The United States is an overstretched power, which has tried to control politics in the Mideast and Central Asia through a mix of military power and economic aid. In the post-Cold War era where the US believed it was a “unipolar power,” the US initiated a bold strategy designed to achieve global dominance. It is late enough in the game to say conclusively that this strategy failed.

In the Mideast, democracy has not moved forward, and has arguably taken steps backwards in Egypt and Iran. Afghanistan remains in shambles, with the Taliban and its supporters more powerful than anytime since the regime fell, and war lords controlling much of the country. In Iraq the US is trying to find a way out so it can declare victory, but sectarian divisions remain, the democracy there on paper only, and corruption endemic. These signs point to continuing conflict and chaos, perhaps to be settled ultimately by partition or a new authoritarian. Moreover, the New York Times reported that the private sector economy is contracting rapidly in Iraq, while government jobs are on the increase, thanks to oil revenue. This makes Iraq look much more like states such as Saudi Arabia than any kind of western model.

In states around the world, from South Korea to Pakistan to Indonesia, US influence is waning, and anti-Americanism rising. Even America’s allies in Europe, still recovering from arrogant comments by former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld about “old Europe,” is moving away from an absolute embrace of the US to a series of global partnerships, including Russia and China. Economically the position of the US is most dire. The US sends billions of dollars to questionable states to pay for our massive energy needs, while clinging to a large current account deficit and budget deficit. (For more on all this, see “The Economic Storm.“)

The result: America’s huge military is not feared because its limits were shown in Afghanistan and Iraq, public opinion is loathe to any further military adventures, and so we’re all bark and no bite. Beyond that, our massive oil consumption and rejection of the Kyoto accord create the image that we’re a people screwing over the rest of the planet in order to satisfy our hedonistic lifestyle — rightly or wrongly, that fosters anti-Americanism which impacts political decisions everywhere. With our economy now weakened to the point that we no longer are able to shape economic realities, the US has been brought down a few pegs. Instead of being a unipolar power, we are now a large player in a multipolar system. Worse, we are a large player who is spent, and neither respected nor feared. I suspect this is a low point and we can rise up from here, but we’ll never be where we were at in 1990.

Why did the US use the ‘unipolar moment’ so recklessly? The US could have focused on protecting its sovereign interests and creating a diplomatic order reminiscent of the old Metternich system where national power and diplomacy led to stability. However, American actions have led to an overstretching of US power and a demonstration of America’s relative impotence. Why?

The simplistic response would be to blame “Bush and the Neo-cons,” but often foreign policy decisions, good or bad, transcend domestic politics. I think the reason for the US errors in overstretching its capacity come from globalization, and two complementary beliefs: a) that the US could and should be a force for democracy and markets now that the Cold War is over (idealism); and b) the US needs to maintain access to oil, especially as demand increases with uncertainties about future production. This created a perfect confluence: if we do what is morally right to try to expand liberty and markets, we’ll also get what is in our self-interest, an advantage in the competition for oil and other resources.

The other choice — to try to build a stable balance of power system that does not confront Russia, China or even Iran — was viewed as dangerous. As Charles Krauthammer noted in his piece “The Unipolar Moment,” America’s period of dominance was certain to be brief — a moment. If the US did not use this moment to try to assure that the international system would be shaped in a manner conducive to American interests and values — values such as democracy and freedom — other more ominous forces, authoritarians and religious extremists, would gain the upper hand. The wars from Desert Storm onward have been wars to try to use that unipolar moment to create a world environment friendly to America and western values. Given Russia’s slide back to authoritarianism and the specter of Islamic extremism, doesn’t such a policy make sense?

In a word: no. The US public may be nationalist, but they need a real cause to sustain any kind of sacrifice. The Clinton and Bush Administrations thought they could “win the world” on the cheap, with Americans benefiting from their efforts through globalization. But while on paper it looked like military action would be easy, in reality it runs into the fact that after the war, the US doesn’t get to shape the outcome. The naive belief that democracy would naturally come about because ‘everyone wants freedom’ was never tenable, even if many in high places believed it. Second, the economic realities are such that this was clear to set up real crises for the future. The cheaper and more effective path would have been the road not taken, to work to build a stable international system through diplomacy and without trying to be the geopolitical mover and shaker.

Russia’s move into Georgia carries risks for both the United States and Russia. As the US contemplates asserting its military rights in the region, including a presence in Georgia, the possibility grows that this little country best known for a line from a Beatles song could indeed be the Sarajevo of the early 21st century. When national pride (of which Russia and the US have loads) and military presence are combined, anything can happen. Russia also has to balance the diplomatic costs; for the all satisfaction they get for showing that they are the dominant regional power, this could be a fleeting benefit if they lose G8 status or suffer other diplomatic loses. If they play this right they probably won’t — most European states don’t take the hardline attitude the US does, and in fact seem to be playing a game of ‘good cop, bad cop’ with the Russians now. Russia has to be careful not to overplay its hand.

So both the US and Russia have to recognize the limits of their power, and not let this get out of control. The Sarkozy plan seems a good starting point. Russia should not do anything to goad the West further, and must not make it look like such plans are just meaningless ways of buying time to increase their intrusion into Georgia. The US must resist the urge to “punish” Russia. Besides the hypocrisy of such a call noted yesterday, this could also increase the chances the crisis could grow — and that would leave the US with only really bad options.

If anything, this case shows the need to take that road not taken, to back away from the assertive policies of the past 18 years and work closely with the EU, Russia, China and other states. Idealism feels good, everyone likes the rhetoric of spreading freedom and democracy. But in a world as complex and difficult as this, freedom spreads best on its own as people take power in their own hands, not from the guns of state trying to reshape the world. Because, once the US acknowledges and accepts the limits of its power, we will find that a cooperative, diplomatic and non-arrogant America will be more appreciated and powerful than we now imagine possible.

On the 9th I commented on the conflict in Georgia, and criticized the reaction of American politicians, who were blaming Russia for the attack. Reading the vehement attacks on Russia, especially from the McCain camp (Bush and Obama too, but they aren’t quite as rhetorically charged), I’m getting a bit disgusted with the hypocrisy and double standards being shown.

First: Georgia started this particular war. Georgia tried to use the cover of the Olympics to launch an attack on separatists controlling South Ossetia, hoping that Russia would be afraid to respond. I’m not sure why they miscalculated in thinking Russia wouldn’t use this as an opportunity to show muscle in the region. How could they not see that Russia would want to assert it’s self in Russia’s so called “near abroad,” especially after years of NATO expansion eastward and Kosovo’s recent independence? Maybe they thought their ties with the US would protect them; perhaps a bit of group think convinced them that Russia would accept it. But their attack killed Russian peacekeepers and put the people of South Ossetia at risk. Russia responded fast, showing they were ready (and eagerly awaiting) Georgia’s misjudgment.

The South Ossetians are not Georgian, even though legally their territory is in Georgia (thanks to how the Soviets divided up the USSR). North Ossetia is in Russia, and most South Ossetians would prefer to be in Russia too, and use Russian currency and passports. Georgia has not controlled the region. This creates a difficult situation, one which Georgia escalated to war by trying for a military solution.

Back in 1999 the same kind of thing happened back in the Balkans. Kosovo was a predominately Albanian enclave in Serbia, and its people did not want to be part of the Serb Republic. Unlike South Ossetia, Kosovo was not controlled by separatists, the rebels were a small group of insurgents known as the Kosovo Liberation Army, an organization long considered by the US to be a terrorist organization. The Serbs decided to come down on the organization with force. Not only did they not invade with the brutality of the Georgians in South Ossetia, but they killed far fewer civilians. They also didn’t target western peacekeepers, it was an internal Serb affair.

The US, however, decided that this was a violation of human rights, and demanded the Serbs cede autonomy to the Kosovars. The Russians joined the Serbs in resisting this call, saying that Serbia was simply engaged in its own sovereign effort to defeat an insurgent terrorist organization. NATO the US dismissed that, citing Albanian rights and the fact civilians were in danger. The result was a long bombing of Serbia, with the Serbs finally surrendering Kosovo. The hundreds of thousands Albanian refugees came AFTER NATO started bombing, so that can’t be put forward as a reason for that war.

So when Russia is confronted with a similar situation, but even worse when an already autonomous region on the border of Russia, with people who identify with Russia, gets attacked by Georgia and Russian peacekeepers are killed. Well, there is far more rationale for Russia to respond than there was for NATO in Kosovo in 1999! Russian concerns about Serb sovereignty were dismissed then, but suddenly the West has intense concerns about Georgian sovereignty? Give me a break!

Don’t get me wrong. I opposed NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999, and I think Russia was wrong to respond to Georgia’s invasion with a massive military intervention. If I were Russian, I’d be one of the few voices arguing that this is an immoral policy, and probably be vehemently against Russian nationalists. Yet looking at it in a detached manner Georgia deserves even more condemnation for starting this war to begin with, and not being able to accept that South Ossetia does not want to be part of Georgia. Also, if NATO had not gotten involved in the Balkans in 1999, and had agreed with Russia’s argument about sovereignty, the US would have far more standing to criticize Russia now. We could point at them for engaging in double standards, defending Serb sovereignty but not Georgian (though the killing of Russian peacekeepers would give them some cause).

But clearly NATO changed the rules of the game back in 1999, and so appeals based on Georgian sovereignty are misguided at best.

So what should the US do? First, I don’t think we should transport Georgian troops back in order to fight the Russians. If Georgia wants to leave Iraq, great. But they should get themselves back, we should do nothing that would expand or extend an existing conflict. Second, we should condemn Georgia for its aggression into South Ossetia, and then condemn Russia for responding to it with a massive invasion. We should be clear that we are not taking sides, but believe that the way both countries are approaching the South Ossetian problem is wrong, and needlessly endangers civilians, including children. Third, we should make it clear to Georgia that until the South Ossetian issue is solved with Russia in a peaceful manner, there is no chance of NATO membership for Georgia (that goes without saying, giving that the Europeans have a more realistic view of the situation than the US). Finally, we should do whatever we can to extend humanitarian aid to anyone affected, and offer our ‘good offices’ for any help mediating a cease fire or even better, a solution to the conflict. Perhaps we could make an exchange: the US would recognize and support South Ossetian independence, if the Russians recognize and support Kosovar independence.

I note that there have been others who made the same comparison I did to Sarajevo in 1914. America’s hypocrisy in its response to this invasion is one reason why I worry that people might push this out of control. Unless we can understand how the Russians perceive this, and show some appreciation for the fact Georgia started this, we react in a manner that is provocative and insulting. World politics is practiced by humans, and humans are driven by emotion, imagination-driven understandings, and far too often various forms of group think.

It’s time to step back and instead of fanning the flames, try to figure out a solution that recognizes the interests of all sides (Georgia, Russia and the South Ossetian people), and come to grips with our own double standards and hypocrisy on the world stage.

I won’t describe the entire plot, only that it’s built around the story of a man, Jean Valijean (amazing job by Dennis St. Pierre), who after 19 years in prison for stealing bread to feed his sister’s child, has an act of compassion turn his life around. He has learned to hate the world and its injustice, and seems to have no chance in life. When he steals silver from a Bishop who befriended him, he gets caught, and is certain that he will again go to prison, in slavery probably until death. But the Bishop saves him, saying he gifted the silver goblet, and adds some candle holders to Valijean’s bag. Reluctantly the police (including his nemesis, Javert) let him go. The Bishop tells him that he bought his soul for God, and he should take that gift and do good. Valijean is shocked by this act of compassion, and turns his life around, changing his identity and becoming a success.

Yet eight years later (the play is set between 1815 and 1832) he is caught up again in a crisis, as upon rescuing the young Fantine (brilliantly played by Amy Bodnar) he realizes he had stood by as an unfair foreman fired her from his factory, and she has now turned to prostitution to try to make money to send to a dishonest couple who she’s paying to raise a child born out of wedlock. He also finds out that the police and Javert have found a man they think is him, and are going to condemn him for violating his parole. He decides he has to save the innocent man, announce who he is, and give up all he has accomplished. This act of compassion for the innocent man he does not know is compounded as he flees Javert and promises the dying Fantine he will take care of her daughter Cosette. He then pays off the couple raising her, and takes Cosette to Paris to raise as his own daughter.

The play has other acts of compassion. Eponine (the daughter of the couple who had been raising Cosette, all of whom have become beggars in Paris) sacrifices her life to help the man she loves but who is oblivious to her, Marius (awesome performance by Daniel Bogart), send a message of love to Cosette. Marius is involved in rebellion in Paris, which is put down harshly. Valijean, the hero, after finding out about Marius and Cosette, goes to the barricades, ostensibly to help the revolt, but really to try to protect Marius so he could be with Cosette. The rebels have captured Javert (the cop) and give him to Valijean to do what he will. Javert has been chasing Valijean now for almost 20 years, and now Valijean can end it by killing Javert. Instead he lets him go, and then rescues a wounded Marius and saves him. He tells Marius his story and asks him to take care of Cosette. He flees, knowing his true identity if found out would dishonor Cosette. Marius and Cosette marry, but Javert, his world view shattered by the act of compassion granted him by Valijean, commits suicide.

