"I don't believe that the solutions in society will come from the left or the right or the north or the south. They will come from islands within those organizations; islands of people with integrity who want to do something" -- Karl-Henrik Robèrt
Conservatism is on the rise in America, and shows no sign of slowing, much less reversing, in the coming decade. This is due mostly to the impressive organizing and activism of the country's political right wing. However, there are larger societal factors at work both in America and around the globe which are slowly changing the political landscape, pushing environmental responsibility and social tolerance--traditionally both liberal values--into more prominent positions over the coming decades. Whether this means the breaking of conservatives' stranglehold on the country is inevitable, or if it merely means that conservatism will be redefined, I don't know. Probably the latter, since these large-scale forces will not cause redistribution of wealth or various other things in the vaguely-accepted liberal agenda. But all that is a moot point--no matter what, change is coming.
The four large-scale trends that are pushing much of the world towards more environmentally responsible and socially tolerant politics are:
- increasing urbanism
- the new economy
- education
- immigration
For this essay I'll ignore things like peak oil or increasing weather crises, which require a receptive audience to leverage. The four trends listed are simply a matter of numbers. Currently the US's dominant political culture (both left and right) is resisting them, but they are changing the world whether or not anyone wants them to, and our acceptance of them will decide whether the transition is smooth or painful.
Despite the inevitability of this undertow pulling away the social strictures and ecological irresponsibility we see in today's American politics, we can't just wait around for it to happen. I write this in the hope that by identifying and pushing these leverage points, we can cross the threshold sooner. ...And more importantly, that we make it a smooth changing of the guard instead of a war. In the best case, Neo-liberals could use these as leverage points to turn around first the old-school half of the Democratic party and then the rest of the nation after a couple election cycles, bringing the rest of their agenda along for the ride. In the worst-case scenario, the country could be crippled by internal conflict so severely that it is unable to compete in the world's changing markets and politics, and to some extent collapses before rebuilding itself in a new form. The most likely scenario is somewhere in between, where these factors change politics in isolated pockets, here and there, both on the left and on the right. The same applies to other countries around the world. Though these large-scale shifts will happen at different rates and have different impacts in different countries, here is a general picture of how these four factors will change the political landscape to promote tolerance and environmental issues.
Urbanization
Living in cities does not inherently make people more tolerant of diversity, but it helps. People living in cities get exposed to more different kinds of people than those living in sparsely-populated countryside. Ghettoization exists, it's true, but on balance, urbanites' exposure to people of different races, religions, sexual orientations, etc., shows them that these Others are not scary aliens after all, but just other people; coworkers and neighbors. Those that live in more isolated, homogeneous locations simply don't get the chance to make friends across these divides. Tolerance is more than just having civil rights, it's having everyone well-integrated into society, including civic, business, and cultural life. America's demographic trends are going as the rest of the world's are, with more people living in cities every year. As urbanization increases, it will increase American society's tolerance for diversity, helping civil rights and integration battles.
Urbanization also helps environmental issues, because it increases their visibility. California has the best air pollution laws in the world because Los Angeles is full of smog. In the countryside, people live so far apart that car exhaust doesn't build up so noticeably. Cities also present solutions as well as problems--in rural areas, generally the only way to get from here to there is to drive, but those who move to cities and fight traffic discover the choices of public transit, or moving to city centers where they can walk. They may feel downtown living is prohibitively expensive, or the local transit system is garbage, but this will motivate some to push for better urban planning or transit development. The more people move to existing cities, the worse traffic gets, and the more people become motivated to fix it.
Cities also increase the visibility of power and water inputs, as well as waste outputs. The impact of a single family farm on a nearby river might be ignorable, but an entire city's impact is not. Because cities' impacts are unignorable, they also cost money to deal with. This forces anyone with civic involvement to become aware of these issues, and as things like oil become more expensive, alternatives will begin to be sought. In addition, some cities which already have high percentages of Earth-conscious citizens are pulling the rest of their populations up to speed--in Seattle, for instance, recycling is now mandatory. Those who leave more than 10% recyclables in their garbage will not have their garbage taken, and apartment owners can be fined. Almost all major metropolitan areas have green measures like carpool lanes and recycling programs, which are largely absent in rural areas simply due to economics.
Finally, as cities grow, they have to become more efficient in order to not crumble under their own weight of traffic, energy and resource use. True cities (as opposed to suburbs) are actually quite energy- and resource-efficient, even if city-dwellers are no more aware of environmental issues than those in the countryside, simply because density is efficient. As city populations become more dense, people living in these cities will inevitably get pulled along to greener lifestyles and awareness.
The Global Digital Economy
The "new economy" is not just the internet age; it is the transition of economies from being primarily agriculture, manufacturing, or service-based to being primarily knowledge-work-based. It enables environmental responsibility by replacing matter with intelligence, and it demands social tolerance because it is driven by creativity and critical thinking.
Replacing matter with intelligence is sometimes called dematerialization. Basically it's "working smarter, not harder", so that you can achieve the same ends with much less energy or less resource use than traditional solutions would use. Computers make intelligent analysis cheap, so engineers now more than ever before have the ability to run the numbers on their creations to figure out how much width, or stiffness, or whatnot, is needed, instead of just designing in huge margins of error just to be safe. In addition, computer modeling allows designers to create and manipulate prototypes virtually, without having to build dozens or hundreds of physical prototypes just to work out bugs in the design. These trends push everyone towards better environmental responsibility no matter where they fall on the political spectrum, because they make it a matter of saving money. Before computer-aided design and analysis, you could easily spend more money trying to design a smaller/lighter/efficient part than you would save in reduced material cost or energy use. Now we're starting to see that change, and as virtual modeling technology improves, smart design will get cheaper and cheaper, thus leaving cost more aligned with resource use. Finally, there is some excitement about the possibility of smart objects facilitating their own recycling, reuse, or repair, rather than just going to a landfill like products today.
Ten years have passed since the beginning of the "new economy" boom, but it takes time for an industry to grow to prominence, and it takes time for wealth to transform into social change. Even so, the most old-school investors can see the writing on the wall: last year, Google's stock was worth more than Ford Motor Company and GM's combined. The oil and coal industries will continue to have serious money and clout for decades to come (and all oil-rich nations will continue to have their politics distorted by it far past any ripples of the new economy), but other resource-extraction industries such as lumber and steel are already withering on the vine. A generation from now, companies that make money from bits instead of atoms will be a far larger part of the economy, and a more influential bloc.
Many of the Web's inventors, such as Tim Berners-Lee and Marc Andreessen, intentionally designed the system to be a public good and have fought to keep the web open and free, a very democratic goal. That's nice and all, but it wouldn't make a difference without the economic revolution of the internet boom. The boom put enormous amounts of wealth into the hands of smart creative idealists like Andreessen, and gave them the power to forge a whole new sector of the world economy. (Note that neither Berners-Lee nor Andreessen were originally American, but both live here now, because of the entrepreneurial opportunities and hotbeds of creative tech people.) The bubble burst on the first wave of the internet boom, but the revolution is still very real, and the world's economy is permanently changing as a result. The people making money in the US will increasingly be at places like Google, Apple, eBay, etc. (Granted, the internet boom still makes money for people like Microsoft, Verizon, etc., but the percentage of non-traditional, left-leaning people getting rich in the internet sector is vastly higher than in traditional manufacturing or service industries.)
This boom is not restricted to the developed world, either--India's economy is getting transformed by the new economy more than any other in the world. Although its first wave of companies are foreign giants outsourcing routine tasks, its second generation is beginning to poke its head out, with entrepreneurs and creativity of its own. And even in its first wave, it is changing the culture--Bangalore is significantly more relaxed about social strictures than the average Indian city. It is not as tolerant as Mumbai, but one of Mumbai's core industries is the movie business, which is a creative media-based industry, albeit a pre-internet one.
As Cory Doctorow has said, "any job that can be described is likely to be outsourced", so decent-wage jobs that remain in the US, Europe, and Japan will increasingly require actions that can't be listed in a spec sheet. In other words, they will require creativity and problem-solving. This, perhaps even more than the high levels of education required for knowledge-working, will push society towards tolerance, because the people with money will increasingly be cultural creatives, as described by Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson. This same demographic has been studied as an economic segment by Richard Florida, in his books The Rise of the Creative Class and The Flight of the Creative Class. He defines the "creative class" not only as artists and designers, but as all critical thinkers / problem-solvers: this includes doctors, engineers, lawyers, and financiers. It may be an overly-broad definition, but it works when contrasted with the other two-thirds of the US economy--manufacturing and service. Those jobs are about performing well-defined tasks quickly and repetitively, while "creative class" jobs require advanced education, out-of-the-box thinking, or both. He points out that in 1900, only 10% of US jobs were creative-class workers; in the 1980's it began to rise, and now they comprise not only 30% of US workers, but almost half the wealth creation: "nearly $2 trillion, almost as much as the manufacturing and service sectors combined."
Money goes where it's wanted and stays where it's well treated; the same thing goes for the creative class, because they are highly mobile and often novelty-seeking. Thus, Florida argues that economically successful cities must woo cultural creatives by having "large numbers of talented individuals, a high degree of technological innovation, and a tolerance of diverse lifestyles." He has an entire essay describing how US conservatism has hurt the economy by driving away the creative class, and you can tell by the title of his latest book that this is happening in significant numbers.
In the US, this is where the greatest uncertainty lies in having a smooth transition or a rough and painful one. Currently the gap between rich and poor is widening along the digital divide, with blue-state cities gaining wealth sharply while red states are sliding further into welfare dependence. This plus the widening social divides as cultural creatives emerge as a demographic are causing serious friction and polarization in the political spectrum, entrenching conservatives in intolerance while old blue-collar union leftists are left behind by the new digital liberals. Changes in numbers of congressional seats and electoral college votes are also not keeping up with population shifts from red states to blue ones, leaving red-state voters with disproportionate electoral power and fueling the backlash against the rising creative class. Continuing dominance of socially intolerant administrations cause more flight of the creative class overseas, which weakens the US economically. If continued for long enough, this vicious cycle will cause America to become a has-been while other countries take center stage in the world's economy. ...This is fine, perhaps it would even be for the best; however, it's unlikely that Americans, particularly conservative administrations, would go gently into that good night. Economic desperation, a sense of entitlement, and the world's largest military are a dangerous combination. On the other hand, if red states can be brought into the new economy, they will embrace the prosperity which comes with the creative class, and begin to reshape their cities to attract more of them. This would smooth and hasten the transition away from intolerance to openness.
Education
Universities are bastions of liberalism in America. Historically this has probably been more due to the fact that liberals value education, not because education makes you more liberal (as much as I would like to believe the latter), but that's irrelevant. Once you have that condition set up, anyone going through higher education gets pushed a bit to the left, simply because that is the environment present. As the economic shifts described above continue, a higher percentage of Americans (and people worldwide) need advanced degrees. As more kids go to college every year, our next generation will be more liberal than our present one.
American universities' liberal bent has been pecked at for over twenty years by right-wing organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, whose stated mission is "to formulate and promote conservative public policies". The American Prospect has an excellent in-depth article on lessons the left wing should learn from the right's concerted and effective job in this arena. As they mention, "Conservative funders have understood that funding projects at the most prestigious universities... turns out young scholars who confer the important commodity of credibility for policy proposals." Currently there are no liberal organizations filling an equal and opposite niche to the half-dozen conservative ones which have reframed the debates of today, though a couple have been proposed: the fledgling Center for American Progress and the alleged Democracy Alliance (which has had news articles written about it, but has no online presence itself; the Alliance for Democracy is not the same thing, and not even in the right league.)
Left alone, however, academia always tends towards open-mindedness because the very process of academia is thinking critically about the world and society. Academia also increases students' environmental awareness through the sciences and through the existence of environmental studies programs; once people have more environmental awareness, a sense of responsibility comes on its heels. This trend has only strengthened in the past few decades, and shows no sign of letting up--campuses across the country are creating or enlarging environmental studies programs. According to Romero and Jones of Macalester College, before the 1960's, only 14 environmental studies programs existed in the US; this number swelled during the 1970's and 90's, so that now there are over a thousand programs.
Elsewhere in the world, increases in education can cause much more dramatic changes in the political landscape. Getting girls in developing nations into primary and secondary schools is a Millennium Development Goal because, as the UNPFA states, "Investing in girls' education is one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty." It also changes the political landscape by emancipating women, and by changing demographics: educated women tend to get married later and have fewer, but healthier, children. Educated women are also less likely to get AIDS. Since the Millennium Development Goals were set, much progress has been made getting universal access to education in developing countries.
Immigration
The world is getting smaller, people are getting more mobile. In particular, the people with technical skills and high earning capacity are getting more mobile. That means that increasingly, anyplace in the world with a flourishing economy will have many immigrants. This has already been true for decades (in fact, centuries) in places like New York, London, and Shanghai, and such places thus get reputations for being cosmopolitan, diverse, and accepting of many lifestyles. As immigration rises both in the US and worldwide, this social openness and diversity will inevitably spread to cities that have traditionally been more homogeneous. Europe in particular is beginning to see waves of immigration heretofore unknown there, and some countries have struggled to assimilate their increasingly diverse populations (note last year's riots in France).
Some cities will be less receptive to waves of immigrants and the changes in local culture that they bring, but they will be hurting themselves economically. Bill Joy once said that even the biggest company with the brightest staff has to remember, "most of the smart people in the world don't work for you." The same is true for cities and nations. Anyplace that does not wish to become an economic backwater in the age of highly mobile professionals must welcome immigrants and the changes in culture that they bring.
Immigrant-rich cities also become breeding grounds for new kinds of culture: creole languages like Yiddish or Afrikaans, music like jazz or flamenco, foods like cajun or various "fusion" cuisines. This is the most literal sense of "cultural creatives" mentioned above, and such blossoming of unique local culture opens people to become not just tolerant, but enthusiastic, about the ways people around them are living differently.
In addition to immigrants effecting the politics of the nation they settle in, they also effect the politics of the nation they come from. Remittances help reduce poverty in developing countries--they are both the most stable and the largest source of economic aid, far eclipsing government aid and foreign direct investment. According to Financial Express, about $175 billion a year is sent in remittances worldwide; they say "crude oil is the only commodity that generates a larger volume of money flows between countries each year." There is also some evidence that the ties immigrants keep with their family and friends in their home countries serve as conduits to leak host country culture and politics back to home countries. Sociologist Peggy Levitt's book The Transnational Villagers describes her case study of values acquired by assimilating immigrants that diffuse back to people in their home countries, with gender roles and family roles changing for people who have never even been to the host country. This is a change in political landscape that few politicians are aware of, much less plan for.
A New Left?
The growth of ecological responsibility and social tolerance may be inevitable, but its political location is not--just as Nixon was the first US president to go to China, Republicans could lead the way in these arenas. It seems unlikely, and would require sloughing off the party's current elite, but that may be more likely than Democrats getting into power. In addition, much of the Democratic party establishment doesn't understand these forces any better than Republicans. But the rise of a new, more coherent left in American politics might help and be helped by the rise of environmentalism and tolerance.
The Economist's John Michelthwait Adrian Wooldrige point out in their book The Right Nation that America's right wing slowly built their domination of politics over the last fifty years, and their power will continue to rise through the next ten or twenty years. Their uniting of the brainpower and vision of rich intelligentsia with the passion of grass-roots religion has been an unbeatable combination, particularly as the left sits fragmented. As the authors of Cultural Creatives note, the number of "traditionalists" (roughly speaking, right-wingers) in America is only slightly more than the cultural creatives (neo-liberals); 29% vs. 24%. However, the cultural creatives lack consciousness of themselves as a group, and thus are impotent politically. This needs to change. The transition to a greener, more open-minded US would happen more smoothly and completely if the political left were in power and effectual. (Social tolerance in particular is a hard sell for today's ruling conservatives.) America's left is unlikely to rise anytime soon, but Markos Moulitsas Zuniga ("Kos" from The Daily Kos) and Jerome Armstrong wrote in their book Crashing the Gate about how it could: basically restructuring the Democratic party to be more like a Google than like a General Motors, with the old guard getting out of the way to let the New Left take the reins. The only problem with their book is that they said a new vision was key to motivating the party, but did not present that vision. In fact, that vision is already here. Its three pillars are a healthy environment, a healthy society (which includes equal rights, and building community), and a truly healthy economy (not necessarily the highest GNP, but the lowest poverty and the rebuilding of America's middle class). It's that simple. The triple bottom line for national politics.
Perhaps the rise of environment and tolerance issues over the coming decades will help America's left regain power; perhaps it will just make the left less necessary. I don't presume to make a prediction.
Conclusion
Whatever parties are in power during the coming decades, four demographic/economic shifts are happening in the US and in much of the rest of the world to drive politics toward greater environmental responsibility and greater social tolerance. The shifts are urbanization, the global digital economy, education, and immigration. Certainly there are other forces rising in the world (such as Christian & Muslim fundamentalism, an aging Europe and Japan, peak oil, etc.) which are having their own effects, sometimes in opposing directions, but I think that over the next ten or twenty years, we will see these four shifts reshape the political debates both in the US and across much of the world.
