Help me make sense of this

[randr]

I was forwarded this and I am not really sure what the author is saying. Any comments?
A single flame, with patience, can light a million candles.

by Stephen Dinan

The debate among progressives these days revolves around choosing
the right Democratic candidate to defeat Bush.
There is a singular intensity and urgency about this quest, a
sense that all that is good and beautiful in the world hangs in the balance.
Many have come to the conclusion that their best hope is Howard Dean, even if they don't like everything about him.
The logic goes that he's progressive enough and "palatable" for
the supposedly vast tract of more conservative America that backs
Bush, beats the war drum, and believes media hype. He's as big a stretch as we can hope for in today's climate.. It is simple logic: strategic compromise in the service of defeating Bush.
While I certainly understand the impulse behind those who back
strategic compromise, I think it actually does more harm than good in the long term. Instead, I want to offer an alternative vision, one in which each of us dares to stand as a burning flame for that which we believe in, even if that might not seem strategic or popular at first.
Before I look at what it means to be a burning flame, though, I
want to point out some major problems with strategic compromise to defeat Bush:
1) Strategic compromise largely emerges from fear. At the root,
there is often a sense that the only way one1s real truth and real passion can impact the world is to be aligned with someone that is more powerful. In other words, there is a fundamental sense of inferiority or impotence underneath strategic compromise. That sense of impotence is conveyed to all those who listen. Each and every time someone says, "Well, I like Kucinich
better but I think Dean is more electable so I'm backing him" there is a confession of powerlessness, a statement that "I don't have the power to truly affect people, to lead them, convince them, and empower them. So I will follow the herd." Strategic compromise is thus at least partially an abdication of leadership.
2) Focusing on defeating Bush is a negative goal. Negative
outcomes can certainly bring benefits in the long term but negative goals tend to burn people out and skew our passions. The enduring missions, the ones that can lead to major, sustainable change, are born out of a positive vision for what we want to create and how we want to live. When we focus our energy mostly on the negative ? deposing Bush ? we are not channeling
enough of our life force into the groundwork that can build the world we want.
In my experience, sustainable growth happens with a mix of something
like 80% creative, constructive energy and 20% challenge and dismantling of the old: 80% positive, 20% negative. Different people can stomach different balances but for the larger population, I think that is a sustainable recipe. I thus believe that our choice of candidates should primarily be born from our vision of what we truly want to create rather than what we dislike.
3) Strategic compromise does not change the image in the media
mirror. Values-oriented studies have revealed a large and growing
population in America labeled the Cultural Creatives who share a similar range of progressive values but are mostly unaware of each other or the power this population wields. The reason is that the Cultural Creatives are not yet reflected in the media mirror, which includes political processes. Strategic compromise postpones the moment when this substantial force for positive change begins to recognize itself in its media reflection.
4) Strategic compromise often puts different parts of ourselves
at odds with each other, which diminishes the amount of life energy we can utilize. When our heart battles our mind or our soul conflicts with our will, much of our creative magic is locked up rather than extended to the world via our mission. Strategic compromise leads people to burn out over time because of the lack of alignment.
5) Strategic compromise discourages the best people from entering
politics because they do not see adequate popular support for their
positions. Politics is left to ego- and power-driven members of the old order rather than exemplars of the emerging culture. This holds true for current politicians, who are discouraged from audacious programs and incendiary truth telling because they don1t yet see popular support for those positions.
Strategic compromise thus does not encourage the emergence of
more conscious, compassionate, and courageous political leadership.
6) Strategic compromise reinforces the collective climate of fear
that has lingered from 9-11. Fear rarely leads us to our noblest
achievements and fear has colored American actions in a way that has squandered our good opinion in the world. Fear has led us to drift from the noble ideals at the heart of the American dream and to tolerate the removal of key freedoms by the Patriot Act, as well as pour vast amounts of creative potential into erecting barriers rather than erasing them. Fear has put America off mission. When we speak from a place beyond fear, it assuages the fears of those who listen and begins to rekindle the dream of America.
The mentality of strategic compromise contrasts sharply with the
mindset that leads to "burning flames." A burning flame is someone whose body, emotions, heart, mind, and soul are lit up with a purpose,
someone who is on fire with a calling. A burning flame is passionate and purposeful. A burning flame is love with a mission.
The mindset of a burning flame is profoundly contagious because
almost everyone hungers to be a burning flame. We want to be people of
wisdom, depth, and passion that really make a difference with others.
However, the vast majority feel they do not either have the talent, the time, or the boldness to be a burning flame. They look at friends and families and see mostly compromise, contraction, and dashed ideals. They carry wounds from the past and shroud their hopes for the future to avoid disappointment. This is a safe but cramped way to live.
