No Confidence?

June 4, 2007
     CNN is frantically advertising a set of "live" debates between the presidential candidates this week -- Democrats Sunday and Republicans Tuesday, with loads of "color commentary" before and after. This big media show is being staged in New Hampshire, whose once-significant early primary election has been reduced -- like so much else in our national life -- to merely symbolic status now that fifteen other states have crammed theirs into the super-duper primary day of February 5, 2008. Since I believe that a collective unconscious operates among groups at all levels of the social hierarchy, including the national level, this extraordinarily early staged contest says a lot about how insecure we must be about our leadership, about our place in the world, and about where we are headed.

     US election campaign periods have never been regulated in terms of a set number of weeks or months, the way some other nations do. But the 2008 US election is the first in my lifetime that ramped up to such an intense and formal level of activity so far in advance. If nothing else, the amount of money that the candidates need to raise -- and burn through in airplane charters, staff salaries, and staged events -- puts them all in jeopardy of corrupting themselves to the various donors desperate to preserve their prerogatives under the status quo.

     What everybody seems to sense semi-consciously is that the status quo is dragging the US into an abyss. But so far, no one among the declared candidates has been able or willing to express a coherent view of what it is in the status quo, exactly, that is doing the dragging. One undeclared figure, Al Gore, has presented the climate change part of the story and pretty much stopped there -- perhaps sensing that if he ventured to offer views on anything else, he'd start sounding like an actual candidate. But my guess is that the really important issues will never be articulated in the course of this campaign because they are too painful for the public to hear. And so all the premature debating and posturing will amount to a smokescreen of words meant to conceal the fact that we are a nation without confidence that any leadership can guide us into a plausible future.

     In the background of all this sits the pathetic figure of President George W. Bush. He's pathetic because he has been in a position -- not facing reelection -- to tell the American people the truth, but he's shown no capacity for apprehending it. If he represents anything, it's the idea that the truth is optional, that if reality is disappointing, just create your own reality.

     Here are the some of truths that we seem unable to face:
     Very soon we won't have the fossil fuel energy supplies to run the USA as it is currently set up, and no combination of wished-for alternative energy schemes based on so-called "renewables" will allow us to keep running it, either. Meaning, that we'd better start making other arrangements immediately for how we occupy the landscape, how we grow our food, how we move people and things from place to place, and how we reconstruct an economy consistent with these new arrangements.

     The longer we put off making these new arrangements, the harder we're going to slam into a wall of reality, and when it occurs a lot of things will shake loose in this country. It will become self-evident that the things we've invested all our wealth in will not retain value -- especially suburban real estate and all the activities related to car dependency, from the interstate highway system to national chain retail. It will also become obvious that we can't base our economy on building more of this stuff.

     Our current military adventures in the Middle East, are predicated largely on keeping the old arrangements going. We're in Iraq because we built Dallas, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Long Island the way we did, and the only way we can hope to keep these organisms going even a little while longer is to keep open our oil supply line to the Persian Gulf. The truth is, these organisms will not survive the oil-scarcer future in the form they're in. The American people need to come to grips with this. No amount of chest-thumping around the globe will change it. In any case, sooner or later we'll exhaust our military and bankrupt ourselves trying to project our influence into these places overseas -- meaning, sooner or later we will withdraw back into our own hemisphere. I wonder if Wolf Blitzer of CNN will ask any of the candidates, what happens then?

     A basic rule of reality is that you can't get something for nothing. Sooner or later the financial sector will have to come to grips with this rule, meaning that that debt is not wealth and the revolving reallocation of debt in the form of credit does not amount to wealth creation. The US will arrive at a magic moment when the full force of this reality reasserts itself, and it is likely to make itself manifest in the collapse of the entity most closely associated the idea of wealth: the dollar. Assets vested in the dollar's legitimacy will follow its fate. The implication is that an awful lot of the presumed wealth held by Americans could vanish into thin air. Do any of the candidates for president recognize how this works, or have any idea how much disorder this phase change will send thundering through our sociopolitical infrastructure?

