"Are America’s Elites Post-American?" and Other Implied Questions of a Rambling Monologue

I admit that I'm throwing these thoughts at you, dear reader. Much can be more tightly defined and/or more broadly spun out. I'd love your feedback: What message do you discern from these expatiations?

The confrontation of non-democratic powers reinforces our belief that we need to dynamic, flexible, and largely unconstrained by governmental regulation. The self-interested reason that elites sometimes support social programs is that they believe in the strengthening of the nation-state, in this context.

The intermingling of elites, however, has undermined the sense that the future of elites is tied to the common person. At the same time, the common American supports the status quo because of a belief in the need to confront regimes that are less free, and potentially aggressive.

Peaceful accommodation among elites may eventually lead to the perception that aggressive confrontation is not strongly needed and the common person may decide that it is worthwhile to secure health and educational benefits for himself.

Trade agreements are one step in the direction of events such as these unfolding. More significant, however, would be (1) the democratization of China and (2a) the democratization of important parts of the Middle East or (2b) a dramatic decrease in our reliance on oil (NB: 2a and 2b do not both need to happen for the belief in a stable, wealthy world to take root much more firmly.). Such an occurrence (which would likely take decades to solidify itself) would convince common folks that the need to band behind their elite leadership is not so strong as it had earlier seemed.

Obama is an interesting phenomenon because he senses the potential for such a secure, wealthy world order to emerge. He simultaneously seems to support the passions of common folks to secure their part of an international system that does not fully consider them. This is a common liberal stance in American today. Obama is so successful because he presents it with so little acrimony. The image is understandably appealing.

The shortcoming is that, so long as challenges to the democratic world order are not taken seriously, the risks remain of (1) an ebb in the tide of democratic expansion and/or (2) a crisis in the relationship between Obama and American middle in the event of future challenges to that order.

MORRIS AND McGANN on McCAIN

Morris and McGann analyze McCain's recent advocacy of offshore drilling and take on the wishful electoral thinking of liberal orthodoxy in the process.

"The Democratic ambivalence stems from liberal concerns about climate change. The Party basically doesn't believe in carbon based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration. That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies - a step that tells them “you drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.” But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling AND alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug in vehicles and nuclear power."

Alternative energy technology should be one of our most serious pursuits. Still, we must face the "here and now" geopolitics and the weight of oil-derived influence therein.

"DEMOCRATIC RECESSION


Tom Friedman suggests today that

There are two important recessions going on in the world today. One has gotten enormous attention. It’s the economic recession in America. But it will eventually pass, and the world will not be much worse for the wear. The other has gotten no attention. It’s called “the democratic recession,” and if it isn’t reversed, it will change the world for a long time.

It is interesting to consider that Friedman's focus on globalization may, in fact, obscure the importance of observing trends in the growth of democracy. David Brooks' recent column (discussed here) suggests that technological change is more essential than globalization as a factor driving our economic evolution. Today's Friedman column, with its focus on the importance of oil in driving corruption, makes clear the importance of the economic structure of a society in influencing its political organization.

Friedman has, in the past, suggested that globalization is one of the principal meta-narratives of our time. I think that today's column gets much closer to specifying the actual issues that influence our lives and our future.

In short, technological change and democracy are much more significant factors in global development than is globalization. It is to our intellectual detriment that we misconstrue the relative primacy of these factors.

“CIVICS AND SCIENCE”

This should be the mantra of democratic societies around the world. I’ll outline a series of issues to explain how these themes relate. My proposals are not only intended to be practically useful but also politically viable. The clarity of the concepts as well as their international appeal is therefore important.

I. The viability of the US economy is an issue of strategic importance for all democracies and ought to be addressed by a “national science project”.
a. The US is not likely to reclaim manufacturing jobs that have drifted overseas and needs to leverage its position as an innovative, well-connected society by emphasizing science education at all levels of society.
b. The importance of civics education in this country is not easily disputed.

II. Oil-based economies tend to lack the civil society necessary to moderate militant passions (e.g. in Saudi Arabia, Iran) and/or to moderate authoritarian tendencies (e.g. Iran, Russia, Venezuela); the West can do the world a service by developing energy alternatives that gradually free us from dependence on oil.
a. A “national science project” would help drive the sort of innovation necessary to achieve this task.
b. A recent review (see previous post) of US efforts in Iraq gives added teeth to the idea that ‘soft power’ is necessary to cement the institutional change we seek in such countries. Organizations such as Creative Associates work to spread civics education abroad. Efforts that support the development of strong, accountable local governments should be expanded.

