.
The following excerpts are from my book "Detensive Nation".
We are being challenged. We are challenged to change the way we think of energy. We will not be able to replace all of the oil and natural gas we use with alternative fuels. We will not have a "business as usual" future. We do have to change our economic system and social structure in order to deal with the realities of an energy constrained world. And we will transition to a more sustainable lifestyle. One way or the other.Definitions For the purposes of this book, the term “Culture” includes everything we are: our political systems, religious beliefs, ethnic character, economic psychology, mores, traditions, history, customs, arts, sciences, and education. These all play a role in how we chose to organize the production of goods and services, the values we place on labor and opportunity, how we make purchase and investment decisions, and how we utilize the resources of this earth.
The term "Economics" refers to the extent and process of how we employ capital, labor and materials. In the aggregate, these drive the data that is used to measure how our economy is behaving - markets, raw materials, production, finished goods, revenues, costs, profits, inventory, employment, housing, income, savings, stocks, - and so on.
“Cultural Economics” is the study of how human culture interacts with economic events and conditions. A discussion of Cultural Economics can be found in the “References and Definitions” chapter.
“Cultural EcoSystem” defines the cultural, economic and physical environment within which individuals and social groups function, and includes our emotional and intellectual interaction with other people.
Change and ResponseIt is hard to imagine the hardship of a world struggling under the burden of chronic recession. Liberal socialism assumes it has all the answers. But it has neither the theology nor the money to achieve success. Conservative thinking tends to distance itself from the humdrum of reality. So. What to do? Start by determining our objective. What do we want to accomplish? What do we want government to do?
Bring us together. As a community.
Help us all to survive - and then - excel.
We humans typically function best in a social environment of responsible freedom. This is especially true within the evolved cultural structures of OECD nations where we expect to have freedom of speech, freedom of worship, the opportunity to achieve for personal comfort and gain, a chance to love and be loved, the fellowship of a comfortable and familiar social fabric, the emotional nourishment of family, and a mutually beneficial relationship with our community. Friendship, love and truth can only exist in an environment of social and economic stability.
Evolved cultures generally abhor feudal and despotic political structures. We are happier in a political and cultural environment that supports individual freedom. Hopefully, that means energy detensive societies will seek to avoid dictatorships and other nasty solutions to the challenges that lie ahead. Nations that have made a successful transition into the 21st century typically have a strong middle class. No matter where they are on this planet, these people tend to have similar beliefs about human existence:
* Prosperity is better than poverty.
* Freedom is better than limitation.
* Plenty is preferable to famine.
* Friendships are the sustenance of life.
* Fellowship is better than hostility.
* Life is enhanced if people are nice to each other.
* Love and caring are essential components of a happy and productive life.
* Sincerity is better than treachery.
* Tolerance is preferable to prejudice.
* Integrity, loyalty, honesty, charity and commitment are the hallmarks of a virtuous life.
* Hard work and clean living are usually rewarded with economic and social success.
* Religious hatred is an archaic expression of doctrinaire conviction.
* Differences in ideology can be resolved through understanding and communication.
* A stable and productive middle class is a desirable component of any national culture.
* Families and family life provide a framework for personal growth, a sense of belonging, and the essence of love we share when we care for others.
* Children are to be loved, nurtured and protected because they are an extension of our being and inspire the emotional experiences of living.
* Education is a personal right and an essential component of a productive life.
* Empires are an obsolete form of government.
* Human welfare is more important than national power.
* Despotic governments are to be avoided.
* Peace is better than war.
* The rule of law is preferable to anarchy.
* If disease can not be eradicated, then at least it must be controlled.
* We must conserve and care for our environment.
* The resources of this planet are finite. We must learn to live with the inevitable limitations.
* All members of a culture must benefit from their participation.
* Private life should be free from ideological pressure.
Cultural conflict is – unfortunately - inevitable. It can be mitigated by replacing discord with tolerance, understanding, education and communication. Although disparities of wealth are inevitable, there can not be a crushing difference between the economic circumstances of the rich versus the poor. Most people just want to be left alone so they can go about the activities of daily life without fear or interruption.
