Beijing Consensus or Innovation Economy: From Whence Our Future Comes?

If you haven’t read Joshua Kurlantzick’s editorial highlighting the China Model, it is well worth a look:  Why the ‘China Model’ Isn’t Going Away – Joshua Kurlantzick – The Atlantic

Admittedly, I have not read his book from which the editorial is derived. Having said that, I point to the following passage:

“Many Southeast Asian leaders and top officials were implementing strategies of development modeled on China’s, including taking back state control of strategic industries, recentralizing political decision-making, and using the judicial system as, increasingly, a tool of state power, and re-establishing one-party rule — all changes that undermine democratic development.”

A number of points immediately come to mind. One is how Kurlantzick identifies “changes that undermine democratic development.” In my estimation, he is somewhat off the mark. “State power” isn’t a useful descriptor and is reminiscent of Communist-paranoia rhetoric. Skewing the judiciary and establishing one-party rule are germane matters for developing democracies as well as developed democracies falling into decline. We see those very efforts undertaken by today’s GOP.

Also of concern is how loosely Kurlantzick identifies “taking back control of strategic industries” and “recentralizing political decision-making.” Neither of these strategies are fundamentally undemocratic. Centralizing and nationalizing the political apparatus, after all, was the very purpose for devising the Constitution of the United States. State-controlled industries are central features of social democracies. Norway is an example of a highly successful parliamentary democracy with a mixed economy. It is among the wealthiest nations in the world with one of the highest living standards in the world.

Yet, an even more important point of discussion is the contrast between the China Model and Hilary Clinton’s reorganization of the U.S. Department of State as a tool for “Economic Statecraft,” ostensibly to spread democracy to the developing world – through the medium of the Innovation Economy grounded in the principles of the “free” market. The TransPacific Partnership Agreement is one effort to further that goal. See the following summary from the last meeting of the State Department’s Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs: Summary of Discussions of October 3, 2012, Meeting of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy

What, precisely, is the State Department promoting to the rest of the world? Is it a democratic model of governance or an economic model with the potential to fundamentally thwart democracy? Under Clinton’s leadership the State Department did embrace noble goals, such as its emphasis on empowering women worldwide. It is not my intent to disparage the U.S. Department of State. At the same time, I should think we, as citizens, might benefit from discussing the implications of the philosophy behind our foreign policy and if that policy has any relevance for our own democratic foundations at home.

To further the discussion, I’ll add a final note. Kurlantzick’s editorial summarizes the Freedom House position that world democracy is under threat by encroaching authoritarian regimes: Undermining Democracy: 21st Century Authoritarians | Freedom House. While that essential premise may be correct, Freedom House itself requires greater scrutiny. Originally a tool to counter Socialism and Communism during the 1940s, its aspect today seems no less potentially subversive to democracy – at least in the United States. Freedom House members testify before Congress, serve as legislative consultants, and in its role as “independent watchdog” which is “dedicated to the expression of freedom around the world” it annually recommends to Congress its opinion for the nation’s foreign assistance budget.

Its current trustees chair is William Howard Taft IV; this is how Taft is described on their website: “Will Taft most recently was the Warren Christopher Visiting Professor of the Practice of International Law and Diplomacy at Stanford Law School. His long service in government includes serving as the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO, and as chief legal advisor to the State Department. He is a retired partner in the Washington office of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson.”

And yet, financier Peter Ackerman chaired its board of trustees from 2005-2009, which more seriously calls into question Freedom House rhetoric with regard to democracy.

If there is any single force in this country subverting our democracy it is the Ackermans of this world – seeking an existence above and beyond state authority and robbing the public coffers of its rightful due. Ackerman’s tax antics include pushing California tax legislation via his legal counsel that had no benefit to the state (costing it $5 million), instead review analysis found the legislation to benefit a single individual – Peter Ackerman. This, after losing his case against the state of California for $5 million dollars in taxes he just didn’t want to pay. He did get a slap on the wrist for his highly complicated (and highly illegal) $1.7 billion tax shelter. Unfortunately for Ackerman, he lost on the final ruling in a protracted dispute with the IRS and U.S. Tax Court. Even so, and fortunately for Ackerman, the final settlement ended with the government handing Ackerman a lot of free money for doing absolutely nothing. Skewing of the judiciary by authoritarian interests??

