Introduction
As I’ve watched the presidential campaign unfold in my living room, I’ve become increasingly unsettled by the cultural schism it’s revealing. Robo-calls from John McCain, caustic opinion pieces on Sarah Palin (often by women), FOX news, MSNBC, negative campaigning—Left and Right. In this highly charged atmosphere, it’s been difficult to make sense of things. I’ve even questioned my longstanding allegiance to the Democratic Party, which has made it challenging to find common ground with friends I’ve known for years. In search of a different perspective on the election, I was compelled to seek out global activist, Dr. Don E. Beck, whom I interviewed in 2002 for What is Enlightenment? Magazine.
For over forty years, Don Beck has worked to facilitate social change in some of the world’s most polarized environments—notably apartheid South Africa during the 1980’s and ‘90’s, and currently in Israel/Palestine. Don Beck really gets human beings and our widely varying habitats and worldviews. With striking clarity and a disarming optimism, he illuminates the rich and complex mosaic of cultures, as he presents practical solutions to seemingly intractable problems—terrorism, the Iraq War, the AIDS epidemic. Beck’s unique perspective—the basis of the evolutionary theory called Spiral Dynamics—allows him to craft effective protocols where others fail.Don Beck is a social scientist of a different order. For that reason he has advised world leaders such as Nelson Mandela and F.W. deKlerk; he has met with Tony Blair’s cabinet and with the Mexican government, among many others. I knew we needed his view in America at this critical juncture. In response to my request, Don graciously granted the following interview. True to form, he goes to the heart of the matter—and our divided nation—as he reveals how our next president can emerge as the truly new kind of leader we so urgently need.
Jessica Roemischer: The 2008 United States presidential campaign is turning out to be among the most polarized in recent memory. Could you please begin by speaking about the cultural schism we’re seeing in this country?
Don Beck: I began my study of political campaigns many years ago. My doctoral dissertation
was on the United States presidential campaign of 1860. That election, which also occurred during a time of tremendous dividedness in this country, put Lincoln in office and subsequently led to the Civil War. So I’m very suspect of the polarity that occurs during the election process. Today, the fragmentation in America is equally as extreme. It’s reflected in the “hot issues” that polarize people, such as abortion or the Iraq War, issues that are looked upon by the two political parties in ways that are seemingly irreconcilable. And with our 24/7 news cycle and talk radio and so forth, I believe the schism is even deeper and wider than it was in 1860.JR: Can you speak further about this election and the societal rift that’s being revealed?
DB: Campaigns of this nature confirm the cultural change that’s already happened beneath the surface, but which we haven’t been able to perceive clearly. The analogy I like to use is this: imagine it’s a dark, rainy night and a sudden bolt of lightning illuminates for a nanosecond the structural forms of the landscape. Then the darkness creeps in again. This election is illuminating the cultural landscape of this country, giving us insight into who we have become.
What we’re seeing is that we’re not the same country we once were. Today, there are multiple sub-cultures in the United States. We’ve become sort of a “Rubik’s Cube” society. Accumulated wealth and the increasing economic disparities have augmented differences in worldviews, orientations and political/religious experiences. Immigration patterns are also having an effect. There’s a book called The Big Sort by Bill Bishop. His basic thesis is that we have re-organized ourselves into think-alike, look-alike enclaves within which people can move freely. This has fragmented our society into little pockets of interest, sometimes living side-by-side. As a result, it’s becoming harder and harder to identify a core of Americanism. I’m not sure there’s a clear definition of what binds us together.
In contrast, when I’m in Europe I feel a much greater sense of national identity. For example, I still get a strong sense of “Germany” when I’m in that country. And the Danish value systems are clearly coming to the surface again. But here in the United States, even the Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal categories are being challenged. The Blue State/Red State categories are not holding up anymore. That’s the kind of fragmentation that is going to be
displayed in the results of the election. When the vote is analyzed precinct by precinct, we’re going to get a much better image of this country than we would have had otherwise. I think the social complexities we’re about to see in the results of the campaign will force us to seriously look at the way we resolve our difficult issues.JR: I come from a long line of democrats and never questioned my affiliation with the left wing. However, because of the highly polarized nature of this election, I’ve found it difficult to side wholeheartedly with Obama. I am far more hesitant to put myself on one side of a deeply divided situation.
