The Individual and the Collective

Evolution itself first articulated this distinction. Some forms of life are loners from the moment of birth, e.g. the sea turtle. Others are largely functions of the group, e.g. schooling fish. We humans having evolved a larger brain that has led to a greater awareness of self have lived in a largely bifurcated world of self and society. Unfortunately that larger brain has been much less successful in developing the capacity to bridge this gap than it has in exacerbating it and in developing destructive technologies that make this failure ever deadlier to its continued existence.

In addition to the problems generated by our bifurcated nature we also have a pronounced tendency to over emphasize the discoveries of our brain. In current literature this is often described as "overshoot." When Darwin presented his Origin of Species and the mechanism of survival of the fittest, this notion was almost immediately converted into a societal, especially business, motif. The wealthy not only did in fact dominate the poor, it was only natural that they did so. Being wealthy, and hence powerful, they were the ones "fit" to dominate the rest of mankind. What these titans of greed did not understand was that evolution had produced a social species with a sense of justice based on a moral sense of equality. This social sense was as necessary for human survival as being "fit." To this day the notion of the survival of the fittest permeates the ethos of libertarianism and its free market economics. Their version of freedom is nothing more than Darwin's survival of the fittest. Indeed, if you listen to the utterances of today's business tycoons their use of the word "war" to describe competition is often heard. The Art of War, an ancient Chinese work authored by Sun Tzu, is a best seller in business circles. Yet in times of financial crisis many of these business bravados flee to the relative safety of public coffers in the form of government bonds to protect them from the ugly world they have created. Individualism of the form espoused by libertarians and free marketers is a child's game of "king of the mountain," although a very dangerous one, in which the collective must bail the individuals out. When will we learn that the seductive siren call of uncontrolled economic freedom is a chimera that will inevitably destroy the ship of state and its cargo of fools. Productivity should be aimed at human well being not human wealth.

Neoliberalism, little more than a play on words

Neoliberalism is a current example of conservative radical individualism. It is also a very irksome term for anybody who takes liberalism seriously. Let us look at how the libertarians and free market economists converted liberalism into conservatism.

Liberalism arose in the 17th century from thinkers such as John Locke for whom property was almost a synonym for freedom because the Crown, aristocracy and Church owned almost all of it, John Stuart Mill whose essay "The Subjection of Women" early demonstrated liberalisms concern for improving social conditions and Jeremy Bentham whose "greatest good for the greatest number" utilitarianism was intended to replace religion as the foundation of morality. This was a time when freedom was increasingly in the air, at least among philosophers. The predominant enemies

of freedom were the king for whom other humans were subjects, not citizens and the landed aristocracy and the Church. It was against this background that people such as Jefferson believed the less government the better. Keep in mind that the British Crown controlled everything. The colonies were created to serve the crown either directly or indirectly through its grantees. The American Revolution was largely a merchant's revolution aimed at freeing merchants to trade with whomsoever they pleased and freeing them from increasingly onerous taxes by an absentee monarch.

Now let us step forward to 1933. The major oppressors were the Wall Street financiers and industrial tycoons. They were the ones oppressing workers in the coal mines, think the Ludlow massacre; in the meat packing houses, think Upton Sinclair's, the Jungle; in the auto plants, think Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times; in rapacious railroad freight charges, think the farmer's Grange movement. Freedom of the individual at this time meant freedom from economic domination. The government under FDR became the instrument for restoring freedom. Why? Because this country had become a democracy not a monarchy and the people were able to use government for their own purposes. It, obviously, was not easy, but equally obviously, it did not require a French Revolution.

In both 18^th and 2o^th centuries liberals sought the freedom of the individual within the context of society. Neoliberalism is an effort by conservatives to recreate the economic oppression of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries by leading people to think the economic world of the 18^th century, before corporations dominated the economy, is germane to the world of the 21^st century. That it has resulted in little more than economic colonialism should be evident to all. In a world of increasing overpopulation and decreasing resources it is clear that an ethos that sacrifices the group to the individual is a breeding ground for escalating conflict and violence, and this in the context of an expanding capacity to kill and maim.

The following is an excerpt from Arthur Schlesinger Jr.'s essay titled Liberalism in America: A Note to Europeans in which he makes clear the consistency of liberalism and by implication the stealing of the word liberal by conservatives to engender confusion in America's political process.

