve, then Dennis should be your man
 
That said, the great thing about Dennis is that while he advocates a boldly progressive platform, he does so with very ordinary, middle-class America packaging.  He’s just as comfortable with bowling and polka as he is on stage surrounded by hip-hop artists or a drum circle. He offers substantial, deep, visionary change in a way that everyday people can understand.  In his home district, for example, he’s made a business of converting Republicans into Democrats and now wins with 75% of the vote in a previously Republican district.
 
Dennis is like a bridge over which the major changes of an emerging culture can enter mainstream politics.
 
More traditional Democratic populations are vital in this cultural shift, and Dennis has impeccable credentials to reach them, authoring legislation that helps regular working class families across the board rather than a powerful elite.   However, it’s the folks stretching the change envelope that I’m speaking to at the moment because I believe you are the key to breaking this campaign through to the next tier.  You are the ones that lead the revolutions: the activists and the artists, the rebels and the dreamers, the eco-freaks and the idealists, the healers and the hipsters, the meditators and the musicians.
 
We’ve got to lead the way in reminding California of its roots and its destiny: to blaze brightly for the rest of the world.  Hawaii has laid the groundwork, with a second-place finish for Dennis and 27% of the vote despite a virtual media blackout. Let’s outdo Hawaii’s results in California.
 
So send a positive change message to the Democratic establishment by voting for Dennis next week.  Neither Kerry nor Edwards sends a meaningful message for change now. They are the safe candidates. If you want to play it safe and scale down on your dreams, they are your guys.  If you want to go boldly towards the future, Dennis is your man.
 
Making this statement is even more important now that the media tidal wave is sweeping Kerry along and threatening to wash the progressive wing out of the party and into Nader terrain. A vote for Kerry is now a wasted vote.  A vote for Dennis is a signal for change and a protection of the progressive base in the Democratic Party.  It is a clear notification that the NEXT America is waking up and taking a stand.  It states that the movements that have been gathering steam across this country for decades are beginning to feel their power and use it.
 
The Swedes have a relevant term – kulturbärer.  A bearer of culture.  It refers to someone or something that acts like a sherpa for a culture as whole, carrying it forward. In a very real way, Dennis is a kulturbärer.  He is an expression of the convergence of all the movements for positive change: social justice, consciousness, peace, sustainability, women’s rights, gay rights.  He’s at the leading edge of these trends, integrating them and talking about them in a way that conventional folks can really understand. Dennis represents an emerging culture that is growing up and starting to feel its power.
 
The only problem is that the emerging culture, which is actually vast, doesn’t recognize its potential yet.  Change movements have been splintered and thus have felt small. Together, they are enormous. The sociologist Paul Ray has studied this culture and pegged its size at 50 million in America alone.  50 million people that share an increasingly similar new vision for America and a new vision for the world!  However, they are stuck thinking of themselves as less powerful and less numerous than they actually are.
 
This emerging culture needs to feel its strength.  It can do that in a substantial and meaningful way by rallying behind a kulturbärer, someone to hold the torch in the public sphere.  Dennis Kucinich can be our kulturbärer.
 
Bear in mind that he may be ignored.  And ridiculed.  And dismissed.  And disrespected.  And you may feel pain when you watch it happen. But also remember that agents of change are always treated that way and that it is part of the process of cultural growth.  In that spirit, I encourage you to see that when Dennis is dismissed, know that he is taking that hit for you, for your children, and for the planet.  Someone has to carry the torch for the emerging culture into politics and as Dennis does so, the entrenched power structures will resist. That is why our kulturbärer must be so resilient.  
 
Fortunately, he is.  He’s perhaps the most optimistic person I’ve ever known.  He wakes up each day excited and hopeful.  Even after getting dissed, dismissed, and marginalized, he keeps his eyes clear, his heart compassionate, and his compass set clearly on the future goal.  He knows that he is carrying the torch for a movement that will produce a major evolution of our country.  Carrying that torch is a sacred role and he therefore carries it with dignity, optimism, and honor.
 
Do Dennis the honor of voting for him and supporting him so that a new vision of America can emerge.  It is time.  We are ready.

Healting the Rift

This article is for Anybody But Bush Democrats who have been focusing on examining the small differences between John Kerry and John Edwards' platforms and virtually ignoring the progressive wing of the party. It's time for you to get nervous. Sunday's announcement by Nader to run as an Independent brought a new variable into the race and it has become imperative to learn the lesson of 2000 on a deeper level or face the same splintering again.

That lesson is: progressives need to have real, ongoing power within the Democratic Party or they will abandon it. I'm not talking about respect or applause or pumped-up talks or hugs, although those things can be a good start. I am talking about the power to shape the platform, select candidates, sculpt the election process, and actually govern.

Without real political power, the progressive population starts to get angry and secede. It is a simple fact that, someone whose power as been taken away will attempt to take it back, unless they've forgotten they have a right to power. Fortunately, progressives are some of the most active, engaged, and empowered citizens that we have in this country. They are pushing the envelope of positive change, often doing work at high personal costs.

Take their power away and they will take it back, one way or another. This stance isn't anti-American or anti-Democratic Party. In fact, this country was founded by people who took a stand for their right to govern themselves. No taxation without representation can be translated into "Don't expect us to contribute into the system without giving us a voice to run the system as well."

Nader is like some of those founding fathers: uncompromising in his demand for actual influence in shaping the system. He's not afraid to become a lightning rod for the hatred of those whose power is threatened by his insurgency and "rebellion." I can respect that.

Nader's run is a wakeup call for the Democratic Party, which has really not learned the lesson of 2000. Its solution to 2000 has been to impose a guilt-ridden psychology of Anybody But Bush on the masses, attempting to use fear and subtle threats to keep that "mistake" from happening again. They villify Nader and his backers and call them traitors.

This blame game is basically a denial of responsibility. The Democratic Party itself is largely responsible for the loss of 2000 because it did not create enough legitimate power within the tent for progressive voices. Without legitimate power and representation within the tent, the folks who felt disempowered simply left it.

Anybody But Bush folks this year are going to have to face this reality, or THEY will be the ones who kill another election. We simply cannot take people's power away and demand their allegiance at the same time, unless they are slaves. It won't work. If progressives do not feel that they have actual power within the Democratic Party, a sizable number will take their power outside of the system and everyone will pay the price with four more years of Bush.

