It’s Not Impossible to Make Broad and Wonderful Changes To Our Civilization; It Happens All the Time
In response to my post The U.S. Citizenry Is in the Process of Taking Back Its Democracy, a rather cynical reader notes: “corruptive influence of money,” is a cliche like “world peace.” Such slogans sound ideal and high minded, but while unarguably desirable, lack practical reality.
The reason that a phrase like “world peace” is unrealistic is purely and only that people believe it to be so. Until recently, slavery was an entrenched institution that dated back 5000 years. Think of all the people through all those ages who regarded slavery as an abomination, but believed that its momentum was too great to overcome. Early abolitionists were ridiculed on the basis that they were engaged in a struggle tantamount to “boiling the ocean.” But all of a sudden, bam; it was gone, mortally wounded by a consensus of decent and outraged people that had grown to a critical mass.
Remember Henry Kissinger’s famous line about the War in Vietnam, “If it weren’t for the objection of the common American, we’d still be there.” (Emphasis mine.)
The situation here is no different. We’re a growing number of people who are outraged that the fossil fuel industry is using its vast power to keep itself in place and generate its profits, while the planet becomes a garbage can. The larger, louder and angrier we are, the faster this will all change.
The winds of change are picking up considerable speed at this point. My prediction for the demise of fossil fuels? A couple of decades max. Just watch. Or better yet, participate.
Craig,
Oh dear, I didn’t think my comment was “cynical”, just realistic!
Slavery, while never legal in Britain was largely abolished by legislation passed through the British parliamentary process and the slave trade suppressed (outside the US) by the vigilance of the Royal Navy and the genrousity of the British taxpayer (Portugal,Spain and Zanzibar were paid compesation to oulaw slavery and the slave trade).
I also qualified my comment by stating some causes required radical action, slavery would be an example.
The context of your proposition is very different. Your claim “The U.S. Citizenry is in the Process of Taking Back Its Democracy”, is far more dubious !
Your claim presupposes that someone has taken away from US citizens the democratic process for electing representative government.
I refute that claim. I argue that nothing has changed to limit the freedom of the American voter. To the contary, the demise of old style political machines such as operated under Mayor Daley, Dixiecrats and Tammany Hall etc, increased enfranchisement and the rulings of the US Supreme Court have ensured greater democratic participation.
I provided a timeline showing events proving my conclusion historically accurate.
My contention is simple. Like the US Supreme Court, (and the Constitution)I believe the more participation in the political process the better.
On the other hand, you contend the democratic process is aided by excluding some participants, and restricting freedom of speech to those with whom you agree.
Now I’m quite sure it isn’t your intention to damage the democratic process, and indeed I think you sincerely believe your demands would actually improve US democracy.
Like the framers of the Constitution, and the Justices of the Supreme Court, I think you are in error. Just as Wayne Wheeler and Andrew Volstead were sincerely mistaken in their belief that the National Prohibition Act would improve American society !
Banning free speech and inventing villains such as the oil industry to “fight” isn’t an effective method to help the environment ! I believe the best way to protect the environment is by developing and promoting newer, convenient, and more economical technologies compatible with evolving economic conditions, and eschewing massively disruptive schemes driven by ideology.
I just ordered our third Tesla S, not just because it’s “green”, but because the Tesla model S has proved an economically superior replacement for our aging 7 series BMW’s.
It’s better to concentrate on modest targets and succeed, than continue ranting about the evils of an industry whose products we all use every day and are currently irreplaceable.
All that passion, all that anger is pointless. The oil industry remains strong and prosperous, because it’s products still remain economically indispensable. (It’s also proved very resiliant, from the scare of “peak’ shortages we are now experiencing and oil glut !)
Nor are all oil companies totally lacking in environmental responsibility. The production of Ethanol does far more environmental damage in the US than gas and oil combined, Yet I never hear you demanding that the RFA should be prevented from funding candidates ! I wonder why not ?
I’m grateful to both Shell and Chevron for providing the substantial (and only) funding to study and prevent the planet’s single most toxic man made pollutant , Bunker Oil. I would suggest that accepting the support of oil compaies to pass US legislation to outlaw the use of Bunker Oil would be more effective than trying to limit freedom of speech.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is there are so many realistic and productive ways to aid the environment, without becoming distracted by involment in narrow sectarian political battles that risk alienating a large sections of the populace.
No am i being cynical, or just realistic ?