Where there is crisis there is opportunity, and nowhere was this more evident than in Hurricane Katrina.

In at least one respect, the disaster was more devastating, yet offered more hope, than the 9/11 tragedy.

As monumental as it was in terms of shaping national politics and policies, 9/11 was primarily perceived as a New York crisis. Those of us in other parts of the country watched it unfold on television and felt the emotions of the tragedy, but otherwise were relatively unaffected.

Aside from a sharp dip accompanied by a quick recovery in the stock market, we weren’t directly and immediately affected economically, politically, or culturally by 9/11.

Yet just days after the New Orleans hurricane, the entire nation was affected directly and negatively in the form of steep gas price hikes.

According to the Oil Price Information Service, the national average price for gas hit an all-time high on September 5th, 2005 at $3.057 per gallon, a 32.6% increase from one month earlier.

Many Republicans and Democrats alike are demanding immediate federal action to arrest the price hikes, yet most proposals fall far short of what is ultimately needed. If we can look beyond the immediate crisis we will recognize and seize the opportunity to thoroughly reform and revolutionize our national energy policies and practices.

Although the nation is sharply divided over Bush administration post-9/11 defense policies, the New Orleans crisis, by virtue of its universal impact, provided the nation with the chance to coalesce across party divisions behind the common goal of energy policy reform.

We may not want to admit it, but it has become increasingly self-evident to most of us that we are being held hostage by our dependence on oil. The problem is not just that we depend on foreign nations diametrically opposed to American values and needs, but also that oil by its very nature as a fossil fuel is ultimately a limited, and therefore potentially scarce, resource.

No matter how much oil reserves the earth still may hold, it’s just common sense to begin at least considering alternative, renewable sources of fuel before it reaches the stage of scarcity and plunges us into further crises.

The decline of the Industrial Age and the rise of the Information Age are revolutionizing most aspects of our economics, politics, and culture.

It is a time of potentially great chaos as increased technological development creates new jobs while making others obsolete, as globalism transforms our political boundaries, as new class systems develop with different values, and virtually thousands of other changes occur both seen and unseen.

The height of wisdom is to perceive and adapt calmly and rationally to change before it occurs, rather than waiting to be forced to evolve hastily and without a clear vision in the throes of crisis. As the trite adage goes, the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago.

As tragic as it was, the New Orleans hurricane offered us an historical opportunity to enact constructive and revolutionary changes to our national energy policies and practices, but that depends on our attitude and maturity.

Will conservatives continue to instinctively and shortsightedly support the excessive use of oil? Will liberals simply exploit the crises to further their cause of increasingly large government control?

Or can we work together as Americans to look forward to a bright future, rationally and optimistically?

There is a silver lining in the clouds of Hurricane Katrina if we can allow ourselves to let go of our Industrial Age gut reactions and embrace new and progressive attitudes of the Information Age.

The Alabama Federal Court decision ordering the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore’s monument of the ten commandments from the state judicial building is an illuminating example of the contemporary trend in America of discordant, litigious minority groups causing an alarmingly steady fragmentation of our society.

As these contentious groups advance their short-sighted agendas, they debilitate the nation as a whole by undermining those unifying principles vital to our existence.

A week after the federal court ordered the monument removed, a disturbing CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll found that 77% of Americans disapproved of the controversial decision that ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with only 400,000 members nationwide (out of a total US population of almost 300 million), who found the monument “offensive” and complained that it made them feel like “outsiders.”

Those of the overwhelming (although remarkably passive) majority have to be alarmed by the destructive factionalism exemplified by this highly propagandized case.

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian, noted that

“Separatism nourishes prejudices, magnifies differences, and stirs antagonisms.”

He added that

“This multiethnic dogma abandons historic purposes, replacing assimilation by fragmentation, integration by separatism. It belittles unum and glorifies pluribus.”

The ever-widening dichotomy between dissentious minority groups and the majority, contrary to unification, will inevitably cause the dissolution of a strong national identity, which is imperative for the perpetuation of a healthy society.

Fanatical dissidence of this nature diametrically conflicts with the explicit purposes of the Constitution to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, and insure domestic tranquility” and to “secure the blessings of liberty.”

The irony is that the ACLU and other similar groups are steadily eradicating the very thing they purport to be fighting for.

The self-proclaimed mission of the ACLU is to fight for civil liberties so as to “prevent the tyranny of the majority.” The only problem is that their hypocritical methodology constitutes a tyranny of the minority at the expense of the liberties of all.

Alexandar Solzhenitsyn wisely noted that,

“The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals.”

James Hitchcock, an American historian, observed that,

“Values are necessary for the functioning of any society, and if they are not consciously adopted and publicly acknowledged, they will be smuggled in surreptitiously and often unconsciously. Values are always in real or potential conflict. And the state inevitably favors some values over others.”

In this case, the Alabama judiciary has obviously shown that they support the religion of non-theistic over Judeo-Christian beliefs, despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans, regardless of religious belief or affiliation, adhere to the ethic found in the Ten Commandments.

Could not this majority legitimately argue that the monument should remain using the same reasoning: That the lack of the monument is “offensive” and its absence makes them feel like “outsiders?”

Other than a few glaring yet historically rectified contradictions, the legacy of American history has been that of broad ethnic, religious, racial, and linguistic diversity united behind the political ideal of inalienable rights and a morality that acknowledges God.

And while the upsurge of many historically maltreated minorities struggling to achieve equal rights has resulted in healthy consequences (such as the abolition of slavery, civil rights, universal suffrage, etc.), the current trend in America is to denounce the idea of a melting pot and to protect, promote, and perpetuate separate and divisive ethnic, racial, and ideological communities.

Unless the trend is halted, the segregation, tribalization, and fragmentation of America are inevitable. Schlesinger wisely said,

“…as we renew our allegiance to the unifying ideals, we provide the solvent that will prevent differences from escalating into antagonism and hatred.”

Recommended Reading:
Ike Wilson wrote another great article on this subject here.