1. Our political dysfunctions (they are manifold & varied) are rooted in the same
dualistic dynamics as our religious shortcomings.
The optimal nondual (contemplative) approach to reality is multifaceted in that
it aspires to 1) intersubjective intimacy via our unitive strivings whereby
different subjects/persons celebrate coming together 2) interobjective identity
via our realization of unitary being whereby all realities present as somehow
intricately interconnected as objects/functions 3) intrasubjective integrity via
each subject/person's growth in human authenticity or true-self realization and
4) interobjective indeterminacy whereby created and Uncreated subjects/persons
and objects/functions present as also somehow distinct. The nondual approach is
profoundly relational as it seamlessly, hence optimally, realizes the truth,
beauty and goodness that ensues from these different eternal relationships.
The dualistic (empirical, logical, aesthetical, practical & moral) approaches to
reality represent our imbibing of eternity from a temporal eyedropper that our
finite existence might not be drowned in God's ocean of truth, beauty and
goodness, a heavenly tsunami that no earthly finite reality could withstand or
contain. Our dualistic approach does not represent a theoretical capitulation or
departure from our nondual aspirations, only a compassionate and practical
accomodation of our radical finitude, while we take the transformative journey.
Dysfunctional religion presents in many ways, primarily from an overemphasis of
the dualistic and underemphasis of the nondual. For example, on the journey to
intrasubjective integrity, we recognize it as our clinging to the false-self. In
moral theology, some have overemphasized the procreative and underemphasized the
unitive dimension of conjugal love. In spiritual theology, some have
overemphasized the moral and ascetical at the expense of the mystical and
contemplative.
How does all of this apply to the political life?
Most political dysfunction is rooted in the either-or/all or nothing thinking
of our dualistic approach. Further, this insidious dualism gets way
overemphasized at the expense of our nondual vision of temporal reality. If we
look through a Lukan prism, we might see a fivefold Christology, which
recognizes that Christ came to orient, sanctify, empower, heal and save us. As
Luke's narrative continues in Acts, we see the Spirit continuing this divine
work. A nondual approach inspired, indeed enspirited, by a pneumatological
(Spirit-related) imagination sees the Holy Spirit infusing each realm of our
temporal reality, always and everywhere, historically orienting humankind,
culturally sanctifying us, socially empowering us, economically healing us and
politically saving us. This is not to deny that, from time to time, place to
place, people to people and person to person, the Spirit's work has been
variously amplified or frustrated in matters of degree; it is to affirm,
however, that all good gifts have One Source, Who has coaxed all of humankind
along on the journey. An overly dualistic approach, again, in an all or
nothing/either-or way, contrastingly, always sees the Spirit - then but not now,
there but not here, in this position but not that or vice versa. Worse, yet, it
will see the Spirit in him but not her, us but not them, and not as a matter of
degree but to the extent one gets thoroughly demonized and another absolutely
deified! This is at the very root of the extremely polarizing rhetorical back
and forth between our political parties.
The wisdom of the catholic subsidiarity principle is rooted in the gift of Third
Eye seeing, which affirms our eternal nondual aspirations and their proleptic
realizations even while compassionately accommodating our temporal dualistic
situations within their historical, cultural, social, economic and political
contexts. It celebrates the fruits of our prayer that the Kingdom will come,
indeed, on earth as it is in heaven. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with
an approach that takes from each according to one's ability and gives to each
according to one's need; at least, it's worked in convents, monasteries and
families for millennia! Because of our radical finitude, however, without
theoretically abandoning our ideals, we compassionately accomodate our radical

2. finitude and, precisely because we are not angels, we institute government in
the place of anarchy and regulated free markets in the place of any rigid
capitalism or socialistic communism.
To the extent the ideals of our nondual, relational approach are being realized,
governmental, regulatory and socialization processes must recede to optimize
that freedom which best fosters authentic love. However, to the extent they are
frustrated, then coercive government, regulatory and socialized means must be
instituted to maintain order and advance the common good. The classical liberal
or libertarian impulse (modern conservatism), then, is but a pragmatic critique
of anarchism; it errs (and becomes indistinguishable from anarchism) when it
treats the ideals of limited government as absolute values and ignores the
practical realities that result from our radical finitude. The modern liberal or
progressive impulse, then, is but a pragmatic critique of libertarianism; it
errs when it treats governmental, regulatory and socialization processes as the
default bias, when, in fact, limited government, whenever and wherever
practicable, is the proper bias. What both libertarian and progressive
approaches have in common, then, is that they are grounded in pragmatic
critiques and practical accommodations and not so-called eternal principles; so,
all of the pious talk about so-called consistent principles is actually
misplaced!
Finally, when it comes to strategic approaches, the subsidiarity principle
sometimes sees the virtue in flipping, at other times in flopping. It is only in
moral approaches that consistency is fully warranted. But political systems are
already grounded, for the most part, in a broad moral consensus, and political
differences are mostly rooted in practical and strategic differences toward
goals that are otherwise already shared, like establishing world peace and
eliminating poverty. To always recast our practical and strategic differences in
terms of moral reality is just a sinister way to emotionally charge (energize?)
a poltical base. A nondual approach, then, transcends all of these differences
and nurtures their creative tensions with a peace that surpasses all earthly
understanding.