Notes from the Left Coast

Drummond Pike’s Blog

The one thing certain about elected public servants in Washington is that they really, really want to stay there. Regardless of party, the incentives to continue to inhabit the corridors of political power are deep and abiding. The problem for most of them, though, is that they spend too much time walking those corridors and not enough listening to the folks that sent them there. The perks, the deference, the hushed conversations with lobbyists for huge financial interests — they all converge to create a moss-like insulation from the sentiments of the voters. And, surprise, surprise, the voters don’t like that.

Of course, there are those holding safe seats like Sen. Shelby from Alabama who can place a “hold” on every Administration appointment in order to force the Pentagon to alter its bidding specs for a huge new contract for those planes that fuel other planes in mid-air. Turns out his state (Alabama) hosts a partner of European giant Airbus that would assemble some parts of the plane and throw off a few local jobs. This, despite the fact that US manufacturer Boeing would, without Shelby’s tweaks, likely get the entire manufacturing job and employ thousands of American workers. His narrow interest may prevail, courtesy of outdated Senate traditions, as such “holds” are a function of the filibuster rule. Just makes you want to wonder if he is aware that we are in the middle of an economic crisis where sometimes narrow self-interest might yield to broader collective outcomes.

But what’s really frustrating is that issues that really matter to millions, and about which there is broad public opinion support, can’t seem to gain visibility. Take Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Polling suggests that 80% of the electorate supports an initiative that would require our millions of undocumented immigrants to register, pay taxes, and get on the path to citizenship. Even more support the Dream Act which would allow undocumented kids, most of whom have grown up in the US, to also get on the path to citizenship upon graduating from high school by either entering the military or college.

These initiatives are simply waiting to be brought forward for a vote. But even feel-good legislation that has meaning, like the Dream Act, has fallen into the trenches of partisan warfare where the minority party has decided that the best thing they can do is say no to everything. As dismaying as that tactic may be, it is effective in the context of the country’s current mood. But, for all those incumbents on both sides of the aisle who are just hankering to return to DC after this fall’s elections, be fair warned that doing nothing may do you in.

Increasingly, the remarkable possibility is being discussed where Republicans may again assert themselves as majority in one or both houses of Congress. One can be sure that getting things done in Washington will be as hard as it was after the same thing happened in 1994 with Gingrich’s ascension as House Speaker. One remembers his “Contract for America” not for what it accomplished legislatively, but for the toxic atmosphere it created in Washington that continues to this day.

There are rumblings that a huge march for Immigration Reform is being discussed for the spring. Will it remind the DC do-nothing-until-we-have-to folks, that “no” is not an option?

Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You

I was thinking a lot this past Sunday about my lapsed involvement in matters of faith. From a childhood and teenage engagement with the Episcopal Church, I came away with something that has guided my life since I can remember. It’s called the Golden Rule. Karen Armstrong – the marvelous soul who used her TED Prize to promote the Charter for Compassion – argues that all significant faiths on the planet have compassion at their core: my version went something like this, "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.”

For some odd, quirky reason I don’t quite understand, thinking about this basic tenet of moral behavior brought me to the most recent escapade of the Acorn Sting-meister, James O’Keefe, now awaiting arraignment on felony charges of conspiring to do something to Senator Mary Landrieu’s phones in a federal office building. Somehow, I think his parents, with whom the Judge has required him to live during the legal proceedings, failed Mr. O’Keefe in this most basic of moral instructions. How possibly could a faithful, moral conservative, as Mr. O’Keefe purports to be, engage in illegal and highly damaging acts intent on bringing down his perceived political opponents? I mean, have they no trust in the basic idea of democracy? Who would choose to have others do to them what Mr. O’Keefe is alleged to have done? Who would want, for any purpose, to be secretly taped without their knowledge? Not many, I’d wager.

I’ve supported Acorn for many years and in many ways. It is a good organization that has tried very hard to bring justice to poor communities. They haven’t done everything right, but I don’t think their foibles justify their fate at the hands of malevolent pranksters whose antics are now the subject of multiple inquires by prosecutors. Even so, it seems uncertain that the organization will ever again thrive as a voice for poor people in America.

