If bold national and global action from our traditional governing institutions prove insufficient in tackling the issues we face in the 21st century, let’s not forget the power we have ourselves.
Recently I seem to have lost my usually uncanny ability as a perpetual optimist. The state of the world, it seems, is sometimes just too much to handle, especially when we face problems at such systemic—ecological, political and social—levels.
Two op-eds in the New York Times last week gave a startling, if not downright pessimistic, reminder about the state of our nation and our world.
Paul Krugman’s “Saving the Planet” touts insecurity about our ability to deal with climate change on a national level, rightly pointing out the Gordian knot of climate policy; if the price on carbon is as high as it needs to be to address climate change, it will be politically unfeasible. He ends with this sour note, commenting on the recent political energy showdown: “Hence my concern: if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming?”
David Brooks’ “Missing Dean Acheson” challenges our ability to move forward and tackle any global challenges at the necessary scale. In an age of decentralized global authority, he claims that we have lost any “mechanism to wield power.” Pointing to the failure of the global community to deal with large-scale issues, including climate change, he muses that global interconnectivity, giving voices to those who have been voiceless, just adds to the noise contributing to the “globosclerosis” that stymies tough decisions. “In a de-centered world, all it takes is a few well placed parochial interests to bring a vast global process tumbling down.” Sadly, this hypothesis is supported by a recent simulation of future climate talks.
Both articles hint that the governing institutions we created in the past three centuries—the US government and the United Nations—are paralyzed by the individualism and democracy that mark the 21st century. As we move away from absolute power, where a ruler leads and the ruled follow on both a national and global level, we lose our ability to make the tough, quick decisions necessary to deal with the global problems that face us. Both articles question, intentionally or not, whether the democratic ideals we cherish hinder a governing body’s ability to put the interests of the whole before the interests of individual constituents, particularly when those interests are urgent enough.
And, as the national and global governing institutions fail to address the mounting convergence of 21st century problems, the ensuing desperation and urgency could have disastrous consequences on the entities themselves. As climate guru Ross Gelbspan warns, “When governments have been confronted by breakdowns, they have frequently resorted to totalitarian measures to keep order in the face of chaos.”
Yet, I want to emphasize that an interconnected, decentralized community leads to paralysis only under the archaic assumption that centralized, regulating bodies are our only agents of change.
So I find myself asking: is this pessimism really all we can offer?
If our collective voices are growing too loud to make any headway in national or global institutions, perhaps it’s time to change the way that those institutions wield power. What if instead of asking governing entities to do the hard work for us, to come to seemingly impossible agreements on regulations, they ask it of us? What if the connected, democratic individual becomes the primary agent of change, and governments generate power by inspiring and enabling individuals—en masse—to act?
Armed with a new idea of a connected world, limitless information and easily accessible social capital, 21st century individuals are powerful. And with that power comes great responsibility. Examples of innovative, world-changing ideas and social entrepreneurship prove that individuals are taking on the responsibility formerly assumed solely by governing bodies.
In the end of Krugman’s article, he suggests that the only way forward “is if those who stand in the way of action come to be perceived as not just wrong but immoral.” I would argue that while morality, guilt even, is powerful, the idea of a 21st century responsibility is even more so.
If our own empowerment has made it more difficult for those governing bodies to act, it is our responsibility to take action ourselves, not as only consumers or voters, but as enlightened individuals devoting our lives to bettering the world. And, to truly enact change, our political leaders must demand it of us.
Someone once said that optimism is a political act. If we want to do anything about the impending challenges of the 21st century—global poverty, climate change, to name a few—we have the responsibility to inspire the country and the world to act with the responsibility demanded by them of their own empowerment.
Great post! I agree 100%
Easy to say, romantic even, but in reality this skirts the responsibility of those who are in the government positions, America is a republic, not a democracy.
I am certainly not saying, or hinting, that govt is not responsible. I just think that a) people who throw up their hands about the lack of govt action don’t realize their own power to make change and b) the idea that with this power we have the responsibility to act holds much more weight than any guilt or morality.
And, the govt, knowing the power of the 21st century individual, should ask us to wield it in an effective way. Individual actions are not powerful in themselves. But, when we put them in the context of a national movement in a time of growing global connectedness, they can become transformational.