*Ø* Blogmanac | Delicious election food for thought
Bush, Kerry, or World 5.0?
by Stephen Dinan
stephen@radicalspirit.org
As the mainstream media and voting public increasingly focus on Kerry as the man to beat Bush, I want to ask a provocative question, one whose answer is typically assumed rather than addressed.
Would a Kerry administration for the next four years ACTUALLY be better for the long-term health of our world than a Bush administration?
Many Democrats, blinded by disgust for Bush and his henchmen, proudly wear the badge of ABB -- Anyone But Bush. Their assumption is that Bush is the absolute worst president we can have and we need to rally behind whomever seems likely to defeat him.
The Bush administration has done a lot of disturbing things, from getting us involved in an expensive, deceptive, and largely unjustified war, to rolling back privacy and civil rights, to creating a secretive, corporate-ruled, debt-ridden culture in Washington, to accelerating the decline of our planetary ecosystems. America has begun seeming like an arrogant empire to many countries in the world.
All of which seems very bad. Unless it turns out not to be. The reason I say this is that the most fundamental need we have as a planet is to move our structures of power and governance to a new level, rather like installing a new operating system in a computer. We need to become world-centric rather than nation-centric. We need to build the structures of international peace, cooperation, and justice. We need to address our massive global ecological crises. I am convinced that we need an evolutionary step up rather than slight modifications. Instead of going from the World 4.0 operating system to World 4.1, we need to do a full upgrade to World 5.0. Since America dominates the planet, our government and leadership are major determinants of how quickly that shift happens.
As dangerous as the Bush administration appears, it has also been acting to galvanize and mobilize the forces that actually CAN lead us to World 5.0. The problems of the current operating system are becoming much more obvious and much more painful. This pain and frustration can drive us to create another level of planetary health for the long term. The Bush administration arrived with a World 4.0 platform and has been heading steadily downwards toward World 3.0 in such a way that the forces of World 5.0 have gotten much more active, focused, and engaged.
This can result in a slingshot effect, allowing a powerful launch in the opposite direction, all the way up to World 5.0. To use another metaphor, an addict typically needs to bottom out before getting into treatment and getting clean. Bush is helping us to bottom out as a country with the current operating system.
This brings us back to the question of whether a Bush or a Kerry administration for four years would be better for the long-term health of the planet. For me, this boils down to how quickly and effectively either administration would catalyze the emergence of World 5.0, which is the only system that can address the issues we currently face. Is it better to have four more years of World 4.0 with regressive elements of 3.0? Or do we want 4.1, with a few minor improvements to the basic operating system?
My answer, which will likely infuriate many ABB Democrats, is that we are probably better served in the long term by four more years of Bush than Kerry because I think that would build the passionate, revolutionary fire necessary to make the great leap.
The reason is this: Kerry speaks the language of change but he doesn't have the track record of a change agent. He's only passed seven bills in his time in the Senate, if one Internet source can be trusted, and four of those were largely symbolic. He has voted for key parts of the Bush program -- the Iraq war and Patriot Act for example -- and is committed to continuing the war and even increasing the size of our army. He has taken more special interest money in the last fifteen years than any other Senator. He is one of the wealthiest members of Congress via marriage. A man who can pay cash for a $750K speedboat is going to be a bit out of touch with the needs of the working class. If we dig deeper, it turns out he's even a member of the same secret society as Bush, the Skull and Bones society of Yale. Finally, he's getting heavy financial backing from the executive levels of various media conglomerates.
In short, he is a World 4.1 politician -- an establishment insider who is positioning himself as enough of a populist and "winner" to get the nomination. And it appears to be working.
My honest read is that if we elect Kerry as our president, he will do a mediocre job and more or less perpetuate the status quo. Given party power dynamics, though, he would still be running in 2008 as the incumbent. The Democratic party machine would not seriously entertain another contender. And then we would have two options: four more years of World 4.1 or a swing back to World 4.0 with a new Republican challenger. It would be 2012 and possibly 2016 at the earliest before we would have another chance for a president of the United States who is leading us to World 5.0.
