Marianne Williamson on How to Bring Consciousness to Politics

– What you're going to hear in this interview
might shake up your sense of personal growth. You see, a lot of people here on our community
at Mindvalley think personal growth stops at becoming the best version of yourself. Today, we're with Marianne Williamson, and
what you're going to hear is a radical idea that will make you see your growth in a different
way. Marianne, welcome to Mindvalley. – Oh, thank you so much for having me. – So, what captivated me about you is that
I saw Marianne speak on stage to a group of personal growth enthusiasts and she emphasized
to them, and when I heard this, Marianne, it changed my life, how our personal growth
cannot stop at just us. We need to go beyond just, for lack of a better
word, a great yoga butt, and instead use everything we are learning to go forth and fix the world. In other words, if we stand for health, if
we're a health coach, we can't just stop at teaching people healthy nutrition, we have
to stand up against the food companies that use bad labeling and false advertising to
create an epidemic of obesity. So, let's start with that topic. – I think you see the best template in nature. When you see a cell in the body that actualizes
and becomes all that it can be, it doesn't just sit there. It is guided through a natural intelligence
to, whether the pancreas, the lungs, the heart or whatever, to collaborate with other cells
so that together they serve the healthy function of the organ and the organism of which they're
part. So, the fullest actualization of the cell
is its participation in that collaborative matrix. Now, when a cell disconnects from its sense
of collaborative function, that's a malignancy. When a cell thinks, "Oh, it's all about me,
I'm going to go off and do my own thing and build my own kingdom." And it doesn't necessarily have to do with
serving the healthy function of the organ of which it's part. That's cancer. And that's a malignancy, not only in the body,
it's a malignancy in consciousness, and that malignancy in consciousness has infected the
human race, the idea that it's all about me. So, the ego mind is very sly, and it loves
to talk about religion and spirituality, as long as it's all about me. So, what appears to be this fullest actualization
of the best version of myself, is actually the worst version of myself if it doesn't
include the extension of myself into the public sphere, something further than my private
domain. Even when you talk about something like nutrition,
well, yeah, a lot of well-to-do, small part of the population of the world can sit and
have really nice conversations about nutrition, while millions of people don't even have food,
much less better nutrition. So, the highest level of our personal growth
is an extension into recognizing the systems that are larger than our personal behavior
that need to be transformed the way we did. – And you know why that's so beautiful? There's this blogger called Tim Urban. He writes a blog called 'Wait But Why'. And Tim is a genius. Elon Musk calls up Tim to have Tim explain
complex ideas around Tesla and SpaceX. And there was a post that Tim Urban wrote,
Elon Musk asked him to write this post, and it was about one of Musk's new inventions,
Neuralink, but Elon went on to state something similar to what you did. He said, "The unique thing about the human
race is, as we're getting more connected through technology, and Facebook, and Skype, we are
moving into a different level of our species." You take a human being today, you send them
10,000 years into the past where we were just in hunter-gatherer mode, and that baby might
grow up to be a hunter-gatherer. You can take a baby from 10,000 years in the
past, put him in the world today, and that baby may grow up to be an engineer. Human beings as individuals have not evolved
much in 10,000 years, but collaboratively, through technology, we have. And that's why the world today has engineers,
has satellites, has been sending rockets to the moon. We have created, according to Tim Urban, a
new species called the human colossus. Now, here's the interesting thing, all of
us are cells in this human colossus, this giant being that envelopes the planet, and
as you said, many of these cells are not healthy cells, but cancer cells. – Well, the problem, as I see it, is that
technology does give us this tremendous opportunity to connect, but it also gives us an opportunity,
should we choose that, to further disconnect. I mean, technology of itself does not make
the heart join with the heart of another. It can also be used for the worst kind of
exploitation. It can be used for the worst kind of oppression
even. It can be for the worst kind of sales mentality,
transaction at the expense of human relationship. So, I think that the largest issue of the
21st century is not technology, but consciousness and technology must serve consciousness. Spiritually, everything in the material world
is of itself neutral. It either serves the ethic of love and connection,
or it can serve the ethic of fear and disconnection. So, I think in all of our excitement about
technology, it's important to remember that it is ultimately the decisions we make on
the level of the heart, on the level of consciousness, which, will determine where we go in the future. We all know that, you know, so many people
these days don't even look up from their screen to have an interaction with the person sitting
next to them. And there's nothing that that computer can
do yet, to mimic what your brain can do and what my brain can do. So, millions of years of evolution have gone
into the various signals, and synapses, and everything that can happen when you and I
are just talking. So, let's remember that because some of this
technological obsession is addictive, some of this technological obsession…And this
is not in any way to minimize the possibilities that it brings forth, but I think that we
run the risk these days of underestimating what can happen when your heart, my heart,
your brain, my brain, what nature has done with a brrrrrrrr, is much more evolved than
anything that can happen on there. – I love that vision that you have, that we
are all part of a collective species, right? And we are cells in this 8-billion-cell being. How do we know if we are functioning as a
proper cell? – The answer to that, from a spiritual perspective,
is inner peace. If you're at peace, you got it going on. If you're not at peace…And once again, this
goes back to the genius of the psyche, that's the signal, inner peace is a signal you're
on the right path, and a disturbance of the heart is a signal that you're not on the right
path. This was one of the reasons the over-pharmaceuticalization
of our society is so dangerous because psychic pain is there for a reason. Psychic pain is an immune system function
just as the physical body registers with pain when there's a problem you need to address,
the psyche registers with pain when there's a problem you need to address. So, if you feel disturbed about something,
this is not something to cover over so that you don't feel disturbed. When you feel disturbed about something, it's
something to listen to. What is the disturbance telling me? And the whole issue in politics is that the
fact that there is such a disturbance in the field is a sign it's time to move in another
direction and the same focus on connectivity, the same focus on new consciousness and new
technology that forms the evolutionary impulse of the 21st century needs to be expressed
everywhere. It needs to be expressed in politics, no more
and no less than it needs to be expressed anywhere else. But right now, our politics, particularly
in the United States, not just particularly in the United States, around the world, but
my focus is on the United States, the politics of the United States is regressive, and it
has to do with bolstering a system that is not only inadequate in terms of its capacity
to forge a sustainable future in the 21st century, it's also inaccurate in its conceptualization
of what's real. – That's fascinating. Why is it inaccurate? – It's inaccurate because it posits us as
machines. It's a very Newtonian paradigm. And so, the political system is stuck in this