"Enough should have been said by now to indicate that liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain. Liberalism in America has been a party of social progress rather than of intellectual doctrine, committed to ends rather than to methods. When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state."

Corporate power and the poverty it has spread are today's fundamental enemies of freedom.

Franklin Roosevelt clearly understood the meaning of "liberal" in the context of a corporation, rather than a monarch, dominated society when he included a freedom from want in his four freedoms speech. We must realize and articulate the fact that poverty is as much the enemy of freedom as dictatorship and that we have a Republican Party prepared to impose poverty on millions of Americans, indeed to move as many middle class citizens into poverty as possible. To some this claim may seem a drastic overstatement, but I think the extensive and vicious attacks on government services and economic support of the citizen combined with a radical decrease in taxes on the wealthy leave no other explanation. This is the fundamental purpose and result of their attacks on government. Ordinary people have no other defender than government and they need to take it back.

We must ask ourselves whether, in the face of overpopulaton, human-replacing technology and extremely high concentration of wealth, whether humanity is becoming redundant and is this situation being manipulated by the multibillionaires of this planet for their own purposes. In a democracy they need us as long as we have the vote, hence the Koch brothers and the Tea Party. However, it is more than possible that they can subvert this democracy into an authoritarian state, perhaps via the Religious Right's stated desire for a theocracy and the political machinations behind the "unitary presidency" floated by G. W. Bush, especially in the chaotic times this country will experience.

Democracy has no defense other than the will and energy of its citizens. The real question is whether the American citizenry is up to it.

Bob Newhard

Let Us Remember

As we remember the horror of the falling Twin Towers, the caved in Pentagon and the self sacrifice of those who crashed their plane headed for the White House as well as the self sacrifice of public employees who died trying to rescue others and are still severely affected by the debris of the crashing buildings, let us also remember and ponder some things that led up to and followed from this event.

Let us remember a Middle East carved up to their desires by the winning allies of World War One regardless of racial, ethnic or cultural differences.

Let us remember a democratic Iran whose government was overthrown by the United States and the dictatorial Shah installed in place of their socialist government to insure that their oil would go to us and our corporations. The invasion of Iraq was, in many respects, a replay of this consummate arrogance.

Let us remember our bargain with the autocratic Saud family to protect them against all enemies in return for access to their oil.

In all these and other precursors to 9/11 let us remember the term blowback and seek cooperation rather than domination when dealing with other countries. Let us cease letting corporations drive our foreign policy. Let us remember, contrary to Donald Rumsfeld, that it does matter that they hate us even if they also fear us.

Let us remember the thousands of Iraqi children who died as a result of the embargo we were instrumental in imposing and enforcing following the Gulf War.

As for 9\11 and all that flowed from it:

Let us remember the monumental extent to which we were lied to. Let us remember that "war" was immediately declared against a then unknown, but perhaps suspected, enemy which had no country, no army and no geographic borders.

Let us remember that no alternative, such as a cooperative global Interpol effort, was sought by the Bush administration despite widespread support for the United States. Obviously a large, concerted and cooperative police action by the many countries sympathetic to the United States was called for. The term "war" tapped into the military might we had been accumulating for over 50 years and into an American mind set of almost continuous war or preparation for war that characterized the 20^th century.

Let us remember the deer-in-the-headlights look on G.W. Bush's face when he was informed of the attack while reading stories to children. Let us ask did he know the scenario?

Let us remember the Project for the New American Century plan hatched by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al to insure American dominance of the world and that 9/11 was used to put it into play. Let us remember the massive death and suffering, not to mention wasted resources this arrogant ego trip cost. Let us pursue their accountability.

Let us remember the rapid restructuring of our government to let military concerns override all else. Remember the hyped fear of colored warnings of likely terrorist activity. Remember the Patriot Act that threatens any domestic dissent.

Let us remember that by attacking Afghanistan we were able to supply the geographic boundaries and other prerequisites for war, albeit against one of the world's poorest nations. We were also able to expand the enemy from a few al Qaeda members to the ruling Taliban. In all this let us remember how we were manipulated into war.

Let us remember that in responding as we did we supplied all the manpower Osama bin Laden could wish for and converted his attack into a broad contest between religions and cultures.

Let us remember the lies by the Bush administration that led to our murderous attack on an absolutely innocent Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of innocent people we have killed or maimed. Let us reflect on the trashing of the cultural artifacts, the barbarism of Abu Ghraib, the laying waste of Fallujah and the vast destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, which despite our promises to repair, remains to this date 10 years later.

Let us remember the flag waving patriotic jingoism that preceded our "piece of cake" invasion of Iraq. Let us remember the coordinated media hype, the Pentagon-appointed experts, as one more Madison Avenue advertising campaign and that we Americans were so vulnerable to it.

Let us remember the perfidy of being told our soldiers would leave Iraq only to see them transferred to Afghanistan and greatly added to as well.

Finally, and most importantly, let us remember that the mindset of the American people has been radically and thoroughly shifted from the euphemisms of economic dominance to the stark awareness of the brutality of imperialism and the fear and folly it engenders. Unlike our erstwhile naiveté, we can no longer ask why they hate us. The fear and shame that our actions have induced have prompted us to blindly provide billions of dollars to the military presumably to keep the terrorists busy in foreign lands, as we are mentally whipsawed by the media, body scanned at airports, detained without court order, put on "no fly" lists because we peacefully demonstrate against government policies. We must now protest behind chain link fences far removed from the elected offices we protest against. We have, like despots, rendered people for torture, imprisoned them indefinitely without formal charges and deprived them of trial by a jury of their peers. Such are the consequences of fear. We are a substantially different people than we were prior to 9/11. We should acknowledge that and work to remedy it. The courage that the Norwegian people and their leaders demonstrated when faced with terrorist slaughter of their children, the courage to reemphasize democratic values and their open society, warrants considerable thought and emulation by the American people.

As Paul Krugman so simply and eloquently says in the New York Times of 9-11-11 under the title of The Years of Shame

The Years of Shame

Paul Krugman blogs today:

"Is it just me, or are the 9/11 commemorations oddly subdued? Actually, I don’t think it’s me, and it’s not really that odd. What happened after 9/11 — and I think even people on the right know this, whether they admit it or not — was deeply shameful. The atrocity should have been a unifying event, but instead it became a wedge issue. Fake heroes like Bernie Kerik, Rudy Giuliani, and, yes, George W. Bush raced to cash in on the horror. And then the attack was used to justify an unrelated war the neocons wanted to fight, for all the wrong reasons.

A lot of other people behaved badly. How many of our professional pundits — people who should have understood very well what was happening — took the easy way out, turning a blind eye to the corruption and lending their support to the hijacking of the atrocity?

The memory of 9/11 has been irrevocably poisoned; it has become an occasion for shame. And in its heart, the nation knows it.

Let us remember how easily we have been led by lies into the massive killings of Vietnam and Iraq. Let us heed the pleas of the recently deceased Chalmers Johnson in his last book Dismantling the Empire: American's Last Best Hope that we demolish the American Empire before it demolishes us. Let us value our common humanity higher than our historical and cultural differences.

Bob Newhard

Needed, a Global Moral System

On the one hand we have unprecedented global pressures on the human species, e.g. over population, global warming, food and water shortages, ecological destruction. On the other hand we have developing global social chaos that some, e.g. Samuel Huntington, believe will lead to a massive conflict of civilizations in a world of nuclear armaments. I suggest there is a dire need for a global moral system, which can be used to ameliorate the human condition before we destroy ourselves in the all too familiar manner our history evidences.

Being as moral systems are cultural artifacts, it would seem the best way to begin such an effort is to consider how human cultures have accommodated themselves to each other in the past. The last two centuries have produced two major models of cultural accommodation in the United States. One is the "melting pot" in which people of many cultures agree to substantially surrender their native culture in order to participate in a new culture. The mass migrations to the United States in the 19^th and early 20^th centuries were certainly not without conflict, e.g. attacks on Chinese, the denigration of the "shanty Irish," but they willingly kept coming anyway. Many avidly sought to integrate into the melting pot, changing or anglicizing their name in order to better fit in. The melting pot converted all cultures to an American culture, which by historical dictate was substantially English.

In the 1960s dissatisfaction with loss of cultural identity prompted a rebellion against the melting pot and a substitution of multiculturalism, sometimes metaphorically called the salad bowl. It has become the dominant form of cultural acculturalization. I believe I am correct in asserting that multiculturalism is now believed to be the best way to accommodate the cultural fragmentation of our species. While I can understand the push to multiculturalism, I think in the long run for the purpose of a global culture and a moral system derived from it, that the melting pot metaphor will be found more serviceable. The melting pot had the advantage of establishing a common identity, which is what humanity will need if it is to create a global moral system. In lieu of subordinating all existing cultures to one existing culture, as happened in the United States, it will be necessary to fashion a new culture. I suggest that system will have to recognize the de facto imperatives increasingly imposed on mankind by the limitations of the natural world, not, as currently, the fictions of religion as has been the case so often up to this point. In this regard it will not do to create one more myth, e.g. Gaia. Our understanding of our world and its processes and of ourselves must be the focus of any value system that would sustain us and the planet we inhabit. Thus creating a sustainable environment as quickly and thoroughly as possible must become a moral imperative of a global moral system.

Therefore, at bottom, nature will dictate the terms of any system of human behavior that aspires to preserve humanity and the planet. This places a premium on science, the one institution with the background, integrity and self-correcting processes necessary for this endeavor.

One sign that the need for such a global moral system is being increasingly recognized is the increasing need of nations to seek United Nations sanctions before engaging in conflict. This is far from perfect and is unduly subject to the will of the more powerful nations, but it is a process fairly new in international relations.

A global moral system will have to be rooted in our species, not race, culture, language, religion or any other traditional nexus of cultural grouping. To create this, it will be necessary to repeatedly demonstrate in a wide variety of dimensions that we will survive, if we do, only as a species.

If the primary objective of a global moral system is to assure the continued existence of the human species, then the first order of business should be identification of the basic needs of sustainable human survival. We then need a path for human development. I suggest something analogous to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Within the context of assuring species survival, optimum opportunity for human development must be perused if humans are to remain human and realize their full potential. Humans have to see the value of a limited sustainable population. There is a need to clearly elucidate the interdependence of all life and, perhaps, extend our moral system to what microphysicist Sam Harris calls sentient beings in order to assure that our excessively powerful species will not unwittingly destroy that with which we share so much of our DNA and millions of years of co-evolution.

In sum, we humans have the capacity to do this. It is imperative that we do it if we are not to perish. There is evidence that we can change our value system. China has taken a hard step toward population reduction. The United Nations is playing an ever larger role in international relations. And today Al Jazeera reports that the Libyan rebel government is pushing an end to tribalism in that country. Once again a progressive perspective on the human future needs to be developed and deployed.

Bob Newhard

Another Economic System, Another Culture

Since posting my last column on Norway's exceptionally mature response to terrorism we have had the riots in England eliciting a very different response from their government. In what follows I want to get to what I believe is a root cause for the difference.

First, it should be kept in mind that the violence and destruction of the riots were abundantly displayed, often in real time, by television. This elicited immediate emotional response from millions of British citizens. This was not true of the deliberate horror that Norway had to digest.

This fact let Prime Minister David Cameron respond with declarations that the rioters and looters, which included 13 and 14 year old children, were criminals and would be hunted down and prosecuted as such. This was property damage and loss. Four people were killed, one by police, the remaining three by the murderous use of a car to run over three people trying to defend their neighborhood. The Norway rampage killed 85, but the acts were not televised.

While this difference between televised and non-televised crime is important, I think it is not the most important difference between the British and Norwegian governments' response.

The major difference is, in my judgment, the economic, and in consequence, the socio-political context in which they occurred. Norway has a people-centered democratic socialist society. Great Britain has a free market economic system that still reflects the economic views of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a primary tutor of Ronald Reagan.

David Cameron responded to the riots by repeatedly declaring that the rioters were criminals. Yet it was obvious, especially in the earlier days of the riots, that many of the participants were teenagers in tennis shoes. As far as I have been able to determine, Cameron has not once mentioned the dire impact of the austerity program that has been unleashed on the poor and middle class population of the working class neighborhoods in which the riots took place. His concept of social causes of the riots consists of culture criticisms such as "disrespect for authority, gang culture, and children growing up in dysfunctional families." This is the usual conservative misconstruence of social issues as moral issues. Progressives have to deal more effectively with this moralistic dodge if they are to get society to effectively focus on social needs. As erstwhile wealthy countries become poorer this argument will be increasingly used to account for the disturbances that arise as societies become less equal.

For example, the Daily Mail on April 21, 2010 carried a report by Professor Danny Dorling that found that London is the most unequal city in the Western World and that the gap between the rich and the poor is the largest in 200 years or since slavery as they put it. Does Prime Minster Cameron really believe this startling fact and the austerity program it has imposed on the poor and middle class, has nothing to do with the riots? Does the Prime Minister actually believe this fact has nothing to do with the "irresponsibility" of children destroying property while laughing? Is the Prime Minister so ignorant that he does not understand how poverty, especially in the presence of extreme wealth, angers the deprived poor? Has he never heard of the French Revolution? He chose to exercise the cruel hoax that mass uprisings against radical inequality are simply demonstrations of character defects. Even Ed Miliband, leader of the opposition Labour Party, which has come to remarkably resemble our current Democratic Party, could not avoid lamenting the destructive behavior of the young rioters, although he did mention some economic factors.

Does Mister Miliband not understand that released pent up anger is not a rational process? Miliband could easily and correctly said the Conservative government's exemption of the wealthy from its austerity program was a major cause of the riots, but he did not. We progressives must articulate the deliberate confusion employed by the wealthy to divert attention from the suffering and chaos they have inflicted on the less fortunate.

But why the difference between the Norwegian response to social calamity, which saw the danger to its democracy by repressive actions and the response of the British government to the violence it encountered? I think an important part of the answer lies in the fact that Norway's socialist government is focused on the welfare of the people while Britain's is focused on the welfare of the wealthy. Norway has a much more cohesive society because everyone participates in its economic productivity. In Great Britain it has become obvious that the benefits of the economy flow heavily in one direction only. In short, the economic structure of a nation has a lot to do with the nature of its culture.

This observation is, of course, as old as Marx, but it continues to escape the ideologues of today's conservatives. As one author says of Marx's basic theory," Any analysis of society and its problems must, according to Marx, start in an examination of its processes of production. All human societies have to be concerned, before anything else, with the production and distribution of the means of life. By using tools and instruments to effect changes in nature, humans are able to satisfy their material and other needs through productive labour." I would add, not by nonproductive financial speculation.

It follows from this type of analysis that if one would change society, a good way to begin is to change the economic structure. This, I suggest, is what progressives need to aim for. It is much of what was done by FDR's New Deal.

It follows from this type of analysis that if one would change society, a good way to begin is to change the economic structure. This, I suggest, is what progressives need to aim for. It is much of what was done by FDR's New Deal.

Bob Newhard

The Democracy Lovers

"I have a message for those who attacked us…. You will not destroy our democracy or our commitment to bringing about a better world." Norway Prime Minister Jens Stolteberg

"We will punish the guilty. The punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance, more democracy." Oslo Mayor Fabian Stang

The response of the Norwegian people and their leaders to the horrendous attack by a Far Right bigot has astonished many people for its rejection of the divisiveness of hate and a bold affirmation of democracy and the tolerance it requires. Glen Greenwald has written an excellent comparison of the Norwegian response to terrorism and that of the United States. It may be found at http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html I highly recommend it.

My purpose in this article is to try to understand why the Norwegian response was as it was and why it was so different from other countries, especially the United States, which have been subjected to similar attacks.

Norway has been a largely homogenous country. It is predominantly Caucasian and predominantly Lutheran and has a common language. Some may say that when you have eliminated three of the major fault lines found in more socially complex societies, a social consensus is easier to obtain. However, the above characteristics can also be a formula for social arrogance, e.g. the sense of cultural superiority demonstrated by Japan or cultures of the "chosen people." To me this suggests that Norwegian culture per se is not enough to account for the depth of social understanding in the Norwegian response to the Breivik attacks.

Let me pause here and emphasize the dimensions of what I mean by deep social understanding. Let it sink in. How many heads of state can you visualize that could stand before a country just after they have suffered an exceedingly vicious attack, which on a per capita basis was worse than the 9-11 attacks in this country, and tell his fellow countrymen that they must not let this disaster destroy their democracy by destroying its openness. The high level of societal sophistication and social understanding that he called upon was available in the society. Why?

I think a substantial portion of the reason can be found in the political culture of the country. It is a democratic socialist country with a heavy emphasis on social welfare. The Labor Party, founded in 1887, currently leads a coalition government. Its logo is "Include everyone." Its slogan is "Work for everyone." In short, the Norwegian government has long been a people-centered government. It has seen that society is the proper focus for government and that government is essential to ensuring that this social value is maintained. This, in my judgment, goes a long way toward explaining why Norway and its government have reacted the way they have.

Additionally, Norway has long had a coalition-based government. There are currently seven political parties represented in its parliament as well as many others vying for seats in parliament. The current government consists of a coalition of the Labor Party, Socialist Left Party and the Centre Party. Coalition governments have the distinct advantage of allowing citizens to find their political home in a nation's politics and allows politics to be more responsive to changing circumstances. The coalition process, like the focus on a welfare state, insures that people will be the focus of government.

The ethos of the United States has been its vaunted individualism. The flips side of this individualism is individual vulnerability, which generates the fear so pervasive in this country. This individualism has led us to distrust government and to abandon trust altogether or, under heavy media influence, place our trust in business, especially corporate business. For us the price of individualism has been pervasive fear. For the Norwegians the value of societal confidence has been unusual bravery and the freedom that confidence generates.

The lesson to be learned from Norway's response to a heinous terrorist attack is that a deep sense of the importance of democracy and its requirement for an open society allowed them to immediately understand that what was threatened was not their lives, but their open society.

It is in the social stress of such an attack that a nation's true attachment to democracy comes to the surface. The Norwegian people understood this, I am tempted to say instinctively, and responded with a wisdom unfortunately lacking in our country.

The bottom line is that freedom is a function of society, not the other way around.

Bob Newhard

The Ultimate Cold War

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Grover Norquist

Humanity, since the rise of civilization, has been dominated primarily by political and religious institutions. Gradually a third major institution began to emerge, initially with vastly expanded trade resulting from Europe's Age of Exploration, then increasingly with the Industrial Revolution and now with highly integrated transnational global corporations. While, by the 18^th century it was common for European monarchs to turn to bankers such as the Rothschilds to finance their wars, the political power remained the province of the monarch.

In the early United States corporations were often viewed with suspicion because of their history in the establishment of a number of the colonies. The history of settling colonies with indentured servants, of misleading the poor of Europe to induce migration to the colonies and their remote control by English investors, all contributed to this distrust. As a result corporations were authorized for specific purposes, e.g. building roads or canals, and were sunsetted when the project was finished. The Civil War saw a vast expansion of the corporation to meet the demands of that war, especially in the building of railroads. After the war the building of the transcontinental railroad and a plethora of others, placed the corporation, as an institution, as a firm feature of the American economy. Indeed, it was a law suit between the Southern Pacific railroad company and Santa Clara County California, by way of a clerk of the court's titling of a case, that first introduced the notion that corporations were persons. Upton Sinclair's novel, The Octopus, dealt with the stranglehold the railroads had on California politics.

The Progressive movement of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries was largely a political reaction to these new corporate kids on the power block. The revolt against the excessive freight rates these increasingly monopolistic railroads charged became a focus of the Grange and other progressive agricultural groups. Geographically, where we had progressivism then, the Midwest and the South, we now have conservatism. Could the vast increase in corporate farming have anything to do with this change?

The Muckrakers like Ida M. Tarbell whose detailing of the economic practices of John D. Rockefeller in her book History of the Standard Oil Company, revealed the corporate world of interlocking directorates. These directorates facilitated the corporate response to regulations and other common objectives.

All this economic activity engendered the rise of mammoth financial corporations such as that of J. P. Morgan who became so powerful that he, along with other financiers, hatched a foiled plot to overthrow the government of FDR by force shortly after he became president. In effect, the corporation had arrived as the third major force in humanity's organized life.

Following World War II the corporation became an increasingly global entity as a result of its fundamental requirement to grow. It is now beginning to challenge government, the last frontier for growth other than religion. Whether it seeks to privatize this institution for profit is yet to be seen, but it poses an interesting question.

In dealing with government or, as some prefer, the state, corporations have sought to control the state rather than directly administer it. Mussolini made clear that Italy under his governance operated in the interests of corporations. Recently the Chinese Ambassador asked a group of American economists to meet with him at his Embassy to discuss, as he put it, "Now that free market capitalism has failed what do you think of state capitalism?" In state capitalism the state sets the economic agenda by either owning major corporations (this happened briefly in this country when the U.S. government took over General Motors) or the state owns a controlling interest in the corporation. It will be interesting to see if, over time, the state succumbs to the corporation due in part to the fact that corporations are generally much more flexible the political units. Their governing boards may see opportunities for growth too tempting to neglect.

Corporations are single-mindedly focused on profit and it is imperative that they grow or they will perish. They, therefore, do not have to weigh as many factors in reaching their decisions as do governments, which is why China's government control of its capitalist economy is finding success while the Soviet Union's government controlled economy did not. As global capitalism seeks ever greater markets and merges into ever greater economic organizations with ever fewer people making the decisions, the corporation can outperform any government, which is why government is society's last defense against corporate takeover of the global economy. In my judgment, one need only ask why major transnational and global corporations meet annually in the Davos World Economic Forum or the G8 or G20 have their frequent summits. These are little more than meetings at which corporate interests are the focus.

The World Social Form, deliberately created as the people's offset to the corporate World Economic Forum, is attended by a relatively chaotic mass of multicultural humanity. The emphasis is on improving human life. This differs starkly from the relatively few, but powerful by invitation only, attendees at Davos. One need only compare these gatherings to see the dimensions of the struggle humanity is faced with as it seeks to deal with the enormous power that its collective brain has created, but which that collective brain has failed to control. We want to retain our humanity, but we continue to create a world hostile to that desire.

There are some proposed alternatives to the above scenario.

David Korten in his book Agenda for a New Economy recognizes the fundamental inadequacy of our current free market model, especially the deleterious effect of what he calls phantom wealth, that is, wealth that is detached from real objects and services. This is the immense wealth of the major financial institutions and of the wealthiest among us. One of his remedies is to tax this kind of wealth until it does not exist or is reduced to ineffectiveness. He also makes a case for smaller regional economies rather than national or global ones. His remains a capitalist economy, but highly regulated to generate an economy measured by values such as health, degree of education, elimination of poverty, etc., not by money.

Joe Stiglitz, a former director of the World Bank, in his book Making Globalizaatio Work, while fully cognizant of the profound failures of free market globalization, believes globalization can and must be made to work for human benefit.

Chris Hedges, former head of the New York Times Middle East Bureau and now prolific author on the sad, self-destructive nature of much of modern culture, has declared that he is now a socialist. Some of the best writing on the current social catastrophes that our economic and social practices are generating is being done bye socialists, notably Mike Davis' Planet of the Slums and Eric Hobsbawn's Age of Extremes. If and as I feel I have these adequately in hand, I may be able to expand on the matters addressed in this post.

Bob Newhard

The Return of the Ideologues

If you search Google for "Age of Ideology" or some variant thereof you will find that the vast majority of results deal with the ideological struggles of the 19^th and early 20^th centuries. I would argue that with the election of Ronald Reagan this country entered a new Age of Ideology, at least in so far as the Republican Party is concerned. What follows are but two examples of this now 21^st century phenomenon.

Each year when Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gets a new batch of court clerks, he invites them to his home for a showing of the movie The Fountainhead, a film rendition of Ayn Rand's novel of the same title. In the novel, Rand, the founder of Libertarianism, pits the architect Howard Roark against the elected officials, who find the building they commissioned too modern for their traditionalist tastes. The officials eventually succeed in subverting Roark's creation to a more traditional building, which Roark eventually blows up in esthetic revenge. This was Rand's first successful novel and reflected her repeated theme of the creative individual against the collective society. Rand, a native born Russian, had given a 20^th century voice to American individualism and it has come home to roost with a vengeance.

