Selecting A Candidate

Let’s take a closer look at the politics of issues activism versus the electoral process of selecting candidates. They are both quite similar and significantly different. It has always been my contention that we can’t do both, at least at the same time, without solid compartmentalizing and a clear understanding of the essentials of how to do both.

When involved in issues activism it behooves one to focus on the issue that you can devote your entire energy to. You immerse yourself totally, 100%, into moving the needle on the issue that you give an ‘A’ grade.  Even the A-minus and B-plus issues, though critically important to you, will dilute your ability to effectuate your A grade activism. You support that highest grade issue and give it your full attention and strength. Only in that way do your policy goals have any chance of being realized.

In electoral politics, on the other hand, one deals with numerous issues simultaneously. When discerning which candidate is the best option for one to support and ultimately for the party to support not only must we look at the candidate’s position on any number of issues but also numerous non-policy factors. We grade all of these factors, issues and non-issues. Then, all grades must, or should, be actively considered  together when choosing a candidate to support and possibly work or volunteer for. Herein lies the major difference between issues politics and electoral politics.

In issues politics, it is your highest graded issue that is supported on all levels. Politicians given A grades on an issue are supported and those given F grades are actively opposed. Grades in between distract and aren’t worth spending time and energy on. This is how one does issues politics. When we approach electoral politics in the same way as we do issues politics we wind up with skewed situations. One candidate is supported and campaigned for because they score an A on the prime issue, or, they are rejected and attacked because they score an F on your favorite issue.

Once elected, because of our firmly entrenched two-party system, any representative’s vote will grade out to the issues activist as either an A or an F dependent on their vote. This causes them to determine the issues part of a candidate’s worthiness with a binary A or F being the only possible grades. Of course, they can display more variety in assessing a legislator’s non-issue-based qualities. But, even though such things as astute political instincts or media-savvy should be as important to constituents as policy, they are often not actively considered.

Regardless of how complex an issue is and how subtle and nuanced the proposed policy and legislation addressing it is, when in office a legislator can only vote up or down, yes or no, A or F.  As we know, binary logic works fine for computers but is outdated for addressing the complexity of modern law and society. This dualist nature of modern politics has influenced the current rampant partisanship we see everywhere, which in itself reinforces the dualism. A rather vicious circle.

To put this in a nutshell, in issues politics, to succeed one may work solely on their highest graded issue. But in electoral politics, the best results are achieved by working with the ‘student’ with the highest GPA.

Let me repeat that. In electoral politics, it is wise to use the grade point average of a candidate to measure their value to the voter and not simply the one who grades the highest on an important issue. Likewise, it can be unfair to reject out of hand a candidate whose grade on your main issue is ‘unacceptable’. If we aren’t careful our policy biases can tarnish the candidate best positioned to win the election based solely on their positions on select issues. Once again, because of our two-party system, it is difficult, read impossible, to find a party and/or candidate who satisfies all our policy desires. To insist on issues purity in a candidate is a recipe for disaster.

Many voters will take the apparent high road and vote for a candidate that has no chance of winning simply because that candidate more closely reflects their values. They do this because ‘it’s a free country’ where ’I can vote for whomever I want’ and ‘stand up for my principles’. These choices are noble and in keeping with the best philosophy of the American way of life. Unfortunately, as long as the two-party system dominates our elections this manner of voting will only result in more decisions based on either a single issue or a grade point average, between two divisively partisan candidates. One party’s candidate might only support your issues 40% of the time but the other only 5%.

If you choose not to vote for the 40% candidate, which your logic says you shouldn’t, there is the possibility that you get the 5% candidate. You might walk out of the voting booth proud of voting your values but one month later you’re gnashing your teeth at a vote taken by the 5 percenter we elected. I should say here that it is right and good to vote your conscience. We just need to be aware of the potential for unintended consequences and consider our choices accordingly.

Yes, this ‘ F**k, I have to vote for the lesser of two evils again’ scenario is patently unfair. It sucks. We shouldn’t have to hold our nose and vote for somebody we can barely stand. Our current system paints us into frustrating corners filled with anger. Having only two parties we sadly have only two basic philosophies of governance in the U.S.. The opposing parties must need to create coalitions of voters with varied interests. There are many more than two philosophies of government to cram into one or the other.

For candidates to appeal to the entire spectrum of different philosophies in one party we often find that it is the candidate who best tempers their candidacy with alleged ‘moderate’ rhetoric that delegates think will appeal to the most voters. These candidates will fake or hide their true politics in order to get nominated. Candidates want to win. Obviously, they can’t win without being nominated. Parties want to win. They choose who they think can win. Many of us find this incredibly distasteful and foolish, and rightfully so. But it is a political reality and a maddening one.

Counter to how things truly work, parties will cautiously nominate who they imagine is the ‘right’ candidate instead of boldly choosing the ‘best’ candidate. Most often the right candidate turns out to be the one with A’s on the popular issues. The party then develops selective amnesia about their nominee’s possibly numerous and critical F’s and their often suspect, vulnerable character flaws. It is not this candidate that will win. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the candidate who scores well across the board, who may not be ‘right’ but certainly ‘best’ can win. Maybe they don’t get so many A’s but not so many F’s either and a goodly number of B’s.

The candidate’s grades must be earned not because they got the test ahead of time and answered the way they thought the teacher wanted but rather truthfully answered with courage and conviction. Only in this way will the party nominate the person who best represents the essential values of the party. This is the candidate that inspires. This is the candidate who can actually win.

Having the better GPA is not to be confused with ‘electability’, that scourge of cautious and lukewarm centrists. The elusive quality of electability is considered to be vital in selecting a candidate. Not only the rank and file but respected pundits and influential party leaders often insist that this is the gold standard of candidate selection. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two party system certainly gives the impression that because of the diverse coalitions both parties form, their right candidate is the one who appeals to everyone in their ‘base’.

This is the seemingly safe ‘centrist’ candidate. But in trying to appeal to everyone this candidate moderates their stance on many issues they either do not support or support more vociferously. This not only lowers their GPA accross the board but can only increase the perception of them as a phony and liar. Then, in the general election, they are more likely to not only lose appeal with the ever-decreasing number of moderate voters but also cause issues voters to look away from them and toward the vote my principles candidates.

Another spurious means of selecting a candidate is the ‘next up’ method. Here we find the candidate who has paid their dues. They have been around seemingly forever. They are visible, high ranking elected public officials who have accomplished just enough to have some name recognition and popularity. They have been considered serious contenders for a long time. Why in god’s name do these qualities make someone a good candidate much less the best candidate? It’s beyond me. This is this nepotism that is not genetic but seems to be designed to motivate career politicians to consistently do the party’s bidding over the long term. What a foolish practice.

Both parties claim to have a plan based on candidate selection and the corresponding policy positions. They both claim to be appealing to young voters and non-voters in an effort to find more supporters. But these are the very voters that vote for the person who best exemplifies their philosophy of existence, and not the measured and overthought offerings of the major parties. Our current President ‘got it’ before his rivals and appealed to the populist mindset of the non-voter, helping him eke out a victory in 2016. And disillusioned milennial voters, who have been shown to be more progressive than not, largely became third party or non voters.

That the current occupant wasn’t honest about what he offered did not matter. He sold his brand of populism well. He convinced, falsely, that his care for the fed-up non-voters was genuine. As his presidency has advanced these facts have become more clear. Some of his less virulent followers have become disillusioned. He, as well as his party, are vulnerable to candidates who are wisely chosen. Currently, there are a plethora of Democrats seeking the opportunity to run against him in 2020. We will see what criteria rise to the top of the delegate’s selection process and what sort of candidate emerges.

If a safe, electable, centrist presidential candidate is nominated by the Democrats there will be a struggle that will have the most influential existential impact on American democracy, and thus the planet, as any preceding it. However, outside of the perception that the candidate has to be everything to all people there exists a basic, simpler philosophy of progress. Of the wide variety of people who tend to identify with the Democratic party nearly all embrace it. It is not issues-based, nor personality or identity dependent, but value and feeling based. If a candidate emerges that best represents that basic philosophy we could see a Democratic landslide of historic dimensions.

The centrists tell us in strongly-worded diatribes that a ‘far-left’ candidate cannot win. They present numerous examples of leftist candidates who have failed over the last half-century. Could it be that the electorate has changed enough to reverse that trend? Could disillusioned millennials and non-voting liberals turn the tide for a progressive candidate who more closely projects their values.? Can the centrists support a candidate they see as a Democratic Socialist, one they feel the country is not ready for? The jury is out. The result of the 2020 presidential election, regardless of the nature of the Democrat’s candidate, is up for grabs. This is for all the marbles. And, vastly more serious, for the future of the planet.

To summarize, all of this is to say that when fighting for a cause it is imperative to give it 100% of your power. Stay focused, don’t ever give up and don’t take any prisoners. But in discerning elections and politicians, in the beginning of the process, you must hedge your bets. Never stop looking at the big picture, the overarching values you share with diverse but like-minded compatriots. Remember that compromise and the language of confluence is not your enemy but your friend.

And everyone, everyone, always keep mindful of that GPA.

A Chess Board Analogy

They say too much idle time is the Devil’s workshop. Last week while using some power tools I imagined that the world’s political power dymanic was analogous to a chessboard, with its pieces and moves. I’m aware that chess has been used as a metaphor for any number of systems and functions. So I’m sure someone has been here before me. Regardless, I lay down before you my chessboard analogy, which I enjoy calling ‘Just Like Bobby Fischer Say’.

People before me have likened the power dynamic of players on the world stage to that of a game of 3 dimensional chess. It is an easy metaphor to visualize I suppose. While I’m not well versed in 3 dimensional chess I do have a layman’s understanding of the basics of the chess we non-Vulcans play. I must interject here that I am a poor chess player. I can barely see the current move much less several moves ahead. Anyway, here is my chessboard analogy, submitted for your approval.

This is obviously my own imagining and is in no way meant to imply any great profundity. I’m not sure why I always include a caveat with my posts. Perhaps it is because I have trouble accepting criticism and must attempt to divert it. Or perhaps it is because there really are legitimate alternatives. This particular post is narrow in scope but says enough to blog it up. Besides, I need something to post.

I have tried to present the pieces in the order of the heirarchy pyramid of their relative power. I thought a bit about the relationship between the King and Queen. To me it is somewhat a chicken and egg proposition. I eventually settled on the idea that to protect the power is in reality the most important power.

Corporations and government are the queens. They are the power that dominates the board and protects the king, who is almost invisible until it falls. The queen is easily the most versatile piece on the board. Her power is not only visible but surrepticious. She is her team’s General. I like the idea of the General being a woman. A queen who plays well uses her power in offensive and defensive ways, both stealthy and aggressive. It is the king who gives the queen her power and she protects him at all costs, to her dying breath.

The plutocratic oligarchs are the kings. They don’t move very much or very far. They hold and assign all power and give the queen her marching orders. They are the most sought after and the most protected. They are nearly invisible on the board until they are threatened. They are like matadors, avoiding catastrophe with the slightest of movements. The entire game is played to overcome them. The king who outsmarts the other wins everything. .

I could go here into a discussion about the gender of the monarch. But chess was created well over a millennia before gender equity became significant so I’m sticking to its rigid interpretations. I’m happy to accept criticism.

Religion is the aptly named bishop. It is primarily an offensive weapon that has an underlying prominence on the board because of its angular attack. It must be accounted for at all times as it can lull the queen and king to sleep and strike swiftly and surely. The queen often uses religion as a flanking maneuver that forces the king to relinquish control of a large part of the board.

The military and police are not separate pieces but together are the knights, who are versatile attacking and defending machines. They can attack suddenly from unexpected places. They can often get quite close to the king without being opposed and can make the queen weaken her defenses in a strategic way. Defensively they can snuff out an opponent’s best planned attack. They do this by making counter attacks with their uneven movement, often effective even when taken into consideration by the offense.

The rook is the media, who has the power to attack the king directly, from near and far, and with surprise. It forces the queen to make certain the king moves with caution. It’s power is perhaps greater than is perceived but it can entice the queen to make difficult decisions. The queen must use a portion of her troops to encircle the king with protection at all times. The rook can be held in check, just don’t ignore it. It is the most vulnerable piece on the board next to the pawns.

The pawns are the people. There are many more pawns on the board than any other piece but they are also the most limited in movement and power. They open the game with a relatively small move, but one which for both them and game is significant. It is the pawn’s only double move. And it points the King toward his strategic options. Pawns are sacrificial both on offense and defense. They can only move forward but can sometimes slip ahead at an angle and capture another piece, when their opponents are under multiple attacks. It is a movement similar to the way a bishop attacks. I do find it interesting that the pawn and king can both only move one square at a time.

Pawns are the chess piece most often used as a metaphor in real life. In the game they can gain great power but they must move wisely, stealthily, and with unity. They have to have a plan. It is possible to overwhelm one of the other side’s powerful pieces with numbers, or distract them while a single piece races to regain its rightful power. It can’t crown itself a king, yet can still gain any power up to and including a queen. However, it needs no small amount of luck to do this.

The machinations of the powerful pieces are of primary importance in the game. The people have little say, save for giving the king his means to defeat them. But the people can gain enough power to perhaps bring power to bear to defeat the king. It is difficult but not so rare as to give up without trying.

While it is true that in the event an elevated pawn, the people’s champion, assists in defeating the other king, the board is still ruled by a king. That king should be made aware that it was the people’s power which won the day. In that circumstance we have as much or more leverage as did the British people who forced King John to give his people the right to equal protection under the law.

Of course, this was accomplished by economic pressure from wealthy influences. But it gave the people protection from unscrupulous entities and eventually a representative government. That would actually be a good start for us. We will work on the rest of our agenda next.

We can force our current authoritarian leader to sign a new Magna Carta, just a short 700 years later.

(More Than) A Few Words About Privilege

A topic of great interest for me has been the concept of privilege. From conversations and commentary I’ve been involved in there appears to be nearly as many ideas of what privilege is and what it means as there are comments. It is out of character for me to be simple in any way but how I understand privilege seems simple compared to other explanations I have heard.

I have tried to keep myself out of this discussion, from the standpoint of my own privilege. My demographic is fraught with privilege to the degree that I may never get to the bottom of it. I am white, male, middle class, heterosexual, cisgender, protestant, college educated, a senior, with a mental disorder. All of those things are prime examples of things that are associated with some form of privilege or another.

One might ask what having a mental disorder has to do with privilege but I assure you that one has access to certain things much easier when one is “disabled”. Regardless, that litany of things about me are all subject to privilege for a very good reason. Things. They are not character traits. They are actual things. They are ‘whats’ and not ‘whos’.

This is the basis for my appreciation of what privilege is and perhaps more importantly, what it isn’t. Privilege is about things. Depending on what sort of thing we are talking about the thing a person is is either subject to privilege or not. The primary indicator is that privilege is not about who we are but about what we are. And privilege is about choice. It is about what we choose to do about the privileges we have.

I can see that this explanation is vague so let’s look into it a little closer. The criterion I use to determine if a thing has privilege is how many people can be that thing. Who you are can be anyone, and anyone can be who you are. For example, a doctor can be anyone and anyone can be a doctor. That is a who. When someone asks us who we are we normally answer with a who answer, an answer that could apply to anyone. We might say we are a doctor. That’s a who. That’s because anyone can be a doctor.

When asked who we are we likely wouldn’t say we are male. Why? Because male is not a who answer. It is a what answer. Male is a logical answer to the question what are you. That is because not everyone can be a ‘what’. We don’t ask who nationality are you. Or who colored eyes do you have. Of course ‘what’ questions can sometimes have who answers. One might ask what kind of car do you drive. But the answer there is a subset of a who answer. Anyone can potentially drive a car. So anyone could drive the same kind of car you drive.

And herein we have the criterion for the difference between who and what, between privilege and not privilege. Sure it can get confusing. If the difference between a ‘who’ and a ‘what eludes you remember the prime indicator. The proof for a ‘who’ or a ‘what’ is in the number of people that can do or be a thing. Anyone can be a doctor. Not everyone can be male. All males have privilege. Doctors do not.

Some caveats here. First, one might say that doctors have privilege. They get better seats at the theatre and restaurants, better service from just about any mechanic or cashier than other people. But that is a function of earned merit. It is not something they just are. It is something they chose to earn. Anyone can study for years to become a doctor, but no one can study to be Irish.

It is also obvious that many people have a lesser chance to be a doctor than others. But once again that is a function of choice as well, just in a different direction. People who want to be doctors are often not chosen for the opportunity to become doctors based on factors such as race and class or education. Or, people with privilege are thought to be more qualified to become doctors are chosen by others with privilege, in positions of power.

Earned privilege is not the same as ‘what’ privilege. Earned privilege doesn’t always apply to a given situation. Whereas someone who identifies as male is always male, a doctor’s earned privilege is dependent on someone else granting it to him. The mechanic can always say, ‘I don’t care if you are a doctor you aren’t getting your car done earlier than anybody else’.

Here is where we start getting into what privilege really is. It’s people getting advantages or disadvantages simply because of what they are. You’re black and you can’t buy a house in a certain neighborhood but if you are white you can. That is white privilege. It is also racism. The racism is the realtor’s and not so much the two competing parties. Racism and white privilege are not the same thing. Anyone can be a racist. That is a who. Only certain people can be white. That is a what. Now of course a person can be both white with privilege and racist. That is a dangerous state of being we will touch on later.

Another way of determining if a person is privileged is to use what I call the Aldi criterion. When a person walks into Aldi pushing a cart you can sometimes tell by looking at them that they belong to a specific group of people. They are ‘whats’who have some sort of privilege. Or sometimes you can’t tell at allThose people are usually “who’s’. Using the Aldi criterion when a doctor walks into Aldi unless they are wearing scrubs no one can tell they are a doctor. But if a woman wearing a hijab pushes her cart in she is immediately known to be a Muslim woman with traditionally little privilege.

