The weather is acting up. (That is not news). It is revealing that our infrastructure is not up to the task or is barely keeping up (and that is not really news, either). Cities are struggling. Citizen support systems are inadequate and expensive. Some of it is crumbling. Infrastructure decay is even worse in the states and weather extremes are revealing that, too. This is still not news but somewhat ‘more newsy’ due to the frequency and the new eccentricity of the weather.
Conclusion: the weather is making some things political more clear. The weather as a harbinger?
Recently several Canadian cities have had a warm period followed by a really cold snap and then that cycle repeated itself causing all sorts of municipal pipes and such to break. “Get used to it.” says Environment Canada. “Climate change is going to cause more extreme weather in the future!”
Interesting. Now THAT seems to be news! Environment Canada now officially recognizes climate change? Seems it was only yesterday that our intrepid leaders didn’t know from Climate Change. They were, if not ‘deniers’, then at least certainly not ‘acknowledgers’. Certainly not ‘cooperators’. And Harper verges on ‘denier’ status if actions and initiatives and priorities are considered to be any kind of indicators. See ‘Oil and Gas Pipelines’.
Weather as a harbinger? And a harbinger of what? Just climate change …..or political change? Or both?
In other words: things may be changing significantly – in whatever way – and we may not be fully aware of it.
Even Obama, after inauguration, stated that Climate Change is now on his agenda. The great ‘denier nation’ now, all of a sudden, onside with battling climate change. Better late than never, I guess. But, really? Twenty years after the average Joe learns of climate change, our leaders finally acknowledge it?
Makes me think the leaders aren’t on the ball.
Can someone explain to me why we call politicians leaders? How could a group of people so fundamentally behind the times on just about everything be leaders of anything?
Well, the point of this blog is that they are not.
These folks are not leaders. They are not even capable of leading. Too much baggage was accumulated getting to that exalted position to be able to lead anyone anywhere. Even bell hops are out in front of those fools. Those people are so ‘invested’ in the old way and out of sync with the new, they are not even followers! They are maintenance men. Curators. They seem to sit there indicating where the rest of the world has long passed by. They are more like milestones. They are history markers, NOT history makers!
Maybe it is climate change that is finally showing them and our institutions up for the anachronisms they really are?
Big-man politics just doesn’t work anymore (even tho it is still practiced in third world countries and symbolically in first world ones). And it hasn’t for a long, long time.
Life is just too complicated for any one man and so groups of men were needed. Then groups of men and women. Enter councils, congress, senates and boards of directors. And so it went. As life got more and more complicated the leadership model got more and more diffused. More people. More institutions. More democratized. More cooperation.
Environmental destruction and subsequent climate change, however, is in-your-face indication that not enough leadership, cooperation or efficacy was achieved but we still progressed somewhat and so the old political models continued.
Weirdly, the answer for the new problems we face might be the same one as before – democratize even more.
But the last bunch of nincompoops have pretty much sewn up the already-in-place and recognized mechanism (which, with voting machines, dirty-politics, robocalls, billions of dollars and the need for vote-monitoring, is also corrupted) and so the old-standard democracy infrastructure is also no longer up to the task. We aren’t getting leadership choice, we are just getting a rote exercise of endorsement of people we don’t want.
The old ‘leadership’ model is now beyond hoary. It is cumbersome in the extreme and it is also ineffective and too often corrupted. It seems we need a new type of leadership model. The tall, handsome, rich man with a toothpaste smile just doesn’t seem to work anymore. Nor do his institutions.
Social Networking and ‘sub-groups’ like Idle-no-more, the Occupy movement and the growth of e-media followers are now more ‘hip’, more current, more out front. They are different.
Admittedly, few leaders in the traditional sense are emerging from this increased democratization of opinion and influence but that may be the next step to emerge. OR, as the movements themselves predict, the ‘leader’ will be the collective voice of the majority and not manifested in a person or small group of elites.
But it seems to me that revolutions are not likely to look the same as the last ones. Like wars, the establishment tends to plan for the next one based on the last one and the opposing, revolutionary forces plan something different.
Could social media be the new vote? Could social media create new leaders? Could we be in the beginning stages of a political revolution that is so subtle, unconventional and so in-it’s-infancy that we just don’t recognize it yet?