Vilsack and Obama: Farmer in Chief my Ass!

Sharon December 17th, 2008

So Tom Vilsack is going to be Secretary of Agriculture, hmmm… Let’s see, rabid ethanol proponent…check!  Enthusiastic supporter of GMOs and biotechnologies…check!  Totally indebted to and under the thumb of agribusiness…check!  Yup, it seems clear that Obama really took Michael Pollan’s “Farmer in Chief” piece to heart ;-P.  Short of actually appointing, say, Monsanto’s chairman, it is hard to imagine a choice less likely to make real shifts in our food system. 

But of course, as Rod Dreher points out (quite correctly) and as Carolyn Baker points out (equally correctly), so far there’s very little from the Obama administration that should make us feel secure that what’s coming is going to shift the status quo.  Ultimately, Hillary, Geithner and the rest of the crew mostly can be described as people who did things not as badly as George W. Bush and his primary appointees - but that’s hardly saying anything of note.

I was in college when Bill Clinton was elected president, and I was almost alone in my social circle in refusing to volunteer for him - I’d supported a more leftist candidate in the primaries, and despite my acute desire to believe that Clinton would offer some kind of radical change, I couldn’t quite shake the reality of his positions out of my thinking.  The same is true of Obama, who, for example, wrote of dealing with the mortgage crisis in terms of the moral hazard of bailing out homeowners - but appears to have few qualms about bailing out banks.

 I had precisely the same feeling during this campaign - I preferred Obama quite dramatically to Hillary Clinton, and there were genuinely moments of hopefulness in his campaign.  But I kept thinking, riffing on the late, great Molly Ivins, that you have to dance with them that brung you.  That is, Obama couldn’t possibly come to power without indebting himself to people who are more invested in the status quo than in improving lives.

In order to be the president many of us hoped Obama would be, he would have to be willing to betray many of the people who brought him, and their hopes and investments in his future.  This is no easy feat for anyone, and is probably less so for someone who came so far, so fast, with the hand of so many.  It isn’t impossible - other presidents have done it. The man isn’t even president yet.

But presidents are known by the company they keep - the reality is that no man can supervise all the elements of the nation alone - they depend enormously on those people that Obama is appointing right now.  He will not be out in the fields, or at the soup kitchens - he will rely on reports and summaries from those he appoints. And those summaries will be given by men whose viewpoints are already formed.  Vilsack cannot but describe our food system through the lens of his prior investments, and this will be disastrous.

In 2002, the Atlantic ran a story by Mark Bowden called “Tales of the Tyrant” - it described what it was like to be a dictator, and imagined how Saddam Hussein’s situation must lead inevitably to his downfall.  The deepest reason, Bowden argued, was that everyone lied to the dictator all the time - they couldn’t do anything else.

I’ve thought of that story a number of times in relationship to various presidencies.  It is true that our presidents don’t routinely throw advisors who tell unpleasant truths into jail - but even the best of them are surrounded, not so much by people who lie all the time, but by people who tell their truth as though it were “the” truth.  To some degree, of course, this is inevitable - everyone’s worldview is shaped by their experiences.  But it is possible to bring in a diversity of viewpoints, to find, in multiple versions of the truth, something closer to reality.  Obama has overwhelmingly chosen one, very narrow set of viewpoints - the viewpoints of people who have power now, and to whom he is already indebted for his power.

I don’t claim that there is no hope for Obama, but before he chose these people to surround him, there was hope that an ordinary man of integrity, hearing a range of viewpoints, might choose something different.  Now, we have to imagine that Obama is an extraordinary man, one with the power to find unconventional paths to knowledge, and the willingness to override the viewpoints he has invested himself in.  It gets harder to hope for change.

Sharon

What Is Your House Worth? Both Less and More than You Think

Sharon December 16th, 2008

Yesterday’s big news included the fact that Americans lost two trillion dollars in housing wealth last year.  That’s one heck of a big number - except that like most of the big numbers we actually see in the news these days, it radically understates the reality.

You see 2 trillion is just the amount that they claim you could have sold your house for in 2007 vs. 2008.  But that doesn’t really tell the whole story.  Because, of course, this assumes that most of us could access the value of our homes if we wanted to.  But for many people, that’s no longer possible at all.

For example, for many thousands of people who plan to stay in their homes and  would like to access the equity in their homes through home equity lines have seen them revoked.  Millions of people cannot sell their homes at any price, because they are now underwater, and the banks will not permit a short sale, or because they can’t afford to lose their downpayment, but can afford to keep paying the mortgage.  Still more simply could not sell their homes at any price they are willing to accept, because nothing at all is selling, and they cannot find a buyer who can get credit.  The functional value of many homes in the US is very low or negative - that is, the house will continue to cost you mortgage payments and taxes, but you cannot functionally extract any value from them.  Realistically, many, many trillions are now tied up in housing as functionally “lost” value.

For many aging folks who had relied on their housing as an “investment,” and for the many elderly who had most of their wealth tied up in their houses, they will find that not only can they not cash out, they may no longer be able to trade their housing for care in their old age - assisted living depends on high valuation of homes - right now, it seems that few companies wish to take this in trade.  

Is the whole story of home ownership unremittingly bleak, however?  If you are underwater, is that the end of home ownership for you?  My own take is that it isn’t, that there are several ways to shift the economic situation so that homes move from the debit column to the asset column. 

The first is to shift your thinking.  Until not too long ago, people rarely thought of their homes,  primarily as assets.  Your home is, well, your home.  Its value lies not in its potential sale price, or your ability to trade it for something, its value lies in its function.  Now only you can evaluate whether you will be paying too high a price for that home - and this is something we all need to think through.  But if your house is worth the price to you, too tight a focus on its “official” value distracts from the reality - one’s home is one’s home.

But that’s not all there is to it.  Right now most of us with mortgages are pouring money into our houses.  None of us can afford a money pit right now - we might as well at least pay rent, and receive basic services and allow others to take the economic risk and make the repairs if we are simply going to pay out (please do not mistake me, I don’t think renting is a bad idea, in fact - but this post my primary focus is on the present homeowning majority).  So your house has to not just shelter you, but either help you produce money or enable you to reduce other costs.

That means that you need to evaluate your home for what else it can do for you.  Can you grow a garden, and reduce food costs?  Plant fruit trees, nuts and berries?  Raise chickens, rabbits or bees to provide food and fertility?  Raise larger livestock?  Produce some of your home heating or cooking energy in the form of anything from coppiced firewood to twigs and dried grasses for a tiny hot rocket fire to stir fry over?

Could extra rooms in your home enable you to produce additional income or reduce total costs.  Could you rent out a room, make an apartment and rent that, or take in a housemate?  Could you consolidate with your family or with friends? Do you really need all the space you have?

Do you have a workshop that would enable you to do home repairs, fix your own appliances and otherwise cut back on new purchases and hired labor (you may have already done this, but if you don’t, it is time?). Do you have the equipment to mend and repair your own clothing, rather than replace it, or perhaps even make new? 

Could any of these things (or something else) be adapted into an income stream?  That is can you make, build, repair, mend, cook, tend or do something else that is needed in your neighborhood?   There are hundreds of small businesses that can be run from your home part time - everything from small scale programming to selling bulk foods, from daycare to mending and handyman work.  These have the dual effect of offering you an economic fallback position, making your home into an asset (and potentially reducing your tax burden in some cases), and also by engaging with the people immediately around you, improving local economies and communities.

Suburban and rural garages and barns offer the possibility of even more than cottage industry - a business that might eventually employ others in your neighborhood.  Think about what you depend on, and what will be needed in your community - is it possible that your garage might be the new general store?  That your small greenhouse operation might employ your neighbors eventually?  That yours might be the neighborhood bakery or restaurant?  Those of us who live in areas away from commerce might start thinking in terms of establishing local businesses - these may need to stay under the table until enforcement of restrictive regulations is reduced - that is, you might start baking for a couple of neighbors by barter, while also gradually working on finding the equipment to expand eventually.

What about community as an asset.  If you stay put in a place where you have ties (and this presumes we have done the work of making those ties), can they provide a measure of security, of safety, of assistance that we once relied on economic assets for - that is, the neighbors who watch out for you, who help out during illness, who will work with you, who send over a pot of soup when they have extras - those are assets of economic value as well, and must be considered in the calculation.  Staying put can enable us to keep those assets in place.

In many cases, if you are committed to keeping your home - because it is near your family, because it has an ideal yard to grow food in, because you are tied to your community - you will need several of these strategies.  And they may be hard to enact at first - for example, it may be hard to decided who gets to keep their house when the need for family consolidation comes up. Who moves in with who, and how do we protect the interests of those who don’t own?  How do we handle multiple parties working out of the same house?  How do we get used to less privacy and less personal space? 

The other calculation we need to make is the truly long term value of these homes.  Wealth in the US  is disproportionally concentrated in the hands of older people - high housing prices and rapidly inflating educational costs along with stagnant real wages mean that those who bought into markets decades ago got most of the actual wealth.  Older people and younger ones have a shared crisis - the elderly and aging baby boomers who relied on financial investments and housing to ensure security in their old age no longer can rely on either of those things.  Younger people who couldn’t get into the markets, or couldn’t do it without extortionate rates and minimal downpayments have either had no opportunity to own a house or will lose that option rapidly.  So we have older folks with houses, but with declining investment income and a declining number of years of employment, and younger people who can work, but who can’t get into the housing market, who can’t afford a mortgage and who soon, by defaulting on student loans and mortgages, won’t be able to for a long time.

You may not be able to trade a house for assisted living anymore, but you might be able to trade a future in your home for help in your old age - it might be as bluntly mercenary as that, but in most cases, it won’t be, it will be a familial relationship.   But aging baby boomers and the elderly in the US are facing an economic crisis - and they are going to have to start thinking of their homes as a long term asset to be passed down to children and grandchildren - and those children are going to have to start seeing themselves as stewards of a resource, the people who care for the family home, so that their own posterity can inherit it, and who in turn, care for their own parents and relations so that someone will do the same for them.

