Volume 5, Issue 5
Why is this happening? Is it because of disparate visions opposed in values? Is it because of ideologies in ultimate conflict? Or is it because of the underlying cyclical societal pressures hidden in the penumbra of the natural flow of nations interacting?
Perhaps a little historical context might be helpful.
Throughout the course of history, the elements of creating wealth have revolved around axioms of engagement, normally in a specific order. They are trade, based on economics, governed through statecraft, dependent upon immigration, and managed through geopolitics. It has always been difficult for sovereign states to orchestrate these elements in unity and balance. Whether kings or dictators with full authoritarian control, or democracies or parliaments with shared authority, realizing uninterrupted prosperity has proven to be virtually impossible.
In the past, almost without exception, when governments have found themselves out of options to maintain their culture and in political competition with their neighbors, war has been the result. War is devastating. It produces economic chaos. It eliminates peaceful transition. War’s disruption of societal order generates large migration of peoples resulting in mandated unnatural immigration.
In this, history has repeated itself.
The universal desire of people worldwide is to have a job that pays a living wage. They seek an occupation that allows them to provide for their families. There is a common bond between all cultures of mankind to leave a better opportunity for the next generation. Governments derived from cultures often operate inside a paradigm of competing purposes. On the one hand, they attempt to appease the people to avoid revolt while on the other hand enacting policy to maintain power and control.
This dual strategy produces independent cycles that converge every 40 to 60 years.
The natural forces connected in trade, economics, statecraft, immigration and geopolitics revolve axiomatically in their own cycle. Much like the stock market mysteriously reflects the total knowledge of all investments, these natural forces reflect the collective activity of all individuals in their quest for a better life.
Statecraft (not defined just as diplomacy, but as the extension of cultural purpose), sovereign government policy, and geopolitics (the interaction of sovereign governments) generate an overlapping cycle of ongoing cultural development. The forces driven by government action may be intended to protect culture or extend it.
Nonetheless, historically, these forces have faced obstacles of change in the same time frame of a 40 to 60-year cycle.
Like an asteroid that, without warning appears and strikes a planet, depending upon its size and force, leaves a major impact, there are independent forces that can disrupt or accelerate economic and cultural cycles. These forces that impact society this way usually involve innovation of some type. In early European history, it was as simple as the stirrup. It allowed a warrior to stand in the saddle and wield a sword. The catapult contributed to making fortified castles obsolete.
When such change occurs, these economic and cultural cycles are altered yet connected. They evolve differently. One cycle can be pulled or dragged by the other, depending upon the impact of the innovation. Economic cycles are natural. Cultural cycles are often imposed by government. Independent innovation changes the trajectory of both.
In the late 1800s, the industrial revolution and the invention of the assembly line greatly impacted the forces of trade and economics in the world. The United States was uniquely positioned to take advantage of these great economic enhancements. Immigration certainly played a major role in the growth of American industry.
As these forces of trade and economics were gaining strength in their natural application, statecraft and geopolitics were not keeping pace. While wealth was being created, economics in the Roaring Twenties were improperly managed. At the same time, the cultural cycle that was evolving independently of the Industrial Revolution resulted in World War I. The natural cycles of trade and culture had collided with the European cultural system of royal reign.
Later, economic policy mistakes led to the Great Depression. The government management of the cultural cycle through geopolitics led to the rise of the Third Reich and World War II.
At the end of World War II, both cycles, through the unfortunate consequences of war, reconciled with each other. Kings, queens and emperors were no longer part of the cycle’s authority. Only Jordan remains today as a constitutional monarchy.
In 1944, the Bretton Woods Conference, formally known as the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, reestablished the world’s banking system and set the dollar on a course to become the world’s currency. This began the transition to a new cycle. Both cultural and economic cycles were reset. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were established following World War II. China then was nowhere on the landscape economically. The term digital banking did not exist. Social media was a figment of a futurist’s imagination. Reforms in the architecture of the world banking system today desperately need addressing.
It has been 73 years since these reforms have been substantially updated.
In the ebb and flow of natural economic forces and protocol, trade policy in relation to geopolitics has run its cyclical course. In the ongoing globalization of the world’s economy, stress on culture indicates that the end of another historical cycle approaches.
In geopolitics, why is it that if Ford builds a car manufacturing plant in Canada, there is no outrage, only celebration? Yet if Ford threatens to build a plant in Mexico, they are criticized and warned of a potential import tax.
Why this different reaction?
It is because the United States and Canada are in natural sync in both their economic and cultural cycles. It is not that both countries are primarily based on European ancestry. It is because the average annual income of a middle-class Canadian citizen is $51,960. In the United States, it is $53,040. In Mexico, it is $10,310. Middle class Canadian and American citizens can afford to buy the cars they make. There is parity in economic purpose.
In both the U.S. and Canada, it is important to note that rule of law, due process, and free and independent courts are critical to their cultural DNA. Possibly to our historical cultural advantage, neither country was ever ruled by an emperor. To Mexico’s credit, they have had a longer history with more cultural cycles.
What then is happening in America with spontaneous protests opposing President Trump’s administration? It is the misconception that world events unfolding before our eyes and Executive Orders being exercised are independent of economic and cultural cycles. They are not.
One could argue that there has only been one president in the history of the United States who tried to formulate fundamental cultural and economic change to avoid war. That president was Abraham Lincoln. He was unsuccessful in avoiding war, but magnificently successful in protecting the principles upon which the country was founded to ensure the survival of the Union. The second president who is attempting the same effort is Donald J. Trump. The outcome of his efforts is yet unknown. Is he totally correct in his diplomacy? Again, one could argue that a more gradual and less confrontational process could be pursued.
Now more than ever, leaders must cease and desist from demagoguing the issues implying that our divisions are about here and now in the present, and not historical in context.
When economic pressures collide with cultural change, the resulting confrontation places society in a pressure cooker. Without releasing the steam or turning down the heat, society will explode.
Our forefathers established a great nation based upon the concept that birth is not destiny, that pursuit of happiness is equal to all, and that liberty and freedom are paramount. Without dictating the form of government structure to other nations, it is fair and appropriate for the U.S. government to lead all governments in the world toward the eternal principles of the rule of law, due process, free and independent courts, free and independent press, and transparency. As each nation state goes through its own economic and cultural cycle, trade and immigration must be fairly negotiated and implemented pursuant to these principles.
Our definition of eternal cultural principles is not only worth defending, but worth advancing. The United States of America is the first country in the history of the world to become a dominant world power, both economically and militarily, that does not use that power to dominate other nations. Instead, the United States is a benevolent power that stewards authority for the good of the world.
Finding principled purpose in economics and culture that not only binds us as a people, but provides light and direction to the world, is the call of America.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?