Common Wisdom versus Greatness in the American Election
July 14th, 2012 // 2:49 pm @ Oliver DeMille
The common wisdom says that incumbent presidents run on their record, and that the state of the economy determines presidential elections.
According to the numbers, right now the common wisdom is wrong.
The economy is still sputtering, but 51% of voters in battleground states like President Obama’s handling of the economy while only 42% like Romney’s economic plans (CNN/ORC International Poll, June/July 2012).
Furthermore, 41% of national voters believe Obama has a clear plan for improving the economy while only 27% believe Mitt Romney has one (Fox News Poll, July 2012).
In short, President Obama’s numbers aren’t great, but Governor Romney’s are worse. And 68% of Americans blame George Bush, not Barack Obama, for the poor state of the economy (Gallup Poll, July 2012).
Why is the common wisdom failing?
Analyst Juan Williams had it right on Fox News Sunday when he said that a majority of Americans see Mitt Romney as “a rich guy.”
It’s a rich guy versus a cool guy, and cool will always win in the American electorate.
Many Republicans and conservatives have criticized Mitt Romney for not having an effective plan to fix the economy.
Leaders from the Right—as different as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Crystal, George Will, and The Wall Street Journal—are concerned that Romney is doing little to establish himself as a serious leader on the issues.
They argue that he seems caught up in responding to attacks by Barack Obama and alternatively attacking Obama.
To have any chance in November, Romney needs to make real gains by September.
He may have little chance of being seen as cool, but he has every opportunity to go all in: To use his strengths and provide real leadership and a vision of what America can be and how he’ll lead us in the direction of American greatness over the next four years.
The common wisdom says, “It’s the economy, stupid!”
For the entire post-World War II era the common man has selected the candidate who seemed the most cool, the most likely to lead.
But both of these actually boil down to leadership.
Candidates must have strong, effective plans to take us in a moving and positive direction in the future, and they must be able to articulate this.
In 2008, Barack Obama very effectively presented a vision of a better America, a nation of change, a new era of unified cooperation in Washington, and a citizenry acting on the chant of “Yes, we can!”
Critics say that after inauguration he failed to deliver on these promises, but nevertheless he projected a moving vision and rallied a majority of voters behind it.
So far, neither candidate has done this in 2012.
If neither candidate can effectively articulate a great vision of the future, the incumbent will most likely win the election.
For this reason, the Obama campaign may be waiting to promote any sweeping grand vision of American leadership.
Why risk it if they’re winning anyway?
Thus the ball is in Romney’s court.
If Romney rolls out a great, Reaganesque vision of America, the Obama team will have to do the same and we’ll have a great debate in 2012.
Right now the high vision of the campaigns is, “We can’t go back to the failed policies of Bush,” versus “We must repeal Obamacare and Barack Obama or our economy will fall off a cliff in the next four years.”
Neither of these reach the level of a high debate.
They effectively speak to the base of each party, but the base was always going to vote for its candidate.
The real issue is independents, and neither side has effectively spoken to them.
President Obama is ahead in this battle because he has reached out in petite visions to special interest groups from Latinos to same-sex groups to women.
As Jimmy Fallon said in a late night comedy sketch, “President Obama said Americans need someone who will wake up every single day and fight for their jobs. Then he said, ‘But until we find that guy, I’m still your best choice.’”
We are experiencing a mini-campaign, focused on negative bantering about the small things.
Even the one big topic of debate, health care, is being discussed in micro-terms: about pre-existing conditions, adult children on their parents’ insurance, etc.
No candidate has yet taken bold leadership on the grand scale, to capture the American mind and propel the nation on a powerful, compelling journey toward the future.
The hottest days of summer are still ahead, and the American voters deserve a real debate on the biggest questions.
The opportunity for real leadership is here, and the voters are watching, hoping, for someone to step up and show us what leadership really means in the 21st Century.