It is interesting that unless they otherwise reveal themselves, like the doctor in scrubs, it’s impossible to know a person’s ‘who’ by observing their ‘what’. Any black, asian, native, latin, or white person, man or woman, could be a doctor. This is another way we can understand that anyone can be a who but only certain people are whats. One can see that this criteria applies consistently, at least for observations based on visible physicality.

When a Muslim or white person enters Aldi one knows immediately. As soon as a white person pushes their cart through the door you know they probably won’t be watched on the camera feeds like a young black male would be. Unless of course they are dirty and unkempt like a homeless person, who is another persecuted group with lesser societal privilege. That white person is likely viewed with the same suspicion as the black male.

There exists a hierarchy of privilege that dictates whose privilege is greater. For example a white man’s privilege is greater than a white woman’s whose privilege is greater than a black man’s. And, frankly, an elderly black man has more privilege that a young black male. A hetero white family is more likely to get a mortgage than a white lesbian family but the lesbian family would still get one over a Muslim family And neither the hetero or lesbian white family would be raided by ICE at their workplace like a Latina.

These are the effects of the victimhood of ‘the other’ by those with privilege of a higher heirarchic status. The negative effects on those with little or no privilege are many and varied. A major issue in society today is that unless the person with privilege has accepted their privilege and are sensitive to it’s damage they do not see that these negative effects are doubly invisible. They do not know they have privilege in the first place. And second, they do not see that they have done any damage. That’s some big negative karma.

The white grocery shopper above didn’t do anything to deserve that mortgage or avoiding that visit from ICE. They could be a good person or a bad person. It doesn’t matter. They just happened to be born white. When they walk into the store you don’t know them at all. But you know when they leave they are less likely to be stopped for a burnt out tail light than a black judge on his way home from court. Privilege has nothing to do with who you are. You can’t tell what sort of privilege a person has by their whos. You can only know from their whats.

I think a large part of the misunderstanding about the concept of privilege is that it gets tangled up with other concepts. Sometimes people are both a racist and have privilege and other times they are not. In the example above the white families got the houses simply because they were white. Chances were they weren’t racist. And the black family may have been just as much or more financially capable of paying their mortgage as any of the families.

Once again, all white people have white privilege. Because they are what? They are white. You don’t have to be a racist to have white privilege. You might be a racist or you might not. But you absolutely have to be white. Being white affords you a laundry list of privilege you hold over other races. You did nothing to earn it. This is where the conversation about white privilege in particular usually goes south. A person will be told they have white privilege and immediately they become angry and say “But I’m not a racist”.

And maybe they aren’t a racist. But they do have white privilege. Why? Because everyone can be a racist but not everyone can be white. Being racist is a who and being white is a what. You have privilege when what you are is higher on the heirarchy totem than other people. There then is a set of advantages available to you based solely on that particular what. Sometimes people get confused with whos and whats. One big confusion that creates problems with people understanding white privilege stems from the fact that people are often both white and racist.

This is truly a big problem. Not only in local sociopolitical discourse but also as a national issue that is crippling American society. As individuals we must separate the conversation about race from the issue of whether or not somebody has privilege. People will try to mix up the two to muddy the waters. The issues of racism and white privilege are just two of many intertwined and complicated issues we face as a society. It’s vitally important to be clear about the universe to which our conversations apply.

For me the number one thing people can do to break through the anger and misinformation out there is to put a wedge between the concepts of ‘what’ with it’s privilege and ‘who’ states of being. Only then can productive dialogue take place. Let’s say you are talking to a male about discrepancies in pay for the USWNT, even as they have won the World Cup 4 times out of 8. You say that male privilege is largely responsible for women not getting equal pay. The man says ‘But my company gives women equal pay’.

If you aren’t clear about what to say in a situation like that always ask yourself the who vs. what question before you rattle off an answer. A good reply is not always very clear and an answer is expected immediately. So practice arming yourself with the question, internally. In this instance not all companies pay women equally. His company is more who than what privilege has a lower hierarchy than male privilege. Therefore his claim doesn’t hold water. This is a subtle distinction.

Companies themselves don’t have privilege so much as power and influence. The same with politicians and others with power. Their power can often circumvent privilege. They are higher on the heirarchy pyramid. However, classic privilege still functions in many situations, such as the black judge getting pulled over for a minor infraction or ludicrous suspicion. There are exceptions to the who versus what criterion.

In our equal pay example the man is a ‘what’ and has male privilege. Armed with this knowledge you can respectfully inform him of the difference between a what and a who. And how that relates to their conversation. It isn’t hard to understand these things when you keep them clear and basic. And without judgement.

If he isn’t hardcore and is simply confused or under the spell of propaganda you are much more likely to continue with a meaningful conversation. It may even inspire him to reevaluate his position on privilege and start looking into himself. This will be because he now knows he himself is not responsible for his privilege. It is because from birth he has been part of a specific group. He is now aware he has no control over his privilege, and never had.

One thing people should understand is that everyone has some sort of privilege. Everyone can have or do something that others can’t, simply because of what they are. People of color have privilege too. Men have privilege. Tall people have privilege. Attractive women get into night clubs while others can’t. English speakers also have privilege. Why? Because it is a what answerr to the question ‘What language do you speak’. In our culture some of these ‘what’ groups have significantly more privilege and others have significantly less. It’s that heirarchy pyramid at work.

Privilege can also be reversed. If you are a white person, try going into certain restaurants or night clubs in certain ethnic or religious neighborhoods and see how comfortable you feel. In that select environment black people have privilege. The heirarchy is reversed. Stepping out of your universe of privilege like that is actually a great way to experience the anguish of being a victim of privilege. It can change your perspective rather quickly. Most white people have rarely, if ever, experienced even five minutes of the abject discomfort that people of color feel everyday all day, often as the only POC in the room. This is not always easy for white people. In these situations they are prone to freaking out.

