American politics has become terminally warped by the influence of money infused into the system by corporate self-interest and disinformation campaigns funded by them through "think tanks" who only think about how dish up a distorted reality for popular consumption. Primarily, almost exclusively, the seizure of political power by corporations, particularily Wall Street but really by any of the major industries, has been paved by Republican ideology and actions. The drive to deregulate industry, the gutting of any measure taken to make corporations responsible for the negative impacts of their activities, through litigation or through pricing, and to strengthen corporate influence over the political sphere have all been championed by Republicans. The Republican Party represents the core obstruction to doing what is necessary for this country to avoid an epochal shitstorm.
Given this, whatever adaptations people may take over the coming years are not likely to have much assistance from the Federal government, at least in the near term. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Until there is a dramatic change in how the American people and the political leaders view our present situation as a nation, constructive action by governments is likely to come mainly from state and local governments based on whatever circumstances they find themselves facing. This is likely to be limited, too, given the severe budgetary problems of almost any government you can think of. But at least the smaller governments will be more responsive to the needs of their people and will be better able to guide a transition from the global to the local economies I see happening now and continuing for decades into the future.
Having said that, I understand the political impossibility at this juncture for my views to be aired before the political establishment. No politician that I know of has gotten elected holding the bummer views I have regarding the material impossibilty of the future most Americans regard as normal. Nonetheless, I'd like to provide two criticisms of the Democratic Party positions which I think are no longer viable or are otherwise counterproductive and may be a way to break the political logjam with conservatives. I won't hold my breath on that one.
The most immediately controversial subject on which I disagree with most Democrats is immigration. The U.S. is projected to reach somewhere around 450 million people by mid-century. We should not celebrate this. Immigrants seeking the American dream will wind up creating a whole new army of American consumers and suburban inhabitants. This cannot be allowed to happen. The population globally is already too large by a factor of at least three for reasons I've touched on in previous posts. Trying to extend our way of life to other nations will hasten an ecological disaster. Also, the United States should not attempt to relieve population pressures in other countries by taking on immgrants but instead should throw our effort exclusively into assisting these other nations attempts to reduce fertility rates through family planning programs and reduce poverty. Democrats should recognize that we as a nation will not be richer, stronger, or happier with more people.
Democrats should also recognize that some sizable proportion of the relative largesse that the U.S. currently possesses is based on the bubbled valuation of the economy and the drawing of resources and labor of other countries and cannot be counted on to fund large projects. This translates to a broad diminishment of our expectations due to what is possible financially. I don't mean to say that programs like a national health insurance program funded by taxpayers isn't the best idea. It is. What I have in mind is infrastructure. We will have to make some trade-offs regarding transportation, among other things, that will require political courage like they've hitherto been unwilling to demonstrate. A serious response to global warming and energy security requires that ultimately we give up the automotive way of life. I realize Americans love their cars, but Americans have to be realistic, and some frank and honest leadership has to be tried to lead or drag Americans into the future. The hidden cost of the GM bail-out is that we effectively chose cars over trains. It was an opportunity cost.
What these two critiques have in common is that they both pertain to growth. As time goes on, it is more apparent that the U.S. is, and has been, putting more effort into maintaining our global position than we are benefitting from it. Extending our presence around the world, growing the empire, so to speak, will only make it worse. On balance, we are spending more than we earn. That much is obvious. But to disengage from the effort to globalize the American system means that we would have to accept a reduced geopolitical and economic situation and all the dislocation, power vacuums, and loss of status that goes along with it. This is the consensus reality Americans will ultimately have to face. It'll happen one way or another and we should embark on a policy of managed decline.
There's more I'd like to say on this. One point that I didn't include is on tramsportation and how we should spend our money. Instead of building one or two high speed rail lines between amjor cities, we should electrify the entire rail system for passenger trains that top out at 80-100 mph. The cost of high speed rail is much greater than slower rail, and the energy use follows an exponential curve upwards starting at around 100 mph. Money we use for highways should be transferred to this purpose. The system of roads will have to be scaled down and made cheaper. Michigan has already begun this process by converting several paved country roads to gravel. From where i'm sitting in Minneapolis, the streets are as bad as I've ever seen them. A resurfacing of my street, Xerxes, done last summer is already wearing away. It needed to be repaved but apparently that's not in the cards. Xerxes is a quite busy two-lane through street to the freeway. My suspension is killing me.
In general, I think Democrats, and perhaps most Americans, hold the view that the U.S. shouldn't try to extend it's reach into more and more regions of the world. At the same time, I think that the benefits of our global reach feeds the expectations of liberals like they do anyone else and should be taken into account. The Democratic party has to find a way to get out from under the thumb of big money and special interests that favors whichever party is more willing to do something for them. Beyond the question of whether Democrats can compete with Republicans if the party eschews corporate money for the sake of integrity, it is the only way for us to act on what needs to be acted on. But Americans also need to appreciate that if we do so, it will not be all good. It will mean a wholesale scaling down of the entire American enterprise to something much more modest and much less complex.
I'm confused. I don't understand how you can lump together both immigration and infrastructure. They are two issues that need to addressed separately. I have a problem with some of your views on immigration. I think we really can't stop people from immigrating to the U.S. People are going to want to come here for the promise of a better life than they are living in their own country. I have two questions. Are you talking about legal or illegal immigration? How do we stem the tide of immigrants? You also mention extending our reach into more regions of the world. How does that relate to the immigration problem? People choosing to live here and our apparent need to promote a so called Democracy in other parts of the world are two different issues.
ReplyDeleteI also have a problem with the population control measures that you are promoting. Yes I think family planning is very important. But, at what point does it become eugenics? I think a better solution would be to promote more education for women. Women are the people that promote change in their own homes. Let's face it, a women has to be educated about what her choices are before she can even hope to choose differently. I think that many men still have the view that woman's voices need to be silenced. How we as Americans stand by and allow that to happen? How can we have the self righteous stance that fertility control is the answer to overpopulation when in many areas of the world and I would say that it is even happening here, women are viewed as mere chattel for use and abuse by men. There is so much more that I could get into but I won't here.
Oh and you need to edit. ;)
As far as infrastructure, I think you are spot on. I think we need to be thinking about the greater good. I think having better public transportation not only would be good for society, but also good for the environment. I for one would much rather not have to rely on cars to get around and I think the American love affair with cars is eventually going to have to end.
You're right. I need to add "Copy Editor" to my list of identities.
ReplyDeleteWhat ties the infrastructure and immigration issues together is idea of growth. Growth of the economy, growth of the population, and growth of the built environment. Population growth, fed by the material expectations of these people, will ultimately face the biophysical limits of the planet, assuming everything else grows, too.
Problem is that the Earth won't grow with population. Eventually, the population will have to live on a shrinking resource base and each person will have less and less natural wealth for use as time goes on. Or people will behave in ways that are all too human and reduce the population through uglier means. Or nature will, following it's own laws, do it for us.
This post was really an open letter to Democrats for the purpose of drawing attention to demonstrable physical realities. What I would like to see is for Democrats to change their position on immigration and the whole notion that population or economic growth is inevitable or desirable. Admittedly, the solutions part was shabby and incomplete. But I don't believe population growth control measures have to become draconian or inhumane measures. I believe it is more humane to keep human numbers down than to let them follow the what could be called the "free market solution". I am suggesting there is a humane way to go about it.
The policy stance the U.S. could take regarding other countries depends on a lot of moving parts. But if we accept the neccessity of reducing the human burden on nature, then all sorts of attitudes and policies springing from them would follow logically. If we agree that a leveling out of resource distribution around the world will reduce poverty globally, then education of women (a gigantic omission on my part) and family planning based on the notion that fewer children will actually mean more resources per family, then a demographic shift towards smaller families will likely occur in other countries. As hard as it may be to believe, the best examples of this type of program working happened in Iran and Mexico. Through the governmental promotion of condom use on billboards and even in soap operas, among other things, population growth in both countries dropped from between 4-5% down close to replacement levels. To my knowledge, neither program violated basic human
rights at all. It was simply a desirable end for each country to reach and they did it.
The American government didn't have any particular voice in getting these governments to decide to do this. It's really a matter of governments having the wherewithal to do it. The alternative is an increasing number of failed states with more instances of those which have occurred in places like Darfur, Rwanda, and Haiti happening in places like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia, or Nigeria.
Finally, the control men have over women in many parts of the world is due to cultural traditions reinforced and justified often by religious beliefs. Is it self-righteous to call these traditions wrong or politically incorrect? I think women in many countries don't want so many children. It's their husbands who want children for status purposes. Population growth is often an expression of men's control of women.