I've been thinking about that question a lot lately. Do I continue to advocate for the candidate that best reflects my purpose, vision, values, message, mission and essence? (Sanders) Or do I advocate against arguably the worst candidate in the history of American politics (DT), and thus for one of the most untrustworthy and inauthentic candidates since Nixon? (HRC) Or do I take a deeper perspective?
Should I pretend for a moment to be a leader of America, maybe her parent, and advocate for an outcome that is best for my child? Maybe my child is in her terrible twos or awkward adolescence and just needs to experience and deal with the ways that no longer serve her? In light of the recent failures of our justice system (FBI/DOJ highly politicized and confusing treatment of HRC), and the evident failure of our electoral process forcing a choice between HRC and DT, maybe American democracy needs to crash and burn, so a truly adult country can rise from her ashes? Maybe America needs a terrible President and an impeachment to awaken her truth, purpose, beauty, ethics and destiny?
First, let me just preface this discussion by dismissing three myths about politics: 1. politics are meaningless, 2. politics are subjective and 3. everyone is entitled to their opinion. These myths keep Americans disengaged from the political process, abdicating our own purpose-driven leadership in this abundantly evident time of crisis.
Myth #1: Politics are meaningless.
We cannot escape meaning at the level of the individual or collective. We constantly ingest, evaluate and create meaning and story about ourselves, the world and our relationship to it. Even to say there is no meaning, is itself a hierarchy of meaning. Thus, denying that politics have meaning is an expression of either a lack of awareness or courage..
Truth #1: Politics are meaningful.
Myth #2: Politics are subjective.
This myth is true from a perspective that doesn't include the arrow of time, the evolutionary impulse and the arc of human progress. Saying politics are subjective let's people off the hook for their lack of awareness or courage and the impact of their actions. One's politics either advance and express this arrow, impulse and arc or impede it. So to know what one's politics are from this perspective, one needs to understand evolution, Cosmic and human history, philosophy, consciousness and complexity. From this place, one's politics moves humanity towards a greater expression of goodness, truth and beauty or impedes it.
Truth #2: As context expands, politics become less subjective.
Myth #3: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
While freedom of speech is a civil right that I will defend to the death, this does not exonerate one from having to defend and support one's ideas. In the battle between two ideas, one will explain more of reality than the other, which is another way of saying that some ideas are better than others, e.g. the theory of gravity explains a falling apple better than the theory that God likes to throw apples on the ground. If this debate were to happen, the idea that explains more of reality would surface, and it would be clear that the one that doesn't needs to go.
Truth #3: All opinions must be challenged by those with better and bigger ideas; and the loser of the challenge walks.
So back our topic, what is your responsibility in this election? As of today, July 7, 2016, it looks as though the candidate that best expresses and addresses reality (income inequality, rigged electoral system, climate change, a culture of racism, sexism, homophobia and anti-intellectualism, the U.S.'s resource imperialist, and exceptionalist defense and diplomacy) and whose ideas best advance goodness, truth and beauty (personal integrity, social democracy, renewable energy, free college, infrastructure investment), Senator Bernie Sanders, will concede the Democratic nomination to Secretary Hillary Clinton. Trump has the GOP nomination. So we're looking at general election face-off between a well-qualified, well-educated, Beltway veteran, and untrustworthy candidate (HRC) and an inexperienced, ignorant, racist, sexist, Islamaphobic, homophobic one (DT).
What does a more purposeful impeachment look like?
My purpose compels me to root for America's purpose awakening. Ideally, it would occur during a peaceful Sanders administration. But with this outcome becoming increasingly unlikely, I need to examine which of the other two administrations will best expedite America's transition from purposelessness to purpose, from adolescence to adulthood. Both HRC's ethics and DT's loose relationship to the truth will likely result in numerous scandals and eventual impeachment. The question is, which impeachment process will give America the best opportunity to ask the purpose question. A DT administration might produce a more dramatic and sensational impeachment and thus a more efficient purpose inquiry, but will also likely be more violent and tumultuous, creating a divide from which America may not survive, e.g. another civil war between the false identities of right and left. HRC's impeachment however with likely focus on a technicalities of the Clinton Foundation's payola / racketeering, her emails, and the cover-up surrounding them, but will be more centrist, more peaceful, less dramatic and thus less existentially relevant to the question of America's purpose. It is hard to say right now which impeachment process will best expedite America's purpose awakening. And it is in this question that I now sit.
What do you think? Which 2016 U.S. Presidential administration / impeachment will best awaken America's purpose and create the least amount of harm in the process?