J--So what unifying idea emerges from conditions today?
G--You face many urgent needs at the same time. Taken together they comprise a whole, fused together in a system, so that "the good of the whole" means aiming to solve them all rather than splitting one against another. You ask everyone to climb on board, because without a solid majority movement, you are not done. You ask people to cooperate to assemble that basic muscle.
J--What goals would you include in the good of the whole?
G--In mobilizing an army, you face several critical issues. The first is to know why you are doing this, like addressing the issues that affect the most people the most urgently, those that dealt with poorly will undermine civilization, like climate change, the pandemic, general health care, poverty, wealth inequality, fear of foreigners, racism, education, and an anti-science bias. The election of 2020 demonstrated as never before how democracy itself was vulnerable as Republicans in many states sought to suppress the vote, violating the most basic principle of a democracy, seeking power in a way that endangers the nation. You need to understand a range of values and how they apply in practice, and then communicate them intensively, but this does not mean saturation TV. The nation's polarization after years of it should demonstrate conclusively that it will not achieve your purpose. You have to figure out how to reach the specific persons for whom your message matters most. You don't smother them with your own opinions, but rather approach them individually with respectful exchange, and then tie their concerns together with the larger plan for the good of the whole. This should not be hard to understand. You reach people "where they are," and then take what steps you can together. You don't surrender your principles, but rather work within the fact that changing others' thinking is a process. You begin at the available end and work toward the harder end. Remember that "Nothing happens without being made necessary." For a specific message to reach a specific person's mind, there is a critical pathway to follow.
J--What conceivable voice could explain all that and bring everyone together?
G--There are two distinct roles. You need public figures good at putting into words the attitudes and values and changes needed. Your President-elect is saying those kinds of things--his heart seems to be in the right place--and there are many others. That's a plus but it's not enough. Imagine that at the start of World War II, the President was informed that he had 16 million people who would fight and was asked "What do we do next?" The image is ludicrous,16 million answering to one person. That's just a mob incapable of carrying out a strategy. Besides the President, you need a leadership structure. Today you have 78 million people who have said to the President-elect, "I'm with you," so think of that potential. 16 million Americans in Armed Services helped win World War II. Now you have 78 million waiting for direction, and how often have you seen Democrats as motivated as they have been recently?
J--But you're saying we lack the leadership infrastructure.
G--It was right there during the election campaign. Leaders stepped forward by running for positions from dogcatcher to Senator, declaring publicly, "Hey, everyone. Follow me!" Supporters showed up to work for their campaign, and whether they won or lost, others still look to them as leaders. If they have an idea they think is important, their team waits to hear it.
J--An electoral goal organized their effort. Without that to steer action, wouldn't it easily be dispersed throughout people's special interests and priorities?
G--That tendency is exactly why you need to talk through the big idea so everyone agrees on their common direction. You want their support for a full spectrum of values that will enhance the lives of those you care for who are living now and to come, so you say, "Let's get together and work this out." You have to return to integrating what is dispersed, gathering what is aimless. The future of your country lies in ideas, and big ideas bring people together. Remember what General Patton said to his army: "Your goal is not to give your life for your country. Your goal is to make your enemy give his life for his country." A single overarching task guided all lesser tasks. The problem with small goals by themselves is that they stop. You pace yourself to get to the end of them, and have a life apart that reminds you of your other needs, interests, and values. But a large goal lasts and constantly beckons you to the next step. It helps you prioritize efforts because achieving it contributes to your success at everything else.
J--If I had an army of activists, what would I do with it?
G--"Army" is an analogy, okay? Armies kill people but they are also a perspective about organizing a body of effort. I suggest using "the good of the whole" to unite people who presently head off in different directions, especially to bring together those who regard others as adversaries, and replace oppositional concepts with cooperative ones. Even a little effort at that could bring large returns. Enormous potential is presently unused. About the 78 million who voted Democratic in the recent election, let's say that one in ten of them was inclined to make an effort toward positive change; just one in ten, especially those in Republican-leaning states.. We give them a doable, moderate objective. We want each of those 7.8 million people to take a full year to reach out just to one Republican voter, help them expand their viewpoint, and vote Democratic; not a strenuous effort, but whenever they felt like it, when the opportunity arose. But if only that one in ten who voted Democratic did that for two years,15 million votes would turn Democratic, an overwhelming mandate in 2022 for sustaining the good of the whole, advancing harmony across opposing groups, and making significant legislative changes. Just adopting this as a mutual purpose would lend perspective to Democrats' competing interests. In place of "Everyone must see it my way," they would focus on, "How do we generate an overwhelming mandate for constructive change?"
J--That effort implies broad, effective leadership.
G--The minute you share an idea with someone else, you become a leader. Every Democrat is a potential leader just by having an idea they believe will help the country and world. The change from potential to actual happens by offering someone their idea. So all the thousands of candidates who won and lost elections from national to local are positioned to initiate that effort. They call their supporters together and say, "We are going to deliver ideas that will change this nation, and this nation will change the world."
J--Is there any reason why you need a leadership structure to do this? Doesn't it boil down to one-to-one conversation anyway?
G--You want to distinguish between what will work "in a pinch" from how it would work best. Even though you want everyone self-motivated, in fact they depend greatly on a group's common energy. Going out the door with the sense that everyone is pulling together supplies that last ten percent of motivation that makes all the difference. But there's also the critical factor of just getting better. Taking on an unfamiliar activity, you know you are not as good at it to start with as you might be later. Your early mistakes can easily loom large and convince you that because you're not good at this, you should quit. But as a rank beginner in a group, you team up with a more experienced person, do the door knocking or sidewalk leafleting together, and without fear of mistakes.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
