Guest guest Posted May 21, 2000 Report Share Posted May 21, 2000 Hi everyone. I am forever thankful for Maharishi's involvement in my life. Just thought I'd share this - someone just shared it with me. The Ivy League Populist > A conversation with presidential hopeful John Hagelin > > By TERJE LANGELAND > Colorado Daily Staff Writer > http://www.codaily.com > > If John Hagelin were to win this fall's U.S. presidential > election, he'd be the most highly educated president ever. > > A Harvard-trained quantum physicist and an educator, Hagelin > is expected to be the presidential candidate of the Natural > Law Party for the third time this fall. He is also pursuing > the nomination of the Reform Party, in hopes of building a > third-party coalition with enough power to pose a serious > challenge to the Democrats and Republicans. > > It's not easy to pigeonhole the Natural Law Party's platform, > at least not using the traditional left-vs.-right political > terms. > > Skeptics have said the party is really just a front for the > Transcendental Meditation movement founded by the Maharishi > Mahesh Yogi, which in the past has claimed that meditation can > enable people to hover in mid-air. > > But speaking to an enthusiastic crowd of more than 600 people > in Denver last week, Hagelin delivered a message that was very > much down-to-earth, focusing on populist and progressive > themes like campaign-finance reform, curbs on corporate power > and a moratorium on genetically engineered foods until such > foods can be safely tested and labeled. > > The Colorado Daily caught up with Hagelin for an interview > following his speech. The following is a condensed version of > that conversation: > > Colorado Daily: What made you decide to run for president? > > Hagelin: I really see a nation, a humanity that -- for reasons > of education, primarily, I suppose -- are failing to live > their full potential life, to enjoy life as richly as > possible, be as successful as possible. ... > > I was drawn into education for that purpose, and then I > basically feel that politics similarly must awaken to the need > for education that really harnesses the vast untapped > potential of the human resources of the American people. If we > continue to graduate students who are not reaching adolescent > levels of development, we're going to live in an adolescent > society. Adolescents shouldn't have nuclear weapons. > Adolescents shouldn't have chemical or biological weapons. > > Not that everybody in society acts on that level, but if you > look at the decisions of our government, the fact that the > Senate, the Republican Senate, fast-tracked and defeated the > Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, that's immoral. It's criminal, > and it plays only to the interests of the nuclear > manufacturers and no one else. > > We already have, obviously, nuclear superiority, the most > advanced, the most extensive nuclear arsenal on Earth. We > weren't content with that. Instead we had to spend more money, > special-interest money, on nukes. And that has given not only > license but motivation to India and Pakistan and other > countries all over the world to get busy, to keep up > developing nuclear arsenals. And it's given them the moral > authority to do so. It's an outrageous vote, and it was rushed > through without debate by the Republican Senate, in the pocket > of special interests. > > Ultimately, these are human problems -- avarice, greed, > underutilization of our full potential. That's what my life > has always been dedicated to as an educator. But now it's > taken a political voice. Of course, since I entered the > process, I've seen up close and become frustrated with > virtually every area of national policy. Genetic engineering > and the complicity of our government rushing these untested, > unsafe foods to the market. Of course, our energy policy is > 180-degrees backward. Foreign policy is based on the export of > weapons. And I'm pretty much equally fired up and motivated to > change national policy on all of these issues. > > CD: I've heard a lot about a connection between the Natural > Law Party and Transcendental Meditation. > > Hagelin: The party has a very pragmatic philosophy. And me as > a scientist running for office, similarly, I always stick my > neck out for what works, whatever is effective, > cost-effective, whether it happens to be a treatment for high > blood pressure, physical rehabilitation, education, > agriculture. And (Transcendental Meditation) has been found to > be effective by the National Institutes of Health against high > blood pressure, heart disease and stroke. > > Half of our seniors on Medicare are at risk of heart disease, > and heart disease, we now know, is a preventable form of > disease. One of the things that irritates me is knowing that > Medicare kills 585,000 grandparents every year by denying them > coverage for preventive programs, like Transcendental > Meditation, that could have prevented the onset of heart > disease and death. I will be similarly bold about sustainable > agricultural methods, renewable energy technologies, whatever > works. ... > > Other than that, there's no connection, no financial ties > (between Natural Law and the TM movement). > > CD: Your field, nuclear physics, is very empirical. How do you > make the leap from that empirical world to all this spiritual > stuff? You don't typically think of a nuclear physicist as > doing that. > > Hagelin: Most haven't, admittedly. But quantum physics, > especially, destroys the myth of materialism. ... > > According to quantum physics, we're living in a connected > universe, and according to the latest developments in quantum > physics, by which I mean unified quantum field theories, we're > living in a unified universe. So when you really pursue > science to its limits, you end up with a spiritual message: > the ultimate unity of everyone and everything in creation. ... > > Right now our government is based upon, really, 18th-century > barbaric policies and practices. I'd like to update government > and base it upon the most updated, comprehensive knowledge of > natural law, knowledge of the universe. And the moment it's > updated, policies will start to be life-nourishing, > universally beneficial, like preventive health care. > > It's a win-win program; it's a win-win solution. It's good for > fiscal conservatives because it saves money; it's good for > liberals because it improves the quality of life. > > CD: That's sounds so radically different. To some people > that's obviously very refreshing, but others might dismiss you > as "out there somewhere," you know? > > Hagelin: Well, actually, they look at the platform, which > boils down to, again, a very simple mantra: Government should > be based on what actually works, not what's bought and paid > for by special interest groups. It's a message people get. > It's a very pragmatic message; it's a down-to-earth message. > As a scientist I would support what works, but by the same > token I would un-support what doesn't work. > > The problem there is that currently -- and this, for a > scientist, is just maddening -- there is no review process in > government to re-examine programs that have been on the books > for a quarter century, that may have failed from the beginning > or may have long since become obsolete. > > There's a saying in Washington, D.C.,: "What's goes in the > books, stays on the books," because no one ever goes to > Washington, D.C., to remove obsolete and expensive, failed > policies. (They go) to Washington, D.C., to bring home the > bacon by adding new policies that benefit their states. > > Traditionally, people have described the political spectrum as > left vs. right. Some people in the populist movement are > talking more about a top-vs.-bottom axis. Do you place > yourself anywhere on either of those spectrums? > > Hagelin: Firstly, we transcend those one-dimensional politics > completely. .... That whole view of politics is based on a > zero-sum assumption that there's only so much resources, so > many limited health-care dollars, for example, to go around. > And what we're saying is that we can structure win-win > solutions where everybody enjoys better health care, where > everyone has access to health care at a net cost savings to > the nation, by preventing disease and promoting health, or by > education that puts to work the limitless creativity and > intelligence of the American people. ... > > I would say that Natural Law solutions are life-nourishing and > universally enriching. ... You can really unite opposites by > transcending the surface squabble. > > CD: Do you favor a national, single-payer health-care system? > > Hagelin: I don't think it's necessary. I think we'll find that > a combination of public and private-sector health-care works > when we unburden systems from the growing demand for > disease-care services, through the prevention of disease > through proven methods. At that point, we'll re-examine the > system and see where it needs to be tweaked. > > There's certain things I would do that I would call systemic. > I would give Medicare rs medical vouchers, basically > a check that they can use to purchase the medical coverage > they want. That will foster competition among medical > providers and improve both the cost-effectiveness and quality > of medical care, but it will also allow people to choose, for > example, a system that offers preventive health care. > > CD: I know you favor a holistic approach to everything, but if > I can ask you your opinions on some very specific things -- > what about the defense budget? > > Hagelin: It's too large. For starters, we could trim $40 > billion a year from useless weapons appropriations that the > Pentagon, branches of our military, don't even want, like more > B-2 bombers at $2 billion apiece. These appropriations come > from committees within the Congress that are tightly wed to > the military-industrial special-interest groups. It's all > well-documented; it's a matter of public record. There's a > tremendous waste there. > > But the other thing we can do to strengthen our defense while > cutting the defense costs -- this is the real Natural Law > Party solution -- is to stop creating enemies throughout the > world. We sow the seeds of enmity every day all over the world > through our so-called foreign policy and defense policies, > doing hateful things in the name of the American people. > > One thing about foreign aid, about which we all tend to be > somewhat proud -- it's almost all military aid. It's coupons > that we give to foreign countries that get redeemed to U.S. > arms manufacturers for weapons. So in a sense it's very much > an inside-the-beltway subsidy of the arms-producing > industries. As a result of that, we're now known as the > country that will provide a rifle to every man, woman and > child. We are on both sides of every conflict on Earth. We > come across our own weapons in the battlefield, and we sow the > seeds of enmity. > > That's why we're the principal target of terrorists throughout > the world. Not because we stand for freedom but because of the > hateful things we do in the name of the American people. And > there's no defense against it. We could spend a trillion > dollars on Star Wars -- and that's what it's going to cost -- > (and) when all is said and done we'll be able to defend > ourselves against one country, North Korea. And even not > against North Korea, because North Korea would never use such > a high-cost, high-tech, traceable delivery device like an > ICBM, when they could simply float a crude nuclear device up > the Potomac. So there's really no defense against terrorism, > and the only way to strengthen our security is to stop > creating terrorists. > > CD: Speaking of sowing the seeds of enmity, do you favor > ending the sanctions against Iraq? > > Hagelin: Yes. And Cuba, just because it's so obviously a > failed policy. It's galvanizing the whole country against the > United States. I think we're probably keeping Fidel Castro in > power by galvanizing his role as a national hero standing up > against the big bully to the north. It's time to review some > of these failed policies. > > CD: What about the War on Drugs? > > Hagelin: It's a failed war. We certainly should revisit and > soften a lot of drug penalties, especially for possession and > use. I think there are a million people in jail like that, who > are there for such nonviolent drug offenses. That's a waste of > a generation, really. > > But we must focus on the demand side of the drug economy by > reducing the desire to take drugs. And I really think the way > to do that is proper education that gives our coming > generations access to their full potential and access to their > full professional potential, instead of an educational system > today that's fallen to all-time lows in comparison to other > countries. > > But the reason why I wouldn't just open up, legalize drugs > completely, is that as the head of a brain research institute, > I have very, very graphic, state-of-the-art images of what > even six months of alcohol or even marijuana, heavy marijuana > use, can do to a person. It's not pretty. ... I don't want to > send the wrong signal to youths by implying that drugs are OK. > > CD: You say you can cut taxes "deeply." Where is that money > going to come from? > > Hagelin: It's going to come from $150 billion of savings in > the public-sector health arena. Not in year one, not in year > two, but beginning in year three, year four, year five. It's > going to come from ending our energy dependence on foreign > oils and all the military expenditures that are tied up in > keeping a fleet there in the Middle East. In fact, half of our > trade deficit that the Reform Party members scream about, > rightly, is due to foreign oil. And we can wean ourselves from > that addiction very quickly when we put our engineers and our > American ingenuity to work. > > The costs of crime are quite staggering considering the > property costs, the direct costs to property and to human > life. By cutting crime through effective crime prevention > programs that work, you can save probably $125 billion to $145 > billion. ... > > The whole idea of the Natural Law Party platform is proven, > cost-effective, humane solutions. And we could, for example, > live right now -- if we get rid of all the corporate welfare > and simplify the tax code -- we could live with a 17-percent > flat tax, for example, with a generous floor, a $36,000 floor > below which you don't pay tax. And that 17 percent could > probably fall to between 11 and 12 percent in four or five > years, maintaining a balanced budget and actually retiring the > debt and shoring up Social Security and Medicare. > > CD: You refer often to these "proven solutions." What are > they? > > Hagelin: Our platform has all the scientific references that > show that, for example, improving the nutritional quality of > school lunches will improve attention span and academic > performance, that malnutrition has a serious debilitating role > in the effectiveness of education, especially in our > financially disadvantaged neighborhoods. ... > > The real blessing of doing what I'm doing is that I get the > benefit of input from thousands of people who are conscious of > solutions that are working in their classrooms, on their farms > to prevent the erosion of soil, in their health care > practices. > > CD: Is there a unifying theme throughout these solutions? > > Hagelin: They're prevention-oriented, sustainable, in harmony > with natural law. Which, for example, genetic engineering is > not. And that means an education, of course. We want to > harness the laws of nature that govern learning and govern > child development, the maturation of the human brain. ... > > It's more or less common sense, what's in tune with natural > law. But if there's ever any doubt, science can show what is > effective and what is not. > > CD: How do you counter the notion that a third-party vote is a > wasted vote? > > Hagelin: I'll point to history and say, "Third-party votes are > the only votes that have ever accomplished anything." It's > only when a third-party movement reaches a million votes, 2 > million votes, that the Republicans and Democrats scramble: > "What do they have that we don't, what are we missing here?" > And then, these ideas become absorbed and become part of the > political mainstream. That's another way of winning; that's > the way third parties traditionally win. > > We're going to do better than that. ... Jesse Ventura -- like > him or not, he's really a fresh voice in politics -- he made a > lie of the Republican and Democratic spin that third- party > candidates cannot win. They can win. In three weeks, he went > from nothing to governor, and we have seven or eight months to > do that. > > CD: I was in Washington and watched some of the demonstrations > against the IMF and the World Bank. A lot of people who read > our paper are very concerned about that, the WTO, NAFTA. How > do you feel about it? > > Hagelin: Well, those are different institutions. The WTO, I > have issued a statement saying that if they don't revise their > behind-closed-doors, undemocratic practices, if they don't > admit significant input from environment, from human rights, > labor concerns, that I would withdraw the country from that. > > But I'm not surprised that these trade organizations or trade > policies are warped, because they're warped in the very same > way, by the very same special interests that have warped and > co-opted every other area of government policy. > > I believe in trade. Particularly now, the U.S. is spearheading > the global information revolution, which is a good revolution. > It takes us away from gross material consumption and is more > about self-knowledge, self-development. But we need markets > for our ingenuity, and trade is going to be essential to make > sure that people who aren't benefiting from this incredible > economic prosperity can benefit from it. > > So trade is good, but (not) trade policies that are dictated > by multinationals, by corporate interests alone. When trade > with China is all about selling Coca-Cola, Marlboro and > pharmaceuticals with no concern for human rights, the > environment or labor, then it becomes self-destructive. > > You know, some of these changes will happen by themselves when > our public servants become public servants, because right now > they're not, really. ... Books like "The Buying of Congress" > have proven that is the case. And until Americans really know > that, it won't change. I think if Americans knew what I have > learned, they would take to the streets. I think the Natural > Law Party can prevent that. > > CD: Some people did take to the streets, in D.C. > > Hagelin: And many will. (But) the Natural Law Party can effect > a peaceful revolution by acting within the system, according > to even the perverse democratic laws that we currently have. > > CD: A lot of the things you've said tonight really mirror a > lot of what people like the Green Party, the New Party are > saying. Where would you say that you really differ from those? > > Hagelin: The Green Party is a subset of the Natural Law > Party's broader platform. The New platform is even closer to > the Natural Law Party's platform. The Reform Party is a small > but important subset of the Natural Law Party's platform. The > Natural Law Party is unique among third parties in that it's > not a special-issue, single-issue party. It's a broad-based > platform, a comprehensive platform of solutions that most > Americans, literally, will feel comfortable standing behind. > ... > > I am committed to forging a coalition of American third > parties in this campaign. I am seeking the Reform Party's > presidential nomination. ... It's a party in search for a > message and in search of a messenger, but most members of the > party have far deeper support for this type of reform, for > inclusive, life-nourishing, common-sense, proven solutions > than Pat Buchanan's style of reform. So I expect to win that > public vote, and anyone can participate in it -- Republicans, > Democrats, Independents, Natural Laws, Greens. > > All we need to do is get the word out that there are two > possible directions -- this type of reform or Buchanan's > reform. And we'll win that vote. When we do, we'll have forged > a very powerful coalition of parties that I hope that the > Greens will participate in. > > CD: You said that you're suing the Federal Elections > Commission? > > Hagelin: That suit was actually initiated back in 1996, and > we're expecting to hear back any moment. Because the > (presidential) debates commission, which the FEC oversees, is > not a legal commission. It's not legal in that it shouldn't be > tax-exempt. To enjoy tax-deductible contributions, you have to > be nonpartisan. And nonpartisan is not bipartisan. And that > debate commission consists essentially of two people, former > Republican and Democratic chairs, one of which is now a > lobbyist for the gambling industry. And they are being paid to > concoct some rationale to rubber-stamp whatever the Democratic > or Republican candidates want. > > In 1992, they wanted Perot; in 1996, they decided they didn't > want me or Perot, so they concocted an argument that would > keep us out. The criteria, by law, must be objective, or else > they can't claim that it's nonpartisan. > > CD: How does challenging their tax-exempt status help? > > Hagelin: That would mean there would have to be objective > criteria for participation next time. ... They have to buy TV > time, and the Philip Morrises of the world won't contribute to > that TV time if they can't get a tax-deduction, so it would be > a very strong incentive for them to open up the process. > > CD: Some people have said this country's elections are so > corrupt we should have the United Nations monitoring our > election process. > > Hagelin: Well, they are corrupt, and they are really the least > democratic of elections on Earth. They have fallen to that > degree. But I think that we as a people can monitor ourselves, > and it's just a question of education. People need to know to > what degree our democratic process has been co-opted, and they > will exercise their right to vote no matter how many hundreds > of millions of dollars of propaganda George W. can throw at > us. > > No one has voted yet; no one has voted anything yet. No matter > how much money is spent, if people are simply alert, they're > educated about their candidates and what they really stand > for, then no amount of special-interest control of our > government will be enough, will be sufficient. So we're on an > educational campaign. ... > > On the campuses, which have really been asleep, politically > speaking -- compared to the '60s, sound asleep -- we're > starting to see an awakening, almost the start of a grassroots > brush fire. Only 11 percent of students voted in 1998. That's > just appalling by any historic standards; it's outrageous. But > the students have no investment in the Republican or > Democratic parties. When I speak to a poli-sci class of 150 > people and ask how many are Republicans, two hands go up. How > many Democrats? Three, four. The rest, they're all waiting, > looking for a reason to vote. They have no investment in > either party. > > Once this starts on the campuses -- wow! Students are > connected, you know, on the Net, and you can reach a critical > mass on the Internet so fast. > > For more information on Hagelin's candidacy and the Natural > Law Party, visit www.hagelin.org or www.natural-law.org. > > ----- > Haueter, Dirk wrote: Hi Jani, I don't think there has been much written about Guru Dev. Long ago I read a book called "The Whole Thing, The Real Thing". It was printed in India. Sorry I don't remember the author. Maharishi wrote something short about him in the intro to his book "Love and God". Books about Maharishi are a little more common, but they seem to have a tabloid quality to them. My favorite is a book called Darshan which is mostly just pictures. Maybe the best way to get a flavor of Maharishi would be to hear some of his lectures. A few of the older ones are available on the web. Since you are in Finland the site in England might be closest: http://www.maharishi.co.uk/bkhist.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.