Human intellect and emotional health need the freedom to achieve and excel, the freedom to embrace perceived opportunity, the freedom to embrace personal beliefs, the freedom of reasonable self expression, the freedom of association, and the freedom to act in one's selfish best interest.
We humans, thank heavens, are usually sufficiently malleable and adaptable to adjust to changes in our environment. We can deal with physical change. We have a tougher time dealing with emotional and intellectual challenges because these require the adoption of new ideas. We like our habits. They fit us like a comfortable shoe. We do not have to deal with the unknown.
That reluctance, or intransigence, to deal with change presents a problem for our conversion to an energy detensive culture. For the last fifty (or more) years the individual has been increasingly isolated from normal human interaction by the oppressive demands of a screaming media, far too much information, and a frenetic existence.
In this new world we will have to act as community.
That means the emphasis on diversity
will have to give way to the adoption of integration.
We are, after all, in this together.
The neighborhood community only works if we love one another as equals, communicate as friends, and act as co-operating individuals. A requisite of relocalization is “coming together”. Class distinctions make no sense.
Institutions An organization may be thought of as a group of people whose collective activities have an ordered existence that is intended to fulfill a common purpose. The group of people may have been brought together by a common cause, shared beliefs, or employment. The group's collective activities may be for a commercial, spiritual, or cultural purpose. Some form of order is imposed by selective members of the group on the activities of all group members. The rules, procedures, rituals and behavioral norms of individual participation may range from the assumption of laissez-faire attitudes to the imposition of strict responsibilities. The organization confers rights, obligations and liabilities on the individual participant. Participation will range from informal (casual) to formal (conferring implied or specific obligations).
Organizations become institutions when they take on an existence of perceived historical permanence that is separate and distinct from the lives of individual members. Institutions project a presence and authority that is larger than the influence of individual participants. There is a structure that confers power on selected members, demands obedience from all participants, and preserves the existence of the institution. For the purposes of this discussion, institutions may include churches and other religious organizations, charitable and fraternal associations, unions, political parties, government entities, corporations, hospitals, universities and so on. The Catholic Church, for example, is an institution that is separate and distinct from Catholics as a body of parishioners. The Republican Party is an institution that projects a presence that is more important than the existence of individual republicans. The Labor Department represents the activities of thousands of (largely) faceless government employees. General Electric and Harvard University are icons that have more charisma than any of the individuals that participate in their activities.
Organizations tend to be limited by the strengths and weaknesses of their management. Successful organizations - corporations, government agencies, universities, religious institutions, charities and so on - will normally have a strong and effective management team. The organization's leadership has a clear and informed vision of goals and objectives. It will usually be proactive, rather than reactive. These leaders, including individuals at all levels of the organization, are able to combine a comprehension of the organization's place in the real world with the capability to execute a detailed operating plan that permits the organization to succeed. Participants (employees or members) are focused on a strategy that will lead to accomplishing specific goals and objectives. There is a sense of mission, a sense of urgency and a sense of pride to be involved in the organization's mission. Most of the participants (employees or members) have a sense of belonging. The organization or institution provides a frame of reference for their daily activities. Tasks and work processes assume meaning because they are related to the success of the organization's mission. For each individual, success is measured in terms of results. Human energy is focused on the completion of assigned tasks. It is not wasted on debilitating internal political power struggles. Instead, the naturally competitive spirit of human endeavor is channeled into constructive activity that benefits the institution.
In this environment, the organization's leaders are not preoccupied with finding the most politically acceptable response to the inevitable challenges that occur in the course of an organization's activity. Instead, potential conflicts are resolved through pre-emptive personnel communication and proactive public relations.
Unfortunately organizations that have morphed into recognized institutions have a tendency to fossilize because bureaucratic rules, processes, privileges and restrictions suppress freedom of action. As this process permeates the institution, the organization invariably deteriorates, ceases to exist, or becomes irrelevant.
In general, institutions are opposed to change because change dislocates the participant's frame of reference and perception of personal status, disrupts the political structure of the organization, may force the reformation of the institution's culture, and impacts the rules, procedures, rituals and behavioral norms of individual participation. The larger the institution, the less flexible it becomes because increased size demands the incremental imposition of formal behavior. The older the institution, the greater the resistance to change because organizational aging breeds an increasingly rigid culture.
There is a fixation of beliefs. Symbolic exercises become pedantic routine. Traditional rituals are retained even though they no longer serve any useful purpose and may actually be antithetical to how the real world actually works. Truth is standardized and eventually fossilized. Artificial rituals and mindless rules crowd out innovation. The institution's embedded culture will tend to support the continuation of doctrinaire positions that create artificial social, intellectual, spiritual and emotional boundaries. There is a tendency to venerate the past while ignoring present needs and opportunities. Such traditionalism fosters false and exaggerated ideas of sacredness and fails to make contemporary interpretations of values and practices.
Zealots, in a display of very human behavior,
will defend the institution against change
because change is viewed as a heresy
against established beliefs.
Organizations are the invention of the human mind. They consequently display very human characteristics. Some participants will strive to accumulate power and authority. Others prefer to avoid personal responsibility or chose to maintain a low profile in order to keep from being blown out by internal political struggles. Competitive divisions and numerous cliques will inevitably develop. They encourage discrimination, elitism, and “chosen people” attitudes. These inner circles tend to believe that everyone else is an outsider who can not be trusted. Participation in the clique confers personal status and a sense of comfort because participants are dealing with familiar relationships. An “us” versus “them” psychology inevitably develops.
All institutions run the risk of evolving into politically active hell holes where everyone is backbiting everyone else. There is a nasty adversarial elitist struggle for personal position in the hierarchy. When institutions fall into this trap, they inevitably deteriorate because the accumulation and use of political power becomes more important than achieving the objectives or performing the duties of the institution. Rather than make rational decisions based on a careful evaluation of facts, decisions within this environment are made on the basis of political power. All too often, creative ideas are destroyed simply because one or more factions within the organization chose to oppose the idea merely to demonstrate their ability to dominate the decision making process.
Institutions are afraid to take risks. Risk requires the implementation of the unknown and the results can not be guaranteed. Failure is not politically acceptable. The retention of power is based on being right and consequently it is better to do nothing (frequently while appearing to do something), than to take an action which fails. If catering to the press is an important requisite of power retention, then it is inevitable that the selected course of action will conjure simplistic images rather than creative change. This is especially true when considering the decisions of government. Badgered by the press and mindless critics, there is no allowance for error. Creative experimentation is not allowed.
Institutions create bureaucracy. Rules, Procedures and Systems are necessary to maintain order. There is the impersonal application of general rules, both to outsiders and to internal staff. Applied rules are likely to be a repetition of what has worked in the past. They are made on a blanket basis, applying to everyone without regard for sanity or common sense. Rules are often part of an overall system, work process, or procedure. Since change can be disruptive, flexibility is to be avoided.
Bureaucratic procedures are usually proposed or written by people who do not have the capacity to understand their impact. They are made by an authorized person (autocratic) or by a committee (the pseudo democratic autocracy of the proletariat). Bureaucratic committees are usually populated by individuals who are ill equipped to make reasonable rules. Individual member motivation is likely to be political, rather than rational. The larger the committee, the more likely it is most of the members will not be able to make a contribution.
There is an inclination of leaders to become administrative bureaucrats or defenders of the institution rather than managers and communicators. Oppressive authority evolves. Rules and regulations replace creative leadership. Red tape and ingrained attitudes smother creative thinking. Traditionalized, dogmatized, and institutionalized organizations fail to hold the interest of adventurous people who could care less about their existence. As the institution is trivialized (becomes irrelevant), it becomes the target of scorn or is simply ignored. Although there is a retained façade of historical purpose, its actual activities invariably deviate from its original mission. What is the lesson? The creations of human invention inevitably deteriorate.
All institutions are destined to become obsolete.
It is a natural process.
Competitive and market driven institutions, such as corporations, can be revived by disruptive management because their continued existence depends on a positive transformation. Change is motivated by economic need. Although institutions that tend to be constrained by internal political squabbling, such as universities, are more difficult to change, they can also be revitalized. Their stature, economic success and relevance are at stake. But government institutions - legislatures, administrations, agencies - have the unfortunate ability to hide behind the protection of political dispensation and the police power of the state. Zealots will defend government institutions against change if change promises to alter perceived selfish-best-interest. Disruptive management, which could revitalize their purpose, is not allowed by the conceit of entrenched political power.
Even if they have become corrupt, irrelevant or
dominated by special interest agendas,
even if they are no longer needed
or have strayed from their original mission,
the institutions of government tend to survive.
Until there is a
revolution.
Ideology Ideology gets in the way of good government. Fascists, Communists, Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives, Anarchists and their ilk are idealists. With great fervor they insist on the adoption of management systems that will not work because they either ignore the reality of human nature or the structural needs of orderly management. They almost always either do not understand, or choose to ignore, the mechanisms of successful organizations. Worse, ideology is relentless progenitor of human division, dissent and disillusion.
But ideology will not go away. Ideology is the fertile dung heap for ceaseless, self-righteous intellectual masturbation. Millions of hours have been wasted on social theories that have little to do with cultural economic reality. We should learn from history. No specific ideological theory of government has always worked to the benefit of the governed. Installing a democracy does not equate to the achievement of independent democratic values. When voters installed Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia, they empowered a government policy of ethnic cleansing. Adolph Hitler was elected to be Chancellor of Germany. Religious fundamentalist violence has accompanied democratic elections in Iraq, Indonesia, Nigeria, India, Iran and Pakistan. Communist and socialist theories have collided with economic reality and human nature in Russia, Great Britain, France and wherever else they have been tried. Dictatorships have failed to meet the cultural and economic needs of the governed in North Korea, Iraq, Germany, Italy and almost everywhere else they have been established.
Given a reasonable Cultural EcoSystem,
it is effective management - not ideology –
that makes government a functional success.
Independent democracy is the traditional form of self-rule found in countries like America, Australia, and Great Britain. Independent democracy combines the idea of individual rights with the concept of majority rule. Independence of thought and deed are exercised within the disciplines imposed by the responsibility of living in a democracy. Majority rule (popular sovereignty) enables a self-governing democracy. Independent Americans want a democracy that limits the role of government, guarantees the individual freedoms described by the Constitution, allows them to pursue their own interests and generally mirrors middle class moral values. Given the availability of suitable opportunity, the desire to be successful, and sufficient personal ability, it is believed that all individual Americans should have an equal chance to succeed in their endeavors. Independent Americans expect individuals to be treated equally before the law and to be responsible for their actions. In their view, people should be judged by their character and not by the characteristics of the group to which they belong. In an independent democracy, people form voluntary associations to achieve political and personal goals. Civic participation is therefore inclusive - open to everyone. Independent Americans believe that the private sector should be free from the interference of the State. Because we humans are not perfect, an independent democracy must have an internal structure of checks and balances in order to avoid corruption or the abuse of political power.
There would be little need for alternative ideologies,
if the ideologues could simply agree
on what they wanted for humanity.
Unfortunately, government institutions always attract those who seek to elevate their economic and collective power. The more bureaucratic the government, the greater the distortion of social and economic dispensation, as the participants - bureaucrats, politicians, voters and aliens - recognize that personal success depends more on political influence than on self reliance.
Democracy only works if it is based on the considered consensus of the majority of those being governed. A fundamental assumption of any working democracy is that the minority will agree to abide by the will of the majority. If the consent of the majority is defeated, whether by legislative process or by court ruling, and the police power of the State is used to enforce only a consideration of the minority, then democracy ceases to exist.
Why Governments Fail One of the fantasies espoused with fervent ignorance is that the cold war ended when Communism failed. It had finally been proven, went the argument, that Communism is an inadequate form of government. Since Democracy provides a better means of managing the affairs of State, Democracy had won the contest.
When the communist government of the USSR collapsed, liberals and conservatives of every political affiliation struggled to find an explanation. Liberals in America, Canada and Western Europe had generally supported communism as a political theory, often comparing it as a preferred alternative to what they perceived as failed democratic institutions. For them, the demise of Russian communist rule was an embarrassment. By contrast, conservatives rejoiced at what they perceived as a victory for democracy. They believed that socialist political philosophy had been trampled by the reality of current events. The accepted explanation for people of both philosophies was that communism had lost the cold war. Democracy had won.
They were wrong.
Communism failed because Russia's leaders had lost the ability to govern. Russia's convoluted, corrupt and ossified bureaucratic institutions simply stopped working. The people did not make a conscious decision to overthrow Communism in favor of Democracy. They adopted a democratic form of government because it was perceived as being the only credible alternative to their failed institutions.
Democracy did not win. Communism did not lose. In reality, the Russian Government had simply stopped working. The Russian people were forced to adopt democratic capitalism because the credibility and the processes of bureaucratic centralized planning had evaporated. Ideology had little to do with the practical reality of finding a way to manage the affairs of government. If the Russian people choose democracy - even a pseudo democracy - it was because democracy appeared to be more acceptable than other alternative forms of self rule.
And that provokes an interesting question: Do Americans face the same uneasy dilemma that forced a change in Russia? Could it be argued that America's democratic institutions are suffering from the same cancerous problems that ended Communism?
Absolutely.
Governments fall from power because they either ossify or become too soft. In the former case the natural course of bureaucratic behavior creates an unworkable system of regulations backed by the stupid, overbearing and arrogant use of police power. The management functions of government become hopelessly entangled in politically motivated decisions that have nothing to do with present or future reality. In the latter case, government becomes so liberal that it can only act in a cowardly fashion. Pandering to the demands of the mob, justice and morality are continually degraded in a vain attempt to find the lowest common denominator. Groups gain special status through the granting of exclusive privilege. In either case, personal freedom is lost. Individuals can only survive by acting outside the system.
It is America's sad misfortune to suffer from both malady's at the same time.
All national governments are bureaucratic institutions. The underlying political philosophy may be totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic or laissez faire. It doesn't matter. The administrative success or failure of any government depends upon how well it manages the bureaucratic processes of governing. Successful governments will normally have a strong and effective leadership. There is a reasonably clear and informed vision of goals and objectives. It will usually be proactive, rather than reactive. Leaders at all levels of government are able to combine a comprehension of the country's place in the real world with the capability to execute the work processes of administrative management. Corrupt behavior, which plagues every nation, has been minimized either by the rule of law or outright oppression.
All national governments face the same political problem. The majority of the governed will continue to support their government if it appears to sustain the satisfaction of their selfish-best-interest. But governments fail for many reasons. Bad management, oppressive bureaucracy, a lack of natural resources, economic depression, social dislocation, religious civil war, cultural conflict, endemic corruption and human oppression can destroy the ability to govern. And as the Russian experience shows, the institutions of government will inevitably break down if they are allowed to strangle on the ravages of bureaucratic behavior. We must ask ourselves one simple question: Are democracies immune from the institutional problems that disrupted the rule of Russia's communist government?
No. Obstreperous bureaucratic behavior is an endemic problem for all governments.
It is remarkable how little collateral damage occurred when USSR shifted from communism to managed democracy. A similar transition in USA has the potential to be far more bloody because the liberal promotion of cultural diversity has created powerful opposition forces who will support their ideological solutions with fanatical zeal. If the American people are forced to restructure the institutions of government, what is their alternative? Will it be the class conscious, liberal, socialist, cultural democracy ideologues versus those who champion the integration of a homogeneous, moderate, egalitarian, entrepreneurial, independent democracy?
A worldwide depression will trigger cataclysmic change. Economic collapse always increases the appeal of an authoritarian political message. The electorate feels betrayed by events over which they are powerless. Democracy - indeed all forms of national government - must be able to match human anticipation with cultural economic reality, or the governed will look for an alternative form of rule. And in some cases, that means that governments must do what they absolutely fear the most - they must reduce the scope of the services that they can deliver to the governed. America, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain and Australia are among the countries that will have to decrease the welfare, health care and retirement benefits of the electorate because they will be impoverished by current events and past mismanagement.
Americans are a generous and friendly people. That is their Christian heritage. But the frustration and poverty of a depression will make the country politically unstable. Cultural diversity will become the breeding ground for raw intolerance. And if a dictatorship ascends into power over the United States, then think revenge. Think hatred. Think of war as a cathartic release for pent up rage.
Too bizarre to happen you say? You forget your history. Go back and look at what happened in Germany from 1919 to 1945. Remember the Nazis? World War 2? Concentration camps? Millions dead from bombs, guns, disease and starvation? Who would have believed these god fearing, intelligent, culturally solid and industrious people would commit such atrocities?
But they did.
When the American stock market collapsed on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, a financial tsunami surged around the world. Germany, still struggling to recover from sanctions imposed after WW1, fell into disarray. Unemployment and inflation soared. Banks closed. Savings accounts vanished. Middle class Germans were ruined.
Adolf Hitler saw political opportunity.
The tiny, fanatical, highly disciplined Nazi party was able to capitalize on the disintegration of Germany’s democratic institutions. The Reichstag, torn by ceaseless bickering, had become an irrelevant institution. Hitler was able to enlist the support of several German industrialists and upper class socialites. A charismatic speaker with a good sense of what the German people wanted to hear, Hitler was able to rally support for his campaign. When Bruening asked Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections on September 14, 1930, the Nazi Party was ready to take power with a sense of mission and a positive message. The German people were ready for a new government.
Does any of this sound familiar? If it happened in Germany, it can happen in America. As I write this (2007), American public approval for this Administration is about 34 percent among likely voters. Not good. But public approval of the job Congress is doing is under 15 percent. Voters apparently believe Congress is an abysmal failure. One would think the Democrats would be pleased with a democratic Congress. But they do not appear to be very enthusiastic. Ten percent of very liberal people, 21 percent of liberals, and 19 percent of Democrats approve of the job Congress is doing. Other voters poll lower. Fourteen percent of very conservative and conservative people polled gave Congress good marks. That approval drops to 13 percent for Republicans and 8 percent of independents. Only 25 percent of all voters believe America is headed in the right direction. (Zogby International poll, July 2007)
Congress is torn by ceaseless bickering. Has it also become irrelevant? All we need is a catalyst to convert this disgust into aversion. Chronic recession, a depression, or terrorist activity could be the trigger.
If our Federal Government continues to drift away
from the traditional values of responsible democracy,
it will not endure.
Powerful political forces are attempting to reform the character of our institutions to suite their vision of a perfect autocratic society. Arbitrary law that panders to social caste, backed by the police power of the State, is used to gain support from blocks of voters. The sordid instincts of competitive animal behavior focus on the acquisition and preservation of political power. Voters become chattel. Ignorant ideology replaces economic justification, individual freedom and common sense as the basis for legislation. The institutions of government are rendered ineffective and excessively expensive by growing mismanagement. This form of government can last for as long as the governed will tolerate the inevitable detestation, corruption, incompetence and restrictions of an oppressive bureaucratic system.
American democracy was originally founded by a group of largely middle class colonists based on their cultural beliefs and their knowledge of the institutional failures that had besieged the nations of Europe. They wanted to avoid the obvious mistakes, form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for themselves and their posterity. It was assumed that a nation of free men and women would share a belief in a supreme being. It was assumed that individual freedom incorporated the concept of individual responsibility.
A government which seeks to elevate the human condition takes its sense of mission from spiritual beliefs. Although Christianity has typically been used to provide this basis, any profound and moving relationship with a supreme being that encompasses the principals of friendship, love and truth will provide the necessary visualization. Within this context, terms such as industry, fidelity, caring, charity, honesty, and integrity are essential descriptors of personal behavior. America’s founding fathers firmly believed these characteristics must guide the legislative and administrative processes of government.
Founded as it is on the best impulses of human conduct, America can only decline if it abandons them in favor of elitist ideologies that promote the acquisition of political power over the individual.
Unfortunately for Americans, our Federal government has neither a strategic nor a tactical plan to manage the affairs of our nation. What happens next is a random walk. Our destiny will be determined by fate and the world’s ever-changing Cultural Ecosystem. There is no mechanism that compels either Congress or the Administration to address, and resolve, the constant stream of issues and questions that confront our highly complex culture. Worse, even when decisions are made, there is no universal commitment to success; i.e. a substantial percentage of the participants hope the initiative will fail in order to bolster their own selfish objectives.
Sabotage is a political weapon.
Why do we believe this management process will work? If we don’t know what we want to accomplish, how will we accomplish anything? Since we have no meaningful goals, we also have no timeline to accomplish them.
It will take forever to do nothing.
And yet, despite its highly probable failure, there are those who are dumb enough to believe the government should run everything.
Our existing economic crisis will encourage radical change. The looming fossil fuel energy crisis will absolutely force political change. When it hits. When the proletariat begins to suffer…..
The mob will ask two questions:
Why did you let this happen to us?
What are you going to do about it?
If the Federal Government does not have a good answer,
we the people are going to be looking for a new government.
One that actually works.
Is this America's future?
Western Government Federal government malaise is not confined to America. OECD political institutions are consumed by an increasingly acerbic confrontation. Liberal versus conservative. Us versus them. We spend our time on old issues because we are unable to confront future reality.
The selfish accumulation of political power is more important than legislative wisdom. Government is supposed to be responsible for managing the future of humanity. Our Cultural EcoSystem. But that is not happening. Institutional obsolescence and imperious privilege have paralyzed the management process of contemporary political institutions. Belligerent behavior, uncompromising ideology and plain ignorance pass for legislative wisdom. Cynical commentary parades as moral righteousness. What ever happened to the accumulation of information based on objective research and the process of making decisions based on erudite analysis?
Have we forgotten how democracy is supposed to work?
If all governments operate on the principle that the preservation of political power is far more important than making rational decisions, if the satisfaction of selfish-best-interest always takes precedence over rational inquiry, and if ideology is always more important than truth, then it is guaranteed that increasingly dysfunctional national governments will be incapable of implementing the programs we so desperately need in order to survive the cultural and economic holocaust that lies ahead.
Our politicians have no intention of compromising their quarrelsome behavior. Worse, western political institutions are unable to deal constructively with Islamic terrorism because anything they attempt will be construed as politically incorrect. The idealists - liberal or conservative - insist on living in a world that does not exist. And until there is an overwhelming crisis, they can continue with their fantasy. Will obstinate self-righteousness make it impossible to mitigate the economic and cultural disaster of resource depletion?
Yes.
Will increasingly stressed, and heavily indebted, national governments will be able to deal with future economic and cultural challenges?
Probably not. Existing governments are in big trouble.
One Peoples within nations that have not made a successful cultural transition into the 21st century will tend to loathe, ignore or disbelieve the characteristics of contemporary OECD national culture. They continue to be oppressed by their ancient beliefs and subsequent distrust of outsiders. Ignorance always emphasizes hatred as a release for self inflicted frustration. But for advanced civilizations, dictatorships are an obsolete form of government. Autocratic rule must be replaced if humanity is to achieve universal freedom. Those governments that fail to support individual civil rights and personal freedom face rebellion as national populations learn about these values.
Every civilized nation has gone through a transition from authoritarian rule to independent democracy. Tribal leaders came under the control of war lords, kings consolidated war lord territories into regional fiefdoms, emperors formed nations, the rise of the middle class encouraged the formation of autocratic or democratic nation states.
Democracy based on the concepts of individual civil rights and human freedom has become the foundation of enlightened 21st century governments. It took the nations of Western Europe almost 400 years to make this transition. It took 200 years for American and Canadian nationals to replace foreign colonial rule. The rise of a self-determining middle class composed of business and professional people enabled South Korea and Taiwan to convert from authoritarian rule to a managed democracy in less than 30 years. China is now struggling to make the same transition. The replacement of socialist, communist, and tyrannical dictatorships with more democratic institutions is the natural evolution of human political structures. But each nation will make the transition at its own pace and we must recognize - some nations will fail because they do not have the necessary cultural and economic means to succeed.
How can mankind encourage emerging nations to adopt 21st century democratic ideals? It is a two step process. First there must be a cultural change that educates the population to the benefits and responsibilities of democracy. Then a democratic political system can be installed. The transition can be implemented by means of a Managed Democracy. Managed democracy seeks to combine the benefits of limited democracy with the orderliness of centralized management. Authoritarian rule manages the bureaucratic functions of the State and enforces cultural discipline. The governed are encouraged to engage in limited democratic processes as they discover the benefits and responsibilities of independent democracy. They learn to embrace middle class values, including cultural tolerance, individual human rights, the rule of law and the protection of private property. They develop the ability to be self reliant entrepreneurs. Violent confrontation is gradually replaced by enlightened discussion and the will of the majority. Managed democracy is a particularly attractive option for nations that are transitioning from obsolete cultural norms to 21st century beliefs. Indeed when we talk about "nation building" in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the key objectives is to establish a vigorous middle class whose value systems will have a stabilizing influence on national cultural beliefs and behavior. In these efforts, the rulers who are enabling the transition must have a strong vision of their goals as well as the means to achieve them. Else they will fail.
Religion Christianity is at a crossroads. Socialist cultural democracy clashes with ancient doctrine. We humans desperately need an enlightened vision of the spiritual universe.
The post WW2 baby boom produced a prolific growth in mainline church attendance during the 1950s. Americans scrambled for a conventional Sunday experience wrapped in an increasingly ecumenical, open-minded theology. By the 1970s, however, many Christians had turned to a more conservative theology, leading to the growth of evangelical and bible text centered faiths. Mainline church attendance began to decline. Thousands of churches closed. There was strong growth, however, within the Catholic Church (largely due to the migration of Mexican and South American Catholics into the United States), the Southern Baptist Convention, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), and Pentecostal churches. The Roman Catholic (69 million), Southern Baptist (16.3 million), and Methodist (8.1 million) churches remain the three largest denominations in the country. (NCC)
Overall Church attendance is declining (down 12% from 2000 – 2006). Declines have been particularly noticeable among mainline churches started before 1960. By contrast, nine out of ten new congregations have been started by evangelicals. More than 95 percent of America’s very large churches espouse an evangelical theology. (NCC)
Church membership growth is not keeping up with population growth, and on any given Sunday – less than 20% of Americans will walk through a Church door. If there is any growth in attendance, it is for the very large mega churches and within the thousands of very small congregations. (NCC)
There has been a significant fragmentation of theology within Christianity. Absent charismatic leadership, the Christian experience mostly centers around ancient tradition and doctrine.
Depression or chronic recession will drive a cataclysmic change to our Cultural EcoSystem. Confusion. Distrust. Fear. Hurt. Economic deprivation. Psychological trauma. Millions are going to need the comfort of a stable and re-assuring religious experience. We will seek solace.
Will our religious institutions be able to handle the challenge?
Absolutely – yes. But they will need time to get organized. Religious organizations are, after all, human institutions. There will be a temptation to rely on obsolete theology in a crumbling Cultural EcoSystem. But the old ways will not work. This is change on the gut level. Successful religious groups will evolve into inclusive community institutions. Mix the theology with compassion and forget the politics. Rely on the goodness of Christian middle class values.
Local religious groups can become a significant source of volunteer support for community activities. If local government is willing to identify these groups, and work with them, they can become a key component of organizing a response to the lifestyle challenges that lie ahead. These congregations provide a focus on human compassion, a psychological framework and reference for the bewildered, and a place to organize faith based volunteer support for the community.
Why am I concerned about the role of religion in the community?
Well. I am a
Cultural Economist. And a positive, constructive religious experience will be a key component of successful communities. Inspirational worship and warm hospitality can do much to bring the community together.
Objectives The future of mankind will be decided by the kind of government we the people demand in the 21st century. Cultural and economic chaos will force government to make a choice: fail or succeed. If our political institutions are unable to change, then failure is certain. If government wants to succeed, then we need to frame a new set of objectives based on the exercise of inclusive and compassionate leadership, accompanied by thoughtful innovation, a recognition of practical reality, and a sense of vision.
The ultimate objective is – of course – to ease the transition from our existing energy intensive lifestyle to the Cultural EcoSystem of an energy Detensive Nation.
Ron
Note: NCC : National Council of Churches
OECD : Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
.
.