I don't know about you, but that seems like a long time to wait if you are committed to creating World 5.0 and aware of the pain and suffering caused by the current operating system.
One alternative, then, is four more years of Bush. If we can get past our visceral reactions to the man and examine this through the lens of shifting to World 5.0, Bush is actually a great catalyst -- the last hurrah of a declining paradigm, the ultimate foe for the forces of 5.0 to triumph over. He's almost a caricature of the last worldview. There's every reason to bet that if he's in office for another four years, we'll have a great revolutionary leap to authentic World 5.0 leadership for America rather than a compromise formation of World 4.1. Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.
I probably won't be able to bring myself to vote for Bush this fall, if for no other reason than I would feel guilty admitting it. But in a funny way I'd be cheering for him if Kerry ends up with the nomination. I want to live in the World 5.0 system as soon as possible and I think Kerry would actually decelerate that process rather than help it. I feel similarly about Dean and Edwards: both talk the talk of change but neither is really dedicated to the fundamental shifts necessary to launch World 5.0. Dean and Edwards are World 4.1 or 4.2, although both have worked rhetorical magic with their followers to give the impression that they are true agents of change.
There is, of course, one other option, which is what I've been putting all my energy into for the last six months: nominate Dennis Kucinich. I believe he's the leader we need for the new operating system. On all fronts, he is a champion for World 5.0 and he's got the specific platforms, experience, intelligence, and heart to pull it off.
The main problem has been a psychological one. Democrats have been so entranced by the ABB rhetoric and so afraid of Bush's war chest that even the most progressive factions have been stuck thinking we can't have 5.0 this round. We need to settle for someone who can beat Bush, they say, which means sticking as close to 4.0 as possible with a few phrases about change thrown in to appease the progressive wing of the party.
The problem with this logic is that anyone who is authentically, legitimately, and actively working for the emergence of 5.0 is going to run out of steam working for a candidate that is 4.1 or 4.2. They will get bored and lose interest. The youth won't get animated. The non-voting populace will grumble and return to non-participation. And the election will come down to a fight over the voting citizens who want something between 4.0 and 4.1. Those who are champions of the new operating system will be bored by the election and many will believe their time is better spent on local projects and initiatives.
I have been a passionate champion and campaigner for Dennis Kucinich and I continue to believe that we do have a window of opportunity to elect him as our president. However, that window will close in the next three weeks unless the trance is broken and the forces for World 5.0 rally fast around Dennis. I've been making peace in the last two days with the idea that if we don't have what it takes this time, we'll have a better shot at World 5.0 with four more years of Bush than with four years of World 4.1. It's grim but I think it's true.
There could, however, still be a major breakthrough of momentum. It's got to come from the youth. The gray haired change agents of the sixties aren't going to produce the breakthrough by themselves although we should honor them for continuing to carry the torch. It's people in their twenties and thirties who will have to add their rocket fuel. I also believe this burst of momentum can only effectively happen in California before the March 2nd election and that it would have to lead to a win. A second-place finish will not cut it. America only takes winners seriously and California is really the last hope for an actual win before it is too late. Without a win, Kucinich cannot build enough momentum to take the nomination from Kerry. With a win in CA, things could turn around quickly. So, we find ourselves with 18 days and long-shot hopes. But we can turn it around if the full vigor, passion, and power of the next generation of torchbearers blazes forth.
I have honestly done everything I know how to make the leap possible. It's now up to a lot of other people getting sparked and lighting wildfires everywhere they can in service to the transition to 5.0.
Otherwise, I'm going to plan for four more years of Bush and lay the groundwork for the connections, momentum, and energy to make the leap that we really need to happen in four more years. But I would accept that conclusion only with a heavy heart. We've got one last hurrah, torchbearers. Are you willing to go for it?
Information about the Kucinich campaign
Bush, Kerry, or World 5.0?
by Stephen Dinan
stephen@radicalspirit.org
As the mainstream media and voting public increasingly focus on Kerry as the man to beat Bush, I want to ask a provocative question, one whose answer is typically assumed rather than addressed.
Would a Kerry administration for the next four years ACTUALLY be better for the long-term health of our world than a Bush administration?
Many Democrats, blinded by disgust for Bush and his henchmen, proudly wear the badge of ABB -- Anyone But Bush. Their assumption is that Bush is the absolute worst president we can have and we need to rally behind whomever seems likely to defeat him.
The Bush administration has done a lot of disturbing things, from getting us involved in an expensive, deceptive, and largely unjustified war, to rolling back privacy and civil rights, to creating a secretive, corporate-ruled, debt-ridden culture in Washington, to accelerating the decline of our planetary ecosystems. America has begun seeming like an arrogant empire to many countries in the world.
All of which seems very bad. Unless it turns out not to be. The reason I say this is that the most fundamental need we have as a planet is to move our structures of power and governance to a new level, rather like installing a new operating system in a computer. We need to become world-centric rather than nation-centric. We need to build the structures of international peace, cooperation, and justice. We need to address our massive global ecological crises. I am convinced that we need an evolutionary step up rather than slight modifications. Instead of going from the World 4.0 operating system to World 4.1, we need to do a full upgrade to World 5.0. Since America dominates the planet, our government and leadership are major determinants of how quickly that shift happens.
As dangerous as the Bush administration appears, it has also been acting to galvanize and mobilize the forces that actually CAN lead us to World 5.0. The problems of the current operating system are becoming much more obvious and much more painful. This pain and frustration can drive us to create another level of planetary health for the long term. The Bush administration arrived with a World 4.0 platform and has been heading steadily downwards toward World 3.0 in such a way that the forces of World 5.0 have gotten much more active, focused, and engaged.
This can result in a slingshot effect, allowing a powerful launch in the opposite direction, all the way up to World 5.0. To use another metaphor, an addict typically needs to bottom out before getting into treatment and getting clean. Bush is helping us to bottom out as a country with the current operating system.
This brings us back to the question of whether a Bush or a Kerry administration for four years would be better for the long-term health of the planet. For me, this boils down to how quickly and effectively either administration would catalyze the emergence of World 5.0, which is the only system that can address the issues we currently face. Is it better to have four more years of World 4.0 with regressive elements of 3.0? Or do we want 4.1, with a few minor improvements to the basic operating system?
My answer, which will likely infuriate many ABB Democrats, is that we are probably better served in the long term by four more years of Bush than Kerry because I think that would build the passionate, revolutionary fire necessary to make the great leap.
The reason is this: Kerry speaks the language of change but he doesn't have the track record of a change agent. He's only passed seven bills in his time in the Senate, if one Internet source can be trusted, and four of those were largely symbolic. He has voted for key parts of the Bush program -- the Iraq war and Patriot Act for example -- and is committed to continuing the war and even increasing the size of our army. He has taken more special interest money in the last fifteen years than any other Senator. He is one of the wealthiest members of Congress via marriage. A man who can pay cash for a $750K speedboat is going to be a bit out of touch with the needs of the working class. If we dig deeper, it turns out he's even a member of the same secret society as Bush, the Skull and Bones society of Yale. Finally, he's getting heavy financial backing from the executive levels of various media conglomerates.
In short, he is a World 4.1 politician -- an establishment insider who is positioning himself as enough of a populist and "winner" to get the nomination. And it appears to be working.
My honest read is that if we elect Kerry as our president, he will do a mediocre job and more or less perpetuate the status quo. Given party power dynamics, though, he would still be running in 2008 as the incumbent. The Democratic party machine would not seriously entertain another contender. And then we would have two options: four more years of World 4.1 or a swing back to World 4.0 with a new Republican challenger. It would be 2012 and possibly 2016 at the earliest before we would have another chance for a president of the United States who is leading us to World 5.0.