Being a burning flame, by contrast, is a bold statement. It is
risky because it means putting our deepest dreams on the line and
exposing them to ridicule, censure, and doubt. However, being a burning flame affects people in powerful ways because burning flames are creators of reality rather than victims of it. Burning flames are the source of companies and churches and non-profit foundations. They organize communities and movements. They put people in space and invent the future. Step-by-step, they help our species evolve by leading us beyond the known.
The realm of politics is an important place to be a burning
flame, a stand for the truth, love, and creative magic deep in our souls.
Government affects every facet of our lives. It provides the compass setting for our entire country. It is a statement to the world of our national identity. When we take a stand for a candidate we love who conventional wisdom says is "not electable," and we do so with courage and conviction, we affect the people around us in profound ways. The first, and most important,is to show them that they need not choose strategic compromise out of fear. There is an option and they know someone who is willing to take that option. That in itself can be revolutionary.
The other thing is that the ripples begin. One by one, others are
affected by the burning flame. Inspired. Challenged. Mobilized. Slowly but surely. As each person steps out of their own cocoon of fear,
they touch others. The first candle, once lit, can ignite others.
The magic comes through multiplication. If one "burning flame"
has an impact on perhaps 30 people and leads three others to dare to
stand as burning flames themselves, the process begins to ripple outward.
In six months, one burning flame could, from the ripple effect, have
deeply affected 20,000 people and sparked 729 other burning flames. In
twelve months, that same power would touch 16 million people and spark
531,000 other burning flames. It all depends on our willingness to first unveil the spark in our own hearts and stand in it publicly and powerfully.
So, I urge others to first find what is in your inmost heart.
What is that unique gift that you have for the world that every part of your being can unify behind? I then encourage you to find a political leader who is as close to that as possible and get behind them. Powerfully. No matter whether they seem electable or not. Because this is your statement to the world about who you are and what you want to see in the world.
This is how you identify yourself to your allies. This is your empowerment and your blessing.
For me, I have chosen to be a burning flame for Dennis Kucinich.He is the most noble, intelligent, compassionate, and visionary person that I have seen run for president. He is a brightly burning flame himself,
seeing through the veils of today to a better tomorrow. He is courageous and willing to lay himself on the line, to stride boldly in a time of fear. He is the kind of leader who can take America beyond aggressive nationalism to truly global leadership.
For me, it doesn't matter whether Dennis Kucinich only gets 1% of the vote because he embodies what I want to see in the world. He is my political dream, in the flesh. Backing him is my statement to the world that..
THIS is the level of integrity I want to see in our leadership
THIS is the level of consciousness I want to see on the world
stage THIS is the kind of man I want to lead me
THIS is the future I want to see for America
THIS is the image I want to see in the media mirror
THIS is the world I want to live in.
When I stand as a burning flame for him, it affects others. One
by one.
Through that process, Dennis becomes electable and the people who believe in what he represents begin to see themselves as powerful creators
of our reality who have many, many, many allies.
So dare to become a burning flame for what is in your heart and
encourage other people to do so as well. They hunger for it. And you
deserve it.

~~~~~~~~~ Stephen Dinan [phone]

[info being]

1. The fact that you have to ask us to help you make sense of this...

says it all. I don't know who you support, but isn't the message completely clear?

Every person I meet says they like Kucinich best but they are supporting Dean. It's completely ridiculous. The author is right...if Dean is the guy, I'll probably vote for him, but nothing more. If Kucinich...I will pour all my heart and sole into doing whatever I can.

We are absolutely in the driver's seat. The current regime is BANKRUPT. WE have the power...that is, if we don't waste in on someone who is more loyal to corporations than to the people. Personally, I don't trust Dean. He doesn't speak for us. We want to believe he does, but he doesn't.

[no name no slogan]

7. This year totally reminds me of 1992

when progressives were told to "unite behind a winner" in Bill Clinton to defeat (the elder) Bush.

But what did liberals and progressives get from Clinton? NAFTA, "welfare reform", "don't ask, don't tell", a half-assed attempt at universal healthcare, increased defense spending, the rich getting richer and the rest of us getting the crumbs. As a matter of fact, if you were a working-class family, you probably did better under Nixon than you did under Clinton.

Sure, "winning" with Clinton was a great feeling, but in the end, our victory was fleeting as he became the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

I for one have supported numerous "electable" candidates because I believed they were the lesser of two evils. Those days are done. If somebody like Paul Wellstone can win in a socially conservative state like Minnesota, then Dennis Kucinich can win nationwide.

