Lady Liberty

Recently, I was reading Thom Hartmann’s 2005 article on political branding, which led me to reflect on the psychology of political identity. While his analysis was fascinating, I came to different conclusions about what the left really needs right now. The right wing has succeeded in wrapping itself in the flag of patriotism, creating a political identity of loyal, religious Americans who are strong and self-reliant. The right’s visual logo is the flag itself. Hartmann is quite accurate in portraying the right as having done a more effective job at creating an enduring identity than the left, regardless of what we think of the actual policies.

I see three main options for the left to improve its positive branded identity and thus create a more effective political movement. First, it can rekindle the class struggle against oppression – working and middle classes versus the upper class – that has served as a primary identification for the left in the past. This struggle has noble motives and a long history behind it. Hartmann advocates this route, linking it with the founding impulse of our country. However, I think this strategy has some real limitations, including being built on opposition rather than vision, limitation rather than abundance, and polarization versus our sense of interconnection.

The second option is to try to occupy the same ground as the right, reclaiming the flag, American patriotism, national self-interest, etc. This approach reframes the left’s policies as more effective paths to the same goals as the right professes, such as financial success and security. Recent Democrat candidates have often taken this angle, trying to be more patriotic, fiscally responsible, and tougher on terrorists than their Republican opponents. The challenge with this option is twofold: claiming aspects of identity already monopolized by the right is a long, slow fight, and the actual symbolism may not be as resonant for many left-wingers, many of whom do not feel a teary-eyed devotion to the flag or as strong a sense of American patriotism.

The third route, which I believe is the most evolutionary path for the long term, is to transcend class-based or nationalistic identification and connect the left’s sense of identity to something more universal, heart-centered, and principled. This approach sees left-wing policies as expressions of care not just for a few Americans but for the entire planet. It evokes an image of us carrying the torch of democracy and freedom not merely to advance our self-interest but to bring more light to the world. This is ultimately a spiritual impulse, but one that isn’t confined to a particular religion.

The clearest and most powerful symbol we have for this compassionate, universal mission is the Statue of Liberty. First, she was a gift from France and is thus symbolic of our strong relationship with other countries, which breaks down the isolationist impulse nationalism can trigger. She is carrying a torch, which has multiple levels of symbolism connected to light, freedom, and expanded awareness. She also compassionately welcomes the poor and the huddled masses of the world, who come to create a better life for themselves. On a still deeper level, she is symbolic of the sacred feminine in its powerful form, not subservient to a masculine God but carrying the torch of transformation with confidence.

As George Lakoff has pointed out, the values of the left are intrinsically more connected to the mother, to compassion, and healthy feminine qualities. Trying to use the American flag for the “branding” of the left is thus not a good fit. The flag symbolizes a political union of states. It is more linear and masculine in its design as well as its implications. Lady Liberty, by contrast, is a feminine symbol that evokes the compassion at the heart of democracy, the ultimate goal of which is liberation and happiness for all people. She is both beautifully symbolic of America’s special qualities AND she displays a more planetary concern for humankind.

In an age of hypermasculine government, retributive military action, and cutthroat business, the left needs a visual identity that embraces the feminine in its most powerful, compassionate, and beautiful form. It also needs to claim the sacred impulse that is at the core of progressive policies and platforms. Without that spiritual core, the level of connection people feel to the left’s political identity will remain weak. We need to feel the heart of the left. Lady Liberty is the best visual symbol we have for what we truly love – the liberation and advancement of all humankind. For Christians, Lady Liberty represents the same kind of love that Jesus expressed in his embrace of prostitutes and lepers, sinners and even Romans – a love that transcends class, race, and social status.

Lady Liberty thus represents the true heart of America and is a far more potent and accurate symbol for our mission than the American flag. Orienting the left’s identity around transcendent values via a strong connection to the Statue of Liberty begins to construct a new identity that is uniquely American AND global, spiritual AND religious, working-class AND elite. I see the potential to create a whole national awareness campaign driven by the left and using Lady Liberty to rekindle our commitment to what is most beautiful, noble, and generous about America. As that new, more encompassing view is reinforced, the left can re-emerge as stewards of America’s next political evolution.

Originally published at OpEdNews.com


Sacred America Series #29
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.

The Republican Party Needs to Feel the Consequences

Everyone has a different motivator for growth; some are drawn by the creative excitement of exploring the unknown, while others are motivated by fear of negative consequences. When considering the growth of a whole country, we need to recognize the range of people’s motivators and act appropriately. Carrots and sticks both have their place.

On the left wing, “stick” motivators are often considered unsavory and somewhat barbaric – words like punishment are rarely used. On the right wing, the “stick” motivators are inherently more valued, from military retribution to capital punishment. Underpinning the right wing orientation is a belief that humans need to be accountable for themselves and their actions, and therefore they need to feel serious consequences when they do something against the law or societal standards.

Instead of debating whether this is the best motivator for human growth, let’s approach the issue more pragmatically: conservatives are saying that they personally do not trust human nature without “stick” punishments to keep people in line. This can also be read as a confession: we need strong consequences for mistakes to ensure we take personal responsibility.

A revealing thing is happening with this fall’s election. Republican candidates across the country are scrubbing two things from their websites, speeches, and campaign materials: George W. Bush and the Iraq War. One race I read about prominently featured web pictures of the candidate with John McCain at a fundraiser and made no mention of the fundraiser that featured the President. Across the board, Republicans are trying to make the elections focus on individual candidates and local politics. What is really happening is that they are tacitly admitting that they have made two major errors of judgment: lock-step support of a misguided President, and an expensive, botched, and deceptive war with Iraq.

In both areas, Republicans chose unification behind the party line instead of critical thinking, healthy challenge, and democratic processes. In both areas, they have made serious blunders with financial, political, and human consequences for the American people and the world. By largely omitting mention of those two areas in their campaign platforms much less proposing real and innovative changes moving forward, they are trying to escape the consequences for their leadership failures.

Instead, all of America is bearing the consequences of these decisions. Even many right-wing pundits are seeing George W. Bush as having led America in the wrong direction, and there are few people who do not see the Iraq war as a failure.

This brings us back to the conservative approach to motivation. If the Republican Party does not feel serious consequences for the failures that it is now tacitly admitting, it will not improve, reform, or come back into integrity. It has wielded power these last few years and there is nowhere else to lay the blame for major mistakes. If elected Republicans refuse to offer solutions or to bear the consequences, instead playing a shell-game with the American people, it is beholden upon Americans from across the political spectrum to reduce the party’s power.

Accountability is at the foundation of conservative values. If the Republican Party has fallen prey to the seductions of power and is refusing to hold itself accountable for its actions, then conservatives and moderate Republicans should join fellow Americans from the other side of the political spectrum in ensuring that the party has a major loss of power in the fall. That would send a clear signal that the American people want leaders who are willing to take ownership for mistakes and work to address them.

If we have the usual Democratic-Republican tug-of-war with a high percentage sitting jaded on the sidelines, that will not happen. However, if Americans as a whole admit that something has gone quite wrong with the Republican party right now, it becomes a trans-partisan issue to rebalance the scales of power. Conservatives who can’t bear to vote Democratic can abstain from voting or vote Libertarian. For moderates who see that both major parties are potentially problematic and need to be balanced, voting Democratic ensures there are some checks on Republican power in the next two years.

I see it as a moral obligation for all citizens of America to ensure that the Republican Party breaks the spiral of power intoxication, ethical decay, and arrogance that is leading it far away from the healthy expression of conservative values.

We Americans need to remember that politicians are our employees. And when political parties as a whole go awry, it is beholden upon us as the employers to ensure accountability. Otherwise, it is we the people who bear the consequences rather than those who are the source of the decisions.

Originally published at OpEdNews.com

Sacred America Series #28
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.

Learning from Hezbollah

The recent war in Lebanon was devastating on many levels, from the loss of human life to decimated infrastructure to massive ecological destruction. The long oil slick that rivals the Alaskan Valdez spill and has engulfed much of the beautiful Lebanese coast provides a sickening reminder of the aftermath of war – everything is affected by the black ooze.

While Hezbollah’s hatred of Israel and terrorist activities certainly bear partial responsibility for the war, I also think we have something to learn from what they did in the aftermath of the pummeling. Instead of focusing all their efforts on a losing fight with a superior army, Hezbollah moved rapidly into the devastated areas of Lebanon with Iranian money and committed manpower to start the rebuilding. Money that could have been spent on more guns and rocket launchers instead went to families that lost homes, who received an average of $12,000 apiece. Hezbollah’s response to the damage has been noticeably more efficient and effective than the government’s.

The result? A groundswell of popular support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and throughout the Arab world.

What this means is that, after some $1.6B of Israeli military expenditures, the destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure, and massive loss of life, Hezbollah came out stronger than they began as an organization. Even from a coldly calculating military view, Israel has had a lousy return on investment. And it illuminates the problem with “fighting terrorism” in the way America and Israel have largely tried to do – with stunning displays of force and military dominance. In an age in which stories circulate at Internet speed and global media networks feed on images of devastation, those who aim to “shock and awe” must understand that “shock and awe” quickly turn to “horror and hatred.” Images of devastation affect us in a deeply emotional way and it is difficult to see the purveyor of massive destruction as righteous for long.

A similar pattern has played out in Iraq. For a time, the media spin about Iraq worked; the “coalition” forces were seen by many as liberators. And yet, over time, that story has lost efficacy. The ongoing death tolls and devastation have hammered home a different view of America as self-interested occupier. In the court of world opinion and certainly in the hearts of Iraqis, the United States has lost the moral upper hand and is now in the long, humbling process of coming to terms with being seen as the villain.

In both the case of America’s war in Iraq and Israel’s in Lebanon, there has been a fundamental imbalance in the ratio between aggression and compassionate support, with a heavy skew towards aggression. Hezbollah did not defeat Israel on the battlefield, but they did in the hearts and minds of the people. They did so by offering committed support in the rebuilding rather than superiority in the aggression. By funneling so much money and effort into helping victims of the war start to rebuild, they prioritized caring for the Lebanese people over their own military activities. Israel primarily spent its resources on military aggression and has not spent them on compassionate support in rebuilding from that aggression, except at home. With damage in Lebanon estimated at $3.6 billion, there is an opportunity to rebuild a network of support and trust. If Israel is not a leading participant in that and Hezbollah continues to lead the way forward, the result will be an increase in Arab hatred of Israel and a strengthening of Hezbollah, which in turn fuels terrorism.

Historically, the United States understood the importance of following an act of military aggression with extensive compassionate support. After World War II, we poured money and resources into Germany and Japan to rebuild their infrastructure and their economies. We demonstrated that our wartime destruction was ultimately in the service of helping the Japanese and German people free themselves from unhealthy regimes and succeed as strong peoples. Without redemptive, compassionate support that follows a military triumph, the seeds are sown quickly for still another war.

Today, American efforts to rebuild Iraq have been pathetic; our military prowess in the first phase of the war has been followed by an ineffective, corrupt, underfunded, and half-hearted effort at nation-building . If we had instead planned from the beginning to spend more money, creativity, and human power on peaceful nation-building than we spent on conducting the war, we might have shown that we had the sincere long-term interests of the Iraqis in our hearts. That in turn would have laid the groundwork for a real ally in the Arab Middle East. Similarly, if Israel spent twice the money and creative thinking on rebuilding Lebanon now as it spent on attacking it, it could better demonstrate that it has the sincere interest of their neighbors at heart. Ultimately, generous help is what creates allies. By itself, aggression only creates enemies.

The result of today’s imbalance towards aggression as the primary strategy to deal with terrorism is that both the United States and Israel are wasting massive amounts of money, rapidly losing support in the world community, and creating far more destruction than is necessary. In today’s interconnected global media, the horrific images of the results are seen across the world.

The only effective military strategy left, then, is to make compassionate, philanthropic support the primary focus rather than blowing things up – the optimal ratio today might be three parts compassionate aid for every one part military action. Without a shift in the balance, we will continue to invest our precious resources in spreading devastation, fostering terrorism, and compromising our moral leadership.

The world now needs to feel our good heart far more than our strong arm. It is ultimately our generosity, not our capacity to shock and awe, that offers a real solution to terrorism.

Originally published at OpEdNews.com

Sacred America Series #27
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.