Americans sense that our challenges are going to increase, and that it’s time for another great American leader like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Note that neither FDR nor Reagan were the great leaders they became before they were elected, but they were both openly and clearly committed to a great vision of America’s future.
The election of 2012 will go to whichever candidate stands up and projects the image and agenda of greatness.
If neither candidate does this, voters will probably just stick with the incumbent.
In short, it’s common wisdom against common wisdom: cool versus the economy.
But Americans don’t want to follow the common wisdom, they want to be led by greatness toward a truly great vision of the future.
They want to be touched, moved and impressed.
They want to rally behind a great leader.
They want to believe that their vote will make all the difference, that the president in 2013 will take bold steps that put America on the path to greatness.
The nation is ripe for a candidate who exudes great plans, a great vision, and great leadership.
Right now either candidate could rise to this need, and the best-case scenario would be for both to step it up and embrace American greatness.
Whoever does this most effectively will win the election.
Both candidates are avoiding risk right now, but what we need is a leader who leads, who goes all in and stops thinking about winning the election and invites us to an America that wins the 21st Century.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics
Types of Capitalism
July 7th, 2012 // 8:52 pm @ Oliver DeMille
There are two major types of economies: market and command.
Within these two branches there are a number of subtypes, including various command-style economies such as socialism, communism, fascism, collectivism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
The market-economy subgroups are sometimes more confusing to people from free societies, because most of us have been trained to evaluate politico-economic issues in binary mode where we narrow any debate down to only two sides (e.g. socialist or capitalist, democratic or totalitarian, good or evil, free or not free, etc.).
That said, we live in an era where the various subtypes of market economics are in conflict.
During the Cold War the world was divided between two great camps, with market economies of all types firmly allied against all command economies, but in the post Cold War and post 9/11 world this has dramatically changed.
There are forces supporting each of the various subtypes of market economy, and often these are pitted against each other in ways unthinkable before 1989.
Differentiating between these subtypes is important for anyone who wants to accurately understand what it happening in today’s world:
- Mercantilism: the law gives preference and special benefits to the sector of the economy owned by the government.
- Corporatism: the law gives preference and special benefits to the sector of the economy owned by big corporations within the nation (sometimes referred to simply as “Big Business”).
- Capitalism: the law gives preference and special benefits to the sector of the economy owned by big capital (including big corporations like in Corporatism, but also wealthy foreign and multinational corporations and non-corporate institutions, wealthy foundations, wealthy trusts, non-profit entities, wealthy families, monied foreign investors, and others with mass amounts of capital).
- Keynesianism: the law gives preference and special benefits to companies and institutions (corporate but especially non-corporate) that are so big that they care more about their public image for societal responsibility and promoting social justice than about profit(s), market share or stock value.
- Free Enterprise: the law gives no special preference; it protects equal rights for all individuals and entities and leaves initiative and enterprise to private individuals, groups, businesses and organizations that are all treated equally and with minimal legislation by the legal code.
All of these subtypes are market-based, though according to Keynes himself Keynesianism “seeks the goals of socialism through market means.”
For the last three generations these five subtypes of market economics have all been lumped together under the label of “capitalism.”
While this is technically inaccurate—because capitalism is a subtype rather than the whole of market economics—it is the way the word “capitalism” has been used by most people.
By this definition, capitalism is synonymous with “market economics” and is a label for the entire market-style model.
So we have two definitions of “capitalism” in the current usage: one a title for the whole market field of economics (we’ll call it capitalism Type 1), and the other a specific type of market economics where preference is given to those with large amounts of capital (capitalism Type 2).
These are frequently confused in our contemporary language.
Supporters of freedom get understandably frustrated when anyone questions the superiority of Type 1 over command economies, but it is vital to understand how Type 2 differs from free enterprise.
Adding to this confusion, corporatism is not the same as Type 2 capitalism.
Corporatism doesn’t include capitalism Type 2 at all, but capitalism Type 2 always includes corporatism as part of what it calls “capitalism.” (Corporatism is to Type-2-capitalism what apple is to fruit.)
In short, Type 2 capitalism is much broader than corporatism, as shown in the definition above.
Again, this is confusing to most people, but understanding the details and nuances of how these words are used is extremely important.
Note that the American founders dealt with many similar language challenges, such as when Madison spent Federalist papers 10 and 14 explaining the important differences between democracies and republics, or when he used papers 18, 19 and 20 to elucidate the differences between federations, confederations, national and federal government.
Without such clarity, the Constitution would have been confusing to many Americans who were deciding whether or not to ratify it.
There are numerous similar examples, and part of being a free people is taking the time to understand the nuances of economic and political freedom.
And note that few things are more essential for free people than clearly understanding what type of economic system they want.
Based on the definitions above, consider these three conclusions:
1. All of the market subtypes are better than all types of command economies. Even the market approaches with the least freedom (Keynesianism and mercantilism) are significantly better (with more freedom, opportunity and prosperity for more people) than the command system with the most freedom (collectivism).
2. On the subject of the five subtypes of market economy, free enterprise is significantly better (with more freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all), than mercantilism, corporatism, capitalism Type 2, and/or Keynesianism.
3. The United States today has far too much mercantilism, corporatism, Type 2 capitalism, and Keynesianism and not enough free enterprise.
A Third Power
June 25th, 2012 // 9:33 pm @ Oliver DeMille
Michael Strong wrote, in his excellent book Be the Solution: How Entrepreneurs and Conscious Capitalists Can Solve All the World’s Problems:
“A short history of twentieth-century economic and political thought might be summarized as:
“Market Failure! Markets don’t work as well as the classical economists thought and therefore we must control them (1900-1960).
“Government Failure! Governments don’t work as well as democratic theorists thought, and therefore we can’t depend on them to do the right thing either (1960-2000).”
Markets are excellent for what they are for! Free markets create more wealth and distribute it more widely than any other economic model.
Under free markets we always witness a large middle class.
But the market doesn’t solve all problems in society.
Nor does government.
Neither markets nor governments solve everything.
Markets create more affluence and involve more people in prosperity than any other system, and governments are the most effective entity in protecting inalienable rights and maintaining laws that allow markets to flourish.
But there are a number of things governments should not do and markets will not naturally do, and these tend to be precisely the major challenges our society faces (and seldom solves).
If we are to effectively address society’s main ills (beyond a quality standard of living for most people and the protection of our rights and freedoms), people need to voluntarily take on the world’s ills and find ways to address them.
Charity, philanthropy, volunteer service, service project and social entrepreneurship (the creation of companies or projects with the specific goal of addressing societal problems) is vital.
Government is great for what it is for, but it becomes dangerous to all when it goes beyond its proper role.
Markets are fabulous for creating affluence and helping spread it to a large middle class, but they are not focused on fixing the various societal ills.
It is up to people to improve our world beyond the natural roles of government and markets.
The discussion nearly always centers around how government should do everything versus how government should do less and leave more to markets.
But those arguing for markets too seldom go out and really implement needed solutions in our communities and nation.
It’s time to get past the old Cold War argument.
Of course government should be limited, of course markets can do many things better than government, and of course markets depend on good government policy for safety and the rule of law.
But there is another piece to fixing the world: the non-governmental, non-market driven action of individuals who see a need and set out to make a difference.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Government &Leadership &Mission &Statesmanship
Capitalism vs. Capitalism
March 20th, 2012 // 11:19 am @ Oliver DeMille
An Essential Debate for the Future of Freedom
There are two major types of economies: market and command.
Within these two branches there are a number of subtypes, including various command-style economies such as socialism, communism, fascism, collectivism, authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
The market-economy subgroups are sometimes more confusing to people from free societies, because most of us have been trained to evaluate politico-economic issues in binary mode where we narrow any debate down to only two sides (e.g. socialist or capitalist, democratic or totalitarian, good or evil, free or not free, etc.).
That said, we live in an era where the various subtypes of market economics are in conflict.
During the Cold War the world was divided between two great camps, with market economies of all types firmly allied against all command economies, but in the post Cold War and post 9/11 world this has dramatically changed.
There are forces supporting each of the various subtypes of market economy, and often these are pitted against each other in ways unthinkable before 1989.
Differentiating between these subtypes is important for anyone who wants to accurately understand what it happening in today’s world:
- Mercantilism: the law gives preference and special benefits to the sector of the economy owned by the government.
- Corporatism: the law gives preference and special benefits to the sector of the economy owned by big corporations within the nation (sometimes referred to simply as “Big Business”).
- Capitalism: the law gives preference and special benefits to the sector of the economy owned by big capital (including big corporations like in Corporatism, but also wealthy foreign and multinational corporations and non-corporate institutions, wealthy foundations, wealthy trusts, non-profit entities, wealthy families, moneyed foreign investors, and others with mass amounts of capital).
- Keynesianism: the law gives preference and special benefits to companies and institutions (corporate but especially non-corporate) that are so big that they care more about their public image for societal responsibility and promoting social justice than about profit(s), market share or stock value.
- Free Enterprise: the law gives no special preference; it protects equal rights for all individuals and entities and leaves initiative and enterprise to private individuals, groups, businesses and organizations that are all treated equally and with minimal legislation by the legal code.
All of these subtypes are market-based, though according to Keynes himself Keynesianism “seeks the goals of socialism through market means.”
For the last three generations these five subtypes of market economics have all been lumped together under the label of “capitalism.”
While this is technically inaccurate—because capitalism is a subtype rather than the whole of market economics—it is the way the word “capitalism” has been used by most people.
By this definition, capitalism is synonymous with “market economics” and is a label for the entire market-style model.
So we have two definitions of “capitalism” in the current usage: one a title for the whole market field of economics (we’ll call it capitalism Type 1), and the other a specific type of market economics where preference is given to those with large amounts of capital (capitalism Type 2).
These are frequently confused in our contemporary language.
Supporters of freedom get understandably frustrated when anyone questions the superiority of Type 1 over command economies, but it is vital to understand how Type 2 differs from free enterprise.
Adding to this confusion, corporatism is not the same as Type 2 capitalism.
Corporatism doesn’t include capitalism Type 2 at all, but capitalism Type 2 always includes corporatism as part of what it calls “capitalism.” (Corporatism is to Type-2-capitalism what apple is to fruit.)
In short, Type 2 capitalism is much broader than corporatism, as shown in the definition above.
Again, this is confusing to most people, but understanding the details and nuances of how these words are used is extremely important.
Note that the American founders dealt with many similar language challenges, such as when Madison spent Federalist papers 10 and 14 explaining the important differences between democracies and republics, or when he used papers 18, 19 and 20 to elucidate the differences between federations, confederations, national and federal government.
Without such clarity, the Constitution would have been confusing to many Americans who were deciding whether or not to ratify it.
There are numerous similar examples, and part of being a free people is taking the time to understand the nuances of economic and political freedom.
Note that few things are more essential for free people than clearly understanding what type of economic system they want.
Based on the definitions above, consider these three conclusions:
- All of the market subtypes are better than all types of command economies. Even the market approaches with the least freedom (Keynesianism and mercantilism) are significantly better (with more freedom, opportunity and prosperity for more people) than the command system with the most freedom (collectivism).
- On the subject of the five subtypes of market economy, free enterprise is significantly better (with more freedom, opportunity and prosperity for all), than mercantilism, corporatism, capitalism Type 2, and/or Keynesianism.
- The United States today has far too much mercantilism, corporatism, Type 2 capitalism, and Keynesianism and not enough free enterprise.
Many moderns say we are a “capitalist” nation or vote for the “capitalist” candidate and conclude that all is well, when in fact free enterprise is under attack from socialism but also just as strongly from mercantilists, corporatists, Keynesians and Type 2 capitalists.
Voters and citizens must know what to look for when a policy or candidate claims to promote “capitalism.”
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Business &Economics &Featured &Government &Liberty &Prosperity
What to Look for in 2012
January 3rd, 2012 // 11:26 am @ Oliver DeMille
Here are some things to consider in 2012, several possible trends which could make significant changes in our world by the end of the year ahead:
- Barring major events, the news of 2012 will most likely be all about the election, especially the presidential election.But the real potential for election change will be in the Congress.The most important determinant of how America will run after the 2012 election will be whether Congress remains split or if one party gains control of both houses—regardless of what happens in the presidential race.This won’t be the media focus, but those who understand American politics will keep their eye on the coming changes in Congress.
- More Democrats are arguing for less government spending.[i]This shift in thinking is getting very little press because the election story is so dominant in the current media.Since few Democrats are using this frustration with government spending as a reason to vote for non-Democrat candidates, it receives sparse coverage.But it is a significant change, regardless.Many Republicans and most independents and moderates believe that Washington spends too much already.
If more Democrats continue to adopt the same view, it may become a major story in the years ahead.
- The credit rating agencies that downgraded the U.S. credit rating in 2011 are still very closely watching the U.S. economy and some indications are that further downgrades could be ahead if the economy continues to struggle.Along with this, for the first time in many decades, U.S. securities are less stable than some other investments,[ii]and money flow away from the U.S. is increasing—especially since the middle of 2011.If these trends continue, U.S. economic challenges could drastically worsen in the next twenty months.
- Some leaders in Saudi Arabia have voiced concerns about how the U.S. handled Egypt, especially President Mubarak, during the 2011 Arab Spring.[iii]As the popular uprising grew, the Obama Administration eventually suggested that Mubarak step down.Regardless of whether or not this was the right approach, the sentiment among some Saudi and other Middle Eastern leaders goes something like this: “If that’s how the U.S. treats its allies, do we really want to trust Washington for anything?”Ironically, many in Israel are feeling the same emotion.Add to this the under-reported influence of Saudi investors in major European and U.S. businesses and banks, and this trend may be the most impactful in years to come.
Western economic dependency on Middle East oil is well known, but the bigger danger may come from direct investment in businesses and banks.
If massive sums of Petro Dollars were pulled from Western banks, for example, the term “too big to fail” would take on a whole new meaning.
- We have been warned about cyber terrorism for some time now. Is 2012 the year?
- Will Israel bomb an Iranian nuclear facility?[iv]If so, how will the Obama Administration react?
- Ironically, a focus on jobs may finally become a focus in Washington during the election year of 2012. The bad news is that the parties are unlikely to work together to make real changes.Hopefully, this turns out to be untrue, but if current trends continue little will actually occur.
The good news in all this is that a relatively few changes would bring a drastic positive change in momentum and infuse the nation with positive innovative energy.
For example, four changes could establish a massive change of direction and rebirth of American success (like the shift in American perspective which occurred when Reagan took over leadership from Carter).
The four include:
1) a rollback of all federal policies since 2000 that have hurt small business and dis-incentivized innovation, growth and hiring
2) an effective long-term policy to fix the problem with entitlements, balance the budget and get control of our national debt
3) a restructuring of American education funding to support technical training, community colleges and other non-traditional methods to increase the competitiveness of our workforce
4) a move away from international invasions and wars abroad while maintaining a strong national security presence
I am not predicting that these will occur, but they would be greatly beneficial to the nation if they did.
Finally, each year brings its share of surprises.
For example, who could have guessed in 2010 that the year ahead would bring the death of Osama bin Laden or the refusal of the White House to take leadership in a serious jobs plan?
Whatever comes in 2012, America needs to get its financial house in order and re-incentivize business growth and hiring.
These are vital priorities.
[i] Meet the Press, December 25, 2011
[ii] Face the Nation, December 25, 2011
[iii] Meet the Press, December 25, 2011
[iv] The Atlantic predicted that this might happen in 2011.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics
