Following is a condensed version of an essay called The Realism Manifesto: A Vision to Reclaim the American Dream. In it the author proposes his vision for how average people might reshape political and economic decisions, and in doing so reclaim the American Dream.
The Realism Manifesto is about people, people with average political and economic influence. These people represent the great majority of the population. Individually they’re powerless to impact the course of human events. Together they shape history.
Consider that all political and economic power exists because multitudes of average people build their lives. They earn incomes. They buy things. They raise new generations. Together they’re the source of all social power and economic prosperity.
Yet much of what they create is controlled by a relative few at the expense of the many. It’s why we live in a state of perpetual inequality, both in our political representation and our ability to share in the prosperity our lives make possible. This is a reality for all but a small number of the billions of people on the planet, and it’s getting worse. Not just in dictatorial regimes, but also democratic ones.
Even the United States, long considered the model of political freedom and economic opportunity, is experiencing unprecedented attacks on political representation, economic participation and civil liberty. This is in stark contrast to the idea of “We the People” upon which America was formed. And so for most people today the promise of America is fading before their eyes.
The Realism Manifesto proposes a way out. A path forward. A solution to the upside-down reality of many people. The essay explores different ideas about how we might reshape political and economic decisions so America becomes a country for everyone.
“We the Nuisance”
The opening passage in the U.S. Constitution reads: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
This statement sums up the intent, the ideal and the promise to the citizens of our new government, a political system that in many ways has become a worldwide beacon of freedom and opportunity. But we soon discovered that freedom and opportunity for all requires more than a Constitution. It takes a government willing and able to balance the rights of millions of average citizens with the unequal power of wealthy elites and the politicians they influence. By this measure the Government is failing as the American Dream remains beyond reach for too many people, people who are chronically under-represented. It’s a circumstance where people are so far removed from political and economic decisions they have negligible control of their destinies. So it’s little wonder that in the eyes of politicians and the Washington power structures, We The People have too often become We The Nuisance.
A Different Perspective
Even a casual observer can see that politics and political decisions occur in a partisan maze. Whatever happens in government is shaped by the mandates of two polarized ideologies. Described as Liberal & Conservative, they determine which laws pass and who does and does not benefit from them.
By controlling who wins and who loses, it’s no surprise that the major political parties respond to the loudest and wealthiest special interests. The result is ideology shaped by a mixture of diverse and often conflicting forces. In this system the powerful win and the powerless lose. It’s why we see politicians and political parties twist themselves into ridiculous contortions in order to appease their biggest donors. This irrational behavior characterizes politics-as-usual, and it’s so pervasive that it’s difficult to imagine any other way.
Yet there is an approach that we use every day in our personal choices, and which shapes the world around us. Although it goes by various names, such as objectivity or reason, most of us know it simply as common sense. This common sense approach to decision making influences the choices we make every day. For example, say it’s snowing outside, maybe even freezing and blizzard conditions. Would we, aside from people who are either very hardy or mentally-challenged, be inclined to change into a swimsuit and sandals and take a walk outside? Not likely. In fact, most people will consider dressing warm to be obvious and the beach attire suggestion to be silly. Furthermore, these people will agree whether they’re liberal or conservative, male or female, old or young, white or non-white. In other words, people from diverse backgrounds with conflicting beliefs arrive at the same conclusion.
Now this shouldn’t be a big deal, and for the most part it isn’t. Unless we expect common sense logic to be used in political decisions, specifically the formation of laws that impact our lives. Because when it comes to politics, common sense is usually absent. Instead it’s replaced with a balancing act between competing interest groups and donors that’s become so self-serving and convoluted it’s rare that anything worthwhile for society occurs.
So while common sense is present in most things we do and decisions we make, it’s often absent in politics and government. This is a tragedy for a couple of reasons. First, the laws and policies our government adopts have a major impact on the quality, security and happiness in our lives. And second, the greatest achievements in society are the result of common sense decisions. This simple approach starts with facts (cold outside) and then arrives at objective solutions based on these facts (dress warm).
In more advanced forms, such as a scientific inquiry, it allows us to live longer, travel further, communicate over long distances, even land on the moon. In fact, the capacity to reason is an essential characteristic to what it means to be human, and when used to our benefit we accomplish great things.
Yet when it comes to political decisions, common sense objectivity is too often non-existent. In other words, the most effective approach humanity has used to make beneficial decisions is often ignored when passing laws that impact the lives of millions of people.
So maybe it’s time to adopt a different perspective in the way we arrive at political decisions. Maybe the solution to political dysfunction is to replace special interest-driven politics with an approach that embraces objective reasoning and common sense.
Common Sense Politics
Although this shouldn’t be controversial, in fact it should be obvious, the notion of replacing partisan, greed-driven politics with common sense objectivity is almost laughable. For it’s all but impossible to imagine a scenario where politicians, from opposing parties no less, might deliberate over a set of facts and then legislate reasoned solutions to the shared challenges facing average voters, especially if they conflict with their special interest donors. We all know that’s not how they make political decisions.
Instead, critical public issues emerge from a meat-grinder of partisan ideology and self-interest. These laws favor narrow interests over the voting constituents who should matter the most. This further weakens millions of voters with average political and economic influence, which makes it even more likely that ideological self-interest will trump common sense. And so this vicious cycle continues.
Yet although it’s difficult to imagine any other reality as the power structures that fuel this social inequity grow stronger by the day, common sense politics may be much closer than it seems. Because the power that influences the lives of average people originates from the same people it impacts.
There are a couple of reasons behind this paradox. The first is political. Consider that the foundation of America’s Government was constructed on “we the people.” In fact, they’re the first three words in the Constitution.
So why is the Government so unresponsive to the needs of the people it’s supposed to represent? The simple answer is that emotion and self-interest replaced common sense. The result is that the greed of the powerful outweighs the needs of the many. It’s why many of us begrudgingly accept it as a fact of life and go about our business.
Yet through this act of surrender we ensure that these unequal power structures continue to dominate political decisions and control economic resources. This in turn makes the idea of common sense politics seem further beyond reach.
But maybe this is more of an illusion than it appears? Consider that voters still decide elections, and political power ultimately belongs to many millions of people with average influence. The challenge society faces is how to focus and wield this power so the needs of average voters can compete with concentrated special interests.
Another challenge is that economic power tends to collect in the hands of relatively few people and entities. We know this because we see it happen around us. As it’s a reality we grow up with we may feel the situation is hopeless. And so we again turn our attention to building our lives and securing our futures as best we can in a system rigged against us.
But this too is an illusion; because all economic prosperity and political power traces back to the behaviors and decisions of average people. It’s from the basic act of earning an income and spending to live that economies and governments rise and fall.
So while a relative few control great economic power, it’s only because masses of average people unwittingly enable this circumstance to exist. So the opportunity to introduce a new political and economic perspective, one based on common sense approaches to the challenges faced by average people, may be more viable than circumstances might suggest.
But getting there will require that people change their perception of how we make political and economic choices. Only by engaging in conversations where common sense prevails over emotion and special interest will people discover how to shift society to a more inclusive political and economic reality.
Adopting this new mindset is the first hurdle, and it’s a big one. Two major obstacles prevent us from applying common sense ideas to the key political and economic issues facing society. The first is a defeatist mindset. This is, of course, entirely understandable as the great inequality between the powerful and the powerless appears insurmountable.
But we must keep in mind that had the 18th Century colonists accepted this attitude America might not have happened, or at least not in the way it did. The same could be said for building modern society. So at some point we must accept that our power is far greater than we’re led to believe.
The second barrier is an artificial political construct that pits opposing beliefs against each other, and which keeps the government trapped in a constant state of dysfunction. Sometimes it seems as if the system was designed to fail.
Consider that political views, called ideologies, are subjective. This means that their validity largely exists to the extent people believe in them. These beliefs may or may not be valid, or their validity may be limited to certain people. But it often doesn’t matter if beliefs are fixed in the mind of the believers. Or worse yet, if they’re also supported by powerful special interests.
This is problematic because a belief is something we think is true. After all, if we knew it were true we wouldn’t have to believe it. Instead, it would possess objective validity that’s independent of any emotional connection to it. It’s how people may share wide agreement on objective things, such as dressing warmly in cold weather, yet vehemently disagree over certain beliefs.
So political systems constructed around opposing beliefs, usually conservative versus liberal, will be contentious, combative and dysfunctional. It’s a situation made worse by self-interest and big money, which often results in manufactured political and economic inequality.
Yet we treat this as a normal circumstance, as if there’s no other way. In fact, it‘s so lopsided that we cheer those infrequent moments when political forces reach across the aisle and compromise. We call this behavior bipartisan and usually consider it positive, if for no other reason than it feels like progress compared to the alternative. But often it’s little improvement.
Consider that bipartisanship often means that two groups that rarely agree on anything dilute a proposed policy to the point where each side can stomach it. They then self-congratulate themselves on their legislative achievement, although it often results in a useless outcome. It’s a high point in political theater, but often meaningless from the perspective of most citizens.
So between a political system designed to fail, and a mindset that says there’s no alternative, it’s not surprising that the reality for most people continues to drift further away from the ideal of “we the people.” It’s why any attempt to reshape society to be more responsive to the needs of average people represents a daunting challenge. But not an impossible one.
The first thing we need to do is reject traditional partisan politics. As long as we attempt to balance meaningful change with the status quo it’s unlikely we’ll get far. We must stop framing issues in terms of dichotomies, such as left or right, Christian or Muslim, or white or non-white.
This is not an easy task as beliefs run deep. Yet at some point everyone has similar interests. We all require incomes. We all have bodies that will fail and demand medical care. We all need to eat, drink and breathe. And we all desire futures of hope and happiness. This suggests that there are inclusive agendas that span diverse groups of people.
So for new political ideas to produce broad-base solutions we must move beyond Conservative, Liberal, and even bipartisan politics. Rather, any viable political ideology must be non-partisan, meaning that it considers policy options across the political spectrum. This may seem unlikely as it would represent a fundamental shift in political thought. Yet common sense is by definition non-partisan. So by applying common sense in how we think about political decisions and policies we might introduce a non-partisan approach to politics, or at least bring people closer together.
What we need is a different ideological perspective that replaces the power of special interests with that of average voters and taxpayers; a political ideology that rejects emotional, partisan politics and embraces non-partisan solutions. One that values policy based on broad objectives over partisan ideology.
The goal of this new mindset is to identify realistic solutions to the most critical issues facing society. Such an ideology might be called Realism. The intent of Realism is to pursue political objectives independent of the need to accommodate special interest demands and ideological purity, a primary source of legislative dysfunction. To accomplish this, Realism must be a broad-based, non-partisan ideology that’s conservative when it needs to be conservative, liberal when it needs to be liberal, and both when it needs to be both; or in other words, common sense politics for average people.
A Civic Internet
Of course to make a difference in people’s lives this idea must grow into a movement, one that includes millions of people and becomes a major influence in politics. Given the track record of such things this is a tall order indeed.
But as always, the present is unlike the past, as it will be in the future. And although there are many differences, one stands out. The Internet. Before the Internet ideas spread slower, human interaction was restricted by physical limitations, and individuals were far less connected and far less powerful.
The Internet enhanced social possibility in unprecedented ways. Consider that large-scale online communities, a concept that was unimaginable three decades ago, allow millions of people to collaborate on initiatives and issues of shared interest. Yet the vast majority of these people never meet.
This is unlike conventional community participation where small groups of people interact in pursuit of shared objectives. These traditional communities were, and continue to be, essential to the health of societies. And yet the anonymity of the Internet is both a benefit and drawback.
As a benefit, anonymous participation allows Internet communities to scale much larger than ones that require personal interaction. However, anonymity also dilutes the personal responsibility that’s essential for communities to thrive.
So although some online communities are vast entities of human participation, most are so heterogeneous in the way people interact that it’s difficult to leverage participation and perform complex activities. Maybe this is why large online communities perform repeatable, often simplistic activities such as purchasing, editing entries on Wikis, or posting comments on Facebook.
Although this collective participation has made a deep impact on certain social activities, such as the ability of people to build and maintain online relationships, other areas remain unaffected by Internet communities. For example, coordinated political activism is one area where online communities make less impact than might be expected. After all, the capacity to connect and mobilize people around a shared mission is a central characteristic of the Internet.
Yet in over two decades after the widespread adoption of the Internet, traditional, special-interest driven politics has changed little, and community participation still cannot compete with the ingrained power structures of Washington and Wall Street. In fact, if anything they’ve increased their power bases, and in some cases the Internet has further propagated anti-democratic activities. For example, consider the emergence of “fake news” and misinformation, or how the Internet has allowed foreign entities to attack democratic processes.
Of course there are also examples of how the Internet facilitates grassroots activism, such as the impact of the Tea Party movement. Or how the protests following the Trump inauguration and his travel bans might have been smaller and less spontaneous without it. Yet the process of making political and economic decisions, the deep inequity throughout society, and the continual degradation of representation has changed little.
So what’s happened? Have political and economic power structures become so large that they’re unassailable, a force that grassroots communities can’t overcome? Given the lopsidedness of social power it’s an understandable conclusion, but not necessarily inevitable.
Although we refer to these large online social networks as communities, upon closer inspection we see something else. Consider that in a traditional community people share interests and outcomes that impact all community members. For example, picture a small community in the 19th Century. While people then were rugged individuals, a useful and admirable character trait, they also adopted a community mindset. So although they remained strong individuals, they largely conformed to the norms, behaviors and shared interests of their respective communities. They did this for the simple reason that it gave them the best chance at survival.
Yet while both conventional and online communities require the participation of individuals, the way in which people interact differs in one critical aspect. In conventional communities, people relinquish a portion of their individuality in order to pursue the shared interests, objectives and behaviors of their community. Yet the anonymity of online communities allows people to retain, even enhance, their individualism so they do and say pretty much anything they want without personal repercussions.
So large online communities with many millions of participants are not so much communities as they’re just vast groups of individuals where people remain disconnected from shared community interests. In fact, the shared-interests that define conventional communities often fail to materialize online in any substantive way, or if they do remain superficial.
This may be why the largest online communities focus on simple activities such as posting, sharing and editing. We also see the effect of this in how online communities fall prey to trolling and other behaviors that attack the purpose of the community. In fact, to defend against this some online communities have adopted the kind of behavioral rules and norms typical in conventional communities. A leading example is the strong sense of objectivity and neutral point-of-view adopted by the Wikipedia community.
Yet it remains difficult to implement activities that require complex social interaction and decision making in online community structures, such as political activism. Although online communities excel at mobilizing people, it’s but one stage in a range of activities. For example, consider the many complex activities and logistics required to get a candidate elected for public office.
While the Internet is effective to build lists and mobilize people, many behind-the-scenes activities also must occur. Schedules must be made, confirmed and revised. Details of each speech, each campaign event, and each press contact must be managed. Numerous deadlines, filings and rules must be followed to the letter. There is also the constant need to raise funds, negotiate with communications channels, produce messaging and manage outcomes. In addition, organizations and entities independent of the campaign will act on behalf of the candidate. These and many other relationships must be maintained and coordinated. Yet this is still just a part of what’s required to get a candidate elected. So imagine the complexity of a political community that facilitates multiple candidacies and issues across a local, regional and national scope?
The point is that online communities optimized to perform many simple actions find it difficult to facilitate these more complex activities. What this suggests is that maybe online community activism has not made a larger impact because anonymous groups of participants don’t possess an adequate sense of shared interest, an essential aspect of productive communities.
On the surface this paradox appears daunting. This is because online communities consist of large groups of people with minimal direct social interaction, while the power of conventional communities’ stems from shared-interests developed through close social ties. So it’s difficult to imagine how the two might reconcile. But maybe they can.
Consider that in major online communities, such as Facebook and Twitter, the core unit is the individual. Each person in a given online community has an individual identity, an individual profile, and maybe even a page to express their unique individualism. In fact, most online communities form around individualism. Now consider the following.
Imagine a group of maybe one to three dozen people who regularly socialize. They do things together. Maybe it began with a group of buddies who fish together, then grew to include their families. Along the way they added new social activities such as picnics and watching their kid’s sports games. The point is that by adopting certain behaviors they formed a small, close-knit community. And while they may not be aware of it, over time this community will shape their choices and behaviors. For example, as the community becomes more important to its participants people will work to protect group harmony. In this way the group will adopt characteristics necessary to support a healthy community. This will further increase the value of the community to its members and encourage them to maintain their group association.
Now consider a different kind of online community where the basic building blocks aren’t individuals, but small groups of people similar to the one described. Such a group structure might be called a Social Block, and consist of people who interact around shared interests. Then, in order to build and maintain a sense of community, every block adopts behaviors and norms to function more like a traditional community.
For example, blocks might be required to hold periodic activities in which members participate. These activities would include both social and civic purposes. Blocks might decide how they want to benefit from their respective activities, or how they might benefit people outside their groups. These are a few examples of the many behaviors that might define how social blocks operate. Together, these shared behaviors would nurture a sense of purpose and community.
These small groups would then become the core building blocks for a new kind of community. So instead of anonymous individuals who comprise typical online communities, this new form of community would integrate many Social Blocks, each possessing a sense of community. And as all blocks share this trait, then the resulting online community will grow to possess a different kind of social character, a culture that’s more community-minded than typical social media models.
Yet while this is a critical first step, unless these blocks also possess an effective method to interact they will encounter similar conflicts that plague typical online communities. The solution might be a Shared Community Protocol that defines how blocks connect and interact with each other. This protocol would, among other things, define acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, procedures for voting and making decisions, guidelines for community participation, and structures that allow communities to leverage their power.
This block structure and community mindset, combined with a protocol that defines and guides how blocks interact, might provide the basis for a community environment in which blocks form autonomously, but then integrate and interact with the larger community. In this way the resulting community network might better collaborate across social, political and economic issues.
If this model seems familiar, you’re right. Because it’s similar to the way the Internet operates. On the Internet, each system and server possess certain shared architectures in terms of how they function, such as microprocessors, memory and operating systems. Then these systems communicate across the Internet via a common protocol. It’s how devices operated by people with no relationship to each other can communicate.
Constructed from a multitude of Social Blocks, such a model might be described as a Civic Internet. Because the same basic idea applies, except that people and communities replace systems and networks. People could then use this new social structure to transform the way they interact with government and the economy. For example, networks of connected communities might create new social agendas based on shared interests, and then acquire sufficient influence to impact the way our governing bodies make political decisions. This could reshape the relationship between voters and politicians, and do so without ever becoming an actual political party.
The reason why politicians are unresponsive to the needs of average voters is because individuals can’t exert the kind of influence of large special interest groups and donors. But a Civic Internet might alter the political status quo. For example, with sufficient scale a Civic Internet could offer its members a range of benefits and services that fill gaps left by the government, or even replace the government in some cases. It’s how a Civic Internet might enable Community Government that extends and replaces traditional government in varying degrees.
For example, communities might form social and economic support groups that balance participant needs with their contributions. A large Community Government might also influence public policy through coordinated voting and voter participation, the formation of a People’s Congress to debate legislation and important issues, maybe even a voting platform that collects the straw votes of potentially millions of voters. This level of voter activism would send strong messages to politicians seeking reelection.
In this way people would experience greater personal security, but with less reliance on government. Communities could also hold members accountable to foster greater personal responsibility. Although Community Government won’t replace conventional governing bodies, what it could do is provide society with a new type of social structure around which people might build their lives and secure their futures. The goal is to alter the relationship with the government so more people can better share in political rights and economic resources.
Shared Prosperity
Although such a model offers great potential to impact political decisions, the economic implications may be even more significant. This is because a network of communities would not only leverage political power, but economic power as well.
Consider that individual consumers generally can’t negotiate the prices they pay and the value they receive for their money. Groups of consumers, however, have more bargaining power and are better able to negotiate with suppliers. This group buying arrangement is often called a cooperative or “co-op.”
If this approach were to scale nationwide it could function as a massive consumer’s union, where the larger it becomes the more negotiating power it acquires. So with sufficient magnitude a Civic Internet could transform the way businesses make economic decisions.
In the present system, market economies are based on Supplier Capitalism. Under traditional supplier capitalism, suppliers wield great power over disconnected consumers who often can’t influence the value they receive for their money. But if an organized group of consumers becomes large enough it could dictate the terms and prices it pays for the value it receives. In other words, it would take power away from suppliers in order to benefit consumers. This is the opposite of the typical supplier/consumer relationship.
A nationwide consumer’s union could transform economic decisions. For example, say an insurance provider has one million customers and one customer demands greater value for their premium. In this case the provider will ignore the request because it’s only one customer. This single customer has zero negotiating power.
In a second scenario, let’s say 10,000 customers demand greater value. While not large enough to make a significant impact on the insurer’s business one way or the other, this subscriber group may get to negotiate. Yet while these consumers may receive a little higher value, the insurer will retain its negotiating power as the group doesn’t represent a financial threat. As a result, the supplier negotiates at its pleasure.
But what if ten million organized customers demand better value? This changes everything. Because a group this size becomes much more than a consumer cooperative, it represents a sizable market. And while individuals lack power, markets dictate the financial viability of entire industries.
This is because conventional markets consist of many independent and disorganized consumers who are unable to negotiate from a position of strength. Yet this new type of market would be organized and strong. The result is that these organized community markets could reshape entire economies. They will accomplish this by reversing the power structure in a market economy and enjoying negotiating benefits traditionally held by suppliers.
Furthermore, a union of ten million organized consumers has not only great negotiating power due to its size, but at this level it no longer even needs existing suppliers. So if, for example, existing health insurance providers didn’t give this consumer union what it wanted it could ignore them altogether, become its own insurance provider, and reshape the insurance industry.
Such a development would transform the conversation between consumers and suppliers. Under conventional supplier capitalism, suppliers possess most power and consumers cannot influence economic decisions. In fact, suppliers intentionally construct their business models around this inequitable circumstance. But in the new scenario, large communities of consumers might wield great power over suppliers. If this occurs market economies could be forced to adopt a new type of capitalism, Community Capitalism.
The foundation of Community Capitalism is that economic decisions will be driven by the communities of consumers (i.e. markets) that facilitate economic activity. In this model, economic influence and ownership spreads across a broader base of people, rather than remaining concentrated in the hands of suppliers. Given that it’s these markets, and the consumers who form them, that enable economic prosperity, this shouldn’t be a radical idea to anybody other than suppliers, and of course the politicians they influence.
For if the essence of the American Dream is a society in which people share prosperity in proportion to their contribution, then Community Capitalism makes the most sense as consumers benefit according to their participation in the markets that allow economies to prosper. This consumer-focused economic influence will result in more evenly distributed political representation as politicians and political structures adapt to the new social reality.
Communism?
No, Community Capitalism isn’t communism, although it sounds a lot like it. Because in a society trained for decades to mistrust any form of “collective,” the idea of a community-driven economy, including community ownership, will be attacked as just another evil “ism.” Yet it’s completely different.
The goal of communism is to mandate an equal, or classless, society. To accomplish this, private ownership is rare and the government owns most of the means of production. It also determines the allocation of economic resources. This requires that communist/socialist governments restrict economic and civil rights, often to the point of human tragedy. History demonstrates that these Command Economies fail as they’re unable to balance economic resources and human rights. It’s why communism is the antithesis of free market economics, and for many it represents a terrifying threat to democratic societies.
In contrast, the core concept in market economies is that the interaction between consumers and suppliers results in the most efficient allocation of resources. It’s what 18th Century Scottish Economist Adam Smith called the Invisible Hand. Furthermore, in market economies private ownership of property is not only an efficient way to distribute resources, but it also protects human rights. At least that’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Under Community Capitalism this democratic system of market economics remains. The major difference between conventional supplier capitalism and Community Capitalism is that ownership is spread across more people, most with average economic influence.
The other thing that changes is that consumers, who comprise the markets from which market economies exist, will share more economic power with suppliers. Human rights, civil rights and economic rights remain intact. In fact, they’ll improve as fairer representation will better protect individual rights and freedoms. This is because greater economic equality strengthens the democratic process and creates a more inclusive society. Community Capitalism would also result in freer, fairer markets, the bedrock of a capitalistic economy.
So no, this is not communism, and becoming a more equitable economy does not make it a de facto form of communism. Although many will argue that it is, their reasons are cynical and nefarious. Their real motivation is to keep society unequal so they can unfairly profit. Community Capitalism offers a way to bridge this divide.
Bridging the Divide
Realism. A Civic Internet. Community Government. Community Capitalism. These aren’t modest proposals. They’d represent a revolutionary shift in the structures of society, government and the economy. So we can expect them to be met with great cynicism and resistance.
For in a political and economic establishment where the rich and powerful are accustomed to dominating voters, consumers and employees, these ideas represent a frightening threat. The resistance will be intense, maybe overwhelming. They may even stop it from happening, at least for a while.
But maybe, as the author Victor Hugo once observed, it’s an “idea whose time has come.” Because these new social structures could bring hope and happiness to the vast majority of society, average people who are ever more marginalized by forces beyond their control.
Although it’s a daunting prospect, such a reality could bridge the widening divide between the classes. And while on the surface these ideas may appear complex and audacious, it’s less the case then it may seem.
Realism is nothing more than common sense.
The capacity of online communities to network and collaborate is well established, and the emergence of a Civic Internet might just be the next step.
Community Government is a natural manifestation of community behavior.
And Community Capitalism is just a big consumer co-op made possible by the Internet’s capacity to connect people.
These things are entirely plausible. So aside from the expected resistance, what stands in the way?
The biggest impediment is people: their resistance to things that are new and different; their rigid beliefs and deep emotions; their attachment to the status quo, whether for self-interest or fear of the unknown.
Yet unyielding as these forces are, they can change. It may take time, but they can. But for them to change, people must adjust the way they frame their realities. These are their perceptions and worldviews, the core ideas that guide their life choices and beliefs.
With countless frames to guide people’s perceptions it’s no surprise that we harbor so many views of reality. There are liberal vs. conservative frames, white vs. non-white frames, rich vs. poor frames and so on. And these frames form unique mental images that shape our individual realities. It’s how people disagree over similar sets of facts, and why what may seem obvious to some people, others will vehemently resist.
So the root of political dysfunction is not so much a clash of ideologies as it’s a clash of frames. It’s also why a common sense, non-partisan approach to political gridlock appears beyond reach. Yet daunting as it may seem to overcome, it’s not impossible.
The solution lies in identifying common “threads” that span frames, building new frames around these shared interests, and then exchanging the old frames with the new ones. Fortunately, a number of important shared interests exist throughout society. For example, we all need to earn a living. We also strive for security and peace-of-mind, lives that have meaning and purpose, and futures with hope and possibility.
These threads connect us all, and they provide a starting point to re-frame the way we experience reality. For history shows us that under the right circumstances people will alter their frames and create new social, political and economic realities.
For example, Judeo-Christian ideas radically changed the way people viewed (framed) their place in society. And on numerous occasions, societies’ resisted harsh governments to create new political realities, such as the Revolutionary War followed by the Constitution. These events were generally precipitated by deep economic imbalances and upheavals.
So yes, throughout history people have adjusted their frames to either fit their realities or create new ones. But what about now? Are we, individually and as a society, ready to adjust the way we frame our worldviews? And if so, what will be the catalyst? Jobs? Healthcare? The environment? Trumpism?
We need to decide how long we’re willing to pretend that our political-economy will magically self-correct, and that politicians and plutocrats really have our best interests at heart. Because most of the signals they send us, whether political or economic, strongly indicate a day of reckoning is near. At some point reality will catch up with us, and when this happens we’ll choose between one of two futures.
The first is to acquiesce to the demands of the rich and powerful. Although this may allow us to preserve our beliefs and our frames, there is little to indicate a future of hope and happiness for most people. Because unless the forces that drive our destinies alter their behavior to benefit society over self-interest, an implausible scenario at best, it’s likely a future where average people will continue to see their standard of living decline. Politically, economically and morally this path is unsustainable.
In the second option we break our attachment to beliefs and worldviews in order to re-frame the way we perceive our world. Only by doing so can we create a new social, political and economic reality.
But for many people it’s also the scariest option. Because our beliefs and frames give us a sense of security, which in an uncertain world is often the last thing we’re willing to give up. For many it will be impossible, and they will see their lives and futures dissipate before they’ll consider such a thing.
But if enough people take this difficult step then our political and economic reality might work for average people, not just the rich and powerful. And similar to the adoption of any new product or idea, these early movers will provide security for others to follow. If this process continues we’ll eventually reach a tipping point where the power of connected communities eclipses those of establishment power structures. This event will usher in a new political and economic reality that could lift the standard of living for many millions of people.
So what will persuade people to act? Two powerful human emotions: fear and anger. As inequality continues to drive down the standard of living, people will become more fearful of their futures. This will make them stressed and anxious about their lives and the lives of those they love. At some point this stress will become so compressed and aggravated that it will erupt in an explosion of anger towards their oppressors. It will then compel society to step outside its comfort zone and reclaim the American Dream. The Manifesto proposes a non-violent approach to make this happen.
You may download either a PDF or Kindle version of The Realism Manifesto here.
