The Most Important Thing
March 17th, 2011 // 1:15 am @ Oliver DeMille
My oldest daughter asked me recently, “What is the most important thing Americans need to know right now about freedom?”
I didn’t even have to think about the answer, it is so clear to me.
My purpose here is to share the single most important thing the people need to know about freedom.
I have shared this idea before, but since it is the most important thing, in my opinion, it bears repeating.
On many occasions I have asked advanced graduate students or executives to diagram the American government model which established unprecedented levels of freedom and prosperity to people from all backgrounds, classes and views.
They always do it in the wrong order, and they get the most important part wrong.
Specifically, they start by diagramming three branches of government, a judicial and an executive and a bicameral legislature, and then they sit down.
They think they’ve done the assignment.
When I ask, “What about the rest?” they are stumped for a few seconds.
Then some of them have an epiphany and quickly return to the white board to diagram the same thing at the state level.
This time they are sure they are done.
“What level of government came first in the American colonies?” I ask. After some debate, they agree that many towns, cities, counties and local governments were established, most with written constitutions, for over two centuries before the U.S. Constitution and many decades before the state governments and constitutions.
“So, diagram the founding model of local government,” I say.
They then set out to diagram a copy of the three-branch U.S. Constitutional model.
Nope.
This sad deficit of knowledge indicates at least one thing: Americans who have learned about our constitutional model have tended to learn it largely by rote, without truly understanding the foundational principles of freedom.
We know about the three branches, the checks and balances, and we consider this the American political legacy.
But few Americans today understand the principles and deeper concepts behind the three branches, checks and balances.
The first constitutions and governments in America were local, and there were hundreds of them.
These documents were the basis of later state constitutions, and they were also the models in which early Americans learned to actively govern themselves.
Without them, the state constitutions could never have been written. Without these local and state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution would have been very, very different.
In short, these local constitutions and governments were, and are, the basis of American freedoms and the whole system.
The surprising thing, at least to many moderns, is that these local constitutions were very different than the state and federal constitutional model. There were some similarities, but the structure was drastically different.
The principles of freedom are applied differently to be effective at local and tribal levels.
A society that doesn’t understand this is unlikely to stay free. Indeed, history is exact on this point.
Another surprise is that nearly all the early townships and cities in the Americas adopted a very similar constitutional structure.
They were amazingly alike. This is because they are designed to apply the best principles of freedom to the local and tribal levels.
And there is more.
This similar model was followed by the Iroquois League as well, and by several other First Nation tribal governments.
Many people have heard this, but few can explain the details of how local free governments were established.
This same model of free local/tribal government shows up in tribes throughout Central and South America, Oceana, Africa, Asia and the historic Germanic tribes including the Anglo Saxons.
Indeed, it is found in the Bible as followed by the Tribes of Israel. This is where the American founders said they found it
The most accurate way, then, to diagram the American governmental system is to diagram the local system correctly, then the state and federal levels with their three branches each, separations of power and checks and balances.
But how exactly does one diagram the local level?
The basics are as follows: The true freedom system includes establishing as the most basic unit of society—above the family—small government councils that are small enough to include all adults in the decision-making meetings for major choices.
This system is clearly described in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Volume 1, Chapter 5,[i] and in Liberty Fund’s Colonial Origins of the American Constitutions.
It is also portrayed in the classic television series Little House on the Prairie and in many books like Moody’s Little Britches, Stratton-Porter’s Laddie and James Fenimore Cooper’s Last of the Mohicans.
In fact, if you know to look for it, it shows up throughout much of human history.
These adult town, city or tribal councils truly establish and maintain freedom by including in the most local and foundational decisions the voices and votes of all the adult citizenry.
These councils make decisions by majority vote after open discussion. They also appoint mayors/chiefs, law enforcement leaders, judges and other personnel.
All of these officials report directly to the full council of all adults and can be removed by the council.
Where representative houses and offices are much more effective at the larger state and national levels, the whole system breaks down if the regular citizens aren’t actively involved in governance at the most local levels.
In this model, every adult citizen is officially a government official, with the result that all citizens study the government system, their role in it, the issues and laws and cases, and think like leaders.
They learn leadership by leading.
Without this participatory government system at the local levels, as history has shown, freedom is eventually lost in all societies.
Once again, the most successful tribes, communities and even nations throughout history have adopted this model of local governance which includes all citizens in the basic local decision making.
The result, in every society on record,[ii] has always been increased freedom and prosperity.
No free society in recorded history has maintained its great freedom once this system eroded.
Tocqueville called this system of local citizen governance “the” most important piece of America’s freedom model.[iii]
Indeed, the U.S. Constitution is what it is because of the understanding the American people gained from long participation in local government councils.
These were the basis of state constitutions and the federal Constitution. If we don’t understand the local councils, we don’t understand the Constitution or freedom.
Today we need a citizenship that truly understands freedom, not just patriotic, loyal or highly professional people. This is the most important thing modern Americans can know if we want to maintain our freedom and widespread prosperity.
Endnotes:
[i] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (from the Henry Reeve text as revised by Francis Bowen, edited by Phillips Bradley, and published by Alfred A. Knopf).
[ii] See the writings of Arnold Toynbee and the multi-volume writings of Will & Ariel Durant.
[iii] Op cit., Tocqueville.
Category : Community &Culture &Government &Liberty &Tribes
Ten Important Trends
March 16th, 2011 // 10:42 am @ Oliver DeMille
The obvious big trend right now is that oil prices threaten to reverse economic recovery across the globe.[i] The recent problems with nuclear power in Japan only promise to exacerbate the oil crisis. And the concern about a second mortgage bubble lingers.[ii] Food and other retail prices are increasing at alarming levels while unemployment rates remain high. In addition, some trends and current affairs promise to significantly influence the years ahead despite receiving little coverage in the nightly news. Here are ten such trends that every American should know about:
- “In the wake of the financial crisis, the United States is no longer the leader of the global economy, and no other nation has the political and economic leverage to replace it.”[iii] Increased international conflicts are ahead.
- The new e-media is revolutionizing communication and fueling actual revolutions from the Middle East to North Korea.[iv]
- The new media is also differentiated by both political views and class divisions,[v] meaning that people of different views hardly ever listen to each other. This is creating more divisiveness in society.
- In response to the rise of the Tea Parties, some top leaders of American foreign policy feel that Washington must find ways to promote a “liberal and cosmopolitan world order” and simultaneously “find some way to satisfy their angry domestic constituencies…”[vi] The disconnect between the American citizenry and elites continues to increase. So does the wage disparity between American elites and everyone else.[vii]
- The evidence suggests that “teams, not individuals, are the leading force behind entrepreneurial startups.”[viii] This has been a topic of debate for some time, and a new book (The Invention of Enterprise by Landes, Mokyr and Baumol[ix]) outlines the history of entrepreneurship from ancient to modern times.
- As Leah Farrall put it, “Al Qaeda is stronger today than when it carried out the 9/11 attacks. Accounts that contend that it is on the decline treat the central al Qaeda organization separately from its subsidiaries and overlooks its success in expanding its power and influence through them.”[x]
- One trend is outlined clearly by a new book title: Alone Together: Why We Expect More From Technology and Less From Each Other.[xi]
- In contrast to popular wisdom, democracy and modernization are significantly increasing the influence of religion in many developing regions around the world.[xii]
- More people are using Facebook to connect more with their children—in one survey this included 64% of those surveyed.[xiii]
- While governments—at national, provincial/state and local levels—are increasingly strapped for cash and struggling to balance budgets and service looming debts, many multinational corporations “sit on enormous stockpiles of cash…”[xiv] This reality is giving strength to the argument in some circles that the future of governance should be put in the hands of corporations rather than outdated dependence on inefficient government.[xv]
[i] “The 2011 oil shock,” The Economist, March 5th, 2011.
[ii] Consider the ideas in “Bricks and slaughter,” The Economist, March 5th, 2011.
[iii] Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini, “A G-Zero World,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2011.
[iv] See James Fallows, “Learning to Love the New Media” and Robert S. Boynton, “North Korea’s Digital Underground,” The Atlantic, April 201.
[v] Op. cit., Fallows.
[vi] See Walter Russell Mead, “The Tea Party and American Foreign Policy,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2011.
[vii] See “Gaponomics,” The Economist, March 12th, 2011.
