Jefferson Madison Debates: The Age of Star Trek?, Part 2
May 19th, 2018 // 8:09 am @ Oliver DeMille
Continued from previous post. [click here to read Part 1 >>]
Crossing the Finish Line
Today, most Americans believe that, for the first time in over a 
century, the next generation will have a worse standard of living than the current one.[xliii] This is a source of major disillusionment for many people, who believe that their children’s peers in China will keep enjoying a better and better lifestyle.
14. The Plugged-In Dilemma. People who spend a lot of their time plugged in to electronic devices tend toward less empathy, and are less likely to read the emotions of other people as well as those who aren’t plugged in very much. It used to be that people were worried about the social skills of homeschoolers, but now the experts are much more worried about the future of social skills in general—especially among the generations that are digital natives (born after 1990).[xliv]
For example, a study “at the University of Michigan found a 40% decline in empathy among college students today (as compared to their counterparts 20 or 30 years ago), with most of this decline coming after 2000. According to MIT’s Sherry Turkle, 44% of teenagers never unplug, even while playing sports or having a meal with family or friends…. [T]here are fears that an entire generation of young people consumed by social media is struggling to listen, make eye contact, or read body language.”[xlv]
Kevin Kelly related the following story: “Friends of mine had to ground their teenager for a serious infraction. They confiscated her cell phone. They were horrified when she became physically ill, vomiting. It was almost as if she’d had an amputation. And in one sense she had.”[xlvi]
Schwab noted: “Technology and culture writer Nicholas Carr states that the more time we spend in digital waters, the shallower our cognitive capabilities become due to the fact that we cease exercising control over our attention…. ‘Frequent interruptions scatter our thoughts, weaken our memory, and make us tense and anxious.’”[xlvii]
This has real ramifications in education. The more time young people (and everyone else) spend learning online, the less likely they are to focus, dig deep, and finish reading what they start. A shallow, constantly-switching-to-another-link kind of learning is becoming commonplace. The impact on how we learn is significant.
My Job, Your Job
15. Our Leaders are Too Busy to Read. This is a serious problem. Schwab wrote: “It is not unusual for me to talk to leaders who say that they no longer have time to pause and reflect, let along enjoy the ‘luxury’ of reading…. Decision makers from all parts of global society seem to be in a state of ever-increasing exhaustion…”[xlviii] In this environment, top leaders are busy working while algorithms and AI do much of the thinking. This is the opposite of what robotics was supposed to do for is.
And the more technology evolves, the more the regular people seem too busy, too tired, exhausted, stressed and on the go. Wasn’t technology supposed to make things easier for us? It’s doing precisely the opposite. It does frequently make things more convenient—but not always better. Most people work longer hours in the Digital Age.
16. More Need for Broad Thinking. Rather than the narrow specialization of the Industrial Age, today’s and tomorrow’s technologies demand broad thinking from the regular people.[xlix] As the pace of change increases, we need to be able to more quickly and nimbly assess, understand, plan and take action. This is not something taught very often in our modern schools—which were designed in the Industrial Age and have yet to effectively move beyond it, or even seriously embrace the need for such massive reform.
17. Who owns your data from electronic devices? The provider? The cloud? The crowd that crowdsources things you participate in? The social media provider? Answer: usually not you. Ownership of more and more data is being given to providers (Facebook, Amazon, etc.), and governments routinely take over whatever data they decide they want. This is a true socializing of society. If we don’t own our data, we don’t have rights to our data, and the government eventually owns (or at least controls) it all.
18. The “Digital Rights” Movement. Many people are calling for a “new Declaration” of our rights that resonates with the digital age. One such report suggests: “Digital age citizens have rights—access to digital infrastructures, literacy, media literacy, lifelong learning, and renewed freedom of speech online without the fear of surveillance.”[l]
Whether such “rights” will gain much traction remains to be seen. But who will provide the resources to fund these “rights” and others like them? Governments? Internet providers? These are the very entities most likely to violate such rights. In many places around the world, they already are.
A Thing of the Past
Perhaps Digital Righters want global agencies or entities to provide the resources and enforcement, but this opens up a whole new can of worms. Do we actually want bigger government? At the world scale? This just doesn’t fit well will people calling for “freedom…without fear of surveillance.”
In a world with such challenges, the education of the regular people will tend toward freedom or increased dependence on elite powers.
19. Implantable Technologies. From implantable mobile phones to implantable RFID chips that track and monitor, to smart tattoos that do the same, this technology is a serious concern.[li] Is there any way to keep these things from being weaponized (“weaponized” means to be used by governments or any other entity that uses force).
The NSA stored our phone calls and email, so it’s probably pretty clear what will happen with the data from implantable tech. The real question is, what kind of education does a society need in order to empower its people to remain free even when such technologies are available to those in power?
20. The End of Privacy. It’s going to be over and done: Privacy gone. Or as Milton might have put it, “Privacy Lost.” We will live in a surveillance state. The question for our generation is: Is there any way a surveillance state can be a free nation? The answer—based on all we know from great political thinkers of the past like Aristotle, Cicero, Montesquieu, Blackstone, the writers of the Federalist Papers, Bastiat, and others—is no. Simply no. Our educational system must be up to the task of helping a nation of people overcome such a challenge.
21. Cookie Monster. Everything we do online is part of the tracking and surveillance. Kelly wrote: “Unbeknownst to most people, when you arrive at a website you arrive with a bunch of invisible signs hanging around your neck that display where you just came from. These signs (technically known as cookies) can be read not just by the website you have arrived at, but my many of the large platforms—like Google—who have their fingers all over the web.”[lii]
This information significantly strengthens the power of big business surveillance, and whatever information the government gets from these businesses (or decides to control in the future). Moreover, AI is constantly using this data to learn and profile. In the wrong hands—hacked, stolen, infiltrated by foreign governments, or used by unscrupulous or even well-meaning government agencies, etc.—this is a goldmine of power that can be used to control people.
Back to Basics…and Books
22. Reading Glasses (and other wearable tech) Connected to the Internet.[liii] We won’t have to learn much in school, the experts say, because any time a person we’re talking with says “Ottoman Empire” or “Newton’s Laws” the screen on our glasses will flash details about these things right in front of our eyes. Or, to say this truthfully, we’ll have to learn a whole lot more in schools than past generations—and memorize a lot better—because we’ll need to know if the things the Internet tells us inside our glasses are entirely accurate or skewed by current popular opinions, political correctness, or whatever Apple, Wiki-everything, the Google/Alphabet company or some other more corrupt provider of the information wants us to believe.
This technology (or Internet ear implants that tell us things, or anything like these) isn’t going to make things easier—unless we just turn everything over to Big Brother and go with the flow…
Indeed, what are the chances that governments won’t eventually control, or closely regulate and monitor, whatever such technologies are telling us? This is a massive turnover of knowledge to the few who control the online data. And in this case, knowledge truly is power.
23. The CBS/ABC/NBC Internet. For years, television programming in the United States was dominated by the three big networks. In our modern world of numerous cable channels and even personal channels on YouTube, this kind of centralized control is hard to imagine. But we may soon see something much like it—but even worse—online. As author Kevin Kelly put it:
“The more people who use an AI, the smarter it gets. The smarter it gets, the more people who use it. The more people who use it, the smarter it gets. And so on.
“Once a company enters this…cycle, it tends to grow so big, so fast that it overwhelms any upstart competitors. As a result, our AI future is likely to be ruled by an oligarchy of two or three large, general purpose cloud-based commercial intelligences.”[liv] These mega-AIs could own or control the various providers, platforms, networks and big sites, and rule them from behind the scenes. This may not happen, but it is more likely than not.
The impact on governments will be immense, since the power and resources of such entities could far outpace any single government. Indeed, the mega-AIs may dominate certain countries and use them to compete like they already do with certain corporations.
24. A New Battle. The two biggest battles of the past century have been Free vs. Authoritarian Nations and Conservative vs. Liberal philosophies. Both of these were centered in governments and nations, and the ongoing argument between Nationalism and Globalism.
The Internet Age is shifting these traditional battle lines. The new battle is between the world of nations and the emerging economic/technological world with no borders. “By its nature,” Kelly wrote, “digital network technology rattles international borders because it is borderless.”[lv] Our technologies and businesses are now largely borderless, deeply undermining the long-term legitimacy of national governments. More people are asking: “Do national governments really need to exist? Are they, in fact, causing more problems than they are solving?”
Open Space
This disconnect could evolve in various directions, but whatever happens, today’s technology can only be controlled by larger and larger governments—with increasing power. For many people, this smacks of Orwell’s big brother. It certainly means that the definition of “free” and “authoritarian” nations is in flux. The outcomes are unlikely to greatly promote more freedom. Our current mainstream educational systems are already in line with this top-down environment.
25. New Leadership. Listen to how three different technology and entrepreneurial experts described this phenomenon:
First, as PayPal founder Peter Thiel remarked: “Every moment in business happens only once. The next Bill Gates will not build an operating system. The next Larry Page or Sergey Brin won’t make a search engine. And the next Mark Zuckerberg won’t create a social network. If you are copying from these guys, you aren’t learning from them…. Today’s ‘best practices’ lead to dead ends; the best paths are new and untried…. [I]t’s hard to develop new things in big organizations…. Bureaucratic hierarchies move slowly, and entrenched interests shy away from risk….
“A new company’s most important strength is new thinking: even more important than nimbleness, small size affords space to think.”[lvi]
Second, from Don and Alex Tapscott, authors of Blockchain Revolution: Concerning the future of the Internet, specifically blockchain technology, ‘Will the Law of Paradigms kick into effect—that the leaders of the old have the greatest difficulty embracing the new? …. Why didn’t Rupert Murdoch create The Huffington Post? Why didn’t AT&T launch Skype, or Visa create PayPal? GM or Hertz could have launched Uber, and Marriot, Airbnb…. Why didn’t NBC invent YouTube? Sony could have preempted Apple’s iTunes.”[lvii]
Old leaders seldom keep leading when it’s time for real innovation.
Third, former Senior Advisor for Innovation to the Secretary of State, Alec Ross, said: “When I’m asked, ‘What can we do to create our own Silicon Valley?” my response surprises many people: ‘You can’t,’ I say. ‘It’s too late….’ ‘What you can do, though, is position your communities to compete and succeed in those areas of innovation that are still to come…”[lviii]
Open Minds
This is true in education, in business, in government, and in societies. If we want to go a new direction—and we desperately need this in so many ways—we’ll need new leaders. If MacGyver carried a gun, he would have used it. Pouring new wine into old bottles is a recipe for one of two things: watching the new and innovative fail and spoil, or seeing the new and innovative simply try to repeat the old.
For example: “Uber, the world’s largest taxi company, owns no vehicles. Facebook, the world’s most popular media owner, creates no content. Alibaba [China’s eBay-like platform, which is much bigger than eBay], the most valuable retailer, has no inventory. And Airbnb, the world’s largest accommodation provider, owns no real estate.”[lix]
Why didn’t Enterprise, ABC/Disney, Macy’s, or Hilton provide these breakthoughs? Because they would almost surely have been hamstrung by the idea that they needed a fleet of cars, contracts with producers and actors, retail and storage facilities, and dedicated hotel buildings. These “old” rules got in the way. The new and innovative came from new leaders with fresh thinking.
Our politics and other sectors of society need the same. Otherwise, as mentioned, we’ll either spoil the new or revert to the old rules. Education needs to learn this lesson, and apply it. Right away.
26. Virality over Plaque. Indeed, the sectors in the most need of new leadership are those that are highly regulated by government(s). When an economic field enjoys light or minimal regulation, it naturally benefits from virality: “the tendency of an idea or brand to be circulated rapidly from one Internet user to another.”[lx]
When no company or product in a sector is able to achieve real virality, the sector stagnates. Instead of virality, this part of the economy develops what we might call a plaque problem. Like in the body’s blood vessels and arteries, a buildup of plaque is both unhealthy and dangerous. If it grows, it can become life threatening. Too much regulation in a field of the economy creates serious plaque buildup.
Avenues to Greatness
As the authors of Platform Revolution noted: “Banking, healthcare, and education are all highly regulated…. Emerging platforms are starting to attack this problem in an effort to create new sources of value [in these fields], but regulatory control is holding them back.”[lxi] Nations that address this head on and reduce as much regulation as they can without creating dangers for their people will lead out in 21st century banking, healthcare, and education—simply by freeing up space for entrepreneurs to improve these stagnating sectors of society.
For example, as mentioned earlier, “more people are using Duolingo to learn [an international] language than all the students in high school in the U.S. combined.”[lxii] And it works! On a broader scale, it is time for a Renaissance in American education—if only the government will get out of the way and let educational innovators and entrepreneurs go to work. A few have started, but regulation still blocks real virality.
To repeat: new leadership is needed. And this is true in politics and education more than perhaps any other sectors. Technologists proclaim that the centuries-old stranglehold of the big political parties and the old-style education system over the nation are slowing or blocking new technological changes that bring more power to voters, students, and families. It is still unclear who the winners and losers will be, but governments and educational bureaucracies tend toward increasing plaque—not dynamic virality.
Still, even the most viral sector, platform, provider, company, brand or product is still ultimately controlled by someone—or a group of “someones”. Until the digital revolution can give the people as a group real teeth in the face of economic and power elites, freedom and the kind of education that prepares a truly free citizenry will remain in peril, and nations will continue their path toward decline.
Halting the Fall
Together these trends paint an interesting and challenging picture. The era of Star Trek technology hasn’t quite yet arrived, but we’re certainly not in Kansas anymore. Things are changing rapidly, and this epoch of change is right now just in its childhood. Get ready, because the teenage years are just ahead!
Indeed, in all of this, education plays a central, even pivotal role. Such technological advancement makes great education in the great books and great ideas, and the corresponding abilities of most citizens to think independently and innovatively, lead, and initiate, even more important than ever before. We need Results-Based Learning. We need education that works.
