Read PageEdit PagePage AttributesPage HistoryUpload

Global Transformation: Strategy for Action
Dedication Epigraph Preface Acknowledgments One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Epilogue Comments

Chapter Six: Threats and Opportunities

This chapter continues my evaluation of the progressive movement in the United States. As I addressed in the Preface, I assume that many of these observations will be relevant to situations in other countries.

External Threats

Awareness about threats facing the progressive movement can help us overcome those threats, or at least counter them and reduce the harm they inflict.

The System Prevails

The most basic threat we face is that the dominant social system will continue to adapt and maintain itself on its present course toward ever-worsening catastrophes. Chapter Three considered how that system operated in the past. Unfortunately, it continues to operate in the same way today and will continue to do so into the near term future. I’ll briefly review how this system works and elaborate on how it’s functioning today.

Our global society is a well-integrated social system. All of our institutions, our culture, and we as individuals work together to reinforce the central purpose of that system – to increase the wealth and power of the elite. Consequently, most developed countries are quite similar to one another in their key characteristics as they become more “Americanized,” or, more precisely, modernized.

By law, corporations are required to maximize profit. So they neglect the public interest, treat workers like objects, destroy the environment, and mislead consumers with false advertising.

The government, corrupted with legalized bribery, serves the interests of the elite and manipulates the public with smoke-and-mirrors.

The mainstream media, concentrated in the hands of a few giant corporations, limits the communication of vital information and serves as an advertising vehicle for private business and a means to distract people from pressing issues.

As they become vehicles for advertising, schools "track" students, teach them their place, dehumanize them, and train them to submit to power whether or not it is legitimate.

Higher education and science are captive to big business. Conflicts of interest in research are rampant. And scientists who are supposed to help the government regulate industry and protect the public interest use their positions for personal gain.

Families teach their children to submit to power so that they can be "successful" and fulfill their parents' dreams.

The workplace treats workers like objects with few rights, requires them to follow orders without question, and disposes of them at the drop of a hat.

Our religious institutions indoctrinate believers to accept dogma, submit to authority, and accommodate to the social order.

Doctors treat their patients like mechanistic objects and teach them to do what they are told.

The criminal justice system locks up the surplus poor, treats them like objects, and tries to persuade them to submit to power by imposing cruel and unusual punishment.

The entertainment industry glorifies wealth and power, inducing people to envy and identify with carefully selected symbols of "success."

The sports industry teaches people that "winning is everything," regardless of the costs involved or how much cheating is involved, and induces people into becoming chronic passive consumers of spectator sports.

As individuals, we reproduce these patterns and reduce ourselves to objects in the social meat market, while constantly ranking others with elitist, racist, sexist, and homophobic judgments.

The common element in each of these arenas is that the dominant social system reduces human beings to objects. Having had their humanity suppressed, these objects accumulate objects and treat other people like objects.

This objectification discounts moral and spiritual values. We use each other until we use each other up. We dominate others when we can. Otherwise, we submit. Our entire society is top-down, geared toward getting people to want to be King of One Hill or Another.

Based on the interweaving of greed and the lust for power and money, the economy and the government merge with the authoritarian social system that reproduces itself by spreading an individualistic, materialistic culture rooted in a negative, cynical view of human nature. Key to its survival is propagating the belief that people must forever prove themselves superior to others by constantly making more money and gaining more power.

The elite's ability to dominate relies on voluntary submission. If most people did not remain passive, the dominant social system couldn't get away with its crimes against humanity and the devastation of the environment. The general public has sold out to a seductive system that bullies us into staying in line and buys us off with the lure of upward mobility. Careerism, egoism, and grandiose illusions corrupt most everyone, including progressive activists.

Various divide-and-conquer dynamics serve to help preserve the system. Of particular importance is the divisive impact of racism, which has been inflamed by the so-called “war on terror.” Despite considerable progress in recent decades, racist prejudice is still used by many people to justify discrimination against people of color. People of color, including middle-class professionals, report being the frequent object of racist comments. Many people continue to discriminate based on race, and politicians employ racist code words to blame poor people for their poverty.

Public policies remain inadequate to protect people against unfair discrimination. Racist, brutal actions by police officers are far too common. Once arrested, people of color are more likely to receive longer sentences for the same crime. Blatant discrimination in the housing market has made it more difficult for people of color to escape undesirable living conditions in central cities. Major post-War federal subsidies for whites to purchase suburban homes provided relatively few subsidies for people of color, which contributed greatly to housing segregation that is ongoing. Predominantly white, suburban schools are much better funded than are schools attended by people of color. Public agencies responsible for investigating complaints of racism in the job market are understaffed. The impact of discrimination against previous generations is perpetuated as children grow up with severely limited opportunities and resources.

So widespread systemic racism continues to be a major problem. As Tim Wise has reported:

• Persons of color are far more likely to live in neighborhoods where hazardous waste sites are placed.
• Nearly 900,000 blacks died from 1991 to 2000 who wouldn't have died had they had access to health care that was equal to that received by whites.
• Even among college-educated black couples with middle class incomes, their wealth remains less than one-fourth the net worth of their white counterparts [due] to policies that historically restricted black asset accumulation and gave whites significant head starts in the same area.
• Light-skinned immigrants to the U.S. have incomes that are significantly higher than those of immigrants who are otherwise similar – in terms of experience, education and skill levels – but who have darker skin.
• It is that larger racial inequity that so often contributes to personal bias in the first place, by giving the impression to weak-minded individuals that those on the bottom of the social and economic structure must have something wrong with them, or else they'd be doing better.

These and other forms of ongoing racism result in a playing field that is far from level. Yet many forces continue to try to eliminate affirmative action programs designed to modify this imbalance. The danger that divisive racism will worsen is a serious threat to the growth of the progressive moment.

Women face serious discrimination as well. Demeaning comments and images in the media that reduce women to passive sexual objects are commonplace. Women typically get paid much less than do men for the same work. Rape and domestic violence remain widespread. Though educational opportunities are opening up somewhat for women, the "glass ceiling" has limited the degree to which women can assume major leadership positions, both in business and government.

Gender stereotypes produce discrimination against homosexuals and bisexuals as well. Assuming that a husband-wife unit with the man in charge is the only healthy arrangement results in negative judgments against people who are attracted sexually to people of the same sex. The result is unfair discrimination against homosexuals throughout society.

In these ways, society relies on fear of “the other” to buttress itself. When people of color, women, and homosexuals internalize these judgments and condemn themselves, the harm is multiplied. Everyone loses when people with limited self-respect are less productive, creative, and caring.

Fear, which fosters irrationality, is far too prevalent today. Eager to attract viewers so they can sell advertising, TV news programs tap into fear because it grabs attention. Cruelty is presented regularly, but kindness seldom is. The actual slim odds of particular threats are rarely discussed. Almost forgotten is FDR's maxim, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Politicians and activists frequently reinforce the culture of fear by exaggerating threats. National leaders rally Americans by overstating foreign threats and many progressive activists build their organizations by inflaming people's fear rather than by appealing to their higher selves.

Underlying widespread fear is economic insecurity. One-third of Americans are poor or almost poor. Another third have little cushion to fall back on. The safety net has shrunk and the holes are wider. Economic insecurities breed free-floating anxiety, which breeds materialism and selfishness.

The fear of poverty encourages the glorification of wealth as a hedge against destitution. Accumulating assets begins as protection against being thrown out onto the street, and it ends up being an obsession. People are driven to look out for Number One and neglect their neighbors, which feeds a dog-eat-dog mentality that is a distortion of healthy competition.

Strains of brutal competition permeate our culture, often beginning in our schools where students learn that only a few will "win." The results are pernicious. Keeping ahead of the Jones. Yearning to be the Boss. Desperately needing to have your Ego stroked. These are adolescent tendencies that are difficult to outgrow once they become habits. This hyper-individualism promotes isolation, undermines community, and reinforces the dominant social system.