[viii] See Martin Ruef, The Entrepreneurial Group, 2011, Kauffman.
[ix] 2011, Kauffman.
[x] Leah Farrall, “How al Qaeda Works,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2011.
[xi] By Sherry Turkle, 2011, Basic Books.
[xii] See book reviews, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2011.
[xiii] Redbook, April 2011.
[xiv] See op. cit., Bremmer and Roubini.
[xv] See the following: Shell Scenarios; “Tata sauce,” The Economist, March 5th, 2011; Adam Segal, Advantage: How American Innovation Can Overcome the Asian Challenge, 2011, Council on Foreign Relations; and “Home truths,” The Economist, March 5th, 2011.
Category : Blog &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Family &Foreign Affairs &Government &Independents &Information Age &Politics &Science
Egypt, Freedom, & the Cycles of History
February 14th, 2011 // 12:31 pm @ Oliver DeMille
*Note: If you like this article, you’ll love Oliver’s latest book, FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.
I look at the young protesters who gathered in downtown Amman today, and the thousands who gathered in Egypt and Tunis, and my heart aches for them. So much human potential, but they have no idea how far behind they are—or maybe they do and that’s why they’re revolting.
“Egypt’s government has wasted the last 30 years—i.e., their whole lives—plying them with the soft bigotry of low expectations: ‘Be patient. Egypt moves at its own pace, like the Nile.’ Well, great. Singapore also moves at its own pace, like the Internet.” —Thomas L. Freidman
A World of Demonstrations
In the fall of 2010 I listened to a famous French author speaking as a guest on a television talk show. He expressed concern with the Tea Party in the United States and wondered how democracy could survive “such a thing.”
A few weeks later his own nation was shut down by rioting protestors—middle class managers and professionals burning cars in the streets and throwing homemade pop bottle firebombs.
I wondered if he had revised his worries about what he called Tea Party “extremism.” In the U.S. the peaceful demonstrations were much more civil and positive (and, as it turns out, effective) than their French counterparts.
In the last year we’ve witnessed demonstrations, protests, and even a few violent riots across the globe—from Greece to Ireland, Paris to Washington, Iran to Cairo, and beyond. It is interesting to see how the left and right in the U.S. have responded.
The left welcomed demonstrations against governments that were run by the privileged class in Iran, Greece, Ireland, Egypt, China and even France. Instead of feeling threatened by such uprisings, they tended to see them as the noble voice of humanity yearning for freedom from oppression.
In contrast, they saw marches and demonstrations from the American right as somehow dangerous to democracy. In such a view, protests are owned by the left and those on the right aren’t allowed to use such techniques—they are supposed to better behaved.
In contrast, the right tended to view recent right-leaning town meetings and D.C. demonstrations in the United States as progressive, while viewing the French, Irish, Greek and Middle East protests with critical eyes.
The old meaning of “conservative” was to simply want things to stay the same, and in world affairs many American conservatives seem to prove this definition.
An uprising in Iran or Egypt, as much as one might identify with the people’s desire for freedom, feels threatening and disturbing to many on the right.
The Cycles
The demonstrations and the diverse ways of viewing them is a natural result of a major shift we are experiencing in the world. Strauss and Howe called it “The Fourth Turning,” a great cyclical shift from an age of long-term peace and prosperity to a time of challenge and on-going crises.
We have experienced many such shifts in history (e.g. the American revolutionary era, the Civil War period, the era of Great Depression and World War II), but that doesn’t soften the blow of experiencing it firsthand in our generation.
Following the cycles of history, we have lived through the great catalyst (9/11) which brought on the new era of challenge, just like earlier generations faced their catalytic events (e.g. the Boston Tea Party, the election of Abraham Lincoln, or the Stock Market crash of 1929).
We are now living in a period of high stress and high conflict, just as our forefathers did in the tense periods of the 1770s, 1850s and 1930s. If the cycles hold true in our time, we can next expect some truly major crisis—the last three being the attack on Pearl Harbor, the first shots of the Civil War, and the fighting at Lexington and Concord.
These realities are part of our genetic and psychic history, even if we haven’t personally researched the trends and history books. We seem to “know” that challenges are ahead, and so we worry about the latest world and national news event.
