Our Government Isn’t Broken
August 1st, 2011 // 10:22 am @ Oliver DeMille
The Third Party Solution
Our government isn’t broken.
It is just caught in the past.
Specifically, the current divide between the parties is a mirror image of the country.
Politics is a reflection of society, and the bickering right now in Washington is a direct projection of the nation.
There is one big exception.
The nation is divided into three major political camps.
The problem is that the two smallest camps (Democrats and Republicans) have party representation in Washington while the largest camp (independents) does not.
In short, it’s not that our government is broken, but rather that we are stuck in a twentieth-century structural model even though the society has fundamentally changed.
Instead of a two-party nation sending its representatives to Washington, we now have a three-party society where the biggest “party” must divide its representation between the two smaller parties.
It’s not broken, it just acts like it.
The Great Fall
This situation began to develop when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989.
Up to that point, the two-party model was a natural reflection of a nation engaged in a long-term Cold War with an enemy capable of destroying our entire civilization.
This omnipresent reality colored all policy for over four decades.
Having sacrificed greatly to overcome major conflicts in WWI and WWII, the large majority of citizens from both parties stood firmly together against the Soviet threat.
When the Cold War menace significantly decreased, Americans took a long sigh of relief, and then they reassessed their priorities for government.
Some felt that the needs of big business were the top priority, others considered moral issues the lead concern, while still others deemed an increase in social justice the major challenge.
The first two pooled resources in the Republican Party, while social liberals and those emphasizing social justice combined in the Democratic Party.
The largest group of Americans rejected both of these extremes, feeling that government should indeed fulfill its role to corporations, societal values, and social justice, but also to a number of other vital priorities including national security, education, and fiscal responsibility.
But, because independents come from many viewpoints and also because they have no official party apparatus in Washington, the biggest political group in our nation today has little direct political power except during elections.
The consequence is that subsequent elections tend to sway widely in opposite directions.
When independents put Republicans in power, they are naturally (because they are not Republicans) frustrated with how the Republicans use that power.
When, in contrast, they vote for Democrats, they find themselves discouraged with what Democrats do in office.
This is a structural problem.
When Democrats elect a Democrat, the elected official can swing to the center once in office because while supporters may dislike their Democratic official’s actions they will almost always still vote for him/her in the next election—after all, in their view the Republican would be worse.
The same applies to Republicans electing a Republican.
All of this changes when independents put a Democrat, or a Republican, in office. Naturally, the elected official will disappoint supporters in some way, and independents are as likely as not to believe that a candidate from the other party will do better.
Historical Realignments
When similar historical realignments of politics with cultural shifts have occurred, a major new political group in society reformed one of the big parties to fit its new views.
For example, when the Declaration of Independence and hostilities with Britain changed the old Tory versus Whig debate, the Loyalists mostly joined the new Federalists while the Whigs split between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
When the new U.S. Constitution changed the makeup of society and made the Federalist versus Anti-Federalist debate obsolete, most of the Anti-Federalists joined the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans while the Federalists split between the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists.
Other such changes have happened several times in American history, most notably in the 1830s, 1850s, 1910s, 1930s and 1960s.
Note that in the twentieth-century shifts the names of the parties (Democrat and Republican) did not change even though political philosophies were significantly altered during these periods of realignment.
The current repositioning may or may not adopt a new name for one of the parties, but a philosophical shift is occurring nonetheless.
Some believe that this shift is fundamentally rooted in social concerns, from issues of gender and sexual preference to values debates and immigration.
But this is a view left over from the twentieth-century style Democrat-Republican argument.
The rise of independents is not a morality-driven movement.
It’s mostly about the economy.
The New Party
The new party of the twenty-first century will emphasize economic growth and getting our financial house in order.
Many independents will flock to this party, whatever its name—Democratic, Republican, or something else.
This is the party of the future.
And while analysts say that independents are not joiners, it is likely that many would join such a party.
Note that a real three-party system is not likely to last.
A third party may arise, as Thomas L. Friedman and others have suggested, but history suggests that t will eventually take the place of one of the top two parties.
There is an important reason for this.
The American framers did not want the U.S. President to be elected by a plurality of the nation, so they wisely structured the Electoral College in a way that the President can only be elected by a majority of electoral votes.
This means that any third party will eventually have to gain the support of one of the other parties in order to win the White House.
