4.5 A passion for our species
What’s the answer to our political distress? What’s our political salvation? Of course it’s…
Democracy.
At least that’s our traditional answer.
Look how America brags about itself. Sure Churchill was right when he said…
“Democracy is the worst form of government—except for all the others that have been tried.”
Democracy, according to the best PR our country puts out bout itself is in fact the best form of government. And America tells itself that our democracy is the best in the history of the world. So we’re the best of the best. We’re the model every other country should follow. We’re the proverbial “City on the Hill.” We’re a light unto the world.
But look behind the scenes and the picture is not so sweetly encouraging. Because…
Even those of us who support democracy, are conflicted about it.
Why?
Democracy might well be the best form of government humans have ever invented…
But it’s also the hardest.
Democracy takes negotiating, working things through bit by bit, struggling for a win–win, settling for what we can get. It means compromising when we really don’t want to settle for less than everything we want.
We humans are so much better at attack and counterattack than we are at negotiation. When it comes to international politics we don’t really believe in diplomacy, not at the deepest level. We believe in our military.
And in our domestic politics, so many people would rather do power plays than genuine negotiation.
Negotiating takes personal–emotional–moral maturity. Which is not a strong suit for Americans, or for our species in general. It’s not a top priority.
And this is why, even though we might want the freedoms that liberal democracy brings with it, it’s so human of us to wish we could just have everything our own way.
Add this up and it makes me think that in the long run, and despite how much our country sings its praises…
Democracy is too hard for America.
And if that’s the case, it’s no wonder that tens of millions of our fellow citizens have turned against it and want it gone. Maybe they feel bad about themselves because they know they are not personally able to rise to the challenge of democracy. Or maybe not. Maybe they don’t think that deeply about what they’re doing.
And then here’s another problem in that democracy is profoundly vulnerable. In fact…
Democracy can terminate itself.
The people of a democracy can vote it out and replace it with a dictatorship.
This is what the Germans did in 1932. Germany was a democracy at that point, not a very strong one, and the population was not experienced with democracy. It was something brand new for them. But when the depression hit them and hit them hard, they cast their votes for the Nazis who were the fiercest anti–democratic party in the Reichstag. And Germany transformed with stunning speed into a dictatorship run by one all–powerful Leader.
It turns out that…
Democracy in itself is not enough to save us.
And we can see how conflicted our country has been about democracy in the fact that no matter how much we brag about ourselves, no matter that we have great talking points about our democratic prowess….
We’ve never actually been a democracy.
According to the dictionary, the most fundamental definition of democracy is 1) everyone gets to have a vote, and 2) the majority rules.
There’s never been a time in our history when everyone got to vote. The facts tell us this so very painfully….
In the early days of our country, instead of making native people citizens and giving them the vote, we murdered them.
And the people kidnapped from Africa were not given the vote once they set foot on our democratic shores. Instead we held them in bondage.
And once freed, Black people were prevented from voting. If they tried to exercise that right, they were harassed, arrested, terrorized, even killed.
Now there’s a mass movement in our country working hard to restrict the vote. They’re not ashamed to say what they’re up to. If they could have their way, it would only be white people who got to vote. More specifically only white people who agree with them politically.
Which reveals another problem…
Democracy can’t save us because by itself it can’t beat our underlying human operating system.
In fact…
Democracy can be made to serve tribal purposes.
It can prop up tribal fundamentalism, which is the very thing that’s killing our species.
And this tribal ownership of democracy is what we’ve seen throughout our history. The white elites have used a semblance of democracy to exploit people of color and poor whites.
So…
Democracy can be turned into an instrument of oppression.
The hunter–gatherer bands and tribes, of the past, did not have democracy. There was no voting. There were no representatives.
They used a process of consensus based on very practical reality, namely, if our way of life is helping us survive, then don’t change a thing. If there’s a change in the natural environment or the social environment, like other tribes crowding into our territory, then we’ll work together to make whatever changes are necessary to defend ourselves and ensure survival.
The most important principle of the traditional tribal version of togetherness was that…
Everyone contributed to the welfare of the group, all day and every day.
Now in mass society, there are so many who take without giving. And it seems like the higher up you go the more you take. And we seem to honor the biggest takers the most.
Look, too, at how our country behaves on the international scene. It has no problem propping up dictators in other countries. It has no problem overthrowing democratic governments if they do not bend to our will.
So while America claims to be dedicated to democracy, if a democracy interferes with our economic and political interests, we’re happy to wipe it out without a second thought. We’re okay with…
Putting self-interest ahead of principle.
Or rather, our main principle is self–interest. Given the actual history of democracy, given how hard it is, given how people can so easily give up on it, given how quickly it can be defeated and replaced by a dictator, it’s no wonder that…
Democracy is not that easy to love.
So while authoritarians and fascists are determined and passionate about ending democracy, pro–democracy politicians are often tepid in their defense of it. What we see is that they want to be decorous and measured and rational. They don’t want to be accused of being emotional, so…
They try to reason with the primitive fears of their adversaries.
Which can’t possibly work.
Which then begs the question: What would it take for supporters of democracy…
To become passionate about it?
What would it take for us…
To be more passionate in our love than the haters are in their hate?
Because if we are tempered and tentative and timid in our defense of democracy why would anyone listen to us? They won’t believe we mean what we’re saying if they can’t see us feeling it.
Given that so many of us have conflicted feelings about democracy, how can we put our whole hearts into defending it?
This is where we come back to the mission to upgrade love. And the fact that in defending democracy, we need to upgrade it. We need to define carefully what we mean by democracy. For example, we might take a stand that we want…
A democracy founded on mutual nurturance and mutual advocacy where “mutual” means reaching across divisions and including everyone.
And just like upgrading love asks a lot of us, so does upgrading democracy.
From his reading of history, John Adams, one of our Founding Fathers, despite risking his life for democracy, did not believe it to be sustainable. In a letter to his wife, Abigail, he wrote:
“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty.”
And he continues:
“When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, of their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation.”
Then he concludes…
“Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.”
Democracy is too hard for us because it demands continual, intensive negotiation. And this requires on the part of the citizens…
Personal-emotional-moral self-development.
Which, again, individuals can engage in, but, as Adams said, nations won’t. They’re not going to do this kind of coherent national self–development. It’s asking too much.
Democracy in and of itself can’t save us, because a democracy can only be as good as the people who make it up. It can only achieve the level of moral maturity that its people are able to achieve.
It seems to me that upgraded, nurturing, sustaining democracy has to have a trans–tribal heart.
In our mass society, we have so many different kinds of people with very different levels of power and influence and wealth. So it’s not going to work to try to paste conventional democracy on top of a fractured society full of adversarial rifts, where different groups want what they want and don’t want to have to think about anyone but themselves.
We need something more powerful.
Democracy, where in theory at least, everyone gets to be involved in the collective moral decision–making, is actually, surprisingly, a trans–tribal challenge. Because otherwise what you’re left with is just power plays between different groups. And that’s what we’ve got going on now.
The trans–tribal challenge is to get everyone to act for the welfare of everyone, not just manipulate the system for selfish gain.
Democracy can be wholly owned by our historic tribal fundamentalism. Which I believe is a violation of it’s true heart, and which violation is then the core tragedy of democracy.
Or we can fight to make it trans–tribal. Which would make it a powerful force for our continued survival, supposing we actually had a chance to survive.
But now another question…
What kind of moral maturity does it take to be passionate about democracy when it is so flawed and failing?
I would say that to be a passionate advocate for democracy, to put your whole heart into it, given the reality of it, is a remarkable, laudable thing. And it seems to me that to fight not just for democracy, but to upgrade it as you’re fighting for it, takes a remarkable level of moral maturity.
And…
Democracy without moral maturity will fail.
Because…
Democracy can’t save us from having to do our own moral labor.
Finally I want to ask…
What would it take for us to be passionate advocates for our species?
Given that…
We’ve always been tribe-centric not species-centric.
Tribal fundamentalism at its core is…
My tribe versus your tribe.
Which actually means…
My tribe against all other tribes.
Which is ultimately…
My tribe against my species.
We humans have always identified with our tribe or nation, but we have not ever in any primary, preferential way identified with our species.
Does trans–tribal unity mean that we have to leave our tribes behind and turn humankind into one global, glutinous mass?
Not so, because…
We need our tribes.
We need them to be a place where we can be known personally and deeply. And where we feel a special kind of safety and security. Especially the safety to do serious self–development work. And let’s not forget that people who are targeted for oppression need to join together in self–defense.
But at the same time, we need our tribes to be the place where we can differentiate away from a society that runs on tribalism.
We need our tribes to have fluid boundaries. We need them to be…
Inclusive instead of exclusive.
If we believe that only the people in our own tribe are trustworthy, that means every other person in every other tribe is to be feared.
This was bad enough in our hunter–gatherer days, when our worlds were smaller and we were only in contact with a limited number of other tribes. But now we’re in contact with a global population of billions.
If, apart from our own group, however we define that, everyone else on the face of the earth is our enemy, either currently or potentially in the future, that’s a whole hell of a lot of people.
And if enemies and possible enemies make up the great, great majority of our species…
Why would we fight to save it?
We’ve certainly got good reason to be conflicted in our feelings, because how do you love…
A species that does so much evil and causes so much suffering and can’t seem to stop itself?
A species that’s addicted to the brutality of warfare.
A species that lives increasingly more in delusion than reality.
Where do you find the moxie to fight for a species that breaks your heart day after day?
This is a moral challenge…
To advocate for a species you have deeply contradictory feelings about.
And to advocate passionately, not holding anything back. To develop this ability is a remarkable moral achievement.
Upgrading our love can make it possible for us…
To feel for our species, despite how messed up it is. Because we understand that we didn’t ask to be made like we are. And we wish we could be so much better than we are.
And to fight for our species, despite its terrible contradictions of good and evil. And we fight because we refuse to surrender to despair.
We fight because we make the moral choice to be…
A proactive advocate instead of a reactive nihilist.
We choose to fight for life instead of surrendering to death.
