A few months ago, I was invited by a friend of mine to play an Internet game called “Free Rice.” It was simple enough.  All I had to do was answer a series of vocabulary questions.  For each question I got right, 20 grains of rice were donated to the UN World Food Program.  I played for 20 minutes, learned a few new words, and earned over 2000 grains of rice.  My efforts didn’t end world hunger, but perhaps a child in Somalia or Indonesia would be able to have a meal or two.  I felt a small sense of pride in helping to fight one of the world’s worst problems - until, that is, I though a little bit about what had really happened in this game.

According to the Free Rice website, the rice that is “won” is paid for by sponsors.  The more people play and get the questions right, the more the sponsors end up donating to the program.  I began to wonder what the point of it all was. If the sponsors were willing to give that money, why not just give it directly without having to go through the charade of the game?  It soon dawned on me that the only real accomplishment of the game was to allow two people to give themselves credit for the same donation.  I felt good about “earning” those 2000 grains of rice, and the sponsor felt the same satisfaction for paying for them.  It’s quite a scheme that’s been developed.

Free Rice is only the beginning of the problem.  Facebook, for example is full of these schemes that allow people to feel like they are helping with a cause when in fact they have done nothing.  Right now on my Facebook account, I have offers from friends to accept virtual plants that will fight global warming, to decorate virtual Christmas Trees that will help cure cancer, and to sign a petition that seeks to end human trafficking.  Who knew I could do so much good for the world by simply pointing and clicking?

And this laziness masquerading as activism is everywhere, even among those who consider themselves to be informed and passionate about politics and society.  Last week, on a whim, I decided to send the following self-post up on the interactive news site Reddit: “How many people would be willing to join a boycott of companies that misuse their bailout money?” 

I knew there was a good bit of anger out there at both the failed corporations and the federal government over the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been changing hands, so I guessed this post would receive a fair number of votes.  Much to my shock, it got nearly 1500 votes, which was the highest post of the day and in the top five for the week.  It seemed that quite a few people are interested in doing more than just clicking their mouse, and that they want to take genuine political action.

Well, as it turned out, a lot of people like the idea of a boycott, but very few of those will actually follow through.  A few days later, I posted this: “Nearly 1500 Redditors said they would boycott companies that misuse their bailout money.  So let’s get started.  Who should we boycott and why?”  This post got 83 votes, but most of the comments were devoted to explaining why a boycott was a bad idea or would never work.  Exactly six of the comments were from people who seemed serious about doing it.  That means that in this very unscientific survey, 1 out of 250 of those who were willing to click their mouse to support a cause were actually willing to do something concrete. 

Clicking our mouses will change nothing.  It make us feel like we are helping, when in fact we are doing nothing more than enabling the corporate-political hegemony that has brought our economy and our society to the edge of the abyss.  Wake up, America!  And do something real.

We are truly living in remarkable times.  Consider the following realities:

1) We are at the tail end of one of the worst, if not the worst, presidential administrations in American history.

2) We have just elected the first African-American and the first post-modern president.

3) We have just convincingly elected a president who ran unequivocably on the theme of change.

4) We are facing the hardest economic times this country has known since the Great Depression.

5) We are seeing corporations and their leaders demonized and despised by the media and the public at a level that has not been seen in generations, if ever.

6) We are sensing a growing frustration at the ineptitude and impotency of our leaders in Congress to effectively address our nation’s woes.

Add all that together, and we find ourselves at a moment in time that is both extremely worrisome and extremely hopeful at the same time.  All of a sudden, everything in our politics and our economics seems to be up for grabs. Nobody understands what is going on.  Things are happening so quickly and so chaotically, that every week seems to disrupt and transform the reality we had understod just the week before.

As Obama appoints his cabinet and prepares to take office, much is being said about which specific programs and initiatives we should push first.  But before we jump headfirst into the task of developing recommendations and crafting potential legislation, perhaps we need to take a deeper look into our collective soul and decide just what type of nation we are trying to be in the midst of all this “change.”

