Power and its Alternative

To my mind, one of the great cultural cleavages in humankind is that between power and understanding. Basically, power seeks to change things, at root, by brute force. Understanding, in and of itself, seeks to perceive the way things are, and hence sees the exercise of power, per se, as a threat by the very fact that it disrupts what needs to be understood. Power, per se, takes no notice of understanding whatsoever. Both of these proclivities are essential to human survival and, as is so frequently the case with human values, can be fundamentally at odds with each other.

I suspect power is earlier in the course of human evolution than understanding. As a species, humans were as much prey as predator, if not more so. Thus, living in constant fear, they were both impressed with the power of the animals that preyed on them and, perhaps, longed for the power they witnessed. It is instructive that the animals that received so much honor in human religions were the powerful ones, especially the lion, in India the elephant, and in Mayan culture the leopard. It is not surprising that power being so long and deeply ingrained in human nature should be more suasive in human affairs than understanding. In daily discourse we often hear people say what do I have to do?; not what do I have to know when confronted with a problem.

Understanding, being of more recent evolutionary development, is less firmly ingrained in our nature. It is, however, what finally allowed humans to redress their power imbalance with their predators. Using the two together the human species became the dominant species, for good and bad.

One of the continuing imbalances in our human and social affairs is that between these two influences. We so easily take the fruits of our understanding and wantonly place them at the service of our power proclivities. Through understanding, our brains continually create new technologies, new ways of dong things, which we, almost gleefully, pursue to their, often bitter ends. We created extremely useful computers, cameras, sensors of all kinds and produced the Predator and Reaper drones used to hunt and kill human beings as if in a video game.

Of late, there has been a movement to adhere to a "precautionary principle" which would require an assessment of all technology for its potential impacts before it is released for use. Genetically modified grains are a case in point. On a much larger scale, notably weaponry, this way of thinking needs to be implemented and rooted deeply in the human response to the inventions of its brain. For example, malaria, until the 19^th century, was thought to be caused by bad air. With the discovery that it was transmitted by mosquitoes their breeding grounds were drained, netting used over beds at night, etc. People hailed the conquering of this disease that had been a primary source of childhood mortality, and made building the Panama Canal feasible. As a result many more humans survived to child bearing age and populations increased globally. This along with many other beneficial sanitary developments based on increased understanding greatly increased the human life span as well. Both contributed to increased population growth, which if not stopped, will destroy our species. We can ask, should we have required a reduction in birthrate as these consequences of disease mitigation took place? This is an old problem going back to Thomas Malthus who saw in the 19^th century that mankind could out grow the resources necessary for its survival and therefore must control its growth. Seeing no other way to control that growth, he assumed it was one of the functions of famine, disease and constant war. This is the kind of problem that has become critical for human survival, largely because of our technological capabilities. It is also, obviously, a fundamental human problem to be resolved by humans if they are to continue to survive. By obvious implication, if technology is the primary source of this kind of dilemma, then the science that is technology's birthplace must be taken into account.

Science, in and of itself, is the fundamental cultural expression of the human proclivity to understand. We often undertake scientific efforts that have no practical use and thus no potential for our power impulse: the astronomy of intergalactic space is a case in point. Along the way we may find some uses for the knowledge we thus acquire, but that is not the reason for the undertaking. The more narrow minded among us, especially those politicians seeking the vote of the uninformed, often decry the uselessness of such, often expensive, knowledge quests, e.g. NASA, as a waste of money. The word "use," so employed, is an expression of power.

An interesting feature of understanding and one that I suspect may become fundamental to human survival is that understanding is much less culturally restricted than power. If you notice, understanding can break the bonds of cultural parochialism that cause so much conflict and human destruction. Physics, chemistry and mathematics remain the same whether in America or China or Timbuktu. This bodes well for the basis of a global human society. We have the basis for a common understanding. We have a way to get beyond the cultural divisions that plague us. This implies that the current attempt to deal with the dysfunctions of cultural diversity, i.e. to celebrate diversity, is in the long run inadequate. While I understand the intentions behind this approach of cultural identity awareness, I think it is clear that mankind needs a human identity if it is to survive on a planet of increasingly known limitation.

With respect to science, a world of fact and evidence, generating a moral system, you may find the book "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, significant. I am finding it so.

A Case in Point:

The history of Japan and the United States over the last 50 years offers an instructive example of these two proclivities in action. During that period the United States spent its energies on power, specifically the power to dominate the world. Japan, a small nation with few natural resources, substantially by a major emphasis on education, developed an economy that was the second largest in the world, after that of the United Sates. I am aware of some of the usual arguments made for this glaring difference, e.g. Japan did it under the military protection of the United States and hence did not have to invest so immensely in armaments. Protect them from what, the fantasies that led to General MacArthur's deliberate provocation of China and its entry into the Korean conflict? In any event, all that says is that peace, per se, can be more productive than war. In matters of such large scale as mankind's future, all the caveats usually lodged against Japan's achievement still leave this difference between it and the United States highly instructive.

The Learning Society

The Learning Society is an ongoing effort by UNESCO and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to base economic development on life-long education. Far too often, indeed I suspect in the majority of cases, nations have built their economies on conquest, i.e. power, as did the United States as it pushed indigenous people from one ocean to another. The hegemony-declaring Monroe Doctrine asserted our power over the western hemisphere. Teddy Roosevelt sent the Great White Fleet, a flotilla of warships, around the globe to emphasize our power and our willingness to use it. I submit this whole posture crushed the potential for an understanding-based society that could have sprung from the passion to understand found in some of our nation's most prominent founders, e.g. Jefferson and Franklin, had we heeded Washington's advice against entangling foreign alliances.

The point of these kinds of large-scale and admittedly very complex examples is that our species cannot continue to exist if we rely on power as the driving mechanism of our future as we so thoroughly have in our past. We have developed the capacity to destroy ourselves and yet behave like children with a new toy at each technological advance in the exercise of power. We, as a species, have demonstrated the capacity to develop through understanding. Our problem has been that we then insist on wantonly turning that understanding into power. We must learn to be satisfied with understanding, tread lightly on this earth and each other and be far more careful about turning understanding into power.

The Precautionary Principle

By way of developing a method to inhibit our largely uncontrolled practice of turning understanding into power there is an effort to define and implement deterring practices known as the Precautionary Principle. There are various definitions of this principle due to the complexity of the many issues and the vested interests of various segments of the world's population. Basically the principle would prohibit the introduction of new technology and the accompanying processes unless it was proven to be safe with respect to mankind and the environment. A Google search will turn up a plethora of information, and complexity, for those who may be interested.

As The Learning Society initiative evidences, there are people and groups concerned to deal with the problems our species faces by the use of mankind's unique capacity to understand. We need to bring this need and this approach to general public awareness accompanied by the urgency it deserves. We must think our way out of our massive dilemmas lest we destroy ourselves in the emotional responses we customarily make.

Bob Newhard

Are Humans Becoming Redundant?

There is a latent, but pervasive, sense among Americans that the rich need the rest of us as a market. As Henry Ford is said to have believed, he had to pay his workers decently if he expected them to buy his automobiles. However, this serf-like view of humanity is true only if wealth is being generated by mass production for mass consumption and that production cannot be moved from one region to another. The truth is, however, that markets are not people, they are money. If money is concentrated in relatively few hands, the market cannot be "mass:" to wit nobody markets to poor people because they have no money--except in a scam such as subprime mortgages.

The message here is that an unregulated, market-driven economy cannot meet the needs of humanity at large, which in substantial measure, is why we are seeing the global turmoil being generated by the fallout from the Great Recession.

It follows that as the market-driven economy continues to concentrate increasing amounts of wealth in fewer individuals that the demographic size of the market shrinks and increasing numbers of humans cease to be effective members of the economy.

Sam Pizzigatti, editor of the online publication Too Much, which is concerned with economic inequality, has published an article detailing one major indicator of this phenomenon-- advertising. Sam reviews a report in Ad Age, the major trade journal of the advertising industry, which tells advertisers to forget marketing to individuals who make less then $100,000 a year. Useful amounts of money are not to be made there. Additionally the report advises that long term marketing strategy should focus on 20-30 year olds who make at least $100,000 a year because the probabilities are that they will be the wealthy cohort from which future profits are to be made. Here we have one of the most wealth sensitive segments of our economy, advertising, laying out their assessment of our economic future, which envisions increasing concentration of wealth and the power that accompanies it as well as increasing numbers of economically deprived human beings. We shall address some of the social consequences of this below. Sam's article titled, Madison Ave. Declares 'Mass Affluence' Over, may be found at http://toomuchonline.org/madison-ave-declares-mass-affluence-over/.

In another article titled, Are the American People Obsolete? Michael Lind, political policy director at the New America Foundation, examines the fate of the American worker if wealth continues to concentrate. Here I would observe that the reason that the wealthy oppose public employment is, at root, because the public sector is the only place that people cashiered by the private sector have to go to get employment. It is difficult to think of a more economically vicious catch 22. But as Grover Norquist, a patron saint of the wealthy anti-taxers, said of government "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub."

The wealthy, in so many words, see government as the enemy standing between them and total domination of society.

