Blog

The great Ken Burns has often said, “There is no them; there’s only us.” It’s high time we Americans, yes, all of us, take a moment to remember that. The American Flag represents all of us, but there’s a narrative that the Flag is just revered by Republicans and not by Democrats. Not so. We Democrats love it too, but perhaps for different reasons.

While it IS true that Republicans tend to display the Flag more than Democrats physically (73% to 55% according to one Pew Research Center study), Democrats often express their reverence through the values it represents — liberty, justice, and inclusive democracy.

1. The Flag as a Symbol of Civic Patriotism

Democrats often embrace what political theorist Jürgen Habermas calls “constitutional patriotism” — a love of country rooted not in ethnicity or nationalism, but in shared democratic principles like freedom, equality, and the rule of law. Brookings scholar William Galston defends this idea of “reasonable patriotism,” which aligns closely with the Democratic ideal.

“You are or become an American… because you affirm, and are prepared to defend, the community’s basic principles and institutions.” — William Galston, Brookings

This view sees the Flag not just as a national symbol, but as a banner of democratic values — a unifying emblem for people of all backgrounds.

2. Freedom as a Core Democratic Value

Democrats consistently champion freedom of speech, help for those in need, voting rights, and civil liberties — all of which are deeply tied to the ideals the American Flag represents. Vice President Kamala Harris, for example, has framed the Democratic platform as a defense of freedom in its broadest sense.

“Freedom is fundamental to who we are as Americans. And Democrats are fighting to protect it — for everyone.” — Brookings, on Harris’s message

3. Democrats Fight for the Flag’s Promises

While some may equate flag-waving with patriotism, and I don’t argue that it isn’t, Democrats often express their love of country by working to fulfill the promises the Flag makes — liberty and justice for all. This includes:

• Expanding voting access
• Defending civil rights
• Supporting immigrants and marginalized communities
• Upholding democratic institutions

This is a patriotism of action, not just symbolism.

---

Countering the Myth

So while Republicans may more often display the Flag, Democrats arguably embody its meaning just as deeply — if not more — through their commitment to freedom, democracy, and equality. Above all, Democrats love and revere our Constitution, the document we as a nation have agreed to live by and defend. The Constitution of, for, and by its people, is what the American Flag represents-for ALL of us.

But now to get back to the spirit of Ken Burns’s statement, does it matter what my reason is versus yours for loving the Flag? No. What matters is that Democrats AND Republicans love our country and the Flag that represents our country. Maybe we need to take a breather from being at each other’s throats this Independence Day and come together, if only for a short while, to celebrate this great nation and the promise it has for all who love her.

I’m very proud of the efforts of many Democrats in Congress fighting this awful legislation. I think of people like Senators Chris Murphy, Jon Ossoff, and Elissa Slotkin, who fought it to the last inch. Some say it will have trouble passing in the House, so we’ll see. I appreciate the effort. If it passes, billionaires get richer. The poor get poorer. I guess Republicans still think that everyone poor is lazy.

It’s time to look at the effort of these Senators and let it serve as a model for other Democratic legislators at all levels of American government. THIS is how you do it. Senator Murphy was on Twitter, Bluesky, and Substack, keeping us informed, urging us to contact our Senators, and explaining in detail why the bill was very bad for the economy.

So, as Simon Rosenberg implores us, focus our limited time and energy on Trump and the evil things he is doing, and remember he is failing, despite his pr efforts to the contrary. Still, it is helpful to self-scout, as they say in sports, and take care of our blind spots.

Our primary blind spot: We need to support Democrats running for office, even if we disagree on policy. We are a party of many diverse interests, ranging from the far left with Progressives to Moderate Centrists and New Coalition Democrats who are diverse, younger, socially liberal, and economically moderate. Somewhere also in there are Establishment Liberals and Labor-Oriented Dems. All of these aims of these camps are valid and worthy of fighting for, but we have to be smart about it. It cannot, no, it can NEVER be about all or nothing, or you will never be in the position to win. It’s about picking our battles and getting behind a handful of strong leaders who have broad appeal nationally.

In the words of Democrat Sam Harris, we have to find a leader who can pull together the broad interests of the coalition but not be railroaded by the orthodoxy of the extreme left wing of the party into pushing ideas that will be rejected by half of the country. He said this in a recent interview with Professor Scott Galloway, who added, Do you think the Democrats’ hearts are in the right place, but they go too far? Sam Harris quickly replied, “Yeah, so in that sense I find the Left fairly culpable for Trump and Trumpism.” His point being that the extreme positions at the expense of issues important to most Americans cost us the election. This thought was further echoed by Anthony Scaramucci, who, having successfully prepped Kamala Harris for her debate against Trump, which she won handily, was told his services would no longer be needed because he wasn’t orthodox enough.

In the Marketing profession, my area of expertise, there is a concept called Positioning. It is the conceptual space a product or political party occupies in the mind of the target customer (the voting public in politics). If you don’t take steps to secure and support the positioning you want in the minds of your voting public, your opponent will. This happened in the 2024 election. Kamala did a great job in a short time, but was unable to properly position what she specifically would do for voters weary of what they perceived to be an inflationary economy and a pandemic. Trump spent hundreds of millions of dollars to position Kamala in the minds of many voters as just being concerned with marginal issues, such as trans rights for children and criminals. She did nothing to blunt this and lost.

There were other issues, such as well, she was a woman and many Americans held that against her, but even THAT could have been overcome by messaging a clear focus on the kitchen table and pocketbook concerns of everyday Americans. As smart young Democratic politicians like Senator Slotikin and Mallory McMorrow say often, it’s not enough to be against Trump and point out all of the evil things he’s doing to hurt Americans; we have to say loud and proud WHAT DEMOCRATS WILL DO WHEN THEY GET ELECTED. And THAT has to be clearly communicated and in line with the concerns of most voters, to wit: their finances and health care.

Democrats need to prop up and feature strong leaders today, such as Chris Murphy, Cory Booker, Gavin Newsom, and others who can emerge as speaking for all Democrats. But this time, they cannot be railroaded by the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party, but focus on issues with broad appeal that are still progressive at their core. These issues must be important in the minds of our target constituents, and address their key concerns: Money in their bank accounts and health care. Start there. End there. The other issues? Of course, they matter, just not as much to our voters. And we’ll never get to them if we never get back in power.

I am fascinated by recent developments in the theories of consciousness. In recent years, the nature of consciousness has moved from a fringe concern to a central question across disciplines. From neuroscience and quantum physics to artificial intelligence and spiritual philosophy, a profound shift is underway: one that may place consciousness not as a byproduct of physical matter, but as the foundation of all reality.

This “consciousness-first” paradigm—championed by thinkers like Federico Faggin and Donald Hoffman—challenges the long-standing materialist assumption that the brain generates consciousness. Instead, it proposes that consciousness is primary, and matter, space, and time arise from it. In doing so, this view bridges science with the deep intuitions of many spiritual traditions.

---

Federico Faggin: Consciousness as the Ground of Being

Federico Faggin, the physicist and inventor of the microprocessor, has undergone a remarkable transformation from technologist to philosopher of mind. His core insight is radical: consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, but rather fundamental to the universe. He posits that reality is composed of conscious entities—”units of consciousness”—that interact and evolve.

Faggin’s model resonates with ancient wisdom traditions and modern quantum theory. His perspective explains subjective experience not as a fluke of biology, but as an intrinsic part of the fabric of existence. If he is right, then the universe is not a cold, mechanical system, but a dynamic, evolving web of awareness.

---

Donald Hoffman: Reality as a User Interface

Donald Hoffman, a cognitive scientist, offers a complementary view. His “Interface Theory of Perception” suggests that the world we perceive is not objective reality but a symbolic interface—like icons on a computer desktop—crafted by evolution to help us survive. According to Hoffman, what we take to be space, time, and physical objects are merely representations constructed by consciousness.

He, too, postulates a deeper level of reality composed of “conscious agents” interacting beyond space and time. Hoffman’s mathematically grounded theories suggest that space-time is doomed, not the fundamental stage of reality, but a convenient illusion.

---

Scientific Corroboration: Neuroscience, Quantum Physics, and AI

While traditional neuroscience still views consciousness as brain-based, new findings challenge this assumption. Recent studies have shown that the “posterior cortical hot zone”—not the prefrontal cortex—may be the seat of consciousness. This decentralization supports the idea that consciousness isn’t confined to higher-order thinking but is more elemental.

Quantum physicist Roger Penrose and an anesthesiologist, Stuart Hameroff, propose that consciousness may involve quantum processes in the brain, suggesting it is not bound by classical physical laws. Some researchers have even observed spikes of brain activity after clinical death, theorizing that consciousness might persist beyond bodily function.

Artificial intelligence adds another twist. Researchers are now asking whether AI systems like Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s GPT models could possess some form of proto-consciousness. If so, it raises profound questions: Is consciousness tied to biology, or is it a structural property of certain systems?

---

Spiritual Resonance and Philosophical Implications

These scientific developments echo the teachings of many spiritual traditions. In Vedanta, Buddhism, and mystic Christianity, consciousness is seen as the ultimate reality. Faggin’s and Hoffman’s ideas converge with these views, suggesting that science and spirituality are not at odds but are converging on the same truth from different directions.

If consciousness is primary:

• The universe becomes a living, participatory field of awareness.
• Death may not be an end but a transformation.
• Our thoughts and intentions might shape reality more deeply than previously imagined.

---

Toward a Conscious Future

This emerging paradigm doesn’t just reshape academic debates—it reframes human identity. We are not machines made of meat, but expressions of a vast, creative consciousness. Our individuality is real, but not separate; we are distinct waves on a shared ocean.

In this light, the quest to understand consciousness is not just scientific or philosophical—it is spiritual. It calls us to look inward, not only for answers, but for the very source of meaning itself.