The calculus is that simple.

The task now is to figure out how to genuinely empower the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party needs to get serious about this situation soon, before Nader gains too much momentum and support. We have four months until the convention, which will be pivotal in revealing whether this lesson is learned or not.

Right now, most of the money and control in the Democratic Party is in the centrist camp, which is very corporate-friendly and special-interest influenced. Without significant money to bring to the table, those circles are difficult to penetrate. Those circles are also invested in protecting their power, controlling the shape and direction of the platform, and choosing candidates. The two front-runners have been virtually handpicked by those forces. The most powerful insurgent, Howard Dean, was crushed easily. And he wasn't even particularly progressive. The real progressives in the race are rarely mentioned, shunted aside, or dismissed as vanity candidates. That is how bad things have gotten.

That needs to shift. The Democratic Party needs to broaden its tent and give real power to progressives or else its political power will continue to dwindle.

The key player to focus on during the primaries is Dennis Kucinich. He's the only candidate who has the unqualified support of many progressives, including Ralph Nader himself, who said in January that he wouldn't run if Kucinich got the nomination. Kucinich's platform is boldly progressive and visionary. He's a man of the people who has known real poverty and has absolutely no strings attached. He's made a career of bold stances challenging entrenched and corrupt power structures. There is no one with more capacity to be the torchbearer for practical reform of the party in 2004. Not Howard Dean, whom many progressive look at suspiciously, despite his rhetoric. Neither John Kerry nor John Edwards. And not Al Sharpton, who has less direct political experience.

Dennis Kucinich can be the hero of this election by building a base of legitimate power WITHIN the Democratic Party for the progressive camp and thus save the election from Bush.

However, this needs to go beyond applause or lip service. It needs to happen in the form of votes, money, and influence. Progressives need real power and this is the formula:

1. Vote for Kucinich in your primaries to give him delegates and influence at the convention
2. Give him real money to wage ground and media campaigns.
3. Create enduring structures within the Democratic Party for progressive voices to have actual power. These structures need to be free of the taint of money politics, since the progressive camp tends to have a lot less money. I envision an independent, platform-creation wing with progressive change leaders convening regularly to shape and refine recommendations, as well as a strong commitment from the party leadership to champion these stances.
4. Progressive checks and balances on the centralization of power within the party.
5. Significant steps towards electoral reform

Kucinich needs to be empowered as an ambassador to Nader and other progressives who have broken with the party. Scapegoating and villifying only perpetuates the split and worsens the problem. Kucinich's job will be to listen to the real concerns and recommendations of Nader and other leaders outside the system and champion those changes within the party. He will also become the voice for those within the party who want deeper, more systemic change. In this way, progressives who do not have power will begin to be able to tangibly impact the system in an enduring way and gain more power in the long run.

The threat here is very real. Many Dean supporters are angry at the way they perceive the system treated their candidate and a good number have said they will vote for Nader even though Dean himself urges solidarity with the party. Many Kucinich supporters are privately saying that this is their last attempt to reform the party from inside and if Kucinich continues to be stiff-armed by the power brokers, they are gone for good and will vote Nader. This is despite Kucinich's statement of remaining fully supportive of the Democratic nominee. The thing to remember is that Dean and Kucinich do not own their constituencies. Many Kucinich supporters actually voted for Nader in 2000 and came back into the party when they heard Kucinich was running. No matter what Kucinich or Dean say or what the hatemailing ABB folks send, these people will not all stay in solidarity with the party if they honestly feel they do not have representation at the table. They will leave and take their power elsewhere. That is human nature and that is their right.

In my opinion, it's the moment of truth for the Democratic Party. Is it time to share power with progressives inside the party, thereby healing the rift, or have them sabotage this election from outside? Guilt, shame, and ostracization will only deepen the rifts. Real power and authentic respect is what will heal them.

CPR for the Democratic Party

Howard Dean, it is said, put the spine back in the Democratic Party. The question is whether that is the only body part that ails it. A year ago, the Democratic Party was like a zombie, staggering along, mostly obedient to Bush's demands for war, curtailing of civil rights, military buildup, and the siphoning of resources towards the elite. Activists and progressives watched in disgust, believing that the two-party system was further collapsing into a one-party system.

The loss of the 2000 election to Bush was blamed on many things. Ralph Nader and his supporters provided a convenient scapegoat. Election deceptions in Florida provided another. However, both of these were symptoms of a deeper issue: the Democratic Party was starting to feel hollow to many people. It was lacking passion - the red-blooded vigor of activists and the boldness to lead into the future. It had started to cozy up with the corporate and power elite, leading its moral compass to spin without a clear direction. It had gone soft.

This year's Democratic primary season has begun a resurrection of the Democratic Party. The first stage involved finding again the backbone to stand up to injustice, corruption, and deception. Howard Dean's campaign surged precisely because it put some activist attitude and plain-speaking vigor back in the party, especially around the Iraq war. Demoralized party members began to believe again in their power to triumph against the Bush administration. The Democratic Party stood up straight again rather than slouching. Howard Dean deserves kudos for this.

For a full resurrection of the party, though, more than a spine is needed. Another key ailing body part is the heart.

The heart of the Democratic Party has been on life support for some time. When I say heart, I mean authentic compassion, courage, and a deep sense of our connection as human beings. All of these have been waning. There has been a sense among working class folk that the Democratic Party has cared less about their issues or concerns, except when it came time to getting their vote. There hasn't been the same level of heartfelt compassion for those who are oppressed, discriminated against, or marginalized. Compassion for those in other countries has been similarly weakened. Finally, the deep sense of caring for the earth and all its species has diminished, leading to more tepid stands on the environment. There have been beacons of hope, such as the late Senator Paul Wellstone, but the sense of heartfelt care has palpably diminished in the party.

Another quality of the heart is courage. The word "courage" actually derives from the French and Latin words for heart. The strength of our heart is intimately linked to our ability to be bold or daring, to go against conventional opinion, to stand up for what is right, even at personal cost. The Democratic Party's behavior has been more strategic or calculating than courageous in recent years. Rarely does one say, "WOW! That politician is courageous!"

A third quality is our sense of interconnection as human beings. For most, this comes as an appreciation for the spiritual dimension of life. For others, this is the more secular vision of being linked as one planetary family. Either way, the heart touches something more profound than policies, personalities, and petty feuds. There is a sense that we are all in this together and that we have a shared purpose and destiny. For those in the United States, this also manifests in a deeper kind of patriotism, in which we are each helping our country blaze as a brighter light unto the world.

All of these qualities of the heart have been diminished in recent years in the Democratic Party. There are signs, though, that this may be changing.

One example is Mayor Gavin Newsom in San Francisco taking a stand for gay marriage in the last few weeks, opening the door to a flood of marriages and publicity. Newsom has put his reputation on the line with a bold stand against discrimination. It emerges from authentic compassion (for gays who have been discriminated against), it takes courage (to face the firestorm), and it honors human interconnection. Publicly recognizing a committed love beyond two individuals is the essence of marriage. In this way, Newsom's decision blesses the heart connection between people who have never been publicly honored for that.

This is quite beautiful and a hopeful sign that the Democratic Party might again be opening to lead forward with courage.

At the national presidential level, the heart is an especially potent ingredient in the Dennis Kucinich campaign. In Dennis, we find someone who declares himself a peace candidate and advocates for the creation of a cabinet-level department of peace. We find someone who champions the poor because he empathizes with their plight from his own upbringing. We find someone who goes beyond reform of health care to universal health care so that no one who is ill goes untreated. We find someone who champions sustainability and compassion to the degree that he is a vegan, eating no animal products. And we find someone who wears his spiritual understandings on his sleeve, unusual for the Democratic Party, which tends to keep matters of the soul separate from political discourse.

On a personal level, Dennis is a compassionate and generous man, clear that his role is to serve. In the campaign, the single most common denominator among supporters is the report that they fell in love with Dennis after hearing him speak. He speaks straight from his heart into the hearts of those listening. In particularly powerful speeches, there is a palpable sense of hearts opening in the room: tears on people's cheeks, a happy glow in their faces.

As a political leader who is running a campaign fueled by love, Dennis can bring an extraordinary gift to the party. Each presidential candidate, in a way, has brought a gift to reassemble the pieces of a more integrated, healthy, and whole Democratic Party. Dean brought spine. Dennis can bring heart.

Whether he is the nominee or not, this can be his gift to the party and to the American people. If we marginalize or dismiss his voice, the vast grass roots of people that love Dennis will feel again that their heart is not welcome in the party. We will move backwards towards the era of fragmentation, perhaps with more people splitting off again into a pending Nader candidacy. The Democratic Party needs to welcome Dennis with open arms and even celebrate his presence as a sign to his supporters that it is willing to undergo CPR and open to the virtues and qualities of the heart again. It should also look at meaningful ways that his platform can be advanced by the party.

To win the votes of the American people in the fall will take heart as well as spine. By supporting Dennis over the next four months with your votes, donations, and volunteerism, you can help to further resuscitate the party and make it an expression of love for yourself, your community, your country, and your world.

For more information on the campaign, see
www.kucinich.us

A Risk-Free Nader in 2004

Published by Alternet

Progressives, activists, Greens, and those who are tired of politics-as-usual have been attempting to strategize this year about how to advance the progressive agenda at a national level without jeopardizing the fight against Bush. When Nader hints at running again, a lynchmob develops. Dean carried revolutionary fire for a time but he is now vanquished. Some had hopes for Clark, but he is gone as well. Neither Kerry nor Edwards offers a strong vision of fundamental change of the actual system. The challenge we now face is how to promote systemic change without handing Bush another four years.

Whether by fate or luck, an ideal solution emerged Feb. 18 with the exit of Dean from the race. Dean's exit has introduced a risk-free Nader this year, with a parallel platform to the one Nader advanced in 2000. That risk-free Nader is Dennis Kucinich.

Kucinich's long-shot candidacy faces almost insurmountable barriers. A betting house in London places his odds at receiving the nomination at 200 to 1. However, Kucinich promises to keep campaigning all the way through the convention. He's got infrastructure in fifty states, a loyal base, a staff, website, and enough momentum and money to stay the course. His platform is as progressive as they come; even Nader previously said he wouldn't run if Kucinich got the nomination. Up-and-coming Greens like Matt Gonzalez in San Francisco back him as well.

That makes him PERFECT to be the risk-free Nader this year. Kerry and Edwards are not taking him seriously, so they are not spending money on beating him. He's also running within the Democratic party itself, so there's no danger of him being the spoiler in the general election. Kucinich has said that he will definitely support the Democratic nominee beyond the convention, so there can be no distraction from the focus on uniting in the effort to beat Bush. Best of all, progressives of every stripe tend to love Kucinich and he even has strong appeal to conservatives, who vote him into office in his home district by large margins.

By keeping Kucinich's candidacy alive and vibrant, many Americans who otherwise feel alienated from the Democratic party will be able to witness their voice and values expressed with intelligence, passion, and clarity within the party. They will stay engaged and have strong representation at the convention.

We thus have a perfect torchbearer for the progressive vision to carry forth the changes we seek and get them installed as much as possible in the Democratic platform without endangering the fight against Bush. The stronger Kucinich's backing and momentum going into the convention and the more his ideas are heard on the campaign trail, the more that will shape the Democratic platform.

Chances are that Kucinich champions exactly those things you believe in: peace, universal health care, sustainability, social justice, improved education, gay rights, and fair trade, as well as getting out of Iraq and repealing the Patriot Act. He even supports Instant Runoff Voting, the key to third parties gaining a real foothold in the political process.

In other words, he's just what you dreamed of: a torchbearer for the message you want to send, but a torchbearer who won't burn down the town by accident!

The other thing possible via the Kucinich campaign is to expose some of the dirtier deeds of the Bush administration without providing Republican strategist Karl Rove with additional ammunition. Kucinich is always willing to fight the unpopular battles when the cause is just. He led the push in the House against the Iraq war, exposed this administration's deceits around weapons of mass destruction, publicly took on the blackbox voting scandal with Diebold, and has taken on corrupt corporate interests throughout his career.