Michael begins his article by asking "Have the American people outlived their usefulness to the rich minority in the United States? A number of trends suggest that the answer may be yes." He then goes on to unfold a scenario in which increasing joblessness forces Americans, like the citizens of so many poorer countries, to migrate elsewhere in search of employment. Americans have not seen this possibility before, but it is common to the rest of the world, indeed, it was migrating poor Europeans who created this country.

Perhaps a couple of quotes from Michael's article will encourage you to read the complete article, which I highly recommend.

This is a message that must be made as clear to the American people as that greed is a primary Wall Street motivator.

" The point is that, just as much of America’s elite is willing to shut down every factory in the country if it is possible to open cheaper factories in countries like China, so much of the American ruling class would prefer not to hire their fellow Americans, even for jobs done on American soil, if less expensive and more deferential foreign nationals with fewer legal rights can be imported."

You want to know how to stop incessant war?

"The American people also could put a stop to any thought of an American Foreign Legion and declare, through their representatives, that a nation of citizen-workers will be protected by citizen-soldiers, whether professionals or, in emergencies, conscripts. The American people, in other words, could insist that the United States will be a democratic republican nation-state, not a post-national rentier oligarchy." Michael's article can be found at http://news.salon.com/2010/07/27/american_people_obsolete/.

Again, the message is if the rich have no need for you, you become redundant. Obviously this cannot be a continuing process. Obviously it must be stopped either within the capitalist system or through a replacement system.

Let us now look at some of the social fallout from this attack by the wealthy on government and, hence, on us. Support for public universities and colleges has diminished to the point of canceling some courses and outrageously increasing enrollment fees, reducing or eliminating monetary aid to students from poor families and reducing teaching staff. At the same time the wealthy continue to get tax deductions for their extensive gifts to their private colleges and universities. As I say, vicious! The concentration of wealth in the few has left public schools strapped for resources. Teachers have been let go thereby increasing class sizes, when everyone knows class size is one of the most significant determinants of effective education. This also increases the numbers of unemployed. Deliberate and vicious! There could be a direct transference of money, by way of a transaction tax on pure speculative investing, to public schools both to correct this awful imbalance and demonstrate to the American people the direct connection between the speculation-ridden life of the wealthy and the working life of most Americans. Of course, however, the wealthy would then claim their enormously wasteful and economically distorting practices support public education. Similar transfers of wealth by this kind of tax should be made to the victims of mortgage fraud and to the millions homeless with parents and children frightened of the future and desperate for some sort of security. And the Republican party of wealth and privilege would have us believe they care? Liars of the thousand lights of charity! These are but a few of the known, deliberate, consequences of increased wealth concentration and those who benefit from it. As we have said before wealth, especially concentrated wealth, is an enemy of the people and of democracy. It should be an object of social scorn instead of the focus of envy and icon of achieving that it now is.

So, is the bulk of humanity headed for economic irrelevance? If you look at the major trends as Michael did the answer would be "yes." None of the forces in play naturally encourage societal development. Labor requires less and less human endeavor. This is called efficiency, but efficiency presupposes a goal which one process is more efficient than another at accomplishing. What is the goal of this kind of efficiency? Simply more money called profit. Notably not human well being. Being as neither technology nor the power of the wealthy is directed at creating a viable, rewarding society for the majority of mankind, the only mechanism for changing human destiny is the informed will of the vast majority of mankind. Our operating principal is that we still outnumber them. Many people understand this. One union speaker at the Occupy Wall Street rally on the occasion of union support showing up, said to these predominantly young protesters "Well, we finally got together." Unions have been pitting manpower against wealth for years. This is a place to begin learning. Unions, like other organized efforts, whether corporations or religions, are subject to corruption, which requires a vigilant membership, but at least they are focused on human beings not merely money. As Benjamin Franklin said "We must all hang together or, assuredly, we will all hang separately." To do this we must develop a new understanding of what it means to be human at our best and to build a value system based on this reality. This is a tall order, but we are faced with a tragic reality. I still remember Denis Kucinich crying into the microphone during a candidates forum in the 2008 election "Wake up America, wake up!" This was by far the most powerful utterance in that whole devious, manipulative charade.

Corrective action.

For starters corrective action must begin with the realization that excessive concentrated wealth is a threat to mankind and must be eliminated at its first appearance. The methods of its accumulation must be as continuously monitored as we monitor the rise of an epidemic-causing virus. Instead of encouraging our young to "go forth and make their fortune," we need to encourage them create a better world, to live modestly and help make this planet the livable place it should be. We need to create a global value system that will take precedence over any existing cultural system. Because of overpopulation, over consumption, maldistribution of wealth, and the increasing efficiency of weapons technology, we have got to the point that humanity is its own worst enemy.

Bob Newhard

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