John Renesch: Exploring the Better Future

What If Stephen Stills Had It Right?

Folk-rock legend Stephen Stills wrote and recorded a 1970s single entitled “Love the one you’re with” which went on to be recorded by many artists over the years. The thought conveyed in this popular song was, to paraphrase, if you can’t be with the one you love then love the one you are with.

Stephen Stills, songwriter, folk-rock legend, member, Crosby, Stills & Nash

It seems this message could be applied to all of humanity today, not just for a lover. Following the same common sense logic Stills expresses in his song, if we are all living on this Earth and there is no place else to go, why not love the ones who share our Spaceship Earth with us rather than squabbling, persecuting or hating them?

This planet Earth which we call home is getting smaller and smaller as we grow in population, communications speeds up and travel time continues to shrink. We possess the ability to destroy people half way around the world in an instant as we sit on fuses that could bring about humankind’s extinction. What if we simply loved the ones we’re with?

What would it cost us? Our egos? Our pride? Our righteousness? Our airs of superiority?

And what would we gain? Security? Serenity? Fellowship? Community? Additional friends?

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me!

Standing for an Adult Society

In my latest book – The Great Growing Up - I attempt to make a case for the urgent need for our species to grow into full adulthood, to voluntarily evolve, and to cease our adolescent indulgences that are creating such havoc in the world. Ceasing this immature behavior involves recognizing it, pointing it out and saying enough! Let us stop legitimizing this behavior and insist on adult responses to our challenges as a species. Remaining silent is to condone it. Worse yet, remaining silent gives it legitimacy!

My recent interest in Vaclav Havel’s work and, specifically, his 1978 essay “The Power of the Powerless” has revealed this pearl of wisdom (amongst many others):

    You have to begin with the imperative that you’re responsible for the whole world. And if young     people take that kind of position, there’s a lot of hope. In fact, it is the only hope there is.

This “position,” as Havel calls it, is the ultimate adult stand for humankind’s future – each of us needs to be responsible for “the whole world.”

The good news here is it won’t be necessary for everyone in the world to grow up. But it will take a critical mass to shift the culture so that adolescent behavior is frowned upon, where it is not only unfashionable but socially unacceptable. This requires taking a firm stand for something that is wanted, nay demanded, not a position against something that is unwanted.

Changes of this scale have occurred in our lifetimes so we know we can do it, if we have the collective will to do it.

Women’s right to vote, civil rights, and the environmental movement are all outcomes of mental models that have undergone large scale cultural shifts in the past century here in the U.S.  More recently we’ve seen this in the mass demonstrations against tyranny and oppression in the. Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement.

In closing, I quote Lynne Twist who writes about the distinction between a stand and a position:

    Taking a position does not create an environment of inclusiveness and tolerance; instead, it creates     even greater levels of entrenchment, often by insisting that for me to be right, you must be wrong.

    Taking a stand does not preclude you from taking a position. One needs to take a position from time     to time to get things done or to make a point. But when a stand is taken it inspires everyone. It     elevates the quality of the dialogue and engenders integrity, alignment, and deep trust.

When you find yourself in the midst of it, speak out against silly “acting outs” by politicians, the media you consume and any other places where you observe it. You may have to muster up some courage and risk some criticism but I guarantee you will feel better.


[To see my editorial on Havel – “The Myth of Powerlessness” - from my March newsletter click here]

Evolutionary Architects Wanted

The other day, I had a most unusual conversation with long time friend and colleague Bill Veltrop and a more recent colleague Max Shkud. Max has joined Bill in an extraordinary visionary endeavor – forming a guild of “evolutionary architects” that will bring about what they describe as a “societal metamorphosis, an irreversible transformation of our organizing forms, a shift in beliefs and culture unlike anything seen in our short history as a species.” This is how they show it in a diagram:

[Note: the hot links included in the text below will take you to the website where Bill and Max have embedded definitions of these terms. To return to this blog simply back up on your browser.]

