The Deeper Importance of the 2010 Election
October 7th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Blame is easier than leadership.
It’s been long enough since the announcement of the “Great Recession” that a shelf of books are now out—each outlining the “real” causes of the recession and its unsettling impact on the American psyche and economy.
Unfortunately, most of these books are essays on blame.
The two major political parties predictably blame each other for America’s economic woes.
Democrats say that Republicans caused the recession, while Republicans say that Democratic policies (from the stimulus to health care and beyond) have made the recession worse, increased unemployment, and slowed a recovery.
Since most recovery numbers are based on government spending rather than private sector growth, many on the Right dispute that the publicized recovery is real.
To a large extent, the media has joined with one side or the other in this debate.
Weekly talk shows pit conservatives against liberals, volleying the two partisan views of past and present economic challenges. Magazines and national newspapers echo this argument.
A Dearth of Solution Thinking
Usually books take a deeper look at the issues than other media, understandably using the longer format to give readers more depth and analysis on whatever topics they address.
Likewise, the arc of economic-political-societal commentary in books usually includes a significant section outlining important, needed and under-utilized solutions.
But right now such solution-oriented commentaries are noticeably few—and strikingly similar. Many repeat partisan views in chapters so short they would make newspaper editors proud.
There are three main themes in this genre:
- Republicans Blew It and Big Banks/Corporations are Greedy and Evil,
- Democrats are Blowing It and turning into Scheming Socialists
- Big Institutions in Washington, Wall Street, Main Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and anywhere else where Big Institutions lurk are Ruining America
A fourth (though minor) theme is that the recession was a global reality tied to the increasingly interconnected world economy and that American citizens and leaders had little power in the whole thing.
In all four of these themes the focus is blame, and therefore the solution is to “throw the bums out.”
The Right wants to “take back” America in the 2010 congressional elections, while the Left wants to hold their own in the elections and keep offering regulatory solutions.
Activists are increasingly determined to push both sides further to the extremes.
In short: where blame is the main point, solutions are seemingly simple.
The Problem
Unfortunately, such “solutions” are unlikely to accomplish very much. One side will win, and the blame game will increase right along with the problems.
The worst-case scenario for the 2010 elections is lots of press, lots of emotions, and little change.
I’m not saying that the elections don’t matter; they do. Nor am I suggesting that this debate isn’t important. It is.
My point is simply that there is more to it than many politicians and journalists are admitting.
Unless we get past the blame game and engage a true national discussion about solutions, we are unlikely to see things really improve—no matter who is in office.
One book, The Great Reset by Richard Florida, develops the ideas that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and another, The Battle by Arthur Brooks, takes readers inside the Obama West Wing and the inner workings of the President’s choices in 2009-2010.
Both are worth reading closely—regardless of your political views. Another recent book, Capitalism 4.0 by Anatole Kaletsky, gets serious about suggesting some solutions.
None of these books are free from the blame game, and Kaletsky’s attack on the Bush Administration is one of the worst blame-focused rants in all the books now coming out on the topic.
But for readers who can look past his angry tirades, Kaletsky’s work is worth studying because at least part of his analysis gets past blame and helps us understand the recession in its broad historical and international context.
The History of Capitalism
In contrast with the four popularized themes listed above, Kaletsky suggests that the global recession grew out of the historical trends of our time.
He argues that capitalism will continue to grow because of its proven ability to adapt. Such adaptation follows a pattern:
- A crisis exposes the weaknesses in the latest adaptation of capitalism
- Society and government respond to the crisis and alter the details of how capitalism is applied
- The changes evolve until they succeed in re-establishing prosperity and growth
- The new adaptation allows economies to flourish
- Weaknesses in the new adaptation eventually cause another crises and the pattern repeats
Over time, according to Kaletsky, this has created at least four adaptations of capitalism.
Capitalism 1.0 grew out of the crises of the Napoleonic era and was characterized by the Laissez-Faire type of capitalism. This was defined by the separation of economics and governments, and its strengths allowed great growth of wealth and powerful economies.
Eventually the weaknesses of 1.0 led to the Great Depression in America and Western Europe.
The response was what Kaletsky calls Capitalism 2.0, an era of major government involvement in the economy—not full socialistic control of the economy, but much higher levels of regulation and government intervention.
This started in the New Deal and grew through the 1940s-1970s.
The eventual negative result was the inflation and stagnancy of the late 1970s, which was followed by a transformation to Reaganomics: a focus on big-government spending for international projects combined with lower taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.
The idea behind Capitalism 3.0 was that if those with money were incentivized to spend more, this would create more jobs and increase business and personal opportunity.
In each of these periods, the economy responded to the positive features of the given adaptation of capitalism. On the downside, the negatives of each adaptation led to the next inevitable crisis.
The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 was caused not mainly by greedy bankers or weak housing loans, according to Kaletsky, but rather by two successes of Capitalism 3.0:
- the spread of capitalism and therefore market interconnections globally
- bank and government success in controlling inflation worldwide
These strengths led to weaknesses: when some places saw economic downturn, it quickly spread to the other areas around the world, and governments which allowed their big banks to fail pulled the brunt of world capital struggles down on top of themselves.
The Emergence of a New Economy
The result, just now emerging, is Kaletsky’s Capitalism 4.0. In this adaptation of capitalism, we will likely witness a new relationship between markets, economies, and governments.
Where 1.0 showed the pros and cons of nearly total government isolation from the economy, 2.0 exposed the strengths and weaknesses of major government intervention in the economy.
In 3.0 we started mixing market and government roles by having government intervene in what it considered “vital” sectors (like military and transportation), while mostly staying out of the rest of the economy.
According to Kaletsky, 4.0 will follow a different mixing guideline by increasing the government intervention in some areas and lessening its role in others.
The specifics will be determined, in this scenario, by which things respond better to free markets versus those which respond more positively to significant government involvement.
For example, Kalentsky thinks government must get deeper into financial regulations and management but leave education and health care more to the free market.
Clearly the Obama Administration is not following Kalentsky’s suggestions, no matter how much he agrees with them in blaming Republicans for our problems.
But any leader—in business or government—should consider Kalentsky’s analysis. I disagreed (and also agreed) with a number of things in his book, but his suggestions exceed the tired, old two-party talking points and deserve consideration.
So, The Election . . .
We clearly live in a time where both government and business involvement and changes are needed to re-establish a truly flourishing free-market approach to American prosperity.
Neither extreme—a total government pullout from the economy nor increasingly socialistic levels of regulation and micromanagement of nearly every sector of our economy—is desirable.
We need the government to take wise and effective action to boost the economy—at times increasing regulations that work and also consistently reducing and repealing the numerous regulations and government interventions that are slowing and hurting the economy.
The regulatory load on investors and entrepreneurs is especially bad for economic growth.
Government simply must find ways to do less, or the economy will continue to sputter and struggle.
Yet there are certain things that government can and should do best—like keep the free-market playing field even and open for all potential investors and entrepreneurs.
Perhaps the proper role of academics, journalists and authors is to analyze, to suggest—and even to blame. But as long Washington is caught in the blame game, far too little effort is given to leadership.
Our elected officials need to stop pointing fingers and give more attention to solving our economic challenges.
The first step is to free up small business entrepreneurs and investors who provide most of the jobs and growth in the economy.
A second step is to make investment in American businesses once again highly attractive to world investors.
Both of these are roles for those we elect, and if it is “the economy, stupid,” these are the real issues of the 2010 election.
Whoever wins at the voting booths this coming November, and whatever the experts say that night as the networks and cable channels cover the election like a major sports tournament, the real future of America depends on whether or not the people select leaders who will free up the economy.
A free economy, within the bounds of wise and effective laws, is a prosperous economy. An increasingly regulated economy is an economy headed for less prosperity and decreased opportunity.
Whatever your politics, less prosperity and decreased opportunity are simply not acceptable goals for the upcoming elections.
Yet unless we accomplish more than simply voting, these are the results we will probably see in the years after the election.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
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 : Current Events &Economics &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics
Types of Tribes
October 6th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
NEARLY ALL OF THE WEAKNESSES I listed here are found in many traditional tribal cultures.
In our day new kinds of tribes are emerging with huge potential influence, power and popularity.
Indeed, the 21st Century may be the era where tribes become the most influential institutions in the world.
The trends are already in play, and nearly every major institution, nation and civilization is now made up of many tribes.
In fact, more people may be more loyal to their closest tribes now than to any other entity.
There are many types of tribes in the history of the world. A generic overview will obviously have its flaw and limitations—as will any inductive study, from personality typing to weather forecasting.
But with the necessary disclaimers and apologies, we can still learn much from the generalizations as we seek lessons to apply to ourselves.
There are several significant types of tribes in history, including:
- Foraging Tribes
- Nomadic Tribes
- Horticultural Tribes
- Agrarian Tribes (communities)
- Industrial Tribes
- Informational Tribes
Each is very different, and it is helpful to understand both the similarities and unique features of these types of tribes.
Note that the fundamental connecting factor which kept these tribes together was their means of production and their definition of wealth.
Families usually sacrificed to benefit the means of production. On a spiritual/emotional level, one way to define a tribe is a group of people who are invested in each other and help each other on an ongoing basis.
All these types of tribes meet this definition.
Level One Tribes: Everyone Knows Everyone
First, Foraging Tribes were usually established by family ties—sometimes, small family groupings and in other cases, larger groups with more extended family members. In marriage a person often left the tribe to join a new tribe.
Foraging tribes lived by gathering and hunting together. Their central means of production were legs: the ability to go out and find food for the family.
Children were the greatest source of wealth because they grew and provided more legs to the tribe.
These tribes were often female-centric, and their gods were fertility goddesses and earth goddesses who provided bounty of food.
Nomadic Tribes hunted and gathered, but also pillaged in order to survive and prosper. They traveled, some within a set area and a few more widely ranging.
They were nearly all herding societies, using animals to enhance their ability to hunt, gather and pillage. Their means of production was their speed, provided by great runners or herd animals.
They usually traveled in larger groups than Foragers, and intermarried within the tribe or from spouses taken during raids. Marriage meant joining the tribe of your spouse.
Nomadic Tribes were usually dominated by males and often practiced plural marriages. Herds were the central measure of wealth.
Third, Horticultural Tribes planted with sticks, hoes or hands, and tended crops to supplement food obtained by hunting.
Because hoes and sticks can be wielded equally by men and women, these tribes were often female-centric. Men hunted and women planted and harvested, bringing an equality to production.
Hands were the central means of production, used either in hunting or planting. Children were a measure of wealth, and deity was often a goddess of bounty.
These first three types of tribes make up the first level of tribal cultures, where nearly all tribe members worked each day to feed themselves and the tribe.
In the second level, specialization created free time for many to work on matters that have little to do with sustenance—from education to technology to arts and craftsmanship, and even extending into higher thinking of mathematics, logic and philosophy.
Level 2 Tribes
Agrarian Tribes began, as Ken Wilber describes it, when we stopped planting with sticks and hoes and turned to plows drawn by beasts of burden.
The change is significant in at least two major ways: First, pregnant women can plant, tend and harvest with sticks and hoes, but often not with plows, cattle and horses. That is, in the latter many pregnant women were in greater danger of miscarriage.
In short, in Agrarian society farming became man’s work. This changed nearly everything, since men now had a monopoly on food production and women became valued mostly for reproduction.
This was further influenced by the second major change to the Agrarian Age, which was that plows and animal power produced enough surplus that not everyone had to work to eat.
As a result, tradesmen, artists and scholars arose, as did professional tax-collectors, politicians (tax-spenders), clergymen and warriors.
Before the Agrarian Revolution, clergy and politicians and warriors had nearly all been the citizen-farmers-hunters themselves.
With this change came class systems, lords and ladies, kings and feudal rulers, and larger communities, city-states and nations.
The store of wealth and central means of production was land, and instead of using whatever land was needed, the system changed to professional surveys, deeds, licenses and other government controls.
Family traditions were also altered, as farmers found that food was scarce after lords and kings took their share.
Men were allowed one wife, though the wealthy often kept as many mistresses as their status allowed. Families had fewer children in order to give more land, titles and opportunity to the eldest.
Traditions of Agrarian Tribes, Communities and Nations are surprisingly similar in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and many colonies around the world.
While small Agrarian communities and locales often followed basic tribal traditions, larger cities and nations became truly National rather than tribal.
The fundamental difference between the two is that in tribes nearly all the individuals work together frequently on the same goals and build tight bonds of love and care for each other, while in nations there is much shared history and common goals but few people know each other or work together regularly.
As society nationalized, most people still lived and loved in tribal-sized communities.
Whether the ethnic communities of European cities, the farming villages of the frontier, church units of a few hundred who worshiped but also bonded together throughout the week, or so many other examples, most people during the Agrarian Age were loyal to national government but much more closely bonded with members of a local community.
When life brought difficulties or challenges, it was these community tribal members that could be counted on to help, comfort, commiserate, or just roll up their sleeves and go to work fixing their neighbors’ problems.
Community was also where people turned for fun and entertainment.
For example, one great study compared the way people in mid-century Chicago watched baseball games, attended cookouts and nearly always went bowling in groups, to the 1990s where most Americans were more likely to watch a game on TV, grill alone and go bowling alone or with a non-family friend.
Level 3 Tribes
Indeed, by the 1990s America was deeply into the Industrial Age.
Industrial tribes (no longer really Tribes, but rather tribes, small “t”) were built around career. People left the farms, and the communities which connected them, for economic opportunities in the cities and suburbs.
