REDEFINING PROGRESS

What is the next stage of human advancement?


The political trend across Europe is strong push toward a predominance of the center-right. Although their majorities are generally marginal, the left is invariably weak and divided. In the public debate left-wing policies and preferences have become subject of widespread scorn. It mirrors a similar trend in the United States where right wing conservatives are far more articulate and vehement than those who belong to the moderate left or democratic electorate.


America's right-wing assertion of the nature of the present administration

The underling development however seems more complex than a mere shift to the right. We experience an evolution in many different dimensions – and in many directions. It challenges our opinions and values about the elements that constitute right vs. left-wing or conservatism versus progressiveness as these qualifications have guided our view of our political society over the past decades. At the same time our own values shift. What was considered right-wing thirty years ago can now be a perfectly legitimate opinion of ‘the left’, but the reverse is equally true.

First of all, to describe the political spectrum along one – left-right – axis has always been a gross simplification of the actual dividing lines among the electorate and the political parties, especially in Europe. They can have different views about social and moral issues and economic freedom, about governance (more or less autocratic), about religious issues, personal freedoms etc. in many different compositions. There are dividing lines too along specific issues, such as environment and security, or, especially at this point, minority issues and the attitude towards the Arab-Muslim population. In addition the sentiments of the electorate depend on their current economic and social situation. This may have been the case throughout recent history, but in times of economic adversity it is one of the defining factors that has new pertinence.


In search of new horizons

Uncertainty, economic stagnation and – as I have indicated many times in this blog – an apparent exhaustion of inspirational ideas and concepts stir the electorate on an as yet ill defined path. The conservative or right-wing populace is fighting in defense of its vested interests, or so it seems, whilst the people who traditionally belong to the progressive (leftist) part of the electorate are grappling for an answer with an equally conservative attitude.

The implication of his stand-off situation is that nothing moves at all. Belt-tightening and more stringent legal provisions in respect of civilians and (financial) markets dominate the political agenda. Every idea of social or economic reform, let alone of seriously addressing more wide ranging issues such as energy and environment have been effectively pushed out of view.

The clashes are not any longer about ideas but about the priority of interests to be served. This is a far cry from the notion that there is a future to be conquered in which we enhance the conditions of our societies beyond the horizon of vested positions and obsolete ideologies. Lamentations about this – largely among a dwindling class of intellectuals – are more outspoken in the US than in Europe, where societal issues are most prominent in headlines and columns. But this may be just a marginal difference. On both sides of the Atlantic the public debate has vulgarized and the exercise of progressive idealism has become a highly suspect pastime of an increasingly unhappy few.

This is not because no one cares to listen or their ideas are overruled by the noisy conservative populace, it is rather that at this point it appears to be extremely difficult to effectively formulate substantive, countervailing progressive concepts. In fact, what constitutes “progress” is fundamentally in question. Although in Europe this seems to be a concern for the left most of all, this is a shared issue for left and right, as “progress” is not necessarily a monopoly of the left only. For most of the 20th Century the engine of progress was firmly in the hands of enlightened industrialists, and this included a fair amount of social improvements. Post-war social welfare programs as they proliferated in (then: Western) Europe would have been unthinkable without the solid foundation that was laid in this period.

Perhaps this is what we should remind ourselves of in our own time. The societal fabric is weakening because our economies are halting in their very roots. The engine of welfare generation requires all our attention. The other side of the coin is that our present-day industrialists have a major social responsibility next to their commercial responsibilities. I have touched upon this in an earlier posting (See August 2010: Power and responsibility in our future world). Secondly, as I have indicated in this blog at many occasions, we should reassess the traditional distinctions between our own roles as consumers and as responsible citizens. To a large extent this must come naturally, as in our own private lives we do not readily distinguish between the commercial and the political where it concerns the progress we make ourselves. For instance, the benefits of the Internet are as much a result of private initiative as of public infrastructure.

Nonetheless, however we look at it, some major – and very pressing – public issues remain which do demand a concerted effort of both commercial and public institutions. Left nor right can escape them, and resolving these issues in my view will largely determine true progress in the future decades.

There are many choices to be made of which some – but not all – indeed will depend on our priorities in political terms. “Progress” nor progressiveness point at one single defined track. We better clarify the various options – and their divergence – next to the narrow options, the choices – we might say – that we do not have. Decisions that we simply have to take in order for our world not to disintegrate in a longer term stagnation. Effective leadership seems to be more crucial at this stage than political denomination.


The UK's new young leadership at the left

In Europe, examples of such forward looking leadership are not absent, but they are a minority, for instance in the UK where young and buoyant individuals, all in their forties, have taken the center stage from left to right. But elsewhere in Europe, the situation seems more hesitant, for instance in my own country, The Netherlands, where many people mistake noisy (and largely resentful) populism with truthful guidance. We will get beyond this, I have no doubt. In the mean time there is ample room, and ample need, for parties in at all ends of the spectrum to readdress their own sense of the future and of the partnerships they require to get there, whether in the political arena or in the private – and most likely: in both.

IN DEFENSE OF DEMOCRACY

Across Europe the increasing influence of right-wing extremism challenges the ideal of a civic democracy based on decency and a sense of compromise. It raises the question whether our democracies can survive when the populace votes by stamping its feet in response to ad hoc anxieties or raw self-interest and social exclusion. At the root of this development is the mounting uneasiness with the presence of – what people see as – an alien Muslim culture. This sentiment is further exacerbated by the severe economic troubles that have hit the entire western world. The current circumstances are an eerie reminder of the situation in the late 1920s and early 1930s when democracies were swept away by militant right-wing dictatorships attacking our civilization at its very roots. Of course, the comparison is flawed by many accounts, if only because no such militancy has surfaced in our present day nor are the economic prospects as depressing as in that particular period. But even if in terms of severity our present world is a paradise of wealth and peace compared with the conditions of the 1930s, we should not turn our eyes away from certain current trends which of themselves can not be described in diminishing terms.


New cultural elements cause widespread uneasiness and enstrangement

First of all there are above societal trends, which I would categorize as follows:

• social values have become diffuse as have the societal codes of behavior; there is a marked rudeness and impoliteness in the public debate and a popular culture which heralds hedonistic vulgarism;
• old left-wing solidarity has been rather rudely shifted aside in favor of uninhibited materialist egoism;
• equality and non-discrimination have to be defended against mounting stigmatization and outright discrimination of minorities such as Muslims, Roma

Each of them undermines the integrity of our societies which constitute the foundation of our public institutions and of the written and unwritten rules by which they have thus far been able to serve the common good.

Secondly, I see parallel a trend which in my view is largely a consequence of the above. The past decade has shown increasingly erratic voter behavior, with the public exerting pressure on parties to offer immediate satisfaction rather than sound long term views and nourishing leadership based on populism. This development coincides with a gradual shift in generations. The ideals of the past four decades have worn out but few substantial concepts or visions as yet have replaced them. Ironically the emphasis among younger generation appear to be more conservative than that of the previous generations, thus reinforcing the shift to the right in the broader social-economic spectrum.


Rightwing populist Geert Wilders of the Netherlands

Admittedly, all of the above is a matter of perception too. I am part of the aging Baby-boom generation and thus it is only natural that my observations include an element of regret (not necessarily discontent) about the general drift of our societies and the diminishing relevance of the civic values by which I have grown up. Yet I also believe it is more than just that; more than a mere difference in taste or personal preferences.

Evolution of culture is one thing, but it is very difficult to ignore the potential harmful consequences of societal disintegration and of a lack of responsibility for the longer term. Major challenges lay ahead but they have somehow disappeared from the agenda, in part because of short term financial pressures but also, I believe, because they offer little appeal for politicians to gain – or sustain - their popular support. Issues such energy, climate change, maintaining the fabric of world peace and security, including the fabric of the European Union itself, have almost, so it seems, become suspect. Anyone who raises it with any degree of seriousness as simply cast aside. It is not a conscious process, but it is distinct phenomenon: our real concerns being driven away inadvertently by our short term hypes and anxieties.


Wrung from history: Europe's institution for peace and security

In the end, this will undermine the credibility of our democracies too, and it is in its ultimate defense that I raise this topic. In their extremes the above trends, if unchecked, could well lead to an increased call for authoritarian rule, both as a result of sustained discontent and of even greater challenges being posed on our societies. They may either come from within or outside – or both. Natural disasters, armed conflict at larger scale, mass insurgence against new shortages and so on. Under those circumstances the constitution of our democracies will come under new, additional pressure. It is not difficult to paint a scenario in which all of these different existing and possible future developments arrive at a boiling point in which our democracies crumble largely because we have forgotten how to run them properly.

