On my Contrary Brin and Tomorrow Happens blogs, I rant, probe, question and discuss the political issues of our time. Some of these entries evolve into articles. Others -- opinions, miscellaneous writings, a controversial and provocative 'questionnaire' -- prompt some unconventional suggestions! Hey, I may be wrong, but I do try to be interesting.
Nothing demonstrates the silliness of left-right "culture war" more than the illogical fight over human-caused climate change (HCC). People who stale fierce positions, over a scientific matter, based on their pre-existing politics, should be ashamed of themselves. In fact, there are legitimate questions that a genuine HCC-sceptic can ask! So how to tell a true "skeptic" from a kneejerk "denialist"? SKEPTIC Magazine commissioned an article from me -- now posted online! -- dissecting this serious matter, which may affect humanity's destiny.
Among the many battlefronts in culture war, few have raised a specter of worry among scientists more than the great big imbroglio over Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Especially in America, positions are staked and fiercely held, by parties who claim they are evidence-based while their opponents are portrayed as either conspiratorial deniers or the gullible "koolaid-drinking" tools of a propaganda machine. An especially vexing aspect of this polarization is the near perfect correlation of the sides with an ancient and largely unrelated left-right political axis.
One benefit of "change" - let's hope politics will be less important in coming years, letting folks like us stimulate the world with great projects and keen ideas! So let's finish the political season with two articles. First a passel of "unusual suggestions" that you aren't likely to have seen before - important ways that both the new president and the people might make things better. The other concerns a strange event that happened sixty years ago -- the Miracle of 1947 -- when liberals and Democrats went through a wrenching, painful self-transformation that decent, patriotic conservatives might think about in 2009. And now -- back to the future!
Still, consider: Right now the world’s governments are under pressure to create a new structure of regulations and regulators -- a “new Bretton Woods” -- to supervise international finance. Perhaps even a nascent World SEC or World Fed. This is only the latest step in a trend -- a creeping ratchet toward backdoor Planetary Government -- that may be necessary for a tightly interlocked 21st century world... but the process certainly merits a lot more open and skeptical discussion than it is getting. Left unexamined, it may lead to the worst possible combination -- deteriorated national sovereignty and competence, plus a bureaucratic “world government” that is both overweening and unaccountable.
Above all, those who object to such planetwide regulation must offer an alternative. And there is only one that would empower markets to “police themselves.” Especially now that the "trust us" CEO clade has proved utterly untrustworthy.
We need far greater levels of transparency.
Do you know an ostrich -- a principled conservative who refuses to see that the current cabal running their party is the antithesis of principled conservatism? We need to begin a dialogue with such people: help them pull their heads out of the sand and look fearlessly at what they can do to restore dignity and honor to their party.
"With the very survival of Constitutional government and the American Experiment at stake, we cannot afford to leave this to simpleminded partisanship. Our opportunity -- and obligation -- is to rip open Karl Rove's 'big tent conservative coalition.' To pry it apart -- one person at a time -- by approaching millions of decent fellow citizens who were duped into supporting a criminal gang."
Should I keep to topics I'm paid to talk about, like the future? Given the times, can I be forgiven the occasional opinionated rant? Take the problem of gerrymandering, which I examine from a dozen fresh perspectives. Another in-depth essay reappraises Newt Gingrich's 1994 Contract With America, considering how this masterful piece of 20th Century political polemic might be used by the other side, in the 21st. Also, is it prudent to overstretch our military reserves in a war that is, at-best, a case of international elective surgery? These viewpoints are not classically partisan, but seek a broader view. Whether you agree or not, I promise to be interesting!
"Liberals who feel only contempt for the Neoconservative Revolution and no grudging respect are deluding themselves and hurting their own cause by not studying how that revolution was achieved. Ask yourself the fundamental question: whose tactics have achieved power, and whose tactics have not? The neocons' relentless march from post-Watergate nadir to unprecedented dominion should be studied carefully, even by those who want to turn America away from amoral ruthlessness."