Some ethnicities, churches and even gangs maintained community-type tribes, but most people joined a different kind of tribe: in the workplace.
The means of production and measure of wealth in Industrial tribes was capital. The more capital you could get invested, the better your tribe fared (at least for a while) versus other tribes.
Competition was the name of the game. Higher capital investment meant better paychecks and perks, more job security, and a brighter future—or so the theory went.
While it lasted, this system was good for those who turned professional education into a lucrative career.
With level three came new rules of tribe membership. For example, individuals in industrial societies were able and even encouraged to join multiple tribes.
Where this had been possible in Agrarian communities, nearly everyone still enjoyed a central or main community connection.
But in the Industrial era, everyone joined long lists of tribes. In addition to your work colleagues, Industrial professionals also had alma-maters, lunch clubs like the Kiwanis or Rotarians, professional associations like the AMA or ABA or one of the many others, and so on.
With your kids in soccer, you became part of a tribe with other team parents; same with the boy scouts and girls clubs.
Your tribes probably included a community fundraiser club, donors to the post office Christmas food drive, PTA or home school co-op (or both), church committees, car pool group, racquetball partners, biking team, local theatre, the kids’ choir, lunch with your friends, Cubs or Yankees fans, and the list goes on and on and on.
In level three, the more tribes the better!
The two major tribes that nearly everybody joined in Industrial society were work tribes and tribes of friends.
Between these two, little time was left for much besides work and entertainment.
But make no mistake, the guiding force in such a society, the central tribe which all the others were required to give way for, was making the paycheck.
Families moved, children’s lives conformed, marriages sacrificed, and friends changed if one’s work demanded it. It was not always so, and this morality defined Industrial Age culture.
One big downside to Paycheck Tribes is that they cared about your work but not so much about you. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons why Industrial tribes weren’t really even tribes.
The other major reason is that you had only a few close friends and most people didn’t truly count on any non-family group or neighborhood or community to really be there for you when you needed it.
That’s why this is called National society, because it’s not really a tribal community of bonded, connected people who truly love you and will take a stand for you.
Of course, there are some who build and maintain fabulous agrarian-type relationships, friendships and communities during Industrial eras.
It is just harder and less naturally occurring than in the other types of tribal periods and places. The main reason for this may be simply that capital is less naturally connective than legs, hands, family, church or a caring neighborhood.
This is not to say that companies can’t care, love and connect. In fact, I think that is exactly what they’ll have to do to truly succeed in the Information Age.
However, during Industrial Ages connecting and caring and building relationships is less valued by many. Those who put family, friends and other vital relationships first find much happiness and community connection during any period of history.
Fortunately, we live in a time when the new e-tribes are growing and increasingly available.
Level 4 Tribes
The sixth type of tribe is the Information-Age Tribe.
We are all still struggling for the perfect name. The term “e-tribe” is too narrow, since many of the new relationships are not online.
I’ll settle for calling them the New Tribes, and let the future show us exactly how they turn out.
The New Tribes appear to be a whole new (fourth) level of tribe, for a number of reasons.
To begin with, people are joining many of them like during Industrial times, but also limiting them somewhat to reflect what is truly important to them.
For example, where in levels one and two people belonged almost exclusively to one tribe and in level 3 they joined dozens of tribes, now most New Tribers are active members of a few, important tribes, usually at least four per person.
In addition, many members of New Tribes want to be leaders in tribes, and many leaders of New Tribes want the members to all lead. That’s a huge improvement on levels 1-3.
Also, members of New Tribes seem to care about each other much more than Industrial tribes but also even more than many ancient-style and agrarian tribes.
I think this is because people had little say about who their tribal and community members and neighbors were down through history, but in the New Tribes you can make your very best friends your daily confidantes.
The interaction is powerful, and it can and does create deep bonds of friendship and caring.
The Future of New Tribes
Few people realize how widespread the New Tribe revolution has become.
The many examples of online New Tribes show how rapidly this trend is growing. But there is even more to it than that.
One cycle of business growth says that all new things go through four levels:
- They are ignored.
- They are laughed at.
- They are opposed.
- They are accepted as obvious.
The growth of New Tribes is at the Obvious stage.
For example, tribal currency is now the most widely used money in the world. That may surprise some people who believe that the dollar or the yen or some other national currency is most used.
But try this experiment. Pull out your wallet or planner, and see how much money you have in government-printed currency.
Then see how much you have available in private bank currency (checks or debit cards).
Finally, how much are you carrying in tribal currency (from, say, the Visa or Mastercard tribes, or Discover or American Express)?
While it is true that these private currencies exchange into government money, the truth is that your credit account is most likely a niche or tribal account rather than a government account.
And I dare say that more than a few readers are befuddled by this example, as they transact very few purchases by pulling out their wallet, with the actual plastic in hand; they most often buy over the phone or online—further making the point.
The significance of this is huge. How much wealth are you carrying in sky miles, for example? Or hotel or travel points?
The reason companies issue loyalty cards is to get you to stop being in the traveler niche and instead join the Delta or British Airways tribe.
While you still have your wallet or purse out, look through it to see how many tribal membership cards you carry. Costco? Sam’s Club? Trader Joe’s? An automobile club? What else? Do you carry a church card, or a school card?
The point of all this is that New Tribes are here to stay, and indeed that before the 21st Century ends they may well take over many roles that were traditionally governmental.
For example, the phrase “I’ll fedex it” has replaced “I’ll mail it” in many corporate circles, and toll roads are becoming more popular around the world.
Just like government railways were phased out by private airlines, look for the rise of many more tribally-led industries and services in the years and decades ahead.
For New Tribes to fully achieve their positive potential, it is helpful and perhaps essential for them to learn from the best lessons of the tribes throughout history.
Both leaders and participants of tribes gain much wisdom by studying the best practices and traditions of the world’s tribes.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
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 : Community &Economics &History &Information Age &Tribes
Basic Tribal Culture
October 5th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE MAJOR CULTURAL TRADITIONS of the world’s history, which can be described as Warriors, Farmers and Competitors.
Warriors
Warrior cultures believe in enemies, battles, winners and losers, us versus them, strength, courage, victory, personal skill, honor, resiliency, and a bias toward action—among other things.
They tend to see the world in terms of “our tribe” above all else. Many in history called themselves “the people,” or “the chosen.”
The tribes which became the nations of Norway (Norse), England (Anglos), France (Franks), etc. were from this tradition; other examples are found around the world.
Farmers
Farmer traditions valued security, hard work, frugality, sexual morality, responsibility, loyalty to community, savings and assets, land ownership, integrity, education, honesty, steadiness, family loyalty, neighborliness, and prosperity defined by abundance of food.
They built communities, simultaneously promoted individual freedom and conformity to community norms, and considered themselves successful when they produced bountiful harvests and saw their children married well (to spouses who embodied the values of the community).