The fact the play is a musical allowed the story to have intense emotion; I was choked up and near/in tears through much of it, not just because of the human emotion of death and love, but a powerful emotional connection to the message: love and acts of compassion are the strongest and most noble forces in the universe. The Bishop’s act to save the criminal who had stole from him makes it possible for him to rescue Cosette and Marius, and change their lives. Eponine’s compassion is part of this as well.

The story involves some of the worst aspects of 19th century France, intense poverty and injustice for the poor. The rebels, young scholars with heads full of radical ideas, have the right idea, but their heroism and sacrifice are meaningless. The scoundrals and villains in the story seem untouchable, injustice reigns. Yet humans are capable of acts of goodness, and these acts, even if they involve sacrificing ones’ life or freedom, create good and make the world a better place.

Look around the world now. People get caught up in political movements, parties, candidates, all convinced their side has the right idea about what to do to make the world better. They have their “isms” - capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, libertarianism, communitarianism, etc. They put effort and time into trying to fight for their causes. Yet in so doing it’s easy to get so caught up in the abstract notion of a battle and fight for justice, that one doesn’t concentrate on the real things people can do to make another’s life a little better. People are willing to risk their life for ideology and country, but not for love or compassion.

This may seem odd coming from a political scientist, but I believe politics is overrated. Ideology is vastly overrated. Ideology is just a simplistic interpretation of a small part of human existence, and is at best vastly incomplete and riddled with errors — every ideology. People who lose themselves in politics and ideology risk losing sight of the fact that the world changes less from political movements then from people doing the right thing and treating others with love and compassion.

To be sure, Victor Hugo’s work is fiction, but in the arts — both the novel and the musical — ideas can be conveyed that touch the soul, even if the head can show many things wrong with that perspective. I’m not saying politics isn’t at all important, or that we shouldn’t fight for just causes in our world; on the contrary, we are here and should act to do whatever we can to help real people live more just and better lives. Instead, I’m noting that perhaps our priorities get screwed up when the abstract cause and political theory or ideology trumps notions of love, compassion, and treating others right.

The musical ends with a rousing finale, imploring the audience to join their fight, not for political change or revolution, but to show love and compassion — the most powerful force of all in the universe. It recalled to me when Chanda Luker, a survivor of the Cambodian genocide when she was but a child (now a travel agent here in town), spoke at UMF. Her story was powerful, and the group of 300 listening were silent and in tears as she described the brutality she had experienced. Yet at the end she asked one thing of the audience: be kind to each other. That is more important than anything anyone can do.

So I’ll try my best. I’ll talk about politics, culture, and offer my own social critique of a society that to me seems to have lost it’s soul in pursuit of material excess. But I will fight the temptation to give in to abstraction, to lose sight of the power of love, the importance of compassion, and connection with other humans at a personal level. That will leave more of a mark on more lives than anything else one can do — the more we practice kindness and compassion, the better this world will become, regardless of the politics and economics.

Since the end of the Cold War China has seen its world position skyrocket. Not only has their economy continued to boom, but the American trade deficit has grown by five times, as Americans buy more and more Chinese goods. This deficit is financed in large part by China’s investment in American markets, helping China build a large current account surplus, as well as a large saving rate. All of this suggests that despite the pressures of poverty and population, China’s economy is far from spent; in fact, it is reaching a position where it could allow its currency to appreciate, shift from foreign markets to its internal market, and balance export led growth with domestic economic improvement. The US, with a large current accounts deficit (though declining a bit thanks to the dollar’s recent weakness), would be further pressured by less Chinese investment in the US economy, perhaps sparking inflation along with recessionary pressures (i.e., stagflation — made even more likely with high oil prices). Even now the Asian economies appear to keep booming even as the US drifts into a crisis of unknown proportions.

Geopolitically, China’s position is as good as ever. American errors in Iraq have not only bogged the US down, but have increased anti-Americanism world wide. This has broadened China’s appeal in the EU, as well as wtih Russia and Iran. Russia and China have always been rivals, but they both have interests in the stability of Central Asia, minimizing American power in the Mideast, and building a strategic partnership with Iran. In Asia, China is the dominant economy, and its influence is even working to improve relations with Taiwan, and the two economies are increasingly linked (suggesting a ‘unification’ may not be out of the question down the line — but one of choice, not force). China’s political leaders now have a strong argument against the military concern for the US: the US experience in Iraq shows the limited usefulness of military power in the 21st century, and the US is so over-stretched that it is in no position to challenge China in Asia or really anywhere. China can undercut US policy directed to Iran without worry over any American retaliation — both politically and militarily, the US cannot afford to confront China.

China’s military is not especially large, given the size of the country, nor is it likely to engage in the kind of interventionism world wide that has weakened the US. They not only put respect for sovereignty as a primary principle, but they recognize that military adventurism is not worth the price. Better to make deals and leverage economic clout. That’s actually how the US achieved so much in the 20th century, military actions have in general hurt the US, including Korea, Vietnam, and of course recently Iraq.

To be sure, China faces hurdles. Some are external: China needs oil, wood and other raw materials. This has lead to a proliferation of agreements between China and various African states, as well as aggressive Chinese deals in the Mideast. As oil prices rise, however, it will stress and even threaten all fossil fuel based economies. China, also harmed by alarming rates of pollution growth, is starting to look at alternate sources of energy (and has for awhile) but they rely on the outside world for raw materials.

Others barriers are internal: hundreds of millions Chinese are still living in poverty, and this could threaten stability. One reason democracy is unlikely to work in China is that these millions could skew elections, and create destabilization or even chaos. But as the middle class grows in wealth and number, they will demand a say on political matters. The Chinese Communist Party will have to manage political reform as adeptly as economic reform to assure that the 21st century will be the “Century of China.” Ultimately, the Communist Party, who despite ditching communism has remained in power because of fear of national fragmentation, will need to give up its grip on authority. It’s unlikely that they will embrace democracy of a western style, but they will need to find a way to share authority and open up the country’s political system. They don’t have to meet our standards, but they have to make sure the Chinese people are satisfied.

Also, if the economic growth continues to poison the earth and water in China (as well as contributing to things like global warming), they could find themselves with ecological disasters that undercut the progress they make. Finally, they need to balance their own love of sovereignty with the globalized political economy they benefit so greatly from.

