All TDGs will be writing their own local constitution. This writing and working collaboratively gives them important experience in TDG governance. This experience will build a stronger foundation for later.
I have a few recommendations. One recommendation is putting in two humanistic clauses into their constitution. Here they are:
1) Our local TDG believes in the equality of the races.
2) Our local TDG believes in the equality of men and women.
I’m not recommending these clauses to advance these causes. These causes already have lots of champions.
Rather I’m recommending that these clauses be put in the local constitutions to keep a toxic attitude away from the early TDG.
If a citizen is harboring such inequality as part of his or her identity, that person is also likely harboring a non-collaborative approach to decision making. They have a “my-way-or-the-highway” attitude. They will raise enough ruckus to get more reasonable people to quit the TDG. This leaves errant thinking to run the local TDG, which I don’t think will run much longer.
The TDG is looking for people who have (or want to have) a consultative, collaborative, and consensual mindset. They will have a more gentle approach to democracy. But they need practice with this gentle approach. Current forums of politics are not gentle.
If the “inequality thinking” is removed from the early TDG, the early TDG builders will not be encumbered with trying to deal with a toxic attitude. Without less toxicity in the foreground, the builders will enhance their skills for consultation, collaboration, and consensus.
As the TDG gains experience, the early TDG will evolve into the middle TDG. The middle TDG will have more institutional strength to handle new TDG members who may have a toxic attitude. The leaders of that middle TDG will have more skills to face the toxic challenge. When the middle TDG reaches the maturing TDG, it will face any toxic challenge with wisdom, logic, love, and kindness.
More than two humanistic clauses?
I recognize that many early TDG builders will want to add more humanistic clauses to their TDG constitution. And I would say that many of these clauses would be worthy.
For example, I am an advocate for Universal Basic Income. If we put such a humanistic clause in the TDG constitution, those citizens suspicious of “socialism” will too quickly disregard the TDG. They are less likely to give the TDG a fair hearing; they are less likely to join later; they are more likely to join the opposition to the TDG. In other words, making the TDG a vehicle for our favorite progressive clause will alienate many capable citizens we want to bring in later.
Some people with anti-socialist sentiments just might be good early TDG builders. They just might be more accepting of socialist thinking later — if they are working alongside with such thinkers in building the TDG. Or maybe they have insights that can convince us their way is better.
Rather, I recommend that the early TDG builders just focus on setting up the rules for governing ourselves — and have confidence that the TDG will eventually and properly address the intent of the many well meaning progressive causes.
Right now, let’s focus on keeping the more toxic attitudes away from the early TDG. The two above humanistic clauses should provide much of that protection.
We can deal with toxic attitudes later — after we strengthen our TDG mindset and our TDG institutions. And we will eventually win many people over to our way of thinking. There will be fewer people with a toxic attitude.
Remember, the two humanistic clauses are just my recommendation. If a new TDG wants to remove the two humanistic clauses or add another five, I would not argue with their consensus. We will learn something new if a few TDGs go in these directions.
Published on Medium 2024
To Democratic Canvassers: I tip my hat to you
