A society that has been stagnant for a time begins to rise
when the culture underlying it begins to experience cross-fertilization because
the society itself has sought the cross-fertilization or because the phenomenon
was imposed on it from the outside. Of course, one must be careful not to let
the process of fertilization and change overwhelm the stagnant society, or the
ultimate result will be the replacement of one society by the other such as
happened to a number of indigenous cultures in what has come to be called the
new world – as if nothing had existed there before the “discovery”.
The United States of America (usually referred to as
America) is the most prominent example of the new world phenomenon where several
indigenous cultures were almost wiped, making room for the newcomers to settle
in and create a new society that is itself a product of the many cultures to
which the newcomers used to belong before coming. The cross-fertilization has
been breathtaking in America and has resulted in the rise of a whole new
culture that shone brightly for about half a millennium. But the signs are here
that the shine is beginning to dim. So the question: Is America entering a
period of stagnation?
I am convinced that societies go into a period of stagnation
and eventual decline not only by the absence of what is new, but also by the
active rejection of it, something that happens to a society which begins to
feel more comfortable living a moment of cultural lethargy. This is what I see
happening in America these days – from the school children who harass the nerds
that love math and science, to the groups that oppose immigration, to the
environmentalists who continue to hang on to ideas that work against their
causes even after it is proven that what they do harms what they say they wish
to protect.
These are the symptoms but not the causes of what is pushing
America into a period of doldrums. Yes, the symptoms have the habit of feeding
on themselves and mushrooming to become a separate ailment, but the original
catalyst that starts the chain reaction usually begins somewhere else before
permeating the entire body. And the best indication as to how this happens is
in the saying which tells of the fish that begins to rot at the head. We must,
however, add an amendment to this saying so as to make it reflect reality more
accurately.
The way I see things, the head itself does not usually
initiate the rotting process; those who are close to it – be they underlings or
aspiring rivals – do so. And they do it most likely because they have an
ambitious agenda of their own they wish to implement. It would be an agenda
that includes controlling the reins of power by legitimate means if they can or
illegitimate ones if they cannot. And since change would interfere with their
plan to take over, these people resist the change, and try to impose a period
of lethargy that they hope will last long enough for their plan to succeed.
You can see how all this plays itself out in the perpetuation
of what started as a myth but is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. It is the
myth of the American president who manages to get himself elected for a second
term becoming a lame duck president during the second half of his second term.
The people who started this myth and continue to perpetuate it are the ones who
smell blood at this point in time, and allow their hunger for power to grow
exponentially. It happens as they see that the time has come to start polishing
their work histories, and start running for the available offices even before
the exiting administration has removed itself.
Niall Ferguson and Stephen Moore seem happy where they are,
and so we must assume that neither is running for a different office. Yet, you
see them caught in the tsunami that is sweeping America and that resists
change. They do their part by rejecting all new ideas, and by hanging on to the
cultural lethargy that is growing around them; one to which they contribute
enthusiastically both their talent and their energies. You get a sense of this
by reading two articles that appeared on October 4, 2013 in the Wall Street
Journal.
The Niall Ferguson article has the title: “The Shutdown Is a
Sideshow, Debt Is the Threat” and the subtitle: “An entitlement-driven disaster
looms for America, yet Washington persists with its game of Russian roulette.
The Stephen Moore article has the title: “Using 'Sue and Settle' to Thwart Oil
and Gas Drillers” and the subtitle: “The Endangered Species Act is being
employed more than ever to block development.”
Whatever it is that these authors are for or against, is not
the issue here. The debates are raging, and they should have their say like
everyone else. What is crucial is how they perceive the other players, and how
they respond to them. Most important of all is how they perceive the man at the
top, and how they perceive the people in his administration who wield the power
and make things happen.
Ferguson sets the stage by describing a state of lethargy on
the part of others that is setting him on fire. He complains that “watching the
US bond market is like sitting in a theater and smelling smoke but everyone
else seems oblivious.” But why does he believe this is happening? It is
happening, he says, because “President Obama has become the Hamlet of the West
Wing” who cannot make up his mind about anything. So Ferguson tells Obama what
his job is about: “a key function of the head of the executive branch is to
twist the arms of legislators on both sides.” Is that so? But where in the Constitution
is this job description written?
After a few more paragraphs in which he describes the
problem that America faces today, Ferguson ends with this: “Hey, does anyone
else smell something burning?” Apparently not because they have all surrendered
to a foggy moment.
We now come to the article of Stephen Moore who sees the
American lethargy manifested in this form: “Many suspect that environmental
activism isn't about saving species. Instead, it is about restricting land use
for economic development.” And like Ferguson, he sees that the problem begins
at the top: “the Obama administration and its allies inside and outside federal
agencies have been making expanded use of a tactic called 'sue and settle' to
issue new and expensive regulations.” Unlike Ferguson, however, he does not say
that Obama is naturally indecisive, but shows him to be active in matters
concerning the environment. And that's what gets in the way of economic
development thus encourages the stagnation, according to him.
In practical terms, what happens is this: “Because the
federal agencies include former employees of green organizations, sue and
settle can be collaborative. The agency signs a consent decree that the courts
then rubber stamp.” What can be more lethargic than that? But to be fair to
all, Moore reminds us that: “The Obama administration didn't invent sue and
settle, but the pace has increased since 2009.”
What the pair of authors has failed to mention are two
crucial points. The first is that the most important economic development
preoccupying the people who hold opinions similar to theirs, is the oil and gas
industry. These people have been accusing the Obama administration of
neglecting this industry, which is why America is so dependent on other nations
to satisfy its energy needs, they have been saying all along.
And as can be seen in their current articles, they have been
throwing all sorts of statistics and mentioning all sorts of studies to show
how much America has lagged behind, and how much farther it will retreat in the
coming years. And then it happened that under Obama's reign, America became
number one in the world in matters concerning the production of oil and gas. Is
this a miracle or is it something that can be explained rationally?
Never mind answering that question because the important
thing is how did those people react to the new reality? Well, they said it all
happened despite the fact that Obama did not help but stayed out of the way.
Let's be clear about this now, my friend. This is what they said while talking
through one side of the mouth. At the same time, however, they used the other
side of the mouth to continue beating up on Obama. They did so by saying the
exact opposite thing. In fact, they said that the proof Obama is a socialist is
that he refuses to get out of the way and let the private sector run the
economy like good capitalists do.
Whoa! How can it be that Obama proved to be a bad manager of
the economy by interfering with it like do the socialists, and proved to be a
bad manager of the economy by getting out of the way like do all capitalists.
Did he or did he not? Is he a socialist or is he a capitalist? Is he a good
manager of the economy or a bad one? He can only be one or the other; not both
at the same time.
The truth is that you can never please these people; a sign
that the culture is getting tired of itself. No wonder kids and adults have had
it up to here with the whole setup. This is why they clamor for a period of
calm even if it means embracing the lethargy that will most certainly lead to a
period of cultural stagnation.