20th-century model, which 20th-century science itself has evolved beyond, which sees the
world as a machine. So, if there's a problem, you just tweak the
pieces of the machine. But those are just symptoms. Those are just effects, and they are products
and consequences of things happening in human consciousness. So, we need a politics that's whole person,
we need a politics that is based in consciousness, we need a politics that is based on a realization
that number one, we are here to love each other. And everything we do life works, when we place
ourselves in service of that which would increase the field of love, and connectivity, and divine
right relationship, that's when your individual life works, and that's when our collective
lives work. So, any conceptualization of the world which
posits that anything else is going on, such as an economic primacy as opposed to a humanitarian
primacy, is inaccurate if it in any way is promoting the idea that that's what will bring
forth a good society and a peaceful world. – So, do you think, like, the measurements
of politics today, ideas like GDP, like tax rate, that there's an overemphasis on that? – I think they both represent what is basically
an obsolete operating system for economic theory. I think we are moving into an entirely new
conceptualization, not only of where money comes from, but where wealth comes from in
terms of financialization over a monetary system. We have a whole…Economics is just one more
area where the way we've been thinking, based on where we landed by the end of the 20th
century, is about to break open completely. That's why there are all these new conversations
about universal basic income, about basically seeing money coming from payment rather than
tax. It's an entirely new conceptualization that
is coming forth, and that's why we need a new political conversation that will be open
to the new ideas that are springing up everywhere else. – What is your view of the world 20 years
from now if this new era of your vision of politics became more commonplace? – You can't just fight disease. You have to cultivate health. And when it comes to war and peace, we don't
cultivate peace. We don't wage peace. Most of our focus when it comes to national
defense strategy has to do with preparing for war, and you begin with what's the vision
of what is the likely consequence if you continue that way? Our defense strategy has very little to do
with creating peace 50 years from now, much less creating peace 100 years from now. So, you want to move back from what you want. What do we want? We want a world without war. We want a world at peace. That's my vision. So, then you start with the vision, and then
you move back from that, and you realize, "Well, how am I going to have a peaceful world
if all I do is prepare for war?" You go, "I have to wage peace." So, the things that wage peace have to do
with the expansion of economic opportunity for women, the expansion of educational opportunities
for children, the diminishment of violence towards women, and the amelioration of unnecessary
human suffering wherever possible. When you have those factors present, you have
a more peaceful community. Right now, for every dollar we spend on genuine
peace creation, we spend $1,000 on actually preparing for war. – What? The ratio is that wide? – Absolutely. Absolutely. We have a $718 billion defense military expenditure
this year, and we have what we give to the State Department and to the United States
Department of…International Department of Peace. It's like a little fraction of that, and we
know why, Vishen, it's because no corporate profits are made. No corporate profits are made from expanding
economic opportunities for women, expanding educational opportunities for children. So, what happens is that those efforts, while
they exist within the State Department, once again, the money that is given is completely
disparate from the money that is given for preparing for war. Another example is that in this current administration,
the first Secretary of State… – The former CEO of ExxonMobil. So, the first Secretary of State in this administration
was not a great humanitarian, or diplomat, or peace builder, he was the former CEO of
Exxon. So, that tells you everything you need to
know in terms of what the basic goals are. – So, this is not the way to… – It is corrupted at a fundamental level. – Right. Corrupted at a fundamental level. – Twenty years from now, if you were running
the world [crosstalk]. world [inaudible]. – Well, the President of the United States
does not run the world. – I don't know, but, I mean…But this is
a hypothetical question. If you were running the world, what would
you ask humanity to shift? – We have to shift from a sense that we are
separate to a shift that we are one, to the realization that we are one. That is the only way the 21st century will
be survivable. Our technology has so outdistanced our wisdom
that we are a threat to ourselves, our behavior on this planet. You know, in any species that behaves in maladaptive
ways, maladaptive in terms of the survival of that species, will either evolve or it
will go extinct. We routinely attack our own habitat, and our
relationships with each other are so weaponized that we literally will not be able to withstand
the assault presented by our own pathological behavior. And that's what I meant. It's not enough to have the technology for
connectivity if we don't have the consciousness of connectivity, and the consciousness of
connectivity is bred through the realization that we're all in this together. You know, when you talk about nutrition, and
you talk about…You know, I say to people all the time, good luck with all that green
juice, and good luck with all that gluten-free…when they are gutting the Clean Water Act and gutting
the Clean Air Act, and overturning bans on pesticides that we know harm a child's brain. Every public issue will ultimately get to
your private door. So, right now, a lot of people feel we can
wall ourselves off from what's happening in the public domain, and just create our own
beautiful little world over here. That's a lot of things, but it's not spiritual
because there's no religious or spiritual path that gives any of us a pass on addressing
the suffering of other sentient beings. And the world is too connected, so when you're
living a really nice life, and it's all cool for you, but people are suffering on the other
side of town, or people are suffering on the other side of the world, you should see those
as canaries in a coal mine because this cannot last. It's unsustainable how few people on the planet
are able to enjoy the fruits of all this creativity versus how many are at the effect of the mistakes
that we're making. – But how do we know which people to support? Again, there are people on the other side
who say build a border wall because there are these asylum seekers who are going to
come into the country, take jobs, assault people, and so on. Do we keep our compassion only to our nation? Where does the line end? – Well, what you just described is what I
consider the politics of fear. And that's what has happened in our country
is that someone has harnessed fear of each other for political purposes. What we need to do is harness love of each
other for political purposes. We need to harness our dignity, and our compassion,
and our love for political purposes. And that love cannot just be kept in the private
sphere. It's not enough to give, for instance, a million
dollars in charity if the system is such that a billion dollars are being sucked out of
the pockets and out of the opportunity creation for millions, and millions, and millions of
people. So, we know who to support. The issue for the transformational community
is not figuring out who to support, it's developing the cultural habits of supporting political
candidates. You know, the field of transformation that
you and I are part of, there's money here, and people spend it. But we have not developed the habit, the cultural
habit of spending money and support a political candidate that support our views. – And I want to read this quote by Martin
Luther King, which I think in a way helps describe why this is happening, and it helps
