Deepak Chopra: In 2012, the issue won't just be the economy

[babylonsister]

http://www.sfgate.com/columns/chopra/

In 2012, the issue won't just be the economy

Deepak Chopra

snip//

The pundits have left leadership out of the equation, and specifically, they've ignored what a leader needs to do. Angry on the left are calling for Obama to pull a Gary Cooper in "High Noon" and run the bad guys out of town by standing up to them. But real leaders aren't sheriffs, and the right wing doesn't see itself as bad guys.

From the beginning of his administration, facing very tough times ahead, Obama has seen, quite rightly, that a leader fulfills the needs of his followers. There are three needs that serve as the foundation of a healthy society, as they do for a healthy individual.

snip//

In electoral terms, what Republican candidate is even trying to make America feel united? Always a small-tent party, the Republicans win when they manage to cobble together splinter interests. As long as gun owners, Western ranchers, social conservatives, religious fundamentalists, and white males can find a suitable candidate, a viable Presidential race can be run. But even the most optimistic Republican strategists realize that all their candidates, with the possible exception of Romney, are dividers. The irony is that Romney divides Republicans, because he won't tilt toward Tea Party extremism.

You may not accept my analysis of leadership, but by his words and deeds this is the line that the President has been following and continues to follow. He realizes that the level of the problem (fear, insecurity, divisiveness, uncertainty, frustration, anger) isn’t the level of the solution. The level of the solution is to fulfill the three needs just outlined. Trapped in their ideology and hostility to progress, the Republicans aren't even on the map in these areas. Next November the pivot point won't be the economy, not alone at least. The pivot will be whether the electorate wants its needs fulfilled or its anger expressed. I know it's a tossup, but I can't blame the president for not doing what leaders need to do. He is.

[SpiralHawk]

1. k and r

eom

[Towlie]

2. With friends like Deepak Chupacabra, we don't need enemies.

The man is known for irrational woo and mysticism.

[ZombieHorde]

3. As opposed to rational woo? I doubt his religious beliefs are crazier

than most other people's.

[patrice]

16. Excellent point. It is possible that attacks upon Chopra are funded by "Christian"Reconstructionists

Since Chopra, with his background in biological science, is their "anti-Christ".

[uponit7771]

5. You can say that about Muslims or Christians or Budhist etc...More proof DU is being worked

[patrice]

15. The cliched "thinking" of some proves that every time they post. There is fascism here. nt

[patrice]

14. Paternalism assumes people are incapable of validating what is real:un-real. Paternalism assumes

there is ONE version of the truth and the authority, whatever label it happens to be wearing in a given situation, is the owner of that truth.

At minimum Chopra's perspective includes the fact that reality is not the false dichotomy that SOME people want us to think it is. The Oppressor hates freedom and free thought, because it can lead to the truth that the phenomenal world is NOT defined absolutely by others' false dichotomies. In addition to order, it is also full of contradictions and hybrids and strangeness; it is not exclusively an object, but also an event, or a verb, and anyone who says otherwise is deluded or a liar.

[DFab420]

32. This is insanely rude. If you really act this way towards people with different names or beliefs you

should seek out company elsewhere.

[OHdem10]

4. He is right. Watch Fox News ---For about a month this is the

theme. News Programs and Shows with Hosts. Shows with
hosts come out swinging on Obama's Leadership or the lack
their of.

Leadership Leadership Leadership. The stage is being
set.

[uponit7771]

6. When it comes to national security and taking care of things outside economy they swing and miss...

...every time compared to their guys

[patrice]

18. And people are being called to the table,so it will be their own damn fault if they choose not to go

[polmaven]

7. K&R

Great article.

[bemildred]

8. Info-babble.

Mr Chopra should spend his money quietly and leave the rest of us alone.

[patrice]

19. Babble-babble.

[patrice]

21. Unless you are God, if there is any probability that you are right, there is also a probability that

you are wrong.

Are we just to accept your evaluation on faith?

If so, is it not also justified that we should accept my "Babble-babble" evaluation on faith too?

And if that is not the case, who died and made you God, or are you just simply a fascist?

I'd VERY much like some answers please.

[patrice]

9. You see, THAT's been "the Left's" essential error all along; they ASSUME that they are excluded,when

everything about this man says that they ARE included IF they get themselves to the table.

And what's really "on the table" here is the PROCESS by means of which inclusion occurs. It is, therefore, "the Left's" own assumptions that exclude them, not this President.

Yes, the process has been skewed thus far by a little thing known as a toxic financial sector. We STILL have no real idea of the total losses, of what, and owned by whom in the Derivative Crash of '08 and those facts impact EVERYTHING else that is going on.

"The Left" needs to answer one question: If, somehow in some pink-cloud pony land, they got everything or most of what they want, W - H - A - T exactly and precisely happens to those who oppose them? Do they disappear? Do they die? Do they go away? Do they suddenly just turn into Lefties? Are we going to round all of them up and put them in prisons, the way they want to do to us? Do they STOP opposing "the Left's" programs and policies in even one of the myriad ways available to them or that they can create to destroy whatever "the Left" constructs?

Really, think about it. Without some-kind of buy-in, WHAT exactly is the solution to this situation? Without some-kind of buy-in, "the Left's" "victory" is really just another defeat wearing different labels.

Q. And who sets the terms of the buy-ins? A. Those who have GOTTEN THEMSELVES to the table - because it IS that getting yourself to the table that proves that you are in fact a force to be contended with. And having the President do it for you proves that you are NOT a force to be contended with.

Buying into FALSE-DICHOTOMIES is THE OPPRESSOR. And that's one thing that I admire hugely about this President. He appears to have the political courage to try to articulate that fact in his own actions and in what he requires of others.

I'm as Left/Liberal/Progressive as it gets and I am proud to support Barack Obama for President in 2012.

[bvar22]

11. LOL. "The Left" just needs to Pull Themselves UP by their Bootstraps?

The Left is just LAZY.
Its their own damn fault!

Thanks for the laughs.
You did MORE to expose the truth on DU with THIS post^
than The Left ever has.
Thanks for the exhibition.



The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[patrice]

12. Lazy? You're the one who said that, not I. And in so doing you prove my point about self-fulfilling

assumptions and how they generate false dichotomies and alienation.

You also prove my point with your ridicule and disrespect for those you either don't understand or you disagree with.

YOU create your own realities and at least some of us might perhaps benefit from consideration of a Learned Helplessness/Eternal Victim hypothesis.

On the other hand, you could be well aware of what you are doing when you try to put your words into other people's mouths, in which case it is possible that you are a fascist.

Get a clue.

[bvar22]

24. Oh Yes, I'm a "fascist".

:rofl:


I'm an old, Middle-of-the-Road, Mainstream, FDR/LBJ "Democrat"
who has worked for the "Democratic Party" for over 40 years.
I STILL believe in these traditional Democratic Working Class Values
and when the Democratic party Leadership MOVES AWAY from them to appease Republicans & Corporatists,
I WILL call them out.

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."--FDR

So, if I'm a "fascist",
then so is FDR.

Show me "Democrats" in today's New Democrat Centrist Party that sound like the above,
and are publicly willing to embrace those values,
and I will march in their parade.
Show me "Democrats" appeasing Wall Street Banks, BIG Corporations, and the VERY RICH,
and WE can talk about "Fascism".

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Now, to feed into your knee-jerk accusations and name calling,
it is more probable that those pointing fingers and screaming "FASCIST" at FDR Liberals
who STILL stand for the old Democratic Party Values---
are the REAL "fascists". Hmmm?

Good Day!
:)

[patrice]

26. Your assumptions that those things can happen ONLY one way & DISRESPECT for anything different are

fascist traits.

[patrice]

28. i.e. ONLY one way and you OWN that way, your way or the highway, a.k.a. fascism.

[bvar22]

34. You really need to do some studying.

"Fascism" does NOT mean what you insist it means.
It IS a system of government, not a catch all insult one can indiscriminately throw against those who disagree with them.

Here,
I'll help you out:

Corporatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

It's the Corporate State, Stupid
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7260.htm

Corporatocracy, Corporatism, Fascism
http://www.rense.com/general62/corporatocracy.htm

Now run along and read those,
and then come back and call me a "Fascist".
No Charge for the tutoring,
but you won't get off so easy next time.

When "Fascism" comes to America,
it will be wrapped in Loyalty to a Political Party or a Person
instead of a commitment to Values & Ideals.


Cheers!

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ibegurpard]

36. you automatically lost the right to outrage about disrespect

when you started talking about "pink-cloud pony land."
fuck off

[treestar]

10. Blah, Blah, Blah

I have never been a "follower" of any US President.

[bemildred]

23. +1. nt

[patrice]

25. And any assumptions that others are incapable of not following, whether they support Obama or not,

are evidence of at least paternalism if not outright elitism.

If it is actually possible for you to not follow, i.e. to be free, why is it not possible for others who are different from you in a certain way to not follow, to be free too?

And if your answer to that question is something to the effect, "One cannot be free and independent if one supports Barack Obama" then, what you're saying is that your own "freedom" DEPENDS upon, is DETERMINED by something else, it is determined by a criteria outside of itself and is, therefore, NOT free; it is conditional.

If whether one is Free or not depends upon something else, that is not a FREE CHOICE and, in this case, it DEPENDS upon whether one supports something/someone else.

This is of course not the case. One CAN be free and CAN CHOOSE to support someone/something else, therefore, not everyone who chooses to support a President is a follower and not everyone who chooses to not support a President is free.

[JoeyT]

13. Deepak Chopra?

Bwahahahaha.

Next let's ask Timecube guy what he thinks.

[patrice]

17. Disrespect of others is the hallmark of fascism. Question . . .

If someone likes a some style of art or music that you don't appreciate, what is your reaction to them?

[patrice]

27. Corelate question: If you choose to react appropriately in one situation, why not another?

Answer: it's not a difference in the mental task involved, it's a difference in motive/emotions.

[JoeyT]

38. Completely the opposite of my reaction to Chopra.

I often find myself defending art and other music I don't like.

Chopra OTOH often speaks on falsifiable subjects. Music and art aren't falsifiable, they're pretty much entirely subjective. Nickleback is just as valid and just as much art as anything I listen to, and NASCAR fandom/collecting are just as reasonable a hobby as any of mine no matter how much physical discomfort it causes me to say so.

[bemildred]

39. Calling people fascists is disrespectful, no? So does that make you a fascist too?

You call everyone on this thread who does not drink your preferred flavor of KoolAid a fascist, unlike those you attack, who have merely accused Chopra of being an arrogant and greedy fool.

[Honeycombe8]

20. I admit this is above my head...OR it's too general in nature. Too philosophic. But interesting.nt

[CakeGrrl]

22. k/r

I don't take the claims that this President is not a leader seriously.

[Jakes Progress]

29. ommmm. ommmmm. Pass the chai crystals please.

[DFab420]

30. Does anybody else think it's weird that a board full of "progressives" and "liberals" are so willing

to mock someone due to their beliefs? Then discard their opinions due to those beliefs???

This is not the progressivism you're looking for....Grow up people.

[patrice]

31. That's my question. I don't mind people disagreeing with me. It's the disrespect!!

I appears very suspicious to me. And when you ask questions about it, they almost NEVER answer and even if they do answer it's more ridicule and mocking.

I was raised Liberal; this is no Liberal mindset that is familiar to me.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. Nicely done! K&R!!! n/t

[Hawkowl]

35. Ahhhh...

Bullshit. Leadership involves JUSTICE. If it doesn't provide justice then people will seek other means of satisfaction. It is human nature. Deepak dumbass needs to let the people articulate their own needs.

[bhikkhu]

37. The president has been leading, and will likely continue

...the simplest way to see it is that he puts unity before all else - the "more perfect union" of a notable speech - which even Chopra doesn't seem to get. Its not something you can force upon people, in any case, but there is no value in leading people unless they come along of their own free will.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

40. If you watched the debate...his point about "dividers" is abundently

obvious. The tenor and tone of all of those schmucks was full blast negative and smirky. When posed against Obama, the calm, positive, non-ideological person he is, the contrast will be stark.