Democratic Forest Trusts (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.Democratic trusts with leadership elected by citizen-members promise to solve many of the problems afflicting both traditional government and corporate ownership of forestlands. This article explores these issues in some depth.Complexity and the Dream of Human Control of Eco-Systems (PDF)in Watson, Alan; Dean, Liese; Sproull, Janet, comps. 2006. Science and stewardship to protect and sustain wilderness values: Eighth World Wilderness Congress Symposium; 2005 September 30-October 6; Anchorage, AK.The title captures it. I then explore the kinds of institutions compatible with both nature and the modern world that are implied from this analysis.Rethinking the Obvious: Modernity and Living Respectfully With Nature (PDF)The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy, Winter, 1997.Modernity is usually considered a wrong turn in terms of respect for and sustaining the environment. I argue the reality is more complex, for modernity has freed us from personal dependence on agriculture, ended the economic value of children, radically reduced the likelihood of large scale wat, and shifted much production to intellectual rather than material capital. This partially decouples society from nature, which gives us important opportunities as well as problems.Towards an Ecocentric Political Economy (PDF)The Trumpeter, Fall, 1996.This paper begins my effort at showing how liberal modernity can be harmonized with an ecocentric perspective on our relationship with the natural world. It is a corrective to much “free market environmental” literature that sacrifices Nature to money as well as to anti-liberal attacks by well-meaning but economically naïve environmentalists.Unexpected Harmonies: Self-Organization in Liberal Modernity and Ecology (PDF)The Trumpeter, Journal of Ecosophy, 10:1, Winter 1993This is my initial paper exploring how what I term ‘evolutionary liberal’ thought can be an important means by which society and nature can be brought into greater harmony. The other Trumpeter papers build on it.Deep Ecology and Liberalism: The Greener Implications of Evolutionary Liberalism (PDF)Review of Politics, Fall, 1996.Liberal thought and deep ecology are usually regarded as mutually exclusive. But the “evolutionary” tradition offers a way to integrate the two through commonalties in the work of David Hume, Michael Polanyi, Arne Naess, and Aldo Leopold, providing a stronger foundation for liberalism while strengthening the case for an ecocentric ethic.(Related subjects: Ecology)Saving Western Towns: A Jeffersonian Green Proposal (PDF)in Writers on the Range, Karl Hess and John Baden, eds., University Press of Colorado, 1998.Developmental pressures in the rural and small town West involve three groups: long term residents, new arrivals, and environmentalists. Today their interests often conflict. This conflict is in part the outcome of institutions which prevent harmonizing competing interests. The concept of developmental trusts, both for rural regions and for small communities offers a means whereby these interests can be harmonized for the benefit of all concerned.(Related subjects: Politics)Social Ecology, Deep Ecology, and Liberalism (PDF)Critical Review, 6: 2-3, 1992.Murray Bookchin is considered a leading radical environmental theorist. However, his analysis is incapable of leading humankind towards a more respectful and sustainable relationship with the natural world. Criticisms of Bookchin from both the deep ecology and evolutionary liberal perspective complement one another, pointing the way towards a better understanding of how modernity relates to the environment.The paper as a whole offers an early discussion of issues that are more clearly addressed in later papers, particularly Deep Ecology and Liberalism (1996) and the three Trumpeter articles in 1997, 1996, and 1993. However, there are other ideas in the article which have not been developed more thoroughly elsewhere.
The latest scandal with AIG, the upcoming paying $165 million in bonuses to executives managing a company needing the largest taxpayer financed bailout in world history. To make matters worse, some recipients of this money are in the very unit that caused AG’s troubles. Nor is the AIG example alone in giving away Americans’ wealth to the über rich, who then waste it. This rips the rhetoric of capitalist freedom away from the oligarchy that our country has largely become.
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are almost wholly owned subsidiaries of our largest corporations, serving them abjectly while entertaining us with divisive dramas that detract our vision from what is really going on. It is the classic tool of divide and conquer that rulers have always used: take the most religiously benighted part of our population, invite them into a political party, and then, as we push back against their madness, the oligarchs enrich themselves no matter who is in power. The corporate media is more than happy to play along.
This is not the first time.
In the Reagan years we were treated to “Savings and Loan Reform” that led to the savings and loan bailout of $124 billion in taxpayer funds. Probably until now the largest transfer of wealth from the middle class and poor to the wealthy in world history. Till now.
After still other bouts of “deregulatory reform” the oligarchs are back for more, because for them, more is never enough. They want it all.
Republicans gave us ‘bankruptcy reform’ under Bush, which increased middle class suffering over health catastrophes. They did so with the aid of faithful servants like Joe Biden. Republicans and Democrats alike gave us SEC ‘reform’ under Clinton that set the stage for our current crises. Now ‘moderate’ Democrats, with Republican help, continue to give them enormous wealth when their turn at the people’s trough comes around.
I do not quite equate the two parties. On many issues their differences are real and important. America’s oligarchs consist of a deeply authoritarian right and a relatively moderate middle. They support different parties – except when their wealth is at stake. Democrats at least respect the other rules of the democratic game. They are less likely to abuse police powers and kill innocent people. Not unlikely, less likely. They do it with egret, Republicans with pleasure.
Because of having a liberal wing, the Democratic Party offers greater hope of decent legislation, if they can free themselves from the so-called ‘moderates’ who hold positions well to the right of most Americans.
Accomplishing this will be a gargantuan task and until then the Democrats as a whole will be at best two-faced allies of the American people, more like Gollum than Saruman.
I was happy that Obama defeated his creepy opponents, and I still am. There is considerable decency and intelligence in the man. But his financial policies have been captured by the same interests who had led us into this mess under Bush the Junior. As regards to big capital they are still faithful servants for their endlessly greedy masters, men who seek to fill the hole in their hearts with other people’s wealth. We can hope that Obama, being relatively new to national politics, maintains enough integrity to see his way through the fatal embrace of his Wall Street ‘helpers,’ but at this point I would not count on it.
We are told AIG and these other economic and moral monsters are ‘too big to fail.’ Well, then they are too big to be allowed to exist in a free society or a market economy. Robert Reich put it bluntly
When our very own Secretary of the Treasury cannot make stick his decision that AIG’s bonuses should not be paid, only one conclusion can be drawn: AIG is accountable to no one. Our democracy is seriously broken.
The logic is simple and irrefutable from their own words. Break up the banks, insurance companies, and other manipulators of money, and regulate the hell out of them. Another step would be to ban corporate lobbying, lobbying is something citizens should be able to do, not soulless behemoths. Still another would be in initiate 100% financing for campaigns, something already tried successfully in some states. http://www.newrules.org/gov/clean.html
Some people will squeal ‘socialism!” It isn’t. The only ‘socialism’ and ‘redistribution’ we have in this country is to serve the rich.
posted March 16, 2009 at 3:43 pm
I wish I could disagree with anything you have said. Given what I have seen so far I don’t expect President Obama to even be as progressive as LBJ in either foreign or domestic policy. I hope I am wrong. When the people are given hope only to have their hopes dashed ugly things happen. I am old enough to remember how close to open revolt we came in ’68 and ’69.
posted March 17, 2009 at 9:13 am
The Bush phase of the so-called “TARP” (probably better named: “Billionaire’s Wallet Stuffing Project”) was bad enough.
One would have thought that the Congressional republicans wouldn’t want to be so up-front about revealing just how wholly-owned their party is, but all of their lock-step ideological braying for the news media since Jan 20 makes me feel that they should all go to the hangman for treason.
Perhaps when these bonuses are paid out, the checks should be accompanied by a pink slip, and an arrest warrent.
posted March 17, 2009 at 10:18 am
I’ve been working for Corporate America since 1978. During this time I’ve seen a lot of the best and also the worst. The level of greed and lack of ethics we’re seeing now displays the very worst of Capitalism and I don’t see a way through it. When government doesn’t get involved, people start screaming that they’re not doing anything about the problem. When government DOES get involved, another set of people start screaming “Socialism!”.
It might just be a shell game. I too think that big businesses run much of our country, and many in our government have sold their souls for the shekels they can provide. Nevertheless, there also has to be people in government who still shoot straight.
Everybody seems to think that THEY have the answer. Well, unlike everyone else, I have no clue how to fix the problems we’re dealing with.
I do trust that President Obama will do the best he can to help our country. But there are many problems beyond his control or ability to help. And he’s not immune from making mistakes. The day I am perfect, I will expect it from him. I believe that we have to keep our expectations in check.
President Obama has an incredibly tough road ahead of him, and we do too. I envision Obama’s task as trying to untangle a pile of angry vipers in a snake pit, and I do not envy him.
posted March 18, 2009 at 1:15 pm
The only thing I can agree about with this article is that at this time in history there is not much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans except their stand on Abortion and teh beginning of life. Several points need expansion and explanation.
1. The Savings and Loan Reform during the Reagan administration was promoted by the large North Eastern banks and designed to eliminate the competition of Savings and Loans. A similar tactic was directed at Credit Unions during the nineties but was blocked. The problem was not deregulation but new and destructive regulations. The government never deregulates. It only re-regulates. Additionally the tax payers received all their “investment” from the Savings and Loan bailout back with interest. That is how Clinton paid down the national debt. Not through his tax increase.
2. The idea that when the rich get money they just waste it. There are only four things that one can do with money. Spend it – that creates jobs. Invest it – that creates jobs. Give it away – that helps the needy. Or, pay taxes – that creates more government. Three out of four are not waste.
3. Presidents do not solve problems. In reality they are not the source of the problems either. Congress writes the rules. President Obama will not get us out of this economic mess. Only a change in the rules by Congress will. It took WWII before Congress released the markets and the people to dig us out of the Great Depression.
4. The bailouts must be looked at by process. When the government gives money away it does not come back. When they buy shares or create loans the tax payers not only get their money back but receive interest. Shares and loans were the Bush approach. Give aways are the Obama approach.
5. The last two paragraphs remind us of the intelligence of Hover days that brought us the Smoot-Holly Act (protectionist tariffs) and higher taxes which most economist now believe to be the catalyst of the Great Depression. Those policies did not work then nor will they work now.
6. Why have very few acknowledged that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton which he never complained about (Obama’s, “I inherited this problem” X adnosium). Just when we were seeing progress 9/11 kicked the bottom out of the market but then we climbed to record heights. The market turn began after the Democrats regained control of Congress. They refused to address the Social Security problem and rejected Bush’s call for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
posted March 18, 2009 at 6:10 pm
It’s pure, unadulterated GREED that got us here. If AIG really gives those bonuses to their Chief Executives, they are PIGS, in the worst definition of the word. My Dad was a corporate attorney, and back inthe 60s, he was a VERY honest man. Wish there were more like him. Obama really CAN’T do anything about the bonuses at this point; just stopping the leakage to other corporations is like the Little Dutch Boy and his thumb!
posted March 18, 2009 at 11:57 pm
WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THAT ??? WHY IF they are declaring they will go under without the bailout money have they been allowed to keep their MANY JET PLANES & CARS & PERSONAL PROPERTY! ANYONE else in their sistuation would be DOWN SIZED BY THE GOVERMENT & ANYONE ELSE in a VERY BIG HURRY . Yet THEY are allowed to go on as normal -NONE of their assets being touched !! WHATS WITH THAT ???
posted March 19, 2009 at 9:30 am
My answer to “Your Name’s” question:
Because in this country we are all equal. However, some people are more equal than others.
If this sounds familiar, go back and read Animal Farm. It was required reading when I was a kid, and I think it still should be.
posted March 30, 2009 at 2:06 am
Too much power in too few hands; we need to break up the banks now. There are rallies being organized as we speak in cities around the country for April 11, 2009. Visit “A New Way Forward” at http://www.anewwayforward.org to find out about a protest in your area.
posted March 30, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Michael Frye’s comment indicates he reads me about as well as he reads history. In both cases not very well.