It is clear to many that Mr. O’Keefe’s highly edited and illegally obtained videos have been the undoing of Acorn. It makes me sad beyond words to see how easily a dishonest kid of debatable morals with a video camera has been able to bring the rough-hewn organization, built out of the efforts of thousands of our most disenfranchised citizens, to its knees. And, Lord knows what his plans were for Senator Landrieu, a Democrat in a difficult state up for re-election this fall. One is thankful that, unlike in the Acorn case, the judicial system is already at work unraveling the conspiracy and holding the individuals accountable long before Fox News had an opportunity to promote even more fiction. I mean news. Uh, do they know the difference?

What I can say with assurance is that in the fascinating legal case that is about to begin, Mr. O’Keefe will be given what none of the objects of his efforts have been afforded – a fair chance to be heard without a presumption of guilt.

Somehow, amidst the din of the holidays, a true gem of an idea is taking flight. And, if it works, we may be looking at a way to (finally) fix what’s wrong with the money system in the US. And, again if it works, it should please all those anti-regulatory conservatives out there who somehow seem to think the Great Recession was caused by working folks who borrowed more than they should have to buy houses. Like all those Wall Street suits had nothing to do with it. But that’s another story.

Taking a cue from the healthy foods crowd who brought us the idea of buying locally, that sneaky duo of Rob Johnson and Ariana Huffington have been pushing this new idea…. “Move your Money.” What a concept! Green your money!…well, I suppose it’s already green, but it’s not Green. It’s not local. So, how to get this across?

It turns out that one of the mainstays of our holiday season is a wonderful film called, cleverly, It’s a Wonderful Life.

Initially considered a flop in 1946 when it came out, it has emerged as perhaps the best loved American holiday film ever. And the enduring story has such strong parallels to today’s financial crisis, it’s scary. If you haven’t seen it, do yourself a favor and do so. If you have, I don’t need to remind you about how a community-based bank can prevail over all those avaricious Wall Street sharks. And the real point is, let’s remember, and then act like, George Bailey in the film, or rather his customers. Let’s put our money in locally based banks that know us. Let’s take all those savings out of banks that are “too big to fail” because, in fact, they HAVE failed. Were it not for us taxpayers, they wouldn’t be in business today, much less enjoying record-setting bonuses that seem to suggest an inverse relationship between financial performance and executive compensation.

So check out http://moveyourmoney.info and consider the option. The four minute clip, largely from the movie, captures it all so well.

The Wall Street Journal reports that the effort to extend the current Estate Tax regime through next year has failed. As part of the Bush tax cuts, the exemption, above which taxes are due, has been slowly rising. The Conservative plan, put in place in 2001, phases out the tax entirely next year, and then, in the following year, reverts to the 2001 rates and much lower exemption. They couldn’t make it permanent then, as they wanted to do, because it simply cut too much revenue out of the equation, even for the then-dominant Republican leadership on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Beneath the din of the healthcare debate, and Joe Lieberman’s stunning profile in cowardice and betrayal of his constituency, the inexorable process of displacing taxes from the super-wealthy to the middle class continues its stealthy pace. It is stunning to me that in these particularly dire economic times, the progressive majority in both the House and Senate has squandered the opportunity to extend current year provisions into next year. Neither the House nor the Senate could muster the will to adopt the extension. Lieberman-type leadership at its best?

And the conservatives – wow, they are a whole other kettle of fish. Cynical beyond measure, they figure a bankrupt government is better than no government at all. (Remember that stellar statement by neo-conservative, Grover Norquist: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” So helpful in tough times.)

But this Estate Tax matter is really serious for the non-profit sector – not that you’d really understand that from the way many in philanthropy have used their considerable resources. The Council on Foundations, for instance, does support making permanent the current estate tax regime, though the matter shows up way down their list of public policy priorities, and one has rarely if ever heard the Council’s leadership making the case for the Estate Tax. Even with the more broadly-based, and often far more insightful, Independent Sector, this issue has not really achieved traction with the membership despite the best efforts of its leadership to remind us all of its importance.

Best estimates suggest that the sector will lose $25 billion each year, if the estate tax is abolished. The incentives for the creation of new foundations or the making of very large testamentary gifts to churches and non-profit organizations shift from financial to purely altruistic. In other words, without the tax deductions, people give less. And it means that if a billionaire expires during the next calendar year, she will pass down that entire fortune to her children or other beneficiaries intact. No taxes. No obligation to share with the society that enabled the accumulation of that fortune in the first place. As Bill Gates, Sr. has often commented, these huge fortunes are not easily assembled in other parts of the globe. The infrastructure, educational systems, regulated financial markets (okay, so we still have some work to do!), transportation systems, and everything else that contributes to the creation of successful businesses needs to be supported somehow, and the Estate Tax is a valuable tool for this.

Even more compelling to me, though, are the tragic social and economic consequences evolving from the advent of a new, permanent Upper Class. Declining family size almost ensures that fortunes of $100 million or more can become self-perpetuating fiefdoms in economic terms. In a manner similar to the nobility of the Middle Ages, who reigned over their lands with impunity through primogeniture (i.e. the oldest son gets the whole thing), the new economic elite will become sequestered and insulated from the broader society. Taxes on the income or realized gains from a large fortune will hardly dent its ability to be self-perpetuating. I just fail to see how this benefits society, this diverse and dynamic set of economic and social forces that has created so much in the world. In Kevin Phillips’ Wealth and Democracy, the author draws out the inextricable tie between social equity and the vibrancy of our democratic practice. The fact is inescapable – government must dampen the accumulation of “super-wealth”, and use the proceeds to create opportunity for “the many,” for, after all, the latter is what has always produced the best that America has achieved.

Among European progressives, there is a strong rallying cry for financial reform through the closing of tax havens. A French leader was just at the PES Congress podium decrying the loophole – perhaps in the EU? – that permits tax havens to escape more stringent regulation because there 12 of them and they have treaties with one another. If one has 12 such treaties, then you are somehow off the hook. I clearly need to learn more about this! It’s fascinating that progressives in the US aren’t more focused on this issue. This recent case with HSBC where the IRS finally has acquired access to a list of thousands of American holders of offshore accounts only addresses part of the problem and hardly serves to take the issue off the table.

It is an interesting thing, as I’m becoming more familiar with the issues before the PES Congress (http://www.pes.org/), to begin to understand the confusion European progressives seem to be experiencing in their failure to gain more traction with the voters even in this period of economic dislocation. It’s vaguely reminiscent of the confusion plaguing the Republicans these days – they are so certain they were right, they just can’t understand why folks don’t respond. Perhaps it’s just the natural swinging pendulum.

Just now, a French leader is decrying the failure of Europeans to address the financial crisis because of their ongoing failure to leave national agendas at the door and address the system as a whole. 

She’s then followed by the Finance Minister (I think) of Austria who argues that the financial crisis is not over because the stock market is rising – instead, the true measure is when the unemployment rate declines. He went on to push for an aggressive requirement that the financial industry be required to finance an insurance pool that will preclude the need for taxpayer funded bailouts in the future.

Next up is the head of the Czech Socialist Party who argues for a unified surveillance program or capability as well as the Tobin Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobin_tax) that has gotten a good deal of attention at this Congress.

Last, Javier Moreno Sánchez – Global Progressive Forum’s new leader – announced a new campaign for financial reform – get rid of toxic products, pass a Tobin-like Tax, and implement a regulatory regime; the campaign is called the Europe Campaign for Financial Reform. Unlike the US, where energy seems to be flagging to get these ideas in front of a Congress preoccupied with healthcare and other matters, Europe seems more prepared to address this thorny issue. Not the first time, I should think.

* * * *

As the PES Congress winds down, delegates slowly head for the trains or the airport. In a slowly emptying hall, a couple of fascinating speeches concluded the gathering.  The first, by a French leader whose name I didn’t catch, noted the absence of elected officials from the crowds. In part, he said, this reflected the electoral challenges experienced by social democrats and socialists in the recent EU elections. But in part, he argued, this resulted from the struggle of progressives to establish a clear identity. As with the first day, this sounded much like an echo from the post-2004 US experience.

Poul Nyrup Rasmussen then returned to conclude the proceedings. His remarkably personable way of communicating helped him accent the plan that gave rise to his runaway election to another term as President of the PES: grow the activist base of the Party from 20,000 to 50,000 by the next Congress, strengthen the structure of the organization, and run campaigns that clarify what progressives stand for: job growth, a green economy, and financial reforms. I conclude that we will see much more of this man over the coming years.

*  *  *  *

After lunch, I was sought out for a meeting with Javier Moreno Sánchez, the new Secretary General of the policy organization associated with the PES, the Global Progressive Forum, and several of his staff. Having delivered a speech in the morning, and otherwise been running ragged for the duration of the Congress, he looked tired but happy. His talk, referenced above, reflected his dominant policy interest – the passing of effective financial reforms for the EU. It turns out they had been hoping that Rob Johnson, my good friend who is now heading up a new program on economic policy with the Roosevelt Institute, would have been with us today to deliver a speech, but missed his plane. Needless to say, it would have been warmly received.

As we explored the ways the GPF and Tides might collaborate over the coming period, and there were many, I had the sense that this wild-haired idea of coming so far was indeed a stroke of good fortune for us both. Our nascent project to establish a presence in Europe will get a real jump-start as we build this relationship on the many topics of mutual interest: financial reform, immigration policy, Afghanistan, gender equity, and advancing the possibility of a green economy. The PES/GPF network is comprised of our European counterparts, and we should look forward to getting to know them over this next period.

As the only American attending this conference (so far as I could tell), I wondered if the boatloads of our colleagues, jostling one another for a glimpse of the official sessions as the meetings in Copenhagen commence, will be as fortunate. Somehow, I doubt it.

I’m an outsider attending the 1500 plus PES Congress in Prague (this is the European Union Party that collects progressives, labor, social democrats, and socialists from the various national parties throughout Europe). At yesterday’s preliminary session, I heard several familiar arguments, and some surprising ones.

First, Poul Nyrop Rasmussen, the President of the PES (roughly “Party of European Socialists” in several languages) talked with distain about the last election, not because the PES lost the election for the EU Parliament, but because “the sofa party” won. Turns out the “sofa party” was not a political acronym, but literally a sofa. Some 56% of the electorate did not vote. Sounds like America. One reason, it turns out, is that the social democrats and the more labor-oriented socialists in various countries split their votes between 2 candidates and thus muddied the message and lost the EU election.

While out of power, though, the PES seems to be borrowing from the US experience, circa 2004, in assembling a broad array of interests to create a clear political program built around three enets: creating green jobs through substantial public spending on Climate Change, a reinvestment in education and re-education of the workforce, and, in a fashion far more aggressive than current American proposals, reform of the financial markets. They are decidedly not anti-market, but want to manage markets with and through effective regulation – an idea far more acceptable on this side of the pond. Much of their thinking is embodied in a new book, shared with many at the conference, called The Next Left. Not exactly a quick read for the next plane trip, but effective and discursive as an intellectual framework worth examining.

Just now, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen was re-elected to the Presidency of the PES for another term. 320 some odd versus 6 votes. On the stage, he joked that it seemed like a “soviet era” election and then seriously took pains to see the election as a statement of trust in the program they are trying to build. He is part promoter, part cheerleader, and part strategic advisor. Watching the well-orchestrated Congress, and just beginning to understand the implications for Europe that a revitalized PES might mean, I come away impressed with the prospects they have to shift leftward the political winds in Europe. What I’m curious about is just how they will build a relationship to the work of the Green Parties – a smaller, but effective pan-European party that concentrates its efforts on environmental issues.

Europe. The word conjures things romantic and complex. The place where some of the worst atrocities ever have been committed is also the place that Will Shakespeare, Maria Callas, and Van Gogh called home. It is impossibly diverse, fraught with ethnic conflicts, and yet boasts the EU – a vital political union that translates its affairs into more languages than we have states. They are learning to speak as one in dozens of tongues, to act as one through dozens of legislatures, and to build an economic engine that rivals the US and China. What is so fascinating to me is that what they are doing so defies their own history of intolerance, mistrust, and conflict.

Last night, I walked through Prague on a brisk, clear night. Large downtown squares were lit up with lights and huge Christmas trees a  nd crowds thronged through wooden booths selling food, drink, and traditional gifts. Children and adults both sported little “devil’s horns” that lit up red or blue, while others dressed as angels or medieval knights – in reference to a tradition about which I was clueless, I’m sad to say. But the experience was transcendent. It is truly a magical spot, especially at this time of year.

So, what is motivating this diverse continent to come together in this way, difficult as it may be to do so. Is it just reactive? Is it in response to the history of the great World Wars of the 20^th Century that devastated so many? Was it the crushing competitiveness of the postwar American economy? Was it the failure of ideology that drove the US, China, and Russia to such wasteful and unproductive times in the Cold War, where Europe was the reluctant partner and likely battleground? Or, was it a choice? Did these people look at what they’d experienced and decide they wanted something different? Whatever it was, something very fundamental here changed over recent decades. Something worth figuring out if we are ever to learn how to sort through the complex array of issues and conflicts before us.

There comes a time for every founder to leave the organization he or she began. When you are the founder, it can be difficult to know exactly when that time is. One’s perspective is always skewed at the top of an organization, and this is especially true with one that is as dynamic and diverse as Tides. For a host of good reasons, I’ve decided to initiate the process of stepping down as CEO of Tides. I expect to move onto new things after the search for a new CEO and a successful leadership transition have come to completion within the next year.

For over thirty-three years, I have lived and breathed this organization. I love very inch of it, and every soul who has contributed to its remarkable success over these years. It is a gift to have been able to work with such concentration and focus for such a long period of time. With that gift, we have achieved some remarkable things.

This is not to say I haven’t made my share of mistakes. I’ve made some doozies. But I’ve been blessed with a fabulous group of mentors who have served on our various boards over this time, and we’ve nurtured a frank, truth-telling relationship that has benefited me, and, I trust, the organization. At times, this has been hard on my colleagues, for whom more support and encouragement might have been welcome. But the occasional nudge from on high has inspired us to stretch and, even more importantly, helped us resist complacency.

Tides is, at its core, a collaborative enterprise. Everything we do is a partnership with dedicated people who care about the world around them. They place trust in us, and, in turn, we work from that trust to construct the very best contributions to sustainability and justice that we can conjure. We have also been able to avoid the organizational ‘calcification’ that so often occurs as organizations grow to scale. Taken as a whole, the Tides enterprise ranks as approximately the 95th largest operating charity in the US. It’s truly hard to believe that that is the case, but the numbers don’t lie. That we have been able to do so while remaining deeply committed to purpose and mission – often in ways that make folks with other sentiments blanch – is beyond wonderful. It is a blessing.

By far the most difficult thing about this transition will be leaving behind such a remarkable and talented staff. They have been the very best of colleagues – pushing the envelope, challenging convention, and creating together this thing we call Tides. This is equally true of our many donors, funders, projects, and tenants – the people with whom we partner in so many ways. They have taken us to places and experiences few might have imagined, and they have done so out of their passions for making this world a little bit better for our collective efforts. My gratitude to them is without measure.

I am looking forward to a next chapter in my life, though its prose has yet to be written. I know it won’t be far from the commitments and passions I’ve been following throughout my life, but maybe I’ll have a few extra minutes to rekindle my squash skills, grow a few grapes, or do an extra trip in the Grand Canyon. If the past is prologue, though, (thank you, William), that may be just a pipe dream. Work when mixed with passion demands much, but returns even more. And that is simply irresistible.

My uncle, Roy Pike, Jr., died in his late eighties. My brother and I sorted through his many effects after his passing in the course of which we discovered correspondence between Roy and his “special friend.” It served to confirm what everyone knew, but no one spoke about. Roy was gay. As with many in his generation, he remained steadfastly in the closet all his life, living much of it with my grandmother. He sold jewelry for Shreve & Co downtown, was an avid hiker and superb photographer, going on many Sierra Club trips. But he never openly spoke about his orientation, and he lived quietly ensconced in his generation’s not uncommon role of unattached male dinner partner in San Francisco’s social circles.

I don’t know that Roy was ever unhappy about his choices or his confined existence, but  When Harvey Milk was killed, I would think Roy felt the loss more profoundly than most, even though Milk was clearly at the other end of the spectrum as an “out” and at times flamboyant public figure. In retrospect, I am sad I never had a chance to talk with him about his experience of being gay in a hostile world. As the controversy erupted 17 years ago over “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, I wonder what he would have said about his own experience in World War II when he met his friend in London. This is not to say he was a tragic figure, for he was not. He was an engaged, productive, and talented man who got a great deal of enjoyment out of life, limited as it was by social convention. But one wonders how it might have been different if he hadn’t been forced to live in the shadows.