Another virtue of backing Kucinich is that he has absolutely no strings attached, with zero money from special interest groups. He can campaign on truth and principle, with no fears about facing Rove attacks in the fall or alienating his corporate backers.

The result: we get four months with a powerful orator and practical politician championing the progressive vision within the Democratic party. A four month, risk-free, Nader-like candidacy that actually has real traction on the floor of the Democratic convention and gets national debate coverage. No need to build a new infrastructure, face the lynchmob, or sit out the game. Four months to get the Democratic party establishment off its butt and moving forward.

Nader appears to be contemplating a run as an independent. The strategy of rallying behind Kucinich can effectively minimize the dangers of that AND advance the same basic progressive platform. Let's not waste this opportunity!

Sending a Message to the Democratic Convention

Published by OpEdNews.com

For months, I have been sending out articles addressing the psychology of the Democratic campaign, attempting to shift the beliefs that people have around the electability of Dennis Kucinich. Some of these were provocative. Others were intended to inspire. But all were grounded in a challenge to the notion that Kucinich was not electable.

Today, I will write from the opposite premise, assuming that most people are right for a moment: Kucinich is not electable this year, even if we love him and what he stands for. Where do we go from there?

Let's assume that you are one of the many people who is nervous about the prospect of a second Bush term. You are now faced with a situation in which the race has narrowed to two candidates who are deemed electable: John Kerry or John Edwards. The first question you need to ask yourself is this: is there a fundamental difference in terms of electability between these two candidates?

Edwards is charming, eloquent, and smart. He's got very upbeat messaging. He has lived on both sides of the tracks and can operate smoothly in both worlds. He is effective at connecting emotionally with voters. Less experience inside the Beltway can be an asset for him as a voice for change.

Kerry has the war hero past and much of the powerful machinery from inside the beltway behind him. He's got some statesman-like gravitas and foreign policy experience, as well as a fairly presidential look. He is wealthy but also seems to connect with the concerns of the working class. He can go toe-to-toe with Bush on military matters and he seems tough in general.

A lot can shift between now and November, so I maintain that there is virtually no way to guess who would be more electable versus George W. Bush right now. Opinion polls shift quickly. Youthful charm versus seasoned experience? North versus South? Rags-to-riches success story or war heroism? It's impossible to tell. The majority of Democrats would vote for either.

Thus, if your main focus is beating Bush, voting for Edwards or Kerry in your primary isn't going to matter much. They both qualify as Anybody But Bush and both represent solidly middle-of-the-road Democratic positions.

However, there is another factor that you need to consider in this race and that is: to what extent is the Democratic party able to keep the progressive wing actively engaged? The real election-killer will be if the progressive wing loses interests, stops rallying, or starts to splinter off with a Nader candidacy. The hints of this are already rumbling around the internet, with talk of Republicrats, media conspiracies, and a single system of power in Washington that we need to fight.

In other words, if your main focus is beating Bush, the game has now shifted. Either of the two leading candidates are fine. The MAIN danger now is if the progressive wing decides that the two-party system is actually a rigged, one-party system and that the game is stacked against candidates who advocate for peace, sustainability, justice and against the Iraq war, NAFTA and corporate domination of politics. If cynicism builds, feeding on the disillusionment of Dean backers, it could cost Democrats the election.

So your challenge in voting strategically now is not to decide between Kerry and Edwards. The challenge in voting strategically is to keep the progressive wing of the party fully engaged. This is true even if you belong to the Lieberman camp: without the more radical wing of the party, you lose the election.

The real issue now is what is the BEST strategy to keep the progressive camp actively involved in a real and meaningful way for as long as possible in this race. Kerry and Edwards, by virtue of their platforms alone, are not going to do it. Both voted to support the war, for example, which is a deal-killer for those who see the Iraq war as the main evil right now.

I maintain that the only viable strategy to keep the progressive wing of the Democratic party actively excited about this election now is to make sure that the candidacy of Dennis Kucinich becomes a much more powerful force in shaping the remainder of the race. The more powerful his candidacy by the time of the convention, the more progressives will feel they have an authentic, shaping influence on the party platform and an active role in the race. If not, they will splinter away.

Virtually all Greens and progressive Democrats love Dennis' platform but have simply been afraid to rally behind him because of the climate around electability. They have felt a split between their head and their heart. Their heart loves him, their head says, "unelectable" and therefore "dangerous." Heads have largely triumphed in this matter. However, I have good news to all the closet Kucinich-lovers: it's now safe! It's safe to vote your heart, safe to vote your conscience, safe to express your authentic views! The results have been coming in from across the country and we're approaching the point at which it is impossible for Dennis to win the nomination.

You can relax now and rally behind what you really believe in, without running the risk of jeopardizing the race. You can have fun again! In fact, if you don't do this now, you may be contributing to the loss of the progressive wing of the party and, possibly, the loss of the election.

There are some that think a vote for Dean's suspended campaign will still make a difference in terms of keeping the progressive movement engaged. I believe this is faulty logic for a number of reasons.

1. Dean was never that progressive, especially when you look at his track record. It was precisely the combination of his perceived electability AND his anti-war stance and progressive rhetoric that got people excited. Now that he has been removed from contention, the only question is how effectively can he carry the torch of the progressive movement? The answer is "not very." I do honor him for bringing the war front-and-center and for activating the movement. But now that the movement is giving up on having an actual presidential candidate to represent it, it needs to turn to a candidate who best expresses its values and views. Instead of a president, we are now looking for a torchbearer. Dean was compelling as a potential president but much less interesting just as a torchbearer.
2. Dean has already had his time in the spotlight. He has triggered important and substantial changes when seen as a legitimate, powerful contender. He will continue to have influence. However, in order for the progressive movement to find a more amplified voice in this election, we need a new and stronger progressive voice on the stage. Dean is no longer newsworthy. It is time to shift to the next wave of change, farther from the mainstream. That means Kucinich.
3. The media interpretation will be that any votes for Dean are the votes of those who are simply attached to him. The votes won't be perceived as a positive statement but a negative one: folks who refuse to move on. Thus, a vote for Dean would lack any sort of a media punch.
4. The media loves drama and positive surges. Edwards will be riding a crest of momentum and attention now because of his Wisconsin finish. If we can create that same surge of momentum around Kucinich, the media will be very excited since it will keep people much more engaged in the race (and buying more newspapers and watching more TV). Once Kucinich is in the spotlight, that means that his policies and platform will get that much more attention and thus be that much more influential in shaping the Democratic platform.

