Background
Worldview | Vision ? | Strategy ? | Interviews

Paul Loeb

2/19/05, WH:
In relation to this country at this time, what issue most concerns you?

2/19/05, PL:
It's the Bush administration's relentless pursuit of control in every area of American life, their relentless grab for power and attacks on anyone who opposes them. A former Air Force Colonel I know described their attitude toward dissent as "shut up and color," as if we were unruly eight-year-olds. Whatever we may think of Bush's particular policies, what's most disturbing about his regime is how much he's promoted a culture that equates questioning with treason. This threatens the very dialogue that's at the core of our republic.

My friend Egil Krogh, who worked in the Nixon administration, hired G Gordon Liddy, and went to prison for Watergate, did things he knew were morally wrong, wanting to be loyal. He watched Nixon's administration frame everything in terms of national security, then identify that security as whatever consolidated their power, while branding those who challenged them as traitors. Bush's administration, to Krogh, seems even more ruthless. So the central issue is this abuse of power, and our need to confront it. Of course this feeds into every other issue, from the denial of global warming (probably the central issue for the planet), to the Iraqi mess, to the steady widening of our country's economic divides.

2/21/05, WH:
If Kerry had been elected, what do you imagine that your most pressing concern would be? In other words, apart from the particulars of the Bush Administration's machinations, what most concerns you about conditions in this country at this time?

2/24/05, PL:
If Kerry had been elected we wouldn't be facing the all-out assault on democracy embodied by the Bush administration. But we'd still face a cluster of critical issues-to me, the most critical is global warming. Nothing since the height of the nuclear arms race has so threatened the habitability of the planet. Kerry recognized it, but wouldn't speak about it due to his political timidity-a timidity which may well have cost him the election. With Bush in office, we need to do everything we can to highlight the issues, including working with often regressive religious conservatives who've begun to speak out on the need to do something about it-even James Dobson of Focus on the Family has recently spoken out.

Of course even with a Kerry victory, he'd have inherited Bush's messes on a host of other issues, from Iraq to the regressive tax cuts..

2/25/05, WH:
Does it make sense to talk about "the system" as a major underlying problem? Does a particular social system prevail in this country at this time? If so, how can we best describe it in one word or phrase? Does it have a primary purpose? If so, how can we best describe that purpose in one sentence? Do we need to "change the system"?

3/15/05, PL:
Can you complete the online interview we started by answering the following questions?

1) Does it make sense to talk about "the System"? Does a particular social system prevail in this country at this time?

2) If it does make sense to talk about "the System," does it have a primary purpose? If so, how can we best describe that purpose in one sentence?

3) If it does make sense to talk about "the System," how can we best describe it in one word or phrase?

4) Do we need to "change the system"?

5) If we do need to change the System, would that involve changing this society's primary purpose? If so, how should we re-define its primary purpose in one sentence?

6) How could we best describe that proposed new System in one word or phrase?

7) What else would changing the system involve?

3/18/05, PL:
We need to move to a system where people expect to participate and expect to have a voice. Instead of one where we're passive spectators. Obviously we also have to rein in the power of huge concentrations of wealth that corrupt this system and accentuate the passivity.

I'd like to see us move from a society of passive consumers to a society of active citizens. And from a society where we deny our most fundamental problems to one where we engage them.

Some structural changes would help: Clean Elections models like those in Arizona, Maine and Vermont, where if you get enough $5 contributions you get public funds to run for office; Instant Runoff voting; support of genuinely independent media, like the BBC and Channel 4 in Britain; local governments that encourage participation; and schools that teach the history of how ordinary citizens have changed this society for the better.

But it's going to take tremendous outreach to get people out from behind their TV's, reconnecting with each other, and seriously thinking through the issues we face.