Finally, corruption has thrived as the economy has expanded. This hasn’t led to the problems corruption often causes, since economic growth has been so intense that there is money to spare. But to really become a stable, long term world power, they need to have rule of law that limits corruption.

In all, though, the Chinese should be thrilled by the attention they are receiving, and are justified to take it as an omen that their Olympics began at 8-8-08, at 8:08 PM — eight being a lucky number in China. Things could go wrong, challenges exist (as they do for every country), but right now China’s future looks bright.

On June 28, 1914, news came from Sarajevo that the arch duke Franz Ferdinand had been killed by Serb terrorists. At that time Austria and Russia each wanted to fill the vacuum left in the Balkans by the withdrawing Ottoman Turks. Austria bordered the Balkans, and hoped that Bosnia would agree to become part of the Austrian Empire — Franz Ferdinand wanted to assure them that they would have relative autonomy, which would be far better than if they joined the Serbs. The Serbs saw themselves as rightful leaders of the region since the Kingdom of Serbia had lost to the Ottomans in the battle of Kosovo in 1389, and wanted to create a southern slavic state (Yugo-slavia), which they would lead. They feared Austria’s overtures to Bosnia. Russia feared them more, since this might allow Austria to expand into the Balkans, and Russia’s status as a great power would diminish.

In this assassination, Austria sensed opportunity. If they could blame Serbia for the war, and issue an ultimatum Serbia could not accept, they could attack and defeat the Serbs and essentially win the region outright. The German Kaiser assured Austria of his support (though he probably didn’t realize what he was getting himself into) and for a month diplomatic games were played as the Europeans watched the minor little spectacle in the Balkans play itself out. By the end of the month, though, the crisis grew out of porpotions, and ultimately exploded into World War I as alliance structures, secret treaties, citizens driven by nationalist emotion and poor leadership let the minor crisis become a European cataclysm.

Today fighting broke out in Georgia, a former Soviet Republic. Georgia has oil and is in a strategically important position, bordering the Caspian sea, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey (not far from Iran and Iraq). A lot of oil flows through here, and instability here could influence world oil markets as well as other states in the region. The fighting involves South Ossetia, a part of Georgia where most of the inhabitants feel closer to Russia than to Georgia, and wish to rejoin North Ossetia, which is now part of Russia. South Ossetia is in the center-north of the country, it’s border not far from the Georgian capital of Tblisi.

Georgia has been adamant that they retain control of South Ossetia, but have been unable to hold it. Separatists have managed to forge a semi-autonomous region, and many if not most citizens there hold Russian passports and use Russian currency. The Georgians have recently decided to take on the separatists and try to regain control of the entire region. Russia has responded, essentially claiming that the rights of the South Ossetians for their self-determination trumps Geogia’s legal sovereignty.

Could this minor war spiral out of control as well? Probably not. But consider: Georgia has been the third largest coalition partner in Iraq, something the US greatly appreciates. That’s ending though — in response to this attack, they’re bringing their troops back home. In fact Georgia wants the US to airlift those troops back to Georgia to fight the Russians! One wonders about the conversations Putin and Bush are having at the Olympics. The US has been a strong supporter of Georgia’s claim for sovereignty, and put a lot of pressure on the Europeans to support Georgia’s bid to join NATO back in April. The Europeans, skeptical of Georgia’s crisis in South Ossetia, and not wanting to anger Russia, refused, leaving Georgia (as well as Ukraine) out of the organization.

In general, there has been bipartisan support for Georgia in the US. After NATO rejected Georgia’s effort to join, powerful Democrat Joe Biden demanded NATO not leave Georgia in the lurch after all the country has done to support the West. Indeed, Georgia has embraced the US as tightly as it could, having Americans train its troops, giving the US access to intelligence information, supported a US backed oil pipeline through Central Asia, and often acted as if Russia wouldn’t dare hurt it, given Georgia’s powerful friend. The US reciprocated by intense lobbying to get Georgia in NATO, as well as strong support of Georgia’s claim over South Ossetia, despite the fact most Ossetians would prefer to be part of Russia.

That’s why one can get worried that this could spiral out of control. I’m not worried about a US attack on Russia to protect Georgia — of all the things worth risking total annihilation, a small country in central Asia is not one. However, neighboring countries might find it useful to build on the chaos there, and a spread of regional instability could create problems that might impact Iraq, Iran, or other parts of Russia. Any time a spark is lit, one can’t be certain of the implications.

Moreover, just as the apparently minor assassination of Franz Ferdinand sparked a powder keg that was likely to go off eventually, the struggle for power and resources in that region of the world may be a similar powderkeg. Corrupt regimes, a Russia wanting influence, America believing itself the dominant power, Iran, China…all converging on a part of the world with considerable oil and natural gas at a time when an energy crisis threatens world economic conditions.

More than likely this is just a small ethnic conflict that will be resolved through diplomacy, with Russia simply showing that it can’t be ignored, and Georgia learning the limits of American friendship — we’ll give you aid and support, but we won’t die for you or risk war with a nuclear Russia! Also, we need to beware of oversimplified analyzes. A lot of people will posit this as an evil Russia attacking a poor pro-western state and demand we do more. But from the stand point of the South Ossetians struggling for self-determination, Georgia is the ruthless actor. And to many Georgians, the South Ossetians are traitors whose violence in their separatist movement requires a crack down. It’s complex.

So while this is likely just another story about a small war in a distant land, this could also be a start of a series of events in a brittle part of the world which could explode into something much bigger. It’s a conflict worth keeping an eye on.

Today McGinniss’s charge seems quaint. In the 40 years since Richard Nixon’s campaign discovered the power of marketing politics, current candidates have perfected the practice. Barack Obama, labeled by Jonah Goldberg as “the post-modern candidate,” is an example of how far this process has gone. Don’t get me wrong, I like Obama and think he is well qualified to be President, and in my opinion would be a better choice than John McCain. Yet his campaign is a marketer’s masterpiece.

This ’selling of the President’ has been progressing since JFK’s youthful appeal helped win the 1960 election. After Nixon, the Jimmy Carter brand was a post-Watergate outsider “I will not lie to you” politician who came out of nowhere. Ronald Reagan used people like Michael Deaver to take communication and selling of the candidate to the next level. A former actor, Reagan learned his lines and delivered them well, told stories that connected people emotionally, and looked great on TV. In 1984 Walter Mondale dismissed his top challenger, Gary Hart, with a one liner from a Wendy’s commercial: “where’s the beef?” James Carville ran Bill Clinton’s campaign on all cylinders, treating it like war — but not so much ideological war, but more like a Pepsi vs. Coca Cola conflict. Responses right away to the media against any attack, a message of the day, sticking to the message (”it’s the economy stupid”) and taking focus groups and polling seriously. Karl Rove took it even a step further, and George W. Bush came to power stressing unity, compassionate conservatism, and running a very tight, disciplined campaign, which kept on message.

Every campaign learned from past campaigns. Ones that couldn’t market well — Al Gore unable to figure out which “image” fit him, Bob Dole running a political campaign rather than a advertising one, or John Kerry who let others define him — lost. No longer was it about the message or even the man, but the one liners, the slogans, and the image of the man. The candidate just has to be disciplined, look good, project the right image, and say his lines well. After all, even Paris Hilton sounds Presidential when she delivers her lines on the energy policy — substance is no longer required.

Barack Obama emerged from nowhere and has engineered a revolution in American politics. He is extremely intelligent, disciplined, and presents himself well. He doesn’t have Reagan or Clinton’s charm and humor, which is a negative, but he can probably learn to present those traits during the campaign. He has extensive policy statements; his speeches are full of detail, and his website takes stances on every issue one might have a question about. That’s important. These may all be forgotten after the election — most Presidents don’t govern like they campaigned — but well crafted persuasive policy positions during the campaign are necessary. He has a message that resonates: Change We Can Believe In (brilliant — true political junkies might charge it is empty, but marketers know this kind of slogan is magic), and in every speech he talks about people acting to empower themselves. Empowerment is a big concept in marketing circles these days. Moreover, he is a superb lawyer, he can engage in policy debates and he understands the issues. The Democrats have a good product to sell.

Moreover, the team around Obama understands the new media. Building on work by Howard Dean in 2004, they engaged in a massive grass roots internet effort to build a movement and gain access to levels of campaign contributions never before imaginable. Rather than big donors and every political minded individuals actually giving money to a candidate, the theme of empowerment helped him persuade people across the country to give often small amounts — but small amounts that added up quickly. They’ve generated support from the more hard core so-called “net roots,” but are now shifting to balance the old constituency with the new; pivoting to the center.

One might think from all of this that I’m down on Obama. Not at all. Politics is played in a way that works best; Obama and his methods are a natural product of how American politics operates today. It will be emulated. I personally think Obama is a quality candidate based on his background and the positions he’s taken. Most importantly, he is surrounded by very good and knowledgable advisors. He’s smart enough to choose the best minds to help him on issues as well as on campaigning. I suspect he’d bring a strong competent team to the White House, not a bunch of cronies. Most Presidents bring long term loyal advisers with them to the White House; Obama looks set to bring real experts.

Still, this notion of politics as marketing, and Obama as a “post-modern candidate” is troubling in a broader sense. This change in American politics is the reason that the politicians don’t talk about the tough and troubling issues, as I noted yesterday. It’s the reason more gets made of race, gaffes, or who said what one liner than real policy debate. Most voters will not vote on ideology, policy, or analysis of the positions, advisers, and background of the candidates. Rather, it will be an emotional choice, strongly affected by how well each campaign sells their own candidate or tears down the other.

In my post Consumerism and Fascism I noted the similarities between the marketing behind hyper consumerism and fascism, and in Triumph of Will I cite similar arguments from Horkheimer and Adorno right after WWII. Even though this time the marketers may be putting forth a candidate that I like, the fact they can do this means that we need to worry a bit about the future. What will happen if, say, a terror attack causes more anger, if an economic collapse creates havoc, or someone truly devious can come to power by projecting the proper image? In short, our politics risks giving way to emotion-driven salesmanship. Hence the rise of talk radio, swiftboating, blogs that specialize in ridicule of the “other” side, with personal animosity for those whose views are different. All thrive on emotion, use enlightenment tools only to rationalize their position, and turn politics into holy war. This creates a real danger of future fascism or authoritarianism.

To be sure, it may be that the consumers are knowledgable after all, and I’m underestimating them. Perhaps Obama only gained this support because he earned it, just as McCain rose from the political dead to surprisingly capture the GOP nomination. Perhaps the voters are more sophisticated than I give them credit. I’d like to think so, especially since I think we have the best pair of candidates than in any recent election. Maybe blogs and new media are actually helping break through the traditional old media grip. However, judging from the tactics, arguments and media coverage of this election, it seems to me that for most people it’s emotion and marketing that will shape their vote, not real reflection on the issues and the candidates.

All of this gives me a sense of foreboding. We place so much emphasis on our political institutions that we ignore the importance of our social structures. We focus so much on wealth and economic performance, that we ignore real cultural problems. Carnival consumerism isn’t a problem because money is being made! This could hint to a political/cultural storm which, if combined with the economic storm that may be on the horizon, could point to difficult days ahead.

“ALFRED E. Neuman isn’t running for president this year, but he might as well be. The United States is speeding toward a fiscal cataclysm, and the leading presidential candidates treat the subject with a nonchalance worthy of Mad Magazine: What, me worry?”

Jacoby notes that the debt is nearing $10 trillion, we’re expected have record deficits this year and next, approaching $500 billion. Taken alongside the housing crisis, the credit collapse, and the dollar’s continuing weakness, this points to an economic cataclysm that could make the next decade extremely difficult. Jacoby also notes (as I have as well) that the baby boomers are about to retire, and this means not only a massive strain on social security, but instead of paying into 401 K plans, they will be withdrawing from them. The impact on the stock market could be very negative. In fact, this could lead to a major collapse in America’s position in the world, something I’ve discussed before.

You’d think this would be a central theme in the campaign, that people would be focused on figuring out how to deal with these structural problems that threaten our very way of life. Instead, the candidates are oblivious, hence Jacoby’s comparison to Alfred E. Neuman. To listen to Obama and McCain speak, you’d think that our problems are simply the result of some bad policies that need changing. They show no sign that they understand the immense challenges facing us in coming years.

They can’t. For McCain, a recognition of the reality of the situation would mean either embracing the possibility of tax increases (anathema to a Republican) or real, intense cuts in government spending. While in the abstract Republicans rail against government programs, when it comes to specifics they are hesitant to recommend real cuts. They know that the public likes broad attacks on government excess, but becomes fickle when their favorite programs or issues are threatened. But to keep it vague, he can’t give numbers or really address the scope of the issue. It’s all marketing, not real political debate. Moreover, it’s almost certain that the cuts will come from military expenditures as well as domestic programs — the public will demand it. But a Republican like McCain can’t even suggest that.