The future will be dominated by whichever groups become the most effective learners, adapters, and innovators. If this is centered in a small, powerful group of elites, they will rule. If it is made up of larger numbers of the regular people, in contrast, we will live in a society dedicated to freedom and opportunity for all.
Education matters. Moreover, the kind of education we give our children matters—not just for them individually, but for the future of our entire society. Only great education can get us where we want to go.
NOTES (includes notes from previous post)
[i] Schwab, 15, 147-148; see also Kevin Kelly, The Inevitable, 2016, 50-51; Brynjolfsson, 14-20; See Sam Smith, “The Truth About the Future of Cars,” Esquire, April 2016, 69-74; Erin Griffith, “Disconnected,” Fortune, August 1, 2016, 44..
[ii] See Smith, 69-74.
[iii] Scwhab, 15; see also Brynjolfsson, 36-37; Kelly, 53.
[iv] Schwab, 15, 22, 161-167.
[v] Andrea Smith, “Print Your Candy and Eat it Too,” Popular Science, January 2015, 24.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Schwab, 16.
[viii] Ibid., 17.
[ix] “Future of Money Defined,” Forbes, December 28, 2015, 80.
[x] Schwab, 17.
[xi] Ibid.
[xii] Kelly, 238.
[xiii] Ibid., 5.; see also David Berreby, “Duet ex Machina,” Psychology Today, May/June 2015, 60-69.
[xiv] Berreby, 67.
[xv] Ibid., front cover.
[xvi] Ibid., 66-69.
[xvii] Schwab, 21; see also 168-169.
[xviii] Ibid., 21.
[xix] Ibid., 170-172.
[xx] Ibid., 21.
[xxi] Kelly, 69.
[xxii] See, for example, Andrew Rosenblum, “Virtual Reality Meets the Public,” Popular Science, January 2015, 45.
[xxiii] See Eric Spitznagel, Men’s Health, June 2016, 144-149, 158-159.
[xxiv] Ibid.
[xxv] Ibid.
[xxvi] See Matt Giles, “Let’s Talk About Love in the App Age,” Popular Science, January/February 2016, 30-31.
[xxvii] See ibid.; see also Spitznagel, 144-149, 158-159.
[xxviii] See Spitznagel., 144-149, 158-159.
[xxix] See Giles, 30-31; see also Spitznagel, 144-149, 158-159..
[xxx] See Brynjolfsson, 52-56; Kelly, 219-220.
[xxxi] Schwab, 99-100.
[xxxii] Kelly, 72.
[xxxiii] Schwab, 149-150; see also 151-152.
[xxxiv] Kelly, 220.
[xxxv] Ibid.
[xxxvi] Cited in Tapscott, 276.
[xxxvii] Schwab, 46-47.
[xxxviii] Wassily Leontief, cited in Brynjolfsson, 178.
[xxxix] Schwab., 47-48.
[xl] Ibid., 49.
[xli] Ibid., 92.
[xlii] Tapscott, 173.
[xliii] Schwab, 13.
[xliv] See ibid., 100-102.
[xlv] Ibid., 100-101.
[xlvi] Kelly, 127.
[xlvii] Schwab, 100-101.
[xlviii] Ibid., 102.
[xlix] Ibid., 108.
[l] Tapscott, 308.
[li] Schwab, 121.
[lii] Kelly, 180.
[liii] Schwab, 125-128.
[liv] Kelly, 40.
[lv] Ibid., 5.
[lvi] Thiel, 10.
[lvii] Tapscott, 309-310.
[lviii] Ross, 187.
[lix] Tom Goodwin, in an article in TechCruch, cited in Schwab, 20.
[lx] Parker, 23.
[lxi] Ibid., 263.
[lxii] Ibid., 267.
Category : Blog
The Jefferson-Madison Debates: The Next Civil War?
May 13th, 2018 // 4:25 pm @ Oliver DeMille
True or False…or False?
It’s getting worse. Just watch the news. This phrase, the “Next Civil War”, was recently used by economic forecaster Harry Dent to describe the growing divide between Red and Blue state cultures. These two sides now disagree with each other to the point that in many cases people experience real hatred for those on “the other side”.
Former president Barack Obama noted that people who largely get their news from the mainstream media and those who get their news mostly from Fox are basically living “on different planets.” They not only disagree on principles and solutions, he pointed out, but they fundamentally disagree on “facts”. What the Blue culture sees as incontrovertible truths, the Red culture frequently sees as lies. Fake. False. And the opposite is just as true: what the Red culture sees as fact is often considered false by Blue culture.
No wonder the two sides are so angry at each other. When you disagree on what the facts are, the solutions promoted by the other side frequently appear ludicrous. Even dangerous. Both sides, each rooted in its own understanding of reality, watch the other side say and do things that are clearly and painfully hurtful—according to the set of obvious but differing “facts” they each believe.
Roadblocks
This divide is widening. We’ve reached the point that one of the worst things parents can learn about their child’s “significant other” or new fiancé is that he/she is a Republican, or Democrat—depending on the family. Religion, career, ethnicity, education, financial status, and even a criminal history, are largely negotiable in most modern families. But the other political party? Many parents turn Tevye: “If I try and bend this far, I’ll break.”
Lynn Vavreck wrote in The New York Times (January 31, 2017): “In 1958, 33 percent of Democrats wanted their daughters to marry a Democrat, and 25 percent of Republicans wanted their daughters to marry a Republican. But by 2016, 60 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Republicans felt that way.” And for many, the feelings run very deep. While in 1994 21 percent of Republicans viewed Democrats in the “Very Unfavorable” category, by 2016 the number was 58 percent. (Pew Research Center) In 1994 17 percent of Democrats saw Republicans as “Very Unfavorable”, but the number in 2016 had skyrocketed to 55 percent. (Ibid.)
Aaron Blake summarized this concern in The Washington Post: “If 58 percent of Republicans hate Democrats and 55 percent of Democrats hate Republicans, that would mean about 35 percent of registered voters hate the opposite political party.” (June 19, 2017) “But that’s not quite hate…. 45% of Republicans see the Democratic Party as a threat to the nation’s well-being…. [and] 41% of Democrats see the Republican Party as a threat to the nation’s well-being”. (Ibid.) When you add independents, the “hate” one of the parties (those who see the other party as a threat to the nation) makes up 39 percent of registered voters or “About 1 in 4” Americans. (Ibid.)
There are a lot of others who see the other side in an unfavorable light, around 33 percent of additional Republicans (for a total of 91% with “unfavorable” or “very unfavorable”) and 30 percent of additional Democrats (86% with “unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” views). (Ibid.) Note that all of this occurred before the Trump presidency. Again, this divide is real, and deep. In the Trump era the intensity has only increased.