III. The rise of China is likely to be one of the most significant geopolitical issues of this century. The environmental challenges that we face as a planet have the potential to humble all of us enough to turn potential confrontation into cooperation.
a. Exchanges between Chinese and Western science have most productively taken place in the realm of medicine. Americans are clearly seeking a more holistic view of their own medical health. Our country could drive down its health costs by developing a culture of prevention and wellness.
b. The best opportunities for civics cooperation would take place in a context in which the wisdom of Chinese holistic traditions (as manifested in medicine and in the current purposeful progress of the society) are openly acknowledged by Americans. In such a context, opportunities would be enhanced for the United States to offer guidance to China on increased public participation in government.

IV. Take a moment to think about each item above and you'll see how global environmental challenges are relevant to each.

Conclusion: Catchiness is not a luxury but a necessity in any age. This is particularly so when interest and faith in national institutions is declining (See here to be shocked into believing this last claim.). The phrase "Civics and Science" is one example of how to encapsulate a broad range of critical issue under one slogan.

A "NATIONAL SCIENCE PROJECT" 

OK, I'm on a Thomas Friedman kick . . .

Here he addresses how a "national science project" with regard to energy independence/alternative would be a powerful response to a number of national issues (energy, education, globalization, terrorism).  Another article of his humorously addresses many of these same issues in the context of a mock Iranian "National Intelligence Estimate" of the United States.

Yet another issue I'd like to highlight: It's become more difficult for talented scientists to come to the United States, post 9-11.  This has potential strategic significance for our entire country.

Amazingly, Friedman's national science project idea has implications for national infrastructure, economic innovation, labor, terrorism, the strength of the democratic world, the environment, and education.  I'll be excited to write/research more about this when I return from my honeymoon(!)

INNOVATION-BASED ECONOMIES

My writing on the intellectual stultification that can occur in oil-based economies and on the potential economic benefits of an American "Green Revolution" (see the Thomas Friedman link in the previous post) overlap in at least one way: They both point to the relevance of an "innovation-based" economy.

I've touched on the importance of an innovation-based economy in terms of its potential to promote democracy.  Friedman (in another article) addresses the importance of a culture of innovation for securing American prosperity as global economic competition intensifies.

TREE HUGGERS, HAWKS, (and LABORERS?)

The Set America Free Coalition aims to create links between environmentalists and security hawks interested in reducing American dependence on foreign oil (I would argue that domestically-produced oil would not be much better, environmentally or in terms of national security.).  Institute for the Analysis of Global Security (first referred to me by my brother, Jeremy) addresses some similar issues.

Thomas Friedman focuses on another aspect of the drive for alternative energies/energy efficiency:  potential benefits to the American labor force of environmental reforms.

How can we better develop coalitions between all of these communities and interest groups?

OIL and DEMOCRACY

Hmmm....  Let's think about the areas around the world that have presented the greatest challenges to a democratic world order in recent months . . .

My list would include Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.

What do they have in common?  All collect oil/gas revenues that pad economic growth even while repressing the innovation and citizen activism that underpin most dynamic and successful societies.

OIL and TERRORISM

The same trends apply to many Middle Eastern societies that are hotbeds for terrorism.  The resultant (1) lack of a strong civil society and of (2) a moderate middle class precludes those societies from presenting an organized response to disruptive, extremist elements.

The Great Oil Slick: Implications for Democracy, Terrorism, and the Environment

A recent John McCain article in Foreign Affairs magazine articulates some of the connections between energy policy, foreign affairs, and the environment:

"The transfer of American wealth to the Middle East through continued oil purchases helps sustain the conditions under which extremism breeds, and the burning of oil and other fossil fuels spurs global warming, a gathering danger to our planet." (Read the relevant section of the article at the bottom of the linked page.)

Future postings on this site will address (1) the links between oil-based economies, authoritarianism, and terrorism and (2) will include thoughts about how to promote ties between the environmental movement, pro-democracy movements, and national security hawks, with regard to these issues.

OIL, PORK, and the PRESIDENCY 

I am concerned about the future of the United States economy and body politic. The following topics will be addressed

+dependence on foreign oil

+pork: Congress' addiction to budgetary earmarks and unjustified subsidies

+the presidency: threats to the system of checks and balances by overweening assertion of Executive power