This is by far the most disturbing and unsettling post that I have written to date. It is a call to arms that far exceeds anything that I can imagine. It will sound hyperbolic to the uninitiated, but it is my duty as someone steeped in the natural sciences to convey this grave warning and urgent call to action.

The title of the post refers to the moment in time when virtually all of the pack ice on the Arctic Ocean has disappeared. The long term consequences of such an event are truly apocalyptic. Projecting current rates of melting into the future results in the first Blue Ocean Event in 2032 or 2033, just eight or nine years from now. A more optimistic projection may result in the “Event” delayed to about 2040. Even more alarming is the revelation that 10-15 years after the first Blue Ocean Event, the Arctic Ocean will no longer freeze over even in winter!! Regardless of when the Event happens, a near wholesale transformation of planet Earth is in store absent radical and immediate de-carbonization.

Many climate activists have been ridiculed for boldly stating that “we only have ten years left to de-carbonize”. The statement is interpreted by right wing, self interested, climate change deniers as meaning climate alarmists are saying the world ends in ten years. They then laugh at what they perceive as naïve, doomerist hysteria. The proper interpretation is that this is the moment when we lose control of anthropogenic global warming; when positive feedbacks usher in a runaway greenhouse effect. This is why climate activists are so strident in requesting global cooperation for urgent action to de-carbonize NOW.

Allow me to outline a likely scenario for how and why events will unfold following a Blue Ocean Event. Once a Blue Ocean Event is recognized and declared, the dynamic interplay of the atmosphere, ocean, and continental land masses surrounding the Arctic Ocean above 60 degrees degrees latitude, will dramatically change in an accelerating fashion.

First, the albedo will be reduced. Albedo is a measure of the reflectivity of a surface. Dark surfaces absorb far more energy than white surfaces. Once the Arctic Ocean is devoid of it’s highly reflective, white, icy surface, far more solar energy will be absorbed by both the atmosphere over the ocean and the ocean itself. The reduction in albedo will cause temperatures to soar not only in the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere above it, but in the surrounding land areas. One calculation by climate scientists, in an attempt to quantify the impact of this loss of albedo, have stated that the warming impact will be equivalent to all the fossil fuels burned since the early 1990’s.

A second factor concerns the latent heat of ice. A great deal of heat is needed to melt ice before the temperature of liquid water can begin to rise. A simple experiment can easily demonstrate latent heat: Add a great deal of ice to a beaker of water and wait for the temperature to stabilize. Record the temperature, which will be near the freezing point of water. Now put the ice and water mixture on a hot plate and begin heating the mix at a constant rate. Keep the thermometer in the mixture and measure the temperature every 30 seconds. Record your data, then plot a graph of temperature against time. Interpreting the data reveals that as long as some ice remained in the mixture, the temperature hardly budges, but once the ice has melted, the temperature shoots up in a linear fashion. Once the Arctic Ocean is free of ice, all heat absorbed by the water will go to raising the temperature of the water, some of which will then escape to the atmosphere, warming the atmosphere over the Arctic Ocean, and further warming the land areas surrounding the Arctic Ocean.

A third factor concerns methane hydrates (aka methane clathrates). Methane hydrates are compounds whereby methane is locked into a water ice lattice. It is found in ocean floor sediments. Methane is also found locked in permafrost on land. The crystalline lattice in methane hydrates is stable as long as the temperature remains very cold. It is conservatively estimated that there are 1.3 trillion tons of methane locked in land-based permafrost and oceanic methane hydrates in the Arctic. Methane is 80 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the short run, and 20 times as potent as CO2 in the long run. The difference is due to the low stability of methane once exposed to air. Methane decomposes to carbon dioxide with a half-life of about nine years. Warming water in an ice-free Arctic Ocean and melting permafrost in the surrounding land masses will result in a release to the atmosphere of billions of tons of methane gas to the atmosphere; possibly a few billion tons annually, which would cause an unprecedented spike in temperatures unseen in tens of millions of years.

The satellite photo above shows Arctic Ocean ice extent at the annual minimum. On the left is 1979. On the right is 2012. Well over one million square kilometers of pack ice was lost between 1979 and 2012. Ice loss has continued since 2012.

The above satellite photo was taken some time during the second decade of the twenty-first century, at or near the September minimum. It is color coded according to the age of the ice. The age of the ice is a good proxy for ice thickness, and ice thickness or volume is a far better metric than area for evaluating the health of the ice. Notice that the last remaining area of thick, old ice, is along the north shore of Greenland and the northwest shores of the islands making up Canada’s Arctic Archipelago. In fact, since 1979, about 90% of the volume of ice in the Arctic Ocean has disappeared. This development is extremely alarming because the remaining ice being very thin is also very vulnerable to melting away or being torn to pieces by storms. Also, while areal extent of pack ice increases during each winter, the volume of ice barely increases, and is lost again the following summer.

The above satellite photo was taken near the seasonal ice minimum in September 2020. Notice the further retreat of the ice front since the minimum from 2012 seen further above. Virtually the entire western Arctic is free of ice. The ice-free area almost extends to the North Pole.

As alarming as an ice-free Arctic Ocean would be for the stability of Earth’s climate, a pervasive complacency is the emotional state of most Americans. I suspect that many Americans feel the threat is still remote in time; that smart people will invent and subsequently deploy a geo-engineering strategy that saves us from the threat at the last minute; that the melting of Arctic Ice is part of a natural cycle that will soon reverse, or that a Blue Ocean Event is a hoax.

What is most chilling is the realization that it is far too late to prevent a Blue Ocean Event in the Arctic Ocean. We have crossed too many tipping points to prevent an eventual ice-free Arctic Ocean. Deploying the most draconian mitigation strategies would only delay the onset of ice free conditions by a few years. What happens in the Arctic doesn’t stay in the Arctic. The Arctic serves as the northern hemisphere’s thermostat. Once the ice is gone an acceleration of warming at lower latitudes with occur along with an amplification of the hydrologic cycle, resulting in more extreme floods and droughts. Sadly, effective mitigation will not happen. That ship has sailed. Instead, we can only expect “adaptation”, in real time, as climate change induced anomalous weather events occur. This will be our strategy until adaptation is no longer possible. The aftermath of this is anybody’s guess. Brace for impact.

The hotly contested presidential election of 2020 was the most disputed in American history. President Donald Trump had been sowing the seeds of mis-trust in the election outcome for months prior to election day. He would claim that nefarious forces were aligning against patriotic Americans to “rig” the election and insure a victory for his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden. Trump made these claims despite highly reputable (A+) polls consistently showing that Biden held sizeable leads in the three most important battleground states of the rust belt.

Truth be told, the nefarious forces were on the right. Utilizing strategies of voter suppression, Republicans were making every effort to disenfranchise millions of black and brown voters that historically affiliate with the Democratic Party.

In this essay, I will explain how African-American women actually saved democracy, at least temporarily, in 2020. I will explain this in the context of a three-dimensional political model that I proposed several years ago, and which can be accessed on this site. I will conclude this essay with a discussion of the fragility of this victory, and how the fascist forces of Trumpism are still a menacing threat.

What is shown above is a perspective view of my 3-D model. I will briefly provide a descriptive overview of this model. You will need to expand the illustration to see all the labels.

Examining the illustration above, all political systems, excluding theocratic and monarchic systems, will reside somewhere on this fabric. As you can see, this model is three dimensional; the third dimension, or “height” is energy. More specifically, the height is a relative energy of energy vested in the people versus energy vested in the state. America is presently located inside what looks like a volcanic crater, elevated high up on the right or conservative side of the crater. In the next illustration we will take a look at the critical cross-section of this model.

Examining the illustration above we see a cross-section of the right side of the political model. We are now getting to the heart of the matter that concerns this essay. At present, we are located at Position #1 on the diagram above, which is on the right side of the Well of Democracy. Autocratic, authoritarian forces, represented by vector A on the diagram, are attempting to drive our democratic system further rightward toward what I call the Revolutionary Rim. The Revolutionary Rim is a very precarious location, because for a political system to be driven beyond the “Rim” means a virtually inevitable, inexorable, and remorseless descent to fascism. Any movement in our system of government depends on the sum of the forces involved, represented by vectors in the diagram. Vector B are the forces that are pushing back against the authoritarian impulses, and vector C is the natural Restoring Force, whose magnitude is greatest at the inflection point of the curve. The Restoring Force(s) are actually the safeguards of democracy, and at the inflection point is where the norms, institutions, and safeguards of democracy are brought to bear with their greatest ferocity. Movement to the right in our democratic system requires that the magnitude of Vector A is greater than the sum of Vectors B and C. (As drawn above, vector C is very long, and the sum of B and C is clearly greater than A. But imagine a highly engaged authoritarian electorate, represented by a very long vector A.)

Despite all the voter suppression efforts to disenfranchise black and brown voters in the United States, what African-American women did with their increased activism and their increased determination to be counted in the 2020 election, was to in effect increase the length of Vector B as seen on the last diagram. With the sum of Vectors B & C greater than Vector A, America has moved slightly further away from the Revolutionary Rim, more safely ensconced within the Well of Democracy. As such, all Americans who believe in majoritarian, representative democracy, owe a massive debt of gratitude to the African-American women who stepped up to save democracy.

Saving democracy is not a onetime endeavor. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, surely something similar must be said of democracy. “Trumpism” is the first manifestation of what some have called “the rise of the Big Man”. The “Big Men” are autocratic, authoritarian would be leaders who have contempt for the checks and balances of the American system of democracy. They have contempt for Congress and the Supreme Court, feeling that these institutions should be little more than sounding boards for suggesting how an Imperial president might proceed, but institutions lacking teeth. The “Big Men” have contempt for criticism, most effectively disseminated by a mass media, to which they likewise express contempt. The “Big Man” autocrat attracts adherents by promising a return to a nostalgic era when economic and political power was vested in a noble, hard-working, patriotic electorate. Of course, this is code for white, Christian, and largely rural or small town people. It is a populism that invokes fear of “the other”; black, brown, Asian, gay, urban, educated, and anyone else whom they perceive is “taking” from them, and giving to the non-deserving.

