July 14, 2011

Global Weirding Coming At Us All

If the green movement hasn’t done much for the planet lately, it has given us some cool new expressions.  One of the best is “global weirding,” the trendy new way of branding the apocalypse formerly known as global warming.  It combines the virtue of ‘climate change’ (which is that anything from deep freezes and record blizzards to ferocious hot spells and droughts can be held up as evidence) with the catchiness of global warming.  Not bad.

And unlike some green scare propaganda, the global weirding hype is actually true — although more about the human rather than about the natural world.  Politics, economics, international relations, religion: everything in our world is getting weirder, and the weirding is happening faster all the time.  These are the best of times and the worst of times in ways that would blow Charles Dickens’ mind.

This change is rapidly propelling us into a century that will be radically different from everything humanity has known before.  Just as the twentieth century unleashed new horrors and terrors even as it revealed new accomplishments and new glories, Auschwitz and the Gulag standing beside medical miracles and technical wonders, so the twenty first century is going to dazzle and appall us.  The highs of scientific discovery and technological advance will be exponentially higher than what went before; we will be lucky if the lows aren’t exponentially worse.  We have all been given tickets on the wildest roller coaster ride in the history of Planet Earth and there are going to be spills as well as thrills before the ride is done.

Get ready for a wild ride (Wikimedia)

Our governing classes, our academics, our journalists and our professionals mostly hate this and, eyes firmly fixed in the rear view mirror, try to pretend that the world of the twentieth century can never, will never break up.  Except for some entrepreneurs, mavericks and renegades, our technocratic elites are mostly a bunch of rule followers and incrementalists.  They got where they are by scoring well on tests, manipulating the platitudes of conventional wisdom a little better than the next guy and by pleasing their supervisors.

This is almost exactly the wrong way to raise leaders for tumultuous times.  We need Teddy Roosevelts, Winston Churchills, Harriet Stowes and Alexander Hamiltons.  We are producing legions of promotion-hungry bureaucrats and narrow specialists with no knowledge of or interest in the tumult and chaos that inevitably rises up in times like ours.  We then place them in large, bureaucratically run institutions and expect them to deal creatively with the unexpected, the revolutionary and the totally new.

The mismatch between the small ‘c’ conservative ideas of our leaders and chattering classes and the upheavals around us makes the times even more dangerous than they have to be.  The crew is rearranging the deck chairs instead of preparing the life boats — not because they don’t want to help the passengers, but because their minds have no room for extreme events beyond the bingo, shuffleboard and dance contest that were scheduled for today.

These last few days that sense of the good ship Denial rushing headlong towards Niagara Falls seems particularly strong, and not just when one looks at the Washington debt limit discussions.  Look, for example, at Europe.  Not since the 1930s has the incompetence, incapacity and selfish shortsightedness of Europe’s governing class been so shockingly on display.  For eighteen solid months Europeans have been trying and failing to come to grips with the economic crisis of the eurozone.  And for eighteen months they have ignominiously failed.  Solutions are still possible — but only if European policy makers wake up to the realities around them, and fast.

While their fecklessness endangers the global economy, the Europeans are simultaneously knocking down what little is left of their defense establishments — to the point where the Obama administration (sounding more like Dick Cheney every day) is telling the Europeans that their incompetent naïveté threatens the survival of NATO.  None of this stops European leaders from erecting one fantasy on top of another in a bewildering series of cloud-palaces: global carbon treaties, anti-death penalty campaigns, regional associations across the Mediterranean.  Every species of quackery and flapdoodle finds a home and a subsidy in Brussels.

With the possible exception of poor, shell shocked Japan, no other major world region is quite as feckless as our Atlantic allies, but a quick glance around the world is enough to show that the future storming toward us is wilder, bigger, scarier, more complicated, more horrid and more awesome than our establishment and intellectuals for the most part are able to imagine.  The Arab Spring, which has shaken regimes the establishment once assumed were eternal and which took our intelligence analysts as much as our pundits by surprise, is the kind of event we are going to see more of.  History is shifting into hyperdrive and things are going to get weird.

Not a Lamb but a Tiger

In China we see a society that is rapidly outgrowing its regime, and an economic model that is outliving its usefulness before its work is done.  China today is in a pre-revolutionary state.  The political system, try as the central authorities may (and many of them are extremely good at their jobs), simply cannot forever keep juggling the growing number of balls on its hands.  As China industrializes and develops, the interests and aspirations of its people become more complex and conflicted.  The pressure on China’s fragile environment grows exponentially.  The balance between regional autonomy (often corrupt) and central power (often rigid and unaware of local realities) has been a source of trouble for thousands of years in China; today that balance is more urgently needed and more difficult to find than ever.  The Chinese financial system, partly controlled by the center, partly controlled by wildly optimistic and often profoundly corrupt local governments, and partly private, becomes more complex, more unbalanced and more unsustainable with every passing day.

I wish the Chinese well with their juggling, and I hope that any revolutions will be peaceful and slow, but if history teaches us anything at all, big changes are headed China’s way.  A billion people are undergoing wrenching and rapid transformations of everything they have known.  Traditional Chinese religions and cultural patterns have yet to recover from the hideous crimes and monstrosities of Japanese occupation, civil war and communist rule.  Marxism, the only modern ideology to conquer China, has been largely discarded.  Islam and Christianity are fishing for converts but as of now the People’s Republic of China is the rapidly changing home of a billion people whose ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, have been shaken to the core.  A growing population of billionaires shares the country with an army of the poor.  Disruptive technologies and even more dangerous new ideas are sweeping through China like tornadoes over Kansas.

China is a tiger not a lamb; more blood will flow before this century is done, and the epic of Chinese history in the 21st century will be, one hopes, happier and less bloody than the tragedies of the 20th.  But China and drama aren’t finished with each other yet and there will be many twists and turns in this story that as yet we can hardly imagine.

A print showing Chinese acrobatics (Flickr | xdanger)

India Unbound

India is if anything headed on an even wilder voyage into the unknown.  “A million mutinies” is how VS Naipaul described it years ago; try a billion plus and growing.  India is the world’s largest democracy and home, as former Team Mead associate now prize-winning author Ben Skinner has argued, to its largest number of slaves (pdf).  It is America’s most natural strategic ally in the 21st century, but most of the people in the two countries have only the vaguest ideas about their prospective new partners.  This vast and diverse country with its thicket of cultures and religions is in some ways more like a continent than a nation state.  The inevitable stresses of accelerating economic development and the accompanying social change are going to test India and its neighbors as they have never been tested before.  With a decaying, strategically addled but nuclear armed neighbor in Pakistan, and a dangerously explosive rivalry with China that is likely to escalate over time, India’s external environment is as challenging as its internal issues.  On the other hand, geography and demography seem to be conspiring to make India a major force in East Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East.  Nobody knows where this is going, but the emergence of India on the world stage could be even more challenging and transformative than the rise of China.

Economists Out of Their Depth

Here in the United States we are living through the progressive destruction of the blue social model, the dismantling of the learned guilds, and a fundamental challenge to the foundations of the progressive social thought that has been our guiding intellectual light for the last 100 years.

The global economy, frankly, is something no one understands.  I’m reminded of what Peter Berger tells us was the first paragraph of Bernard Lewis’ still unfinished book on economics:  “In the history of human thought science has often come out of superstition. Astronomy came out of astrology. Chemistry came out of alchemy. What will come out of economics?”

Economists love to be dogmatic and sneer endlessly at the failed predictions of their colleagues, but the reality is that the world economy is not an unchanging timeless essence that can be perceived with the tools of an unchanging and perfected theory.  It is a complex system that responds to changes in human capabilities and human ideas. Right now both the real economy and the financial markets are changing so rapidly that nobody really understands how all the pieces fit together.  Because of these changes, and because nobody really understands the new reality being created around us, we are guaranteed to have many more economic adventures and surprises.  Some will be good; others will be challenging.  But they will come, and they will test our capacity to respond creatively to disorienting change.

The Revolution Will Be Blogged

Via Meadia is first and foremost a blog of observation: I observe the various changes remaking the world and do my best to discern the outlines of our new world among the death throes of the old.  After 22 months of blogging (and one month of internet time equals half a year in print) I’m convinced that blogging is the best way to carry out this task.  Watching the audience grow for the long form essays at Via Meadia has convinced me that, contrary to popular report, the internet can be a comfortable home for the traditional personal essay.  If Hamilton, Madison and Jay were writing the Federalist Papers today, they would put them out as a blog.  Thomas Carlyle, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mark Twain, Susan B. Anthony and Thomas Paine would have blogged.  Teddy Roosevelt would have blogged — endlessly, and horrifyingly well.

I love the long form blog and the personal essay, and I plan to continue writing them.  But 22 months as a blogger has taught me something else: the times are moving so fast, there is so much happening that deserves comment, and the public hunger for ideas about how to make some sense of the hurricane of events through which we are living is so intense, that I need to do more.

Via Meadia is adding a fast lane.  In addition to the “traditional” long posts — which will continue to appear two to three times a week when I’m not teaching and, hopefully, twice a week when I am — I will be adding short posts to the mix.  For the last couple of months I’ve been working with the tech staff at The American Interest to make the new system work and to make the transition as seamless as possible.  Meanwhile I’ve been working with the redoubtable Peter Mellgard my research associate and our crack team of underpaid but talented interns to make sure that our short posts add value.

If the long form blog post on the internet recreates and re-energizes the classic personal essay, the short form blog follows Henry Luce.  A short form blog, which generally consists of links to one or more websites accompanied by no more than a couple of paragraphs of commentary is really the contemporary version of the dominant magazine form of the twentieth century: the digest.  Henry Luce’s Time started out as a digest: at a time when national and international news had not yet been standardized and when there were no broadcast news channels, Luce and his team looked over all the week’s newspapers and magazines to put together their version of the most important stories of the week.  The dispatches they looked at were rewritten in Time‘s trademark “backward ran sentences until reeled the mind” style and people all over the country snapped the new magazine up because it allowed them to follow the news quickly and efficiently.

Time Magazine’s first cover, featuring Joseph G. Cannon (Wikimedia)

The Luce/Hadden format (Brit Hadden was Henry Luce’s brilliant youthful collaborator and the co-founder of Time who died tragically early) inspired a number of quite different magazines which essentially prospered by aggregating scattered information into a more usable format at a time when information sources were proliferating and the average person had a hard time keeping up.  Think Reader’s Digest and TV Guide, two very different publications which flourished by repackaging gathered information.

But Time did something else that modern short blogs also do: it not only collated many news sources to condense and transmit news in a concentrated and efficient manner; it conveyed a world view, a sensibility.  In what it covered, in what it ignored, in the language it used and in the strong point of view it often directly expressed, Time projected Henry Luce’s point of view to the world for two generations.  The point of view (bias, to Luce’s many critics) was never hard to find.

Robert Parker, my redoubtable ninth grade writing teacher back at Pundit High, used to take two sentences from Time to teach his students how to use language to convey an opinion in prose.  One was about Henry Truman, who Luce deeply disliked:  “Truman slunk from the chamber to huddle with his cronies.”  One was about Dwight Eisenhower, who Luce admired:  “Ike strode from the chamber to confer with his advisers.”  Same action, same facts.  Totally different ideas.  Extreme economy of expression.

I don’t aim to emulate Henry Luce’s style or his politics, but any good short form blog today wants to achieve what he did as a communicator.  The classic personal essay is a painting; the aggregative blog is a mosaic.  Each pebble is small, but over time the pebbles build pictures.  In Luce’s day, you had to have a lot of money to make a mosaic.  Time needed a large staff, a national distribution system and a printing press.  Judging by Alan Brinkley’s recent biography, it was much harder work to get the money to produce the magazine than it was to produce the magazine itself.

Mosaic of Christ in the Basilica of Sant’Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, Italy (Wikimedia)

The internet has changed all that.  Individual essayists stand in a line of, essentially, portrait and landscape painters going back through Montaigne and Francis Bacon to the epistolary essayists of antiquity (the letters of Cicero, for example).  With the exception of the compilers of “commonplace books” and the makers of almanacs (Franklin’s “Poor Richard“  or John Partridge and his nemesis Isaac Bickerstaff) few individuals did much with the print and pre-print versions of the short form blog before web geniuses like Glenn Reynolds and Andrew Sullivan introduced an admiring world to the possibilities of the form.

Today, short form blogging is booming, and short form blogs attract millions of views every day.  The form fits the times.  The reasons that led Henry Luce to start Time are more urgent today: the internet and 24 hour cable news make the flood of information more overwhelming than ever, and while people need information and insight more than ever before, they have less time in which to hunt it down.  The short form blog offers compelling advantages for both writers and readers, and in just ten years on the net the form has conquered the world.

One of the possible translations of the phrase “Via Meadia” is Mead Highway; adding a fast lane to the Mead Highway gives me the opportunity to draw readers’ attention to more of the important news of the day, follow the internet and print conversations more closely, place the news and the debate in some kind of larger perspective, and give my take on what it all means.  With the help of my colleagues, I’ll be organizing the site to make it possible for the long and short posts to work together; readers whose interest is piqued by a short post will be able to easily find the longer essays where I’ve dealt with the issue more fully.  Over time, we hope to add features that increase the usefulness of the two lanes to our readers and we will provide a guide to using the site on the home page.

We are living through amazing times; it’s my hope that the new fast lane on Via Meadia will entertain and divert readers even as it helps you prepare to think more clearly and act more effectively in a world that needs all the vision and leadership it can get.

Posted in Asia, Blue Social Model, China, Economics & Business, Essays, History, India, Japan, Middle East, Politics
Send Us Feedback Send Post Ideas
Load Comments
  • John Barker

    The mainstream media appears to be a dried up stream. I am beginning to find many of my old favorites such as Commentary and Economist rather dull and predictable. I turn to WRM for entertainment and enlightenment.(There is an element of gallows humor in these pages.) I can learn much about many things I wish were not happening but are. At least I can take some action to better prepare myself and those who depend on my leadership.

  • Jay Dugger

    Please separate the longer essays and the short form posts into two different feeds. I value Via Meadia’s essays more, and I prefer to read only those.

  • http://bitdribble.com andrei rădulescu-banu

    I’m glad for the announcement of your new short form blog, and plan to follow it – but don’t you think you overdid the paragraph with our technocratic elites being mostly a bunch of rule followers and incrementalists?

    You seem to be looking at America and Europe through one point of view, and then you change it when you look at East Asia.

    But what if we view China and India through the same lens you apply to us? Where are the Stowes and Hamiltons of China? If these country-continents, as you call them, did rise as far as they did, how come we don’t know their Roosevelts and Churchills?

    And if they are bound to shift the paradigm, how come their technocrats are just as bureaucratic if not worse than our technocrats?

    Because you write about our elites in the US:

    “…They got where they are by scoring well on tests, manipulating the platitudes of conventional wisdom a little better than the next guy and by pleasing their supervisors.”

    But that’s no different from China and India – if anything, their tests are more ruthlessly selective, and they begin earlier on, with consequences attached to students.

    As to the culture of pleasing supervisors, can’t speak for China, but it is a distinguishing feature of how things generally work in India.

    So what is it then? What will put India and China ahead of us?

    Ah, you’ll say, their work force dwarfs us and they’ll get ahead of us not by quality but just by sheer numbers. It’s not their individuals which will get ahead of us: it’s their societies.

    And implicit in that thought is something perhaps you should have acknowledged when taking about the challenge from China and India: it is the fact that they have a culture of individual-within-society which we lack, and from which we could learn, which will challenge us and will force us to adapt.

  • Walter Russell Mead

    The tech wizards will look into this and send you a reply. Thanks for bearing with us while we pull the new system together. In the meantime, the essays are clearly marked on the site.

  • Walter Russell Mead

    I should have also mentioned that the “Mead in Depth” column lists only the longer pieces; you can click on any one of the pictures and it will take you directly to the essay of your choice.

    I’m chuffed as the Brits would say that so many people care so much about the long pieces, and thanks again for your interest in what I’m trying to do.

  • Walter Russell Mead

    The piece doesn’t actually say that China and India will replace us, or even that they will succeed in overcoming their problems. Those societies also are facing forces that nobody really understands and that they aren’t ready for. Nobody there or here knows how all this will work out. I actually think the US is a bit better prepared than other countries for what is coming, but nobody is guaranteed a quiet life in the 21st century.

  • Luke Lea

    Good luck on the short-form. It is largely a matter of taste (editorial judgment?) what you decide to include and exclude. Just do a better job than the NYT and NPR!

    You can provide the titles and links to your long-form essays in a column to the right of the main text area; lots of blogs do that.

    I hope the future is not as wild as you predict. But if it is here are a couple of fascinating links to ponder: one about China and Africa, the other on why our nerdy elites are so clueless. For some even unkinder remarks about nerds see here. (Written by a nerd I would guess!)

  • Toni in Texas

    We may need a TR, Churchill, Stowe or Hamilton but I fear it’s a fond wish. Their world was a fraction of its present size, in population, economic complexity, technological sophistication, and incalculable other ways. During Teddy’s lively, strenuous 60 years, he found time to write 38 books. We shall not see his like again, because our times aren’t his.

    I humbly request you to reconsider what you call “the small ‘c’ conservative ideas of our leaders and chattering classes.” At bottom, political conservatism is about conserving the best of the past, the values and traditions to which we can hold in a tumultuous world.

    For example, nobody would like to go back to the 1950s and Jim Crow and pre-forensic police forces. But is there any doubt that the family ideal of the Cleavers, Ozzie & Harriett, the Petries and their like remains the best situation in which to raise children? Not with women chained to the kitchen, but aren’t married couples trying to do the best by their spouses and their children the best guarantors of a healthy society in the future?

    Statistically, these circumstances are the best for children. Yet the blue social model considers the traditional nuclear family to be merely one among infinitely elastic permutations of adult/child households, all of them valid choices. Are they really equally valid for the children?

    I’m not the most articulate spokesperson for conservatism, but please consider the possibility that conservatism is more than a catchword for trivial, irrelevant ideas.

    Between China and India, I suggest that India is far less dangerous. China is a beast we’ve never seen: a large post-Marxist country with military ambitions. Whatever ills the British might have inflicted, they created India as a country and left behind the world’s largest democracy with an embedded rule of law and, now, the world’s largest middle class. I believe India to be similar to 19th-c. America: plenty corrupt but plenty ambitious, with individuals striving in a more or less free economy to make what they can of their lives.

  • Toni in Texas

    In what century was anybody guaranteed a quiet life?

  • Tom

    Amid all the noise of the presidential race and the budget/deficit battle, there is one candidate who has a plan for eliminating the deficit today, not ten years from now, and getting the U.S. and the economy back on track. He’s not well known but that’s changing. He’s not only written on how to balance the budget and get the economy going, but on tax reform, how to rein in health care costs, and a host of other issues facing America. His ideas are based on common sense and logic. Check out his “about us” page. He’s been a soldier, a businessman, and is currently a teacher. A citizen president perhaps? http://www.gradyforpresident.com.

  • http://www.the-american-interest.com Damir Marusic

    @ #2, Jay Dugger:
    Here are the links to the feeds for the short and long posts:

    Essay RSS

    Quick Takes RSS

    They’re going into the sidebar shortly.

  • http://LMADbk.com LMADster

    The one thing we can control collectively — our government and its interactions with the private economy—need to be changed to ensure that those who do understand what is going on (entrepreneurs, mavericks and renegades) can pass the value of their innovations to the rest of us without the hindering gave of those technocratic elites.

    Just like you are changed your blog format to work keep up with and better explain the urgency of our times, our economic governance needs to change too. The analogue to your new blog in this context is the LMAD Plan, a plan that gives free range to the mavericks while still maintaining the safety nets of modern society.

    The LMAD plan is comprehensive. Healthcare-for-All? It’s in there. Balanced budget? It’s in there. Carbon tax? It’s in there. Rational taxation? Amnesty? Border Security? Limited government? Social Security and Medicare solvency? It’s all in there; it’s all paid for and it’s all optimized to grow the US economy in these austere and urgent times.

    It’s time for progressives concerned about rising temperatures and conservatives concerned about rising federal debt to realize the obvious: they need to BUY each other off in order to effectively address their pet ideological concerns-there is no other way. This means trading, among other things, a carbon tax for a balanced budget amendment and a more limited government. This plan is outlined at http://letsmakeadeal-thebook.com

    Plan Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com/

    Facebook: facebook.com/pages/Lets-Make-A-Deal-The-Book/143298165732386

    Twitter: twitter.com/#!/lmadster

    Or just Google “LMADster” for more info.

  • Peter

    New formate is good and very useful.

    And I feel you’re 100% correct on the power of blogging.

  • don

    Hum, Marshal someone and the message is the medium? Problem is we only think we know what has happened (subject to semantic games over pragmatic interests), are pretty much pre-reflective with what’s currently happening, and have no idea (experience) of what the future will bring. No wonder we generally think life will be more of the same, but on a higher post industrial level. I wonder if the monks thought the same–there will always be the primacy of the monastery– even as the printing press got going?

  • Lulu

    I don’t totally agree with your take on this. My guess is that there has been at least two generations in which academia and the culture at large has been trying to embrace “upside down” logic.

    It likely started with religion – the idea that science could somehow completely replace religion has been a subtle movement in all public education for quite some time now, and yet with greater scientific knowledge much of Darwinian evolution is proving to be incompetent. Most likely survival of the fittest as an answer to the “how’s” of evolution is going to fail – and due to the dogmatic adherence to this idea in the face of it’s obvious failures for so long it will throw both science and philosophy into a tailspin.

    This idea that science replaces religion has lead to many political ideas that are proving to be fallacious as well. For example Communism which holds as it’s central tenant atheism. It must in order that the Proletariat to self govern through their own conscience and live communally. Many religious sects have lived communal lives throughout history – but that was always achieved out of deference to a deity. Communism argued that a group of selfish greedy Bourgeoises were enslaving the Proletariate and so must be murdered at which point an oasis of communal living would result. While in Europe and America these ideas weren’t embraced full bore they did result in very upside down social and political models. From graduated income taxes to tax funded day care we have been trying to replace the healthy natural results of human failure – which is necessary for capitalism to succeed – and in so doing have been replacing the obvious benefits that came as well.

    This, almost stubborn determination, to do away with centuries of wisdom in the face of our superior knowledge (again a throw back to the insistence of a Darwinian belief that we must know more than our forefathers as we are more evolved – all evidence of amazing human ancient history to the contrary) has blinded us to how our decisions are failing us. It’s turning out that spending more money than you have is still just a bad idea. Just like people thought it was for thousands of years… we didn’t somehow magically evolve out of the reality that debt costs far more in the long run and is terribly dangerous for the person indebted to others – what a surprise?? It turns out that raising children to have manners and to learn hard work and discipline is still best – of course after tons of parents have attempted “creative expression” and find 30 year olds still living at home and borrowing from mom and dad – a college education was supremely necessary in the face of the fact that the graduate often has no actual work skills. Or a Mother and Father can work full time and put their children in day care 60 hours per week from 6 weeks of age and they will be fine. Have you been around a child who has spent this kind of time without a primary care provider from birth?? They are often psychological damaged, angry, violent, children. All because in our upside down world kids don’t actually need time with their mother and father (and God forbid we ever make anyone feel guilty for choosing money over family).

    I agree that we are in for a virtual Armageddon as all of these bad philosophies get worked out or our global system. Please understand that I’m not saying that Darwinian evolution isn’t still a valid thought, or that all social programs are awful – but the knee jerk reaction by several generations to replace “common sense” with their superior ideas have consequences that we are all going to have to deal with. Common sense was common for a reason – but as a great many ancient philosophies (taoism for example) would argue, this will simply be an interesting swing of a pendulum as humanity had gone through a time of experimentation and is now ready to return to more well reasoned behavior. An ancient idea – still valid – that will remain so long after our “evolved special wisdom” has found it’s way to the ash heap of history.

  • Dick Hanson

    Both forms will be appreciated very much and I will look forward to reading them.

  • Owen

    Your long essays are a (for me, newly-found) treasure and I look forward to them; and now, also, to the short-form digests. (You rightly cite Instapundit as a “genius” of blogging: economical, timely, catholic, honest, drily funny).

    Regarding “global weirding,” I hope you will develop your basic argument that change is a-coming. At that level it’s trivial; but, just as your foundational remarks about our cities and the fate of urban poor seemed trite, they were unassailably true, and allowed you to build toward inferences that are useful, strong and even somewhat surprising. So, please continue: your thinking makes a real difference out here. Thanks again.

  • Harold

    And in all this, not mentioned is another HUGE social change that always brings instability to a culture- an imbalance of males over females. A much larger imbalance then nature has ever produced- and in India and China.

    There will be changes in both societies because of that. Or war between them- the traditional way to get rid of excess males.

  • Tom in SFCA

    As long as we’re making technical requests, would you please in the future include a button we can push for a printer-friendly version?

  • Walter Russell Mead

    Over to the tech wizards…

  • Gene

    Toni in Texas, I’d like to turn around your point about “great leaders” to make the opposite argument. All of the leaders arose in worlds that were not only smaller, but featured societies that dramatically restricted the groups of people from whom those “leaders” could arise. Suppose that the greatest genius in human history had been a contemporary of Hamilton or TR, but also a black woman or an Indian untouchable? That person would have had no chance to be a member of the Continental Congress or president of a powerful nation. Clearly there are still groups whose members are at clear disadvantages in their ability to rise to positions of power, but we do live in a world with a far larger population (i.e., offering a far larger opportunity for human genetic outliers) and with far fewer insurmountable barriers to prominence. Don’t be so pessimistic.

  • Bonfire of the Idiocies

    The problem is exacerbated by the fact the technocratic elites apparently have no introspection; it doesn’t even occur to them they can be wrong or perhaps a change of course is required. A fool who knows he is a fool is less dangerous in a command position than a fool who believes himself to be a genius. The former is reluctant to rush in where the latter charges full speed ahead.

  • SteveL

    You express here, with more eloquence, many of the points I’ve raised in other groups. Change and the human capacity to adapt to it are behind most issues, everywhere. Technically, socially, economically, morally, we’ve been on a wild ride since about 1990. Whole industries have been rendered moot almost overnight. Ways of life have been lost.

    With an ever accelerating pace of change, we may ask, who has the brake? It isn’t difficult to see how some can come to embrace Islam (or fundamentalist Christianity) as the brake, as the only way they can recover or retain what they had in the past. Never before in human history has a single generation been expected to endure a lifespan in which little is the same at the time of death as it was in their youth. The sheer stress of that is staggering.

    It’s going to be a wild ride indeed.

  • dhornatlan

    My personal advice is to simultaneously read more history (a tip of the had to Brendan) and more science fiction (since Bear, Card, Ballard, Pournelle, Pynchon, et all) have seen the changes coming before anyone else, and are brutally honest that they have no answers.

    Yes, that and let’s all keep posting and blogging. Professor Mead, you help me order my world!

    My own vague theory is that to understand the global economy, we will need to meld macroeconomics, microeconomics, liquidity theory and institutional economics into a new synthesis that borders on anthropology with a honestly radical, nonpolitical, objectivity. This essential effort would seemingly require the temporary abandonment of all political shibboleths both left and right. Indeed, “what will come out of economics?”

  • Paul Manner

    “We then place them in large, bureaucratically run institutions and expect them to deal creatively with the unexpected, the revolutionary and the totally new.”

    Well, no. They place themselves there, and then bitterly resist any attempt by outsiders to change things. It’s the triumph of the credentialed Mandarins, like 19th century China. I keep expecting to see the Dowager Empress wander in.

  • http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/Politicometrics John D.

    My long-term projection has been, for the past 20 years, that China
    is facing great turmoil in the 2019-2021 era.

    The lack of 50 million women, a sexual imbalance from the one child
    policy, combines with uneven growth that sent millions from the cities
    back to primitive villages with no jobs, land problems, etc, etc.

    Politicometrically, regimes get a major shakeup at their 72-year points,
    as the US did with the Civil War, and dozens of other examples.
    (See Politicometrics.) That is 2021, and part of a 36-year cycle, that
    also appears in dozens of nations.

    1912 Revolution
    1949 Communist takeover
    1985 Deng’s Reforms
    2021 ??

    Russia for Compoarison
    1881 Narodnik Reforms
    1917 Russian Revolution
    1953 Reforms at Stalin;s Death
    1989 Perestroika

    US for comparison
    1788 Constitution passed
    1824 Jacksonians
    1860 Civil War
    1896 Progressive era
    1932 New Deal
    1968 Southern Strategy
    2004 Tea Party Era

    The largest American problem comes if, during this crisis, a desperate China dumps alot of our debt due to their extreme need. Other than the Islamic Terrorist problems, this is the greatest foreign policy problem.
    But there are impacts on other questions, such as how many troops we continue to have in Iraq after the Occupation ended in 2005, when sovereignty was returned to Iraqi authority.
    The answer on China: Sharply REDUCE our national debt before the crisis.

    I plan, around 2019 to put most of my resources into “selling short” on Chinese stocks.

  • MarkD

    Ah, yes, the Ozzie and Harriet 1950s. They raised my generation, the one the best and brightest sent to Vietnam.

    Everybody is going to be wrong. The trick is to make sure that their wrongs do little harm. The best way I know to do that is to limit their power over me.

  • Jacknut

    Shouldn’t the short form blog be called Meadeias In Res?

    *ducks to avoid brickbats*

  • http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=global%20weirding Brian

    I defined “Global Weirding” in the Urban Dictionary a few months ago. You guys might like it. It needs some more thumbs up. Here it is:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=global%20weirding

  • http://Annapolispoliticalscene.blogspot.com Craig purcell

    Walt,

    Unlike your point of viewbut maybe you need to get out of Queens every so often. What happens when we burn all that fuel … Does the air get any better?

  • Pete E

    The master of short news links was John Hawkins at RightWingNews. He used to compile the daily news in neat categories with amazingly effective one sentence summaries. Others do it. No one else did it as well.
    Unfortunately, this wasn’t his passion. He gave up on this part of his blog years ago. I can’t even find it in his archives.

  • Carl

    Great essay. I predict that the next great leader will be a reader of Science Fiction, and not afraid to say so.

  • Anthony

    WRM, you have been on to systemic permutation for quite a while and have quite well via American Interest sounded alarm; the general cry goes out for acknowledgement by our “ruling class” (governing classes) to see what is happening (an outworn, patched politico-economic system cracking); while to the average American it appears no serious steps are being taken to ascertain the causes and remedies. WRM, can one venture to say the causes of American insufficiency at home and abroad is political (cultural).

  • Nate Whilk

    “…the internet can be a comfortable home for the traditional personal essay.”

    Absolutely, when the style and content are clear and concise, like yours.

  • Luke Lea

    On the technical front, in commenting windown how about a link button and an edit button and a delete button?

  • Toni in Texas

    Greg, you make a very valid point. But I still believe that this world is so much more complex, the odds of finding someone who can master it all and make a TR-style difference are in inverse proportion to the complexity.

    Remember to be careful what you wish for. History has also thrown up leaders like Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Hitler and Mao. What if the gene pool produces someone who *can* master today’s vast complexity, but with pernicious and/or misguided motives?

    Isn’t it wisest to be not optimistic or pessimistic, but realistic? To the best of our always fallible abilities.

  • diana

    John D anticipated my comment: you left out the massive sex ratio imbalance in both India and China. I am interested to see how you deal with this in future blog posts.

  • Walter Russell Mead

    One of the interesting facts about our world: there are so many factors pointing toward massive instability and change that no single blog post can list them all.

  • http://billchance.org Bill Chance

    Usually I’m a little suspicious about writing that claims things are fundamentally different now than they have ever been in the past – things are always changing, always have, always will – but your observations on elites and the frightening promise of the future do ring true.

    When I hear our “leaders” speak, I am constantly amazed and appalled at their myopic worldview and lack of understanding of basic logical precepts. I can’t help but compare that to the insight and genius that is on display when I sit down and talk with successful “small” businessmen and try to glean what I can from their experience.

    I quoted you in my Friday “What I learned this week” thing. http://wp.me/p1A7bl-c5

  • Jim.

    A note about India –

    Look at some graphs of world electricity consumption. China’s has grown at an astonishing rate. (The old East Bloc’s collapsed with Communism.) India’s has remained largely flat; or at least, has not grown nearly so much as we would expect or hope from an ally presumed to be some kind of tech powerhouse.

    We need more than just India. We need Japan to recover.

  • http://slowcamino.wordpress.com/ Robert

    Interesting read, long form and all.

    Learned predictions based on the recent past will never serve in times of upheaval. Who, amongst the Byzantines and Sassanid Persians of the sixth century, predicted that the untidy tribal societies of Arabs between their two warring empires would dominate the coming century? Who would have believed that the upheaval would come within years, and that its stupendous progress might best be measured in months? Is it reasonable on our part to expect such foresight, then or now?

    It’s terrible luck that we can’t know the big stuff till it happens. It’s terrible judgement that we promote and enrich those who claim to know.

    “Put money in thy purse.” Iago was right. A general preparedness is the West’s best defense. True liberalism may yet win out. Our worst defense is the self-maiming and self-loathing currently promoted by our Green Betters, who, like all the worst people, are guided by the “settled science” of a brief historical moment.

  • WigWag

    “Except for some entrepreneurs, mavericks and renegades, our technocratic elites are mostly a bunch of rule followers and incrementalists. They got where they are by scoring well on tests, manipulating the platitudes of conventional wisdom a little better than the next guy and by pleasing their supervisors.” (Walter Russell Mead)

    It is unclear to me whether Professor Mead is confused about the definitions of the words “technocrat,” “elite” or both. At the very least he is conflating the enormous world of America’s “middle managers” who may very well have achieved whatever success they’ve garnered by “scoring well on tests” with American elites most of whom have achieved their success based on their talent.

    Perhaps the Professor will enlighten us about exactly who these “elites” are who have reached the pinnacle of power in the United States by “manipulating the platitudes of conventional wisdom a little better than the next guy.”

    Is he talking about the elites who reign in the world of high tech? Is he speaking about Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison or Eric Schmidt? It’s true that Professor Mead exempts “entrepreneurs” from his tirade about elites but neither Steve Ballmer nor Eric Schmidt (whom I believe Professor Mead knows personally) can be called entrepreneurs; they merely took over companies founded by other people.

    When he refers to “technocratic elites,” is he referring to the world of high finance? Does he think George Soros (whom Professor Mead also knows) reached elite status because he pleased his supervisor? How about hedge fund manager John Paulson who made $5 billion last year speculating in gold; what supervisor did he suck up to?

    If the “technocratic elites” Mead is referring to are in the banking industry, does he mean to suggest that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase who figured out how to steer his bank away from the calamity that nearly sunk so many other banks can attribute both his success and his elite status to how well he performed on a standardized test? What about Bob Rubin the former Secretary of the Treasury, Goldman Sachs, CEO and Citibank Vice Chairman; is Professor Mead referring to him when he snarks about our untalented elites?

    Does Professor Mead care to extend his comments about technocratic elites to elites in other fields? In the world of music, does he think that Yo Yo Ma, Renee Fleming or Lady Gaga have reached elite status by manipulating conventional platitudes? What about elite actors like Kevin Kline or elite figures from the world of sports like Peyton Manning or Mariano Rivera; whom did they trick into bestowing the status of “elite” on them?

    What about the world of academics; are Harold Bloom (the great literary critic from Yale), Peter Berger (the brilliant emeritus sociologist from Boston University) or Leon Botstein (the extraordinary musician and President of Bard) elites in the intellectual community because they scored slightly better on standardized tests than their colleagues?

    Even in the world of politics, few candidates who have achieved elite status succeeded for the reasons Professor Mead assures us are important. In the political world the two most likely roads to success are being an outstanding communicator like Bill Clinton or a member of the lucky sperm club like George W. Bush, Jerry Brown and numerous members of the Kennedy clan.

    And what about Professor Mead himself; how are we to account for his elite status? It seems to me it is well earned and deserved; he didn’t fool anyone to get where he is. What makes him so sure that most of the other members of the same elite class he belongs to are so much less deserving than he is?

  • Doug

    So I guess we can call these folks Global Weirdos.

  • http://www.dougsanto.com Doug Santo

    I agree with some aspects of your long and thoughtful post, but I detect a certain underlying gloom about human activities over the next hundred years and an acceptance of failure. I question that.

    The future is always in doubt. History can always be interpreted to indicate potential disaster. This was true in the pre-teen 1900′s and in the 1930′s. There was significant misjudgement and human failure during both periods. Ultimately this lead to world wars and terrible calamity. Leaders with known and previously unknown abilities came forward to point the way. So too with the future. Human calamity may be on the way, but the leaders of the near-term future probably exist on earth now. By leaders, I mean true born men and women endowed by their creater with extraordinary abilities to lead. Our current crop of leaders don’t fit in this group. Our current leaders are politicians, not true born leaders of men. When crisis strikes; however, the true leaders will come. Societies, countries may change to some degree, but not all that much. We are on the upward curve of the life cycle of man, world wars are minor anomalies on the upward trend. With the exception of some world shattering natural disaster, man has a long and beneficial road ahead. On a human time scale the future looks dangerous, but on a geologic time scale things look fine.

    Doug Santo
    Pasadena, CA

  • Ken

    I actually think the 21st century will be better than you think. I think right now we’re going through a period similar to Great Britain in the 1680′s, and that we’ll see something akin to the Glorious Revolution in this country, followed by some foreign wars that will essentially end as limited victories. Over the next 80 to 90 years I think we’ll see the space frontier opened up commercially, which will greatly enhance standards of living.

  • Luke Lea

    @WigWag: Ouch!

