Misplaced Hopes

You may, if you wish, attribute my views to sour grapes. I have seldom seen my Presidential choice arrive in office. In my lifetime, things have generally gone in the opposite direction of my desire. I admit to having actively campaigned for Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton, and passively favoring Jimmy Carter. I still rate LBJ A+ for his domestic accomplishments, and F- for his inability to get out of Vietnam. Bill Clinton was another disaster, an opportunist who played whore to Conservatives. Jimmy Carter had the right idea and tried to do the right things while in office. He did many more good things after leaving office, so I rank him as one of the best ex-Presidents we've ever had.

I did not endorse or vote for the other Presidents of my living memory: Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and the Bushes. While I have mixed feelings about Harry Truman, he was more effective in a positive way than most of the others in that list.  Kennedy was inspiring, but his assassination marked the beginning of the end of the New Deal and the Welfare State in America. Eisenhower and Ford were nice guys who did not and could not control events. Both of them tried to do the right thing - Eisenhower in his famous farewell address, and Ford in his infamous pardon - but the nation was unprepared and unwilling to follow their advice. Geo. H.W. Bush was also unable to control events, despite having launched and won the First Gulf War. The others - Nixon, Reagan, and Geo. W. Bush (The Bandit) - for the most part were or are positive evils, deserving no more than D (Reagan) or F- (Nixon & G.W. Bush) for their efforts.

Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford and Carter are proof of the old saying about Good Intentions.

What, then, should Americans make of this new crop of would-be Presidents?

Chances are, nothing. None of the announced candidates would bring to the office any outstanding insight or direction which might change the course of events. It does not matter what party they represent, because the real issue among them is which person will control the levers of power. The race for American President is a more peaceful version of the old struggle for power that consumed Roman generals and Senators. That is to say, nothing much has changed in two millenia about the desire of megalomaniacs to be top dog, except that less blood is now shed in the process. This struggle has nothing to do with the wishes of the people or what will benefit them, except to the extent that the people can be manipulated to favor or impede candidates. Once in office, the great leaders do whatever they want until deposed by another, more virulent candidate. Consequently, each generation is governed by more and more debauched and headstrong leaders, until, finally, the people revolt. This is what happened in France, Russia, China and other countries of lesser fame during modern times. The same process has occurred in non-political jurisdictions, as when Luther posted his famous 96 theses. Ordinary people are, it seems, incredibly tolerant of the abuse of power and fail to perceive historical patterns. They only revolt when their situation becomes intolerable; for many, life-threatening. For this reason, the present crop of American candidates probably has a lot of leeway remaining before the people send them into oblivion.

At this time, I don't plan to endorse or support any of the Presidential candidates of which I am aware. None of them are likely to make a significant difference in the probable course of events, which I believe are determined by other historical factors. For example, global climate change is underway and nothing any President could do will change it.  Not even the collusion of all the world's presidents will change that. There was an opportunity, not taken, decades ago to avoid tis problem, but the politicians were not aware of it. It was not a matter which threatened their hold on power, or promised to increase it. It was just irrelevant.

Human activities have reached the point of upsetting global ecological balances without recourse. This is the first time in human history such a thing has happened, so, I suppose, one cannot blame the leaders for not acting sooner.  Nor can one blame the people for being ignorant of the forces that now control their destiny.  But human antics and ignornace count for little; Mother Nature goes her merry way regardless. For many people, there were warning signs, such as the Ohio river on fire. In the 1970s, those early conflagrations gave rise to the environmental movement and environmental legislation which promised to ameliorate the most damaging effects. Of course, the usual combination of business and political interests fought the new laws tooth and nail, because, for them, money is more important than life. But, as it has turned out, the struggle over environmental protection was a diversion. All along, everyone participated in the degradation of the environment in ways that are almost unnoticeable; e.g., driving cars. The subtle balances that determine climate and weather patterns require a deep understanding of earth sciences and on-going, acute observation to detect. In order to prevent or counteract climate change, those observations and understandings must be applied many decades or even centuries in advance. Unfortunately, no political system looks that far ahead. It does not matter whether tyrants or democrats rule because none of them have much concern about things beyond their immediate control. In order to cope with natural events such as global climate change, societies require visionary leadership and a mechanism of self-control that persists over long periods. In other words, H. sapiens now confronts the limit of its power and knowledge. The clear implication of the foregoing analysis is that entirely new political and social institutions are required in these circumstances.

Until recently, the human race was in competition with natural forces to survive. Our intelligence seems to be the evolutionary development which made possible our mastery of the environment. Evolution instilled a bias in our intelligence toward arranging things for our comfort and pleasure, without giving much thought to the larger consequences of our acts. For example, in Jared Diamond's Collapse, the interesting problem arises why the Easter Islanders cut down all the trees. Those trees were essential to the fishing, housing and heating industries on the island. When they were gone, most Islanders were unable to survive, so the population collapsed as a result of famine, disease and war. The peak population of 10,000-20,000 people was reduced in less than two centuries to just 177 by the 1870s. Although Easter Islanders probably did not fully understand the long term consequences of their actions, they did know the immediate consequences in terms of their daily needs. Either despite that, or because of that, someone cut down the last tree. In GSQ, I suggest this happened because the people willingly deceived themselves in their desperate need. It was always possible to believe that the tree being cut down was not the last; indeed, there must be more of them just over the hill.

The urge to survive overwhelms any rational consideration. While young man can be seduced into military service with various offers of future pleasures, that seduction is enabled by the small chance of death or disability resulting from combat. In World War II, the chances of death for an American soldier on the front lines was less than 10%. Most soldiers did not serve on the front lines, so the net death toll of all servicemen was about 1%. When the odds of death or disability are significantly larger, neither enlistment nor conscription produces recruits, so soldiers are shanghaied. The Russian army had to rely on shooting soldiers who did not obey commands in several wars. In World War I, the French command brought men to the firing squad for any failure to follow orders. Those drastic measures - the threat of certain death - were required to get men to fight against nearly hopeless odds. People do not willingly sacrifice themselves for the greater good. Thus, it is unreasonable to blame Easter Islanders for chopping down all the trees. In such a situation, people respond to the immediate and hope for the best another day. And that is exactly how most of the people now living see their present situation.

Global climate change is not the only daunting problem at hand. The human population has worked itself into a box canyon. There are just too many people. There are just too many demands on energy and other natural resources. The only way out is to go back, whether by reducing population, demand, lifespan or whatever else lowers our impact on the global environment. That is the simple fact of the matter which none of the Presidential candidates (of most countries) confront, nor to which any of them has a solution. In the absence of solutions, we are all Earth Islanders.

It's a shame that people have a natural inclination to follow the Alpha-whoever. That habit is longstanding, originating among our primate ancestors millions of years ago. In the last few millennia, that habit was generalized into beliefs about powerful spirits and messiahs. Most people believe that someone, somewhere is able to save them from the terrible conditions in which they find themselves. Such beliefs make it very difficult for people to undertake what is really required: saving themselves. The underlying cause of global climate change is the daily uses of ordinary people and their lack of self-discipline based on a correct understanding of the global environment. The abuse of the environment is most obvious in the West, where people drive gas guzzlers and frivolously use resources in an unsustainable fashion. (Conspicuous consumption in the n^th degree.) But the same abuse is evident even in the poorest places, such as Bangladesh or rural China, where people farm on land that is unsuitable and depend on wood and other resources which cannot be replaced. At every level and for quite different reasons, both the rich and the poor are decimating the natural environment upon which everyone's survival depends. Therefore, it is only by changing the lifestyles of ordinary people and their glamorous compatriots, that anything will change at all.

The rules of life need to be changed, consciously and permanently, everywhere. Right now, we are behind the curve, so there is a lot of catching up to do. Presidential candidates who do not recognize this fact are only volunteering to put their hands on a disconnected steering wheel. They are like children in a sandbox, holding onto dolls and pushing toy trucks, imagining their super powers, who, in reality, are masters of nothing.

I think the United States is no longer master of its own destiny. That is what people should be thinking about, not the beauties of candidates walking the runway.

For all the foregoing reasons, I do not wish to endorse or campaign for any of the presidential candidates. I could feel differently, if someone had a reasonable plan to change human behavior and actually save the planet.