“Will this ignite the fire?” “Will this change everything?” “Is this it—the start of major crisis?” Conservatives, liberals, independents—we nearly all ask these questions, if only subconsciously.
Conservatives tend to believe that major crisis will come from the “mismanagement of the left,” while liberals are inclined to think the problems will be caused by the extremism of the right.
Independents have a tendency to feel that our challenges will come from both Republicans and Democrats—either working together in the wrong ways or getting distracted from critical issues while fighting each other at precisely the wrong time.
Add to this strain the fact that we are simultaneously shifting from the industrial to the information age, and it becomes understandable that the pressure is building in many places in today’s world.
The shift from the agricultural age to the industrial age brought the Civil War, Bismarck’s Wars (known to many in Europe as the first great war—a generation before World War I), and the Asian upheaval as it shifted from the age of warlords to modern empires.
Today we have mostly forgotten how drastic such a change was, and how traumatically it impacted the world.
The Egypt Crisis
The bad news is: if the cycles and trends of history hold, we will likely relive such world-changing events in the decades ahead. As for Egypt, our reactions are telling us more about ourselves than about the Arab world.
Knee-jerk liberalism thrills at another people rising up against authoritarianism but worries that the extreme religious nature of some of the militants will bring the wrong outcomes.
Knee-jerk conservatism reinforces its view that the middle east is the world’s problem area, that we should just get out of that region (or get a lot more involved), and that stability is more important than things like freedom and opportunity for the Egyptian people.
Deep thinkers from all political views see that we now live in the age of demonstrations. The worldwide shift from decades of relative peace and prosperity to a time of recurring crises is putting pressure on people everywhere.
Some protest the reduction of government pensions and programs as nations try to figure out how to get their financial houses in order. Others demonstrate against governments that respond to major economic crises with increased spending, stimulus and government programs.
Still others riot against authoritarian governments that haven’t allowed the people a true democratic voice in the direction of their nation or society.
When we shift from an industrial era of peace and prosperity to an information-age epoch of crisis and challenge, people in all walks of life feel the pressure and anxiety of change. This manifests itself in relationship, organizational, financial and family stress, as well as cultural, class, religious, political and societal tensions. We are witnessing all of these in this generation.
Egypt may spark a major world crisis, and indeed many feel that the Egyptian challenge is the biggest foreign policy crisis of Obama’s presidency. As Thomas L. Friedman put it, on a more global scale:
“There is a huge storm coming, Israel. Get out of the way.”
President Bush’s supporters are using Egypt to bolster the view that Bush’s attempts to establish democracy in the Arab world was wise foresight, and Obama supporters hope that a re-democratized Egypt can stand as “beacon to the region.”
If the Egyptian uprising becomes the start of pan-Arabism led by the Muslim Brotherhood (or something like it), this will certainly bring significant changes to the Middle East and to international relations across the board.
On the other hand, a similar outcome could result from a totalitarian crackdown that extinguishes the will of the Egyptian people to fight for legitimate reform. The most likely result may be what has happened more often recently: the replacement of authoritarian government with a powerful oligarchy ruling the nation.
The American Crisis
How the United States responds to any of these scenarios, or whatever else may happen, will have a significant impact on world policy.
Add to this at least two concerns: Serious inflation is already a growing reality and increasing danger, and many are watching to see the impact on the price of oil on our economy.
If the cost of gasoline goes above $5 or $6 or, say, $9 per gallon in the U.S., what will happen to 9.6% unemployment, state and local governments that are already close to bankruptcy, and a reeling economy just barely emerging from the Great Recession?
If the Egypt Crisis doesn’t ignite a major world or American crisis, something else will. That’s the reality of our place in the cycles of history. Challenges are ahead for our nation.
This is true in any generation, but it is even more pronounced in the generations where we shift from an era of peace and prosperity to an epoch of crisis and challenge. As we also move into the information age, we have our work cut out for us.
Futurist Alvin Toffler wrote:
“A new civilization is emerging in our lives. This new civilization brings with it new family styles; changed ways of working, loving and living; a new economy; new political conflicts. Millions are already attuning their lives to the rhythms of tomorrow. Others, terrified of the future, are engaged in a desperate, futile flight into the past and are trying to restore the dying world that gave them birth. The dawn of this new civilization is the single most explosive fact of our lifetimes. It is the central event—the key to understanding the years immediately ahead.”