This constitutional reality is one of the most important things keeping America strong.
Without it, any extreme party might win a given election and take the nation in even more drastic directions than we’ve witnessed to date.
To sum it up, the frustration with two-party infighting is a positive thing.
The framers rightly foresaw that the greatest danger to America would be an apathetic citizenry, and the Electoral College requirement for majority has caused a no-party or two-party structure and also incentivized citizens to stay informed and involved.
When a powerful third party arises in America, it has always come in response to a change in society and it has always worked to reform the two existing parties in ways that better reflected the desires of the people.
This is a huge positive, as chaotic as it may seem at times.
Seriously?
Today, it is independents that most dislike the party bickering, and as a result independents are more actively involved in government.
This is a powerful check on the aristocratic-political class, and shows once again the brilliance and inspired effectiveness of the U.S. Constitution as established by the framers.
Our government isn’t broken, but the current two-party system is outdated.
Neither party truly represents the views of the largest political “group” in America—independents.
Until this problem is fixed, the entire political system will look untenable and appear unable to solve major American problems.
But such realignment is already occurring, albeit slowly, and the future belongs to whichever party—Democrat, Republican or a third party—gets serious about three things:
- A moderate view that government has an important role to play in society and that it must also be limited to the things it really should do like national security, schools and basic social justice
- Actually getting our financial house in order
- Creating the environment for widespread enterprise and a true growth economy
The party that effectively and consistently champions these things will be the leading political group in the years ahead.
In other words, some major shifts in the parties are ahead.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Current Events &Featured &Government &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship
Meritocracy is Elitism
July 19th, 2011 // 6:01 am @ Oliver DeMille
Modernism dislikes all types of elitism– except for meritocracy.
When elite status is merited, according to this view, it is a good thing.
In such a society, our elites are:
“…made up for the most part of bureaucrats, scientists, technicians, trade-union organizers, publicity experts, sociologists, teachers, journalists, and professional politicians. These people, whose origins lay in the salaried middle class and the upper grades of the working class, had been shaped and brought together by the barren world of monopoly industry and centralized government.”
Cool quote, right?
This was written by George Orwell in his description of Big Brother’s society in Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Some may think that a meritocracy is the same as Thomas Jefferson’s “natural aristocracy,” but in fact the roots of the two are quite different.
In a meritocracy some rise to elite status through their individual merit, which is determined by the institutions of society.
In short, the current elites get to choose their successors—those of merit determine which people in the rising generation are to be people of “merit.”
In contrast, Jefferson’s natural aristocracy rose because of their “virtue, wisdom and service” to humanity.
And the current societal servants don’t choose tomorrow’s natural servants—they arise naturally according to their service.
Meritocracy offers special perks and benefits for those who are accepted by the current generation of elites.
A natural aristocracy looks around, sees needs and gets to work meeting these needs.
Meritocracy is the best way to choose elites (far better than basing it on land ownership or heredity, for example), but elitist society of any kind is far from the best choice.
Leaders arising naturally through genuine merit is a different thing than meritocracy.
Government by the people is a real concept, not just an idealistic dream.
It gave us the most free and prosperous nation and society in history, and it can do so again.
To repeat: merit, not meritocracy.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Culture &Education &Featured &Leadership &Postmodernism
An Old Joke
July 13th, 2011 // 9:01 am @ Oliver DeMille
Just One Wish
A society without adequate entrepreneurship will see little, if any, progress.
Disney’s Aladdin & the Genie
The old Cold War-era joke is told of an American, a Frenchman, and a Russian, lost in the wilderness, who find a lamp and rub it.
Out comes a Genie.
He offers them each one wish, for a total of three.
The American pictures the large ranch owned by the richest people in the valley where he grew up, and wishes for a ranch ten times its size, with flowing streams and meadows full of horses and cattle.
His wish is granted and he is transported home to his new life.
The Frenchman pictures the farm and cattle of the largest estate from his home province, and pictures one just like it.
Again, his wish is granted.
Finally, the Russian pictures the land and herds of the rich family in the steppes where he grew up, and wishes that a drought kill the cattle, dry up the grass, and bankrupt the aristocratic family.
This play on old stereotypes isn’t really very funny, though it brings big laughs with audiences of producers.
They get it.
The Frenchman, thinking like an entrepreneur, wants the good things that life provides, and is willing to go to work to produce them.
