Even Former US President Bill Clinton Agrees, Transition Towns are the Solution

Former President Bill Clinton's Landon Lecture the Friday before last at Kansas State University contained some ‘ Is he really saying this? ' moments. My surprise and admiration – yes admiration -for his clarity of thought and analysis was mirrored in disbelief at my equally counter intuitive feelings of how can think this and at the same time have occupied the job of US president for 8 years?

What did he say that was so mind bending? A very short version of his 5 questions follows, all Bill ' s words:

“ It's not nearly as important that your answer is the same as mine as that you have an answer.  But if you can answer these five questions then you'll be able to think about where America and the world are going, what you ought to do, how you fit into the larger stream of events, and what your responsibilities are not only to your family and your community but to the future as it unfolds.  So here they are. 

Question #1: What is the fundamental nature of the twenty-first century world in a word?  Most people would say globalization. I prefer interdependence.

Question #2: Is it a good or a bad thing that we're living in an age of global interdependence?  My answer is both.

Question #3: How should we try to change this world?  I think we should try to move from interdependence which is good or bad to integration to a set of integrated communities locally, nationally, and globally.  All integrated communities — university sports teams, families, businesses, military units — all integrated communities, successful ones, have three things i n common. 

They have shared opportunities to participate, shared responsibilities for the welfare of the whole, and a sense of genuine belonging.  That is if you're part of one related to all the other members in the unit you think that your differences are interesting but your common humanity, your common membership, matters more.  This is very, very important. 

Question #4: How in the world would you do that?  These questions get harder as you go along. I could keep you here until tomorrow morning talking about any part of this answer so I'm going to be very brief to get to the questions. How would you do it? You have to have a security policy. ..we've got to have a security strategy but if you live in an interdependent environment and you can't kill, jail, or occupy all your enemies you've got to have a strategy to make more partners and fewer enemies too.  It is always, always cheaper than fighting; the health, the education, the development. 

Finally, last question — who's supposed to do all this? This is the most important question of all. Who's supposed to do all this? And the answer is we all are.

You can read the full speech here:

Does Bill Clinton really care? Does he care and does he know what will have to happen in our world in order to make it truly sustainable? Can he and does he or is he really just a cardboard cut out that is living in a fantasy land of powder puff solutions and the same old feel good Democratic rhetoric to the real world problems the depths of which he can ' t even begin to imagine? That he has reached the same conclusion as I have- and I of course believe I live in the real world and see the problems and potential solutions both pragmatically enough and with enough scope and breath to make me a potent agent for real change- is uncomfortable.

How can he think of ‘ One World ' solutions to global problems when as president of the US his job was the promotion of US interests?How can he think of security as promotion of health, education, and welfare when the policies of his presidency were often violent – in the Balkans conflict, and other places?

Does he really know that the promotion of free trade and his historic signing of the NAFTA trade agreement is diametrically opposed to sustainable local economies?Did he really believe in NAFTA – the North American Free Trade Association – even though ‘free trade' demonstratively demolishes local economies and national governments abilities to safeguard there environment?Both the NAFTA and GATT agreements (which his administration actively supported) ‘free trade' always trump environmental concerns and sustainable policies. Surely he must have known that?

Can he really realise that as commander in chief of the US armed forces, his use of those forces for the furtherance of the US Empire was always at odds with long term sustainable and interdependent local economies? In fact his speech explicitly states that, so is this speech a sham, a lie or is it what he really believes, and can now express released from the straight jacket of the office of the Presidency? Of course we are probably at odds in thinking how important the globalisation part of the interdependent is. Rob Hopkins compared it to a cake. We used to produce the cake and import the icing, now we import the cake and all we produce locally is the icing. It's topsy turvy; that's what has to change.Has he just realised the limitations of the power that as US President he exercised?Has he had a Road to Damascus moment and everything has now changed?I wonder what pillow talk between him and his spouse is like (assuming there is such a thing), given Hillary's support for the Iraq war?

And maybe the desire for power is so great that a person – maybe even a fundamentally good and honest person will do anything or say anything to hold onto that power- even when he knows it ' s wrong? I was in business long enough to know that sometimes you do the best you can and for many different reasons you end up doing something less that ideal and have to live with the consequences of that.

Am I just jealous that he might possibly live in the White house for another 8 years exercising unimaginable power even behind the scenes, while I am writing blogs and facilitating grass roots environmental campaigns?

I would really love to know the answers to these questions but I suppose I never will, except maybe the last one, to which the answer is yes.

Naresh March 2007