As I see it, we have two basic choices.  On the one hand, we can see ourselves as a “boarding house.”  A boarding house is a group of people who live with the same roof over their heads, but who do not necessarily share anything else.  They might be friends, or they might not.  They might look out for one another, or they might not.  Above all else, they are careful to respect each other’s privacy and independence.  The boarding house, then, operates under a conservative philosophy.

On the other hand, we can see ourselves as a “family home” - as a group of kinspeople who share a lot more than a roof.  A family shares a common name, a common purpose, a common history, and a common dream.  A family is much more than a group of friends or acquaintainces. A family always takes care of its own.  And above all else, a family sticks together and makes sure each member is safe and has what it needs.  The family home, then, operates under a liberal philosophy.

Think about the current health care situation in the United States.  Are we more like the boarding house or the family home in the way we deal with those who are sick?  At a boarding house, if someone feels ill, they will be helped.  They will be given an aspirin or some Ginger Ale.  They will be driven to the hospital, if necessary.  The immediate need will be met.

But what if someone at the boarding house is diagnosed with cancer and needs an operation they can’t afford?  What if they become disabled and need someone to care for them around the clock?  At this level of need, the other residents will step aside, saying that it’s not their responsibility.  But in the family home, the members pull together and take on that responsibility.  They make sure that the sick person can get the operation, and they make sure they have the care they need - no matter what it takes.

In recent decades, our health care system has functioned more like the boarding house.  Some help is available, but we don’t take responsibility for the care of all of our citizens.  47 million people without insurance is not indicative of a nation that thinks of itself as a big family. 

And the same is true for all of life’s necessities - not just health care, but also food, housing, clothing, and education.  In the boarding house, the residents don’t feel obligated to share their suppers with one another.  They might give a piece of pizza to their neighbor out of the goodness of their heart, but it’s not expected.  In the family, no one goes hungry.  No one is turned away at the dinner table, even if they have been a lazy slob and have sat on the couch watching TV all day instead of looking for a job.  The lazy slob who has no job might not get to enjoy many luxuries in life, but he does know that, since he is a member of the family, he will be able to get what he needs. 

So the question, then, as Obama prepares to take office, is do we as a nation want to be a boarding house or a family home?  Throughout our history, we’ve managed to fall somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum.  Lately, we’ve been drifting toward the boarding house .  I, for one, would like to see us become more like a family that takes cares of all its members, rather than a collection of acquantainces who don’t feel as much of an obligation toward one another’s well-being.

The average cost of a gallon of gas in the United States has fallen to $1.98, and is even lower in some places (such as the $1.76 that I saw today in Rock Hill, SC).  That’s less than half of what it cost just four months ago.  Now I haven’t heard anyone complaining as they’re filling up their tank, but economists and environmentalists are not all convinced that this return to 2003 price levels is a good thing.

Some feel that the drop is a result of the troubled economy and that if gas prices get too low, it will slow down the recovery. Others fear that low prices at the pump will take away the incentive to develop sustainable and environmentally sound alternatives. 

The bottom line is that dirt-cheap gas prices are like bacon double cheeseburgers.  They taste really good in the moment, but over time, they can do a lot of damage.   Unfortunately, the American culture of over-consumption and instant gratification isn’t very good at making short-term sacrifices for long-term gain. 

This cultural near-sightedness was demonstrated back in the Carter adminstration, when a proposed 50-cent gas tax increase was soundly defeated.  Since then, higher gas taxes have been considered politically unthinkable.  Especially in today’s energy climate, where oil prices can fluctuate by 100% or more within a matter of months, the thought of the government adding significantly to the burden of a price spike is enough to give even the most liberal of politicians second thoughts.

My first idea, then, was to add an additional gas tax only when prices are low.  For example, if the price is above $3.00 (I’m just throwing out a number for the sake of argument) then there is no additional  tax.  If it’s below that, the tax is whatever makes the total price $3.00.  This would mean that last summer, when prices soared over $4.00, there would have been no additional burden.  But right now, with prices at $1.98, the tax would be $1.02. 