People in this country crave leadership. They want somebody who will stand up for their economic rights, and not sell them out at a lower rate than the Republicans. Dems have ALWAYS won when we talk about economic populism. Dennis Kucinich does that. We can WIN.

[ShimokitaJer]

13. Who was your candidate in 1992?

nt

[chocolateeater]

2. I think what he is saying

is that Kucinich is a man of vision and courage, who fights for what he believes in. And if you are a progressive supporting Dean as a compromise to get someone elected, then he would like to remind you that Kucinich is electable if you vote for him. If you do this and convince others to do so as well, then the movement that is created will change this country for the better.

[On the Road]

3. The Logic of Losing With Principle

inevitably leads to authoritarian government and revolution. Which usually leads to a different type of authoritarian government.

[diamondsoul]

5. I gather you disagree with the author? n/t

[youngred]

10. ok, so that's why we have primaries

vote for who you want to win the most there, and then come the general election support the party's candidate.

we have what is bordering on an authoritarian government right now when we had to vote for the practical alternative.

electibility shouldn't be lost to principle and principle shouldn't overrule electibility. One must find a happy medium between their two desires.

[rucky]

4. Much less eloquently, it says "screw electibility...

and vote for who inspires you."

Don't be afraid to ask for the government you want to have.

The closer your support of a candidate or cause is to your personal beliefs, the more you can truly be an influence to other individuals and society at-large.


That was an awesome commentary! Thanks for sharing it.

[OhioStateProgressive]

6. "each small candle lights a corner of the dark"

this is great, my deepest feelings exactly

[library_max]

8. This is just magical thinking.

What never works and never has worked will work this time, because we want it so badly and believe in it so fervently. This is clap-if-you-believe-in-fairies. Maybe in 2000 there was something to be said for idealism and purity since there didn't seem to be a lot of difference between the candidates (if you weren't really paying close attention). But now we know Bush better, and we can see that he's taking the blank check he got after 9/11 and trying to establish permanent right-wing dominance over American politics. This is the wrong time for fairies and candleflames. We need to win this one.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. this writer is another follower for the"DK is the most liberal" cult

He isn't. He voted for the PBA ban. He voted for a bill allowing children to be tried as adults. He voted for the flag burning legistlation.
It's fine to believe in DK, I know lots of good people who do. But this myth that if we all just gave in to our liberal natures rather than our fear that DK would win, that is just crap.
If I was going to choose a real liberal to run for Pres it would be Henry Waxman or Maxine Waters.

[youngred]

14. yadda yadda yadda

at least you provided *some* facts this time.

Kucinich IS the most liberal candidate in the race, your aspersions to the contrary. He was active in the anti-war movement while Dean supported Biden-Lugar and the war in Iraq. He doesn't get a high rating from the NRA. Dean is a moderate not a liberal

Dennis is Pro-Choice, despite his past votes he has changed his opinion so you can cut that from your spiel. I don't know about allowing children to be tried against adults but I'd certainly like to see some proof of that is it doesn't square with a lot of the other things he's said.

Dennis supports universal health care and education, a department of peace, and immediately getting out of Iraq. he IS the most progressive candidate, regardless of your personal smear campaign

[goodhue]

11. Burning flames can change the world.

Strategic compromise feeds the status quo.
Common sense really.

DK himself often talks in these terms of being a light in darkness.

Check out this excerpt from his acceptance speech for 2003 Ghandi peace award:

The psalms have a phrase in Latin: "Emitte lucem tuam." Send forth your light. And we so need to do that at this moment, so that we can describe the entire Persian Gulf in light this evening, and to send the light of peace in that region. To take the light of peace which is in our hearts, and extend that light, and that love, and that compassion. From my studies of the Scriptures and the Gospel of St. John, it begins, in the early verses, it speaks of the light shining in the darkness. "And the darkness grasp it not.” Light always shines in the darkness. And though this darkness has dropped upon our country, upon our Constitution, upon our highest aspirations for America, upon our historic traditions—the light of truth will shine in that darkness, and the darkness will neither comprehend nor overwhelm it. So we are called upon at this moment, to be witnesses for peace, for truth, for light, for love, for compassion, and for the potential of humanity to evolve from a condition where some believe that war is inevitable, to a condition where our knowledge that peace is inevitable becomes the defining paradigm of a new century and a new world.