     With the election campaign revving up so prematurely, it is very possible that all the candidates now in the arena will exhaust, bankrupt, and even disgrace their campaigns as they desperately pirouette around these painful truths, and that none of them will survive the process with their political legitimacy intact. In the meantime, unsettling events on the outside will intrude on the protective bubble in which the public has taken shelter -- more bloody disturbances around the Middle East, dangerous shenanigans in the financial markets, untoward weather events in vulnerable places.

     The premature election campaign, with all its reassuring televised ceremonies of pre-cooked debate and formal posturing, may end up having the opposite of its intended effect. It may expose the more frightening reality that our political system is not up to the challenges before us. And then what will we do?

Comments

[frist@frist.com]

frist ffs! :))

[Laura Louzader]

What WILL we do?

For starters, we don't have a plausible candidate on either side of the aisle. Obama? His long-term relationship with notorious Chicago slumlord Rezko is a big minus. This is not an accidental association, by the way, not just a matter of Obama's having bought real estate from Rezko. Fact is, Obama worked in Rezko's office and is closely associated with him. I hate this, because Obama has the best personality of the three front-running Dems and is the only one who even mentioned relocalization of industry. However, he, like all the others, has been hoodwinked by the alternative fuels crowd. Also, given who he kept company with in Chicago, I'm nervous about more nasty surprises.

Clinton? Let's hope she is more plugged in to the reality of the situation than she lets on. Maybe she is, but she surely doesn't let on she has a clue. One thing in her favor is that she has a good business head, far better than most pols. She can two and two add, which might be the reason she was hawkish to begin with. But she didn't back off her pro-war stance soon enough and she didnt take a stand recently to admit that this war is a complete failure on its own terms, and to back away while we can salvage anything at all. She has no unsavory friendships or associates we don't already know about.

Edwards- a cipher in an oversized house.

Gore-this guy has another role to play than president, which he was not cut out for.

I am looking at Bloomberg with interest. This guy has done a fine job of conducting the affairs of NYC, and he is acclimated to urban realities. Maybe I like a billionaire who takes the train to work too much, but I tend to approve of someone who is clearly not in love with the suburban lifestyle and knows how to live differently. NYC people have the most energy-efficient lifestyles in the country. But I want to know much more about where he really stands on energy issues, and the question of preserving human life vs preserving the wealth and entitlements of the top one quarter of 1% of the population. I detect a high level of personal decency in him, but I want to be sure.

The Other NYC Mayor- out of the question. I haven't forgotten his fascist stance with the badly underpaid and mistreated cabbies of NYC. This guy cannot be trusted.

The rest of the Repugs- complete losers.

[Dr.Doom]

Is Ron Paul a complete loser? Seems to me he knows what's going on, and is not afraid to say so.

Gore probably knows he could win it this time, but perhaps he has weighed all the tough choices that will need to be made, and doesn't want the job anymore. Too bad, I'd be willing to make sacrifices with him explaining why they need to be made.

Nice post Jim. Agree that these candidates all jumped in too early. They are setting themselves up for some late-entry surprises. This election round could even be decided at the conventions, like in the olden days.

[DaveL]

Vote for Ruddie. I haven't voted and 25 years, but I just might if RG is on the ballot. Just the weight on the far side of balance that we need.

Tipping point for you and me; Ruddie and PO, and peak everthing else. WooHoo!

DaveL

[Chiprich]

You have emphasized this opinion on several occasions, but I do not understand its logic:
"It will become self-evident that the things we've invested all our wealth in will not retain value -- especially suburban real estate..." If the things you posit come true, why would suburban real estate suffer disproportionately? Would city real estate fare better presumbably because you could walk about? To what end? The rural folks - who would they sell produce to? I agree about peak oil, but disagree of your view of its effects.

[Doug]

Won't somebody think of the cold beer at our local pubs? What will happen to our oasis of isolating ourselves from this mad world by sipping on a cold beer while listening to the jukebox?

[Micheal E Porter]

Jim,

Let me state right off, I am a longtime fan of your writings.

