Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
I think the issue of partisanship is one we have to take very seriously, because the arguments that we make and the analysis that we make and our focus on local economies is not a partisan issue among most people.
While the Trump administration says it wants to help low-income Americans, it just put forth a budget that puts wealthy Americans first, Chuck Collins told Rising Up with Sonali. “They’ve been trampled by the traditional Republican shrink government agenda: deregulate corporations, transfer wealth to the wealthy,” he said.
But if we really want to change these things and not just feel righteous about being on the right side, then we have to address the ground from which they spring. To do that, we have to let go of war thinking with its accompanying dehumanization, and enter the question that defines compassion: What is it like to be you?
The truth of the matter—inconvenient or otherwise—is time remains of the essence in the global quest for sustainability. Whether you choose to define sustainable in terms of slowing climate change or dealing with human congestion, something needs to be done on a regular basis.
The veil has been lifted. The administration’s budget proposal for 2018 eviscerates agencies which could have mitigated some of the climate change devastation ahead. We have confirmation that the White House is sawing off the branch on which 99% of Americans sit.
Katherine Cramer’s book, The Politics of Resentment, argues that part of the reason rural whites resent urban elites is that they think that we know nothing about them—that they and their hard work and intelligence are invisible to us and that we scorn them anyway.
A bi-lateral partnership with the UK could certainly result in economic benefits for both. More than that, collaboration could offer important secondary (political) benefits.
Then the question is: who is interested in the repeal of laws that protect our environment? Who wants corporations to continue their pollution? Certainly not local communities who use the local waters.
Returning once again to the question: President Pence, better or worse? Based on their words and actions, it might be called a toss-up.
How can a Trump Presidency be positive? Surely this is a major setback – to action on climate change, to addressing inequality, to human rights and global security.
In a time of such ferment, most socio-political forecasts are foolhardy. However, I’ll venture one: the least likely outcome for America is a return to the liberal, secular, consumerist order that characterized the post-WWII decades.
Millions of Americans now share the profoundly disturbing experience of watching and waiting as their nation lurches toward authoritarianism. In a previous essay, I described the Trump administration as a “presidency in search of an emergency”—i.e., a crisis that could be used as a pretext for seizing unchecked power. I opined that the emergency could come in the form of an economic meltdown, a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster.