Notably, Rand chose an architect as her protagonist. An architect is said to be an artist whose art form is buildings. This being the case, the architect must inevitably use other people's money to create her/his art. The logic of Rand's novel is that society should be put at the disposal of its great creators. (In our money-dominated society the great creators inevitably became the corporate honchos.) Art, it must be observed, is arbitrary at its core. It is the vision of the artist and is not subject to any test other than that its creator imposes. This is one of the reasons that art is a lousy metaphor for societal leadership. It must eventuate in dictatorship if the artist as politician is to realize her/his vision. This is, in effect, what Plato argued for 2,500 years earlier when he proposed that the state be governed by a philosopher king. Will we never learn! The only significant difference is that Rand has the additional problem of what happens when talent and ability arise in more than one person, not to mention hundreds or thousands. Presumably you have the battle of the titans in which the mass of mankind suffer.

I first read The Fountainhead in my 20s and was suitably impressed with Roark's valiant efforts to realize his dream and the dead weight of those representing society who sought to suppress it. I eventually worked out the implied scenario, especially after reading Nietzsche. I find it appalling that a Supreme Court Justice should think that this piece of romanticism has anything to do with governance in one of the world's most powerful countries.

Alan Greenspan, our erstwhile Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, is another Libertarian disciple of Ayn Rand. Reflecting the tutelage of Rand and the economist Milton Friedman, who taught that the market was always self-correcting if left to itself, Greenspan said he was "shocked" by the recession caused by the securitization of fragmented mortgages, which he admitted he did not understand. This is the expression of an ideologue or, as Eric Hoffer said for the Communist mentality, a "true believer." That ideologues can rise to such positions of power and influence in our erstwhile democracy betrays the political naiveté of its populace, especially its inability to deal with incessant propaganda.

One of the most dangerous aspects of an ideology is its resistance to change. The real world is subject to continuous change and in these times of coalescing megatrends demanding concerted action from an extremely fractious global population, the last thing we need is rule by ideologues. This, however, is what we will have if humanity cannot get a grip on itself. Most modern tyrannies have arisen out of social chaos. Our future will be no different unless those concerned with society both for itself, and as a vehicle to enable humanity to deal effectively with its future, become vigorous, numerous and, dare I say it, creative enough to persuade humanity that it is one at root and that its only chance for survival is to respond to our immense challenges not as nations, not as races, not as religions, not as cultures, but as a species.

As I was writing this, President Obama announced his willingness to put Social Security and Medicare on the bargaining table in an effort to get Republican support for raising the U. S. debt ceiling, something the Republicans did seven times During G. W. Bush's administration. That a Democratic president would offer up Social Security and Medicare for any kind of political deal would have been unthinkable before the Democrats began to cave after Reagan's election. What Obama is dealing with, and he surely knows it, is the politics of ideologues. Ideologues who care nothing for human welfare or any other societal requirement except their ideology, which in this case comes down to no government at all unless absolutely necessary. Grover Norquist, the Republican no-tax godfather, is now arguing that any increase in governmental revenue should be regarded as a tax and so is to be avoided. He infamously stated that he wished to see government small enough so he could drown it in a bathtub. When Obama first announced, after his election, that he intended to "reach out" to Republicans, he betrayed a naiveté belying his education, intelligence and political experience or, more likely, his intention to accommodate the wealthy, especially their corporations. These were the people who did not shy from bringing the Federal Government to its knees by denying it all funding, as Newt Gingrich did. These were the Republicans that did not hesitate to lie, big time, to the American people about the non-existent threat that Iraq posed to this country. The magnitude of the lie can be grasped when one recalls that G. W. Bush immediately declared "this is war" in response to the 9-11 Twin Towers attack. It was "war" because these ideologues, as exposed by a plan concocted by Cheney and others in the 1990's, were looking for a pretext to launch the New American Empire.

Obama could have dealt with these ideologues by proposing a Tobin tax on the securities transactions of the very wealthy, which the European Union is now considering and which it projects will raise 200 billion euros annually. This transaction tax is analogous to the sales tax we pay on our purchases, except it is applied to the buying and selling of investment transactions, e.g. the millions of daily currency differential trading transactions. Had this been done and the radical economic unfairness aggressively revealed to the public the Republicans and their constituency of wealth would have been the objects of popular scorn as they were during FDR's New Deal. To appreciate what Obama had to work with consider the People's Budget of the House Progressive Caucasus at http://grijalva.house.gov/uploads/The%20CPC%20FY2012%20Budget.pdf In the end, as events of the Arab Spring again evidence, the only antidote to the arrogance of excessive wealth is popular resistance.

Bob Newhard