The WELL: inkwell.vue.337: Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox, Netroots Rising

#73: Cupido, Ergo Denego (robertflink) Fri 17 Oct 08 17:19

Fri, 17 Oct 2008 17:19:00 PDT

>Smaller government, smaller corporations = more local leadership, more freedom. More responsibility too, but I think people will handle it fine.<

This is a little idealistic. Smaller organizations and communities are not necessarily more open and tolerant. Those who say it takes a village should recall Salem, Mass. Also petty tyrants can set up regardless of the noble ideas that initiates matters. Recall also "states rights" and what went on in its name.

There is no need for official sanctions if peer pressure is sufficient. Peer pressure may not be as manageable as one would want. [Read entire topic]

#72: (dana) Wed 15 Oct 08 11:13

Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:13:00 PDT

Thanks to Nate, Lowell, and Jon for this discussion. Our virtual spotlight is turning to another conversation, but that doesn't mean this one has to end; you're all welcome to stick around as long as you're interested. [Read entire topic]

#71: Nate Wilcox (natewilcox) Tue 14 Oct 08 07:47

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:47:00 PDT

Will an economy based on sustainability include a modicum of freedom on the part of the individual? If not, can we have such a change and democracy too?

---------------------------------

A sustainable economy by definition will require a great deal of ad hoc management on the local level. There should be MORE freedom, not less. Smaller government, smaller corporations = more local leadership, more freedom. More responsibility too, but I think people will handle it fine.

Its the change that will be painful. The old economy won't die easy I'm afraid. [Read entire topic]

#70: Nate Wilcox (natewilcox) Tue 14 Oct 08 07:44

Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:44:00 PDT

Assuming that we're in a transformative period, can we continue with politics as usual?

-------------------------------------------

Definitely not. But I'm afraid the time horizon is a little longer than would be ideal. I expect the current transitional era to continue at least until 2012 with 2016 being the big showdown between a real progressive and a real reactionary.

In the mean time the netroots project can continue to help ordinary citizens reclaim their inheritance as political actors. Political muscles, long-unused have atrophied and need to be rebuilt.

I expect to see a massive surge in online organizing by the out of power Republicans in 2009 and 2010. It will be incumbent on progressives to stay active and engaged even as "our" party is in power.

One lesson that we should learn from the Republican collapse is that when the supporters of the party in power become apologists for the current regime, they squander their credibility and allow their administration a great deal of latitude to go wrong.

I expect the Democratic netroots to be vigilant critics of the new administration. [Read entire topic]

#69: Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Sat 11 Oct 08 15:14

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:14:00 PDT

I don't think individual freedom goes away in an economic and legislative framework based on sustainability. While there are always some regulatory constraints (the need for which seems pretty obvious lately), market forces are just as relevant in a world where economic thinking isn't based on an assumption that resources are infinite. It's a bigger discussion, probably not something to pursue in this particular forum. But I do wonder how the transformation-in-progress will affect politics. And if we're sliding into transitional recession or depression, how will that impact politics? [Read entire topic]

#68: Spero? (robertflink) Sat 11 Oct 08 11:50

Sat, 11 Oct 2008 11:50:00 PDT

Will an economy based on sustainability include a modicum of freedom on the part of the individual? If not, can we have such a change and democracy too? I am assuming that "the people" will have the same problem dealing with reality as they have had all along.

Remember, when the people are sovereign, they seem to have a similar penchant for denial as the kings of old. Recall the Emperor's New Clothes story. [Read entire topic]

#67: Jon Lebkowsky (jonl) Fri 10 Oct 08 22:37

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 22:37:00 PDT

Transition to an economy based on sustainability seems inevitable, as a matter of survival. It would be based on knowledge and efficiency, rather than resource extraction. We're just starting to consider the scope and significance of that shift, coupled with revolutionary communications technology changing social and knowledge structures. Assuming that we're in a transformative period, can we continue with politics as usual? [Read entire topic]

#66: Nate Wilcox (natewilcox) Fri 10 Oct 08 13:51

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:51:00 PDT

While we are waiting, there may be changes happening in the culture that are more profound than what the visionary leaders cause. ------------------------------------------- I'm seeing a lot of people online talking about a really new economy that values efficiency over growth. Perhaps we can start a parade and find some leaders to jump in front of it later. [Read entire topic]

#65: Cogito, Ergo Spero (robertflink) Fri 10 Oct 08 10:50

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:50:00 PDT

>I await the emergence of a new wave of visionary leaders.<

While we are waiting, there may be changes happening in the culture that are more profound than what the visionary leaders cause. The value of the visionary leader may be to identify the change earlier than the rest of us and to help us make a relatively safe adjustment to it. This is no small feat and one which the visionary rightly deserves credit but we can get a false view of the world if we make too much of the specific leaders role.

It could be that the visionary leader is an icon of the new secularism, suggesting that religion is a durable aspect of the group human psyche. [Read entire topic]

#64: Nate Wilcox (natewilcox) Fri 10 Oct 08 06:28

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 06:28:00 PDT

Now we need to admit that action people include those that dragged humanity backward as well as those that pulled it forward. Can we assert with confidence that the balance is positive?

--------------------------------------------

Of course. I'm not so naive as to think that all change is good. In fact that's why I listed the conservative movement from 1960-now in my list of American activists. They made change alright, but it was backwards progress. However my point is that human nature doesn't change. And human beings are motivated by spirited conflict and energetic drives to promised lands. As to whether the end results are good or bad, that tends to depend on whether you're a canaanite or an isrealite, a cowboy or an indian. I do believe progress is possible, but I also believe we're in a transitional era where we don't have a shared definition of what constitutes progress. The rationalistic experiment of the moderns has clearly reached its limits (the world wars, the atomic bomb and global warming are the death knell) and post-modernism is clearly a dead-end (karl rove being its foremost political practitioner). But what is next....no one knows. I await the emergence of a new wave of visionary leaders. Maybe Barack Obama will be our 21st Century Abraham Lincoln. Maybe he'll be Jimmy Carter part II. [Read entire topic]