For Obama, recognition of the realities of our fiscal situation would mean curtailing the promises of new government action to solve problems, fight poverty and provide health care. The money won’t be there for new government programs, so he’d have to say that we’ll either have to raise taxes or make cuts as well. But for a Democrat, it’s important that he seem to promise a more active government, otherwise he’d lose the base of his party, something needed in November. Moreover, ever since Walter Mondale miscalculated that being honest about tax increases would be welcomed by an educated voting public, Democrats shy away from clear talk about taxes. Instead a vague promise of “cuts for the middle class” and increases “on the most wealthy” dominate the discussion. That won’t be enough to deal with the problems on the horizon.

So here we stand, before perhaps the biggest economic and political crisis of our country in the last 140 years, and our political leaders, spending billions to try to gain the office of the Presidency, refuse to even acknowledge the problem. Instead, it’s played politically, with both sides blaming the other and claiming they have the solution. It’s enough to make me want to support Paris Hilton, who at least seems to have a sensible energy policy!

Why is it that our leaders refuse to confront difficult problems. They all want to make it seem easy. But, just as the politicians like to blame others for our problems (blame OPEC, big oil, big government, the Democrats, the Republicans, etc.), it’s easy for us to simply blame the politicians. They aren’t leveling with us, they aren’t confronting the deep problems facing our country, they are fiddling as Rome burns! The blame, though, lies with us, the American people.

We’ve become fat, lazy, uneducated, and blind to the complexities of the world around us. We focus more on our entertainment and toys than on the world and its problems. In politics we get more incensed about emotional issues — abortion, flag desecration, etc. — then the complexities of world affairs and the problems facing our economy and the environment. We want a candidate with a slogan that allows us to just ignore the problems — don’t worry, be happy. And, wanting to be elected, the politicians give us what we want. They certainly know the problems are far more intense, they aren’t oblivious to the reality they refuse to acknowledge. But they also know that we don’t want to hear about it, and we’ll certainly withhold our votes if they tell us things that make us uncomfortable.

Oh, but for a candidate who would say: “Fellow Americans, I’d like to stand here and tell you that if you vote for me and my party, we have the policies to solve our problems and secure a prosperous and peaceful future. However, we face problems that defy any easy solution, and require Americans of all political stripes to work together and think creatively. These problems — oil dependency, massive government deficits, a huge trade deficit, the de-industrialization of our country, environmental problems, and a risk of fiscal and economic collapse — are the result of policies embraced by both parties. No one can simply blame the other side. Moreover, we’ve gotten so comfortable with partisan bashing - blaming the ‘evil Democrats’ or the ‘greedy Republicans,’ — that we’ve lost sight of the fact the world is too complex for simple ‘this way or that way’ solution. So I can’t promise new programs to solve our problems. I can’t promise ‘no new taxes.’ We have to keep all options on the table as we deal with this impending crisis. I can only promise to speak openly about these problems, and listen to the various options and possibilities, building compromises that allow Americans to work together to weather this storm, and set the foundation for long term peace and prosperity.”

There’s a good chance our lives will change dramatically in coming years, as economic reality forces us to cut back on all aspects of government, from social programs to military spending. It will bring about an upheaval in our political system. Perhaps, as I noted in “America and the Troglodytes,” this is rooted in a fundamental weakness in modern democracy. Americans will be shocked and angry that this was allowed to happen, and the door will be open for populists, political opportunists, and Bonapartism. It could well be that the 2008 election will be remembered for it’s surreality, candidates talking about empty issues while the country is on a collision course with disaster. We’ll blame the politicians, but they’re just giving us what we want.

“…Groping in the darkness, searching for a way
To fill the empty space inside and between us all
Stranger in a strange land, what’s a man supposed to do…”
- Rik Emmett, Triumph, “Stranger in a Strange Land,” from Thunder Seven

In thinking about consumerism in recent weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that living in the modern world is a challenge. Given that most of us have our material needs taken care of, and thus pursue unnecessary wants (though they often feel like needs), one would think that we have it easy. We live in the lap of luxury, surrounded by conveniences and opportunities unimaginable in the past. Yet people are suffering record levels of depression, stress, and anxiety. What gives?

I believe that all humans at base have a fundamental need beyond material concerns: humans all need to have a sense of emotional connection, fulfillment and meaning to feel like we are living a worthwhile and joyful life. I would call this a kind of ’spiritual core,’ something which stabilizes the individual in a world full of uncertainties and challenges. If this core is not filled, it becomes a void, a yearning for meaning that people try to fill, often self-destructively. It is the “empty space inside and between us all” that Rik Emmett mentions.

The void can be a subconscious point of despair and desire, as people sense they are lacking something, that life is boring, and the daily routine is suffocating the sense of self. People respond to this in various ways. Some people go into depression, and see no point in living day to day. It’s all the same, old, unfulfilling and monotonous routine. One feels unappreciated, unimportant, and unsatisfied. Others turn to alcohol and drugs to escape. Most people focus on short term distractions — hence the power of consumerism (’I'm bored, gotta go shopping’), parties, and adventurism where people need a thrill to have that sense of being alive. And, of course, there’s television, video games, and losing oneself in the hectic world of instant messaging, facebook and chat rooms.

These distractions can’t fill the void, they just numb it. But the void is there, driving behaviors, causing everything from eating disorders to promiscuity or road rage. Some focus on career and “moving up,” trying to fill the void with external success. Bill Clinton and Lyndon Johnson seem to have had that kind of approach, and it can lead to worldly fame, though even that seems fleeting. Michael Jackson tried everything he could to fill the void — even creepy relationships with children — but despite wealth and being top of the charts, he seemed unable to do it. O.J. Simpson was a wealthy movie star former athlete who was one of the best running backs in modern history, yet his success could not fill the void either.

Religion, of course, used to provide the spiritual core that filled the void. It provided community, a sense of meaning, and a chance for introspection and reflection. In that sense, it was a very effective way of giving people both joy and satisfaction, the two things that the void prevents one from achieving if it remains unfilled. Alas, religion has lost that capacity for most of us, thanks to the enlightenment and our modern rational minds. Sure, some can still feel quite at home with their faith, but for people like me, who have learned to be skeptical and rational, there’s no way I can buy a pre-packaged faith and simply believe. The evidence suggests its just tradition and myth, and intellectual honesty prevents me from simply giving in. Moreover, I think that’s true more and more as modernity increases its grip on the human mind. That’s why I argued awhile back that we need a new ‘axial age’ to find a different way to accomplish what religion used to do for us.

So what do we do about this “void”? First, acknowledge that we are not just machines, but we have a need for a sense of meaning, connection, fulfillment and purpose. That way if we find ourselves addicted to video games, reaching for too much drugs and alcohol, immersing ourselves in distractions like porn, consumerism, or whatever, we’re seeking to fill an emotional, even spiritual, need. And while these distractions can create a short term rush, they aren’t really enough to provide meaning; life will constantly seem to be missing something if we simply try to distract ourselves from coming face to face with the ‘void.’ Even romance and love don’t cut it; unless ones’ spiritual core is filled it will be hard to move past the romance stage to the commitment necessary for a long term relationship, and instead people will become bitter that the rush of early love has faded, and either cheat on their spouse, seek divorce so they can try to find that rush again, or just feel miserable and seek other distractions.

I don’t think it’s possible to fill the void without looking inside, so I think the second step is harsh personal honesty. We need examine our actions, and not be afraid to say “that was really stupid,” or “I must have done that because I was insecure and felt threatened.” Most of the time we lie to ourselves, we are so afraid of the void and our own weaknesses that we rationalize our negative behavior and blame others. That leads to a third point: in order to truly be honest with oneself one has to really love and respect oneself. If one is convinced he or she is a good person, admitting weakness and error is simply a method of self-improvement, not a reason for self-loathing.

That creates a catch-22. Without a spiritual core, it’s hard to love oneself, and thus hard to be honest with oneself. It takes work to look inside and get to know oneself and really confront the need for meaning. It’s so much easier to go for external distractions. In such cases, I think people need to think about what is “out there” that helps address the needs of ‘the void.’ That includes family, friendship, nature, and the arts (literature, music, etc.) Honest, deep discussions with family and friends — as well as light hearted fun — create a sense of connection, which the void needs. Nature touches us spiritually, I believe. We sense at a deep level that there is sense to the world, and we are part of something with meaning, something fundamentally beautiful. The arts are sparks of creativity, which reflect that aspect of human spirit which the void needs — creative expression is, I believe, one of the most enduring ways to fill the void. Exploration, learning and travel are also helpful — it stimulates the mind to look beyond the mundane every day drab existence. In essence, filling the void is best done when one develops perspective, the ability to view things from different angles, and understand why those different angles can be seen to make sense. We also shouldn’t be afraid of accepting that there may be a spiritual side to our existence, even if our world seems wholly defined by the material.

Of course, many people already have a spiritual core, and thus seem to be able to take life and all its stresses without losing their sense of joy. They may find their religious faith sufficient, their sense of family and nature could be strong, or they are naturally introspective and creative. Perhaps it’s upbringing, something genetic, or maybe the experience of many lives.

The challenge of modern life is find a way to fill ones’ own void, to find ones’ own spiritual core in a world where religion is mistrusted, families are scattered, and nature is seen as something to be controlled. In a world where materialism is king, spiritualism is distrusted, and creativity embraced primarily if it sells, our entire culture seems to work to keep our core unfilled. The void and its distractions are good for business. Somehow we have the courage to look inside and really know ourselves, take responsibility for our own lives, treat each day as something precious to create in the way we want to, and live a creative and expressive life, connecting with nature and others in a manner that fosters joy. Only if we can do that can we really enjoy the material delights of the modern era, and truly understand and empathize with those on the planet who suffer from war, famine, slavery and other problems. The problems of this world cannot be solved by people suffering “the void.” Such people are so self-absorbed, they don’t see the world clearly, or understand their place in it. And, lest I sound too preachy, I see in myself the constant challenge to nurture the spiritual core and fight against the power of a culture based very much on greed and materialism.

The debate about the use of military force in American foreign policy is over, and my side has won. The Iraq war assures that future Presidents will be unwilling to use military power to achieve foreign policy objectives unless it is so risk-free (e.g., Ronald Reagan’s attack on Grenada kind of risk) that it cannot go wrong. They will look at how the entire Bush Presidency, the “opportunity society” and the Republican domestic agenda was sacrificed at the alter of this war. This war cost so much, destroyed the popularity of a well liked President, and took a party that was thinking in terms of a ‘permanent majority’ to looking like it will be on the ropes for some time.

To listen to John McCain or others talk, the apparent success of the ‘surge’ is meant to undo all that went wrong. Now we can leave Iraq stable, they hope, and finally say ‘mission accomplished.’ Yet few really try to make the argument that this was all worthwhile, and instead focus on simply avoiding an embarrassing defeat.

Beyond the obvious political costs of the war, the US military has been severely overstretched and the economy is in a very difficult position. With the war so unpopular, the idea that there could be a massive increase in the size of the military without a major increase in cost is infeasible. Yet the public is likely in no mood to see their programs cut in order for the military to grow, and with the economy heading south, there isn’t any excess money around to fund a military increase. In fact, in this war the use of the National Guard for so many tours of duty will probably mean that national guard service will become less popular, putting a strain on states as well.

Early in the war it was seen as remarkable that so many former Generals were criticizing the administration and the Iraq war. The number who spoke out suggests that within the Pentagon there was real antipathy to the way the military was being used. The Generals coming out of this war will on doubt be adverse to using the military as a way to try to socially engineer foreign countries, and want to focus again on defense and security – the traditional role of the military. Even among Republicans there is a sense that while they don’t want to lose Iraq, and believe that the US has its reputation on the line, the Bush administration was reckless in getting us to this situation. It’s unlikely either party will be especially hawkish moving forward.

Still, while those of us opposed to military adventurism may have “won” this debate, the “won” goes in quotes because we really didn’t prevail in convincing people we were right; rather, events went in a way that persuaded most in the country that the hawks were wrong. The same thing happened in 1973 after the Vietnam war. The anti-war side won that time as well, but only because Vietnam was a disaster. Not being able to put forth a coherent alternative, the victory for anti-militarism was short lived, being slowly nibbled at in the 80s before the end of the Cold War and Desert Storm renewed America’s belief in the use of military power. To make this more than just an “Iraq syndrome” that will last a decade or two, those of us opposed to militarism need to make a coherent argument for an alternative approach to foreign policy, one that captures the ideals of most Americans. Those ideals contain a mix of idealism, realism, and nationalism.

It’s not enough to simply posit multilateralism. NATO isn’t effective as a true international body, the UN is full of problems and difficulties, and even the EU is finding foreign policy cooperation the most difficult aspect of its attempt to integrate the European states. Of course multilateralism is necessary, but it is not in and of itself an alternative. Americans are especially prone to fear giving up sovereignty, even if it seems increasingly obvious that globalization is eroding sovereignty at every turn.

Yet globalization is eroding sovereignty precisely because it is in the interest of states to allow it to be eroded. Therefore, rather than focusing on the negative, perhaps an alternative would be something along the lines of the US as exercising “sovereign national interest and global responsibility.”