Bill and Max assert that a metamorphosis of our social systems can become as natural for us as it is in nature. They further assert that the emergence of the Information Age within the last half century has set the stage for this “Age of Conscious Evolution.” They envision that we humans will design our social systems to serve the well-being of all life — for all time! This requires a rethinking of our social architecture or what they are calling “evolutionary architecture.”

I had been aware of the phrase “social architects” as people who design and redesign social systems but I had not heard the term evolutionary architect until Bill and Max invited me into the conversation. 

Here is their definition of an evolutionary architect:

        ….a social architect who:
        1.    Is committed to free humanity from the tyranny of unconscious social design — to make the         shift from “mechanistic” to “generative design principles.”
        2.    Sees humans and their social systems as having the potential to consciously evolve to         ever-higher levels of well-being — and is committed to that quest.
        3.    Strives to achieve the same level of design excellence for our social forms as is present         throughout the rest of nature.
        4.    Is concerned with the interplay of whole ecosystems — natural, social, economic, etc., in the         service of maximizing the contribution of these systems to the well-being of all life — for all time.
        5.    Is committed to master the emerging field of generative design as it applies to all systems at         all levels of system.

        While an individual evolutionary architect can have a powerful influence, we see the “evolutionary         architect” needing to take the form of a unique kind of community — generative action-learning         organism.

This community or “organism” they talk about is one they envision as a guild - a community of allies who help grow generative alliances with pioneering leaders, providers and organizational entities “who are ready and able to step up to this great evolutionary challenge and opportunity.” The name of this community is Global Guild of Evolutionary Architects (or “GlobalGEA” for short).

Who will be these allies, these leaders and providers, these organizations who will step up? They will be visionaries – able to see the real possibility of bringing this kind of future about. They will be entrepreneurs – able to launch this initiative, take it from vision to reality. They will be system thinkers who can see the relational dynamics amongst and between everything and everyone. They will be critical thinkers - very skilled at how they think. They will be talented – very skilled in what they do and how they do it. They will be transformational thinkers – familiar with taking huge leaps in worldviews, frame changing, and comfortable in the midst of paradigm shifts. And they will be collaborators – people who can be part of generative alliances, leaving their egos at the door. Instead of asking “what’s in it for me?” these people will ask “what’s in it for the world?”

Make no mistake here: while this is a huge undertaking it simply means we must work together. A societal metamorphosis on this scale, an irreversible transformation of our social systems, a paradigm shift in our collective beliefs and cultural norms unlike anything seen in human history is beyond the ability of one person or one organization. But, together we can do it.

If you or anyone you know could be a candidate, as an ally, leader, service provider or organizational partner in this global metamorphosis, check out www.GlobalGEA.net and immerse yourself in the content. Dive deep – don’t stay in the shadows. When you feel you have integrated the scope and vision there, you will be directed to the initiative’s Offer, Request and Promise, then to contact Bill or Max. 

They Have It Upside Down: We the People Get the Short Stick

 
Scene from “Network”

When we elect politicians, we expect them to serve their constituents – “we the people” - first and foremost. It is the basis for a modern democracy, that “we the people” are represented by those we elect, those who ask us to trust them.

Given the predominately two-party system we have in place in this democracy, we might expect our elected representatives to remain loyal to the platform on which they ran their campaign, regardless of their party. After all, they can assume their electors are likely members of the same party and that the platform or the promises made to the voters are important to them.

It is natural, we suppose, that once elected, these people who represent us may wish to get re-elected and remain in office. So their second priority might be to get re-elected next time an election rolls around. Thus their constituency becomes the people and corporations who pay for their campaigns to get re-elected.

But our present day politicians seem to have these priorities upside down!

Their first loyalty is to get themselves re-elected, raising money so they can buy votes. Their party loyalty comes next and, finally, last on the list, is serving the people who elected them in the first place.

