Towards a More Competitive Left

Today, my pendulum of analysis swings back to the left to look at what needs to happen for the liberal wing to evolve to the next level. I will focus on a single aspect of that evolution: competition.

Competition is often perceived as an unseemly thing on the left, rather beneath the lofty ideals and generous rhetoric. Competition is seen as overly masculine, polarizing, and ego-inflating. It’s far more enticing to deal in pleasing platitudes and discuss alliances and win-win solutions.

The truth is, though, that political power is gained and lost through as fiercely competitive a game as exists, one in which all of the forces in a society, from big money to labor unions, from backroom insiders to media pundits, are all competing to influence minds and garner votes.

We can be high-minded and consecrate our efforts to the greatest good for the planet but the simple fact is that without power, we do not get to implement our fantastic win-win ideas – we can only influence those who ARE in power. Once in power, we can be as generous and high-minded as we want, which I fully support since it demonstrates that our leadership is truly for the public good. But until more enlightened left-wing candidates actually win elections, it doesn’t matter.

The right-wing is fiercely competitive and ruthless about winning. Over the last decades, we’ve seen a surge in a win-at-all-costs-and-throw-morals-out-the-door attitude. Karl Rove is not only the top Republican strategist, he’s also the dirtiest. He will lie, cheat, manipulate, and break just about any rule he can to gain competitive advantage for his candidates. This is well-documented and not particularly hidden, as movies such as Bush’s Brain have shown.

The left-wing needs to get over its allergy to competition or it will conspire in the continued dismantlement of our country by some of the least conscious (but most competitive) elements of the right-wing. It’s a moral obligation for those who care about sustainability, for instance, to understand how to politically outcompete the forces that want to pillage resources for short-term profit.

The first rule of competition is making absolutely certain that your opponent is playing by the rules. If he is indeed breaking the rules to gain competitive advantage, you have two options if you want to remain competitive: first, you expose the breaking of the rules loudly and refuse to move forward until the violation is corrected and punished. Or second, you start breaking the rules yourself and playing the game on the new, more lawless turf. The first strategy retains the moral high ground, which is important for long-term integrity, whereas the second risks the public perceiving that both sides are hopelessly corrupt.

Democrats are failing miserably at this first rule of competition. The overwhelming evidence of massive voter fraud in the last election, chronicled ably by Robert Kennedy Jr. in his recent Rolling Stone article and in books such as Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again, should have Democratic leadership apoplectic. The Democratic leadership should be taking out full-page advertisements in the New York Times to alert the public to the gross breach of the public trust. It should be in courts and in the headlines. It should be the focal point of massive campaigns. Instead, even polite discussion of the extent of the fraud are considered in poor taste.

This is, quite simply, the mentality of people who don’t know how to compete. If you let opponents break the rules without penalty, you’ve granted yourself permanent underdog status and encouraged even more egregious violations. Until Democratic leadership takes the dishonorable breaches of our electoral process on with passionate intensity, it frankly hasn’t earned its right to rule again. If elections are not clean, all the money we are asked to invest in them is essentially wasted.

The second rule of competition after the first has been addressed is studying your opponent’s tactics and beating them at their own game by sculpting your game to optimally compete with theirs. If the left-wing is truly more advanced (as we tend to believe), then it should prove quite easy to study the tactics of the right-wing, duplicate what works well and then innovate beyond them. If the conservative mind is less able to innovate by virtue of being more wedded to old patterns of thinking, then it should be easy for us to outcompete.

It’s like a chess match in which we study the opponent’s strengths and weaknesses, then devise ways to counter their moves. In business, the golden rule is to imitate, then innovate, moving as quickly as possible to gain market share. Good business people study what is working well for competitors, replicate the best they have to offer and then add improvements that competitors have not yet thought of.

Politically, if the right-wing has sophisticated training programs for their eventual candidates, then the left-wing should create even better ones. If Fox is effectively marketing conservative perspectives, then we need to create a progressive media empire that is twice the size, with higher integrity, better entertainment value, and twice the influence. If the left is simply unable to organize itself well enough to create such a progressive media force, then it is not competing effectively.

Democrats are failing at this second rule of competition. The systems of training and advancing candidates are simply better on the right-wing. The network of think tanks and media outlets is more cohesive. Democrats are not replicating the best of right-wing tactics, much less adding greater innovation and insight. Instead, they indulge in throwing stones at the right and mocking it, which is a poor substitute for outcompeting it.

The third rule of competition is to understand what is actually required to win. In the case of political elections, characteristics like charisma, affability, financial success, and attractiveness are important since the ultimate judges of the winners of the game are the voting public. Americans like attractive, successful, powerful people who are also down-to-earth. Republicans recognize this and will actively recruit people like Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwarznegger, who are not remotely qualified politically, but they are perfectly suited to win elections by virtue of their personality. Once in office, they are then surrounded by people who have political and operational expertise. The candidate’s primary and most important job is to be the public face for the philosophy, and thus to win elections.

The left instead offers up candidates who are very smart and accomplished but not particularly charming or often even likable. In California’s recent primary, polled Democrats felt Steve Westly, the State controller, had a better chance at beating Arnold Schwarznegger than Phil Angelides. And yet Democrats voted for Angelides, who seemed to have more solid experience and expressed their progressive values. That may or may not turn out to be a wise choice but what was interesting to me is that it revealed how Democrats were more concerned with voting their conscience than with voting to win. This exemplifies how the left tends to put ideals ahead of competitive instincts. The result is that less conscious and capable Republicans gain office because they are more appealing as candidates.

The lack of a serious commitment to competition is why pundits like Ann Coulter call Democrats whiners. Instead of dominating the political game with inspiring vision, moral superiority, and unmatched strategy, lefties tend to simply complain about the problems of the right. It’s the stance of people who are cut off from their competitive instincts. Complaints don’t win the political game but, in a subtle, way, reinforce the public’s perceptions of Democrats as weak.

Far better, I say, to keep the moral high ground, articulate the boldest vision, and then compete intensely at the game with candidates who have what it takes to win. This includes exposing violations such as voting fraud with ferocity – which is far different than complaining or mud-slinging. Exposure of fraud is an act of moral integrity and conscience, which people respect, rather than complaining, which people do not.

When intelligence and bold vision are married with personal affability and a warrior’s competitive instinct, that is when the voting public will become truly inspired by the candidates on the left and the current right-wing leaders will have their reign terminated, which, incidentally, will force the Republican party to evolve to a more enlightened level as well, simply to compete.

Creating a More Enlightened Right

Sacred America series #22

Last week I said I would continue to explore this week how we can create a more enlightened left. Instead, I’m feeling drawn to the other side of the polarity to write about how to encourage the creation of a more enlightened right.

In some ways, the two go hand in hand. As happens in any relationship, when one side of a polarity experiences growth, it can help accelerate growth in the other. As we create a more enlightened left, it automatically encourages the enlightened right. And vice versa. I see our political polarity as one of interdependence – the fractious tug-of-war dynamics between Democrats and Republicans tends to reinforce relating from a certain level. Shifts on either side open space for the other side to evolve as well.

So, from this perspective, creating a more enlightened right is vital for the sake of political progress in America because it provides the complementary half to a more enlightened left.

When I say “enlightened right,” many on the left cringe – they have a deep belief that the values, principles, and ideals of enlightened living are found entirely on the left. However, I believe that doesn’t see the situation deeply enough. There are noble, beautiful, deep, generous, caring, wise, skilled, and dynamic people on the right, just as there are on the left. The difference is one of personal predilection – where does our soul naturally gravitate? Do we champion the underdog by working for the poor and the marginalized? Or do we focus on creating profitable enterprises that ensure prosperity for all? Do we enhance our social safety net so that all members of our society feel cherished? Or do we focus on cultivating the self-discipline, courage, and fortitude to protect our society, such as in the military?