You say, "Our current military adventures in the Middle East, are predicated largely on keeping the old arrangements going."

I've tried at length to make this supposition work to help explain the current conditions. It doesn't work.

There is one thing that all of us underlings can count on - the skill and effectiveness of the super elites to maintain control are huge and finely tuned, and for us without inside information immeasurable. Deciphering the motivations and plans of the super elites is like reverse engineering a computer processor chip without having one to study.

The Bush regime is in control of nothing. They are but "errand boys".

The Kuwait central bank is not responsible for their effort to unlink their currency from the USD.

These are bits and pieces of a bigger picture that can be seen by a very select few.

Anyway, Iraqi oil has gone nowhere and for awhile it will continue to go nowhere. The US military is not there to capture oil for our use. It is there to keep that oil sequestered - for what?

~mike~

[Uncle Yarra]

~mike~,
Does anyone really know where the large oil deposits are in Iraq? It's a bit hard to do serious survey/drilling work at the moment. Sequestered the deposits may be, but involuntarily.

[DaveL]

Eh, Iraq has 100 GB in the same way that SA has 260 GB.

As Nelson Muntz would say: HaaHaa.

We need Ruddie to provide us leadership through the difficult days ahead.

DaveL

[Sir Bikes-a-lot]

Can somebody please show me or point to a book, website or some document where someone has done a simple energy calculation showing that we will not be able to meet our projected energy needs using alternative energy sources? HK mentions that we will not be able to find a replacement for oil, but never backs it up with any data. I've never seen any such calculation. I guess everyone just assumes that we will find something else to run all the cars, such as ethanol, or electricity from nuclear power, or coal, etc. This includes the government, because just look at all the planned expansions of roadways and new highways and everything else. You would think with all the new building going on that the government has done this very calculation and we can keep on going like this for a long time. Seems to me that it would be very shortsighted to keep building like this if we don't have a plan to meet the increased energy demands it imposes.

City/county governments are the worst because of their zoning codes and how they can keep building only around cars and not taking alternative transportation into account like bikes as if bike don't exist. I live in Wilmington, NC and if you're on a bike you are seen as a second class citizen (or someone with a dui and lost their license) or someone on a joy ride who's in the way.

[rogercraig]

Uncle-
Matt Simmons in a recent video (sorry no link) explained that there is evidence that the gorilla fields are located in ancient geological formations involving one the one hand (the Middle East) a deep rift valley, and on another (Cantarell) a huge pit carved out by an asteroid, both that collected microscopic sendimentary deposits, eventually overburdened, capped and cooked into light sweet crude. Iraq is in that Middle Eastern formation.

As for leaders, the whole arrangement is rigged through the use of polite terms such as "campaign contributions" otherwise commonly suspected as "bribery." We may be witnessing the election of the Last President.

Then again, what do I know?

[Michael Gorsuch]

Being a guy that wants to vote Democrat, I hate to admit that Republican candidate Ron Paul is the only one that seems to not shy away from reality.

Everyone else lives in Neverland...

[Nudge]

Rogercraig, not sure we had an election last time. I recall something about the actual number of votes giving Gore a victory, but then the Supreme Court (by then populated by rightwing stooges) told FL to stop counting the votes.

Every 18 months or thereabouts since George II has been in power, the Repugs will float a test balloon suggesting that we postpone the presidential elections because the country is in the middle of a war. OK, so they gloss over the fact that the war was started illegally under false pretenses, as well as our long history of continuing to hold elections during other conflicts where were arguably nastier and of greater importance. It remains to be seen if George II will try to retain the throne once he's past his expiration date.

[rogercraig]

Nudge,

If you were Gore, would YOU run?

[Dr.Doom]

Michael,

I couldn't agree more. Other than Ron Paul, the rest are either truly clueless or dishonest. Either way it's not a great position to be in to lead our country. Gore I think knows what's going on, but prefers to use GW as the stalking horse. PO is certainly tied to use of fossil fuels, and present plans to switch to coal for our fuel liquids will drive the CO2 issue toward GW, so we can say he's just being polite or cagey, as none other than Paul would use the PO phrase in public--it scares the children, and there are lots of kids of all ages in America.

[German Mike]

Interesting that the 2 guys with the most perfectly styled hair are also the 2 sleaziest in the whole bunch. (Romney & Edwards)
Ron Paul seem to be the only one facing reality and is ready to administer some bitter medicine.
As for the American voter; unpleasant realities versus good looks and a load of BS. The choice is clear.
Here're the lines from Australia. I'd go against McCain and Hillary. They're not gonna make it.
Sen. Hillary Clinton - DEM 2.40

Sen. Barack Obama - DEM 3.75

Rudolph Giuliani - REP 5.00

Mitt Romney - REP 6.50

Sen. John McCain - REP 8.50

John Edwards - DEM 11.00
http://www.sportingbet.com.au/uipub/sport.aspx?l1id=34&l2id=351445

[rogercraig]

Doom,

"there are lots of kids of all ages...", that sums it up succinctly. Now for something very important "China rejects US Warning on toothpaste."

[Dr.Doom]

Bikes-a-lot,

Check out the latest US EIA numbers for US energy consumption in 2005 and their projections for 2030. Just go to the recently updated weblogs and click on Policy Pete's Oil Log right here on this web site. Old Policy Pete has some interesting commentary on the numbers. EIA is projecting a switch from oil to coal-to-liquids and nuclear. They don't foresee wind, solar or biofuels making much of a contribution, and these are the country's energy optimists. In short, wind and solar just don't scale, and they make electricity, not portable liquid fuels. Biomass makes liquids, but it has limits based upon agricultural and natural gas constraints. We are truly going to get squeezed.

[Holmes, I presume]

When your wife complains to you about how items are mysteriously disappearing from her J. Crew shopping cart, and how she is blogging with other women about this shared personal violation, it becomes abundantly clear that trouble is afoot in the world. My life has transformed into a scene straight out of the movie Fight Club.

Nice post Jim. Good to see you turning your attention to how the candidates are doing a Dance of the Damned around all of the real issues.

[Laura Louzader]

Sir-Bikes-Alot, if we were to commit every acre of arable land to fuel production, we would not have enough vegetable matter to supply our fleet with a third of the fuel it needs to run, if even.

The only way ethanol works is if it is subsidized, in any event. The ERoEI is still negative, because of the energy expended to manufacture it, and will probably always so remain.

Should we starve 90% of our population to fuel perhaps 25% of our auto and truck fleet?

Should we make the population at large subsidize the production of ethanol and other biofuels, to their own economic destruction and that of their food supply, when subsidies for public transit would go so much further at so much lower cost?

Here in Illinois, our unspeakably corrupt governor has pushed through legislation that will allocate $1.2 Billion in public funds for the development of alternative fuel sources, which is, IMO, just a big fat farm subsidy that comes at the expense of the taxpayers. It is a double whammy when you consider that Chicago and its suburbs together constitute the economic backbone of the state, and the city of Chicago is the single biggest taxpayer among all municipalities. How unjust is it that our taxes here should go to subsidize alternative fuels that will not work and are already driving food prices up while CTA is starved of funding? We are NOT getting back what we give in taxes to the state and the feds, in the form of services that enhance the city and help exploit its potential as a liveable, walkeable place to live where you can access jobs, goods, services, and incredible cultural and civic amenities at low cost and without an auto?

The sooner we drop the alternative fuels fantasy and turn to building, and rebuilding our towns and cities as dense, walkeable communities with multiple uses centered in short densiities, the better. We can then also consider how we will return suburban land to agriculture and salvage the suburbs.

[rogercraig]

Damn, that's funny Holmes, I'm sorry.

As to the candidates' debates: Why offer onesself as a truthteller when, with the right contribution and encouragements from the key backers, you can present yourself as a standout cardboard cutout in a collage of lesser stiffs?

[asoka]

I think it is unfair to say Ron Paul is the only candidate to "face reality"... There is another candidate who has publicly commented on peak oil. Please read his reponse. He seems to be aware of reality.

I spent this past Sunday afternoon at the St. Matthias Episcopal Church in Whittier, California to see Dennis Kucinich speak. After a very eloquent, passionate speech he opened the floor for anyone in the audience to ask him a question. Here is what transpired:

Me: Are you familiar with the Hirsch Report for the Department of Energy on Peak Oil that was one of Project Censored’s top 20 censored stories of 2005, and what would you do as President to prepare America for the global peak of oil production which Robert Hirsch believes could occur within the next ten years?

Dennis: (to me) Of course I’ve read the reports and I’m familiar with it. And Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, who is a Republican from Maryland has done some great work on the Peak Oil issue. (to audience) In a word, what Peak Oil means is it’s a point at which we pass the peak of an oil supply and we start to work on non-renewable resources being depleted. What does this mean? It means that they’ll seek other environments such as in Iraq and Venezuela in the inevitable way some of our leaders like the open markets. It also means there’s an urgency right now to work at conservation, I mentioned this earlier. What we have to make…when I was growing up, President Kennedy created this challenge of wanting to put somebody on the moon. So they organized the whole country, we were competing with Russia at the time, but he organized the country. So we had this great cause, to harness our intellect for our scientific power and to bring this nation together, this great cause to reach for the stars. We need a similar call! And I’m ready to lead this nation in a similar call. To conserve energy, to develop alternative energy and to move away from non-sustainable forms of energy which, by the way, not only jeopardize our politics, but jeopardize the planet. So all this is connected. I spoke earlier about oil being interconnected and interdependent, you know, our energy policies have an effect on our politics. Our politics affects the rest of the world. Our energy policies have an effect on our health. Our health determines what our demands are for health care in this country. All this stuff is bound up together. So we need to have a call where we come together as a nation. There’s a hunger in America right now for coming together! For uniting! But not some kind of false unity, but in a higher purpose that states who we really are and just identify ourselves with something that’s almost transcendent, beyond ourselves. We have this potential right now to be more than we are, dreaded(?) in the world. Americans are ready to call and to participate something in this grand cause, not just to save ourselves but to save our nation and the planet. What a great opportunity this is! What a wonderful time it is to be alive, to realize that we can consciously reconstruct the world! That we are called upon to save the world! That we have the intelligence and spirit to do it and we only have to have the willingness to do it. We only have to believe that our political system is ready for transformation and if we have the courage to take it in that direction, then I’ll take it and I’ll change it. But (we’re) just waiting and testing ourselves as to how far we’re ready to go to bring about the change, and I think there’s a readiness now. I think people have seen enough of the war! I think people have seen enough of the deception! They’ve seen enough of the undermining of our civil liberties! They’ve seen enough to the point that (they’ve) hijacked(?) an entire American agenda!"

This is my transcription of my audio cassette recording. I placed question marks after words I was unsure of, but for the most part I think Kucinich's message is pretty clear. We need to have a plan to deal with Peak Oil on the level of the Apollo Moon Project President Kennedy initiated.

Has any other 2008 Presidential candidate articulated an understanding of or a plan for Peak Oil? Regardless, I've decided that even though mainstream media may ignore him, Kucinich has earned my vote for President in next year's primary.

[rogercraig]

Laura,
the ethanol industry stated that 2006 production of ethanol was 4,855,000,000 gallons (4.86 billion gallons). Considering that that figure could grow by a factor of 10 (I made up that multiplier) one could predict that a top-out figure might approach 50 billion gallons of ethanol/year. Considering the fact that in 2006 we burned 140 billion gallons of gasoline, if ethanol had the same energy content as gasoline (which it does not, it's far less), we'd only have to scrap 2/3 of the fleet to keep things going. A safe estimate: 1/2....and that's assuming that we give up Doritos as a major food category.

[rogercraig]

asoka,

I'm humbled by your reminders of one of Ohio's (from whence I votest) representatives, Kucinich. It's telling that he's been so marginalized as to be off the radar screen relative to being "electable". When were these comments recorded?

[rogercraig]

Sorry, upon rereading you said this past Sunday.