Comments on: The Commonwealth and the Commons

By: Gary Hart

Gary Hart — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:32:25 +0000

In response to Richard Zietz, I did read The Limits to Growth when it first was published. Though some of its projections are still relevant, some believe it was too apocolyptic in a number of regards. Regardless, ours and future generations simply must accept that the earth’s resources are not endlessly replentishable.
Kevin is right about FDR. Truly a strong leader. But there was considerable domestic opposition to US entry into WWII, oddly from conservatives whose heirs are now more than willing to go abroad seeking monsters to destroy. My definition of leadership is: being able to look over the horizon; having the imagination to create new approaches to new realities; and being able to convince a reluctant electorate to let go of the past and move into the future.

By: Kevin W.

Kevin W. — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 03:49:13 +0000

“Leadership: The ability to share the presence of a new, generally unwelcome, reality or condition to a group of people, then help them to successfully adapt to it.”

I don’t recall the source of this definition, but it’s precisely what’s needed: transformed people eventually creates a transformed society. Review the leadership brilliance of FDR. In a relatively short span, he transformed an isolationist nation with a standing Army smaller than that of Portugal, into a country of citizens prepared to do whatever necessary, on the homefront or on the battlefield, to defeat our enemies. FDR was neither being pulled by the American people into war, nor was he too far out in front for Americans to follow. He led us confidently, methodically, and honestly, into understanding what we had to do.

FDR taught our nation that the commons and the commonwealth were inextricably intertwined, as they are today. Today brings a new generation of “unwelcome realities.” Let’s pray that today’s new generation of leaders can do what FDR did to bring us through as a stronger nation with a core of shared values and priorities.

By: Richard Zietz

Richard Zietz — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 04:14:46 +0000

Have you read “the Limits to Growth”? Have you seen any updates on the predicted peak population and the rate at which it will crash? I suspect you could write an interesting book describing the typical news bulletins 50 or 100 years from now: “150,000 additional coastal residents displaced last week”; “Canadian grain harvest cut in half by wildfires: 50,000,000 Americans facing starvation this winter”. Perhaps a fictionalized horror story will have more impact than the proceedings of a scientific conference.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:16:30 +0000

Bill Gates might set a fine example (now), but the problems we face can’t be solved by a League of the Extraordinarily Wealthy. They can only be solved by government. But for a generation, we’ve had it hammered into our skulls that “government is the problem.”

Yet people are again looking to government to help make their lives better, if only by leveling the playing field. Despite that, many in government simply block progress in protecting the national commonwealth, for even the acknowledgement of such rubs against their political orthodoxy. And I’m not just talking about the Republicans here. Every day we see Democrats twisting themselves into pretzels by talking about the benefits a benevolent government can bring to peoples lives while at the same time shying away from advocating too much direct government intervention, even when it make the most sense. The political system becomes less responsive when the interests of the political class lie exclusively in serving the capitalist system. (Some fella just say “public option trigger?”)

By: Tom Gee

Tom Gee — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:40:06 +0000

One of the things that has always been a curiosity for me is how thinly framed in the Constitution is our economic order. Our social compact, the Bill of Rights, is more clearly laid out in detail. Our capitalistic system hinges, I believe, almost entirely on the Interstate Commerce clause. If my assessment is correct, our 240 year history has merely been a “love affair” with self-interest over common interest.

By: Gary Hart

Gary Hart — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:11:14 +0000

You have made my case as well as, if not better than, I do.
Sorry about the webpage. Not sure what specifically hurts. Many comments have been very positive about the layout and design.

By: danielmcvicar

danielmcvicar — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:15:46 +0000

Dear Senator Hart,
I must call you that, because I volunteered in your office in 1975.

Our common interest is our selfish interest. That is what we all come to learn. Look at Bill Gates now. It is the pattern, make the money, and then figure out that it must go to the common good.

A responsive political system includes that idea in it’s mechanism. The common good becomes the objective. A capitalistic system encourages performance in it’s ideal. My work brings me reward.

We are faced with many challenges, and the largest is the climate crisis. If this is not the common good, I don’t know what is. It is the common survival. There may be some who can survive thanks to the money that they made, and therefore a greater ability to adapt, but what do they have at the end of a doomsday?

Thanks for your continued thoughtful posts. I enjoy them on HuffPo. This is my first visit here.

I have to tell you, the design of this site hurts my eyes.