The Left Needs Soul Searching - To Make People Care..... (Article)

[Political Heretic]

The Left Needs Soul Searching
To make people care, craft a ‘politics of meaning’.
by Murray Dobbin

If progressives, whether in unions, activist groups or political parties, don't soon begin doing politics differently -- radically differently -- they will fail to show that "a better world is possible."

(snip)

American rabbi and radical Michael Lerner blames what he calls "secular fundamentalism" -- the tendency amongst mainstream activists to stick rigidly to a rationalist and technocratic interpretation of both politics and culture. He calls for a politics of meaning which "posits a new bottom line. An institution or social practice is to be considered efficient or productive to the extent that it fosters ethically, spiritually, ecologically, and psychologically sensitive and caring human beings who can maintain long-term, loving personal and social relationships. While this new definition of productivity does not reject the importance of material well-being, it subsumes that concern within an expanded view of 'the good life': one that insists on the primacy of spiritual harmony, loving relationships, mutual recognition, and work that contributes to the common good."

Secular fundamentalists find talk of spiritualism intensely uncomfortable, probably because they draw immediate connections to either organized 'God' religion and its patriarchal authoritarianism or vaguely to some mushy "self-improvement" sub-culture. Spiritualism seems to fly in the face of the kind of rationalism that has been at the core of socialist and social democratic theory for nearly two centuries.

(snip)

Why is that tens of millions get into an emotional frenzy over the death of a pop star or identify their lives with a professional sports team but can't be convinced to fight for social programs that would increase the quality of life of their communities? Why do further millions identify with right-wing evangelical religion rather than the call for secular social justice?

According to Lerner, they are in a search for meaning and in the context of the destruction of community of the past 30 years, they find in sports and Michael Jackson's fandom pseudo-communities they can identify with. In their quest for community they pass by the door that says left-wing politics. Why? You need not search much further than the typical political meeting -- overly earnest, boring, economistic, gloom and doom and, except on rare occasions, distinctly unwelcoming to the newcomers who have braved their first tentative outing.

And after the meeting? Nothing. No nurturing. No ongoing connection. No community.

(much more)
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/07/11-3

[madfloridian]

1. Call me a " Secular fundamentalist"

"Secular fundamentalists find talk of spiritualism intensely uncomfortable, probably because they draw immediate connections to either organized 'God' religion and its patriarchal authoritarianism or vaguely to some mushy "self-improvement" sub-culture. Spiritualism seems to fly in the face of the kind of rationalism that has been at the core of socialist and social democratic theory for nearly two centuries."

Oh, yeh,I find talk of politics, government and religion mixing very very very uncomfortable and stressful.

Who was it...Jim Wallis...who used that term?

[Political Heretic]

2. I see nothing in this article that is calling for a mixing of politics and religion.

:shrug:

[madfloridian]

5. Jim Wallis called Dean the leader of the "secular fundamentalist wing" of the party.

That is why that term sets me off.

Jim Wallis called us the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.”

"Wallis has labeled Howard Dean, chair of the Democratic National Committee, as leader of the “secular fundamentalist wing of the Democratic Party.” Referring to the disastrous statement by Howard Dean that Job was his favorite New Testament book, Wallis exhorted “…the worst thing anyone can be is inauthentic when they talk about religion or faith.”

"Jim Wallis threatens political party entrenchment by challenging Americans to rethink the connection between morality, biblical teachings and government policies.

As he said in his reply to Chuck Colson, “My message to both liberals and conservatives is that protecting life is indeed a seamless garment. Protecting unborn life is important. Opposing unjust wars that take human life is important. And supporting anti-poverty programs…is important.

Neither party gets it right; each has perhaps half of the answer. My message and my challenge are to bring the together.”

Read that over 2 or 3 times. That is why I despise that term "secular fundamentalist."

I think we should be worried about that term.

I was raised Southern Baptist, but now I am not even going to church because of their actions now.

[madfloridian]

10. Don't you see? Wallis deemed Dean and those who supported him unworthy

because Dean made a mistake about a book in the bible.

One can be a good person, a moral person...yet not be very enthralled about the religion and politics that are mixing in this country.

Wallis called me a secular fundamentalist. I am.

[Political Heretic]

17. Okay, but Jim Wallis didn't write this article. Nor is he using the term in the way you're quoting

So okay... bad choice of words maybe. But he certainly goes on to clarify what he means, stating that he's not talking about a God religion.

I understand why the term stirs up some bad feelings, but please don't derail this thread that has nothing to do with Wallis or Wallis' ideas about democrats or about Dean.

[madfloridian]

22. I am not derailing....I am differing.

And strongly differing. You can have warm and caring communities and people who are good outside of religion. I don't like the word "secular" being used negatively. It is not a negative term.

[Political Heretic]

24. I don't read it that way.

Secular isn't the bad word.

Fundamentalism is.

And I don't care what bad things Wallis said, if you don't think any group of people with a shared ideology aren't susceptible to becoming strident and dogmatic, you're nuts.

On the left, that sort of strident dogmatic attitude comes in a different form than religious fanaticism. But its there just the same.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Great article. The left needs to divest itself of rationales for materialism. K&R

[Odin2005]

9. No, the nonsense in the OP mixes up two totally different meanings of materialism.

"Materialism" meaning rejection of supernatural realms and entities has nothing to do with "Materialism" meaning consumerism, equating the two is a typical Religionist strawman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I don't see that in the article.

What I see is Lerner, a long time left activist, calling for the left to go beyond the notion that the desire for material equality is the driving force behind radicalism. The right promises what amounts to "a chicken in every pot" as if that is the dream of all people. The left, promises "a chicken in every pot" at a lower cost.

Both promise unending happiness if everybody has enough money. What Lerner is saying is that isn't enough to satisfy a human being.

Check out some of Lerner's writings and you'll find that he's as far from being a "religionist" as the Liberation Theology priests and nuns in Latin America.

[Odin2005]

13. He's attacking a strawman.

In Maslow's hierarchy of needs objective physical needs come before subjective emotional, psychological, and self-actualization needs. IMO the subjective nature of the higher needs makes it a bad idea for the government to get involved directly, what it needs to do is to improve access to things that let people fulfill their subjective higher needs.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Political revolution vs Social revolution?

As Lerner says in the article, we tend to view material (objective) needs as the driving force for radical change. But, IMO, that's like putting the cart before the horse. The people of Paris and St. Petersburg didn't storm the Bastille and Winter Palace because they wanted the government to give them more bread. They stormed it because they wanted the system overthrown. They became revolutionaries because they want a revolution. They were drawn into the community of revolution. Likewise the followers of Gandhi who sacrificed themselves for liberation. A social not political movement.

The politicians, on the other hand, tinker with the existing system, usually appealing the material desires of the populace. Which are ultimately unsatisfying and burdensome rather than liberating.

What I see in Lerner's writings are that a focus on the material (objective) may stir change but will inevitably lead to "more of the same" in the long run.

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. We've been doing the rationalist, technocratic wonky thing for a long time.

It hasn't worked all that well.

What we need is someone who looks good in a suit, or better yet a dress, on TV channeling a 6000 year old warrior spirit who can explain to us why it's important to care for the earth and our fellow man.

I'm completely cynical about mysticism. I'm more cynical about my fellow man. Give the people what they want.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Ugh

[Odin2005]

7. Another Religionist spouting strawmen and falsehoods about us Secular Humanists

This notion that equates secularism and rationalism with consumerism just because the term "materialism" is used in both, on in a metaphysical sense and one in a economic sense, is bigoted nonsense. I am a very sympathetic and compassionate person BECAUSE of my Secular Humanism, so Mr. Lerner can take his anti-secular bigotry and shove it!

[Political Heretic]

26. You're creating some ridiculous strawmen out of this article, reading into it what you want to see.

Not what's there.

[chill_wind]

8. Now your OP is asking one very seriously disturbing question:

the latter part, most specifically. We understand that the tendency and mentality of much of American Idol America is nothing at all new in our culture and history. It's the contrast in the rest of it. We fully knew in advance what the American MSM would do in the death of MJ, but they didn't do it in a vacuum or as any sort of miscalculation. They know what sells.

Why is that tens of millions get into an emotional frenzy over the death of a pop star or identify their lives with a professional sports team but can't be convinced to fight for social programs that would increase the quality of life of their communities? Why do further millions identify with right-wing evangelical religion rather than the call for secular social justice?


knr.

[Lorien]

11. "distinctly unwelcoming to the newcomers who have braved their first

tentative outing.And after the meeting? Nothing. No nurturing. No ongoing connection. No community".

Sadly all too true. I've tried time and time again to get really involved with my local Democratic party (Orange county Democrats). It's a closed club for those over age 50. There's a small college aged group too-also a closed club. Meetings are cold and all business. No one introduces themselves. No one smiles. They talk about the issues (mostly union related since most are union members), hand out petitions and sign up sheets, then go home. It's a miserable experience and anything but inspiring.

[RandomThoughts]

15. Corporations learned this long ago.

If you watch their meetings, they state a purpose, and promote a feeling of being part of the same goals before meetings, and even in the work environment.

However you have to be careful with that, is it in truth? Or for self gain? Many times corporations want people to think they are cared about, when they are just resources, so in that it is dishonest. Many corporations like to think they care for their employees, but most of them, when choosing between profit and the employees, show what is most important to them.

Why not have thoughtful comments about what is trying to be done, what are the goals and reasons we believe in social justice, before an event. They need to be honest, if not sincere, they have no meaning, or even worse. But I agree with what he says about people having to remember their reasons and purposes even while they do the work.

[madfloridian]

16. But what does it have to do with "secular fundamentalism"?

That is like they are equating the boring meetings to lack of religious fervor.

[Political Heretic]

20. In this article "secular fundamentalism" means technocratic, reductionistic, hyper rationality

I will more than agree with you that perhaps Secular Fundamentalism - a phrase only mentioned like once by the way - is a bad choice of a phrase given its association with people like Jim Wallis (which I didn't even realize until you mentioned it) who mean something much more religiously dogmatic when they use it.

But you're completely missing the Forrest for the trees when you obsess over these two words and ignore the entire rest of the point of the article.

[Lorien]

29. Nothing. I don't see a connection between the two

there's a way to "win friends and influence people" without injecting any form of spiritualism into things.Though the author has noticed the problem he's drawn incorrect conclusions on the cause.

[madfloridian]

14. This part has nothing to do with "secular"....just with being boring

"According to Lerner, they are in a search for meaning and in the context of the destruction of community of the past 30 years, they find in sports and Michael Jackson's fandom pseudo-communities they can identify with. In their quest for community they pass by the door that says left-wing politics. Why? You need not search much further than the typical political meeting -- overly earnest, boring, economistic, gloom and doom and, except on rare occasions, distinctly unwelcoming to the newcomers who have braved their first tentative outing.

And after the meeting? Nothing. No nurturing. No ongoing connection. No community."

That has nothing to do with secular. If Dems are that way in a meeting, it is because they have been trained for two years to be cautious and somber....and anyone who spoke out with too much heart was tossed aside.

It has to do with just being incapable.....nothing to do with secular.

That is an article that is making it sound like religiosity is the answer. It is not.

[Political Heretic]

18. You've fixated on a term because if your history with another writer and another subject

and in doing so missed the entire point of the article.

Please stop derailing the thread with stuff that the article isn't even about.

[madfloridian]

19. Why is the word "secular" used? That is my point.

How can I derail a thread by pointing out that it is a term used against those of us who don't want religion and politics mixing?

[Political Heretic]

21. Because the article isn't about religion about politics mixing.

[Political Heretic]

25. Kick.

[Political Heretic]

27. Note: this article is by Murray Dobbin, not Michael Lerner.

And he has a much broader point, that has been totally derailed by a few posters fixating on what is not the main point of the article.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. What is 'spiritual harmony'?

How is a human being 'spritually sensitive'? What is 'spirituality', that an absence of it is a problem? What is a 'spiritual framework'?

Mayeb with answers to these questions, I could understand the article. And whether its title of 'soul searching' is meant to imply there is such a thing as a 'soul', or if that's just a coincidence of the metaphor that was chosen.