But does any of this justify the phrase “Next Civil War”? Not yet. Not unless we’re going to surrender to hyperbole. Yet this conflict is escalating in many sectors—it’s moved beyond the traditional battlegrounds of politics and news media to additional culture and power centers including education, television, movies, entertainment awards shows, daily and nightly talk shows (both radio and television), sports, and multiple venues on social media. Even social media and Internet platforms are getting involved by adjusting algorithms to promote certain political leanings—or dampen the voice of those they dislike—often without informing their customers.
Platforms and Soapboxes
For many Americans, the sight of some NFL players purposely kneeling during the National Anthem is the ultimate symbol of this divide. One side sees young role models and leaders using their public platform to bravely protest government abuse—especially what they consider racially charged police violence. The other side feels hurt and confused by millionaire beneficiaries of the American Dream figuratively spitting on the American Flag and the sacrifice of dead and maimed military heroes.
It’s difficult to even discuss this situation rationally in many venues due to the raw and heartfelt emotions of people on both sides of the Red-Blue cultural divide.
Sadly, many schools have also become places of great conflict. For example, a national uproar occurred when a middle school teacher assigned her students to write letters to political officials urging them to pass stronger gun control laws. Should teachers tell middle school children what sides to take on political issues? And assign them to engage in activism for one specific side? At what point does teaching become brainwashing? A father of one of the students, a policeman, refused to allow his child to do the assignment. The father deeply disagreed with the politics of the teacher, and many of the other parents disagreed with the politicization of middle school in general. In response to backlash, the teacher allowed students to skip the assignment without penalty, but didn’t suggest writing against stronger gun control if this more accurately aligned with the student’s views. The same week, an elementary student was expelled from school for drawing himself hunting during a “free art” assignment, and a high school teacher was fired for a lengthy history-class soliloquy describing current members of the military as “the lowest of the low” in our society. Red and Blue cultures passionately disagreed on how these events should be handled. Both sides largely see the other’s view as ridiculous and extreme.
Another moment that epitomizes this division occurred on Broadway when the cast of Hamilton stopped the musical midstream to lecture the new Vice President elect, Mike Pence. Hamilton itself is an artistic icon—an American Les Miserables that underscores how the struggles of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton and their families and peers unleashed freedom in a way that has now spread to people of all backgrounds. The lecture itself was seen by one side as a welcome comeuppance to a dangerous new administration, and by the other as yet another gauche elitist attack against the will of the voters and the American system.
Networks, Numbers, and New Divides
Thankfully this war is largely cultural—it has not devolved into massive physical violence between the two sides of a nation (like the French Revolution, U.S. Civil War, or Russian Revolution, etc.). Hopefully it will always remain peaceful. But in the fight for hearts, there is no doubt that a major civil war for the future of our republic is already under way.
Worse, it is doubtful that any real solution is imminent. When one part of the nation generally believes most of what airs on CNN, ABC, NBC and MSNBC, while another part tends to place more trust in Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or Trump tweets, the two aren’t going see eye-to-eye on much of anything. And when these two groups are the largest political blocs in our republic, we’re going to have genuine and repeated disagreements.
Perhaps the epicenter of this battle for “the hearts and minds of the people” is found in the media. And this poses a major challenge. Why? Because most of modern media—from both the Left and Right—has three serious problems:
1-It is largely agenda driven (“Forget the facts, full speed ahead!”)
2-It is shallow.
3-It is electronic.
Most people realize the problems with item #1. As a result, they stop listening to media outlets that are clearly against their views—and seem hostile to anyone with a different perspective. This has created another significant problem with modern media:
4-It is isolated. The Right listens to the Right, while the Left listens to the Left. Few listen to both. Few listen to the other side. Over time, media outlets increasingly cater to their narrow audiences, so the extremism increases.
Result: the divisions in our nation are getting wider, deeper, and more susceptible to anger and, too often, extremism and unhealthy thinking and actions.
The Missing Depth
The 2nd and 3rd problems listed just above are equally dangerous. Many people are very busy—work, family, more work, community, more family. Little time is left over for meaningful civic involvement, much less for taking the time to really dig into each day’s news, truly understand what is happening, and go way beyond the 30 second sound bites or even 3 minute segments on any given story. An hour of the news is more than most can spare—and most hour newscasts only provide a very shallow overview of a few of the day’s news topics. In short, shallow. No time for depth.
The result is that nearly all shows repeat a few top stories, with only a bit of detail. Even if a person watched television all day, he or she would usually only hear about the same top stories, addressed shallowly over and over—with different opinions but nothing really weighty or reflective. Depth is almost unheard of in most of today’s media.
This is especially true of the electronic media. Besides, television, radio, and online media typically interact with human brains more like entertainment than like something really, truly important. When we watch or listen or surf our news, in most cases, we are in the mode of moving quickly from one thought to the next. Even if we try to focus, ads, pop-ups and crawlers invade our screen with multiple headlines and distractions all at once. Our devices were purposely designed this way, in fact.
Reading the news, in contrast, naturally moves the focus into our intellect. A good start. “But nobody wants to read anything longer than a page…” today’s editors assure everyone. Many editors put the limit at “two paragraphs.” If we don’t read more deeply, we’ll truly and literally become a nation of sheep. Deep thinking is needed to deal with the reality of today’s complex and globally-interconnected world—for any citizen. And deep thinking about the news is basically impossible unless we’re reading (or listening/watching to a source that takes) much more than 5 minutes to really address an issue in some depth.
The Jefferson-Madison Debates
The term “fake news” means the following to most people: news that pushes a false agenda, distracts from truth, lies. But “shallow news” is just as bad for the nation. Even “accurate news” that is shallow is a major blow to our society. And this accounts for most of what media consumers experience. When it is both fake and shallow, we’re in real trouble.
The Left and Right argue about which news reports are “fake,” but few even claim to offer real depth in their news. And even fewer consumers seem to be actively searching for and embracing deeper news.
To reiterate: the Red-Blue divisions are growing, and intensifying, and this means that major problems are ahead unless we do something about it. My plan is to write a weekly (or, sometimes, every two week) article that treats real topics in enough depth to help readers take a step back from the constant screaming of electronic news, and really understand a topic (one at a time) enough to see behind the scenes of modern media spin and fake/shallow posturing.
More will, of course, be needed to stop our seeming national sprint toward more civil conflict. But I know this weekly column will make a difference—for those who read it.
It was the reading and thinking about articles and pamphlets during the American Founding generation that helped America gain freedom, and deep thinking is vitally needed today. I’m calling this new series of weekly articles The Jefferson-Madison Debates, and I hope you’ll join us.
It’s going to be fun.
— Oliver DeMille
(RSS Feed sign up here ***)
Category : Aristocracy &Arts &Blog &Business &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship &Technology
The Jefferson-Madison Debates: Are Today’s Education and Politics Entering the Age of Star Trek?