DB: The behavior from both the extreme left and right wings is very troublesome. The rumor mongering and personal attacks—and both wings have done it—are very dangerous because they can lead to serious polarization following the election.
JR: How can we address this extreme cultural divide?
DB: I hope we maintain some good sense after the election regardless of who becomes president, because if the election turns out to be very close, it could produce tremendous tension. For example, if McCain wins, there will be serious disturbances in many of the African American communities, with charges that the election was stolen. And if the right wing senses that it has been disenfranchised in some way, it may begin to show isolationist tendencies.
I don’t think there’s been serious talk about what’s next, about what kind of government we need to move us beyond the adversarial situation that’s become such a problem. All the conversations about what McCain’s going to do to the existing government, or what Obama is going to do, miss the point. We need a whole new style of thinking about government itself.
In order to accomplish this, the president elect should invite various elements in our society to meet in conventions to redesign the American system. Rather than assume a partisan position, I hope he’ll hold a series of trans-partisan, not just bi-partisan, events—meetings and summits—on how to heal America and rebuild our confidence, and our financial and political structures. That’s critical for us.
So I hope that whoever wins will start a major conversation on many of these matters. Instead of each party shouting at the other, we need a calm kind of inquiry—more than just dialogue—to look at problems in a whole different way so that we restore the essence of Americanism. I imagine a series of White House conferences, where experts are brought in to discuss a variety of topics under the kind of leadership that will look for integral solutions. To accomplish that, we have to learn how to manage the spectrum from extreme left to extreme right. All the positions or viewpoints must be exercised and publicized for us to experience any kind of transformation. It’s important for everybody to be at the table. In that sense, Sarah Palin’s contribution has been positive. She has helped bring elements to the vote who heretofore wouldn’t have participated in it.
JR: Can you please elaborate on what you mean by “trans-partisan” politics?
DB: Trans-partisan politics represents a whole new approach to governance. After eight years of so much right wing, if we get eight years of left wing counterbalance, we’re no better off. We’ll have to learn how to craft solutions in the mid-range that draw equally from both wings—that’s the so-called “Third Way.” That prototype is in our cultural fabric. For example, the way wagon trains were organized in the 1800’s as they headed west had a collective spirit about them, as opposed to the elite systems we’re using today. So rather than providing for the needs of communities as part of a top-down mandate from either left or right, the government needs to facilitate resources which already exist and bring them to bear on problems. We have to look seriously at the design of our systems and find ways to mobilize all of our resources at the local level and in community programs, as well as at the state and federal levels.
JR: Can you give an example of this new approach to governance?
DB: Let’s look at education. If we’re going to compete with the Chinese and the Indians, we have to do something different with our educational system, especially in the public schools. Simply pouring money into “the little red school building” is not going to do it. You have to look at the
broader issue of what it means for a child to develop in this society, and how the whole community can be mobilized to address that. I would have “Annual Summits on the Child,” where we bring together the knowledge from health care organizations, our school counselors and psychotherapists, and our churches and spiritual communities. We ask: How are our children doing in physical health? How are our children doing emotionally? How are they doing in their spiritual development? You can then overlay this information on GIS maps to see what’s happening neighborhood by neighborhood.In a sense, this is the model we had many years ago when grandmothers would sit on their porches and watch the kids after school. But we’ve lost that kind of control mechanism. So we have to mobilize the intent of the whole society through these kinds of local summits. Businesses and others will get involved as well because everyone has a stake in our children’s progress. This is something that should be done, and be done quickly. There’s no question that an initiative of this kind will transcend partisan politics.
JR: Which candidate do you think is best suited to institute this new trans-partisan approach to governance—Obama or McCain?
DB: I think both candidates have strengths in this regard. But after eight years, the “out party”—the Democrats—are in a much better position to do this because the “in party” is exhausted. When you look at the people Bush has had in important roles, you can see that a party that maintains power for eight years runs out of steam. I think there’s a freshness in the Obama camp and a lot of popular support for him with high levels of energy. I think he’s more equipped to do something like what I’m describing. Certainly Obama’s background also suggests that to us.
