In discussing the dysfunctional American political system, and the policy of what he calls “disjointed incrementalism” (i.e muddling through), as opposed to a synoptic approach centred on long term goals, William Ophuls observed in 1977:
“[..] disjointed incrementalism is not well adapted to handling profound value conflicts, revolutions, crises, grand opportunities, and the like -in other words, any situation in which simple continuation of past policies is not an appropriate response. Most important, because decisions are made on the basis of immediate self-interest, muddling through is almost tailor-made for producing policies that will generate the tragedy of the commons. [..] Indeed, in its purest form, muddling through is policy making by default instead of by conscious choice -simply an administrative device for aggregating individual preferences into a ‘will of all’ that may bear almost no resemblance to the ‘general will’. [Cf. Rousseau]”
“[..] we Americans have taken muddling through, along with laissez faire and other prominent features of our political system, to an extreme. We have made compromise and short-term adjustment into ends instead of means, have failed to give even cursory consideration to the future consequences of present acts, and have neglected even to try to relate current policy choices to some kind of long-term goal. Worse, we have in fact taken the radical position that there can be no common interest beyond what muddling through produces. In brief, we have elevated what is an undeniable administrative necessity into a philosophy of government, becoming in the process an "adhocracy" virtually oblivious to the implications of our governmental acts and politically adrift in the dangerous waters of ecological scarcity.” (EPS, p.192,193)
Independently of what he has later said about the causes of our current predicament, which are impossible to obviate, and what many people nowadays repeat, knowingly or not, by way of disconnecting from this harsh reality on both sides of the Atlantic; there is one element that prevails and will always prevail, for as long as there is anyone ready to fight for it. This was clearly seen by Sri Aurobindo at a crucial moment in history, to his enormous credit, and is perfectly expressed in the last point of Goeffrey Jackson’s code, written in the midst of his obscure captivity:
“I represent in this place a great and honourable nation, which is a force [..] for good in the world.”
In discussing the dysfunctional American political system, and the policy of what he calls “disjointed incrementalism” (i.e muddling through), as opposed to a synoptic approach centred on long term goals, William Ophuls observed in 1977:
“[..] disjointed incrementalism is not well adapted to handling profound value conflicts, revolutions, crises, grand opportunities, and the like -in other words, any situation in which simple continuation of past policies is not an appropriate response. Most important, because decisions are made on the basis of immediate self-interest, muddling through is almost tailor-made for producing policies that will generate the tragedy of the commons. [..] Indeed, in its purest form, muddling through is policy making by default instead of by conscious choice -simply an administrative device for aggregating individual preferences into a ‘will of all’ that may bear almost no resemblance to the ‘general will’. [Cf. Rousseau]”
“[..] we Americans have taken muddling through, along with laissez faire and other prominent features of our political system, to an extreme. We have made compromise and short-term adjustment into ends instead of means, have failed to give even cursory consideration to the future consequences of present acts, and have neglected even to try to relate current policy choices to some kind of long-term goal. Worse, we have in fact taken the radical position that there can be no common interest beyond what muddling through produces. In brief, we have elevated what is an undeniable administrative necessity into a philosophy of government, becoming in the process an "adhocracy" virtually oblivious to the implications of our governmental acts and politically adrift in the dangerous waters of ecological scarcity.” (EPS, p.192,193)
Independently of what he has later said about the causes of our current predicament, which are impossible to obviate, and what many people nowadays repeat, knowingly or not, by way of disconnecting from this harsh reality on both sides of the Atlantic; there is one element that prevails and will always prevail, for as long as there is anyone ready to fight for it. This was clearly seen by Sri Aurobindo at a crucial moment in history, to his enormous credit, and is perfectly expressed in the last point of Goeffrey Jackson’s code, written in the midst of his obscure captivity:
“I represent in this place a great and honourable nation, which is a force [..] for good in the world.”
That force for good must now act.