I soon realized, however, that this plan has a serious flaw.  It removes the incentive of oil companies to drop their prices.  They would just keep it at $3.00, no matter what the wholesale cost, so that they could get that money instead of the government.  The additional tax would then become a windfall subsidy for Big Oil.

So I came up with a compromise.  What if the additional tax was a percentage of how much the price was below $3.00 - say 50%?  This would mean that right now, the additional tax would be 51 cents, making the adjusted price $2.49.  If prices dropped to $1.50 (as they might), the tax would be 75 cents and the price at the pump would be $2.25.  The percentage tax would have the double benefit of encouraging oil companies to keep their prices as low as possible, while also not hitting consumers with an extra expense when prices get oppressively high.

All of the taxes raised by this plan would go directly to funding alternative energy research and development.  At current prices, this tax would generate about 73 billion dollars a year.  And with the side benefit of keeping prices from getting too low, it would also encourage people to buy more fuel efficient cars and to drive less.

Without a doubt, such a plan would face intense political and popular opposition - especially during tough times such as these - but it’s time to start talking about some new and bold ideas.  And perhaps, with a new adminstration and a strongly Democratic congress, it might be able to gain a little traction.

What do you think about this new idea?

Earlier this week, I attended a seminar led by Episcopal author Diana Butler Bass.  She spoke about current conflicts within mainline Protestant churches and where they are leading us in the future.  Bass started by drawing a horizontal axis with “conservative” on one end and “liberal” on the other.  The much-publicized fight over the ordination of gays illustrates this dichotomy. 

She then drew a vertical axis and labeled it with “conventional” at the top and “intentional” at the bottom, making the claim that most church conflicts happen on this axis, not on the liberal-conservative one.  The example she gave was one of the most divisive issues that can be found in congregations these days - traditional vs. contemporary worship.  More churches have gone to war over whether to have organ or guitar music than over the issue of ordaining gays. 

Bass’ argument was that changing and breaking with long-held traditions is where the church faces its greatest challenges these days.  It’s not about resolving the conflict between liberals and conservatives, a conflict which has been around for over a century and which will never get resolved through arguing.  It’s about transforming traditional practices.

Much of what Bass said about church conflict can also be said about the world of politics, especially when it comes to the recent presidential election.  Certainly, there were issues in the election that fall neatly onto the liberal-conservative axis: taxes, the war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, etc.  But John McCain’s own adviser famously said that the campaign was not about the issues, which begs the obvious question, “OK, then, what was it about?”

It was about that vertical axis that Bass drew.  It was about “convention” vs. “intention.”  It was about doing things the way they’ve always been done vs. change.  What will history remember most about the 2008 election?  That it was a mandate to end the War in Iraq?  That it was a victory of raising taxes on the wealthy over trickle-down theory?  That it was a validation of Obama’s almost-universal health care plan?  Hardly.

Those left vs. right issues will certainly be important in the coming years, but they’re not what carried Obama to a resounding victory.  Obama won because the people wanted change.  They wanted something different than George Bush and Bill Clinton and the same old Washington political games.  McCain tried to present himself as the real option for change, but in the end, he lost because he couldn’t help but represent tradition and convention.

What will be remembered about 2008 is that Obama is the first black president.  That he is the first post-Boomer president.  That he is the first tech-saavy president.  Perhaps even that he is the first post-partisan president.  And that he ran (for the most part) a positive and uplifting campaign.  All of these things have nothing to do with being liberal or conservative.  They have nothing to do with this dichotomy that has been placed on our politics throughout American history.   They have to do with something else, something that is bubbling forth from our culture that Obama was smart enough to tap into. 

At the end of Diana Butler Bass’ seminar, she introduced a third axis into her model, making it three-dimensional.  This third axis was the movement from modernism to post-modernism.  Bass didn’t spend too much time trying to describe post-modernism and what the coming years will look like, but she assured us that the church that exists 50 years from now will bear little resemblance to the modern relic that exists right now. 

I think we can say the same for politics and for the world in general.  Whatever things look like in the year 2058, I feel certain that the Obama presidency will be viewed as the beginning of a whole new epoch - and not because of policy, but because of process.  He will go down as a great president not because he will accomplish partisan victories, but because he will transform the methods and practices by which a president governs and leads.

This morning, I downloaded the first of Obama’s Youtube addresses, a true “Fireside Chat” for the 21st century.  I wonder if John McCain even knows how to use Youtube.  I can’t help but marvel at how much things are already changing.

American culture is slowly moving from modernism to postmodernism, the type of major shift in collective worldview that hasn’t happened since the Enlightenment of the 18th century.  If this transition were a river, we’d see the Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) standing on the modern side of the river, Generation X (1965-1980) in the middle trying not to get swept away, and the Millennials (1981-2000) comfortably positioned on the postmodern side.  Generation X, then, is the bridge that is taking us from one era to the next.

Having been born in 1961, Obama is technically a Baby Boomer.  But the recent presidential debates demonstrate the fact that Obama is functionally a postmodern “X’er” in both style and outlook.  John McCain, by contrast, is still firmly rooted in the world of modernism:

Obama spoke with empathy about the personal effects of the current financial crisis on Main Street America. McCain spoke of individual greed and said the government needs to hold the failed executives accountable. McCain underscored personal morals where Obama accentuated communal values.

Obama consistently drew attention to points of agreement with McCain. By contrast, McCain perpetuated the Right vs. Left dichotomy by describing Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. While Obama sought to build consensus, McCain pointed out their differences.

Nationalism is a key reality of the modern world. But postmodernism prioritizes the global community. Talking about Iraq, McCain promised to seek American “victory and honor.” Obama was more concerned about America’s global reputation.

In their exchanges, Obama called McCain by his first name, drawing attention to his personality. McCain never reciprocated, indicating respect for Obama’s office but not necessarily for Obama himself.

Personal morality vs. communal values.  Dichotomizing vs. consensus.  Confrontation vs. negotiation.   Nationalism vs. globalism.   Obviously, these distinctions cannot be universally applied to McCain and Obama.  But the debates did clearly show how Obama operates from a very different approach and a very different way of looking at the world.  The Obama victory indicates the fact that although the United States as a whole might not be a postmodern culture quite yet, we are certainly moving steadily across that river.  That so many younger voters who are firmly rooted in the postmodern worldview came out and voted for Obama further illustrates this shifting reality.

Personally, I am more excited about the postmodern flavor of the upcoming Obama presidency than anything else.  Much is being made of the significance of his victory for African Americans and all minorities, as it should be.  Much is being made of the defeat of neo-conservatism and the weakening of the Republican Party, as it should be.  And much is being made of the great gains made by women in this campaign, as it should be.

But all of those triumphs can be placed under this much larger shift in our culture that has now made its way to the highest office in the land.  Obama will be a different kind of president.  To many folks in the older generations, the way he does things and the way he talks about things will seem foreign.  But to those of us in the younger generations, he will be an absolute breath of fresh air - for we will finally feel that our worldview and our way of dealing with reality is being represented.

Time for a little joke: 

Name 3 things that the Republican Party and the Electoral College have in common.

(1) They both got started a long time ago for excellent reasons. 

(2) They both have outlived their usefulness.

(3) They’ll both have a lot of free time until the next election.

Things are lookig pretty grim for the GOP.  Just eight years ago, the Republicans completed their “revolution” and enjoyed control of the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the Supreme Court.  It was the beginning, we were told, of a glorious run that might have no end. 

Amazingly, though, we are now looking at almost the exact opposite scenario.  Assuming an Obama victory, come January the Democrats will be just a couple of timely Supreme Court openings away from power across the board. Will the Democrats become victims of their own success, as the Republicans did, or will their reign be longer and more productive?  Only time will tell.

But perhaps the more fascinating question is, what will become of the GOP if McCain loses and loses big?  The party leadership will be in shambles, and the ideological divisions between the Romneys and the Palins will only deepen.  I see four likely scenarios for the long-term effects of this split: (much of this, mind you, is tongue-in-cheek)

1) The Republicans will do what the Democrats have done: Regroup, rebuild, and hope that a transformational young leader will emerge to craft a new party vision that can challenge incumbents in 2012 or 2016. (Sorry, Palin. It’s not you!)

2) The Republicans will fracture.  Many will help start a new party that will look like a business-friendly libertarianism and will be hailed as a return to true conservatism.  Others will opt for a doomed-to-fail ultra-conservative/fundamentalist party that will cling to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and evolution. (Palin will be their first nominee).

3) Much the same as #2, except that the more moderate Republicans, wanting to hitch their wagon to a winner, will move toward the Democrats and Obama’s uniting leadership style. Eventually, though, the tent won’t be big enough, and the Democrats will split into left and right wings that become the two new major parties.  (Harold Ford will lead the right wing.)  The Palin Republicans will be a vocal third party that occasionally wins a red state from the deep south or the midwest.

4) It will all be just a repeat of the 1990’s.  The bitter Republicans minority will reunite under the banner of stifling Democratic reform.  With renewed confidence, they will rally and take back at least one house of Congress in 2010.  The Republicans will gradually rebuild their base throughout Obama’s two terms, and thanks to a scandal or some sort of crisis, they sweep back to power in 2016 - with the former governor of a large southern state whose last name will sound painfully familiar.

Which of these possibilities for the future of the Republican Party do you think is most plausible?

The Great Depression has become the cautionary tale of choice for our impending economic disaster.  But if we take a balanced view of history and engage in a little bit of political opportunism, we can also see The Depression as a model of how to use crisis to transform government and culture.  The Encyclopedia Britannica, of all places, features a stirring account of the promise that emerged from that period’s great pain:

The Great Depression was an era of extraordinary political innovation, much of it expressed in the reforms enacted by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and his administration’s attempts to cope with the problems of poverty, unemployment, and the disintegration of the American economy. It was also a time when a significant number of Americans flirted with Marxist movements and ideas, as well as with the notion that the model for a more humane society could be found in the Soviet Union. Above all, it was a decade of cultural ferment, in which American writers, artists, and intellectuals experimented with new, more socially oriented forms of literature, painting, theatre, music, and mass entertainment.

So the 1930’s, as difficult as they were, were years when American society managed to transform itself and lay solid foundations for the future - politically, economically, and culturally.  It seems that the time has now arrived for another transformation.

The 2008 crisis is unlikely to approach the size and scope of the Great Depression, but the nature of the problems do show some similarities:  collapsing financial institutions; not enough government oversight; rising poverty and unemployment; a highly unpopular president; and an overall atmosphere of fear and institutional distrust.  In addition, the American culture of the last decade or two bears some resemblance to the self-absorbed,  materialistic society of the Roaring Twenties.  In both cases, the excesses of one generation lead to the hardship and then the innovation of the next.

And this is where the opportunism comes in.  The coming years are going to be difficult years, relatively speaking.  But they are also going to be years of opportunity.  Politically, it will be a chance for a new generation of leaders with new ideas to emerge and bring forth a new way of doing government.   I’m voting for the progressive politics of economic, civil, and environmental justice.

Economically, it will be a time to bring back some sanity and some good ‘old fashioned American prudence, especially when it comes to consumption and energy.  And culturally, who knows?  I, for one, cannot wait to see what the emerging generation of artists has to say about all of this.

Compare 1929 to 1949.  Radical changes in both the United States and the world.  Whatever happens out of this crisis, I think it’s safe to say that the society that ultimately emerges from the next decade or two will be a very different society than the one we know right now.  Perhaps we should consider this our call to arms to make sure that it’s the right kind of transformation.

(follow-up to “The Kucinich Impeachment Resolution Marches On“)

When I reported on the fact that one of Dennis Kucinich’s articles of impeachment had been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, I had no idea that it would generate such a strong response.  Judging by the votes and the comments on Reddit and Digg, there is a monumental amount of pent-up anger and frustration out there about the many misdeeds of the Bush administration. 

Perhaps the most interesting comment came from Digg user jenniferstruth:

Bush is not the only one guilty of these war crimes.  However, as the sitting president he is responsible since he started his signing statements and executive orders declaring himself unitary executive. Saddam was a monster as is Bush. Sadaam was also set up by our government to be the fall guy, much like Bush is being set up by the ruling elite to be the fall guy for the war, the financial collapse and the environment.

It’s almost as if certain powers-that-be planned this war in advance and then duped both Saddam and Bush into starting it.  That’s a level of truth most Americans don’t want to hear, but it’s a truth that needs to be told.  Thanks, jenniferstruth, and we hope to hear more from you.

But what I really like about the comment is that it holds Bush responsible for the crimes he has committed, but also alerts us to the sobering reality that getting rid of Bush in no way gets rid of the totalitarian threat that has emerged during his presidency.  We can and should impeach Bush, but let’s not fool ourselves into believing that cutting off the head will in any way slow this beast down.

What will be needed to restore our country to sanity and Constitutional governance is a much more broad based movement.  A movement that starts with the Oval Office and Congress, but that extends through all aspects of our society - government, media, the corporate world, religious groups, and educational institutions.  A movement that says no to politics and economics that are greedy, power-hungry, fear-based, and xenophobic. 

In the ancient Hebrew society, the priests would send an innocent lamb out into wilderness to die, believing that the sacrifice would help drive evil from their midst.  George Bush is far, far away from being innocent - but perhaps the emotional call for his impeachment is born from a similar psychology.  Those of us who are absolutely disgusted by the evils we have seen in the Bush administartion might be tempted to believe that eliminating Bush would eliminate the evil. 

But impeachment, as unlikely a possibility as it is, is not enough.  I like the way Jason Rosenbaum states it, saying that once the election is done, and once Bush is finally known as an ex-president, then the battle begins.  

In 1600, Queen Elizabeth chartered the British East India Company, the world’s first mega-corporation. The wealth and the power it wielded puts Wal-Mart to shame. Not just a commercial enterprise, the East India Company kept a standing army of over 250,000 soldiers and exercised territorial rule over roughly one fifth of the world’s population.

Which makes what happened in Boston on December 16, 1773 all the more remarkable. On that night, a group of American patriots dressed up as Mohawks, boarded the ships of the East India Comapny, and dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor - an event which has famously become known as the “Boston Tea Party.”

The patriots were protesting Parliament’s lowering of the tax on tea - corporate tax breaks, if you will. Parliament’s agenda was to boost the company’s sagging profits, and drive the colonial smugglers out of business. On the surface, it appears that Parliament was merely trying to eliminate the underground, tax-free economy. Interpreted another way, it means that the government was helping the mega-corporation drive the independent little guys out of business. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

However we interpret the Boston Tea Party, it is a clear case of concerned citizens boldly taking a stand against overwhleming corporate power. When the American colonies gained independence a few years laters, the Founding Fathers were careful to place strict restrictions on corporate powers.

Those restrictions, however, have slowly evaporated, and we are now in an era where corporations might once again approach the power and scope of the British East India Company.  The larger and more expansive corporations get, the more they tend to disregard the environment, human rights, and the general welfare of the communities in which they operate (although, to be fair, there are many companies that do very well in these areas).

I live in fear of the day when we see a company like ExxonMobil merge with a company like Blackwater, and the transition from the rule of the nation-state to the rule of the corporation becomes complete. In order to get a handle on the expanding power of corporations, we need a Boston Tea Party for the 21st Century. We need a new type of bold action that can once again restore economic power to “We The People.”

How do we become 21st century patriots?  How do we go about reclaiming our independence from the tyranny of big business?