Culture

The Fall of Institutionalism by Oliver DeMille

March 13th, 2015 // 11:02 am @ Oliver DeMille

A Major Change in America

We have a trust crisis in America. Specifically, we don’t trust our major institutions. For example, consider the current American view of government. A Gallup poll asked, “How much of the time do you think you can trust government in Washington to do what is right?”

The response? Only 19% of Americans highly trust government “most of the time.” And, a full 81% don’t trust the government to do the right thing most of the time. That’s huge.

In a 2013 Pew Research Center Poll, 53% of Americans said that the federal government “threatens their personal rights and freedoms.” In fact, for the most part, the more educated people are, the less they believe “Washington will do the right thing most of the time.”

When asked “which of the following will be the biggest threat to the country in the future: big business, big labor, or big government?,” only 26% said big business while 64% said big government. And 83% of Americans said they are “dissatisfied” with “the way the nation is being governed.”

But is doesn’t stop with Washington.

Trust and Angles

Only 25% of Americans have high “trust in the police,” the same amount as those who have great trust in churches/organized religion. A mere 17% have high trust in the medical system, and even less, 12%, have such trust in the public schools. The percentage with high trust in the banks is 10. As important as these institutions are in modern American life, these numbers are dismal.

Indeed, a mere 12% of Americans have high trust in the Supreme Court, only 14% in the presidency, and 4% in Congress. Only 10% have high trust in the criminal justice system, and only 10% have great trust in organized labor. Among adult Internet users in the United States, only 7% trust social media.

This lack of significant trust reflects a major shift in American views. For example, consider the following comparison of institutional trust in 2014 versus 1975 (Op Cit.):

Looking at this from another angle, only 19% of Americans really trust the federal government and only 19% have high trust in their state government. In other words, we see our state governments in the same negative light as Washington. And only 25% of Americans have high trust in their local governments.

If modern Americans don’t feel that they can trust their local or state governments, schools, the media, banks, Wall Street, the justice system, the police, the courts, Congress, the White House, the Internet, doctors, or churches—who can they trust?

 The Status of an Era

As a 2015 TV Guide article put it: “A 2014 Harvard University poll revealed that only 11 percent of Millennials [those born between 1984 and 2001] trust the media to do the right thing most of the time.” And only 8% of Americans have high trust in the news they read on the Internet.

One area of more positive support: When asked to rate certain institutions as “positive” or “negative”, 95% of Americans ranked small business as positive and only 49% said big business was positive. The federal government was ranked positive by 46%, and “Entrepreneurs” by 84%.

In short, most people trust small businesses more than any other institution listed above, more than their local, state, or federal government or any branch of government, and more than the media, health care, public schools, banks, newspapers, the Internet, or churches.

What does this mean for our future? Can we solve our major national problems or overcome serious challenges without strong bonds of societal trust?

And, in fact, do such levels of distrust actually fuel additional problems? Is the mistrust itself a cause of deeper struggles? Meaning: will every difficulty quickly spin into crisis, simply because the level of suspicion and cynicism won’t allow us to come together and work toward constructive solutions? This isn’t just a Washington problem, it’s a true societal problem.

One thing is certain: the era of major trust in big institutions is clearly over.

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Community &Culture &Current Events &Government &History &Leadership &Politics

How Freedom Might Win in 2016

February 14th, 2015 // 8:18 pm @ Oliver DeMille

 The New Field

I was wrong. I thought Mitt Romney would run in 2016, but he declined. Where does this leave the election? More importantly, with a large field of potential candidates, is there a path for freedom? Meaning, can someone like Rand Paul who really believes in applying the Constitution in our modern times actually win?

The definite answer is “maybe.” But, more than any election since at least the 1980s, there is a narrow chance of this happening in 2016.

To explore this, we need to clearly understand two important points.

Charisma and Coolidge

First, in every presidential general election the most likeable candidate wins. Always. And in presidential politics “likeable” means both “fun, cool, engaging” and also that a majority of voters believe the candidate really cares about them.

This reality isn’t negotiable. The U.S. electorate always chooses the most likeable candidate for president. So if a Republican candidate isn’t more likeable to the general electorate than Hillary Clinton, he or she won’t win.