Like any addiction, the myth of upward mobility and the fascination with consumer goods and the latest designer clothes prove to be an illusion. "Chasing the dragon" fails to deliver, for we forget that once we have risen out of poverty, more power and money cannot gain us what is really important: love, happiness, and being at one with the universe (or God).

So the system perpetuates itself. The various top-level managers, including Presidents, are not the main problem. They are dispensable. The major problem is the global social system.

Unfortunately, this social system is well established and is becoming more deeply embedded within our souls on a daily basis. Its continued perpetuation constitutes a profound threat to the progressive movement.

The System Collapses

While the relatively smooth continuation of the dominant social system is one threat, its complete collapse is another distinct possibility.

The decision in the early 70s on the part of the elite to “take the money and run” is continuing to wreak havoc. The climate crisis, with its ominous threat to the entire social order, is a symptom of this overall short sightedness.

Environmental destruction already comes in many forms. Forests decline. Oceans, the cradle of life, are dangerously polluted. Industrial fishing is wiping out entire stocks of fish. Water is ever more scarce. Fossil fuels, our primary source of energy, are being depleted. Whole species are disappearing at an alarming rate. Pollution causes widespread death, illness and suffering. Life as we know it is in jeopardy.

The domino effect of these alterations to our ecosystem is hard to predict, but the risks are well known to those who inquire. At this point, much of the damage is irreversible. Yet the United States government has refused to sign and honor international treaties to address these issues, claiming that our economy might suffer as a result. Greed rules again.

Millionaires and billionaires now own as much or more of U.S. assets than they did in the late 1920s, and they claim they deserve what they get, no matter how they get it.

Economic prosperity, however, depends on sharing wealth so ordinary people can buy products and services. Since super-rich people don't spend most of their income, when they take more of the economy’s income for themselves, economic growth is dampened because this process prompts a self-reinforcing downward spiral. Unless governments take corrective action, under capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, which eventually devastates the economy. This dynamic is well underway today due to changes in public policy that have resulted in the increased concentration of wealth.

Today’s economic decline is due in part to governmental policies promoted by the radical right’s broad scale attacks on all forms of government, including programs that benefit ordinary Americans. At the same time, these anti-government ideologues hypocritically support governmental policies that benefit the super-rich. They support, for example, enormous government contracts for military contractors, governmental bailouts for banks and corporations that are "too big to fail," and massive tax cuts that primarily benefit the super-rich.

This simplistic, extremist assault on "government" has resulted in under-funded schools, declining public transit, crumbling roads and highways, weakened unions, falling wages, a minimum wage that fails to keep up with inflation, less unemployment insurance, fewer health and social services, less protection for the environment, less enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and reduced public-service employment. If left unchecked, this offensive will steadily chip away at the very notion of good government. The radical right is even trying to "privatize" Social Security and Medicare. They want to move seniors away from the Social Security system to investing in stocks (which would benefit the financial sector), despite the dangers of major drops in the stock market. And they want to shift seniors away from the very workable Medicare program into problematic for-profit health maintenance organizations (HMOs).

As intended, the result of this right-wing onslaught against government is a short-term bonanza for the super-rich – and hardship for most Americans.

This shortsighted, selfish disregard for the common good and future generations has resulted in an economy perched on a mountain of debt that could cause the global social system to collapse like a house of cards at any minute.

A Militaristic Clash of Fundamentalisms

In 1990, following the fall of the Soviet Union and a general decline in Communist ideology, Octavio Paz said:

His words have proven prophetic. Science has undermined fundamentalist Christianity. The fall of the Soviet Union has undermined Communism. Modernization has undermined fundamentalist Islam. Globalization has undermined nationalism. And 9-11 shattered Americans’ notion that the United States is an exceptional, superior island invulnerable to attack. The disaster in Iraq only reinforces America’s sense of impotence.

These assaults on identity have resulted in a passionate attempt to defend both fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist Islam with vehement counter reactions that aim to preserve meaning to life with literal interpretations of written documents presumed to hold only one meaning and the same meaning forever. This literalism constitutes idolatry, the worship of words. Nevertheless, many religious people cling to it fanatically.

This religious fanaticism has deep roots in American history. When he came here from France in the 1800s, Tocqueville commented:

These observations led Daniel Aaron to reflect on the individualism associated with much of American religiosity:

Historically, economic hard times have left working people vulnerable to demagogues, both religious and political. In Christian fundamentalism, these anxieties and frustrations have led to what Chris Hedges calls a “dominionist” theology based on Genesis, which declares that God gave humankind “dominion over creation.” This approach ties in with “the cult of masculinity.” As Hedges says:

Religious fundamentalists, whether Arab or Christian, share certain aspects in common. They claim to know precisely what the original authors of scriptural texts meant and they reject interpretations that suggest mythical, poetic, or metaphorical meaning. And they tend to believe that others must embrace the same language that they use in order to be "saved." (I once asked four evangelists in my taxi if someone in a remote area who had never heard of Jesus or the Bible was destined to Hell. The first answer was yes, though a second response was more nuanced.)

Given this perspective, people who know scripture well (especially if they can quote it at length) exercise authority over those who are less well versed, as those who are less trained defer to those who are more adept. Fundamentalism therefore attracts and cultivates authoritarian personalities who are controlling toward their "inferiors" and submissive toward their "superiors."

The authoritarian personality tends to be domineering, absolute, dogmatic, black-and-white, judgmental, unable to understand ambiguities (or paradoxes and contradictions), rigid, prone to cruelty, angry, revengeful, cold, uptight, and so repressed they can’t even acknowledge feelings they disapprove.

The combination of a fundamentalist ideology and an authoritarian personality is deadly. Americans can easily see the consequences in the stereotype of the radical Arab fundamentalist portrayed in the mainstream media. Recognizing the same characteristics in many of our own leaders, however, is more difficult.

Under the second Bush Administration, radical Christian fundamentalists and their authoritarian allies infiltrated the upper reaches of our government and now dominate most levers of power. President Bush and many individuals in positions of power in his Administration, Congress, and the Judiciary are born-again True Believers. They are convinced that God calls them to "liberate" oppressed people in other countries, by force if necessary, even if thousands of innocent civilians die as a result. They are convinced that eventually God and History will forgive them. And perhaps most frightening, many of these radical fundamentalists are convinced that the Holy Bible predicts a violent Armageddon that will start in the Middle East and save all believers. This belief motivates them to encourage a religious war against the “evil ones,” regardless of the price that must be paid.

Many of the politicians and political operatives in this radical-right network are not Christian fundamentalists, but they know how to form alliances by using “code language” to suggest to the fundamentalists that they “believe.”

Combine this authoritarian fanaticism with an animus toward foreign infidels and the result is a toxic combination. When I expressed concern about the killing of innocent civilians in Iraq to one of my taxi passengers, a rabid Christian, he told me, “They deserve to die. Kill them all.”

These developments leave the American people at a critical turning point. More terrorist attacks on American soil could help this radical-right network consolidate its power by using military provocations to further inflame the clash between Christian and Arab fundamentalists. As a result, the current cycle of violence could spiral downward. Or a global economic crisis could lead to a worsening cycle of terrorist-related violence and counter-violence. Or the Bush Administration could manage to provoke Iran to take some action that would provide a pretext for military action against Iran.

More anti-American Islamic fundamentalism could lead the United States to indulge in more revenge, and Americans might accept our President lashing out with more counterproductive military actions like the invasion of Iraq. As anti-American feelings spread and intensify throughout the world, we could have another Holy Crusade against Islam. This scenario could enable the radical right to win the 2008 Presidential election and strengthen their hold on the federal government.