There is no wonder why gridlock is so pervasive in our politics today given these upside down priorities. We are paying politicians to work for us and all they give us is gridlock and excuses, blaming the other party for their failures. Their first loyalty is to themselves and to the lobbyists and their clients who finance their campaigns. This assures their reelection. Their second loyalty is to their party, which shows up so conspicuously when they stand united in their explanations for their failures to govern. Finally, the last priority in the queue, is “we the people” – the ones whose interests they solemnly swear to represent  – but only after they have achieved their first two priorities.

The Occupy Movement is evidence that many people are “mad as hell and don’t want to take this anymore” as was so powerfully portrayed in the movie “Network” (see six minute video clip). Maybe our politicians will respond, get their priorities straight and start serving the people they claim to represent.

Paradise on Earth: Why Not?

   As regular readers of this blog know, I rarely feature the work of others here as I usually have something to say myself. But in late December, a colleague published a video on YouTube about a project he has been working on for 35 years. He calls it “Mission: Paradise”.  I think it is worth it to postpone one more stand on my soapbox. First a few words about the creator/architect of this vision.

His name is Jim Channon, a genius and a visionary in my view. Jim was an officer in the U.S. Army and founded the “First Earth Battalion.” I first met Jim when I was Managing Director and a Founding Trustee of the World Business Academy (WBA) in 1990. He lives in Hawaii where he facilitated a retreat for the WBA in 1991. He also contributed to my first anthology – New Traditions in Business: Spirit and Leadership in the 21st Century.

Jim’s powerful vision for the future reminds me of another colleague’s idea for a transformed humanity, Martin Rutte, who talks and writes about “Heaven on Earth”. Of course both these visions are aligned with the one I put forth in my new book – The Great Growing Up – which I call the “New Great Dream.“ But you can’t beat video for a compelling presentation!

I suggest you watch the first 15 minutes of Jim’s presentation. The last 10 minutes you can watch at your leisure but plan on the first 15 as a minimum.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=GsUKSBqYhg4

Watch this with an open mind and notice any cynicism that may rear its head from time to time. Notice also that Jim has been having this conversation with thousands of pragmatic people in the world , including corporate leaders, political and military leaders, and knows his way around these communities. Of course these conversations are private as most high-profile people won’t want to acknowledge these exchanges publicly. 

As always, I’d appreciate any feedback you’d like to share here after you watch the video.

Occupy This! Taking On Oppression No Matter What It Is Called

Typically we think of dictators as power hungry people, usually men, like Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Cambodia’s Pol Pot, and Libya’s Muammar Kaddafi. Sometimes they were once popular rulers but became more and more corrupted by the power like perhaps Egypt’s Mubarak and many others past and present. 

But do dictatorships need to be flesh and bone human beings? Can an oppressive autocracy be created by a power-hungry system that dominates and operates similarly to a Kaddafi or a Hussein? I think so.

Let’s take three classes in one of these oppressive systems, as a simplified breakdown of the primary actors. Let’s call them the Elites, on top of the pyramid, the Enforcers in the middle row and the Exploited at the bottom, carrying the weight of the two levels above (see cheerleaders pyramid below).

The Elites are the privileged, the group who continues to gain wealth and power by making sure the system continues to function for their convenience, occasionally slanting the playing field even more to their advantage. They aren’t prone to giving up any of their advantage and often become insensitive to their excesses.

The Enforcers make sure the system is maintained and do the bidding of the Elite. They enjoy some power but just enough to remain loyal to the Elites.

The Exploited are the majority who have the least power, wealth and influence.

The Arab Spring movement has been fueled by growing injustices as seen by the Exploited (the masses) and even some of the Enforcers (military and police). The movement has been led by many educated professionals who are willing to risk physical harm to take their stand against oppression. In so doing, some of the Enforcers have been sympathetic, finding it difficult to harm fellow citizens with whom they empathize. 

Now let’s look at the United States and the Occupy Movement. Obviously masses of people are feeling exploited and oppressed, giving rise to Occupy. Let us look at the similarities.

Many Americans are feeling oppressed by the economic system and powerless in making any change happen to improve things. They feel exploited even though they may not have a personal dictator to point to as the identified oppressor. Fear, financially insecurity, and gridlocked political leaders acting like teenage brats incapable of doing anything to rectify the situation make matters worse.  The status quo is oppressive. By most definitions the common people are the Exploited.

The Enforcers in the U.S. are similar to the Enforcers in the Arab world. They consist of the courts, the prison system, local, state and national governments, the military and police. They keep the Exploited in line by maintaining order and squelching disorder. When the Elite see their hold on power threatened, they will subdue and suppress. In this regard, the Elite reactions to the Arab Spring and the Occupy Movement are somewhat similar.

The U.S. Elite are not despots living in sumptuous palaces with harems and surrounded by personal militias. But they live in extravagance, often have flamboyant personalities and flaunt their wealth and power and maintain their power base. They may not imprison or execute anyone whom they see as a threat to them, but there are similarities!

The ruling Elite in the U.S. is largely hiding behind very powerful and wealthy corporations. They purchase political favor much like people bribe officials in other countries. And now the courts have removed all restrictions on them to purchase even more political power, which has helped to paralyze  our legislators who sit in “special interest gridlock.”

To use an old expression, we have put the foxes in charge of the hen house. The changes that are desperately needed in our systems will not be made by the people who are currently benefiting from those systems.  Campaign finance reform, tax reform or election reform will never come about unless some force outside the existing system takes responsibility for making reforms happen. The foxes are very happy with the status quo! Why would they change something that benefits them so much? They may put on a good show at trying to change things but there is no incentive to actually lessen their perks as things stand. The status quo is good for them!

Perhaps it is time for a new constitutional convention where “we the people” take back our country much like the courageous Arab people are attempting to do. If we can oust our corporatocractic dictators we will face similar challenges as those in the Middle East and North Africa. Once you succeed in ousting the source of oppression, a system that has been in place for a couple of generations that has maintained stability, even though oppressive, things can get unstable pretty fast. Recreating a true democracy from the tenets of a constitution can be challenging and not for the faint of heart. It is a task for the stand-takers, the collaborators who put the well being of all ahead of any special interest or ideology they hold privately.  Our founders had the chutzpah and made it happen - so can we. However, we have to don the cloaks of our colonist founders and summon that historic degree of personal responsibility to make the new system work as our founders envisioned, not as it has devolved after centuries of special interest skewing.

Do we have the moxie, the chutzpah, the spiritual courage to pull it off? Do we possess the ability to recreate a system that serves the people instead of the privileged few? Do we have the will to stop energizing the existing system in all its dysfunction and work together to form “a more perfect union”? I think we do.

*******
[My editorial in this month’s issue of my free newsletter is titled “The Human Species Grows Up:
Transcending Our Adolescent Stuckness” (see link here)]

Occupy Movement in the U.S. Predicted Last April

The other day a reader reminded me that my April blog from earlier this year – what has now been named “the Arab Spring” - predicted the Occupy Movement here in the U.S. With that in mind, here it is again:

April 1, 2011

Growing Income Gap Could Spark Our Own Tahrir Square

Watching the pro-democracy demonstrators in Tahrir Square in Cairo several weeks back followed by the storming of the Wisconsin state capitol building by crowds upset over the prospects of being disenfranchised here in the U.S., I wondered when there might be pro-democracy  demonstrations popping up all over the United States. After all, one of the major factors of the leaderless demonstrations in the Arab world is the oppressive economic disparities between rich and poor. As can be seen from the graph below, the gap between the richest one percent of Americans and the rest of us continues to widen. Eventually this gap will reach a breaking point. No society can sustain this rising disparity before the other 99% figures out the system is rigged against them.