But Ackerman’s name may be more familiar as one of the founders of Americans Elect, the fundamentally undemocratic “innovation” which received the lion’s share of its $30 million worth of contributions from secret donors. Its known financial backers hail from high finance. Here’s the Americans Elect kicker: it is administered by a self-appointed board. There’s something kind of undemocratic about that. Ackerman isn’t the focus here, but rather a thought-provoking side note to Kurlantzick’s Freedom House analysis of global authoritarian capitalism.

Kurlantzick is a professional to be admired, and the purported mission of Freedom House is praiseworthy. My purpose isn’t to disparage either one. Instead, to critically examine the issues they raise. Freedom House’s primary funding sources are the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). No doubt we will be hearing more about the march of authoritarian capitalists like China in the near future. No doubt the point to remember is that the rhetoric raging over authoritarian capitalists in the East just might stem from authoritarian capitalists in the West. One wonders who, in all the world, benefits between these two poles.

One could argue “global free market capitalism” hasn’t exactly eschewed China at all. The glory of the “free” market is its freedom from distinguishing anywhere from anyone or anything. It need only consider profit margins. It isn’t explicitly tied to democracy. China’s authoritarianism hasn’t inhibited “free” market expansion there. Certainly, America’s democratic institutions haven’t inhibited the “free” market from infiltrating them. I suppose therein lies the irony. Democracy for people (I mean more people than only the investment/CEO class) isn’t vested in the China Model nor in the Innovation Economy promoted by it right here in the good old USA. Maybe democracy has just evolved into an institution which best serves the interests of selected persons rather than swaths of people. Perhaps America’s sole devotion to the “entrepreneurial spirit” is, indeed, the essence of democracy in the 21st Century and beyond. If it is, the two Thomases, Paine and Jefferson, must surely turn in their graves, wringing their bony little fists at the global spectacle of liberty and freedom we have become.

Share:

Related Articles

28 thoughts on “Beijing Consensus or Innovation Economy: From Whence Our Future Comes?

  1. And I will shake my bony fist right along with Paine and Jefferson. Although sometimes I wonder if we shouldn’t adapt Prez Billy Jeff’s attitude and get along with the greedy ego-centrics and just feel everyone else’s pain. In so doing maybe we’d encourage a little Rockefeller-style statesmanship. Or not.

  2. One angle I didn’t expound upon too much, but might be important to unpack: There’s something decidedly “Cold War” embedded in these superpower contests, in a way that I find unsettling. It’s as if we’ve learned nothing at all about ourselves or about the world from that struggle. Topping the list of unlearned lessons, I’d place the delusional false dichotomy between “controlled” and “free” economies. Related to that, the State Department’s policy of Economic Statecraft seems to have absorbed the damaging conflation of freedom and free market. Democracy itself seems to have gotten lost in the mix.

    While it sure looks like a newly brewed Cold War, I can’t help but ask what did we learn exactly from the last one? Deregulation? A tax-less society? Was it the Invisible Hand that won the Cold War for America? And we’re still in Afghanistan. I mean really, the only description I have for the state of affairs is Surreal.