Civic responsibility and the orderly conduct of our public interests are a concern to us all, whatever preferences we have or whatever choices we make. Political parties should be responsive to the public’s needs but should also be able to project substantive leadership beyond short term pressures. All of it seems obvious and almost needless to say.

Yet so many things that may have been obvious are not any longer. Civic education can not be taken for granted. Democracy requires tolerance and responsibility at all levels, and this includes the voter. Whether or not historic precedents are relevant in all respects, we can at least derive serious lessons from them and steer clear from unnecessary disaster.

THE COSTLY DECADE AFTER 9/11

In the aftermath of the 9/11 commemorations people in America and elsewhere in the world may forget the sequence of events that followed and which in hindsight could be viewed as a disaster at least of similar magnitude. I was reminded of this when some young friends asked me to watch Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 911. It has been a while since I last saw it. “Will we get opinions only, or facts?” they asked beforehand. As far as I knew it largely offered facts, images, but obviously construed in such a way to see the events from a specific angle. And this is what I told them.

My young friends are adolescents now, but at the time they still were kids. So this was the first opportunity for them to observe and evaluate for themselves the successive actions of the Bush Administration after September 2001, ultimately leading up to the military intervention in Iraq. They ware truly horrified. Of course, in this documentary Michael Moore leads us to see the pre- and post-9/11 events as one huge conspiracy in which President George W. Bush served as nothing more than as a dumb witted pawn in the hand of corporate interests out to get as much profit our of Middle East oil as they could get their hands on. The dramatic onslaught of 9/11, in their eyes, served as a blessing, not as a tragedy. The Republican-Corporate elite concocted the case for democracy and freedom in the Middle-East to the benefit of their own pocket books and in the process sacrificed the lives of many more American people – young men in particular – than the number of people who lost their lives in the initial terrorist attack. And even though this is a very subjective, highly cynical interpretation, it is very difficult to escape the notion that the American people were misled in believing that in toppling the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein, something effective was done to avert a substantive and immediate threat to their own security. It was by no means a response to an actual, immediate threat of terror but rather a pre-emptive action to safeguard America’s economic interests.


The great sacrifice after 9/11

I have been highly critical of the Bush Administration throughout its tenure and even though I would not readily concede to conspiracy theories or to US presidents serving their own interests only I can not help but see the entire history of the years between 2000 and 2005 as a tragic mishap for which taxpayers and citizens world wide are paying a colossal price. What strikes me most of all is how we tend to forget this and blame the current economic slump and lack of new progress on the present-day administration.

Massive military spending, hundreds of billions of dollars, went into a war that as been questionable from the onset and it has drained the American – and world - economy to such extent that it wasn’t able to sufficiently counter the burst of the financial bubble that ensued in parallel. We got stuck, in America and elsewhere, and much of it is to blame on the expensive illusions that have been kept alive, indeed by very self-centered interests – not merely of politicians and corporations - throughout the past decade.


The president is who is largely blamed for the consequences of the past

It will take the western economies at least another decade to recapture sufficient financial strength and inspiration to get on with the job of making the world a better place. The implication is that a great many urgent innovations in energy, ecology and market efficiency will take much longer to materialize and that they will only come about if governments accept sustained austere budget policies for a considerable period. All of this will keep people across the world – including people in areas of conflict – on a tight string and this may again trigger new outbreaks of violence.


When will new stability and growth return?

Seen from this angle, I much regret that I can not tell my young friends that any time soon the outlook of our world will substantially improve. Many uncertainties remain and thus they too will pay part of the bill of the wasteful previous years. At the same time it is important that they grasp the historic context in which they make their own decisions, from every possible viewpoint. The conundrums of their world are not an act of God but the result of willful actions of people, both for better and for worse. They too can dream of their own contributions and learn from the judgments of people in the past.

POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY IN OUR FUTURE WORLD

Whom should we look at to clean up the mess?


This blog is an ongoing exploration of the factors affecting our longer term future, not merely in terms of economy, politics or private wealth but in its fundamental parameters. It is often said but I will repeat here that this exercise is not about predicting the future but, in essence, about getting to grips with the present. Secondly, if we want to have an understanding of where we are today we can not go without some basic knowledge of how we got here, in short: of our history and of the key events that have shaped it. To some extent the exploration of our history is just as speculative as that of the future. One can have many different, viable perceptions of it. And invariably they evolve over time. Thus however we go about it, it is an ongoing effort indeed, every time and again.

The history of the past century can be described in terms of shifting powers. From the early to the late 1900s a momentous transition has taken place from ancient nation based autocracies to power structures on a global scale, in part supported by national democracies, in part by private enterprise. The 20th century saw citizens become mass consumers at the same time and it is a matter of debate whether their influence – on average – on the direction of their future, their immediate environment and the general conditions affecting their welfare has increased or, to the contrary, whether they have in fact have been reduced to mere statistics in a global system of mass slavery. I have elaborated this viewpoint in an one of my previous postings (See Archive: March 2010 Unleash your shackles; slaves ought to be free).


The source of all current power

At another level the global shift towards internationalism has brought us a new tension between the private and the public sphere of interests. The resolution of this tension in my view is the major challenge for the next forthcoming decades. Again I should refer to an earlier posting (See Archive December 2008: The society of owners vs. the public society) in which I addressed this topic much against the background of our present-day financial problems and the need for ensure that the financial (and industrial) world become less driven by mere short-term profit rather than longer term sustainability.

But there is a more profound issue at stake and perhaps we should call this a crisis too: the crisis of responsibility. The underlying reality is not dissimilar from the one that caused massive peril a hundred years ago, when power was exercised by those who didn’t care to take true responsibility for the world on which they imposed it. And perhaps this is a theme running through the longer stretch of history when time and again power rather than need -the needs of the people, for instance – determined its actual course. This is as much true for the instances at which such power eventually was overthrown. The struggle against irrational power can be seen as one of the major spoils in the story of humanity. And even though we may not perceive our current challenges in the same light, much of what happened in the past can still happen to us today, or tomorrow. Do we ever anticipate a new war on European soil? And whether we answer in the affirmative or otherwise, why?

We are facing irrational power that stems from our own guts, our own desires, our own hypes and fads. We are fed the goodies we want in exchange of our non-interference with corporate power. Not as a mere consumer, that is. Which is what most of us are. The challenge is not power – its distribution or concentration – in the first place: it is what we want ourselves.

If the previous history was about the role and responsibilities of labor versus capital, it is the consumer versus capital now. The consumer who is a citizen of the world and of his country as well.

Do we continue to consume at the expense of our planet’s very existence as the harbor of humanity? Much of my blog content revolves around this theme. We may be increasing our knowledge about infinity, but our need is to accept its opposite as well. When nothing is left, nothing is left.



Who has the true power – and the responsibility – to effectively help to curb this trend of global depletion? Can we truly sustain many more billions of people on this planet. Or should more drastic measures to control birth rates be taken? From a humanitarian point of view this seems self-evident, but from the point of view of logic it is not. Accellerated death rates, war and devastation would be more logic and more effective. It is the other conundrum that constitutes our humanity. Will we control it?

In this light too the question of power and responsibility in our world becomes paramount. We have many international institutions but they have neither. Multinational corporations have far greater impact, in both dimensions, but they lack the essence: full accountability. We have only recently had the first instance of great corporate accountability of BP in the aftermath of the Mexican Gulf oil spill.

Perhaps a serious attempt should be made to critically assess the current world situation of power and its corollaries. It underscores the need to come to new terms between the private and the public interest, the latter meaning: us all, together or similarly. Fresh air, clean water, security, education, etcetera. All of this against our true private – individual - needs.

And as already indicated: it all starts with (and within) ourselves.

ALL OF NATURE

Unattainable: the paradise of legend

This summer one of our last surviving American uncles visited my family in The Netherlands in a short European trip. He is ninety years of age and was born in 1919, the year of the Treaty of Versailles. The treaty was discredited by many at the time and thereafter for its shortsightedness and its focus on retribution and revenge rather than on the true needs of the future.


Versailles 1919: not the wisdom of these men could make the world a better place

As a teenager I had a correspondence friendship with my uncle for a time. Invariably he and I exchanged our views and experiences of the main events in the 1960s. And very much in the same spirit we spent a late afternoon, upon his visit to my place, discussing the events and challenges of our present time. In many respects, I observed, our present time very much resembles the fin de siècle – the period preceding the Great War. Our world leadership may not be as misguided as the ruling class in those days, especially in Europe, but so far it has failed to set the path to effectively face our present-day world wide challenges. “They are unprecedented!” my uncle exclaimed. “We are taking a massive responsibility for many future generations – in terms of our natural environment, resources, our (nuclear) waste, overpopulation and so on – but we have no true solution for any of these.”

My uncle has visited The Netherlands in various successive stages of his life; as a teenager in the 1930s, as an American Army officer immediately after the liberation in 1945 and at regular visits in the years thereafter. For most of this period my grandparents’ residence in Amsterdam served as his prime landing place. My uncle’s mother and my grandmother were sisters, born and bred in New England. “Your grandparents were true mentors to me,” my uncle said. “Now my dog is my mentor, “ he added with a smile.

Old age has gradually slowed him down physically but his mental abilities are undiminished. The dog is symbolic for the essence of his belief, not in any God or in biblical tales but in “All of Nature”.

It seems a sobering perspective in the last stage of long life. Humanity is facing great peril, more massive and inescapable than at any time in history. We may wish to reach the closing years of our life in a spirit of optimism and confidence in human kind. Yet I didn’t observe any particular disappointment or sorrow in my uncle’s expression. It rather came to me as the personal evaluation of a realist who is well aware that at one point in our lives it is truth that counts, not merely our hopes and wishes, and that we have to let go in a spirit of restful abandonment.


Judgment day for Planet Earth

Is it true, then, that God can offer us no better prospect than the mere forces of our primal instincts? In my own life too, I have little need to answer this question. God is the product of our very own human fallibility. It can not transcend it, however much we might pray for it. Even reptiles are capable of better wisdom. Thus, if I had a dog, like my uncle, I would sit down and look him in the eyes as deep as I can.

WILL PRESIDENT OBAMA BE AMERICA’S NEXT JIMMY CARTER?

One defining issue: the Middle-East (President Obama and Palestine Autority President Abbas)


President Obama is making every effort to help America get out of the present-day economic slump and to contribute to the broader stability of our world. Thus far much criticism accompanies his administration. It is not my competence to judge his performance nor is this my intention in addressing above question. However, it occurred to me that Obama’s presidency and the reputation it has gained to date have much in common with the days of Jimmy Carter.

I was reminded of this when just recently the newspaper reported Washington’s demand to President Abbas of the Palestine authority that he should visibly move towards new talks with Israel. If not, the item stated, the US would be less than forthcoming in continuing its current relations with the Palestine authority. It is the kind of diplomacy that most people who are familiar with the history of US Middle-East policies will find all too familiar. What must be said, has to be said.

President Jimmy Carter achieved some notable results during his presidency, especially between Egypt and Israel, but otherwise got hopelessly stuck in the broader process in the Middle-East after the gross misjudgment in his time of the revolutionary events in Iran and of the forcefulness of Muslim retaliation after decades of dictatorial, US sponsored, rule of that country. It caught him by the tail and this – directly and indirectly – added to his reputation as an ineffective president.

But my point is not the similarity of the pressures which Obama has to face in comparison with those that faced Carter. They are numerous nonetheless, both in terms of international politics and economy. One could say that Obama faces them in even more forceful terms and that, like Carter, he has to do so against much political “Washington adversity.”

I am rather looking at the potential – further – similarities ahead. As time progresses, the pressure is mounting towards Obama’s campaign for a second term. It will be by virtue of a second term that his presidency can rise in stature and remembrance. No doubt many stalemates by which his administration is being pestered today will only be resolved in the event of Obama’s re-election.

Jimmy Carter stumbled over much bad luck, whatever his good intentions or efforts. One of them was the advent of an impressive, ultimately successful competitor by the name of Ronald Reagan. A caliber of similar weight will be needed to topple Obama, I am quite sure. There is no indication as yet whether the Republicans will bring out such a caliber – it is too early days – but it is a serious possibility nonetheless.

Obama’s predecessor Jimmy Carter gained his ultimate stature most of all through his post-presidential initiatives, up to the present day. His presidency may linger in the shadows of history but the person does not. He his highly regarded for his stance in humanitarian affairs and for his role in international dispute settlement. This is by no means irrelevant, for any individual.


Jimmy Carter, a highly effective former US President

Thus, however his presidency may work out, Obama – in principle – will still have an entire life after it. It would not surprise me if his greatest contribution to America’s welfare and to the stability of our world will only be made in his post-presidential years, reaching both beyond Carter’s and Bill Clinton’s, whose status may well have dwindled under pressure of merely being the husband of Obama’s Secretary of State.

Having said this, I would see Obama’s strategy for becoming a respected and influential ex-President being of no less importance than every strategy he designs to win a second term.

THE 21ST CENTURY AS YET REMAINS UNDEFINED

A defining moment in history - 1789


In every age there is a turning point
A new way of seeing the coherence of the world
(Jacob Bronovski, 1973, in “The Ascent of Man”)


When in the history of mankind have there be true instances of a fundamental paradigm shift reaching across society? One such instance immediately comes to mind. In many ways it is the one on which our world today is largely based. It didn’t take place in one sweep but in stages, near the end of the 18th century, and in three dimensions: industrial, social and political. It is interesting to note that it also had three distinct yet related trigger centers: the new United States, Britain and France. And even though in Europe, after the Napoleonic wars, a severe restoration was enforced of the old order, the revolutionary processes still constituted a road on which there was no return.

Yet however much we can identify these different stages in their various aspects, it is difficult to assign one single turning point in a history that took at least a number of decades to unfold. Along the way there was – and is at any time – continuity too, in people’s minds, their habits and in their broader culture.


A new challenge: catering for an aging population

But perhaps we should look at the evolution of our human societies from a more distant perspective. Over past two thousand years there may have been just two or three substantive shifts which constituted a profound redefinition of our world and of our existence and outlook in life, including the key arrangements of our political and social institutions. The advent of Christianity and its broad embrace in mind and spirit of the people’s of Europe most certainly was one of them. It was the single defining factor in our history for some thousand years. By the same token one could say that Christianity’s loss of its social and political predominance was the next main watershed. And perhaps there have been no other. Science, free thought, liberation on all fronts, the institution of democracy in our western world – all have been its consequence. The people of our age are still the offspring of this broad history. We have made no fundamental turn in any of these dimensions over the past two hundred years. History, with all its upheavals in the mean time, progressed along the precepts of the Enlightenment.



How will our young people move?

Today we live in anticipation of a new defining moment. It is key theme of this blog. Our world is challenged at its root assumptions. It has been debated that – our – history will soon end. But can we really expect – or even desire - a turn any time soon? If anything, most of our energies, whether effective or not, are driven towards continuity rather than to revolution and our younger generations do not appear to be motivated otherwise in any respect. We still herald the main accomplishments of our forebears in material and in spiritual terms. If anything the way to overcome the threat of global scarcity – in energy, raw materials, fresh water – is to counter this through accelerated advancement and throw all our trust in our capability to mobilize our technologies and political institutions to that end. This is what we firmly believe or at least desperately wish to believe.


Not the future, hopefully

In the mean time we are faced too with a militant and determined countervailing force – largely coming out of the Middle East – which many in our world view as nothing less than an attempt to throw us back into a new age of religious absolutism and deliberate global attrition. Again, historic antagonisms stare us in the face and it is far from certain that we can overcome this by the same force of reason and enlightenment that guided our history over the past centuries. But we also need to provide a satisfactory answer to the downsides of a rational world which leaves many people living in a spiritual void and encaged by extreme consumerism. We herald individualism and human liberties but they have not made us happier as human beings in our larger communities.



Thus, both from within and from outside, the ingredients of a substantive upheaval in our prevailing conventions seem abundant. But we can not say that we are truly standing at any historic doorstep. At no time this can be foreseen with any degree of certainty. History is written by hindsight. For that matter the next decades could well be an ongoing muddle, one way and the other, without a substantial breakthrough in any dimension.

Yet, breakthroughs are in great need. Clean, infinite energy; political resolutions, food for all… it can hardly be just a shortlist. If our younger generations do not wish for a revolution, then at least let them groom the leadership with a vision that can make this century the most memorable of all – preferably in the most positive light.