The American, who thinks like an entrepreneur and an investor, is willing to go to work also, but wants to see his assets create more value.
The Frenchman wants value, the American plans for value, increased market share and perpetual growth.
In contrast, the stereotypical-punchline “Russian” in this parable can only think of one thing—getting even with those who seem to have more than him.
This is the same as Steve Farber’s lament about the sad state of our modern employee mentality—where “burn your boss” is a slogan of millions of workers who see their employer as the enemy.
Even Washington sometimes likes to join the blame game by pointing fingers at Wall Street, Main Street and everyone in business.
Initiative, vision, effective planning, the wise use of risk, quality execution—all are the contributions of entrepreneurs and investors.
Without them, any society will decline and fall.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Business &Culture &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Mini-Factories &Producers &Prosperity
Thirteen Thoughts on China
July 11th, 2011 // 11:40 am @ Oliver DeMille
A Review of Henry Kissinger’s On China
America is interested in China. Intellectuals have long criticized the citizenry of the United States for being self-absorbed and comparatively uninterested in world affairs. Many Americans have only given close attention to international events that directly impact them. In the case of China, it seems that Americans are deeply concerned not about what has occurred, but rather about what may come.
Henry Kissinger’s book On China is an excellent primer for any person who wants to know more about China.
There is much here for the beginner, and also a number of items of personal interest for the scholar of modern Sino-American relations.
Here are thirteen ideas from the book which sparked my thinking:
1- Exeptionalism and Singularity
Americans often talk about exceptionalism, the things that make the United States different from other nations. For the Chinese, the foundational concept is singularity. This may sound similar to exceptionalism, but it is almost the opposite.
Where America sees its founding coming after long millennia of human history, benefiting from the experiences of historical civilizations and rising above all of them, the Chinese notion of singularity stems from the view that China has no founding—that it has existed longer than written history, that it maintained a long set of traditions from before recorded annals to the present, and that it is the only modern civilization to have done so.
While many Americans claim universal principles of freedom that all nations should adopt, China claims universal principles of society that it has always used.
2-Language
The Chinese language is as old as written history.
According to Kissinger, its characters were developed at about the time of ancient Egypt.
While the Western nations have used and then moved beyond ancient Egyptian, Greek, Latin, and the numerous European languages, China kept and deepened its language.
Only Hebrew, of all the Western languages (if Hebrew can even be considered Western), is as old, and its spoken form had to be resurrected in the twentieth century.
While the culture of Western Civilization has used many languages, the Chinese Civilization has used basically one written language. Our Western classics, myths, and major political documents are mostly translations from a host of languages.
Chinese classics are nearly all studied in the original.
The result in China is a profound sense of continuity with the past and a closer connection to its traditions than experienced in any Western nation. It is hard for Westerners to even grasp the lasting significance of this reality.
3-Dynastic History
The Western political experience includes a long cycle of declining current powers eventually replaced by rising new powers—Egypt, Israel, Greece, Rome, Spain, France, Britain, and the United States, to mention a few.
Each rises, leads the world for a time, then declines. A new power seems to arise every couple of centuries.
In China, where history goes back past the time of the Egyptian dynasties, the cycle is different, and the differences drastically impact the way Chinese leaders view the world.
The Chinese cycle includes a period of internal division and inner conflict, then an era of unity and dynastic rule, then another time of division and conflict.
This cycle in China usually takes three to nine hundred years to run its course, and today’s Chinese see themselves just sixty years into a new dynastic rule that will once again put China at the center of world power—for the next five hundred years or more.
4-The Center of the World
Until the nineteenth century, China never had to deal with a civilization or nation of “comparable size or sophistication….As late as 1820, it produced over 30 percent of world GDP—an amount exceeding of Western Europe, Eastern Europe, and the United States combined.”
It has historically always considered itself the center of the world and felt deeply humiliated by its loss of dominance to Western powers in modern times.
5-Secular Empire
According to Kissinger, China has always been a secular empire.
Unlike the West, religion, religious wars, and conflicts between major religious views have played little part in China’s political history. Spirituality has historically centered on restoring the principles and ideals of a Confucian-style past “Chinese Golden Age.”
Learning was seen as the key to this objective, and also to personal advancement. The goal of Confucian-Chinese spirituality, learning, and politics has usually been “rectification, not progress.”
The main principle in this order was to “know thy place.”
The pinnacle of society was the Emperor, who was both a political leader and a spiritual-religious symbol. He was considered “the Emperor of Humanity” on earth and “Son of Heaven” as man’s “intermediary between Heaven, Earth and humanity.”
This tradition of the great Emperor above all mankind, his bureaucracy to maintain order in all things, and each person fulfilling his proper place in society created a certain kind of culture that has lasted for a very, very long time through various outward governmental structures and forms.
Most Americans disagree with the basics of this model, but we must not discount the power of its history and tradition.
Kissinger wrote:
“If the Emperor strayed from the path of virtue, All Under Heaven would fall into chaos. Even natural catastrophes might signify that disharmony had beset the universe. The existing dynasty would be seen to have lost the ‘Mandate of Heaven’ by which it possessed the right to govern: rebellions would break out, and a new dynasty would [eventually arise to] restore the Great Harmony of the universe.”
Government was supreme.
6-Monarchy and Aristocracy
Where the West was dominated by aristocrats in nearly all countries, with a host of peasants and occasionally powerful kings, China was run by an Emperor and his army of bureaucrats (mandarins).
The provinces (cantons) were likewise ruled by the mandarins, and the outlying (non-Chinese) nations were considered tributaries to the central Emperor.
Kissinger doesn’t mention that these are the two great types of historical governments:
- Monarchy ruling through bureaucratic management
- Aristocracy ruling through class dominance.The American founding created a third system:
- The Federal Democratic Republic ruled by constitutionally separated branches and levels of government all limited by checks, balances and periodic elections.
7-Sino-centric World History
Many modern Chinese see the history of the world as three distinct eras:
- China’s world prominence until the nineteenth century
- A “century of humiliation” from the early 1800s until the communist revolution in the 1940s
- A rebirth of China’s proper world role beginning in the 1940s and still developing today
8-China’s Grand Strategy
China’s grand strategy has traditionally revolved around playing foreign powers against each other.
During the modern era, Britain, Russia, France, the United States, Japan, the Soviet Union, Korea, Vietnam and India have all been impacted by the Chinese strategy of “using barbarians against barbarians.”
Through it all, China has held mainly to its traditions rather than joining the West (or attempting to join it) like most nations have done.
For example, while most Westerners might agree that with three superpowers during the Cold War an alliance of two would be the strongest position, China followed its traditional non-Western approach by keeping the U.S. and USSR strongly pitted against—and focused on—each other rather than China.
9-The Communist Era
The pain of the communist era in China is felt by nearly every family and person in China. All suffered. Communism united China under central control, leading to increased power. But the pain of totalitarian communist rule created a modern generation hungry for freedom and economic opportunity.
This era also changed the Chinese psyche from “fit your place in the system” to one of regaining China’s place in world prosperity, power and leadership.
10-Leadership through Symbolism
Chinese leadership often operates with an emphasis on making impressions rather than literality.
This tactic includes attempting to make things seem a certain way as a means of influence—regardless of whether or not the reality actually resembles the perception.
In short, symbol is often more highly prized and utilized than the literal reality in Chinese culture and diplomacy.
Western leaders and citizens who don’t understand that most Chinese leaders assume the symbolic over the literal frequently misunderstand Chinese motivations, actions and words.
11-Contemporary Chinese Literature
Two current Chinese-written bestsellers (in China) include China is Unhappy: The Great Era, the Grand Goal, and Our Internal Anxieties and External Challenges by Song Xiaojun (2009) and China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-American Era by Liu Mingfu (2010).
Kissinger comments:
“Both books are deeply nationalistic. Both start from the assumption that the West is much weaker than previously thought, but that ‘some foreigners have not yet woken up; they have truly not understood that a power shift is taking place in Sino-Western relations.’ In this view it is thus up to China to shake off its self doubt and passivity, abandon gradualism, and recover its historic sense of mission by means of a ‘grand goal.’”
Liu advocates a Chinese return to a ‘martial spirit’ and a military rise along with its economic rise.
Liu wrote:
“If China in the 21st century cannot become world number one, cannot become the top power, then inevitably it will become a straggler that is cast aside.”
Kissinger writes that these books:
“…could not have been published or become a national cause célèbre had the elites prohibited publication. Was this one ministry’s way of influencing policy?”
He notes that official government views differ from the tone of these books, but doubts that this debate is over in China.
12-War on the Economic Front
Still, Kissinger says:
“A country facing such large domestic tasks is not going to throw itself easily, much less automatically, into strategic confrontation or a quest for world domination….The crucial competition between the United States and China is more likely to be economic than military.”
After the Great Recession, this may be exactly what has so many Americans deeply concerned.
As for the rise of China, Kissinger wisely suggests that America has the ability to substantially determine its own future regardless of what China does.
We should worry less about China than about how to overcome our own nation’s challenges.
Peace and cooperation between these two cultures and nations is, as Kissinger puts it, “inherently complex.” It is important to the future of both nations that our citizens and leaders approach relations wisely and in principled fashion.
13-A War of Ideals
Kissinger suggests:
“The United States bears the responsibility to retain its competitiveness and its world role. It should do this for its own traditional convictions, rather than as a contest with China. Building competitiveness is largely an American project, which we should not ask China to solve for us.”
I agree. Our biggest problem is Washington, not Beijing, and if we as the American citizenry handle Washington correctly, China will never be the threat it could become if Washington is insolvent or weak.
As I said above, Kissinger goes into depth on a number of additional topics, all of which are valuable to the American citizenry.
These thoughts are just a few of the many covered in On China.
As a group, we don’t know enough about China. Kissinger’s analysis is astute and timely, based on both research and long personal experience. This is an important book, and it is a valuable addition to the prudent citizen’s reading list on China.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Book Reviews &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Government &History &Politics &Statesmanship
Family Roles
July 9th, 2011 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Nothing will have more impact on the future of the world than the future of families.
This truism is sobering as we watch the decline of the family.
As we consider the industrialized world, it is disturbing to note that even amongst those who espouse, promote and live a strong family lifestyle, some of the most basic roles have been lost.
For example, consider the following from an editorial by John Rosemond:
“A journalist recently asked me to name the number one problem facing today’s family. I think she expected me to address education, the economy, or some other “hot” topic. To her surprise, I said, ‘A confusion of roles.’
“In today’s parenting universe, married women with children think of themselves first and foremost as mothers. This is confusion. If you are married with children, you are first and foremost a wife or a husband. In your wedding vows, you did not say, “I take you to be my (husband, wife) until children do us part.” Those vows, many generations old, read the way they do for a reason.
“I’ve been telling recent audiences that parenting has become bad for the mental health of women. Today’s all-too typical mother believes that whether her child experiences success or failure in whatever realm is completely up to her. If she is sufficiently attentive to her child’s needs and sufficiently proactive in his life, he will succeed. If not, he will have problems. The natural consequence of this state of over-focus is anxiety, self-doubt, and guilt.”
Marriage is the central relationship of society, and in society, no roles are more important than husband and wife.
As I talk to young people about their plans for life, career is usually the first thing they mention.
Once in a while, a young man will mention that his main goal is to be a good father, and a little more frequently a young woman will say that she really wants to be a great mother.
But I’ve never heard the following: “I want to be a great wife,” or “my most important goal is to be a great husband.”
This is a concern. In a way, feminism has had moved society by persuading our generation to focus on parenthood even more than marriage.
I’m convinced that most people who say they want to be great parents just assume marriage as part of it. But that’s the problem. Just assuming marriage isn’t enough. It reflects a lack of emphasis on our primary roles.
The future of the world certainly depends on the quality of fathering and mothering in the twenty-first century.
The quality of marriages is even more important. The state of the world ten, twenty, even seventy years from now will be determined by the depth and quality of our marriage relationships. Parenting will largely be determined by the level of success our marriages attain.
The recent politicization of the institution of marriage raises concerns in the minds of virtually everyone, no matter where they stand on the issue.
Of most concern to me is that 64% of married women and 82% of married men responded to a survey in the early 2000’s that they had been unfaithful to their marriage vows.
I see no greater threat to the institution of marriage than the tepid level of commitment of the spouses, and the way they characterize and fulfill their roles.
Marriage is hard work, worthy work–the work of a lifetime. If there is one thing we should teach our youth, it is the value of building a great marriage.
More precisely, we need to teach—by precept and example whenever possible—that “wife” and “husband” are vital roles to society, requiring preparation, consideration, emphasis and great effort.
Once married, these must always be the primary roles of each individual—not secondary to career, social endeavors, or even parenthood.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Community &Culture &Current Events &Family &Featured &Generations