The argument would be that without real burden sharing in terms of military activities, the US cannot afford and is in fact hurt by trying to be a ‘world cop.’ Therefore, we will only intervene if we need to for direct and explicit national security concerns, or as part of a true multinational force, sharing the burden with a general consensus that military action is necessary.

Second, we will embrace diplomacy as a true way to express sovereign national interest. The idea that diplomacy is for weaklings and cowards, something real statesmen never think, but a lot of arm chair generals believe, needs to be dispensed for good. Diplomacy is about using leverage to help achieve what’s in the national interest, including efforts to promote democracy and work against corruption.

Third, we need to stress ideals in our means of foreign policy, not just our goals. When we allow corruption to grow in Iraq, or kill civilians in order to protect soldiers, or rationalize efforts to try to control another country’s politics in order to pursue ‘larger’ goals, we are sacrificing our ideals. I don’t believe that the ends justify the means, since the means end up reflecting who we are to those who witness them – and in a modern connected world, that’s the whole planet!

Finally, global responsibility means that we understand that in this interdependent world we are connected, what affects us affects others, and we can’t see states as billiard balls bouncing off each other. This means we have to work towards international law, deal with environmental problems, take human rights seriously, and recognize that we need trade. We need to see sex slavery, mass famine, and child soldiers are problems for us, even if they exist far away.

In short, we can have a foreign policy that is not militarist or interventionist, but focused on mixing a protection of our national security with a cooperative approach to working with other countries to deal with global issues. If we can build a coherent argument defending and explaining this, and limiting how and when we consider military engagement legitimate, then perhaps this time we won’t need another syndrome twenty or thirty years from now to relearn the lesson.

First, it’s fun. When the mall first opened it boosted “Camp Snoopy,” an indoor amusement park with rides based on the theme of Charles Shultz’s Peanuts comic strip. Recently, however, that changed to “Nickelodeon TV,” with the more marketable faces of Dora the Explorer and Spongebob Squarepants, with rides more expensive and a bit more adventurous than before. It is loads of fun, and we spent far more time there than actually in the mall (and spent money only there and at the food court). My two year old spent 45 minutes building things at the Lego land display, free of charge.

Second, the food’s great. While the food court has the usual Panda express and the like, there are delicious gyros, experimental ‘fast food,’ and a wide range of restaurants from the unique to the down home. Whatever your taste, you can find it at the Mall of America - with good quality too. Where else can I get a quick, cheap, yet high quality gyro (with the right sauce and meats), plus a delicious side of spanikopita?

Finally, you can find whatever you want. When I lived in Minneapolis, the MOA was my shopping mall. I went there to buy the things I needed, as it was closer than other malls, and I knew I could find what I wanted. It has virtually everything, and many stores are intriguing on their own right. Granted, we didn’t experience that so much this time because of the focus on the amusement park, but there are good deals, and a variety of offerings you can’t find in most places. It is a mix of the pragmatic and the sensational.

And I mean sensational — it overloads the senses. Much like the old European Cathedrals of the dark ages, the Mall of America is spectacular. From the moment you enter sounds, images, and an open expanse create a sense of wonder. For the average rural Minnesotan, used to flat plans and small towns, this is an eye opener. There’s an energy and a vibrance to the Mall of America that is compelling. I used to come here and people watch when I was bored, often buying nothing but some oatmeal butterscotch cookies and just walking around, observing. I recall when I came to Farmington for my job interview, I knew I was going to be in for culture shock when I asked the student giving me a tour of the campus what Farmington was like. She got a big smile and said with excitement, “we just got a Walmart!” Yikes.

Tomorrow before our flight we’re heading to downtown Minneapolis so the boys can see real skyscrapers and what a city is like. In Farmington Maine we’re rather secluded. When I first moved to Maine, I missed the Twins Cities, where I’d lived for ten years. Minneapolis is known for its music scene, awesome theater, and arts. And while it is a real city with traffic jams and crime, it also has numerous lakes within its city limits (I think 11), and in the suburbs even more. One can get on a bike path and go from park to park around the city and along the Mississippi without feeling like one is in an urban center. Farmington is small, the nearest ‘good shopping’ is 45 minutes away, and while being a university town it does put on some good plays and concerts, well, rural Maine stands no chance against Minneapolis-St. Paul!

Tonight, though, I felt glad that this is a place we’ll go simply as tourists, not as a normal weekly or even monthly event. Just like the Cathedrals of old used incense, colors, and stained glass to create an other-wordly impression, as if the horrors of daily medieval life didn’t exist, the sanitary ‘catering to every whim’ atmosphere at the Mall of America creates an impression of the individual consumer as King. I am here, my wants are primary, others are here to serve. I have to give money, to be sure, but in exchange I am pampered and complimented — all in a fun, exciting environment. The message is clear — you deserve to treat yourself to something special, even if you have to borrow to do it. Everyone else is, why be left behind?

Thus this new religion turns traditional faith on its head. Rather than a sense of something higher, with community paramount, material wants are privileged, with individual satisfaction the highest value. While most religions try to produce some sort of introspection on life, it’s meaning, and our place in the world, consumerism’s message “don’t worry about that heavy stuff, buy something and enjoy yourself.” Most traditional religions demand adherence to one story, myth or creed. Consumerism can coopt virtually any religion, “sure, shop around for your church or faith, believe that…but that doesn’t mean you can’t be a good consumer too!”

I noted awhile back that most religions no longer are viable, given changes in science and human knowledge attained over the past few centuries. Visiting this consumer cathedral, it reinforced my sense that we’ve let our cynicism about faith lead to an embrace of pure materialism that is at its core empty; short term efforts to fill a void that requires something deeper and emotionally satisfying. In an earlier blog I called this ’spiritual dehydration,’ a sense our material fetishes cause us to miss something about the creative or ’spiritual’ side of life. At the Mall of America, one sees consumerism in all its material glory, using fun, food, spectacle and excitement to make consumerism seem fulfilling as well. I suspect most people still can find a happy medium, and don’t get sucked in completely. But it is an amazing place — a true cathedral to consumerism. I recall last February’s visit to St. Peter’s in Rome on the Italy trip, an extravagant spectacle that was so expensive it helped push the Germans towards revolt and the reformation.

Then it hit me. For all of the spiritual and ethical intent of Christian teachings, the result of Christianity as practiced was often to simply keep the powerful wealthy and the powerless in servitude. Corrupted Popes or modern day corrupted televangelists, all using emotion to line their pockets and fleece the masses. Perhaps the two cathedrals don’t represent things so different after all; this current cage is simply a gilded one.