 
John Perkins, former “economic hit man” who has inside experience of the power of corporate appetites, calls this result “corporatocracy.” Wikipedia defines corporatocracy, in part, as a governing system where “corporations, to a significant extent ‘own’ or have massive power over governments, including those governments nominally elected by the people, and that they exercise such power not by back-room conspiracies but by their enormous, concentrated economic power, and by legal in-the-open mechanisms (lobbyists, campaign contributions to office holders and candidates, threats to leave the state or country for another with less oversight and more subsidies, etc).”

In many respects, corporatocracy causes this growing disparity. By its nature it continues to drive economic wealth to the rich while leaving the lower and middle classes pretty much stagnated. This becomes especially notable when you adjust for inflation. Some argue that 99% of us are actually worse off now, in terms of spendable income, than we were thirty years ago!

As I was drafting this article, the popular CBS News TV show “60 Minutes” featured a shocking story which included, in part:
    American families have been falling out of the middle class in record numbers….One of the     consequences of the recession that you don't hear a lot about is the record number of children     descending into poverty….it is estimated the poverty rate for kids in this country will soon hit 25     percent. (see entire report here)

Here’s a TED talk by Wael Ghonim, which was recorded last month at TED 2011. Ghonim is the Google executive who helped jumpstart Egypt's democratic revolution. He tells the inside story of everyday Egyptians showing that "the power of the people is stronger than the people in power." When enough people get fed up enough being victims of unfairness they will stand up for themselves.

Remember the parable of the boiled frog? Like the slowly-boiled frog we can get sleepy, then become unconscious and eventually die if the process is slow and gradual enough. The temperature rises so gradually that we acclimatize to the heat without triggering our life-threatening -danger responses. The disappearing middle class and the lower classes have been lulled into near-oblivion over the past thirty years as the gap continues to widen between the “haves” and the “have-nots.”

New York Times columnist Bob Herbert opined a few days ago, “There is plenty of economic activity in the U.S., and plenty of wealth. But like greedy children, the folks at the top are seizing virtually all the marbles. Income and wealth inequality in the U.S. have reached stages that would make the third world blush. As the Economic Policy Institute has reported, the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.”

Where is that tipping point for organizing our own Tahrir Square vigil? Like the people in Tunisia, Egypt and Bahrain who have been willing to risk their lives for liberty, perhaps Americans can emulate what the protestors in Cairo bravely declared on television, “This isn’t fair!” and “We want our country back.”

Fortunately we are not frogs. We possess consciousness which, when awakened, allows us to make dramatic changes in our responses to situations. A dear friend recently reminded me of a pertinent quote to share here. It comes from Scottish psychiatrist, Ronald Laing: "The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice, there is little we can do to change, until we notice how failing to notice shapes our thoughts and deeds."

 

NOTE: My December 2011 newsletter features an editorial titled “Bad People or Bad Systems? A Crisis of Social Conscience.” To read it click here.

Having Larger Conversations: Beyond Meaningful to Transcendent

Have you ever wondered if the debate, discussion and general conversations that occupy our collective consciousness most of the time – climate change, population growth, terrorism, sustainability, etc. – are all essentially “small talk” when it comes to what’s really important? Have you had a nagging feeling that these issues – as serious as they are – are simply symptoms of some larger crisis?

To put it into popular colloquialism, are we all passengers on the Titanic arguing over the deck chairs? 

Each one of these crises is the result of human behavior driven by an immature consciousness  - a consciousness that once was sufficient for us but we have now outgrown. The consciousness that created all these problems has been either uncaring or lacking in awareness of the long -term impact we will have on future generations. This consciousness is adolescent and, like modern day teenagers, we often pretend to be mature.

And like most unchecked adolescent behavior there are consequences, often showing up as surprises to the unaware or uncaring. The crises we face today are the consequences we didn’t think about before. It is time to grow up, clean up our messes and start having “the larger conversations” about consciously evolving to a level of collective maturity that is capable of generating a sustainable, just and fulfilling human presence on this planet.

It isn’t just about solving problems, although many problems still need to be solved. It’s about generating a future we can bring into being consciously – a future we actually want for our descendants instead of a default future that will devolve from the wreckage of our past actions and inactions.

Peter Drucker, the father of modern management theory, once said that the best way to predict the future was to create it. So let’s create it!

But how? you may ask.

That’s a fair question but does it come from a place of hopelessness, powerlessness and victimhood? Does the future occur to you as unchangeable, set on a course of degeneration? Or does it seem to you as something to be created – on a course of generation and renewal?

Larger conversations require people who see real possibility for a better future – not incrementally improved but one generated from an entirely different worldview or paradigm. They see a possibility even if they don’t see exactly how to bring it about. They have a deep intuitive knowing that the reality in which we all find ourselves is not the ultimate destiny for human beings. They know something very different is within our grasp if we can shift our consciousness from one that generates scarcity, hyper-consumption and fear to a consciousness grounded in connection, sufficiency and caring for all.

Those of us who are engaging in the larger conversations - who see possibility where others may not, who feel hope rather than despair, interconnectedness instead of separation and isolation - are risking being seen as “the crazy ones.” Cynics may see us as a bunch Pollyannas, idealists just wasting everyone’s  time. They once tried idealism and really got burned. So they pulled the blanket of cynicism over their heads and swore never again to dream, to aspire for higher ideals. They are hardly going to be attracted to these larger conversations any time soon.

But those of us in the larger conversations can evoke possibility for a world we dream of, a reality based on what we want, not on the past. Future-based language will replace past-based thinking and the language which follows.

Would you like to be part of one of these larger conversations? The cost of entry is low – simply a willingness to see a world that works for everyone, a world that is environmentally sustainable, socially just and spiritually fulfilling for al human beings. Conversations of this kind are going on all over the world, maybe not in the mainstream, but they do exist. They begin whenever two or more people are willing to engage in such unfettered explorations. They are going on in small coffee houses, retreat centers, people’s homes and certainly on the Internet.

Are you engaged in one of these larger conversations? If not, locate one and introduce yourself. You may be surprised by the welcome you receive! Once you are engaged in the exploration set aside all the reasons your “rational” mind might dismiss as pure folly. Tell your mind to leave you be, with strong emphasis if necessary. Disengage the egoic rationale that tells you such a conversation is a waste of time. Instead, allow yourself to dream without restraint about what is truly possible for an awakened human society having transcended the crises and circumstances we are facing today.

What better conversation is worth having at this time?

Too Many Causes; Too Little Bandwidth: The Challenge of the Progressives

  Last week I was reminded as to why some political ideologies gather more traction than others, when they seemingly have less support amongst the population. This has puzzled me for many years.

Allow me to admit that I am a fiscal conservative, more liberal when it comes to providing a safety net for the disadvantaged, an advocate for small but effective government, pro-government regulation on matters where the public well-being is at stake (such as the FAA, infrastructure and parks) and pro-entrepreneur having been one since I was 18. I have voted for numerous Republicans but probably more Democrats in my lifetime and backed Ross Perot out of frustration back in 1992.

At present, I don’t feel much loyalty to either of the two main political parties here in the U.S.  I was excited when Obama replaced Bush in 2008 but have since witnessed the greatest dysfunction in both parties, to the point of feeling significant embarrassment for my government.

This leaves me as somewhat of an objective observer of Washington without any strong loyalty. In this context I offer the following opinion.

It is safe to say that I have more Liberal friends than Conservative, quite largely due to living in San Francisco, which like many coastal cities is a largely-Liberal community.

One of the frustrations I hear from my Liberal friends is their inability to strategize and implement changes like Conservatives do. It appears that a few Conservatives can focus on issues they feel strongly about and make lots of progress politically in a short time, as has the recent Tea Party movement in the U.S. which was unheard of a couple of years ago.

My Liberal friends care passionately about a whole range of social ills and they want to see them all fixed. They are puzzled by their Democratic leaders’ inability to compete with Republicans who, in their opinion, have less to do with social good and more to do with ideology.

