Let's Put an End to Sarah Palin-Style Capitalism
The following was adapted from a speech on May 2, 2009 at The Progressive <http://www.progressive.org/> ’s 100th anniversary conference and originally printed in The Progressive magazine, August 2009 issue:
We are in a progressive moment, a moment when the ground is shifting beneath our feet, and anything is possible. What we considered unimaginable about what could be said and hoped for a year ago is now possible. At a time like this, it is absolutely critical that we be as clear as we possibly can be about what it is that we want because we might just get it.
So the stakes are high.
I usually talk about the bailout in speeches these days. We all need to understand it because it is a robbery in progress, the greatest heist in monetary history. But today I'd like to take a different approach: What if the bailout actually works, what if the financial sector is saved and the economy returns to the course it was on before the crisis struck? Is that what we want? And what would that world look like?
The answer is that it would look like Sarah Palin. Hear me out, this is not a joke. I don't think we have given sufficient consideration to the meaning of the Palin moment. Think about it: Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as Vice Presidential candidate on August 29 at a McCain campaign rally, to much fanfare. Exactly two weeks later, on September 14, Lehman Brothers collapsed, triggering the global financial meltdown.
So in a way, Palin was the last clear expression of capitalism-as-usual before everything went south. That's quite helpful because she showed us-in that plainspoken, down-homey way of hers-the trajectory the U.S. economy was on before its current meltdown. By offering us this glimpse of a future, one narrowly avoided, Palin provides us with an opportunity to ask a core question: Do we want to go there? Do we want to save that pre-crisis system, get it back to where it was last September? Or do we want to use this crisis, and the electoral mandate for serious change delivered by the last election, to radically transform that system? We need to get clear on our answer now because we haven't had the potent combination of a serious crisis and a clear progressive democratic mandate for change since the 1930s. We use this opportunity, or we lose it.
So what was Sarah Palin telling us about capitalism-as-usual before she was so rudely interrupted by the meltdown? Let's first recall that before she came along, the U.S. public, at long last, was starting to come to grips with the urgency of the climate crisis, with the fact that our economic activity is at war with the planet, that radical change is needed immediately. We were actually having that conversation: Polar bears were on the cover of Newsweek magazine. And then in walked Sarah Palin. The core of her message was this: Those environmentalists, those liberals, those do-gooders are all wrong. You don't have to change anything. You don't have to rethink anything. Keep driving your gas-guzzling car, keep going to Wal-Mart and shop all you want. The reason for that is a magical place called Alaska. Just come up here and take all you want. "Americans," she said at the Republican National Convention, "we need to produce more of our own oil and gas. Take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska, we've got lots of both."
And the crowd at the convention responded by chanting and chanting: "Drill, baby, drill."
Watching that scene on television, with that weird creepy mixture of sex and oil and jingoism, I remember thinking: "Wow, the RNC has turned into a rally in favor of screwing Planet Earth." Literally.
But what Palin was saying is what is built into the very DNA of capitalism: the idea that the world has no limits. She was saying that there is no such thing as consequences, or real-world deficits. Because there will always be another frontier, another Alaska, another bubble. Just move on and discover it. Tomorrow will never come.
This is the most comforting and dangerous lie that there is: the lie that perpetual, unending growth is possible on our finite planet. And we have to remember that this message was incredibly popular in those first two weeks, before Lehman collapsed. Despite Bush's record, Palin and McCain were pulling ahead. And if it weren't for the financial crisis, and for the fact that Obama started connecting with working class voters by putting deregulation and trickle-down economics on trial, they might have actually won.
The President tells us he wants to look forward, not backwards. But in order to confront the lie of perpetual growth and limitless abundance that is at the center of both the ecological and financial crises, we have to look backwards. And we have to look way backwards, not just to the past eight years of Bush and Cheney, but to the very founding of this country, to the whole idea of the settler state.
Modern capitalism was born with the so-called discovery of the Americas. It was the pillage of the incredible natural resources of the Americas that generated the excess capital that made the Industrial Revolution possible. Early explorers spoke of this land as a New Jerusalem, a land of such bottomless abundance, there for the taking, so vast that the pillage would never have to end. This mythology is in our biblical stories-of floods and fresh starts, of raptures and rescues-and it is at the center of the American Dream of constant reinvention. What this myth tells us is that we don't have to live with our pasts, with the consequences of our actions. We can always escape, start over.
These stories were always dangerous, of course, to the people who were already living on the "discovered" lands, to the people who worked them through forced labor. But now the planet itself is telling us that we cannot afford these stories of endless new beginnings anymore. That is why it is so significant that at the very moment when some kind of human survival instinct kicked in, and we seemed finally to be coming to grips with the Earth's natural limits, along came Palin, the new and shiny incarnation of the colonial frontierswoman, saying: Come on up to Alaska. There is always more. Don't think, just take.
This is not about Sarah Palin. It's about the meaning of that myth of constant "discovery," and what it tells us about the economic system that they're spending trillions of dollars to save. What it tells us is that capitalism, left to its own devices, will push us past the point from which the climate can recover. And capitalism will avoid a serious accounting-whether of its financial debts or its ecological debts-at all costs. Because there's always more. A new quick fix. A new frontier.
That message was selling, as it always does. It was only when the stock market crashed that people said, "Maybe Sarah Palin isn't a great idea this time around. Let's go with the smart guy to ride out the crisis."
I almost feel like we've been given a last chance, some kind of a reprieve. I try not to be apocalyptic, but the global warming science I read is scary. This economic crisis, as awful as it is, pulled us back from that ecological precipice that we were about to drive over with Sarah Palin and gave us a tiny bit of time and space to change course. And I think it's significant that when the crisis hit, there was almost a sense of relief, as if people knew they were living beyond their means and had gotten caught. We suddenly had permission to do things together other than shop, and that spoke to something deep.
But we are not free from the myth. The willful blindness to consequences that Sarah Palin represents so well is embedded in the way Washington is responding to the financial crisis. There is just an absolute refusal to look at how bad it is. Washington would prefer to throw trillions of dollars into a black hole rather than find out how deep the hole actually is. That's how willful the desire is not to know.
And we see lots of other signs of the old logic returning. Wall Street salaries are almost back to 2007 levels. There's a certain kind of electricity in the claims that the stock market is rebounding. "Can we stop feeling guilty yet?" you can practically hear the cable commentators asking. "Is the bubble back yet?"
And they may well be right. This crisis isn't going to kill capitalism or even change it substantively. Without huge popular pressure for structural reform, the crisis will prove to have been nothing more than a very wrenching adjustment. The result will be even greater inequality than before the crisis. Because the millions of people losing their jobs and their homes aren't all going to be getting them back, not by a long shot. And manufacturing capacity is very difficult to rebuild once it's auctioned off.
It's appropriate that we call this a "bailout." Financial markets are being bailed out to keep the ship of finance capitalism from sinking, but what is being scooped out is not water. It's people. It's people who are being thrown overboard in the name of "stabilization." The result will be a vessel that is leaner and meaner. Much meaner. Because great inequality-the super rich living side by side with the economically desperate-requires a hardening of the hearts. We need to believe ourselves superior to those who are excluded in order to get through the day. So this is the system that is being saved: the same old one, only meaner.
And the question that we face is: Should our job be to bail out this ship, the biggest pirate ship that ever was, or to sink it and replace it with a sturdier vessel, one with space for everyone? One that doesn't require these ritual purges, during which we throw our friends and our neighbors overboard to save the people in first class. One that understands that the Earth doesn't have the capacity for all of us to live better and better.
But it does have the capacity, as Bolivian President Evo Morales said recently at the U.N., "for all of us to live well."
Because make no mistake: Capitalism will be back. And the same message will return, though there may be someone new selling that message: You don't need to change. Keep consuming all you want. There's plenty more. Drill, baby, drill. Maybe there will be some technological fix that will make all our problems disappear.
And that is why we need to be absolutely clear right now.
Capitalism can survive this crisis. But the world can't survive another capitalist comeback.
Naomi Klein is an award-winning journalist and syndicated columnist and the author of the international and New York Times bestseller The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism <https://www.amazon.com/dp/0312427999?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0312427999&adid=0SQVMNB4HGDVDQHNEM41&> , now out in paperback. Her earlier books include the international best-seller, No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies <https://www.amazon.com/dp/0312421435?tag=commondreams-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as1&creativeASIN=0312421435&adid=15R0J60QJ438TDQ832QK&> ; and the collection Fences and Windows: Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Globalization Debate <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312307993?ie=UTF8&tag=commondreams-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=0312307993> (2002). To read all her latest writing visit www.naomiklein.org <http://www.naomiklein.org/>





Re: Let's Put an End to Sarah Palin-Style Capitalism
By Ji, Swaraj at Aug 01, 2009 22:14 PM
Western society has avoided confronting its own lack of sustainability by exploiting Nature and non-Western peoples. This is particularly true of settler nations, such as the U.S., which have incorporated into their ideology the concept of a "frontier" from which wealth can be extracted to support the otherwise-unsustainable process of the Western-influenced areas.
But now Western society has expanded to fill the entire planet, placing physical limits upon this rapacious expansionism, and forcing the process of exploitation to turn inward upon itself. As the effects of this are felt, people who have never before had occasion to question the exploitative status quo are finding their positions of relative privilege suddenly under attack from other, still more privileged, quarters. The big question is: will they respond by addressing the lack of holism, sustainability and justice that is present in the system as a whole, or will they instead scapegoat and attack those even less empowered than themselves, thereby creating the fascistic hierarchies of domination needed to ensure "discipline" right down to the final throes of planetary suicide?