Jason Stanley, in his treatise on the subject of fascism titled “How Fascism Works – The Politics of Us and Them” outlines the many distinct strategies that fascist politics employ. As Stanley says, the strategies are “the mythic past, propaganda, anti-intellectualism, unreality, hierarchy, victimhood, law and order, sexual anxiety, appeals to the heartland, and a dismantling of public welfare and unity.” Stanley goes on to say “The most telling symptom of fascist politics is division. It aims to separate a population into an “us” and a “them”.” In part due to the rise of social media and cable news that fractures the electorate, tribalism emerges. When minds marinate in endless confirmation bias, polarization amplifies. As economic inequality reaches staggering levels not seen since the Gilded Age, resentment and rage grow, battle lines are drawn, and a distinct “us” and “them” emerges. This is a terrifying development. Had it not been for the engagement of highly motivated African-American women, pushing back against this development, America could have quite conceivably lost its democracy in 2020.

In an era where growth capitalism is ending, to be replaced by catabolic capitalism due to resource constraints, a nostalgic return to some imaginary “Golden Age” or “mythic past”, is no longer possible. Therefore, frustrations will continue to be felt by those whose economic prospects are dwindling. Such people are vulnerable to the accusatory rhetoric of a populist authoritarian who sows division. Expect a second generation “Big Man” in the mold of Donald Trump to rise within the Republican ranks by 2024. Some are already taking a page from the Trump playbook. Who will join African-American women this next time to save democracy?

The ever quotable Winston Churchill once remarked: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they have tried everything else.” Possibly without consciously realizing it, Mr. Churchill was commenting on the fundamental Achilles Heel of American style democracy: the inability of American democracy to permit an aggressive, proactive, activist approach to addressing major issues of global concern. Mr. Churchill had first witnessed America’s latent entry into the First World War, three years after many tens of thousands of Englishmen died defending the Western Front in those putrid trench deathtraps. Then he saw America’s hesitance as Hitler expanded his empire into Poland in 1939, France in 1940, and the nightly bombings of London by the Luftwaffe in late 1940, only to reluctantly join the fray once it got bitch slapped by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. A distinct pattern of reluctance by America to participate in the face of global threats was obvious to Churchill.

What Churchill failed to understand was that America’s hesitancy was by design. Unlike the great parliamentary democracies of the world, American democracy with it’s checks and balances and separation of powers, all serve to prevent hasty actions and interventions. Most of the time these checks and balances serve as guardrails to prevent the rise of demagogues and demagogic actions. American democracy is entirely a reactive system as a result, unable to appropriately address an issue in advance of it becoming a grave crisis. An emergent galvanized resolve welling up organically from the masses is an essential precondition for constructively addressing any issue. In essence, the passions of the people drive the agenda, experts be damned. By contrast, elected leaders in parliamentary democracies can heed the advice of experts in a variety of disciplines, and implement policy accordingly.

This reality is ominous and insidious, especially in light of the expectation that America should take a leadership role in addressing global issues. I am thinking here of the greatest existential threat facing the world: anthropogenic global warming (AGW). One simply cannot effectively address this issue from the reactive posture, after the crisis is unambiguous, after much of the damage is done. Yet the prospect of engendering the needed resolve among Americans to address AGW is remote. Too many issues of greater immediacy confront most Americans. This is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs in action. When the fundamental needs of people are unmet or insecure, how can they be concerned with something as remote and impersonal as AGW? If one worries about paying the rent or mortgage; providing food and shelter for a family; paying off credit cards and student loans; receiving a good evaluation at one’s place of employment, how can they be concerned at all about any distant, though grave future threat? Therefore, any form of government that requires a great upwelling of concern among the electorate about an issue, will find itself paralyzed into inaction. Hence, American intransigence on AGW.

Churchill’s astute observation about American democracy will also apply to any other issue where taking bold, preemptive action could prevent the most dire consequences. Habitat loss along with AGW are the two primary causes of the incipient sixth mass extinction event that will play out around the world over the next few centuries, absent aggressive action in advance. Our capitalist economic model with it’s imperative of infinite growth, though we occupy a finite planet, must acknowledge resource constraints, particularly energy, BEFORE growth capitalism is finished. How else to deploy an alternative model in advance of apocalypse?

Regardless of the issue, if it fails to engender the requisite, vocalized passion, no substantive action by American government should be expected. As a result, the greatest challenge facing our democracy is how to make it effectively proactive. This means making it more like the parliamentary democracies of Europe and Asia in this one respect. This challenge will be daunting because the American system is entrenched, and entrenched systems have mammoth inertia. Can I propose a solution? Not really. Perhaps the centralizing tendency of America’s federal government to amass greater and greater power could be reversed. If greater power could be restored to local governments, this might be a start. Great minds should make haste and resolve this American political dilemma. Churchill’s lament should not remain a permanent feature of the American political landscape.

For at least three hundred years capitalism has been the dominant economic system of western nations. What made capitalism so successful was it’s ability to harness surplus quantities of cheap hydrocarbon energy sources in order to perform the “work” of economic activity. This is work in the fundamental “physics” sense of the word, where energy is defined as the capacity to do work, and work itself is defined as a force moving something a distance. Ultimately, economic activity requires that a force move something a distance, requiring energy to be consumed. As long as there is an ever increasing availability of these concentrated energy sources to perform the work of REAL economic activity, the capitalist system hums along beautifully, ignoring the collateral ecological damage for now. Also, REAL, rather than illusory economic growth, an imperative of this system, can continue unabated. And ideally, we get the desired 3% to 4% real growth rates, coupled with full employment, low inflation rates, balanced budgets, modest prime lending rates, manageable inequality, an educated workforce, households with manageable debt, and global peace.

Command economic systems like those found in communist countries have never been as successful as the market based system of capitalism. Even with the availability of surplus energy, command economic systems with centralized power controlling economic activity, are too inflexible, and far less responsive to change because of their centralized nature. Without free markets and the Law of Supply and Demand, economic growth is slow.

As long as surplus energy is available to stoke the engines of growth, capitalism is a far superior economic system than any centralized socialist system. But what happens when energy constraints are introduced? As stated, constant, uninterrupted, infinite economic growth is an essential imperative of capitalism. Why must growth continue? Businesses can grow or expand by increasing productivity, but to expedite growth they take out loans, thus assuming a debt to be paid back at interest. The money they receive as a loan was created out of thin air, ultimately by the Federal Reserve, and with interest attached. Only the PRINCIPAL of the loan was created out of thin air. To pay back the principal PLUS interest requires NEW loans to be made to further increase the money supply. Without real economic growth occurring commensurate with the expanding money supply, unacceptable price inflation will occur, as too many dollars chase too few goods and services. And as long as debt levels don’t become so high that servicing the debt becomes an issue, then this debt based money system can continue.

Why is it then that I contend that a new economic system is essential? Fundamentally, it is because REAL economic growth is coming to an end; essentially a permanent end, never to resume in any meaningful time frame. The best central governments are capable of doing to preserve the illusion of growth is to pursue a strategy of staggering levels of deficits spending, coupled with historically low interest rates, and multiple rounds of quantitative easings. Monetary interventions have failed to engender robust economic growth, the kind of growth we became accustomed to during the post-war years of 1945-1980. Our modern strategy has been akin to keeping a Stage Four cancer victim mainlined with high doses of opioids; he feels better, and may think he’s getting well, but his case is terminal.

Why is it that the aforementioned “real” growth is coming to an end? Simply because the availability of profitably to produce, highly concentrated, portable, liquid forms of hydrocarbon energy are disappearing. That of course means oil; conventional oil with it’s broad suite of hydrocarbon compounds that can be refined into everything from asphalt to fuel oil, to diesel, to jet fuel, and to the varying grades of gasoline. The mythology of “Saudi America” due to the advent of fracking technology to access “tight oil”; oil trapped in source rock rather than reservoir rock, is just that, a mythology. Yes, fracking and horizontal drilling technologies to access previously inaccessible sources of oil have postponed the day of reckoning by a decade or so, but this drilling frenzy has failed to ever produce profits, having an industry wide accumulated negative free cash flow of over $200 billion. This source of oil also doesn’t have the versatility of conventional oil, and can’t be used to produce diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, or the higher grades of gasoline without first being mixed with conventional oil before refining.

What else might suggest that growth capitalism is in trouble? For starters, income and wealth inequality that are higher now than at any time since the Gilded Age. Also, for the first time in American history, a generation of thirty-five year old’s (the Millennials), have less accumulated wealth than their parents did at the same age. What else? The hollowing out of not only manufacturing, but all mid-level occupations, due to outsourcing and automation; the rise of credit card debt and all other aspect of personal debt, in a desperate attempt to preserve the illusion of being middle class; the staggering burden of student loan debt for the young; the costs of renting rising at a far faster rate than incomes; the rise of homelessness; the opioid epidemic; the rise in bankruptcies and foreclosures; the rise of the “gig” economy; the pension crisis; the loss of reliable benefit packages; the trend away from defined benefit retirement packages; the decreasing ability of Social Security alone to provide a living income, and the return of the elderly to the workforce. This is NOT an all inclusive list.