Perpetual War

In the 2000 Presidential campaign, Bush ran on a “humble” foreign policy that included support for a more cooperative relationship with Latin America, a rejection of "nation building" overseas, and a reduction in other small-scale military engagements. Once he was elected, however, he immediately revealed his true intentions.

He placed in key positions a tight-knit clique of neo-conservatives well known for preaching U.S. world domination, including Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, and began acting unilaterally in foreign affairs. Early on, for example, Bush rejected the Kyoto treaty on global warming and laid the steps for withdrawing from both the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and an international land mine treaty.

***

Though little attention has been given to it, in her testimony to the 9-11 Commission, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice admitted that the Administration had “waited” for a catastrophe to happen before launching their anti-terrorism plan. Her choice of words is revealing. To “wait” means to remain inactive while expecting something.

The threat of a major terrorist attack in the United States was well known when Bush took office in January 2001. For example, in December 1999 intelligence and law enforcement agencies had information indicating that al-Qaeda was planning attacks in the US. According to Richard Clarke, who was counter-terrorism chief under both Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush, when faced with intelligence about an upsurge in the terrorist threat, Clinton

But neither Bush nor his Administration took any special steps when faced with heightened warnings, despite recommendations for action from the CIA. Rather, they effectively downgraded the Principals Committee by ignoring the January 24, 2001 written request from Clarke for an “urgent meeting” of that committee (the meeting wasn’t convened until September 4, 2001).

Then, on July 10, 2001, CIA Director George Tenet, received information about a threat from al-Qaeda that "literally made my hair stand on end." He telephoned Rice, insisted on meeting with her immediately, and raced to the White House with his counter-terrorism deputy, Cofer Black, and a briefer known only as "Rich B." "There will be a significant terrorist attack in the coming weeks or months," Rich B. told Rice, and the attack would be "spectacular." Black added, "This country needs to go on a war footing now." He said that President Bush should give the CIA new covert-action authorities to go after Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization.

After the meeting, Tenet's briefer and deputy "congratulated each other," Tenet wrote. "At last, they felt, we had gotten the full attention of the Administration [italics added]."

But still the Administration did nothing special to stop the predicted attack. Even after President Bush was handed a written warning titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” on August 6, the Administration remained passive. They didn’t undertake the recommended covert action. They didn’t go to the United Nations asking for action against the Afghan training camps. And they didn’t alert the entire intelligence community and instruct them to forward any information they had about al-Qaeda operatives in the United States. As Clarke told the 9-11 Commission:

The neo-conservative cabal in the Bush Administration was well aware of what they saw as potential benefits from a catastrophic attack on the United States. In September 2000, the Project for the New American Century, a small neo-conservative think tank whose members included Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, other Bush Administration officials, and close Administration advisers, had issued a 90-page report entitled “Rebuilding America's Defenses” that asserted that the United States should change its foreign policy to one dedicated to dominating the world through forceful military action. They also commented that this “process of transformation [of U.S. foreign policy], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks gave these neo-conservatives the Pearl Harbor they were waiting for and it gave Bush what he was hoping for – the chance to be a “war president.” In 1999, George W. Bush asked the author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz, who has been the ghostwriter for many celebrity biographies, to write his biography. While working on the book, Herskowitz and Bush had many long conversations, but the biography was never published because his handlers considered it to be insufficiently flattering. (Later, Bush’s father had Herskowitz write a biography of his father, which indicates Herskowitz’s credibility.) In 2004, the award-winning journalist Russ Baker reported that Herskowitz told him:

As Margaret Thatcher had capitalized politically on Britain’s small war with the Falklands, Ronald Reagan followed suit by attacking Grenada, the elder Bush attacked Panama, and Clinton went to war against Yugoslavia. Now Bush’s son had his opportunity to exceed his father.

***

The Republican Party, guided by Karl Rove, almost immediately began taking partisan political advantage of 9-11. Even though it placed a severe strain on relations with most of the rest of the world, including key allies, the invasion and occupation of Iraq did help Bush get re-elected in 2004. As the neoliberal New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, wrote:

When Franklin Roosevelt fought World War II, he made a conservative Republican, Henry Stimson, his secretary of war and did all he could to hold the country together. The Bush-Cheney team, by contrast, summoned us to D-Day and then treated it like it was just another political wedge issue, whenever it suited them.

Under Bush, the United States has increasingly ignored the United Nations, refused to support international treaties on pressing issues, and assumed the role of the world's policeman. Military spending today takes 40% of every tax dollar. The Bush Administration has neglected diplomacy, negotiation, mediation, and international cooperation and told other nations that they are either with us or against us. Far too often, rather than work respectfully and cooperatively with other nations to advance our common interests, the United States government gives the impression that it intends to dominate the world as it sees fit, relying heavily on military action and the threat of military action in a never-ending “war on terror.”

In the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, for example, rather than helping to reach a just settlement by being a neutral broker, the United States has given major financial and political support to Israel. We’ve supported Israel’s 1967 occupation of Palestine, its ongoing attempts to suppress the Palestinian rebellion, and its recent attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon.

This reliance on military action by the United States and Israel has created massive anti-American sentiments throughout the Arab world. As a result, Arab terrorists began striking American targets and the United States responded with military actions. This downward spiral of violence has failed to make the United States more secure against the threat of terrorism, just as it has failed to make Israel more secure.

The so-called “war on terror,” as Bush has waged it, is the perfect war. It automatically creates more terrorists than it destroys, so it can never be won, which means it will continue forever unless a new President alters American foreign policy.

The United States also encourages the sale of military weapons throughout the world, resulting in military buildups in many explosive regions. We have resisted efforts to work with the other major powers to reduce or eliminate the stockpiles of nuclear weapons that continue to pose major dangers. We've turned our backs on the nuclear test ban treaty and are preparing to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. We're moving to place military weapons in outer space. We spend as much on the military as does the rest of the world combined, with military bases in more than 100 countries. The Bush Administration is acting like it wants to establish an old-fashioned Empire – a project doomed to failure.

Tensions between Russia and the United States could build, increasing the risk of an accidental nuclear war. If the United States proceeds with building new nuclear weapons and continues to reject international treaties, increased militarism could undermine the effort to halt nuclear proliferation, encourage the spread of nuclear weapons, and increase the risk of nuclear terrorism.

***

Bush and Rove took back the military card from the Democrats for a while by being even more militaristic than Clinton. Given their eventual failures in Iraq, the Bush Administration has been shifting to a new designated, manufactured enemy, Iran and its Shiite allies in other countries.

After taking control of Iran when they overthrew the Shah, Shiites, a minority that has long been oppressed by the Sunni majority for centuries in the Muslim world, have been asserting their power throughout the region. Unfortunately, fanatics in Iran need a foreign enemy as much as fanatics in the United States need one. In the world of global politics, it takes two to tango. If they get their wish, the result could be a global economic collapse.

In “The Redirection” in the March 5, 2007 issue of the New Yorker, Seymour M. Hersh concluded that the Bush Administration shift in policy is knowingly benefiting the Al Qaeda terrorist network. He reported:

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites…. The princes [in Saudi Arabia] are gambling that they will not be overthrown as long as they continue to support religious schools and charities linked to the extremists. The Administration’s new strategy is heavily dependent on this bargain.

American, European, and Arab officials told Hersh that the Lebanese government, which is allied with the U.S., has allowed money from the U.S. government to end up in the hands of Sunni radical groups whose ideological ties are with the Sunni Al Qaeda – because these Sunnis are seen as a buffer to the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon. A senior official in the Lebanese government told Hersh. “We have a liberal attitude that allows Al Qaeda types to have a presence here.”

Hersh also reported, “The Administration’s redirection strategy has already benefited the [Muslim] Brotherhood,” an Al Qaeda ally, which is a bitter enemy of Syria, Egypt, Israel, and United States.

The head of Hezbollah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who has proved to be a very astute politician, articulated to Hersh his analysis of divide-and-conquer U.S. policies.

When the Bush Administration occupied Iraq in 2003, it did so without enough troops to maintain order, which led many critics to accuse the Administration of incompetence. But the likely consequences were well known. In his own memoir, for example, President Bush’s father explained that he did not topple Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War in large part because the likely result would be chaos in Iraq that could spread throughout the Middle East. And now it is reported that the intelligence community fully warned the Administration that chaos in Iraq could easily result from the invasion unless strong counter-measures were taken.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney, who aren’t stupid, chose to do nothing because they welcome chaos, which prevents the formation of a strong, unified government that can challenge the United States and its desire to “privatize” everything. And it helps to justify more military spending for their friends in the military-industrial complex.

When I was in Baghdad with the Iraq Peace Team during the invasion, a high-level member of the Iraqi secret police told us that he and his colleagues were convinced that the U.S. plan was to partition Iraq. That scenario seemed likely at the time, and it still does – unless the American occupation inflames Iraqi nationalism enough to unify Iraq in order to expel the Americans and reject their privatization schemes. The Administration, however, has failed to support these nationalist, anti-sectarian sentiments that are embraced by most Iraqis.

The U.S. formed an alliance with the Shiites in Iraq when the Shiites were needed to support elections, because prior to the 2004 U.S. elections those Iraqi elections helped to sell the Iraqi project in the name of “spreading democracy.” But now, once again, the United States, forever playing puppet master, has recast its friend, the Shiites, as enemy. The characters change, but the game remains the same: divide and conquer.

***

By inflaming the conflict between the West and Islam, the Bush Administration is undermining moderate Islamic democracies like Indonesia. Empires need foreign enemies, and so does a crumbling pseudo-Empire that has largely been based on soft imperialism and an informal network of client states and submissive allies.

In recent years, with detailed computerized analysis, electoral strategists like Karl Rove have categorized individual voters into countless sub-groups based on individual preferences and characteristics. This data has enabled them to cobble together a slight majority by pushing "hot buttons" that turn Americans against each other. This politics of "intense minorities" makes it more difficult for people to unite for the common good.

These tactics have worked for Rove and Bush, but having a foreign enemy is even more effective. If they manufacture enemies, target them with military action, create chaos, and get away with it, these “wag the dog” machinations will continue to pose a major threat to the progressive movement and our efforts to serve the common good.

The Imperial Presidency

If more terrorism in the United States leads to a downward spiral of violence and counter-violence, social pressure to conform and rally behind the President could intensify. The lust for revenge could lead to irrational support for action that is counter-productive. Americans could fall victim to the fantasy of eliminating the threat of terrorism by killing more and more terrorists (even if we kill large numbers of innocent civilians at the same time).

Those who criticize these tactics could increasingly be branded as traitors. The federal government could lock up more people indefinitely without offering them a fair trial. Spying, snooping, and electronic surveillance could become much more common. These and other violations of civil liberties could intimidate many people into being silent and inactive. The mainstream media could become ever more uniform, serving as stenographers for the Administration, parroting false and misleading claims without reporting relevant, contradictory information. The defense budget could become even more beyond Congressional oversight or control.

Given past history, if social tensions increase in these ways, it is safe to assume that many police departments will use excessive force and violence against nonviolent protestors. These actions in turn will provoke some demonstrators to engage in violence against the police, which will lead to more police violence. This cycle of violence will lead to further limits on civil liberties and more calls for repression, which will discourage activism.

If the economy collapses, support for a more authoritarian government could increase even further. Blaming scapegoats is a time-tested, effective method for uniting people. Skillful politicians manipulate the free-floating anxiety of economically insecure people to attack the “enemy.” Anyone who disagrees with official policy can be branded an enemy. In these ways, in the name of defending American freedom, we could destroy it.

Already, civil liberties are being eroded. Ordinary people are often mistakenly identified as terrorists when private businesses check the names of customers against a list of suspected terrorists and drug traffickers made publicly available by the Treasury Department. When this happens, these companies deny services to people whose names are similar to those on the list.

The United States government is demanding that local libraries be willing to divulge records of what books their patrons read, without notifying them. Bookstores, hospitals, and universities are likewise vulnerable to these "sneak and peek" invasions of privacy, even without a search warrant issued by a judge based on probable cause.

Airlines have released massive amounts of private travel information. Local and state governments are compiling files on nonviolent demonstrators who merely oppose American militarism. American citizens are being held in secret locations without access to lawyers. Foreigners accused of being terrorists are confined (under inhumane conditions) outside U.S. borders, where they are not afforded the rights granted by the U.S. constitution. Some of these prisoners are being tried in military tribunals without the standard protections of a fair trial (the first Guantanamo defendant convicted was so harmless he only received a nine-month sentence). Torture has become routine in the effort to obtain information from prisoners. The United States government has decided to ignore the law that prohibits assassination. In the invasion of Iraq, the Secretary of Defense personally authorized more than 50 air strikes that were thought likely to result in the death of more than 30 innocent civilians in each instance.

If the so-called “war on terrorism” worsens, this disregard for human life, human rights, and civil liberties could become even more flagrant. The Pentagon, for example, is trying to develop a computer program that would centralize a wide range of personal information on every citizen and resident of the United States, including all financial transactions. The “war on terrorism” is supposed to protect our liberties and the American way of life. But if we fall victim to our fears, we could continue to move in the direction of a Big Brother police state. In the name of gaining greater security against Muslim terrorists, our government may continue to copy oppressive aspects of Muslim fundamentalism.

These trends have coincided with a growing concentration of power in the hands of the President that undermines the separation and balance of powers between Congress, the Judiciary and the Executive. In the name of an obscure, misleading legal theory called the “unitary executive,” the Bush Administration has basically argued that because we are supposedly “at war” the Commander-in-Chief can do whatever he wants, secretly or not, to protect the nation.

Congress has done little or nothing to stop this concentration of power in the hands of the President, even when the “opposition” party has been in control of both houses. As Andrew Bacevich, author of The New American Militarism, puts it: "None of the Democrats vying to replace President Bush is doing so with the promise of reviving the system of check and balances.... The aim of the party out of power is not to cut the presidency down to size but to seize it, not to reduce the prerogatives of the executive branch but to regain them."

Though this long-term trend toward a more powerful, Imperial Presidency has been bi-partisan, Bush has taken it to radical heights. Peter S. Canellos, a Boston Globe columnist, summed it up well:

Jackson Lears wrote:

Jonathan Schell has concluded:

Ron Suskind reported that in 2002 a senior advisor to Bush told him

The same year Bush told Bob Woodward, as reported in Plan of Attack,

All of which led Todd Gitlin to write,

With the Bush Administration, we’re also witnessing a return to the old “spoils system” of rewarding supporters with jobs. This time, privatizing gives lucrative contracts to corporations to provide services that were previously provided by long-term public employees. As Paul Krugman commented:

The beneficiaries of these (often no-bid) contracts then use some of their new cash to lobby Congress and fund candidates who will perpetuate these policies.

With the unprecedented firing of United States Attorneys who pursued corruption cases against Republicans too vigorously or refused to pursue unfounded voter fraud cases against Democrats, the Bush Administration also violated the rule of law by trying to use the courts to help win elections. And with countless measures to illegally suppress voter turnout, the Republican machine has systematically chipped away at the right to vote and has likely stolen more than one election.

If these trends continue, we could wind up with one-party authoritarianism destroying opponents of its own making in a never-ending spiral of violence.

Narcissism

A more likely scenario, however, is that the radical Bush Coalition will fall apart and the old moderate elites will regain power and return to “soft imperialism” abroad while promoting selfish consumerism at home. This selfishness probably poses the greatest threat to progressives.

Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University and lead author of the report called "Egos Inflating Over Time" has found that in recent years college students have become much more narcissistic, which is “a psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.” As Bob Dylan commented in his memoir,

Twenge found that that an average college student in 2006 scored higher on the standard Narcissism Personality Inventory test than did 65 percent of the students in 1987. Ironically, this narcissism often results from what James Twitchell, who has written extensively on cultural shifts in the U.S., calls “an inappropriate application of self-esteem." Children are constantly told that they are far above average, but down deep they doubt it, which leads them to becoming even more self-centered.

In her commentary on this report, Lakshmi Chaudhry said:

This attitude is familiar to progressives. So is the desire for fame. Chaudhry reflects:

Increased terrorism and economic decline could inflame fears and prompt Americans to become even more selfish. Media outlets, politicians, political activists, and religious leaders promote their self-interest by stoking the fires of fear and negativity. These methods could deepen social divisions and provoke another downward spiral – fear, selfishness, division, hate, revenge, and more fear – which could reinforce the power of the radical right.

Politicians, citizen activists, and religious heads could continue to exaggerate dangers (often invoking images of an Apocalypse of one sort or another) and then tell people that they will be helpless victims unless they defer to the wisdom of their Leader(s). With these tactics, movements and careers are built and the widespread culture of fear is deepened.

By joining these movements, members find a sense of community, which provides some meaning to lives that would otherwise be empty. But this meaning is ultimately shallow, for it merely expands the focus of one's selfishness from oneself to one's community. The community stands over against the "enemy." Serving one's own interests, worldview, and power – by promoting one's community – remains the primary goal. Society thus becomes more fragmented and less able to unite for the sake of the general welfare as large numbers of people become alienated, apathetic, and/or cynical due to pervasive, poisonous negativity.

Through it all, selfishness prevails. A majority of young adults expect to be rich some day. Because they care so much about getting rich, they care less about the common good.

To rationalize these inclinations, most Americans tell themselves that the super rich deserve their wealth (even if they got their money through luck, the advantages of birth, or unethical behavior) and the poor are to blame for their poverty (even though the number of living-wage jobs is far less than the number of workers who need them).

In a lengthy The New York Times article, “For Girls, It’s Be Yourself, and Be Perfect, Too,” Sara Rimer reported that the high achieving adolescent girls she observed and interviewed are inculcated with the following values:

We become fearful and care too much about money and material goods. For the sake of security, we sacrifice our ideals, remain passive, and submit to power. We become ego-centered and selfish and don't work for justice, fairness, and equal opportunity in the public arena.

An increase in general indifference goes along with this growth in self-centeredness. To some degree, “compassion fatigue” is part of the problem, as troubles from distant places are now brought home on a daily basis. But the “blasé attitude” described so vividly by George Simmel seems to be a natural result of modernization, one that will likely spread and deepen in the future. This cool detachment is so engrained people don’t notice it. One example is the kind of irony portrayed in Garrison Keillor’s film “A Prairie Home Companion,” during which the protagonist is indifferent to the suffering caused by the demise of a radio program. Friends of mine were amused by the protagonist’s humor, whereas I was disturbed by his lack of concern about the pain around him.

In a similar way, people who are sexually promiscuous in the name of affirming sex become indifferent to sex. Sexuality becomes just another biological function.

Individualism and consumerism, reinforcing one another, have built a momentum that often appears unstoppable. Money understandably is very meaningful for poor people. Researchers find that families with annual incomes below $10,000 per person people report being happier when their income increases. But once a family has secured that threshold of economic security, more income makes little or no difference in the level of happiness.

In the 1980s, the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher asked rhetorically, "Who is society? There is no such thing. There are individual men and women, and there are families." Given this growth in individualism, the success and impact of the hit TV show Survivor is no surprise: the winner ends up alone, with the money.

In “Things and Theory” in Raritan: A Quarterly Review, Geoffrey Galt Harpham argues,

According to Harpham, however, it turns out that the “self” is becoming increasingly immaterial, with no roots in the real world.

From this postmodern perspective, reality is only a figment on the imagination, morality is only a matter of opinion, and the un-embodied self has no coherence. This attitude threatens to evaporate any sense of being grounded in a verifiable world about which humankind can agree. Without such consensus, community is impossible.

Instead, post-modern desperate individuals celebrate violence, including the repeated, violent destruction of the self in the name of abstract ideologies. Many academics as well as popular artists are obsessed with the simulation of violence. These postmodern intellectuals and artists share with fundamentalist zealots a fascination with apocalyptic scenarios. This nihilistic claim that there is no truth or justice threatens our very soul, and without soul, progressives stand no chance.

***

These potential threats to progress – the system prevails, the system collapses, a militaristic clash of fundamentalisms, perpetual war, the Imperial Presidency, and more narcissism – are all too real. We need to face them honestly and courageously if we are to have any chance of overcoming.

External Opportunities

Fortunately, some external opportunities also stand on the horizon.

The Swinging Pendulum

American history has moved in cycles. Greedy, power-hungry, shortsighted, super-rich people gain the upper hand, attack "big government" with misleading rhetoric, and claim to promote the "free market" while using the government to serve their own interests. When these selfish interests become dominant, the result has been an increased concentration of wealth and power, widespread political corruption, and economic hardship for most Americans. The economy suffers from diminished purchasing power on the part of most people and society spirals downward as the power elite becomes increasingly bold. This pattern reached peaks in the 1890s, the 1920s, the 1950s, the 1980s, and now in the first decade of the 21st century.

As conditions worsen, the deterioration provokes a reaction. Grassroots democratic forces insist that government expand economic opportunity for all, control the excesses of capitalism, and increase the ability of all citizens to have a real voice in governmental affairs. This pattern reached peaks in the early 1900s, the late 1930s, and in the 1960s. According to this historical pattern, the pendulum should have swung more strongly in a progressive direction in the 1990s, but Bill Clinton suppressed this tendency. Now, finally, it may be ready to swing once again.

As soon as the Bush team took office, it immediately began to promote an extremist, radical agenda that has alienated many traditional conservatives, infuriated progressives, and provoked massive anti-Americanism throughout the world. President Bush maintains strong support with Christian fundamentalists, militaristic authoritarians, and super-rich allies who appreciate the favors that his Administration has thrown their way. But Bush has also prompted major concern among many members of the elite who know that widespread anti-Americanism and massive inequality are not good for business.

As predicted, imposing “democracy” and privatization on Iraq is proving far more difficult than the Administration claimed that it would be. And the "trickle down" economics of the Bush Administration is no more effective this time than it has been in the past. Bush is the first President since the Great Depression who has suffered a net loss of jobs, though record low interest rates, high deficits, and massive debt have kept the economy on life-support.

Though Americans are inclined to support their President in times of war, a growing backlash to the Bush extremism is emerging. In recent years, massive, bi-partisan, grassroots movements have embarrassed Bush with significant victories on a number of issues and the mainstream media is placing heat on the Bush Administration for selling the Iraq invasion to the American people on false pretenses.

The further collapse of the Bush Coalition could push the pendulum of American politics even more strongly in a progressive direction. If so, whole new possibilities could open up, especially if progressive grassroots forces pressure the new President more forcefully than they did President Clinton.

Regardless of what happens in the 2008 Presidential election, grassroots pressure for major, progressive change is building, partly because 9-11 led Americans to hold more favorable opinions about their government, which undermined the anti-government rhetoric of the radical right. Most likely, pressure for effective governmental action to promote the general welfare will continue to build.

The Collapse of the Radical Right

Following World War Two, the Republican Party – led by moderates like Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford – included both traditional conservatives such as Barry Goldwater as well as liberals such as Nelson Rockefeller. In the early 1960s, however, the conservative wing of the Republican Party began fighting heated battles with moderate and progressive Republicans. With the election of Ronald Reagan as President in 1980, radical conservatives became the strongest force in the Republican Party. “Government is not the solution. It is the problem,” declared Reagan.

With their newfound power, the conservatives became increasingly radical. They ran their own candidates against moderate and liberal Republican officeholders in primary elections and won enough of these campaigns to persuade others to shift toward a more radical position. And they inflamed the nation's "culture wars" over issues such as abortion and homosexuality.

These radicals then began forming close alliances with fundamentalist Christians who wanted to overcome the traditional separation between church and state by using the government to support their particular interpretation of the Bible. This union of political and religious extremists produced the radical right, which contrasts sharply with traditional conservatism.

The radical-right movement has demonstrated remarkable discipline. They slowly built a grassroots network of dedicated individuals who provided major financial support. They used conservative churches as the foundation for mobilizing supporters to vote and lobby. They got right-wing foundations and philanthropists to fund activist think tanks that have helped them formulate their message and get their spokespeople on television. They learned how to tap Americans' deep-seated concerns about the need to promote traditional values.

By 2001, with President George W. Bush as their principal spokesperson, the radical right controlled the Republican Party and both houses of Congress. Not surprisingly, President Bush's first executive order established governmental funding for faith-based programs. And one of their leading strategists, Grover Norquist, openly said that he wanted to shrink the government down to the size that could be drowned in a bathtub. In commenting on the 2003 fiscal crisis in the states, Norquist said, "I hope one of them goes bankrupt."

The radical right includes various factions. Neoconservatives speak of “compassionate conservatism” and adopt a less hostile attitude toward government than do those who attack government. Isolationists oppose cooperating with the United Nations and tend to avoid military entanglements abroad, but most members of the radical right favor funding a large military and using it aggressively. And by supporting wider government intrusion on traditional civil liberties, the radical right parts company with traditional conservatives, including right-wing libertarians. Authorizing spying on what books people read, for example, fundamentally contradicts traditional conservative, anti-government principles. These deviations have prompted many conservatives, especially isolationists and libertarians, to break ranks with the radical right and openly criticize the Bush Administration.

In addition, the radical right has mounted major campaigns against governmental regulations, including laws designed to protect the environment. And they have won major efforts to “privatize” or “deregulate” entire industries, including trucking, airlines, telephones, and electricity. These campaigns have been based on the argument that the “free market” is more productive and more efficient without governmental interference.

The radical right argues that their policies will enable more Americans to become rich and many Americans support radical-right policies because they hope to strike it rich some day. But the main radical-right argument is that if the government helps the super-rich become even wealthier, the benefits will eventually “trickle down” to most Americans by stimulating economic growth (though it never happens).

Despite their anti-government rhetoric, the radical right is more than willing to see the government bail out bankrupt businesses that are supposedly “too big to fail,” such as the savings-and-loan industry, Lockheed, and Chrysler. Moreover, they welcome government assistance in facilitating the increased ownership of media by large corporations. And the radical right supports enormous, no-bid military contracts with guaranteed profits for defense contractors. These examples illustrate that the radical right is not really anti-government. Rather, they want to use the government to benefit the wealthy, especially their close-knit cronies.

All indications are, however, that the Bush Coalition is crumbling. The primary weakness of the radical right is that they have lost a sense of moderation. Being doctrinaire, they are unwilling to acknowledge the validity of other points of view and are arrogant, authoritarian, anti-democratic, and disrespectful toward the will of the people. Their arrogance leads them to act as if they believe that they are always correct and never make a mistake. Many of their leaders are exceptionally greedy and power-hungry and don’t care about the suffering of ordinary people. They adopt public policies that primarily benefit the super-rich. They exercise favoritism toward close friends in the business world. Since their opinions are out of the mainstream, they don’t speak honestly about their real aims but rather try to manipulate people with misleading, simplistic slogans. They appeal to fear and foster divisions with negative campaigns.

These tactics often work in the short run, but the more their slogans are exposed to the light of day, they lose their effectiveness.

The radical right is even losing its advantage on foreign policy issues. As the realities of the Iraq disaster become increasingly clear, Bush’s militaristic foreign policy is in shambles. The Bush Doctrine of unilateral, preemptive wars to eliminate potential threats is on hold, if not dead in the water. As Americans pay more attention to world affairs, they increasingly reject notions of Empire and embrace the need for respectful, cooperative relations with other nations. Even another major terrorist attack on American soil might not strengthen the radical right, for Americans might blame the Bush Administration for not investing more in homeland security and for creating terrorists with its invasion of Iraq and its one-sided support for Israel.

Once again, trickle-down economics has failed to work. Public opinion is steadily moving away from positions concerning the economy favored by the radical right. Most people realize that federal, state, and local governments play a major, constructive role in society. Governments own and protect much of our nation's natural beauty. The federal government actively manages the economy (and voters hold the President accountable if they aren't satisfied with stewardship of the economy). Federal restrictions on foreign imports have helped protect industries and jobs. Federal farm programs have enabled farmers to survive instability.

A large percentage of our economy consists of governmental expenditures. Without government services such as public transportation, water delivery, and maintenance of roads and highways, private businesses could not prosper. And governmental regulation has proven necessary in the case of large, vital industries that tend to become highly centralized, such as electricity, airlines, and banking.

In addition, our governments provide valuable human and social services, including Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, police and fire services, emergency health care, schools, libraries, parks, and recreation programs. These services meet needs that the private sector is unable to address because they can’t earn profits in those areas. Essential governmental services are now strongly supported by the general public, who now clearly reject rhetoric about government being the problem.

The radical right has already lost its domination of Congress and will probably lose the Presidency in 2008. Their policies are steadily being exposed as foolish, fraudulent, and hypocritical. If the radical right has blown its chance to govern, progressives have a real opportunity to redefine the role of morality in politics and build on the foundation of support for progressive positions that already exists.

Progressive Public Opinion

If public policy in this country reflected public opinion, this country would be much different and greatly improved. For example, reliable public opinion polls have found that strong majorities believe that the federal government should:

• Guarantee health insurance coverage for every American.
• Support affirmative action programs for women and minorities.
• Have laws to protect racial minorities from discrimination in hiring and promotion.
• Ensure that all Americans have the same rights.
• Increase spending on education to give students from low-income families equal access to the opportunities education provides.
• Allocate $27 million to increase enforcement of equal pay laws relating to women in the workplace.
• Do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all Americans.
• Try to do away with poverty in this country.
• Do more to help working families.
• Help people get back to work.
• Increase the minimum wage from $5.15 per hour to $8.00 per hour.
• Regularly increase the minimum wage to keep up with inflation.
• Create temporary government work programs for the unemployed.
• Increase tax credits for low-income workers.
• Restrict foreign imports into this country in order to protect American industry and American jobs.
• Adopt trade policies that protect workers, the environment, and human rights - even if this may mean slowing the growth of trade and the economy.
• Enact stricter laws and regulations to protect the environment.
• Make continuing environmental improvements regardless of cost.
• Take steps now to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, regardless of what other countries do.
• Regulate publicly traded corporations more closely.
• Stop military aid abroad because it allows dictatorships to maintain control over their population.
• Pressure Israel to withdraw from the territories it occupied in the 1967 Arab-Israel War.
• Take neither Israel's nor the Palestinian's side.

In addition more people agree than disagree that “the federal government is spending too much on the military.” Most Americans support deep cuts in the defense budget that would transfer funds into domestic programs like health care.

