Conscious Politics: Transcending Party Identity
In previous posts, I've written about the possibility of liberating ourselves from the confines of personal identity - the conditioning borrowed from our tribe, caste, race, religion, gender, ideology, political party or other affiliations which make us smaller than the whole.
Politically speaking, I was raised in a moderately Republican yet generally apolitical household. "Work hard, make your own way, and mind your own," were the general rules of thumb in the blue collar mill town of my youth. Given the disheveled state of humanity, however, it seemed both right and imperative to embrace an expanded set of social and humanitarian values. "Minding our own" is essential for personal transformation, but not enough to mend our troubled world. We are all stewards of social and planetary well-being. Conscious evolution must meet compassionate action to create a world that works for everyone.
Now, imagine for a moment that each of the earth's 6 billion inhabitants shared a common ideal of planetary stewardship. This would be a significant ideological feat, indeed.
Yet the tragedy of most human endeavors is that they tend to become unconscious at the operational and practical level. While we might share a mutual ideal, such as ending poverty, our identities get activated when it comes to the politics of implementation. The habitual defense of our "partial" or "partisan" positions almost always derails our noble intentions and moves us from conscious to unconscious behavior.
I see a glaring example of this in our current democratic nomination process. Rather than celebrating the ideal of democracy and encouraging all voices be heard, no matter how long it takes, we hear party leaders invoking fear-based rhetoric over race or gender, or squabbling over whether continued campaigning will "harm the Democratic Party".
I suggest we take some guidance from the American Indian elders who led their people in conflict resolution by sitting in dialog as long as necessary, until every member was expressed (even their grievances and pain) and the path forward "emerged" from the collective wisdom. Party leaders' hallowed role is to create a container for fair and just democracy, where diverse viewpoints are considered and every vote counted. Far from "harming the party", a more enlightened perspective could help transcend divisions and allow a higher order alignment to emerge.
Philosopher Ken Wilbur describes it this way: "Our principal challenge is to create some form of governance that allows each stage [of consciousness] to be itself...and yet governs from the highest, widest, deepest, and most encompassing level of development emerged to date."
Unfortunately, very few governing bodies today have enlightened representatives as members. When picking a president, we should be asking not "who will best secure and defend my personal position", but "who is most prepared to guide the evolution of humanity". A primary test of our political leaders should be their ability to transcend division, to find unity amongst difference, to lead us toward a sense of our own connectedness and planetary stewardship.
Politically speaking, I was raised in a moderately Republican yet generally apolitical household. "Work hard, make your own way, and mind your own," were the general rules of thumb in the blue collar mill town of my youth. Given the disheveled state of humanity, however, it seemed both right and imperative to embrace an expanded set of social and humanitarian values. "Minding our own" is essential for personal transformation, but not enough to mend our troubled world. We are all stewards of social and planetary well-being. Conscious evolution must meet compassionate action to create a world that works for everyone.
Now, imagine for a moment that each of the earth's 6 billion inhabitants shared a common ideal of planetary stewardship. This would be a significant ideological feat, indeed.
Yet the tragedy of most human endeavors is that they tend to become unconscious at the operational and practical level. While we might share a mutual ideal, such as ending poverty, our identities get activated when it comes to the politics of implementation. The habitual defense of our "partial" or "partisan" positions almost always derails our noble intentions and moves us from conscious to unconscious behavior.
I see a glaring example of this in our current democratic nomination process. Rather than celebrating the ideal of democracy and encouraging all voices be heard, no matter how long it takes, we hear party leaders invoking fear-based rhetoric over race or gender, or squabbling over whether continued campaigning will "harm the Democratic Party".
I suggest we take some guidance from the American Indian elders who led their people in conflict resolution by sitting in dialog as long as necessary, until every member was expressed (even their grievances and pain) and the path forward "emerged" from the collective wisdom. Party leaders' hallowed role is to create a container for fair and just democracy, where diverse viewpoints are considered and every vote counted. Far from "harming the party", a more enlightened perspective could help transcend divisions and allow a higher order alignment to emerge.
Philosopher Ken Wilbur describes it this way: "Our principal challenge is to create some form of governance that allows each stage [of consciousness] to be itself...and yet governs from the highest, widest, deepest, and most encompassing level of development emerged to date."
Unfortunately, very few governing bodies today have enlightened representatives as members. When picking a president, we should be asking not "who will best secure and defend my personal position", but "who is most prepared to guide the evolution of humanity". A primary test of our political leaders should be their ability to transcend division, to find unity amongst difference, to lead us toward a sense of our own connectedness and planetary stewardship.
