June 19, 2012 at 22:11:20
Is the sky falling on this Beacon on the Hill, ending a
century of Yankee dominance, crushing the greatest, most brashly exceptional
nation known to mankind? Is this worldwide wonder of freedom and democracy, the
intersection of divine history and human destiny, kaput, on its last legs,
about to implode? Not quite, not
yet, and that's no endorsement of the status quo: powers-that-be hold high
trump cards.
Every generation endures end-of-the world scenarios, and we
still dread last century's, nuclear holocaust. Drama -- let alone anxiety
-- commands our attention and heartstrings. Pandemics, portable nukes,
fiery asteroids, religious mania, starvation, rightwing nuts, and looming
climate change, all threaten millions. But anxiety, even nightmare projections,
do not mean Armageddon is upon us, nor that pundits suddenly clasp reliable
crystal balls. Discretion is the
better part of this valor.
Global warming looms, likely to cut world population
and food production, but that's not extinction or end of times -- or displacing destructive capitalism.
Want good news? Harvard professor Steven Pinker argues our belligerent species has cut our wartime-violence
killing sprees. Are we not exiting Iraq, sort of? Life expectancies, even for the
impoverished, grow annually, if you count enough people. Only 43 Americans endured
capital punishment in 2011 (half the 2000 totals), mostly in W's Texas. Okay,
we live in grim times but take heart: we don't guillotine yet. And most of
life's simple pleasures haven't been banned, yet.
Centers hold on
No doubt, systemic cracks abound, thanks to myopic
leadership blunders, not just across state and national politics but corporate's
best and brightest, sports leagues, and fundamentalist denominations
that turn Jesus into racist warmonger. Pedophilia, misogyny and reaction still stalk
the west's oldest organized church. But even wobbly, distrusted centers, like
moons and planets, can wobble in place a good long time. History testifies to the resilience
of status quo, by definition adept at deflecting reform. Consider how long it
took to resolve slavery (or civil war, if we have), enfranchise women (and
minorities), or protect laboring children and the gamut of civil, gender, human
and gay rights. Today's well-funded,
defensive elite, armed with police forces, high-tech weaponry and media
propaganda, so dreads systemic change that this is equated with "the end of its
world."
Fortresses are designed for sieges, and things may well get worst
before they get better. Yet does that justify the countless catastrophes predicted
if that slick liberal, drone-friendly, Wall-Street-friendly president doesn't get re-elected? Even
more earth-shaking disruption is guaranteed by fringe hysterics: national
self-destruction descends if that slick liberal, non-citizen (let alone alien,
socialist anti-Christ) defies divine will by staying in office. What a quandary:
one election that decides which of two ways our world will end.
But anxiety aside, where's compelling data that
today's
enfeebled "Dying Empire" is expiring, and isn't there equivalent
evidence proving retrenchment, shoring up weak spots and securing
walls that resist
reform? Few imagine violent domestic insurrection (despite guns galore)
but
many would project bloody retribution by armies of police helped by
drone
surveillance. Though
whistleblowers are punished, gun sales flourish as do third political
parties, and
the Internet remains free, though gigantic computers approved by Obama
violate our
privacy. No doubt, were the belligerent, intolerant right to commandeer
our entire
government, brace for dreadful "systemic reforms." But odds greatly
favor more status quo -- and 40 in the Senate trump nearly everything.
Mythic hill to die on
Our western culture has one predominant catch-all for the
end of the world, courtesy of the New Testament finale: Armageddon.
Ar-ma-ged-don is "the battle between the forces of good and evil predicted to
mark the end of the world and precede the Day of Judgment." (Revelation 16:16).
With "ar" meaning "hill," derivation is less epic, an earthly hill called
Megiddo where our species gets its comeuppance. High time, say today's angry
moralists, echoing the irritable Old Testament chief.
What, is human history not already a fierce battle between perceived good vs. indicted
evil-doers? Have we not moved,
however haltingly for 200 years, from widespread dictators to greater
distribution of goodies to wider audiences, respect for law and judicial
processes, even expansive self-determination? True, our three-decade Yankee regression by fanatical believers in
cahoots with business reactionaries is gumming up progress, but I trust the long-term,
positive arc of history endures. Yet, where are alternative visions or
philosophies to trigger serious, left-leaning systemic reform? Successful revolutions have definite
contexts, especially breakthrough concepts (like democracy) that upset fixed communal
mindsets. What revolutionary ideas
can persuade our variegated masses to become rebels with a cause? In that absence, let us assess the daunting task:
1) Economic status quo is besieged but is hardly buckling. Despite
ungodly concentrations of wealth, the core capitalistic order --
reflected by
healthy world stock markets and international business as usual --is
accelerating from recession. Occupy protests urge more equitable
distribution I don't see key strategies
that could gain critical mass support. Has
this admirable protest even impacted national voting, as did the Tea Party?
Though a bruised candidate and lousy campaigner, Romney the patrician quickly overcame high
negatives to pull even with a charismatic, personally-popular president.
2) World leadership, with few exceptions, stands with high growth
and big business, whether here, struggling Europe, booming South America,
Middle East (dictatorial strongholds), or across highly productive Indian-Asian
powerhouses. China represents state capitalism on steroids, with autocratic leaders
restraining mounting internal contradictions and income discrepancies.
Where's the legitimate, unified
alternative -- even a major movement -- that challenges the world's ever-evolving
capitalist systems paying homage to private property, profit incentives,
centralized corporations, and monopolistic expansionism? Despite population surges, resource
restraints and natural warnings galore, our president merrily targets 3.5%
annual GDP growth, as if it's 1950.
3) Yes, America is faltering, mainly against China, rising
Asian
producers, and South American bright spots, like Brazil. Yet power
shifts don't
promise either the end of the world or power to more people, and China,
with insatiable
needs for oil, resources, and factories, is buying and/or financially
colonizing the third world. Copycat top-down
ownership plus exploitation of the environment drive Chinese growth,
mimicking all the excesses of late-western capitalism. Backed by wildly
expensive military
prowess,
America and our large corporations will hold their own, vigorously
ignoring resource externalities (what progress truly costs), just like
1950.
4) In fact, military power balances haven't drastically changed
since WWII, except that ex-communist Russia stumbled, displaced by
quasi-communist China. Western militarism
(with religious commitment to violence, whatever the threat or foe) plods on,
without budget cuts for guns, tanks or drones. Yankee militarism morphs into
narrower, "smarter" conflicts, less costly in money and lives, perhaps even
more cautious about killing enemies, not non-combatants.
5) Populist movements, however conspicuous, are struggling (as in
Egypt), assuming they get the necessary decades to foster functional,
democratic governments. No easy
fixes for severe tribal battles and shortfalls in education, medicine and
infrastructure. Protests like "60's
anti-war eruptions aren't yet shaking advanced countries, even though politics and elections
are becoming displays of crude propaganda by billionaires. Where's the outrage towards a void of debate about structural
challenges, replaced by media squabbling over allegedly monumental deficits or how quickly we must shrink "big government?"
In short, fantasies of change and progress aside, where's
persuasive evidence the world's empires are dying? Where are critical mass protests that combat economic systems
showing their age (and contradictions)? Does anyone imagine a large America
city, with armed insurgents, as realistic battleground? Would rural backwaters do much better when
drone attacks take out malcontents and/or scary arsenals?
Corrupt, crony capitalism won't be overturned simply because
income disparities widen, and conventional capitalism looks to satisfy employment
needs for decades. We are only beginning to define the
enemy and its weaknesses so it's early to declare imminent dissolutions. Yet still I trust the overall narrative
upswing of history, away from centralized dictatorship and towards
decentralized, democratic control of localized destinies.
But there could be nasty bumps along the way, especially if
too many withdraw, as in "we're all screwed, why fight"? And others cling to a president whose populist talk contrasts
with neo-liberal appointments, advisers, programs and decisions. There is a time to say the sky is falling and there is a time
to step back, assess the full power of the opposition and plan tactical moves
and strategic alliances. For me, reinstating the best of our Constitutional
restraints is a first step, and a major weakness with this president. Reform based on our best, most
inclusive legacies is one compelling philosophic engine, with a realistic
re-dedication to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for the vast
majority, not the privileged top per cent or two.
Historic note: systemic change needs a context and a
realistic new direction. Our revolution makes that point: finally, a
landowning, asset-holding elite, with a nod towards halfway democracy,
decided colonial obedience to a backward power was out -- and concepts of
self-rule grew, though over time. Had England not demanded intrusive new taxes
(for costly, far-off European wars), the colony would not have rushed to wean itself
from the mother country. Our revolutionary founders (all one-third of the
country) didn't revolt because they hated being English, but they refused to be
bullied, specifically denied the economic and social freedoms they had enjoyed
for decades. Inspect the Articles of Confederation, where weak state self-rule
dominates, to appreciate how America's truly revolutionary advance (a
centralized, federal union) wasn't the first dream, nor the first reform.
Educated at Rutgers College (BA) and UC Berkeley (Ph.D, English) Becker
left university teaching (Northwestern, U. Chicago) for business,
founding and heading SOTA Industries, high end audio company from '80 to
'92. From '92-02 he did marketing (
more...)
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
No comments:
Post a Comment