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.
Politics is a free-for-all of men and women made crazy by their love of power, and even the best of politicians often find what seemed possible before winning was impossible once in power. America’s system favors the status quo, even when the opposition is principled and sane, which today it is not. So I give every politician several strikes before he or she starts plummeting in my eyes. A “strike” is a lie about an important issue used to win votes. For me, constitutional government and civil liberties are pretty big issues, and from that perspective Barack Obama has made two big strikes.
Obama will always have a special place in our history for being our first non-white President, and for ending the ordeal of sane people being ruled by crazy people. He has also saved us from the horrors of a McCain/Palin presidency. No new travesties to the law or common decency have taken place. Finally, he has shown the ability to conduct a foreign policy more in the interests of the American people and common decency than that of his predecessors. Important good things have emerged, though still more in promise rather than accomplishment. See also this interesting CBS News discussion.
This is far from nothing. But it’s still significantly less than many of us hoped, when we supported and voted for him.
Despite his words to the contrary, so far Obama has proven no friend of constitutional liberties and civil liberties. He has just underlined his second strike, in the sense of lying about very important campaign promises. Were he a businessman and his campaign a kind of contract, he’d be guilty of fraud and breach of contract, not because he didn’t produce, but because he actively went back on his word when he did not have to.
First, Obama has lied about conducting a more open government, where transparency can serve as the best disinfectant to corruption and law breaking. This violation of his repeated promises initially appeared when he sought to conceal Bush’s and his underlings’ crimes of torture. We must remember that most of the leading people responsible for those crimes committed not quite as bad crimes when they were in the Reagan administration or, for the oldest, served in the criminal Nixon administrations. Many are repeat offenders who will likely do it again if given the chance. To protect them he has made serious claims to executive supremacy in the spirit of George Bush, whom he rightly criticized when seeking our votes. As usual, Glenn Greenwald is the gold standard in reporting on this issue. Another excellent Greenwald analysis of Obama’s utter failure regarding transparency is here.
Second, Obama has consistently and rather inexplicably lied to the gay community. During his campaign he promised to be their defender. He has produced nothing, and turned his back on the opportunities that have come to him as John Avarosis at Americablog has long documented. Dick Cheney is more decent on gay marriage than Barack Obama.
Now, and related to the first failing, Obama has adopted Bush’s policy of denying access to White House visiting logs, even though the law and precedent before W were clear. He has no legal justification at all for this high handedness. For more, see Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He is our employee, not our king. Right wingers and serfs want ‘commanders in chief,’ but good citizens want a president who represents them. Obama needs reminding of that fact.
Obama is no Republican. On balance, Republicans initiate bad things whereas Democrats refrain from changing the bad things Republicans initiate. One is scary, the other a disgusting. I’ll take disgust over fear. But it’s still disgust.
UPDATE
As I linked to John Avarosis’ America Blog as part of the evidence for this post, I feel it necessary to point out that he has gone off the deep end in his analysis. The problem he reports is true in general, but his analysis is getting pretty flawed. See this reply by Congressman Frank and the discussion that follows.
posted June 16, 2009 at 5:01 pm
True, Obama on these issues has been cowardly and disappointing- I consider myself a liberal person but this is why I’m not a registered Democrat, they all too often have been spineless, weak willed and toothless when it comes to governing…
posted June 16, 2009 at 6:26 pm
While I too have been somewhat disappointed in some aspects of Obama’s tenure (and let’s remember, it’s not been very long), I wonder if he is suffering a bit of Jimmy Carter syndrome. President Carter had some changes that he thought he might bring to Washington, but found that it’s very difficult to buck the system. Plus Carter had the hostage situation to take up his time. President Obama inherited an economic crisis far worse than expected. I suspect he’s spent more time on that than he ever imagined, even in his wildest dreams.
Let’s not judge too harshly too quickly. Bush had 8 long years to muck up the works. Undoing the damage may take some time, and some subtle diplomacy that isn’t easily discernible.
Sometimes progress is slower than we’d like it to be.
posted June 16, 2009 at 7:11 pm
He has also consistently lied on his nationalization efforts. He said he didn’t want to run GM and Chrysler, but here they are, for all intents and purposes nationalized (what else do you call 60-70% government stock ownership?). On the economy he has shown a complete disregard for rule of law. Every single thing he has done since becoming President has been a command, not law in the sense of rule of law. He has in fact done much without any explicit legislation — not that legislation cannot violate rule of law, either. He has also turned down banks’ efforts to pay back their loans, thus ensuring federal control of those banks. Even Hugo Chavez, who is no friend of liberty, expressed amazement at the speed at which Obama has nationalized companies. Of course, I was warning people that Obama would do these things, and nobody believed me.
posted June 16, 2009 at 7:47 pm
To some degree I’ve appreciated the fact that Obama has not made culture war issues a priority. It was time for some pragmatism and time for the shrill interest groups at both ends of the spectrum to get used to some disappointment, particularly with the overwhelming economic problems. On the other hand, these things he has gone back on are core issues of accountibility and justice. It’s beyond me why he would actively help ensure immunity for war criminals.
On the issue of gay marriage, who does he think he is appeasing by holding to the “separate but equal” notion of civil unions but not marriage? Most people in this country either support gay marriage or at least don’t much care. The “defenders of traditional marriage” loons already think Obama is the anti-christ for a variety of other reasons. Fighting gay marriage isn’t going to win him any new votes. It seems to be a common disease of Democrats to re-market themselves as Republican Lite once in office.
I’m willing to wait and see for the time being, but if this is going to be the trend, progressives might find much better things to do in November 2012, and Obama’s legacy as the first black president might just be another redneck administration. Democrats (well politicians generally) have a certain contempt for their core supporters. They figure we’ll trudge out to the election booth and write the check for them in exchange for whatever crumbs they feel like giving us. Their reasoning is “where else you gonna go?” I refuse to play that game because it’s a race to the bottom. Gay America and their supporters should consider giving the money they used to send to the DNC or Obama campaign to help pass state initiatives instead.
posted June 17, 2009 at 2:01 pm
If you want to know if a president is achieving his goals you first have to define his goals. In the only video from the primaries and the general election in which Obama didn’t realized that he was being filmed he is explaining that in his opinion Roland Reagan had changed the course of this country in a way like clinton, nixon or kennedy have not. Such an argument from a man who we suppose is not vain and selfish at all leads to the presumption that Obama does not necesserily want to achieve advancements for constitutional liberties, civil liberties, guy rights or other rights during his presidency but that he wants to achieve a fundamental change of his country’s course in a way that will make it for everybody easier to achieve his rightfull rights. Do I think that we are on the way to achieve this? Yes we can!
posted June 18, 2009 at 9:39 am
Let us remember that Rome was not built in a day or one year! Why do we what President Obama to perform miracles when he is only a man? Give him the benefit of trying to be a good person, trying to love everyone, despite the rudeness, racism and malice he encounters on a daily basis. It seems that our expectations of him are more godlike than human. We do not know what it is like to be the commander in chief and still maintain your basic love for people. I thank you for being fair in your judgment, but please know that in his heart he wants to do the right thing. You can see it in his eyes! You can also see the hurt of knowing that he cannot do it alone. Pray that he is allowed to do what is right and just for all people!
posted June 18, 2009 at 10:49 am
I agree with you. I think people are desperate for quick action because things had gotten so bad under the former administration.
Have you ever un-tangled a long rope that was badly knotted? If so you may remember how tedious it was. How when needing to loosen a knot to pull one side through it would sometimes cause another section to tighten or appear more knotted. Sometimes the whole lot needed to be flipped so an entire loop could pass through.
That’s how I envision what he is trying to do. Untangle a large, badly snarled pile of rope. And sometimes it’s not just a rope, it’s a serpent. And he’s doing this to a backdrop of harpies that snark and snicker at every move he makes.
Our leaders – even the extraordinary ones – are simply people doing their best. And President Obama certainly has had more than his share of problems to sort out, many of them unprecedented in our lifetimes. So I agree – give him some slack. I’m willing to do that because I believe that no one – despite the bluster of the political armchair quarterbacks – could do any better than he is doing right now in the face of these extremely trying circumstances.
posted June 18, 2009 at 11:25 am
I think it would be hard to do worse in these circumstances. A “bailout” that only spends 5% this year? Nationalizing banks and car companies? (And if there is anything that kills an economy, it’s nationalization of companies.) He’s against gay marriage. Sure, he recently supported providing benefits for gay partners, but that’s merely jumping on board after the ship has sailed — many states and individual companies already do this. How incredibly safe for him to jump in on something everyone is already doing! Make all the excuses you want, but he’s no real friend of the gay community. Nor is he a friend to liberty. His economic policies show that much.
But sure, let’s give him a break. It usually takes 2 years for the results of government action in the economy to take effect. WHo wants to take bets on which political party will be in charge in 2 years?
posted June 18, 2009 at 6:02 pm
As I linked to John Avarosis’ America Blog as part of the evidence for this post, I feel it necessary to point out that he has gone off the deep end in his analysis. The problem he reports is true in general, but his analysis is pretty flawed. See
http://lawdork.wordpress.com/2009/06/17/chairman-frank-and-aravosiss-misstatements/#more-1775