The Politics and Propaganda of Sustainability
We are on the brink of the American equivalent of Brexit.
Critical thinking on our part is needed to stay in the game.
One of the primary functions of government is to create and maintain a sustainable society for its citizens. It is not just about the environment. For almost two hundred fifty years, our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights have served as the framework for achieving Sustainability in the broadest sense, but this is now at risk.
The beauty of focusing on Sustainability lies in its ability to demonstrate that solutions to many of today’s pressing issues solve a much bigger single, achievable goal. This realization can inspire us to take action and bring about positive change.
The United Nations (UN) thinks Sustainability is a worthy goal, and so do I. In 2015, the UN initiated a program, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which, based on their criteria, is equivalent to what I refer to as Sustainable Living so that it is distinct from a singular focus on the environment. By 2030, one hundred sixty-six countries, including the USA, are on the path to Sustainability by pledging to meet the seventeen goals identified in the program.
The goals fit nicely into the four pillars of Sustainability: economic, environmental, human, and social capital management. In this case, capital is the multiple assets and resources, physical and intellectual, that add to the well-being of all of us. Each pillar holds equal weight in supporting sustainable living and achieving long-term survivability. If any one of the pillars fails, Sustainability cannot succeed.
Over the years, we have made gradual progress through negotiations within our democratic systems, striving to strike a balance. Both political parties have played a role in this shared, yet often overlooked, objective.
From a political perspective, the economic and wealth creation component of Sustainability, one of the four pillars, dominates the political arena, posing a significant threat to the others. The political pendulum, swinging between liberal and conservative ideologies, has historically facilitated gradual consensus toward Sustainability. However, there’s a risk of it becoming stuck in one direction, potentially derailing our progress.
Politics shapes the allocation of capital to address the need to balance all pillars. Under Democratic and Republican leadership during the past several decades, broad legislative actions have fostered economic growth and strengthened environmental compliance, access to quality health care, supporting diversity, and racial/gender equity.
The 2024 Republican Presidential platform presents to the American public a radical form of conservatism that plans to undo much of the progress made toward Sustainability. Their platform offers a nationalistic worldview that threatens to disrupt major economic, environmental, human, and social initiatives, taking us off the path to Sustainability. This type of radical conservative movement is not unique to American politics. Other global democracies have been affected, as well.
After lengthy discussions and close votes, Britain chose a more nationalistic worldview and withdrew from the European Union (Brexit). It has struggled economically and politically ever since, putting its long-term Sustainability at risk. Its economy has stagnated, and its human and social capital is declining, creating internal tension over health care and its social safety net.
If the Republicans return to leadership and choose to have America withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords once again, we could easily slide into a similar fate. Europe and the rest of the world are firmly committed to reducing global carbon emissions. The social and political cohesion among members of the Accords, along with access to innovative energy and information technology developments that spin from these efforts, strongly catalyze growth in their economic future.
The platform also places artificial barriers for our Allies to secure US military support, solidifying distrust in America’s intentions and risking further economic and social isolation. A willing China has the technologies, financial resources, and shared commitment to Sustainability. It is in step with global environmental and economic interests that could result in a significant political pivot away from America as it strengthens its leadership position on the world stage. We would now have accomplished America’s exit (Amexit) from global and economic relevance.
Is it arrogance on our part to think we can live our individual lives independently of the needs of the other eight billion people on the planet — or maybe just ignorance? We learned during WWI and WWII that ignoring global political and social conditions was not in our best interests and forced us, as a country, onto the international political stage.
In the last decade, my optimism about sustaining a middle-class lifestyle has turned into growing pessimism. Four newsworthy problems keep my attention almost daily: Income Inequality, Climate Change, Healthcare Costs/Access, and Racial/Gender Bias. Solutions to these are essential to achieving Sustainability.
Politicians treat these problems as discrete issues with little understanding of their impact on progress toward achieving Sustainability. These issues have been around long enough that our political grist mill in Washington should have ground them up and offered long-term solutions for them by now.
Yet here we are, going through another political cycle, and we still can’t seem to agree that these problems are worth solving. In fact, we are on the cusp of deconstructing whatever progress we have made towards solving them.
I try to pay attention to the news and editorial opinions, trying to wrap my mind around the issues and outlook. Plenty of propaganda comes my way from all directions regarding the election. Most are personal attacks on individuals, with little discussion of the issues and their solutions. All it does is add anxiety and stress for me and everyone I talk to.
I picked up a book called “Critical Thinking for Complex Issues” by Thinknetic. It is a refreshing read. The first few chapters reacquainted me with the process of sorting through information and sources on any topic to find truth and make better decisions.
It reminded me to:
1. Evaluate content and sources before attempting to absorb the material presented.
2. Separate facts from opinions and claims — determine if they include fictional or emotional responses.
3. Know the motive behind the author’s statements — consider the source’s intent, experience, reliability, and reputation.
4. Consider the type of response from any opposition source.
5. Consider the long-term consequences and risks of any recommended actions.
Going through all of the steps sounds like a lot of work — and it is, but it is necessary. The biggest challenge is finding the time to research the author and material, making meaningful discernment, and detaching the emotional appeals from the personalities involved from the rational merits of the content presented. The process often leads to more questions and more research.
For many, it’s exhausting, and they would choose to go no further. When you quit early, media sound bites and disinformation becomes most effective.
I listen to the news and read what I can find. Still, Republicans must explain how they plan to implement their policies and strategies. The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 manifesto focuses on reversing or diluting many existing legislative actions on all four of my issues of most significant importance. It is the most revealing document on the mechanics of implementation supporting the Republican Party platform.
I understand the appeal of having someone who promises a quick fix to all our complex problems by simply promising action. However, these promises are shallow when the rationale, details to support them, and consequences are absent from the discussion.
From my perspective, the regressive nature of the Project 2025 proposals offers little hope for sustaining my generation’s middle-class lifestyle or that of my children or grandchildren. It will only make things worse as time passes. It only adds to my anxiety.
Honestly, how many think ignoring a globally recognized problem like Climate Change, abandoning strategic security partnerships like NATO, and putting up added tariff barriers is best for us to achieve our Sustainable Living goals and survivability? We are 300 million people in a sea of 8 billion and growing. Isolation is not the answer. We have tried this in the past, only to reverse course.
Please invest the time to ask the questions to separate the truth from the fiction and the emotional pandering for votes from true leadership. Keep your eye on the real prize — a strong, stable, and sustainable society for all of us.
