It’s been awhile since my words have graced this corner of cyberspace. Electoral politics reared their ugly head and I was embroiled with this, that and the other thing, trying to get those I identified with elected. Oh, I had plenty of time to write, but when I arrived home after a day of campaigning I was exhausted, partly from the work but mostly from the stress of not knowing if the country would be led in a better direction. Besides, if I had anything to say it would probably be a diatribe against my candidates opponent and lord knows there was plenty of that to go around, offered by better minds than mine.

I have been devoting those brain cells I have left to a concise definition of the difference between the two isolated and polarized political camps that populate modern American politics. This conundrum has perplexed lots of pundits from both camps, although traditionally conservatives have done a better job of lying about liberals than vice versa, thus giving the appearance of clearly delineating a definition of “those who hate America”. These distortions aside, few experts have been able to divine a concise and accurate presentation of the differences between conservative and progressive character. Perhaps George Lakoff has come closest to the pin, describing conservatives as espousing “strict father” values with progressives choosing “nurturant parent” values instead.

The understanding of strict father and nurturant parent mentality unfortunately drifts about too much for my tastes. In general they provide a fairly accurate description of the two dominant modes of political thinking we see expressed today but who really knows exactly what they mean.

To accurately pin down a clear understanding of these differences in a sound bite easily digestible by the masses we must use few words (a struggle for this writer it is clear). They must be easily understandable by a majority of Americans and have elements both of commonality and separation, as that is the true nature of Americans, separated by ideology but bound by great commonality of purpose. Let me offer my contribution to this struggle to nail down a definition once and for all. I do not say it is the best solution, only mine. I do feel it has merit however slight it might be.

Lots of people I have talked to say that conservatives are about me and liberals are about we. This is concise to be true and descriptive but, I feel incomplete. I know plenty of conservatives that care about people and progressives who look out for number one. I hear others say conservative favor corporations and progressives are for workers. This again is basically true but narrows the scope of consideration to issues of commerce. Once again, in refutation, I think we all know conservatives who care about working people and progressives who are quite corporate in their approach to business.

I have always loved words and their etymology. Where words come from gives us a clue as to the reason for their creation. Words arise from a need to communicate something. Their roots give us a glimpse of their real meaning. The words I have chosen to describe the difference between conservatives and progressives are simple and related. Simply put conservatives compete and progressives cooperate. Both of these words are from the Latin and have as a prefix the Latin co or com, meaning together. Everybody, whether they care to or not, acts together. Even the hermit, far away in his mountain cabin, cannot get absolutely everything he needs from the land. He had to buy an ax somewhere and for some unknown reason most hermits drink coffee, necessitating some kind of relationship with Juan Valdez or his surrogates. Society is a series of individual acts that impact other individuals. We cannot escape it. We are social animals.

The roots of these two words are also related but subtly different. Compete has as its root the Latin verb petere, which means to aim at. Put the prefix and root together and we come up with an intentional meaning of aiming at something together. To compete means we all have the same thing in our sights but the implication is that only one of us will reach the goal, that all others will fail, unless you are Robin Hood and can split the sheriff’s arrow at the bullseye. Few of us can compete at that level. This type of problem solving implies that we all start with a quiver of arrows and a bow, essentially equal, but the skill of one individual will out. There is only one winner and everyone else loses.

Cooperate, on the other hand, has at its essence the Latin verb root operari which means to work. The word means to work together. As we can see there is great similarity in the two words. Both of them refer to people acting together to accomplish a given goal. The difference is in the focus of the two roots. When people cooperate i.e. work together, they accomplish a common goal and all benefit. They use their skill not to outwit or defeat an opponent but in accord with and augmenting the skill of others to produce a given result. Of course, there must be accord from the beginning of the task. In competition there are a variety of personal goals in play. Some compete simply for the thrill of winning, some to glorify themselves, some to prove a point. When people cooperate they have already thought out and agreed on the goal. This is work, something that many ego oriented competitors find boring and ultimately wasteful. Just set up the damn target and lets go at it.

