Is Government Broken?
October 26th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Is our government broken?
More and more people think so. The current presidential administration makes periodic claims that we are in an economic recovery, but at the same time growth is still slowing and unemployment figures stay around ten percent.
With more American deaths in Afghanistan during the last week of July than any week to date, things seem to be deteriorating at home and abroad.
To make matters worse, few people believe that the opposing Republican Party has much more to offer than the Democrats.
With neither side poised to really fix things, few Americans have a lot of hope for the future of government leadership. Here a few of the issues vexing citizens.
A Missing Recovery
First, even though many politicians have been claiming that we are experiencing an economic recovery, it doesn’t feel like it to most Americans.
The Obama White House doesn’t seem very friendly to small business.
Most of the entrepreneurs and businesses who do hold cash aren’t about to hire or expand in an environment where their taxes and regulatory burden could be increased at any point by an unfriendly Administration.
Ironically, Washington is responding by promising to increase taxes and regulations. Understandably, those who hire are skittish.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Giethner said in July that we’ve reached a point where private hiring—rather than government spending—is the answer to economic growth.
But until the government starts supporting small business, and as long as it refuses to incentivize free enterprise, the economy will struggle.
Author Arthur Brooks argues that the nation is 70% in favor of free enterprise and about 30% opposed, but that the 30% are in charge.
The 30% has gained much influence over citizens by convincing them that it was private business that caused the recession in the first place.
Somehow, this view has successfully convinced much of the public that the Bush Administration, big banks, Wall Street and all small businesses are the same group.
Those who read the fine print, however, are clear that policies from the Clinton and Bush Administrations led to the mortgage crisis.
Moreover, big government and big business together caused the recession. In the meantime, both ignored small business and continue to do so.
As a result, the 70% is confused and unable to keep the 30% in check. So more government policies hurt the economy and make it unwise or unfeasible for small businesses to hire and grow.
In the meantime, much of the Right is busy labeling Democrats as “socialists” rather than helping incentivize growth and prosperity.
Both sides seem to mean well, but one has unbounded faith in government and the other is preoccupied attacking that faith.
While the two sides posture, the plight of small business is sometimes discussed but remains unaided.
What the Citizens Want
Second, this problem is deeper than most people realize.
Since World War II, the United States has promoted a mixture of free enterprise and big government. In history, societies typically emphasized one or the other.
When big government ruled, enterprise was highly regulated and taxed; where free enterprise was the focus, taxes were small, regulations were minimal, and governments were limited in size, scope and budget.
But in modern America, no politician from any party can claim success unless he/she has “done something in office.”
And to nearly all Americans, “doing something” means increasing government action to benefit the pet cause or regional constituency.
If President Obama doesn’t pass much of his agenda, his political friends and competitors alike will label him ineffective.
Americans in general want their politicians to do a lot and are disappointed when officials fail in this.
The irony of the American voter is that “doing a lot” immediately earns most politicians a place on the voters’ list of officials to vote out.
Americans today want the impossible: low taxes and lots of government programs.
The Economist summarized it this way:
In the end, the question of whether a country is governable turns on how much government you think it needs. America’s founders injected suspicion of government not only into the constitution but also into the political DNA of its people. And even in the teeth of today’s economic woes, at least as many Americans seem to think that what ails them is too much government, not too little.
“But there is a catch. However much Americans say they want a small government, they seem wedded to the expensive benefits of the big one they actually have…With deficits running at $1 trillion a year, and in order to stay solvent, they will have at some point to cut spending, pay more taxes, or both….To balance the books, politicians have sometimes to do things the people themselves oppose—even in America. That will be the true test of whether the country is governable.”
Americans must either choose big government and be willing to pay for and submit to it, or they must move toward smaller, less intrusive government and be willing to enjoy fewer government programs.
When voters want the prosperity of freedom along with the bread and circuses of massive government, every election is a referendum on incumbents.
Eventually, though (and the day of reckoning appears to be close on the horizon), something will have to give.
Unfortunately, few societies make such hard choices until they are forced upon them by war, depression, pandemic or other major crises.
Sadly, few nations have the leadership or the fortitude to adopt the simple solution of spurring major growth and prosperity by de-regulating, de-taxing and freeing up the economy.
Freedom works, but few in history have been willing to adopt it.
Lost Leaders
We are unable to overcome these and many of our deepest challenges because of the way we distribute leadership in our society.
The American founders envisioned a truly great educational system, built around schools in every locale, to train their youth in the great ideas of mankind’s history, as well as the latest practical arts and sciences.
They built the early American schools to train empowered citizens who would protect freedom, foster prosperity, leadership, and character in all walks of American life.
They wanted an educational system that prepared their youth to become effective in their families, communities, and careers.
This vision helped create a nation that by 1946 produced over half of the world’s goods and services with only 6% of the globe’s population.
Freedom works, and the success of the American constitutional-free-enterprise model was spectacular. In the process, this system over time addressed, and — in some cases, even began to resolve its biggest negatives, including slavery and other inequities.
Unfortunately, by the late 1930s, the citizens and leaders who built this great model of success, freedom, and prosperity sent their children and grandchildren to schools which rejected this system, and instead adopted a new style of education focused mostly on career training.
Sadly, these American schools established by the our founders were replaced after World War II by the German model which was based on socio-economic class divisions.
In the “new” system, the elites still received leadership education (like all citizens had before 1939) while the middle and lower classes were educated only for jobs.
As this system grew, a Germanic-style grading system reinforced class-society advancements among the youth.
The maladies of credentialism, class divisions, and reliance on experts made their way into mainstream American culture. From 1939 to 1979, these contagions grew and infected the Founders’ classless and “free American” vision.
In such a system, the motto was: “A students work for B students.” The concept of “The Company Man” spread and Americans became addicted to big institutions.
Freedom and entrepreneurial values gave way to competing for executive positions and benefits packages. The goal of employeeship replaced the American dream.
Career became the purpose of schooling in almost everyone’s mind, and ownership and leadership values begin to literally disappear.
Eventually big institutions became truly massive, and anything except employeeship was considered inferior and backward.
In this environment, young people with a sense of leadership, idealism and ambitions to make a great impact on society split between the Left and the Right.
Those coming from traditionally conservative families tended toward majors and careers in business, while youth from more liberal backgrounds leaned towards the media and legal professions.
Most of today’s national leaders were part of this split.
The Reagan era ushered in a revolution of support for and promotion of free enterprise ideas and values.
Numerous non-traditional business models (like multi-level and network marketing) put individuals at the center of building a personal business rather than working as an employee, and eventually non-traditional educational options (from private and charter to home and online opportunities) grew in popularity.
Employeeship was still the dominant view, but a rising minority embraced the freedoms and prosperity of entrepreneurship. The dot.com boom and Roaring 90’s soon followed, and the entrepreneurial sector slowly grew.
Today a new culture of education and business is evolving out of the Great Recession and all that led up to it. A new maxim seems to be much more complex than in past generations:
- B students work for C students
- A students teach or work in government
- Those who cared little for grades and a lot about learning are building small businesses
Note that “those who cared little for grades and a lot about learning” often come from non-traditional private, charter, home and online learners, as well as from immigrants who are leading in entrepreneurial successes. And more than a few come from the traditional schools.
Since small business accounts for 80% of America’s economic growth, this is a significant development. Unfortunately, the number of people in the entrepreneurial sector is still very small.
Whether purposely or as a side effect, we are still training the overwhelming majority of our youth to believe that being A students means getting a good job and that employeeship is the greatest goal for education and even lifestyle.
Satirist P.J. O’Rourke addressed the problem this way:
America has made the mistake of letting the A student run things. It was A students who briefly took over the business world during the period of derivatives, credit swaps, and collateralized debt obligations. We’re still reeling from the effects…
“It was a bunch of A students at the Defense Department who planned the syllabus for the Iraq War….The U.S. tax code was written by A students….Now there’s health care reform—just the kind of thing that would earn an A on a term paper from that twerp of a grad student who teaches Econ 101…
“A students must do what teachers and textbooks want and do it the way the teachers and texts want it done….Such brisk apple-polishing happens to be an all-too-good preparation for politics. This is because a student’s success at education and a politician’s success at politics are measured mostly by input rather than outcome.”
Perhaps even more disturbing is that most of our Idealistic youth with ambitions to improve the world are still going after jobs in big business or big government.
The thing is, working for a big corporation or in a government job are unlikely places to really make a positive difference in the world.
We are distributing leadership in the way aristocratic and socialistic societies always have, and the future will unfold accordingly unless something changes.
We desperately need a rebirth of the entrepreneurial ideal.
The New Religion: Employeeship
Unfortunately, it’s not just the schools and universities that are continuing this outdated focus on jobs as the end-all of education and life.
Movies and television often demonize entrepreneurs while dedicating most of their time to stories about employees.
Full-time sports channels seem to dedicate as much time to the business side of athletes as to the entertainment, making sports role models as valued for their lucrative contracts as for their abilities on the playing field.
Even elected officials more typically refer to their role as a job than as public service.
Recent administrations and the media have referred to the constitutionally-titled commander in chief as the nation’s CEO. There are many other examples.
Because the “job-is-life” view is so prevalent, it has even become normal for successful entrepreneurs to see their work as done as soon as they can live comfortably.
In earlier generations (those that built and maintained American freedom), such successful entrepreneurs considered it their duty to spend the second half of their life helping society greatly improve.
Perhaps only parents and community leaders can effectively counter this trend and help more youth who want to help improve the world seek a true leadership education and seriously consider engaging in entrepreneurial careers.
Repairing the Break
So, to answer our question, yes, government is broken. The break is repairable, but it will take some major work and effort on the part of this generation.
When freedom is decreasing through constantly increasing regulations, government is broken. When the free enterprise system is under attack from our own government, government is broken.
When a tenth of our working society can’t get a job, and when the government responds by increasing taxes and regulations on those who could provide the jobs if they were free to do so, government is broken.
When two parties hold a monopoly on government, and where both increase spending and regulation no matter who is in office, government is broken.
But all of this misses the real point.
When most of society seeks employeeship above all else and every facet of life revolves around employeeship, much more than government is going to be broken.
Employeeship certainly has a place in effective nations, but it should be prioritized behind things like family leadership, citizenship, and private ownership.
Another name for these is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or alternatively, as Jefferson originally wrote, “life, liberty and property”).
A successful society is made up of at least the following things:
- Effective parents, grandparents and other family leaders who help raise good, wise and industrious adults to take their place
- Citizens who are well-educated in freedom and leadership and who keep government, business and other officials in check so the society can remain free and prosperous
- Owners who improve the prosperity of society, in a free enterprise system where all can be owners
- A constitutionally guaranteed freedom where all are treated equally before the law and all are protected in their inalienable rights
How the President Can Repair the Economy
In the 2008 election President Obama was supported by the Left (who loved his promises of economic liberalism), but he was elected by independents who saw in him a possible end to the corruption of the Bush years and a potentially great leader for the United States.
The “Leadership Thing” swept him into office. Now, the Obama Administration could greatly boost the economy by deeply promoting entrepreneurship—both symbolically and in reduced taxes and regulations.
Such incentives would spur more hiring, investment and expansion, and a recovery would follow that Americans could really believe in.
In fact, the President could probably accomplish this without changing any policy at all, simply by warming to small business and genuinely becoming friendly to entrepreneurs.
As a friend, a member of a minority, told me about President Carter:
“I didn’t agree with his politics or policies, but I just feel that he loved me and my people and cared about us. I never felt that from Reagan or Bush, and so I voted Democratic even though I was more aligned with the politics of the Republicans.”
An old advertising proverb says that people make choices emotionally and then use logic to defend it.
No matter what Washington says, and no matter what the economic numbers show, most entrepreneurs are unlikely to increase jobs and boost the economy through investments as long as they think the man in the White House basically dislikes and mistrusts them.
Even liberal-leaning businessmen are worried that the President isn’t supportive.
The White House could drastically help the recovery simply by changing its bias against small business. If this is just a perceived dislike of business, not a real one, they can simply change their message.
If, on the other hand, the Administration really does mistrust or dislike small business, it should reconsider. After all, unlike Wall Street, big banks and big corporations, small business simply cannot be blamed for America’s economic challenges.
It has been the victim of the mistakes made by both big business and past government. Yet it keeps plugging along, keeping the recession from being much worse.
And small business certainly is the group most likely to overcome high unemployment.
Indeed, when the economy does make a serious comeback, entrepreneurs will be leading the way. Hopefully, the Obama Administration will extend its “Yes, We Can” philosophy to those who have the most potential to drastically grow our economy.
Conclusion
It is time for all Americans—from the White House to our individual living rooms—to pour out a deep, genuine and heartfelt admiration and “thank you” to those who run small businesses.
Whatever the politicians of any party do, the greatest need is for parents, grandparents and all of us to rekindle an excitement for entrepreneurship in the youth.
The future of America’s freedom and prosperity may well depend on it. As long as free enterprise isn’t flourishing, our government will be broken.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founderof 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 : Business &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics
How to Destroy the Constitution
October 25th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS, AND INDEPENDENTS don’t agree on much, but most of them do believe in the excellence and effectiveness of the U.S. Constitution.
A group this diverse will, of course, have some disagreements on the details, but it is amazing how nearly all involved Americans support the document.
All agree that the Constitution catalyzed America’s growth to freedom, prosperity and world hegemony.
Freedom works, it turns out; the Constitution codified and structured freedom at a level unparalleled in world history (affiliate link).
For at least fifty years, however, two major groups have disagreed about the fundamental direction of the nation as it relates to the Constitution.
Conservatives have seen the Constitution as an ideal to live up to, and operated on the premise that the country must be careful not to stray too far from the original intent of the founders.
They resonate with such things as strong national defense, separations of power, and protections of property.
Liberals, in contrast, have in general felt that this great document guaranteed basic rights and due process, but that it was meant as a starting point from which to continually amend and improve our society.
They tend to focus on individual rights, equalities, and the democratic attitudes of the document.
As a third, newer group, independents, tend to want the United States to value original intent, yet also make improvements where they are wise and practical.
Vital Foundations of Freedom
In view of all this, there are a few things that are fundamentally vital to the success and maintenance of the U.S. Constitution.
If these vital things are lost or ignored, or even changed in any way, the system will break down and our freedoms will decrease. These vital foundations include:
- Separations of power between the executive, legislative and judicial branches
- The independence of each branch
- Checks and balances
- Guarantees of freedom like “no ex post facto laws,” “no bills of attainder,” and the freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights
- Separations of power between the federal and state governments
Over the years, some have argued that we are in danger of losing some of these vital foundations of constitutional freedom. Certainly there has been some weakening over time.
But for the most part, the vital facets of the Constitution have held strong.
Weakening the Constitution
Unfortunately, in just the past few years we have seen major affronts to these vital constitutional guarantees. And more amazingly, there has been little concern voiced in the media or among the American citizenry.
When we let our freedoms slip away without a fight or even without concern, we take freedom, prosperity and happiness away from our posterity.
What kind of people do that? Are we such people? These are questions each of us must face.
Moreover, the loss of these vital constitutional foundations are not issues of parties—most liberals, conservatives, greens, radicals, extremists, moderates, hawks, doves, independents and nearly everyone else is generally opposed to losing our freedoms.
So why do we sit by and let it just happen?
The answer is simple, although the reality is quite complex:
We tend to let our freedoms slip away because they are tucked away in documents and policies that we don’t ever deal with directly.
We either ignore current bills before Congress or, if we do get involved, we focus on the publicized issues instead of the many layers of complexity.
In short, we don’t read the fine print.
The Power of Fine Print
Many Americans ignore the fine print in job contracts and mortgage papers, blithely signing our signatures and trusting others to handle the details.
Consider how lax we are with proposed bills in Washington DC: They are written by someone we don’t know and voted on by people few of us will ever even meet.
What few people realize is that these things have direct and major impact on our lives!
The problem in modern America is not that an individual can’t make a difference, but that nearly all of us are too distracted to even consider trying.
It seems ridiculous, maybe, to think that regular people should read the fine print of proposed legislation and existing laws and try to improve them. It sounds extreme and even crazy to suggest that without such close scrutiny from the citizens our freedoms will be lost.
But it is still true. This is one of the things which makes the American founding generations so truly amazing! Yes, they sacrificed greatly in the Revolution.
But many nations have sacrificed mightily and still failed to be free. Yes, the founders wanted to protect themselves from the usurpation of Britain. But so has every other colony and group of people facing a dominating government.
Yes, the founders loved freedom and wanted to pass it on to their children and posterity. But who doesn’t?
Almost every human society has yearned deeply and sacrificed much to be free. However, the founding American generations did something that almost no others have ever done.
They read the fine print!
They taught their children to read bills, laws, court cases, legislative debates, executive decrees, and bureaucratic policies. They read them in schoolrooms and at home. They read them at picnics and by candlelight after a long day’s hard labor.
They said they would consider their children uneducated if they didn’t read such things.
Consider just one example, from a textbook read by all Vermont school children in 1794:
“All the children are trained up to this kind of knowledge: they are accustomed from their earliest years to read the Holy Scriptures, the periodical publications, newspapers, and political pamphlets…the laws of their country, the proceedings of the courts of justice, of the general assembly of the state, and of the Congress, etc.
“Such a kind of education is common and universal in every part of the state: and nothing would be more dishonorable to the parents, or to the children, than to be without it.”
Now, in fairness to most human societies who wanted to be free, the regular people through much of history couldn’t read at all.
The founders understood this, so the first federal law passed under the newly ratified U.S. Constitution required any territory seeking statehood to show that it had an effective educational offering for all children.
They considered it a great blessing of providence that they could read and had the opportunity to pass on education to nearly all Americans. They saw this as a fundamental requirement for freedom.
They mourned for the many generations of humans throughout history who had no chance at freedom because education was denied them or simply unavailable.
But what would the founders think of three generations of today’s Americans who can read, who live in relative affluence, have ample leisure time, but who choose to ignore government documents?