Despite the list above, there is something else that is far, far more menacing as a profound and undeniable indicator that growth capitalism is dying: the emergence of what is being called Catabolic Capitalism. The author of the concept of catabolic capitalism is Craig Collins, Ph.D, of California State University East Bay. Doctor Collins fully elaborates his theory of catabolic capitalism in the essay titled: “Catabolism: Capitalism’s Frightening Future“, published by http://counterpunch.org. Please read this most inspiring and enlightening essay. The gist of the essay is that growth is not the primary driving force behind capitalism-profit is. Dr. Collins further states that as globalization runs down, a grim catabolic future is eager to replace it; that it’s a system characterized by hostile takeovers, mergers and leveraged buyouts, predatory firms devouring their competition; that in a growth-less economy, catabolic capitalism is the most profitable, short-term alternative, making it the path of least resistance after growth capitalism has expended itself. He acknowledges though, that without growth, catabolic capitalism is not sustainable; just a self-cannibalizing end-game that devours the society that had previously sustained it.

So if catabolic capitalism is the natural outgrowth of what formerly was growth capitalism, then what replaces the wreckage of spent catabolic capitalism? This is the most important question to answer in my essay. Self-organizing, naturally emergent systems WILL replace catabolic capitalism. Resources, however depleted, will have to be marshalled to sustain human life. How then, will all this unfold in the aftermath of the demise of catabolic capitalism?

I believe that post catabolic capitalism, there will be two emergent and competing systems for organizing human activity to meet our daily needs; one is neo-feudalism, and the other is worker cooperatives. These systems can be fashioned to operate in urban, suburban, and rural environments, and will take on varying attributes depending upon local needs. Five years ago I wrote a short story titled “The Ninety-four Forties“, which can be found on this blog under “Pages” that examines in fictional form a confrontation between these economic modalities. I am not the first, or the most vocal to propose this dichotomy. Richard Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus, from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, has shouted for years from the rooftops about the advantages of worker co-ops. Please check out one of multiple YouTube videos where he discusses worker cooperatives as the most equitable, beneficent system for arranging worker activity in a post-growth world. In a worker cooperative, the workers in the enterprise collectively function as their own board of directors, thereby not needing any separate group of people functioning in this role. This arrangement is what Dr. Wolff calls a Workers Self-Directed Enterprise (WSDE); radically different from the hierarchical capitalist model. Capitalist enterprises and WSDE’s are just different ways of organizing production.

A great advantage of the worker cooperative is that you are extending democracy into the workplace. The workers hire management, not the other way around. Management is evaluated by the workers, again, not the other way around. Managerial compensation is also determined by the workers. In the most successful worker cooperative in the world, the Mandragon Cooperative Corporation in the Basque region of northern Spain, the CEO can only make 8.5 times the pay of the lowest paid worker. Typical capitalist enterprises by contrast, in addition to their hierarchical nature, are autocratic, dictatorial worker regimes, where the CEO makes hundreds of times the income of the average worker. Also, since no parasitic stockholders exist in worker co-ops, who must be rewarded with satisfactory quarterly dividend checks, the exigency of profit is reduced, if not removed entirely. So, is it possible that worker cooperatives are a model for arranging human activity that can be successful in a contracting rather than expanding economy? Can they be part of the “managed contraction” to the smaller “steady state economy”, often discussed by Richard Heinberg of the Post-Carbon Institute? Can encouraging the establishment of worker cooperatives stave off competition in the form of neo-feudal empires with their quasi-slave labor? I don’t believe anyone wants to see a revival of sharecropping.

Governments are pathetic when it comes to accomplishing anything, or making anything happen. But appropriate government intervention can “encourage” certain developments. Government action can encourage the establishment of worker cooperatives by using incentives; with making “space” in the corporate world so cooperatives can compete on an equal footing with conventional public and private corporations. Properly designed government intervention can DISCOURAGE the establishment of post-growth neo-feudal empires.

Whether we like it or not, growth capitalism, based as it is on ever increasing supplies of surplus energy, is ending. It’s replacement, catabolic capitalism, temporarily fills the void, but is ultimately an unsustainable model since cannibalizing an economy leads to it’s destruction. Either worker cooperatives arrangements or neo-fuedal arrangements are the likely models for organizing and conducting human activity that will step into the vacuum created by the demise of catabolic capitalism. We can remain passive and permit the carnage that accompanies economic collapse, or we can actively intervene to promote a better way forward.

Probably the scariest thing imaginable to the powers that be isn’t military adventurism by a would be hegemonic power, or anthropogenic global warming, or the growing dissent arising from increasing economic inequality, or Islamic extremism, nuclear proliferation, homophobia, racism, or myriad other issues commonly discussed by the mainstream media, but rather, the impending end of the infinite economic growth paradigm.

Governments around the world cannot envision a world where the expectation of perpetual, exponential, endless economic growth no longer exists. To them, and with just modest hyperbole, the specter of growth ending conjures up images of the Black Death. This might seem absurd to the casual observer; nothing grows forever except cancer, and it eventually kills its host. In this context then: why such grave concern for something as seemingly innocuous as the end of economic growth?

The fundamental problem is that the existing global economic system has built into its design the imperative of infinite growth, and no one has effectively brainstormed how a “Plan B” might function. In the existing system, money is created out of thin air and loaned into existence with interest attached. However, the interest isn’t loaned into existence, only the principal. To pay back loans at interest requires a further expansion of the money loaned into existence. It’s the NEW money loaned into existence that pays the interest on the OLD loans, in a never ending cycle. To successfully accomplish this requires that economic growth be commensurate with, or match, the expansion of money loaned into existence. Otherwise, with constantly increasing liquidity, rampant inflation would occur that would destroy the value of the currency, in a Weimar Republic-like collapse.

The fundamental reason why robust economic growth is ending, is that the resources required to sustain it are increasingly in short supply, especially energy. Our energy system is not just a subset of the economy. Our energy system “IS” our economic system. Professional economists either fail to fully understand and appreciate energy’s role in what I call “the physics of economic growth”, or they know about it, but refrain from articulating the connections. You see, all economic activity requires that “work” be performed; work in the strictest physics sense. Energy is defined as the capacity to do work. So energy has to be expended to do the “work” of economic activity. Gains in efficiency can result in improving the number of units of useful work extracted per unit of energy expended, but gains in efficiency are up against the Law of Diminishing Returns, whereby improvements in efficiency become progressively more incremental with time. This especially becomes noticeable with any “mature technology”. Detractors may also say that substitution of one energy source for another will solve the problems associated with depletion of a primary energy source. However, so-called “alternative” energy sources, in addition to being really just “derivatives” of fossil fuels, also fail to have the energy concentration, portability, reliability, and versatility of fossil fuels. In addition, often being liquid at room temperature adds to the versatility of fossil fuels. Though we should continue research, development, and deployment of the so-called alternative energy sources wherever practical, no combination of such energy sources will ever compensate for what we derive from fossil fuels, such that they could permit the continuation of robust, exponential economic growth. This condition is terminal.

If I’m making the bold assertion that economic growth is coming to an end, then what is the time-line for this eventuality? Is it possible that we are already experiencing serious, sustained headwinds jeopardizing future economic growth?

If we look at recent history, we see a Dow Jones reaching a new record high almost daily, unemployment reported at only three percent, an official inflation rate that is very low, and reported quarterly GDP growth that hits the desired targets. These numbers, viewed in isolation, would support the view that we have a healthy economy. The facts behind the numbers paint a different portrait. Fundamentally, we have constructed an ILLUSION of growth through a staggering expansion of both public and private debt, sustained historically low interest rates, and repeated quantitative easings and their afterglow.

Government debt (deficit spending) was seen as outrageous during the Reagan administration when it reached $200 billion dollars. This was unprecedented at the time, and during Reagan’s term in office, the total national debt more than doubled. We now have deficit spending of over one TRILLION dollars annually. Since the Great Recession, deficit spending has not been less than $600 Billion dollars; this figure having occurred near the end of Obama’s second term. The problem with a constantly increasing national debt, due to years and years of deficit spending, is that it presumes that a wonderful era of sustained economic growth is on the horizon; economic growth so vibrant and robust that we simply grow our way out of debt. This has been the view for twenty years, and yet the wished for growth repeatedly fails to materialize. As you see, deficit spending is really borrowing from the future, placing a potentially massive burden on future generations, because of the delusion of imminent sustained future economic growth.

I believe that the problem rests with policy makers, who fail to accept that the period 1945-1980, when tremendous economic growth reined, and a massive middle class emerged, was an aberration, or anomaly. It was what people would now call a “one off”. This was the golden age of the American middle class. All the economic “numbers” were wonderful without deficit spending, without near zero interest rates, and without quantitative easings. The growth was REAL. Policy makers are trying to get us back to that golden economic age, but it can never occur again. The resource base that could make such growth possible no longer exists. This is especially true for energy.

You may say “What about fracking? Won’t fracking save the infinite economic growth paradigm?” Fracking bought us some time; about ten years. This was time that we should have been developing a Plan B, or new governing economic model. We failed to do this because finding ways to preserve the status quo was the path of least resistance. Fracking is a massively failing business model; an epic Ponzi Scheme that has disappointed Wall Street, private equity firms and investors since the rush to drill began. The break even price for oil is much higher than what is reported, otherwise the industry would not have an accumulated negative free cash flow of -$250 billion dollars. The negative free cash flow is due to the fact that the industry’s CAPEX(capital expenditures), has exceeded the revenue from the sale of oil by $250 billion over the last ten years. And with a sustained slowdown in the global economy, oil prices are not likely to go high enough to reverse this. And even if prices did rise, tier 1 acreage has been nearly exhausted, and tier 2 acreage requires even higher prices to break even.

It may seem ironic that even though the rig count has fallen by 25% over the last year, that production numbers for oil continue to rise. This is due to DUC’s (Drilled, UnCompleted) wells. These wells have been drilled, but not fracked as yet. There is a large backlog of such wells, but it has decreased by 10% in the last year. As drilling activity continues to decline, and the backlog of DUC’s continues to be drawn down, eventually oil production numbers will peak. This will likely be the absolute peak in domestic oil production. The best estimate for when this will occur is summer 2021. And remember, I said that the energy system is not just a subset of the economic system, it IS the economic system. So when oil production peaks, and outlays increase for foreign oil purchases, within one year the US economy will go into recession. This recession will be deep and long lasting; no “real” growth following it. I can’t envision the aftermath, or how policy makers will respond, but it appears that by no later than summer 2022 we will go into a deep and prolonged recession. I would advise making arrangements and being prepared.

I am going out on a limb in predicting a deep recession by no later than summer 2022. I reserve the right to change my assessments in light of new information. A recession could for example occur earlier than my timeline should there be lingering trade disputes with China or a more serious economic slowdown globally. Factors that could forestall the recession only postpone the inevitable by about a year or two; inevitable because resource constraints won’t permit growth beyond this timeline.

Regardless of when the next recession occurs, one has to wonder how the U.S. government would respond to a deepening recession. Normally, just before a recession commences, interest rates are at least in middle single digits. This gives the Federal Reserve the leverage to significantly reduce interest rates toward zero, cushioning the fall in an attempt to sustain liquidity. However, with interest rates at around 1.75%, not much cushion will exist when the next recession hits. Therefore, the economic toll is likely to be hard and fast. Perhaps more massive quantitative easings will be a strategy employed, though this just kicks the can down the road by burdening future generations with the massive debt. Also, QE’s become progressively less effective at goosing the economy the more often they are tried. Evidence for this comes from Japan, which has been notorious for repeated QE’s that no longer have the intended effect.

Personally, I can’t envision any combination of strategies that can prevent serious economic carnage. Propping up an economy with bailing wire, meaning the aforementioned massive deficit spending, sustained historically low interest rates, and repeated quantitative easings, will not alter the shaky foundations upon which our economy is built. And sadly, if we remain committed to the infinite growth economic paradigm, the foundation WILL crumble because the resources no longer exist to make it strong. Our country and the world need to seriously work toward a smaller, steady state economy. A managed contraction toward this goal is the only route governments can take to circumvent economic collapse. Unfortunately, few governments see the urgency.

How can an individual strengthen their economic position in such uncertain times; to build economic resiliency? Reducing debt is front and center. Pay off all credit cards. Pay off as much of the mortgage as possible, or move to a more affordable home. Live efficiently and well within your means. Keep sufficient cash in preferably more than one savings account. Purchase physical silver or gold and keep it in a safe deposit box at your bank. I have done all the things I have just listed. It is definitely worth the peace of mind. I will revisit this essay from time to time over the next few years to see how events have transpired. As they say: hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.

The American project of fracking and horizontal drilling of unconventional and difficult to access tight oil reserves doesn’t have much of a future. The reasons have nothing to do with the many environmental concerns that arise from this process, but rather entirely for economic reasons. Tight oil (aka shale oil), its composition, its service to a globalized economy, its methods for extraction, its production decline profile, and its economic viability are unlike conventional oil. For all these reasons, tight oil production will soon peak and go into terminal decline.

Conventional oil by contrast has historically represented a staggeringly concentrated form of cheap, portable, easily transportable, liquid energy. The myriad refined products derived from this oil have powered modern civilization, as well as having been used in producing a wide variety of essential industrial and commercial products. It’s hard to accurately comprehend the concentration of energy in the refined products derived from oil. A useful thought experiment to convey this would be the following: add one gallon of gasoline to your car, drive it till you run out of gas, then push your car home; likely around 35 miles. Then ask yourself, “What is the monetary value of pushing a car 35 miles?” Or alternatively, add a gallon of diesel to a backhoe, use it to dig a trench until you run out of fuel, then using a pick and shovel, dig a trench of equal proportions along side the original trench. Again, how much would your services be worth to dig a trench of equal dimensions to that dug by the backhoe? The answers to these questions should inform everyone that the energy provided by conventional oil has been extremely cheap for over a century. In fact, as exploration, extraction and refining technologies have improved over the last 150 years, oil has gotten progressively cheaper, adjusted for inflation. This was true as long as extraction rates for conventional oil could continue to rise, which they did until 2006.  Conventional oil is now in decline, but tight oil came to the rescue just as conventional oil was peaking. This has kept the price of oil manageably low ever since.

The world has thus experienced a partial reprieve from the most consequential impacts from declining conventional oil by accessing non-conventional sources of oil; tight oil (AKA shale oil) representing the most important unconventional source of oil. Due to the development of five different geologic basins where the twin technologies of horizontal drilling and fracking can be employed, America has reversed decades of declining oil production, and has reached a new production record. However, the business model used to achieve this new domestic production peak is not sustainable.

Producing tight oil is an expensive proposition. In part this is because the wells experience a staggering decline rate of up to 70% in the first year. This contrasts with a 5% first year decline rate for a typical conventional well. So in order to keep production rising, wells must be drilled and fracked constantly;  a phenomenon sometimes called “The Red Queen Syndrome”, alluding to the Red Queen in Alice Through The Looking Glass, who had to constantly run faster and faster in order to stay in the same place. In other words, any let up in a constant increase in the rate of drilling and fracking will cause production rates to fall.

Constant drilling and fracking burns through a huge amount of cash. In fact the majority of companies drilling in the tight oil patch, have been, and are experiencing negative free cash flow. This means that their CAPEX (capital expenditures) exceed the revenue they receive from the sale of oil. The industry as a whole is -280 billion dollars negative free cash flow since fracking began in 2008. What then is permitting this industry to rack up larger and larger debt loads for eleven years with no end in site?

The sources of revenue that fund the fracking boom are Wall Street and private investors. For years money was thrown at the tight oil project with little attention being paid to the consistent negative free cash flows of most operators.  Only now are private investors becoming wary of an industry that doesn’t provide adequate returns. Some companies, in a desperate attempt to sustain investor confidence were using money borrowed from private equity firms to pay dividends to individual investors; a classic borrowing from Peter to pay Paul scenario. This of course was done to deliberately create the illusion that all was well in the shale patch, even as debt loads continued to grow larger.

 When companies go into debt, they must service that debt, meaning that they must make arrangements to pay the interest on their debt. When a company is negative free cash flow and needs to service its debt, is has no alternative but to keep drilling at a feverish pace in order to produce “some” revenue so debt can be serviced, but more money must be borrowed in order to keep drilling so that NEWER debt can be serviced. It is a never ending cycle. The great hope is that through a combination of improved drilling and fracking technologies that lower the break even price, and higher prices per barrel of oil, they will one day break into a consistent, dependable free cash flow positive era. It should be noted that when oil was $100 per barrel in 2011-2014, operators were negative free cash flow. It turns out that the costs of production tend to rise with the price of oil.

OPEC has even helped the American operators in the tight oil basins by voluntarily reducing production in order to bolster the price of oil. You might think that production restraint in the tight oil basins might also follow suit to assist with keeping the price of oil higher. Remember though, they can’t reduce production because then they couldn’t service their constantly increasing debt. Their actions undermine their need to finally become positive free cash flow, as feverish drilling rates drive down prices.  And now complicating this is that Tier 1 acreage( the sweet spots), where oil is most concentrated and inexpensive to extract, is becoming exhausted. This means that operators will have to move into less promising acreage with higher breakeven prices. How the hell then will these companies EVER become consistently positive free cash flow?

An unspoken issue involving tight oil concerns its composition. Tight oil has a different mix of hydrocarbon compounds than conventional oil, and far fewer refined products can be made exclusively using tight oil than conventional oil. As a result it is really unfair to compare a barrel of tight oil with a barrel of conventional oil. The  barrel of tight oil doesn’t have the energy density of conventional oil. For example, one cannot obtain kerosene, diesel, jet fuel, fuel oil, or the higher octane levels of gasoline by refining tight oil alone, without first mixing it with heavier oil from another source, such as Venezuela. Tight oil’s limitations makes it incumbent upon America to secure heavy oil sources in order to mix with tight oil and refine it into the full spectrum of products needed to keep an advanced economy humming along and growing.

Possibly part of the reason that tight oil sells at a steep discount to conventional oil  when compared to the current Brent Crude or WTI(West Texas Intermediate) price is due to tight oil’s limitations. The known discount would tend to undermine investor confidence. But another strategy used to keep investor confidence high is for oil companies operating in these geologic basins to report EUR’s (estimated ultimate recoveries), of individual wells which are vastly overstated. Oil companies are reporting average EUR’s in the Permian Basin of 700,000 barrels. But when one examines the production profile of existing, producing wells, then re-plots the data on semi-log paper, EUR’s really average 250,000 barrels. The problem is that oil companies use EUR’s to determine the break even price for their oil. The higher the EUR, the lower the break even price. So they are reporting break even prices to investors which are far lower than reality. This serves their interest by helping to sustain high investor confidence. However, it is a monumental deception.

 As investors lose faith in the ability of companies to become consistently positive free cash flow, and as debt servicing payments come due which the companies can no longer pay with revenue from operations, and as Tier 1 acreage becomes depleted, and as OPEC loses patience with uncooperative tight oil drillers, the whole tragic, Ponzi scheme of tight oil drilling and fracking will go into terminal decline. What effects will this have on the American and global economy? That is the subject of my next essay.

Anthropogenic global warming (climate change) is a grave existential threat. Climatologists haven’t adequately articulated the threat to convey the urgency of this crisis. They will list the consequences of global warming in broad strokes; the anticipated rise in sea level, increased frequency of hurricanes, droughts, and floods, following a doubling of preindustrial levels of atmospheric CO2. But a cognitive dissonance persists because many people can’t reconcile the scope of tragic consequences with what they perceive as a meager rise in global average temperatures. They may say, “But it’s only a four degree rise in temperature over the next eighty years.” Many people can’t comprehend why a four degree rise in average global temperatures would be so catastrophic.