Second, there are two major groups of Republicans running for the White House: Establishment Republicans and Serious Freedom-Lovers. It’s been over thirty years since a Serious Freedom-Lover won the presidency. Since 1988, Republican nominees have been a long list of Establishment Rep’s: Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, Romney. And before Ronald Reagan, Republican presidents were all Establishment Rep’s through Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, and all the way back to Freedom-Lover Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.

In the 2016 Republican primaries, Establishment votes will naturally split between candidates such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich.

Likewise, Freedom-Lover votes will be divided between people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, etc. And a few potential candidates might appeal to both sides, like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina.

Where the Votes Sit

So what does this all mean for the Republican primaries as they select a nominee to face Hillary Clinton in the general election? While it’s still early, a few things are becoming increasingly clear:

• The Establishment Rep’s will tend to centralize their support behind one of the following: Jeb Bush, or perhaps Chris Christie, John Kasich, Scott Walker, or Marco Rubio. It is most likely Bush’s to lose, or Kasich’s, Rubio’s, or Walker’s to win.
• The Freedom-Lover wing of the GOP will most likely split between various candidates, not concentrating strong support for any one person.
• But the only path to victory by a Serious Freedom-Lover is for voters in this wing of the party to centralize support behind one or at the most two candidates.

Currently, based on the polls, Republicans with a reasonable chance of becoming president are Bush, Rubio, Christie, Paul, and Walker. Let’s compare how each of these do on likeability in the general election:

These can, of course, change as the election unfolds. But the problem for Republicans, as it has been since 1992, is that the factors that make a candidate strong in the GOP primaries are very different than those that make them strong in the general election. Compare:

Chains…and Weak Links

In other words, the Republicans have a structural problem. They look for different things in selecting a nominee than the general electorate looks for in choosing the president. Using this system, candidates who are Strong in the GOP primaries are usually Weak or Medium in the generals, while candidates who are Strong in the generals are Medium or Weak in the GOP primaries.

In contrast, the Democrats look for the same things in the primaries that the voters look for in the generals. This is a significant advantage for the Democrats. If Hillary Clinton were added to the chart above, for example, and the heading were changed to “Electability in the Democratic Primaries,” she would rate Strong in both the primaries and the general election. Elizabeth Warren would rate Strong in both as well. Joe Biden would rank Medium in the primaries and Weak in the general—which is why Democrats won’t make him their nominee.

In 2008 Barack Obama rated Strong in both, while McCain (in normal Republican fashion) was Medium in the primaries and Weak in the generals. Romney in 2012 ranked Medium in the primaries and Weak in the general among women, youth, swing state voters, independents and Latinos.

2016 could prove unique because two of the top five potential Republican nominees rank Strong in general election likeability. This is especially significant because they are both strong in the Serious Freedom-Lover camp. But winning the nomination will certainly be an uphill battle for them.

Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship

The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille

February 13th, 2015 // 9:27 am @ Oliver DeMille

Measles, Vaccinations, Common Core,
and the Deeper Issue We’re All Experiencing

The disconnect right now is tearing our nation apart. Over and over, people engage in the Surface argument, while the Deeper issue is actually a lot more important.

For example, consider the national discussion of whether the government should mandate vaccinations against measles and other similar diseases. The Surface issue is whether vaccinations are safe, or whether in some cases they are hurtful to a child. But the Deeper issue is much more important: Who should make the decision about vaccinations for your children? Government? Or you as the parents?

I recently watched two interviews with U.S. presidential hopefuls that clearly illustrate this point. In the first interview, Ben Carson was asked about measles and vaccinations. He stated that vaccinations should be firmly mandated by government for all children. Period.

Rand Paul took a slightly different approach. He said that vaccinations work and that children should be vaccinated, but that the more important issue is this: Government doesn’t own such decisions about children, parents do. Parents should have the final say.

Both of these men are medical doctors, and both have a history of commitment to the principles of freedom. But in this case, one called for government mandates and the other called for sticking with freedom. Very interesting.

Force and Reason

Ben Carson went on to say that the idea that vaccinations are widely damaging has been debunked, but then he added an interesting point. He said that of course a few children are allergic or otherwise react poorly to vaccinations, but overall the benefits of widespread vaccination are worth it.

That’s reasonable. But, if reason is to be our guide, which of the following is more reasonable:

1-Educating the populace about the scientific facts, then using government force to mandate what parents must choose for their children?

2-Educating the populace about the scientific facts, then letting parents make choices for their children?

This illustrates the current growing division between those who generally trust the government and those who usually distrust it. This disconnect is now a major feature of our nation. It shows up in numerous important issues, including:

1-The government should mandate Common Core across the nation to raise standards for schools and students.

   Vs.

2-Parents should have the final say on whether or not Common Core is good for their specific children.

Or:

1-The police are justified in using deadly force as needed, because law enforcement is paramount and force is frequently necessary—and police and government agents are nearly always in the right.

   Vs.

2-The community should be very vigilant about any use of force by the police to ensure that it was truly justified, because police forces and governmental agencies sometimes overstep their bounds and aren’t held accountable.

To Trust or Not to Trust

America is split, more each year, by these two major perspectives: “We almost always trust the government to do the right thing,” versus “We don’t usually trust the government to do the right thing.”

Through most of the 20^th Century, by the way, an average of 78% of Americans held the first view (trust), while today only 23% of Americans believe the government will do the right thing most of the time. That’s a huge change.

And clearly the disconnect isn’t partisan. It divides both major parties, and it also divides independents. Just look at Common Core, for example. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are strongly against it, while Jeb Bush is a firm supporter. Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee supported it at the state level and then opposed it when it became a federal program. And all of these men are leading Republicans.

Or look at the vaccination issue. Some of the strongest supporters of government mandates are top Democratic politicians, while many of the communities with the lowest rates of vaccination (and highest levels of anti-vaccination activism) are university neighborhoods dominated by progressive faculty and administrators.

On the Right, many Republican voters demand that everyone get vaccinated, while a vocal opposition calls mandatory vaccination a socialistic plot. Ben Carson versus Rand Paul, so to speak, but spread through the population regardless of party.

Now, change the Surface issue, from, say, vaccinations to police use of deadly force in Ferguson, Cleveland, or New York, and the sides quickly shift.

Bad Comparisons

Here’s another example:

1-The government should regulate and then force the education of all children ages 5-16.

   Vs.

2-Parents should have the right to make the final educational decisions for their family.

This one clearly hits very close to home, but the divide is still there. Ben Carson said something really interesting while he was making his case for mandatory vaccinations. He compared them to seatbelt laws and also laws against texting while driving. I like Ben Carson, so this surprised me because these two things shouldn’t be treated the same. (He probably would have clarified this if he had time to elaborate.)

The main intent of “don’t text while you drive” laws is to protect other people from bad driving, while the focus of seat belt laws is to protect the driver.

In the case of Common Core, supporters often speak as if their major goals are to improve society, while many parents who dislike Common Core care mostly about the education of their own children. And pro-vaccinators often cite public health statistics at the same time that anti-vaccination parents point to anecdotal examples where specific children were harmed.

Simplicity and Standards

This all makes sense, if we take the time to really consider it. In short, those thinking in terms of the mass population naturally overlook the specific, individual cases (“they’re just anecdotal”) while many a concerned parent logically ignores the statistical tables (“my son isn’t just a number”) and focuses on the potential danger if her child just happens to be one of those who is harmed.

Both views have merit. Both are reasonable. Both make sense. But back to our original question: To whom are we going to give the final say?

The answer depends on what level of society is best equipped to deal with each specific situation. Consider:

• If it’s a question about nuclear attack or foreign invasion, the federal government was designed to deal with it.
• If it’s a question of crime or direct danger to everyone, it’s a state or provincial issue.
• Or, if anything in level B can be handled more effectively at a local level, it should be.
• If it’s about what’s best for an individual’s education, prosperity, or health, let the individual choose. This is the essence of freedom. If it’s about children, let’s trust the parents.

This simple little system is essential to freedom. Without such standards, freedom is quickly lost.

The Level

So, let’s get specific. Do the measles meet the “danger to everyone” level in B or C above? No. So leave such health decisions to the parents. Same with Common Core. Of course, if Ebola is the issue, level B kicks in because it truly is a “direct danger to everyone.” It may even be level A, depending on the circumstances. But Common Core and the measles are nowhere near level A. Not even close.

In fact, this system of doing things at the right level, and only at the right level, is the key to maintaining freedom and applying wisdom on nearly every issue. For example:

-Seat belts? Level D.
-Drunk driving or text-driving? Level B. (It would be level C if people didn’t travel very much, but in our current world conditions, if every local area has a different law, far too many drivers will be confused and the laws will be ineffective at protecting the life and liberty of others.)
-Police using deadly force? Level B.
-Oversight of any use of deadly force? Levels A-D.
-Compulsory school laws? Level D only. Seriously, leave to families those things best handled by families.
-Dedicated study and wise oversight of all laws? Level D.

This isn’t just the Deeper level; it is the bedrock of freedom.

Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Featured &Generations &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Prosperity &Science &Statesmanship

The Main Source of the American Decline

January 23rd, 2015 // 7:04 am @ Oliver DeMille

Land of the Free  Land of Decay

These days, the word “decline” is frequently used to describe the United States. Where “China” is often paired with words and phrases like “rising,” “new superpower,” and “number one,” a different set of adjectives show up when the U.S. is discussed.

This trend recently reached a new low when the cover story on Foreign Affairs was entitled, “See America: Land of Decay and Dysfunction.”

Wow! And we thought “decline” was bad. But decay? And dysfunction? That’s hitting below the belt.

It gets even more interesting, however.

The Players and The Played

The article goes on to suggest that the cause of this “decay” and “dysfunction” is the power of various special interest groups. This is a popular argument, mainly because almost everyone loves to blame special interest groups.

But this proposition bears scrutiny. Indeed, if special interest groups really are the reason for America getting off track, it is one of the most important topics of our time.

In reality, however, something else is at play here. Yes, of course, special interest groups are a serious problem to the precise extent that they “control” government. But why do they control our government? Who allows this? It certainly isn’t written in the Constitution.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the Foreign Affairs article, notes that the classic book The Semisovereign People gets to the heart of our challenge. In short, voters are highly swayed by the two big political parties, by the media, and by special interest groups. Special interest groups “control” Washington because they set out to control the parties and the media.

The Madisonian idea of sovereignty in the people (that the voters have the final say in who their leaders are, and what their leaders can and can’t do) is undermined when voters are easily swayed. Period.

Semisovereignty—where the voters do what special interests convince them to do through the media and political parties—is an entirely different political arrangement. It is more like an aristocratic, elite, oligarchy than a democratic republic.

That’s where we are today. And, in according to this analysis, it is the source—not merely a source, but the root—of our decline, decay, and dysfunction. The voters, in this view, don’t know better than to vote as they are told by the interest groups, parties, and media.

This causes them to mistrust government, vote against higher taxes, and remain frustrated with Washington—no matter what it does. The touted “solution?” Be more like a European parliamentary system.

Sadly, too many people are buying in to this flawed narrative.

The problem with this entire analysis is that it is partially true, but not actually true. Meaning what?

Let’s get specific: The fundamental reason for decline, decay, and dysfunction is not a lack voter influence, but rather the exact opposite. American voters—the majority, at least—want more government services than they want to pay for. They want other people to pay for them.

Where We Build From

They want their government services, and they want them on Henry the Fifth terms. In other words, the typical American voter (let’s call him Tom) wants Washington to cut other peoples’ government programs—but none that directly benefit Tom or his family. That’s the crux of our decline and decay. Pure and simple.

Tom votes for the candidate promising that Tom’s favorite government programs will be protected while Alice’s “socialistic” programs will be cut. Alice, in turn, votes for the candidate who supports her “essential” government benefits while promising to cut Tom’s “greedy” or “imperialistic” programs.

Political parties, special interest groups, and media only dominate American politics because Tom and Alice—and a majority of other voters—take this approach. And our decline is assured if the cost of our government programs continues to depend primarily on debt.

Until Tom and Alice, or a majority of voters are willing to elect candidates who will end our debt-dependence and spend within our means (however hard the choices), the parties, lobbies, and media outlets will continue to sway the vote.

Don’t let the media, or anyone else, fool you. We are in decline because the electorate refuses to make the hard choice of fiscal and moral responsibility. Until we do, we’ll be a nation based fundamentally on debt—not principle.

Such a nation is…always…a nation in decline, decay, and dysfunction.

For solutions, see Oliver’s new book: The U.S. Constitution and the 196 Indispensable Principles of Freedom

Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship

America’s Looming Crash: Special Report Parts I, II, III

January 9th, 2015 // 7:56 am @ Oliver DeMille

I am an optimist. I believe the best of America and the world are still ahead. But we’re only going to get there by dealing with the reality that the United States is now in an era of significant decline. Specifically, at least two things happened this year that are major problems, and a third serious problem is gaining increased support among many world leaders.

Part I

First, our federal debt went over the $18 trillion mark in 2014. Someone is going to have to pay this back, and that means we’ll be paying for it for the rest of our lives—and so will our children and grandchildren.

That’s approximately $58,065 for every man, woman, and child currently in the United States. If you have a family of four, you now owe around $232,260. This debt must be paid in addition to whatever other taxes are needed for national security, services, and all other government programs now and going forward–not to mention your family’s living expenses.

To be more realistic, the truth is that many people will never pay any taxes toward this amount—because they won’t make enough. This means you’re likely to end up being charged at least twice this amount. Some people will pay a lot more. So you really owe more like $116,130 or $464,520 for your family of four.

If you have big family, say of ten people, you owe roughly $2 million dollars over the course of the rest of your life. Whatever you don’t pay off, the government will charge your kids and grandkids.

Oh, and you need to add to that all the interest still to be charged on this amount, which means that you actually owe between $1.8 million if you have a family of four, or up to around $7 million if your family is bigger. And, yes, if interest rates on the national debt increase (all the trends indicated they will), this amount will go up rapidly.

Most people have no idea what a big deal this is. This is money that has already been spent. It’s owed. And we have to pay it, now and later. We, our kids, and their kids too.

Problems and Booms

How big is this? Multiply your salary by the number of years you have left working (x), and then multiply at least $116,130 by the number of years you have to live (y). If you make more than $60,000 a year, double both amounts. If you make more than $100,000 a year, quadruple both. Then subtract one from the other to find if you’ll make more than you already owe the government.

Too much math? That’s exactly what the government is banking on. The government only gets away with this level of borrowing and spending because very few people do the math or understand what it means to them personally. Granted, these numbers are very basic, and the reality is actually worse, given interest and rising interest rates on the national debt.

So, the United States has a problem. It has a number of problems, actually, but this one is massive. The government owes so much that our economy will struggle under the weight of this debt for the rest of the century. It will dampen every citizen’s opportunities, block every generation’s choices, and haunt our posterity for many decades.

Is there any way out of this? Yes. The answer is simple, in fact. We need a major economic boom. A massive boom would allow us to pay this off much quicker and put the nation back on positive economic footing. Without such a boom, this problem is going to deepen.

How do we get a boom? Again, the answer is simple. I’ll outline it below in Column A.

But first, what happens if we don’t make the choices that will bring a boom? The answer is clear. And drastic. Our economics will rapidly get worse. For the nation, for families, for almost everyone.

Part II

Second, China just surpassed the United States as the top producing economy in the world. It was already the top trade economy, as of a year ago. How does this translate into real life consequences for real people? Well, such a transition has happened before, and there is a predictable pattern that occurs when a new nation becomes the largest global economy.

Here is a rough outline of this pattern:

1. The new power (e.g. China) has the ability to dictate its own trade rules, which increases the flow of wealth to it—and away from the old power (e.g. the U.S.).

2. The new power’s currency eventually becomes the lead world currency (replacing the old power’s currency). When Britain lost it’s top power spot, the average British citizen lost 30% of net worth within weeks. In the current shift, the Chinese will likely push for a global currency. (More on this in Part III)

3. The old power keeps trying to regain its status by engaging in wars and military interventions around the globe, while the new power focuses mainly on economic success. This further weakens the old power, and quickly.

4. The new power, with its booming economy, is able to enjoy lower interest rates, less debt, fewer expenses for international conflicts, and much higher rates of savings and investment. The wealth of the world flows into the new power as investment capital, lifting the entire new power’s economy. The old power sees its standard of living drastically fall, while the new power watches its standard of living rapidly increase.

In the eighteenth century the old power was Spain and the new power was France, in the nineteenth century the old power was France and the new power was Britain. In the twentieth century the old power was Britain and the new power was the U.S.

Today, and in the years ahead, China is the new power, and the United States is the old power. As Brett Arends put it:

“This will not change anything tomorrow or next week, but it will change almost everything in the longer term. We have lived in a world dominated by the U.S. since at least 1945 and, in many ways, since the late 19^th century.

“And we have lived for 200 years—since the Battle of Waterloo in 1815—in a world dominated by two reasonably democratic, constitutional countries in Great Britain and the U.S.A. For all their flaws, the two countries have been in the vanguard worldwide of civil liberties, democratic processes and constitutional rights.” (Brett Arends, “It’s Official: America is now No. 2,” Market Watch, December 4, 2014)

China’s influence will certainly go in a different direction. This may be the single biggest concern of our century.

Can we do anything to reverse this trend? The answer is “Yes.”

Failure by Surrender

There is an irony to how old powers lose their leadership role. The old power usually has the ability to stay the top leader, if it chooses. But is seldom does. Why? The answer is instructive.

Old powers refuse to maintain their leader role because they make a series of bad choices:

Both Are…

This is so predictable that following the pattern of decline again in our time is ridiculous. The U.S. continues to follow this path, however. Part of this is spurred by collectivist ideological ideas, but the ultimate blame goes to voters who aren’t willing to back candidates who support truly frugal economic choices to cut government programs and incentivize a free-enterprise economic boom (Column A).

Voters in traditionally powerful nations are accustomed to lavish government programs; they vocally decry government debt, but they vote for more government programs anyway. Conservatives and liberals disagree about what to spend money on, but they both increase the size of government.

One problem is that people from both sides of the political aisle blame the other. Liberals fault conservatives for supporting continued military interventions around the world, and conservatives blame liberals for increased government programs and spending.

The truth is that both are right. Liberals adopt Column B government spending and bad anti-business regulations, and conservatives support Column B global military interventions around the world. Both kill the power and economy of the nation. In our day, both of these drastically decrease American prosperity and power and lift China to global leadership.

In simplest terms: Both are bad. But Republican voters hold on to their support of U.S. interventions in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, etc., and Democratic voters refuse to stop promoting big-spending federal programs. In our two-party system, both parties are deeply committed to Column B, though for different reasons.

If the United States keeps following this pattern, our looming crash is inevitable. If not, if we reverse it and move toward an economic boom (by adopting Column A), we’ll reboot and reestablish the top producing economy in the world.

It’s up to us. Boom or crash. The choice seems simple, yet voters keep electing leaders who implement Column B rather than Column A. If we keep it up, we’re going to get what we deserve. A crash.

In all this, the most amazing thing is how simple it would be to create a boom. Column A is direct, do-able, realistic, real. We just have to adopt it, and apply it. But if we won’t even vote for it, it won’t come.

Part III

Third, changes in the world’s currency system are gaining momentum. Few Americans realize how significant these two changes ($18 trillion in federal debt and counting, and the loss of the “#1 producing economy” status to China) will be. For example, just consider the impact of the dollar being replaced by something else as the world’s reserve currency.

While most people prefer to leave currency discussions to the experts, such head-in-the-sand behavior can’t shield them from the consequences. The next reserve currency will be the dollar, if only the U.S. adopts the items in Column A and catalyzes a major American economic boom.

If not, it will be something supported by China. Specifically, look for it to have three characteristics that will drastically restructure the entire world:

1. It will likely be a global currency, meaning that the international community (with China in the #1 spot) will regulate its use. This could easily result in a drastic reduction of national sovereignty around the world and in the U.S.
2. It will almost surely be electronic, which will give governments massive controls over people. This amounts to at least some controls from China, not just your national government. The power of regulating electronic currency is almost impossible to overstate.
3. It will also likely be sold with biotech, meaning that to access your electronic money you’ll need your finger print or eye scan. (See Molly Wood, “Augmenting Your Password-Protected World,” The New York Times, November 5, 2014) This will provide global surveillance at an unprecedented, literally more than Orwellian, level. Again, China will be a top influence (perhaps the top influence) in how this system is administered.

These three massive shifts in our world reality are mostly hidden from our view. They are reported, but few people realize how significant or personally relevant they are.

The future of our nation, our economy, and literally our society (with its God-based ideals, freedom-based values, and free enterprise economics) are at stake. If Column B prevails, an American Crash is assured.

(Oliver DeMille addresses the solutions to these challenges in his book, The United States Constitution and the 196 Principles of Freedom, available here)

Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

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 &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship