.

Henry George's political economy is part of a "third tradition" in American politics. This third tradition has always been with us here in America, It is embodied most fully, perhaps, in the living-out of the everyday lives of many American women and black people; but it is also embodied in some of the words and deeds of people like the 17th century Puritan minister, Thomas Hooker; the 18th century Quaker radical, John Woolman; the 19th century environmentalist, John Muir; and such 20th century figures as Ralph Borsodi, Arthur Morgan, Richard Gregg, and Waldo Frank.

This third political tradition has its own unique analysis of society, world-view, ethics, goals, economics, and strategy for change. I tend to call it the "politics of transformation" or "new age politics" or the "politics of self-help" - and I am always on the lookout for a better term or terms.

The politics of transformation -- Henry George's politics - is neither of the left nor right. It is opposed to big business, but it is equally opposed to big government, even at the expense of short-term alliances with labor unions or other "left" constituencies. It is much more inclined to favor self-reliance and community through planetary cooperation.

It is more interested in reconciling people to each other's needs and priorities than in winning people over to its "side" (and so in producing a losing side, poised for revenge). It is less interested in blaming groups and governments for our problems than in attempting to work out new and viable solutions to our problems. It is less interested in standing up for alternative ways of doing things ("difference for difference's sake") than in standing up for appropriate ways of doing things.

It is a radical politics, but radical in the sense of going to the roots of things. Specifically, it tends to go to the psycho-cultural roots of our problems. It does not concentrate exclusively on the institutional symptoms of our problems. (Henry George anticipated psychologist Abraham Maslow's "hierarchy of needs" by something like 70 years!) The politics of transformation says that at the root of our problems is a cultural complex whose six main elements make up a "Six-Sided Prison" that traps us all. These six elements are: patriarchal attitudes, egocentricity, scientific single vision (our over-analytic way of being in the world), the bureaucratic mentality, nationalism, and the big-city outlook.

Capitalism and socialism are both rooted in the Prison of consciousness (which predates capitalism by hundreds of years) -- though neither needs to be. And racism, militarism, exploitation, ecocide, etc., are also, ultimately, rooted in the Prison.

But changing our consciousness will not, by itself, cause this country to move automatically in a more self-reliant and cooperative direction. For the Prison is institutionalized by the "monolithic mode of production," which reinforces and perpetuates the Prison. And the monolithic mode of production is far more dangerous, far more wide-ranging than what Marx used to refer to as the capitalist mode of production." The monolithic mode of production crushes us not only because it creates monopolies for its brands but also, and primarily, because it creates monopolies for its products and processes. Monolithic institutions are devastating to us because they insist on doing for us what we could or should better do for our selves. Consider, for example: the private automobile (as our "normal" mode of transportation); institutionalized, professionalized healing; the universal, compulsory mode of education; the "normal pattern of land ownership; monogamy, heterosexuality and marriage (as the only "natural" or "normal" modes of relating to our lovers); nuclear power plants; agribusiness; and our traditional social roles.

We have to give up our traditional concepts of economic class analysis if we want to know just who is inclined to deal with the Prison of consciousness within, and the monolithic institutions without. Economic class analysis can tell us who is willing to demand more of the same, but it cannot tell us who is willing to work for a more life-oriented society. For that we need to make use of what some people have begun to call "psycho-cultural class analysis." We need to ask: are we life-oriented, thing-oriented, or life-rejecting?

Those of us who are life-oriented tend to feel that the materialist worldview is not so much wrong as too narrow to serve as the basis for a wholistic politics. The politics of transformation speaks of a "trans-material" worldview which incorporates the materialist worldview but goes beyond it, too. Henry George knew all about the trans-material worldview.

The trans-material worldview implies four "primary" ethics -- the self-development, environmental, self-reliance/cooperation, and nonviolence ethics. These ethics imply a number of political and social values, including such "Old American Values" as self-help, neighborliness, generosity, and love of God.

The politics of transformation envisions the kind of society that "third way" advocates have always envisioned. What's new is the scope -- not the vision. In place of patriarchal attitudes there would be androgynous attitudes; in place of ego-centricity, spirituality; in place of scientific single vision, multiple vision, the ability to see and experience the world as material and spiritual (and religious and mythic); in place of the bureaucratic mentality, the cooperative mentality; in place of nationalism, localization (decentralism) and planetization (planetary cooperation and sharing); in place of the big city outlook, the human scale outlook. Monolithic institutions would be replaced by biolithic institutions - schools might still exist, medical doctors might still be allowed to practice, etc., but schools and doctors and so on would have to compete among a range of healing and educational alternatives.

At least four kinds of economies would be possible within the context of the new ethics and values: the crafts, service, leisure, and household economies (the latter is what Ralph Borsodi used to call the "homestead" economy).

Most Americans would move in a "third way" direction if they felt they could do so without starving in the process. Most of us would rather live simply and well, than grossly and poorly. We need a national political organization that could fight for these "third way" ideas. I have begun to facilitate the formation of just such an organization.

It would run Henry George for President, if he comes back again.