December 05, 2003
A New Paradigm for Politics
The Greens have a saying, that they are “neither left, nor right, but out in front”. This speaks to the fact that our political dialogue is stuck in the 18th century model of “left” and “right”, established at the time of the French revolution, and reinforced by the long twentieth century battle between American “capitalism: and Soviet “socialism” and between political parties whose policies were based on socialist and free market economics (or a combination thereof).
George Monbiot recently posted an item (published in the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper on the 18th of November) about a discussion that took place at the European Social Forum entitled “life after capitalism”. In it, to paraphrase generously, he came to the conclusion that while capitalism sucks, all the alternatives suck more - primarily because no one can offer a system to replace it that doesn’t depend on totalitarianism. As a result, he contends that advocates for social justice need to abandon the “anti-capitalist” moniker for something more accurate and functional (what that is, he wasn’t able to say).
This realization that market economics is like democracy - the worst of all possible systems, but better than any alternative available - may be responsible for the shift to the "right" of major political parties over the past few decades... as documented by the charts below from the Political Compass web site, in both American and British politics (outside of the Green Party) few fundamental differences exist between the parties in terms of the role of the state in people's personal lives and economic policy:
U.K. Extreme Right
U.S. Primary Candidates
In a sense, this is a signal that politics as we know it has come to an end. The choice between totalitarian statism and unbridled stateless capitalism is a non-starter. We need to conceptualize a completely different paradigm that addresses the transnational issues we face today.
This is my suggestion for an alternative language of politics, and an alternative spectrum to measure and evaluate the candidates and parties we are offered, developed out of an email exchange between Monbiot and myself, and rooted in the 10 Key Values of the Green Party:
The new division in politics is between "the politics of life" and "the politics of death". Nothing less.
The governing coalitions of the "developed" world, regardless of whether they governed from the "left" or from the "right", regardless of whether they've pursued "socialist" or "free market" economic policies, have followed policies that have either aggravated or failed to curb the following problems:
- the ongoing destruction of the Amazonian rainforests (and tropical rainforests in general throughout the globe) and other sensitive ecosystems
- the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that has led to global warming and all the attendant projected ills
- depletion of the ozone layer and consequent possible devastation of global ecosystems exposed to unfiltered ultraviolet radiation
- the projected death of all coral reefs within thirty years
- destruction of global fishing stocks (and consequent devastation of an ecology we know almost nothing about)
- the genoicide of our ape relatives
- the ongoing genocide of indigenous peoples and cultures worldwide
- the projected annihilation of a insane percentage of the populace of Africa from HIV (alone)
... to name just a few major problems.
Not to mention ongoing support for brutal dictatorships, undermining of democratically elected governments, strip mining of natural resources, etc., etc., etc.
These are the practical effects of the policies pursued by all political parties that have held power in the "developed" world over the past fifty years, regardless of whether they had a "socialist" or a "free market", a "left" or a "right" orientation... Clinton, Bush, Jr. … failures, the global eco-death clock has spun ever faster towards "midnight" during both terms… Major, Blair… ditto… Koch, Schroeder, ditto. This is "the politics of death".
I don't think anyone can credibly claim that the assumption or retention of power by the Democrats, Republicans, New Labor or Conservatives, Christian Democrats or Social Democrats will make a damn bit of difference in the ongoing devastation accounted for above - all of them have had plenty of chances over the past fifty years to make a difference on these issues, none of them have even begun to slow down the march to destruction.
This is why I am a Green… the political issues in our society go beyond economics and the distribution of wealth at this point--the question of capitalism or socialism is irrelevant if neither does anything to stop the destruction. Defining ourselves as "anti-capitalists" is participating in an outmoded paradigm of political dialogue - it is playing into the hands of the advocates of unbridled capitalism (which is not the same thing as "market economics") and letting them define the terms of debate.
I say, turn it around, put the onus on them: what alternative do they offer to "the politics of death" that they've pursued for the last few decades?
The Green vision is grounded in the unalterable principle that our first priority must be the preservation of the planet's ability to sustain life. We must stop drawing down on the world's "natural capital" - the planet's ecological systems, mineral and chemical resources, the biological and social diversity that allows the planet maintain a robust "immune system" resistant to catastrophe and capable of recovering from systemic damage of all sorts.
Ours is the politics of life, of abundance in diversity, of hope for the future - theirs is the politics of death, of ecological destruction, of social genoicide, of despair and ennui… we are the lush Tropical Rainforests, they are the arid Sahara. Once we adopt this paradigm, we can begin to talk about what really matters: how best to save the life of the planet (and the human beings on it) from total destruction.
Posted by Editor at December 5, 2003 09:24 AMGreat summary of the philosophy of the Green Party, Thomas. Obviously, to meaningfully change the paradigm and values necessary to save the planet, the nation’s of the planet must, in majority, agree on a plan, and coordinate economic, development, and natural resources access issues. Assuming for a moment, that that is possible, how could it be brought about. Under what organization could such an assemblage take place and such concensus be reached?
Thanks, David
Posted by: David R Remer at December 5, 2003 10:11 AMDavid,
There’s no easy answer to this… it is going to have to take place city by city, state by state, nation by nation… one person at a time, making the commitment to constructively engage with their fellow community members in creating a vision for the future. If I knew the answer, I’d be shouting it from the rooftops. :)
The obvious ultimate vehicle for transnational politics is the U.N., but our opponents have also provided us with a successful alternative: we can implement this vision the same way the multi-national corporate capitalists have implemented theirs: via bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade agreements and organizations, like GATT and the WTO. Only constructed in such a way as to be transparent in operationg, and democratically accountable to the people of each country, and to include all the missing pieces of the puzzle: labor rights, environmental regulation, wage levels, etc.
Not everyone has to agree immediately for the moral force of a commitment to have an impact.
Thomas
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at December 5, 2003 11:05 AMExcellent piece Thomas, I agree completely. So…
“Greens are pro-life??” I can hear folks say. Still I think this is one of several avenues into the American heart and mind. The public school system too is nothing more than a support system for the existing paradigm of death and destruction. We need to free the chidren from the grips of the market economy managers. The case for this is made in John Taylor Gatto’s important new book on the History of American Education. www.johntaylorgatto.com
The Green vision is grounded in the unalterable principle that our first priority must be the preservation of the planet’s ability to sustain life. We must stop drawing down on the world’s “natural capital”.
Another way to look at it is that human ingenuity is the same as the “planet’s ability to sustain life” and it’s “natural capital”. The underlying assumption is that “life = human life”. Yes, that means I don’t give the survival of the apes as much importance as my own.
Man has had a love-hate relationship with nature. The arc of human history has been a struggle against nature, to conquer it, to distance and shelter us from its vagaries. This struggle has now been more-or-less conclusively won. Man’s inventiveness (i.e. technology) has allowed him to do this.
I think the environmental alarmists have lost a good deal of credibility lately by crying fox too often. Global warming sounds a bit overrated when it just turned out that the middle ages were warmer than today. But hey - so that means we must be having “global cooling” ;-) I’m afraid many see the greens as naggers — complaining but not being constructive. An extreme form of this is eco-terrorism.
The steady juggernaut of technology and human progress (which, I think, in their heart of hearts, every green resents to some degree) has not wiped out human life on the planet yet — a steady flow of warnings from the greens notwithstanding. Quite the contrary. Human life has never been as enjoyable, and, well, livable, as it is today. When there have been real credible threats to the environment, e.g. the ozone layer, it has once again been technology that saved the day - as shown by the global move away from CFCs.
The greens are also up against fundamental human nature. It is human nature to expand, consume, and then think up new solutions when resources run low. Between the forests and human ingenuity, I’ll place my bets on the latter.
Posted by: Vivek at December 5, 2003 02:09 PMFor the rest of you, I’ll simply point out that human life on this planet is utterly depending on the continued viability of the global ecosystem, and that said system is extraordinarily complex, and not very well understood by humans (who, in general, still have a lot to learn about complex systems with emergent properties). We muck with it at our peril.
I’ll let Mark Morford speak for me on the global warming issue (a little comic relief):
The World Is My Giant Reeking Texas Mudpuddle
Global warming is threatening the world’s ski resorts, with melting at lower altitudes forcing the sport to move higher and higher up mountains, according to a new U.N. study. Downhill skiing could disappear altogether at some resorts, while at others, a retreating snow line will cut off base villages from their ski runs as soon as 2030. “Climate change is happening now. We can measure it,” said Klaus Toepfer, director of the U.N. program. “This study shows that it is not just the developing world that will suffer.” The report focused on ski resorts in Austria, Italy, Switzerland, Australia, the United States and Canada, using temperature forecasts produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of some 2,000 scientists. “We don’t believe a word of it because once again it’s all a big liberal conspiracy to save a bunch of stupid trees and hug dolphins and protect giant ice cubes in Antartica or whatever,” sneered the Bush administration, tossing crumpled copies of the Kyoto treaty into giant oil-burning smog-belching industrial furnaces that all just recently had their pollution emission restrictions loosened comfortably for the 12th time in the past six months as the various industry CEOs were flown to a private dinner of hot German sausages and stout lager in the Cheney underground bunker where much snickering and backslapping and strange squishy moany scraping sounds were heard deep into the misery-torn night.
[extracted from today’s “Morning Fix” newsletter]
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at December 5, 2003 02:45 PMThey’re a small, frustrated minority whom we simply need to out vote and out organize.
Hey - you wouldn’t need to outvote us if we were a minority ;-)
But seriously - you need to come up with better arguments than just dismissing all the non-greens as a “frustrated minority”. By sweeping aside counter-arguments like this, you only risk increasing the already prevalent image of greens as unconstructive whiners. Where’s the debate you so longed for?
Posted by: Vivek at December 6, 2003 02:06 AMClimate change laid to humans
Report warns there’s ‘no doubt’ industry is primary cause
[…]
The report by Karl and Trenberth adds new data to scores of previous international studies and computer models of future climate changes as well as analyses by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[…]
Posted by: Thomas Leavitt at December 6, 2003 10:41 AMThomas, tsk, tsk, your going to side with a bunch of eggheads who pour over numbers for a living rather than a real live action hero who flies and lands on aircraft carriers and serves turkeys to potential absentee voters? Cm’on, Thomas.
Posted by: David R. Remer at December 8, 2003 02:30 PMA speech about the crucial need for third parties in American politics
Posted by: Howard Ditkoff at March 30, 2004 03:38 PM
