Why I enjoy discussing politics, religion, and the pursuit of happiness.

They say polite conversation should never involve politics or religion. Well, in polite terms I say "screw that."   Recently I have come to understand that I enjoy those two topics more than anything else: they are complex, impassioned, nuanced, and most importantly, they can keep my attention.  When so much conversation is mundane and perfunctory, it is nice to get into something that people are willing to believe fervently, without much proof on either side.  I mean we're talking about huge ideas here!  Something to really get your teeth into.  Where a chance encounter with an intelligent, well-spoken person has the potential to blow your mind on everything you have ever thought on a subject.  That's exciting to me.  With a few notable exceptions, this planet has been explored quite thoroughly; so unless you're James Cameron who is willing to invent a submarine to take him to the lowest depths of the ocean floor, then our options are to explore the ideas presented to us by the people that enter into our lives. Some can afford to do this by traveling to other cultures around the world, which I think is one of the most enlightening experiences available to us; while others might have to search in their immediate surroundings, or through books that force you to look at the world and life differently.   Do it.  Stop believing everything you think.  

When it comes to politics and religion, we should look for the behind-the-scenes motivating factors.  Whose interest does it actually serve?  Is gay marriage really going to destroy the foundations of today's family?  Does Obama really have a master plan to bring down the U.S.  in a fiery ball of hell after his 2nd term?  Is there a god that really cares about Tim Tebow's touchdowns or Taylor Swift's Grammy's more than the millions of small innocent children who face starvation, rape, torture, beatings, etc. every single day of their lives?  Is killing abortion doctors or infidels really the right path for someone looking for a deeper meaning in life? Any serious internal examination of these, and other important topics, is vital to the health of our society and world, yet so many blindly follow what they're told without even a minimal effort at examining it for internal truth. 

Unexamined beliefs allow us to become labeled.  I hate labels.  I don't like what they stand for, and I think they do more harm than good in our world. 

The problem is deeper than "labels" though.  To me it is the human ability for us to choose to see the world--and live it--through a lens of singularity.  We all know people like this: they engage the world through the singular lens of Christianity, shopping, adventure, sex, physical intimidation, economic forces, profits, conservatism or liberalism, exercise and fitness...there are endless options.  They engage their daily experiences by how it relates into their chosen focus.    

I heard a story on the great NPR show This American Life, where one lady devoted her life to the art of quitting things.  She quit her town, job, boyfriend, and hobbies. She developed a life strategy that revolved around the act of quitting; she even put out a very successful magazine called The Quitter Quarterly and published two books: The Quit, and The Art of Quitting.   Every time she started a new project she started it by focusing on how she would eventually quit it.  She was experiencing her life through the singularity lens of quitting.   Now, let me be clear, she has the right to do this: it is part of living in this time and age that we have the freedom to experience life in this way.  But I also have a right to make an argument to the contrary.  And in this argument I assume that we can agree on a couple of things:  1) As humans we desire to live a happy, enriched and fulfilling life.  Our forefathers agreed, as they put this idea into our Declaration of Independence.  2) By definition, "enriched" and "fulfilling" do not mean seeing the world as a singular purpose. The word for that is "extremist."  3) Becoming a master at your craft does not necessarily mean living a singular purpose.  Bela Fleck is a master at the 5-string banjo, but look at the work he does in exploring what music means to other cultures.  Becoming a master did not stop him from interacting with this world in a completely open and engaging fashion.    (Here is a link to watch his documentary about exploring Africa while looking for the origins of the banjo, Throw Down Your Heart.  One of the most beautiful documentaries I've ever seen.)

I believe that to get a sense of fulfillment we have to not only be open, but to engage many different areas and opportunities presented to us.  We have to not only avoid the singularity lens trap, but also avoid labels that define our beliefs.  If you present yourself to the world as a staunch liberal then you are defined by the other side.  You then allow conservatives to control you.   If they go towards A then you must go towards B to maintain the proper division.   Who wants this? Life is so much deeper than this.  Lately we've watched congressional Republicans make an effort to block every single piece of legislation that our president has brought forth.  They allow themselves to be defined by Obama, not only at the expense of our nation, but at the expense of their own interests, credibility and common sense.   To see this as positive you must have a singular mindset that everything Democrats stand for is wrong, and everything Republicans stand for is right; the only way to see politics in that fashion is to completely ignore both economics and the political history of this country.  

In the same fashion, viewing the world through the lens of Christianity is equally limiting. To properly do this you have to completely ignore the history of our world, along with the complex relationship of humans and religion throughout it.  We have the freedom to do it, but as I argued before,  it does not serve the purpose of experiencing life fully.   

Our weapons are the ironic mind against the literal: the open mind against the credulous; the courageous pursuit of truth against the fearful and abject forces who would set limits to investigation (and who stupidly claim that we already have all the truth we need). Perhaps above all, we affirm life over the cults of death and human sacrifice and are afraid, not of inevitable death, but rather of a human life that is cramped and distorted by the pathetic need to offer mindless adulation, or the dismal belief that the laws of nature respond to wailings and incantations. - Christopher Hitchens.
 
My last point will be an attempt to answer, or at least discuss, the question of "How can you say what is right or wrong for someone?" It's a big question, but one I think needs to be engaged.   I believe that a happy and fulfilled life is also a moral life.  I also believe that humans, regardless of cultures, can actually agree on what a moral life constitutes.  Otherwise we fall into the trap of allowing extremist views--with religious backing--that harm other human beings to enjoy equal precedence, and I refuse to believe that.   As we see some middle-eastern countries go backwards where the culture actually supports suicide bombing more than it supports education for females, we have to ask ourselves, "Is it time to agree that not all viewpoints are equal, and should we start working toward what we can agree is a moral and fulfilling life?"   You would be surprised at how many people are not willing to consider this!  I think it is a fear of taking a stand, or of breaking the cardinal rule of never criticizing the beliefs of others, especially when it comes to religion.   But as we see what used to be very forward, advanced, artistic, and free countries be dragged back to the middle ages through religious extremism, we will be forced to either deal with it through the worst option--war, and/or the best option--education, knowledge, and enlightenment. The productivity and overall happiness of a nation can always be linked to a few factors, one of which is the amount of educated women in that nation.  We can all agree that this is a moral high point, and if we can agree on that then we can agree that there are other moral high points that we can strive for in this world, as well as moral low points.   This is not a conversation we should fear. We should fear the possible outcomes of not having it.

So...talk about politics and religion more, and don't believe everything you've been told.   You might just find out that it is not only exciting, but if enough of us do it then we might just make some positive changes around this place.         

Pontificating on Poor People's Political Plight

So it has been a long time since I've written anything here.  I'm not completely sure why,  although I do have a couple of theories.  But I will say that it truly amazes me that people dig the things I write.    I like the process, but I also like connecting with people in this fashion.  I'm like everyone else, I just want to help the world be a little bit better than yesterday.  Maybe I'll succeed, maybe I'll fail, but at least I can say I tried.  How I view the world tomorrow might be different than yesterday, but this is a fun way to look back and see a growing process for me.  As long as there are billions upon billions of people sharing this world together, then there will be many truths for us to discover.  Don't ever settle on just one.  My favorite saying ever:  "Don't believe everything you think."

I should probably point out that pontificating on poor people's political plight is as easy as parrots pulling pianos out of a pond.  But what the hell, let's give it go...

It seems to me that this election cycle is really based on one thing: poor people.  The political stand-off that is occurring with a culture-war veracity is based solely on the alternating views of what it means to be poor and the reasons behind being poor.  This is a fascinating concept, because it rises above the conservative/liberal back and forth sniping, and forces us to confront the fact that different people view the world, and the poor, in completely different ways.

When the economy is strong and growing, and everyone is working, then the size of pie slice that goes to the poor isn't that important.  But when the recklessness and greed of Wall Street has cut the world's wealth in half, then it becomes a central issue.  

A conservative and a liberal can argue endlessly about the intended direction of public policy and only go in circles that would make a small town Saturday night dirt-track racer proud.  The reason they will not find common ground is because they can't, or won't, agree on their definition of what the poor experience means.

This fundamental disagreement would be similar to looking at the edge of the Pisgah National Forest in the Appalachian mountains.  I would see it as a place of refuge, peace, solace, comfort, and a place of rejuvenation.  Someone beside me could see it as a place of danger, threats, discomfort, and flat out terror.  So the chance of us finding middle ground on policy and funding for this land would not come easy, and the chance of both of us leaving happy is even smaller.

Are we both right and both wrong?  Yes, even though I think I'm a little more right than they are.  You don't have to go far to find proof of both perceptions of the woods.  Our differing views can be traced back to life experience, especially if I grew up in the woods and my friend's experience only consisted of "When Animals Attack" videos on TV.  But there's more to it than that; there can be a distinct personality difference between us, too.  I may find enjoyment in the unknown, in the adventure of new places with limited safety, whereas my friend might get happiness from consistency and insured safety.  Two completely different outlooks that shape who we are and how we interact with our surroundings, and they are both valid.  Another example: look at people's vacation habits.  We all know people that enjoy going to the same beach, staying in the same condo, on the same week every summer.  We also know people that would never visit the same place twice.  When it comes to vacation habits we can easily throw out the cliche "to each their own."  But with today's public policy and the idea of financial scarcity that pervades our culture, we enter into the octagon, where mercy is not shown, and we will beat our world-view into your thick skull with facts on one side, and emotional beliefs on the other.

I first noticed the difference in personality and political views in college when George W. was running against John Kerry. I was exposed to a lot of creative people in Boone, NC: musicians, painters, writers, poets, philosophers...and I started noticing that the more creative a person was the more left they leaned.  Why is this?  Since part of my degree was business management, I spent a lot of time in the business building as well, which was the only part of campus that I felt had a stronger conservative presence. The archetypical college conservative's experience was in fraternity/sorority life, with studies leaning towards the business side.  Of course there are exceptions, but anyone who has spent a lot of time in the microcosm of the collegiate experience will understand what I'm talking about here.  

As a lengthy side note, I'm always fascinated by the amount of news stories that come out each election cycle that deal with major artists sending cease and desist letters to the GOP for using their music during rallies, as compared to the Dems having almost a free range of choices. Lately we've seen legal action from the likes of Bruce Springsteen, Tom Petty, John Mellencamp, David Byrne, Sting, Foo Fighters, Van Halen, Survivor (who wouldn't want to use "Eye of the Tiger?") ABBA, Heart, and Dee Snider.  And who can forget Tom Morrello's op-ed piece about Paul Ryan claiming Rage Against the Machine as a favorite band?   From small college bands playing open mic nights to some of the worlds most famous artists, this seems to be the trend. Naming off the few exceptions, such as Kid Rock and Hank Williams, Jr.,  does nothing to this point, as you can prove a broken clock works perfectly if you only look at it twice each day.  Again, it's not a point for arguing or proving, but a point for discussing  and understanding. 

While the urge is strong to argue that since the artists that bring so much beauty into our lives have a specific political leaning, then we/they must be right, I refuse to fall into that trap.  It is more complicated than that, as I alluded to before.  As our personality traits dictate how we view the world around us (as well as whether we dedicate our lives to the arts), our vision of this world dictates how we act both in relation to politics and religion.

As we watch both sides argue about the proper role that our government should play in people's lives we have to understand that the two sides are viewing poor people in a completely different context.  On one hand, you have the type of people that I grew up around in a small mountain town in NC.  You were much more likely to be living below the poverty line than above it, but everyone tried hard to make it.  I grew up around people who would work all week and then work all weekend if their neighbor had some hay or tobacco to put up.  Nobody asked for any help and wouldn't turn down extra work if it was offered.  These are the best and most hardworking people in the world, but they are born poor and they will die poor. It's immoral to allow them to fall through the cracks while healthcare and the cost of living explodes. 

On the other hand, I've noticed that the conservative view of the poor is completely different.  This view, which I believe is strengthened and justified by the neo-christianity of the Joel Osteens of the religious world, is based around the idea that we each choose our own paths, and if you're poor it is your own fault,  mostly because you're lazy and unmotivated.  You would rather live off the government than use the good ole american bootstraps to get yourself into a nice suburban house.  You work the system and use your welfare check to buy booze, cigs, and lotto tickets while having a jolly good laugh about how you're beating the system.

Are both these views a little bit right and a little bit wrong?  Yes, very much so.  Is it impossible to find common ground when the two sides view the issue this differently?  Pretty much.

So how do we fix this mess?  I think the first thing to recognize is that the new research into why we view the world differently is an important part of the reparation process.  If someone believes something differently than you do it is not because they are uninformed, stupid, or immoral, it is because they literally see the world in a different framework, much as color blind people see certain colors differently.

People such as Chris Mooney and Jonathon Haidt are putting out fascinating research into why there is such a thing as a right-wing brain, and a left-wing brain.  Haidt has come up with five intuitions or moral foundations that he believes can show which way your personality will lead you.

1) the sense of needing to provide care and protect from harm
2) the sense of what is just and fair
3) the sense of loyalty and willingness to sacrifice for a group
4) the sense of obedience or respect for authority
5) the sense of needing to preserve purity or sanctity.

Liberals tend to emphasize the first two, while conservatives will typically emphasize the last three.   (One note on #3.  The term "group" is referring more to smaller like-minded groups, such as your church, neighborhood, political party, etc.: people who hold similar life-styles and belief systems.)

Recently a sixth moral foundation has been added, which is how we view liberty and oppression.  If you believe that those terms mean protecting those less fortunate, then it precludes a liberal bias, whereas if you see those terms as "throwing off the chains of big government" you might lean conservative. 

If you've ever noticed that conservatives are so amazingly organized and wondered why they are able to focus that organizational power with laser beam intensity, just re-read 3, 4, and 5.   Makes sense doesn't it?  Whereas liberals (and artists) have as much hierarchical discipline as The Goonies running around the underground caves trying to find their way out. 

So when it comes to the poor, I will accept rich confusion in return for shallow clarity.  Do we allow the less fortunate to go without the basic services to live, such as food, water, and health care?  No, we do not.  Do we accept that some will abuse this system and put effort into stopping these abuses?  Absolutely!  Most people want to make their own way.  If they have the opportunity to do so they will take it, and any serious analysis of the last 50 years of economic policy will tell us what economic environment creates the most opportunities.  In fact, I realized the other day that if half the analysis was put into economic history that is put into Fantasy Football each week, then we wouldn't have the political stalemate on the issue.  

Thanks for hanging with me,
Brian Swenk

A voice for the hardworking people in the bottom 50%

Everyone just wants something to work.  And it is OK to disagree on what works - because what works for the top 1% and what works for people below the poverty line are two completely different things.  But finding what works for the country as a whole becomes an endless game of chasing your tail, since it requires concessions on both ends.  And since nothing is ever completely fair, the larger concessions have to come from the very top, from the people with the loudest and most politically influential voices.  And so here we sit in a stagnant no-man's land.  


I ask you, what more can the bottom 1/3 of this country do?  They/we live paycheck to paycheck, if they can even find a job, and have no savings or extra money for things like decent health insurance.  There's a high percentage that are also facing "up-side down mortgages" (they owe more than their home is worth) and they have run out of options.   And nothing burns me up more than to hear right wing zealots say that these people are lazy and parasitic.  I grew up in a very small rural community where no one had more than a modest house and a tiny amount of savings for an emergency.  And I found out quickly that poor people are some of the hardest working people alive.  They will work repetitious factory jobs (back when there were factories), they will work outside in extreme weather conditions, whether it is building houses in freezing temps, or paving roads on hot summer days, or milking cows twice a day for 365 days a year. They'll work all week and then help their neighbor put up hay, or put on a new roof on the weekend.  For these people to be called lazy only shows the voices of the rich are completely out of touch with any type of reality and should be discounted immediately.  Choose a random person out of my community and I'll bet a month's pay that they work harder than Mitt Romney any day of the week! 

As I was listening to right-wing radio the other day I heard in the first five minutes that the bottom 50% of this country are "nothing but moochers and parasites" and that "the best thing that could happen on election day is for there to be a huge sale of Nike sneakers so the right people will be voted in."  As Matt Taibbi pointed out this new wave of conservative ideology and rhetoric will inevitably bring the GOP down.  This is not the voice for the middle, and who in their right mind would want to be a part of this vitriolic message?


Now, there are people who live off the welfare system and work harder to stay on that system than they do to be responsible.   And all of us, no matter what affiliation, will agree that is a huge problem that should be addressed and dealt with.  But in my poor rural county everyone that I know wants to be independent and make their own way.  For most people it is basic human nature, and when the conservative voices not only forget this, but disgrace us by using words like "moochers" and "parasites" they are only digging their well-deserved grave.   

Taibbi's use of the drug addict metaphor is dead-on.  The voices of the conservative movement have to keep one-upping each other for attention and taking bigger hits until the line where reality begins and ends becomes blurred.  One of the greatest political moves in the history of our great country was the Republican party convincing poor rural white people that they were looking out for their best interests.  "Low taxes, tiny government, and guns, guns, guns!" was the mantra, and it worked!  The party run by the richest of the rich for the rich convinced people living on $300 a week that they had their best interests at heart.  Unbelievably genius, right?   But in today's world of radicalized right-wing talk radio they have become unhinged from that one thing that has kept them competitive in elections.  There just aren't enough one-percenters out there to win the elections for them.  And now they are resorting to disgusting back-room tactics like re-drawing district lines in their favor, and passing various laws that will keep the poorest of the poor away from ballot boxes each cycle. 


What our country loses in this slide down into a radicalized cesspool of rhetoric is the fact that we need some of these forgotten conservative ideals in our political discourse.   The importance of personal freedoms along with personal responsibilities, the 2nd amendment freedoms and the responsibilities that come with it, the genuine desire to not let government overgrow, and financial prudence are all important ideas that have made this country great.  But these topics have no place in today's endless debates when you have unlimited soundbites from people who make the characters of Kesey's "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" look visionary. 

Watching this slow motion train-wreck does have a morbid entertainment quality to it, I have to say.   Everyone must admit some joy as we feed energy to these caricatures of politicians, as we push one to the top and watch excitedly as they fall like a slalom skier wrecking at 60 miles an hour tumbling down the mountain.  Then we find another willing participant and push them to the top of the same mountain and wait for the same outcome.  The GOP race has turned into nothing but a Wide World of Sports disaster outtake reel.  

Everyone has to sacrifice to get out of this slump, and some more than others. I only wish the loudest voices of the conservative movement could get a glimpse of what poor people go through everyday to just have a place in this world. (Here's a good start. "Nickel and Dimed: On (not) getting by in America" - read it!)  And if I hear anyone call the simple people of rural communities lazy parasites again I just might fucking lose it. 

New paths, new ideas, new connections.

"People don't know exactly what they want, but as one friend of mine put it, they know one thing: FUCK THIS SHIT! We want something different: a different life, with different values, or at least a chance at different values."  --M. Taibbi



Something has to give.  We can't continue on this path and give our grandchildren and great-grandchildren the life we want them to have.  Populations are exploding, and our oceans, rain-forests, and middle-class are dying.  We can pretend that those 3 things don't factor into our future, but you have to shut off any sense of reason to do so.  People who consistently look for new paths, new ideas, new connections are able to experience moments of clarity when things suddenly make sense, where several pieces of the puzzle suddenly  snap into place, creating a new picture that was not expected.   Two weeks ago I stumbled across an amazing video that articulated the visceral drive of the people protesting the current dirty affair between money and politics in this country.  But first, a few thoughts.   


The coverage of the Occupy Movement has been run into the ground by the 24-hour news cycle media; as one of my friends put it, "If I hear the word 'occupy' one more time, I'm going to lose it."  The protests started in the most beautiful sense that I've ever witnessed.  "We are the 99%" was a beautiful slogan that rightfully stated the true division of power, but through the combination of the Fox News Agenda and also of the Left Wing extremists taking over the discourse, the movement has been mostly divided back into the 49% vs 49% that so easily fits the standard media narrative.   If we keep it framed within this comfortable narrative then nobody has to stretch their ego-centric world-view to see a possible new path. If the story is 49% vs 49% then everything stays the same.  But if the story is 99% vs 1% then there is a chance for fundamental change in how Americans not only view our place in the global economic village but also how we focus our daily energy and how we define our "success."


But if you look close enough, and if you forget about arbitrary labels, then there is a tiny sliver of light breaking through the cracks.  A light that asks the questions, "Are you ok? Are we ok? Does the current zeitgeist feel right to you?"  The reason the protests took off with such speed and force throughout the world is that the answer is a general, "No.  We don't feel ok," and "No.  The current state of our society doesn't feel ok either."  Something isn't right and we can feel it, but we aren't sure what it is, and the easiest and quickest answer is to just blame the other side.  Blame the liberals, blame the conservatives.   Blame al Qaeda, blame the Chinese.   Blame the poor, blame the rich.  And on and on.  We have to blame somebody right? 

 Is it getting better?
Or do you feel the same?
Will it make it easier on you now?
You got someone to blame 

U2 - One

If we can just get those people out of our way then everything will be fine again; and just like an episode of The Andy Griffith Show, all will be fixed by supper time.  The first step to expanding our consciousness out of this endless blame cycle is to stop thinking in terms of labels.   There is only one label that will produce positive results: the human label.  It is important to realize that there are no such things as liberals or conservatives, republicans or democrats.  These are completely arbitrary terms that have no meaning other than to allow us to not only be divided and controlled, but also give us permission to turn off our brains and our sense of reason.   "I'm a conservative so therefore I believe this."   Or, "I'm a liberal so therefore I believe this."  Without any recognition that the given list of beliefs contains absurd contradictions and unyielding stances that by their very nature stop viable, workable solutions in their tracks.  It is almost as if the powers that be stood beside each other and picked hot-button social issues like an 8th grade gym class: "I'll take abortion rights.  Ok, I'll take gun rights.  I'll be against the death penalty.  Ok, well it is weird that I will be both pro-life and pro-death penalty, but what the hell,  they won't notice!"  And on and on...


I wish my writing could begin to match the beauty, elegance, and wisdom of Charles Eisenstein, but I am smart enough to know when to let someone's words shine.   Every line has a vast depth and meaning that is rare in today's pop-culture world, and it is important to recognize when someone so beautifully articulates the feeling in our collective hearts.  

What we are missing in today's money-based economy is our sense of meaning and purpose, and I believe that the majority of stress and unhappiness comes from the lack of these vital ingredients of a balanced life.   Eisenstein does a beautiful job of explaining that the top 1% are also missing these things, and their sense of unfulfillment is even stronger since, in the view of our money-based society, they theoretically have everything. "It's lonely at the top."    We've all seen the bitter Mr Burns character that sits alone in his mega-mansion suffering suffering from loneliness and isolation, and it is a near universal reaction that none of us would desire this.  Given the choice we will always claim  to pick love and community over wealth, but a strange disconnect happens when we spend our lives obsessing over the very thing we claim to not desire.    

“Someone asked us if we make money doing this... the answer is no... we make art, friends, emotions, adventures, songs, ideas, changes, noise, we make ourselves happy, and hopefully a few other folks happy along the way. Those are the things that we make. Who needs money?!”

In many ways the ongoing global depression has forced us to reconnect with both our community and our extended family.  Many are forced into roles of needing the people closest to them.  We are now depending on one and another in ways reminiscent of the last economic depression, and it is important to recognize that this is a positive transition for us.  When the federal government proves inept, we will find local solutions that not only solve direct problems but also strengthen the sense of community around us.  Sometimes 1 +1 can = 3, or 4.   If we are able, or even forced, to change the current paradigm from unbridled consumerism to service and support for those around us we will have the chance to re-develop the connective tissue that provides us with purpose and meaning, thereby filling the gaps in life with what is actually important.   The modern day financial philosophy that every person should have enough money that they can become an independent island and not need anybody for anything is an unsustainable idea and is fortunately dying a slow death.  The very act of having an important role in your community, of being needed, creates vitality, energy and love that symbiotically builds on itself.  

Hope everyone is having a great week.  
Brian