Competitors
Competitor traditions saw the world as (usually) friendly competition between children at play, youth at courting and adults at work. Even the elderly competed to brag about the best lives, worst pain, most accomplished son, most neglectful daughter, most talented grandchildren, and whatever else came up.
For example: “I have two sons who are doctors and a daughter who is a lawyer,” versus “My grandson is a star quarterback who just won a state championship and his sister just got a scholarship from a national competition she won in Washington, D.C.”
People in such societies like competitive entertainment to escape from the pressures of their competitive schools and jobs.
A lot more could be said about these three major traditions, but the key point here is how they relate to tribes and freedom.
Warrior societies are tribal by nature, and they grow by conquering and colonizing other societies. They see life as a big battle, and raise their children and spend their days in battle mode.
They believe that life is about either conquering or being conquered. They see those with farmer and competitor traditions as victims.
Farmer societies are also tribal, but see the world as a big desert that needs to be turned into a garden. The more people who will adopt their values and join their quest to beautify and expand the garden, the better.
To them, the warriors and competitors are savages and wild outsiders who should be avoided and kept away from their society.
Pitfalls of National Culture
Competitor cultures are National (as opposed to tribal): interested in education for career, working moderate hours in order to enjoy daily entertainments, uninvolved with neighbors unless there is some other relationship to pull them together, and selfish with their free time.
They see the world as a big race, and individuals want to be the winners instead of the losers. In fact, they generally look down on “losers” and avoid them lest losing somehow “rub off” on them.
They see warrior and farmer cultures as quaint and backward, at best, and often with a more critical eye. Clearly, those cultures aren’t winning the race.
Competitor cultures divide their competitions into those that matter and those that don’t. They join tribes for the ones with little at stake, but stay individually focused on the ones that matter most.
Career and money are the competitions that matter more than any others in these cultures. Even family relationships have to take a back seat to most career considerations.
In other words, competitor cultures appear tribal by habit, but are nationalistic when they feel something is really important.
National cultures therefore desperately need the lessons taught by traditional tribal cultures.
But there are also pitfalls and negatives typical to tribal cultures, and we want to learn what they are and avoid them.
The American founders took on a deliberate process of statecraft, weighing the merits and failings of forms, models and ideals from societies throughout history.
I would assert that such a considered approach to our future as a nation and society is called for today. The goal is to adopt the best from national, tribal, warrior, farmer, competitive and other cultures, and at the same time reject their flaws and weaknesses.
With this in mind, let’s discuss what the tribal ideal really is.
With the assumption of local governance under the direction of concerned and involved citizens who were invested in one another’s success and security—basically a tribal council at the community level—the American founders established constitutional forms to create a cooperative and interactive union of states.
We have lost too much of the tribal foundation that was the animating spirit of American culture—the underlying weave of the fabric of freedom—and it is hard to overstate the case for recapturing it.
The Tribal Worldview
Just as there are religious worldviews, secular worldviews, materialistic worldviews, etc., there is an overarching tribal worldview.
Just like there are many views and differences within, say, the religious worldview, there are many different tribal perspectives.
And just as there is an overarching religious worldview (there is a higher power, and I should live in harmony with it/Him), there is also a profound and powerful tribal worldview.
One of the best ways to begin to understand any worldview is to ask, “What is the world, and what is the purpose of life and the universe?”
This is a complex question, of course, but it can be answered in simple terms and the early answers are often the most important. By understanding tribal culture at this basic level, we understand a great deal about ourselves.
The Universe
As I have studied tribal cultures from around the world and throughout history with these questions in mind (What is the world? What is the purpose of life and the universe?), I have categorized recurring themes, forces and societal roles; the labels used here are my own.
In generic tribal thought, the universe is made up of certain vital entities. For example, first come the Obeyers; these do their part in the universe unfailingly. They include suns, moons, planets, rocks, canyons, rivers, mountains, valleys, etc.
Many ancient religious temples and writings are full of these Obeyers. Obeyers set an example to all others, and they are the basic building blocks of everything. Many ancient stories center around references to and morals learned from valleys, rivers, mountains, etc.
Next are the Growers: the trees, grasses, plants, fruits, and so on. They build the universe by growing. Their growth feeds the others, bringing the power of the sun into assimilable form.
Many ancient religions and philosophies are built around the Growers and grower symbols.
The Movers include animals, fish and birds. They move around the world, spreading minerals and seeds from the Obeyers and Growers as they travel.
Many tribes consider some of the Movers, especially birds, to be messengers, teaching us as we interact with them in the world. They also provide food to others, and feed the Growers when they die.
The Movers are a key part of the universe, as are the Growers and Obeyers.
The Fishers are an interesting group. They change the environment by building dams to fish like beavers, or storing nuts like squirrels. Bees and others fit this category. They somehow raise and harvest food, not just wander and search for it.
In some traditions they are called farmers, and in others spiders (which weave webs to capture food). By their fishing, storing, farming, weaving, etc., they benefit the environment and all of life.
People are expected to learn from all of these parts of the universe, and to follow their good examples. Each type of entity is judged by how well it promotes and benefits life, which Obeyers, Growers, Movers and Fishers all do.
Next come the Lovers. Lovers benefit life to the extent that they love. When they don’t love, they hurt life and all the other entities.
The Lovers include all humans and also the spirits (or God, gods, and/or ancestors, depending on the tribe). Humans exist to love.
The Shadow Side
In addition to the good parts of the universe that benefit life, there are those that attack life. These include the Thieves, Murderers, Manipulators and Destroyers.
Thieves take one’s implements of life because they think it will benefit their life. They are mistaken, and cause pain for all by wrongly attacking life.
Murderers take life in order to promote their own life, and in so doing increase total pain. Murderers are seen as worse than Thieves.
Manipulators are an interesting category, often considered to be much worse than thieves and murderers. Manipulators set up systems that steal or kill, but in a way that the thieves and murderers aren’t directly blamed and in fact get away with it more often.
Such systems include anything that skews the natural way things should be, such as class and caste systems, manipulative and deceptive laws and governments, tricky lending and business deals, etc.
In this worldview, the only thing worse than Manipulators are Destroyers. Destroyers are those whose very nature has changed, who no longer are fallen Lovers, but are truly motivated only by hate and pride.
Note that while Movers, Fishers and Humans can be Thieves and Murderers, only humans can become Manipulators or Destroyers.
Since the very purpose of humans in the universe is to bring as much love as possible into the world, it is a colossal tragedy if a Lover becomes a Manipulator or a Destroyer.
By the way, in many traditions only Manipulators become Destroyers.
Now, with all this said, imagine how people in this culture feel about those who set up abusive, forced, corrupt and controlling governments, economies and laws: They are the worst of the worst.
Even those who support, condone or allow such manipulative governments, laws and economies are doing the work of the Destroyers and attacking life and all that is good.
This is one reason that tribal societies so adamantly mistrust most national cultures and people: It seems to many of them that the very basis of national culture is manipulations and exploitative systems.
It is also why it would be so valuable for them to learn the constitutional principles of freedom and how to apply them. But our purpose here is not to admonish the tribal cultures, but to learn from them.
Major Weaknesses of Tribalism
At this point, we should note that while traditional tribal culture does have much to teach us from its idyllic simplicity, it is far from perfect. Studying its pitfalls and common flaws is also instructive.
When tribes are run by small councils of all adult members, these weaknesses can be mitigated.
But when tribes don’t follow the leadership of councils of all adults, they turn against themselves; whatever other form of government they adopt, it becomes corrupt.
When this happens, various problems arise. The problems that follow are the normal for tribes that are not led by councils of all adults.
Economic Control
Tribal culture generally gives a great deal of economic power to tribal leaders.
Interestingly, most tribes distribute political power well between the executive (who gets power only in the face of external challenges and only for the duration of the challenge), the judicial (often a shaman and in many cultures left to families⎯both of which are usually independent of the executive and legislative), and run by the legislative (sometimes councils of elders, sometimes the combined adults of the tribe, sometimes both).
Of course, there are tribes that fail to follow these models, but the freest tribes use these basic systems.
Still, even with political freedoms, few historical tribes have economic freedoms.
The trust of the chief, the head elder (male or female) or the shaman is often absolute.
And, indeed, such leaders often adopt a sort of royal mentality where they believe that what is good for the leader’s finances is good for the whole tribe. In this form, nobody sees undue control of everyone’s finances and ownership as a negative.
But often, it creates the loss of political freedom—including parental choices, like who should marry whom—and a strict caste system with no economic or social mobility.
Many tribes face long-term poverty for most members of the tribe. Such poverty never persists in a truly free-enterprise model, which includes both freedom and opportunity.
Often tribal leaders see this as a threat to their power and, by extension, the tribe’s security and viability.
Emerging tribes with a charismatic leader who seeks control over individuals’ and families’ finances are cultish, and history is littered with the tragedies that such arrangements can lead to.
If a tribe wants to sell things, that’s great. But trying to pool resources or give up control of personal property should of course be met with serious suspicion.
This discussion also exposes a national-culture flaw: the idea that in learning from other cultures we should not judge their systems, traditions and behaviors.
Perhaps this is true when the goal is to maintain purity and academic objectivity in anthropological studies, but it certainly not true when our purpose is to learn and apply the best of tribal (and national) cultures to the tribally-nationalistic-globally-connected societies of the future.
If some calamity changes the world drastically, the same lessons will need to be applied in the new local societies that will be forged.
We need to measure the parts of each culture by how well they promote and support an environment of freedom, prosperity and happiness for all.
Interpersonal Politics
In a small group, political power is often swayed by personalities, likes and dislikes, trysts and history, baggage and personal weaknesses. Nothing can keep this from happening, and in a free system and voluntary tribes it doesn’t matter much.
In a local or official tribal system where the government has actual power over life, death, imprisonment, finances, etc., systems should always be established that keep this from happening.
By “systems” I mean written constitutions with separation of powers, checks and balances well-structured.
Class Power
Most tribes are aristocracies. This is a problem, because the class system is usually established by those in power and dominated by certain families.
In a local structure, or any model where the tribe or community is non-voluntary and/or actually has government power, the solution to this is to establish a legislature of all adults in the tribe.
As the tribe grows in size and geographical scope, local councils representing perhaps no more than 150 households continue to govern themselves, and may send representatives to a regional council to manage affairs of mutual interest to the coalition of local councils.
Conformity
Tribes often flounder economically and fail to grow because the people become too socially conformist. When tribes demand sameness on many levels and in nearly every aspect of life, they shut down creativity, leadership, wisdom and progress.
This is natural to any group, and in national cultures it is often called “groupthink.”
It is important for any group to continue learning, thinking, risking and trying.
Of course, certain violent and anti-social behaviors from rape to murder and so on cannot be tolerated. But stopping criminal behavior is far different from scripting people’s lives and socially enforced hyper-conformity.
This also translates to a socially-enforced closed-mindedness with respect to new ideas and a lack of tolerance for diversity, which lead to a stagnation of creativity and a tendency toward thought-policing.
Lack of Diversity
These conspire to cause narrowness of thinking, along with many of the other problems listed above. On the one hand, the whole point of tribe is joining together based on commonalities.
But the thing which makes tribes flourish is truly caring about each other, connecting, bonding. And connections based on both commonality (such as the shared value of freedom of choice) and diversity (such as the shared value of freedom of conscience) weave a much stronger fabric than one based on sameness.
Conclusion
The New Tribes of the 21st Century would do well, of course, to avoid these pitfalls. As stated, nearly all of these go away when a tribal society is governed by small councils of all adults in the tribe. If the tribe is too large for everyone to have a voice, smaller sub-councils are needed.
Historical tribes do have their weaknesses, but these also have much to teach us. Our generation of citizens needs to understand the good and the bad from the great tribes, nations and societies of history.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
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.
Beyond Liberal & Conservative: Independents, Postmodernism, & How to Really Understand the Issues
October 1st, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
If you want to understand and profit from the political, economic and cultural forces at play in today’s world, you must understand two things:
- The evolution of pre-modernism, modernism and post-modernism.
- How independents view and are shaping the world.
Armed with this understanding you’ll be able to see through the superficial and misleading “liberal versus conservative” debate portrayed by the media. Furthermore, you’ll be able to harness our current societal transformations to your advantage.
The most fundamental question in the Great Debate of how society should be organized is “Who (or what) will save us?”
Pre-modernism, modernism, and post-modernism all have different answers.
Pre-Modernism & Modernism
Modernism is defined in many ways. One of the most enlightening is discovered by comparing modernism to the pre-modern and post-modern worlds.
In a nutshell, pre-modern societies believed that some supernatural being or at least super-powerful entity would save mankind. Man is flawed and weak (so the narrative went), and if we are to be saved it must come from something greater than man.
The three main branches of this view ⎯ one God, many gods, and shamanic energy powers ⎯ all agreed on the basics.
For example: man needs saving, he can’t save himself, a higher power must save us, and we should therefore live in a way that pleases or avails us of the benefits of the higher power.
That’s a simple version of pre-modernism.
Modernism began when societies changed these assumptions. The modern era adopted the following beliefs: man needs saving, he can’t save himself and it seems no godlike power is inclined to step up (for whatever reason), so man must build institutions which can save him.
In short, modernism rests on the belief that man-made institutions can and should save us.
The early modernists built on their pre-modern religious roots and turned to churches as the institutions most likely to fix the world’s problems. Those who were dissatisfied or impatient with this solution turned to governments as the answer.
If there are any problems in the world, according to this view, government should fix them. If a government won’t fix a problem or allows any suffering, it is bad and should be reformed or replaced. If a government tries but can’t fix problems, it is too weak and must be given more power.
