Can America save democracy?

 Can we save our democracy?

 

The state of Nebraska has a unicameral legislature. It has been thus since 1937. By all accounts I have heard, they love this system. It is very efficient and economical. Are the other 49 states missing out on the opportunity to solve a lot of electoral and governance problems by not considering this electoral method?

 

In case you may have forgotten what is unique about a unicameral legislative body, it means there are no political parties. It is not a “one party” system. There simply are no parties. There is only a body of senators who are unaffiliated with any political organization. The people of the state choose the best person without having to contend with what party they are associated with. 

 

In the case of Nebraska, only federal office holders declare a party affiliation, in which case they tend to be members of one of the two dominant national parties. But Nebraska has been a model for a very long time that proves a “no party” governing system works very efficiently.

 

I am opening this conversation with the Nebraska example because I want to question the merit of the continuation of our train wreck of a national two-party system. Some of our nation’s founders were worried about the possibility of America falling into such a trap, but their concerns were not adequate warnings. It is not a radical statement to say the present-day system is threatening the survival and veracity of American democracy. We have been living with the damage that loyalty to party instead of country and state has been causing for many decades now. Is it too far reaching to predict that we may be approaching a pivotal point where the dominant two-party system and democracy can no longer co-exist? Let’s think about this.

 

There is a movement in America trying to gain momentum right now to change the voting method from a plurality platform with primaries and general elections, to a ranked choice voting (RCV) system. The state of Maine installed this election platform only to have their state legislature try to kill it. But they were not successful in entirely ending it and localities around the state have continued to use this platform. Currently, there is an initiative underway to switch the state of Massachusetts to the RCV platform. Work is underway in Missouri and Kansas as I write this to build interest in RCV as well.

 

Is RCV a solution, or at least a step in the direction to evolving away from the predominant two-party system by ending the plurality election platform? I believe it very well could be so. Perhaps the best chance to retire the two-party system is to zig zag our way out of it by installing an alternative voting platform that reduces the ability of major political parties to control the system. The best way to move toward this option may be to start with local municipal offices, then add county and ultimately state offices. This would accustom the voting population to the merits and effectiveness of RCV. 

 

Another platform option is the non-partisan blanket primary, also known as the jungle primary. Jungle primaries aggregate every candidate regardless of party affiliation into a single primary grouping. This method results in deciding the winner for the contested office with a single election event eliminating multiple cycles to determine which party controls the office. Both ranked choice voting and jungle primaries save a lot of expense and complication. Holding elections is costly, and unnecessarily so.

 

Democracy is clearly being revealed today as a very fragile governing model that can be compromised and corrupted much easier than we like to believe. It is being seriously threatened presently because the current POTUS is chipping away at its tenets in order to retain office against the will of the people. Democracy unprotected and undefended cannot survive on its own. This fact can perhaps be better understood by realizing that democracy is not a natural order. Most governing and leadership managed institutions, franchises and organizations do not use a democratic system. Families are not democratic in nature. Neither are business organizations, churches, and the military. They would struggle to function and achieve their mission effectively if they were democratic in the way we claim to want for governance.

 

At this time in our national history, the Democratic and Republican parties are actually institutions. Both parties attempt to act and operate like franchises. But they do not epitomize the traits of true franchises. Organizations that start out to be service providers focus on reaching out to those they want to serve and help. Most of their energy is outward. As these organizations grow and mature, their focus increasingly turns inward. That may not be their intention, but it is a difficult tendency to resist and they nearly always fail to avoid it. By turning inward, they become focused on self-preservation, access to and retention of power, elimination of competition and resistance of any kind. This is a clear description of what both major political parties in America have become. And that has resulted in their corruption and inability to truly serve the American people. That mission now amounts to little more than lip service during election cycles to retain their power.

 

Citizens United licensed elected officials to conduct auctions for their favors and services to the highest special interest bidder. There is not even a pretense to the contrary at this time. Models such as unicameral government, ranked choice voting, and non-partisan blanket primaries are processes that would begin to dissolve the power and control of special interests that currently enjoy ownership of our governing methods. If we are truly committed to saving democracy, we would do well to consider these electoral alternatives as a means to put us back on course. Else, we are headed toward an autocratic system that is certain to lead to unabashed fascism.

Floating

Have you ever spent an hour in a floating tank? I have come to love the experience. I have known about this practice for decades. Back in the 90s, I had a friend who installed a small floating pod in his home. He tried to build a business selling time in it. I never tried it even though I am generally interested in and open to experiences of this nature. But for my last birthday, my wife gave me a gift certificate at FloatingKC in Kansas City, Missouri. It is a wonderful salon in my part of town that has state of the art facilities. Finally, I embraced the experience and I am hooked! 

If is difficult to describe the experience to represent what it is like. Because it is not the same for everyone. In fact, it is not the same every time anyone does it. But it can be transforming at best, and wonderfully relaxing at the least. People who struggle with claustrophobia might be hesitant. But from my own experience it would seem that the case would have to be high on the spectrum. When a patron feels anxiety for any reason, it is suggested they simply step out of the tank and recompose themselves for a moment. Then step back in and resume the session. That does not break any rules.  And it affirms to the patron they are in control.

I will not attempt to describe the sensations of the floating experience. Many have already done that and their efforts are probably far better than what I could do. I still consider myself a novice at this practice and I am still learning about how it benefits me. I have a another session scheduled in the coming week as a matter of fact.

I want to call attention to a fact that does not help bring about a positive image of the floating experience. That has to do with the lexicon that has followed it ever since it created by John Lilly back in the mid 50s. You may know of him as the scientist who experimented with teaching dolphins how to understand human language. Lilly was a consummate explorer of the mind and psyche on several levels. Floating as we know it on a clinical level today was his invention.

I am referring to the negative descriptors associated with floating. It includes words like “isolation” and “deprivation”. We enter an “isolation tank” to experience “sensory deprivation”. Why would anyone voluntarily do that? Those are trigger words that cause people to take pause at the idea. We rely on our senses to navigate and survive in the world. It is true that one isolates themselves in a room that has a salt water tank. Once in the session, the environment is adjusted to reduce normal sensory awareness by depriving autonomic functions of their familiar stimulators. That is what makes it possible to focus on nothing other than our conscious state in the moment. Rather than feeling any sense of loss, it can be the most freeing experience many people ever have.

So, what might be better words than isolation and deprivation? For example, instead of “isolation”, consider “solitude”, or “reclusion”, or even “seclusion”. Are those words less intimidating? And instead of “deprivation”, how about “neutralization”, “removal”, or “disassociation”?

Words have power. They stir emotion and reaction. They repel and attract. Let’s replace negative descriptors with more positive ones. That may attract a larger population to the floating experience.

You should take acting lessons!

You should take acting lessons at a professional studio. Read that sentence carefully. I did not say you should become an actor. That is a different idea. But you should take the training that actors take.

Why? Because you are already an actor who performs every day. But you don’t think in that context. Everyone you interact with in your life, be it family, friends business associates, or strangers, makes you step into a role that the moment calls for. You don’t think about it, and you may not be doing it well. But that is what you are doing. Think about this for a moment. You know you do not engage conversationally with a stranger in the same way you converse with your parent or your children. 

Does that mean you have a split personality and are not genuinely yourself? Are you not being authentic with people you interact with? No, that is not what I mean. We can be authentic in all of our contacts with others regardless of how we change the way we speak and act within different experiences. The key to authenticity is to set aside your inclination to pay attention to yourself, and to instead pay careful attention to the other. You are at your best when you make a genuine connection with the person you are engaged with.

And that is what good acting instruction and coaching helps you master. It is not very likely that you will master this ability on your own unassisted, because you probably do not have the tools to do work with. They are not something we are born with, or that comes totally naturally for most of us.

If you are not going to become an actor, why bother with this? You don’t need to take actor training to have better conversations with your mom, you are saying to yourself. That is true. But think about all the interactions your day or week require you to participate in. Do you make presentations at your work, or give talks anywhere in public for any reason? Are you a salesperson in any capacity? Do you have to participate in conversations with anyone that can potentially become contentious? I can promise you that if the answer to any of these questions is yes, you can benefit and grow remarkably from taking acting training from a professional.

Brian Cutler is just such a professional coach. For many years, he operated Commercial Actors Studio in Kansas City with his wife, Jill. Several years ago he moved his studio business back to Southern California. It can be found in Burbank. The website is at www.actorsstudio.com. Check it out. It may turn out the be the best gift you ever give to yourself.

Are You Sure You Understand Socialism?

so·cial·ism

–noun

a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.

I am both amused and dismayed when I see people claim that dreaded socialism is creeping into the American culture and redefining how various vital services are created and distributed.  If the definition presented above, which is the standard dictionary version, is accurate then much of what is being labeled as socialism is not even close. 

Instead, what is being labeled as socialism is actually anything that shifts responsibility away from individuals and distributes it collectively across the population spectrum.  The usual suspects who often cry “socialism” are those who believe they are being asked to carry part, if not all of the burden for others who have less access, or assets, with which to acquire vital personal needs. 

When those basic needs become economically out of reach for a growing percentage of the population, this can reveal that something is out of line and a mechanism for addressing this misalignment is advisable in order to avoid social unrest.  But that typically is not the case.  Instead, the less affluent populations are often chastised for their circumstance without any regard to the reasons for why they are disadvantaged.  While there may be some merit to classifying reasons for economic inequity, this alone does not resolve the reality that such inequity exists and may even be increasing at a dangerous rate of speed.  There will always be inequities of one sort or another, and I think that is actually appropriate in a number of situations.  Sometimes fairness is overrated, especially when it negates enterprise and innovation.  But social inequity that places large numbers of the population at risk where health and safety is concerned should not be encouraged or supported.

One very interesting example of this incorrect interpretation of socialism is the entire insurance industry.  If you think about it, the very premise of the insurance industry is the idea that an individual can escape the fiscal responsibility for their experiences and actions by passing off the financial consequences to a broader population instead of absorbing the total cost personally.  Doesn’t that idea have a socialist implication?  For example, I wreck my car, and then you help me pay for repairing it by means of the insurance premiums you also paid, be it to the same company or another one.  The company writes the checks to the repair service but the funds do not come from my premium payments alone, but yours and everyone else who is a policy holder.  Sounds like most people’s version of socialism, or perhaps even more like communism, doesn’t it?

This model is even more obvious in health care coverage.  Insurance companies are complaining that they cannot get healthy young people to contribute to the pool even though they often do not need any services.  So they are pushing for laws that force this population group to buy their services regardless of need in order to maintain their profit levels while absorbing the costs for the population segment that does need expensive services.  Isn’t that a very clear example of socialism and communism?  Just because there is someone making a profit from the system doesn’t mean it is a purely capitalistic enterprise.

Of course I am picking on the insurance industry here, largely because they deserve it.  Historically, they have been nearly as successful at writing and passing their own laws as the banking industry has.  But it is also true that very large corporations are paradoxically singing the praises of free market capitalism while working diligently behind the scenes to write and revise laws and regulations that help them avoid the harsh the realities of the market place. True capitalism is what they want their competitors to struggle with while they socialize as much of their expenses and responsibilities as possible.  Perhaps it has always been thus, but it seems it is even more so today.

As a side note, two people that most Americans revere and take pride in claiming as national treasures were avowed socialists.  Albert Einstein is one of them, and the author of the pledge of allegiance to the American flag, Edward Bellamy, is the other.  But we generally choose not to recall those facts when we think of the two men, right?

If you share my interest about this issue, what should you and I do about it on a daily basis?  I have some suggestions that could make a difference.  How much difference remains the question.

First, choose to patronize the smallest, most local businesses available to you that deliver good service and quality at a price you can afford.  Did I say the cheapest price?  No, I did not, nor did I mean to.  Stay away from the big box national chains as much as possible.  When you do patronize the giants, shamelessly cherry pick them by only taking advantage of the ‘loss leaders’ they offer, and only if it is something you really need, and walk out of the store without spending another dime for anything else.  It is quite ok for the big box national chains to go out of business.  Regardless of what the ‘big boys’ claim to the contrary, they will be quickly replaced with local entrepreneurs when they die, and they never paid their staff well or contributed significantly to your community anyway.  They only extract value from your community by selling you cheap Chinese manufactured merchandise and sending the cash they collect to the giant banks in faraway places.

Next, do your banking business with your smaller, local banks.  There isn’t any disadvantage to doing that today, especially if you are not a multimillion dollar borrower.  All of them have debit card services that give you access to accounts and services anywhere in the world.  They typically charge smaller fees for their services and you can actually become personally acquainted with the staff from the president down to the tellers if you choose to.  When you do have a need they can serve, they are much more likely to be interested in helping you than the monster banks.  And when you need to phone them you can talk to a real person who knows you. Try to do that with a huge banking organization.  I dare you.