I believe that this crisis has arisen because of the incomplete transition of human beings from a biologically-determined evolutionary process to an ideologically-determined evolutionary process. We now need to complete that process.
The hallmark of human evolution is the creation of easily altered symbol systems defining social structures and practices that facilitate and constrain collective behavior. These structures are deliberately created, proposed and promoted. A single individual, therefore, can propose an innovation that can potentially affect the practice of an entire society.
In our pre-human evolutionary past, however, Nature appeared as a context that was not dramatically influenced by our collective activity. Non-human creatures alienate and appropriate from nature as a normal part of their practice, whether in the form of a hawk swooping down on a mouse or an antelope cropping grass on a plain. Nature responds by producing the necessary mice or grass, and balance is somehow maintained at the level of the ecology, without any knowledge of these broader relationships on the part of the individual animals who are involved in such interactions.
Because of these origins, it seemed natural to humans as they developed more sophisticated means for alienating and appropriating from Nature, that these means should be applied without consideration of their broader effects upon the natural environment. Especially in settler societies, such as the United States, this sense of having a frontier with a limitless bounty to be explored and exploited has become deeply ingrained as the dominant ideology.
This orientation toward individual survival works for animals within the context of biological evolution, but does not work for creatures that evolve through rapid changes to their symbol systems, and whose influence has become a determining aspect of the Earth's biosphere. For just as the projection of narrowly-defined individual interest into the realm of collective policy works against the collective social interest, the projection of narrowly-defined human interests upon the Earth's ecology has the effect of destroying the Earth's holistically-evolved relationships.
The tendency of human beings to think of Nature as a limitless resource that their actions cannot significantly influence is the same impulse that causes greedy individuals to think of the society in which they live as a resource from which they can take things that are useful to them as individuals without any responsibility for the survival of the collective processes from which, and for which, those things were created. And so it is no surprise that those who have risen to positions of control within human society are also among those who take an exploitative approach toward the ecology. The resulting institutional denial of human impact at the global level can be extreme, as can be seen most clearly in the present debate regarding climate change.
The collective models that guide human society are originated consciously by individuals or relatively small groups, after which they are discussed to varying degrees by broader and more representative groups, and, if approved, finally adopted (or imposed) as collective practice. In order to attain evolutionarily beneficial results from such a process, the individuals engaged in proposing and discussing these models must think in terms of the collective interest. But our residual evolutionary heritage has programmed us to pursue our own individual benefit. The fact that individuals now have the ability to directly influence collective practice, rather than to merely adapt to conditions as individuals with greater or lesser success, creates the potential for an unevolved individual qua individual, or a relatively small group of such self-interested individuals, to pursue a narrowly-defined self-interest by manipulating the structures that determine our collective practice. This mixes aspects of natural selection with our new, collective approach to evolution. Martin Luther King referred to the resulting anomaly as the "survival of the slickest."
At the same time as the self-promoting individual consciousness of some is attempting to influence collective activities, the narrowly-individual consciousness of others makes them easy to manipulate through a system of rewards and punishments. These others attempt to adapt to the environment created by the controlling elements as if it were a given, more or less as their pre-human ancestors adapted to natural environmental conditions.
The control systems that are killing us result mainly from those pursuing a focus on individual success (which comes from our pre-human biological heritage) exerting an inappropriate influence upon the human social structures and practices that influence collective thinking and behavior. We need to complete the evolutionary transition that we have begun by making the sustainable, holistically-determined benefit of ecological and social systems the focus of the human symbol systems that manage those ecological and social processes.
Reply this comment
Klein Departs the Left?
By Ward, Peter at Jul 31, 2009 19:17 PM
It's not like we were having a great time with the economy before climate change and the "crisis" came along. Capitalism is a polite word for rape and pilage; viewed in this light the bailouts seem insignificant. What I find dubious about this article are two things:
a) The implication that merely capitalism as herein defined, i.e., as an insatiably aquisitive economy, is the problem--we just need to kill "capitalism" and all will be well--not general lack of human empowerment, simply manifested in the present as what's being called capitalism, and which would well continue even in a Platonic ascetic society.
b) Related to a, again implied not stated explicity, that is is really our fault for demanding too many resources and considering voting for what Sara Palin represents (instead of what, one wonders--the Democrats?!) rather than an economy largerly imperially imposed on the world's population.
It seems Naomi Klein has for the time being gone the way of the bet-hedgers; making calculations based on how her writing will be recieved by the right people (in the case the Progressive editors) rather than on truthfulness and relevance.
Reply this comment