Sadly, and actually I should use a stronger word here than sadly, the fear that POC will soon have the privilege of being the majority leads white supremacists to desperation. It fuels their attempts to create an American apartheid. They are frightened and angry. They are desperate to maintain political power even as they become a minority race in America.

This desperation stems from the fact they have had privilege in this nation for hundreds of years. They have never known anything else. Just the opposite, POC in the USA have been the victims of white privilege and supremacy for just as long. They are determined to gain the equity in political and social power they have deserved for hundreds of years. White people in America are as afraid of losing their power as POC are determined to have power. This struggle is also a crisis in the USA, one that continues to grow.

Understanding your own privilege and acting to neutralize it is vitally important for our ability to see it in others. All the things I mentioned as my demographic are ‘whats’. White, male, middle class etc. are all whats. Those ‘whats’ show me my privileges. But, I don’t have musicians privilege or history degree privilege. Because those are whos. Your whats and whos shape you as you relate to the world. As white people the work we must do is to constantly assess and reassess not only what biases and prejudices we have, but also accessing our ‘whats’ and the privilege that accompanies them. By knowing ourselves and looking deep inside us we discover how our own privilege affects us and those around us.

We need meaningful dialogue in our country at rural breakfast counters to urban cocktail parties and everywhere in between. Our knowledge of self and awareness of the advantages we have simply because of what we are, whether male or white or any other ‘what’ are vital tools. We can use them to diffuse the anger and the misunderstandings about privilege these honest conversations reveal. It is a good first step toward having those respectful conversations. To take that step means being clear about your own privilege and how it affects others.

This is where those tools we’ve discussed come into play. I have experienced these sorts of encounters first hand. I have had several ‘I’m not a racist’ discussions. The conversation often centers on choice. I explain that they had no choice in being white but they did have a choice to be a racist. And they chose not to be one. Nor did they choose to have white privilege because they didn’t choose to be white. In my experience this sort of open and honest dialogue has often calmed people down enough to civilly talk about our privilege and what we can do to work on it.

Most people want to get along with each other and any tools we can use to help people learn to live better together are valuable. White people having honest conversations with other white people is very important to our understanding of privilege. We need to work hard to refine techniques of communication that are based more on the shared values of our ‘whats’ and less on the often divisive ideas of our ‘whos’. Using these tools will give us a better chance of breaking through resistance than simply bludgeoning people with facts.

There are many positive results we can take away from productive conversations about privilege. But it takes work, fortitude, patience, and mostly love. We mustn’t forget that there are as many types of privilege as there are human ‘what’s’. Developing self reflection, humility and good listening skills as habitual will be invaluable to our relationships on all levels. Exploring the ‘whats’ in our own lives gives us great insight into how our privileges affect the people in our lives in so many ways. It also gives us a peek into the privileges of others, how they affect us, and significantly, how they also affect them.

I have always found it valuable to look at situations like these through the lens of who vs. what relationships. I remember that women don’t walk across the street when they see me walking towards them, not because I’m a musician but because I’m white. I can’t change the fact that I’m white. I have to accept that and thus I have to accept the consequences of that. I have to accept my white privilege. This means I must look deep inside myself to find the privillege imprinted there, often since I was a child.

Also important is that I ask myself why that women who doesn’t cross to the other side of the street when I approach will cross over when a black man approaches. Then I need to think about how that black man feels when, every day, white people avoid him and stare at him like he is a criminal. And then I must stop looking at him like that myself, because he deserves to have a happy and fulfilling life as much as I or anyone else does. He is not a black who just happens to be a man but a man who just happens to be black. It’s a subtle difference but significant.

So, let’s remember. Privilege is a sociocultural, economic, political, or physical advantage you have when you belong to a group that not everyone can belong to. Something that only the limited number of people in that group can have or do. Privilege is about what you are. If you make it about who you are, if it’s about who you have made yourself or who you chose to be, that’s not about privilege. But don’t ignore or discount the ‘whos’. Often whats and whos can come together, such as male privilege and toxic masculinity, to create powerful sociopolitical gangs that are damaging to society and difficult to contend with. Be wary of such combinations.

I have to say here that I am not an authority on privilege. Far from it. My observations can likely be shot full of holes by most anyone. In fact, with the litany of privileges I have I could easily spend the rest of my life discovering and working on them. That being said, I believe in my observations and these tools as limited as they may be. I need to do more work and listen and learn. I must humble myself before those who know more.

We know that I have plenty of privilege to work on, much of it deeply buried in my unconscious. Sometimes it comes out at bad times. I get embarrassed and angry with myself. I feel I have failed in moving into the 21st century, where human evolution is outstripping efforts to blunt it. Luckily, I have a good support system of loving comrades who remind me that I am working hard on my shortcomings and thus worthy of a few mulligans. I am grateful for their succor and love.

If this post helps just one person open up, make their privileges conscious, and find the strength to work on neutralizing there effects out in the world I will have succeeded.

Perhaps I am that one person.

Filing My Tongue To a Point!

I get angrier by the day as I read or hear comments about what a stupid, heartless, idiot, our President is. Although it may be cathartic to prattle on so, as action it isn’t effective. What is needed right now from patriots everywhere is effort, action that will be uncomfortable and a little scary. How do we push through our fear, the fear that paralyzes, and find our will to act?


Our actions needn’t be heroic, although some might say any action is heroic. It needn’t be all that dangerous either. It may be as simple as showing up to a protest, calling your congressman’s office, or donating a few dollars to someone running for office who displays the same values you do. It’s in the action that we find meaning.


Talk is cheap. If you don’t see how our democratic republic is being systematically destroyed, or worse, if you see it and do nothing, you are with those who deserve the coming autocratic government. This is not to say that a cathartic cry out once in a while is bad. It can soothe temporarily. But it must be accompanied by action.

The American experiment is wholly dependent on the actions of We The People. It only succeeds when we uphold the principles the founding fathers insisted upon. We continue to fight for true freedom and liberty against the wealthy white men who crafted our country to serve their own desires and who still lord over us. But the essence of this democratic republic’s philosophy and tenets of governance is worth fighting for as well. Many Americans have died to preserve those principles. How can we do anything else but fight for them.

We cannot let those who fear the future divide us with that same fear and prevent our nation’s evolution. These men who look backwards are desperate to maintain their white supremacist power. They have the resources to bring to bear a plethora of sociopolitical weapons. They have an endless supply of propaganda’s ammunition with which to flummox the vulnerable. They have a death grip on the means of wielding power.

What do we have to oppose this abusive and continuous psychological and oppressive onslaught?

The successful re-evolutionary does not blindly rush into the fight, courageous but vulnerable to the oligarchy’s many weapons. They use all the means at their disposal to protect and preserve their power to rule. But what we all have are the seven centers of actual power, divine power which cannot be taken away. Used in concert with each other they can liberate us from the matrix. Used correctly they fill our scabbard and can slay dragons. The seven:

Our drive to survive. That unconscious imperative to advance our kind. To live and see future generations carry on. A need to see to it that seven future generations will prosper.


Our desire. Seeking the joy of creating a world where we can pursue the happiness that is our right. Where we can drink wine and make love and fulfill that primeval desire to evolve the species.

Our fortitude. That stick-to-it nature that will do anything needed and never give up. It is the will to succeed in creating a world of justice at any cost. It is what carries courage on it’s back and never tires.

Our heart. Where the soul lives, next door to love and across the street from empathy. The nerve center that connects and holds together the power of the body with the power of the mind. The tip of the spear that can defeat any darkness or evil, with respect.


Our speech. Our instrument of communication. It is the place where the love in the heart meets the mind’s wisdom and plans. The means of connecting to all souls who cross our paths. The place where we learn and grow.

Our mind. Where we process our convoluted lives. The light with the love. The power with the knowledge. The desire with the emotions. The need to be one with the need to be many. The mind is the repository of the spirit’s wisdom and grace. It introduces us to the universal.


Our portal. The drive to survive, bursting through to the place we came from and return to. We start with the spark of the continual universe. Two cells from two sources forming a double helix in the dualism of all continuums. Yin and Yang. And in the end we return to that spark.

Life pours out through the portal to reunite with the universe, moving out to find the three, the final, original prime number. Three branches of government. The Christian trinity. The three forms of rock. The three primary gods of the Hindus. Three strikes you’re out. And the three become one.


How do these centers, working together, relate to activism, whose root is action? They reveal that to prevail we do not use only our minds or only our courage. We must use our whole selves, focused, clear, and fully realized. We throw our goal out into the wind and it slips back, making our imagination come true, but only if we follow it in faith.

Faith depends on truth. Truth is the heart’s weapon. We have to defend truth from those who would destroy it. All tyrants try to corrupt truth. They try to replace faith with a certainty of falsehood. When truth is corrupt love is an illusion and faith is a chasm.

In this turbulent time truth is being bludgeoned to death before our very eyes. Many of us are sitting idly by and letting it happen. Truth is not always static. It is not always anchored. It is elusive and malleable in meaning. It is constantly moving and morphing into new relationships. We have to chase it, lest it eludes us. We must be fleet of foot and quick of mind to find it. We must have endurance and stamina and be able to look into those places we don’t want to go. We cannot just pick it up and gaze at it with wonder. We need to use it wisely.


What do we do with the truth when we finally capture it? It is the weapon of the heart, a mind-body-laser. We guide it into the soft underbelly of the fearful ones. Their subconscious tells them the fear they fear is real and will decay and rot them in the end. It makes them vulnerable. But we must secure it deep within them. Get close enough to replace their fear with joy.

It will never be easy. We’ve got to avoid the sleight of hand and bullying they depend on. We cannot ever succumb to their fear. We The People need to meet them face to face, look into their eyes and love them. When we fill their empty selves with love and understanding their fear will dissipate for it is an illusion. As FDR once said, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”. And defeating fear takes our complete selves, dissipating our own illusions of opposing priorities and false hierarchies of need.

I began here in anger directed at those who call our President and his government clever and demeaning names out of their own anger. But I wound up preaching about a theology of dissidence. A name is a powerful thing and when you name something you gain power over it. Think of how Donald Trunp has names for all his enemies, Crooked Hillary, Pocahontas. So I believe those who name he who must not be named do so to regain the power he has stolen from them. And that is more than ok.

Subsequently my grasp of the nature of divinity is tenuous at best. I am not quite yet the enlightened sage. For that I apologize. I digress. Recent events have motivated me to say exactly what my brain is currently plugged into, out there in the cosmos. It’s about time. I’ve had this stuff swirling around in my head for years but I was trapped in my own fear. I feared if I said what I really felt, what I knew about things people would laugh and ostracize me. I have such been a coward. Would that you never be a coward like me. None of us can afford that now.

As a caveat I must say that as always there will be no punishment for not acting. If right now you can only invent cute negative names that help you grow and recapture your power there will be no penance. I will rejoice. Not everyone is at a place in their life for that kind of courage. So use your other abundant courage to live a good life. We all walk our own path. But you might be ready to act without being consciously aware of it. And that’s where the stimulus, the agitation and the big nudge comes in.

Please listen carefully. You can throw what I say out with the trash or line the birdcage if you so choose. On the other hand, I just might wake you up.

That would be a source of great pleasure.

St. Cloud MN: My Take

Here’s the headline: 

NYTimes article sets off firestorm, puts St. Cloud MN under the microscope of refugee resettlement controversy. 

I’m thinking the main characters in this tragedy are all bound to the wall of the cave, only able to see the shadows from the fire burning brightly in the background. Only seeing the shadows and not the substance. I cannot claim to have been released from bondage myself but I have seen these shadows often and for many years.

I have shot from the hip regarding controversial public issues for a very long time. These days I’m more inclined to reflect before I say anything. And I believe in this instance my hesitation has served me. The shadows are familiar and clear enough.

This latest hot button item is local but made the front page of the NYTimes and subsequently plenty of local and regional media outlets. We are on the map now, an example of a national phenomenon that while always bubbling underneath the surface has recently surfaced in all its ugly glory.

Not inclined to reveal too much about myself personally, probably out of some form of cowardice, I nevertheless have a need to say something about these events, numerous opinions, and rants circulating about my hometown, St. Cloud MN. My commentary about this narrative is pouring out of my consciousness only. It should not be construed as any sort of absolute truth. But it is my truth and I stand by it.

The controversy: St. Cloud and surrounding area has a long history of white supremacy, racism, religious discord. And recently, islamophobia, anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment. It has been called White Cloud and it has often been assumed this demeaning kind of people were in the majority.

I’ll start with what might be seen as unrelated background noise. I think it speaks volumes. I haven’t heard it brought up in relation to the solid foundation of this problem, a should be condemned building, whose cornerstone is more than mere white supremacy.

St. Cloud and most of its metro area rest in Stearns County, a place that has been the subject of plenty of rumors, conjecture, myth, and controversy over the years. It’s residents have been accused of enough socially unacceptable behaviors to blanch the skin of any god fearing soul. But I need to deal with facts, and the fact is the area was settled in the mid 19th century, primarily by German Catholics.

Across the street from the church that was the central nervous system of the hamlet was a single building, a combination bar and grill, city hall, police station, and a jail that mostly served as a reckless driving overnight hotel and drunk tank. Young boys were said to buy beer pretty much as soon as they could reach the bar top with their money. As the sheriff was normally a favorite son his head was turned the other way from many of these ‘minor’ transgressions. 

Were I to use one word to describe these settlers it would be parochial. They kept to themselves and lived much as they had in Germany, preserving their culture and rituals. The unusual thing about these settlers is they preserved their cultural norms and traditions much longer than most other immigrant cultures. Very few ever ventured beyond their township. They married from trusted, neighboring farm families, with eventually all in the enclave related somehow. They maintained their language and spoke it at home and in the community, rarely needing to use English unless they nervously ventured to the ‘metropolis’ of St. Cloud for some needed item. For many that was as far from home as they ever ventured.

Their mistrust of any except their own meant a fierce protection of their ‘turf’. Outsiders were quickly shown they were not welcome. Granted, this was more out of fear of the unknown rather than true malice aforethought. Seen from some on the outside there was a perceived innocence there that led them to find the folks of these communities ‘unique’ and ‘folksy’, as long as you left them alone.

So this micro environs stayed pretty much the same for the better part of a century. Assimilation was not really on the menu. To whit, here is a personal example. At a St. Cloud high school in the mid 1960’s I fancied a beautiful young woman and asked her for a date. She had soft blonde hair and warm eyes and spoke in an interesting clipped consonant style. 

When I picked her up it confirmed my suspicion that she lived on a farm in Stearns County. Her whole family spoke with that clearly German accent. They all looked at me warily. I later learned her parents were reticent to let their daughter to go out with that ’St. Cloud city boy’. I also learned that she had spoken only German in her home until she went to elementary school and basically had to learn English on her own, at five years old.

Slowly, over the years, the youth of the area began to venture out into the world, mostly to St. Cloud. Some wild risk takers settled all the way to the wicked Minneapolis. As St. Cloud began to grow its base population was largely these German and other Catholics, mostly Poles. St. Cloud at this time was @70% Catholic. These are the people who now have been here for several generations. Their turf is now St. Cloud. They protect their turf. They still fear and don’t trust outsiders.

I must admit that my assessment of these things is purely opinion and there is a real chance I am wrong about some things. But the essence is true. For decades these German settlers and their descendents remained isolated, holding dear their old world cultural traditions, language, their mistrust of strangers, and fear of the unknown. 

The irony in all of this is that many of those who oppose refugee resettlement and secondary immigration accuse the Somali Muslims of the same things their relatives and friends did for so many years just miles away. Somalis are said to refuse to assimilate, won’t learn our language, insist on maintaining their culture, and stay isolated from mainstream society, mostly out of fear of discrimination. Where have we heard this before?

So what does this all have to do with St. Cloud’s once and present fractured community. I believe this history provides some backstory that has value in helping us see more of these issues more clearly. I’m not certain why, but I have yet to see anyone address the St Cloud area’s past. Having been born and raised in St. Cloud I have experienced examples of this insulated worldview. It is quite real

Now, while tangible and not insignificant these problems are not as prevalent as some would want you to think. Click bait headlines and superficial journalistic works that depended on sources with agendas have shone a brighter light on our bad behavior than good. The majority of St. Cloud’s predominantly Christian citizens have, as admonished by Jesus, welcomed and accepted the immigrant as children of god. Besides, unbeknownst to many, as is shown by people’s comments, it is said that Muslims worship a different god than Christians, which is patently untrue. This only one of the sad misunderstandings we suffer. 

Prominent among the complaints is that Somali Muslims are ‘stealing’ our hard earned tax dollars by getting ‘free’ stuff while our unfortunate veterans are homeless and poor white people get nothing from government. While these things have been proven by professional investigation to be untrue the narrative refuses to die. Unbeknownst to many, as is shown by people’s comments, it is said that Muslims worship a different god than Christians, which is patently untrue. These are only several of the sad misunderstandings from which we suffer. 

The fact that the Muslim community spends most of their money locally, helping many of our small businesses thrive, and contributing to the tax base is lost on many. The Somali entrepreneurial spirit thrives. These positive contributions of the Somali community to St. Cloud far outweigh their perceived harm.

It is these misconceptions that non-profit organization such as Unitecloud and the many other white, Christian friends of the mostly Somali Muslims look to clear up. There is a conscious and concerted effort to bring the leaders of the not so thinly veiled anti-immigrant groups such as C-Cubed together with Muslim leaders and white allies for open, honest and respectful conversation.

This dialogue between people who are equal in the eyes of god can only lead to a better understanding of each other and bring St. Cloud closer together, perhaps only modestly but in a meaningful way, and point us toward the kind of equity needed not only here, but nationwide.

I find it sad looking back on what I have said here. I find myself angry about spending most of my time talking about both real and alleged damage done to St. Cloud. Damage wreaked by any number of people, many of whom could still be considered to be without rancor.

Sometimes I am overtaken by grief and despair by all of this, unable to see an exit from the anguish felt by so many in this city. But on other days I see the light of hope peaking in. St. Cloud is filled with talented artists and musicians, aspiring students, dedicated professionals in many fields, skilled artisans and accomplished hard working essential workers. It is truly a good place to live.

These are all good people and I love them, as do a large majority of us love each other. I work very hard at loving even those frightened souls who disparage those they do not know or understand. I work very hard to discover and change the biases and privileges inside me, living just underneath consciousness, that keep me apart from others and sadly rear their darkness, diminishing me.

I intend to keep fighting for joy and justice.

Isn’t the Rio (Grand)e?

I have an issue with Democrats and their acceptance of the frame “border security”. Security implies and supports the conservative concept: “Americans good, Latinx bad”. Used as it is most often, security is a military term, as in: send troops there, establish and secure a perimeter. i.e. don’t let anyone in besides us and use force if necessary. Used as a social term security can mean someone who arbitrarily decides who can enter a nightclub or concert and who to remove from those venues, often by violence.

I prefer the term border protection. I hear it used as a descriptive or supportive phrase from all sides but only ancillary to the metaphor “Border Security”. As a primary metaphor “border protection” implies and supports the progressive idea that the border should be safe, protected from bad people who want to get in and hurt us but also safe for people whose home country was unsafe. Morally they deserve protection too.

It is known that advances in technology continue to make the border safer and the billions of dollars required for a wall is a waste of taxpayers money. That money can be better used for the numerous personnel needed to expeditiously process refugee claims and the modern technology used to interdict people and contraband coming in through our seaports and airports.

One might say that people aren’t consciously aware of any difference between those words but unconsciously they do and decisions about what words mean are made unconsciously, informed by experience and repetition. Just as in the difference between regulation and protection when used regarding government monitoring of business, protection is the word that speaks more to those without power while security and regulation are words about the use of power by those who have it. The difference is subtle but significant. How those words are defined by society can easily be influenced.

We have all heard that words have power. But what is it exactly that bestows them with this power? Words are like icons on a computer desktop. The icon contains no information of it’s own. It only points to and connects us to a file or folder in storage that contains the information the user associates with that icon. Words are icons that connect us to where the real information is stored in the brain.

Our brains have to process billions of bits of information daily. Because of this the brain needs to take shortcuts. One word can connect us to entire concepts. Consider the word baseball. Not only does it connect you to a small round object but to a stadium and bats and uniforms and umpires and balls and strikes and beer vendors etc.

But an icon will only connect us to one file or folder and a word will only connect us to one definition or one collection of related things. It cannot connect us to two unrelated files at the same time. When you hear the word baseball you will not see a hockey puck. When we want to use the information found on a particular file we recall the icon associated with the info, click it, and the information appears. No matter how many times you click the icon for rock and roll it will not take you to jazz.

Persuading folks that a word means something different than you think it means is as easy as getting your definition to the top of the Google search results. You repeat it over and over again. Eventually the Google brain decides that the other definition is correct and yours is wrong. Google doesn’t know right from wrong nor does it care. So the wrong answer easily becomes the answer you find when you ask..

This is why using words like security and regulation over and over again to describe refugees claiming asylum will connect people to using our power to keep everyone out with a wall and assault rifles instead of using our power to determine who can enter and who cannot. It won’t matter which idea is right. It only matters which one people say is right. In this scenario getting society to accept that our real job is to protect those involved will not be easy. It will be very difficult. Getting your information to the top of the Google search isn’t easy.

Words do have power and we must use that power to help all peoples, as our American moral values dictate.

Everybody gets their say and so do I.

Faced with what they perceived as the crisis of a failure to establish their ideology as dominant in American politics, the radical conservatives of the 1970’s took to a new strategy. Rather than appeal to the people directly, which wasn’t quite working, they chose to use their money to create a middle man who would influence the people in a more subtle, indirect way. They began to buy up media outlets and established think tanks that employed bright young minds with the sole task of creating strategies and policies, plus the language that would effectively promote their ideology through those same media outlets. A wise and effective plan.

Why do I bring this up at a time when there are plenty of things that are devastating our democracy to think about. It’s because there are so many things threatening to destroy our democracy we must do something about. We on the left need to do a similar thing as was done by the far right nearly 50 years ago. We need a new strategy. We need to create positions for bright young minds to concentrate solely on finding a synthesis of viable solutions to the myriad existential problems we face. We need to point ourselves to a better use of persuasive language. And we need to facilitate the infrastructure and resources needed to pull this off.

Now, unlike the conservatives of the Nixon era, we don’t have the financial resources to both do this and purchase those means of distributing our ideas to the public. Besides, the conservative owners of major media in America aren’t about to hand over their powerful tool of communication to any “Libtards”. So to establish a majority will of the nation to force government into embracing workable solutions we must find a more organic means of persuasion. This organism can only be formed by the people, who, as in many times past, will use their true, pure power to gently help enough people reconnect with the values that have AMAG (Always Made America Great).

The resources, both financial and human, have always been there. We just need to quit being whiny egoistic babies and agree that no one issue is greater than any other. We must accept that the many critical issues that face us, when looked at collectively as they must, can only be addressed by working on them synthetically, as parts of a whole, rather than analytically, as just parts.

I ask if the actual rather than imagined demise of life on the planet is worth, metaphorically, having 100 people speaking with one voice rather than 100 people speaking in a Babelesque hundred voices. Frankly, I have had it up to beyond here. As you know, I am not immune to this behavior. Far from it. I am one of it’s most virulent practioners. To succeed, what I need to do is sequester myself away with some coffee, Laphroaig, and pizza (and more Laphroaig) until I am able to take a course of action. (Action is a type of actually doing something instead of just talking about it for those of you unfamiliar with the concept).

If I can’t be the point of the spear, for which I have never been hard enough, I will enter the crucible of surrender to truth, and temper myself into a functioning part of the strong shaft.

I owe it to you all out of respect for the divine gift of conscious occupation of this, my form that I lease from the universe.

None of us can afford to break the terms of our lease on life.