The Right seems to be able to rally massive support for a few issues and maintain consistent talking points amongst its spokespersons, even to the point of exposing themselves to ridicule by the satirists who compare them to robots or playback machines. They pick their issues, gather support for those issues amongst their leadership and orchestrate consistent narratives around those issues. They are laser focused on what they have chosen as their primary issues.

The Left, by contrast, seems to have no end of issues they care about. This leaves them with many leaders of various causes attempting to rally support for a wide-ranging myriad of issues – from climate change to rainforest protection, from human rights to poverty prevention, from campaign reform to closing tax loopholes. As a result, the Left’s agenda is scattered and diffused, sometimes confusing to those who observe the clear focus of the Right.

Is this a matter of strategy then? Or is it culture? Perhaps it is both.

From a strategy perspective, the Left and Right certainly employ very different means to bring about the change they are seeking. From an effectiveness point-of-view, the Right seems better at getting their issues on the table, presenting a more united front and bringing them to the fore of the public narrative. There is significantly more alignment amongst their politicians on these issues, as if there’s been “a meeting of the minds” about each issue. Even the same catch phrases are used by their advocates.

How long has this distinction been obvious? My earliest memory of U.S. politics was watching the Republican Convention in 1952 when Eisenhower was nominated. Reagan was the first President in my memory to focus on just a few major issues and champion them consistently, rallying his constituency around those same views and issues. “Reaganomics” still lives loudly despite the thirty years that have passed since he took office. Some might say it live louder now than it did in the 1980s when he introduced Art Laffer’s version of supply-side economics.

Not only was Reagan successful in implanting this economic philosophy into Americana, it has become embedded in the Right’s many arguments for lower taxes, smaller government and less regulation. This ideology manages to remain strong and compelling for many despite glaring evidence that tax cuts do not necessarily create jobs nor are they good for the economy at large. The Bush tax cuts, extended by the Obama Administration, and the present state of employment and the economy should be ample evidence that this cause–effect relationship is mythical. Nonetheless, the idea retains a fervent championing by the Right who have been successful in taking any increase in revenue or taxes off the table even in these times of historic budget crises.

So what does all this mean? For me, the lesson is that focus and unification on a few key issues gains public support more effectively than trying to promote many issues no matter how compelling they may be.  The latter engenders “cause fatigue” where people feel somewhat overwhelmed by so many issues they should care about. 

What does all this mean to you? Let me hear from any of you with thoughts to share, comments to make.  Whether Liberal or Conservative, I welcome your responses. Even you cynics who may feel like reengaging, your comments are most welcome.

New Book Finally Here! The Great Growing Up Debuts in October

 
Next month is the officially launch month for my new book – The Great Growing Up: Being Responsible for Humanity’s Future.  While my 14^th book, this one feels like my magnum opus – “my baby” – but then I suppose every new book is like a newborn child to an author. I have certainly heard this before from experienced authors.

The Great Growing Up is about an urgent collective choice: to opt for responsible adulthood over the largely adolescent ways we have been relating to one another and our planet Earth. I have tried to demonstrate that it is not too late to create the future we all say we want for our children and our children's children--a future that is environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling and socially just.  It is about a change of thinking that supports a paradigm shift-from adolescent self-centeredness to adult responsibility for all life forms.

I call for any readers who are willing to genuinely "grow up” to make this necessary choice. Ever-increasing numbers of individuals today are already seeking self-actualization, growing in consciousness, and willing to take on leadership roles in bringing about the first conscious evolution of our species. This represents a somewhat invisible global movement of historic proportions. The Great Growing Up invites anyone concerned with humanity's future to participate in this new thinking. The work of growing up is about a change of mind; we simply need to begin acting like mature adults.

The book has been blessed with much advance praise from many of my peers and mentors. In the near future I will have a website for the book, which will include these endorsements as well as a blog where I can exchange notes with readers. I shall look forward to connecting with many of you there.

You can advance purchase the book from Amazon.com as well as Barnes & Noble at substantial discounts.