How do we get to that point? Today we're being offered a competing vision. One vision holds America as a nation involved in a Manichean struggle at war with the forces of evil. Gandhi of course said the only evil that exists in the world is that which is rattling around in our own hearts. Yet there are those who have described these images of evil, and have projected those images, as though on a large screen; and have tried to vivify them; have created enemies. That philosopher created by Walt Kelly named Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us!" And so this vision which is emerging from smoke and fire, digitized visions projected on our television screens today, phantasmagoria, garish phosphorescence projected into our psyches, into our hearts, creating despair, creating a vision of the world disintegrating. Not the first time this has happened in human experience, but the first time we've seen it coming from our nation waging an aggressive war. Almost a hundred years ago, William Butler Yeats described the Second Coming:

"Turning and turning, in the widening gyre, the falcon cannot hear the falconer.
All things fall apart. The center cannot hold."

He wrote about an era that presaged disintegration, that presaged war, not only in Ireland but later on a world war. And today we're looking at a world where the center is not holding. Where this world view of America at war is becoming a doctrine, or reflects and derives from a doctrine, that paradoxically would be what we expect to secure our country. A national security strategy which calls for America to be the first to attack. To work preemptively. To work alone and apart from the world. To proceed unilaterally. Such a doctrine is the product of a world view which is compartmentalized, the product of dichotomous thinking, of us versus them. And carries with it the ultimate consequence of war. Because then, "this town's not big enough for both of us." And so when might makes right, what of international law? When might makes right, what of morality? When might makes right, then the sword shall be the only measure of justice. The nuclear posture review is a continuation of a national security strategy which calls for first strike use of nuclear weapons. Reversing 60 years of painstaking efforts toward nuclear disarmament—nearly 60 years. The doctrine of "Shock and Awe," which we're hearing so much about these days, was taken off the shelf of the National Defense University's war studies program, and represents a selection of military strategies, all under the title of "Shock and Awe," which celebrate the various glories and desirability of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Tokyo firebombing, the B-2 bombing of Vietnam, the idea being that—and I've read the doctrine and I would urge you all to read it—the idea being that if you can create so much damage to a civilian population, as the dropping of the atomic bomb did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that people are just shocked—psychologically, physically shocked. And they're in awe. What kind of a world view or vision would want to create a doctrine which would bring fear to people all over the world? Which would raise fear to an almost biblical proportion? Which would make fear on the level of a deity?

Now we know from our studies of the Hindu religion, that the forces of destruction and the forces of creation exist simultaneously. Shiva and Vishnu exist simultaneously. We also know that we have the opportunity to be able to determine which of those forces work through us: the forces of destruction or the forces of creation. Granted, at any point in our lives, they may be working their way simultaneously. However, as a nation, America at this very moment has become an agency of destruction in the world. As a member of Congress, I've found it daunting and even heartbreaking to see this process that pulls people in as though it were some kind of a magnetic pulsation, and causes people to support war, either through their active participation or through their silence. We search for historical antecedents, and we sometimes find them in chilling ways. Lately I've been talking to many historians who draw comparisons to the 1930s. A world view is being offered where will trumps love. Where what the philosopher Eric Fromm called the anatomy of human destructiveness is working its way through official government policy. Where all of the work to celebrate the human condition is being trashed in favor of a doctrine of control.

We know what the darkness looks like. And now let's talk about what the light that we wish to describe looks like.


http://www.kucinich.us/speeches/speech20.php

[ShimokitaJer]

12. Why does everyone insist on thinking Dean supporters are compromising?

Dennis Kucinich is an excellent candidate, with admirable ideals, and arguably the most liberal candidate in the field. He is also, despite all the rhetoric, electable, albeit with more difficulty than a higher profile candidate.

That does NOT mean that everyone who votes for another candidate has either sold their soul, doesn't understand what is at stake, or is a Republican in disguise. It does not mean you can assume that we are deceived... or worse, that we are deceivers. The goals of people voting for a Democratic candidate are as numerous and varied as the voters themselves. Some only care about putting a Democrat in office, and for them electability is the only issue. Some believe compromise is necessary to win and want a centrist candidate. Some have pet issues and vote for whichever candidate speaks to that issue. And even some of those who agree with Kucinich will not give him their votes because they do not believe he is capable of effecting the kind of change he believes in. But Kucinich supporters do not have a monopoly on idealism -- Dean supporters have their share as well. Don't assume that, just because our candidate represents something different than yours, that our flames burn any less brightly than your own.

[youngred]

15. this isn't aimed at Dean's supporters

its aimed at all those people who wish they could vote for Kucinich but won't because they buy the 'he isn't electable' line.