The New New Deal--Heavy Government Intervention

The process of developing my understanding of my utopian society was no easy task.  Thinking about important issues and ideas that I would implement in my ideal world only brings to the surface the issues that are characteristic of  modern society.  However, approaching this idea through an environmentalist perspective provides an easier scope to such a broad and almost unattainable task. 

The first thing that I would implement in my utopian society was my approach to politics.  While I believe that America has a proper basis for providing representation based on the population, there exist too many outside influences that have the capability of pushing agendas that might not necessarily be reflective of the needs/wants of the American public.  I would eliminate the role of big business in government (lobbying, campaign funding) and allow for the politicians to act freely and representative of their voting constituents.  In addition, society would not be plagued by political commercials aimed at skewing votes and bashing opponents.  This may be somewhat of a pet peeve, but I personally hate having to watch extreme political attacks while trying to watch my favorite program (and I'm sorry Indiana politicians, being a card carrying member of the NRA is typically something that politicians would not divulge). While this post is by no means a political manifesto, those are just two of the many issues that I see existing within our politics and would address those first in my utopian make-over of the United States.

My utopian society would offer great government intervention in the everyday lives of its citizens as a means of ensuring every citizen with the essentials for life.  The goal of my government would be to elicit feelings of community that have become non-existent in the current state of American society.  The economic structure of my society would offer initial equal salaries of all--with opportunities to earn bonuses for exceptional work.  Radical? Yes, however the issues that exist within our current society are largely due to the economic discrepancies that exist which call into question "the American dream" and how this idea has been attainable to only a small portion of the population.  Economic coupled with race issues often drive apart the sense of community as people either act in a selfish manner or do not understand/were not offered opportunities to live amongst a diverse population.  As I re-read my writing I can tell that I am beginning to digress from the ultimate goal and that is to develop my understanding for a utopian approach to the environment. 

It may be fairly evident by now that I am in favor of government intervention as a role of not only redistributing wealth, but providing services to the consumer that is not based on profit margins, quarterly reports, stock holder expectations, bonuses, salaries etc.  As an entity within society that is representative of the population I feel as though it is in the best interest within my society for the government to regulate both food and water.  Grocery stores would exist as they do today, but would offer less processed foods, as well as lowering prices to accommodate so that food does not maintain itself as such a heavy financial burden within my utopian society.  Vices such as Alcohol and Tobacco would still exist, but at a much cheaper price so that those who choose to divulge in such practices are not making a great financial impact on their families everyday lives. 

The emphasis and ultimate creation of community within my utopia would allow for the actions of people to be completed in a manner that acts for the community over the personal needs.  In my utopia, recycling and sustainable practices would become mainstream ideas.  Recycling would become a more efficient branch within society as there would exist a great influx in the shear numbers of products and participants in the practice. Corporate waste would be cut off through government intervention and corporations would no longer be disconnected from society, but would act in a manner that reflects the needs and ideas of the community.  Everyday corporations, businesses, the family home etc. would be given allotted amounts of energy/water credits, forcing them to change their practices and not only adopt more sustainable ideas. More credits can be bought for a hefty price from the government, who in turn would take that money and invest into "green energy" such as solar and wind power.  This practice would deter individuals from acting selfishly within the home and would bring more simplistic ideas to mainstream everyday practices, such as relying on sun(day)light or opening windows as a means of regulating temperatures within the home. 

Progress within my utopia would no longer be judged by GDP, but rather by declining energy consumption.  It would be the stated goal of the large community to act in ways that are responsible to the the environment and to the government (which coincidentally places a heavy emphasis on the environment).  While somewhat radical in my thoughts with the idea of income distribution, I personally feel as though it is the cause of many issues within our current society and only fuels greed at both corporate and personal levels.  The reduction in power of the corporation and the increased financial capabilities of the government offer constituents a government that is truly capable of implementing progressive ideas and funding promises made to the community.  New initiatives started within my utopia would also  be inherently green as car manufacturers would only offer hybrid and fuel-efficient cars to the public, while at the same time funneling "profits" into research for the betterment of their products and society.  Likewise, buildings would offer more efficient initiatives to ensure a respectable relationship between my utopia and the environment.

Reading through my blog, it is evident to see that my utopia is extremely radical and not feasible in the current world that we live in.  However, the thoughts listed above provide my belief in what would be a way to solve many issues that plague the contemporary state of both American lives, as well as the American poltiical realm.  While heavy government intervention may be viewed as un-American, the growing disparities between socioeconomic status and the perpetual nature of these classes is an issue that has widely been overlooked in society.  This in turn would eliminate feelings of dependency on consumerism and instead re-arrange our priorities and move towards more traditional values centered around family. within  Approaching this idea with the environment in mind brought to the surface the many issues surrounding the topic that exist, and often go overlooked today.  I welcome the criticism to these ideas and challenge the readers to provide other perspectives to addressing these issues and acting in a manner that increases the livelihood of the population as a whole.

PS--Outside of the enviornmental issues within my society, there would be a heavy emphasis on the role of education.  As a future teacher it pains me when I seeing the realm of education continually falling victim to budget cuts due to the ease and lack of litigation that these ideas require.  Within my utopia, educational funding would be excessive in nature and the process of learning would offer a much more interactive experience. 

A Conservationist Manifesto

Manifesto: a written statement declaring publicly the intentions, motives, or views of its issuer (Merriam Webster)


Looking at the word manifesto alone provides insight into what exactly The Conservationist Manifesto by Scott Russell Sanders might entail.  The process of titling something with the term manifesto allows for the author to express their ideas in a manner that does not necessarily have to coincide with what is "politically correct" or what is viewed as an appropriate perspective.  As the manifesto title would indicate, within his book, Scott Sanders calls into question the ideals and "progress" of both past and contemporary society and the role, or lack there of, that the environment plays within our day-to-day decisions.  


Part I of the book is titled, Caring for the Earth and in this section of the book, Sanders introduces ideas that call into question the livelihood of "the American dream".  Sanders introduces an example from Bloomington, in which the owner of a woods sells his property to a real estate developer.  The American dream is characterized now by what is necessarily right moral, but rather what is easiest and most profitable.  The current approach to our dealings with the environment often places the good old dollar ahead of the ecosystems, animals and forests.  Sanders describes this approach to life as the "fraying of the fabric of life", arguing that "[the population] simply den[ies] there is any reason for concern, and the more the evidence piles up, the louder their denials" (6).  Sanders presents account after account which emphasizes ideals such as greed and efficiency (not in the environmental sense) taking precedent over the one thing that makes our lives possible--the environment. He does not argue that the population as a whole should get along without using resources from the environment, rather he calls into question the degree to which we should use (pillage) the environment.  The environment used to encompass the idea of the "commons"--an idea which was ultimately discarded as upper-class and well off citizens began to privatize the "new world" and having initially indentured servants and slaves to work their land.  This idea has evolved into the current state of the economy where the upper-class are now multinational corporations and the workers comprised of the middle-class.  


Sanders takes a shot a right-wing politics when he states that our politicians often discuss legislation that is "almost entirely about private wealth and private solutions" (30).  This approach thus creates a cycle that when there is a need/problem or issue within society there is always somewhere to turn within the market.  He gives the example of crime, instead of fixing crime there is always a security system, safer communities or purchasing a gun--there is always somewhere to turn, which only perpetuates the initial problem.  Our ideas are continually distorted through media campaigns by corporations and interest groups supported by big business that ultimately dictate legislative practices.  When issues arise in politics, politicians always go the fail safe--tax cuts, which provide the public with more money in their pockets, while making the rich even richer.  When the environment makes it into the discussion and action is taken, it often complicates the lives of individuals and may cut into their pockets.  Sanders provides the example of farmers in the state of Indiana, who when asked to regulate and revamp their use of pesticides by the government are quick to pass the buck by calling these actions "communist" in nature (38).  

Within the chapter titled, "A Few Earthly Words", Sanders goes about analyzing and pointing out the discrepancies that exist between the true meaning of words and the current understanding of specific words and how we have evolved our language to meet our societal needs.  He concludes the chapter with the following sentiment, "In order to bring the voice of the land into our councils and kitchens,we need to reclaim this evocative, sensuous, and earthly speech" (58).  Part I of the book provides thorough insight into exactly what Sanders is trying to achieve within his manifesto.  Society as a whole has become too disconnected with the environment and has let our personal and political agendas trump the entity that enables us to exist.  Sanders objective seems to be somewhat idealistic in the sense that he calls into question our economic approach to life (why not? it's a manifesto), however I can identify with his frustration with the way that we approach our everyday lives, especially with the way in which corporations dictate such a large portion of society.  Overall I feel as though his ideas are idealistic--ideas that I agree with, but ideas that are far too large and not fully attainable within the polarized nature of our political structure, in addition to the the trump card that is money, which ultimately lies in the hands of corporations and individuals whose private gains trump that of Sanders' perceived societal ideals.  I believe that the ideas within Sanders' manifesto need to be taken for what they are--his perception of society, and should not be criticized for their lack of practicality, but taken for the excellent and deep insights that they truly are.