In the absence of substantive mitigation, implemented on a global scale, the minimum anticipated warming by century’s end is 4.3 degrees Celsius. So the numbers climatologists typically supply the media are in Celsius degrees.   This 4.3 number is equal to 8 degrees Fahrenheit. Also remember, these figures are the low end of possible scenarios envisioned by a consensus of climatologists that directly study climate and climate change. You may still be saying ” But it’s only 8 degrees, we can easily adapt”.

Climate change is not uniform geographically. Some regions have far greater vulnerability than other areas. The arctic has roughly three times the climate sensitivity than the global average. So with each one degree rise in global average temperatures, the arctic can expect a three degree rise. The interior of continents in the mid-latitudes have about double the sensitivity as the global average. So, that 8 degree Fahrenheit rise in global average temperatures becomes 16 degrees Fahrenheit where most readers of this post live. Some of you might still be saying that with just a little effort human populations can adapt to this level of warming, as if we are disconnected from the natural world.

It gets worse, much worse. It’s not the rise in average temperatures that kill you. It’s the extreme temperatures superimposed atop the rise in the average that kills you, and wipes out whole ecosystems.  Anthropogenic global warming doesn’t mean day to day weather variability “goes away”. It doesn’t mean that the seasons end. It doesn’t change the tilt of the Earth’s axis from 23.5 degrees with respect to the plane of the solar system. There will still be days in which the temperatures are as much as 20 degrees above or below average, just as occurs today. But I mean 20 degrees above or below the “NEW“, 16 degree higher average likely to exist at the conclusion of the 21st century.

So, what might this mean? Selecting a few cities in the interior of the United States can highlight the brutal consequences of a “business as usual”, no mitigation future. The historical average July temperature in Kansas City, MO is 91 Degrees. The average July and August temperature in Wichita Falls, TX is 97 degrees.  Now recognizing that these two locations will experience a rise in temperature that is double the global average, the new average mid-summer high temperatures for Kansas City and Wichita Falls are 107 degrees and 113 degrees respectively! But like I said before, it’s not the rise in the average that kills you, it’s the extremes superimposed atop the new, higher average that kills you. Once every ten years or so, Kansas City can expect to have at least one day each summer where the high temperature reaches 105 degrees. People and wildlife generally survive this 14 degree short term departure from the norm. Now, let us add 14 degrees to the expected increase in the average temperature by the end of the century: 107+14=121 degrees.  At this temperature, and with the high temperature immediately before and after this event likely to be only a few degrees cooler, wholesale ecological collapse will occur. Wholesale agricultural collapse will occur as well. Wildlife, vegetation, grazing ruminants, can’t retreat to air conditioned rooms. They die. And though humans can retreat to the safety of air conditioned rooms, it is only a reprieve. Humans are NOT separate from nature, we are intimately intertwined with nature. As nature goes, so do we, only delayed slightly. Nature bats last.

Civilization depends upon stability. Anthropologists believe that the end of nomadic ways of life, the agricultural revolution, and the rise of city-states are at least in part due to the stable climate Earth had experienced from the end of the Pleistocene about 10,000 years ago, until recently. Warming is now occurring at around 100 times the rate at which Earth came out of the last glacial maximum. A sixth mass extinction event is now a near certainty in the absence of some magical tehno-fix. This doesn’t justify inaction. Action now can mean the difference between 20% or up to 95% extinction over the next few centurys, depending on how long it takes us to get serious about climate change mitigation. So everyone, 4 degrees is a very big deal.

In the spring of 1986 I was experiencing my second year teaching high school science on the Omaha Indian Reservation in northeast Nebraska. That particular year, a gentlemen from India was hired to teach math and physics to this same group of Native American kids. His name was Sukbar Sadhia. He was a Sikh, from an area in northwest India known as “the Punjab”. He used to joke with me about how “On the Punjab we can triple crop each year. How many crops can be produced in Nebraska?” Of course I would remind him that the Punjab was located in a tropical climate with a year round growing season.

The staff at this school was tight, and frequently someone threw a party at their home. At one such party in the spring of 1986 I was enjoying a lively conversation with Mr. Sadhia when I changed the tone of our conversation and asked him point blank “Mr. Sadhia, I have heard about people in India called Untouchables. What are they?” Instantly, his demeanor changed. His ubiquitous smile vanished and he blurted “We don’t talk about Untouchability! WE DON’T TALK ABOUT UNTOUCHABILITY!!” I immediately backed off, having clearly broached a subject that was never to be acknowledged, let alone discussed.

Fast forward to the summer of 2005. Hurricane Katrina is ravaging the central gulf coast including the city of New Orleans. Watching the ongoing and escalating tragedy on the twenty-four hour cable news networks, I see desperate people in New Orleans, mostly African Americans, wading through waist deep water, often carrying children. At another point in the coverage I see a deceased individual in a wheelchair on a curb, while dozens of others mill about around him, seemingly unfazed by the presence of death in such close proximity. At other times the coverage is of people stranded on rooftops or highway overpasses that remained above water level. Then I had a most bizarre thought: “I hope  these images are not being sent to Europe”. Almost immediately I then had to ask myself “Why do I feel this way? What difference does it make if Europeans see this footage?” Clear answers weren’t immediately forthcoming. After ruminating periodically for a few months, an answer gradually appeared: America now has untouchables, and I didn’t want Europe to know it.

America, like any other “Western” or first-world country, has and always has had poor people. The proportion of the population classified as poor has fluctuated as America has gone through times of prosperity and recession. But something more ominous and threatening has emerged in recent decades, and is quite likely an outgrowth of how the poor are now viewed in modern society.

Once upon a time, the poor were viewed as a subset of the population deprived of the suite of opportunities that made others successful. The poor were the downtrodden, the oppressed. Their station was largely fixed. But in late nineteenth century America, a new narrative emerged; the Horatio Alger narrative of pulling oneself up by ones own bootstraps. Success was now increasingly viewed as the result of ones determined resolve to escape the former trappings. America, the land of limitless horizons for those sufficiently astute to marshal the resources at their disposal, and achieve greatness. The narrative appeared true as national prosperity increased and America entered what we can now bookend as “the golden age of the American middle class”, 1946-1980. However, a watershed was reached at which time a slow methodical erosion of the once vast middle class began. Though punctuated by episodes of prosperity and recession, the overall trajectory was evident to anyone with a sufficiently long time horizon. But as the middle class declined, the old narrative of limitless upward economic mobility remained tenacious. A serious disconnect between the narrative and reality now pervades the economic landscape; the narrative unmoored from reality. The belief persists that economic loss is due to ones own shortcomings.

Those at the bottom of the economic ladder have experienced not only the physical deprivation resulting from greater inequality and the methodical shredding of the social safety net, but in addition must contend with societal ostracism; contempt for failure as the mythology of success persist. Thus arises untouchability. These people are beyond the poor, beyond the underclass. Mostly black and brown, they are expected to stay out of sight, out of mind, like the hurricane victims in New Orleans. They are expected to remain hidden in the woodwork. They are never to articulate their needs. They are never to complain. They are never to compete for the jobs of the chosen ones. They are never to vote, and if they try, obstacles will restrict their access. They live in America, but are not part of America. They are not to venture out of their neighborhoods. They will be incarcerated at far higher rates than “real” Americans, to effectively take them “out” of America.  Like the Untouchables of Sukbar Sadhia’s India, they are non-persons. They are not so much despised as forgotten, ignored, and treated with apathy.

Untouchability in America as in India is a human construct. If we don’t want it to persist, we first must acknowledge that it exists. Only then can we design and implement an agenda that can eradicate this purely American development among western nations: the sin of untouchability.

Most everyone is familiar with the one dimensional political model. In this view, a persons political views fit somewhere along a line, oriented from left to right. If one is positioned to the left of the middle of the line, they are classified “liberal” in the modern parlance of what it means to be liberal . If one is positioned to the right of the middle of the line, they are classified as “conservative”. And if one is roughly near the middle of the line, they may be called “moderate”. In addition, others have proposed two-dimensional models. In particular, David Nolan has proposed what I believe is the most compelling two-dimensional model, with personal freedom plotted on a vertical axis and economic freedom plotted on a horizontal axis. The defining element of his model is the degree to which state control over human action is advocated.  I propose that the one dimensional model is far too simplistic to identify someone’s true political orientation, and that even the two dimensional models which have been proposed have no value in explaining the dynamics of political change. I will propose and outline a three-dimensional political model that I believe is vastly superior to the conventional view of the one dimensional  left-right spectrum, and also superior to any two dimensional model. I believe that this new model can: 1. more accurately identify a persons true political orientation; 2. explain the dynamics involved in political change; and 3. predict the political outcomes of an engaged populace, or a government intervening in the politics of another country. The model that I am proposing is to some extent an elaboration of a synthesis of Nolan’s model and the Cyclical Theory Model proposed by Arthur Schlesinger. Schlesinger intuitively embraced the metaphor of the “political pendulum” to explain the fluctuations seen in politics throughout American history.  Before elaborating on the design of the 3-D model, certain definitions and terminology must be clarified. The model I am proposing is an idealized model, and certain types of political systems must be seen as opposites to one another. The labels I will use to identify a particular form of government may not be exactly synonymous with the existing vernacular, but I must use them for convenience. The model also excludes theocratic and monarchic  systems of government. Also, it is important not to conflate economic systems with political systems. Various combinations of economic and political systems can exist. So, to clarify:

• Democracy – representative government directly elected by the people in which the supreme power resides with the people. In practice, a republican democracy is not a direct democracy, but one in which the people elect those that will represent them.
• Capitalism – economic system characterized by private ownership of goods and services and in which prices, production, and distribution are determined by competition in a free market.
• Liberal – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate expansion of personal liberties, coupled with restraints or regulations on private enterprise. These regulations are seen by the liberal as necessary to compel the entrepreneur to be accountable for his actions due to an absence of voluntary accountability.
• Conservative – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate expansion of unrestrained, largely unregulated capitalism coupled with restrictions on personal liberty. The restrictions on personal liberties arise from a conviction that the balance of power between entrepreneur and worker should reside with the entrepreneur. 
• Libertarian – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate both a maximized expansion of personal liberties and unrestrained capitalism. The libertarian will support “federalism”, or decentralized government, in which greater power resides with more local authorities.
• Statist – within the constraints of democratic capitalism tend to advocate restrictions or regulations on both personal liberties and capitalism. Related to “the State”, which is political organization with centralized government and authority.
• Fascism – a centralized, dictatorial and autocratic  form of government that ultimately serves the few at the expense of the many. In this system, personal freedoms are very limited or non-existent, while capitalism persists.
• Totalitarianism –  advocating a political regime based on the subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all  aspects of daily life. In this system both personal freedoms and private enterprise are very limited or non-existent
• Anarchy – a social structure without government or law. The complete, or nearly complete absence of government. Law of the Jungle. Vigilante justice. Absolute freedom in all arenas, but no accountability.
• Communism (Anarcho-Communism) –  a social and economic structure advocating common ownership of the means of production and a distribution of the products of industry based on need. An absence of social classes, money, and minimal state. De-centralized government. No for profit free enterprise, but many personal freedoms are retained. Not to be confused with Soviet Bolshevism which in practice is Totalitarian. 
• Socialism – an economic system in which the people own the means of production. Worker cooperatives would be socialist. Socialism as an economic system can exist within democracies or anarcho-communist systems. 

With the above list, certain parings must be considered opposites for convenience and simplicity even if they don’t mesh entirely with conventional wisdom and definitions. They are:

• Liberal and conservative
• Statist and Libertarian
• Fascist and communist
• Anarchist and Totalitarian

One should note that the first two contrasting pairs are still democratic, while the last two contrasting pairs are not democratic. When looking at David Nolan’s two-dimensional model, one could envision that if liberalism is carried too far it transitions into communism. Likewise if conservatism is carried too far it becomes fascism; libertarianism carried too far becomes anarchy, and statism carried too far becomes totalitarianism.  This understanding now leads to the first alteration in the well understood one-dimensional model, with a two-dimensional model with a left-right axis and a top to bottom axis. It is similar to Nolan’s Model rotated 45 degrees and elaborated upon to include non democratic systems.  See figure 1 below. The dashed line in the figure has significance, but we will return to this later.

  The two dimensional model above can adequately identify a person’s true political orientation, but it is still useless in explaining the dynamics of political change, or how systems of government can change over time; change that may be small, or revolutionary in scope. Only a three-dimensional political model can explain political change, and if properly understood, has predictive value. Before introducing the 3-D model, I will discuss the metaphor of the pendulum which is so often used to explain observed change within democratic systems, and even to predict future change. Arthur Schlesinger certainly understood the political pendulum when he proposed his Cyclical Theory. This concept of the “political pendulum” will become an important component in the 3-D model that I will propose.

Most people familiar with the left-right political spectrum, are also familiar with the metaphor of the pendulum. This metaphor is often used to identify where the existing system of government is located, and to predict what may happen next. In recent decades the American democracy has been observed by some, to have shifted to the right. (This excludes certain social issues which have moved leftward) Those who adhere to, or subscribe to the metaphor of the pendulum would say that “the pendulum has swung to the right”, and they would next expect a natural “self-correction” with the pendulum eventually swinging back to the left, as a real pendulum would do. I believe that the metaphor of the pendulum is appropriate.

Let’s consider the physics of a pendulum for a moment. As it swings back and forth it has energy. It has both kinetic energy and potential energy. It has maximum kinetic energy when it’s velocity is fastest, which occurs when it passes through the bottom of it’s swing. The pendulum’s potential energy is all gravitational and dependent upon its height above some reference level. Therefore the pendulum has no potential energy at the bottom of it’s arc, but will have it’s maximum potential energy at the top of it’s arc when it’s velocity has fallen to zero. Therefore maximum PE correlates with minimum KE.  A pendulum also has acceleration, and according to Newton’s second law of motion (F=ma), acceleration is directly proportional to force. The pendulum’s acceleration will be greatest at the highest point in it’s arc, when it’s velocity is zero, and will fall to zero at the bottom of it’s arc when it’s velocity reaches it’s maximum. Since acceleration is a vector quantity it has direction. The acceleration vector always points toward the bottom of the arc, but tangent to that point where the tail of the vector touches the curve of the pendulum’s arc. Therefore as the pendulum moves downward through it’s arc, the acceleration vector gradually gets smaller, reaches zero at the bottom, then reverses direction and gets longer as it continues. The length of the vector represents the magnitude of the acceleration, and since acceleration requires an unbalanced force in the same direction, the force vector also points in the same direction as the acceleration vector. Therefore, one can see that in order for a pendulum to swing back and forth a “restoring force” must exist that will cause an acceleration toward the midpoint or bottom of the arc .  See Figure 2 below. In Figure 2 above notice that the potential energy (PE), acceleration, and force have their maximum values at the top of the arc of the pendulum, at Position A. Notice that the acceleration and force vector can be drawn as a single vector tangent to the point swept out by the pendulum. It really represents the two vectors superimposed atop one another. Notice that the slope of the tangent line, representing the acceleration and force vectors at Position A is very steep, with the vector being very long. Notice at Position B that the force and acceleration vectors are shorter because the tangent line to a point swept out by the pendulum is not as steep.  At Position C all the stored PE from Position A has been converted to Kinetic Energy (KE). With the slope of a tangent to a point on the line swept out by the pendulum now being zero, the acceleration and force vectors are also zero. Finally, notice at Point D how the acceleration, and superimposed force vector have reversed direction. One can see that the force vector represents a restoring force since it is always directed toward the midpoint of the swing. Remember from above that people who acknowledge the metaphor of the pendulum to explain political change intuitively recognize a natural “self-correction” when the system veers too far toward one extreme or another. This is analogous to the “restoring force” of the pendulum which always directs the pendulum toward the center. But what is the “restoring force” or “self-correcting force” in democratic political systems? In a moment I will define it. Remember, with the pendulum we saw that energy, force and acceleration are all proportional to one another. Likewise, it is the energy and force of engaged electorates, in association with the “restoring force”, which permits the change one observes in democratic political systems. One could envision a democratic system driven far to the left or right in which a part of the electorate becomes increasingly wary and resistant to further movement in that direction; increasingly fearful of losing their democracy, so they resist with greater force.  Now let us re-draw the pendulum and insert familiar political labels.  See Figure 3 below. The above figure shows the conventional left-right or liberal-conservative dichotomy. High on each side, where “very liberal” and “very conservative” are located, the electorate would need to be very energized to drive the system to such extremes, because the self-correcting restoring force is trying to drive the system back toward the center. One can also ask the question: Does the slope of a tangent line to a point continue to become steeper the further toward the extremes one proceeds, or will it perhaps reach an inflection point?  Also, remember there exists a perpendicular axis which represents the less familiar libertarian-statist dichotomy. Let us now re-draw the pendulum, swinging back and forth perpendicular to it’s original orientation. See Figure 4 below. One can ask again if the slope of a tangent line to a point along this curve will continue to become steeper as one approaches the extreme ends. Also with just a little imagination, we can see that if we combine the two mutually perpendicular political axes, we get a “bowl-shaped” structure. Our model  now has three dimensions, though still nowhere near complete. See Figure 5 below. I’m not an artist, but hopefully you can make out what I’m trying to illustrate.  

From the model above one can see that not only does the political pendulum swing back and forth left to right, but it swings “forward” and “backward” as well.  We also now  recognize that energy represents the third dimension, or height of the bowl-shaped model, analogous to the energy changes experienced by a pendulum as it swings through its arc.  As an example, a highly engaged(energized) constituency could push the pendulum(political system) far up one side of the bowl-shaped structure. But a restoring force would tend to drive the system back to the middle. It is the sum total of all forces that creates the energy contour of the bowl-shaped structure, or one could say, the magnitude of the all the forces(energy) represents the potential energy of the system.  Also, in the absence of the naturally stabilizing restoring force of the 3-D political landscape, democracy is gravely threatened.  So at this point we have a bowl-shaped structure with ever steepening slopes toward the margins, or rim of the bowl. Does the slope at any particular point have any meaning?  From algebra we learn that the slope of a line is the rise over the run, or  Δy/Δx. What is Δy? It is the change in net energy. What is Δx? It is the change in the political system. Therefore Δy/Δx  equals the net energy required per unit of political change. In other words, the amount of energy that needs to be expended by an engaged electorate, in association with the retarding impact of the restoring force, to affect a particular “unit” of change within the existing political system.  As you see, the slope has great explanatory  significance  and predictive value. See Figure 6 below.       Looking at Figure 6 above, we see that when the political system is at Position B, the slope of the line is very gentle, and only a small amount of net energy, ΔY, can have a substantial affect on the change in the political system, Δx. But when the political system is at Position A, the slope of the line is far steeper than at Position B, and far greater energy, ΔY, is needed to affect a far smaller change in the system, Δx. I am now in  a position to make an alteration to the metaphor of the pendulum and replace the pendulum with a “ball” moving within the bowl-shaped structure. We will find that the ball is far more utilitarian as my proposed 3D model becomes more fully developed. We can think of the contact point between the ball and inside surface of the “bowl” as representing the location of a particular political system at any point in time. The contact point can move depending upon the interplay of both internal and external forces. The internal forces are those resulting from the aforementioned “engaged electorate”, or constituencies contesting one another. The external force is the natural, center-seeking, restoring force, so vital in stabilizing democratic systems. But what is the restoring force really? After all, we are dealing with a human generated social system, not a natural system. I believe that the restoring force, intuitively understood to be a component of Arthur Schlesinger’s pendulum hypothesis, is the sum total of all the institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy. These institutions naturally inhibit the emergence of extremes, and are brought to bare with increasing ferocity as a political system approaches those extremes. Without actually calling it “the restoring force”, the authors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in their book, How Democracies Die, elaborate this force. It includes the party system, universal suffrage, the Electoral College, a free and independent mass media, our system of checks and balances with three co-equal branches of government, effective and respected law enforcement, effective and respected intelligence gathering services. They also include the softer guardrails such as mutual toleration and institutional forbearance.  However, they can all be overwhelmed, as I will later show. As a democratic system is challenged, as occurs when fervent constituencies push the system toward extremes, the institutions and guardrails of democracy push back with greater force(the restoring force), up to a point.  I can now introduce a fundamental postulate in this discussion: All systems, whether natural or man-made seek their lowest, most stable energy configurations. This postulate may seem intuitively obvious, but I suspect that it is rarely introduced in discussions of political dynamics.

Figure 7 below shows the interplay of forces that can “move” a political system. In this hypothetical scenario, we have an existing political system that is considerably right of center as determined by the contact point between the “ball” and the curved line. Vector A represents the “force” or energy of constituency A in pushing the system rightward. Vector B represents the force or energy of Constituency B pushing the system leftward. Vector C represents the natural Restoring Force based on the slope of the contact point and the PE of the system.  You should see that in this scenario, the political system can be driven rightward only if the magnitude of Vector A is greater than the sum of Vectors B and C. See  Figure 7 below. I will now re-draw figure 7 and provide a more detailed explanation of each force acting on the system. See Figure 8 below.

In Figure 8 above, Letter “E” is a line perpendicular to the slope of the contact point, which runs through the center of the circle (ball). Letter “D” represents the potential energy of the system, whose magnitude depends upon the height of the contact point above some reference level. Notice that it’s magnitude increases with the height of the contact point. Letter “C” is the natural restoring force of the system, whose magnitude is entirely dependent upon θ and the magnitude of the potential energy. The magnitude of “C” falls to zero as the slope falls to zero. Theta equals the slope of the contact point. Don’t be confused by where I have drawn “theta” in Figure 8 above. This  “Θ” has the same value as the slope of the contact point.  Also, by examining the geometry of the configuration one should see that the restoring force is equal to the potential energy times the cosine of theta, or RF = PE(cos Θ ).  One might be tempted to ask “why isn’t PE the RF?” The answer is that the RF must be parallel to A & B above. By definition, it is only that component of a force which is in the direction of movement that contributes to “work”, work in the true physics sense, where W=Fd. RF augments B but counters A, and they must be parallel.  Letter “A” is the force of engaged constituencies pushing the system rightward, while letter “B” is the countering force of constituencies pushing the system leftward. And as I said before, the political system can be driven rightward only if the magnitude of Vector A is greater than the sum of Vectors B and C.

An issue not as yet discussed with regard to the model, but which readers may think is important, is the concept of momentum. Momentum equals mass times velocity, or (P = mv). It could be represented in the model by changing the size of the ball; a larger ball representing a larger population of highly engaged constituencies, and therefore a larger momentum. The greater momentum would seem to translate into a greater force pushing the political system in a particular direction, but the greater mass means greater inertia, which is a resistance to change. Therefore, nothing changes. Momentum has no effect. It is a non issue.

Another related question: In the event that widespread apathy among all contesting constituencies overspreads the entire population, what happens to the position of the contact point of the ‘ball’, meaning the change that is to take place within the political system?  Answer: the ball should move to the lowest point in it’s arc, driven downward by the only force now in operation, the restoring force. So a moderate, low energy democratic system emerges, one in which the institutions and guardrails of democracy are not being challenged. Furthermore, since those institutions and guardrails are not being challenged, the restoring force will also largely vanish, and the forces of all constituencies will have vanished due to their apathy, and as such the 3-D model collapses into a 2-D plane. This is also consistent with the fundamental postulate of all systems, both natural and man-made, that they seek their lowest most stable energy configuration.

I am now in a position to return to a question I posed much earlier: Does the slope of the line within the bowl-shaped political model perpetually increase, or is an inflection point eventually reached? Answer: an inflection point is reached. Not only that, eventually the slope becomes negative in every direction. Why is this? Remember earlier when I outlined what is perceived to happen when different political systems go too far in any one direction? They become non-democratic systems: communism, fascism, totalitarianism, or anarchy. How does this happen? As the democratic political system is driven further and further to an extreme position due to the spectacular, passionate ardor of very engaged and activated constituencies, a revolutionary crest is reached, what I call “the revolutionary rim“, after which the institutions of democracy can no longer be maintained. The institutions and guardrails of democracy have been challenged and stressed to their breaking point.  The system then cascades inexorably and remorselessly  toward non-democratic forms. If for example, in contemporary America, the forces of the political right can successfully drive the system further and further rightward with their spirit of revolutionary ardor (think MAGA maniacs), then the risk of reaching the Revolutionary Rim and collapsing remorselessly toward a fascist state become realistic. See figure 9 below. The drawing is not great; the rim is too sharp. But I think it makes it’s point.

Notice that it has the shape of a volcano.  We can now elaborate on the “bowl-shaped” model with a “volcano-shaped” model. The dashed line represents the inside surface of the volcano’s crater, what I now call “The Well of Democracy“. Notice how the potential energy of the systems falls to zero in all directions outside The Well of Democracy at the boundary of the square, before getting to the non-democratic systems. But didn’t I say earlier that the PE at the bottom of the “bowl” was zero? It is clearly higher than the energies of the non-democratic forms. Remember PE is always measured “relative” to some reference level. I simply took the bottom of the bowl as my reference point. As long as the pendulum of political change is swinging back and forth within the well of democracy, the bottom of the swing  IS the zero reference point.   So we can see from Figure 9 that at the bottom of the Well of Democracy there is still potential energy as measured relative to non-democratic forms of government. Again, democracy requires participation of the electorate. Should the people become utterly apathetic and uninvolved, a “true” zero energy could form at the bottom of the Well of Democracy. But then again, the 3-D model would collapse to a 2-D plane anyway. This is because in addition to universal apathy, none of the institutions and guardrails of democracy would ever be challenged, so the Restoring Force would evaporate as well.  So, what I’m suggesting:  Is it possible that the institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy MUST be challenged periodically in order to maintain their vigor?  If so, then abject public apathy could result in progressive atrophy of the critical institutions of democracy. As such, the three dimensional political model I have proposed would collapse to a two dimensional plane. This may then be one method by which democracies end with a whimper instead of a bang.

So far I have discussed energy only in terms of “the people” or “engaged constituencies”. Is there a “negative energy”, or an “energy of the state” that must be considered? And does this imply a further refinement in the model I have proposed? Answer: Yes and yes. Consider the energetic state of anarchy. Anarchy is the absence of government, and as such there is no effective energy of the people or the state. There are no institutions and guardrails for democracy, and as yet no institutions of dictatorial rule. The relative “energy state” of anarchy is a true zero. The people may be fighting in the streets for daily survival, but it is just chaos, maximum entropy. No NET energy is expended in any one direction, either toward democracy or a non-democratic government.  We know that nature abhors a vacuum, and anarchy represents a vacuum of power. Anarchy is inherently unstable, a two-dimensional flat political landscape, and ultimately someone grabs the reins of power and sends the country spiraling toward either communism or fascism, either of which can quickly become totalitarianism. Why? Remember the postulate I stated earlier: all systems whether natural or man-made seek their lowest stable energy configuration?   Anarchy so often quickly turns into communism, fascism, or totalitarianism because these are even lower energy states than anarchy. Anarchy may be zero energy, but  these others are negative energy states in terms of democratic institutions, or positive energy states in terms of state or dictatorial institutions. We can now re-define and refine the vertical or third dimension of the model; it is not so much an “absolute” potential energy, as it is a ratio of the potential energy of democratic institutions and the people, to the potential energy of dictators and dictatorial or state institutions. See Figure 10 below.

    We are looking at a cross-section of the right side of the model and hypothesizing what would happen in the event of a scenario in which highly energized constituencies drive the government rightward beyond the Revolutionary Rim. The vectors are not drawn to scale, but are useful in illustrating my point. Newly introduced in this figure is the “Zero Line“, where the ratio of the PE of the people and their democratic institutions equals the PE of the dictatorial state. As we examine this scenario the dangers of moving beyond the Revolutionary Rim will become obvious.  Examining this scenario will illustrate the primary means by which a democratic system of government is lost. And again, Levitsky and Ziblatt discuss this clearly, in narrative form in How Democracies Die, but fail to reduce their abstract ideas to a concrete, physical 3D model, as I present here. Also, this scenario imagines democracy being lost as a result of an excessive push to the right, but it would work in precisely the same way in any other direction.

Starting at Position 1 we can visualize highly engaged constituencies driving the system rightward. Their success is dependent upon the magnitude of the force of their engagement (Vector A), being greater than the sum of the forces of countering constituencies (Vector B) and the inherent restoring force (Vector C). Remember that Vectors A&B always represent the energy or forces of “the people”, regardless of where they are seen on the diagram.  As long Vector A has a greater magnitude than the sum of Vectors B&C, the political system keeps being driven rightward. The restoring force begins to shrink once the system passes the inflection point of the curve, due to it’s decreasing slope. If the norms, institutions, and guardrails of democracy are being progressively eroded once one gets beyond the inflection point of the curve, a question must be asked: what is causing this? It is due to the incipient efforts  of a would-be autocrat  who has acquired the reins of power, but has yet to achieve such power as to implement dictatorial institutions, just the erosion of democratic institutions. The would-be dictators successful implementation of dictatorial institutions will only begin to occur should the system be driven beyond the Revolutionary Rim.

At Position 2 we reach the Revolutionary Rim. Reaching this crest puts a democratic government in a very precarious position. At this point, the slope of the contact point has fallen to zero, meaning that the restoring force has likewise fallen to zero. If the restoring force has fallen to zero, then the norms, institutions, and guardrails of democracy have been so eviscerated as to no longer constitute a bulwark against dictatorial onslaught. The PE has reached a maximum as contesting constituencies battle hard. The only way now to prevent a virtually unstoppable decent toward fascism is for the countering constituencies (Vector B), pushing leftward, to have as much or more force as those forces driving the system inexorably rightward (Vector A). And again, this is because Vector B constituencies no longer have the added benefit of the Restoring Force to assist them in preventing a descent beyond the Revolutionary Rim.

At Position 3 the government is now cascading remorselessly toward fascism. The slope of the contact point is now negative, meaning that rather than having a restoring force with inherent stabilizing attributes, we now have an “amplifying force“, (Vector C), that acts in conjunction with the forces driving the system rightward (Vector A).  This then accelerates the collapse toward fascism. The amplifying force really means that an emerging dictator is cementing the institutions that will solidify his rule.  Only the most monumental effort by those original “countering constituencies” I referred to can prevent a non-democratic result. Vector A constituencies may even join Vector B constituencies in order to help prevent the cascade toward Fascism, but emerging dictators often actively destroy all opposition.  As you see, the engagement of “the people” can still temporarily be significant, though diminishing, as the system heads toward fascism. So how else can we define the amplifying force? It is essentially the opposite of the restoring force. It is the abandonment of the institutions and guardrails of democracy. It is a growing affiliation between a would be dictator, other autocrats, certain corporate interests, a cabal of sycophants, and the military.  Also, during this time the ratio of the energy of the people to the state may still briefly be greater than one to one, as they try to fight against dictatorial onslaught, but it is decreasing rapidly and about to go negative, where the PE of the emerging dictatorial state will now be greater than the PE of the people.

At Position 4 we essentially have a fascist state in the process of stabilizing. The PE of the state is now far greater than the PE of the people. The amplifying force (Vector C), still drives the system rightward but with a smaller magnitude as stabilization occurs.

I can now introduce the completed Three-Dimensional Political Model. To gain the most comprehensive understanding of the model we will examine the model from four perspectives: 1. from above, 2. left-right cross-section, 3. front -back cross-section, and 4. a three dimensional perspective view. I have included some figures that I have drawn freehand, as well as similar figures done with computer graphics. Also included far below is a link to an interactive computer graphic representation of the completed 3D model in a 3D perspective view which can be manipulated.

Figure 11 below, shows the finished three-dimensional model from directly above. Think of it as an aerial view of the landscape of political dynamics. Further down the page is a better view utilizing computer graphic design. The terrain or landscape is complex. At the top center is Anarchy, or the Anarchic Plain. To the left is the Anarchic-Communist Escarpment, across which one falls from the zero energy state of anarchy to the negative energy state of communism. The Anarchic-Fascist Escarpment can be found to the right of the Anarchic Plain, where one falls to the negative energy state of fascism. On the lower part of the diagram can be found both the Communist-Totalitarian Watershed and the Totalitarian-Fascist Watershed. These regions have slightly elevated relative energies, indicating that at least some energy must be expended to transition from either communism or fascism in order for a system to become truly totalitarian. One can also see the Revolutionary Rim which encloses the Well of Democracy. Figure 12 below, represents a cross-sectional left to right view. One can easily see where liberal and conservative reside within the Well of Democracy. Remember, the vertical dimension is the ratio of energy of the people to energy of the state, with the Zero Line being that level where the ratio of the two falls to one-to-one. Highly engaged constituencies get the energy ratio very high at the Revolutionary Rim. Communism can be seen to the left and fascism to the right. Another insight is that minimum entropy(maximum law and order) occur at the Inflection points within the Well of Democracy, where the guardrails of democracy are strongest, and again at the extremes of the model,  while maximum entropy(minimum law and order) occurs where the system crosses the zero line. Figures 12 and 13 are not drawn quite correctly. Outside the Well of Democracy, the slope should steepen until it crosses the zero line. So an inflection point occurs here as well. Therefore, maximum entropy occurs at this inflection point, the zero line. Another correction that needs to be made to Figure 12 is that the energy line for communism would not dip nearly as far below the zero line as that for fascism. Communism is sometimes called anarcho-communism. So communism remains a system of fairly high entropy, which explains its lack of stability, and chronic tendency to descend to outright totalitarianism.

  Figure 13 is similar to figure 12 except that it is a cross-sectional view from front to back. One can see statism and libertarianism within the Well of democracy. As before, the vertical dimension is an energy ratio. This time, totalitarianism can be seen to the left, really front, and anarchy can be seen to the right, actually back. Totalitarian systems become firmly entrenched and the energy line dips far below the zero line.  Entrenched totalitarian systems have extremely low entropy, with powerful, rigid law and order. On the right side, the energy of anarchy doesn’t slip below the zero line, since anarchy is the absence of a system and therefore exhibits zero energy and high entropy. As stated before, due to its extremely high entropy, anarchy is likewise extremely unstable, and some individual or group will sufficiently organize so as to create an emergent negative energy (lower entropy) state, such as fascism or totalitarianism. The effort to carefully and constructively fabricate and nurture the institutions of democracy are rarely undertaken.

The figures below, are an attempt to provide various views of the entire three-dimensional model. The digital models were produced by Mark Ramirez of FEH Design in Dubuque, Iowa.

e

Copy and paste the following link into a google chrome browser to view the online interactive digital model:

https://a360.co/2R9RbUx

You will probably need Google Chrome as your browser to engage with the interactive digital model. It is possible that Safari or Firefox might work, but Internet Explorer will not work. Rotating the model with this interactive tool will really help you understand the three dimensional character of various components of the model. A touch screen computer should make manipulation very easy. Also, you could just type the above link into your “Notes” app on your smart phone, then highlight it, and you will immediately have access with the interactive model that you can manipulate with the touch of a finger.  Again, many thanks to Mark Ramirez at FEH Design in Dubuque, Iowa for the construction of the interactive model.

Implications

This three-dimensional model of political dynamics I have proposed illustrates the strengths and vulnerabilities of democratic systems. It reveals how precious they are and how critical it is that they be nurtured in order to be maintained. A thorough understanding of the model illustrates that democratic systems have a natural self-correcting mechanism that helps prevent extremism and revolution. These are the institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy. In my model the institutions and guardrails are represented by The Restoring Force.  As the model shows, they can be overwhelmed. We can clearly see the danger of extremism, because it leads to the Revolutionary Rim, and the loss of the institutions of democracy. An understanding of the model allows one to predict the outcome of certain events.

The model predicted that when the fascist government of Iraq was overthrown, that anarchy would prevail. It makes perfect sense. Destroying a government leads to the absence of government, anarchy, which is a zero energy system (or lack of a system). The institutions of democracy don’t simply materialize. To bring about democracy requires an engaged population, building and nurturing the systems of democracy carefully over time. This means that it requires climbing that energy hill until one passes over the Revolutionary Rim and descends into the Well of Democracy, at which time those institutions will become self-sustaining and self-correcting. Even George Bush himself implicitly understood this tenet belatedly when he said “We will stand down when they stand up”, standing up referring to the secure establishment of institutions of democracy.

When the Soviet Union collapsed a similar situation unfolded; a totalitarian government was replaced by anarchy for a time. The people avoided starvation through a combination of truck farming, urban gardening and animal husbandry. Everything becomes very local in the hard scrabble of anarchy. The hard work of building and nurturing the institutions of democracy never materialized in what became the Russian Republic, and many of the other ex-Soviet republics, so democracy never became established. Instead, it was easier, meaning it required less energy, to drift toward other low energy systems. The Russian Republic is now essentially a Fascist regime. There are Russian billionaires alongside people living in abject poverty. The government serves the few at the expense of the many. Remember, this was my definition of “true” fascism. This is also one of my fears for America.

Modern America, though still within the well of democracy, is entering a dangerous zone. Remember that the magnitude of the restoring force is dependent upon the strength and security of the important institutions, norms, and guardrails of democracy. As these wither, the restoring force vector becomes smaller, allowing committed yet minority constituencies to drive our political system closer and closer to the revolutionary rim. This is happening with a committed push to the right. Widespread partisan gerrymandering, new obstacles to voter participation, the emergence of an imperial chief executive, the emergence of a compliant rubber stamping congress, a ceaseless demonization of the mass media, the loss of respect for law and order and our intelligence gathering organizations, the loss of mutual toleration undermining the legitimacy of one’s political opponents, and the loss of institutional forbearance, are leading examples of our eroding democracy. It is this aforementioned list that leads me to conclude that we have passed the inflection point leading toward the Revolutionary Rim. Again, this means that the magnitude of the restoring force is becoming smaller, making it easier for committed constituencies to push our system to extremes. The election of Donald Trump should be a massive red flag as he shreds our system of checks and balances and puts partisan loyalists in positions historically apolitical and above the fray. At this point there are only two things that can prevent America from descending over the Revolutionary Rim and cascading remorselessly toward fascism. They can occur in isolation or preferably in concert. They are: either we quickly restore the eroded institutions and guardrails of democracy to their earlier standard, or,  increasingly engaged progressive constituencies must push back massively to the left. The stakes are monumental.

So there you have it; a new model for understanding the dynamics of political change.

I welcome comments, questions, or constructive criticism in the comments section. So, feel free to leave a comment.