I think they would be shocked, and then angry.
After the painful price they paid to establish a free nation; the many sacrifices of their families and lives, imagine their frustration that today’s Americans won’t even read what the government is doing.
Eventually, after their anger wore off, I think they would resign themselves to this reality: Unless Americans start reading government documents again, we will lose our freedom—again.
In case this sounds extreme, let me reiterate that the founding generations read government documents, in detail, from all three branches, including all levels from federal, to state, to local.
Then they raised their children to do the same. It was second nature to them because they wanted to remain free.
Free people read the fine print. Then they act on it. To put it simply: those who don’t, do not remain free.
This is the reality of history, from Ancient Israel to the Greeks, Saracens, Franks, Anglo-Saxons and every other free society in history.
I can find no exceptions.
In fact, in mixed societies with classes or castes of both freemen and subservients (like in Athens or the Roman Republic), only the upper classes read government documents; and only the upper classes were free citizens.
Three Tragedies
In just the past two years we have seen three of the major vital foundations of constitutional freedom ignored.
People who don’t read government documents, or at the very least printed media reports about government documents, aren’t even aware of these structural implosions in our constitutional system.
They have no idea of the tragedy ahead unless these things are reversed.
Moreover, people who don’t read government documents are often swayed by the anger of politicians or mass media so that they think violating the Constitution is okay if the nation is mad enough.
For example, the vital constitutional foundation of “no bills of attainder” was broken in the wake of national anger at Wall Street after the economic meltdown of 2008-2009. Even those who knew it was broken felt it was justified given Wall Street’s mistakes.
But when we let the government break the Constitution because we are really mad, we will soon watch it break the Constitution when somebody else is mad.
This reminds me of the old story of the so-called unaffected groups who ignored Hitler’s men while they took the Jews, then the foreigners, the gypsies, the handicap, and the white collar professionals, only to wonder why no one was there to help when Hitler’s men finally came to their house.
The moral of the story? Stand up for the Jews, or any other group unjustly attacked. That is the character of people who will remain free.
Because we were so angry at Wall Street after the economic crisis, we also ignored or just accepted the “ex post facto” laws unconstitutionally passed and applied in 2009.
That’s two strikes against the Constitution, and in less than a year!
The third strike came in the health care law.
Now, before I say more, let me be clear that I did not side with either the Democratic law as it was passed or with the argument from the Republicans that health care need not be reformed. Reform was necessary, but the way it was done is a major problem.
Some Democrats, some Republicans, and a lot of independents agreed with this. There is a lot more that could be said on this, point-by-point on every facet of the law. But that isn’t my purpose here.
My deepest concern is with the fact that public sentiment regarding such policies and issues as immigration, marriage, detainment/torture, health care, finance reform, foreign military campaigns, etc., is governed by the tidal forces of activism and apathy—neither of which is delving into the fine print details in the laws that strike a major blow to the most vital foundations of the Constitution.
Using the Health Care Reform law as a case in point: The Constitution separated the powers of the federal government from others that would be left to the states or lower levels, or the people.
This is as fundamental to our freedoms as separating the executive, judicial, and legislative branches, or outlining specific checks and balances.
Take away the provision of separating state and federal powers, and the whole Constitution is in danger of failing.
The founding generation felt so strongly about this that they insisted on adding the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to protect this separation and maintain states’ rights.
Later, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could take some actions within states under the commerce clause, but only the states had the right to require individual citizens to buy a good or service.
The Court also ruled in Gonzales v. Oregon that the federal government does not have the authority to “define general standards of medical practice in every locality.” It also “has recognized a right to medical self-determination, notably finding it within the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.”
The health care law is the first federal law to break these, and it sets a dangerous precedent for the future.
In short, if this stands, future U.S Presidents and Congress can add one or two sentences in any bill at any time that requires Americans to do or buy anything—and pretty much nobody is likely to know until the law is passed.
Each new generation is acclimatized to the level of government overreach that they find themselves in, and it rarely occurs to them to object.
The Overseers of Freedom
Some might argue that our elected representatives should keep an eye on such things and take care of them for us.
True enough; except for one thing: Despite of all their good intentions and willingness to step up and lead, most of these representatives are ultimately just like “us”; they are not much more inclined than the general population to read the fine print!
Contributing to this brand of governance is the status quo climate that slaps an “extremist” label on those who do try to raise concerns about the process or consequence of our legislative and regulatory trends.
The bottom line is that our elected officials often fail to do anything about these fine-print additions to legislation.
Sometimes, even when such things are taken out of bills, the agencies which implement these laws simply write them back into their operating policies and enforce them anyway—even though they are not technically law.
With a system like this, the people are the only true overseers of freedom. If we don’t do it, freedom will be lost.
The founding generations read resolutions, bills, laws, policies, executive orders, ordinances, court cases and judicial commentaries on cases.
They wanted to be free, so they did what free people always do: They read the documents of government. They studied the fine print.
Where they saw dangers to freedom, they took action.
Unfortunately, too often any criticism of a political party’s policy is interpreted by people as an attack on that party. In this case, it is not my purpose to criticize President Obama’s push for health care reform.
I am simply concerned with the way this law treats the U.S. Constitution.
Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush also promoted policies that could have threatened constitutional principles.
It is the role of politicians to promote policies and changes they feel are needed, and at times these push the envelope of the Constitution.
Congress and the Court must do their constitutional role of analyzing and responding to such proposals, but ultimately it is up to the people to be the Overseers—to protect freedom.
Societies where the regular people aren’t allowed to read or comment on the laws are Totalitarian, Authoritarian, Dictatorial or Communistic.
Societies where the regular people are allowed to read and comment on the government and law, but instead decide to leave it to others, most often adopt aristocracy or socialism.
In contrast, if we want to be free, we must read the fine print.
Freedom only lasts in societies where regular citizens:
- read government documents, think about and discuss them
- do something to change them when needed
- teach their children to do the same.