The shift of housing from a salable asset to something worth holding, a source of income and reduced costs, the place where you live out your life, and the place where your children grow up, come to adulthood, and come home to is going to be the great psychological and economic shift of our times, I suspect.  And any calculation of the value of our homes must begin from this complex question of what our homes are worth - as I say above, I think many of us will find that the answer is both less and more than we ever expected.

Sharon

Scenes from the Mall

Sharon December 15th, 2008

Last night, Eric and I did something we simply never do - we went to the mall.  My mother was visiting, and kindly offered to babysit while the two of us went out to dinner, and since we do this sort of thing quite infrequently, we jumped at the chance to do a few errands uninterrupted and have a quiet meal together.  Our first two choices for dinner were closed, due to the massive power outages that still plague our region.  So, since we knew the lights were on, we ended up at the Crossgates mall.  And I have to say, even to my doomy eyes, the experience was pretty unsettling.

The restaurants were reasonably busy, and there were cars in the parking lots.  In fact, my initial reaction was that things didn’t seem to be as bad as I’d read here.  My mother had stopped to have lunch with a friend earlier today, and said that the restaurant had just re-opened, after four days without power, but was packed with people who were content to drink coffee and sit somewhere with central heating. More than 10,000 people in my region are still without power, and we figured that this would push people into the malls.  And while Sunday night isn’t peak shopping, generally speaking, an evening this close to the holidays would have been busy.

It wasn’t.  The restaurant was less busy than I’d anticipated but not empty - but the mall itself was a ghost town.  Here we were, 10 days before Christmas, on a night where for many the mall was warm, lighted, unlike home, and it was nearly empty.  The people who were there simply weren’t buying - I counted two shopping bags during the 2 hours we spent wandering around, looking and listening in gloomy fascination at the demise of American shopping. 

Every store was offering at least 30% off, often on everything, and often that over and above other discounts.  Several stores had “store closing” or “going out of business” signs up already.  Many stores had the appearance of having given up - the window of the Oshkosh children’s store, instead of cute baby mannequins in overalls was filled with half-packed boxes.  One store, selling novelties and junk was literally deserted - we walked in and waited, called out and no one appeared for a good 15 minutes - we finally gave up (we didn’t want to buy anything, we were simply curious about whether the store was actually as abandoned as it appeared to be).  No one stole anything - there really wasn’t anything to steal, or anyone to steal it.  At one store, three employees had put up a nerf basketball hoop and were taking shots, clearly having given up on sales.  Several stores looked as though their shelves hadn’t been neatened in several days.

The single line we saw was at the dollar store (not coincidentally, the only place we bought anything - I found a deck of Uno cards 2/$1 for the boys and clothespins for a buck) - otherwise, most stores had no customers at all.  When we stopped and chatted with store employees, most of them said they’d had few, if any, sales.   

Malls are not the place to restore your faith in humanity’s ability to survive hard times, and they tend to bring out a black irony in me.  The sight of some poor kid trying to get anyone to taste a plastic sausage from Hickory Farms - he called to us the full length of the aisle, and practically chased us down the corridor - was funny.  But of course, underlying the dark humor was the fact that this young man and all the employees who are paying for college (the mall is right next to SUNY Albany and draws many employees from there) and making a living are about to be the next victims in a round of layoffs.  We know, for example, that if enrollments all off enough at SUNY, my husband will probably get the axe as well - that kid with the sausage is a link in a chain that goes to our family, and thousands of other places as well.

And you can see the calculations in people’s eyes - why buy today, when things are at 40% off?   They will be 70% off after the holidays, when the chain goes bankrupt.  And then, of course, they won’t be there at all.  Eric and I stopped in Williams Sonoma to speculate on at what price we’d be willing to buy another Le Creuset dutch oven or a serious Wusthof butcher knife - the price we’d consider was well below the present valuation, but getting closer than they had been in years. 

The problem, of course, is that everyone’s ability and willingness to buy is contracting faster than the prices are deflating - it doesn’t matter how cheap the dutch oven is, in a sense - I don’t want it badly enough to spend what money we have on it, not if Eric’s job is in jeapardy.  A million such decisions and we have…detente, but not in a good way.  Even at Borders I couldn’t find anything I really wanted to buy.

The stench of failure is death to retail - even those chains that survive, in bleak half-empty malls that have to cut their heating back because revenues are down will then suffer from the new atmosphere, the stench of disaster.  Who goes to those kinds of bleak malls? 

I tried to think about what we might do with this mall, and the other malls.  Could it house students in a new, lower budget subsidized education system  - they could grow food for the dining halls and make the storefronts into small dorm style apartments. Could one revitalize a small number of malls with local businesses?  It is hard to imagine every needing anything on this scale again - there are shops that sell only caps, those that sell only shirts describing multi-gendered, nude sprting events, calendars, nauseatingly scented candles that poison the atmosphere,  (I have to say, the demise of Yankee Candle will not bring me sorrow - I can only even walk past them from as far away as possible - the stench is repulsive), and overpriced stuffed animals.  It is impossible to imagine the need for this much retail space in a more constrained society without this acute over-specialization.  So little of this meets actual needs. 

I admit, the sheer emptiness of it shocked even me - I knew how much retail sales had fallen, but knowing and seeing are two different things.   What are you seeing in your local retail sector?

Sharon

2009 Predictions: Its Hour Come Round At Last

Sharon December 15th, 2008

I’m writing this a little early this year - _Independence Days_ is due in a couple of weeks, and I anticipate a great deal of distraction as the end-of-the-year predictions really start pouring out, so I thought I’d jump the gun and make mine now.

But first, how did I do last year? (And note, just ’cause I got some right last year doesn’t mean that you should take my word as gospel - I don’t think that everything that comes out of my ass is the high truth, and neither should you ;-)) 

I called this year “Here be Dragons” arguing that this was when the maps we use to make sense of the world begin to fail us.  I think that was pretty accurate - I think most people still don’t really understand how badly our maps have failed us, how the operation of our economy, our ecosystem, our culture is simply different than what we’ve been taught.  I think we can all see that most experts are pretty lost too - not because they are simply stupid, but because they aren’t prepared to work off the map.  The stories we tell ourselves shape what we can see in the world - and the conventional narratives have undermined our understanding of the realities.

Here are my predictions for 2008 and my comments on how they came out:

1. This year, the words “peak oil” will go mainstream, but this mainstreaming will not be matched by a subtle or nuanced understanding of what the words mean. That is, peak oil will be used for political purposes, and not necessarily ones anyone will approve of.

- I called this one.  As oil prices rose, CNN and the rest of the MSM couldn’t get enough of PO poster boys Simmons and Kunstler.  But, of course it wasn’t really possible to create, in that media, a complex enough understanding for people to realize that peak oil hasn’t gone away just because prices have collapsed, that, in fact, for the long term, the collapse of prices probably ensures that we’re past peak oil. 

2. By the end of the year, there will begin to be runs on preparedness equipment and food storage, a la Y2K.

- It wasn’t quite as dramatic in the equipment department as Y2K, although woodstoves and electric bikes were backordered like crazy.  But the big story was people fighting over bags of rice at Costco and other stores back in the spring. And unfortunately, for other reasons, I think we may see this one again.  Called it.

3. The NeoCons will not go gently into that good night - there will be at least one serious surprise for us. G-d willing, it won’t involve the word “nukuler” or any of its cognates.

- I’d give myself 50% on this one - I think the build up with Russia was indeed a final Neo-con attempt to make themselves seem like the best answer to a scary world (and Alaska as our DMZ), but it wasn’t as dire as I feared.

4. Hillary will not win the 2008 election. Neither, despite all the people who keep sending me emails saying he will, will Ron Paul.

- Got it.
5. The economy will tank. Yup, I’m really going out on a limb here.

- Got it.

6. Many of us will find we are being taken more seriously than we ever expected. We will still be taken less seriously than any celebrity divorce, however.

- This was certainly true for me - I don’t really know how John Michael Greer, Kunstler and Orlov, for example, felt about it, but I was surprised at how seriously my predictions were taken, and how few people thought I was over-reacting, even when doing, say ABC affiliate radio interviews.  But, of course, there are limits to seriousness - fairly few people really critiqued the worldview, but comparatively few people paid attention, either.  
 

7. We’ll see food riots in more nations and hunger will increase. The idea of Victory Gardens won’t seem so crazy anymore.

 - Yup.  31 nations and counting had some form of food riot this year.  And Michael Pollan wrote “Farmer in Chief” and the “White House Farm” idea hit the blogosphere.
 

8. The biofuels craze will begin to be thought the better of - not in time to prevent the above.

- Called it.  The collapse of oil prices of course is doing its own work, but even before that, we were finally seeing serious questioning of the premise of biofuels hit national discourse, at least in Europe.
 

9. We will see at least one more image of desperate people, walking out of their city becuase there’s no other alternative. And a lot of images of foreclosures.

Part one of this is the only one I got wrong, and that only partly.  People were walking out of Houston, and a whole lot of people were walking around looking for Gas in Memphis and Atlanta, but it didn’t quite have the resonance of Katrina or 9/11 - the media wasn’t paying attention, so it wasn’t the kind of iconic image that I was expecting.  The second part I called.

10. TEOTWAKI, if it ever happens, will be delayed long enough for my book to be released this fall and to make back at least the advance, so my publisher won’t have any reason to try and sue me ;-). 

- I’m not sure, but I think I might have actually made back my advance by now (all 4K of it), and my publisher is still in business.  Who knows, I might actually make a pittance!

Ok, what about the coming year?  While I think 2008 was when most people first realized something was wrong, I’m going to go out on a limb here (ok, not a huge limb, but a limb) and say that 2009 will be the year we say that things “collapsed.”  I don’t think we’re going to make it through the year without radical structural changes in the nature of life in most of the world.   I’m calling it, a la Yeats’s “Second Coming” the “The Year ‘Its Hour Come Round at Last’” 

 What do I mean by collapse?  We throw that word around, but it is easy to misunderstand.  I mean that the US is likely to undergo a financial collapse a la the Great Depression - widespread unemployment, lots of people facing hunger, cold and the inability to get health care, a disruption of what we tend to assume are birthright services, and a sense that the system doesn’t work anymore.  I don’t claim that we are headed by Thursday to cannibalism, however - what I think will be true is that we will often do surprisingly well in the state of collapse, as hard as it is.

 In previous years, I was fairly lighthearted about my predictions - this year, I don’t find it possible to be.  I really hope I’m wrong about this.  And I  hope you will make decisions based on your own judgement, not mine.  These are predictions, the results of my analysis and my intuitions, and sometimes I’m good at that.  But I do not claim that every word that comes out of my mouth or off my keyboard is the truth, and you should not take it as such.  You are getting this free on the internet - consider what you paid for it, and value it accordingly.

1. Some measure of normalcy will hold out until late spring or early summer, mostly based on hopes for the Obama Presidency.  But by late summer 2009, the aggregate loss of jobs, credit and wealth will cause an economic crisis that makes our current situation look pretty mild.  With predictions of up to a million jobs lost each month, there will simply come a point at which the economy as we understand it now cannot function - we will see the modern equivalents of breadlines and stockbrokers selling apples on the streets.

2. Many plans for infrastructure investments currently being proposed will never be completed, and many may never be started, because the US may be unable to borrow the money to fund them.  The price of globalization will be high in terms of reduced availability of funds and resources - despite all the people who think that we’ll keep building things during a collapse, we won’t.  We will have some variation on a Green New Deal in the US and some nations will continue to work on renewable infrastructure, but a lot of us are going to be getting along with the fraying infrastructure, designed for a people able to afford a lot of cheap energy, that we have now.  The most successful projects will be small, localized programs that distribute resources as widely as possible. 

I pray that we will have the brains to ignore most other things and set up some kind of health care system, one that softens the blows here.  If not, we’re really fucked - the one thing most of us can’t afford is medical care as it works now in a non-functioning economy.  Unfortunately, my bet is that we don’t do something about this, but I hope to God I’m wrong.

3. 2009 will be the year that most of the most passionate climate activists (and I don’t exclude myself) have to admit that there is simply not a snowball’s chance in hell (and hell is getting toastier quickly) that we are going to prevent a 2C+ warming of the planet.  We are simply too little, too late.  That does not mean we will give up on everything - the difference between unchecked emissions and checked ones is still the difference between life and death for millions -  but hideously, regretfully and painfully, the combination of our growing understanding of where the climate is and the economic situation will force us to begin working from the reality that the world we leave our children is simply going to be more damaged, and our legacy smaller and less worthy of us than we’d ever hoped. 

4. 2008 will probably be the world’s global oil peak, but we won’t know this for a while.  When we do realize it, it will be anticlimactic, because we’ll be mired in the consequences of our economic, energy and climate crisis.  Lack of investment in the coming years will mean that in the end, more oil stays in the ground, which is good for the climate, but tough for our ambitions for a renewable energy economy.  Over the long term, however, peak oil is very much going to come back and bite us all in the collective ass.

5. Decreased access to goods, services and food will be a reality this year.  Some of this will be due to stores going out of business - we may all have to travel further to meet needs.  Some will be due to suppliers going under, following the wave of merchant bankruptcies.  Some may be due to disruptions in shipping and transport of supplies.  Some will be due to increased demand for some items that have, up until now, been niche items, produced in small numbers for the small number of sustainability freaks, but that now seem to have widespread application.  And some may be due to deflation - farmers may not be able to harvest crops because they can’t get enough for them to pay for the harvest, and the connections between those who have goods and those who need goods may be thoroughly disrupted.  Meanwhile, millions more Americans will be choosing between new shoes and seeing the doctor.

6. Most Americans will see radical cut backs in local services and safety nets.  Funding will simply dry up for many state and local programs. Unemployment will be overwhelmed, and the federal government will have to withdraw some of its commitments simply to keep people from starving in the streets.  Meanwhile, expect to see the plows stop plowing, the garbage cease to be collected, and classrooms to have 40+ kindergarteners to a class - and potentially a three or four day school week.

7. Nations will overwhelmingly fail to pony up promised commitments to the world’s poor, and worldwide, the people who did the least harm to the environment will die increasingly rapidly of starvation.  This will not be inevitable, but people in the rich world will claim it is.

8. We will finally attempt to deal with foreclosures, but the falling value of housing will make it a losing proposition.  Every time we bring the housing values down to meet the reality, the reality will shift under our feet. Many of those who are helped will end up foreclosed upon anyway (as is already the case) and others will simply see no point in paying their mortgage when, by defaulting, they could qualify for lowered payments (as is already the case).  Ultimately, the issue will probably self resolve in either some kind of redistribution plan that puts people in foreclosed houses with minimal mortgaging, with foreclosures dragging down enough banks that people find it feasible to simply stop paying mortgages that are now unenforceable, or with civil unrest that leads people simply to take back housing for the populace.  I don’t have a bet on which one, and I don’t think it will be resolved in 2009. 

9. By the end of the year, whether or not we will collapse or have collapsed will continue to be hotly debated by everyone who can still afford their internet service.  No one will agree on what the definition of collapse actually is, plenty of people will simply be living their old lives, only with a bit less, while others will be having truly apocalyptic and deeply tragic losses.  Some will see the victims as lazy, stupid, alien and worthless, no matter how many there are.  Others will look around them and ask “how did I not see that this was inevitable?”  Many people will be forced to see that the poor are not a monolith of laziness and selfishness when they become poor.  We will know that we are in our situation only in retrospect, only in hindsight - our children will have a better name for the experience than we will, caught up in our varied personal senses of what is happening  Meanwhile, each time things get harder most of us will believe they are at the bottom, that things are now “normal” and adapt, until it becomes hard to remember what our old expectations were.

10. Despite how awful this is, the reality is that not everything will fall apart.  In the US, we will find life hard and stressful, but we will also go forward.  People will suck a lot up and retrench.  It will turn out that ordinary people were always better than commentators at figuring out what to do - that’s why they stopped shopping even while people were begging them to keep buying.  So they’ll move in with their siblings and grow gardens and walk away from their overpriced houses, or fight to keep them.  Some of them will suffer badly for it, but a surprising number of people will simply be ok in situations that until now, they would have imagined were impossible to survive.  We will endure, sometimes even find ways of loving our new lives.  There will be acts of remarkable courage and heroism, and acts of the most profound evil and selfishness.  There will be enormous losses - but we will also discover that most of us are more than we think we are - can tolerate more and have more courage and compassion than we believe of ourselves.   

An early Happy New Year, everyone.  May you know better than you deserve and see others at their best in these hard times.

 Sharon

Best Two Falls Out of Three: Wrestling with Temptation, Discipline and Self-Denial

Sharon December 14th, 2008

When we were first planning on moving to a farm in this area, we came very close to buying a gorgeous little farm in an Amish neighborhood a bit west of where we did buy.  The house was Amish built and fairly new, with four small bedrooms and large open public spaces (it looked pretty much like every other Amish home I’ve been in, if that’s a useful image for anyone), with a medium sized pole barn and 10 acres, fenced for livestock.  It was lovely.  It was under 25K (yep, you saw that right!).  I wanted to buy it - and my husband said “No way.”

But, I argued, we can add electricity and indoor plumbing gradually.  I appealed to his innate cheapness - we’d have no debt, we’d have money to put into the house straight off.  We’d adapt.  My husband’s reaction was  not just no, but “No!”  And we ended up spending considerably more money for the house we have now (which is wonderful and lovely too).

Now cheapness was only part of the reason I wanted this house so very much.  There was a deeper reason.  You see, self-discipline is not my middle name.  My reaction to “would you like a cookie” is almost always “sure,” with predictable effects.  I can justify all sorts of things with the reasoning that “this time is an exception.”  And, of course, I start noticing after a while how often the exceptions add up.    And my husband is not too different from me - he particularly hates raining on anyone else’s parade, so he’ll happily say “well, of course, honey, if you’re tired….” 

This lack of natural capacity for self-denial means that I work best if there are firm, hard rules, no exceptions (outside of the usual extraordinary circumstances) and mechanisms for enforcement.  Ideally those mechanisms are external, because the problem with making the rules for yourself is that you know the person who made them ;-). 

What I really wanted the non-electric home for was simply the experience of not being able to flick on a light, not being able to turn up the heat, not being able to do things the easy way.  I knew we probably would add electricity at some point, ideally renewable,  but I felt that we might be able to add only those things that really mattered to us, very gradually, and to carefully pick and choose what uses of energy were essential to us.  I felt (and still feel) that would be the best way for me personally to go about reducing my impact.

You see, for a long time I didn’t have a lot of conveniences. I was a poor graduate student in a city.  I had no car, I had no washing machine, I had very little money. So, for example, I did laundry quite infrequently - I washed out underwear in the sink, wore my clothes a fair while, and when I could work up energy and money, I piled all my laundry in a sack, slung the heavy load on my back and hauled it a long quarter mile to the laundromat, and then hauled it back, often cussing all the way.

But the funny thing is that if you’d asked me whether my laundry situation was a major burden, I’d have laughed.  99% of the time I never thought much about what a pain it was to do the laundry - and the other !%, well, it was annoying, it was a pain, but it didn’t really matter that much, even when it was cold, even when the laundry was heavy, even when I didn’t like it.  After all, every life has bits we don’t enjoy, right?  Sometimes those bits really are a drag, but more often, they really aren’t that big a deal.  Now for some people, this would have been a big deal - someone who couldn’t haul their laundry or pull a cart, for example.  And yet, I think about all the elderly ladies in New York City who do just this - perhaps for some it is a huge burden, but don’t they also suggest that even in old age we might be able to find ways to do with less? 

Well, the first time I lived with an actual washer-dryer in my own house and didn’t save up coins, I was amazed by how wonderful it was.  And… how often everything suddenly seemed to need washing.  Now I knew I hadn’t always washed my clothes that often, and as far as I could remember, people didn’t sidle away because I smelled bad.  I knew my towels had usually been washed monthly.  But somehow, no matter how I tried, I never could (and still can’t) quite get my laundry down to the level of washing that I did (proportionally - with kids things are a bit different, but even a rough approximation per person) before I had a machine.  I just can’t - and I’ve been trying for a long time now.

The same thing is true of life without a car.  It had its hassles and hardships.  And I used to walk long distances quite routinely, sometimes in terrible weather.  I know that I’m perfectly capable of covering a few miles on foot without any major hardship - but even allowing some level of adaptation for children, I find it very hard not to use the car on occasions when it would be somewhat inconvenient not to.  That is, I find it hard to live in the mindset that allows me to make enough time to put the kids in the strollers and walk the four miles to the library.  More often, I find myself rushing about and saying “oh, gosh, we’re late, we have to take the car.”

I do it sometimes - we keep our driving quite low, using just over 80% less gas than the American average.  And by American standards, I wash probably less than most people.  But I also know that in the absence of the option of driving, I would make time to get there on foot.  In the absence of the washer, I would find less laundry. 

Yesterday, I broke the Sabbath by working.  I had a good reason, of course - I have a book deadline in less than two weeks, and I’m getting a little panicky that the manuscript might not be ready in time.  It is a perfectly decent reason for doing something I shouldn’t - except that I know that if I truly treated the Sabbath as inviolable, I’d have found a way to make sure that the book was further along.  I know that somewhere in the back of my head, I had already allowed myself “well, if things get really dire, I could always break the Sabbath.”  And that’s not exactly one of my proudest moments. 

I know there are people out there who can simply say “well, we park the car and use our bikes every time.”  For me, it is more like, “we park the car and can use our bikes about half the time it would be possible to.”  I’m always impressed by people who manage to have the “out” sitting right there and say no to it - sometimes I do, and sometimes, I don’t.

I do have self-discipline about some things - I won’t turn the heat rather than put on a layer, I generally won’t fly, even when people offer me a lot of money to come talk at their events, I won’t tell someone I think they are right just to keep the peace.  But it is a constant struggle with temptation.  And I find myself attracted, yet again, to absolute solutions - longing for a life where the easy ways out don’t even exist for me.

I thought about that recently as my friend Shasha writes about her move to an Amish farm which may or may not end up having to have electricity.  I admit, I envy her - most of all, I envy her the structural realities of a life without easy ways out.  I am curious - would I find them so burdensome that I’d seek out easier solutions?  Or would I find myself content with these lower energy, simpler choices?  I don’t know - and I can’t know without experimentation - but the experiments require major changes.

Every life, no matter how plain, requires self-discipline too, and I’d probably suffer some failures of that along the way.  Early this year, my washing machine, after an extended period of shredding my laundry every time I washed, conked out, and we were forced to consider whether to invest in a new, frontloading washing machine or a James Handwasher.  The frontloader won, and I don’t have a lot of regrets - maybe after everyone is 100% night dry, but with two using diapers at least part of the time and the occasional bedwetting, I don’t really want to handwash.  But I still wonder whether my estimation of the benefits of the washer was correct.  We have let other appliances break and not be replaced - and often haven’t really minded the lack.  For now I’m still a washing machine person, but the nagging sense that I can’t really fully evaluate my want/need for it in its presence has never gone away.

I grew up in the outer suburbs of Boston, in a small city that is now a regular commuting venue, but that in the 1980s was far out enough to be cheap.  My father never owned a car during most of his adult life, and despite the fact that we lived on the outskirts of everything, I grew up being able to get pretty much anywhere without one.  It might involve two buses and a commuter train, along with my bike, but I could and did get to outer suburbs all the time from my outer suburb.  It meant checking schedules, coordinating trips with other people, and often, standing around waiting for trains - but since I’d spent my whole childhood waiting for one bus or train or another (my father did not allow his residency in a cheap area to deny him or his family any of the pleasures of the city - we went everywhere, constantly), I don’t think I even noticed.  If I think of those days, it is longingly, of life without the hassles of car ownership.  I know that standing, waiting for a late train in February wasn’t fun - but that kind of “not fun” didn’t really matter much in the overall scheme of things.  I know that doing without things won’t always be fun - but how do I know how much that displeasure will actually count?

When we moved to the country we “had to” have a vehicle.  We’ve struggled to find good ways to balance the mobility we really need with the mobility we simply want - and to find ways to reduce temptation while upping our self-discipline.  At one pont, we were able to barter with neighbors to share a car - and knowing that we only had the vehicle on specific days made us more careful with our use.  For now, we only have one small car - the six of us cram (safely) into a Ford Taurus.  We look like clowns getting out of our tiny car - but it means we use less gas, and have to seriously consider whether it is worth being crammed to make longer trips.  It encourages us to use public transportation for visiting family and to skip unnecessary trips. 

And sometimes I wonder if we really ”have to” have a vehicle - could we combine a combination of two electric assist rickshaw bikes, a pre-made barter arrangement with our friend with a truck (for when the goats or hay must be hauled) and a shared commute for Eric?  I’m tempted sometimes to try it - and a little cautious about giving up my conveniences too.  I know someday we may have no choice but to give up the car - shouldn’t I be prepared for that?  Perhaps that will be our next project.

Culturally, we tend not to have a lot of respect for people who lack self-discipline, or a lot of concern about the idea of temptation.  We have decided, for example, that rules about avoiding sexual temptation, for example are outdated - we should, instead, rely primarily on our own self-discipline.  Thus, older ideas of modesty (which of course have their problems, since they often were primarily emphasized for women) and restraint have fallen away - to be replaced primarily with self restraint.  The only problem is, we don’t have much.

The same thing is true with technologies - we are told that there’s no point in objecting to a technology, or suggesting we shouldn’t go down certain technical avenues - no one has to have a cell phone or a car or a whatever.  The problem is that a narrative that says so presumes that we do have a cultural basis for self-denial, that we’ve been taught how to say no, how to think critically about our technologies, or, for that matter, about sex.  It assumes that we’ve been taught to value self restraint. 

There are real merits to self-denial and real pleasures in it, and not just austere ones, or the pleasures of being self-righteous.  That is, I genuinely think my life without a car would be better, more enjoyable, more fun than my life with one.  The economic, personal, time and social costs of the car - and certainly the costs of a car-based society are simply too high.  But not only do most of us not realize that cars actually take more time and money than they return, but most of us have never in our lives been asked to think about what self-discipline might do for us, whether it has any merits, other than the ability to sniff down your nose at someone not as austere.  In fact, the accusation of self-righteousness often completely undermines any discussion of self-limitation, simply because we cannot imagine that there are other merits involved.

There is certainly plenty of truth in the statement that I need more personal self-discipline, or that I can’t blame the fact that I eat too many cookies on the culture as a whole.  And I don’t.  But in a culture that dismisses the idea that temptation is a problem, that we might begin addressing our deepest social problems by restricting our capacity to give way to our worst selves, it is very hard to even begin to find a way at those problems.

I don’t know how many people struggle with this question of self-discipline, but I’d suspect a lot.  Figuring out solutions for myself and my family involve a range of strategies.  First, some creative deprivation - I think often the best way to use the minimum is not to have any choice.    The one bright side of our current economic crisis is that many of us may get some chance to explore creative deprivation - and we saw that last time we had a Depression, the habits of thrift and care lasted far longer than the Depression - our grandparents kept living the way they had to, in many cases, simply because they couldn’t imagine anything else - everything else seems too extravagant.

The second shift is the need for self-discipline - sometimes it isn’t good to take the cookie.  I need to work on the ability to “say no” and to find the immutable wall in myself that says “these rules aren’t just mine” - sometimes I get there by realizing the rules are God’s, sometimes by realizing that my actions affect other people, sometimes by simply promising that there will still be cookies later, and that I’ll be happier this way.  I’m working on the idea that self-denial has its own pleasures and satisfactions, that quieting that nagging sense that I’ve cheated - not just cheated on the rules, but cheated myself.  This week, I cheated myself out of the restoration that the Sabbath would bring me by not arranging my life for it.  I think sometimes I may have cheated myself out of knowing what I can actually do, by making my own life a little too easy.

I don’t think it is necessary to have a religious faith to exercise self-denial, but I don’t think it hurts - the idea that there are limits that are not of your own personal setting, and the creation of a community to explore them in,  is useful to me, at least.  And I’m reminded of a story that Scott Savage tells in _The Plain Reader_ he writes:

A story that appeared a number of years ago in the Amish publication _Family Life_ told of a busload of tourisst who visited an Amish farmer.  The group consisted of people from many religious denominations.  One of them said, “We already know all about Jesus Christ, but what does it mean to be Amish?”  The Amish fellow thought for a minute and then asked for a show of hands for how many in the tour group had televisions.  Every hand went up.  Then he asked how many thought that maybe having a television contributed to a lot of social and spiritual problems in society.  Again, every hand went up.  In light of this, he asked, how many would be willing to give up having television?  This time, no hands went up.  He went on to explain that this was the essence of being Amish: a willingness to do without something if that thing is not good for them spiritually.

The Amish do so with both the force of community and the force of faith behind them.  My own suspicions that I’d be better off without a car exist, not in complete isolation, but outside a unified cultural sense that cars are harmful - even though we know they are.   We are not all going to share Amish religious convictions - but I wonder if there is a way to translate some of their culture of self-limitation into a secular reality?

I know that the Amish relationship to the technologies they choose to use and those they choose not is probably the right one for most of us - don’t mistake me - I’m not saying we should all be Amish.  But the idea that we should look at our possessions, our technologies, our work and everything that structures our lives and ask ourselves whether it is good for us, is, I think, right.

But that’s not enough - the best and most ethical of us will find it hard to do this in isolation.  By ourselves, on our country road, it is painfully hard to imagine asking others to help us live without a car - or simply use ours less -  even if we were to trade or barter with them.  The burden of inconveniencing others in a project that they do not share or value seems high, perhaps too high.  In a community where many people wanted or needed to use their cars less, or even get rid of them, we could feel ourselves full participants, share strategies for reducing temptation, give back as we get.  It is a conundrum and a nut we have yet to crack.

I don’t know all the answers - I do know that the problem of temptation in our society needs some exploration and analysis.  We need to find ways to begin our discussions not from the point that all of us ought to live as perfect paragons of self-discipline, but that we might, at the same time we improve our practices, and explore the pleasures and merits of self-denial, but also wrestle with the enormously vexed question of managing temptation.

Sharon

« Prev - Next »