[Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?

Wed Mar 3 09:25:58 CST 2010

Thatcher's understanding of consensus represents the common misunderstanding, that consensus represents the lowest common denominator.  So much for her.

President Obama is, interestingly, having as much difficulty with the left wing of his own party as with the opposition party.  My take is that they want a leader with the strong "masculine" qualities Tim describes rather than the "feminine" alternative which Tim also shares.  It's as if they never grasped during the campaign that Obama was going to attempt to lead by building a bi-partisan consensus, which would clearly represent a new way of doing business in Washington.  He has given it a good shot (ex. his Health Summit last Thursday) but may have been a bit naive in his assessment of the possibilities to be successful in these efforts.  Regarding health care legislation, he has made one last attempt at bi-partisan consensus by including several of the Republican suggestions in his newest proposal yet to come, but all indications are, it's still no deal.  So it looks as if the "reconciliation" process of using a simple majority is his only
 option if he is to have legislation passed on this key issue.

While acknowledging that participatory democracy means far more than voting, all this nonetheless changes what I want from a campaigning candidate.  It used to be that when someone was running for office all I needed to know was where s/he stood on the issues in order to inform my vote.  For me, if the candidate made her/his stance clear, then there was no need for a new poll or town meeting to see where the citizenry stands before the elected representative of the people voted aye or nay on the issue at hand.  S/he already knew where we stood by virtue of  having received the majority of our votes in order to get elected .

However now, for me to know merely where the candidate stands on the issues is no longer enough.  I need to know where s/he stands on process, ideally within the alternatives Tim offers.  I think Obama did not make it clear that his approach would be more toward the collaborative, consensus-building pole and further from the "strong leader" pole.  My dilemma is, had he made that clear would he have been elected?  

Randy

--- On Wed, 3/3/10, Herman Greene <hfgreene at mindspring.com> wrote:

From: Herman Greene <hfgreene at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?
To: "'Order Ecumenical Community'" <oe at wedgeblade.net>
Date: Wednesday, March 3, 2010, 8:37 AM

Thanks for the compliment Carlos. Tim, your thoughts are well taken. While one could say that what is going on now is “just politics” I agree with you that if this is politics it is standing in the way of consideration of important issues. 

Is spirit of collaboration and dialogue different than consensus? Certainly on any large scale there will not be agreement for example on what to do about climate change (a/k/a planetary destabilization). There are ideologies, cultural and cultural convictions, psychological factors (from archetypes to simple fear), in the case of climate change the ideas that we can manage nature and the power of free markets, wildly imperfect knowledge, economic and other interests that necessarily make the process messy, though I do think a different ethos and spirit of collaboration could change the nature of the debate, but not the difficulty of it. I am astounded sometimes when the hard fought battles of the past seem to appear as new issues and have to be re-fought perhaps in every generation. I thought, for example, that is was clear that the framers of the American Constitution wanted separation of church and state. Now this is up for debate again, with some
 arguing that is not what they meant. 

Which leads back to what does “participatory government” mean? The Tea Baggers certainly think they are participating. On the surface I think the democratic system (of the republican nature where people elect representatives) is the best system. It’s not consensus by any means, but it does allow for change, witness the election of Obama, and earlier of Reagan. Yet no sooner does the public elect Obama then they become impatient because the problems are not solved. Left goes after the administration for not being Left, Right goes after the administration for not being Right. Some would argue that the corporate and money interests sail happily along above it all. If this is democracy it is messy. (On democracy I always think of you when I see your cousin (?) Mary Landrieu at work.)

On the issue of small group consensus, I have experienced the tyranny of the group where a leader of insight is drowned out by the common mind of the past. The creative is submerged in the way it has been done. I’ve also seen that those with charismatic power are the ones who can move the consensus when things are stuck and they can have inordinate power that way. 

I do know that political is more than three triangles on the social process triangles. It is an issue of how can wisdom and creativity be given the best chance to prevail in a complex, pluralistic world. The three triangles give areas to consider but they are only placeholders. While I once was a political science graduate student and studied political theory, it has been a long time since I have really given deep thought to governance. I am dealing tangentially with that now as I consider issues of “Earth Jurisprudence” and am presently writing on the rights of nature (I think nature has rights, but the more difficult issue is rights in relation to what, and the value of wholes and parts). (I’m a very small and inconspicuous voice but am writing an article on this.)

I won’t try to wrap this up, just some thoughts. I will add one more thing, in the book I earlier mentioned by David W Orr on Down to the Wire, I think he rightly makes the point that ultimately only government has the power to take the steps needed to turn the tide on ecological issues. The problems of course are governments, governance and what the constituents are prepared to ask their governments to do, and the need at some levels for global governance.

Herman

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Carlos R. Zervigon
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 9:46 PM
To: ' Order Ecumenical Community '
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?

Tim

For not being well thought out, WOW!

Carlos R. Zervigon, PMP
Zervigon International, Ltd.
817 Antonine St.
New Orleans, LA   70115   USA
504 894-9868 Mobile : 504 908-0762
carlos at zervigon.com
http://www.zervigon.com

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Tim Casswell
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:50 PM
To: Order Ecumenical Community
Subject: Re: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?

I think this is an interesting debate. It has produced a heartfelt if not altogether thought through meditation of my own...  

As we go towards a hung parliament in the UK we are facing a period where consensus and collaboration will be precisely the process skills that are needed. In almost every other country apart from the USA the democratic process is multiparty coalition government. In our two party polarisation we watch our politicians stuck into their party lines locking horns as if they wete in court in a shockingly wasteful display of adversarial stupidity.   

As we face the complexity of global financial, ecological, political, and resource challenges it will be probably  through conflict but just maybe through collaboration that we work out our salvation. 

I am weary of the "Reality" TV gameshow approach the personality politicians adopt which effectively excludes us from the social process other than as consumer - voters. 

The situation before us now requires collaboration. I yearn for a politician or a party that declares a stand for consensus.

A party that declares that the global financial, ecological, political, and resource situation we face is so complex, so critical, it is a state of catastrophe in which we all are faced with the choice of caring for one another or competing, looting, and fighting with one another over broken pieces and depleted resources.  

The adventure we face today is so overwhelming it probably cannot be won or even survived. However I know which way I want to die. In a community of people listening, caring, dancing, chancing, cherishing, in a slow, frustrating, exquisite, subtle, elusive, consensual community of human relationships Community is still the most fascinating dance of all.  

I think the tide is turning. We are tired of the adversarial alpha male good shepherd rhetoric we once admired and flocked to in our herds. Now we know it really is in our hands and we have a choice. Consensus, collaboration, trust, listening, understanding, generosity, responsibility, and decisions based on love, or conflict, suspicion, hostility, hoarding, and decisions based on fear. 

I long for a politician to declare "I stand for consensus. If you elect me it is because you know I can do nothing for you just that you dare to share a dream of a collaborative sharing world where rights are what we give rather than fight for. Voting for me is a vote not for what you can get but for what you can give and a declaration that we are choosing to take up the challenge of this awesome moment ourselves" 

Wasn't this the language of MLK and Ghandhi? 

I see again the scene towards the end of that film where the field is full of people who were once slaves declaring "I am Spartacus". Slaves no longer to charisma, power, manipulative political forces. The complexity of the catastrophe makes it simple. This is the time for each to dream and if you let me be in your dream you can be in mine. 

Let's dance with Zorba let's sing with don Quixote, let's shout our dreams to the empty sky with Thelma and Louise, and work out our consensus with diligence.

Consensus is not the abandonment of beliefs. It is the art of human being. 

Tim Casswell

creativeconnection.co.uk

07956 851 852

On 2 Mar 2010, at 02:43, "Carlos R. Zervigon" <carloszervigon at gmail.com> wrote:

If you are pure in your stance you finally are a group of one that can get nothing done. Stand on your principles and be ineffective. Politics is a healthy science that acknowledges that we live in community and must make decision s as such. Effective and creative leadership helps form consensus on a creative, inclusive, depth and futuristic context but does not bully it’s way through charismatic demagoguery. Margaret Thatcher was a guardian of the illusionary past and did not contribute much to a future for the planet. Herman Greene however has made his mark many dimensions above Margaret.

Carlos R. Zervigon, PMP
Zervigon International, Ltd.
817 Antonine St.
New Orleans, LA   70115   USA
504 894-9868 Mobile : 504 908-0762
carlos at zervigon.com
http://www.zervigon.com

From: oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net [mailto:oe-bounces at wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Herman Greene
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 11:00 AM
To: ' Order Ecumenical Community '
Subject: [Oe List ...] Want to discuss consensus?

I received this morning meditation today:

Lord, guard me in my convictions.

"To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects--the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus?'" <image001.gif>-- Margaret Thatcher in a 1981 speech as reported in The Wall Street Journal

_____________________________________________

Herman F. Greene
2516 Winningham Drive
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
919-942-4358 (phone and fax)
hfgreene at mindspring.com 
Skype: hgreene-nc 

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
OE mailing list
OE at wedgeblade.net
http://wedgeblade.net/mailman/listinfo/oe_wedgeblade.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe_wedgeblade.net/attachments/20100303/58bcbf99/attachment-0001.html>