Jim Moore’s blog: Innovation, Strategy, Public Policy

Fred Barnes, the executive editor of the leading conservative policy journal, The Weekly Standard, wrote a column entitled “‘Big Government Conservatism’: George Bush Style” in the Wall Street Journal recently. The column is reprinted at the Weekly Standard web site http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/017wgfhc.asp

This column deserves to be widely read, because it outlines in authoritative terrms the Bush agenda–big, intrusive, expensive government directed at conservative social ends–and demonstrates how far it is from mainstream America. And herein lies Howard Dean’s secret weapon.

Barnes speaks glowingly of Bush’s Big Government Conservatism–Bush and his friends “believe in using what would normally be seen as liberal means–activist government–for conservative ends. And theyre willing to spend more and increase the size of government in the process.” Barnes goes on to say that “Big government conservatives are favorably disposed toward what Irving Kristol has called a ‘conservative welfare state.’”

Wow. My sense is that most American’s of right and left prefer smaller government. And most prefer a social agenda that is more liberal and/or libertarian–and just plain sensible–than that favored by the activist right and by George Bush. Barnes approvingly lists things Bush wants to use activist government for: Bush is a “pro-lifer..against stem cell research and gun control..His judicial nominees are so uniformly conservative that liberals are furious.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting if we had an election where the Democrat was on the side of smaller, less intrusive government? My speculation is that this could redraw the political field–and bring together small government Republicans with small government Independents with small government Democrats.

So here is the opening. Howard Dean’s secret weapon is that he is a “small government liberal” and in next year’s election he will be running against a big government conservative.

Most Americans shy away from big government. Except in Washington and in the military, most Americans aren’t really comfortable being around big government. Most Americans do not work for government–most Americans work for small to medium sized businesses. Most Americans, I believe, would like a balanced budget, a smaller, efficient, and less intrusive government. And they would like to enjoy their lives with the freedom to choose their own life styles, beliefs, and values. They do not want a bigger and bigger government, running the largest deficits in history, aimed at promoting a narrow set of values and reducing pluralism and personal options. Most people I know want to be free to make their own mistakes, to learn their own lessons, and to live according to their own evolving values. Conversely, they want to limit the ability of big government to make mistakes, because big moves, big mistakes by big government, can be very very costly.

Not to beat a dead horse, but there were many many other ways that action could have been taken to remove the government of Iraq–ways that might have taken longer in the breach–but might have led to a much less costly aftermath. One that I have written about before was the “6 point plan” that was developed by a group of religious leaders, working with Claire Short of the British Cabinet, and led by the Evangelical Christian group Sojourners. http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.6_point_plan

To me the Iraq situation is an example of a big mistake by a big government conservative. The massive build up in military spending, funded by money borrowed from our future, is another. And the reduction in civil rights under John Ashcroft’s leadership is another.

Britt Blaser, who has done some of the most insightful writing on the Dean campaign (and who I have quoted in the past) just sent me the following–and I pass it on to you all:

Yesterday, Michael Cudahy, an influential Republican Party figure, made an incredible announcement of support for Howard Dean. It’s at http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/2003_08_01_gd.html#106203463665230544 and it deserves all the linkage we can give it.

I’ve noted my reaction at http://www.blaserco.com/blogs/2003/08/28.html.

Thanks,

Britt Blaser

A few things I believe (ok, this has become a kind of a rant—but what the hey—here it is):

1.  The “movement” of progressive values and progressive, open-minded people matters, and in fact constitutes a second superpower.  We see evidence of this every where across the “soft side” of our society:  In the continuing progress—albeit tragically not fast enough—of human and minority and women’s rights.  In the themes that recur in films:  liberation of the individual, triumph of the courageous underdog, the in-breaking into daily life of values and the spirit.  In the mass emergence of “people’s movements”—whether the current Howard Dean campaign, global demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq, the “Million Mom March” of a few years ago, and—longer ago—the bloom of Yahoo, Digital Cities, and other early Internet centers that—while they later became “establishment”—were originally fed by a spirit of fierce independence and individuality, joining together to make a movement.  And of course, we see the second superpower in the rise of “civil society” and non-governmental organizations.  These agencies became powers, ironically, by becoming conduits for funds of “first superpower” agencies like USAID and England’s DFID—but they have now developed into their own sector of value, capabilities, and influence.

2.  Some of the limitations on the movement are largely structural—in the sense that our ways of linking together, of deliberating, of dealing with bad behavior among our ranks, of acting in the world, of influencing first superpower institutions, and of learning from our experiments and highlighting success, are all quite rudimentary.  A major bloom like the Million Mom March gets little follow up.  MoveOn is interesting because it took a bloom—driven first by opposition to the Clinton impeachment process, and years later to the Iraq war—and turned this bloom into sustaining, growing structure and a living movement.  The most creative responses to these structural challenges are being made with Internet-centered innovations, and this is why blogging, texing, telepresence and so forth are so very important.

3.  Other limitations are those of consciousness. We live with too much fear, and the unhealed legacy of too much trauma. This makes it difficult for us to listen to our own inner wisdom, and it makes us susceptible to “hooks” thrown up by false leadership.

To paraphrase the country song, we need “a little more Buddha and a lot more rock and roll.” 

I know this is cryptic, but hey, everybody says this stuff is beyond words, anyhow : )

4.  And we have limitations in our economic system and in the ideology that we use to guide us. 

Most important, we live with a view of capitalism that leaves out “externalities” that include the global climate. 

We live with a view of capitalism that ignores the “commons.” E.g. the myth of silicon valley is often defined by a libertarians who celebrate their own entrepreneurial spirit.  They tend to forget the role of “commons” in their success:  that the knowledge they have profited from was funded by the government and private philanthropy in the form of universities and non-profit research centers, and that their own higher education was supported by student loans, Federally-funded graduate fellowships, and so forth.  Those from India were educated within a national technology movement for which the entire Indian nation sacrificed. And that the very center of technology they thrive within was made possible by Leland Stanford’s establishment of a university in honor of his deceased son—and by his will that insisted that the property under the university never be sold.  So creative types decided to lease the land to companies created by local professors—and a region was born.

And meanwhile we subsidize tobacco, sugar, and billions of dollars worth of feed corn—creating an agricultural system that depletes our land, poisons our farm families, and enriches vast agribusiness distribution companies such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland. We allow special interest subsidies of this nature for all sorts of short-sighted activities.

5. We falsely address the problems of the developing nations, the poor nations, as problems of “development”—as if this was a “special field.”  This special field is led by professionals who have “learned” to tolerate and deal with corrupt leaders, exploitative businesses, and bribes disguised as aid.  What does not happen is that we treat all of the 6.3 billion people on the planet as equally capable, as equally human and spiritually-centered, and as co-participants, co-creators of the next global society.  And that we insist that leaders of the developing world be held to the same standards as we apply to ourselves.  Witness the current fawning over Paul Kagame, “elected” this week as president of Rwanda.  This is a person who, according to Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch is personally responsible for the deaths of at least 38000 people.  He was “elected” by a 95% majority, in a nation where his minority group is only 10% of the population. The UN observers of the election said it “did not meet standards of free and fair” and noted ballot stuffing, intimidation by the military, etc.  The campaign period was only 30 days long, and on the first day of the campaign one of the major opposition leaders was arrested.  And yet the US, the EU, and the South African government have all accepted and hailed his success as indication that democracy is coming to Rwanda.  And by the way, this is a tiny country of only 8 million people—so one cannot make the case that the situation is intractable—as, for example, is argued for Nigeria with its more than 200 million people.  If the first superpowers had truly cared about  democracy and democratic organizations in Rwanda, we would have had them.

6.  We have big problems, but we discourage people from thinking big.  And we don’t apply our big thinking to the whole world.  For example, Moshe Safdie has written an excellent book, The City After the Automobile. We need to apply this to the whole world.  I’d love to see a serious study entitled “China After the Automobile.”

Thinking about BloggerCon..Here is why it matters (at least to me): The world has a lot of interesting people, and it has a lot of interesting (and somtimes bedeveling) problems, and a lot of opportunities for creativity. It is fun to get together with other people, it is fun to be creative–and it can be really fun to do both. Blogs can be a way to mobilize creativity–individually and in groups and networks. BloggerCon is not about blogging, it is about the world. My hope for BloggerCon is that it is a loose gathering of people who are interested in the world–and in contributing creatively to it–and who have been finding blogging and other new forms of communications and social relations inspiring and helpful in that quest. I expect we will get together for a few days, here in Cambridge, in both meat space and cyberspace for a rough and ready roundup addressing our shared passions and interests. Topics such as digital democracy, politics, consciousness, social and personal change are central to the mix for a reason: change is the order of the day, and the deepest topic of the conference.

Rosa Mendoza, a Peruvian activist, has completed a fine Spanish translation “La segunda superpotencia levanta su bella cabeza” of “The Second Superpower Rears Its Beautiful Head.”

Thank you thank you thank you Rosa!! Rosa’s translation is available free and with a Creative Commons license at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/segundosuperpotencia.html

Rosa Mendoza is based at the Escuela para el Desarrollo (School for Development) where she is on the college faculty in Gender, Development and Organizational Management.
 

“Somehow I received a link to your article in one of my lists.  Well, it came to my hands in a moment where I was deeply concerned about the war, and I instantly felt identified as a member of the second superpower.  Moreover, I felt that your article made great sense with the reflections I am involved debating the concept of power.  I think that the first superpower moves in a paradigm where power is conceptualized as a finite, scarce resource, where the only way to gain power is to diminish the power of the other.  The second superpower moves in another paradigm, where power is endless, infinite, and it is created by the links between the individuals who share it.  In the second paradigm, knowledge is one of the sources of power that when it is shared is not reduced for you but increases your power and the power of the people who receive it.  Both power paradigms exist at the same time and as you work with one or the other, you increase it.  The challenge is to be able to work/live/love in a world of finite power, encouraging more and more forms of infinite power. ”