Nurturers and champions of underdogs tend to lean left whereas protectors and wielders of power tend to lean right. Instead of judging one side of the political polarity as intrinsically better, it is wiser to respect each as the expression of an evolutionary impulse. We each have our rightful role to play here, and we’re better off encouraging the best in each other rather than condemning the traits we don’t share.

So although I lean left, I find it valuable to reflect upon what a more enlightened right looks like. Here are a few principles that occur to me in describing someone who expresses what I see as the enlightened right:

1. Progress-oriented - has a deep respect and love for the past and for what we’ve already achieved without that love turning into a fear of change. Believes in progress that builds upon the past in respectful ways.
   
2. Entrepreneurial – celebrates the potency of free enterprise while recognizing that it needs to take place in a context that has checks and balances on power, including healthy labor laws and market regulation. Sees government’s job as creating a business climate that encourages creative, dynamic entrepreneurship.
   
3. Inner-disciplined – does not believe that problems are solved simply by spending more money but on developing internal capacity in concert with outer opportunities. Emphasis on moral development, self-reliance, and education. Cultivates personal strength and ability to protect others.
   
4. Green – embraces the virtue of sustainability because it results in greater financial well-being, improved conservation of natural resources, and enhanced national security, as well as leaving a healthier planet as a legacy for our grandchildren.
   
5. Global – recognizes that we live in a global economy and that to perform well we need to think and act with a global orientation. Cares about the well-being of people from other countries and nations. Sees enhanced trade as a path to mutual benefit, not just unilateral gain. Encourages entrepreneurism in other countries rather than classical aid.
   
6. Libertarian – strongly believes in personal liberties and the freedom to make choices. Does not legislate morality, even while striving to live from a high level of personal morality. Strong supporter of freedom of expression.
   
7. Wisdom-seeker – even as a member of a traditional religions, remains open to the spiritual essence of all traditions and all people. Culls the most transformational wisdom from own tradition while respecting the wisdom of others. Has a growth-oriented spiritual life.
   
8. Scientific – Embraces the open-ended inquiry of science as well as its conclusions, even when those contradict traditional understandings.
   
9. Humorous – has the ability to not take life too seriously, takes great enjoyment in living .
   
10. Committed to family – recognizes the importance of supporting and loving one’s family, spending time with children, spouse, and relatives. Strives to cultivate a positive, supportive, and safe home environment. Sees the importance for society to have a strong sense of family as a place to cultivate trust, mutual support, commitment, and love.
    
11. Relates well to left – can bracket politics and have meaningful, deep relationships with those on the other side of the political polarity (from friendship to teamwork all the way to getting married).
    
12. Service – dedicates a significant portion of time to helping others through volunteerism, mentoring, or philanthropy.

That is, of course, far from a comprehensive list. But it does start to paint the broad brush-strokes of the more enlightened right that is emerging. This more enlightened right serves as an improvement over the closed-minded, fearful, and control-based factions of the Republican party that have become too powerful for our collective good.

In a previous column, I had given a somewhat playful name to the higher-octave expression of the right wing – the Radical Republicans – signifying their embrace of the more radical change elements on the left. In retrospect, though, “radical” is a term that most people on the right shy away from since it doesn’t connote much respect for the past or power structures – too much youthful rebellion in it. Perhaps a more appropriate name is Progressive Republicans because they are committed to progress – economic, moral, scientific, and spiritual.

The great benefit of adopting “progressive Republican” as the banner for this more enlightened right would be that it is the same term that many Democrats use to describe themselves. The term thus points to the deeper truth, which is that in order to have integrated progress as a country, we need to evolve on all levels and with as many people as possible. The virtues, disciplines, and skills developed by an enlightened right will prove just as valuable as the virtues, disciplines, and skills developed by an enlightened left. As these two wings emerge in parallel, they can demonstrate a shared commitment to “progress” while respecting their differences in how they contribute to that progress. In that way, the next political order can become a synergistic complementarity rather than an antagonistic polarity.

Originally published at OpEdNews.com

Creating a More Enlightened Left

Sacred America series #21

After creating a more bi-partisan context over the course of the last twenty columns, I want to turn my attention for a few weeks to how we can create a more powerful and enlightened left – a next tier of expression of the Democratic party. The reason for this is two-fold: it reflects my natural predilections (I usually vote Democratic) and the current problems created by unchecked Republican power.

I believe the journey to a more enlightened political process in America will need to pass through a phase of governance by a more enlightened left to counterbalance the distortions in the way in which the right is now obtaining and wielding power. Once that threshold is crossed, the task will then become creating a more enlightened right so that the pendulum swings not only horizontally from left to right but also vertically to another level of consciousness, thereby withdrawing power from the forces that currently dominate.

Once both political polarities – progressive and conservative – find their higher octave of expression, we’ll finally have a political process that has more wisdom, integrity, and depth, which in turn can lay the groundwork for America actualizing its full potential in service to the world.

The first steps on that journey for those who lean to the left is soul-searching about what we need to do to become more integrated and inspiring expressions of the progressive impulse. The reason this is important is because the Democratic party has lost much of its attractive power – it is defined more by its desire to take back power than the vision of what it wants to create. The climate is often one of fierce critique (which is alienating) rather than a spirit of love (which is unifying).

The primary task in creating an inspirational Democratic party is to articulate a vision for our shared future that is bold, beautiful and compelling. We need to paint the picture of a sustainable, healthy, and just world with masterful detail and then outline compelling strategies to achieve that vision.

Once fully articulated, that vision needs to be combined with a real-time embodiment that is authentic and fearless. Then citizens can’t help but be wowed, wooed, and drawn to join the movement. Martin Luther King had that kind of vision and attractive soul power, as did Kennedy. Today’s Democratic leaders often play things too cautiously and without adequate sincerity or fearlessness. They thus cannot become magnetic because they are not allowing themselves to make authentic connection with voters.

For the Democratic party to find its next level of expression, it means embodying a wholeness that is incomplete on the right. That wholeness will draw people into enthusiastic and passionate engagement. Some elements that I see as required for moving towards that wholeness:

1. Spirituality – policy wonks and heady intellectuals have sucked too much of the soul out of the Democratic Party. Spirituality can be a great unifier, especially when it fully embraces all religions as well as creating space for non-religious spiritual expression. The Democratic Party needs to get over its ambivalence about the spiritual needs of humans and tangibly address them with a more inclusive stance than is now prevalent on the right.
   
   
2. Love – The impulse behind progressivism, as people like George Lakoff have shown, is more connected to the “nurturing mother” role, which is in turn a reflection of love. However, the actual feeling and even the words of love are absent from much of the left’s discourse, which leads to a lack of alignment between the impulse (caring for the greatest number of people) and the presentation (which tends to rationally emphasize the self-interest of lower classes). Acting from love is magnetic. When people can feel someone’s heart, they connect.
   
   
3. Healthy respect for hierarchy – Democrats tend to be stuck in rebellion against hierarchy in any form, emphasizing equality and egalitarianism. While these are important virtues, the truth is that in all domains there are functional hierarchies . If we don’t really honor those functional hierarchies (while staying connected on a heart level with our ultimate equality), we end up doing a botched job. Organizational excellence requires a balance between hierarchy and equality. Democrats need more honoring of mastery so that our organizations can begin to embody more excellence. A truly enlightened Left needs to be even better than Republicans at creating and running profitable businesses, effective organizations, and winning campaigns. That means we have to get much more comfortable with recognizing, rewarding, and empowering mastery and leadership.
   
   
4. Financial mastery – Democrats tend to think of money as a necessary evil rather than a great engine for the good. The simple truth is that when more money flows to truly enlightened and selfless individuals, our society greatly benefits since these individuals can steward these resources in wise ways. Money can be seen with an enlightened lens as a vehicle for our cherished values. The progressive left’s glorification of a kind of poverty consciousness as more noble doesn’t really serve. Neither does the more cynical corporate realism. Both stance lack the wholeness that comes with an appreciation for the power of money but consecrated to our greatest collective good. To grow a more evolved left, we will need to become more masterful at making money and guiding it wisely.
   