After all, we humans like our higher powers incredibly strong and always benevolent.
Government v. Markets
A third major branch of modernism arose when governments repeatedly failed to solve the world’s problems. This school of thought believed that big business was the answer.
Huge, powerful businesses, as Keynes argued, reach a size where they care less about profit and more about taking care of their employees and society in general.
This view has business provide insurance, benefits and other perks to help the people live happily. It tends to ignore small business and even large “greedy” businesses, and instead promote more power to the biggest corporations.
In recent years we’ve witnessed the debates between all three branches of modernism, from faith-based initiatives (church as central institution) to health care reform (government as central institution) to executive bonuses (corporation as central institution).
But since the media usually couches all these and many other issues in “Conservative versus Liberal” terms, few people realize what is actually going on in these controversies.
The church-as-savior belief lost most of its influence in the last century, leaving governments and businesses to jockey for first place in this race to be the central institution helping mankind.
Many participated in this debate: Marx, Darwin, Bastiat, Nietszche, Freud, C.S. Lewis, Andrew Carnegie, Ayn Rand, Solzhenitsyn, Keynes, Kinsey, Milton Friedman, Mao, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, several Popes, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and others.
Most recently, Ralph Nader has argued that the only solution to our current problems is for the super-rich to use their influence and power to reduce corporate power in the world and let governments save us.
Government offers the most hope to mankind, this view argues, and corporations are the problem. Greedy corporations caused the economic downturn, according to this view.
In contrast, the famous Shell Oil Global Scenarios have made a case that government cannot and will not solve truly global problems like energy, environment, transportation, economic ups and downs, communication and education.
Their solution is for corporations with experience planning across borders to be given the power to make and follow a “blueprint” for global success.
Leaving it to governments would cause a mad “scramble” toward more war, poverty, depression and suffering, according to this view.
After all, the corporations say, when the economy fell it hurt most companies and nearly all governments. Only the biggest corporations remained strong ⎯ so they should govern us!
Both sides (“Government Should Fix It” and “Big Business as Savior”) see the other as a dangerous utopian scheme.
Consider, for example, the issue of health care (or energy policy, unemployment, boosting the economy, or any other national issue). Most officials and media personnel see the debates as political, between conservatives and liberals.
To a certain extent ⎯ votes in Congress ⎯ this is true. But the real debate is much deeper and broader than politics.
It is about who we are as human beings and where we’re headed as a society. While there are still some supporters of pre-modern or modern views, governments and businesses have so far failed to deliver heaven on earth or even ideal society.
The End of Conservative versus Liberal
For most people today, neither of these institutions are the answer.
When conservatives talk about faith-based initiatives or Republicans tout trickle-down economics, most people are skeptical. Likewise when liberals emphasize anti-corporate measures or Democrats roll out the latest government program.
The result of this growing skepticism characterizes the rise of the independents.
A few independents are anti-government and a few are anti-corporation, but the large majority just want government to do its job, do it well, and stop trying to do everything else.
While there is heated debate over what, exactly, is the government’s job, most independents would settle for good national security, good schools, fiscal responsibility, social equity, and a high-opportunity economy.
While the Left hopes to create a good economy through government programs and the Right through big business initiatives, most independents want both ⎯ along with less regulation on small business.
But this tectonic shift in American society is much bigger than politics. Most Americans, and indeed many around the world, have lost faith in modernism itself, in the promise that big, powerful, man-made institutions⎯be they church, government or corporation⎯can solve our problems.
Indeed, there is a growing sentiment than most big institutions tend to increase the world’s problems.
Business, church and government all have a place in society, the independents say, but none are the “higher” powers we once hoped for.
Postmodernism & Independents
Enter post-modernism. While nearly every person who writes about postmodernism defines it differently, one thing is clear: The fastest growing worldview is not modernism.
That is, postmodernists are of many stripes, but they don’t believe that government or business will save us. Period. And they are the new majority.
Independents are likely to read and champion ideas from both Milton Friedman and Ralph Nader, vote for both Barack Obama and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and quote both Ted Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
Neither liberals nor conservatives understand them.
What is the cause of this social/cultural/political earthquake?
At least part of it is that independents no longer have a basic faith in the infallibility or fundamental goodness of government or the market. They see a role for both, and feel that both must be limited.
But the biggest shift of all may be that postmodernists and independents have a new faith: “We must save ourselves, at least as far as this world is concerned.”
On one extreme, this means becoming truly self-made, like an Ayn Rand hero, building yourself and your family at the expense of all others.
At another extreme, it includes those who still believe God will save us, but feel that we must live in a way that we deserve to be saved — or at least become worthy to live in a God-made world.
Most postmodernists adopt neither of these — believing instead that we should become our best selves and help the people around us in the process.
“Humanity needs saving, so do your part,” is the growing mantra. If you are in government, do your part and do it well. If you are in business, likewise.
Be a great parent, grandparent, doctor, coach, teacher, policeman, nurse, business owner, fireman, mayor, friend. Whatever your role, do it better.
Some postmodern thinkers, like James Redfield (author of The Celestine Prophecy), promote teams of spiritually-awakened people praying down power from the universe to improve the world.
Others, such as intellectual Ken Wilber, suggest learning the truths found in all fields of knowledge and from all cultures and philosophies⎯ and then integrating them together.
Marianne Williamson says to trust our inner greatness and also in miracles, and many recommend manifesting our personal power to build entrepreneurial wealth and use it to help others.
Nearly every nation and industry has its prophets of manifesting success, from Miguel Ruiz and Carlos Castaneda to Anthony Robbins, Brian Tracy, Peter Senge, Ken Blanchard, Paulo Coelho, Guy Kawasaki, Seth Godin or Steve Jobs.
In retrospect, it probably shouldn’t surprise anyone that the “self-help,” “how to,” “new age,” “success,” “skeptic,” “green” and “secularist” genres would eventually impact the philosophy of modernism. All of them share a faith in self over institutions.
After all, an unproven belief in government or big business is referred to in both “success” and “skeptic” literature as “the victim mentality.”
Even atheistic secularism is now turning its back on blind faith in big government and big corporations, replacing it with a “get ahead together” ethic.
And the debate between national sovereignty and globalism is being replaced with the growing concept of glocalism ⎯ local sovereignty with widespread economic ties.
The Issue Behind the Issues
Where liberals and conservatives are talking about things like health care reform, insurance companies and needy patients, independents are talking a lot about living healthier lifestyles, improved community structures, organic foods, and fresh water.
They want reform, and they want to make healthier choices in their personal lives as well.
Of course, not all independents are postmodernists or “success literature” readers. But few independents now believe that the way to get ahead ⎯ personally or nationally ⎯ is to turn to government, corporate or other institutional answers.
To say it another way: Many independents are postmodernists and don’t even know it yet.
Perhaps surprisingly, most independents want to simultaneously:
- Succeed economically
- Help others
- Heal and protect the environment
- Keep their nation strong
- Build friendlier relationships with other nations
- Expand the freedoms of the marketplace
- Take care of the needy and the sick
- Greatly improve schools
They want government to do its part in this, and corporations too, and they believe that they personally can have a significant positive impact on their little corner of making the world much better.
The media will probably continue to describe health care and other issues in modernist “conservative versus liberal” terms. After all, media is a big institution too.
But the reality is incredibly powerful: In the 21st century, faith in big institutions is beginning to wane.
Conservatives routinely label independents as “leftists,” and liberals call them “right wing.” The truth is that most independents are centrists, postmodernists and pragmatists.
More to the point, while almost everyone else is pointing fingers or turning to government or corporations for leadership, independents are quietly and consistently increasing their personal education, holdings and influence.
How to See What is Really Happening
It remains to be seen how all this will play out, but for years to come the real issue behind the issues will be the rising power of independents, most of whom do not have much faith in big institutions.
When they side with a government program, liberals will claim they won with the support of the American people. When independents prefer a market approach, conservatives will claim victory.
In reality, however, winning policies will be those that gain the support of independents.
If you want to know the future of any issue, find out how independents view it. And if it appears that a big-institution issue is winning, find out why independents support it ⎯ they usually support a certain reform, not the institution behind the reform.
Through all the politics and media reports, if current trends continue, faith in and deep support for big institutions will slowly dwindle.
It is unclear exactly what will replace it, but that replacement will be the biggest story of the 21st Century.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
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 : Economics &Featured &Government &Independents &Politics &Postmodernism
Beyond the Vote
September 30th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Imagine what would happen if a huge chunk of citizens stopped accepting what they are told by one of the parties, stopped just aligning themselves with candidates from one of the monopoly parties, and started deeply studying, analyzing and thinking about the issues of government independently.
Imagine if they shared their thoughts openly with many others, instead of just letting the news be defined by the big media responses to the big parties.
Imagine the revolution that would occur in the voting citizenry.
This is exactly what happened in the decade the Internet went mainstream. It is valuable to know the profound history that led to this freedom revolution.
Keynesianism
Karl Marx agreed with Hegel that history is created by the dialectical conflict between upper classes and the masses; Lenin transferred the attention from class warfare to the conflict between rich and poor nations.
Most Americans and Europeans adopted this view during the Cold War. Indeed, the Cold War was the “inevitable” result of class conflict leading to conflicts between the governments of the “greedy” nations and the collectivized socialist states.
Keynes, like Lenin before him, shifted the debate by arguing that since many nations were not willing to adopt socialistic government ownership of all business, the only solution was for big businesses to give people privatized “socialism” such as health insurance, savings programs (like the current 40lk), retirement programs and other employee benefits.
Keynes further predicted that if government did things right, then small businesses would be increasingly less able to offer such benefits over time and that eventually big business would run the entire economy in partnership with highly-regulating governments.
Together, Keynes thought, big government and big business would phase out the disruptive, nonconformist and anti-social element of independent small business power and replace it with big corporations offering all the benefits envisioned by socialism.
Simultaneously, governments would keep mavericks, entrepreneurs and innovators from rocking the boat. Socialist goals, albeit through private corporate means, would be implemented into all capitalistic nations.
The result would be the end of warfare between owners and labor and the solution to most world problems.
Keynes said that once companies become so big that they are less focused on profits than appearing caring, helpful and socially responsible to the public, they will make decisions based on public relations and therefore socialistic values rather than making money.
If enough big companies could be coaxed to this point, and if increased government barriers to small-business success could effectively squelch entrepreneurial initiative, even the most capitalistic nations would provide privatized “socialist” safety nets for the whole society.
This is aristocracy, pure and simple.
In such a system, big corporations would work together with big governments to continually increase the delivery of socialistic goals such as:
- Free education for all
- Free health insurance for all
- Free health care for all
- A society of employees
- Jobs for everyone
- A meritocracy of experts ruling society
- A docile and obedient populace
This system was adopted slowly but consistently so that Richard Nixon could announce by the mid-1970s that “we are all Keynesians now.”
In short, Keynesianism promotes big government with high levels of regulation along with big business promoting various private offerings of socialist goals.
This social safety net has proven popular in all the Western nations, and has offered a number of short-term and positive lifestyle benefits.
It has also proven a better solution than government-only socialist equivalents in one-party states like the USSR, Eastern European nations and modern Russia, China and Cuba.
In multi-party nations like France and Germany some parties promote big business and others big government, and still others emphasize their pet areas of focus.
In the United States the maintenance of Keynesianism requires a major party supporting the government, a major party supporting big business, and a system of swinging back and forth between the leadership of each.
When the big-government party is in power, the Government-Industrial-Complex grows, and when the big-business party is in power the Industrial-Government-Complex expands.
When Keynesianism is flourishing, both parties use power to increase entitlements, foreign involvements and government spending.
Taxpayers and small businesses suffer.
The End of History
Francis Fukayama predicted in the 1990s that with the fall of the Berlin Wall and end of the Cold War this conflict between the rich and poor nations was over; he called this “the end of history,” citing both Hegel and Marx.
In the ensuing model of the 1990s, where everybody was a “capitalist,” economies flourished.
With a united Germany, declining Soviet power, and the dot.com and real estate booms, everybody seemed to have forgotten Keynesianism in the Roaring 90s.
Everybody, that is, except the two big parties.
Entitlements, debts and deficits grew during the Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama Administrations.
When 9/11 struck, everyone realized that history was far from over and that major challenges were still ahead. If the end of history had come, Keynes won.
Ironically, the fact that Keynesianism uses capitalistic means to accomplish socialistic ends allowed both liberals and conservatives to claim victory.
Conservatives rejoiced that socialism had lost to markets, and liberals celebrated that the era of big, irresponsible capitalism was over.
Unfortunately, what they brought us was far from the utopian ideal envisioned by socialism’s iconic philosophers or the freedom statesmen in history.
In fact, it was not so much socialism—where the state provides for all—as aristocracy, where the masses provide for the elite.
But back to our narrative: Keynesianism requires both political parties constantly and vocally doing battle. Neither can fully win or destroy the other; and when one wins an election the other is needed to play a minority role until it can win back the majority.
Whichever party is in power, the scope of government and big business must both increase during their tenure.
Of course, the result is that the far right hates Democrats when they are in power, and then turns on Republicans when they win and grow government. The far left does the opposite, hating the Republicans when they rule and then turning on Democrats in power for not doing enough.
Mainstream members of both parties simply support their party and dislike the opposition.
The key action in all this, the thing which makes Keynesianism work, the linchpin of the whole model, is for the citizenry to do nothing but vote.
Of course, they can live their lives, work at their jobs, send their kids to school and volunteer in their community. If they do these things, plus vote, they are good citizens. No more is asked, or wanted, from them.
“Just shut up and vote,” is the subtle message from both parties.
Of course, if one is an expert in politics, if it is their job, they are expected to do more than vote. They are required to study government, the issues and impact public opinion.
The same applies to professional journalists, attorneys, professors, etc. But this only applies to professors of political science, law, public policy or a related field.
Professors of literature or chemistry, for example, like postal workers and soccer coaches, are encouraged to leave governance mostly to the experts.
This cynical view is, unfortunately, widespread. Keynesianism depends on a society of experts where nearly everyone leaves governance to the political professionals.
Citizens are subtly taught that voting is the role of citizenship, along with serving on a jury if called up, and to otherwise leave governance to the experts.
After all, their party is watching their back for them and keeping the other “evil” party from doing too much damage.
Or, if the other party becomes dangerous, their own party leadership and the media will let them know.
Responses to Being Patronized
When a few citizens realize that they are being “handled” by the professionals of their party, the first response is naturally to want to elect better party leaders.
When time shows that this doesn’t work — that in fact it is the nature of party leadership to spin the truth and patronize the party rank-and-file — the disillusioned party loyalist often looks to some extreme group within the party—such as the radical right or the fringe left.
Alas, honest citizens find that faction leaders are usually as prone as major party heads to spin the issues and handle party members.
At this point, many party members just give up.
“The other party is bad,” they rationalize, “and my own party leaders are just too political. But at least candidates from my party are better than those from the other party.”
Some sincere seekers actually ignore tradition and years of brainwashing and seek for a better situation in the other party.
At first, party switchers may find a few things they really like better about the new party—especially if they attend in-person events and get to know some of the people in the other party.
“Republicans /or/ Democrats aren’t so bad,” they realize.
The longer they stay with the new party, however, the more they see that both parties are run in virtually the same way, like a formula primetime program, with the same character-types inhabiting the various roles.
Eventually they see most of the same problems that caused them to question their original party.
The idea that both parties are a problem is like the end of history for many voters. Most have seen politics itself as a war to put the “good” party in power and kick out the “bad” party.
So when a voter realizes that both parties have serious problems, and even worse—that neither party is likely to really solve America’s problems—there is a major paradigm shift.
Some give up in utter frustration, while others get really mad at their own party. Others get even more angry at the “other” party and refocus their support for their original party.
But one reality remains in the minds of most people arriving at this understanding: Neither party has the answers, and neither party is likely to really fix our problems.
More, the system is basically designed so that the party of big government and the party of big business take turns being in charge.
When regular citizens understand the goals of Keynesianism, it is a major shock.
At this point, what is a caring, sincere and committed citizen to do? When you learn that parties are parties are parties, how do you stay involved in governance? And how do you stay positive and optimistic about the future?
The Big Decision
The answer to these questions is for citizens to begin to study and think a lot more about government and to stop ignoring freedom by leaving it to the political professionals.
Unless regular people realize that freedom is up to them, not the experts, and that they need to learn more and take more action to make a real difference, they are unlikely to become true citizens.
When a person does make these realizations, however, he or she drastically changes. He becomes excited about impacting freedom.
There are three major ways to do this, and the three are drastically different:
- Populism
- Activism
- Independence
This is “the big decision” for free citizens who really want to maintain and even increase freedom.
Whether your political views are generally liberal, conservative, libertarian, progressive, green, or centrist, the big decision is a powerful way to start making a real difference.
Here are more thoughts on the three paths of the big decision:
1. Populism
This means openly and vocally fighting the system, pointing out its flaws, and actively participating in influencing change.
Populism has a long history in America, from the People’s Party movement of the 1880s and 1890s which arose because many people felt that neither of the two major parties would listen to them, to the Progressives of the early 1900s, the Labor movement of the 1920s and 1930s, or the counter-Culture revolution of the 1960s and the counter-Populism of the 1970s.
More recent populism includes anti-incumbency, Tea Parties, Coffee Parties, and the Green movement, among others.
2. Activism
Activism consists of committing to one of the major political parties and really having a powerful influence on it.
While I strongly emphasize the rise of independents, it should not be understated how valuable truly independent-thinking citizens can be if they choose to maintain strong party ties.
This is not only a legitimate but a highly-needed role of promoting freedom in our society. Both major parties need more members who really study, analyze, independently think and participate in improving party communication, leadership and impact on society.
3. Independence
This means becoming your own, personal political party—a party of one citizen.
Today there are more independents in the United States than either Democrats or Republicans. Independents don’t depend on any party but independently study, analyze, think, spread their influence and then vote for candidates and issues they feel will most help the nation.
Whatever your decision—whether you choose to help improve society through populism, activism or independence—note that is it vital to do certain things.
Those who simply depend on party experts leave these things to others, and the result is a loss of freedom. These things include:
- Making a deep study of the principles of freedom and the U.S. Constitution.
- Studying the history of freedom in order to truly understand current and future events within their context.
- Studying and analyzing current issues in depth and from many different perspectives.
- Considering the views of those who disagree with you and really understanding the points of merit (and not just your points of contention) in their ideas.
- Drawing your own independent conclusions about proposals and policies after deep study.
- Articulating and sharing your ideas with others.
- Using your influence to impact the direction of the nation on specific issues and in general.
Populists are often criticized for not doing these things, but those who do can make a real, positive difference in populist circles.
Activists who commit to these things can greatly support party choices, and independents need to do these in order to have a meaningful impact.
The American founders wanted citizens to do these things, and predicted that the loss of such behaviors by the citizens would be the end of the republic.
If we want our freedoms to remain and even increase, we must be the kind of citizens who deserve such freedoms.
If we leave our future to the current power of Keynesianism, we will see more of the same: on-going crises, angry and ineffective politics, increased government spending and debt, increased taxes and regulations, continuing foreign conflicts and the loss of American lives, and an inability of government to solve our major problems.
The more the parties fight and the louder the conflict, the greater the power of Keynesianism. Keynesianism depends on heated arguments that drive the citizens to demand bigger government programs.
As long as the party of big business and the party of big government hold a joint monopoly on our society, voters will vote and little will change—except that debts, economic crises and problems will increase.
If this is the future we want for our country, we just need to leave politics to the politicians.
In contrast, the future of freedom depends on citizens who do a lot more than just vote and serve on jury duty. It depends on citizens who do the things which bring freedom—as populists, activists or independents, but all studying and thinking independently.
The American system was designed with the people as overseers of government. We all need to fulfill this role better.
We need a party of small business, a party of family, a party of entrepreneurial leadership, a party of the regular citizens, a party of freedom.
The American founders had a name for such a party: Citizens. Such a party naturally occurs and grows in free society when we do our true part as citizens.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
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 : Aristocracy &Business &Economics &Government &History &Independents &Liberty &Politics
