The dictionary is not a bad place to start when unpacking meanings. Webster’s defines conservatism, among other things as:

a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional          b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservativeestimate>                                           c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

Likeswise it defines liberal as:                                                                                                    1 b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth                                                                        2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <aliberal meal>c : ample, full                                                5: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism,orthodoxy, or traditional forms  a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism… associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.

One of the marks of true leadership is a leader’s ability to change course when new information or understanding demands it. The mere politician changes course and is accused of flip-flopping or being inconsistent if the change is disliked- and often cravenly cave to pressure to reverse position for personal and political expedience. A true leader risks disapproval to change course toward a more just, humane and effective approach.

With the breathtaking reversals of Mitt Romney, and the generally reasoned and clear headed positions of Barack Obama playing off against each other on the nightly news, we are witnessing a sort of year-long study in leadership, and have a golden opportunity to contemplate the cultural factors that produced these two men as the candidates of choice of the most diverse, powerful and wealthy nation on Earth.

Both are men of privilege and wealth, relative to the average American. Romney was born to it and has increased his wealth to earn an entrenched place among the 1% super-rich. Obama, coming from far humbler beginnings- a bi-racial middle-class family, upbringing by a single, divorced mother, and very hard work to get a sterling education at the Punahou School in Honolulu, Columbia University in New York and Harvard in Cambridge- show that not all those who have wealth achieved it the same way. Nor does it have the same value or meaning to each.

The successful pursuit of wealth is an integral part of the famous American dream. But there is a difference between the culture of wealth- and the insularity with which some become accustomed to privileges taken for granted as a sort of droit de seigneur, versus the culture that considers the pursuit of wealth one among many legitimate pieces of a successful life. The latter has a keen sense of how hard it can be to acquire wealth, and how important it can be to use it for the good of others and not just of one’s self alone.

The public allegedly wants “a real leader”- someone to whom they can entrust the tough decisions that can shape an entire generation and the world- yet the public can be easily swayed by those who either fan their fears and then present themselves as the “solution”, or those who encourage their followers to vilify those who disagree with them, so that they are the last men standing by default.

We need to seriously ponder, in an election year, whether those all too human motives of greed for power and control are creating or sustaining the kind of culture that we profess to represent and want. America has legitimately inspired countries all over the world by our democratic principles, our work ethic, our innovative spirit, and, racism and ethnic tensions notwithstanding, our overall acceptance of diversity as an integral element of our success as a nation. We Americans are often fractious, exuberant, and contentious, and even uncouth, but are also famously generous of spirit, and at our best, open-minded.

In choosing our leaders, we must decide whether to choose them for their cultural competence to navigate the socially complex currents of our population wisely, or only for their competence in stirring up a limited base of ideological followers ready to leave those who disagree out of the equation. The future of our culture and the survival of its finest qualities hangs in the balance.

The assessment of management, from an employee’s perspective, seldom has much to do with productivity metrics or profit margins- the criteria by which management tends to judge itself. In most cases, employees are likely to comment on whether they feel personally valued, whether they feel they have opportunities to grow, whether they feel their input is even heard, much less appreciated. For reasons that defy logic, however, management is so attached to their limited criteria of success- efficiency and profit- that they literally cannot receive the employees’ data because it differs too much from their own tightly held paradigm. They embody the psychological fact that we all tailor data to fit our beliefs, and that if the data differ too widely from our paradigm they literally do not compute. Moreover, the more fiercely we hold to our model of choice, the harder it is to receive data that differ from it. This disparity shows up in increasing discontent among those who upon whom the paradigm is imposed- as is evinced by the national popular rage against the halls of financial and political power and the widespread perception that those in power “don’t get it and don’t care”.

The bad news it that this is extremely entrenched, and even though businesses may prosper, often their employees do not. Successful businesses count on their outer success guaranteeing a continuously available pool of potential employees eager to replace those who may leave, further accentuating the managerial/employee disconnect and the impression employees may have that management is deaf to their concerns, uncaring, or willing to simply use them and replace them, even when the employees feel a genuine commitment to the mission of the enterprise.

The good news is that we- including managers- are all capable of perceiving the truth if given the time and proper conditions to do so, and that cultures (corporate or otherwise) can and do change for the better. The challenge then is to find ways to bridge that hierarchical communication gap, to allow both sides to be truly heard and understood for the sake of all. Enterprises in which the employee shares a stake in the success of the business make it clear that it is possible to create a healthier corporate culture, but ego and attachment to power, force of habit, and the  enormous effort required to break the inertia towards change, remain daunting challenges.

