THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

One of the more interesting debates brought center stage by the Trump presidency has been the conflict between globalism and nationalism.  These are two very different ways of viewing the world, its inhabitants, its international institutions and its limited resources.  Globalism calls for the operation or planning of economic and foreign policy on a global basis. Nationalism does the opposite and advocates the economic and political independence of a particular country, often stressing the superiority of that nation and its people. 

Globalism encourages openness and sharing.  Some of the hallmarks are open borders, international legal and economic forums and multilateral trade agreements.  These approaches encourage diversity, decrease inequality and limit conflict. On the other hand, nationalism stresses protectionism and strategies that encourage winner take all policies.

I have found it helpful in understanding a world that favors globalism as opposed to one that advocates nationalism to dust off one of my favorite dilemmas in social philosophy: “the tragedy of the commons.”

Under this construct the “commons” is the cultural and natural resources accessible to all members of a society, including natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable earth. These resources are held in common, not owned privately.  The “tragedy” is that individual nations deplete these resources and that governments are unable to reach long term solutions to sustain and preserve these assets for the betterment of all global inhabitants.

The concept of the tragedy of the commons was introduced in 1833 when the English economist, William Forester Lloyd, published a pamphlet which highlighted the over use of a local common resource.   His example was the pastoral English village, where herders would traditionally use a common area of land, situated between the thatched huts, to graze their livestock. He postulated that the rational decision for each individual herder would be to exceed his individual allotment of livestock to maximize his use of the common area.  However, if numerous herders violated the rules, the common grazing area would be depleted or destroyed, resulting in a tragedy for the entire community.

Some modern examples of the tragedy of the commons are national in nature but the most serious ones are global.  Within the United States, the Gulf of Mexico dead zone caused by the over use of fertilizers; the conflict over division of limited groundwater in many western states; and traffic congestion in urban areas causing air pollution are tragedies brought on by the misuse of shared resources.

Internationally, the “tragedies” are in the headlines all too often. Among them are the depletion of fish stocks in the oceans of the world; overpopulation; carbon emissions; destruction of rain forests and wetlands; and the misuse of outer space and the polar regions.

The dilemma of the tragedy of the commons occurs when a nation’s short term economic or political interests are at odds with the long term group interests of the international community.  I would argue that under most circumstances nationalism makes the tragedy worse while globalism offers the best opportunity to fashion long term solutions.

The first problem with a nationalist view of resource preservation is that it often refuses to acknowledge that a tragedy exists in the first place. The most glaring example is President Trump and many Republicans declining to accept climate change as a man-made tragedy with long term consequences. While they avoid the growing disaster and its causes, the clock continues to advance past the point of meaningful recovery.   

The second problem with a nationalist perspective occurs even after acknowledgment of an endangered finite resource.  Nationalists often refuse to support global action to preserve the resource, claiming a national interest in continued exploitation.  When the President and his party withdraw from international environmental agreements and enthusiastically gut environmental regulations on auto emissions, on use of coal and on drilling in arctic regions, they are placing short term national economic interests before long term global concerns.  If there is no buy in by the United States to evert a tragedy, other nations are limited in what they can accomplish.

How serious are the tragedies that mankind has caused to our delicate planet? The atmosphere is a global common-pool resource in its function as a sink (storage system) for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Currently, it is a “no man’s land” that is available to everyone free of charge. Oceans and forests are closely linked to the atmospheric sink through the global carbon cycle and absorb some of the human generated CO₂. Oceans and forests are also global common-pool resources that serve as important sources of biodiversity, exhaustible minerals and fish resources. Due to modernity and the hydrocarbon driven industrial revolution the atmosphere and the oceans are threatened by excessive CO2 emissions, and the forests are being depleted by increasing food and bioenergy demand.

 In the United States, much of the discussion linking climate change caused by the human population, with tragedy to the planet, has centered on hurricanes and wild fires. As serious as these events are, a recent article in Foreign Affairs points out a more troubling trend. Research has concluded a direct link between climate change and disastrous outcomes for numerous third world countries, including violence, food crises and large scale displacement of populations. Climate Shocks and Humanitarian Crises, Foreign Affairs, 11/29/18.

 As long as the United States insists on acting like the selfish livestock owner, overgrazing the common pasture area to gain an advantage, prospects for saving our planet for future generations are grim, indeed. Climate change, resource depletion and environmental degradation will get worse and forever alter our way of life.  Nationalist policies have no place in a world facing unimaginable tragedy.  Only globalist cooperation can turn the tide.

THE YEAR OF THE WOMAN

RECOGNIZING THE EARLY FOUNDATIONS FOR THE “YEAR OF THE WOMAN” 

Many political pundits have labeled 2018 the year of the woman.  After all, the recent mid-term elections saw women demand a larger role in the political process than in any year in American history.  Two hundred and fifty-five women ran for office in the two major parties across America. Nearly half of them won.

An estimated 113 million Americans cast ballots in the first nationwide election of the Trump presidency, according to data compiled by The Associated Press. That’s 30 million more people than who participated in the 2014 midterms. This represents the highest raw vote total for a non-presidential election in U.S. history and the highest overall voter participation rate in a midterm election in a half century.  A number of these new voters were young women. 

Many believe President Donald Trump was responsible for this increased interest of women in the political process.  In January 2017 the Women’s March on Washington and in numerous other cities sought to protest his sexual misconduct and to highlight that women’s rights are human rights. The #Me Too Movementtook off shortly after. Both events laid the groundwork forwomen deciding to run for office and to get involved in the election process in 2018.

Will these election results have an effect on the legislative process? Studies have shown that women behave differently when elected to office than men. Women are more interested in family issues and are more likely to build coalitions and tocompromise. These tendencies will be a welcome change to many Americans.

As the election results played out, I could not help but think about those women that came before and built a foundation for the stunning surge of women into the political arena. I had spent much of the week after the election reviewing documents from my basement to pass on to my Quakertown New Jersey home town and the Quaker Monthly Meeting situated there.

I came across the history of a Quaker ancestor, Sarah Hampton Lundy, married in the “Province of East New Jersey” in 1768.Quakers believed in the equality of men and women in all affairs.  On several occasions Sarah left her family on horsebackto travel to other Quaker Meetings throughout New Jersey, NewYork, New England and Canada.  She wanted to share her religious experiences with other women of her faith. Quaker women were taught to read and write at an early age which expanded their ability to communicate beyond hearth and home.

My paternal grandmother was a product of this Quaker heritage.  In order to attend classes as a child, she would leave the farm of her birth and walk several miles to the train station. At the termination point, she would walk another half mile to the local Academy where she was one of five high school graduates. After the death of her Husband, the local New Jersey Tax Collector, she was re-elected multiple terms to serve in this position.

Quaker women were instrumental in the abolition, temperance, and suffrage movements.  Many of them helped draft the 1848Declaration of Sentiments” in Seneca Falls New York, which came to be known as the Women’s Declaration of Independence.  Finally, after a hard-fought series of votes in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures, the 19th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution on August 26, 1920. The Amendment states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The Quaker college, Oberlin, was a true pathbreaker in American higher education. In 1837 this institution was the first school to accept not onlywomen along with men but black students as well. Prior to that time, wealthy women had educational opportunities, but they were in the nature of finishing schools, not liberal arts institutions. 

Closer to home in Washington County, I recently had the honor of writing the profile of Mary Drake Korsmeyer, Esq. for the Washington County Bar Association.  Ms. Korsmeyer was the first woman partner at the law offices of Peacock Keller and the managing partner at the firm for three years.  

She related to me her early employment experiences as a security analyst in New York City.  Upon graduating from Cornell University with an excellent academic record, she was offered a position at half the salary of the new male employees. She was told in no uncertain terms that because she was a woman she would not be promoted.

Ms. Korsmeyer went on to law school and an exemplary career, but she never forgot this episode of blatant discrimination.  She was a charter member of the Zonta Club of Washington County and helped young women entering the business world at every opportunity.

Many of us can recall similar stories involving family and friends that helped pave the way for the year of the woman in 2018.  Now is the time to share these examples of courage and foresight that made the recent giant strides in women’s equalityand political involvement possible.

The next presidential election in 2020 will mark 100 years since women were granted the right to vote. One would expect, that to celebrate this milestone, a new Year of the Woman will be created, with even greater involvement in political campaigns and elections.  The ultimate prize, electing the first woman president, remains in play.

When celebrating the most recent milestones for women, it is important to remember the progress that has been achieved by women of past generations. As stated by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a Quaker, American suffragist, social activist, abolitionist, and leading figure of the early women's rights movement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal”.

WHAT HAPPENED TO CRITICAL THINKING?