    China’s GDP might rise, by some forecasts, to 123 trillion by 2040 (see links below). Our current GDP is 15 trillion and it’s poised to severely retract in that same period. In the decline of the last Cold War it was 5 trillion (1980). At its height 2.8 trillion (1960). Russia may have lost out in the short term, but it isn’t out of the race if it manages to get itself together. It could still be a formidable player given its vast resources. Western Europe fared the Cold War pretty well. Most of Europe continues to enjoy an enviable lifestyle compared to the workaholic U.S. A Work-alcoholism that appears to be getting us nowhere in the great race for global superpower predominance. China’s middle class will expand, fueling their growth, while our middle class continues to shrink – and with it our GDP. Much of China’s growth will be directly attributable to its investment in education. Yet, this country has wasted decades “preparing for the 21st Century” by giving our education sector away to interests of the privatized elite. I, for one, believe we would do well to revamp our own house if we expect to remain a powerhouse. Well, more things to think about, I guess. I tend to think the rude awakening is soon to come: unless we get our democracy back, we won’t be a global powerhouse for very long. If so, we’ll be forced to revamp under conditions far worse than we’re experiencing now. The last Cold War spanned nearly 45 years. 2040 is 27 years away. Seems like a long time until one considers how quickly we mobilized in WWII and how quickly we turned the space race to our advantage. And now? 30 years of exponential regression. Surreal.

    Two more analyses on China, a little dated, but speak directly to its model posted below. Note one of China’s economic strategies is fostering more local control of the economy. Though, that hasn’t been an enlightened control as the third link demonstrates:

    http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-08-14/commentary/33183905_1_economic-war-capitalism-china

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/04/123000000000000

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hU1qU2PnJQB614JSFZq0dJ2sATkQ?docId=CNG.d9d2041876d9d217383acbf131799adf.3b1

    1. First congratulations on your newly acquired blogger status PJ. Next I would like to suggest that for the benefit of your readers, as much as you are a good writer with a flare for phrasing, some slight attempt at being a bit more concise would be valuable in getting your main points across.

      Maybe democracy has just evolved into an institution which best serves the interests of selected persons rather than swaths of people.

      Substitute, ‘Absolutely,’ for ‘Maybe.’ There is no question to the point, to be debated. Further info here:

      http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/the-truthseeker-looting-of-america.html

      For better understanding of our own Democratic Republic and the economics controlling our current United States of Austerity anyone who has not been following Prof Richard Wolff would be well advised to begin doing so:

      http://rdwolff.com/content/global-capitalism-monthly-update-discussion-april-2013

      From you comment @4/12:

      I tend to think the rude awakening is soon to come: unless we get our democracy back, we won’t be a global powerhouse for very long.

      Anyone who has not been rudely or otherwise awakened thus far is likely on drugs and the point is that our deranged perceptions of American Exceptionalism, in thinking that we are superior to everyone and every other idea in the world, having been twisted by corporate fascists to publicly fund the MICC for private profit and pillage for their benefit is what has brought us to these dire straights we are in and why would we want to remain the, “global powerhouse,” in those terms?

      Be under no illusions that we are not already ruled by a total plutocracy.

      Thanks for the piece to use to bounce some ideas off of, PJ.

        1. nonquixote,

          Quite right about my closing remarks. I suppose I was (and still am) sorting through all that is to be sorted. The gentle sarcasm being an invitation to ponder. I concur. There is no question; the ruling class has staged its coup.

          Montesquieu had a few things to say about the ruling class. He was all for it. Oddly enough, he wasn’t altogether incorrect in determining the pitfalls of democracy. Pitfalls which seem all too obvious at present. He noted:

          “The public business must be carried on with a certain motion, neither too quick nor too slow. But the motion of the people is always either too remiss or too violent. Sometimes with a hundred thousand arms they overturn all before them; and sometimes with a thousand feet they creep like insects.”

          His assertion that the populous majority ought to be feared for its violent, mobbish capacity has probably been made too much of, and his second thought that “sometimes with a thousand feet they creep like insects” probably hasn’t been made of enough. He asked, “… are they capable of an intricate affair, of seizing and improving the opportunity and critical moment of action? No; this surpasses their abilities.”

          It would seem as though we are currently experiencing a thousand feet that creep like insects during a critical moment of action rendering us incapable of seizing and improving an opportunity for adequately handling an intricate affair.

          He was also big on transparency of a sort but for all the wrong reasons:

          “The law which determines the manner of giving suffrage is likewise fundamental in a democracy. It is a question of some importance whether the sufferings ought to be public or secret. Cicero observes that the laws which rendered them secret towards the close of the republic were the cause of its decline.

          The people’s suffrages ought doubtless to be public; and this should be considered a fundamental law of democracy. The lower class ought to be directed by those of higher rank, and restrained within bounds by the gravity of eminent personages. Hence, by rendering the suffrages secret in the Roman republic, all was lost; it was no longer possible to direct a populace that sought its own destruction. But when the body of nobles are to vote in an aristocracy, or in a democracy the senate, as the business is then only to prevent intrigues, the suffrages cannot be too secret.”

          Methinks the modern Montesquieus may miss the manner to make their mark.

          Thucydides, perhaps, best hits the nerve that expresses the outrage every thinking, sentient individual in this country ought to feel for the betrayal effected by their elected marionettes who answer only to avarice and ambition:

          “We give our obedience to those whom we put in positions of authority, and we obey the laws themselves, especially those which are for the protection of the oppressed, and those unwritten laws which it is an acknowledged shame to break.”

          Wolff’s a gem. A national treasure. At the moment, I haven’t any comment on the video you posted; I’m just watching it today.

          1. While I am continually impressed with the historical context you are able to bring to a discussion, plain language for most citizens, who for the last 30 years have largely missed opportunities for quality education (and things are getting worse in that respect, NCLB, common core standards and costs for tuition), is desperately needed to actually get those thousand feet marching, which is not quite happening yet, IMHO. Explanations such as those easily understood given by Prof Wolff are critical if we are not already too late to save ourselves, our children’s future and our planet. Deciding on direct actions to take despite the present repression, for survival or organic change through working around the present powers that be, should also be the focus.

            Immediately urging our US Congress people to be filing Articles of Impeachment against Obomba for war crimes would be one place to start receiving some notice, even if that notice would likely be escalation of unconstitutional police repression as illustrated in our own state capitol deliberately prohibiting free speech. We need to be discussing ways to implement changes as much as complaining about the existing circumstances. I guess that might be preaching to the choir here.

            1. nonquixote,

              Two sets of comments, the first:
              Tremendous video. I’d have only two brief comments, one positive and one negative.

              The positive being awareness of Portugal’s supreme court decision. I hadn’t read about that. Fascinating.

              The negative being Wolff’s tacit acceptance for right-wing subversion of Adam Smith. He should know better. Small potatoes criticism gauged against every other aspect of his lecture. As I said, he’s a treasure for his analyses and his ability to make the complex accessible. I wish he’d run for national office.

              The second set:
              I agree we need to increase awareness of and accessibility to the intricate issues of our time. I disagree that we need to oversimplify or consider these matters absent of any historical context that might stimulate critical thinking on said matters. Our democratic-republic no longer functions. For all intents and purposes it no longer exists. We need to rebuild it. The only way to do so responsibly is to comprehend what democratic-republicanism can mean and what it can do. There isn’t any reason to consider what you have introduced and what I have offered as mutually exclusive. Both are integral pieces to a common puzzle.

              Yes, we need direct action. I guess I was suggesting with Montesquieu’s “thousand feet” that we must mobilize and do just that – bearing in mind his observation that “thousand feet” tend to dawdle and lumber more than not. How do we get those “thousand feet” moving? And to what purpose?

              I’m not an Obama supporter, but an impeachment process doesn’t seem to me to be the most practical action we can take. The more imperative measure would be holding the Democratic Establishment to account. G.W. and Cheney deserve our attention as well. If war crimes are the angle, then we must rethink the system so it includes G.W. and Cheney. Impeaching Obama is a half-measure that doesn’t resolve the structural flaw which facilitates exemption from culpability. We must think in terms not just of now, but of futurity. I think we agree there.

              To me, Thucydides says it better than I ever could. Public trust is breached. Honestly, I don’t think Montesquieu or Thucydides are all that inaccessible. I only read them in translation. It’s not like we’re talking about trudging through French and Greek.

              Your frustration isn’t lost on me. Resistance is not futile.

              1. P.J, you don’t seem to have an idea of what resistance is possible. The presentation of Mr. Wolff presents a quandary that has been broiling for decades in this country and around the world and is so easy to understand it has been embraced by “American oportunism”.

                We first succumbed to our financial system when Savings and Loans in America were arbitrarily destroyed to “save” our banking system in the 70s. It didn’t begin with Reagan. Mr. Wolff acts as if we’ve just allowed financial recklessness to take over and now we can somehow call it to a halt.

                Answer this: which is the greater atrocity–taking a 5-10% percent of the public’s deposits, or taking their sons and daughters to be maimed, slaughtered and mentally deranged in a meaningless war? The forces who can do the latter are much more to be feared…and much more difficult to defeat. It’s easy to see how our Windmill relates to Mr. Wolff, because both seek to stir up anger but have no sustainable way to make our political system better, except to criticize workable efforts.

                1. Obviously you were not taking notes nor making any valid conclusions about whatever part of Wolff’s lecture you attempted to view.

                  Confining oneself to discussing a particular period of economic history is often adequate to illustrate a present situation. Prof Wolff, “acts as if…” Let’s see, listen to Prof Wolff or listen to C-K’s evaluation of the Prof, which is more credible and which is total nonsense? Not a tough choice.

                  Over 1000 culprits were prosecuted during the Savings and Loan event(s) you reference, none prosecuted thus far in the current and ongoing episode of financial fraud. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/profile.html I left the link to possibly give you a clue about something. William K Black, another authority you can fail to understand or pretend to know more than.

                  Your, “answer this,” question handily illustrates your complete failure to grasp the subject you are attempting to use to be deliberately abusive to another commenter. Neither is greater, they are both parts of the same atrocity being applied by the same, “forces.”

                  That you also fail to grasp that the anger felt here has not been stirred up by Richard Wolff or myself, the anger felt is the result of collectively being financially swindled, forced into unnecessary wars and the failure of those supposedly in charge of applying the law to do anything about any of it.

                  Do us all a favor and at least come up with a half-way credible analogy or metaphor or something partially plausible, the next time you feel you need to act like a jerk toward someone else for no apparent reason.

                  And also please remember, “Superior intelligence is often illustrated by knowing when to STFU.”

                  1. I don’t have time for this, Windmill. I was promoting banks and S&Ls before you were born. I helped a local franchise named Holiday Inn grow into a global power house. I helped individuals develop small businesses into national market leaders. I helped private schools raise funds, first because my children were attending and the schools needed help and then simply because I could. I KNOW the American economy. How it works and is manipulated. Wolff’s screed is old news. He’s got no solutions other than revolution or destruction of principals in our present system. Neither have you. PJ is on to the global and humanistic aspects of the problem. To make a living and succeed in my profession I had to learn to adapt. It’s not easy. And you are inevitably required to compromise if you are to accomplish anything at all.

                    1. Isn’t that special. Name calling is still all you have to, “offer.” Don’t respond to any of the points I mentioned about your previous comment, just lash out with your view of your self-professed and infallible superiority and demonize anyone else while offering no proof, no example nor any attempt at an explanation of your argument other that you know better than others and you presume yourself to be older. LOL. You don’t have time for an answer or an explanation, only time to berate others that challenge you or what you say. Color me unsurprised.

                      Are you arguing that between $17 trillion to $29T in taxpayer bailouts for the largest (US) banks who were and are insolvent without continuing support from the US government (in other words, us, we the people) and who continue to go unregulated, costs borne on the backs of the poor and elderly and the victims of our terrorism abroad, are the principals that should be furthered and promoted in our current economic system? An estimated $400T in a toxic derivatives world-wide is just fine with you? Nothing that the US military/industrial/congressional/banking/drug money laundering cartel bothers you or needs to be changed?

                      Nice to see the REAL you. Austerity for them is just fine and dandy, you have yours. Private schools for you and yours, whatever might be left for everyone else. Bluster and condemnation, not a valid thought expressed by you, still. You know so much more that Prof Wolff but can’t elucidate a single point on any other potential strategy or even make a comment that indicates you actually have any concept of understanding him. Then you deem to enlighten us as to what PJ is all about with his writing. Sanctimonious much? Compromise with thieves and war-mongers is all just OK then, just as long as you get yours. Oh how quaint a concept ck. The “Democratic Way” according to your POTUS.

              2. To me, Thucydides says it better than I ever could. Public trust is breached. Honestly, I don’t think Montesquieu or Thucydides are all that inaccessible. I only read them in translation. It’s not like we’re talking about trudging through French and Greek.

                It is not that the historical figures are inaccessible. Using the line, “the public trust is breached,” is all that is required, in the context of almost any issue today, to conceivably stir action. Bringing in the historical figures and attributing authorship in any historical sense is what is superfluous for the moment and can be part of the cause of, “dawdle and lumbering.” I would love to have and afford the leisure of university and scholastic indulgence, but the time is too short, presently.

                Part of the impeachment of Obomba should also include his failure to prosecute Bush and Cheney. Bring in the whole damn Congress as they again exempt themselves from rules or consequences for insider market trading again on Monday. Begin somewhere is the notion and the thing that is not happening.

  3. America has been subject to foreign influence since Alexander Hamilton turned our banking system over to England. It has become steadily worse as the U.S. was duped into two European Wars. Sweden(who did not bite)owns most of our credit system. The Japanese came in during the Nixon era, who invited the Chinese and communistic and indentured labor, though no longer our own. When the Supreme Court decided to halt the U.S. nationalistic recovery started by Billy Jeff by assuring Bush’s terms, we welcomed the Saudi’s and the world oil cartel. This momentum for the super rich was completed by the unnecessary Citizen’s United decision giving inalienable rights to corporations national and international. Consequently, there is now a world economic oligarchy ruling this country. Wish I’d had more time on this, but you get the idea.

    1. Excellent article, Ed. It speaks to a suite of factors that too often go ignored. First and foremost, it underscores the obtuse notion of innovation that dominates our discourse. As if stress and competition are the only routes to innovation. Strictly utilitarian and strictly nonsense. “Necessity is the mother of invention.” If that were absolutely true, poverty shouldn’t be the historical reality that it is. Wealth and leisure are also critical routes to innovation. The division of “need” and the obscuring of human experience as drivers of innovation are among the most maddening aspects of innovation discourse. Both routes are as subject to stagnation as they are to innovation. The absent factors in both paradigms are application, purpose, and will.

      Profit motive couldn’t be more narrowing and restricting to truly innovative thought. That’s one critical distinction. Wealth for wealth’s sake will never produce anything but oppression and torpor. Wealth must have purpose and direction. Innovation must have purpose and direction. It often occurs at the fringes of society as apparent “spontaneity” but goes unrecognized in terms of purpose and scale.

      The Mesopotamians harnessed electricity but never applied it to anything but art (that we know of). The Romans and Hellenists harnessed the steam engine but applied it to little more than theatrical entertainment. Minoan architecture produced incredibly flexible spaces – movable walls that could change the depth and shape of any interior space or open it completely to the outside – not to mention lightwells and labyrinths. All of these applications filled a priority, a need tied to human experience and aesthetics. Nazi Germany, as this author suggests, presents us with a tremendous example of fulfilling priority and need. Like the “invisible hand,” innovation is neither neutral nor spontaneously generated. Innovation is a combination of ingenuity and will. It may very well be that the many estimates of China’s pace of growth – surpassing us in decades – could be shortsightedly off. China’s investment could pay off sooner than they think, than we think. It only stands to reason. Enough “will” will generate ingenuity.

      Our modern perception of the East, in general, is so off. The East dominated the world for most of history. The big picture since the Neolithic at the very least, is that innovation moved East to West, and to some extent, back East again. China played no small part in that trend. Uppity Wisconsin touched on this yesterday: http://networkedblogs.com/KeiD1.

