What Is To Be Done

The following is a presentation to a group containing several retired academics that meets monthly to discuss specific readings as they relate to the American Empire. The readings under discussion:


The Theology of American Empire by Ira Chernus
Evil Empire—Is Imperial Liquidation Possible for America by Chalmers Johnson

I’m going to take as a given that everyone has read the material. Since the title of this session is “What Is To Be Done,” rather than summarize I’d prefer to spend the time using the material as springboard and grist for discussion of how the individuals in this room can answer this question. Likewise I’m going to assume that everyone is conversant with the challenges presented by peak oil and global climate disruption, not directly covered in these readings but very much bearing on the same events under consideration.

Chalmers does an excellent job of analyzing our current predicament as a result of the militarization of our economy and political system, and how that has left us bereft of liberty. Chernus critiques our founding myths to present our current crisis of identity as a result of the abdication of the their softer side, attempting to avoid economic destruction by externalizing that destruction throughout the world.

Certainly the moral synthesis Chernus proposes around liberal Christian values is or would be preferable to the hypocritical round of shadow projection in which our current leadership and their supporters engage. However, even were it possible for an aroused populace led by an Obama of our most positive dreams, in a masterful feat of true leadership, to effect the necessary philosophical transformation Chernus describes, would this be sufficient to reign in the current malignant tendencies adrift, not just in America, but in the world at large?

I put to you that at present our national sovereignty has shrunk to the point that it serves primarily as a political fiction, selectively enforced to control populations and resources on which they reside, and in this the American population has become much the same as any other. As such no singular “American” solution would remove us from the reach of dangerous transnational forces, be they of natural or human design.

Yet I proffer this question in the belief that the limited power of even those in this room can be effective to promote meaningful change, provided it be focused at an appropriate target. To quote Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” While Chernus and Johnson make significant contributions to that end, I believe we can refine their efforts further.

Focus

Globalization is built on the ability to move capital and production from one place to another and then transport it for distribution, creating locally insufficient communities dependant on production for export and on imports to survive. It is a high-carbon cheap-oil dependant process that has allowed those at the levers of control to skim off the majority the benefits for themselves, and it must be reformed as much as possible to local control and production self-sufficient communities to resolve the issues of climate disruption, which will also solve much of the income inequality issue. We are fast approaching a natural limit to the Earth system, as far as humanity is concerned. We are one with the universe, whether we choose to perceive ourselves as such or not. When we choose not to, we act in ways unconducive to our perpetuation as a species. As we come to appreciate what exists, our thinking is better adapted to interact in the world. People with understanding will be motivated to act according to their mutual self-interest, as opposed to the difficulty of getting them to respond to exhortations to act according to their professed moral values. It is a challenge of education to help others perceive that the two now coincide.

If globalization has taught us anything it should be that the power of unchecked markets thus far has trumped all other social, political and moral values; even, it would seem, the desire for self-preservation of the species. Let me support this last bold statement with a personal example.

One of my recent clients was a very charming and personable man with a beautiful wife and two beautiful young children, who seemed to be the world to him. He seemed to be both model husband and father. As we got to know each other it became clear we held divergent views on topics of the day. As he believed in the imminent possibility of his financial success, he could not bring himself to find error in internalizing the values of a system that allowed for such success. I attempted to point out to him that this was leading to the global destruction of the Earth. “What of your children?” I said. “If nothing is left for them, how can it be right?”

He responded in a way that surprised me, but explained his outlook succinctly.
“I got mine. They’ll have to get theirs.”

Put another way, from the character ‘Lucy’ in the comic strip Peanuts by Charles M. Schulz, “Stick it to the next generation!” I believe the end of the usefulness of this approach is now within sight of anyone with eyes to see.

My feeling as a citizen of this country has been increasingly that of being locked into a roller coaster ride. Our political process seems akin to arguing who should stand up in the front car to “lead” us. We ride the tracks laid down by our personal and collective greed, and our ability to stop the ride or change its directions seems very limited. If my feelings of helplessness are thus, how much more then are those of a citizen of the third world?

The fact is, however, that this apparent external limitation falls short when measured against an internal standard that tells me distinctly things are wrong and must change, and I am not alone in this feeling — it is increasingly shared by billions.

What I am trying to get at is that any solution for the crisis of this country is by definition doomed to failure, as no solution, whether apparently moral or otherwise, be it the triumph of social democracy or full spectrum dominance, will ensure the survival of humanity while it enshrines inequality. Such a “solution” will inevitably lead to the mutually self-destructive competition over resources in which we are presently engaged. Neither Chernus nor Johnson go as far as to make this claim, but it must become obvious to us all.

What is required is a shift to a paradigm that invalidates investment in the idea of success on the basis of the individual nation state, or even on the level of a single family. Why is this necessary? Because the world of human interaction being a non-distinct part of the natural world, rewards no such distinctions. Any proposal that neglects addressing the needs of all individuals simultaneously serves only to push the crisis away temporarily as it seeks to move it around from one area to another. Unaddressed, the core issues continue to fester and the area of crisis continues to increase. If Spaceship Earth is sinking, it matters little if you are in first class. Here the analogy fails, because as the most wealthy of us seek to become more-so the better to create their personal lifeboat, in this ocean of the future in the world we are fast creating, there will be no shore on which to land.

It is tempting and comforting to reach a place of acceptance with the process, to come to terms with one’s inability to leave the roller coaster and try to lay back and enjoy the ride, but there is a danger in doing so, outlined by Loretta Napoleoni in her latest work:

Reality shows help viewers daydream and deny their own realities, let alone the realities of others in other countries, whose lives rarely get even a consideration in anyone’s Nielsen ratings … The impact of hyperdebt mimics that of hyperinflation. It alters the connotation of reality, forcing people to embrace illusions in order to cope with socioeconomic decay. The hope is that what Middle America is experiencing will not open the gates to total madness. When the Weimar Republic finally collapsed, hyperreality was instrumental in the rise of the Third Reich. The perils of Nazism were grossly undervalued by a population that had lost the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality.
— Rogue Economics, 2008, Seven Stories Press, p. 45

While I recommend approaching the situation accepting that the outcome may be out of our control, we cannot let this substitute for taking action to avert disaster. If we do not recognize our potential failure we will lack the requisite motivation to create affective change; if we let the enormity of our situation overwhelm us, we will likewise be paralyzed into inaction. Rather than retreat into fantasy let us take it all in and meet the future clear-eyed.

I salute Johnson and Chernus for their contributions to our understanding of our predicament as the first step to a solution. This must immediately be followed by a second, that is, the proposal of an effective solution. I will borrow liberally from both, but to get to the second let me flesh out a bit more in broad strokes the first, that is, our current predicament in its philosophic and economic aspects, as a natural extension of what has come before.

It’s racism, stupid — no, it’s the economy stupid

We are aware that this country arose out of a struggle over differing economic destinies, between colonial (largely) slaveholders who sought to free themselves from those European Lords who took excessive liberties with them. They undertook great risk in this struggle, and half of them were ruined by it, yet from the beginning there was duality between the definition of freedom and its application, the groups to which it might apply. As racism was invented as a means to economic advantage, it stands to reason that the racist and sexist nature of the American project is both inherent and largely ignored, and has been selectively enforced in both foreign and domestic policy since the inception of our nation, the better to secure inclusion and cooperation, or the exclusion of others as the definition of “national interest” by a small number of individuals forming the ruling class might at any given moment require.

This American trait is not exclusive to America, and the hypocrisy of image versus action duplicates itself in the policies of the IMF, World Bank, and other global trade rules that require one standard for entering economies, and another for the established ones of America and Western Europe, to the benefit of the latter.

Should an Asian ascendance eclipse European control I don’t know we can expect better leadership of the global economy, given the previous track record displayed between Japan and Korea, China and Tibet, and Japan and China. In this respect racism, I would argue, is not a distinctly homegrown phenomenon.

A Muslim ascendancy engineered on petro-dollars and declining Western purchasing power, while not as scary as the crypto-fascists of this nation would have us believe, might still be a step backward for women world-wide if under the control of the more fundamentalist elements. As fundamentalism is fueled by poverty and other forms of political obstruction, this might dissipate over time if these issues are ameliorated.

No, really, it’s the environment

Neither, that is the Muslim world nor an Asian nexus, show any abiding inclination to fundamentally address the ecological crisis before us, before it would likely be too late. While the West is currently in a position of leadership globally, its ability to influence events in an appropriate direction diminishes with each day it displays its inability to do so, and no help is on the horizon. What then, would an appropriate solution look like?

Chalmers identifies racism as a core issue but does not expand this analysis to recognize that under current trends global capital, if allowed to continue unchecked, will likely not create solutions to our crisis in time but will be the death of us.