And third, conduct a careful assessment of your personal lifestyle, financially and otherwise.  Just for fun, see how many things you buy and use at this time that you could eliminate if you chose and it would not have any real impact on your well being.  Calculate the dollar value and savings that eliminating those things would represent to you.  I’m not going to tell you to take immediate action on the results of that exercise, but I think you will enjoy the empowerment you will realize from just knowing you could.  

That’s the kind of ‘socialism’ I can get behind.  How about you?

Finally, send me a note telling me what you think about these ideas and how they might fit into your personal paradigm.

As always, thanks for reading!

Your Personal Time Bank

Every sentient being has a “bank” account that is initially opened with the maximum value it will ever contain. This is also the case for businesses, organizations and enterprises of all definitions.

The account is a time bank. You and I have a time bank that was opened and loaded to its maximum balance the moment we were born. We have no way available to us to determine the exact value of the account when it is opened, but we can be certain that it is not an infinite amount.

It is impossible to make additional deposits into this account once it is opened. The only option for making it last as long as possible is to practice ways to save and conserve that balance by finding efficiencies and avoiding waste every day. And of course, any withdrawal we make can never be replenished or replaced.

Imagine if we decide to apply time saving practice to our daily life consciously. How would we go about it? Would we begin our day by making a list of what we want, need, have to do? And then, would we thoughtfully rearrange the list to minimize the amount of time it will require to complete it to our satisfaction? If we don’t do that or something like it, it is guaranteed we will leak time all day long. Remember, once we spend time, it is forever gone.

When we are faced with an important decision that impacts or financial position and condition, think about how diligent we can suddenly become. We might look at our impending decision from every angle we can think of. We are not going to make the spend until we are satisfied that the potential value returned is equal to or greater than the cost. Can you imagine applying this same diligence to a decision where the currency is withdrawn from your time bank? Would you ask, “How much time is this likely to take? How much time am I willing to spend? Will the result of spending that time be to reduce the time cost it would normally take to accomplish the desired outcome? Or is it a “luxury” spend? It’s also important to make that kind of “purchase” to make life more interesting.

Would you consider keeping a personal time log throughout the day to record precisely where your time is actually spent? At the end of the day, you can invest another brief period of time reading over your time journal to see where you dropped some that did not need to be given up. That would help with the next day’s time budget plan.

Consider treating your time as a budget item. Put planned limits on the amount of time you are willing to spend for every task. Make a list of daily “must do” events, and place them in the most efficient time slot. Make another list of “want to do” and insert those events into the most ideal remaining slots. Allocate as best you can the amount of time for each event on the list. Use values in increments of minutes or hours, not specific time of day. Then, drop each of those events into your daily calendar. That will reveal how your day will flow if you are able to stick to the plan as closely as possible. And it will also reveal what time you need to rise in the morning and what time you will be able to retire at night. You may be surprised at the outcome of that exercise.

The most difficult to manage events will probably involve interactions with people, including both phone time and face time. They can turn out to be longer or shorter than intended, unless you can totally control the time requirement.

If you decide to study your personal time “balance sheet”, it will require a lot of discipline at first because we are all inclined to think we are managing our day well, when actually if we had a log to look back on we would probably realize we waste a significant part of our days without being aware of it. 

Sometimes going with the flow lulls us into an unconscious state of being. We can too easily fall victim to spending all day reacting instead of acting.

Ask yourself, “Do I own and control my time, or have I surrendered it to everyone but me?”

The 12 Step Program for purging America of Trumpism -

We have seen 12 step programs written and proposed for a variety of social situations beyond Alcoholism and other chemical substances. I submit yet another version of the 12 step program for ridding America of the vestiges and soiling of our culture from the era to be known historically as Trumpism.

Step 1 - We admit we have allowed Trumpism to permeate our culture in very negative ways that lead to making our governance unmanageable.

Step 2 - We agree that it will take a power greater than that we are currently deploying to restore sanity and put our nation back on course as a respected world leader.

Step 3 - We must decide to turn our focus and our intentions over to the people of this nation who desire to instill policies and action that serve the greater good.

Step 4 - We must pursue and share a deep searching and moral inventory of ourselves as a nation that has stepped off the path of integrity.

Step 5 - We must admit to a higher power, ourselves, and each other the exact nature of the error of our ways.

Step 6 - We are entirely ready to submit to the act of removing all these defects of character.

Step 7 - In a spirit of national humility, we ask each other for forgiveness for our shortcomings in 
our joint effort to remove them.

Step 8 - We must make a list of nations and classes of people we have harmed, and resolve to make amends to them all.

