Editing New World Alliance (section)

== Assessments ==
[[File:Jeremy Rifkin 2009 by Stephan Röhl.jpg |thumb |upright=1.0 |right |alt=Head shot of middle-aged man giving a speech| Prominent writer and activist [[Jeremy Rifkin]] was a founding sponsor of the Alliance's political newsletter.<ref name=Stein />]]

The Alliance raised many hopes in transformational circles.  For example, ''New Realities'', a glossy transformation-oriented magazine, devoted a 3,000-word article to the organizing effort,<ref name=Wells /> and futurist [[Hazel Henderson]] pointed her readers beyond the [[Citizens Party (United States)|U.S. Citizens Party]] to the "more visionary" movement incorporating as the New World Alliance.<ref name=Henderson>Hazel Henderson, ''The Politics of the Solar Age: Alternatives to Economics'', Anchor Press / Doubleday, 1981, p.&nbsp;19.  {{ISBN|978-0-385-17150-2}}.</ref>  Arthur Stein noted that each of the founding sponsors of the Alliance's political newsletter had distinguished themselves in their fields.<ref name=Stein />

To some observers, including some inside the organization, the Alliance fell short of its promise and potential.  It was certainly "short-lived," as three political scientists put it.<ref name=Preface />  To other observers, the Alliance was a valuable pioneer.

=== External critics ===
Some critics focused on history and culture.  To political scientist Belden Paulson, the Alliance fell short partly because it was too far ahead of its cultural moment.<ref name=Paulson />  To Annie Gottlieb, author of a book about the mainstreaming of [[Counterculture of the 1960s|Sixties-generation attitudes and values]], the Alliance fell short because it did not sufficiently root itself in the mainstream culture, and in the immediately practical and viable.<ref>Gottlieb, ''Do You Believe'', pp.&nbsp;153–54.</ref>

Other explanations focused on the Alliance's processes.  Scholar [[J. Gordon Melton]]'s encyclopedia said the focus on consensus led to "extended meetings and minimal results" – which in turn led to dispirited participants.<ref name=Melton />  Even ''Aquarian Conspiracy'' author [[Marilyn Ferguson]] commented that the GC meetings, full of "intoxicating rhetoric" but little else, took their toll on one GC member.<ref name=Marilyn />  
   
Still other explanations focused on internal dysfunction. Belden Paulson noted ongoing "friction and personality struggles."  He also found it incomprehensible that the Alliance always seemed to be without money.  He finally concluded that the GCers with the most power were more interested in advancing their own organizations.<ref name=Paulson />

Some critics were skeptical about, or hostile to, the Alliance's transformational ideology.  Speaking on a panel with two Alliance GC members at an [[Association for Humanistic Psychology]] conference in 1982, political scientist [[Walter Truett Anderson]] rejected the concept of transformation.  He argued that it had become a cliché and that society was not going to transform itself totally or quickly. He added that its advocates were on the verge of becoming "what I think can rightfully be called a cult."<ref>Stein, ''Seeds'', p.&nbsp;137 (quoting Anderson).</ref>

The Alliance generated opposition among [[Christian right|conservative Christians]] who worried that [[New Age]] ideas were being spread under the banner of transformational politics.  For example, in her book ''The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow'', attorney [[Constance Cumbey]] warned that New Age ideas were being "synergistically enhanced by the parallel operation of networking organizations such as New World Alliance."<ref name=Cumbey>Constance E. Cumbey, ''The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow: The New Age Movement and Our Coming Age of Barbarism'', Huntington House, Inc., 1983, pp.&nbsp;64–65.  {{ISBN|978-0-910311-03-8}}.</ref>  In an anthology called ''The New Age Rage'', religious philosopher [[Douglas Groothuis]] said transformational initiatives like the Alliance were slipping New Age ideas into [[Democratic Party (United States)|U.S. Democratic Party]] politics.<ref name=Groothuis>Douglas Groothuis, "Politics: Building an International Platform," in Karen Hoyt and the [[Spiritual Counterfeits Project]], eds., ''The New Age Rage'', Fleming H. Revell Company / Baker Publishing Group, 1987, pp.&nbsp;97–98.  {{ISBN|978-0-8007-5257-6}}.</ref>

=== Internal critics ===
{{quote box|width=35%|quote="Belief that a social transformation is happening serves to keep it from happening.  Behaviors associated with the sandbox of political impotency include: pronouncement of actual or imminent success, confusion of goals and results, an acritical stance, hubris, an incapacitating dialect, pseudo holism, egalitarian blinders, and self-centeredness.  Upward growth to escape the Sandbox Syndrome is a necessary ingredient of any serious social change."|source=– Alliance GC member Michael Marien, "The Transformation as Sandbox Syndrome," 1983.<ref name=Marien>Michael Marien, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20051018115004/http://www.ghandchi.com/iranscope/Anthology/mm/sandbox.htm The Transformation as Sandbox Syndrome]," ''[[Journal of Humanistic Psychology]]'', vol. 23, no. 1, Winter 1983, p.&nbsp;7.</ref>|style=padding:8px}}

Both before and after the Alliance dissolved, GC members publicly criticized the Alliance.  In 1987, former GC member Marc Sarkady told an interviewer that the Alliance was too immersed in the [[Counterculture of the 1960s|counter-culture]].<ref name=Gottlieb />  In 1983, writing in a feminist quarterly, GCer Bethe Hagens said that – despite all the high-minded rhetoric and processes – the male GCers had been dismissive of the female GCers.<ref name=Hagens>Bethe Hagens, "[https://archive.org/details/creativewoman641983unse  The Goddess in the New World Alliance],"  ''The Creative Woman Quarterly'', vol. 6, no. 4, Fall 1983, p. 19.  A publication of [[Governors State University]].  The author is identified as an anthropologist.  Retrieved August 7, 2016.</ref>  In 1982, [[Mark Satin]] complained to an audience of 400 that the Alliance could not decide on its mission.<ref>Stein, ''Seeds'', pp.&nbsp;136-37 (quoting Satin).</ref>{{refn|GC members had disparate visions for the organization.  Some GCers wanted the Alliance to be or become a political party,<ref>Bob Dunsmore, ''I Am: A Journey Through Times and Spaces'', iUniverse Publishing, 2011, p.&nbsp;65.  {{ISBN|978-1-4620-2432-2}}.</ref> Satin wanted the Alliance to model itself on grassroots mobilization and lobbying groups such as [[Moral Majority]],<ref name=Kelly>Mark Satin and [[Kevin Kelly (editor)|Kevin Kelly]], interviewer, "[https://archive.org/details/sim_whole-earth_whole-earth-review_winter-1988_61/page/106/mode/2up Mark Satin]," ''[[Whole Earth Review]]'', issue no. 61, Winter 1988, p.&nbsp;107.</ref> and others – ultimately a majority – wanted the Alliance to play a less assertive, clearinghouse role.<ref>Stein, ''Seeds'', p.&nbsp;138.</ref>|group=nb}}  Later that decade Satin referred to his former colleagues as "beautiful losers,"<ref name=Kelly /> and even in the 2000s he was writing about what he saw as the Alliance's "ineptness" and its failure to understand and seize the moment.<ref name=Ivor />

A more systemic critique by a GC member was Michael Marien's essay "The Transformation as Sandbox Syndrome," published in the ''[[Journal of Humanistic Psychology]]'' in 1983.<ref>Marien, "The Transformation," cited above.</ref> While Marien aimed his critique at transformational political organizations (and activists) in general, the introduction discusses Marien's involvement in just one such organization – the Alliance.<ref name=Marien />  His targets in the essay include mistaking lofty goals for political significance, loving-kindness for effective action, and good intentions for actual results.<ref>Marien, "The Transformation," pp.&nbsp;7–10.</ref>

Toward the end of its existence, Alliance chair Bob Olson wrote – in a spirit of acceptance rather than blame – that the GC did not have the "personalities and skills" to create the kind of dynamic mass-membership organization that had originally been envisioned.<ref>Melton, ''Encyclopedia'', p.&nbsp;324 (quoting Olson).</ref>

=== Positive views ===
Many observers have acknowledged the Alliance for what they see as pioneering contributions to the social change movement.

For example, the director of Self Determination, a California-wide transformational political organization co-founded by [[John Vasconcellos]],<ref name=Self>Ferguson, ''Aquarian'', pp.&nbsp;232–35.</ref> described the Alliance as "the first" national political organization of its kind.<ref name=Wells />  Political scientist Arthur Stein claimed it made "the first attempt to take ecological, decentralist, globalist, and human-growth ideas and translate them into a detailed, practical political platform."<ref name=Stein />

A pair of futurists credited the Alliance with attempting to create a national political movement based on new values.<ref name=Lipnack /> A pair of political theorists said the Alliance was one of the first groups attempting to create "a new synthesis" of [[Left-wing politics|left-wing]] and [[Right-wing politics|right-wing]] political ideas.<ref name=Spirit>McLaughlin, ''Spiritual'', p.&nbsp;72–73.</ref>  In a textbook, three political scientists identified the Alliance as a "precursor" of North American Greens.<ref name=Preface />