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.
UPDATE BELOW
I have been following Jeff Sharlet’s reports about “The Family,” for some time. His report in Harper’s initially alerted me to this loathsome organization. It was followed by his book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. Today he published a good summary of what this group is about in Salon. The sexual escapades of men who believe they are now beyond good and evil are finally getting them the publicity they deserve.
Why be concerned? In Salon Sharlet writes “Christian right leader — and Watergate felon — Chuck Colson,
converted through the efforts of the Family, has boasted of it as a ‘veritable underground of Christ’s men all through government.’” And the more we discover, the more worrisome the picture becomes. I do not exaggerate when I describe The Family as the perfect picture of a Sauronic organization, as you will see, below the fold.
The family is a conservative Christian cabal of Congressmen and other
politicians that live together at the ‘C’ House in Washington DC for
some time. It turns out that the sexually adventuresome Senator
Ensign, Representative Pickering, and Governor Sanford were all associated with ‘C’ House. Along wirth Sanford, Ensign, and Pickering, a list of
current politicians “under the Family’s religio-political counsel”
include Sens. Tom Coburn, Chuck Grassley, Jim
DeMint, Lindsey Graham, James Inhofe, John
Thune, and Mark Pryor – 7 out of a total of 40 Republican Senators. With Tiahrt, at least 9 members of the House
are also involved. But “The Family” likes secrecy, so it’s difficult
to tell.
Sharet writes in Salon that in Counseling Kansas Rep. Tiahrt, Doug Coe, the group’s ‘spiritual’ leader “offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as
men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on
the meaning of Christ’s words, he says, ‘You know Jesus said You got
to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao,
that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their
own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the
new nation. The new kingdom.’”
Traditional morality takes second place to the Hitler and Mao
comparisons. It is not simply exaggerated rhetoric. David Coe, Coe’s
son and heir apparent,
“calls himself simply a friend to men such as John Ensign, whom he
guided through the coverup of his affair. I met the younger Coe when I
lived for several weeks as a member of the Family. He’s a surprising
source of counsel, spiritual or otherwise. Attempting to explain what
it means to be chosen for leadership like King David was — or Mark
Sanford, according to his own estimate — he asked a young man who’d
put himself, body and soul, under the Family’s authority, ‘Let’s say I
hear you raped three little girls. What would I think of you?’ The man
guessed that Coe would probably think that he was a monster. ‘No,’
answered Coe, ‘I wouldn’t.’ Why? Because, as a member of the Family,
he’s among what Family leaders refer to as the ‘new chosen.’ If you’re
chosen, the normal rules don’t apply.”
This attitude is not simply hypothetical. Yesterday, in a NPR interview, Sharlet reports
David Coe . . . came around and gave us
this long lesson. He says, ‘What made King David great?’ And the men I
was with are all trying to say, ‘Well, he loved God,’ all this. He
[says], ‘No, No, that’s not it. King David was a terrible man. You
know, he was an adulterer and a murderer. So why is he a hero of the
Bible?’ And the answer is because God chose him. King David is beyond
morality, in their limited understanding of scripture. … I could
almost hear Doug Coe’s voice when Gov. Sanford was saying, ‘I need to
keep governing, because I’m like King David.’
UPDATE
Rachel Maddow has just interviewed Sharlet for more on the creeps at ‘C’ house.



posted July 22, 2009 at 2:19 am
I read about these people, and I read what they have to say, and I’m somehow reminded of Gore Vidal’s characterization of William F. Buckley Jr. as “Hitler without the charm.”
Kidding aside, it is sobering to realize how many U.S. politicians and other people of great political influence appear to be well-spoken, self-disciplined psychopaths. I see no good coming from this.
Also, I wonder why more attention was not paid to Hillary Clinton’s connection to The Family. It’s mentioned in a sidebar to the NPR piece, and that’s about it. Is she being given a free pass because she’s a Democrat?
posted July 22, 2009 at 8:52 am
Hey, thanks for the notice. Makarios, she’s definitely not being given a free pass — there’s a whole chapter in the book devoted to her connection, which I also wrote about in features for Mother Jones and the New Republic and discussed in an investigative segment with Andrew Mitchell for NBC Nightly News. You’d think with that kind of attention that someone would give a damn. But that story had no traction. My concern right now is getting attention on the story, and, yes, the book, which gives a more thorough perspective. Get people to the book, and they’ll get the Clinton connection.
posted July 22, 2009 at 2:07 pm
I don’t know much about “The Family”, and that puts me in a poor position to render a valid judgment. I do suffer from my own prejudices against the Religious Right, so I have to be careful and aware in forming a fair and supportable view. That said: It would not surprise me to see an organization which has the characteristics ascribed to “The Family” acting to promote its interests, as any other lobby, but then a fundamentalist lobbying group is not just any lobby. The idea is profoundly disturbing, and it looks as though I am going to have to dig deeper, and qualify sources on this one. As I say, it feeds to easily into my own prejudices, so I have to be careful.
posted July 22, 2009 at 3:00 pm
A few comments:
1.) I think that you’re being unkind to Sauron.
2.) I read stuff like this description of The Family and its zealots, and I it sounds like the worst projections and fabulations about the “occult.” What they are in fact, folks like us are contrived to be as they try to escape all responsibility and humanity.
3.) For reasons that have to do with living in a successful and good-hearted commune for some years, these accounts of goings on at the shared C Street house make a blotch on my recollections of and goals for living in communities.
4.) My literary allusions for The Family wouldn’t come from Tolkein, but from Lovecraft. These descriptions of The Family and its zealots remind me most of the denizens of Innsmouth…
posted July 22, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn
Ya na kadishtu nilgh’ri stell’bsna Nyogtha,
K’yarnak phlegethor l’ebumna syha’h n’ghft,
Ya hai kadishtu ep r’luh-eeh Nyogtha eeh,
S’uhn-ngh athg li’hee orr’e syha’h.
posted July 24, 2009 at 11:21 am
I guess Cthulu has the last word…
posted July 24, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Actually Gus, I think most of us can’t read that.
It reminds me of a t-shirt I saw once. Written in Latin, it said:
“If you can read this, you’re over-educated”.
posted July 25, 2009 at 2:12 pm
I love you Cheryl!
posted July 25, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Right back at ya, Cassaundra !
posted July 26, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Cthulhu talks???
posted July 27, 2009 at 1:41 pm
point taken…
posted July 29, 2009 at 12:55 pm
My favorite is Quod licit Jovis non licit Bovis, which my mother (a trusted Latin tutor to many high school students in her time) would use instead of “Do as I say, not as I do”.
;-D