The good news is that in such times of challenge we have the opportunity to significantly improve the world in important ways.
The Revolutionary era brought us the Constitution and the implementation of free enterprise and a classless society, the Civil War ended slavery, and the World War II era brought us into the industrial age with increasing opportunity for social equity and individual prosperity.
Freedom, free enterprise, increased caring and more widespread economic opportunities are likely ahead if we as a society refocus on the principles that work. Liberals, conservatives and independents have a lot to teach each other in this process, and we all have a lot to learn.
The biggest danger is that the age of demonstrations will lead to an age of dominance by elites—in Egypt, in Europe, in Asia, and in North America. Unfortunately, popular demonstrations are most often followed by the increased power of one elite group or another.
Though this is the worst-case scenario, it is also a leading trend in our times. In contrast, only a society led by the people can truly be free, and only such a future can turn our challenging era into a truly better world.
Each of us must take responsibility for the future, rather than leaving the details to experts. Many citizens in Egypt are trying to do this—for good or ill.
In America, we need more regular citizens to be leaders so we can meet this generational challenge as our forefathers did theirs—leaving posterity with greater freedom and opportunity.
***********************************
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 : Current Events &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Government &History &Liberty &Politics
Why are We Still in Recession?
February 10th, 2011 // 4:39 pm @ Oliver DeMille
Why was it that scientists were so excited to discover facts that farmers had known for generations and generations?” —Brandon Sanderson, The Way of Kings
The Wisdom of Crowds or Crowns?
There is a technical definition of economic “recession,” but many Americans don’t know exactly what it is. Nor do they accept the experts’ assurances that the Great Recession is really over.
Indeed, in the view of many, it was the experts who led us into recession while predicting something else.
The same experts promised that stimulus would fix things, and now they continue to confidently promise and predict as if their record should somehow bolter our trust.
In many ways, America’s elites consider regular Americans uninformed and ignorant. But there is another kind of wisdom, not based on expertise and therefore seldom understood by the elite class (most of whom were convinced some time before or during college that erudition is a matter of credentials, titles and peer consensus).
The “other” wisdom is based on an innate or experiential understanding of principles, of knowing things like these: Increased government size and spending is out of control; and like the housing bubble, the big-government bubble will have to burst at some point.
In the governmental model as erected by the American Founders, the wisdom of the masses is a critical and even central feature of republican government.
The American founders so trusted this type of wisdom above that of experts that they put the regular citizens in charge of elections and our direct representatives in charge of the nation’s purse strings.
They also gave the federal government only 20 specific powers and left the rest to the states and people.
Many, especially the upper classes of Europe, argued that such an arrangement could not succeed, that nations must be led by elites and their specialized agents.
History proved the Founders correct in this debate.
A Second Type of Recession
There is also another kind of “recession” not defined by economists but very real nonetheless — a recession where most people feel deep and overwhelming economic anxiety, where few families have as much money now as three years ago but more expenses, and where the majority feels deep down that things will get worse before they get better.
This kind of recession doesn’t move charts or graphs, but it does operate on a real logic: When the experts are wrong over and over, stop following them.
It should be noted that the people who use this type of reasoning generally have great respect for expertise and the experts, but not a blind faith.
Such wisdom holds that if individuals, households and businesses must tighten their belts, live within their means, and rise to a more self-reliant and entrepreneurial approach now that times are hard, the government needs to do the same.
If Washington refuses such common sense, it is deluding itself — and forcing us to pay the bill.
This “other” wisdom realizes that we have lived beyond our means for some time, and that we can only really build a new model if the old system is deeply changed.
The far Right and far Left argue that such progress can only come from the ashes or ruins of our broken system “after it falls,” while more moderate voices believe that a few fundamental shifts in worldview and policy can get us back on track.
We can move from nanny state to free enterprise, according to this view, from big government to smaller and more effective government, from a nation of dependents to a nation of innovators.
Such arguments sometimes sound untrained and unsophisticated to elite ears, partly because the privileged class wants America to look good to the European eye — but mainly because these type of arguments are often untrained and unsophisticated.
But we should not make the mistake of considering them naïve or ineffectual.
Sometimes the simple solution is best — especially when one of the most daunting problems is how complex our government and economy have become.
Expecting any single expert or government official to have a full grasp of it all is truly unrealistic, and depending on large teams of specialized experts doesn’t work without leadership from those who grasp the entire reality and envision something better.
Citizen Leadership
Grassroots wisdom from the people as a mass accomplishes this more effectively than any party, politician or intellectual class. This is the linchpin of freedom. The citizens must truly lead, or freedom does not last.
In times of crisis, wisdom is more important than expertise. Both are essential, but wisdom is most vital.
The American people, however uninformed they may appear to elite tastes, have wisdom in spades. They make mistakes, as Jefferson and later Tocqueville put it, but they always correct them.
In the governmental model as erected by the American Founders, the wisdom of the masses is a critical and even central feature of republican government.
One central reality stands out right now: People are struggling a lot more than the experts admit or the numbers show.
The economy may be in a slow recovery, but the American people are stuck in recession. And they know it.
Families and communities are experiencing more hurt than gets reported, and many people feel that things are getting worse. The middle-class standard of living is collapsing, and the worst of the housing bubble appears to still be ahead. Moreover, the government bubble is real and eventually it will burst.
Unemployment is worse than the numbers show. For example, many of the job losses are in middle- and high-paying jobs while most new jobs are low-paying. With the real unemployment rate (which includes those who have given up even trying to find a job) over 12 percent and the underemployed rate above 18 percent, we are more than halfway to a depression (traditionally defined by 25 percent unemployment).
Yet our leaders spend, borrow, and spend. The Chinese have continued to lend us more, as we figuratively hung ourselves and our posterity with an unyielding cord of debt.
Washington regulates more roadblocks to business growth, and tells us that 10 percent unemployment is the new normal. Then politicians pile on more regulations that hinder global investment in the U.S. and send it to friendlier markets.
American firms go abroad and find lower taxes, reduced regulatory environments, and more plentiful capital.
As unemployment lingers in the wake of these policies, we are assured that more government programs will care for those without jobs.
Most Americans find this more alarming than comforting. Consumers don’t spend. Businesses close. A drive down Main Street, Anywhere, USA is a museum tour of boarded-up windows.
We elect one party’s leaders with high hopes, then we try the other party—back and forth, without lasting success. Things worsen. Inflation may follow, as the Fed prints more money and further devalues our currency.
Many Americans feel the afterglow right after a major election, but the anxiety returns when the bills keep coming and they try to balance their checkbooks and plan for the years ahead. Call this recovery if you want, but the American people aren’t convinced.
Next Steps
The good news is that when pushed the American people take note and take a stand. The great American entrepreneurial spirit is rising, and it is our only real hope.
Elections come and go, but cultivating the values and skills of free enterprise in ourselves and others builds for the long term. It creates a solid foundation that works.
The election of 2010 is over, and the elections of 2012, 2014, 2016 and beyond will not have near as much impact on America’s future as the entrepreneurial spirit (or the lack of it) among the mass of regular citizens.
To the extent that elections help free the economy for growth, they can greatly benefit our prosperity and freedom.
But ultimately America’s success and affluence will depend upon the initiative, innovation, creativity, tenacity, resiliency, ingenuity, enterprise and entrepreneurial spirit of the regular people.
This is the true wisdom of crowds, and only the regular people can make this happen.
China may rise in prominence and even to superpower status in the decades ahead. If so, it will do so by applying these very entrepreneurial traits. The same is true of India, Brazil, Europe, other places, and the United States.
Our future depends on the rise of these entrepreneurial values and characteristics. The adoption of these will signal a true economic Recovery and put a real end to the Great Recession.
Whatever the politicians, parties and experts say, the world of 2020, 2030 and 2040 will be a world of our making, and the nations which rise in prosperity, freedom and power will be those where the entrepreneurial spirit flourishes.
With this in mind, I am convinced of at least two things: Our future is bright, and there is a lot of work ahead for all of us.
***********************************
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 : Business &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Government
A No-Party System
February 10th, 2011 // 4:33 pm @ Oliver DeMille
Paine versus Burke
It is popular to describe the differences between two big divisions of each major political party.