If we become such people, the future of freedom is bright. If not…
***********************************
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 &Citizenship &Constitution &Culture &Education &Government &Independents &Leadership &Politics
Robin Hood, or Prince John: Overcoming a Problem Worse than Socialism
October 20th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Click Here to Download a Printable Version of This Article
When the government takes middle-class tax money and bails out big bankers, automobile manufacturers and other big businesses paying out huge multi-million dollar bonuses, that’s not socialism.
Socialism, like Robin Hood, proposes to take money from the middle and upper classes and redistribute it to the poor.
But during the Great Recession, the lower and lower-middle classes found it much harder to make ends meet. Many lost their jobs, and even their homes.
Where is Robin Hood when they need him? Where is their socialist bailout?
Whether or not you subscribe to the socialist ideal (and I decidedly do not), a careful consideration of the social and economic climate of the U.S. is warranted.
What is really happening? Talk radio and conservative television hosts have railed about the “rise of socialism,” but in reality something else is going on here.
When socialistic programs are introduced, the lower classes benefit and the upper-middle and upper classes pay the bill.
But in our time, precisely the opposite has happened.
In addition to increasing woes for the lower and lower-middle classes, the upper classes actually benefited from the economic downturn.
The number of millionaires grew 16 percent during the Great Recession; and those with a net worth over $5 million grew 17 percent.
So why are conservatives and Tea Partyists bantying about the s-word so much?
And after all is said and done, what difference does it make what we call it?
While the “socialism” furor may be linked to the Health Care debate and other left-of-center proposals of the Obama Administration, a deeper look shows that socialism is not the real culprit.
It is critical to understand that this distinction is not just a talking point for politicians and pundits to discuss on Sunday morning talk shows, or for academics and intellectuals to publish in scholarly journals.
By misdiagnosing the problem, we are also applying the wrong remedies and can never hope for improvement.
We are all the day vigilant against the small-time con of Robin Hood, and Prince John plunders us while we sleep.
What is Socialism?
The technical definition of socialism is government ownership of the major means of production in a society.
American Liberalism, in contrast, believes that there should be both a private and a government sector, and that the government should highly tax and regulate the private sector.
While both of these are anti-conservative, they are not one and the same, and the difference is critical.
American Liberalism does believe in limits, checks and balances; it believes in a separate private sector.
Socialism believes in none of these; it believes that the government should run the entire economy.
Obama Administration involvement in bailing out banks and auto companies certainly had liberal and even socialist overtones, but the top banks quickly paid back government loans and went back to private ownership.
In this sense, to label this as socialistic is not accurate.
Again: this is not question of semantics, but speaks to the very heart of the issue and how we should respond. (More on this later.)
In the wake of the economic meltdown, the government drastically increased regulations on large and small businesses. This regulatory activity is a basic value and tool of liberalism.
While liberalism seeks to ever increase regulation on private businesses, socialism seeks to own most and eventually all the companies in a nation.
Polls showed the Obama Administration to be left of the American populace in regard to fiscal and other types of regulations, but all within liberal rather than socialistic definitions.
It may be well argued that this distinction is simply a question of degrees.
But even in that paradigm the differences demand a greater understanding of and tailored responses to the liberal and socialist encroachments on freedom and prosperity.
If It Quacks Like A Duck…
Another reason many called Great Recession policies “socialist” is that government actions caused private businesses to shed employees at the same time that the government was hiring.
When the media shared the numbers showing that average private salaries are less than the average government employees make, the “socialism” name-calling was a natural angry response.
The Economist predicted growing political battles between taxpayers and government employees in nearly all nations.
We need to get serious about incentivizing small and mid-size businesses.
For example, a recent version of the health care bill would have required businesses with twenty employees and a $1 million/year budget would have to add $300,000 to its annual costs or pay $40,000 in fines.
Result: at least two employees would be let go and twenty people would still not have health insurance.
To say nothing of the fact that these individual employees will still have to buy their own insurance or pay additional fines.
It’s anybody’s guess how it will all shake out as the health care law undergoes endless tinkering over the next who-knows-how-long, but it’s worth asking the question: How, exactly, does this help unemployment?
In fact, it dis-incentivizes entrepreneurship and hiring, and encourages people to go on government programs. This certainly feels like socialism.
And big business is facing similar challenges. For example, Intel’s chief executive Paul Otellini said that the U.S. is driving away businesses and employers:
The things that are not conducive to investments here are taxes and capital investment credits. A new semiconductor factory at world scale built from scratch is about $4.5 billion–in the United States. If I build that factory in almost any other country in the world, where they have significant incentive programs, I could save $1 billion.”
How many jobs are we sending to other countries because of our high taxes?
This was clearly not a hypothetical situation; Intel built its latest factory in China. Said Otellini:
And it wasn’t because of the labor costs either. Yeah, the construction costs were a little bit lower, but the cost of operating when you look at it after tax was substantially lower…”
What does it mean when China’s communist business environment is more inviting to U.S. companies, more conducive to their growth, than the United States?
When did regulations and taxes in the U.S. make doing business in China attractive?
The U.S. now ranks #40 out of forty industrialized nations in appeal to business.
It’s almost as if the U.S. government doesn’t want business to succeed or grow, and only thinks that government spending and government jobs are the solutions to economic challenges.
This is easy prey for conspiracy hunters, but I don’t think Washington is capable either of such ubiquitous cleverness or cooperation.
I think it is much more likely when it comes to preserving freedom, they are simply not minding the store.
Other pressing needs have our leaders distracted, and the expedient responses they recur to also happen to militate against our future freedom and prosperity–and specifically, against free enterprise.
No wonder so many people are angry at recent presidential administrations. No wonder so many are crying “socialism.”
How can we defend against the allegation that our government purposely wants private businesses to fail or flee the U.S.?
Instead of promoting incentives that bring more business and jobs, the government is promoting higher taxes and regulations like health care that make business success more difficult.
More government regulation, increased government hiring and increased government social programs demanding ever higher taxes: these are features not only of liberal policies, but of a growing aristocracy.
Socialism Versus Aristocracy
Predictably, most Americans today who actually have an opinion on the matter readily conjure the twentieth-century enemy of free enterprise, socialism, rather than the older, forgotten eighteenth- and nineteenth-century evil of aristocratic rule.
But the fact that lower classes are struggling more than ever while the upper classes are increasing their wealth during economic downturns is a clear sign that aristocracy is the issue.
Consider this: in socialist cultures celebrity and fame are denigrated; in aristocratic societies they are esteemed and celebrated.
We clearly love celebrity at levels far beyond socialistic, conservative or even liberal societies.
Aristocracies and monarchies are the domain of such infatuation with fame, get-rich-quick schemes and the lottery mentality.
Like Shakespeare’s Antonio, we just know our ship is about to come in.
Conservatives traditionally invest in building businesses and like-minded community, liberals in educational degrees, professional excellence and credibility, and socialists in government positions.
Like characters in an Austen novel, in aristocracies like our modern America those in the lower classes fantasize about some punctuated leap in their “prospects”–from marrying rich to the modern equivalent of winning on Survivor, American Idol, The Amazing Race, The Bachelor or some other concocted scenario where the fate of the aspirants largely lies with those in power.
Note that in pyramid schemes there are a few winners at the top but thousands of hopeful and willing enablers the rest of the way down.
Why the Difference Matters
The debate between socialism and aristocracy is more than just semantical.
The technically inaccurate label of socialism allows the educated media and the elite establishment to patronize and condescend to the “uneducated” who push for change.
It allows government officials to dismiss the “uncouth dissenters” while maintaining their conviction that “they” (the “educated,” the most “talented,” most “intelligent” ones) know what the nation needs and those whose opinion really matters (the “educated,” the most “talented,” most “intelligent” ones) are completely in favor of their proposals.
Unfortunately, those citizens who put aside apathy and stand up to make a difference find themselves always frustrated because they fight the wrong battle.
If socialism is our problem, the perpetrator is the political leaders promoting socialist policies, and the philosophical left is to blame.
But if aristocracy is the challenge, then the two parties are both culprits in the promotion of a privileged class.
If aristocracy is the challenge, the citizen is his own worst enemy as he does not pay the price to rise above the mediocre education of our schools or to see beyond a complicit, dumbed-down media designed more for entertainment than positive impact on freedom and prosperity.
If we think socialism is the enemy, we will put our effort into electing different leaders, only to discover that Washington’s problems continue and increase no matter whom we elect.
By misdiagnosing the problem, we are using the wrong treatments and failing to get better.
No matter how active and engaged voters are, from the left or the right or the middle, if we continue to think that socialism or capitalism is our problem then all our efforts will continue to be impotent.
Very little will change in Washington and our problems will continue to grow.
Virile & Viral
If we realize, in contrast, that aristocracy is the real problem and that electing an upper class from either party will only worsen the problem, we can shift focus and consider what is really needed.
And the answer, the real solution, will become clear: As long as we live in a society of upper and lower classes, our freedoms and prosperity will continue to decline.
The solution is not to just elect a different leader, but for all American citizens to once again obtain the kind of education that allowed regular farmers and shopkeepers to study the federalist papers and listen to and consider eight-hour debates during the Lincoln-Douglass era.
If we think the problem is socialism, we will consider great education benign and ineffectual.
But if we know the real problem–that people in both parties and in all social strata are enabling a growing aristocratic power over our society–then we will realize that simply electing a better senator or president is not nearly enough of a solution.
True: Socialism and aristocracy share many symptoms, so electing the best leaders is still vitally important to stem big government.
But the real, unseen, issue is aristocracy. And until the American people realize this and more of us get the same quality of education as the CEOs, judges and presidents, the problems will continue to grow.
Above all, it is education that determines class levels.
Entrepreneurship is another path to leadership. This doesn’t mean that we need all enroll in the Ivy League.
In truth, the greatest classics of history are still the true library of freedom, wealth and leadership.
Virtually every town library has the great texts of liberty and success available.
The question is, do Americans value our freedom enough to end the rise of aristocratic rule by becoming greatly educated ourselves?
Will we step up to our responsibilities as citizens and qualify ourselves for our role as the overseers of government by learning about freedom, leadership, economics, human nature and the other great ideas of mankind?
As our society is on track for disaster from numerous threats (to our food supply, availability of fuel, decaying infrastructure, dependency on programs that have poor prospects for future funding, terrorism, failing economy) we all know that somebody needs to “Do something!”
We have been caught in the binary trap of either expecting someone else to “fix it” or expecting that we can make a difference just by making our voices heard.
But our moral authority and our ability to impact our society’s direction will come not from complaining about the ideas or performance of those who have stepped up to lead, but from actually having the answers to society’s ills.
We can’t just protest that the world simply must turn back the clock two hundred years.
New leadership is needed by today’s American citizens.
If we truly revere the American founders and idealize their accomplishments, we must move beyond hero worship and actually do as the founders did: We must apply a profound understanding of sound principles to the establishment of policies and forms that directly apply to our complex and critical situation today.
This we can do, just as the American founders did in their day.
As I have said elsewhere: Getting a world-class education and running successful businesses is “doing something.”
That is precisely the “something” that is called for today, and that any other solution which does not include a better educated populace has a different outcome than liberty and justice for all.
It is time for an entrepreneurial approach to getting an individualized, superb, great, innovative leadership education in the classics.
Each of us can do it, and the future of our freedoms depends upon it.
If the current growth of American aristocracy is allowed to continue, our future is destined to be less free and more harshly lacking in opportunity than any socialistic society.
The criticism of “socialism” is certainly negative; but unless we change course, the aristocracy that our grandchildren and their children inherit will be something far worse.
Click Here to Download a Printable Version of This Article
***********************************
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 &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Government &Liberty
How Information Grows
October 12th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Information grows differently than industry or agriculture.
Thus hundreds of years of understanding about how to grow Industrial-Age businesses doesn’t really apply to many Information Age endeavors.
Indeed, some of the lessons of how to grow a farm in the Agricultural Age didn’t necessarily translate to Industrial Age corporate growth, although some did.
The key is to think in a new context and apply lessons within the contemporary environment.
Information, and by extension Information-Age organizations and ideas, grow in a certain way.
Instead of the Industrial model of building a foundation, then adding walls, buttresses and finally a roof, informational models grow like waves.
Imagine the ripples caused when a pebble falls into a lake. The waves repeat many times, spreading out and impacting the world around them. Eventually they dissipate and disappear, leaving the world altered, if only a little. Additional pebbles are needed to repeat the process.
And unlike the Industrial Age penchant for building institutions that last forever, information impacts the world and then moves on to something else when enough ripples have accomplished the goal.
The Industrial modus operandi was to build an institution to achieve a goal, and then to focus on the survival and growth of the institution — even if this required abandoning the original purpose for which the institution was established.
In contrast, information sets out to inform, keeps going until this is accomplished, and then moves on to other agendas.
Likewise, where Industrial institutions attempt to control how their work is perceived and utilized, information shares, informs, and leaves (and trusts) those who receive the information to use it as needed and to pass it on.
Good information is naturally improved by various applications, and it is perpetuated by those who receive and utilize it.
There are eight levels of informational waves:
1: At first, information simply is. It exists.
It is in the state and process of being. This is the most important level of informational ideas, institutions and thinkers.
The quality, breadth, depth and wisdom of information matters. Getting it right (right from the beginning) is vital.
Even more important is sharing information for the right reason. If information is shared for the wrong reasons, for example, the information itself is tainted and changed by this fact.
In the Industrial Age, things were considered good information if they were true, but information has a higher standard. Unless informational ideas are shared for the right reasons, the information isn’t reliable.
In short, the first level of information is purity.
Any item of information is a thing, and it has a purpose. In sharing information or building informational institutions or relationships, pure reasons are essential. Without them, the information itself is unreliable.
Note that pure information is one of the most powerful things in the world. It has been called “the power of the word,” “the power of an idea whose time has come,” “resonance,” and a number of other things.
When information is shared by the right person at the right time for the right reasons, it has great and lasting power.
2: Good information that is promoted and shared for the right reasons becomes an interactive wave.
This greatly increases the impact and influence of the information, spreading it to those who need it.
Of course, bad information passed on for the wrong reasons is also interactive and therefore very destructive. Anybody who has ever started a rumor, for example, has probably witnessed how quickly it spreads and how much pain and hurt it can cause.
In the long term, however, tainted information has no lasting power. Information promoters do best when they send out ideas far and wide, openly sharing and personally applying the “new” information they have learned.
3: Next comes the communicative wave.
This occurs where people purposely set out to communicate information to set groups or to everyone.
This wave can be marketed, spun, or twisted for the benefit of various groups and people, but the pure information will shine through and those seeking wisdom will see through the shades of spin and opinion and resonate with what they need to learn.
They will then naturally pass on their contributions and lessons learned and the value of the information will increase.
Synergy kicks in at this point and the value of the information spirals out to many who are seeking it.
4: A linear wave captures much of the information at this level and translates it to specific uses, fields, disciplines, written or spoken or digitized venues and delivers its essence in numerous formats.
Information institutions or thinkers frequently introduce their views to the world in this format. Of course, it existed before they composed, organized or created their specific work, but their creation adds value, quality and even wisdom to the information.
By its nature, information spreads, and those who add to its value without trying to enslave its essence help it spread and increase its ability to serve.
Those who try to control it, in contrast, find that their creation is devalued, their creativity stifled, and their flow of additional information violated.
Unlike land or capital in the Agrarian and Industrial eras, respectively, information is not meant to be owned. The wave of open source programs and wiki media applications harnesses this abundant and cooperative mentality.
Note that I am not arguing here for uncompensated use of copyrighted software, technology, artistic or other proprietary creations.
I believe that original inventions, innovations and creations should benefit those who risked, invested, worked and created. And organizations and governments have every right to keep certain things secret or proprietary.
But pure information in ideas, principles and the flow of wisdom is not the same as one’s proprietary creation–nobody can (or should) lock up or control the flow of pure information.
As long as individuals and institutions own their creation, but without trying to control thought and inspiration, it can benefit them and many others.
5: Eventually information is captured in numerous linear waves which together form a multimedia wave.
In other words, at a certain point pure information is simultaneously delivered in many forms and from numerous sources which reinforce the messages, lessons and value of the original information.
Leaders can help spread this wave by delivering the information multiple times and in manifold ways.
6: The next step occurs when information comes alive.
This happens were the essence of the information is felt.
When I hear a story and it spurs an emotional response, for example, all the earlier waves combine and impact how I receive the information.
In a similar way, waves far from where the pebble dropped are bigger and carry a lot more water than those right where the pebble fell.
A similar level in Industrial institutions was branding–where a given brand, name or logo carried a repeating emotional charge. In the informational world, however, each additional interaction communicates new information value.
7: Psychological waves come next, and are produced by the transfer of information from one mind to another.
Since all such transfers partake of all the earlier levels of waves (e.g. the person shares his feelings, pure or tainted reasons, multimedia use of voice along with facial expressions and nonverbal cues, etc.), learning from others is an advanced way to receive information.
Because of this, the level of advancement of the person delivering the message has some impact on how the information is delivered.
Still, the condition of the receiver is the most important factor in determining the quality of the reception when the information or signal is pure.
In Industrial marketing this was often dominated by testimonials or infomonials, but informational leaders simply open up and share.
The most powerful of this information often comes from word of mouth, personal stories, and genuine interest in helping others.
Any who truly care about others and share ideas, thoughts or anything else as attempts to help others are partners with information in this process.
The true language of this wave is love, which is why true change most often comes when we feel love or loved.
8: At the highest level, the symbolic wave conveys a packet of information that is amazingly multi-layered and teeming with depth, breadth, context, connections and possibilities.
Shakespeare spoke of being bounded in a nutshell of infinite space and science teaches that the DNA code of an entire organism is found in each cell.
The symbolic wave could be called a mustard seed, a small token carrying the potential and key to so much more.
Also, at this highest level, the receiver can often break the information into smaller pieces, analyze each of the waves alone or together, and consider each facet of the idea–from its essence to all its potential consequences.
The possibilities are exponential. The information at this level is only limited by the abilities of the user to consider, discover or imagine.