  • Whit

    A decade ago while an undergraduate at Virginia Tech, I argued in a World Politics class that change is natural and should be acknowledged rather then loathed. I was not as brilliant or witty as our humble Professor Mead but I made my points. This was not through any special insight of mine but rather my response to the topic of layoffs and job description changes that came up in a discussion group about global economies. It was based on my, at that time, simple logical observations of life. Folks who lost their jobs were going to have to adapt- learn new skills, develop multiple income streams, etc, etc. My ideas were poo-pooed away by many students who decried the idea and unfairness of someone who having developed a career, could be forced to change midstream. Time has given me the conclusion that many of my classmates were children of families living in the DC area, used to the idea that careers are immutable and a right, once obtained in the federal bureaucracy and/or the attendant contractor class and that such protests to my thoughts may not have been coincidental. Time has since validated my observations, in my humble opinion. Of course opposed to making any productive use of this global change is our sclerosis ridden Fed bureaucratic class, deathly afraid of anything that might endanger its stranglehold on revenue streams from the more productive sectors of the national economy…the parasite is quickly becoming a danger to its host. Of course, the host will be blamed for running out of blood.

  • Walter Russell Mead

    I hope you are right and that is one of the scenarios I can see as possible. The trouble is, some other and grimmer ones are also possible. Best guess: a mix.

  • http://nationalspacestudiescenter.wordpress.com/ Space Farmer

    Well said! The thrust of your post strikes me as being consistent with Tom Sowell in the book Intellectuals and Society (and other places. That is, the world’s knowledge (problems, solutions, feasibility, current conditions, etc.) is in massive excess of that knowledge held by the bureaucracy/elites/chatterers. While there are a great many ‘blogs of observation’ it seems to me that a big part of the real challenge to observe the important things.

  • http://yahoo Dionisio Apollo

    As the Chinese say, “May you live in weird times.”

    I wonder if all this punditry will make any difference? At least it will be there to record all the weirdness, and the thrills, and the disasters.

  • http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/ M. Simon

    LMAD:

    No deal.

    Lulu:

    As we learn more details our knowledge evolves. None the less – selective reproduction explains a lot. And it may explain everything. Darwin is a work in progress. Does Darwin replace God? Well no. He just puts God in a different place than we imagined. No harm in that.

  • WigWag

    Comments not permitted on short posts so let me make an off-topic recommendation to Professor Mead based on his post about durian. If you like durian smoothies and ice cream (and who doesn’t) a great place in Queens to get them (as well as the fruit itself) is downtown Flushing. Get off the 7 train at Main Street and walk in any direction at random and you have a good chance of finding it (out of season you can buy frozen purée.)

    One place in particular you may want to try is the Hong Kong Supermarket. In addition to the one in Flushing there is also a branch in East Elmhurst; neither are far from anyone living in Queens. You can probably travel from the Mead mansion to either location in under 30 minutes.

    By the way, durian is awesome as an ingredient in frozen margaritas.

    Is the increasing popularity of durian a symptom of global weirding?

    Best,

    WigWag

  • Walter Russell Mead

    Many thanks for the durian coordinates. A trip east on the F train looms in my future. On short post comments, the next week should see the roll out of a comments policy. As you know, we invest a lot of time in curating the comments on the essays; we want to maintain the (generally) high quality of our commenting community. And thanks for your continued interest in the site.

  • eDub

    WRM:

    News that Michele Bachmann has ended her membership in a brand of Lutheranism that condemns the Papacy as Antichrist is a sign that the forces making America a tolerant country as well as a religious one are still at work.  In national politics, bigots can’t win…

    Peoria, it appears, is well worth a mass — and that is very good news for the United States.

    As a WELS Lutheran, I find it very offensive that you think it ok to call me (and my synod) bigots because we (and by we, I mean probably the 5% of WELS members who know of this belief) find il papa antithetical (much less controversial, no?) to what Jesus taught.

    But does that mean 1) I am anti-Catholic or 2) necessarily anti-papal? No. Indeed, I have many Catholic friends who I believe are saved, and I am of the belief that the papacy has much less control of the Catholic church now than in Luther’s time.

    In his day, I agree that the popes had so distorted the Bible that church members didn’t really know the certainty of their salvation. Today millions of Protestants (and I sincerely hope Catholics) do and are therefor part of the holy catholic (note the lowercase) church.

    However, the more interesting thing in my pov revolves around a different doctrinal issue. I (and I would freely state that a much larger percentage of communicants will confess) to young earth creationism. Strangely, I had wondered how a WELS candidate would be received by the public, and I (mistakenly) thought that YEC would be the disqualifying factor. But apparently I was wrong. It was a much smaller and, in my view, a much less controversial point that “convinced” mrs. bachmann that she was no longer a WELS Lutheran.

  • eDub

    Sorry that I didn’t post to your newer blog format but to be honest, I didn’t know that there was a way.

  • http://www.the-american-interest.com Damir Marusic

    We have installed a service called Print Friendly for printing individual articles, or for saving them as PDFs. There’s a little green printer icon at the top of each article now by the title. Please give it a whirl and let us know what you think.

  • yush

    The problem with the American elite is that they live in a world of intellectualism so finely constructed, that they rarely look on the outside for solutions and inspiration. Not the case with China’s rising elite class. Can’t say about India. This might be a generalization, but from what I’ve experienced, the American elites are a lot close-minded than I thought they would be, be it with the students or those who are already working.

  • http://2011-ihrl.blog.ntu.edu.tw/2011/03/15/%E5%85%A9%E5%85%AC%E7%B4%84%E5%B0%8D%E8%BA%AB%E9%AB%94%E5%AE%8C%E6%95%B4%E8%88%87%E8%87%AA%E7%94%B1%E6%AC%8A%E4%B9%8B%E8%A6%8F%E7%AF%84 Melon Carving

    Salman Rushdie may be a fine novelist,but as a film critic of SM he simply falls flat..One can clearly see that he is jealous of SMs success..I prefer that he keeps his big mouth shut and concentrate only on writing novels..