A quick note about Sharpton. I really like Sharpton: he's insightful, brave, honest, and very funny. He helps keep the voice of the non-white-male majority on the stage. However, I don't think he's the right person to rally behind as a torchbearer for a number of reasons. First, he doesn't have any actual influence in legislative processes, whereas Kucinich is co-chair of the progressive caucus in the House. Second, he doesn't have as much experience as a politician so his stances are not as well-articulated and grounded in practical politics. Third, Kucinich tends to see our potential future better, leading us towards such things as a Department of Peace, universal health care, and 20% sustainable energy by 2010.

Sharpton's campaign can also keep running by virtue of media coverage alone, even if he doesn't have the influence on the ground. Sharpton doesn't need a ground campaign. He just needs a pulpit to speak the truths he is there to speak. Kucinich, by contrast, actually has a strong grassroots support base. Until January 1st, for example, he had more people donate to his campaign, most in small amounts, than anyone but Dean. In terms of mobilizing the progressive base at a grassroots level, Kucinich's infrastructure is more valuable.

Now that Kucinich's chance of an actual nomination have shrunk to 200 to 1, according to one London betting house, Americans can look at him through the lens of being a torchbearer - a powerful messenger to the established order. And there is no better torchbearer than Kucinich. He:

1. Led anti-war efforts in the House and has a strong motto of "U.N. in and U.S. out"
2. Challenged the Weapons of Mass Destruction evidence from the beginning
3. Advocates for Universal Health Care
4. Has a 98% voting record for unions
5. Is opposed to NAFTA and WTO and even marched in Seattle
6. Supports gay marriage fully
7. Advocates for 20% renewable energy by 2010
8. Has "no strings attached" by virtue of taking no special interest money
9. Has a proven ability to challenge corporate corruption (and even pay the price for that)
10. Is willing to call Bush a liar and expose contradictions and deceptions, much more so than any candidate besides Sharpton
11. Has a deep appreciation of the spiritual dimension of life, which brings in people who have been alienated from progressive politics.
12. Knows what it is like to grow up in poverty.
13. Is an exceptionally talented speaker who has the capacity to really "wow" people with his insights.
14. Has an uncanny ability to speak to conservatives and win them over to the Democratic party and progressive views. In his home district, for example, which started quite Republican, he has swung momentum strongly to the Democratic party. In this way, he's a very good bridge to Reagan Democrats.
15. Has Nader's respect. Nader has said he would not run if Kucinich were to get the nomination. So long as Kucinich has a strong voice in the process, that may keep Nader out.

In short, Kucinich is the perfect torchbearer for the progressive message to be carried all the way into the convention and to keep it blazing all the way into the election. The more delegates we get him, the more influence he will have in the process. And if we can win California and perhaps a few other states, which I believe is quite possible if the Dean and Kucinich camps join forces, then we will have a significant voting block at the convention to influence the platform.

Finally, even if you are committed heart and soul to Kerry or Edwards, it is to your advantage to bolster the race of Kucinich. Why? He is willing to take on risky subject matter that might provide fodder for Rove to attack with his $200 million war chest. In other words, you can leave some of the risk and heavy lifting to Kucinich when it comes to challenging Bush on his lies. The party as a whole benefits by having this stance publicly witnessed but not necessarily seen as attached to the nominee. In fact, the more a Kerry nomination looks inevitable, the more beneficial a strong Kucinich-led movement will be to the campaign to remove Bush.

So breathe a sigh of relief! No more split loyalties. You can bring your heart and head back together and get passionate for Kucinich, knowing that this can only strengthen the effort to remove Bush from power.

Bush, Kerry, or World 5.0?

This was a very, very controversial article at the time. Make sure to read the Addendum as well, which was written in response to the heavy feedback....

As the mainstream media and voting public increasingly focus on Kerry as the man to beat Bush, I want to ask a provocative question, one whose answer is typically assumed rather than addressed.

Would a Kerry administration for the next four years ACTUALLY be better for the long-term health of our world than a Bush administration?

Many Democrats, blinded by disgust for Bush and his henchmen, proudly wear the badge of ABB - Anyone But Bush. Their assumption is that Bush is the absolute worst president we can have and we need to rally behind whomever seems likely to defeat him.

The Bush administration has done a lot of disturbing things, from getting us involved in an expensive, deceptive, and largely unjustified war, to rolling back privacy and civil rights, to creating a secretive, corporate-ruled, debt-ridden culture in Washington, to accelerating the decline of our planetary ecosystems. America has begun seeming like an arrogant empire to many countries in the world.

All of which seems very bad. Unless it turns out not to be. The reason I say this is that the most fundamental need we have as a planet is to move our structures of power and governance to a new level, rather like installing a new operating system in a computer. We need to become world-centric rather than nation-centric. We need to build the structures of international peace, cooperation, and justice. We need to address our massive global ecological crises. I am convinced that we need an evolutionary step up rather than slight modifications. Instead of going from the World 4.0 operating system to World 4.1, we need to do a full upgrade to World 5.0. Since America dominates the planet, our government and leadership are major determinants of how quickly that shift happens.

As dangerous as the Bush administration appears, it has also been acting to galvanize and mobilize the forces that actually CAN lead us to World 5.0. The problems of the current operating system are becoming much more obvious and much more painful. This pain and frustration can drive us to create another level of planetary health for the long term. The Bush administration arrived with a World 4.0 platform and has been heading steadily downwards toward World 3.0 in such a way that the forces of World 5.0 have gotten much more active, focused, and engaged.

This can result in a slingshot effect, allowing a powerful launch in the opposite direction, all the way up to World 5.0. To use another metaphor, an addict typically needs to bottom out before getting into treatment and getting clean. Bush is helping us to bottom out as a country with the current operating system.

