The Michigan, Florida Primaries

Would you rather be someone who forms beliefs and takes actions based on self-interest alone, or do you want to be someone who seeks the “truth” and has the courage to do what is “right” because you believe that whatever is “right” is actually in your self-interest? The current political issue of whether to seat the Michigan and Florida Democratic delegates (and, if so, then how to do so) is an opportunity to decide what kind of person you want to be. Either you will take sides based on whether it will support the candidate you want, or you will take sides after thoroughly thinking about, weighing both sides, and then determining what is “right,” regardless of which candidate it will help.

All of our conflicts, all of the issues we face as individuals and societies, are not simply times to “figure out” practical solutions. Conflicts in events are based on conflicts in principles. So they are times when we must, first and foremost, reflect on and find a way to balance the basic principles that make up our overall life philosophy. That is the how we achieve justice – by discovering and implementing a balance of principles (a process that is really a part of our overall quest for “truth”). Once we find the most “just” balance of principles, then we can develop effective solutions. And the Michigan-Florida primary conflict is a clear and important example.

At the core of this political conflict are the principles of “Freedom” and “Structure” (or stated differently, the principles of the “Individual” and “Collective”). On one hand, the “structure” called the Democratic Party had already determined a set of “collective” rules that governed when different state parties could hold their primaries and caucuses. On the other hand, the state parties of Michigan and Florida decided to act outside of the rules and used their “individual freedom” to hold their votes earlier than what was allowed.

Now freedom and structure are certainly both valid principles. So choosing one over the other probably isn’t the best route. Instead, we must learn to use them together and in balance because if we take any one of the principles to an extreme, our actions will ultimately end in an ineffective, counterproductive, and destructive result.

Just think of a situation where all state parties had the unregulated freedom to choose dates without a collectively agreed upon set of rules. In their self-interested desire to have the “most coveted” position, they might endlessly set their dates earlier and earlier until voting started to take place at a completely inefficient and ineffective time frame. Then, they might realize their position at the beginning was so far from the election that, while they might have had the “first say,” they were completely forgotten by the time the election rolled around.

So, ultimately, the state parties’ self-interested, narrow-minded approach could actually very well lead them from what they really want, which might be exposure, influence, or any other benefit that a state might experience from a primary. In fact, knowing what we know now, Michigan and Florida might have been better off if they had just trusted and accepted party rules. Many of the states that have been later in the primaries have been getting major exposure and have become hugely important because of how close the race is. So Michigan and Florida probably would have received way more benefit from having their elections later. But their single-minded, self-interested mentality led them seek their freedom of choice without regard to a broader perspective and staying within the rules accepted by the majority of the collective Democratic party.

The importance of coming together, collectively agreeing on the rules, and then following through on those rules is extremely important. That is “structure.” And yet, when structure becomes too rigid for too long, it might become outdated and it might also give certain parts of the structure an extensively prolonged position of advantage that might be harmful for the collective and the individuals involved. Michigan’s decision to have their vote earlier might have come from the fact that they increase more intense challenges than most other states. Florida’s claim that small states, like New Hampshire and Iowa, should not have such a major influence may or may not be justified. It is certainly valuable to question how things have been done and to seek to change where necessary. That is the power of “freedom.”

So we have established that freedom and structure are both important principles that we must learn to use in an effective balance. With this understanding, how do we decide what to do about the current situation? Well, I will leave you to form your own judgment because I believe that each of us needs to come to our own answers first. But I will pose some important questions that might help. To start, you must decide whether you will seek the balance of truth described above (both in your own perspective and your own actions). Will you support the side that favors the candidate you desire, or will you seek the truth despite who it might help? Will you support the side that favors the principles you desire, or will you seek a healthy balance between both?

If you are truly open to discovering and acting on “the truth,” then here are some questions that might be relevant: Did Michigan and Florida approach the Democratic Committee with their concerns and legitimately seek to have them heard by the whole party, or did they simply act in defiance of the rules and the stated consequences? If they sought to be heard, did they do so with enough time to sufficiently discuss the issues involved? If so, what actions, if any, did the Democratic Committee take to consider their concerns? What rationale did the Committee give for denying their request? Did Michigan and Florida adequately respect and support the structure and group-nature of the party? Did the party adequately respect and support the freedom and individuality of these states? Based on the answers above, who should bear the burden (or how should they share the burden) of the cost of a remedy?

Understanding that, because of this inner-party conflict and its lack of resolution before the votes, the voters of Michigan and Florida did not get to hear the full case from both candidates (and, in Michigan, did not even get to vote for both candidates), what is the most “just” remedy to make sure that voters are all heard and candidates both have an opportunity to sufficiently represent themselves? Would the maximum probable win by either candidate make a difference in the final election tally? If not, should that affect the kind of solution that should be chosen? How so?

If one of the core parts of this issue is the conflict between the individual freedom (of the state party) and the collective structure (of the national party), then what is the best balance between those two principles, and how can that balance be used to create a fair solution?

There are conflicts building in different parts of the world. We are part of some, if not many, of those conflicts. If we are going to play any kind of role in resolving them, we should certainly make sure that we can do so at home first. Either we are either going to fight over our interests, or we are going to let go of them and seek the truth… together.

To learn more about leadership and this election,

you can purchase The Makings of a President at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php

To learn more about the trends of our changing world,

you can purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at:

www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php

To begin applying the ideas in this article to your own life, answer the questions below:

- What are some major conflicts you’ve experienced in your past? Seeing beyond the biased interests in those conflicts, what were the principles that your different positions represented?

- Did you find an effective, long-term resolution? If not, what prevented you from doing so? Was there fear, greed, righteousness, narrow-mindedness, self-interest, etc.?

- If you did find an effective, long-term resolution, did it strike a fair balance between your principles and did it right the “wrongs” that were done to each party involved? If not, what prevented it from doing so and what would have been a fair balance and an equal distribution of responsibility for the past?

- What are some major conflicts you’re experiencing now? Seeing beyond the biased interests in these conflicts, what are the principles that your different positions represent?

- Are you working on developing an effective, long-term resolution? If not, what prevents you from doing so? Is there fear, greed, righteousness, narrow-mindedness, self-interest, etc.?

- What would be a fair balance between your principles and how could you right the “wrongs” that were done to each party involved so that there is an equal distribution of responsibility for the past?

- In fairly and critically analyzing these situations, can you see how our interests can distort the truth of the matter? How can you apply this idea to how you approach the various areas of your life and how you research and vote in political elections?