Although he does not quite lead us there, Chernus is correct as far as he goes in proposing that America’s problems arise from inherent contradictions, since (and even prior to) its inception, in its inability to deliver on the liberal Christian values it promised in a universal sense, either at home or abroad. Less accurate is his assertion that its salvation lies in a recommitment to these values on a Christian basis. Why should they trump Niebuhr, and what of the Niebuhr’s cousins in other faiths? While such values may form the uniquely American solution Chernus proposes, I find no reason to believe they could be adopted by enough of the populace at this time when we have had two hundred plus years to secure their successful practice in this country and two thousand plus since the time of Christ.

A uniquely American solution would be no solution to a non-American state, this is additionally so since nation states are fictions maintained to the benefit of a few. No solution that fails to address the problems of all will be recognized by all as a solution. Without such wide acceptance the direction of economic investment will fail to reform itself in a manner that could incorporate the compliance of enough of the population to avert ecological disaster. While appealing for a renewal of core Christian values may work for a significant portion of the US populace, it does so at the expense of re-enforcing the notion of the US as a Christian nation, which costs us in terms of perception abroad in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, and also in terms of multi-cultural unity at home, where the historical hypocrisy making use of the name of Christianity is broadly seen as moral cover for the most heinous acts, even to the present moment. The reassurance of “no, we really mean it this time” would justifiably fall on deaf ears, as the term has been co-opted and polluted with the political achievements of empire since the time of emperor Constantine.

So while the values Chernus describes are held by many both within and without this country as the most noble contribution this nation has made to human progress, the shadow of this is the acts this sense of exceptionalism has made justifiable, which is everywhere in evidence. To deliver on the liberal Christian values Chernus describes, one needs to place the well-being of universal humanity above that of the American nation state, a tough sell at home but nothing other than what the parable of “the good Samaritan” or “the golden rule” requires. The values described therein are human values enshrined in all three Abrahamic faiths. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a core tenet of all three Abrahamic faiths whose adherents are now in conflict. Verse 5:32 of the Koran reprises a verse from the Old Testament (the Torah), “Whosoever kills an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has killed all mankind, and whosoever saves an innocent human being, it shall be as if he has saved all mankind.” This does not seem to have prevented them from coming into conflict over resources, but reminding them of it could not hurt. Such appeals may be effective in unraveling the hijacking of religion for political purposes. The usefulness of appeals to secure consent to a program of action that reflects core religious values should not be negated but would be most appropriate when restricted, I would think, to a discussion among those already strongly self-identified as practitioners of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, or in terms of right livelihood to practitioners of Hinduism and Buddhism.

Second, leadership implies followers, and our present leadership has done the world a service by making nakedly clear the hypocrisy at the very heart of our national project. For us to regain a role of affective interdependence with the peoples of other nations, a mea culpa is required of us. Half-way measures will not suffice. Even proposals that might be effective solutions will not be believed and will perhaps even be denounced because we are the source, absent an acknowledgement of our past misdeeds sufficient that a return to our old ways would be difficult. Along these lines I propose a ten point plan for our mutual survival as a standard for ourselves and our leadership. The ten points are synchronistic and mutually dependant, they cannot be cherry-picked out of supposed political expediency.

Ten points

1) Re-define what it means to be American to incorporate our actual history. Americans are in a crisis of identity. In order for America to fulfill its pledge to the universal values inherent in the phrase “all are created equal..”, an acknowledgement must be forthcoming of the racist nature of America’s domestic history, including genocide and ongoing dispossession of Native Americans; slavery, Jim Crow and ongoing differential treatment of African Americans and others of color in our justice system, indentured servitude/slavery of Chinese, Japanese internment and the immigrant bashing that continues to the present day, the use of the drug war as an instrument of persecution of the poor, and sexism to keep women in an inferior economic state.
2) Explain how racism and sexism are used for economic ends. An extension of this discussion into how manipulation of groups over inauthentic differences of appearance or culture results to the practical economic benefit of few.
3) Admit how racism and sexism have been and are applied in our foreign policy. Explain how this same process has historically extended into our foreign policy: in Vietnam, the Americas, Iraq, Israel/Palestine. Renounce our imperial stance, put up to local plebiscite any military base on foreign soil. Withdraw from Iraq. Withdraw exclusive support for Israel. Support multi-lateral talks to resolve political disputes that foster a Middle East Common Market to include Israel.
4) Admit that international disputes are economic in nature. The clash of civilizations is not one of values, but of access to resources.
5) Elucidate the necessity for international law. This would acknowledge the purpose of authority, any authority be it civil or national, is to provide a common basis of law that provides for the welfare and security of its citizens. That these can be culturally specific in any way as long as these criteria are met.
6) Accept administration of international law. Propose how such conflicts can be removed by adopting a common set of economic values, and international law.
7) Express that the unlimited accumulation of individual wealth is a cancer on humanity. To that end, enormous inequalities in wealth and income are counterproductive, leading to overproduction and resource depletion, and associated crimes borne of greed, envy, and desperation. Tax the rich. Bring corporate charters under government control. Reveal the fiction of Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad—corporations never legally secured the rights of persons.* Make executives and board members individually responsible for corporate actions. Corporations should be encouraged not to resist but to participate in the transition to local control and production based enterprise. *[Thom Hartmann, Unequal Protection, 2002, Rodale Press]
8) End nuclear. Both nuclear weapons (including DU weapons) and nuclear power are forms of energy whose use is detrimental for untold generations yet to come, and as such are crimes against humanity. Both must be phased out. Offer membership in multi-national energy R&D as replacement (see #10).
9) Adopt a new value system that reflects the reality of our circumstance. The crises that confront us globally are born out of unequal access to a depleting resource pool, aggravated by population growth. It is impossible to address this without acknowledging the history of inequality combined with the self-destructive nature of our civilization’s present use of resources, be it West, East, or Southern. Population growth must be addressed. Alternatives found (see #10).
10) Establish an International Development Council. To address this crisis, we must collectively acknowledge we are in the same boat, that our mutual right to exist is trumped by our relationship or lack thereof with the natural world. “The economy,” as a legislator from Oregon once said, “is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment.” To that end a review of the international laws governing trade, finance, and international property is in order. Sign onto the ICC, reform the UN Security Council. Establish an international co-development council for research and development to facilitate the manufacturing of alternative energies, the benefits to be distributed widely without restriction. This will mean as much as possible local production and control of energy and other resources, moving away from carbon and nuclear based forms.

Conclusion

The only way for us to secure our prosperity and live our professed values, even if they only be the preservation of our individual family, is to insure that our existence is of benefit to each other and the Earth. This must be more than a goal to be left to the next generation, but a reality we live and accomplish. Any politician who fails to address our core problems is merely rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, to offer better vantage to some over others from which to view our mutual demise. On the contrary, if we move to address the real issues before us, we will in a single stroke regain a meaningful role in the world, and many political side issues (for that is what they are), terrorism, peace in the Middle East, economic transition from militarism to a peace economy, incorporation of Russia into the European Market to end finally the cold war, will sort themselves of their own accord.

This point must be pressed, until it is inescapable. No technology will be able to come to our aid unless it be made available on the principles here outlined, or it will fall prey to the same economic forces that presently provide stewardship toward our mutual destruction. Our problem is first and foremost our view of ourselves. The transition necessary for our mutual survival requires cooperation on a vast scale in a short duration of time; there must be rewards for such cooperation. A transition attempting to preserve a system that rewards vast inequality will likely fail, securing our collective demise.

Overcoming perceived conflicts over private property rights that our national project and the subsequent laws of the global economy are enshrined to protect may be a tough sell. Never-the-less, I believe they must be challenged, our survival depends on it. This does not necessitate the triumph of communism, socialism, or any other ism. Rather, the eradication of corruption and re-ascendancy of rule in the interest of the people at large, without distinction by race, creed, color or nationality. As such it would fulfill the dictates of our nation’s supposed highest ideals, as well as most professed values of various religions.

So what is the appropriate attitude with which to confront our circumstances. It must be one that honors rather than negates the internal experiences that many identify with cultural religious traditions; it must be one that identifies without exception historical hypocrisies inherent in many of these same traditions; it must be one that without exception confirms the right of all to existence and equal access to resources, and at the same time recognizes our interconnection to the natural world, which now calls for self limitation and voluntary restraint on our reproduction and use of resources. So in short it is one that attempts to place equal validity on the parts as unique and significant pieces of the whole, and the whole itself, composed of its individual parts.

Some will attempt to label this sacrifice. Is it a sacrifice to refrain from cutting the branch on which one is sitting? A sacrifice to stop beating our head against the wall? A sacrifice to refrain from hitting our right hand with our left? Others will question sacrificing today for a nebulous tomorrow. The seeds of all our tomorrows are planted today. If war, destruction and death are what we want, we must plan for that. If on the other hand we want peace, we must plan for that.

Another world of humanity’s relationship with itself and the Earth is not only possible, it is demanded by current events. If we are to be able to shape it into one that may continue to support our existence, we have little time to be shy about demanding more from ourselves, each other and our leaders, to collectively rise to the challenge.

There is a confluence between the scientific literature, the demands of the political realities outlined by Johnson, the Christian values Chernus speaks of, and the cultural and religious values of other regions and faiths. Let us not hesitate to find it, for life is more than an academic exercise.