So how do these related but finely differentiated words describe what I say they describe? Conservatives believe competition is the way to solve problems and act in the world. They posit that the most skillful will find the best solutions and that it is in all of the losers’ best interests to meekly accept that superiority. They believe in the competition of the free market system. They believe that each human interaction is a test of competence (notice where that word comes from). They believe that only the strong survive and that as Orwell so succinctly put it “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. They believe in helping those who have less than they do but from a philosophy of “charity” which they tout as a virtue but from which they most often simply confirm their superiority. They give to those “beneath” them to feel good about themselves and their higher status. The people they give to do not deserve charity but the magnanimous conservative grants them the clemency of his gifts if they jump through whatever behavioral hoops he sets out before them, like a Roman gives the thumbs up to a particularly effective slave warrior in the Colosseum.

This is not to say that many conservatives give for altruistic reasons for there is such a thing as compassionate conservatism but unfortunately the former reasons are all too prevalent among those who worship the modern philosophy of Objectivism which rejects altruism out of hand as a weak and timid response unworthy of those who understand and have the strength and discipline to be powerful. Conservatives give of their treasure to show they have won, to confirm their competitive victory.

Conservatives believe that the purity of one man’s (or corporation’s) skill and power trumps the “compromised” and inherently weak mutual decisions of people working together in cooperation. They believe winning is everything. They want to drill in ANWR because not to drill is to admit weakness in the face of the power of foreign oil. They teach their kids to kick ass and take names. They teach them that making money is essential in proving their value. They believe in personal responsibility but twist the meaning of that noble pursuit into one where one is only responsible for oneself and not for others. The conservative world is one where all individuals are constantly bumping heads and chests with the winner becoming the Alpha and everyone else cowers. It is innately animal and hierarchical. It is regressive, involutional and wastes an incredible amount of energy.

Cooperation, while retaining the same aspect of acting together as competition, does so from an entirely different philosophic perspective. Progressives cooperate because, in the words of the late Paul Wellstone “We all do better when we all do better”. In fact there are plenty of bromides that describe a progressive philosophy of cooperation, ” A rising tide floats all boats”, “…the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. “, “United we stand, divided we fall”, etc.

The point of cooperation is to maximize the collective skills available to best and most efficiently solve problems and accomplish tasks. Progressives believe that no one person has all the answers. They feel that we all have gifts, in different areas, and that together we can apply those gifts to the benefit of all. Progressives teach their kids to share. They tell them to be whatever they have a passion for. Progressives value what are apparently weaknesses in others for they know that accompanying those weaknesses are commensurate strengths. Progressives believe not only in individual responsibility but in mutual responsibility where people are responsible not only for their own actions but also look out for others. They temper their decisions with honest concern about the welfare of people they don’t even know, save that they are members of the human race and thus worthy of that concern.

The progressive world is one where people work together to make things better than any one of them ever could acting alone. It is evolutional and always looks forward, knowing the past is to be learned from but can never be relived. Progressives seek out win-win situations. They recognize that resources are scarce and precious and work to be efficient in their use of energy, especially human energy.

So in essence we find two systems, one which envisions being together as individuals all vying for the same prize and another where being together means we give up a small portion of our individuality for the good of the whole. To be frank both systems work. The true question is which system will bring us closer to potential extinction and which will bring us into a new dawn of human endeavor. For me the answer is clear but then again I am but one man. Perhaps we can work together to determine which course leads to a future and which does not.

I am ready to help.

Does anyone else see the relationship between Madison Avenue culture and values and the moral and ethical decline of America? I don’t think it is a topic that comes up often, with such juicy stuff as Iraq, oil, the economy, health care, the environment and transportation dominating the sociopolitical dialogue. The pervasive culture of advertising in America is probably more effective as a back burner issue than if people were discussing it daily. I believe that strategy is by design. Madison Avenue doesn’t want you to know just how much they effect your life.

It’s ok for men to lie to their wives and girlfriends in order to go out drinking with the boys. An expensive, hot car will help break the glass ceiling for women. Fast food is cool. Having gray hair means you won’t be getting any more sex. Go ahead and marry that trophy wife, you will still be able to satisfy her with the help of our pills (although you may have to invest in matching bear claw bathtubs). There is such a thing as clean coal and it is good for America. These are just some of the myriad lies, half truths and myths that advertising would have us believe. And I haven’t even addressed the female body issues which permeate our marketing landscape.

Advertising is such a deeply established tradition in America that we barely notice how ingrained in our consciousness the messages have become. I continually tell my teenage daughter that someone has spent plenty of money trying to get you to spend yours. She sort of gets it. I also tell her that if somebody is spending lots of money trying to convince you that something is good for you it probably isn’t.

Advertising is a multi-billion dollar business and much of our broadcast entertainment would not exist without it. I often wonder if paying for TV and radio would be a better alternative than being subjected to the constant brainwashing of ad after ad imploring us to buy stuff we don’t need. In any event, not everyone has the requisite will to resist the bombardment we are under over the airwaves and in print media, not to mention the supersized billboards that distract us on the highways.

Americans must change their lifestyles to adjust to the drastic changes they will experience in the 21st century. Madison Avenue isn’t helping one iota.

One metaphor I have often used to delineate the stark difference between conservative world view and progressive thought is the freeway analogy. In it one compares conservatives and progressives with drivers on a freeway. Conservatives champion individual responsibility and this is a good thing , make no mistake about it. But a world full of people practicing individual responsibility implies that responsibility is tied to individual self-interest. Humans naturally feel responsible for taking care of themselves and a focus on individual responsibility is only as valuable as the individual’s interests allow.

If someone’s self-interest goals are to make lots of money they will take the responsibility upon themselves to make that happen. If a person’s goals are to assure his family is safe their responsibility may take the form of buying a gun and learning how to use it. This, in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is when individual’s needs intersect with other’s needs that volatile situations can be created when self-interest goals clash.

It is for this reason that I have always felt that the progressive value of mutual responsibility is a more evolved form of commitment than simple individual responsibility. In mutual responsibility the individual tempers his own self-interest by considering the needs of others as well. They not only take responsibility for caring for their own family but recognizes that the needs of others also have value. After all they would hope that those others would be cognizant of their needs.

Most religions and great cultures have in their creed some form of the Golden Rule. We teach it to our kids and expect that society will run smoothly largely because of it. But a philosophy of individual responsibility can circumvent the Golden Rule in certain instances by narrowing ones focus onto their own interests and ignoring others. This is often not by choice but evolves out of the nature of single-mindedness that is essential to achieving goals. In order for society to function properly there must be some give and take between people with conflicting goals. Individual responsibility can exacerbate this conflict while mutual responsibility can temper it.

The freeway analogy is simple. While driving on a busy rush hour freeway who would one wish to be driving the other cars, persons practicing individual responsibility or ones using mutual responsibility? If you think about it for a minute those practicing individual responsibility might be thinking, “I have to get home as fast as possible because I was late getting out of the office and I have to take Tommy to soccer practice”. They may dart in and out of traffic, dangerously, in an effort to shave several seconds of their commute time. They may be hungry and eating a sandwich. They may have a big client on their cell phone. In each instance these people are doing normal things but they are self driven. They make no considerations for other drivers and therefore become dangers to everyone on the road.

The driver surrounded by people practicing mutual responsibility is aware that they also have things to do for themselves but they recognize that erratic driving is dangerous to others. They resign themselves to the fact that Tommy might have to be late for practice. This use of mutual responsibility principles also works to make the individual safer on the freeway. Tommy will never get to practice if dad is in an accident on the freeway. So we see that mutual responsibility serves individual responsibility too, just not always in the way the individual imagines it will. This also models the basic Christian principle that God’s plan for us is greater than any plan we can come up with.

The next time you are on a busy freeway try to model mutually responsible behavior. Remember the old slogan, “Drive carefully, the life you save may be your own”. And remember that when you do you are living out a progressive value.

I have lost two male friends to massive heart attacks in the last month. These men were the kind of close that meant regardless of how long it had been since we had seen one another there was always an implicit nearness, born of occupying the same cosmic space. We didn’t exchange daily e-mails, nor did we have to. There was an easy comfort that they were merrily leading their remarkable lives without needing to consult me. These were the type of friendships that time could not alter.