Those seeking such information are on a quest for inspiration–be it limited to one question, or as broad as a life of searching.
Because the symbolic wave of information is so powerful, those who ask shall receive; the universe is friendly, and when the student is ready the teacher will appear.
(That last paragraph makes me want to be sure everyone knows how important it is to read Free the Beagle by Roy Williams. It’s a fun read, not homework.)
***********************************
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 &Education &Information Age &Leadership
Great Education in the Internet Age
October 8th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
As the old saying goes, “Leaders are Readers.” This has proven true generation after generation, and is still the reality today.
But there is a significant difference in the leadership value in different types of reading.
For example, few would doubt that there is a difference in benefits between reading the following items:
- a technical manual
- your friends’ Facebook entries
- a work by Plato or Shakespeare
- a historical, western, science fiction or fantasy novel
- the prospectus for a financial investment
- a romance novel
- The Wall Street Journal
- a tabloid magazine
- a business self-help book
The list could go on. One could argue that all of these have some benefits, but the value would depend on what the reader was trying to gain from the reading.
In short, all reading is not the same.
As David Brooks wrote in the New York Times:
“Recently, book publishers got some good news. Researchers gave 852 disadvantaged students 12 books (of their own choosing) to take home at the end of the school year….They found that the students who brought the books home had significantly higher reading scores than other students….In fact, just having those 12 books seemed to have as much positive effect as attending summer school. This study, along with many others, illustrates the tremendous power of books….
“Recently, Internet mavens got some bad news. Jacob Vigdor and Helen Ladd of Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy examined computer use among a half-million 5th through 8th graders in North Carolina. They found that the spread of home computers and high-speed Internet access was associated with significant declines in math and reading scores.”
He concludes his analysis with this:
“Already, more ‘old-fashioned’ outposts are opening up across the web. It could be that the real debate will not be books versus the Internet but how to build an Internet counterculture that will better attract people to serious learning.”
Perhaps the key is to resurrect the word “great.” This word is often used (perhaps overused), in our society, but it is seldom used to mean what it originally meant.
“Great” has several meanings:
- huge, immense, grand
- distinguished, remarkable, impressive
- noble, heroic, majestic
- wonderful, fantastic, excellent
- complete, profound, utter
- unlimited, boundless, abundant
- major, momentous, weighty
“Great” can mean any one of these things, or a combination of a few or all of them.
Antonyms of the word “great” include: unimportant, small, minor, lowly, slight, awful, tiny, and ordinary. In academia, business and athletics, the word “mediocre” is also used as an antonym of “great.”
Now, consider some of the ramifications of applying more greatness to education, reading and learning.
What if children and youth were strongly encouraged to read a few of the greats in everything they read. For example:
- 2 of the greatest technical manuals ever written, things like The Wizard of Ads by Roy H. Williams
- 2 of the greatest works each by Plato and Shakespeare
- 2 years of Berkshire Hathaway’s annual report
- 2 each of the greatest historical, western, science fiction and fantasy novels, titles like The Bridge at Andau, The Virginian, Lord of the Rings, etc.
- 2 of the greatest romance novels ever, such as Gone With the Wind, Sense and Sensibility, etc.
- 2 of the best tabloid magazine articles ever written, which have weathered the test of time and proven to be excellent and accurate (just the process of researching this would be a great educational project that would teach many lessons about good versus bad journalism)
- 2 of the top business self-help books, such as works by Napoleon Hill, Wallace Wattles, Paulo Coelho or Jim Collins
- Some of the top Wall Street Journal articles ever published, things like “A Separate Peace” by Peggy Noonan
- 3 of the greatest Facebook entries ever (examples anyone?)
Such readings, be they from books or newspapers or the Internet, are by their nature grand, remarkable, impressive, excellent, profound, momentous and weighty. Some are even abundant, noble, majestic and/or heroic.
In a word, they are great.
None of these would be unimportant, small, minor, lowly, slight, awful, tiny, ordinary or mediocre. Readers may agree or disagree with what they read, but they would at least be reading some of the greats.
This would help them judge the quality of other things they read by simple comparison.
Great readings greatly impact learning. What is an education without Tocqueville, Austen, Newton, Einstein, Aristotle, Virgil, Twain or Mother Teresa?
Unless we read the greats, our education simply cannot be accurately called great.
Beyond this, however, there are a number of great works being produced each year and in many mediums—from books to music, art to theater, cinema to mathematics, accounting to marketing, family relations to philosophy and religion, and from the Internet to all the latest social networking sites.
Great works are more easily found in some of these mediums than others, but all of them offer at least a few greats!
We just need to look for and share them—especially with the youth. Cultivating our taste for greatness, and our ability to detect it, is an important aspect of becoming “educated.”
On a related topic, the only free peoples in history were societies of readers! If we want to be free, we must read. Books matter, and great books matter greatly.
Other kinds of readings also produce some great work, and all of us can do better by simply adding more “great” readings into our lives. As we do this, our children and students will be more likely to follow our example.
Finally, in what ways can each of us help establish and support Internet content that is deeper, more excellent and truly greater reading material? This is a vital mission for many of us.
In one way, the Internet may be more effective at promoting great education than even books: Nearly all Internet content is interactive, meaning that youth naturally want to write about it as well as read it.
Where reading of books and writing of essays are usually separate processes in traditional education, the Internet can bridge the gap by naturally combining great reading with important writing.
If they are reading great works and ideas, learners will be more likely to write about great thoughts.
The problem is that without reading great things, great writing seldom occurs.
When children learn texting (entertainment) before they actively fall in love with and engage great books (learning), their writing won’t usually emphasize great thinking.
The greatly educated naturally use e-media to share and improve their education, while those with shallow education naturally take their shallowness to the keyboard.
In short, we can all benefit from bringing more great readings into our lives—wherever they are found.
But among children and youth, it is much more effective to learn from books first and later take up social networking only when they have something important to say.
When this order is reversed, many youth struggle to do the work of great education when life is dominated by e-entertainment.
In the Internet Age, great education is more available than ever—but only if children fall in love with books. And this is a lot more likely if their parents and teachers set the example.
***********************************
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 : Education &Information Age
