Category Archives: Politics and Public Policy

Obama’s Call to “Win the Future” Requires a New Definition of “Success”

When President Obama urged Americans to “win the future” in his recent SOTU address, he called upon the innovative, communal spirit that’s enabled us to “do great things.” Ironically, that part of his message exposes a glaring contradiction: How we’ve defined achieving “success” in our lives has become outmoded and maladaptive in our 21st Century world. To meet the challenges of our “Sputnik moment,” we need to revamp our thinking about what success is, as well as what psychological orientation is necessary to achieve it.

Consider this: The old, conventional view of a successful life is mostly defined by financial and self-interested criteria — getting, consuming and possessing for oneself. As Ronald Reagan once said about pursuing the “American dream” everyone “...wants to see an America in which people can get rich.”

But as President Obama pointed out in his address, “That world has changed. And for many, the change has been painful.” The reality of today’s interconnected, highly interdependent world, greed is not good. It’s psychologically unhealthy; it undermines the values, mindset and actions people need to strengthen in order to meet the challenges we face as individuals and as a nation.

That is, our security, success and well-being now require strengthening communal values and behavior; working towards common goals, the common good. Acting on self-interest alone, especially in the pursuit of personal power, steady career advancement and money Continue reading →

Share

The Rise of the New Global Elite

Chrystia Freeland has a very insightful, well-documented and researched analysis in The Atlantic about how the super-affluence of recent years has changed the meaning of wealth…and the implications for all of us. I’m posting it here for Progressive Impact readers.

She writes:

F. Scott Fitzgerald was right when he declared the rich different from you and me. But todays super-rich are also different from yesterdays: more hardworking and meritocratic, but less connected to the nations that granted them opportunityand the countrymen they are leaving ever further behind.

If you happened to be watching NBC on the first Sunday morning in August last summer, you would have seen something curious. There, on the set ofMeet the Press, the host, David Gregory, was interviewing a guest who made a forceful case that the U.S. economy had become very distorted. In the wake of the recession, this guest explained, high-income individuals, large banks, and major corporations had experienced a significant recovery; the rest of the economy, by contrastincluding small businesses and a very significant amount of the labor forcewas stuck and still struggling. What we were seeing, he argued, was not a single economy at all, but rather fundamentally two separate types of economy, increasingly distinct and divergent.

This diagnosis, though alarming, was hardly unique: drawing attention to the divide….

Clickhere for the full article.

Share

Is Serving The Common Good An “Un-American” Activity?

One likely spin-off from the recent election will be a creeping redefinition of programs and policies that serve the common good as “un-American.” Some of the Tea Party’s most vocal members, including Rand Paul, Michele Bachmann, and others have already suggested having a “conversation” about privatizing or phasing out medicare, social security and even abolishing the Department of Education.

So I’d like to move the “conversation” along and state outright that, yes, promoting the common good is, indeed, un-American. And, that recognizing it as such is a good thing. Here’s why: The Republican/Tea Party’s stated vision for “taking America back” is a doctrine of extreme self-interest and greed. It both reflects and fuels what I described in a recent post as a “social psychosis” in personal and public life.

This “pro-American” vision is maladaptive to the realities of today’s world and our own changing society. Self-interest and the pursuit of individual power are twin agents for subversively undermining a healthy, thriving society. But that vision is likely to be with us for some time, with potentially devastating consequences.

However, there’s also a rising shift towards serving the larger common good throughout our society. I described the evidence for this in a subsequent post. And it is, indeed, un-American, with respect to the extreme Republican/Tea Party doctrine.

That is, serving the common good goes against grain of thinking that Continue reading →

Share

How Positive vs. Adversarial Relations Help Solve Problems: Politicians Should Heed New Research

Some interesting new research indicates that when people are faced with solving problems — and those facing the country right now are among the most severe — their “executive functioning” capacities improve after they engage in sociable, positive interactions. But they don’t improve after competitive interactions — those likely to generate adversarial feelings. Politicians would do well to learn from this, as an aid to building the kind of mentality needed for solutions to our current problems. But it’s unlikely that they will.

Here’s what researchers at the University of Michigan found. They looked at the impact of brief episodes of social contact upon the capacity known as executive functioning. That’s the capacity for having an overview of the elements of a situation or problem; seeing how the parts connect, in what relation to each other; and what kinds of actions lead to effective outcomes. Included are the abilities for self-regulation, for staying on task, for focus and keeping relevant information in mind – much like the “memory” in a computer program that holds the information while you’re using it or working with it.

The researchers found that after a period of positive conversation and connection with another person, the participant’s performance on cognitive tasks improved. Performance on these tasks reflected the degree of executive functioning capacity of the participants. However, participants whose interactions were marked by adversarial, competitive engagement did not improve on the performance of those tasks. According to Oscar Ybarra, the lead author of the study, forthcoming in Social Psychological and Personality Science,

“…simply talking to other people, the way you do when you’re making friends, can provide mental benefits…” And, that “…performance boosts come about because some social interactions induce people to try to read others’ minds and take their perspectives on things…trying to put yourself in the other person’s shoes, there is a boost in executive functioning as a result”

In other words, when people build empathy towards each other — seeing the other’s perspective from the “inside” of the other person’s world, so to speak, their capacity for more effective thinking and problem solving increases. If only our politicians could recognize that reality and use it to create the collaborations that enhance their own brain-power for finding compromise-based solutions, rather than perpetuating adversarialness, all of us would benefiit. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear very likely now, in the aftermath of this week’s election.

Share

The Steady Rise of Serving the Common Good

In my previous post I wrote about a rising “social psychosis” that’s visible in three areas of our society. It’s likely to prevail for some time, but I think it’s like a wave that’s crested and will crash to the shore. The reason is that the “social psychosis” is a backlash against a steadily growing consciousness and behavior that refocuses personal lives and public policies towards promoting the common good.

By the “common good,” I’m referring to a broad evolution beyond values and actions that serve narrow, self-interests; and towards those guided by inclusiveness — supporting well-being, economic success, security, human rights and stewardship of resources for the benefit of all, rather than just for some.

It’s like a stealth operation, because it hasn’t become highly visible yet. But polls, surveys and research data reveal several strands of change that are coalescing in this overall direction. I describe each of them below, and they may appear to be unrelated. Yet I think they’re driven by an underlying perspective — that we’re all like organs of the same body, and the body doesn’t thrive if any of the organs are neglected or diseased.

It’s an awareness of interconnection of all lives on this planet, and a pull towards acting upon that reality in a range of ways. They include rethinking personal relationships, the responsibility of business to society, the role of government in an interdependent world.

A 21st Century Mindset

The rise of the common good reflects a sense of “global citizenship” and an obligation to be a “good ancestor” to future generations who inhabit this planet. In fact, it embodies behavior and policies that fit the needs for effective functioning — both personal and political — in our post-9-11, post-economic meltdown world.

That is, in previous posts I’ve argued that this new era of unpredictable change in a non-equilibrium world requires Continue reading →

Share

A “Social Psychosis” Rises In Our Culture

Much of the ongoing debate in political, business and social/cultural arenas is rooted in an underlying disagreement about what best serves national interests and individual lives. Is it promoting the common good, or serving self-interest?

As interdependence and interconnection on this planet become ever-more apparent, new challenges and conflicts arise for personal life, the role of government and the conduct of business leadership. In response to these new realities, people’s attitudes and behavior are shifting more towards serving the larger common good; now necessary for successful, flexible and psychologically resilient functioning.

However, these shifts clash with a long-prevailing ideology, that the primary pursuit ofself-interest best serves the public interest and personal success. That ideology has also prevailed in our views of adult psychological health and maturity. In essence, the pursuit of greed, self-centeredness and materialism have become the holy trinity of public and private conduct. And it’s generating a growing “social psychosis.”

That is, the benefits of self-interest in personal lives and public policy supposedly trump any that accrue from serving the common good; the latter would undermine the former, if put into practice. For example, the argument against helping the unemployed, extending health insurance for all Americans or addressing climate change is that they would hurt the economy and therefore negatively impact your well-being and life success.

To question or critique this ideology might even be called “un-American.” That would be correct; a good thing, actually, because the values and conduct that seem to have “worked” for so long now falter in today’s rapidly changing world. No longer do they ensure long-term success, well-being or security. Several observers have written about the faltering of the old system in today’s world. For example, Jeff Jarvis of CUNY, who haswritten about a

…great restructuring’ of the economy and society, starting with a fundamental change in our relationships — how we are linked and intertwined and how we act.

Or Umair Haque, who has been describing

…the new principles of a new economy, built around stewardship, trusteeship, guardianship, leadership, partnership.

in his Harvard Business Schoolblog posts.

The Social Psychosis Backlash
The reaction to the growing interconnection is a creeping “social psychosis.” Like the frog in the pot of water who doesn’t notice the slowly rising temperature Continue reading →

Share

Reasons Behind The Need To Portray Obama As Anti-American

Newt Gingrichs recent comments alleging that Obama’s is driven by “Kenyan anti-colonial” attitudes, when combined with increasingly bizarre statements from Tea Party candidates, suggest something that isnt apparent on the surface: That were witnessing the last gasp of a dying, descending set of attitudes and values regarding individual and public policy, including what it is to be an American.

I think these kinds of statements reflect growing desperation about sweeping changes in our society. That is, the country is steadily shifting towards a diverse population, and acceptance of that diversity. And, towards growing recognition of the need to serve the larger common good; that were all in the same boat in this globalized world, and we will stand or fall together, as President Obama recently stated.

But it just doesn’t look like that shift is happening at present, because the period we’re living through is one of a growing but temporary backlash against those changes, from people who view them with fears and a sense of loss. They should be understood, but not condoned or excused.

A good illustration of the reactionary thinking in response to steadily growing social change is the essay that Gingrich based his comments on A Forbes cover story on How Obama Thinks by Dinesh DSouza. A Columbia Journalism Review article by Ryan Chittum calls it a shameful piece on Obama as the Other, and The worst kind of smear journalism.

Chittum writes, How Obama Thinks is a gross piece of innuendoa fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. Forbes for some reason gives Dinesh DSouza the cover and lots of space to froth about the notion popular in the right-wing fever swamps that Obama is an other; that he doesnt think like an American, that his actions benefit foreigners rather than Amurricans. Its too kind to call this innuendo. Its far too overt for that.

DSouzas distortions and lies are clearly designed to make Obama appear to be anti-American, and anti-white; someone different from us whos bent on carrying out the African tribal mission of his father (whom he met one time, briefly, at age 10). Chittums analysis and dissection of DSouzas story is worth reading. Heres the full article from the Columbia Journalism Review.

Share

Why Some Believe Obama is a Muslim – New Research

Here’s some interesting new research from a study of the psychology behind smear campaigns, led by Michigan State. It examined the rising numbers of people who believe the falsehood that President Obama is a Muslim. The findings indicate that people are more likely to accept such false representations, both consciously and unconsciously, when they are reminded of ways in which Obama is different from them — whether from racial, social class or other differences, according to Spee Kosloff and his colleagues from several other universities, who conducted the study.

“Careless or biased media outlets are largely responsible for the propagation of these falsehoods, which catch on like wildfire,” said Kosloff. ”And then social differences can motivate acceptance of these lies.”

“When people are unsatisfied with the president — whether it’s the way he’s handling the economy, health care or Afghanistan — our research suggests that this only fuels their readiness to accept untrue rumors,” Kosloff said. ”As his job rating goes down, suggesting that people feel like he’s not ideologically on their side, we see an increase in this irrational belief that he’s a Muslim,” he added. “Unfortunately, in America, many people dislike Muslims so they’ll label Obama as Muslim when they feel different from him.”

The findings are reported in the American Psychological Association’sJournal of Experimental Psychology: General. The acceptance of falsehoods is particularly relevant because a Pew Research Center poll in August found that 18 percent of Americans believe Obama is a Muslim — up from 11 percent in March 2009 — even though he’s a practicing Christian.

A complete summary of the research is available in Science Daily.

Share

Fooling “All of the People….”

Its quite an achievement: Todays Republicans members of the Party of Abraham Lincoln, after all — are steadily disproving one of Lincolns most quoted lines: You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

The current version of the GOP is doing a good job at trying to fool all of the people, all of the time. And, with the help of many Democrats, who give new meaning to the term, fellow travelers.

Case in point: The issue of the soon-to-expire tax cuts for the rich. The Bush tax cut legislation of 2001 included a provision that they would expire at the end of 2010, and tax rates would then revert to 2000 levels. The Obama administration wants to keep the tax cuts in place for the middle class, who would benefit from them during this continued economic near-depression; but let them revert back to previous levels for those with very high incomes, when they expire at the end of this year.

But guess what? The Republicans, together with a number of Democrats, are fighting vigorously to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans and their Democratic allies argue that its more beneficial to the economy to preserve the tax cuts for the wealthy those making over $2 million a year — because that would help small business.