Step 9 - As we make amends to those who have been harmed, we must do so in a manner that does not risk causing new our worse harm.

Step 10 - We must continue to be vigilant in taking inventory of our harmful ways, and promptly admit when and where we are wrong.

Step 11 - Through any means that improves our conscious awareness of our social responsibility to each other, we must resolve to arrest any future potential of any manifestations of Trumpism to grip our nation again.

Step 12 - From the conscious awakening by following and practicing these steps, we continue to share this message with future generations, and to practice these principals in all our affairs.

I think I am starting to get it....

I am referring to the dogged intent by Trump supporters to see him as some kind of answer or solution to my view of domestic and world problems that need solutions.  In order to "get it", self reflection and examination are required.  Brutally so!

I am part of the population that to a significant extent believes that part of the Obama appeal was his being payback for Bush Jr.  I believe he was somewhat of a natural response to the Bush/Cheney travesty because appearances were that Obama was the opposite in may regards.  And I believe that there are a lot of Americans who regard Trump to be much the same where Obama is concerned.  But there is much more to this than just that.

When I climbed on the Obama wagon in 2007 (and I will reveal I was never on the Hillary bandwagon during their primary season) part of my thinking was that I knew I did not want to see a redux of Bush/Cheney.  The other part was equally directive for me.  I wanted to believe that all the promises and stated intentions Obama put out were doable and he would get them done or die trying.  If I had viewed this more objectively, I would have tempered this belief with the question, "When in the history of this country did any president actually ever come close to doing that?"  The correct answer is "never" if you need help.  But I was prepared to give Obama support and the benefit of doubt for clearly trying hard regardless of actual outcome.  I had black friends tell me back then they did not believe Obama was who I thought he was, but I was not about to listen to any of that.  How or why would they know that?  Because they and he were black?  I still don't know the answer to that, but that doesn't matter now, either.

I could make my own personal list here of the frustrations that I heaped upon Obama during his first term, but that is not relevant for the current purpose either.  These frustrations affected the level of my support in 2012.  In 2008, I donated to his campaign several times, something I had never done before.  I also volunteered at the KC headquarter office on election day, also a first for me.  I was  one of those "dialing for votes" callers.  In 2012 I voted for him, and that was all.  The good feelings about him were long gone, never to return.  I like the man a lot as a person, but today I do not believe he was probably the president America really needed.  Just my own take on that, nothing more.

So, to finish this point, I clothed Obama heavily, and probably unreasonably, in the mantle of my own desires, intentions, pet issues and concerns, etc.  He could not possibly have completed my agenda for him, even if he agreed with all of it.  And I think in that regard, I am probably not very unique as an Obama voter.  I have had enough conversations over the last 7 years with kindred souls to come to that conclusion.

I do not think the election of Obama led to over the top gloating on the part of those of us who were relieved that Bush ideals and policies were going to shoved out the door, but maybe some of my own bias is showing through in that respect.  However, I can say I was feeling very satisfied early on.  And I was dismayed at the attitude of the anti-Obama crowd.  To my observation, they had no reason to feel about him as their attitudes and words displayed.  I could not understand how blindly and easily they accused Obama of doing or planning actions that were never on the agenda.  Obama was never going to take away their guns.  He did not raise their taxes.  Their accusations about the Obama administration regarding any increases in the national debt were wrong when subtracting all spendings related to the wars Bush and Cheney started.  The anti-Obama crowd was just plain committed to hating him for any reason the could invent.

And now we appear to have Trump on the horizon, and I see the process starting all over again.  Where Obama was the anti-Bush, Trump will be the anti-Obama.  The difference is that I am now on the other side of the ledger.  I do not harbor the attitude of hatred, because that never moves the needle in any positive direction.  Never has, never will.  But I get it now.  I can better understand the experience, even the trap, of allowing myself to get caught up in the act of predicting, imagining, believing a host of future events and outcomes led by Trump that hopefully will never happen.  I admit I have no desire to yield to or move into the Trump camp. Where I liked Obama the man regardless of my perspectives on his efficacy as president, Trump is a man I do not like or respect, and have little if no faith in his capacity to lead this nation where it needs to go.  I stated earlier that I questioned whether Obama was the right person for the job at hand.  I feel certain that Trump definitely is not, and he has not ever been sworn in yet.  Only sworn at.

The only positive note I can add to this is, if I turn out to be totally wrong about him, we all win.