Virtual States and National Security: A Time for Reappraisal (PDF)

by Stephan A. Schwartz and John B. Alexander, Ph.D.

Since the end of the Cold War, scenarios which attempt to predict the threats to America’s national security seem to recognize that, from the ashes of the old bipolar world, a complex multipolar geopolitical phoenix has emerged. But, upon closer examination, the first premise of almost all such analyses continues to be the nation-state as the overriding factor in international calculations. It is a concept so hallowed by time and tradition that it is almost invisible as a topic for discussion. But is it a premise that is still valid? Is it other nations we most have to fear?

The answer to that question is one of the most important things we can know about the future, because it will dictate how a large portion of our national resources are allocated. As a partial list, the budgets of the State, Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture Departments, as well as a multi-billion dollar stream of decisions in the private sector must all be predicated on this answer. If nation states are not going to be the principal threat, or are not going to be threats in traditional ways then policies, and organizational structures, need to be developed reflecting this new reality. Looked at this way, one factor arises above all others.

The New Covenant Process: America’s Opportunity to Establish a Critical Consensus for the 90s and Beyond

Excerpt:

The premiere resource of this, or any other country, is the collaborative power of the hearts and minds of its people. It is more important than technology, more important than natural resources. The human resource is the key to a country’s success and America, after 12 years of Republican executive administration, suffers from the degradation of its human infrastructure to a degree that is even more alarming than the deterioration of its physical infrastructure. The New Covenant Process is a 100-day program to assess the damage, propose solutions that have proven they work, publicize these insights, and create a sense of individual involvement in a shared national purpose among people
from all parts of the political spectrum. The model for the process finds its genesis in the town hall meetings begun by Governor Clinton during the New Hampshire primary, as well as one of the few previous successful nationwide efforts at social change when, in the 1970s, the American military was transformed from a conscription institution to a volunteer one. The New Covenant Process draws on the same national citizen dynamics that proved so successful in getting Ross Perot qualified in all 50 states with a speed undreamed of by most political observers. Clearly, the people’s willingness to craft a New Covenant is present, and accounted for.

Publication History: In Blueprint for Presidential Transition. Section. IV – Citizen Participation and
Public Consensus. (The Blue Print for Presidential Transition Project: Los Angeles, 30 October 1992).
An edited version appeared under the same title in The New Paradigm Digest. Vol. 1. No. 4. Winter 1992.
pp. 63-64

A Soldier in the Sensoid Wars: Observations from 25 Years on Both Sides of the Battlefield

When the space community wants to develop a new program, or the international high energy physics field seeks grants to build a new accelerator, or the AIDS medical world wants funding for a new research vector, those scientists, I can assure you, consciously factor in the media as part of their strategy to obtain the money they need. Consider this remarkably candid comment, by climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider, an advisor to Vice President Gore, about how it is done by those concerned with global warming: “To get some broader based support, to capture the public’s imagination…that, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of doubts we may have…” Please be clear. I am not saying this is good science; I am saying this is the realpolitik of science for the foreseeable future. Anyone who doubts this has not been watching television or reading the papers.
However, using the media, as opposed to being used by the media takes a strategic vision, strong team cohesiveness, and a clear sense of appropriate tactics. Few individuals, unsophisticated in these battles, have been able to muster these tools to their advantage.

Full-Text PDF (80 KB)

In February 2005, my good friend, English biologist Rupert Sheldrake, was asked to take part in a National Geographic Channel show on psychic animals. The show would begin airing in August that year as, Is It Real? Psychic Animals. Sheldrake’s participation from the beginning had been contingent on one condition: Because the subject of psychic animals was vulnerable to excess and hyperbole either for or against beyond what the research actually showed, he agreed to participate on the understanding that the program would be fair, unbiased, and must not be structured in the standard debunking “Gotcha” format. This is one of the most powerful trends developing in media today, and you have probably seen it a hundred times on television.
In this format, a scientist speaking on the basis of his research presents his data, and some critic, often with no expertise in the area of science involved, makes denigrating comments about the first scientist, who is given no opportunity to respond. It is currently particularly in vogue on channels that support the antiglobal warming position. Sheldrake was assured that the show would not follow that format and would be fair and unbiased.

Publication History: Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
September 2006 (Vol. 2, Issue 5, Pages 394-398)

Full Text | Full-Text PDF (161 KB)

The argument over the power of the federal government in relation to the power of the individual states is as old as the Republic itself and traces directly back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. For most of American history, the crux of the argument has been a cover for issues involving race, and there are still a substantial number of people in the South who conceive of the Civil War not as a struggle over slavery but as a struggle over states’ rights. This contention falls apart upon closer examination, since the right of the states called into question was slave ownership. But, one might ask, who cares? Isn’t it all ancient history with little relevance to the present day? The answer to that is: welcome to the new era of states’ rights, and you better become current on this because it is going to shape your life—from healthcare, to energy, to global warming, to tire treads.

Publication History: Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing
July 2007 (Vol. 3, Issue 4, Pages 362-364)