May 12th, 2018 // 9:02 am @ Oliver DeMille
“A shoe, too, is no longer a finished product, but an endless process of reimagining our extended feet, perhaps with disposable covers, sandals that morph as you walk, treads that shift, or floors that act as shoes.” —Kevin Kelly
“We have long argued that as the Web extends in usage…increased access to factual information would improve the quality of public discourse. However, the opposite seems to be occurring.” —Don and Alex Tapscott
Given how much technology has changed the world in the past twenty years, and how differently we now live, it’s easy to assume that the Internet Revolution has brought the big change—and this era of massive shifts will slowly relax back into some kind of normality. But the truth is that we are just at the very beginning stages of the Information Age. The changes have just begun.
Following are a few of the major developments still ahead, as described by the experts on current technologies. As you think about each of these, consider the ramifications of these trends as they relate to the future of education, career, the economy, and the type of education needed for the emerging economy:
1. Autonomous vehicles. Self-driving cars are a reality.[i] How long they will co-exist with human drivers before the laws require all cars to be driven electronically remains to be seen.[ii] Self-driving planes, boats, and trucks will also change our lives drastically. Flying vehicles are next. As drone technology improves, taking people as passengers may not be too far away.
2. 3D Printing (additive manufacturing).[iii] This will revolutionize transportation, shipping, and manufacturing. Things that can be printed out in our own homes don’t need to be built in factories, or shipped by truck, airplane, or even drone. 3D printing will also have significant impact in medicine by printing certain medical implants.[iv] In fact, 3D printers now print food, including candy—and some people think it even tastes good.[v] One taste tester wrote: “It tastes like an after-dinner mint mixed with a sugar cube.”[vi]
3. 4D Printing. The printers will print smartobjects that are self-learning, and self-altering in response to their environment.[vii]
4. New Smart Materials. As Klaus Schwab, Founder of the World Economic Forum, put it: Some are “self-healing, self-cleaning, metals with memory that revert to their original shapes, chemicals and crystals that turn pressure into energy, and so on…. Take advanced nanomaterials [nano means smaller than the human eye can see] such as graphene, which is about 200-times stronger than steel, a million times thinner than a human hair, and an efficient conductor of heat and electricity. When graphene becomes price competitive…it could significantly disrupt the manufacturing and infrastructure industries.”[viii]
5. iMoneyCenter. As Forbes put it: “Your cellphone will become a global bank. Mobile money accounts already outnumber traditional bank accounts in parts of the developing world, and new technology will turbocharge that trend, allowing payments to anyone, anywhere, in local currencies.”[ix]
6. RFID (Radio Frequency Identification). Tiny tags can be put on pretty much anything, or anyone, and track where it is at any time, all over the world.[x] This technology is cheap and easy to use. The tags can even contain sensors that keep track of how well the item is doing, and what it is doing.[xi]
New Normal
Kevin Kelly said of the various kinds of small digital devices that are being created: “A few are shrinking to the size of the period following this sentence. These macroscopic measurers can be inserted into watches, clothes, spectacles, or phones, or inexpensively dispersed in rooms, cars, offices, and public spaces.[xii] Sensors can be built to watch and listen.” He also wrote: “Massive tracking and total surveillance are here to stay.”[xiii]
The machines are becoming ubiquitous.[xiv] Moreover, a lot of people like it this way. One report summarized the trend as “Our Love-Hate Affair With AI.”[xv]
The ramifications of the new era of machines for freedom and relationships of all kinds are immense.[xvi]
7. Gene Mapping and Synthetic Biology. This is popularly called the creation of “Designer Babies.” “It will provide us with the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA.”[xvii] “Today, a genome can be sequenced in a few hours for less than a thousand dollars.”[xviii] And at some point scientists foresee artificial memory implanting into peoples’ brains.[xix] Just download what you want to know—facts, dates, formulas, etc. Gene Mapping will impact agriculture and the energy sector (by producing biofuels) as well as medicine and education.[xx]
8. Personalized Medications. Medicine, from those used to treat advanced diseases to simple aspirin, will be personalized for each individual—“tailored to your DNA.”[xxi] These will likely be very expensive at first, further widening the gap between the upper and other classes.
9. Non-Communicative Relationships. A number of popular magazines each month present articles that tell men and women they need to turn off their electronic gadgets and talk to their spouse or significant other. The articles are detailed and specific, with advice like “look your spouse in the eye while you talk to her,” and “actually listen to the words he says and try to connect with his logic and feelings,” etc.
The volume of such articles suggests that this is a serious problem. Relationships are often victims of addiction to electronic devices, texts, messages, and other incoming communication that is more highly valued than interaction with the live person in the same room.
Relationships and Roboticships
Moreover, emerging technology will very likely throw a serious monkey-wrench into many relationships. VR (Virtual Reality[xxii]) is incredibly advanced now, and will soon be on the market in extensive ways. A person can slip on a VR helmet or glasses and be transported mentally to a whole new world. Some VR research and development is focused on porn, although the tech world prefers the term “alternative relationships.” How will this impact marriage, family, education, and stable relationships?
Robotics have reached the point that lifelike “partner dolls,” sometimes called “sex dolls”, that talk and interact are already available.[xxiii] Soon, experts say, they’ll be easily accessible online and sold in our corner neighborhood stores.[xxiv] It’s a potential revolution in lifestyles, and the impact on relationships will certainly be real.[xxv] It is unclear how this will influence marriage and family, but the prospects seem quite negative.
A number of apps try to fulfill the same need—for relationships in an electronic format.[xxvi] If we find it difficult now to put down our phones or take off our headphones to engage in meaningful conversation and relationships, imagine how difficult it will be to turn off the robots, apps, and VR glasses.[xxvii] VR, and lifelike personal relationship robots, can be programmed (or told by the user) to never argue, nag, disagree, shout, or storm away.[xxviii] Again, such devices won’t take the place of quality, mature relationships, but they could very well hurt or make such relationships more difficult.[xxix]
10. The Rise of the Algorithms. Online technology now employs numerous advanced algorithms and AI technologies that are learning to do everything from sensing where our eyes are gazing (in order to know our interests and sell to us)[xxx] to what our politics are (as mentioned above, this could be to allow providers like Facebook and Google, or others, to determine what news feeds to send us—to promote their own political goals), to how empty the milk carton in our fridge is (in order to order a fresh one).
Schwab said: “Amazon and Netflix already possess algorithms that predict which films and books we may wish to watch and read. Dating and job placement sites suggest partners and jobs—in our neighborhood or anywhere in the world—that their systems [algorithms] figure might suit us best.
The Man AI in Charge
“What do we do? Trust the advice provided by an algorithm or that offered by family, friends, or colleagues? Would we consult an AI-driven robot doctor with a near perfect diagnosis success rate—or stick with the human physician with the assuring bedside manner we have known for years?”[xxxi]
AI is tasked with watching us and learning from us, and as AIs become smarter, some of them will be incredibly effective forecasters. Companies may even be valued based on their AI. For example, Kelly wrote: “Amazon’s greatest asset is not its Prime delivery service but the many millions of reader reviews it has accumulated over the decades.”[xxxii] These reviews, and the AI that runs them, learns from them, and uses them to help predict what books each user is likely to enjoy, is a huge asset.
The concept of establishing corporate boards of directors made up entirely of Artificial Intelligence is discussed openly and seriously.[xxxiii] Do we want algorithms in charge of everything?
In education, the possibilities are seemingly endless—and just as alarming. Kelly wrote: “The tiny camera eyes that now stare back at us from any screen can be trained with additional skills…researchers at MIT have taught the eyes in our machines to detect human emotions. As we watch the screen, the screen is watching us, where we look, and how we react.
“Since this perception is in real time, the smart software [algorithms] can adapt what I’m viewing. Say I am reading a book and my frown shows I’ve stumbled on a certain word; the text could expand a definition.”[xxxiv]
This means that the text of the book is changing before you read it, based on what you have read so far and how you reacted. In other words, the computer is in effect censoring what you read before you even read it.
What about the author’s intent? Well, that depends. The AI, or the people who commission and oversee the AI, may decide to carefully protect the original text, or they may not. They may edit, censor, distract, etc.—whatever they think best achieves their goals.
Remember that thing called Thinking?
They may even have different ways of dealing with different people—like Google gaming the search system so that people who look up a certain Republican candidate get the most negative articles about him on the first page, while those who search for his Democratic opponent get the most flattering articles (or vice versa).
Or they might simply guide your searches to the companies who paid them the most to do so. If these guides are personalized and targeted to each individual user (like in the movie Minority Report), different readers will literally be getting a very different education. One student will read very different things than a second student, while the third reads yet another thing—all determined by AI and/or those who program and control the AI.
Kelly continued: “Or, if it realizes I am reading the same passage, it could supply an annotation for that passage. Similarly, if it knows I am bored by a scene in a video, it could jump ahead or speed up the action.”[xxxv] If we choose such functions on a menu, that’s one thing. But what happens if the big businesses or the cyber-governmental-industrial-complex just decides that this kind of censorship is best for the people? Or for a certain group or type of people, such as those from a certain religion or political party?
On purely educational grounds, having the computer supply definitions, commentaries and links is bad for thinking. It teaches rote dependence on experts, even if the expert is an AI. If we don’t have to question, ponder, or debate the books we read, we’ll be thinking a lot less. The words censorship and brainwashing aren’t farfetched in this context.
What about politics? The media and party-media machines already spread a lot of false information. What will happen when algorithms take over the media spin? It will personalize to each reader, each person using the Internet (or whatever kind of Supernet or Skynet takes its place). As such, the AI will learn how to confuse each person the most effectively. Again, this isn’t far from the personalized billboards and ads in the movie Minority Report.
(Un)Locked Doors
On an even larger scale, if an algorithm claims to predict which of various candidates would make the best president, prime minister, judge or senator, do we just give up voting altogether? After all, the voters seldom put in leaders who truly deliver what they promised. Or will the experts try to convince us that an algorithm-based AI should be our president and Congress and Court and make our top government decisions—getting rid of human error altogether?
And in all this, let’s not forget that someone can access the algorithms. All computers can be hacked—so far. As author Marc Goodman put it: “There’s never been a computer system that’s proven unhackable.”[xxxvi] Bigger technologies mean bigger hacks, with more drastic impact on people.
And won’t the growth of the Internet just funnel more and more power to a few elites who control the algorithms? The answer is “Yes. Emphatically yes!”
In fact, is there any way to stop this from happening?
11. “Reshoring.” This means that when high tech processes like 3D printing, gene mapping, and RFID tagging become mainstream around the world, many industrial jobs will be lost—but a lot of high-tech jobs will move back to the most advanced nations in search of highly-trained workers with expertise in areas conducive to high tech.[xxxvii] Whether this will happen or not remains to be seen. It may not happen at all. “…many workers [may]…end up permanently unemployed, like horses unable to adjust to the invention of the tractors.”[xxxviii]
12. Portfolio Careers. These occur where a person’s career includes doing several different jobs for different employers in the same day.[xxxix] For example, one person might be a teacher during the school day, a restaurant manager during the evenings, and an eBay seller in his spare time—all to make ends meet. Portfolio careers may become very widespread in the new economy. A lot of people probably won’t like such a development, leading to increased class divisions and conflicts.[xl]
13. Even Greater Class Divide. As Schwab wrote: “…half of all assets around the world are now controlled by the richest 1% of the global population, while the lower half” of the population control less than 1% of world assets.[xli] Or as the Tapscotts put it: “…the global 1 percent owns half of the world’s wealth while 3.5 billion people earn fewer than 2 dollars a day.”[xlii]
To be continued next week …
[i] Schwab, 15, 147-148; see also Kevin Kelly, The Inevitable, 2016, 50-51; Brynjolfsson, 14-20; See Sam Smith, “The Truth About the Future of Cars,” Esquire, April 2016, 69-74; Erin Griffith, “Disconnected,” Fortune, August 1, 2016, 44.
[ii] See Smith, 69-74.
[iii] Scwhab, 15; see also Brynjolfsson, 36-37; Kelly, 53.
[iv] Schwab, 15, 22, 161-167.
[v] Andrea Smith, “Print Your Candy and Eat it Too,” Popular Science, January 2015, 24.
[vi] Ibid.
[vii] Schwab, 16.
[viii] Ibid., 17.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Postmodernism &Producers &Prosperity &Science &Technology
An Update on the State of America: What’s REALLY Happening?
October 28th, 2017 // 4:41 pm @ Oliver DeMille
(It’s Not What You See On the News)
The Goal
“Keep your eyes on the ball.”
I think every baseball coach I ever had repeated this advice like a mantra, and with good reason. A batter faces all kinds of distractions: players from the other team–both those on the field and those in the dugout–make a point of yelling, waving their arms, and doing whatever they can to distract a batter, to get him to take his eyes off the ball.
The catcher says things from behind the plate. The opposing crowd yells boisterously in the stands, waves banners or hats or small children, and some honk their car horns or chant pithy slogans in unison. The good batter learns to ignore all of this noise and mental clutter, to focus only on the ball—eyes on the ball, always.
The same focus is vital in politics. Most people realize this in a roundabout way, but they tend to think that media, the opposing party, and social media are trying to keep certain governmental leaders distracted. This does happen, but it’s not the real problem. In fact, media outlets and political parties trying to divert each other pale in comparison to the actual distraction.
The Diversion
The real problem occurs when the citizens get distracted. When they “take their eyes off the ball.” Both political parties routinely try to get citizens focused on tangents, and one of the most effective ways is to attack each other.
Nothing keeps people misdirected like a good bout of Washington name-calling. If that isn’t working, the media can be counted on to up the ante and intensify the rhetoric, spin, and accusations.
The more the citizens who tend to stay informed on the news can be diverted by such tactics, the less they tend to pay attention to their real role, their crucial responsibility—to keep the government in check, not let politicians and/or bureaucracies quietly (or loudly, for that matter) chip away at their freedoms.
The media are supposed to help this important work by keeping a close eye on government and calling attention to federal excess and abuse. Sometimes they do this well, but mostly they join the political parties and politicians in creating more noise, clamor and misdirection.
The Constitution gets attacked each month in a number of ways, but the media and parties tend to redirect the American people to other things, loud and emotional issues that spread anger, division, and a focus on personalities, parties, special interest groups, “who said what” and “who responded how”—and “how dare they!” While this is happening, our freedoms are whittled away behind the scenes.
For example, as Senator Mike Lee pointed out, if the bills passed by Congress in any given year are stacked in one pile, and the policies adopted by the sprawling federal bureaucracy during the same time period (without any vote in Congress and usually with little or no media coverage) are stacked in another, the bureaucratic pile is many times higher than the first. Yet hardly anyone knows what the myriad government agencies are writing, implementing, and enforcing; almost nobody has a say in what they decide; and few even know it’s happening. By the time such policies start directly hurting you and other people, it’s often too late.
This occurs year after year, decade after decade. Add to this the various court precedents and additional policies established by local, state and federal judiciaries, executives, and legislatures across the nation, along with international precedent, treaties, and agreements that American courts and the other branches of government are bound by or choose to comply with, and the “behind the scenes” pile of government regulations, policies, penalties and rules has grown (and is growing) even more quickly.
The Problem
The spread of governmental power in the past few decades has been almost exponential. Carly Fiorina was right when she repeatedly warned during the 2016 presidential primaries that America is being “crushed” under the overwhelming weight of regulatory overreach.
Yet this is seldom, almost never, mentioned in the media—mainstream or otherwise. It is simply a non-story for most Americans. Instead, the media distract us with the latest White House skirmish, presidential Tweet, ridiculous things said by the media, or outrageous words or actions by a political official (sometimes Republican, other times Democrat) or Hollywood celebrity, sports star or recording artist. Even sports shows, late night TV, and various celebrity-studded awards shows have recently joined the fray.
It all adds up to one glaring reality: Distraction, distraction, distraction. The problem isn’t so much that perception is reality, but that “the news cycle is reality” for far too many Americans. And, in fact, for a growing number of people “the latest post is reality.”
We are living in a new era of political interaction. “Get your daily distraction here!” Buy a magazine, turn on the news, or read the headlines on your smartphone—it’s often at least 99% distraction. And no, this statistic isn’t scientific, it’s just my best guess. A true scientific study of the facts would quite possibly show that 99% is a bit low.
The real issues, the most important realities, almost never pop up on the morning smartphone update. They only rarely appear in a television news program, and even the once-highly-trusted print media now serve up large swaths of distraction. We live in tabloid nation, at times, even when we try to follow the news.
The Shift
The truth is, I think most Americans kind of sensed this turn of events taking place during the 2015-2016 presidential elections. Media coverage was frequently so extreme that anyone who still trusts the media must not have watched the news during the past 24 months. Many on the Left are shocked by President Trump’s tweets; a lot on the Right feel the same way about the nightly news.
That’s what effective distraction is all about. It keeps us uneasy, concerned, worried about what the other (“evil”) party might do. This kind of intense media environment is like a drug—great for ratings, but often light on truth. Those who get hooked have to get their daily fix, shake their heads, and try to sleep at night even though the world is “so close to the edge right now”. Thanks to smartphones, too many of us are even addicted to the hourly fix, each new headline scrolling across the handheld screen to remind us to stay mainlined to the latest media report.
But there’s more to all this than initially meets the eye. At the same time we witnessed this momentous shift in American news and politics, especially its growing levels of intensity and divisiveness, we also experienced something else—mostly unarticulated, a feeling, a fleeting glimpse of…something. We’re not yet sure what it means, but it’s starting to look a bit like…dare we say it?…a new sort of wisdom.
For example, during the election a friend told me he was deeply worried Trump would win. When I pressed him for details, he explained that he thought Trump represented a spreading American authoritarianism. Not conservatism. Not liberalism or progressivism.
Just a desire to have someone strong in charge who would ignore the old political ways of doing things and instead just get things done, torpedoes-away-style if needed.
I asked if he thought Hillary would be better, and he responded that she’d be normal—corrupt, a politician, the kind of president the red states would hate and watch closely. But predictable. And therefore better.
Then he said the really profound thing that made me stop and think. “With Hillary in the White House and a large Republican majority in the House,” the government will be largely handicapped for the next four years. I like that.”
The Setup
He wasn’t just seeing things as liberal versus conservative. He was looking past media and party distractions and keeping his eye on the ball. Agree or disagree with his conclusions, but it struck me that his main focus was figuring out how his vote could help limit Washington.
Interesting.
The most intriguing thing about this conversation wasn’t the Hillary versus Trump issue, which for him seemed entirely secondary. His concern was that everything hinged on how to keep America from losing more of its freedoms. At the time, I thought it was a remarkable discussion.
But then another friend told me he supported Trump all through the Republican primaries because he believed Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, or any other mainstream politician might be elected along with Republican control of the House and Senate, meaning that there would be nobody to aggressively check their agenda.
“But with Trump in the White House,” he predicted, “Republicans in Congress will work hard to check the president. He won’t get very much done—just a few big and important things like deregulation of past executive orders, a Right-leaning Court appointee, and major tax cuts. Congress will only support the things we really need, not all the Trump rhetoric.”
Again, we discussed the specifics, with me mostly asking questions, but the most interesting thing I took from this conversation was that he, too, was looking for an election outcome that would check and limit Washington. He had a very different view than the other friend, and ended up voting differently, but they both had the same top goals in mind—protect our freedom, reduce the power of Washington, reboot the Constitution.
Yet another friend took a drastically different viewpoint, but with the same ultimate goal. “I hope Hillary wins and both houses of Congress stay Republican, or that Trump wins and Democrats take control of the Senate,” she said. Then she ended with: “Anything to get the checks and balances working better.” Again: curtail Washington’s power and let the Constitution shrink the overreach of government.
After this third conversation, I stopped being surprised when this approach came up. I didn’t see it much in the national media, but I heard similar thoughts from at least a half-dozen other people. Unlike the other heated elections I’d closely watched since 1992, this time around a lot more people seemed to be seeking something more than “the better candidate.” They wanted to see real change in Washington, not through a candidate, but by setting up Washington to do more internal fighting and do less. They wanted to limit the government.
The Ball
Is this change occurring because people are starting to give up on party politics as a real solution to our national problems? Or are they reading the Constitution and founding ideas more deeply? Or, alternatively, are there growing concerns that Washington has just become too big, too unwieldy?
Was all this a coincidence? Maybe. Or perhaps there is a new wisdom, embryonic to be sure, rising in America. A new sense that if we want to be free, we’re going to have to look past blind trust in what the media tell us and dig deeper, think more deeply and independently about our freedom and our politics.
Or could it be even more simple: Could it be that the media tipped their hand in 2015-2017, clearly signaling to a lot of Americans that it is “all in” for bigger government, more power to Washington, and more support for leaders who want to expand that power? As a result, perhaps a lot more people are looking around for new and better ways.
If there’s one thing Donald Trump absolutely got right in 2016, it is that the time has arrived to “drain the swamp” that is Washington D.C. In fact, Barack Obama started his presidency with the same call for real change in Washington and the way it did business. So did Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, for that matter. All came to the Oval Office as outsiders, promising to put Washington back in line. History seems to be teaching us that presidents don’t change the swamp as much as they want to.
If a new wisdom is percolating among the American people, it will need to use the power of the voting booth to put disruptors and real innovators in office—many offices—and never again settle for mainstream politicians and managers of the status quo (from either party).
To accomplish this, we’ll have to learn to largely ignore distractions from party politics and the manic media and instead keep our eyes on the ball:
What is undermining the Constitution
and our freedoms this month?
That is the question.
This is what is really happening in America.
And the stakes could hardly be higher: If we’re not up to the task, the elite politicians, bureaucracies, and media will win; families, middle America, the economy, and our posterity will be the losers.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics
One Great Challenge Facing America Today
August 26th, 2017 // 4:51 am @ Oliver DeMille
The Coming Fall
Only 15 percent of Americans are on target to fund 1 year or more of their retirement. One single year. Yet many will live twenty to thirty years after retiring. This one fact alone is a major blow against conservatism.
It may in fact kill conservative principles and ideals in the next two decades, and it could deeply hurt the American economy and our freedoms in the process. This is not an exaggeration. Put simply:
How can conservatives expect to win elections or, even if they are victorious at the ballot box, actually pass conservative laws and policies when more than 85 percent of the American people are going to be fully dependent on someone else’s money for housing, food and clothing, health care, and other expenses during retirement?
With the massive Baby Boom generation moving into retirement, many analysts ask: how can the United States implement anything short of collectivist socialism in the next thirty years?
To cut away the safety net, or to default on the promised Social Security and healthcare benefits workers paid into for decades, would be immoral and create widespread poverty for many of our most vulnerable. To buck up and pay for these obligations, and supplement them with what will be needed for millions of retirees to just get by, will require levels of taxation and regulation that will truly be nothing short of…well, socialism.
Bottom Dollar
Few people want to admit this reality—Republican politicians least of all. But over sixty years of government promises, spending money that should have been saved, inflating the currency, and putting numerous regulatory hurdles in the path of entrepreneurialism, innovation, and economic growth have taken their toll. A national debt north of $20 trillion dollars (more than $100 trillion when all the obligations and liabilities are met, and a lot more as these obligations and interest on the debt increase every month) leave us little wiggle room.
There are two realistic responses. First, we can go after major economic growth. This will require a systemic change in our economy—meaning mass deregulation and getting the government almost entirely out of the marketplace. Tax rates must come down drastically, and foreign-held corporate money must be encouraged to repatriate without penalty. Foreign direct investment must also be recruited (another reason tax rates must be significantly reduced).
The second option is to keep on the current path until we default, then allow an IMF bailout of the U.S. and the replacement of the dollar as the world reserve currency with International Monetary Fund SDR currency or some other (probably electronic) legal tender. This will result in a major reduction of the standard of living for most Americans and an explosion of additional government handouts. Most retirement and other savings that do exist will be wiped out, and nearly all Americans will go on the dole, with a few elites at the top, and both socialism and globalism will dominate.
The amazing thing, to me at least, is that many of our nation’s leaders right now—in both parties—actually prefer the second option. Moreover, a lot of them believe that this is the best course for our future. They deeply believe in globalism, collectivist economics, and the end of America’s attachment to free enterprise, gun rights, family values, and religion. They believe that government is the greatest power on earth, and deserves our universal allegiance and support. Even, ultimately, reverence. Anyone who disagrees, they believe, is small-minded or caught in the past—or both.
New or Old
Not only do many Democratic leaders hold this view, but a surprising number of Republican officials believe it as well, or at least they vote like they believe it (which brings the same results). This is a real battle, and the globalist elites are winning. The media, most of academia, and a majority of politicians are on their side. In their view, the future of the world is at stake—either a bright future of globalism (with elites in charge) or a return to dark-age tribalism, as they see it (where the regular people rule through small-minded, unenlightened democratic influence), will ensue. They are determined to ensure the globalist outcome.
They literally consider it a war–and one that is worth winning, whatever the cost. If academia, media, Hollywood and the lobbyist/D.C. bureaucracy/political party-apparatus can force the Trump administration to back down from anti-globalist policies and behaviors, so be it. That’s what the hubbub is about on the nightly news, investigations, etc.
But if not, they’ll take more drastic measures. A currency default might do it, causing bank holidays and massive layoffs. Or a serious shakeup in the White House—brought on by the Special Counsel, indictment of the President, or something else that circumvents the will of the voters and instead chases the goals of the elite. Something unexpected, of the same magnitude, could trigger a return of White House alignment to globalist goals. Today’s elites in government, media, finance, etc. can hardly remember a time when globalism wasn’t the clear agenda. Most of them are outraged at the very thought.
The rest of America has a serious problem. Remember the 85 percent of Americans who don’t (or won’t) have enough retirement savings to last more than a year? How are conservatives going to effectively promote smaller government and a return to genuine free enterprise in a nation strapped with the $20 trillion-plus national debt, $13 trillion in consumer debt, over $100 trillion owed in debt plus unfunded liabilities, and many millions (and growing) of retirees who will desperately need financial support?
The Next Step
I’m an optimist, because I believe the best days of America and the world are yet to come. Usually I infuse my writings with optimistic ideas on how we can really improve things in the days ahead. But right now I have to admit that I’m concerned. I’m not sure how we get past the economic hole we’ve dug for ourselves—not just politicians, but the regular people as well. We are culturally, if not actually, dependent on government spending and government growth.
Yes, a lot of people want the government to cut back, but they can’t agree on what to cut. Almost all Americans want the government to keep spending for things that benefit them directly. The ones that support cuts mostly only support cutting other people’s government benefits. Thus Congress doesn’t actually fix much.
Unless this changes, Democrats will continue to be the party of bigger government and increased socialism while Republicans will talk about smaller government, limits, and Constitutional boundaries—but when the votes come to the Senate, truly conservative changes won’t have enough Republican support to pass, and when cases make their way to the Supreme Court, free enterprising systemic changes to the government-corporate-K Street nexus won’t have enough Justices behind them. Too many officials simply aren’t willing to do what needs to be done. It’s too hard, and too unpopular.
I’m not sure what can change this.
Of one thing I am certain, however. History is absolutely clear on this point. As goes entrepreneurship, so goes our nation. Ultimately, a major increase in effective entrepreneurship, innovation, and business ownership is going to make or break us. It will create growth if it happens, and that changes everything. Also, the future of entrepreneurship is something each of us can influence. Our next three decades will either bring massive economic growth or the rise of rampant socialism to America. To choose the path of growth, our government can help (by deregulation and choosing to be smaller)—but a lot more people engaging effective entrepreneurship is the indispensible. Period.
Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Mission &Politics &Postmodernism &Producers &Prosperity