Despite pervasive cultural conditioning, the American people believe that the wealthy governing elites use legalized bribery to insure that our elected officials do their bidding. When asked, “"Would you say the government is pretty much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all the people?", only 20% say it is run for the benefit of all the people, while 75% say it is run for the benefit of a few big interests. As the Center for Policy Attitudes concluded after conducting extensive polling and focus groups,

This underpinning of strong humanitarian beliefs and values could be the basis for major progressive reforms in the future.

The Decline of the Empire

As has been the case with all other empires, whether formal or informal, American attempts to dominate the world by playing global puppet master are doomed to failure. In fact, the machinations have already unraveled.

In a February 2007 op-ed piece in the International Herald Tribune, Immanuel Wallerstein, author of The Decline of American Power, wrote:

Jonathan Schell has correctly described the United States as more of a “pitiful, helpless giant” than a great Empire. In the 20th century, Schell argues,

American efforts to exploit other countries, often rationalized with appeals to racism, have provoked enormous anti-American sentiment in many regions, weakened our key alliances, and provoked strong resistance. A key turning point in the rebellion against the IMF and the World Bank was Malaysia’s refusal to follow IMF dictates during the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis. Not only did Malaysia fail to suffer as a result, they ended up doing better economically than any of the other countries that were hit by the crisis, thereby setting a powerful example.

Then the debacle in Iraq further weakened the United States. It is probably no coincidence that it was shortly after the Iraq invasion that Argentina refused to pay back an International Monetary Fund (IMF) loan in September 2003 and populist candidates challenging U.S. policies have won elections throughout Latin America. The occupation of Iraq in March 2003 was likely a desperate last straw grabbed at by a power-addicted cabal that couldn’t tolerate its power slipping through their fingers.

In the face of these developments, more Americans are asking, “Why do they hate us?” and getting answers that challenge the assumption that imperialism works. Our government’s actions have repeatedly violated fundamental American ideals, without making us safer or more prosperous. In addition, more Americans are realizing that if other countries tried doing to us what we have done to them, the American people would be outraged. This expanded awareness offers a great opportunity.

Increased Understanding of Violence and Terrorism

The shock of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the failures of the militaristic Bush Doctrine may lead more Americans to become more informed about terrorism and how to deal with it. Americans may more and more come to understand that we cannot eliminate terrorism by killing terrorists. Trying to do so produces more terrorists than it eliminates. If massive military actions against unclear threats involve killing and injuring many innocent civilians, these casualties cause resentment toward the United States, which breeds terrorists. If these actions are undertaken without support from the United Nations or most of our allies, the anti-American anger is even greater.

The current strategy of relying primarily on military force to deal with violent threats results in less, not more, security. Consequently, the American people may insist on alternative, more effective methods for dealing with the threat of terrorism. As more Americans understand these realities, the excessive and counterproductive use of unilateral military force may be discredited.

Extensive police actions are certainly needed. Terrorists need to be arrested, tried, convicted, and incarcerated. Intelligence agencies need to gather timely information and share it with appropriate police forces. But to be effective, these efforts must involve close cooperation with other governments. Undertaking military action alone, against the will of our allies, makes such cooperation more difficult.

The same situation applies to violent crime in the United States. For more than 100 years, every significant increase in unemployment has resulted in a significant increase in the murder rate. And every significant decrease in unemployment has resulted in a significant decrease in the murder rate. This pattern clearly indicates that boosting employment and other actions to improve the quality of life are effective ways to address the root causes of violence.

Declining support for both the death penalty and the incarceration of people who merely use certain drugs suggests that Americans are becoming more sensitive to these complexities. Over time, even more people could come to realize that relying primarily on brute force is no solution, whether it is domestic crime or terrorism.

Enhanced Economic Prosperity

Since the end of World War Two, the United States has overcome occasional recessions fairly quickly, achieved remarkable economic growth overall, and fueled the global economy. A delicate balance of power between government and business has provided the foundation and framework for this abundance. Our economy has never been totally "free enterprise," nor has it been "socialist.” Rather, it has wisely always been a "mixed economy."

Labels, however, aren’t the main point. Many progressives in other countries with different histories call themselves “socialist,” while continuing to support a mixed economy. The real debate is about what kind of mix works best at any particular time in any particular country. We should recognize that each country must resolve that debate in its own way. If others call their answer “socialism,” we should not let that stand in the way of our cooperating with them on shared concerns.

Most businesses in most countries are privately owned. Anyone who is able to raise the necessary capital can start his or her own business. Individual owners make their own investment decisions and set prices for their goods and services. This freedom, the essence of capitalism, has proven more effective than alternatives based on state ownership, centralized investment decisions, and governmental price setting. With competition spurring businesses to provide better, more affordable goods and services, the American economy has fostered creative new inventions and provided most Americans with the opportunity to live comfortably.

For more than 70 years now, the United States has avoided a major economic depression. Learning how to avoid boom-and-bust cycles by wisely regulating the economy provides us with the knowledge that is needed to assure that in the future all people share fully in the benefits.

With a renewed commitment to the common good, we could improve living conditions for those who are struggling now and restore widespread confidence in the future of our economy. This greater sense of economic security, in turn, could lessen the anxieties that aggravate social divisions, which could lead to a stronger sense of communal solidarity.

A Stronger Democracy

The United States has been a pioneer in establishing the rights of the individual over against the power of society. Most of the rest of the world has joined that struggle for liberty. Freedom of speech and the right to engage in political protest have been strongly affirmed. Compared to most other societies, the media in this country is free from government control. Adults are free to practice religion as they choose. The right to privacy severely limits governmental intrusion into personal matters, including whether a woman chooses to have an abortion and how homosexuals conduct themselves. The rights of racial and ethnic minorities have been steadily strengthened.

Our culture has roundly celebrated resistance to the pressure to conform. The need to rebel is widely accepted. Husbands are less inclined and less able to disrespect their wives and children. The right of self-determination is at the heart of this nation's soul. The "free spirit" is an American icon. This commitment could spread, helping to produce a stronger affirmation of individual liberty and a deeper democratization of our entire society.

This nation has survived a Civil War, presidential assassinations, and major domestic turmoil. The separation of powers between the national legislature, the executive branch, and the judiciary has provided a valuable balance of power. And our nation has crafted a sharing of powers between federal, state, and local governments, called "federalism," that has worked well. The vitality of American democracy is perhaps best demonstrated at local city halls, where citizens can more easily impact public policy than in their dealings with the federal government.

Over the years, U.S. democracy, originally limited to white male landowners, has steadily expanded, to the point that all adult citizens now have the right to vote. Americans are not satisfied, however, with the opportunity to vote occasionally. Ordinary people regularly seek a voice in the shaping of public policy on all levels of government. And concerned citizens continue to push for further reforms to expand and strengthen our democracy.

This history provides a foundation for becoming even more democratic in the future.

Cultural Evolution

American culture has captured much of the world with its freshness, passion, and cutting-edge innovations. In music, African-American forms have led the way with blues, jazz, rock-and-roll, rhythm-and-blues, soul, rap, and hip-hop. Hollywood has seized the imagination of cinema lovers with state-of-the-art techniques that have added intensity and excitement to the film-going experience. New York has maintained itself as a premier location for top talent in the world of theater, especially Broadway musicals. New styles developed by U.S. television are often copied in other countries. American universities, especially graduate research programs, are prized destinations for serious students worldwide. And our literature – fiction, non-fiction, and poetry – has held its own.

Cultural revolutions born in the U. S. have often spread elsewhere with political ramifications. Prior to the War of Independence, the colonies were a hotbed for free thinkers and cultural experimentation. Following independence, the 1830s and 1840s experienced a ferment of cultural rebellions, including movements for women's rights and the abolition of slavery, as this country struggled to define its own identity. After the Civil War, the late 19th century saw the maturation of a distinctly American voice. During this period, seeds were planted that flowered in the 20th century, especially in the world of music, film, and theatre and with the struggles for civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, workers' rights, and the rights of gays and lesbians. Americans are proud of this history.

At the same time, we are becoming more open to other cultures. The growth of “world music” is a promising example of how all people can learn from one another, for we share in common the same human nature.

If we’re lucky, popular culture will follow assumptions to their logical conclusion. Oprah Winfrey and other self-help gurus will discover that personal growth requires communal solidarity. Theologians who preach personal salvation will discover that God seeks heaven on earth now. Hedonists will discover the profound gratification that flows from community service. Liberals will discover that achieving their goals requires structural change. Radicals will discover that liberals are not enemies. Capitalists will discover that self-interest requires a commitment to the common good. Those who seek revenge will discover that justice must be rooted in love. Nationalists will discover that love of nation implies a love of all humanity. Social workers will discover that helping individuals requires political action. Political activists will discover that confrontation should be a last resort and our top priority should be to implement progressive policies that already receive majority support. Corporations will discover that making a profit and serving the public interest are not incompatible. Those who question authority relentlessly will discover that legitimate authority is essential. All people will discover more fully how to avoid both selfishness and self-sacrifice by loving others as they love themselves. A commitment to improving the quality of life for all will replace the relentless, egocentric, excessive pursuit of money and power that prevails today.

These and other progressive trends in the larger culture are already evident. The seeds have been planted. All that is required is for people to break out of their specialized boxes and connect the dots. If these tendencies are amplified to the point of major cultural change, progressives will find themselves in an environment that is much more conducive to comprehensive transformation. The maturation of these cultural leanings would offer a real opportunity for the progressive movement.

A Moral Global Community

One of the United States greatest strengths is the goodness and wisdom of her people. As is the case with all people, we, on the whole, are kind, caring, and decent people who treat others fairly and with respect. We volunteer with charities and get involved with the religious institution of their choice. We love their children dearly and work hard to provide them a good, comfortable life with ample opportunities for success.

We are also concerned about current affairs and want their government to do what is right. We generally endorse positions that are reasonable and humane. Whether it is racism, the environment, the rights of working people, the economy, equality for women, discrimination against gays and lesbians, political corruption, foreign policy, or any other issue, we usually support compassionate viewpoints.

We also believe in self-improvement and mutual support. We try steadily to become better human beings and help each other in these efforts. When I’ve asked my taxi passengers, “In what way would you like to be a better person?”, they’ve always answered quickly, which indicates that this question was not foreign to them. The popularity of self-help books, Oprah Winfrey, and New Year’s resolutions are further indications that we’re concerned about self-development. These qualities provide us with the opportunity to become even better people in the future by openly, clearly affirming a commitment to moral growth and moral fitness.

In particular, we realize that, as part of a global community, we need to treat the people of other nations fairly and with respect. We know that if the United States acts like a bully, we’ll be less secure.

The shrinking of the world could foster increased awareness that all humanity is one global community consisting of people who simply want to enjoy life and do good. A deeper, more inclusive sense of community could spread.

More people could learn to be less judgmental and more accepting of those who are different. We could better learn to see beyond our superficial differences and recognize our common humanity. We could more strongly affirm the basic, universal beliefs shared by all religions, without insisting that our own faith is the only true faith. We could become more loving and gentle with one another. We could more effectively support each other in our efforts to become more fully human, creative, productive, and in touch with the spiritual energy that sustains the universe. We could become less competitive, less domineering, and more cooperative. We could come to better understand that violent vengeance perpetuates violence and counter-violence.

A deeper sense of community could promote awareness of the fact that there is no irreconcilable conflict between self-determination and community. When people come together freely, lasting bonds form. The more people get in touch with their deeper self, the more they get in touch with the Ground of Being that connects them to all life and all people. We all share in common the same source of life. True self-reliance, therefore, does not separate people but rather unites them. Social pressure, manipulation, and coercion, on the other hand, undermine self-determination, weaken personal strength, and undercut community.

A vibrant movement for positive political change could nurture personal and social change by making living conditions more conducive to strong, supportive communities. At the same time, personal and social change could strengthen the political movement, building a new, positive, self-reinforcing, upward spiral of transformation.

The end result could be a broad-based movement that would transcend current labels and dogma by bringing together a broad spectrum of people in a global campaign for human values. The American people could stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the people of other nations behind a progressive vision for the future.

The process of better understanding the needs and opinions of people in other countries is already underway. The more we do so, the more we understand that relatively few people in other countries hate Americans, the American lifestyle, or American principles of liberty and democracy. Rather, the primary problem is the foreign policy of the U.S. government, including its economic policies.

Though their tactics are reprehensible, terrorist campaigns grow out of rational complaints. Resolving the underlying grievances that lead to terrorism, therefore, is necessary to deal with the root causes of terrorism. Increased attention to these issues could lead more Americans to understand these realities.

In particular, in the Middle East, the main problem is that the United States has sided with Israel against the Palestinians. While only giving lip service to the Palestinian quest for their own independent government, the United States has given Israel enormous, almost unconditional, military, financial, and diplomatic support. Both sides have made serious mistakes and immoral terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians have aggravated the situation. But the ongoing injustice that Israel and the United States have inflicted on Palestinians produces widespread anger in the Arab world and creates terrorists. Both compassion and self-interest dictate that the United States should move strongly to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by supporting the legitimate needs of both sides and reinforcing the willingness of most Israelis to trade land for peace.

The framework for a settlement of this issue has been defined and accepted by most Israelis and most Palestinians. The futility of trying to resolve this conflict with violence is becoming clearer to everyone, for the violence only deepens. The solution is clear. Israel needs to withdraw from all or almost all of the land that it occupied in the 1967 war so that Palestinians can establish their own country on that land.

If and when Israel firmly commits itself to these steps and begins to move convincingly in that direction, terrorist attacks against Israelis will diminish, as they did after the Oslo accords that offered Palestinians hope. As progress proceeds, Palestinians themselves will discourage terrorism, especially through social pressure but also with police action. International monitors could help protect the security of Israel. The United States can assist this process by making it clear to Israel that it will steadily decrease its one-sided financial support for Israel if it does not commit itself to this solution.

Unless it is achieved merely to buttress support from Sunni governments for a war against Shiites, establishing peace in Palestine could be a watershed event and a powerful example of a new way for the United States to operate in the world. The people of the United States do not want the United States to be an empire trying to control, occupy, threaten, bribe, and/or intimidate other nations. They realize that attempts to promote American interests by relying primarily on force don't work and contradict basic American values.

People in the United States respect independence, self-determination, justice, democracy, cooperation, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts through mediation, negotiation, and compromise. Support for nonviolent, multilateral, cooperative solutions, which is already strong, could become even stronger with moral leadership from our elected officials.

With strong support from the U. S., the United Nations could become a powerful mediator, resolving conflicts with little or no use of military force and with the timely granting of financial assistance. A new trend of conflict resolution could take hold. The U. S. could become a humanitarian superpower by devoting fewer resources to military “solutions” that don’t work and instead re-directing those resources to help other nations stand on their own feet.

We could learn to avoid being controlled by our fears. We could recognize and accept that occasional terrorist attacks will be successful without allowing the terrorists to scare us into destroying our way of life with our own hands. We could let go of abstract dogmas and face reality. We could learn to put the threat of terrorism in its proper place, while proceeding to live with compassion, determined to leave the world a better place. The more we develop these capacities, the more they will grow on their own.

Martin Luther King, Jr. said:

By getting on the right path, we could steadily improve our selves, our culture, and our entire society by generating changes that reinforce one another. We could reverse our current downward spiral that is headed toward even greater disasters. We could cultivate a moral, global community committed to the welfare of all life.

***

If these opportunities materialize, whether we seize them will be an open question.