| Karma and Politics by Bill Herbst In American social discourse, the labels "liberal" and "conservative" are tossed about as if we all agreed on their meanings. The general consensus has been that liberals are political Democrats who favor big government, the social welfare state and regulations over business, while conservatives are political Republicans who favor smaller government, fiscal restraint in social programs and unfettered free markets. Beyond academic debates about government and markets, what are the spiritual underpinnings of liberalism and conservatism? What do those in each camp really believe deep down about life for themselves and others on this small and shrinking planet? Personal karma None of us is actually "born equal." Perhaps in the abstract, but not in fact. Human beings are birthed into lives of different talents, liabilities and external circumstances. Some of us are born into great opportunities and conspicuous bounty, while others suffer terrible limits and chilling deprivation: Why is this so? Karma. The term "karma" has its origins in eastern religions, but the concept is universally understood. Technically, karma is defined in Hinduism and Buddhism as "reaction" or "inevitable consequences," specifically, the consequences of one's actions in life, whether those reactions are experienced as positive or negative. In new age parlance, however, personal karma is seen as the sum total of benefits and liabilities that are associated with an individual soul. As each of us walks the road of our "dharma" -- our unique life-path -- we encounter the results of our past karma, either as lovely Easter eggs hidden along the way to be discovered with delight, or as land-mines buried in the pavement of our path, waiting silently and with sinister intent to detonate when we step on them. Karma is popularly associated with the concept of reincarnation, especially as an explanation for why otherwise seemingly random events happen to some individuals but not to others. In this view, karma is a system of "cosmic justice." The rationale is that events aren't random at all, but are rather the cumulative result of all the actions we chose (or perhaps will choose) over the many lives in our soul's long evolution. But karma need not be seen through filters of metaphysical scenarios. Belief in reincarnation or an afterlife is not required. In a larger sense, karma is simply the spiritual teaching of what happens to us. If you're 10 years old and come down with leukemia, that's karma. You did nothing to cause the disease, but it's your lot nonetheless, no matter where it came from. The disease is simply what you encountered, the hand you were dealt in the card game of life. That last statement may be galling to those who insist that we "choose" our reality, but such a belief is mainly a philosophical hedge against feeling victimized. The full paradox is that life puts its stamp on us just as we put our stamp on life. At the heart of the mystery, life embodies both suffering and joy. We do the best we can with both. If karma can be boiled down to the unique path of spiritual teaching for any individual, then what exactly is the extent of our responsibilities for other human beings, especially those we don't know? Karma and responsibility for others Conservatives tend to believe that personal karma is sacrosanct. The core belief is that each individual's karma is sacred, whether decreed by God or by the results of one's actions, and NOT therefore to be interfered with by others. If you have good karma, then that's your inheritance to be enjoyed fully. Should you have bad karma, that's your lesson to suffer, and no one should lighten or remove that burden from your shoulders. Personal wealth or personal poverty are seen as lessons. Liberals tend to embrace a quite different belief, namely, that the earthly playing field should be leveled toward greater equality. Liberals do not trust "cosmic justice," believing instead in the dutiful necessity of human intervention through social legislation aimed at correcting apparent injustice. This is equivalent to the Robin Hood approach, to take from the rich and give to the poor as a way of equalizing society. Conservatives sometimes accuse liberals of being too soft, while liberals sometimes accuse conservatives of a lack of compassion. Under these accusations lies a common belief -- in justice -- but justice viewed from a different perspective. Conservatives lean more toward divine or natural justice; liberals lean more toward human social justice. The limits of family Does this mean that conservatives are totally committed to non-intervention in other people's karma? No, of course not. If that were true, then conservatives would share their wealth, however much they have, with no one but themselves. People routinely intervene in the karma of others. Conservatives and liberals alike recognize that no man is an island (although some conservatives arrogantly think of themselves as "self-made," and some liberals foolishly dilute personal responsibility to the vanishing point). We all interact and share with others. We all tie our karma to that of others in various ways, both by choice and by necessity. The question is, with whom do we allow this sharing? Conservatives tend to believe that the blood family, either biological or through marriage, is sacred. In other words, their belief is that one's karma is linked to blood relations in an order of importance that flows outward from parents, wives, and children, toward lesser relations of aunts, uncles, and cousins. One's blood line and heritage have great spiritual meaning for conservatives. Beyond blood, conservatives feel a kinship with those who share cultural and religious similarities. Their friendships matter in terms of karmic linkage, as do their business associations. In other words, conservatives value familiarity and conformity. Liberals also believe that family is sacred. Unlike conservatives, however, liberals let the ripples of family connection extend toward infinity. All men are seen as brothers. All humans are one family in liberal belief. Liberals may share less with those on the outer rungs, but they believe that our karma is no less linked because of distance or lack of familiarity. At the edges of the bell curve, some extreme conservatives would feed their own families, friends and beloveds, while letting your family and friends starve without a shred of remorse. Conversely, some extreme liberals could not sleep at night as long as a single human being suffered with hunger or any other deprivation. The gray area here is in how much we take on of other people's karma. Conservatives take on less; liberals take on more. But both conservatives and liberals believe that karma should be shared through family. Ownership, wealth and poverty For conservatives, ownership is absolute. Private property is sacred. Thus, conservatives believe in capitalism, where ownership of the means of production is primal. For liberals, however, ownership is relative. Liberals believe that some property should be held in commonwealth for all. A basic conservative tenet is that hard work leads to success and wealth. Conversely, some conservatives hold that the poor must therefore be lazy. Liberals believe that wealth too often comes from personal advantages, so liberals tend to see the poor as disenfranchised. For conservatives, poverty is a problem of defective character and personal irresponsibility (a visitation of karma with which we should not interfere). For liberals, the same problem is one of lack of opportunity and social irresponsibility (the shared karma of collective family, in which we must intervene). As a result, conservatives tend to believe that extremes of wealth and poverty are correctly part of the natural order. Liberals tend to believe that extreme wealth and poverty are aberrations to be limited. Ask yourself: How do I feel about other people's karma? Is life just or unjust? Who is my family? What do I believe about property, wealth, and poverty? Your answers will reveal much about your politics. Bill Herbst is a Minneapolis astrologer who has done more than 10,000 sessions with clients over three decades in private practice. He is associate editor for the well-known journal The Mountain Astrologer, as well as a frequent contributor to that magazine. Go to Bill's website at www.billherbst.com for further information about his work. Copyright © 2004 by Bill Herbst. All rights reserved. |
||
|
May 2004 |
|
