The theory behind special interest groups and lobbyists is rooted in the realities of American society.  In a day and age where women and African Americans were treated as second-class citizens, it was a necessary (and perhaps still is) to make sure the interests of discriminated people were heard as legislators advance the common interest.  Its not about giving one group more power or advantage than another, its about insuring equal opportunity and representation for all.

Unfortunately, the downside of lobbyist influence has dwarfed any idealistic benefits that the lobbyist system may offer for several reasons.  It permits people to frame their relationship with the greater society in terms of their interests and does not encourage a “common interests” view point.  This fragments society into competing interests rather than bringing people together in terms of common interest and is the greatest motivating factor in American government today.

Money now drives legislative representation.  And, who’s got the money?  Corporations do.  Today billions of tax dollars are being directed, not to projects of common interest, but to projects of corporate interests.  And, here we find a perfect example of a house of cards – a system that has taken on a life of its own.  There should be no such thing as a “corporate interest” because corporations are economic devices created to serve the common interest.  Therefore, corporations cannot have any interest other than what is deemed to be of common interest.

There’s an anti-meth advertising campaign in Los Angeles.  Billboards show a person with a vacant expression and alone by themselves.  They are captioned “I lost me to meth”.  Well, in a way our leaders in Washington have lost themselves, not to meth, but to something even more harmful to society and its future – to money and power.  While I believe the system of representing special interests has done some good by empowering minorities, the ultimate goal is to eliminate discrimination and to represent one interest – our common interest.  And, what is our common interest?  It is social justice, equality of opportunity, peace; it is the world we want to create – it is our common future.

Related Entries

Our Common Future

Policy Makers Gamble with Our Common Future

The Party faces a stale mate and its failure to offer a clear candidate speaks to two truths. One, within the Democratic Party there is nearly a 50/50 divide in support between Obama and Clinton and that cannot be rectified by any process. The primary process failed to offer up a clear nominee early enough to allow widespread support. The counts are too close to deliver a mandate and the process to follow will only offer respective supports an unsatisfying decision. Remember, a Democratic victory is premised on an enthusiastic base mandating change. So, while I believe Obama can win the nomination by following the process, he will do so by fracturing the support within his own party.

The split also indicates that either candidate is acceptable to the party. While arguments of support may be heated on both sides, in terms of the longer term goal of winning the election, it only serves to form rifts and divide support within the party. But perhaps the dilemma also offers up a unique opportunity. Unfortunately for two fierce competitors, the medicine is not a tough pill to swallow either.

The only ticket that will satisfy all members of the party is one with both Clinton and Obama on it – but in which order? While Obama leads in delegate count, his age favors him as Vice-President because unlike Hilary, he will be in a prime position to run in eight years. And, having the upper hand in delegate count gives Obama a unique position to broker a deal favorable to him serving as partner in a bold 16 year plan with a focus on this country’s most serious issues such as building a green economy. The obvious upside for Obama supporters is they will have 16 years of him to look forward to! It also offers him a unique opportunity to affect government in a profound way – that is if they make good on their first 8 years of promises.

On the bright side for the candidates, all three seem to have gaping faults which would also seem to level the playing field. Obama’s experience has yet to be seriously vetted, Hilary has a legacy that many people would rather forget and McCain is… old and none of them have the executive experience we would hope for. Bush got in office by garnering the full enthusiasm of his party – a democratic President will now need to do the same. Having said that, I’m not sure even this compromise would be able to challenge a MacCain ticket with Colin Powell as his Vice-President. Now we’re really off in fantasy land. Or, are we?

The trend in agriculture has been toward consolidation into corporate owned farms. While corporations can be an effective tool to create efficient systems, the focus on profitability in agriculture has had unintended consequences. First, in a corporate environment, it is easy for individuals to shirk personal responsibility for quality because you are not necessarily producing for yourself. Second, corporate farming has resulted in a monoculture system of planting one genetic strain which increases crop susceptibility to disease. Third, large-scale corporate farming requires that food be shipped large distances increasing its cost and contributing to global warming. Finally, we cannot base an energy source on food. The current corn shortage to produce ethanol is increasing poverty and hunger and not contributing to a sustainable transportation solution.

Another kink in the food distribution chain is our attitude. America is over-eating itself into obesity, heart disease and diabetes. Why? Well, one reason may be depression – unhappy people very often eat to feel better. More importantly, the system is weighted to promote overeating at restaurants. Pricing is not based on food costs, but on price pointing – owners expect a certain profit and they price accordingly. The oversized portions are meant to justify the prices, but people are overeating because “they want their monies worth.” This results in either wasted food or waste in health care costs from obesity.

I believe the majority of people in the world do not seek a life of luxury, but simply want to provide for their family and live healthy and happy lives that don’t take away from other people’s ability to do the same. Right now, however, everyone is shouldering the inefficiencies of our current system and its strain can be seen among the poor and hungry of the world. But, is there a solution?

The bulk of food people consume should be from local sources and people should not rely on transported food for survival – it’s inherently unsustainable. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA’s) offers a possible model and solution. Today CSA’s usually function like a non-for-profit subscription service where members pay a fee for fresh vegetables grown at the CSA and if you volunteer your time, the fee is lowered. Imagine a system of living where you can eliminate 90% of your food and housing costs by giving 4 hours of service a week. And, by organizing communities of 5000 people around this model, the cumulative 20,000 man hours available per week should be more than enough to take the chore out of farming and create a healthier, more reliable and more sustainable food source for all 6.5 billion of us.

While this model may seem a step back to people accustomed to swiping plastic at the grocery store check-out, for most of the world’s population it will be a giant leap forward toward eliminating poverty, improving health and realizing social justice. Greenhouse and hydroponic technologies offer all climates the gift of fresh, organic food. For economies struggling today such as North Korea, Sudan, Palestine and Cuba, networked CSA’s may be a means to bypass the unsustainable model of development that the West is offering.

Additional Reading

Community Supported Agriculture Description

Election time always raises issues.  They don’t necessarily solve them, but they get raised and this political season is no exception.  As we race away from “super Tuesday” at least one remaining candidate continues to make tax reform a fundamental issue of his candidacy.  Whether or not Huckabee’s consumption tax is the best solution, he at least acknowledges the current system’s inequity. Tax policy empowers the more literate and the wealthy that can employ them.  The big obstacle to simplification is the power it takes from Congress and the President to “take action”.  Tax policy is the major way in which our policy makers influence change and without that tool they would have to make more direct, and perhaps more accountable, measures to affect change.

If the American tax code is one source of frustration, then our legal system is another.  Again, language is key in that empowers specialists.  How many times do you consent to enter a website or accept terms and conditions without reading the details?  Even when large sums of money are on the line as in the case of the mortgage crisis, most people, including well-educated professionals, fail to read the details.  My question is:  is it the responsibility of every consumer to understand each and every distinct contract?  Or is a more reasonable approach for everyone to agree to a standard contract that defines the conduct and behaviors of both parties entering into a relationship? There is a lot more room for abuse of power by not holding parties to standard contracts which focus on conduct and behavior.

In the cases of our tax code and legal system, both are too complicated for all but an expert to navigate because language is power.  And, complicit in our social contract that includes the government is that such systems should not be beyond the literary reach of the least educated of our population.  I’m not saying government doesn’t have the right to collect taxes.  If we demand the services we have to pay for them. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t be able to “click on” disclaimers or sign mortgage contracts without thought or attention.  I am saying that everyone has the right to transparency in these systems and that can be accomplished with simplification.

Finally, we find another example in the very contentious issue of Immigration policy.  A great divide has been created over how to move forward with undocumented immigrants currently in the United States.  We have always had the power to control immigration through enforcing employer compliance, but did the powers that be turn a blind eye toward this problem because it boosted the economy?  The immigrants would never have come if we did not offer them jobs and to the degree we “ignored” this problem is also the degree to which we are responsible to arriving at an equitable solution.

If the function of government is to serve the public, then it is disingenuous to maintain systems which are structured in such a way so as to mystify the public whom it purportedly serves. Systems don’t need to be complicated to work.  And, usually such complicated systems are evidence of at least neglect, if not poorly thought out systems.

One of the problems in discussing morality is that definitions vary by culture, religion and most importantly, interpretation. While most religions declare supreme moral authority, it seems to me there can only be one truth. What this implies is that someone, if not everyone, is wrong. So, if no one’s moral doctrine can be judged reliable, how does one navigate this world of moral relativism? Well, there are commonalities amongst the world’s great religions and one consistent standard of behavior is “The Golden Rule.” It demands tolerance and respect of others as well as personal responsibility by declaring that we should treat others as we wish others to treat us. No one has exclusive knowledge of our creation or purpose. And I would guess, for anyone to claim that knowledge would be contrary to the belief system that they claim to follow.

Systems that rely on enforcing morality are inherently unsustainable because it allows for what I term “Sunday Christians” and promotes skirting rules and regulations. The Danish traffic model may suggest an alternative paradigm. In a few towns around Europe an experiment is going on with traffic signs and signals. In an effort to improve traffic flow and lessen accidents, signs and signals are being removed with great success. Why? The uncertainty at each intersection promotes more individual responsibility and rather than rely on regulated compliance, people are forced to communicate, react and respond to each other’s behaviors.

The key to this system is consent of others where others are involved. In the privacy of your own home, your actions are only limited by the consent of others with whom you share that space. In public, your actions and behaviors are likewise limited by the others that share that public space. In essence, the public square becomes the court of an individual’s private moral consciousness. That is, the common space becomes the venue of judgment and enforces “consensus morality” via peer pressure. It is founded on the belief that we are social creatures and ultimately want to be loved and accepted by others. Ultimately a person should stand or fall based upon their own moral conscience which manifests itself in how they treat others.

So, who can declare that supreme truth? The answer is no one. The wisdom is older than I, but the advice to not “judge a man until you’ve walked two moons in his moccasins” begs us not to hastily or summarily level judgments about others. The only solution is for each individual to take responsibility for their own actions. The world does not need missionaries; it simply needs people living according to the standards they value. Their individual example will become their testament to the world. And, if it’s a good one, it will be mimicked and followed by others.

Related Entries

Morality & Our New Reality

Lost In the Garden of Freedom

One of the premises of this Blog is that for many around the world the United States provides a model if not a template for development. While we’ve achieved amazing things, many of these achievements are based on a purview of unlimited resources and are ultimately unsustainable on a global scale. Even if the world population was limited, our achievements are based on great waste and inefficiency which in most belief systems comes under the category of “sin.” And, to see such systems replicated around the world fuels my sense of urgency to speak out and respectfully suggest that we re-think what we’re doing before we invest even more in this paradigm.

To be honest, if we Americans were the happiest people on the planet, I probably wouldn’t be questioning our methods so much. But, my experience and observations tell me otherwise. While our cultural self-portrait may be one of a fun, happy, welcoming people, I see many lonely people and a society living in more and more distrust and fear. While we may consider ourselves a melting pot, I see segregation and quiet discrimination. And, the only tangible solution society offers is by achieving wealth and prosperity. But mindless consumption does not yield happiness – it only contributes to the heap of problems we face both individually and socially.

My hunch is that most people hope for a better world – a world without poverty, where work is not a chore, but an extension of our creativity and interests and where there is truly equal opportunity, respect and peace – all accomplished without taxing the environment we live in. But these ideals will not come about through hopes and dreams alone. They will come through change. And, that change is the focus of this bi-weekly blog – to discover what we can do better at the fundamental structural and systemic levels of our society.

This House of Cards is the sister blog of The Sustainability Puzzle whose focus is to find sustainable solutions. This Blog will focus on the big-picture issues that touch our everyday lives such as tax policy, education, transportation, the religion called “America”, urban planning, the architecture of homes, the roles of government and corporations, as well as societal fears of cooperation. Just like a therapist will tell you, in order to find solutions we have to first understand the problems. So, let the healing begin! ;-)