Our Big Brother

To begin with, I don't propose to soft-pedal my view of the National Security Agency's program of essentially unrestricted scrutiny of Americans' private communications.

The Constitution envisions no such sweeping governmental powers.  The regime of internal intelligence established and maintained under the Patriot Act - with the active participation of Presidents Bush and Obama - has no place in a free society.

But the Bush-Obama national security state - and yes, I've coupled their names - demonstrates the manifest willingness of both political parties to disregard individual liberty in the service of what President Eisenhower would surely have termed the "military-intelligence-industrial complex".

Let us call the NSA snooping program what it properly is - part of a Bush-Obama policy which also includes the use of drones to assassinate suspected terrorists - occasionally including American citizens; the perpetuation of imprisonment without trial at Guantánamo Bay; extraordinary rendition; and other gross breaches with our proud tradition of ordered liberty.

And it's nothing new.  We can add a dozen years of post-9/11 "extra-constitutional" behavior to decades of snoopery and police excesses resulting from our eternal War on Drugs.  A "war" which - while doing almost nothing to make drugs inaccessible to American consumers - has contributed immeasurably to the development of intrusive technologies; enriched narcotics rings and private prison companies; undermined the integrity and professionalism of governments, judicial systems and police forces around the world; and, of course, continuously nibbled away at our Bill of Rights.

As with the War on Drugs, both political parties, and the corporate elites for which they labor, have readily accommodated themselves to the increased power - and money - associated with the so-called War on Terror.  (A nonsensical term which is the logical equivalent of a "war on flanking maneuvers".)

The War on Terror is Big Government with a vengeance.  One would almost say, Big Brother.  The setup is perfect.  The enemy is invisible, amorphous and - for all the drama of its occasional successes - of extremely limited capability compared with, say, the Soviet Union of the 1960s. 

We declare war against such an ethereal enemy which - having no territory or regular army - cannot, logically, be finally defeated.  To our Oceania, "Drugs" have long provided a reliable Eastasia.  Since 9/11, "Terror" provides a nifty Eurasia.  (If you are groping for the references, it's time to re-read 1984.)

Our political classes love "wars" like this.  Wars which cannot be won - and thus, cannot be ended - are an ideal distraction from the business of solving problems which can be solved, but only by making difficult political choices.

A dysfunctional Congress and an aimless administration may be unable to reform the tax code; limit the impact of money in our elections; control health-care costs or the rising cost of college education; or do anyhing meaningful about global climate change - but they can look like they are doing something by making billion-dollar gestures in their two favorite, unwinnable wars.

And if the result is a continual erosion of our civil liberties and personal privacy, what is that to winning the next election?

So it's no wonder Congressional leaders of both parties are hyperventilating over Ed Snowden's whistle-blowing.  Senator Dianne Feinstein, whom I have long admired, completely jumped the shark when she added her voice to the likes of Speaker John Boehner in calling Snowden a "traitor". 

The fact is that Snowden - whatever his personal motives - has done us all a great service.

A debate has now begun in this country.  If we do not quickly lose interest, as we are wont to do - we may soon learn a good deal about what the government has been doing under cover of protecting us against its favorite Enemy. 

And whether we are still a people who value our liberty - even when we are asked to exchange it for the will'o'the wisp of safety.

Syria: Exiling Hope

So now, it appears, Russia is shipping more than anti-aircraft missiles to their Syrian allies.  Some reports have the Putin government sending in anti-ship missiles, as well, a move which could neutralize the use of American carrier-based aircraft to impose a no-fly zone - or knock out Syria's air assets in advance of a boots-on-the-ground intervention.

The prospect that America could be militarily checkmated by a has-been superpower is hardly surprising.  The Russians have always been chess-masters, and President Obama's strategic instincts seem to stop at the water's edge.

If a Russian gambit proves the beginning of the end for Mr. Obama's dithering approach to the latest Middle Eastern crisis, it might actually be for the best. The President has never understood the opportunities presented by the Arab Spring.  Perhaps it's time he just stopped trying.  Dealing with obstructionist Congressional Republicans is challenge enough for a President rapidly molting into a fairly lame duck.

But we shouldn't allow the collapse of Mr. Obama's wishful Syrian moment to pass without noting the core weakness of his strategic analysis - one which he shares with his predecessor and most of official Washington.

Among America's élites - political, intelligence, military, academic, media, etc. - it is a point of pride to know the names and résumes of the key players in some troubled part of the world.  These data are common currency among the people who are supposed to count inside the Beltway, on campus, and in think tanks scattered across the land.

In other words, the people who regard themselves as key players here in the United States are distinguished, in large part, by their ability to throw around the names of supposed key players in other parts of the world.

It's their version of sports-talk radio, Hollywood celebrity gossip, or the non-stop stock tips of CNBC.

It should be kept in mind, however, that America's élites govern through the acquiescence of millions of citizens who prefer to leave politics alone - but who have, periodically throughout our history, roused themselves to reform our institutions when the arrogant classes get them sufficiently screwed up.

The power to reform our political, social and economic institutions - while potential - always resides with the citizenry - and particularly with the anonymous, well-educated productive middle class.  This truth lies at the heart of all modern, developed societies.

Increasingly, across the planet, it is becoming clear that the people who really count - in almost every society - are the educated, industrious professionals, small businessmen, and entrepreneurs.

This trend has been developing since the Europe's late Middle Ages.  The very development of the modern nation-state has depended less upon kings, lords and generals than upon a slow, steady progress toward competent internal administration, the rule of law, economic development, the decline of hereditary and corporate privilege,  and the moderation of religious fanaticism.

And this progress, in turn, has rested with the  anonymous men and women who have worked, year by year, for the slow accumulation of those institutions which characterize modernity.

In the past century, this trend has become globalized.  Yet, for all that, our own arrogant classes - fascinated with their opposite numbers in other societies - invariably fail to grasp the transformational nature of this shift.

They prefer to trade on the celebrity gossip of key players.

Like calls to like.

But a picture of the world in which key players are truly "key" is no longer accurate.

Allow me to elaborate.

For some centuries now - at least since the invention of the printing press - the world has been gradually becoming more democratic.  Now, by "democratic", I don't mean to suggest something in the ideal, Athenian sense - but democratic in the sense that ultimate power no longer resides with the relative handful of people we identify as key players.

It resides, rather, with a larger number of middle-class people about whom we know far too little.

And this is not news.  Imagine that, around 1765 - as the unpleasantness over new taxes was breaking out in the colonies of British North America - someone at Whitehall had though to conduct an inquiry into the names and politics of the key players in the thirteen colonies.  Would that inquiry have discovered the leaders of the revolutionary effort which would erupt ten years later?

Impossible.  Among the names of loyal key players  - colonial governors, judges, functionaries, and aristocratic landowners - Ben Franklin's name would certainly have come up.  George Washington, the wealthy commander of Virginia's colonial militia, might have rated a mention. 

But most of the future leaders of our Revolution were barely out of school.  In 1763, Thomas Jefferson - soon to write what has been called the greatest mission statement in world history - was but twenty-two years old. 

Since 1776, despite most of human history's greatest butcheries, human progress has generally come through the discoveries of scientists and engineers - and through the mostly non-violent demands of an aroused, educated middle-class.  This has been especially true when that middle-class took the trouble to rally the support of the working class.

Gandhi proved the potential of non-violent action - as did Dr. King.  Peaceful demand for reform, led by the educated, industrious middle-classes, has transformed nation after nation.

Just two decades ago, the Soviet Union and its satellites imploded suddenly, and mostly without violence.  In east Asia, the change has been more gradual - but steady.

Similar changes have since taken place in many parts of the developing world.

Now comes the Arab spring.

A regime as repressive as North Korea's may deprive its people of modern technology, delaying the process of change.  But elsewhere, change has become the defining quality of our times.

And it is only reasonable to suppose that - In Syria, Iraq, even Iran - progress, when it comes, will come through educated, globally-minded professionals and business leaders who seek to transcend tribalism and religious fanaticism in favor of a modern, pluralistic society.

We forget this at our peril. 

President Bush ignored it in Iraq.  America's occupation of Iraq resulted in a civil war which empowered the worst elements of sectarian bigotry and overall medievalism - and caused the mass emigration of exactly the people Iraq needed in order to transform itself into a modern society.

By trying to avoid the risks of intervening in Syria, President Obama is making the same mistake his predecessor made.  He is ignoring the needs of the middle class.

President Obama, of all people, should recognize the power of these anonymous, productive classes.  In 2008, the key players of Democratic politics expected Senator Clinton to be their nominee.  If Senator Obama had built his strategy on key players, he would still be a Senator.

But since his election, the President has forgotten where his power lies.  He can blame most of his domestic frustrations on his failure to trust, educate, and mobilize middle-class Americans who are thoroughly sick of the key players of both political parties.

The same can be said of his policy in the Middle East.

In the long term, the process of rebuilding Syria as a modern, pluralistic - perhaps, someday, democratic - nation depends upon Syria's aspiring, upwardly-mobile middle and working classes.

Which is to say, it depends less upon who wins the present civil war than it does upon ending the destructive chaos which is driving those classes into exile.

The people who really count in Syria are not the key players known to our military, intelligence, diplomatic, academic and media elites.  They are the nameless bankers, doctors, lawyers, professors, and entrepreneurs who - given stability and half a chance - would slowly move their society toward modernity.

We should have had their backs two years ago.

Let's hope it's not too late.

Game Changer

By now, most Americans who don't live in a cave have heard something - however vague - about MOOCs.

MOOC is short for "massive open online course".  Several consortia offer these courses - Coursera being perhaps the best known.

Coursera offers college-level content to anyone with access to the internet, at no cost.  Outstanding professors from major research universities - Stanford, Princeton, Duke, etc. - deliver the lectures, but this isn't just a new way to watch lectures online.

There are readings, quizzes, short papers to write - even discussion groups. 

All online.  All free. 

There is, to be sure, a paid option.  For a small fee, you can sign up to get a certificate at the end of  the course.  For now, these certificates are worth the paper they're printed on - but that's changing.  Recently, the American Council on Education approved five courses from Coursera - three math, two science - for college credit.

We're entering a new era here.

In practical terms, a person who simply wants to learn - without worrying about getting a piece of paper - can now design a program from top universities and acquire that education for the cost of a broadband connection - or a lot of coffee at her neighborhood wi-fi location.

Or, for absolutely nothing, at the public library. 

I've written about MOOCs before, but that was before I had actually looked into them.  Last week, I enrolled in a ten-week Coursera offering called "Climate Literacy:  Navigating Climate Change Conversations", taught by two professors from the University of British Columbia, Dr. Sara Harris and Dr. Sarah Burch.

I've gotten through Module One, which was pretty basic, and Module Two, which was a good deal denser - mostly science, some it pretty technical.  Overall, the first half of the course is about science - then the focus switches to public policy.

My point is:  This is not fluff.  It's a college-level course.  You have to work at it. 

I've yet to decide whether to do all the assignments and earn a certificate.  If I opt in, it will cost $39.

Think about that.  A college course, from a very good university, for 39 bucks.

I'm trying to imagine how this doesn't change everything.

To be sure, MOOCs are new, so there are bugs to work out.  And most of the offerings are STEM stuff - science, technology, engineering and math.  It will be a few years before you can do the equivalent of an English major this way.

But consider what this could mean - if we do it right.

For the public schools - especially those which can't afford to offer higher-level STEM courses - MOOCs could represent a legitimate way for promising students to take those courses.  To be sure, accommodations would have to be made - such as hiring a teacher, perhaps from a nearby college, to meet with the students weekly and make sure they're on-task and not falling behind. 

For the home-schooling community, MOOCs could offer the answer to the difficult challenge of preparing older students who are ready for subjects their parents simply can't teach.

And for every serious high school student, MOOCs will soon offer a way of dealing with the frustration of an important course taught by a teacher who - whatever his intellectual attainments - just isn't a good classroom teacher.  Enduring the bad lectures might be unavoidable, but in her spare time, a serious student can get what she's missing from a top-flight, university-level instructor.

MOOCs will also offer wonderful possibilities for adult Americans - and even seniors.  For some years now, I've been involved with Adventures in Learning at the Shepherd's Center of Chesterfield - an educational program for active seniors.  I'm sure most of the Shepherd's Center's small, hands-on programs will continue just as they always have - but I can already envision what might be done for scholarly types by combining a MOOC with a weekly discussion group.

The biggest changes will probably come on our college campuses - and this is a topic worthy of exploration in-depth.

For now, I'd like to close with my appreciation of the course I'm presently taking. 

My regular readers will know that I have long been persuaded that the scientific community knows what it is talking about - and thus, that global climate change is real, largely human-caused, and deadly serious.

I've read a couple of books on the subject, and I really enjoyed Al Gore's documentary.  But I'll be the first to admit that I don't understand the science all that well.

I've just trusted the scientists.

Now, thanks to Drs. Harris and Burch, I'm starting to understand what scientists have known for a while now - and why they are deeply concerned, but hopeful that it's not yet too late.

This is a great MOOC. 

That's a phrase we're going to be hearing a lot more in the future.