   
5. Integrating the warrior – Democrats have often dissociated from their warrior side, assuming that aggression is intrinsically bad. However, that leads voters, many of whom are quite fearful, to have greater trust in macho Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger or George Bush. A more enlightened left will not dissociate from the warrior energy but consecrate it in the service of something higher– even Gandhi had qualities of a warrior in taking on the British. Right now, most Democrats shy away from the really hard battles such as the massive voting fraud in the last two elections. Both times, our candidates and leaders did not fight the fraudulence for fear of seeming like sore losers and the media followed suit. A sacred warrior does not avoid fighting for truth and justice for fear of the public’s perception. Personally, I think that exposing the theft of the last election (as chronicled in articles such as Robert Kennedy’s in Rolling Stone or books such Mark Crispin Miller’s Fooled Again) is a perfect place for us on the left to start embodying the warrior energy in the service of our democracy.
   
   
6. Fun – A more enlightened left needs to be a lot more fun. The right tends to prey on fear. The mood it creates can be stiff, serious, and oppressive. The antidote is allowing ourselves to be more colorful, light, and fun, which is more magnetic. Comedians such as Jon Stewart use humor masterfully to illuminate the truth of current political realities while also holding it all lightly. A more enlightened left will throw the juiciest parties and use entertainment effectively.

The people who embody the kind of integration I describe above often are reluctant to run for office. Progressive values tend to be more selfless and running for office is perceived as ambitious and self-interested. Our best leaders thus tend to run non-profits. Yet running a government is similar to running a non-profit – the challenge is mobilizing people behind a vision for our collective good and then successfully executing on the game plan. The left would be wise to focus heavily on recruiting the most respected and successful non-profit leaders who have the leadership skills necessary to both govern and mobilize people behind a shared vision. We need to be recruiting the Rabbi Lerners, Marianne Williamsons and Van Jones of the world as actual candidates rather than protesters, organizers, and commentators. They will likely not want to run, which is all the more reason to convince them that is what we truly need. Leaders with non-profit credibility will not govern out of self-interest to the same degree and will likely embody the integration about which I’m writing.

Clearly a greater wholeness is needed for a more enlightened left to emerge and gain power. The internal psychological and spiritual work that is foundational also needs to have external expressions, such as through conscious media. Right now, the existing major media have been deeply corrupted. Instead of whining about this, though, a better solution is to bring together conscious leaders to create a powerful and profitable media network that is illuminating a better path forward. That has far more power and magic then just complaining about the existing media are not doing their job.

More on these subjects in the coming weeks…

Originally published at OpEdNews.com

From a War on Terror to a World at Peace

Management books such as Good to Great chronicle the importance of a tenacious, hedgehog-like dedication to perfection in a single domain as the key to creating a profitable and enduring company. The same is true of sports teams, political campaigns, and even churches. Finding and articulating a Big Dream that can inspire people to move in the same direction is thus at the core of true leadership.

Our country consists of almost 300 million individuals who are not only politically and economically linked but also psychologically. Getting even a majority aligned in a similar direction is no small task. But without that alignment, our noblest potential as a country is squandered, lost in the swirl of personal agendas and political infighting. We move away from greatness and towards mediocrity, too much of our creative energy dissipated on competing concerns.

So America, like any collective, needs a shared focus to activate our highest potential. The question is only what should that focus be. What Big Dream can galvanize our greatness, inspire our service, and help us to create something of enduring value? What is today’s equivalent of a lunar landing, the mission that can focalize a nation and inspire people to “ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country?”

Right now, America has chosen the war on terror as our singular focus. It is the political drumbeat of this administration and we spend the greatest amount of money and time honing our skill at fighting this war.

A war isn’t always a bad way to galvanize a country. Stopping Hitler in World War II was a noble act and the single most important factor in pulling America out of our economic depression. The war inspired great sacrifice for the good of the whole, which was enough to break our depressed economic spiral. The American Revolution freed America from England and provided a common cause around which our latent greatness could activate. After 9/11, the war on terror gave our country something to rally around and provide a collective focus for our pain and outrage. It inspired sacrifice for the good of the collective. America stood united for a time.

Using the war on terror as America’s long-term orienting mission, though, generates many problems. Wars are best as temporary, short-term, means-to-an-end ways to mobilize countries. As long-term orienting missions, they create many problems. Our drive towards excellence becomes focused at the level of conducting war and expanding our wartime apparatus. Success becomes measured by our military dominance in battle rather than our success at achieving peace. In the heat of preparing for battle, we forget that the real desired outcome, even for most hawks, is peace. War is only the means chosen to reach that end.

By choosing to focus America’s collective intention on the means (war on terror) rather than the end (world at peace), a number of things happen. First of all, we create unnecessary polarities between hawks and doves. When our primary mission is the War on Terror, there’s not a significant role for peacemakers and pacifists, who represent a very important segment of our population. If we’re focused on creating a world at peace, the skills of the peacemaker AND the military leader are both required at different times and in different situations. As an orienting compass, then, a war on terror fails to include both polarities, which amplifies internal power struggles.

Second, the war on terror mission skews us heavily towards masculine modes of governance. When our shared focus is the war on terror, power moves towards those who are most adept at conducting a war, which is usually the men. As a country, we move away from masculine-feminine balance and towards a dangerously lopsided masculinity, which undermines our ability to create political wholeness.

Third, the war on terror as a mission fails to instill a vision of a positive outcome that can inspire people for long-term service and sacrifice. As a vision, it doesn’t look far enough or go deep enough. When our intention is focused on war, we tend to amplify the psychology of fear that fuels and perpetuates war. We create a martial climate. The manifesting power of our subconscious in this way is harnessed to create the conditions for more war rather than accelerate the dawning of peace.

Fourth, the war on terror as a long-term mission undermines the trust of other nations. They begin to see us as committed to military power rather than peacemaking prowess. Global peace can be a unifying goal for all countries but a war on terror tends to pit different nations against each other.

Finally, putting our focus on war can lead to a sense of hopelessness, depression, and collective fear. The gloomy atmosphere of today’s America is partially a reflection of a shared negative mission that has been at the forefront for too long. Without a positive sense of mission, we begin to feel less proud of ourselves and our efforts.

Shifting our collective intention to the ultimate result – a world at peace – rather than one strategy to achieve that result – the war on terror - holds the potential of bringing people from across the political spectrum back together as we recognize that we all hold complementary pieces of achieving that goal. When we commit our country to becoming excellent at peacemaking rather than simply warmaking, we can reconnect with a more authentically positive view of ourselves and find many more allies at home and abroad. That doesn’t mean the war on terror ends or we dismantle our defenses. They just become part of working towards a much nobler, and more inspiring mission.

Originally published at OpEdNews.com:


Sacred America Series #20
If you’d like to read these weekly articles exploring a sacred vision for America, you can visit www.stephendinan.com or sign up on the distribution list by sending an email to stephendinan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Evolving Our Political Polarity

Debate rages in political circles about the best strategy for reforming the two major parties and opening the door to a deeper wave of political change. Typically this takes the form of an insider-outsider split. On the one hand are the people who consider themselves realists and advocate for working within a major party – third party “spoiler” effects, they say, make working outside the system potentially dangerous. The fear is a repeat of Nader in 2000.

On the other hand are people who believe that the major parties are so beholden to special interests now that no meaningful reform is even possible from within. If we allow ourselves to be corralled into the fold, our voice will largely be irrelevant. The only way, in their opinion, to shake the system out of its stagnation is by working from the outside. Both positions have some serious drawbacks. Even the attempt to find a “third way” political position that integrates the best of conservative and progressive positions tends to please no one because it ultimately doesn’t represent people’s true values.

What I want to suggest today is a strategy that may hold more long-term potential to evolve politics towards a more conscious level of expression. This strategy starts with respect for the power of a polarity to advance evolution. The polarization in much of the animal world into masculine and feminine sexes is something that has had clear evolutionary advantages. There’s a positive evolutionary tension that comes from this polarity – a reshuffling of genes, a specialization into roles, a complementary synergy. If this kind of polarization did not have evolutionary value, it simply would have been weeded out.

In the political realm, humans seemed to be wired to orient around two primary political leanings, one that is more conservative and the other more liberal/progressive. Instead of trying to erase that dichotomy, or even synthesize, perhaps the most helpful task is to encourage each of those political impulses to find their highest, purest, and most effective expression. This approach builds from a foundation of respect for the importance of the supposedly “opposite” position. If we adopt such a position, the conservative’s task is then not to convert people who are naturally disposed to liberalism, for instance, but to encourage their highest and most evolved expression.

We could model this as a series of stages through which people with different political inclinations pass, from more egocentric (“What’s in it for me?”) all the way to worldcentric (“What’s best for the world?”). At each stage of development, the polarity remains but the context is increasingly one of caring for larger wholes and seeing the polarity with respect.

In analyzing the Democratic-Republican polarity in America, we might go beyond the usual critique that the duopoly is detrimental and open to the possibility that there might be an evolutionary advantage to have power held in this polarized way. The polarization of political power has been in effect throughout much of our history, although the names of the parties have changed. Perhaps this relatively balanced polarity of power has been one of the things that has given us a competitive advantage and allowed us to grow a strong nation.

If that is true, the task isn’t necessarily to break up the duopoly but rather to provide a mechanism for each side of the polarity to find a more mature and even enlightened expression. Over time, that next-tier center-of-gravity within each party can draw an increasing number of people into it and eventually take over the reins of power. What I’m suggesting on a practical level, then, is the creation of a wing of the Democratic party that embodies the next, higher political expression of the liberal/progressive impulse. It would be more integrative and whole, but it would still be authentic to the liberal/progressive impulse.

This wing would maintain a certain level of intellectual and ideological autonomy, developing its own platform, recommendations, strategies, and candidates. It would provide a magnetic force for an emerging culture to articulate a new political-scientific-social-spiritual vision. The big difference from a third party is that it would ONLY run candidates for Democratic primaries. If its candidates won the primary, they would then become the Democratic nominees. It not, support would be thrown behind the Democrat who did.

Such a wing’s ultimate aim would be to supplant the Democratic party with an Emergent Left that is based on more enlightened principles. However, it would respect that such an evolution might take decades. In the meantime, it would back those candidates that most closely mirror its position, while also building a solid power base of its own.

The trick with this approach is that it would necessarily be paired with (and engaged in some level of collaboration with) a more enlightened expression of the conservative impulse, which would also run its own candidates and platforms for Republican primaries. Over time, a more evolved wing would grow in both parties until whatever point our collective consciousness was ready to switch to the next tier of political expression. On that next level, the polarity would be seen more synergistically, based on the recognition of the “opposing” values as necessary and complementary.

The names that came to me to describe next-tier versions of both parties are the Sacred Democrats and the Radical Republicans. Sacred signifies that the worldview of the next-tier Democrats would be grounded in sacred reverence for our entire planet – it would have a spiritual heart that the current Left often lacks. It would also have a deeper respect for opposing political positions and think more integratively about the evolution of the whole. On the other side, Radical Republicans would have the dual connotation of getting to the “roots” of the Republican impulse – the impulse to cherish what has already been created and to respect our sovereign nature through self-reliance, for example. But “radical” would also signify a willingness to embrace experimentation, change, and elements associated more with the Left. Both emergent parties would thus have a continuity with the past, as well as represent a higher octave of expression.

People from across the political spectrum who share the recognition that our political life needs to make an evolutionary leap would thus have a way to showcase spokespeople for their views in the short term via running primary candidates, while also building a long-term power base to take the reins of leadership at whatever point a sufficient number of people resonate with their platform and perspective.

Originally published at OpEdNews.com: