This is an article I authored which was recently published on the secular website. I thought this group might be
interested in reading it (one of your members edited the anthology I refer to in the article) and I would be interested
in your reactions and responses. I tried to send it as an attachment but your forum apparently isn’t ready for that yet
so I am sending it in two messages.
AN AMERICAN HUMANIST POLITICAL PARTY?
Anyone who has been in Humanist circles for sometime knows we are never, ever, short on opinions. We think therefore we talk … and talk and talk some more. Our endless conversations usually revolve around the BIG questions, i.e., the metaphysical ones: the existence or rather the non-existence of God, evolution versus Intelligent Design, meaning and purpose in life, etc; and the major political issues: the dangers of the Religious Right, the Separation of Church and State, the Iraqi war and others.
To our credit, we have many of the answers but one nagging question seems to continue to puzzle us. Why is it, that we, who have so much to offer the world in terms of reasoned intelligence, thoughtful ideas and personal passion, why is that we are so…well, alone? Why is we have been unable to attract numbers into our well reasoned world? Why is it we are effectively perennial pariahs to much of the culture? In short, why is it we are, in essence, a “cult”?
Wikipedia: “Cult roughly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream, with a notably positive or negative popular perception.”
Could it be because we talk a good game but don’t play it hard enough?
A reading of our Humanist Manifestos declares us to be intensely concerned with the life of our planet from protecting the environment to supporting human rights to social justice. Generally, but not exclusively, we fall on the side of progressive politics and I think I would be safe in assuming many of us are politically active as individuals at least in staying well-informed and dutifully voting. But there are some of us who uneasy with doing just this and envision doing more.
In one of the very few piece of literature that addresses the issue of Humanism and politics that my research found, an anthology, “Toward a New Political Humanism”(1), the editors, Barry J. Seidman and Neil J. Murphy, lament the fact that while humanists debate and philosophize a great deal, “the humanist community never does anything, not anything powerful, at least, to create social change, to make Humanism the world’s philosophy.” They go on to urge humanists to move beyond skepticism, atheism and agnosticism into the world of human endeavors, i.e., politics.
Massimo Pigliucci, the prolific Stony Brook academic and Humanist, makes the same point in the volume and he characterizes humanists as “squeamish” when it comes to political debates. He attributes this in part to the open mindedness of humanists when it comes to claiming “truth” since we know we do not have a monopoly on truth. He is astute enough however, to realize that there is also an underlying fear that voicing or espousing differing political views could create divisiveness among us. Nevertheless, Professor Pigliucci strongly believes that humanists should become more politically vocal not only it is the humanist thing to do but because there is an actual duty to do it.
The Council for Secular Humanism’s (CSH) Paul Kurtz notes, in same anthology, that while Humanists lack a “narrow political agenda or party platform” we should take “strong moral-political stances when basic values are endangered” and urges us to “speak out critically” on them. Norm Allen of African Americans for Humanism, while decrying how blacks were disenfranchised in the 2000 Florida election and their lack of power in the Democratic party, does not consider it “realistic or practical” to have a humanist political party.
David Koepsell of the Council, in a Free Inquiry book review, dismissed the thinking in the anthology as “unsound”; he goes on to say that Humanism is a “method of inquiry, plain and simple”; he says he responds to questions on what humanists should believe with “nothing”. So for this reviewer it is the “love of inquiry and debate” that defines Humanism not “mere belief”. It would seem he places methodology above truth effectively reducing Humanism to the scientific method, a perennial search for truth wherein the search is more important than the evidence that search might produce. This seems to me seriously wrong-headed and even convoluted thinking. Koepsell also warns of “unnecessary infighting and dangerous politization of the secular humanist movement”.
But what is the purpose of the search, if not, to arrive at truth, however tentative that truth might be? It is, in fact, these “truths” found through searching inquiry and applying reason that give Humanists their values and the meaning they find in life. The Humanist Manifestos are clearly a statement of beliefs and aspirations, conclusions that have been reached by experience and reason over the years and continuously evolve. Hear Humanist Manifesto II: “The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted.”
And Manifesto III: “Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.” Hardly apolitical statements and definitely progressive ones. The reality is, as the humanist affirmations show, social evidence usually leads us to progressive values.
Tim Gordinier of the Institute for Humanist Studies is the writer that comes closest to suggesting a way humanists can put their philosophy to work in real time. Recognizing the hurdle of prejudice that humanists face, Gordinier promotes interest group lobbying as a humanist tool in politics (he does this on the New York legislature, in recent years
the AHA, CSH, and the Secular Coalition have initiated new lobbying efforts.) However, Gordinier also points out the limitations of small lobbying groups who lack a visible and viable constituency (not to mention money). They may get a sympathetic hearing (or a perfunctorily polite one) but may not get much in the way of results. Neverthless, Gordinier believes the effort is worthwhile by working with other groups in coalitions on progressive issues. He does emphasize the need for constituents who do more than just vote.
I believe that if we want to make humanist beliefs truly meaningful we need to go beyond simply individual political involvement to a collective effort and strive to make Humanism a political and philosophical force in our society. Timidity about divisiveness or polarization should not stop us from taking defined and strong political positions which express our values. Glossing over differences to sustain a pretense of solidarity not only lacks integrity but courage. There is bound to be the spectrum of differences in views from conservative to moderate to liberal within a humanist political movement as in any other political group. Any organization that cannot tolerate honest disagreement within its ranks is simply not democratic.
I think humanists should take their philosophy out of their small inbred intellectual enclaves into the real world, i.e., grassroots politics. Let’s face it: we spend much of our time “preaching to the choir” just as the televangelists do. The proof lies in our numbers, there are roughly no more than ten thousand humanists in the two major humanist organizations, (the American Humanist Association and the Council for Secular Humanism) in the United States. Our voices when they do reach out to the electorate are drowned out by other voices in the country. These “other voices” are numerous, well organized, and very public whereas our voices are diffused to a whisper and in an echo chamber.
The anthology is replete with impassioned comments about the need to address the burning social issues of society. These exhortations toward political involvement have a poignant even pathetic ring. Despite the eloquence and sincerity of their prose they fail, just as the humanists they criticize in their articles, to go beyond making proclamations and statements about what we should do and address that haunting old humanist riddle of how to do it. What concrete real-life steps can we take to put our humanist values into the mainstream society? How can we become more than just a philosophizing cult?
Lets take the Libertarian Party (LP) experience as an example of what can be accomplished. Founded in 1971 by a small group at an informal gathering in a home in Colorado Springs it achieved ballot status in some states and 176,000 votes in 1976. In 1978, it elected its first state legislator, and in 1980, the LP was running national TV ads and garnered a million votes for its presidential candidate. By 1986, 200 candidates received almost three million votes and two years later, 853 candidates ran for office. In 2000, 256 candidates ran for house seats alone. Today the Libertarian Party is the country’s third largest political party commandeering millions of votes and on the ballot in all 50, the most significant third party performance in many decades. Ron Paul their current candidate in the debates is now a national figure and is becoming a household name.
While it is true the vast majority of LP candidates have lost their elections, much more importantly, the LP has brought the philosophy of Libertarianism to tens of millions of Americans through grassroots political action. They have done this by signature petitions to get on the ballot and then presenting candidates in local, state and national elections. In the process of presenting these candidates and their views the LP has educated millions of the public on the libertarian philosophy. They have lost elections but won minds, members and supporters.
The number of humanists at large in the society, (those who consciously subscribe to Humanism at some level) should be over a hundred thousand. The Unitarian Universalist Association Society alone numbers over two-hundred and forty thousand, half of whom consistently call themselves humanists in church surveys. The Ethical Culture Society is much smaller but basically a humanist organization. We can also assume that out of the estimated 27 million of atheists, agnostics other non-churched individuals there are a significant number of “unconscious” humanists who would qualify (philosophically) as humanists if they had the opportunity to become aware of its values. We already have a significant political base.
We would not be the first attempt at organized humanist political action. The British Humanist Association while not running candidates is very active in supporting candidates and policies they agree with and encourage their members to devote time
and money to those efforts. The “New Humanists” (2) have established parties and run candidates in a number of countries including Canada. Laura Rodriguez of the Chilean Partido Humanista was the first person in the world running as a humanist to win a seat in parliament in 1990. Tomas Hirsch ran unsuccessfully for president of Chile in 2006.
continued on message #2