This brings us back to the question of whether a Bush or a Kerry administration for four years would be better for the long-term health of the planet. For me, this boils down to how quickly and effectively either administration would catalyze the emergence of World 5.0, which is the only system that can address the issues we currently face. Is it better to have four more years of World 4.0 with regressive elements of 3.0? Or do we want 4.1, with a few minor improvements to the basic operating system?

My answer, which will likely infuriate many ABB Democrats, is that we are probably better served in the long term by four more years of Bush than Kerry because I think that would build the passionate, revolutionary fire necessary to make the great leap.

The reason is this: Kerry speaks the language of change but he doesn't have the track record of a change agent. He's only passed seven bills in his time in the Senate, if one Internet source can be trusted, and four of those were largely symbolic. He has voted for key parts of the Bush program - the Iraq war and Patriot Act for example - and is committed to continuing the war and even increasing the size of our army. He has taken more special interest money in the last fifteen years than any other Senator. He is one of the wealthiest members of Congress via marriage. A man who can pay cash for a $750K speedboat is going to be a bit out of touch with the needs of the working class. If we dig deeper, it turns out he's even a member of the same secret society as Bush, the Skull and Bones society of Yale. Finally, he's getting heavy financial backing from the executive levels of various media conglomerates.

In short, he is a World 4.1 politician - an establishment insider who is positioning himself as enough of a populist and "winner" to get the nomination. And it appears to be working.

My honest read is that if we elect Kerry as our president, he will do a mediocre job and more or less perpetuate the status quo. Given party power dynamics, though, he would still be running in 2008 as the incumbent. The Democratic party machine would not seriously entertain another contender. And then we would have two options: four more years of World 4.1 or a swing back to World 4.0 with a new Republican challenger. It would be 2012 and possibly 2016 at the earliest before we would have another chance for a president of the United States who is leading us to World 5.0.

I don't know about you, but that seems like a long time to wait if you are committed to creating World 5.0 and aware of the pain and suffering caused by the current operating system.

One alternative, then, is four more years of Bush. If we can get past our visceral reactions to the man and examine this through the lens of shifting to World 5.0, Bush is actually a great catalyst - the last hurrah of a declining paradigm, the ultimate foe for the forces of 5.0 to triumph over. He's almost a caricature of the last worldview. There's every reason to bet that if he's in office for another four years, we'll have a great revolutionary leap to authentic World 5.0 leadership for America rather than a compromise formation of World 4.1. Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.

I probably won't be able to bring myself to vote for Bush this fall, if for no other reason than I would feel guilty admitting it. But in a funny way I'd be cheering for him if Kerry ends up with the nomination. I want to live in the World 5.0 system as soon as possible and I think Kerry would actually decelerate that process rather than help it. I feel similarly about Dean and Edwards: both talk the talk of change but neither is really dedicated to the fundamental shifts necessary to launch World 5.0. Dean and Edwards are World 4.1 or 4.2, although both have worked rhetorical magic with their followers to give the impression that they are true agents of change.

There is, of course, one other option, which is what I've been putting all my energy into for the last six months: nominate Dennis Kucinich. I believe he's the leader we need for the new operating system. On all fronts, he is a champion for World 5.0 and he's got the specific platforms, experience, intelligence, and heart to pull it off.

The main problem has been a psychological one. Democrats have been so entranced by the ABB rhetoric and so afraid of Bush's war chest that even the most progressive factions have been stuck thinking we can't have 5.0 this round. We need to settle for someone who can beat Bush, they say, which means sticking as close to 4.0 as possible with a few phrases about change thrown in to appease the progressive wing of the party.

The problem with this logic is that anyone who is authentically, legitimately, and actively working for the emergence of 5.0 is going to run out of steam working for a candidate that is 4.1 or 4.2. They will get bored and lose interest. The youth won't get animated. The non-voting populace will grumble and return to non-participation. And the election will come down to a fight over the voting citizens who want something between 4.0 and 4.1. Those who are champions of the new operating system will be bored by the election and many will believe their time is better spent on local projects and initiatives.

I have been a passionate champion and campaigner for Dennis Kucinich and I continue to believe that we do have a window of opportunity to elect him as our president. However, that window will close in the next three weeks unless the trance is broken and the forces for World 5.0 rally fast around Dennis. I've been making peace in the last two days with the idea that if we don't have what it takes this time, we'll have a better shot at World 5.0 with four more years of Bush than with four years of World 4.1. It's grim but I think it's true.

There could, however, still be a major breakthrough of momentum. It's got to come from the youth. The gray haired change agents of the sixties aren't going to produce the breakthrough by themselves although we should honor them for continuing to carry the torch. It's people in their twenties and thirties who will have to add their rocket fuel. I also believe this burst of momentum can only effectively happen in California before the March 2nd election and that it would have to lead to a win. A second-place finish will not cut it. America only takes winners seriously and California is really the last hope for an actual win before it is too late. Without a win, Kucinich cannot build enough momentum to take the nomination from Kerry. With a win in CA, things could turn around quickly. So, we find ourselves with 18 days and long-shot hopes. But we can turn it around if the full vigor, passion, and power of the next generation of torchbearers blazes forth.

I have honestly done everything I know how to make the leap possible. It's now up to a lot of other people getting sparked and lighting
wildfires everywhere they can in service to the transition to 5.0.

Otherwise, I'm going to plan for four more years of Bush and lay the groundwork for the connections, momentum, and energy to make the leap that we really need to happen in four more years. But I would accept that conclusion only with a heavy heart. We've got one last hurrah, torchbearers. Are you willing to go for it?

Addendum to Bush, Kerry, or World 5.0?

After further reflections on my article of yesterday, I want to provide an addendum, which I would be grateful to you to circulate wherever the article is circulating (or attach this if you are sending the article). Internet forwarding can be a blessing for outreach but a problem when people think I'm a neo-fascist or, on the flip side, that I speak for the campaign or for Dennis Kucinich. Neither are true. Kucinich has stated unequivocally that he would support whatever nominee is chosen. I spoke only for myself and I now realize that I was doing some manipulating in the article that wasn't about truth but instead about my own fear. For that I apologize.

The thing which made some folks angry about my article was my suggestion that we might be better off in the longest-term view with four more years of Bush than of Kerry. They read that as me championing Bush and telling people to vote for him. I slipped over a certain line here and I see now how I was being provocative rather than just truthful. I stated the case more strongly knowing that it would provoke people, not because I thought it definitively true but because I wanted to detach people from the fixation on Kerry. In my mind, I am more worried about Kerry getting the nomination than a Bush victory because I think Bush is going to lose to whomever runs. It would be a very sad day for me to watch Kerry be sworn in instead of Kucinich, who I think can lead us to another level as a country. It would feel like a lost opportunity and I would take little pleasure in it. It would feel like a small hop rather than a leap

To be clear, I would vote for Kerry against Bush if it came to that (which I hope it won't). And it is true that I wouldn't be as impassioned about it for many of the reasons I outlined.

But here's where I got manipulative in that article. I was trying to tip the momentum towards Kucinich by undermining Kerry and playing the division card that has so wracked the Democratic party and resulted in Nader being the scapegoat for so much anger. In doing so, I was manipulating the state of heightened fear about the possibility of Bush's second term and the disasters it could bring to undermine the establishment candidate. The underpinning logic was, "Oh yeah, if you want to trot out a the same old kind of establishment candidate, then maybe I'll quit playing for the team." Which is manipulative, no matter how much other stuff I pad around it.

In reality, I'm personally not worried about Bush having a second term because I don't think it's going to happen and, if it did, I think the World 5.0 forces will be much more active, engaged, and exposing of the lies and corruption and thus catalyze a pop the next time around, just as I wrote. Whether true or not, that is my reality; I am more worried at the moment about a Kerry nomination than a Bush victory.

What I should have done in the article is be more direct and transparent about my actual goal, which was to dissolve the ABB fear-fixation. I think ABB is putting in danger the possibility of the Democratic party doing anything bold or interesting this year, when we've got an enormous opportunity.

The psychology of ABB is a form of personal disempowerment because it orients our power around the other, in this case Bush. There is no positive declaration of what we want in the world, no advocacy for what we see as true, right, and beautiful. We become so wrapped up in the oppositional stance, driven by fear, that we lose our sense of who we really are and what we believe in.

I think the ABB psychology reinforces a sense of weakness in the Democratic party rather than strengthening it. Swing voters and those who are typically unengaged are turned off by the ABB stance because it seems so negative (and it is). If anything undermines a victory this year, it will be the ABB stance, which also tends to make people more risk-averse, retreating to the center, hovering over polls, and generally being reactive, even attacking others in the party who voice alternative opinions because those are signs of division. In this way, I believe that the ABB psychology leads us to be more out of alignment with our democratic principles. I thus think it needs to be challenged in order for people to open to their deeper truth.

Nonetheless, I do have compassion for the ABB stance. For most, it comes out of personal suffering or an acute attunement to the suffering of others. And I know that there are a lot of very real people in very real pain. However, I think that when we set our compass by ABB, which is mostly what seems to be happening around John Kerry right now and the whole electability question, we undermine our very foundation and the positive, creative potential we have in us. And we could well elect someone who offers very little in the way of fundamental change.

So my article was meant to challenge the ABB worldview but I did cross over the line from speaking my truth into provocation. I have been afraid that we aren't going to make that deeper shift this time, even though we have a legitimate shot at creating World 5.0 leadership in America this year, which is what I personally really want. There is still an opportunity to make that happen but the horizons are short.

I apologize if my article tweaked you rather than provoked a better understanding, especially the parts where I went from truth into provocation.

All I really ask is for you find the truth in your heart and set your compass from there, working for the world you want to create. If Kerry is your man and gets the nomination and you feel passionate about him, then support him with everything you've got!

The thing I want us to remember, though, is that we do not yet have a Democratic nominee. We have a front-runner and 75% of America has yet to tally their vote. Before this month, people assumed it was all over and Dean was the nominee but campaigns can change quickly. We can still nominate Dennis Kucinich, not just for our country but for the new operating system for the world.

Wake Up Torchbearers

I often speak in softer tones in my articles, but today I write to you with fire.

Now is the time to awaken from playing victim, whining about the media, and scurrying about in a vain search for a sufficiently popular Democratic candidate. The voices for true progress are NEVER popular until the changes they carry forward are finished. History then looks back at them as heroes. Torchbearers who behave like sheep are not torchbearers. Torchbearers call a country forward with the sheer intensity of their will, the vastness of their heart, and the clarity of their vision.

When you succumb to discussions of electability, you are putting down your torch. You are wimping out on the larger mission. You are shrinking yourself to fit a socially conditioned box and you will not accomplish what you dream possible. You are effectively saying, "I can't do it, it's too hard."

The behavior of most Democrats these last months has been that of sheep, scurrying around and baaing about electability while chasing one candidate and then the next in an attempt to find out who is popular enough to beat Bush. But popularity is a function of which way the scared herd runs next, so it's an ever-shifting target. The main tool to motivate this herd has become endless rhetoric about winning, until most of the candidates sound more like football quarterbacks before a game than presidents. We are capable of more than this. We should demand more than this.

What most of those behaving like sheep do not seem to realize is that the wolf is strengthened by sheep behavior. Our insecurity is what will defeat us. Our power comes in finding our boldest, most authentic truth and standing passionately for that in the world.

Deep down, none of you are truly sheep. You are ALL lions who believe yourselves to be powerless and thus behave as sheep. Each of you is capable of greatness. Sheep behavior is a relic of your past. Let it drop away and stand as the leader you really are.

Our planet cannot wait for more conscious leadership in America. It has become a survival imperative that we grow into the next stage of our maturity. Our country must grow into adulthood, when we stand with dedicated commitment to compassionate, responsible leadership in the world. It is time for America to lead the world forward in healing ecosystems, eliminating war, treating the sick, dismantling nukes, feeding the hungry, and balancing the economic scales. Right now, we lead the world militarily and economically and lag badly morally. That simply has to change.

We are the only country powerful enough to lead the world to its next level of maturity and we simply cannot do it without a president and a government infrastructure that is compassionate, wise, and just. Our days of adolescent braggadocio must end, unless we want to run the planet into the ground. Bush and the corporate cronyism that buoys him must be relegated to the dustbin of history.

America's growth into adulthood is not going to happen with Bush at the helm OR with any of the media-chosen front-runner Democratic candidates. The media has dubbed them the chosen ones largely because they represent the status quo. They do not represent a fundamental advance but a slight improvement in the left-right swing of the pendulum. What we need at this point in history is PROGRESS. Real, authentic, deep progress on all fronts. The "main" candidates are not torchbearers for fundamental progress:

1. Dean carried the flag of transformation for a time but the simple fact is that he's not the real McCoy. He sensed the movement, spoke to the movement, rallied the movement but he lacks the vision, depth, and wisdom to lead the next stage. He's not particularly environmental or socially aware, and now he's in bed with the very folks he claimed to be usurping, which is how much of Vermont viewed him as a governor. The language of a revolutionary does not a revolutionary make. Dean's high-spending, rhetoric-fueled campaign is careening downwards. It should be honored for the gifts it brought, but it's not going to lead us to the next stage.
2. Kerry is a well-groomed puppet of the status quo who has now discovered the magic of speaking the language the herd wants to hear. I expect him to be knocked down as the public faces his real record: the MOST money from special interests of any senator in the last 15 years, Yale pedigree (even a member of the same secret society as Bush), big bucks, backing of the Iraq war, and a tendency to make grand statements and do little. A classic politician. The honeymoon will end. Anyone who is really committed to evolutionary change in America will see he's mainly a lateral move.
3. Clark is a fine seeming guy, but leading us to the next stage of maturity as a country is beyond him. He can hardly figure out whether he's a Democrat much less what his vision is for a revitalized America. Generals are meant to take orders from a Commander-in-Chief rather than vice versa. He's also green in politics and the presidency is a dangerous place for on-the-job training. Clark will not maintain the enthusiasm of real torchbearers for long. I wonder how long Michael Moore will last on his team once he no longer seems like "the winner."
4. Edwards is basically Dennis Kucinich's understudy. He simply takes planks from Dennis' platform, one by one, and delivers them with Southern charm and a handsome mug. Once the romance wears off, I suspect people will see him as a viable vice president. However, he doesn't have the experience, vision, or evolutionary compass to lead America's next stage.
5. Lieberman seems to be a moral and decent man but he's part of a dinosaur culture headed for extinction. He's not a torchbearer for tomorrow.
6. Rev. Sharpton is an exciting leader but he doesn't have chops. He would have no idea how to be the most important legislator in the world. But it's fun and morally uplifting to have him in the race.

That leaves us with Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis Kucinich is the ONLY Democratic candidate who is taking a powerful stand for America's next stage of maturity on every front. He has the specific platforms and programs that will create America's next stage. He's also got the experience on local, state, and national levels to govern. He is committed to going beyond war, to creating a sustainable energy economy, and to healing the social ills of our country. He walks his talk and stands up, even when that is not popular. He is also a world-centric leader, not just focused on narrow American interests. He's our first real opportunity for a planetary leader of wisdom and integrity at the helm of America.

Dennis is a major leap forward in a way that none of the other candidates are.
And he can win if the forces working for real change rally around him this month. It's got to happen fast. He's the leader we need but most people who can see this are still trapped in a belief system that we can't elect the man we really need. That is simply not true. Truth and justice eventually DO win. Always. Look at the track record, from abolishing slavery to winning the right for women to vote to ending gay bashing. Progress always wins at SOME point. That point can be now.

To do so will take shedding the sheep behavior and standing as a torchbearers. I say this to all of you who are working for positive change. If you don't stand up, you are failing your mission.

I maintain that if you care about sustainability and you are not passionately devoted to advancing the campaign of a man who is committed to 20% renewable energy by 2010 and walks his talk with a vegan diet and simple lifestyle, then you are wimping out.

I maintain that if you care about social justice issues and you are not blasting your email networks with words about a candidate who is committed to universal health care, repealing the tax giveaway to the rich, and redressing social ills across the board, then you are wimping out.

I maintain that if you care about consciousness and personal growth and you are too wrapped up enjoying the burble of your hottub to mobilize for the first truly conscious Presidential candidate we've ever had, then you are wimping out.

I maintain that if you are marching for peace and not shouting Dennis' name from the rooftops as the man who will get us out of Iraq and create a Department of Peace to make war archaic, then you are wimping out.

I maintain that if you are fighting corporate abuses and not trumpeting the importance of getting behind Dennis Kucinich, who has made a career of taking on corrupt corporations, then you are wimping out.

The worst, honestly, have been the leaders of the movements for positive change. While a wide range of them have endorsed Dennis publicly, they walk around like sheep saying, "I don't think he can win." They are not promoting him actively. They don't email anything to their troops. They don't rally their networks. They haven't started building the planks of the new White House. They just sign their names and disappear, as if the sheer majesty of their name is enough. They seem more content to work on some little area of change and complain about big picture issues than to dare, to risk, to rally for a man who can actually accomplish what they want to see in the world by leading this country.

Our progressive and spiritual leaders have wimped out on us this election, just when we really need it most. Some of them may come back around to being torchbearers for this election. However, many of them likely won't. It is up to everyone else to take up the torches that they are dropping until the herd gallops in Dennis direction.

Once the herd is turned by the torchbearers, every change leader will triumphantly claim that they've backed him all along but the ones who have been putting the money, sweat, and soul power into carrying the torch will know who really elected the man. It's not the sheep. It will be the torchbearers. Which can include you.

Now tell me, do you want to look back on one of the most pivotal elections this planet has ever seen and know that you were one of the sheep rather than one of the torchbearers? What if Bush is far weaker than he seems and ANY Democrat will win. What if the existence of such an exaggerated version of the last stage of America is precisely what can catapult into the next, and, at precisely the moment when boldness is possible, we choose the safest, most centrist of the bunch? How large a failure would that be? What if a safe, centrist military man keeps the juggernaut happily rolling forward to our ecological demise?

And what if the whole sheepish dialogue was precisely what ensured the global breakdowns we were so afraid of?

Our biggest failure may be in electing Kerry (or Clark or Dean) precisely when we need someone bold, visionary, and amazing to inspire America again to make our transition into adulthood. The Big Four candidates are simply not going to do it. The media is not going to do it. WE are the only ones who can do it and it will happen by galvanizing all the forces for social, ecological, and planetary transformation around Dennis Kucinich's campaign. Now.