Tell me, how many small business owners make that kind of income? And how would we make up for the loss of revenue? By taking away benefits for the middle and lower classes, in the form of food stamps and other benefits or services.

This is where trying to fool all of the people all of the time comes in: The entire argument is disguised in Orwellian terms, as necessary and good way to benefit everyone. Writing in the New York Times, Paul Krugman exposes this with a good analysis of the deception and corruption behind it all.

For example, he points out that continuing the tax cuts for the rich would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

And where would this $680 billion go? Nearly all of it would go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people with incomes of more than $500,000 a year. But thats the least of it: estimates are the majority of the tax cuts would go to the richest one-tenth of 1 percent. (and) the average tax break for those lucky few the poorest members of the group have annual incomes of more than $2 million, and the average member makes more than $7 million a year would be $3 million over the course of the next decade.

Krugman is right on target when he points out that

its hard to think of a less cost-effective way to help the economy than giving money to people who already have plenty, and arent likely to spend a windfall. No, this has nothing to do with sound economic policy.

He also points out that this reflects our corrupt political culture,

in which Congress wont take action to revive the economy, pleads poverty when it comes to protecting the jobs of schoolteachers and firefighters, but declares cost no object when it comes to sparing the already wealthy even the slightest financial inconvenience.

So, what will prevail: The corruption, deception increasingly rampant in our culture disguised in Orwellian terms, as helping you, the average American? Or Lincolns observation?

Stay tuned.

Share

The Unspoken Source of Opposition to the Proposed Islamic Center

There’s one glaring omission in the stated opposition to the proposed Islamic Center near Ground Zero. It’s the unspoken implication that Islam is, by definition, a fanatical, terrorist religion.

As I read and hear about the reasons offered by those opposing the Center, they usually conclude with such descriptions as ”insensitive,” “inappropriate,” or “insulting” to the memory of those whose lives were lost in the 9-11 attacks. And yet, I haven’t heard any real explanation of what, exactly, would be ”insensitive,” and so forth, about the proposed presence of an Islamic Center in the vicinity of Ground Zero? The most they say or imply is that its presence would be wrong, by definition, because of its location. But those opposed don’t really say what that connection is, in their minds, that makes its location wrong or “unwise.”

To put this in a broader context, look at the recent speech by New York Mayor Bloomberg. He presented both a passionate and reasoned, principled explanation why it should be allowed; and why doing so is fully consistent with American values and history. Following that, President Obama affirmed much of the same set of principles in support of the Center — until he backtracked the next day, under the not-unexpected Republican and right-wing opposition.

Here’s what I believe is the unspoken source of the opposition: Equating fanatical, extremist Muslims with Muslims, per se. That’s why some have used the analogy of erecting a Nazi center next to a concentration camp. Or a monument to the KKK next to a civil rights memorial. The analogies are bizarre, and reveal the bigotry and ignorance behind them. That is, the heart of the argument against the presence of the Islamic Center is that it would be “insensitive” because the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks were Muslims. Now take that link to it’s conclusion. Aside from the fact that Muslims were among those killed in the attack, the opponents seem reluctant to state that they are arguing that Islam, as a faith, is embodied in the terrorist attacks. This would be like saying that because some Christians are fanatics, and some of those support killing of doctors who perform abortions, that therefore Christianity, per se, is a fanatical religion.

The triumph of emotional reactiveness and sentiment over our professed American values is very troubling. If the opponents to the Center acknowledged outright that they’re equating fanatical Muslims and the Muslim faith in general, at least they would demonstrate logical integrity — along, of course, with outright bigotry. But we would see what their true position is, rather than hearing them evade explaining just why they believe the presence of the Center would be “insensitive.” This closet prejudice reminds me of Colin Powell’s retort to those claiming that Obama was a secret Muslim, during the 2008 campaign. Powell asked what if Obama was, in fact, a Muslim? So what? What’s the point? The same questions should be asked today of those who couch their opposition in words that don’t make explicit their implied conclusion.

Mayor Bloomberg was right on target when he explained the higher principles and context of this issue. It’s worth reading. Click here for the full speech. Here’s a small portion of what he said.

Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11, and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists, and we should not stand for that.

For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetimes, as important a test. And it is critically important that we get it right.

On Sept. 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked, ‘What God do you pray to?’ ’What beliefs do you hold?’

The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

Well said, Mayor Bloomberg.

Share