As a companion piece to "The Republican Party's Neocon Re-Invention" (and written in response to the SEIU's online contest at sinceslicedbread.com), "How Progressives Can Win Back America" proposes concrete plans for how the Democrats can regain majority status -- and win the respect of the electorate!
"The ideas I plan to propose are all aimed at one end: creating win-win situations for the Democratic Party or its candidates. In other words, situations within which even failure will have positive effects. In several cases, I can offer more extended articles about the subject in question. I can especially offer a careful analysis of Republican innovations, and how the Democrats have fallen for them."
Most libertarians know -- far better than others -- that the hoary old left-right political spectrum is worse than useless. Alas, some of the "better alternatives" only serve to muddy the waters. In this article I suggest a few new models that may be helpful... if taken with a grain of salt.
"It has been proposed that human beings are unique in being pattern-recognizing animals. I would rephrase this. Humans are creatures who crave patterns. The same drive that lets us see animal shapes in clouds, and discern underlying laws amid the chaos of physics, also enables us to stereotype each other, painting over intricate issues in stark shades of perceived good and evil."
What makes the Republicans so successful at building coalitions? How are they able to bring together groups that -- on the surface -- have nothing in common? And can the Democratic Party emulate their methods without adopting their abhorrent politics?
"Republicans began their own long journey of re-appraisal in the wake of Barry Goldwater's crushing defeat in 1964, then intensified their efforts after the debacle of Watergate. William F. Buckley, during the 1964 campaign, recognized the dominance of liberalism at that time. He urged that conservatives see themselves as 'well-planted seeds of hope, which will flower on a great November day in the future, if there is a future.' Soon, concentrated efforts began, at places like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, to forge networks of expertise in theory, policy and political operations, filling in every component for a vigorous new age of conservatism."
I also wrote this article after the Hurricane Katrina debacle, asking that the Guard and Reserves be returned to the United States -- to do the jobs they are trained to do!
"Can anyone honestly claim that we're better prepared, today, to deal with a surprise attack, or an urgent call for help from some ally, than we were before 9/11? Or, in fact, any other kind of emergency? Would our allies now be more ready to leap to our aid than before 2001? Or much less so?"
I recently posted a few thoughts about how the incoming U.S. Congress might change the nation's way of doing business. (Many of these unconventional proposals may sound good to both conservatives and liberals.)
"This important little victory will be meaningless if it's botched, or implemented without imagination, or else with a mean-spirited zealotry that plays into the hands of those who want perpetual "culture war." It is the tradition of pragmatic problem-solving that is at stake here, not any one left-or-right game plan."
Now it's time for something much darker, more cynical, and maybe even a little paranoid! Come take a look at a chillingly plausible way that powerful forces may try to affect our politics by using the age-old trick of blackmail.
"All of you enthusiastic neophytes to national power, this may be the very moment for a little protective paranoia. Always remember that some powerful people will see you as a threat to their interests. Some of the more unscrupulous may seek to neutralize that threat, using some classic methods known across history."
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I've posted this essay about how disasters are worsened when professionals and citizens interfere with each other. Another essay discusses Proxy Activism, a convenient way modern folks can hire others to save the world for them. Finally, there's a notion (cribbed from my novel Earth) about how it might be time to let the Mississippi take its natural path to the sea. (Note: all of these have been discussed on my Contrary Brin blog.)"
"I have called New Orleans the "anti-9/11" because these two tragedies illustrate diametrically opposite sides of the same lesson. When resilient citizens feel empowered, they can be prodigious assets in a crisis. When resilient, self-organized citizen action is actively quashed, any crisis will deepen."
Here's an idea for the 21st Century: Why don't all reasonable people break free of the left-right stranglehold imposed on us by less-reputable politicians and form an Alliance for the Modern World?
"One approach may be to form coalitions that agree to promote -- boldly and openly -- a dozen consensus agenda items, and refuse to be drawn into other fights. Is it possible to negotiate a list of desiderata that all modernist defenders of the Enlightenment might stand behind? Something that John McCain, William F. Buckley and George Will might sign, alongside Gary Wills, Jared Diamond and Al Gore?"
I posted a final essay about the recent, traumatic 2004 political season -- another layered appraisal of "The Real Culture War," showing how obsolete and irrelevant the hoary old "left-right axis" has become. What appears to be dividing America, instead, is the issue of modernity. Whether progress is either possible or desirable. "Moderates" who stand, tormented, between fanatical poles of left and right are not different because their views are more tepid. They are different because many are capable of believing in science, in human improvability, and in tomorrow. My suggestions cater to neither liberal dogmans nor conservative ideologies. They are pragmatic. They serve the Enlightenment. Comments and criticism are welcome at my Contrary Brin blog.
"None of the observations that I just offered can be made to fit the most pervasive, misleading and mind-numbing political metaphor of all time -- the left-right political axis.... That purported "political map" has always trivialized complex issues, masking a myriad inconsistencies, contradictions and details. It also defied decades of scientific evidence for how complex human brains, personalities and societies really are. Yet, we cling to an obsolete oversimplification that has proved effective at just one thing -- enforcing alliance between people who disagree deeply over things that really matter."
See a few unabashedly political essays that I posted just before the 2004 election. One of them, "War in the 21st Century," is specifically about the election and whether "Pax Americana" is a viable concept for the next few decades. (I think it is, but only if led by grownups.) The other is a more abstract dissection of a weird alliance that makes up the neoconservative movement, and how is actually works tacitly with radical Muslims and other romantic forces in "Neoconservatism, Islam & Ideology."
"I plan to show that the problem of Saddam Hussein -- which was largely created by members of this administration over the course of decades -- did indeed need to be solved. But the Administration had its own reasons for stoking "emergency" passions rather than calmly pursuing planned consensus toward elective surgery under circumstance of our convenience. They did this with lies, deliberately stoked panic, divisiveness, immaturity and utter devotion to their own benefit."
Other essays in my ongoing "2004 political season" series span a range of ideas: in the first, I proposed we reform the Electoral College without tinkering with the Constitution.
"It turns out that the Electoral College, per se, is not what distorts the system so badly. It is the winner-takes-all method of allocating each state's electors."
In my second essay in my ongoing "politics" series, I proposed that the candidates from both major parties should stipulate, or "agree to agree" about a set of issues.
"What's wrong with the idea of two leaders finding a patch of consensus amid a sea of discord? We cheer when this occurs among heads of state, overcoming differences between nations in order to sign a treaty that finds common ground. Then why not between candidates?"
In my third essay, I proposed we acknowledge that the winning candidate of modern-day Presidential elections typically does not earn more than 50% of the vote, and should honor the losing majority by meeting with -- and listening to -- a delegation from the opposing majority.
"Such a pledge would cost a candidate and president little to make or to fulfill. There is no obligation to act on what the delegations say, only to be accessible, listening occasionally to more than one ideology. More than one brain trust of cloned advisors."
A number of organizations, spanning the spectrum of interest and politics, have been interested in my specialty -- the questioning of deep-seated assumptions. (Hey, a good SF author is paid to poke at clichés!) After dozens of 'unconventional' consultations, this keynote speech, given before the Libertarian Party National Convention (7/02), was finally transcribed. Beyond specifics aimed at that group, you may find the perspectives unusual and thought provoking, whatever your specific political beliefs!
"I do not believe that any 'Golden Age" lies in our past. The story of the last six thousand years was almost unrelenting misery, bullying and woe. I wake up encouraged every day that barbarians have not burned my house and that some king has not taken my daughter. So encouraged that I have to admit that my fellow citizens simply cannot be as stupid as they look! So encouraged that I peer forward to a day when coercion has become a faint memory. To a time when all children are equipped with the skills and tools to be formidable beings, fully capable of making all decisions for themselves, aided by a mere wisp of residual government that continues to wither gradually as sovereign adults wean themselves of its services, not through rancor or ingratitude, but by the simple, revolutionary step of learning to treat each other like grownups."
Read my year 2000 essay nominating my own choice for "Person of the Twentieth Century," along with follow-up discussion that took place on Slashdot.
"Only a handful of the top twenty made a decisively positive difference to world history, instigating profound and universally recognized changes for the better. People like Dr. King, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and Henry Ford certainly deserve mention. But in my opinion, none of the flamboyant top candidates altered the course of human civilization as much as one quiet man who was never an entertainer, religious figure, or chief of state."
See my article titled "Names That Live In Infamy" in Salon, proposing a solution to hate crimes -- take away the motivation!
"Two millennia ago, in the Hellenistic era, a young man torched one of the seven wonders of the ancient world -- the Temple of Diana at Ephesus. When caught and asked why, he replied first with grievances against individuals and his city state, then admitted that he really wanted to make a mark, to be remembered. Since he wasn't a great warrior, or creative person, his best chance was to gain infamy by destroying something."
As a "noted futurist," I'm often invited to speak about the 21st Century (and beyond) before groups as diverse as libertarians, feminists, democrats, venture capitalists, scientists and environmentalists. Lately, many thoughtful people find the new millennium daunting and sobering. Will bitter ideological rifts dominate the new century, as they did in the 20th? Or might we shrug off some of the obsolete intellectual baggage we've inherited from past thinkers who (in fact) knew much less than we do now?
In a spirit of re-evaluation, how about taking a fresh look at some fundamentals? Might there be some basic questions that haven't been asked adequately, especially by those who fervently cry out that their answer is the only answer to vexing human problems? Do we really want to find startling areas of common ground between folks who now see each other as implacable foes?
I have appended a questionnaire meant to illuminate why you feel as you do about modern issues... and why it seems so hard to comprehend those who disagree. The questions are provocative... any two or more people should find a lot to discuss, just by asking them of each other. Moreover your answers may have implications that go deeper than you think! Some of the ticklers approach familiar dilemmas from unusual angles, ripping across familiar boundaries, such as the hoary old left-right political axis.
Many of you will already have read my nonfiction book, The Transparent Society, and my novel Earth. If so, you know I discuss several of these points therein. I also plan on writing an essay soon, following up on this questionnaire. Meanwhile, any of you are welcome to run it past your own groups/friends/co-conspirators, in order to see for yourself how people sort themselves in surprising ways.
The implications are especially crucial to some of the groups I mentioned above. Groups who have my sympathy... but who also provoke endless frustration as they keep relentlessly chewing over the same old fixations, even when the evidence around us shows that it's time to move on!
In any event, I hope you'll find the questions entertaining... and provocative.
public speaking
future/tech consulting
predicting the future
giving back to the future
my Contrary Brin blog
my Tomorrow Happens blog
Uplift novels
other SF novels
graphic novels
young adult novels
free short stories
the transparent society
the political lamp is lit!
about fiction
pop culture
about science
my Questionnaire on Ideology
downloads & podcasts
games & music
film options
my recommendations
freebies & offers
fan sites
photos & artwork
my biography
email me
return home
[All items sold thru Amazon.com (a secure online store) help offset the cost of maintaining the site.]
I still do science, but civilization seems more interested in my perspectives on the future. (Who am I to argue with civilization?) Let's face change with agility and hope, and meet the challenges ahead.
I blog at: Contrary Brin and Tomorrow Happens.
newest David Brin book!
advice to aspiring writers
request special books & autographs
download a free short story
The Meme Wars
We will watch the watchers!
Citizens are competent
Philanthropy & hope
Transparent Society
Disputation & accountability
JRR Tolkien vs. the Future
Infamous Star Wars articles
...and The Matrix
...and The Postman.
What's Your Ideology Quotient?
The Real Culture War
Neoconservatism, Islam and Ideology
War in the 21st Century
The libertarian dilemma
The liberal dilemma
Technological Nightmares
Literature & the Future
Video Surveillance
Science of Science Fiction
Writing Science Fiction
SF that teaches
Holocene Chat!
Public Speaking
Future/Tech Consulting
Contrary Brin
The "Brin-L" discussion group
I answer some emails
This Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America Net Ring link is maintained by David Brin. |
|
Previous 5 Sites |
Proud Son:
