As the old year fizzles out...

...and the new one arrives quietly, its the time for reflection and forecast. 

I can't stand 'Top Ten' lists or anything of the sort, and crystal ball junk-casting just seems so...so indulgent. 

So instead, some yammering-on inspired by this book:

Now, despite the cover photo of George Washington, it's not about America. It's actually about all of us. It's got a global focus, because the merde we're about to be inundated by is global merde. Of our own creation...even if most of the book points to the contributing factors of the 2008 financial meltdown and the subsequent –and current– unfolding of the next phase in this process. I say 'most' because at the end, Mr. Lewis deals with a couple of situations that while focusing on California, are actually quite emblematic of stuff unfolding right here in our own universe, The New, Amalgamated, City of Greater Hamilton. Additionally, a theory is presented as to what the background reason is that we've gotten to where we are right now. 

I'm fascinated by why governance in general, and local governance specifically, is mired in what it's currently mired in. Which is, to me, a sustained level of cynicism, of distrust, of lack of faith, in disinterest, in obliviousness, in apathy, in anger, in frustration...and most pointedly, in a dearth of vision, of muscular imaginings, of vitalizing, restorative, rejuvenating energy.

(Two provisos/sidebars: The first is the acknowlegement that, as explained in this post, great local governance has two main factors contributing to it, so I'm not just referring to our local politicians when I reference the notion. The second has to do with 'apathy'; once again I'm going to post the Dave Meslin TED talk that deals with it:

OK. 

With those out of the way, I'll return to this riff on how the financial-meets-societal-meets-governance-meets-engagement. 

In the book, Mr. Lewis relates a long conversation he has with former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger, as well as the situations in San Jose and Vallejo, two cities in the state. 

They're all inextricably connected...and not just because of their geographic location. And they have lessons to teach us all, even if the particulars might seem to limit the extent to which they can be applied universally. (They don't.)

In Governor Scharzenegger's case, it's explained how (and I'm doing a great disservice here to the full explanation) that great, rational intent met entitlement-based, partisan-fueled resistance. Summed up in my own personal observation that 'People want what they want.' Talk all you will about Greece and the rest of the crumbling European house-of-financial-cards, but California is on the brink...and all those Neros are fiddling away.

In San Jose, at the time of the book's writing, almost half of the city's budget was going to retired workers' pensions and benefits, about $245 million. In three years, it's estimated that this could rise to about $650 million. Because the city is legally obligated to honour these payments, other areas of governance must be trimmed. Which is why the library branches are closed three days a week. And a brand-new, fully completed community center can't be opened. Which is why the term 'service-level insolvency' has been coined by San Jose's mayor. 

"I think we've suffered from a series of mass delusions," he's said. "That we're all going to be rich. That we're all going to get what we want. That we're going to live forever. And all the forces are lined up to preserve the status quo. To preseve the mass delusion. And here...in local governance...is where the reality hits."

And in the case of Vallejo...

sigh

In August of 2011, after applying for the status three years earlier, the city was declared bankrupt. Why?

Mostly because of its obligations to city staff. Pension and benefit obligations, at the core. Nothing new here, we've been reading about such situations the world over. But in Vallejo's case, the tipping-point was reached, and the worst possible outcome occurred. They are now living a bare-bones existence. 

You'd think some kind of disaster had struck. 

As for that 'background reason'... 

Dr. Peter Whybrow is a neuroscientist at UCLA. He has a theory about the dysfunction prevalent in modern life. (His focus is on 'American life', but I believe what he says certainly holds for Canada and most probably the entire western world.) He believes that it's a by-product of modern success. 

He argues, in the main, that human beings are neurologically ill-suited to be in the situation we're in, to be living the lives that we live. That we evolved time in an environment of scarcity. That the human brain wasn't designed to funtion in an environment of extreme abundance. 

He continues, proposing that brain-wise, we've each got the core of the average lizard. And around this, is a mammalian layer, associated with maternal concern and social interaction. Around this is wrapped a third layer enabling feats of memory and the capacity for abstract thought.  But our passions are still driven by the 'lizard' core. We're set up to acquire as much as we can of the things we perceive as being scarce...such as sex, safety and food. 

As the richest civilization the world has ever known, we've grown richer by devising better and better ways to give us what we want. But the effect on the brain of lots of instant gratification is minimizing the non-lizard parts of the brain. Creating physiological dysfunction. So we've lost the ability to self-regulate at all levels of society. Meaning?

Meaning, as Mr. Lewis points out, that if you were to overlay the colour-coded map that illustrates the pandemic rise of obesity rates across the US since 1985 with one of personal indebtedness, they're pretty much line up. Ditto for the spread of legalized gambling, the boom in trading activity in personal stock portfolios, the rise of drug and alcohol addiction. (These truths are inarguably not peculiar to our neighbours to the south.)

And what happens when a society loses its ability to self-regulate and insists on sacrificing its long-term self-interest for short-term rewards? 

Well, one possibility is for us to 'get eaten by the fox'. (Sorry; you'll have to read the book for an expansion on this.) 

The other is for us to 'hit bottom'. To realize what's happened to us, if only because we have no other choice. "If we refuse to regulate ourselves," Whybrow says, "the only regulators are our environment. And the way it deprives us." So for meaningful change to occur, we need the environment to administer the necessary level of pain. 

This town halls effort of mine was born out of the hope that community can be the basis of changing things. By 'community', I'm referring not so much to the idea of an association. I'm thinking more along the lines that we used to think: according to kin, clan, of home, of street, of neighbourhood, of a heartfelt sense of belonging that sprung from 'where we're from'...of community. Before we became materialistic, acquisitional lizards. (Relax; I was going to say 'bastards'.) 

Pride of place. 

Respect of connection. 

Awareness, support...making use of those notions of 'maternal concern and social interaction' as well as 'the capacity for abstract thought'. 

In 2012, some pressing concerns will be elevated to a status approaching that of 'Warning, warning! Danger, Hamilton, danger!'. In other instances, authentically innovative thinking will be required, thinking that goes beyond 'last-gasp grasps' prevalent in desperate or even merely frustrating times. Even beyond these, empathy as it connects to 'the big picture' will be sorely needed in order for us to retain the notion of a 'humane society'. 

Some of what's required may come from City Staff. Some may come from Council and the Mayor. 

My wish for 2012 is that the heretofore untapped potential of the residents of Hamilton has a chance to contribute its share to all of the above. 

'Be the change you wish to see in the world.'

M Adrian Brassington