The Ultimate Enemy Of Resilience – And Democracy – Is Fear Of The Future

THE POOR WANT PROTECTION FROM THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES WHILE THE RICH WANT PROTECTION FROM THE POOR, BUT THE MIDDLE CLASS WANTS PROTECTION FROM THE FUTURE. They've achieved something both modest in scope but profound in political implications - a good life that they seek to protect. And when that middle class no longer feels sanguine about the future? Then their fears become the political system's driving dynamics.

As noted previously, this is where things now stand in America and throughout much of the West. Globalization has clearly created the world's first majority middle class, but that development has set off competitive dynamics (the West's middle class v. the East/South's "cheap labor" middle class) that have undeniably put a squeeze on this nation's resilience-defining socio-economic middle.

Remember back to when Europe and America, thanks to the Second Industrial Revolution of the late 1800s, saw their middle classes balloon. Two reactions arose in tumultuous-but-still-monarchy-bound Europe: a radical impulse from the Left to prevent the rise of the bourgeoise (Marxism-Leninism) and a reactionary impulse from the Right to protect the shopkeepers from radicalized Labor (Fascism). In combination, these twin movements sparked unprecedented bloodshed across the great Europe-Asia landmass.

America, meanwhile, lucked out with the two Roosevelts, Teddy and Franklin, signaling this country's tremendous DNA-debt to the Dutch, who both spawned that famous political dynasty and impregnated us with that free-wheeling socio-economic mindset once known as New Amsterdam and now known as New York City - where the Roosevelts long reigned as political patriarchs. Our great good fortune was to see the American Middle come to rule itself, versus succumbing to either the Bolshevik Left or the Fascist Right. That political reality has defined America's national resilience ever since.

But clearly that stabilizing dynamics is under great duress right now. The Middle Class' fear of the future is what elected Barack Obama to the presidency, and thus it is no surprise that he spent much of his swan-song State of the Union address noting his enduring failure in eradicating that fear - despite guiding us rather ably through the Subprime Crisis and the Great Recession.

President Obama nailed his description of this deep angst when he noted:

We live in a time of extraordinary change -- change that's reshaping the way we live, the way we work, our planet, our place in the world. It's change that promises amazing medical breakthroughs, but also economic disruptions that strain working families.

It promises education for girls in the most remote villages, but also connects terrorists, plotting an ocean away. It's change that can broaden opportunity, or widen inequality. And whether we like it or not, the pace of this change will only accelerate.

Well said. But he should have used the modifier "revolutionary" versus "extraordinary."

Globalization is a revolutionary force in its aggressive connectivity. That promise of education for village girls is what drives a great deal of blowback anger among radical fundamentalist groups. Recall how the Taliban treats girls education in Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan (attacking schools and shooting - in the head - the [subsequently] Nobel Peace Prize-winning teenage girl who champions female education), or what ISIS does to women (sex slaves) within its territory. Remember also the nickname local Nigerians gave to their northern radical Islamic insurgency - Boko Haram (Western education is forbidden), and how that group brazenly kidnapped a couple hundred young females (later forced into marriages with their soldiers and combat roles) to demonstrate their control and instill fear among the citizenry.

President Obama cites that "change" in a distant, abstract manner (as he cites so many things), when, in truth, these revolutionary dynamics are greatly of America's making ... and spreading (since World War II) ... and defending (since the Cold War's end). He distances America from that "change" because he does not see - as others do (including myself) - that historical lineage and the national responsibilities it creates.  In Obama's perspective, this is not so much a world of our creating but one of our enduring.

Over the long haul, President Obama will be more right than wrong. While I would argue that globalization is a world - first and foremost - of America's creating, our great success in doing so does eventually diminishes our standing as superpower-without-parallel (a status he reflexively asserts at the end of his address, so as not to appear un-American).

He shouldn't have to - of course. The only way America could remain the sole superpower would have been to deny the opportunities for others to rise, which would have been profoundly un-American. After WWII we championed the resurrections of Italy, Germany, and Japan, and after the Cold War we did our level best with Russia and hit the jackpot with China. We could have done otherwise, but we did not. And now we "suffer" a more competitive world that's also beget the first majority middle class in human history and seen those living in deep poverty reduced to less than 10% of world population - also unprecedented.  

Oh, and by the way, the world of today features fewer, shorter and less deadly wars than at any previous time in human history - the threat of catastrophic/everyday terrorism being stipulated. The world is also more democratic than ever before.

You add that all up and it is clear that the world advanced magnificently under America's alleged global "hegemony" - without a doubt surpassing all the previous efforts by European and Asian empires throughout history.

So what I'm saying here is that these are the best problems that America and the world have ever faced, even as they propel us collectively into new and uncertain situations where fear about the future will be difficult to tame.

And here is where President Obama's address also gets it supremely correct:

America has been through big changes before -- wars and depression, the influx of new immigrants, workers fighting for a fair deal, movements to expand civil rights.

Each time, there have been those who told us to fear the future, who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, who promised to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control. And each time, we overcame those fears.

We did not, in the words of Lincoln, adhere to the dogmas of the quiet past. Instead we thought anew and acted anew.

We made change work for us, always extending America's promise outward, to the next frontier, to more people. And because we did, because we saw opportunity where others saw peril, we emerged stronger and better than before.

What was true then can be true now. Our unique strengths as a nation -- our optimism and work ethic, our spirit of discovery, our diversity, our commitment to rule of law -- these things give us everything we need to ensure prosperity and security for generations to come.

In fact, it's in that spirit that we have made the progress these past seven years. That's how we recovered from the worst economic crisis in generations.

Brilliantly stated - except for that last claim. No one outside the Obama Administration would swallow the notion that America's "spirit" has been restored these past 7 years. We got a breather alright, and Obama deserves great credit there (then again, that's why we elected him twice - to give us a breather from Bush's exhausting presidency), but America has also taken a sort of strategic vacation from managing the world, a situation that's invited other great powers (Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia - to name the most prominent) to step in and try their own hands - a development that America instinctively mistrusts - with some good reason - no matter how much we implicitly beg the Rest to rid us of this infernal global policeman burden!

President Obama ended his speech with four questions, which, if answered, presumably end our nation's growing fears about the future:

First, how do we give everyone a fair shot at opportunity and security in this new economy?

Second, how do we make technology work for us, and not against us, especially when it comes to solving urgent challenges like climate change?

Third, how do we keep America safe and lead the world without becoming its policeman?

And finally, how can we make our politics reflect what's best in us, and not what's worst?

Not a bad list, but they can all be better summed up with: How do we make America the most resilient country in the world?  Less brittle, less reactive, and more flexible in our adaptations to this brave new world?

Yes, that is a looking-out-for-numero-uno approach at first glance, but can you name a better country to pioneer a redefinition of national resilience moving ahead? One more likely to share that learning curve with others?