Defining "Liberal"

Some one once asked me, “What does a liberal believe?” Many have noted that the term seems vague and is rarely used these days, except in a divisive context. Webster leads us to the political party definition associating it with the “ideals of individual and economic freedom, grater individual participation in government and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.” So our history gives evidence of both Republican and Democratic “liberals.” Still unsatisfied, I have attempted to define the essential core of what I understand defines the “liberal” mind. So what do you think?

1. Human nature is an integral part of the larger ecological environmental system of the universe.
2. Humans, as we know them, are part of an evolving development of homo sapiens, and we are in “process.”
3. The achievements we call “civilization’ over the past six thousand years are represented in institutions (social and governmental systems) that are fragile and need constant care and feeding.
4. While individuals can accomplish much, there are great needs that only can be met by cooperative enterprises such as voluntary associations, governments, etc.
5. At times governments can accomplish what individuals cannot – both for the good and for destructive purposes.
6. Our futures, both as individuals and as a society, are not guaranteed, and thus we need to individually work toward ways of making our world a better place.
7. In this effort, we sometimes must choose between the lesser of two evils, and accept compromises.
8. There is at the core of humans a capacity for creativity, imagination and goodness; but there is also a capacity to hold on to the past, find security in the known and to exploit our fellow man. In that struggle, liberals believe that the good will prevail.
9. Democracy, as a form of social political organization, comes in many varieties and is only one of many potential systems that are constantly evolving and changing. There is no one universally “best” political system for every region of the world, since each region has unique cultural histories and traditions.
10. In all things the liberal is tolerant of diversity and seeks to maximize the good while minimizing pain and suffering. In all matters pride and hubris are to be avoided in the interests of playful creativity.
11. Postscript: In the end, Nature will have its way.

"Freedom" of the Press

The First Amendment to our Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom...of the press." Although the First Amendment specifically mentions only the federal Congress, this provision now protects the press from interference at all levels of government. That is the theory and myth.

The reality is that the First Amendment does not prevent the media from political and governmental “influence” or financial control by mega corporations. So is our press “free?” Aside from a few courageous journalists associated with the Independent Press Association http://www.indypress.org/site/index.html our media reflects corporate interests and content that reflects the intense desire of reports to keep their channels open to those with political influence. The result is an obsessive focus on “human interest stories” and an absence of in-depth investigatory reporting. Hence we have learned more about Dick Chaney’s “accident” quail hunting than we ever did about his role in engineering the war in Iraq, lying about the WMD that we knew Iraq no longer retained. How many Americans have any idea about the WMD we supplied to Saddam for his war against Iran? No wonder we were worried. The media, government and corporate policy makers can count on the memory loss factor of a majority of our citizens.

Perhaps it is appropriate that many persons get their “news” on the Comedy Channel’s Daily Show from Jon Stewart, or with the satire of Andy Borowitz. Rapidly decreasing newspaper subscriptions are resulting in more pink slips for news editors, leaving the “news” in the hands of young, underpaid, less experienced “reporters.” The result is that our news is without the context provided by those who have traveled broadly and have some experience with other cultures. So we have both “sound bites” and “word bites” taken from the wire services.

Today (02-19-06) the St. Petersburg Times http://www.sptimes.com ran an ad defining its “independence” as “freedom from control or influence of another or others.” Yes, this paper is one of the few that is not controlled by a for profit corporation but rather the Poynter Institute, a non profit organization http://www.poynter.org/ Yet the readers of this “independent” paper will not find editorials about Florida’s great sugar subsidy or concerns about current development issues when they involve downtown property owned by the Institute. Just what are the Institute’s financial interests and how do they influence the paper’s editorial policies.

What prompted all this was the flack over the satiric cartoons about Muhammad that ran in Denmark and prompted a violent response from conservative Muslims and a defensive salute to the “free press” flag in the West. Both responses are off target. The former reflect an internal struggle within Islam itself and the latter a misunderstanding of what needs to be “free” about the free press. Yes, images are powerful, more so than words. Thus cartoonists need to be very well informed; they are super-journalists. Satire is easy; insight is difficult. I can hardly wait to see how The New Yorker deals with the cartoon issue.

merle

Global Energy Futures

Global Energy Futures was the topic of a discussion at the University of South Florida on February 10^th.
Following is the link to a summary of the discussion done by a reporter from WMNF http://www.wmnf.org/programming/news.php?ReportId=2814. It is worth reading.

A New Paradigm ?

While Bill Cutler is developing a new paradigm for decision making and public policy, yesterday I had an epiphanal moment in better understanding the relationships among society, energy, nature, economics and science. The special insights were provided in a lecture at USF by Charles A.S. Hall. http://www.esf.edu/EFB/hall/

Hall is in the intellectual tradition of M. King Hubbert, Cutler Cleveland, Robert Kaufmann, Robert Herendeen, Robert Ayres , Colin Campbell and Jean Leherrere.

Hall argues that to understand EROI, the energy return on investment for any human activity we need to apply this key relationship. It is the most important defining issue of the future.

Energy delivered to society

EROI = __________________________

Energy put into that activity

Unfortunately this key relationship has been submerged by the increasing dominance of economic cost-benefit analysis.

There are limits to nature’s energy resources. (K. Boulding and H.T. Odum). We need to understand that our dependence on fossil fuel is suicidal. In terms of EROI, the following figures are sobering:

· In 1930 U.S. got 100 barrels of oil back for each barrel invested in seeking it

(EROI = 100:1)

· In 1970 about 25 for 1

· In 1990s about 11 to 18 for one

· Much less for finding new oil (EROI = 3:1??)

The energy pie is getting smaller at a very rapid rate while the hunger of mankind, especially newly developing economies such as China, is increasing at exponential rates.

So we need to make a major paradigm shift in understanding where wealth comes from. It is from Nature, and not primarily from capital or labor. Hall labels this new paradigm “Neophysiocrats” and is articulated in the works of Cleveland, Kaufmann, Gowdy, Krall, and Klitgaard.

The tragedy of our time is that economics has trumped science:

· Today two thirds of U.S. energy comes from oil (nearly two thirds imported) and gas, most of rest from coal

· New sources (except nuclear) remain trivial and are decreasing as %

· Neoclassical economics, including especially monetary cost-benefit analysis, has become the overwhelming choice to make public decisions.

· These ideas have become conflated with the anti-government conservative agenda

· “Let the markets make all decisions” economics has replaced science and any concern for limits to growth. Our patters of consumption are growing daily.

However:

· Oil supply is increasingly limited to a few giant fields, with 10% of all production coming from just four fields and 80% from fields discovered before 1970.

· Even finding a field the size of Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, by far the world's largest and said to have another 125bn barrels, would only meet world demand for about 10 years.

So what are our present options? Hall suggests:

· Fund windmills and certain solar

· Don’t count on Hydrogen, given the energy requirements to pull apart those hydrogen atoms (thermodynamics)

· Go nuclear big time (but not enough Uranium and Chinese have bought it anyway)

· Need Federal leadership

· Take seriously Haubberts observation that ““Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know”

· Train our young people in an economics that is real and based on science

The key is to see Nature as our source of economic value for the future of our human experiment. If we continue to live the illusion that cost-benefit economics and the market will provide for energy alternatives, we misunderstand the relationship between technology and science. Technology in the service of bad economic theory will only dig our hole deeper, increase the gap between the haves and the have nots and lead to a dimming of our lights and our civilization.

Merle

Complexity and Decision Making

Merle,
 
I read you e-mail with great interest.  As you are well aware, we are in full accord on the issue you raise.  You articulate the issue both in broad, general terms and also specifically with regard to technology and the power it confers to destructive fringe elements of global society, and the tendency of politicians, when faced with a daunting problem, to retreat into familiar although dysfunctional behaviors.  The question you are leading to, I'm sure, is what can responsible people do about it?  An aspect of the answer to that involves making the bridge between the broad worldview and specific timely actions that an individual can undertake.
 
When I had the opportunity to address your Forum last year, I presented the issue this way.
 
1. The contemporary world challenges us with a myriad of complex, contentious issues.  The complexity is, in a certain sense, beyond human comprehension.
 
2. Our typical solution-discovery method for such challenges, politics-as-we-know-it, is fundamentally and incorrigibly incompetent as a methodology for addressing complexity.
 
The necessary conclusion one may draw from this dual premise is that we need to shift to a different paradigm.  I would identify that paradigm as being essentially collaborative (as opposed to the adversarial nature of the current paradigm) and based on a systemically oriented worldview.
 
The collaborative aspect reflects the conviction that people of good will, regardless of how far apart their individual interest may be, can work together to find an acceptable solution.  The attitude is "I can get a better deal by collaborating than I can by fighting, resisting, or walking away."
 
The systemic viewpoint can take two forms.
 
1.  If the solution calls for the creation or modification of a purpose-built system (such as National Health Care), there are well-proven methodologies whereby a team can undertake a top-down system design and construction project.
 
2. If the problem presents as need for a change agent to operate within the context of a larger, self-organizing complex adaptive system, there are ways of understanding that situation that lead to effective strategies for the change agent.
 
Subsequent to the Forum, I've noted some progress in the direction of emerging the new paradigm.
 
1. The National Policy Consensus Center at the University of Portland has developed considerable detail for implementing a collaborative approach.  You can see their material at www.policyconsensus.org.
 
2. I've become involved in the project to develop a new relicensing agreement under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the Lake Murray dam.  This project is being lead by the utility that owns the dam, South Carolina Electric and Gas, in a collaborative manner.  They've chosen the collaborative mode because they realize it is in their interest to develop community support for the relicensing agreement.  The community and environmental stakeholders have engaged a consultant in Interest-based negotiations, Vicki Taylor, vetaylor@adelphia.net, who advises us on collaborative methods and who has conducted training for participants in the interest-based negotiations process.
 
3. Our local town, Chapin, recently engaged consultants connected with Clemson University to lead a visioning process for the town and surrounding region.  My hope is that this will initiate a sustained effort to generate a series of coordinated projects that will coalesce the community and create the kind of outcome we'd like.
 
I'm sure that a little research would turn up many other examples of the collaborative approach.
 
I see this as the beginnings of a paradigm shift.  So far it is happening in small ways in many places, more or less below the radar of those who are in thrall of the old, adversarial paradigm.  The job that needs doing, as I see it, is to encourage and assist these examples of the new paradigm, and then to evangelize for the new paradigm, raising it into the collective consciousness so it becomes the default approach.  For my part I'm doi9ng this by participating in these examples where and when I can, and continuing with my book, which someday I intend to publish.
 
Regards,
Bill Cutler
Bigbillcutler@aol.com

FEAR

FEAR

I “fear” that at the core of our fears is the fear that we have lost control of the variables by which we have traditionally understood politics/society/economics and culture in general. The pace of change and events has become incrementally faster with each passing month. In many ways the last 200 years of human society, when we grew from a population of about 1B to 6.6B has been unprecedented in human history. We are in the middle of a rapidly moving current and have no idea where it is going.

What are the driving forces of this current? Academics increasingly are discovering that the old methodological paradigms just don’t work. Politicians run for easy answers and quick fixes. “Wars” have been waged against tyrants, poverty, etc., so it was the most convenient political metaphor (never mind that we have not really “won” a war since 1945). Sooner or later we will learn that the issues we face are so much greater than can be fit into the old “box” of “war” language. There is no precedent or easy analogue for where we are. And that IS frightening. Perhaps we cannot control the future any longer.

We really need to take a good look at those factors that are truly different and thus perhaps driving this current. One major factor must be technology. In the past few decades the cost of creating, possessing and using technology for destructive purposes has dropped dramatically. Now a small group of individuals can inflict the kind of catastrophic damage to a society than previously was possible only by other nation states or natural disasters. So we live in a mode of perpetual fear that no national state can truly protect us anymore. So in a state of first shock we run to the easy solutions: religion, isolationism, patriotism, better technology, etc. We fear that the homeland can never really be secure again. We cannot “fix” it.

Finally, I fear most the driving force of technology itself. There seems to be inevitability about the fact that new technologies “demand” to be tested. The old adage that “we will use it if we have it” seems to be the rule. Thus new military technologies demand to be “real world” tested, and real battles are the final reality testing grounds. So it is with communications technology. If we have the capacity to monitor massive amounts of data transmissions, then we will do it. The constitution really does seem to be showing its age and 18^th century irrelevance. Are we any longer a “nation of law”? I fear we are not.

Merle

Welcome to My Agora

Like the ancient Agora of Athens, this site is dedicated to the free market place of ideas. Please feel free to take issue with the ideas expressed here. Visitors to this Agora should be prepared to "transform" their thinking. Transformatiave thinking occurs in the midst of a crisis in our lives. When our old paradigms and methodologies no longer work we can either cling, in paralysis, to the past, or seek out new solutions and keep questing. I invite you to join my personal quests and learn with me.

Merle F. Allshouse - Allshouse@ureach.com
http://www.allshouse-associates.com