Facing the Future: Is there Room for Political Optimism?

	In this open forum let us look and debate the question "can we be optimistic about the future?" Without complicating our current optimism or pessimism in this regard by taking on board worries about the environment instead let us focus purely on all other non-environmental aspects of our life as lived in this World-of-Life. Covered then by this rubric of a broad spectrum expression of the 'political' we might like to include 'politics' as practised on both national and international levels, the 'quality' of our social existence, and, how possible civil disturbances, international conflicts and terrorism, of what ever variety, could effect this 'quality of life' as currently enjoyed or suffered?

	So, in order to conduct this debate with ourselves (both individually and collectively) we need to look at these twin issues of 'politics' and the perceived 'quality of life', and, furthermore, the nature of their interaction. Then, in coming to some understanding of this question "Is there room for political optimism?" we need to be able to speculatively ascertain what differential changes might well occur and assess, therein, the likelihood as to what extent those anticipated shifts in the overall quality of life are going to occur for the prototypical Australian citizen. Indeed, in all states of transition there are, usually, winners and losers and so let us focus on the effects such transitions would make for 'Middle Australia' although leaving it open as to whom such an epithet might apply. 

	In this speculative differential calculus we need to be able to argue for a trend in this overall quality of life that would then allow us to argue for either an optimistic vision of the future or a pessimistic vision of the future. In our focusing on so called trends we need to state whether they are already underway, and have been so for some time, or, are about to occur now or at some future point in time. In this quest our speculative research must appeal in some form or other to a sense of the historical and how we should interpret the same. E.g., a controversial point for examination might be the question "Are democracies less likely to start international conflicts" with the implication that if there are an increasing number of governments becoming democracies in the style of their government, and, an increasing number of governments are becoming increasingly democratic in practice, would this ensure, on balance, a more optimistic appreciation of the future? Then, again, in a similar vein, we might like to ask if globalization is contributing to an equitable enlargement and distribution of wealth in this country, and, through scientific advances, etc., is our quality of life, all things being equal, more than likely to advance? Of course, that in turn, begs the question, does a material advance in the overall standard of living actually translate into a psychic advance in how we find ourselves enjoying this accumulation of material advantages? With one question mark following after another how are we to entertain, debate and weigh these various interpretations with their envisaged scenarios. With half a glass already drunk the optimist sees another half to drink whilst the pessimist mourns half a glass already consumed… In the midst of the same material being debated will our emotional style of how we already live our life in this world merely dictate the emotional nature of our speculations? Is it the case that, inevitably, the inherent optimist dies an optimist, the inherent pessimist dies a pessimist?

	So, let us debate this issue. With an appeal to reason, lets us attempt to weigh up our own arguments in the light of those who might disagree with us… see if we can come, eventually, to some consensus in this important matter by putting all trace of emotion out of action, leaving our prejudices in these matters as if suspended, i.e., recognized but made inoperative, counter-balanced by the weight of all supporting arguments that ignore all such emotional factors….

	Like watching a race of wriggling worms let us look at those trends that seem to suggest we are heading, or soon to be headed, towards an optimist future, or, if, overall, we fail to find such positive traces of such success let us accept, instead, this type of an alternative pessimistically coloured outcome… and place our bets accordingly!

A Possible Scheme for Conducting this Debate

Life-World

Political       		         [the nature of their interaction]		      [Environmental]

    Politics  (the nature of their interaction)  Overall Quality of Life

National - International      Qualitative Assessments versus Quantitative Assessments

Possible conflicts of civil, 
international 			     {Assessment of Empowerment/Dis-empowerment}
and/or terrorist natures.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Prototypical Australian Citizen

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pessimistic trends re: non-recent past, recent past, currently, near future, non-near future.
Optimistic trends re: non-recent past, recent past, currently, near future, non-near future.

Overall trends re: non-recent past, recent past, currently, near future, non-near future.

========> Overall Speculative Optimistic or Pessimistic Trend

By what criteria are we to judge the advancement, decline or maintenance of this overall quality of life? Among a number of possibilities we might like to include a concept of personal power - to what degree has the individual been empowered in this world and to what degree has this empowerment been lost or looks like being lost? One way of looking at this concept is to see in what options and to what degree an individual can extend themselves within their environment and to note, or differentiate, changes within the same. E.g., the telephone has been with us for over a century but matters of cost, previous rigidity of infrastructure, etc., had effectively limited it use and influence; a situation now altered by lowered costs, additional services, changes in habit and the advent of the mobile. In this respect we might say the individual, on average, in the light of this concept, has been empowered? On the other hand, in political response to the recent advent of international terrorism certain freedoms and practices have been curtailed with a consequent dis-empowerment. On balance, how should we judge the current state of play in the overall empowerment of the individual - positively or negatively? Can we see any trends here? What other concepts, indicators, factors, methods, etc., should we note in this type of evaluation? Then, how do we evaluate the use of such methods (in this can of worms?)? 

	Then, finally, we should perhaps ask is the "myth of progress" a valid one? What evidence do we have for adopting that type of position? Or, conversely, how should we deconstruct such an idea? Who might benefit from the promulgation of such a doctrine? Or is it the case that "what we gain with one hand we loose with the other", and, that all things being equal, most of the time we merely coast along making little real progress? 

	How do we reach a conclusion in this matter, even a tentative one? Should such evaluations be deemed only subjective - is it merely the case that this is your opinion and that is mine. But, if that was the case why then do people react as if their estimation of the situation is rooted in reality, if only others would only see the wisdom of their reason and let themselves be persuaded by the excellence of their arguments?!  Perhaps a phenomenological examination of the constitution of this controversy, as a controversy, might through some light on the nature of this type of situation and as a consequence help us to diffuse some of those features that cause such a lack of a constructive dialogue between those who seem to be facing each other across an non-inhabitable no-man's land?

	As a suggestion it seems to me that this type of issue is an issue on two different levels of consideration and that our attitudes towards these aspects makes this a complex issue with a considerable degree of an associated ambivalency that only becomes polarized in the heat of argument if not already pre-determined (in the context of prior arguments). First, there is the cognitive component - "are we making political progress or not?" Second, there is an affective component - as a matter of background style in our being-in-the-world, as an overall life-attitude - "do we normally feel pessimistic, optimistic or ambivalent about such things?" As a guess I would say that most of us are ambivalent towards such issues until we are forced to adopt a position of yea or nay. Would I be correct that debates about this particular type of issue merely polarize such attitudes?
							         Sydney, Noël Tointon, 11.4.04.