describe why I find you fastening as a candidate. So, Luther said, "Power without love is reckless
and abusive." And you can see that in today's politics,
it's power without love. He also went on to say, "And love without
power is sentimental and anemic," And so many people in the spiritual community practice
love without power. – And that's why I say all the time that this
field is a little infantilized. We're not producing enough really strong men
and women, were producing a lot of men who feel that they've been given permission to
stay little boys, and too many women who feel they've been given permission to stay little
girls because that's what happens when love is only about you. It's weak, and it's sentimental. We need to be fierce. We need to be authentic in our truth-telling. That's what we need. – Now, he goes on to say, "Power at its best
is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice at its best is power correcting
everything that stands against love." – That's right. – Your take on this? – Well, I totally agree with him. And the point is that those things which stand
against love have to do with huge political and economic systems. When Martin Luther King was talking about
dealing justly with every system that stands against love, some of them as we know are
in our heads, but some of them are in our societies, some of them are in our societies. When you have…In the United States, we have
millions of American children who go to school every single day in classrooms that don't
even have the minimum school supplies to teach a child to read. And if that child cannot read by eight, the
chances of high school graduation are drastically diminished, the chances of incarceration are
drastically increased. Where's the love there? How can we sit and talk about love? And I say this to our community, Vishen, how
are we even talking about love and not addressing these children whose despair has just been
normalized? – But what can the average person do? I mean, the average person who is living paycheck
to paycheck, the average person who has their own, like, dark side and depression to deal
with, how can they start making a change to other people's lives? – This is an issue of leadership. The average person is fine, but the average
person has had their brains scrambled. This is what leaders are supposed to do. But too many leaders aren't mentioning those
children. I think the American people are good people. We're no less good, decent than people anywhere
else, we're just the same as everyone. People are good. There are a lot more lovers than haters in
this world, but the haters are effective because they're strategized and they're convicted. We need to be convicted around our love. – Okay. So, that's really fascinating because you'd
look at the people who are the haters, and they seem to be so passionate about what they
are against. – That's right. – Then you look at people who go down the
spiritual path, and they decide that politics and spirituality don't mix. So, therefore, I will not vote. I've even seen this at Mindvalley. Every time we stand for something, we get
accused of being political. We do it anyway, but why is there that false
belief among spiritual folks that they need to step back? – Because too many, in our field, for the
sake of their own brand protection, have promulgated that view. That's why. And I think we need to look at that because
the truth of the matter is when you say don't be political, like, "What?" You know, when people say to me we're not
going to talk about religion or politics, I'm so like, "That leaves me out at dinner." Don't be political. What does that mean? You know, Gandhi said, anyone who thinks politics
and religion have nothing to do with each other, don't understand religion. There is no spirituality. That just distracts. That's not spiritual, to distract yourself
from the suffering of other sentient beings, call it a lot of things, but please don't
call it spiritual. And that's the dark side. That's the shadow side of our own community. – I'm so, so, so glad you're saying that because
it irritates me how so many health people do not stand up against the food companies. How so many people who are in the health and
wellness and personal growth and spiritual movements shut up… – Oh, and the chemical companies. – …because they're afraid to lose clients. – And the environmental policies, and the
fact that we have an EPA which gutted the Clean Air Act, gutted the Clean Water Act,
overturned the ban on pesticides that we know harm a child's brain. And we should be the first to speak up about
this. I think for the health and wellness space,
you cannot…If you're talking about health and wellness, but you're only talking about
the health and wellness of the individual without addressing the health and wellness
of the larger society, then that's not a full on health and wellness conversation. – You're focused on a single cell rather than
the larger being. – Now, the statistics are this, in a recent
study, 75% of Americans said that they want CEOs, they want leaders to take a stand, and
they suggested that they will buy more from companies and leaders that actually stand
for something. – Well, but those CEOs were hired by boards
of directors who are a part of this economic theory of trickle-down economics, where over
the last 40 years, the idea is that the fiduciary responsibility of the corporation to the stockholders
overrides any ethical and moral responsibility to the larger group of stakeholders, the workers,
the communities, the environment, etc. That's the sociopathology of our current economic
system. It is completely soulless. It has no sense of ethics. It's just profit for the stockholders, profit
for the stockholders, and so… – Very, very, very true, very true. But you're starting to see things change. Look at what Nike did with the Colin Kaepernick
campaign, right? Nike stock dipped for a while, and then boom,
it shot up. – And now I only wear Nikes. – Well, there's no doubt about this. The problem is not with the consciousness
of the people. That's not where the problem is, and more
in support of what you're saying, look at the rise in socially responsible investing,
etc. The people are ready for this. The problem is our political system. The problem is that we have in the United
States, especially since the Citizens United campaign, such an undue influence of money,
particularly corporate money, on our political system, that our politics is little more…Our
government is little more than a system of legalized bribery, which advocates for those
corporate interests, which only want the stockholder increase as opposed to advocacy for the betterment
of the people and the planet. – What you said is controversial, but so true. Our government is little more than legalized
bribery. – I don't even think it's so controversial. They say it's true. So… – But we stand for it. – No, hold on, hold on. Wait a minute, wait a minute. – We don't speak up for it. – Wait a minute. – Nothing has changed. – You see, this is where you've had been talking
to a bunch of people in this rarefied little precious environment, and then I talk to people
out in America. So, when you talk about that little precious,
rarefied health and wellness community, which you said yourself, as in, isn't even voting,
so it's stuck in this… not seeing what's going on. When I go out into the world, I don't care
whether you're a liberal or a conservative, we get how money has corrupted our system. – So, if that's the case, how did Trump end
up becoming the leader of America? – Trump became the leader of America. There are two main issues to look at. Number one, the Republican Party was gobsmacked
by his success, the same way the Democratic Party was gobsmacked by the success of Bernie
Sanders in 2016. It's because both of them were blind to the
level of economic despair among millions of Americans. – Wait, both of them? – Both of them. – I thought Bernie was open to it. But he wasn't aware of it? – No, hear me out. Hear me out. I'm talking about why the Democrats were gobsmacked
by Bernie. Bernie saw it, and Trump saw it. Bernie named it, and Trump named it. The Democratic establishment, we know what
