Marianne Williamson in Palos Verdes

Marianne Williamson

Finally, I got to meet the self-help guru, author, lecturer, and now Congressional candidate Marianne Williamson in person not just hear about her in spirit.

The consciousness of her good vibrations are shaking up the political class and all interested parties throughout the Santa Monica Bay.

A friend of mine informed me about Williamson's visit to get out the vote in the South Bay earlier today (May 8).

I am still getting used to the idea that South Bay voters are aligned with Santa Monica and the Westside now. Henry Waxman was bad enough, and now this author?

She does have quite a following, enough that volunteers were offering T-shirts for prospective voters to wear.

I turned down the opportunity.

Settling in the back of the PV Library conference room, I looked for Ms. Williamson, and a few of the young women in the room seemed to look like her, but she had not arrived, yet.

Around the room, the flyer with the American flag and stars turning into doves dotted the room. Th back table had the usual flyers, handouts, and also copies of The Whole Person magazine.

Not just inspiring you and me to change the world, Williamson is in the thick of the press getting the world out on her spiritual outreach, too.

A board at the front of the room captioned "Politics with a conscience" underneath the banner of a flag with doves, too.

Sadly, Marianne was thirty minutes late because of traffic. An accident on the way delayed her arrival. No big deal. In a district as big as the 33rd, this kind of congestion will take my future Congressman (or woman) some getting used to.

A number of older people attended this forum, including a few ladies who told me that Williamson was accepting no corporate or special interest money. She was entirely funded by individuals (plus a big loan to herself. She has the money, since six of her ten books have been best-sellers)

Another volunteer commented that this campaign was all passion, more than dollars and cents.

Then she arrived. Claps and cheers welcomed the spiritual author. I had read about the enthusiastic following she brought with her to the Brentwood forum a few weeks ago.

Malaga Cove Library (DKM)

Before discussing her platform and views, she gave the audience of about fifty to one hundred supporters (mostly?) a history lesson.

First, the 33rd is open for the first time in 38 years.

Uh, no. The 33rd Congressional district is quite new, nothing like the prior 30th district which Henry Waxman had represented for 38 years. At least the redistricting commission accomplished enough to discourage long-term incumbents from retaining power.

Williamson wants to start a new conversation. Even though there are eighteen candidates running for office, she claimed that there are only two types of candidates:

1. Those who perpetuate the status quo — almost every candidate running for the office

2. Those who want to disrupt the status quo — herself (presumably)

She then assured the audience that the American people are cool, but the real problem is the collective behavior in Washington DC, where special interests are separating our representatives from the consciousness of We the People.

Groovy.

Democracy, Williamson then assured us, has been working fairly well, up to now. In the past, it was all about one person and one vote. Now its about one vote as well as one dollar, since it costs so much for anyone to run for office.

First, the federal government is not a democracy, but a republic, one based on checks and balances, the diffusion and frustration of power, as well as an inherent distrust of people power and elitist or monarchical interests, too.

This basic civics failure in itself is disqualification-worthy. The United States Constitution is not a popular-democratic charter, but a representative form of governance based on limited, enumerated powers, with federal authorities delegated as much as possible to the states and the people (check out Amendments Nine and Ten in the Bill of Rights if you disagree).

Like many left-leaning populists, Williamson decried the corrupting influence of money in politics, especially from multi-national corporations. I am inclined to agree that cronyism, which is not capitalism, cannot continue for a vibrant, free economy to thrive.

I never appreciate when these populists leave out the unions, especially the public sector associations, whose undue influence is bankrupting cities across the country.

Returning to the History Lesson, she blasted the Divine Right of Kings which European rulers lorded over the many serfs and impoverished. She then connected the frustration of the many against these well-aligned few, yet neglected to realize that King George III no longer ruled based on Divine Right, and the American colonists rebelled against king and Mother Country because the Crown and Parliament encroached on their rights.

She was right on when she acknowledged that the American political cultures rests on the Natural Right that God has empowered all men, not just kings and aristocrats. No one is greater than the law whether President or pedestrian.

Right away, I wanted to ask her what she thought of the numerous scandals surrounding President Obama, and how he unilaterally changes or ignores the laws (and the Constitution)

She blasted the NSA, the high incarceration rate because of the War on Drugs. She talked about the dysfunction in Washington, yet never did she place blame on the man in the White House.

"This nation was born of a dichotomy", Williamson continued, "based on what we believe, which was never realized."

True, among the Framers of the Constitution, there were no women, and some of them were slave owners.

From Civil War to Civil Rights, however, the government reflected the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, including the Abolition Movement (which she claimed flowed from the initiative of the Quakers who believed in every man's inner light to discern the truth).

Rallying voters to be the next generation awaking from slumber to challenge the political status quo in Washington. "American Democracy is a radical idea."

Once again, Williamson was radically wrong about the nature of our political system (and human nature, too, but I digress)

She even talked about existential threats against this country and the world, but she wasn't thinking of a radical Iran, but global warming, a mass-produced alarmism which is facing a steady backlash in the media and academia.

Marianne Williamson
The TEA Party of the Left

There were other comments about GMO and the role of money in politics, too.

"We need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and get money out of politics."

Never mind that Americans spend many times more money on potato chips, chocolate, and other snack foods vs. politics. Never mind that Bill Bloomfield outspent Henry Waxman four-to-one and lost, or that Republicans took back a state senate and the mayoralty in a major California city (San Diego) in spite of being outspent in both cases.

More money in politics has actually diminished the effects of money in politics, and Ms. Williamson's presence in the room makes the case. Running mostly on individual contributions (after thirty years of readership from dedicated fans), Williamson is amassing an impressive challenge to the other candidates in the race, enough that the press, the politicos, and the pundits are no longer calling this race between Wendy Greuel and Ted Lieu, but now recognize Elan Carr and Matt Miller along with Williamson as serious contenders for the general election in November.

Palos Verdes (Dave Proffer)

Yes, she has a real shot at winning this primary and this race. Still, for all her talk about dichotomies and contradictions, I found her rhetoric conflicted. She talks about the American People, that we are OK, but at the same time she faults the voters for not paying attention, for not holding our government accountable. Either we are OK, or we are not OK.

Which is it?

She indicted the legalized bribery and corruption in our government, yet she wants to expand government power to control the amount of money in our politics: a corrupted argument, to say the least.

She supports capitalism, as she should, since she has made a great deal through her books, lecturers, and spiritual advice across the decades. Trade and exchange should be voluntary, not predatory. Fine.

But then she argued that capitalism must have an ethical context. When unfettered by cronyism and government fiat, capitalism works indeed. At this time, however, the free market is not as free as it can be, and Obama's policies have only made it worse. Why did she fail to elaborate on that?

Plus there was no mention of Obamacare, although she did slam the insurance companies for making health care worse in this company and contributing to the corporate buy-out/sellout of our democracy.

Despite the lingering disagreements and concerns I have about her candidacy, she has made the 33rd Congressional race quite interesting.

Then came question and answer time

I asked her if the limits on money in politics should include labor unions. She agreed, but referred back to all money, and slammed the multinational corporations with more blame. Corporate welfarism and government interventionism needs to end. Could not agree more. And I am glad she is taking no union money, either.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments