The greatest fear of those concerned about the fate of the earth’s climate is that we could reach a tipping point, at which a warming climate ignites positive feedback (or feedbacks) that leads to irreversible climate warming. For example, melting ice sheets reduces the reflection of the sun’s rays, which then contribute their heat to exposed land and sea. In other words, heating creates more heating, a process that can get out of control. Similarly, the melting of Arctic permafrost releases long-trapped carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. That release increases global temperatures, resulting in more permafrost thawing and the release of even more carbon dioxide.
We believe we have not yet reached a climate-catastrophic tipping point, but it is easy to imagine our doing so within the lifetimes of people now living.
A less obvious but nonetheless catastrophic tipping point may be in our political future. Large corporations and wealthy individuals have slowly been increasing their influence over the American government. This trend accelerated but did not begin with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the government favored corporations over unions and tax cuts over government spending on the general welfare. Over time, more and more corporate lobbyists have peopled the halls of Congress, overwhelming the influence of individuals and other commercial and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the Citizens United decision opened floodgates that allowed corporate money to dominate spending on political campaigns.
The public perception is that conservatives have gradually developed effective communication channels, think tanks, and lobbying organizations that have halted or reversed the program of liberalism. The list of such institutions is long and includes Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, numerous “news and comment” Web sites, various groups created by the Koch Brothers, etc. These entities are largely seen as the conservative alternative to the more liberal Democratic Party and its allies.
Additionally, various independent groups have formed in response to what was seen as the upsetting of longstanding societal norms—the waning influence of religion, the acceptance of abortions, the normalization of homosexuality, and the visibility of transsexuality.
These developments are related but by no means identical. Opposition to social change is often genuinely conservative. That is, it seeks to halt societal change and return to a simpler, more stable time. The political institutions advancing the interests of large corporations and the wealthy are not really conservative at all. They are reactionary or, if you like, libertarian. They seek not the society of the Eisenhower years but the nineteenth-century golden age of the robber barons. Their interest is in low (or nonexistent) taxes and the absence of government regulations. To the degree that supporters of the program support conservative initiatives, it is not out of conviction but out of a desire to gain voters for their reactionary program.
The question, then, is whether the influence of corporate elites is about to reach a tipping point at which the country is ruled by and for the wealthy with no concern for the bulk of its citizens. If we reach that point, will it be the tipping point at which rule by the wealthy becomes irreversible? That seems possible.