they did to Bernie. So, my point is that because of all this economic
despair, there was going to be a populist cry. It was either going to be through an authoritarian
populist, which Trump was and is, or a progressive populist. And I think if the Democratic Party had allowed
Bernie democracy to really rule, and if Bernie had actually had the chance to run, I think
he would have beaten him for that reason. – I believe the same thing. So, now as we go into the next election, one
of the primary strategies in the Republican Party is to label people like you who deeply
care about everyone else. – No, but wait, wait. [crosstalk]. – Socialism. I want to go back to why he won, which by
the way, I'm not a socialist, but let's go back first. The fact that Trump won in 2016, you know,
it's an issue of personal growth. We have to apply the same principles of personal
growth with which we transform our individual lives to the transformation of the civilization. So, one of those principles of personal growth
is we have to look at for what the bad thing that just happened is yourself. What part did I play? Because until you recognize the part that
you played in your disaster, you're not going to be able to change it. Okay. Trump did not win just because of a
group of people who are almost cult-like in their support of him. He won because of all the people such as the
ones you mentioned from our community who didn't vote. People who didn't vote… – Forty-nine percent. – Thank you. I'm hello, What were [inaudible]? – What the hell were they thinking? – Well, they were part of this mentality,
too little challenged by our peers. – Now, do you think that's going to change… – You can disconnect from. There's something spiritual about disconnecting
from politics. – Right. Now, I was so shocked by the fact that 49%
didn't vote. The day Trump won, we decided that Mindvalley
was going to take an active political stance because I see this man as a fraud, and I see
this man as dangerous, not just for America, but for the entire planet earth. We breathe the same air. And I was shocked that Americans elected a
man who was so clueless about global warming, a man who is so racist that he invented birtherism,
and I decided that we can't sit back any longer. But like everyone else, I was afraid of taking
a stand. But, again, the latest data shows that when
companies take a stand, their sales go up not down. People are so much more awakened now after
what happened. – Well, I think that's true, and at a certain
point in our own personal growth, the ultimate question isn't how will I ultimately make
more money anyway. The pinnacle of personal growth is that you
know that it's not about you. You're serving the ages. So, I don't think our argument should be enough,
there's actually money to be made in doing the right thing. I think the issue is that life works when
you do the right thing, and money is one of the things that works better. – So, again, we're talking about corporate
boards here, and CEOs, and what they have to be accountable to, and I'm hoping that
that will change. – Well, but that will not change until they're
held accountable. I mean, that's… – And that's up to us and the people [inaudible]. – Yeah. Well, that just is up to politics because
what you're saying could still just include the idea that CEOs are going to all of a sudden
have a burst of enlightenment, and they're going to "do the right thing." I think there are two things. I think there are CEOs who read the same books
you and I read and are part of all this, but know that they would be fired in a quick five
minutes by their boards of directors if they did anything that was other than directed
towards increasing stockholder value. That's number one. Number two, in an economic system, the idea
of just leaving it to the ethics of corporations, we should never have been the case to begin
with. We have child labor laws in this country. We have unions in this country. We had Glass-Steagall in this country. We have antitrust laws in this country. The historical narrative is to push back against
the overreach by capitalism, and Vishen, There are…It's bigger. It's bigger than, oh, we'll make more money
if we do the right thing. The people who are really the good thinkers
on Wall Street, the people who are really the good thinkers in capitalism know that
if they don't reclaim an ethical core, they are going to create their own repudiation,
and it's not going to be pretty. You already have a generation coming up that
talks as though capitalism is Satan because in their experience, what has global capitalism
ever done for me? Who talk about socialism like it's the Messiah,
neither one of which is true. So, if you know anything about the French
Revolution, and you know anything about the Russian Revolution, and if you've ever read
<i>Yertle the Turtle</i> by Dr. Seuss, you know that this is unsustainable. So, the argument is much more sophisticated. We need to be much more advanced about this
at this point than just, you know, guys, you'll actually make more money in the long run. We need to be saying, "This cannot continue." They will start storming the Bastille, and
you're already starting to see some things happening. This is a very…there's an earthquake. There's an earthquake happening right now. Now, the positive ways we could go…I was
talking to a man the other day, an ex-Wall Street guy, very powerful Wall Street guy
who now lives in Boulder, Colorado, and he's come up with these entirely new economic ideas. I was saying to somebody when the Wall Street
guys start moving to Boulder, you know that a change is in the air, right? So, we have these new kinds of economic theories,
but they go beyond the old capitalism. They have to do with a capitalism which has
reclaimed its ethical center, and which realizes they themselves, and you were right, they
themselves will make more money if we move into a system that has to do with justice
and real democracy. But it can't just be, "Hey guys, you'll make
more money in the long run." It's got to be those of us who have. You know, in the last two days, I spent time
with a group of very, very, very wealthy young people, most of whom had inherited their wealth
from family, foundations, etc. And my conversation with them was, you should
be leading the change because you know how money works. This change has got to happen, and this change
is going to happen. You can't have…What we have in the United
States is wealth inequality greater than we've had since 1929. You have 40% of the American people who couldn't
bear a $400 hit. And that when you ask how did we get Trump? This is how we got Trump. Large groups of desperate people should be
seen as a national security risk. Desperate people do desperate things and are
more vulnerable to ideological capture by genuinely psychotic forces. So, this change is going to happen. It's either going to happen because of very
dysfunctional, either pathological revolt or out of wisdom. So, those who have money, who are leading
in the capitalist world should be the ones designing the transition. – Absolutely. And I'm going to put this chart up here. This chart shows that when you have high income
disparity in a country, it coincides with a rise in all the things that you do not want
in society from crime, to corruption to drug abuse. – So, you asked me how we got Trump? That's how we got Trump. And if we don't deal with this, we will get
even worse. – And wealthy people who think that this high
level of economic disparity means that they got to live in a mansion. Well, if you have a mansion in a slum, you're
still living in a slum. – But you know what? And I'm so interested to talk to you about
this. My sense is that the smartest rich people
don't think that anymore. – They're waking up. – Yeah. There is an awakening. There is an awakening, but it will not be
an awakening, and it's inadequate if it was only an awakening where CEOs wanted to do
better things. And, you know, I'll tell you something else
that concerns me. The status quo protects and perpetuates itself
by co-opting disruptive language. So, when some of these people brand themselves
like they care because they gave a million, but meanwhile the system is sucking out a
billion on their behalf, no, no. This is why I'm running for President. I'm running for President because a better
version of the same old same old is still going to lead to catastrophe. – So, one of the things that I know the Republican
Party is going to be using as a weapon is the word socialism. I know you're not a socialist. I know Bernie Sanders is not a socialist because
most people who are educated know the difference between socialism and democratic socialism,
but how would you explain your vision? – Well, first of all, these words are just
used to just…These labels don't even serve us anymore. But within that contextualization, I would
say capitalism with a conscience. – I like that, "capitalism with a conscience." – Yeah. I mean, I grew up at a time where it was understood
and expected that the corporation would have some sense of ethical responsibility to the
workers, to the community and the environment, not just fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders. Even Milton Friedman, interestingly enough. When we think of where this whole trickle-down
economics came from, the idea of just let loose the market forces to do what they want
without any kind of government interference. We have thought that's Milton Friedman. So, everybody thinks who realizes how much
damage that has done have the thought, well, Milton Friedman was the genesis of this horror. Milton Friedman also wanted there to be a
universal basic income. So, they leave out that part. – Right. And that… – So, I'm all for letting the market do its
thing in the sense that when you're in the club…and, I know this. When you're in the club, there's no better
place to be. In my country today, not enough people can
get into the club. That's unsustainable. – So, what are the top three issues or the
top three vision? Let's rephrase that. What are the top three things that you would
do for America if you were President? – Well, I don't know about the top three. There need to be an uprising among the American
people. People need to reconnect to their role as
citizens. Democracy does not just give us rights. It gives us responsibilities. When you talked before about the 49% in our
own community who didn't vote, as long as there's that level of disconnection, you know,
the French say, "If you don't do politics, politics will do you." So, there has to be a realization among the
American people. We do have, at this point, an economy whose
functioning is sociopathic, but we have to take ethics back. And I believed it because of that. I do believe we should have a massive infusion
of hope. We have millions of American people who live
with chronic economic anxiety. What will I do if I get sick? What will I do if one of my children get sick? How will I pay for them to go to college? How am I going to pay my college loans? So, immediately, we need a Medicare for all
system. We need a $15 an hour minimum wage, although
I am for some compensatory actions in places where that's just simply too big a leap for
certain communities. We need to have a system where people, regardless
of their economic circumstances, can go and get a good education, whether it is a state
college university or one of the best technical schools in the world, and where this unbelievable
burden of this trillion and a half in college loan debt is taken off the backs of our young
people. So, that's your immediate infusion of hope. Then we have to address the fact that our
country is practicing what amounts to collective child neglect, given that there are millions
of American children who, as I mentioned, are merely basically in that cradle to prison
pipeline because they have no way to compete with the clout, the economic clout of those
corporate interests in Washington. I believe that in the United States we need
to do a deep, deep dive into creating the next phase in racial reconciliation. If you kick somebody to the ground, I think
we'd all agree you owe it to them to do more than to stop kicking. You owe it to them to say, "Here, let me help
you get back up." So, we ended slavery in 1865. It took another 100 years of what amounted
to institutionalized violence in the American south before we had the civil rights movement. With the civil rights movement in the 1960s,
we dismantled segregation, and we granted equal voting rights to blacks, although that
has been chipped away at over the last few years. But we have never gotten to the peace of economic
restitution. Economic restitution was promised in the form
of 40 acres and a mule at the end of the civil war. It was most cases not given, even in most
cases where it was given, once the federal troops left, that acreage and those mules
were taken away. So, there has been a gap in the ability of
the former slave population and their descendants. There has been an inability on a large systems
level to enter into the vibrancy of the U.S. economy to the point where even now, well,
if you're a genius, if you're an Oprah Winfrey or a Tyler Perry or a Magic Johnson, you can
make it. That of itself is not social justice. And that is why I believe we should pay reparations
for slavery just as the Germans have paid reparations to Jewish organizations since
the Holocaust. – What do those reparations look like? – Well, in my opinion, we should have a council,
a reparations council. I think it to be somewhere between $200 and
$500 billion. No, I'm involved enough in this conversation. There are always going to be people who say,
"Wow, that's way too much." And they're going to be people who say, "Wow,
that's way too little." This could be a council that would be obviously
carefully chosen from black leadership in America, specifically American descendants
of slaves from culture, from business, from academia, from politics who would disburse
over, let's say a 20-year period of time, that money to projects which support economic
and education renewal. – Got it. So, it's not going to people directly, it
is going to projects. – Correct. Correct. – The other thing I think is what I was talking
about before, just as our economic policies have nothing to do with creating a vibrant
economy in 10 years from now. The economic system, the way it operates now
sucks in the present from any possibilities for future vibrancy except for a tiny group
of people. And similarly, our defense strategy has nothing
to do with creating peace on earth. So, we need a massive system of peace creation
and waging peace, both domestically and internationally. – What would be the changes you'd make to
the military? – Well, you know, my problem is not with the
military. You know, when you look at the dastardly way
in which so much of our defense policy is ruled by advocacy for corporate profits among
military industrial contractors as opposed to peace creation. That's not the military's fault. – It's not, right. – You know, it's not the military's fault,
the military…So, it's not about the military. It is about the decisions. You know the head of our defense, the commander-in-chief,
is a civilian for good reason. That's how America is protected from ever
having a military coup. But at the same time, this is one more area
where our politicians, both in Congress and the White House, have behaved more as advocates
for profits, for corporations, then for such issues as creating peace on earth. An example of this is the fact that the man
who currently stands as the head of our defense department was a 30 year executive at Boeing. I'm sure you've realized that for the sake
of $100 billion in arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the United States is now acting as technical
support for a war they're prosecuting in Yemen, where tens of thousands of people have starved
including children. It is so immoral. Now, Mike Pompeo, our current Secretary of
State has said, "Well, you can have strategic partnerships with people who do not share
your values." They should know you can't. That means you have sacrificed your values. We've become such a whore. This nation is not seen around the world for
moral leadership anymore. People see that they know what we're doing. – Right. If you look at all the [crosstalk]… – And, by the way, part of that is the $500
million deal that Boeing has with Saudi Arabia. – And if you look at all the Pew polls of
foreign opinions of America, it has plummeted since 2016. – Of course, and this is dangerous. You mentioned earlier, what is happening here
is not only dangerous for America, it's dangerous for the world. We should be proud of the fact that…And
it's not like we've ever been perfect domestically or internationally. – But America's greatest power has never been
its military, it's been soft power. – Its values. – It's been the image and the ideals and the
values of America. And that is what has been eroded dramatically. And the Dalai Lama himself said to me, "The
people of the world,"he said, "no longer see Americans as champions of democratic values
around the world," because in too many cases we have not been. – As president, I would make sure that changed. – What would your presidency mean for corporate
America? – Well, for corporate America, they would
know guys I like would love to have dinner with you, but you shouldn't be running things. Your profit should not be the organizing principle
of American society, and the fact that your profits have become the organizing principle
for American society, has not only corrupted our government, but it has hijacked our value
system. Now, some of you guys I know, know exactly
what I'm saying, and I really look forward to getting all the help and advice from you
because this is a new kind of economic council we're going to have here. But those of you who represent the old view,
you're not going to get any help from me. I like you, we're friends. I've kind of known a bunch of you for years,
but this government is going to stop being your handmaiden. – And corporate America is changing so dramatically. It's becoming more and more aligned with that
vision that you just described. – I don't know. You're a little more optimistic about that
than I am. – Well, if you look at… – You were talking about climate change, look
at how the oil companies are obstructing any real effort on climate. But here's the thing, you go back 20 years
ago, the biggest company in the world was an oil company. Today it's Google, it's Facebook, it's Apple,
and it's companies where the vast majority of their employees lean towards ideas that
you've just discussed. – Yes, but hold on a second. So, let's even talk about that. The tech companies, that's another shift going
on in our society. We thought five years ago, "Oh, they're so
cool because they dress like us, you know, they're part of the counterculture.They're
this…" No, no, no, no, no. We really need to get over that illusion,
including Facebook. So… – I'm not worshiping the tech companies. I have major issues with the tech companies. – Let's be clear. And also when you say that their employees
are with us, this is my point. So, you have a bunch of like, well-heeled
employees who get to work at Google and stuff and they're with us. Meanwhile, they're not the ones who are suffering. Every one of them, you know, they're 1% or
close enough to the 1%. The fact that they've got more higher consciousness
is exactly what you and I were talking about our own communities. So, we have these really cool, like, health
and wellness things, at really cool spas in Arizona, and stuff like that. And I'm like, "Hello, we need to wake up." – But companies are changing. Recently, Microsoft, its own employees wrote
a letter to the CEO to object to its hollow lens device being used to train soldiers to
kill people, right? – I agree with you. I'm not… – Facebook employees had a massive walkout
in protest to some of its corporate policies. – I agree with that, and I don't want to be
negative here. I don't want to be cynical because cynicism
is just an excuse for not helping. My point is that still within the private
sector, it cannot remain within the private sector. No amount of private charity can compensate
for a basic lack of social justice. So, this idea that if we just change corporate
mentality, that alone will be enough. It's not because too much of that amounts
to what is, in essence in too many cases window dressing. – So, let's go back to that word you just
said, social justice. What does that look like for you? – Social justice for me means that we try
to apply within our social systems, our larger economic and political and social systems,
the same level of compassion that we try to express in our personal lives. That you can't talk about having more loving
relationships. We're all sitting in a loving relationship
meanwhile, what about our relationship to these millions of American children who are
stuck, who are trapped in these prisons of despair? What does it mean when…I mean, you know,
I'm not even saying that I know for sure, you know, I'm not saying, "Well, let's bring
those people home from Afghanistan," Because I realize what's going to happen to the women
of Afghanistan if the Taliban just takes over. But I'm saying that our conceptualization
of right relationships, and love, and compassion should apply as much to how we think about
the Yemenis, and how we think about the women in Afghanistan, how we think about the children
on the other side of town as it applies to what's going on in Silicon Valley and all
the people who are working at cool places. – What would your presidency mean then to
the people of the world? – I think that it would mean that the people
of the world realize that America is trying her best to right the ship of our ethical
core. We have self-swerved, our government has swerved,
and our economy has swerved from its moral core, from its ethical core. We act like making money is more important
than treating people well. We have an economic rather than a humanitarian
bottom line. We act as though politics is so disconnected
from wisdom and heart, and it justifies itself being separated from wisdom and heart. The world would know that with me in the Oval
Office, that was going to change now. – Now, what would it mean for people in the
red states, the people who otherwise typically lean to the right? – Well, first of all, I don't… You know, Obama had said many years ago that
every state was really purple. I think that we know that many people have
voted against their own economic interests. But I think a lot of people in those states,
as well as everywhere else, are awakening to the fact that they have voted for people
and policies that as things actually unfolded did them more harm than good. But I want them to feel that it's not just
that we're against that, we are for the things that will help you in your life. How could someone who is dealing at a near
poverty level not want unless their brains were scrambled about it, not want to know
that, you know what? We're going to create a situation where you
don't have to think about it. Healthcare is handled for you and your kids. We're going to create a situation where you
don't even have to think about it. Your kids can go to college. We're going to create a situation in which
you don't even have to think about it. You're not going to be burdened by these college
loans. And we want to actually prosecute with antitrust
laws, etc., against these corporate conglomerates that have taken away from you the dignity
of farming, that have taken away from you the dignity of work, that have taken away
from you the time to be with your family, the time to talk to your kids, the ability
to just breathe, find your own creative space. We cap people's dreams in this country today. And really, the beauty, you know, when you
talk about capitalism, the place where capitalism is, it's high side, is it gives people a chance,
go out there and create, go out there and soar. But if you cap people's dreams so much that
they can't spread their wings, then this is not a democracy, freedom nor even what capitalism
should be. – Do you think the American dream is still
alive? – The American dream is alive in many people's
hearts. It is not functioning for…Actually, it is
not even just that it is only functioning for a few people. The means that it's only functioning for a
few people means that it's not functioning because the American dream is the idea that
anybody, if they work hard or not, has an opportunity. So, the aspiration is alive. I mean, I'm running for President. I'm one of millions of people who are giving
our all to, you know, that fire, that light, that eternal torch to bring it forth. So, yes, I think it's alive in people's hearts,
but it's not enough for a woman to be pregnant. It's important she gives birth, and every
generation has to not only grow pregnant with the American dream but give birth to the American
dream. And it's not happening today, and we must
change that. – Let me ask you a question that I believe
your opponents would ask. Your visions are great, Marianne, but who's
going to pay for all of this? – You know, they never say that when they're
about to pass a $2 trillion tax cut in 2017, where 83 cents of every dollar went to the
very, very richest and the very richest corporations with the canard, of course, they were going
to create jobs, which is…40 years has proven that's not the way it works. – Right. So, it doesn't work that way. – And every dollar that you put into education,
every dollar you invest in people, is a dollar you are putting into your economy. Every dollar we put into healthcare, for instance,
when you look at how much of people's budgets they have to spend on healthcare, which is
a huge portion, that means once healthcare is available to them, they have that much
more money to spend. You are actually more of a consumer base. That's where jobs come from. Jobs come from the fact that people have more
to spend. People have more to spend, so that company
needs to have more people working for it because of the larger consumer base. So, we need to push back against that delusion
that has been promulgated so that a few people who find democracy inconvenient could make
more money. – Your opponents are going to also use the
word socialist on you. How would you respond to that? – Well, I'll respond to that is look at my
life. But, you know, I've done well in the private
sector. The private sector's been good to me. I understand the free market. I understand how it can operate. I understand the high side of it. And I understand conscious commerce. I understand righteous commerce. I understand that commerce can be win-win. I do, I mean, as a writer I write, the publisher
publishes, and then people pay for that, and what they get is the value of the book. Everybody won. So, I'm all for a market-based economy when
the market is behaving in a way that is ethical, not at the expense of people, but in mutual
sharing with people. But when you look at something like the police
department, the police department is basically a socialist institution. The fire department is a socialist institution. Public schools are actually socialist institution. So, all we're talking about that is extending
that to health care. – Yeah. And let's be honest. – All we're doing, I mean, you know, the little
pieces of, so this whole conversation is capitalism. – And let's be honest. You, Bernie Sanders, you guys are not socialist. It's one of those clever, magical words that
people on the right, sorry. It's one of those clever, magical words that
men like Newt Gingrich came up with as part of their marketing campaign to take down politicians. So… – Yeah. But they… – They don't agree with. – Yeah. But I think that there's no point to keep
using the phrase democratic socialist if obviously it's been misunderstood. – Now, one of the biggest existential threats
in our world today is climate change. What would your presidency mean for the ecology? – I see climate change as a complete and total
existential threat and peril to even, you know, possibly even to the sustainability
of life on earth. We currently have an environmental protection
agency, which is run by an ex-chemical company lobbyist and the guy before him was an ex-oil
company executive. First thing that would happen is a world-class
environmentalist would be placed in charge of the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency. Everybody who runs counter to actual environmental
protection no longer has a job there, and we would attract the most world-class environmental
scientists and experts on sustainability, green technology, etc., to come work for the
Environmental Protection Agency. We would immediately go back to the days when
the Clean Air Act was robust, the Clean Water Act was robust, etc. When it comes to the things that need to be
done over the next 12 years in order to get the carbon out of the atmosphere, in order
to sequester it in the ground, all of the things that we need to do to get off fossil
fuels to developed green sustainable technology. We have the people in this country, and we
have people around the world who know what to do, and they would have in me… – I love that you said that. – They would have in me a President that says,
"Do it.You have the full force and power of the executive branch of the U.S. government,
go." – You'd be, if you want, you'd be the first
woman President of America. Is there a particular leadership style that
you think a woman President would bring in that might be unique, new, different? – Well, I am sure that you would agree with
me when it comes to enlightened leadership, which really is a feminization process, I
see circumstances where men practice those principles even more than some women do. So, I don't think that of itself is so much
gender. I think bringing the feminine values to the
fore. Sometimes women do that, sometimes they don't. Sometimes men do that, and sometimes they
don't. So, I don't want to make too much about that. I do think, however, that the fact that I'm
a woman, it makes my concentration on the wellbeing of women and girls much stronger
than it would be were I a man. I think we need a U.S. Department of Childhood
and Youth because of the unbelievable risk of so many millions of American children who
live in chronic trauma. We need wraparound services. We need anti-trauma training. We need restorative justice. We need conflict resolution, anti-bullying
in our schools, in such a way that too often has been treated as peripheral issues when
in my administration would be seen as core. – And the final question, people know you
for this quote. It's one of the most cited quotes in the world. "Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate.Our
deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.It is our light, not our darkness
that frightens us." What does that mean to you? – You know, it's so funny. That paragraph is just part of a book. It's not a special section. It's not a poem. Such a strange thing that it's been singled
out. I mean, I'm honored, but what it means, you
know, that book is reflections on the principles of <i>A Course in Miracles</i>. You and I, there's really, on a spiritual
level, no place where you stop, and I start. And my ego mind and all the ego is is a false
belief that we're separate. It doesn't want me to see that because and
it says, "No, don't go there.Don't go there. Don't allow yourself to fall into the oneness." Because the ego mind knows that that's the
death of the ego, so we're afraid of the light more than we're afraid of this little comfort
zone of playing small. That's what it means to me. And I believe that what spiritual practice
does for us, is it opens us up to the realization that all things are possible, and that you're
dwelling…You know, Emily Dickinson said, "I dwell in possibility." Dwelling in the idea that all things are possible
is the safe place to be, not the dangerous place to be. Dwelling in the place that we're all here
just to love each other is the safe place to be, not the dangerous place to be. The ego mind says, "Oh, it's going to all
be dangerous if I allow myself to just love everybody.It's going to be dangerous if I
go around thinking anything's possible." But really that's the only safe place to be. That's what that means to me. – Thank you, Marianne. – Thank you. – Thank you, everyone, for listening. Guys, if you enjoyed this interview, if this
resonates with you at an intellectual and a heart level, support this campaign. Where can they go to donate? – People can go to or Marianne
Williamson for President or Marianne for President, but that marianne2020 is where a lot of people
are going. – And all you got to do is donate. It's a dollar. Just $1 makes a difference. – Thank you. – Thank you so much, Marianne.

Maurice Vega

29 Responses

  1. Marianne you guys need to start using the term Social Democrat which basically just is a social minded Democrat that looks after the social well-being of all its people it's real simple if you use that term instead of Democratic Socialist you would get rid of at least half the confusion…Peace, Bob M.

  2. ~ If she doesn't get the nomination, she at least should be highly considered for a cabinet position with a very important role … like Secretary of State or maybe even VP? Her take on things are practical, make good sense and are fair and equitable to all. She definitely needs a role at the White House ~

  3. everyone on youtube is the same as everyone ive known my whole life. you are all normal americans which are all liars pirates thieves and murderers the same as everyone else in every nation. i hate how you people are exactly as expected. typical lying thieves wealthy but on your insides you are all bums. i hate you Williamson. you are to much as a standard. theres nothing original about you.

  4. I can't help but agree with everything Ms. Williamson says about human consciousness and how it should inform our politics. We Democrats have some deep thinkers about the direction away from our current state of affairs in this country and abroad.

  5. This woman has a lot of hate in her heart towards white Americans, she made them apologise for the slavery.
    She out of order.

  6. MW is the future. Stop shilling for corporate special interest corrupted politicians! There’s nothing “kooky” about an enlightened, informed and intelligent person with integrity who isn’t beholden to the abject corrupt system we naively believe is working for our interests. She is the real deal. I fucking love this woman! MW 2020

  7. love is great, but i wish talks more about her policies n what her plans are once she gets in office. she seem more authentic than more than most of the top candidates. she remains me of Bernie, talking about what she believes in even though it may not be popular.

  8. Marianne will change the world if she will become President of USA… SHE is a unique forerunner and extremely intelligent visionary in such crazy times we're living… Love cannot speak but with the most refined arguments…and so the great Love that grew within her heart and soul is speaking its own Truth which is connected to all of us and would certainly serve us in the most righteous manners…

  9. Yes, it is all about consciousness. But she is way more conscious, way more evolved than most people who will be voting in 2020. Sad but true.

  10. She is lovely. Intelligent, charming, and deeply concerned about all life. She and Tulsi Gabbard would be a great team , pres and vice pres. But I seriously doubt this country is evolved enough get past the crap and realize what a great team they would be.

  11. How come he’s speaking so much! I get so much joy hearing from Marianne she is so insightful. I can’t donate but sharing the link

  12. What a refreshing discussion. I don't agree with everything but I'm so pleased we have someone with this kind of vision and ethical code. And her record indicates she walks her talk.

  13. Trump is a good man. Millions voted for him. He's doing amazing things for this country. And he is. NOT. racist.

  14. Maybe this sounds like a crass generalization, but I think it’s time, past time in fact – for a woman, particularly a Jewish woman, and specifically Williamson to become president. She would be the ideal antidote to the destructive Trump machine.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment