Chapter 1 The Eighty Percent Solution

CHAPTER 1 THE EIGHTY PERCENT SOLUTION: THE HOPE AND ITS FRUSTRATIONS.

Hope, a faltering of hope is our greatest problem, political and economic as well as moral and spiritual in the world today. To take hope as the indispensable ally of insight - Roberto Ungar[i] My aim is to lead us toward participation in the creation of GardenWorld. It took me a few years to arrive at this point. I started with interviews across the political spectrum that convinced me that people at the extremes have much more in common than we are told about. I saw that their political anger, both left and right, blue and red, was more a way of saying “no” to the trends and events than it was an affirmation of ways to make things better. Obviously the legislation before Congress or in political debates does not add up to an adequate response to our problems. The pressure will be on Obama to blunt the difficulties, and to respond to them. This will be an epic struggle. I began to imagine that there exists a political program that 80% of the US population would vote for, if it were offered, that would be attractive because it was an adequate approach to the issues that confront us. But it is more the tone and approach than specifics. People want realistic hope, pragmatism and some serious working to reverse negative trends. What we have been offered - by both parties is militarism, fear, and support for old industries, and a state-corporate partnership that is hostile to the interests of much of the country and the world. If we include quality of lived life and long term expectations, current trends are hostile even to the owners of capital. There is fortunately some move within both parties to deal more significantly with underlying issues. Such a program includes: • • • •

Available healthcare without bureaucracy Jobs in a greener economy Better distribution of participation in the work and benefits of society A more attractive and effective Diplomacy

• Education that is fun and profound • Healthcare that supports participation in work and community • Communities that are safe and connect well with nature We each have our own list but these seem central to quality of life. But the strong backroom tendency is for the Republicans to offer moral outrage at the lesser sins, and the Democrats to offer support to visible fragments of the socially but not economically marginalized. Each is trying to tie together a logical chain of issues in order to win the next election, and the next - but they actually avoid the issues that most concern us. This does not add up to a sufficiently viable politics for this century. Obama’s approach may allow a deeper resonance, but the task of governance may overwhelm reformist goals. I am proposing that there is a solution to the doldrums of the Democratic and Republican parties’ inability to address the needs of most of - if not all - the population. Such a platform - one that merely reversed the worst curves of wealth and power concentration and was framed in the Founding Fathers’ values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and the avoidance of tyranny - would be able to gather 80% of the vote and return the country to a more virtuous path, and gain the tolerance of the world and respect for ourselves. Many of the most wealthy would support this approach. Remember that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett both have been against the elimination of inheritance taxes. The problem for the wealthy is to leave their children a livable world, not just a pile of money in a bad context. There are many proposals being published, in this period leading following the election, and they cover aspects of the eighty percent proposal, but to my surprise do not go far enough to get to the eighty percent, or even strike the voters as practical. The Republican proposals tend to leave out the problem of income distribution, and the Democratic proposals tend to leave out the need for vigorous business. Making timely progress on the environment’s pollution and the threat of climate change, as well as just creating good jobs, probably require all - vital business, better distribution of income and wealth, with more participation in the economy and society. If these are not integrated, both the business environment (businesses that create both jobs and profit), and environmental restoration are bound to fail – leaving the political process mired in the dumb momentum of the

times. For example, to make business more vital, tough environmental regulations and energy independence would motivate innovative local and regional business. The retrofitting of buildings for energy efficiency, habitability and aesthetics create jobs which cannot be exported. Generally the population seems to be aware of this general perspective and gives their leadership poor ratings for not going there and finding ways to take us with them. Critiques of some of the published proposals are in the appendix As I got clear about the 80% solution I slowly came to realize that it would be more effective if it were combined with a plausible vision of a better life. To make the agenda more evocative, with empowering symbolism, it’s important to have a vision of where we can go with our modern fruits of science, new Internet connectedness, and new appreciation of worldwide cultures. GardenWorld is the image of a world of continuous cultivation from the most awkward inner city to the most remote wilderness, blending the organic and the technological. When our good eye and creativity see the possibility of a GardenWorld enhancement, in food, climate moderation, parks, aesthetics or sociability, we should attempt it. Keeping GardenWorld as the goal in mind helps clarify choices. Thus the title of the book, GardenWorld Politics: American values – toward the 80% solution and a new politics of inclusion. I start with the basic perception that American politics is not furthering American values, while our own image of ourselves, and the world's image of us, have become depressingly more negative. What happened to the promise? The promise had evolved from the Declaration's “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", to the post WW2 return to normalcy and a brighter future, to the “peace dividend”? The American promise of the 1776 revolution gave way to the “American Dream”, and Clinton even said “Each American deserves a shot at the American Dream”. Not the promise, not even the dream, but a nightmare lottery of “having a shot”. In the face of the outpouring of material goods we have forgotten about the goal of a better life for all and a good environment to live it in. We need more flexibility and experimentation. Making mistakes is OK providing we are not stuck with them. The stickiness of bad solutions is a problem for modern society since bad solutions have stakeholders who work hard, through lawyers, lobbyists and congress, to maintain that stickiness.

In our time, the neo-liberal policy of globalization turned out to be "liberal" for the owners of capital and property and their managers, but not generous towards those who missed out on inheriting property and positioned opportunity through connections and education. It is often said that globalization is lifting many out of poverty. It might be true that the percentage of people in deep poverty is declining, but there is good evidence that those who are left behind are actually worse off, not better. Their poverty based income works a less well in a fast paced and more polluted world. The failure of the liberal and neo-liberal agendas, and the conservative and neo-conservative agendas, to spread benefits, improve the natural environment, and avoid armed conflict means that a new look towards the future will have to emerge. Though the situation could continue to deteriorate in this "entropic age", especially if elites continue to insulate themselves from the consequences of the current system and keep benefits for themselves and their rest of the population is encouraged to be fearful about everything. We live in a time when the economy was doing well while the people have been doing badly. We live in a time when the economy was doing well while the people were doing badly. Details count. The economy has been doing well for a small number of people. For those who know how to get wealth out of this economy and use it, it still feels pretty good. "Doing well" depends upon point of view. Language like "The US economy had a good fourth quarter" hides any analysis of "for whom was it good?” "Rising incomes" hides the current facts that an average, even a median, can rise, while, after increased costs, much more than half the population is losing out, while a very small number are doing amazingly well at accumulating the kind of cash that leads to the 500,000 acre ranch where Cheney shoots quail. Gross measures, such as increased national debt, and details, like the selling of ports to foreign country corporations (because corporations in other countries have enough money to buy U.S. assets) are symptoms of a widely acknowledged short sightedness. The situation now is obviously revealed to be more complex. For many of the rest of the population in the US the economy is not completely terrible, and even has its satisfactions. People have cars, televisions, Internet access (half of them have these things), but they commute longer, have

declining incomes. Home ownership, for the 60% of the families who “own” a home is often vulnerably mortgaged and was a way of increasing current income through refinancing. Education is declining, jobs are more fragmented and stressful, and social mobility is way down. The national policy is to protect the rich in a time of national decline. There is no national policy to help the country cope with meeting local needs with local jobs while acknowledging globalization. Pension funds are under pressure, not just private but public, as the money given to the rich by the functioning of law and tax in the midst of business activity must be obtained from somewhere, a problem made worse by the costs of war and importation. The national policy is to protect the rich in a time of national decline. There is no national policy to help the country cope with meeting local needs with local jobs while acknowledging globalization. There are many good things going on in the world and in the US, but most of the initiatives I know of are either at the level of the community (cooperative projects and a willingness to face difficult questions of land development, water, schools, and homelessness), or very large scale, such as the Internet, or the increasing quality of good writing about the current state of the world. The positive developments are either at the local levels, or global. But not at the level of national policy. Worse, national policy can get in the way of local initiatives which might support GardenWorld, such as the EPA ruling denying the right of the states to have tougher automobile emissions standards. There are so many bad things happening, such as post cold war struggles for power and position in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, worsening balance of payments, further skewing of income distribution, energy policies and health policies, and the loss of the culture of nuclear restraint. These are at the systems level centered on the management of the nation state. A legal system that supports prejudgment seizures, entrapment and plea bargaining is not delivering justice, but deals. A legal system that has two and a half million in jail, and ten million who

have passed through jail, and lost voting rights, is not a legal system of a well functioning society. An economy that cannot provide jobs is not a part of a successful civilization. Relationships of parents with each other and their children, not supported by community, are fragile. If you want to add a new horror story, look at Guinea and the US struggle to maintain oil hegemony in the Nigerian Gulf. The problem is, politics substantially supports the disastrous nation-centered policies more than the helpful local or transnational ones. While we could have national leadership that was looking to support the positive, we do not. Profit is at the big systems level. Everything else is a feeder system. Profit is at the big systems level. Everything else is a feeder system. Most people, right or left, progressive or conservative, are frustrated or scared at best, and, at worst, cynical and hopeless. In the US the Democrats are distressingly unable to emerge as a reasonable alternative to Bush and the Republicans. Both Clintons and Kerry supported not just the war, but escalation in order to win, and the Democrats seem much more afraid of being seen as soft on security than positive about what the future requires. As of this writing the general silence of the Democrats about Iran (and confusion built on complicity in Iraq) just supports this fear, but without solutions. By the time you are reading this, much will have evolved, unfortunately along predictable lines, as has the whole incursion into Iraq. Whether Obama even tries to be different remains to be seen. Hope feels real, but skepticism is supported by lots of analysis about what he can actually do. Politics, which seems to be a struggle between two parties, is really more a story of two apparently divergent parties with leadership based in the similar values of increasing corporate-state alliance to benefit from an economy which is leaving out more and more people (if there is any doubt the latest Federal Reserve Incomes report should be sufficient answer). Both parties raise the needed cash from similar sources - people who want to protect deals and cash flow. To the extent the leadership of governments and corporations is out of its depth and having trouble governing, and need our compassion, we do not hear about it. What we are given is a picture of short term greed and struggle for useless power. It is clear that many politicians fear the public because they know that the

agenda supported by their financial donors is not converging on what’s good for the whole population. An approach to community involvement in Langley, on Whidbey Island near Seattle, started with the idea that we could “help the government” rather than be opposed to it. The issues the voters seem to care about are the ones the leadership wants us to care about: taxes, abortion, guns, fear, sexual roles, and crime. But these are not the issues people actually care about. Three quarters of the advertizing for the 2006 elections was paid by corporations. [iii] As I mentioned, for the last several years I have been interviewing “red and blue” voters and thinking about what such voters really want, and surprisingly, the values among even the hard core of both parties is very much the same; desire for education, community, family, good jobs, attractive surroundings, safe world for children, and less stress. The difference among voters is at the level of impulse, based on education and local culture, and roughly divides them, as they look at the world with the perspectives of local culture, between lashing out in anger as in “the war on terror”, or trying to understand others and make friends where possible, the “multilateral approach”. Overwhelmingly people think the environment and its abuse is a major issue, and that income is in real decline for most of the population. These issues are not on the national agenda of either party. I even suspect that the war in Iraq is actually a smokescreen to hide from us the deeper issue of who is benefiting from globalization. A major aim of this book, in moving us towards GardenWorld, is to clarify why we don't get to the eighty percent solution.[iv] It is more than just a lack of vision about GardenWorld or other desirable goals. It is structural. The guys who are driving the empty bus (think Bush White House) know where they are going, while the people milling around in the parking lot have leaders who just want to buy the bus and keep it on the same route, even though fewer people want to or can afford, to go there.. Everyone is stuck somewhere between feeling uncomfortable and feeling afraid. Especially afraid of what the others would do if they got power. From what I've heard in the interviews I have done, I've interpreted this as "The right fears big government, the left fears big business and a big military. Each sees the other as supporting bigness which they have projected on the other. Their critiques cancel each other out, and bigness wins."

The right fears big government, the left fears big business and a big military. Each sees the other as supporting bigness which they have projected on the other. Their critiques cancel each other out, And bigness wins. But the alternative, a society based on what people want, is completely feasible. But the alternative, a society based on what people want, is completely feasible. We still have the money and the skills to create it. If you look at the ads directed at the wealthy in the expensive magazines they show the house surrounded by trees, children playing with the dog, no fences. Even those who push for a more centrally controlled money generating economy and corporate government control want the same things as the majority of the country: a decent life with family, friends, community, and a little more intimacy with nature, and less stress. At this level there really is not much disagreement. GardenWorld. The question is – GardenWorld for everyone – or is it only gated communities of ranchettes? Are the rest of the people to be left “on the other side”, as in Kurt Vonnegut’s essential 1956 book, Player Piano, which, as a metaphor, captures the de-skilling of most of the population who live on the depressed side of the river, while the technocrats live on the upscale side? A recent article in the NYT describes this new class. William P. Foley II pointed to the mountain. Owns it, mostly. A timber company began logging in view of his front yard a few years back. He thought they were cutting too much, so he bought the land. Mr. Foley belongs to a new wave of investors and landowners across the West who are snapping up open spaces as private playgrounds on the borders of national parks and national forests. In style and temperament, this new money differs greatly from the Western land barons of old -- the timber magnates, copper kings and cattlemen who

created the extraction-based economy that dominated the region for a century. Mr. Foley, 62, standing by his private pond, his horses grazing in the distance, proudly calls himself a conservationist who wants Montana to stay as wild as possible. That does not mean no development and no profit. Mr. Foley, the chairman of a major title insurance company, Fidelity National Financial, based in Florida, also owns a chain of Montana restaurants, a ski resort and a huge cattle ranch on which he is building homes. But arriving here already rich and in love with the landscape, he said, also means his profit motive is different. ''A lot of it is more for fun than for making money,'' said Mr. Foley, who estimates he has invested about $125 million in Montana in the past few years, mostly in real estate. The rise of a new landed gentry in the West is partly another expression of gilded age economics in America; the super-wealthy elite wades ashore where it will.[v] A very revealing article. That Insurance money had to come from somewhere. And look at the use! Why don't we get what we want? Society throughout history has always had a leadership that pays itself better than the rest of the tribe’s or nation's people. Leadership has always had more property, money, and political connections. But after WW2 there was the promise of spreading benefits to everyone - not right away, but over a few decades. In the last three decades since we have increased economic disparities within and between countries, narrowed ownership, undermined local and regional economies, and, out of sight of the rich, devastated the environment. Race has been used to avoid issues of class, making race a marker for poverty and non inclusion, from the native Americans through slavery and "reconstruction" to the modern invisible but palpable means of discrimination of everyone excluding many. Racism keeps alive the hideous scar of slavery but also hides the invidious reality of class, and is really a major part of a policy of how to "distribute poverty". Democracy is peculiar. It is much more than a means. It is a developmental strategy. It requires the development of everybody. Democracy without individual

development can easily turn to demagoguery and tyranny. Democracy requires that most people have the capacity for critical thinking. Early tribes, everyone agrees[vi], were led by strongmen, the strongest and the brightest. But survival leads to larger tribes and the need for a council of elders who shared power and needed to have the perspective of the whole. As these tribes became larger, something like parliament’s developed, a larger ensemble sharing in power and perspectives. Next, with further success and increase in population, came the shift towards representative government, and the extension of voting (usually as an inducement to participation in wars) to a larger part of the population, until it includes everyone as participants. A major problem is that our theory of government has not advanced to include that more inclusive participation, and we are stuck with “representation” that has become too easy to manipulate, and the human development aspect of democracy has become lost as education provides skills for work and consumption, but not citizenship. The great promise of democracy is the human development of all as the necessary condition for the participation of all. But complex change is in the air. The Internet, following on a few decades of widely available one direction television, has spread worldwide, and into remote communities. Images of “the other" are easier to identify with in the flow of images and text, and the world of manipulated patriotism is coming apart under this influence. Comparison leading to Envy and Identification leading to Compassion both increase under the Internet regime. People are in many crucial ways much more aware and educated at a gut level. We all are struck by the way teenagers in Iraq, Indonesia, Nepal, Venezuela, and main street America all look the much the same, listen to the same kinds of music, and are clued in to each other. So, why does the positive, based on a common humanity and appreciation not happen? We have been going through our own cultural revolution as the market becomes the only reality. It is actually a replacement of culture with consumption without participation. The Chinese characters, by the way, for Cultural Revolution are “remove culture.” We didn’t get here by “forces of history” but by people making decisions in specific circumstances. Culture is manmade, though largely unconscious most of the time for most people. The result is manmade, not given by invisible forces independent of society. After the Second World War, the increasing