Tides sponsors and supports the National Equality March scheduled for this weekend in Washington (http://equalityacrossamerica.org). This event will give voice to the very simple notion that we should all be equal under the law – the 14^th Amendment would appear to provide just that, but despite all the gains we have made, the LGBT community is still legally left out in the cold.

My kids have grown up in a very different world from that of their great uncle. To them, this whole argument is silly on its face. The idea that people should have the freedom to be with who they want is, to them, basic. That gay and lesbian people should be treated differently under our legal system just makes no sense. Clearly, the clock is ticking on those who are stuck in the mental model of my parents’ generation. But it’s going to be a long road with many hazards and obstacles before we arrive at a more generous and enlightened perspective about this very basic human right. Supporting the March seems like the least we straight people can do. Marching with the thousands of others expected, would be even better.

At Tides, we have long been on the receiving end of rightist critiques of our many activities and programs. Full of innuendo, remarkably bad conspiracy theories, untruths, and half-truths, their theory seems to be that our commitment to sustainability, human rights, and social justice makes us highly suspect at best, and downright anti-American at worst. The latest examples, of course, are these bizarre constructs being promoted by FOX’s Glenn Beck insinuating that Tides is promoting a communist and/or socialist agenda on the unsuspecting public according to a grand plan. It’s all part of the scorched earth approach that Paul Krugman alluded to in his recent column.

We’ve considered various ways of responding, legally and otherwise, and invariably receive the advice that its just better to continue on our way and not get bogged down in a fruitless effort to set the record straight.

While I’ve developed a fairly thick skin as a result of the frequent screed directed at us, and at me individually, I find myself deeply saddened by the condition of current social policy debate in this great country of ours. In all of our years of supporting progressive ideas and organizations, I don’t think we (Tides) ever lost respect for the views of others. And for most of our 33 years, conservatives have held the reins of government, and, until recently, the support of many voters. But in the tradition of a loyal opposition, we have always thought that advancing alternative views was central to the democratic process. It is in this spirit that we hosted the recent Momentum 2009 conference. Videos of all the speakers are available to all to view, consider, and, if moved, comment upon, in the hopes of fostering intelligent dialog about solutions to the difficult problems of our day. There is no secret agenda. We simply invite an open exchange of ideas. The question is, though, is that still possible?

There are many voices, particularly in some corners of the broadcasting world, that seem to believe the best way to prevail is to silence your counterparts by trashing them personally, often without any factual basis. Just bully them out of the way. I’ve been on the receiving end of this, in my small way, as a result of this blog. One recent comment gives a flavor of what one can expect these days: “Hey, Drummond, how’s it feel to be hit on the head with a shovel? Get used to it. There’s more coming.”

I’m too old to have my feelings hurt by such things, but it is a sad thing to see that our political discourse has dropped into the gutter in this way. Much in the tradition of “yellow journalism” practiced in the late 1800’s, the anonymity of the Internet invites extremists to vent. In response, many simply cringe. And, as we have seen recently in Kansas, some resort to violence.

Politics has always been a rough and tumble game, not for the faint of heart. But during most of my adult life, there has always been a parallel experience where rational minds come together to wrestle out where the common ground lies. In the best cases, they try to develop palatable solutions that most can agree upon. Many would argue this has been the source of much human progress. While I’d not argue that progressives start in that middle ground, the gargantuan problems facing us in so many realms suggest that we need to find this path as we seek the solutions we so desperately need to find.

Irving Kristol’s passing reminds us all of the tradition that he founded that many call “neo-conservatism.” In his approach, and that of William F. Buckley and perhaps our generation’s David Brooks, intellectual rigor, rational thought, and facts mattered in constructing conservative positions and proposals. Propaganda and character assassination had no place. Buckley, for instance, would face off against smart people with differing views in the most intelligent exchanges one can imagine. Quoted in a Salon.com article a decade ago, Kristol’s son William said this about Buckley, “Buckley really believes that in order to convince, you have to debate and not just preach, which of course means risking the possibility that someone will beat you in debate.”

Fatalists sometimes argue that the rising seas will put out the fires of human conflict and the few survivors will have no choice but to cooperate or die. Even the figuratively shovel-wielding commenter noted above might agree that civil discussion has some merit in contrast, especially if we can actually begin to work together to solve humanity’s problems.