      If the object of our government is innovation, I’d prefer its purpose and direction to shift toward human experience and human happiness rather than shunting it off to the side in favor of the sham that is “entrepreneurial advancement.” In my opinion, we need seriously dissect a number of ideas and what we, as a society, want them to mean. Notions like technology, efficiency, progress, and growth, obsolescence, public sector, private sector, independence, liberty, freedom, and waste.

    2. “Democracy is not a precondition for progress. Money is.”

      The Romans proved that a few thousand years ago, Ed.

  4. Catkin,

    No, I didn’t specify any resistance. In my reply to nonquixote I mentioned holding the Democratic Establishment accountable. What I mean by that is withholding votes and GOTV assistance to the Democratic Party until such time as they shift their agenda from DLC to Progressive. Resistance by rejection of the “lesser of two evils” bind. Keeping the discourse on topic as well – adding to it, enriching it.

    Your question is a toughy. The obvious answer would seem to be the latter of your dichotomy, but I’m not sure I could reasonably boil down assumption of our government by a new aristocracy to the either/or you propose. I guess I would see it as, both are inevitable while all three branches of government are corrupted by commercial interests (domestic and global) and the monied elite (domestic and global). It’s a false choice in that we needn’t choose either one if we rebuild and detoxify our government structure. It is one and the same force that is perpetrating both atrocities you present.

    As to uncertainty of action: I remain unconvinced that mass rallies produce the kind of change we need. I was convinced of that prior to the Madison protests, Occupy, and Keystone XL actions. And even more so now. That’s not to say I would discourage peaceable assembly and free speech. I question the impact. While some of these may have shifted some of the discourse, they haven’t shifted it or awareness enough. Nor have those actions translated into significant policy or agenda reversals. I don’t know what the answer is. I know we must restructure and in so doing we must address the empirical realities currently plaguing this nation. To me, that means directly addressing poverty and its consequences, education, overhauling the elections process, and well – a suite of issues. I don’t think gradual-baby step change is the answer. I still think mass action at the ballot box – voting – engagement in the democratic process – is the only way to effect long term, systemic change. This is only a guess, but the Democratic Establishment appears to feel relatively safe/stable electorally as the GOP approaches collapse, therefore will not initiate the massive change they need to make.

    As far as I’m concerned we needn’t reinvent the wheel to confront the 21st Century. But we do need to learn from success – from our own domestic experience and from around the world. We have enough history and empiricism to draw upon. We need only the will to reasonably synthesize and to rationally act.

    I think we need a 21st Century Constitutional Convention.

    1. Always the eternal optimist, I look at it as a case of checks and balances. As the public develops lifelong education, instantaneous access to information and healtcare, perhaps it will learn to play more competetively. That’s assuming there is honor and a non-biased referee (judicial system)

  5. You speak with Jefferson’s sentiments. Though, to reach closer, one might add another element: qualifying competition by imbuing it with “fair, equitable, and balanced.” Competition on its own isn’t, by definition, fair. Also recognizing its proper place. Competition isn’t an appropriate value for measuring or maintaining stability. Nor is it conducive to strengthening freedom in an ostensibly free society. Problem is, the system of checks and balances is broken, and for that matter, inadequately constructed. The judicial system is the branch that facilitated the corruptive process.

    1. “Competition on its own isn’t, by definition, fair.”
      Beautiful criticism of the American psyche. And something that won’t be accepted by 90% of U.S. Citizens–perhaps even world citizens. We definitely need to fix the judicial system, but that will only be done by fixing the power of the global oligarchy that controls it. #movetoamend.org. as a beginning.

  6. Nonquixote,

    I must beg to differ. In the light of the post, Thucydides’ sentiments contextualize a struggle that has existed for millennia and that we are experiencing now on a scale never before seen. I see the problem as one where this nation’s discourse has telescoped too far. Can’t see the forest for the trees. We need to expand the discourse on every issue of our concern. And as important we must develop a full cognizance of the issues so we solve our problems at their roots.

    This point I can’t stress enough. As much as it may irritate you, I’m going to have to give you another historical reference. This one from James Wilson at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. The context is designing the legislative branch and the proper foundation of government. His comment, relayed by Madison: “… he thought nothing so pernicious as bad first principles.”

    I’ll save the historical side note on Wilson for another post. Point being, we must reconstruct our eroded government structure and we must not rebuild out of ignorance.

    Have a gander at these:

    http://www.therules.org/en

    http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/cost-of-inequality-oxfam-mb180113.pdf

    If you want to take immediate action, choose your focus well. Focus on systemic change. Get on board with Oxfam’s “..new global goal to end extreme wealth by 2025…” Oxfam’s goal is taking inequality back to 1990s levels, I’d say, be ambitious, nonquixote, work on taking it back even farther, or eye a new world record on egalitarianism and equality worldwide. This gap grows exponentially. If you’re going to criticize Obama (and I think you should) make it a critique that will inspire change where we need it most. Not with the single individual, but with the political establishment over which he presides. Take issue with political capture by the global elite and global corporations.

    Above links were embedded in this article:
    http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/16961-the-truth-about-extreme-global-inequality

    1. Thanks for the congenial discussion, PJ.

      You don’t irritate me, as I, myself, am happy to get the references and historical figures/philosophy/arguments you present, even if I don’t always have time to fully follow them (self-employed, single dad, teenager at home for a couple of years yet) and still practice some sort of activism beyond typing a few comments. I simply have experienced too many people, needing to be convinced to act and participate in productive ways in a democratic republic and the responsibilities which that demands of us, who shut down at the first mention some of that stuff. Thanks for bringing it, just hope to focus on the audience most in need of bringing some basic understanding to.

      One very tiny aspect of my activism is growing and donating many, many, 10’s of pounds of extra veggies for our county food bank. Go Oxfam, ra-ra!! nothing against that, but local is more efficient (results for energy expended) and another way to spread “the small ‘d’ word,” face to face with personal credibility.

      Lunch and back at it.

    2. Take issue with political capture by the global elite and global corporations

      In my haste I forgot to mention, exactly the process begun with even preaching the need for POTUS impeachment proceedings, PJ. Thanks for reassurance that some of us are on the proper course.

  7. It is a tender balance between local, national, and global no doubt. I would like to see more local control on a great many things. Ultimately, reducing local as far as it can go – all the way to the individual. However, the paradox is: At what level is autonomy truly secured? By extension, at what level are equal rights, liberty, and happiness secured? Ironically, it isn’t at the local level. It’s at the national and supra-national levels. Who controls our lives?

    You aren’t at all wrong about the need to convince people to act. It’s maddening. Solve it with more talk. More information. Eventually the weight of an informed populace will force a tipping point. We’re not there. At this point we have an uninformed populace who can’t even sort out what their own “interest” means or what “shared interest” might mean. More talk. But meaningful talk. This country is glutted with subversive discourse that perpetuates the subversion of the system. That glut occurs on both sides of the political isle though in differing degrees and in differing manners. The two together constitute an untenable political system.

    Now, I could be all wrong in my solution for handling the Democratic Party. Though I will support genuinely Progressive candidates, I can’t support the Democratic establishment any longer. There are other Progressives (that I admire and respect) who believe the “glut solution” is for individuals to get involved in the democratic process by taking hold of the local democratic apparatus. There is strength and also truth to this. I agree with it to some extent. I continually weigh in on that internal debate. Statistically, the vast majority of Americans support Progressive ideals and Progressive solutions. It is a matter of political will on the part of the political establishment to see that Progressivism realized. I don’t want to act by trying to convince the Democratic Establishment of something it should already know. The Dems need more Progressive candidates at the local level to build that foundation until the DNC has a codified Progressive platform. With your zeal, you’d make a good candidate. Just the kind of Progressive voice we need in politics. Perhaps you might consider running for office someday? Maybe on a green ticket?

    As to impeachment my ambivalence stems from acknowledging a broken system. I would not like to see something as important as impeachment proceed under current conditions.

Comments are closed.