industrialization and larger markets required, given that we allowed for corporations, highly expanded by the war effort, large numbers of middle level managers to control and communicate the increasing complexities. Since then the broad availability of cheap computing and its connection to telephones (at first telegraph started the process – or was it carrier pigeons?) replaced much of the need for coordination through relationships. The result is that the wave of jobs that was necessary for the wave of economic expansion post WW2 has subsided, while the wave of expansion goes on with fewer middle level managers getting a good income from the ride. And we fail to see that each generation goes through at least one up and down cycle as one wave is being is replaced by another, through the choices we make, and our leaders arrange to lead. The resulting economy is like a merry-go-round. Dynamic and attractive, it has not got places for everyone who has the energy and talent to want to participate. For the merry-go-round to keep going it must generate money. It hires only those people and sells only those products in which the circle of cash can be kept going. Beyond a certain point, bringing in more people, especially poor, would slow down the merry-go-round, and its current economic system of ownership, investment, regulations and jobs. What I am calling Merry-go-round is really the collection of mostly large corporations, the smaller corporations serving them, and the professional associations – all tied together by regulations (starting with charters for corporations and legal rulings (in 1886) that “corporations” are legal persons, not subject to the charters of the states.[vii] This analysis has a long history. “Hardin compared the rich countries to a flotilla of lifeboats at sea. The rest of humankind consisted of survivors desperately treading water and begging for admission into the lifeboats. Take them all aboard, said Hardin, and the boats are swamped. “Everyone drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe, take just the few aboard that you may have room for, and you eliminate the safety factor. Besides, how can you choose which to save and which to let die? (Thanks to Warren Wager for this quote. The Next Three Futures p 80.) Artigiani writes ‘ …but civilized societies exercised top-down control over their human components that was so unfair and cruel commentators from Hesiod and Genesis through Rousseau to the Flower Children have condemned it.

Civilization imposed inequalities and injustices on the vast majority of their subjects. They forced the many to work far more than had ever been the case in the “state of nature,” and then lavished the products of their labors on a leisured elite that soon learned wealth could protect privilege. [viii] Great sociologists like Max Weber, and it is not smart to forget Marx, and historians like Spengler, saw the move towards the consolidation of power in the hands of bureaucracy and elites. The merry-go-round economy is not big enough to hold everyone, and any move toward greater inclusion threatens the owners and operators of the merry-goround, either threatening that it will come apart through increased costs, or that the profits and salaries to the owner/managers would be cut. What the owners really like is increased “productivity” which means producing as much with fewer workers, or more without increasing the number of jobs. Politics is the mechanism of governance of those Republicans and Democrats who own property, manage parts of the system, or serve it as professionals and media. Self-satisfaction in the private space of office, home, and country retreat rules over hope for a better civilization for self and others. Those who own, manage, or work for the Merry-go-round (which does require lots of skilled and well paying jobs) don't take responsibility for those left off. The CEO of Wal-Mart with one million employees, Lee Scott, writes: "To be honest, most of us at Wal-Mart have been so busy minding the store that the way our critics have tried to turn us into a political symbol has taken us by surprise." Mind the store, neglect the rest! (NYRB April 7, 2005). The problem is not just that individuals align themselves with the merry-goround but also countries. China for example. The power of the merry-go-round to demand alignment is very powerful. But at the same time while 10% of the population has cars, 90% do not. The 10% certainly feel in some kind of an alignment while the others are left out, and we ignore their thinking to our peril. Their very existence as “carless” hints at the illusion of Prius-ing the world. So resources are sucked up into the merry-go-round leaving states and local communities – or other countries if we consider globalization – increasingly impoverished. Imagine if our resources were more equally divided between the nation, the states, counties and towns, and individuals. There could be a flowering

of initiatives in the context of rethinking, reinventing, and remaking our local environments under the twin goals of sustainability and livability. Despite the wishes of most and the initiatives of many, there is no politics to move towards a saner solution, no leadership of modest reform to help everyone have work, home, family education, health, and an attractive environment. Perhaps Obama can do it, but it will mean stirring up lots of institutional resistance. Those who have the money to elect congressmen are the corporations with cash flow banks, real estate, insurance, land accounting firms, oil, drugs (legal and illegal) at the core, and others at the edges. There is no effort, no experimentation from the leaderships of the two parties, to find a path to a new politics that supports the good and weakens support for bad, a politics that actually believes in freedom, democracy, responsibility, clean business, environmental remediation, employment, "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," free from hyped fear and gross manipulation. Such a politics is not even being tried. Bush's "freedom" is not freedom, but freedom for capital disguised as freedom of markets. Bush's Democracy is not democracy, but media manipulation and press releases. But Bush didn’t create this, he only exemplifies a tendency that has been building for decades. Being anti Bush and not working to change the system is just another avoidance. Looking at efforts to reach a "centrist" politics, I’ve argued that there is a majority view, but it is not the average or a compromise between the two party positions. The real majority view lies off to the side so to speak, because both party leaderships are in agreement about maintaining the centrality of current power and profit. This will challenge Obama – and the rest of us. An example of appearing to seek the 80% solution, but actually trying to merge the leaderships of the two parties, Bloomberg and Schwarzenegger from the two sides of the country have been making an effort to find, not the center of the country, but the center of the leaderships.. Dan Wood[ix] wrote an article in the Christian Science Monitor looking at the effort. First up was New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, delivering a scathing admonition: "The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision making," he told a group of some 200 national politicos and guests. We can turn around … our wrongheaded course, if we start basing our actions on ideas [and] shared values … without

regard to party." The next day, his partner in taking to task the political climate, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), echoed: "There really is no more urgent issue facing America today than … bridging the political divide." Others, such as Mayor Bloomberg – the former Democrat-turnedRepublican-turned-independent – call it simply "nonpartisan leadership." The emphasis is on ideas over ideology, building trust instead of enmity with opposing politicians, embracing innovation with more regard to citizens than to which party thought of it first – or who gets credit. The idea also plays into the yearning of an increasingly frustrated voting public for another principle: Get it done. The New York mayor and the California governor are hammering a note that resonates with the public. Seventy-five percent like leaders who are willing to compromise, and 60 percent like leaders whose positions are a mix of liberal and conservative, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press in Washington. The best records of reach-acrossthe-aisle politicians have been at state and local levels, many experts say. Schwarzenegger has been leading the pack. After several stumbles in his first two years, he appointed a Democrat as his chief of staff last year. He has since made headlines with global warming and healthcare initiatives, prison reform, and a state infrastructure overhaul. One reason post-partisan ideas have a harder time gaining currency nationally is that those who vote in nominating primaries are more liberal or conservative than the general voting public. Eventual nominees feel beholden to those who get them to office. "I would argue that many of the likely party nominees for president – especially Hillary Clinton – are almost certain to continue the deep partisan divide that has characterized America through the Clinton and Bush terms," says Larry Sabato, political scientist at the University of Virginia. "But when these unifying governors run for president (like the cases of Clinton and Bush), they have to take stands in the culture wars and on matters of war and peace."

What strikes me is the lack of content. It really is compromise politics around the most pubic issues, but not dealing with the problems the public is most concerned about: the war in Iraq (Iran), jobs, the American position in the world, or the nature of financial capitalism. The future of the economy and the distribution of profit and pain will be central, but not centrally dealt with. One can see that the Bloomberg - Schwartenegger kind of bipartisanship is the attempt to hold together this economy in the face of mounting failure and criticism - not to change the rules or outcomes significantly.[x] How can we create a politics that reverses the trends (unsustainable and ultimately leading to violence if allowed to continue) and raises incomes and wealth for a much - much - larger share of the population (everybody), that spreads political participation and makes the future interesting? Perhaps less centralized and more experimental? Even if we could use government only to support education and health so as to build the capacity of everyone to participate, and decreased the incentives for wealth accumulation among a small number of people (say about 2% of the population, through slightly stiffer taxation and reverting to old inheritance taxes), we would be making real and not terribly threatening progress. These alone would increase hope and a feeling of national well-being that would be good for us and encourage other countries. Even if we could use government only to support education and health so as to build the capacity of everyone to participate, and decreased the incentives for wealth accumulation among a small number of people (say about 2% of the population) through slightly stiffer taxation and reverting to old inheritance taxes), we would be making real and not terribly threatening progress. The small number among the rich who would not support this have given up on the American Future and want the wealth to buy security and protect themselves, the moderately rich by living in enclaves, while the richer are buying land and assets overseas, and the very rich are buying islands. But this is not a large number of people. 80% should be easy. The 80% includes 1. Tax changes sufficient to reverse the trends toward wealth concentration.

2. Vigorous approach to energy independence, including subsidies for lower income folks – who drive the most- and would be the last to afford hand second or third hand hybrid cars. This would also redress the income imbalance in this economy. 3. Greater attention to fairness in the justice system. 4. The use of a human development agenda approach to education, health and justice that prepared people for participation in the economy as it is evolving. 5. A friendlier networking approach to foreign policy to replace the go-it-alone brutal approach of this administration. 6. A national dialog to support local initiatives on resource use and infrastructure, including energy, water, food, and land use generally. 7. A commitment to dialog and expertise mobilized for discussion of issues and experimental approaches rather than a drive to be correct. What counts is the spirit and tone of these proposals. My intent here is also not to “get it right” but to get us to think that, “yes, an 80% solution IS possible.” GardenWorld and the 80% solution are proposals to return to the second scenario outlined in he introduction and avoid fascism or collapse.