I don't know about you, but that seems like a long time to wait if you are committed to creating World 5.0 and aware of the pain and suffering caused by the current operating system.
One alternative, then, is four more years of Bush. If we can get past our visceral reactions to the man and examine this through the lens of shifting to World 5.0, Bush is actually a great catalyst -- the last hurrah of a declining paradigm, the ultimate foe for the forces of 5.0 to triumph over. He's almost a caricature of the last worldview. There's every reason to bet that if he's in office for another four years, we'll have a great revolutionary leap to authentic World 5.0 leadership for America rather than a compromise formation of World 4.1. Sometimes things need to get worse before they get better.
I probably won't be able to bring myself to vote for Bush this fall, if for no other reason than I would feel guilty admitting it. But in a funny way I'd be cheering for him if Kerry ends up with the nomination. I want to live in the World 5.0 system as soon as possible and I think Kerry would actually decelerate that process rather than help it. I feel similarly about Dean and Edwards: both talk the talk of change but neither is really dedicated to the fundamental shifts necessary to launch World 5.0. Dean and Edwards are World 4.1 or 4.2, although both have worked rhetorical magic with their followers to give the impression that they are true agents of change.
There is, of course, one other option, which is what I've been putting all my energy into for the last six months: nominate Dennis Kucinich. I believe he's the leader we need for the new operating system. On all fronts, he is a champion for World 5.0 and he's got the specific platforms, experience, intelligence, and heart to pull it off.
The main problem has been a psychological one. Democrats have been so entranced by the ABB rhetoric and so afraid of Bush's war chest that even the most progressive factions have been stuck thinking we can't have 5.0 this round. We need to settle for someone who can beat Bush, they say, which means sticking as close to 4.0 as possible with a few phrases about change thrown in to appease the progressive wing of the party.
The problem with this logic is that anyone who is authentically, legitimately, and actively working for the emergence of 5.0 is going to run out of steam working for a candidate that is 4.1 or 4.2. They will get bored and lose interest. The youth won't get animated. The non-voting populace will grumble and return to non-participation. And the election will come down to a fight over the voting citizens who want something between 4.0 and 4.1. Those who are champions of the new operating system will be bored by the election and many will believe their time is better spent on local projects and initiatives.
I have been a passionate champion and campaigner for Dennis Kucinich and I continue to believe that we do have a window of opportunity to elect him as our president. However, that window will close in the next three weeks unless the trance is broken and the forces for World 5.0 rally fast around Dennis. I've been making peace in the last two days with the idea that if we don't have what it takes this time, we'll have a better shot at World 5.0 with four more years of Bush than with four years of World 4.1. It's grim but I think it's true.
There could, however, still be a major breakthrough of momentum. It's got to come from the youth. The gray haired change agents of the sixties aren't going to produce the breakthrough by themselves although we should honor them for continuing to carry the torch. It's people in their twenties and thirties who will have to add their rocket fuel. I also believe this burst of momentum can only effectively happen in California before the March 2nd election and that it would have to lead to a win. A second-place finish will not cut it. America only takes winners seriously and California is really the last hope for an actual win before it is too late. Without a win, Kucinich cannot build enough momentum to take the nomination from Kerry. With a win in CA, things could turn around quickly. So, we find ourselves with 18 days and long-shot hopes. But we can turn it around if the full vigor, passion, and power of the next generation of torchbearers blazes forth.
I have honestly done everything I know how to make the leap possible. It's now up to a lot of other people getting sparked and lighting wildfires everywhere they can in service to the transition to 5.0.
Otherwise, I'm going to plan for four more years of Bush and lay the groundwork for the connections, momentum, and energy to make the leap that we really need to happen in four more years. But I would accept that conclusion only with a heavy heart. We've got one last hurrah, torchbearers. Are you willing to go for it?
Information about the Kucinich campaign
Anonymous posted item above at 8:43 PM | Permalink
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home