The Politics of Abundance

The Politics of Abundance: Should We Care Who is Elected?

First, this is not a “political” statement, this is about the Practice of Abundance, but if Abundance is to be real, it must manifest across the board, and that includes in the political arena.

On one hand, it does not matter who is elected, be it through big tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical money, or the like. The politician is the product of the cultural vibration and not its source. And it is a bit foolish to expect elected officials to “change things,” the middle moves slowly, human evolution moves extremely slowly, and public work takes patience and humility.

From the point of view of “the work,” we are the ones who must change. But why do we get hooked, as a people, into the drama of it? Why is politics such big news? After all, if the other guy had been elected president, would gas prices be any different? I don’t know if one can answer this, but in any case, could it be that what we call politics is–to a large degree–a staged bread and circus act that keeps us focused “out there” blaming someone else and not looking at what we are habitually doing? [In ancient Rome, the government kept the people entertained through bread and circuses and thus kept their minds off of the demise of their culture.  We are encouraged to gorge ourselves on huge amounts of food that have little or no nutritional value and on huge amounts of infotainment that have less than no value]

The fragility of our freedom is evident, especially since the 911 incident. It often seems that we have to choose between security and freedom, and that is a challenging choice. It is all too easy to say “Bush took our freedoms away,” or “Kennedy will hopelessly weaken our country,” and it is these types of reactions that fuel the theater of acrimony and lessen the opportunities for meaningful dialog. Democracy has been a long climb, and it probably wouldn’t be difficult to slip back down.

We often fail to realize that nearly all the “great spiritual teachings” of the world were created in spite of authoritarian institutions: monarchies, dictatorships, and the like. And often “getting religion” or even “going spiritual” has meant returning to some “absolutist” teacher or teaching who is “right.” America, on the other hand, no matter how far it has strayed from its ideals, was founded on an ideal of religious freedom, with freedom of conscience being the lynchpin of the new world: beyond the life, liberty, and pursuit of property of British philosopher John Locke, toward the “pursuit of happiness” as the social and cultural support of the right to pursue one’s own relationship with God.

Politics is literally about living and working with power, and this is unavoidable in our lives. To what degree are we willing to be conscious of the power dynamics in our life? This is not about who is “elected” in the media circus, rather it has to do with the restaurants we eat in that use Mexican dishwashers at below minimum wage, and the way we treat our kids (or anyone else) when they disagree with us. It is about censorship through the financial pressure of publishing companies, and the genetically engineered material in the popcorn that we innocently eat at the movies.

My own sense of possibility holds that while we may not be able to successfully challenge or reverse the monolith of a runaway economy (a manifestation of our collective scarcity, fear, and greed), we can work to build spaces of grass roots sanity and awareness and confront our own scarcity, fear, and greed. One such space is a conscious “gifting community” that overrides monetary concerns. This could be your family, your household, or your group of like minded souls, people who you can exchange your best with, who can receive you. Juno—the goddess of the home, to my knowledge—does not discriminate as to how people set themselves up. We all know that love makes a family anyway.

Gifting throws a wrench into the dehumanizing monetary system, which is why the IRS cannot deal with bartering or tipping. Heartfelt generous tipping is a great practice of abundance. When you are getting juiced from the energetic exchange of your daily interactions, you are less likely to become caught in the light vs. dark dramas, whether they are about “Hillary versus Obama,” or “Bush versus the rest of the world.” As Allen Ginsberg put it decades ago (I must paraphrase here from his poem, “America”), “America, are you going to let your emotional life be run by Time Magazine?”

Then, with clear heads and hearts we may be able to hire honest, accountable representatives and administrators (if you want leaders please look to artists, visionaries, and those who have earned our trust by living among us ), and save our existential dramas for things that are really important. (Like the Yankees versus Red Sox! — just kidding, but that would do less damage than getting caught in staged political drama as a substitute for genuine debate, inquiry, and exchange.)

I guess what I am trying to say is that the treasure of our conscience is too valuable to throw away on staged events that eschew both dialog and thoughtful participation. How we work with power and energy is crucial, and our freedom of conscience is most worth nurturing and protecting.

RJ

3 Responses to “The Politics of Abundance”

  1. Wendy Says:

    Thanks for the posting. This is one of the most thoughtful remarks on politics that I have read. Lauriel’s comment several weeks ago about how our thoughts and projections create much of our experience got me thinking about some of our troubled politics and how I was possibly contributing to them in my own way. But, the harder question for me was how do I think or behave differently to make a difference. This post addresses that question.

    I am as guilty as the next person about ranting about bad politics and bad politicians, but obsession and excessive complaining are a waste of valuable energy. On the other hand, I work with power dynamics every day – on a very small scale. I can be quick to abdicate power when I shouldn’t or misuse it in a petty way. T

    he acts and transactions seem inconsequential in the big scheme of things – who cares if I share the use of my desk with another co-worker who appears control-hungry or vindictive? Who cares if I purchase a product for $3.75 from an environmentally irresponsible company? But, these things add up, and they are tremendously important in how we manage our lives and personal energy.

    The challenge for me is recognizing the power dynamics in my life. At first blush, I would tell you that I have very little power in the world – little money, a humble job teaching English and few ‘powerful connections.’ But, that’s not the point. The real power comes from our soul and our connection to universal abundance. This is something I am responsible for cultivating, and as the post points out – no human politics (even as extreme as dictatorships) can interfere with this connection.

    Thanks for posting your thoughts on this matter.

  2. chris Ulrich Says:

    Hi Rick,
    This piece - a pleasure to read. Being in the politics realm less so then I use to be, I think about this stuff often - I watch it with a pit in my stomach and wonder what the hell is the point with it all. On one level it makes very little difference who is president i.e. both sides are beholden to special interests like the senators and congressman who must raise money every week to prepare for the next election. If your a dem and your potus is dem then your interest groups are more in line and you tolerate it and vice versa if your republican. We have moved from a time of President of all the people to a time of President of the Interest that put the candidate in power.
    If one is able to sit through the debates - you see how very very painful it is to watch — how candidates do several things, they speak to the party base, they have their prepared one liners or zingers toward another candidate in the hope being the quip of the night that gets played over and over the next day as the pundits- even more painful wax on about how improved you are or how presidential you are — and you work to avoid at all costs the Gaffe! Because the same things will happen, the 24hr news channels hungry for any story be it Paris Hilton in jail or out of jail, finds god or finds her cell can only take up 22 hours of coverage a day - and in the other time that gaffe gets played over and over and the pundits talk about the mistake and talk about how unpresidential you are….
    Therefore, candidates and their consultants spend a lot of money and time on opposition research, giving reporters stories of their opponent, if they cant get a reporter to bite they sent it to bloggers or political sympathizers via blogs or shows like Limbaugh or Drudge or Daily Kos etc. And hopefully it gets picked up and your opponent must deny, give time and energy to cleaning it up, or get thrown off message as they address the issue.
    Also, the debates have become a spectacle themselves - nothing is more foolish - 10 people on a stage, smiling like beauty contestants, asked to say how you going to fix america and make everything A-OK, hunky doory, in 2 minutes or less. Its gotten so bad, that on CNN, they just asked them to raise there hand if they agree or disagree. On top of it the debate are 90 minutes–one option - make i Or one topic 3 hours –since these folks have been running for president for the last year and we will have probably 10 debates on each side before we even get to Iowa in January… why not. Because the campaign want it the way it is - saying less is more - and less free for all means easier to stay on their message which as I have mentioned is usually poll tested or focused group or appeals to the base of the party. Need the base in the primary right!
    I digress, have been thinking are these candidates –are they good people just caught up in a bad system and therefore forced to play the game this way? Heard an announcer discuss the point that we know that the candidates are playing it the way they are and we know they are inauthentic but we expect it and we expect them to play this role. In reality, it would be refreshing to see everytime they give an anwer to a debate question an * at the bottom of the page with a more complete and realistic answer. Instead, we hear politicians try to one up each other like at the last Republican debate when Guantanamo bay came up - some said it should be closed, others, said it should stay open and serves a purpose, and M. Romney said, its serves a purpose and Id double the size of it! What the hell does that mean and why say something so silly. This may sound like a slam of Romney I mean it not to be but I feel its one of those moments when the candidate feels the push to be better to make news or get out and front and his intent or the underlying message is Im so tough on terror I’ll do doubly good on getting terrorists etc.
    And the system says, raise a ton of money, and its true you with the most money has the best shot! And whole first quarter was about who could raise the most money, the next is who can raise the most money and who has an idea or two to help the country. And the game of politics is brutal even on those who want to “turn the page” and elevate the debate and poltical game. Can it be done. I havent see n it. Had a little hope for Obama to do it but he but the system has challenged his concept of elevating the discussion — he has been hit having to give money back as some of his donors have been indicted and will ultimately have to give between $16 and 168 thousand to charity to avoid being linked to his donors, some long time associates, who have been indicted. Also, he faced criticsm this week for a internal memo they were trying to feed to bloggers and reporters showing the Clintons financial dealings with members of the Indian American community and suggestion the relationship is too cozy. The memo called Clinton - DPunjab was leaked and the Clinton Campaign gave it to the press - the Indian American community was upset at the Obama campaign for its actions and put out a statement and Obama was forced to apolozige. Not a good day for a candidate who is trying to portray a new kind of politics. Its an ugly game and it will only get more ugly as the stakes rise.
    One other showing of how bad the system is - Sen McCain attacked the Defense industry and contractors as only being concerned about the next contract etc — going after their work performance and overcharging the goverment. Great. But if your running for President not really so great. Why– the defnese industry is a hugh contributor to campaigns and if your slamming them - they aint giving you no money! Really they give some to cover themselves but send their money to others who are more in line so to speak. And its difficult for a candidate to rail against them and other big business espcially when your competition is raising $20 -25 million a quarter and your bringing in half of that. So the system doesnt help these folks out.
    Thus, your point that we must be the change we seek could be more true and we’ve seen it time and time again with great men and women across the country that have forced or brought change. The hard part for me is ok, Ill be the change I want to see in the world, great what the hell do I do next.
    I do know that the process of what I am working on to be that change teaches me to do so by becoming a craftsman rather then member of the inner ring to be on the In so to speak– while back a read a piece by CS lewis called the inner ring- http://www.geocities.com/bigcslewisfan/ - man does it apply well to politics and most stuff for that matter and has helped me think about how I want to operate and operate within groups etc. I include it here for anybody who might be interested
    Well, in the meantime, will keep working on focusing it more clearly and keep you posted. Thanks for letting me stream of conscious here…peace, cru

  3. Jim Says:

    The politics of abundance would be a world with senators and congressman who had term limits, public funding of elections, and where the citizens set the agenda. When people make careers out of politics there is a point where they put themselves first and sell out to the system. The campaigns are so ugly and full of hateful mudslinging that it apeals to the worst part of us; the part that supports the violence that Hollywood cranks out. It has become a dark pursuit of finding the pain threshhold of the opponent, at the cost of the citizens being sidetracked into believing that the agenda is out of reach to us. Living and working with power is too much for most of our reps to fathom, they work it from the angle of being a local hero, or getting a book deal or a powerful consultancy. Whats best for all of us is a matter of debate, yet that central issue is never put on the table, instead whats best for all of us is packaged into telling us what we want to here. Nevertheless, our sytem is nowhere near broken, just a work in progress. Maybe someday we’ll all be wired into a central network that forces all officeholders to listen to us. What if we all spent 30 minutes a day studying the issues and forwarding our thoughts to the politicos?

Leave a Reply