OT: America - Forgot how to lead

[Merryprankster]

After eight years of one of the most benighted administrations in U.S. history we are finally on the cusp of ridding ourselves of an enormous impediment: a "leadership," that has no idea what the word means. Initially, I was naive enough to hope that the mere transfer of power from one administration to a future one would solve at least half of the problems.

Depressingly, I no longer believe that. Instead, I have slowly reached the conclusion that the failure in leadership is a collective problem, shared throughout the United States. I'm certain that it would be unpopular to say this. It would not get me elected. Fortunately, I do not find myself in that position. Let me be even more blunt: sometime between the end of the Cold War and 2008, America forgot how to lead. Instead, we've conflated power and leadership. The two are hardly synonymous, as we have learned the hard way: being the world's only superpower does not secure you a leadership role. In contrast, leadership generates power, even - and especially - in areas where it did not even exist before.

This is a lesson that Americans took to heart for the last half of the 20th century. We took a leadership role in the creation of international institutions that, to paraphrase Dag Hammarskjold, "prevented hell on earth." We made scientific, technological, agricultural, and engineering leaps that paved the way for the 21st century, and an improved lot in life for billions around the world.

We funded things like the space program. We helped build and sustain the UN. As a society, across industry, the military, sciences, and politics, we invested in advancement and in the future. I hardly believe it was idyllic - the threat of nuclear war loomed large, and there were many mis-steps and some outright abuses along the way. But, the charted course was one of progress, and if not magnanimity, than at least of enlightened, and generally inclusive, self-interest, when weighed against the annals of human history.

Our leadership, and a proven track record of "getting things done," generated wide ranging and far reaching power. This leadership was anchored by a faith in humanity's ability to change things for the better. We recognized, intuitively if not explicitly, that the fate of our nation and its people was inextricably bound to those worldwide. And we exercised our power, however imperfectly, largely with that consideration in mind.

Ironically, Americans have begun abnegating their leadership roles, even as increasing connectivity ensures that almost all of our problems are collectively shared and require increasingly interdependent solutions. What is a problem for a Bolivian farmer is, in some way, a problem for us. Do you believe that there are too many people on the planet? Then your primary issue should be educating women worldwide - in places where women receive strong educations, birthrate declines dramatically, and often dips below replacement rates. Biofuels are the solution to the fossil fuel problem...

At least until poor nations around the world go hungry.

Somewhere along the way, we began using our power selfishly, as distinct from in our previous, collectively self-interested way. Detroit rails against increased mileage and emission standards. Imagine what would happen if they embraced them? I posit that American auto makers would become industry leaders in clean, efficient cars within a decade or less. We refuse to pull together a comprehensive energy policy or emissions standards, and often it is because "it doesn't matter what we do if China doesn't follow through."

Leadership requires us to do it anyway, because it's the right thing to do! Because getting out ahead, just as in the space race, will generate new discoveries, new technologies that may improve the lot for everyone, and generate entirely new market sectors and opportunities - new places for U.S. power to arise. The United States is still a bastion of innovation and opportunity, and will be for many years - these types of things are absolutely achievable, but only if we opt to lead.

But lately, we've just been scared. We protect a dying manufacturing industry addicted to the old ways, instead of creating space and pressure for changes that could open up vibrant new sectors. We try to solve immigration problems - built on our revered law of "supply and demand," NOT by trying to help Mexico improve itself, but by building a fence - and the Maginot Line worked SO well for the French. We decry NAFTA, although evidence suggests it increases economic growth - it's just in new or different market sectors. This is power exercised in selfish ways, not in self-interested ways. When did the world become zero-sum?

When used selfishly, power is a finite commodity that can be exhausted. When used to lead, it generates more power. Leadership and selfishness are mutually exclusive, and somehow, some way, we need to remember that.

[Samurai Jack]

Wow, are you sure you're not running for office?

Good observations, all, but as the issues expand ever further beyond what is known, entrenched, and well understood, dosen't it become increasingly unlikely that a single entity serving it's own self-interest will be able to effect the changes that will inevitably be required?

In other words, should it come as a great surprise that we have reached a point where the problems of the collective may be too large for a single entity such as the U.S. to manage?

Perhaps we should begin cooperating with organizations such as the U.N., the World Health Organization, and honoring our agreements with other nations (Kyoto accord comes to mind) rather than representing our own self intrests to the exclusion and detriment of all. I believe that there is an "almost majority" here in the U.S, that would like to see that happen, but we can hardly get into agreement within our own nation... such a large problem...

Do you have any thoughts on how we might practically bring about such changes without being forced into some sort of crisis, such as the Cold War?

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

Biofuels are the solution to the fossil fuel problem...

Reply]
I am not even remotely convinced of this. I feel solar/battery electric is the solution.

Bio fuels will require VAST amounts of land space to grow fuel crops...in an already suffering eco system. I think they just exchange one problem for another....like those stupid mercury bulbs everyone "Thinks" are so good.

We now have the battery technology, AND the solar technology to make it happen without taxing the land resources of bio fuels. It really is the cleanest, best energy source there is.

[bodhitree]

How do we change things?


1. Vote smart

2. Demand more from your politicians, call, email, stop by thier offices, write editorials, engage in intelligent discussion, and do all of these in a tactful and cooperative way.

3. Don't support screaming pundits on either side, encourage pragmatic politicians and pundits.

4. Live in a way you believe more people should behave.

5. Teach your kids to be how you think people should behave.

I'm sure there are many other ways.....

[cjurakpt]

well put, but I'd characterize your polemic not as the end-all, but rather as the springboard off of which we need to launch an entirely new dialogue regarding not only America's roll in the world, but really the way in which consciousness needs must change in the coming decades in order to fully understand the paradigm shift we are currently undergoing, that is, we are now, more so than ever, inextricably linked as a species, to the point where the concept of nationalism is almost necessarily a thing of the past

to wit, the global credit crunch - no one, not even Iceland, is free from the effects of this; same with the ill-conceived backing of corn-based biofuels by the US government, having, at least in part, a disastrous effect on world food prices; of course, there is also the CO2 your SUV in Boston pumps into the air having it effect far afield (unless you don't buy the climate change argument - that's ok, crawl back under your rock, wait a few decades more, see what happens...)

interestingly enough, both Time Magazine and NY Times Magazine have "green" issues this week; in regards to the former, UN SG BK Moon writes inspiringly about his belief that tackling climate change will mobilize the world towards more balance; and the lead article argues that America must take on a leadership roll in the latest war, this one to save the global environment; so perhaps, at this dark hour, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, one that will shine itself on the realization that there is no us / them, only "we"; and America can take a leadership roll in moving into a new "greener" consciousness, which, hopefully will temper the arrogance we have displayed of late and reconcile ourselves with the rest of our Gaia community

now excuse me, i have to go outside and hug a tree...

[Merryprankster]

SJ - precisely my point. THIS era of Globalization and the complex interdependence it brings makes it paramount for the United States to exercise a leadership role. We're well positioned for it, despite Iraq, and can must more resources and energy than any other country to help solve some of these problems.

Do I have any idea how to begin that process? I believe it could be done if we began to focus on the "5E's" Energy, economics, education, the environment, and engagement. These would be priorities; all decisions and policies must somehow be tied back to these priorities.

Does this sound like hippie crap? Well, I disagree - imagine a military unfettered by energy supply lines because we have reliable portable, "anywhere" power. Who can argue with that kind of force projection capability? Impossible you say? Ok, well, reduced reliance is still crucial. The speed of our main battle forces vastly outstrips our logistics capabilities. The longer we go without re-fueling, the better off we are.

If you don't think this is a big deal, you haven't been paying attention - battery weight is increasingly a problem for our troops, because energy storage is not very dense, and we don't have universal power supplies for our stuff. That's just one example. I used it simply to show that these priorities must be executed using all the levers of U.S. power, and that the military is one facet that certainly can and should be included, not just to the benefit of others, but to the benefit of our warfighting and security capability.


RD1 A - I agree. Biofuels are clearly NOT the solution, unless some of the algae ideas pan out and are scalable, or we really get some of the cellulosic methods off the ground. That was entirely the point - biofuels looked kind of attractive for a bit, but recent food shortages are demonstrating otherwise.

cjurakpt - Amen. Leadership is ALWAYS a springboard. It's neverending. When one goal is accomplished, you turn your energies to another improvement.

Now, where would I start?

Energy - We need a space-race type push for alternative energy, that includes stringent new energy consumption requirements that force improved efficiency. Taxes/fees on gasoline and the like would actually reduce our economy's sensitivity to oil price shocks - (when taxes are a major portion, the price becomes relatively inelastic, by comparison). The revenue from those taxes would fund government/industry/academic joint efforts towards cleaner, more sustainable energy.

Education - our educational system is tooled for the industrial/manufacturing era. We now live heavily in an informational economy, where productivity and business advantage (and, indeed, other advantages) are determined by having informational and analytical edges. As a consequence of this information rich environment, critical thinking skills are more important than they ever were. Ironically, this means a return to a "classical" education, emphasizing broad based exposure to a variety of subjects, and strong classes in rhetoric and philosophy. The school of deconstructionism must be abandoned as well, or confined merely to the analysis of literature. Only then will we be equipped to handle this and turn it to our advantage. Students electing not to go to college for whatever reason must be given the same sort of educational assistance and help to pursue skill sets that are valuable in our new economy.

Environment - Polluters must be made to pay. Emissions standards must be improved. Agricultural subsidies must disappear. We must use our leverage as the world's greatest consumers to slap a "pollution tax," on goods from abroad (and in the states), which offsets the cheapness of labor available overseas. It could be calculated in a manner similar to a VAT tax - a viable model. The EU would probably jump on board on this. We should have an office in the state department or the UN or some such that assists other countries that rely on manufacturing or natural resource extraction to do so in a sustainable, smart way.

Engagement - we can't do it alone. It's that simple. We need to bring partners on board. Outreach is huge. Assisting other countries will be huge. Helping them develop and grow is huge. We can't match FDI, but we can do something corporations typically don't do - we can improve education, and assist with infrastructure development and protection.

Economics - see above. All of these will, IMO, generate new areas for increased economic size across the world, and improved growth overall.