Yet, much can be said for McCain—his courage, strength and resolve. He probably has the ability
to deal with foreign affairs much better than Obama does. But there are elements to his right which concern me—for example, the element behind so much of the warfare. Similarly, to Obama’s left, that hard liberal system is destructive for us because it won’t institute the kind of policies that are necessary for most of the population. I’m worried about extremity on both sides of them.JR: What are some of the policies from the left that won’t work?
DB: We’re still a very traditional, conservative country in so many ways. The more liberal viewpoint has got to accept traditionalism, discipline and accountability, and insist that everyone play their role rather than simply seeing them as victims. That’s always part of the problem of the "Hard Left." They will not insist that people own up to their responsibilities. It’s still play “the blame and be blamed” game, rather than promoting what I call “thrive and help thrive.” If the federal policy is to simply throw money at problems and not insist on accountability, then it will produce these “sink holes.” In other words, these programs will not result in real economic or social development.
JR: In his recent endorsement of Barack Obama, Colin Powell called him a “transformational figure,” someone who can take us beyond polarization. Do you agree?
DB: If what Obama is saying in this campaign is what he truly thinks, he may be that transformational figure. Creative thinking often comes from outside the system, suddenly appearing unpredicted by anyone. I think that Obama fits that description pretty well. So, I’m not alarmed at his background, although I’m a bit concerned about the kinds of people he’s dealt with in the past in South Chicago. I’d like to see him with a different assortment of friends, which are probably there.At the same time, he’s formed various support groups. There’s one in foreign affairs, for example. He does seek advice from elsewhere. But I don’t know if that’s a sign that he himself doesn’t know what to do. I really don’t know who Obama is, and that makes me edgy at times. But I like what he says; I love this new voice. And I think the Democratic Party, which has been outside of power, has more momentum, with people anxious to do things. If Obama does not personally favor the extreme partisan behavior in the House and Senate, he can certainly set the stage, and control, the parameters for new strategies. But I sure would like to see his list of candidates for the various secretarial positions.
JR: Do you think that Obama, as an African-American, can unite a country in which so much racism continues to exist?
DB: My point of view is that the issues about race are not about race, they are about value systems. As long as we define what’s happening in terms of race, we trap ourselves in a cul-de-sac. So, voting for someone because they are black is no different from voting against someone because they’re black. It’s an expression of the same stereotyping. I hope that Obama in his style, his way of speaking, and his approach can lead us beyond that polarization, but he needs a new model to integrate our systems. Obama talks about real change, profound change. His strong statements on the matters of race are very reassuring to me. I hope that we actually see it, and he is not simply playing a political marketing game. Then it will be a good thing.
JR: What is your view on Sarah Palin?
DB: Oh, I think she’s a breath of fresh air. I’m not sure I would have nominated her to be vice president, but I think she has engaged a lot of people in the election process who wouldn’t have otherwise been involved. And like I said before, every element of our population needs to be engaged in the political process for there to be transformation. So I’m glad to see her and the more rugged lifestyle she represents. I’m glad that there are other models of femininity that can be widely accepted, as opposed to the typically progressive, feminist view of it. I understand that when she appeared on Saturday Night Live, the show got its highest rating in years. I like her style. She is a tough little bugger. She’s broken through a lot of the corruption and nonsense, and the political games.What we’re seeing is this: social and political conditions often generate fresh, innovative voices. Sarah Palin is one, as is Obama. I see them as similar in that regard. They both come out of unexpected sources, all of a sudden appearing on the scene. She’s added a lot of charm and class, and color and fun to the whole campaign, and that’s probably a good thing. I also think she’s been an inspiration to a lot of younger women. Yes, she speaks in plain “good ol’ boy, good ol’ girl” language, but she’s not the first politician to do that, for God’s sake. Our political history is littered with this kind of thing, back to the days of Abe Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. If something happened to McCain, however, I’m not sure that she’s the person I’d like to see as president.
JR: I’ve had difficulty with many of the opinion pieces about Palin coming from the progressive, liberal side. I often found the rhetoric unnecessarily acerbic and divisive.
DB: I’ve been disappointed at the extreme left attacks on her, which have sometimes been very personal and have often come from women in this country. No one’s perfect, for goodness sake. I don’t know if they’re jealous because she’s pretty, or because she has a husband who’s loyal. Even her phone was bugged. And there was a guy from Tennessee who broke into her email system and put a lot of it up on the internet. I’ve seen more of that kind of behavior from the progressive, left-wing side during this campaign than I’ve seen in the past. That’s really disappointed me. Some of the attacks on Obama—the accusations and racial remarks—fit the same category. Extremism is what it is, whether it’s left wing or right wing. It’s closed, it’s fear-driven, and it’s angry, often vicious. Campaigns like this can make it worse and that’s what we’re seeing. There’s guilt enough to go around.
JR: Are you disturbed by Palin’s accusations that Obama was “palling around with terrorists?” Do you feel, as did many people, that she crossed a line?
DB: Oh, I think she did. There was too much "red meat" in that--it was too provocative. Of course, he’s not a terrorist. More broadly, these statements and her entire approach demonstrate that the Republicans don’t have a model for the future. It's still too polarized--Red State/Blue State. That's troubling me about McCain, as well. He’s a more short term, one-term candidate, I think. If we decide that we only want to elect someone for the next four years, then he isn’t a bad choice. But if we are serious about a major transformation in our system—and I think we’re poised for that—Obama talks like he’s the man. I certainly hope that’s the case, because it looks like he’s going to win.
JR: How will the president-elect move in a trans-partisan direction given that the country is so
divided, and the American political system itself is based upon a partisan, bi-cameral arrangement—Republicans and Democrats, the House and the Senate, etc.?DB: If Obama is elected president, I’d like to see leadership from him in a truly, truly new dimension, as opposed to the partisanship that many in his own party will try to foist on him. If there’s landslide support for him, the question is: will he be strong enough to handle all the different entities that have been shut out for eight years and are now rising to power with no checks and balance. An overwhelming victory will mean that the Democrats own the White House as well as the House and Senate, and that’s always a dangerous situation.
I’m seeing some early signs that he may have that kind of independence. For example, when he spoke of his faith-based initiatives, it gave me some assurance that he won’t be drawn in by the left extremists. That was hopeful to me because if he succumbs to these same centrifugal forces of political polarization, the whole thing will fall into the political cleavages that have been deepened by this campaign. It that happens I see all kinds of bad things happening to us.
I worked in South Africa between 1981 and 1999, helping to transition that country out of apartheid, and I studied Nelson Mandela very carefully. One of the first things he did when he
became president was to have tea with the widows of the former apartheid prime ministers. He wanted to be non-political and non-racial in his approach, and so he purposefully began to work across that divide. And when the South African rugby team won the 1995 World Cup, there he was on the field after the victory wearing the Springbok jersey. It was an extraordinary demonstration in which he was identifying with the Afrikaner. It softened many of their attitudes toward him.Likewise, if Obama really is a “transformational figure,” as Colin Powell says, he will be creative and launch out in a whole new direction. But if he isn’t and he’s played a political game, then we’ve been duped.
JR: Do you think that’s possible?
DB: Oh, I just don’t know. I tend be an optimistic and trusting kind of guy. I tend to believe that Obama means what he is saying in his speeches. But I don’t know who’s around him at this stage. I’m holding out the hope that he is real.
I’ve been around a long time, Jessica. From my perspective, we are in an almost war-time type emergency. The 1860 presidential campaign study I did many years ago opened my eyes to things. I saw what could have been done following that election and wasn’t, and the terrible situation that ensued. This is a momentous election, and one that has had so much ugliness in it. That’s why I’m thinking about a government of national unity. We need cooperation and collaboration and faith in our system and the courage to do something about it. So, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens after November 4th. It’s not going to be smooth as we go forward, but maybe our financial problems are severe enough that we’ll awaken to the reality that we have to think and act in very different ways.
Dr. Don E. Beck is one of the world’s foremost authorities on culture and politics. He is founding director of The Institute for Values & Culture, Co-founder of The National Values Centre in Denton, Texas, and President & CEO of The Spiral Dynamics Group, Inc. For more information on Dr. Beck's work in the Middle East, please visit the Center for Human Emergence, Middle East.
No comments:
Post a Comment