For example, Democrats are sometimes called cluster liberals (who “view politics as a battle between implacable opponents”) versus network liberals (who “believe progress is achieved by leaders savvy enough to build coalitions,” even with the other party).
The two main types of Republicans are usually portrayed as fiscal versus social conservatives.
The divide may actually be more simple, according to a recent article by Yuval Levin (“Burke, Paine and the Great Law of Change” in The Point Magazine).
The roots of the two great American types of liberalism, says Levin, are found in the debates between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine.
In truth, Americans aren’t really conservatives at all: “Conservative” means to remain the same, and since the American founding (indeed since the Pilgrims and others left the old countries) nearly all Americans have rejected the conservative royal model of Europe’s past. Nearly all Americans believe in progress and in changing government to meet new challenges.
In contrast to the European definition of “conservative,” American conservatism has come to mean holding on to old values, lessons and institutions — which is the Burke side of the 1790s debate. Burke said society was best served by an incremental approach to building on the best lessons of the past.
Paine believed, on the other hand, that every generation should reevaluate the current government and society and use reason to change whatever it thinks might improve things.
Paine view was that we
“…should not be bound by the past, but should choose anew society’s design…Burke thought Paine put too much stock in reason. Do not wise men disagree?”
Burke put his faith in the wisdom and institutions of the past, and warned that ignoring past lessons would cause many problems. He felt that too much faith in man’s reason alone would lead to party conflicts, waste and many failed government projects.
Paine was more concerned that dogmatic attachment to outdated traditions would keep society from progressing.
Modern Americans — liberal and conservative — nearly all want to make changes and see things improve. The interesting thing is that most network liberals and fiscal conservatives are followers of Burke while the majority of cluster liberals support Paine’s view.
This is further confused because many social conservatives are a mixed bag — they adopt Burke on issues like abortion and family values and Paine on issues from immigration to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sides Versus Fusion
Confused yet? Many people are. But this is more than just an indication of how much the American political landscape has changed since 1989. Independents, the true majority now, are fans of both Burke and Paine.
They believe in keeping the best of the past and also in making commonsense changes when needed.
As long as independents are the majority (and it appears this will be for a long time), the future of conservatism is liberal (meaning a constant push for change in Washington) and the future of liberalism is controlled by independents.
The far left and right can shout as loudly as they want, but the future of America belongs to those who believe in the best of the past (like the U.S. Constitution) and making changes to improve society in each generation. Like it or hate it, this is the reality now.
In a sense, though, this is a return to the American way. George Washington embodied both views: Burke and Paine, attachment to the old lessons and changes to improve things.
After Washington, electors traded back and forth between presidents who emphasized Burke’s views and those who preferred Paine’s ideals. The modern two-party system consistently pits these two worldviews against each other.
Third Party Versus No Party
It remains to be seen what a return to the combination of both views by a majority of the populace — the independents — will bring. Many wonder if a third party is ahead.
But, perhaps, the rise of independents will resurrect support for another model popular in the founding era: A non-party federal government where independent voters elect the best people to office without the circus of political parties.
For those who say this can’t happen, remember how small and impotent independents were just three decades ago. The one constant in political history is change, and the one thing we can count on for sure is that many things will occur which the experts have deemed impossible.
Santayana said that unless we learn from the mistakes of history we are doomed to repeat them, and both Paine and Burke knew that difficult things are possible. America was built on the belief that hard advances are, in fact, likely.
On a technical level, a true third party could create the same thing as a no-party model — at least in presidential politics.
Since the president must be elected by a majority (e.g. 51 percent), not just a plurality (say the highest vote, but only 42 percent) of the electoral college, having three truly popular party candidates (all with their own electoral college representatives) would usually put elections in the hands of independent voters.
At some point, independents may decide that being forced to choose between the two big parties just isn’t getting the job done.
In the meantime, independent support is there for the taking by any president who is willing to re-emphasize the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, social justice and other best lessons of the past along with exerting the leadership to do big things that require change and deeply matter.
America is greatly in need of a truly shared and great purpose, and citizens of all major viewpoints will naturally rally to such leadership when/if it comes.
***********************************
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 : Constitution &Current Events &Government &History &Politics