Each man was famous for being who he really was. One was a leading architectural voice in the sustainable co-housing movement. The other was a master luthier of other-worldly talent. One built, and taught others to build, housing complexes that were communities where neighbors developed familial relationships and lead lives full of meaning. The other built instruments played in major concert halls the world over. His innovations set a new paradigm of artistic capability. The music played on his guitars had meaning.

I have taken two important things from their passing. For perhaps the first time in my life my own mortality is painfully apparent and real to me. There is a hard liberty in this. Also, they each call to me to swiftly burn through any and all impediments to my own becoming, real or imaginary. My mother’s passing showed me the path and these two trailblazers have cleared the way for me to assume my true destiny, a road previously thickly grown over with the gnarled and impassable vines of my own self doubts. God brings himself to us in numerous forms and ways, if only to reveal that we, too, are in him.

I treasure these friends, in life and death. I will honor them by emulating their strong connections to the reality of existence with the truest memorial I can imagine by building a meaningful life of my own and for being famous for who I really am.

As Christians learn that they are not so much “educated” to become good Christians as they are “formed” so did the educational system of the past “form” good citizens rather than simply educate youth. This was a public/private collaboration between the school and the family. School provided the “Three R’s”; readin’, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmetic and not much more. The family provided the moral and ethical foundation for good citizenship, they “formed” the good citizen. Why? Because the family felt a moral and ethical obligation to produce good citizens. The civic “honor” of the family demanded it.

The “greatest” generation is a perfect example of this partnership. Men and women with mostly an eighth grade education defeated two dictatorships and became the world’s primary superpower. How did they do that with such a “meager” educational experience? They had a well developed sense of moral and ethical certitude. Their parents had insisted on it.

Unfortunately, modern parents are too busy with this that and the other thing, don’t have the same cultural imperative or simply lack the requisite skills to impart those same values to their own children. Perhaps becoming the “best” has made us lazy. Whatever the reason today’s children are not taught through a public/private collaboration that “forms” them to become good citizens. Rather they are “formed” through the needs of private business for worker bees. This has manifested an educational system that has been given the tacit task, through parental abrogation of duty, of making their sweet young ones into complete citizens without their own input. Educational systems nearly always fail at this task. It is not what education is meant to do. Failing that, the system is capable of turning out good, pliant and unquestioning workers with little conscience or ethics in their stead.

Without the checks and balances of a moral education in the home or with the imbalance of one with a marked agenda, these kids are thrown into the workplace with technical skills but little critical thinking abilities. They are easy to pressure and manipulate and they think nothing of eagerly participating in the cruel and unethical tactics of modern corporate culture. They backstab and step on their associates with ease. They push ahead for profit at any cost without compunction.

Perhaps we should just stop financing this type of “education” altogether. We can just vote away any and all public funds for education. It is certainly not serving the republic. Let corporations fund education if they want to create a specifically skilled but mindless workforce. The homeschooling crowd is onto something. Unfortunately most of them are into forwarding their own personal agendas as well. After all, who but ideologues have the time and energy to educate their own kids.

There is a segment of conservative thought that is deathly afraid of alleged “ultra liberal” bias in higher education. They claim that super liberal professors pressure students to see things their way. College students are not dumb. They play along with the liberal profs, knowing that the realities of life are much different from that which they have been told. They are already aware of the dog eat dog nature of the world from the caustic text messaging and judgmental stares of high school. Not much in the way of liberal thought can pierce that veil of ignorance. Only the truly empathic remain liberal in the face of these “cold, hard facts”. They accept that they will never be effective cogs in the machine of private enterprise.

So to change education maybe we need to change who benefits from it. Educational processes need to stop serving business alone and start serving society once again. And the way to do that is to return to the sharing of responsibilities of the past. Parents need to reacquire the civic pride they once cherished and become responsible for “forming” their children to become quality citizens. Quality citizens are the engine that drives democracy.

Our slavish devotion to commerce is a strong and vicious circle to break but we must place our efforts there instead of spinning our wheels on adequate funding formulas, class sizes and mainstreaming. It is a monumental task but one that must be done.

Are you ready to go back to the future?