Now that the mid-term elections are over and the electorate has performed its voting responsibilities, it is an excellent time to examine the national mind set. The question that has been vexing me for some time is what has happened to critical thinking in America? Many of us are unwilling to weigh the facts or to think independently.  There are certainly many suspects that may be responsible this dilemma, including the lack of civics and social studies in the public schools; too much conflicting news on social media; one sided cable news networks and poverty in America.

 To highlight what dystopia looks like when open minded debate is not permitted by a central government, I will examine two authoritarian societies that are trying to eradicate critical thinking. Then I will return to this country, where critical thinking is not regulated but is not widely practiced by our citizens.  Lastly, I will  offer some solutions.

Critical thinking is that mode of thinking — about any subject, content, or problem — in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully analyzing, assessing, and reconstructing it. It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities, as well as a commitment to overcome our ego and native biases.

My first example of a country where there is a concerted effort to eradicate critical thinking is China. Since Xi Jinping has taken power, China has worked to mold the country into a singular ethnic and moral identity in tune with the Communist Party. The authoritarian leaders have come to fear critical thinking among Tibetans, Uighurs (who are Muslim) and Christians, among others.

 Recently, to mandate additional conformity, the government has adopted a nationwide “social credit score.” This project, which employees a massive amount of computing power, is designed to record not only economic activity of its 1.4 billion citizens, but is also designed to monitor behavior and moral character as defined by the Party. Twelve “core socialist values” were developed in 2012. They have become a direct rivalry with all religions and independent thought and are now taught to children starting with Kindergarten.  Those citizens that achieve low social credit scores because of their critical thinking are denied jobs and may be subjected to reeducation programs that resemble concentration camps.

My second example of an authoritarian country that does not permit critical thinking is Russia.  Vladimir Putin, although an elected President, has taken steps to eliminate all independent thought.  There is no neutral media or political opposition in Russia. Wearing the mantle of the liberator of the Russian people, Putin wages war on Russia’s enemies: namely, his own citizens who want democratic rights; Ukrainians and other neighbors who want independent states; or the European Union and the United States because they offer a way of life based on democratic principles.

A majority of the citizens in Russia simply choose to fall in line and not question their government. As Timothy Synder points out in his excellent book The Road to Unfreedom: Putin’s dominance is based on: “lies so enormous that they could not be doubted, because doubting them would mean doubting everything.”

There are many other authoritarian countries where critical thinking is either limited or eliminated by government policies.  These regimes claim they are trying to foster trust and eliminate partisan violence.  What they are really trying to achieve is more absolute power.  They are stark examples of what can happen when the public is not permitted to independently consider alternative political opinion.

While the checks and balances in our democratic constitutional republic present many problems on decision making and in recent years have caused gridlock, many freedoms, include the right of every citizen to exercise critical thinking, is not abridged in any way. Why then, is this basic privilege in such short supply and how can we encourage it?

The first key is simply to teach American history, social studies and democratic principles at an early age.  When one in three of our citizens cannot name the Vice President, political and social critical thinking is not possible.  The country cannot rationally address concerns such as gun violence or racism without a well-informed polity that has studied the history of these issues.  

  

In addition, once basic civics and social studies are taught to young students, they must be presented with tools that will help them to discern what questions to ask and when. This will enable them to gather and organize information necessary to reach sound conclusions. If students cannot think through social problems and are enslaved to their feelings and their opinions are reinforced by social media critical thinking is not possible. 

A few points from Forbes Magazine on sharpening critical thinking skills make sense for all of us when trying to escape the online, cable news propaganda world: (1) Imagine and envision what can work better, not just what has worked before; (2) seek continuous learning;(3) open up to curiosity and a “what if” mindset; (4) avoid all dogmatism and fundamentalism; and (5) investigate beyond the social media headlines.

Pew Research released poll results showing that two-thirds of Americans said they used social media sites to get news.  This will not change in the information age.  Either Americans will be taught to live in a world where ideas are open ended and debated to reach solutions, or one in which we live in parallel realities of alternate facts. The latter result will provide fertile ground for authoritarian leaders to hijack our democracy.

More critical thinking does not imply that more of us will favor the same policies. There will continue to be heated debates among well informed and well intentioned citizens. After all, disagreement is the basis of a well-functioning pluralistic constitutional republic.

The difference will be that those employing critical thinking will realize that politics, economics and social issues are not a zero sum game. We will come to understand that there are many solutions and that compromise among actors is acceptable. The playing field will become one of respectful tolerance for the contrary position. Well informed contributors will be in conflict with each another but will respect established facts and the opinion of opposing participants based on those facts.  Authoritarian principles will not gain a foothold.