Devolution: An Idea That's Time Has Come?
Stephen Pizzo | January 9, 2013 - 10:08am "Every empire, every too-big thing, fragments or shrinks according to its own unique character and to the age of history to which it belongs."
-- Paul Starobin, author of After America: Narratives for the Next Global Age
Before I get all wound up today, let me slam a caveat in here at the start:
No, I have not gone all Tea Party on you. And no, I have not OD'd watching "Doomsday Preppers"on cable TV.
None of that. All I am trying to do here is broaden the discussion, away from ideas for just getting our aging system of systems of governance and commerce and fiscal policy going again. Just the opposite.
As the old adage, "Keep doing what you been doing, and you'll keep getting what you've got." So, the question I pose is - do you really want to keep getting what we've been getting?
Not that you may have a choice the matter. There's a growing body of folk who are coming to believe that, should we actually get the system back to what it's been doing, for better or for worse, all we'd get for those efforts is less and less of the better and more and more of the worse.
So that's all I'm doing here, throwing out some ideas, thinking outside the allowed boundaries. It's kind of lonely out here, so I want some company. And just because conventional wisdom holds that these "off-the-wall ideas will never happen," doesn't mean they can't happen, or that thinking about them, weighing their parts, kicking them around will not prove quite useful.
Okay, now that I've vouched for my own sanity, let's getting down to business.
I am old enough to remember when MaBell ruled the telecommunications world. She'd built most of it, and what she hadn't built she had either purchased or conquered. Bell Systems was the mother of all monopolies.
Then in 1974 the Supreme Court began the process that resulted in the breakup of the Bell Systems/ATT. (They did that kind of thing back in the day, breakup tumor-like monopolies. Quaint, huh.)
In large part the fact that you are reading this as email, and can surf the Net and have a tiny wireless phone in you pocket or purse today, is because Ma Bell was broken into competing pieces forty years ago. Competition flourished, innovation exploded.
Why? Because nothing fails (eventually) like success. "Too Big to Fail," it turns out, is just a transitory stage. The one that follows is, "Too Big For Anyone's Good."
Which is the same reason ancient forms of governance and economic models have not survived into our times. You will find them in history books, but nowhere else. Those old-time systems each hit their limits of usefulness and passed on, mostly unwillingly and kicking and screaming all the way out the door.
"Humans have always had to face social as well as resource limits ... Civilizations advance human knowledge and technical ability, but they also generate levels of complexity they cannot support beyond a certain point. When that point is reached, civilizations decline or collapse."
-- Economist Richard Heinberg.
Nowhere in human history will you find a greater success story than the 250-year history of the United States of America. But, maybe you've noticed, we seem to have hit an invisible wall. Less and less that needs doing gets done these days. E pluribus unum, "from many, one," has become "from many, many." Many cross-purposes. Many opinions, few agreements. Gridlock and the beginnings of decay.
So, I ask what may be the most dangerous question a citizen can ask; is it time to break up? No, I'm not talking secession. I am talking about breaking this Ma Bell into smaller, competing, semi-independent entities. Something like this:
America would continue on as a continent, just as Europe does today - though hopefully better managed than the EU. But stop for a moment and think about it, if only in the broadest terms:
First, each region would be able to pursue policies that reflect better the demographic, social and economic leanings of its occupants. For example, folks in the Southern Region might want prayer in schools and to teach so-call "creationism" as well. They could both. Folks in the North Eastern Region would forbid prayer in school and believe creationism is a crock and does not belong in the classroom. So it won't be there.
Which region would be right? Well, we'll finally have some real-world data on that. Folks in those regions that disagree with regional policies can move to a region that better fits their views. Sure kids will be damaged. One of these sides is going to be proven wrong. But then Darwinism has always sorted matters out that way, and I believe saving morons from themselves only results in more morons. (Which, I believe accounts for stuff like " Here Comes Honey Boo Boo,"" and " Swamp People," and the such. It's moronic programming for what has evidently become a large enough moron-demographic to make such programming profitable. -- Too harsh? Do you have a better freaking explanation?)
But I digress. Each region would enjoy a unique competitive advantage. The Pacific Region would enjoy it's easy access to the growing Asian/Pacific markets. The Southern Region would exploit it's proximity to a goring Latin America.(Rat presumes this refers to bull fights). The Midwestern Region would hold most of the agricultural cards. And the North Eastern Region would continue enjoying its economic and social ties to Atlantic and European commerce with New York City as it's financial hub.
But what of America, the nation? Well its portfolio would shrink. Things like social policy, regional immigration, education, energy policy, healthcare, housing, regional infrastructure would move to the regional bodies.
As for governance, individual states might continue to elect their own state legislators who would, in turn, appoint/elect state representatives to represent their states in a regional legislative assembly. Regional legislative assemblies would set regional policies, collect and distribute tax revenues, pass regional laws and regulations. Regional assemblies would appoint/elect representatives to sit in the national assembly in Washington where they would represent the interests of their prospective regions.
Just what would be left for Washington to do? Well, national defense for one. Regions would be taxed to pay for those things necessary to keep the American continent safe, clean and functioning. Environmental laws would have to remain in national hands. Otherwise one region might pollute more than others in order to attract industry and to seek competitive advantage over other regions. Since pollution does not stay in one region, it needs a continent-wide regulatory authority. Inter-state commerce will require ongoing maintenance and improvement in freeways, bridges and international airports.
But clearly, devolving from a union of states to a union of four regions like that means the national government's "to-do list' will shrink drastically. Much authority would transfer down the food chain, bringing it within touch and feel of actual end users. Sure there will be mistakes made. But when that happens the pain will be felt right there where it the causation took root -- rather than mitigated by a national government manipulated by special interests. ("Stupidity should hurt." That's how we learn. Under the current scheme stupidity is bailed out, which of course only gets us more of the same.)
In his book, Limits to Growth, Heinberg, talks about how workers in the years ahead will have to adapt: "Successful adaptation will require economic re-location and a generalist attitude toward problem solving."
I believe the same goes for the United States itself. The good news is that we, as a nation, have succeeded beyond any civilization before. But assuming that means we are also immune from the natural "rise and fall" cycle of every civilization that proceeded us, would be a mistake... maybe a fatal mistake.
Which is why I say, it's time to start thinking about what comes next. What comes after capitalism? What comes after the USA as a collection of states under central governance? What comes after the age of oil? What comes when the world population hits 10 billion?... which, BTW will happen in our lifetime.
The time to start thinking about all that is not after it smacks us upside the head, 25- or 30-years from now. It's yesterday. So we better get on with this discussion rather than telling folks who try they are nuts.
"So why not America as the global leader of a devolution? America's return to its origins-to its type-could turn out to be an act of creative political destruction, with "we the people" the better for it."
-- Paul Starobin
smirkingchimp.com |
