Performance Appraisal - The United States of America

By David Anderson

15 February, 2016
Countercurrents.org

Eight hundred years ago with the English Magna began the idea of individual liberty and freedom. Encoded into law was an assumption that the right – although limited at that time - of the individual to liberty and justice was a universal “given.” The ancient authoritarian political model was no longer to be the dominant form of governance. That Magna Carter idea still holds throughout western society. Although not as deep an historical part of the cultural and constitutional history of many nations outside of the Western world, to varying degrees it prevails broadly in one form or another expressed by the words “democratic governance.”

This essay will challenge the sanctity of the idea of individual liberty and freedom as now defined in the United States of America – and throughout the world, by making the case that American Democracy has become an intractable obstacle to planetary sustainability. The reason given is that the American concept of Democracy rests on a belief in the right of the human citizenry to decide as to the use of the resources of the planet to satisfy their own self-interest without reference to the authority of a higher power; namely “Nature.”

Democracy as practiced in the United States allows both the best and the worst of the human psyche to have full expression. An example of the worst is seen in the difficulty faced by the Obama administration on a wide range of environmental matters. Its inability to enforce the Clean Air Act is evidence of this. Most recently it encountered difficulties imposing regulations on coal plants. Recently it was unable to impose a per barrel oil tax as international prices dipped below $30 per barrel. As a result of impediments such as these, recognition of the disintegrative forces of “Nature” continues to be circumvented by the inadequacy of the democratic system itself. Here is a startling example of this inadequacy; taking a few facts from op-ed columnist Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times:

Because hundreds of millions of tons of toxic residue generated in the US is non-reconstitutable and non-biodegradable, it cannot be recycled back into a “natural” state. 535,000 children age 1 to 5 suffer from shrunken brains and diminished IQ due to lead poisoning. US Chemical companies spend vast sums lobbying to prevent corrective legislation; $100,000 per member of congress last year.

This inability of the US Congress to act on critical issues such as this has now become a threat not just to the US but to the future of entire planet. Although some recognition among the American public is growing, firm and decisive action is being overshadowed by industrial interests and the limits of presidential and congressional authoritative power.

As the planetary deterioration becomes the more visible, there will be increasing attention within larger and larger constituencies throughout the world relating to the interdependency of humanity within the forces of Nature. Serious debate has already begun in many sectors of world society. It is embracing a wide range of thought. Cosmologists, religionists, secular atheists, psychologists, physical scientists, biologists, chemists, economists and even architectural planners (cities, urban areas, transportation will have to be transfigured) are taking part. However, one deficiency arises from the fact that each thought group is looking for solutions based its own narrow range of expertise, as well as bias. As a result, areas of thought are always separate from the wholeness of the problem. This was noticeably evident in Pope Francis’ 2015 LAUDATO SI which was religiously purposeful, yet vague in many important areas such as exponential population growth.

Another not mentioned by the Pope was the inherent deficiency of the Magna Carter kind of government prevailing in the western world and in other areas where that form was bequeathed during the colonial period.

In America there are those who prefer to turn their eyes the other way and therefore cannot recognize oncoming ecological reality. They rest their case on the sanctity of returning to the Magna Carter mindset and therefore belief in what is commonly described as “neo-conservatism.” This in turn is supported by belief in a God-Like benefit of free and fluid “Capital Markets.” David Brooks, the conservative op-ed writer for the NY Times is one of them. In his op-ed after the encyclical and others he has demonstrated an extreme “conservative” Adam Smith “hidden hand” bias, flatly refusing to acknowledge the inherent dangers in the Capital Market system and its ecological destructiveness. In typical simplistic op-ed fashion of the day he rests his case on market-based mechanisms and technology as a solution to all of our problems, citing an array of recent economic advancements and then just to make sure all bases are covered, mysteriously in one op-ed referring to something he calls “regulated affluence.”

As a rebuttal to David Brooks, a few summary thoughts from the Pope’s Encyclical are in order

· In the end, a world of unrestrained consumption is at the same time a world which mistreats life in all its forms

· The mindset which leaves no room for sincere concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most vulnerable members of society

· A technological and economic development which does not leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered progress

· It is we human beings who need to change

It is understandable that the Pope would shy away from areas that conflict with Roman Catholic doctrine and focus on other areas. No such excuse can be made for David Brooks and his American “neo-conservatives/neo-liberals.” On all fronts, he and they even deny there is a problem.

As the biosphere deterioration becomes worse, country by country there will be public reaction calling for change. This always occurs when a society is under stress. It has been the case historically. A new viewpoint is expressed, defined as a desire to move away from the existing system and toward an authoritarian form centered on the issues that are threatening the society. We saw this occur in France with Napoleon and then in Germany and Italy during the 30’ and 40’s. We are also seeing this “savior archetypal image” appear as an America under stress is enthralled by the bombast of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary debate.

This time, however, the breakdown and public call for a transition to authoritarian rule will be far reaching and more powerful. It will overpass America and its election squabble. It will be global, fueled by the forces of nature on the planet turning against humanity. Temperatures will be rising. Oceans will be rising. Billions of people will be starving. Religious sectarian violence will be spreading. We may even see atomic weapons being used. As the pain and suffering spreads, the public will come to accept the idea that only a beneficent authoritarian form of government can be capable of designing measures that will allow human life to overcome the enfolding deterioration of the biosphere that is occurring.

Many the likes of David Brooks will nevertheless continue to resist change. Special interest individuals such as the infamous Koch Brothers in America will resist change. Their rational will be the presumed sanctity of their system of thought centered on neo liberal individual freedom and the American right to exercise that freedom through democratic governance.

To give an example of the totality of the economic changes that will be necessary, here are a few quotes from a letter this author sends to the eminent Nobel Prize economist Paul Krugman each year. For full letter go to Blog # 12

The architecture that grew out of the industrial revolution, on which capital markets today justify their operation, now finds its “raison d’etre” shaking under its own weight. The cold hard fact is that this architecture has not only seen its day; it is like an insidious disease working against human survival.

The key fault is the unfettered operation of capital markets. These markets have grown to a size where they are energizing ecologically and socially destructive forces of a magnitude that has never before been seen in the history of the planet. Resource allocation is being misguided and misappropriated on a massive scale. Irreparable planetary damage is being done.

Negative external costs and positive incentives must be built into every investment decision. And these costs and incentives must be applied to every human economic activity from the mine to the chemistry lab to the assembly line to the opera house to the athletic field to the hospital. Economic outcomes with negative social and/or ecological value must be recognized. Negative externalities need to be measured and priced in up front so as to discourage, temper, or at the extreme eliminate investment.

Recognition of the need for changes such as these has been only taking place globally in isolated small numerical pockets of population (relative to the total). There is however recent evidence of change in China where beneficent authoritarian power over more than a billion citizens is being applied as a bulwark against self-interest and in favor of environmental considerations. Also, the 2015 agreement reached at the COP21 meeting in Paris should be noted. 196 nations agreed to the seriousness of the problem and pledged to take action. But will all of this be enough? The answer is a resounding “No.”

To put it in the vernacular: The American Thomas Jefferson form of Democracy and the English Parliamentary form of Democracy will not “cut the mustard.” What will be needed is a very large number of enlightened individuals throughout the world having authority to bring about change.

In the US the American constitutional system will not suffice. Some form of beneficent authoritarian rule there will be necessary. That is the only way changes of the magnitude as seen in the Paul Krugman letter quotes above can be made.

America will be forced to move beyond its traditional system of government as codified in the US Constitution.

Such forms of authoritarian enlightenment will, in time, spread and take hold. There will be no other choice. Leaders throughout the world will be searching for a way humans can continue to live on this planet in some form of planetary harmony. As this is occurring, personal freedom as understood in the present American democratic sense (Reference David Brooks and the Koch Brothers above) will come to be seen as a primary cause of the countervailing planetary ecological forces being set in motion.

It will not be a smooth ride. Unrestrained psychopathic impulses built on the fear instinct and supported by a concomitant need for self-preservation will be playing a role. A quote here from the well-known philosopher Benedict de Spinosa (1632-1677) is in order:

“Each thing, as far as it can by its own power, strives to persevere in its being.”

Benedict de Spinosa attributes this striving to an inherent desire in all of us for self-preservation. We should expect that as ecological problems build, corrupt and self-centered authoritarian rule will take over in many nations. In recent years we have seen this in many of the African countries as they emerged from colonialism.

Throughout the planet, with coastal areas being inundated, temperatures rising and agriculture disrupted, billions will be suffering. Billions will be dying. At some point, however, and after much pain and suffering, rational thought will begin to win out over psychopathic impulses, even in those nations in disarray.

From this transformation will emerge a higher level of human consciousness where voices will be saying that we are not separate from the cosmic realm but are a part of a rhythm that is in a sense “the mind” of the cosmic realm. These voices will be redefining the cosmic and planetary purpose of the human species by way of new forms of thought.

Pope Francis in his Encyclical letter speaks to this. He views each human life as a metaphysical/spiritual part of the whole—as opposed to human life being independent and separated from the whole (i.e., the planet and cosmos) as it is in contemporary reductionist nihilistic thought. This view–not necessarily restricted to those of any religious belief or those without, will call for a change in many of the deeply rooted archetypal images that in the past formed the basis for national and global governance and human behavior.

A question remains as to the efficacy of transformational counter measures; given the enormity of the difficulties that will arise from cascading ecological developments and their seeming irreversibility. There is cause for doubt as to whether political, economic, and social change can take place fast enough to reverse the disintegrative momentum, or for that matter is even possible. We have no historical precedent to go by. Human evolutionary change has always taken very long periods of time. Adaption has been gradual. This one calls for immediate response.

On the other hand, we can also observe that there has been an acceleration of human response in recent history. Humanity would appear to be benefiting from a growing capacity for flexibility.

As the ecological breakdown over this next century continues to unfold, the future of Homo sapiens will lie at a critical fork on its evolutionary road; one leading to its painful end, the other to its long term survival on this planet and in the cosmos of which it is a part.

How much time do we have? Some highly accredited scientists say our present trajectory will present very serious planetary problems within the next fifty to one hundred years, and some even point to the end of our species after three hundred.

David Anderson brings together a wide range of interests in his writings, namely; theology, history, evolutionary anthropology, philosophy, geopolitics, and economics. He has written three books. A fourth is near completion. (see http://www.inquiryabraham.com/new-book.html ) It is about a necessary geo political, social, religious, economic paradigm shift for human survival. David is a graduate of Dartmouth College and the University of Hawaii (Harvard Asia Pacific) Advanced Management Program. Over a thirty year career he was an international risk manager and senior executive at several of America's premier multinational institutions. During that period he became increasingly aware of the underlying cultural, institutional and religious causes of past and present civilizational dysfunction and conflict.