Too often, only crisis forces an awakening, but if the underlying structures are not fully addressed, history is likely to repeat itself. This is why the communication, associative and analytical thinking skills, as well as the emotive interpersonal skills implicit in cultural competence, are crucial to creating healthy organizations. Cultural competence is about creating a socially and psychologically healthy environment in a pluralistic setting, not about trying to impose warm fuzzy feelings or positive rhetoric about being “united” or “one big family”, masking an altogether different experience. This is especially important to grasp when the reality of many people’s experience of their own or their company’s family is one of dysfunction.  As a witty bumper sticker puts it succinctly, “Denial is not a River in Egypt!” Honesty with ourselves and each other is the necessary precondition to narrowing that gap, and to assuring that the symbiotic relationship between management and culture shaping each other works for the common good.

This can lead to cultural clashes that actually undermine the success of an enterprise, and sabotage the kind of trust and loyalty that managers demand and expect of their employees. With great fanfare for a new era of transparency and humanity, some corporations eager for the limelight of premier status and global recognition, remain, nevertheless, deeply wed to the favoritism and expedience they profess to eschew in exchange for a more open and effective corporate culture. The effect of this can be rapacious and cold-hearted, in the guise of efficiency and clarity, and creates a culture of distrust within the organization.

Witness, for example, the “protocol” for firing or dismissing employees, so often experienced as cold, impersonal, or even brutal by the departing employee. Corporate Departments of Human Resources set criteria for continued employment. Management determines the metrics by which they will measure the employee’s productivity. Benchmarks are set for the acquisition of the skills desired for each position and the ongoing training that will keep the employee sufficiently sharp to compete in a highly competitive market. Seemingly, it is a simple question of whether the employee “measures up” or not. It is certainly easy for management to adopt that position- for it gives them the illusion of thereby being able to avoid emotional discomfort with cool “objectivity”.

All that is fine and logical- and necessary. It runs the risk, however, of overlooking the human element in favor of merely considering “productivity” from the data-driven perspective of the so-called “bean-counter”.  Where large institutions often fail is in their capacity to consider the whole person; to recognize and use the full range of an employee’s ability; to look outside the box of the narrow skill set for which they may originally have been employed, and find possible additional or alternative ways for them to be both useful and fulfilled. Corporations are often not good at helping employees transition productively to other opportunities either within or beyond the organization, much less feel fulfilled in their current position. It’s simply not a priority.

This can show up, for example, with older employees who, though an incalculable resource of experience and information, may not be up to date on the technological skills taken for granted by younger employees. Seldom are they used as mentors or guides for less experienced staff. If disabled by health limitations- by visual or mobility limitations in particular- little creativity is employed to allow them to continue to use their extensive knowledge for the betterment of the organization, as the younger, able-bodied employees may chafe at the slower pace that may be required for such senior members to do so. The older employee is sometimes treated by the younger like out-dated technology they are eager to discard. So in the name of efficiency, much may be lost.

Values, of course, are often culture-specific, rather than universal. How we deal with employees, and how we deal with aging are no exceptions. The West could learn much from the East, however, in terms of reverence for one’s elders, and an ability to honor and make use of their accrued wisdom and experience. The Western industrialized  nations are often seen as wasteful in their conspicuous consumerism. We should consider whether that visible wastefulness is not also reflected in a certain cavalier wastefulness of human resources and personal knowledge.

Cultural competence isn’t just about acknowledging or celebrating cultural differences- its about gaining fresh perspectives on one’s own culture so as to continue to improve its ability to nurture its members. That should include the culture of a business or organization too. The ecology of our human resources is as crucial to our survival as is the ecology of our physical environment. Cultural competence is thereby a vehicle for better survival- a sort of human environmentalism of trans-cultural value. The value of humanity ultimately must trump the values of any particular corporation or group.

Sadly, however common, such screening is rarely reflective of any real understanding of our diverse traditions. As a first year theology student at Yale Divinity School- a seminary that, at that time, had students from around forty different faith traditions- I was amused and incredulous to hear people ask “What denomination are you?” and then, whatever the response, (“Methodist”, “Catholic”, “Baptist” or whatever) they would answer “Oooohhhh” with a  significant nod of the head, as if that affiliation told them everything they needed or wanted to know about the student in question!

Unless the background of our apparent religiousity is understood, it is easy to misunderstand just what importance and impact religious belief and practice actually have on American life, and on our relations both with our own people and others. Our depth of understanding determines the good or ill that comes of our beliefs.

The founders of our country, fully cognizant of the damage that can be done by conflicts between Church and State, built into the Constitution a separation of those powers as a system of checks and balances to prevent such conflicts from arising. The Separation of Church and State is a political doctrine some other nations also have. France is quite insistent upon it- to the point that religious marriage ceremonies are not recognized as legal- they are considered merely a matter of private preference that may or may not follow a civil ceremony presided over by the State. But though we shared in each other’s revolutions against monarchical oppression, the reasons for this apparently similar policy are opposite.

France’s doctrine was meant to assure that the State could not be controlled (any longer) by the Catholic Church (or any other religion). Our doctrine, on the other hand, was developed to insure against the Government controlling Religion. The freedom to believe and worship as one chooses is one of the beacons of freedom for which the U.S. has long been admired.

What happens to our culture then when particular religious constituencies attempt to hijack that freedom in the name of the rightness or righteousness of their particular understanding of faith?

Consider the current presidential electoral politics being played out in the Republican primary process. A vocal minority seeks to impose its views of sex, marriage, procreation, sexual orientation and a host of other issues on the American majority by appealing both to what they surmise are our fundamental values and fears. Maddeningly, they claim to speak “for the American people”, not a narrow constituency. They profess certain knowledge of what the great collective of American people want (not coincidentally, insisting the people have mandated their own narrow agenda). This is basically an exercise in cultural and religious narcissism, whereby the religious right (and the candidates who seek to represent them) assumes that their views are the standards by which all others should be judged, and dissenting views are demonized.

Historically speaking, however, dogmatism, however manipulative, hasn’t got a very good track record. Absolutism, of whatever kind, tends not to allow for the variability of  real life, and sooner or later is inevitably met with resistance. Since we tend to tailor data to fit our paradigms, dueling paradigms is a no win game. It demands loyalty to the paradigm over any possibly contradictory experience. Such ideological purity results in an inability to receive any information that might differ, no matter how valid or helpful it might be, condemning us thereby to a life of limitation rather than fulfillment, and to an inability to be effectively responsive to the needs of others, despite a civic and moral obligation to do so.

The roles of oppressor and oppressed easily become blurred in an ideology-driven dynamic, with each party committed to inflicting upon the other what it feels it has suffered. Revolution is, by its very etymology, cyclical in nature, so in time, the oppressor and the oppressed repeatedly trade places. The emotional struggle to be right, and the misguided tendency to think it is achieved by making others wrong, almost seems to be part of human nature- at least a lower, unenlightened part. Our cultures are described by the ebb and flow of that emotional sea and the structures we create to navigate those waters.

Paradoxically, whether in spite or because of our dueling ideologies, the ego reductions ensuing from continually rubbing elbows with those who differ from us have arguably increased our tolerance for difference and disagreement in the U.S. We continue to be an open society envied by many who have never tasted our freedoms directly and, therefore, do not take them for granted. Part of that envy continues to include the freedom of belief and worship, without obligation or penalty. Such freedom should support a culture of peace, yet some still would use it to justify a culture of war.

In this climate of fear, it is encouraging that scholars like Steven Pinker have made a strong case that we are becoming measurably less violent as a species- despite the appearance of our media reporting, violence-packed movies, and video games to the contrary. If that is so, might it not also be the case that, at least subliminally, the importance of recognizing the existence of a power higher than humankind, and some form of faith that that power makes our betterment possible, if not innate to us all, has at least imprinted upon our psyches profoundly? Whether viewed as a confirmation of “intelligent design” of Creation by its Creator, or of the astonishing scientific perfection in Nature that keeps planets in their orbits, the seasons reliable, and life ever renewing itself, faith has provided the dynamic empowering both our self-discovery and our exploration of the universe. A nation that can support and protect our right to faith is not ill-founded, no matter what inner or outer conflicts it may have to face. A faction that seeks to control, limit, or repress such a right does so to the peril of all.

Lowe’s questionable decision was allegedly fueled by a right wing organization in Florida with only one paid employee- it’s “Executive Director”- who was fulminating about the threat of Shari’a law overtaking America. He implies that the ordinary people shown to be Muslims in the show are not really representative of the “real” Muslims (who presumably are all terrorists and cruel). There is, of course, absolutely no evidence to support his paranoid claim, but this is a popular boogey-man among the Christian right. Like the monster that we knew as children lurked in our closet or under our bed, it vanishes when exposed to the light of reason and objectivity.

Aside from the fact that no American politician has ever proposed imposing Shari’a law on the American populace, nor, to my knowledge, has any American constituency voted to do so- rendering the issue entirely moot- the more troubling issue is the assumption that such ideologues even know the content of the greatly feared Shari’a.

Like the legal precepts enshrined in the religious traditions of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism and others, there are details  in Shari’a that are specific to the context of the time, place, and culture in which they were first written, and others that are more easily seen as having a universal applicability toward the common good. This becomes an ongoing interpretive challenge to the faithful of each tradition today, trying to reconcile a belief in the sanctity of scripture with the experiential reality that parts of scripture seem so arcane or removed from modern reality as to become irrelevant.

The Christian who ignorantly rages about the brutality of Islamic law easily overlooks or ignores equally brutal passages in the Bible. Those Christians eager to label things as an abomination to God to sanctify their opinions, often indulge in the hypocrisy of convenience in their selective reading of scripture. That selective reading is used to validate homophobia, anti-abortionism and a host of other social issues, as well as the generic hatred of other religions. Their cohorts hoot their agreement and approval even in the public arena of presidential debates, but would willingly celebrate the self-congratulatory rightness of their views and their success in voicing them by going off to a buffet of ham, shrimp,  pork ribs barbecue, or veal in cream sauce- all of which are “abominations before God” from a Biblical perspective.

The issue here- in epic terms- is the struggle between the forces of good and evil, and the misguided desire to be able to live life by absolutes. We mistakenly think that security is found only in absolutes, such as good and evil, and that’s how fear creeps in. If we are unable to attain absolute good, the corollary inevitably makes us potential victims of absolute evil. It is emotionally tempting and  politically poplar to then isolate and externalize that threatening possibility by demonizing a particular group of people who are sufficiently “different” from the majority, facilely ignoring their underlying similarities with or own human needs and desires. Evil thereby may gain the upper hand, disguised for a time as righteousness. The Civil Rights Movement proved that fear is undermined when the “other” is given a name and a face we can relate to.

Our human susceptibility to manipulation by the fear of evil is, ironically, an evil in itself. It allows truth to be veiled or distorted in the quest for solidarity and agreement under the rubric of “united we stand”, or there is “strength in numbers”. The human ego’s lust for power easily blinds us to the greater power espoused by the wise of all religious traditions- “Love casts out fear”. That wisdom is the antidote to the ruse of our fear-driven self-righteousness.

This is not about a “feel good” approach, it is about looking more deeply into the heart of traditions to understand their driving principles espousing unity (as understood in their respective times and places). The politician who claims to “love America” but encourages the hatred of certain Americans cannot be trusted to rule wisely, and does not deserve to be elected to office. How often is there an intelligent political discussion about how to best demonstrate real love of our people? We need a paradigm shift.

Of course, no paradigm encapsulates all truth, yet each has its merits. The key to understanding any of our traditions or paradigms- whether political, religious, economic or other- is having the discernment to sift the grain of truth from the chaff of cultural and personal preference, bias, or bigotry and find its applicability to our life. Non-judgmental examination of facts would be a good place to start.  If enough of the electorate manages to do that, society as a whole will be safeguarded from the evils of fanaticism and fear mongering that threatens civil society politically, economically, and morally, both here and abroad.

But what of the culture clashes right under our own noses? What of the African American medical receptionist who mutters digustedly in front of the Spanish-speaking patient, “Why can’t these people learn to speak English?”, or the White Evangelical who fulminates about the need to prevent “demonic” Shari’a law from infiltrating local, state and national government (as if there were a credible possibility of such an infiltration); or the Korean landlord who evicts his African American tenant for a late payment, but allows an extension to the Korean tenant who is late; or the Roman Catholic who dismisses the Evangelical’s faith as not “a true religion”. List goes on and on.

The American landscape of presidential electoral politics makes our cultural differences stand out in high relief, each candidate playing to one or more of our cultures. Though we may be “one nation under God”, the politicians are banking on us not, in fact, being “indivisible”as a strategy of divide and conquer. Moreover, we are witnessing the extraordinary spectacle of the Republican candidates revealing, largely unintentionally, subcultures of anti-intellectualism; sexism; preppie elitism; Washington insiderism. Ron Paul’s “tough love” approach to letting the uninsured die; Michelle Bachman’s homophobia, and delusional promises of $2 a gallon gasoline; Rick Perry’s “hang ‘em high” approach to executing criminals…. are indications of specific cultural biases.

Contrary to the doctrine of political opportunism (which seeks to appeal to all constituents by abandoning principles, scruples, wisdom or facts at their convenience for the sake of a vote),  understanding another’s culture does not require emulating it. Sometimes such understanding results in both insight and empathy- but it can also result in a clarity that the other culture is NOT something worthy of emulation. This is where the “feel good” approach to promoting or celebrating our hoped for unity cedes to a non-judgmental awareness that, though we may all be one on some level of higher truth, we are not all the same- nor should we be. Our differences may help us make choices and decisions that can significantly alter the course of events, and create a more just society freed from the cultures of corruption, greed, and narcissism. We should never feel like victims of culture, for we have the power to both understand and reshape it.

The right wing cultural myopia and insularity fears science, people of color, people of “foreign extraction”, intellectuals, all government (not controlled by the “right” people), the possibility that biblical literalism is intellectually and theologically untenable or a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose, nature, and content of scripture- and a host of other things. They have a fanatical but factually wrong insistence that all taxation prevents economic growth, that the wealthy willingly and automatically create jobs that grow the middle class; and that government support of citizens’ basic needs is misguided, invasive, and counterproductive to our well-being; and that words like “liberal”, “progressive”, “socialist”, and “compromise” are expletives in the Republican lexicon of dirty words, (suggesting a whiff of infernal sulphur at their very mention). It is only a baby step to move from the right to deviate from their norm to being a deviant in their eyes.

This kind of mental rigidity evinced by the political right has all the irrational, narcissistic, paranoid earmarks of a pathological condition. They appeal with passionate conviction to a romanticized bygone era that never really was. They seem disconnected from the reality of the life experience of the majority of Americans, yet feel narcissistically convinced that they speak for everyone when they express their views. This is a delusional fantasy, the sign of serious dysfunction.

In therapy, for an emotional block or disorder to be healed, the patient has to come to terms with the traumas and beliefs- no matter how unreasonable or unjustifiable- that drive his or her behavior. In the now famous 12-step model of Alcoholics Anonymous, (and its innumerable offspring)- there is a fundamental premise of success: No matter how obvious it may be to others that someone has a drinking problem (or any other compulsive behavioral issue), NOTHING can be done to heal it without the afflicted coming to terms with the reality that the problem exists as a result of their own behavior and choices- whether conscious or unconscious. Ignorance of the facts is no excuse.

The almost total lack of evidence of objective self-reflection on the part of right-wing ideologues speaks to the issue of unconsciousness being ferociously self-perpetuating. Notwithstanding, at some point we all must stop and examine ourselves- face our fears and the traumas from which they spring.

In the Civil Rights Movement the nation underwent major culture shock as the racial assumptions underlying the nation’s social contract were confronted and found to be seriously flawed, fueled by phobic misinformation and ignorance. As a member of the generation that grew up during that upheaval, in hindsight I think few of us were able to recognize how deeply traumatic that actually was for many people. As my favorite bumper-sticker says, “Denial is not a river in Egypt”, but it is a fundamental and common psychological response to trauma.

In our struggle towards true cultural competence, we need to come to a deeper understanding of the nature of that trauma for our country to move forward. Why was it so painful, and why does it continue to be, despite the social progress and generally greater racial tolerance we have achieved? What is the underlying conditioning that does not permit us to be wrong about our past assumptions without it provoking an identity crisis? With what have we so misidentified ourselves that the discovery that it is not our true identity becomes devastating, rather than liberating? We have been brainwashed, or more accurately, we have brainwashed ourselves,  but it has not made our minds clean. We need to understand how and why, so we can make better choices for the future.

Coming to a deeper understanding of ourselves and others is not a nice idea- it requires us to be vulnerable, uncertain, uncomfortable- but it is necessary if we are to change the dynamic that perpetuates fear, hatred, and distrust running our lives and our governments. This is our greatest political, social, economic and spiritual challenge today.

“You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, you’ve got to be taught from year to year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, you’ve got to be carefully taught. You’ve got to be taught, before it’s to late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you’ve got to be carefully taught…. You’ve got the be taught to be afraid of people whose eyes are oddly made, of people whose skin is a different shade, you’ve got to be carefully taught…..”

How much of our learning is unconscious! We learn by osmosis, we absorb attitudes and beliefs and behaviors by emulating our parents, siblings, teachers and friends. And that mental software runs on automatic, its assumptions taken for granted as the familiar and comforting standard by which all should judged unless and until it is challenged. The bad news is that our unconsciousness runs (and ruins) our lives. The good news is, we can become ever more conscious, and thereby have a choice in what runs us, rather than being victimized by it. Cultural competence is an important element in facing those choices with positive discernment.

To understand a culture it’s necessary to not only recognize its leaf, flower, and fruit, but understand how its roots grow. With that knowledge there arise a number of options- from systemic fertilizers, to weed and brush killers that attack the very root, to pruning, transplanting or grafting new stock onto the root. What determines the choice is the ultimate vision and goal of the gardener. Each culture envisions what its garden should look like- and each has its own beauty, from Zen simplicity to the exuberance of an English cottage garden in full bloom. There is no one “right” garden- for each is suited to a particular environment and aesthetic.

Cultural Competence is not just p.c.. Nor is it about a “feel good” approach, an enabling of every and all cultural preferences, like trying to plant all the plants and flowers you like in the same plot of land. It is about understanding those preferences so as to then be able to deal with them effectively, and to know what will and will not grow in the soil at your disposal. There are practical limits to what can grow in the same soil and climate, even if you appreciate the horticulture of another.

Popular concepts such as “bi-partisanship”, or “ecumenism”, or “multi-culturalism”, or “diversity”  are like plants or crops. For the planters of each, they become like banners for the perspective or subsidy du jour. Each has its virtues, but each can easily devolve into ideological and political posturing when those who espouse it fail to understand its root cause or purpose, of which the banner is merely the flower. The verbiage of lobbyists and politicians too has its purpose, for in the garden of governance, as in any garden, a certain amount of manure is necessary- but too much or the wrong kind will burn the roots and stunt, rather than promote growth and prosperity.

Moreover, we should remember that in the complex flora of cultural interactions there are countess hair-like feeder roots, but a limited number of tap roots. The tap roots of human needs are basic: food, clothing, shelter, community, health, and the freedom to enjoy them in safety, without threat from others. Whether the posturings of international corporations jockeying for the largest piece of the economic pie, or Democrats and Republicans vying for power and control to seize the credit and escape the blame for any useful governmental accomplishments, in all too many cases there is a dearth of understanding of these essential roots of our human needs. The narcissism of those in power ignores the fundamental needs of those whom they supposedly serve, and does nothing to feed the staple crops or nurture the tap roots of our survival, though the powerful often make much of the decorative groundcover they feverishly plant.

If narcissism is the flawed paradigm, to make a switch from political or personal narcissism to altruism, the narcissism must be made all too apparent. It must then be made clear that it will not be tolerated. (Forgive the mixed metaphor, but to create such a shift in the group dynamic is like doing an intervention with an alcoholic.  It is never easy, but unless this is agreed upon, no shift will happen). The behavioral roots of both alcoholism and narcissism, like the thistle, are tenacious, and will re-proliferate with a vengeance given the chance. Simply proclaiming everyone has a right to their opinion without also objectively examining the merits and demerits of those opinions, may appear culturally tolerant and politically correct, but in fact is like mixing Miracle Grow with thistle seed. The result is a profusion of vegetation choking out the staple crop.

Our government is functioning much like an alcoholic in denial of their drinking problem or a gardener hell bent on planting a garden that cannot grow in the soil and climate at hand, unless drastic restorative measures are taken. The culture of politics in Washington has become like a bed of thistles- despite some beautiful flowers, the profusion of thorns makes movement through the corridors of government painful and unpleasant, and little else can grow there.

Sadly, just as in the pathology of the alcoholic, no matter how obvious the problem may be to others, until the politicians themselves recognize that their own behavior is a major part of the problem, nothing can be done- other than voting them out of office, of course! That’s the equivalent of spraying Round-up on the whole government. It’s ugly for a while, but as every gardener knows,  once the undesirable vegetation dies off, at least it allows you to safely plant anew.