Entrepreneurship

The Hidden Meaning of the 2016 Election

November 15th, 2016 // 7:43 am @ Oliver DeMille

The election is over. Now comes the truly important part.
And it depends on you, more than you realize.

1. The Two Nations in the U.S.

Forget everything you thought politics were about in America. The Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump revolution of 2015-2016 taught us something very important about our country. We sort of knew it already, but now the evidence is clear.

We are two nations. Not one nation, but two. Distinct. With different goals and dreams. With a different view of what is good and bad. And with almost opposite beliefs about what we want in the next four years, and beyond.

Regardless of how the media has portrayed things during the long months of the election, this great national division isn’t Red versus Blue states, Republicans versus Democrats, or whites versus minorities. It isn’t the same old battle between conservatives and liberals. Something new is afoot.

We are a nation divided. A nation split–fractured, in fact. In 2016 this division came to a head, but the election didn’t put an end to it. Not even close. We are a nation split between the political class, the elites, on one side, and the great mass of citizens on the other. But the differences between these two classes are significant. Specifically:

The masses want to put the election behind them and get back to their daily lives. They hope the agents of change they elected will make things better, so they can focus on their families, jobs, and hobbies.
The political class from both parties, Democrat and Republican, feels slapped in the face by the 2016 election. In every way they were put in their place by the voters. They’re not used to this. In fact, they’re used to sneering at the regular people in the nation, the people who live in rural towns and flyover states (the states “important” people fly over when they travel from one coast to the other). They’re used to laughing at the idea that the masses run this country. So now, with the fresh sting of the election driving them, they’re going to go to work every day to get their power back.

These are the Establishment of both parties, the elites in finance, academia, media, Hollywood, and lobbying. Many of them live in the Boston/New York/Washington D.C. corridor, and a lot of them live in the largest 100 U.S. cities that are home to the elites in each of the 50 states.

These Establishment members, the political class, care little for the struggles and challenges faced by the regular people. This group strategizes, debates, plans, and implements its policies, while routinely telling the masses to leave politics to the experts. “We’re the adults,” the elite class smugly tells the rest of us on any major issue of politics and policy. “Leave governance to us. Only we really understand what you need.”

The masses are, naturally, upset by this approach. But the problem is much deeper than the elites admit. The political class is now angry. The elites lost the battle in the recent election. But they are committed to win the long-term war.

Two Americas indeed.

2. The Political Class versus The People

The political class includes elected officials, federal government employees and bureaucrats, the media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, celebrity athletes, and anyone who lives in the elite, big-money bubble that insulates them from the daily struggles of the working class in this sputtering economy. This group benefits from the way Washington has done things for the past thirty years. They are wealthy and influential in the current system. They don’t want change. They are shocked by what happened on election night 2016.

They want higher taxes and even more regulation, a bigger Washington, bigger government, bigger programs, more bureaucracy.

This isn’t what the masses want.

But as mentioned, the masses see the election as over. They want to go back to work, hoping their newly elected leaders will fix things. In contrast, the political elite class is now ready to go to work winning back their power—to do whatever they can to block the revolution that put Trump into office, to do whatever they can to keep things the same in Washington and around the nation.

And the political class does this full time. For most of them, it is their job, their career, their work—and they’re at it 60-80 hours a week, day after day, month after month.

3. A New and Different Culture War

As part of this trend, more of the regular people will find themselves feeling less tolerance for celebrities, actors, singers, sports figures, news pundits, and professors trying to use their fame or authority to influence politics. The whole elite class is now considered suspect at a deeper level than ever before. “We’ll attend their movies and watch them play basketball,” the masses now say, “but we don’t care what they say about politics. They’re part of the Establishment. What could they possibly know about what’s best for me and my family?”

The elite class hardly knows what happened on election night. They are shocked. They loved their life of influence and prosperity. They struggle to believe that others don’t love what America has become as well. They don’t quite realize that much of America doesn’t like them anymore—that, in fact, lots of Americans see them as part of the problem. This is bewildering to them. They thought they were part of the “in crowd.” Now they discover they are seen as insiders by most Americans, but that this isn’t a compliment. It’s a term of derision.

On election night, one pundit on a major news channel told how he went to the gym during a break in election coverage and heard two men talking about politics. One of the men was elated that Trump was winning, and the second man asked him how he felt about a certain Trump policy. The first man quickly replied, “Who cares? At least Trump isn’t one of them.”

The reporter immediately grasped that the man wasn’t referring to Democrats as “them”. He was talking about politicians—from both parties. “One of them” meant anyone in the political class, be it Dole or Gore, McCain or Obama, Hillary or Jeb Bush, Romney, Rubio, Sanders, or Cruz. All of “them.” Then, later, it dawned on the reporter that he was one of the “them” too.

Imagine his surprise. Was it followed by feelings of defensiveness? Was he offended? Did he want to distance himself from the “them” crowd? It may have been the first time in his adult life that he felt like he was suddenly out of the popular clique and one the outcasts. “Them! Me? Wait…”

But how did a billionaire from New York City convince the nation that he wasn’t one of “them”? The answer is amazing. He did what pretty much nobody in the elite class ever does—in Boston, New York, Washington, L.A., or the smaller state-capital elite cliques around the nation. He did something very simple: he talked off-the-cuff, like the regular people. He made regrettable gaffes and misspoke from time to time – more like a high school football coach or a construction crew foreman than a polished banker, lawyer, or doctor. He called names, pointed fingers, talked back in bombastic tones and used colorful language. Nearly every time he went on TV or gave a speech he proved that he wasn’t one of “them.”

In fact, this very behavior made him one of the most despised presidential candidates ever—in the eyes of the political class. It made the college-educated embarrassed to support him, and it made Millennials loathe him as a virtually monolithic block. To the regular people, however, it did the opposite. It gave them hope. He acted like one of working class. Their response? “Who cares. At least he’s not one of them.” And they elected him.

This is a cultural war that most elites don’t understand. They are widely socialized in college, corporations, meetings, boardrooms and other air-conditioned settings where oxford collars and blue blazers are universal, and the elite code of manners is ubiquitous. Anyone who doesn’t meet their code of behavior is quickly ostracized, not out of malice but usually just for comfort. This becomes part of their culture, their ethos.

When elites (gently socialized in this way) encounter people dressed like workmen, speaking with a regional accent (any region), they too often make certain ingrained assumptions: “slow, hick, uneducated, inferior” or something similar. It’s not meant to be a bias—the political class works very hard to never show any bias, and in fact to avoid bias at all costs (or, at least, the politically incorrect biases). But it is a bias nonetheless.

It was, in fact, this very bias that made almost all newsrooms on every national network laugh at the preposterous thought of Donald Trump actually trying to run for president. His ball cap worn with a suit, his bluster, his pugilistic stance in every conversation. All of this communicated “unworthy, inferior, lower class” to the political elites. “Buffoon” they told each other.

What they missed, what they can still hardly even fathom, is that at the very same time millions of working-class Americans were taking notice and thinking that Trump might just be for real. Those ball caps with suits looked an awful lot like prosperity to them. The brash attitude and demeanor felt authentic and unrehearsed, and made them feel like “he’s one of us.” When he attacked the media, or lashed out at “the potential Trojan Horse” of Syrian refugees, or said mean things about opponents, the elites and college-educated saw crassness while much of the working masses saw unpracticed transparency. The masses may have been wrong about this on numerous occasions, but the elites didn’t even realize what was happening. They were oblivious, smugly sure that they were still the undisputed rulers of the nation.

In short, elites and the masses read the entire election very differently right from the beginning. Elites saw a national joke, and called him “Orange” and “clown”; the masses watched the same interviews and speeches and saw one of their own who had achieved success.

As an article in The Atlantic put it, elites didn’t take Donald Trump seriously, but they did take him literally; working people took him seriously but not literally. They didn’t see his extreme remarks as racist or misogynist, they just saw him as a villain on a reality TV show—the villain says extreme things, and this makes him/her the most popular character on the show (meaning: the villain seldom gets sent home; it would hurt ratings too much). They’d seen the same plot on Survivor, American Idol, The Bachelor, and yes, The Apprentice.

4-The Real Solution for America

But, to repeat, the masses now have a problem. The election is complete, and for the masses this means turning politics over to their newly-elected leaders and getting back to the things they really care about in life. What the working-class people of America don’t quite realize is that for the elite class the end of the election means putting their full-time work into making sure the election doesn’t change things very much at all. They want things to stay the same. They like the world where they are the elites, with special perks and higher pay than the rest of us.

They prefer ruling from the Capital while the masses work for them in the Little Towns and Villages (see the Hunger Games series). They don’t want this latest election to be a revolution, a movement, or bring about any serious change. And they don’t want the anti-Trump protests to bring about any real change either. They want exactly the opposite. And they’ll spend their full time days and evenings working toward this goal.

In other words, if you dislike Trump, don’t expect the protests (including those that will probably sweep the nation again at inauguration time) to bring any real change. The elites don’t want change. And if you like Trump and want him to fulfill his campaign promises and really change things, expect the elites to block as much change as possible. Repeal Obamacare? Trump has already started talking about keeping parts of it. Expect the elites to do much to tone down and water down Trump promises. Will a lot change? Not if the elite class can help it.

So what can the regular people do? First, we must admit that the right kind of leaders can do exactly two things to really help us: (1) get Washington appropriately out of the economy and out of peoples’ business, and (2) keep our nation safe. This bears repeating: the government is needed to keep our nation safe, and to change the regulations so this once again becomes a land of real economic opportunity. This is exactly what the recently-elected leaders have promised.

But that’s only the starting point. The rest of the work can’t be done by any elected official, any Senator or President, any Governor or Judge. It can only be done by the people themselves.

This is the hidden truth behind the election, and if we fail to grasp this one great principle, the elites will win their way because not much will actually change in Washington or around the nation. If the new leaders make our nation safer and free our economy from the crushing mountain of government red tape that has hampered small business success for the past thirty years, they will accomplish everything government can and should do well.

The rest is up to us. The American Dream has always been a two-fold reality:

The government protects our national security and maintains a nation of economic, religious, and other freedoms. This is the “free” part of free enterprise.
The people widely engage entrepreneurial ventures and voluntarily build millions of small businesses around the nation. This is the “enterprise” part of free enterprise. If a lot of people don’t take the initiative to fix their nation, one business at a time, the politicians will never make our nation great.

Freedom only works if the people—not the government—figure out what needs fixing and fix it, and what needs to be built and build it. If government is in charge of such things (beyond protecting us from attack and overregulation), then freedom is always diminished. To cite Hemingway, freedom is lost a little bit at a time, and then suddenly all at once.

We’ve been experiencing the loss of our freedoms “a little bit at a time” for decades. Now we need to change things before the “all at once” kicks in.

Again, the solution won’t come from politicians. That’s what happens in monarchy or aristocracy. For real, positive change to happen the right way, the free way, it has to come from the people. And this means entrepreneurship: building businesses. The term for this in our history is “The American Dream.”

Only a refocus on entrepreneurialism across the nation will actually make America great again. Nothing else will do it. Nothing else will even come close.

The 2016 election could turn out to be a positive step in this process, because this time the masses (hopefully) put leaders into power who actually see the importance of free enterprise. But, to repeat: The elite class wants to stop this approach at all costs—they really do want a few elites (them) to run the show. This keeps them in power, in wealth.

So, whatever you feel about the elections, one thing is certain: The rest of us have a vitally important job ahead. If we want to remain free, and to actually benefit from the possible changes that hopefully come from the election, we’ve got to figure out how to get the regular people in America to stop waiting for a fix from Washington, and also stop waiting for jobs and better employment to fix things for them, and instead get to work building the kind of nation we really want—in families, communities, and mostly in small entrepreneurial businesses.

We can do it. But “we the people” must do it, or it won’t get done. Whatever deregulations and increased encouragement to small business Washington can provide in the months and years ahead will be helpful, but the future doesn’t depend on elections. Elections can help, but real success depends on whether we as a people reboot the American Dream by engaging an Age of Entrepreneurial Small Businesses—and the impact such free enterprise culture always has on families, morality, communities, jobs, and prosperity for all.

This has always been the key to American greatness.

It still is, whether we realize it yet or not.

As goes small business entrepreneurialism, so goes America. And this doesn’t mean someone else needs to be entrepreneurial. This is about you, me, and any person who actually cares about our American future.

Category : Aristocracy &Business &Citizenship &Community &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship

“Attack Business, as Usual”

November 2nd, 2016 // 6:58 am @ Oliver DeMille

Washington’s Current Slump
(And the Solution)

Growing or Shrinking?

To pay for the national debt, including the unfunded mandates and entitlements ahead, “Uncle Sam needs more than $429,108.73 per person.”[i] To figure out how this directly impacts you, just write down how much you make a year—and multiply it by the number of years you plan to keep working. (Not a perfectly precise approach, but it will get us in the ballpark.) Then multiply $429,108 by the number of people in your family. Find the difference between the two numbers, and that’s how taxes will impact you in the years ahead.

For many Americans, the taxes in this reality are higher than the total amount of money they’ll make. Which is why politicians want to take most of it from the rich. But when they do, the wealthy find ways to move their businesses and savings abroad or into other financial vehicles—hurting jobs, investment, and making the economic struggles of average Americans even more difficult.

However we slice this, it’s a massive problem. It is already hurting almost all Americans (as seen in the Great Recession beginning in 2008, and growing ever since). Government stimulus, printing of inflationary money, and low gas prices have dampened how deeply we feel this problem right now—but these aren’t going to last forever. At some point the bubble will burst, and the economy is in for a tough time. All of us will be directly impacted.

But Washington hardly seems to notice. During elections most candidates promise real change, but it seldom materializes, at least not in positive ways. In fact, since 2008 we’ve seen a stubbornly sluggish economy. Washington puts out positive statistics each month, but most people aren’t feeling any kind of economic boom. And 90 days later Washington revises its past statistics—they are routinely much worse than originally announced.

Yet for some reason, the initial positive announcements make big headlines, while the revisions are usually buried in fine print. It’s almost as if the mainstream media is trying very hard to make the current Administration look as good as possible, and sway the election in their favor as well.

Safe and Secure

It may also be that Washington actually doesn’t notice how hard this economy is for most Americans. As “Phillip Longman recently noted in the Washington Monthly, the per capita income of Washington, D.C. in 1980 was 29 percent above the average for Americans as a whole; in 2013 that figure was 68 percent.”[ii] That’s 68 percent more! To put this in concrete terms, a person making $15 per hour would be compared to a person making $25 per hour. Or compare a person making $4000 per month to the 68% increase: $6720. Is it any wonder that Washington doesn’t feel the pinch quite so much as Joe American?

Compared to average Americans, Washington is doing a lot better. So why would they worry? For many in the nation’s capital, it must feel like time to fiddle, not worry that Rome is burning. Imagine how you’d be doing with 68 percent more money each month. (68% more of any amount seems fantastic. I’d be fiddling, too.)

Along with the struggling economy—largely a result of Washington’s increasing mountain of red tape that is choking American businesses—the U.S. is continuing to spend a lot of money on national security programs that aren’t working. “Since 9/11,” an investigation in The Atlantic reported, “the United States has spent $1 trillion to protect the homeland. The new security state is vast—and growing.” But “are we any safer?”[iii]

The experts answer that yes, we are a bit safer in some ways.[iv] But not even close to $1 trillion worth—and besides, we are less safe in a number of other ways.[v] Less safe, in fact, than we were when Bush won his second term or Obama was elected the first and second times. Specifically, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are still around, Iraq is a mess, ISIS is growing, our privacy is dwindling (along with our spending power), and the threats from places like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have actually increased, along with the growing dangers of cyber and other non-traditional attacks (chemical, biological, lone wolf, dirty bomb, etc.).

It seems the more we spend, the more vulnerable we are. Our lack of a coherent and widely-supported national grand strategy has made things significantly worse over the past decade.

As if this weren’t enough, we are also now facing a growing threat of serious economic conflict with China, which is buying up contracts and supply chains for natural resources around the world. Unlike U.S. firms that work largely on their own capital or that borrowed from banks or investors, all governed by boards and shareholders, Chinese firms are managed by a central government approach—even more controlling than British mercantilism in the 18^th and 19^th centuries.

Circling Closer

We’re right not to follow the Chinese model, since central controls undermine freedom. But the differences between our system and theirs skew the way economic statistics are reported, meaning that few Americans realize how bad our economic outlook really is. For example, in the latest Fortune 100 rankings of the biggest businesses in the world, the U.S. has 38 companies on the list, all of which are private.[vi] In contrast, China has 18 companies on the list; 16 of these are owned by the government.[vii] Combine the totals of these 16 businesses, and the Chinese government owns by far the biggest business in the world.[viii] Nobody else is even close.

Here’s another way to look at this: of the biggest 5 businesses in the world, one (Walmart) is a U.S. company and the next three are Chinese—all owned by the government in Beijing.[ix] The combined revenues of these three Chinese businesses are double that of Walmart, and over three times the revenue of the fifth biggest company in the world, Royal Dutch Shell oil.[x]

In comparison, Europe is home to 29 of the biggest 100 businesses in the world, 28 of which are private, while 1 is owned by the government of France.[xi] Furthermore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore are home to a total of 11 of the 100, and all are privately owned.[xii] Together Russia, Brazil and Mexico are home to 4 of the world’s largest 100 businesses; 1 (in Russia) is private and the other 3 are government owned (one from each of these nations on the last list).[xiii]

In short, of the world’s biggest 100 businesses and largest producers of global wealth and prosperity, 20 are owned by a government, 16 of them by one single government: China. Yet Washington keeps hobbling American entrepreneurs and investors with increasing regulations that stifle our ability to compete. Yes, China’s economy has slowed a bit this year, but their growth is still way ahead of the United States—and their slowdown will likely mean they’re less willing to keep carrying our debt load (very bad news for our economy).

It’s time for Washington to take note of our gloomy economic outlook, addiction to government overspending and growing debt, and a very expensive and bureaucratic national security apparatus that is more hat than cattle—as the saying goes in Texas. For this vitally important change to happen, we’ve got to stop expecting so much from the White House and demand a lot more from Congress. Until this occurs, we will keep declining in an “attack business, as usual” approach to the economy.

Forward or Back

All this that I have described here is a recipe for major American decline. And it is our current path.

With all that said, I’m an optimist. I believe the best years for America and the world are still ahead. But how soon we initiate those “better years” largely depends on the Congressional elections in 2016. We need a Congress that will finally stand up for the American people (against the executive and judicial branches) and get serious about creating a truly free, booming economy.

We haven’t had such a Congress for decades—and we’ve been in decline ever since that trend started. Such forces of decline are now snowballing, meaning that the actions of the next Congress will largely determine America’s trajectory for the 21^st century.

[i] Harry S. Dent, Boom & Bust, July 2016

[ii] Cited in The Atlantic, September 2016, p. 102

[iii] Steven Brill, “Are We Any Safer?” The Atlantic, September 2016

[iv] Ibid.

[v] See ibid.

[vi] See Fortune, August 1, 2016, 110-119

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Ibid.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Ibid.

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Business &Citizenship &Community &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship &Technology

THE REAL BATTLE OF OUR TIMES

October 26th, 2016 // 6:40 am @ Oliver DeMille

And the Real Need in the 2016 Election

Vital Point #1

We need a Congress that will finally stand up for the American people and get serious about adopting policies that bring a more genuinely free—and therefore booming—economy.

While the mainstream media focuses on the presidential election, the real battle will be for Congress. Even some members of Congress argue that winning the White House for their party will make all the difference—but that’s only true if the next Congress remains weakly afraid to take on the Oval Office and use the power of the purse to put our economy back on track. The American framers set up the Constitution with exactly this in mind: a strong Congress that keeps the president in check.

Many people consider this election one of the most important of our generation. And it is, but not because of the presidential contest. Put simply:

Regardless of who wins the White House this year, the real issue will be whether we have a weak Congress who lets the executive branch keep increasing spending and decreasing freedoms—or a strong Congress that understands what the Framers intended and uses their Constitutional powers to get our economy back to true free enterprise.

No matter who becomes president, this one issue will determine our future.

The voters need to understand this, and keep their eye on the ball. This is extremely important.

The two things the next president will do that are near this level of importance are 1) to appoint new members of the Supreme Court, and, 2) heaven forbid, to deal with a major national security problem. So, obviously, the executive election matters as well. But without the right Congress, we’re in for major decline in the coming years—no matter who occupies the Oval Office.

Vital Point #2

The real battle isn’t what most people think. It is being waged in both subtle and open ways, but academia and media seldom mention it directly. Yet this battle will determine our future.

Many think the great battle of our times is one of the following:

Socialism vs. Capitalism
International Interventionism vs. America First
China vs. the United States
Conservatives vs. Liberals
Globalism vs. Nationalism

None of these is even close to our biggest challenge. Today’s great war for our future is much larger, significantly deeper, and more impactful than any of these. The great battle of our times is:

Elitism vs. Enterprise

More specifically: Top-Down Elitism vs. Grassroots Free Enterprise. Note that elitism thrives when a few super-rich at the top dominate finance, politics, media, and culture in our society. Enterprise flourishes where the regular people—the masses—have great economic opportunity and as a group determine our economy, government, and social customs/values.

Elitism rules from a few top banks, governmental institutions, exclusive universities, elite media firms, and dominant corporations. Enterprise drives society from the basis of strong families, communities, churches, voluntary service organizations, and small businesses.

But there’s more: Elitism today dominates the top organizations promoting both socialism and capitalism, and it makes up the Establishment of both major political parties. Elitist banks and corporate leaders control the management of those seeking both globalism and national strength. The leading media and academic hawks and doves are nearly all elitists. Elites win by controlling both sides of things—wherever they can.

Elitist investment rules the corporate world, top media providers, and the most powerful special interest groups. Elitist philanthropy controls higher education, the most influential think tanks, and many of the most powerful foundations (most of which operate quietly behind the scenes).

In America, the word Enterprise is frequently coupled with its partner, freedom, in the phrase “Free Enterprise”; but “Free Elitism” is an oxymoron. If it’s truly free, it isn’t elitist.

Indeed, it is elitist influence in Congress and the media that circumvents the Constitution by convincing the House not to utilize its power of the purse to check the White House, the Court, or the Senate. So, yes, the real need in this election is to elect the right Congress—men and women who will use the Constitution as intended.

Action Plan

But the real war runs much deeper: Getting regular people to choose enterprise over elitism, in their votes for Congress and in their everyday education, career and cultural choices as well. This war—to awaken the people to the reality of top-down ruling elitism vs. grassroots free enterprise, and get them to take a stand for free enterprise—is the great battle of our times.

This starts with the most basic principles of learning and livelihood. On an educational level: If you’re not regularly reading the great books, great classics, and great ideas, you’re part of the problem. Concerning career: If you’re not engaging or strongly supporting entrepreneurial ventures, or (at the very barest minimum), encouraging entrepreneurialism among the youth, you’re part of the problem.

If you’re swayed by the education/career conveyor belt, or pushing your children and grandchildren into it, you’re part of the problem. If you’re swayed by the elitist Establishment that dominates both political parties, or their media partners, you’re part of the problem. And if you’re caught in the socialist vs. capitalist or national versus globalist debates (all of which are ultimately led by elitists), you’re part of the problem.

Elitism wins as long as the masses play the elitist’s game. Indeed, many people are actually supporting elitism, either by giving up on their dreams and simply settling for whatever job pays the bills, or by trying to climb the elite ladder and become part of the elite themselves (and/or guiding their children toward the same).

The solution is enterprise. What is your mini-factory, your enterprising project (or projects) that fuels your passion and have the potential to greatly improve the world? If you don’t have such a mini-factory—or find yourself seldom working on it—you aren’t fighting the great battle of our time. And our side is losing.

This battle is real. Current. Dramatic.

It is happening right now.

We need to win it for freedom, for our children and grandchildren, for the future of families and morality and goodness. Which means this: We need your involvement.

Right now.

(To learn more about creating your own personal mini-factory, and how this will win the battle of our times, read The Coming Aristocracy by Oliver DeMille. Available at the Leadership Education Store)

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Business &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Family &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Mission &Politics &Producers &Statesmanship

Why Populism? by Oliver DeMille

July 6th, 2016 // 7:46 am @ Oliver DeMille

Pendulum Swinging

We’ve heard a lot about populism during the election, and we’re going to hear a lot more. Why? Because the elite media is in serious shock.

They expected Hillary Clinton’s success, but the rise of both Trump and Sanders has astonished them.

Result: they’re writing and talking a great deal about “populism,” and the “dangers” it brings to our nation.

By the way, these tend to be the same journalists and media professionals who consistently tout the United States as a “democracy,” not a “republic” or “democratic republic.”

They promote “democracy, democracy, democracy” as the greatest governmental system ever, and then act shocked and worried when populism shows up to an election.

The irony is that populism is simply what happens when more voters than usual get actively involved in the process. In other words, America engages in populism during the years it acts the most democratic. Why are the elites concerned?

Answer: They like the kind of “democracy” where the masses are consistently swayed by the media—where expert elites tell the populace what to believe, and the electorate votes accordingly. This is what most members of the elite class actually mean when they use the word democracy.

Personally, I like Francis Fukuyama’s definition. He said:

“‘Populism’ is the label that political elites attach to policies supported by regular citizens that they don’t like.”

Funny how that sentence is written. Does is mean the political elites don’t like the policies? Or that they don’t like the regular citizens? I think it means the latter. But maybe not. Perhaps it means both the policies and the regular citizens.

Fukuyama notes that populist voters sometimes choose poorly, but “elites don’t always choose correctly either.” Very true. And in our current historical context, the worst-case scenario would be another elitist choice for president. Elites have increased in power far too much in the past three decades, and it’s time for the pendulum to swing back to the power of the people.

I. 3 Positive Developments

Here’s the “good news,” so to speak, about the current rise of populism:

As Fukuyama also pointed out, this wave of populism is weakening both of the major political parties. The Democrats are losing large segments of their working class base and moving even more to the party of “a bunch of special interest groups,” while Republicans are almost violently split between the “big business crowd” and working class voters. Indeed, working class populists from both parties are now behaving like a formidable force.

On a structural note, the framers of the U.S. Constitution didn’t want the president to be elected by mass vote. This is why they established the Electoral College—which originally worked with each state sending its representatives, rather than the people voting in a mass presidential election at all.

Fortunately, the people usually sense it when things are out of kilter. The framers put the people in charge of electing the House of Representatives in large part because the House controlled the nation’s money. But since the House seldom uses its power of the purse anymore like it should, and the White House now has the de facto say over money, the people are using their power to choose a president—like they once would have selected members of the House.

This structural shift if ironic: The masses, divided by congressional district (which is exactly how they oversaw the purse strings under the original Constitution), will select the president and largely determine the future spending of our nation. In other words, if the House shirks its job, the people switch their populism to the branch of government they think will do their will.

The elites see it happening, and they can’t stand it.

Maybe that’s the best thing about this election. Regardless of what you think of Sanders or Trump, both candidates have thrown a serious wrench into the way elites view the world. They are reeling. They aren’t in charge of this election like they assumed they would be—not so far, at least.

Make no mistake, they’ll get their bearings again and get back to their agenda—to grow government and increase the power, wealth, and influence of the elite class. They always do. This won’t keep them down for long.

But populism seems to be growing. Sanders and Trump didn’t create this momentum, they just benefited from it. Populist elections changed the power of Congress in 2010 and again in 2014. In 2016 we’ll find out if populism makes it to the White House as well. Again, however you feel about the specific candidates, the rise of populism is a positive in a nation where elites control far too much.

2: A DEEPER LOOK AT THE CONSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE (THEN VS. NOW)

To see just how populism is important, let’s delve a bit deeper into the structural change to our governmental system. The framers established the following three branches and six entities to participate in the federal level:

Note that the following received direct representation under the provisions of the original Constitution:

This entire arrangement was carefully thought out by the framers. They knew that the key to lasting freedom was to ensure that the States didn’t lose their power to the federal/national government, so they put in four protections against this (listed above). All were wiped out by the poor decision to adopt the 17^th Amendment in 1913. (Ironically, this was ratified during an era of populism.)

Our oversized and overblown national government and corresponding loss of freedoms since that time are the natural result. The best solution would be to repeal the 17^th Amendment and restore the proper balance of State and Federal powers.

The following chart shows how the government currently operates. Note that it is very different than the original constitutional arrangement:

THE STRUCTURE TODAY

(Items underlined are changes from the original Constitution
that are destructive to freedom.)

Look at how this has changed our governmental structure of representation:

Did you notice in all this that at the time of the American founding the primary entities of federal/national government were the House and the Senate, while the Court and Presidency were secondary? Compare that to now: the Presidency and Court act like primary branches of government, while the House and Senate act like secondary levels of government.

What the founders called “legislative primacy,” meaning that the people’s elected representatives in Congress had the final say on things through the purse strings, has been replaced by appointed officials in the Court and a huge Executive bureaucracy exerting the final say on most things.

Huge changes. All bad!

For The People

Now, if you’ve followed this article this far, congratulations! Here is the main point, the thesis, the reason for reading this and thinking about it:

Populism is attempting to correct the course of the American ship. Specifically, the populist elections of 2010 and 2014 both attempted to put the House and Senate back on track representing the people—not the political parties.

And the populist uprising of 2016 (among both Democrats and Republicans) is also arguing for the presidency to represent the people again, not the political parties. It’s not as good or as effective as repealing the 17^th Amendment—not by a long shot—but at least the electorate is trying.

The voters (some knowingly, and most of them just by following their gut) are attempting to swing things back in the direction of government “by, of, and for” the people—instead of government “by, for, and of” the economic and power elites and their political party establishments.

Populism probably can’t get the ship all the way safely into port, but right now the people are at least trying to get things going in the right direction. If the voters keep at it, and don’t give up—and if they keep winning major elections—this new beginning can eventually be turned in the direction of a real and lasting solution.

Stay tuned…

Category : Aristocracy &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship

The Recurring Topic of Equality by Oliver DeMille

July 6th, 2016 // 7:15 am @ Oliver DeMille

(Note: In the Internet Age, writing short blog posts usually wins the day.
“Nobody wants to read more than 1-2 pages,” the experts say. “Less is more.”
I usually try to follow this maxim. But today I’m making an exception.
So be forewarned: This article is quite a bit longer than usual, and I feel that
every word of it is worth reading! Enjoy…)

I.

Free enterprise isn’t perfect. But the most popular alternative proposed in human history—equality—isn’t either. Neither of them bring full justice or fairness to society.

The truth is, freedom has a lot of problems. Still, humankind hasn’t come up with anything better than freedom as the guiding societal arrangement—and so far in history the many human attempts at creating lasting equality have brought disaster after disaster.

Here’s why: Life isn’t fair. And life isn’t just. There is unfairness and injustice in every era of history—in every nation and time period. A world that is entirely just and fair simply doesn’t exist—and has never existed—among humans.

Even in an ideal society, whenever that comes (and I believe it can and will come), there will still be unfairness. Just like there is unfairness in every family, every business, every friendship, every marriage, every relationship, every church, every group of humans anywhere.

No exceptions.

To repeat it one more time: If it’s human society, then human nature is at play, and therefore there will be injustice and unfairness. Period.

II.

Of course, people don’t like this reality, so all through history we’ve tried to change it. Some people attempt to fix this frustrating reality with more “freedom,” but it doesn’t work. Not perfectly. So they try to fix it with more “equality,” but that doesn’t work either.

They try to fix it with increased government regulation, intervention, and oversight, and guess what? There is still injustice and unfairness. In fact, such governmental attempts nearly always increase the amount of injustice and unfairness.

Here’s the reality:

The problem with freedom is that it always ends the same. In a free society, an elite economic class eventually rises and dominates the regular people. Without government controls to keep those who succeed in the market from becoming too big and powerful, elite economic classes always take over.

The quest for equality is also problematic. In a society seeking equality, an elite political class always rises and dominates the people. If there isn’t a level of economic openness that truly allows anyone to rise economically, and to rise as far and as big as they choose (as long they don’t violate anyone’s inalienable rights), a few elites always use government power to keep certain people from competing in the marketplace—and this results in even more inequality.

If you like the allure of “equality,” read Item #2 over and over until it makes sense. It is, literally, the history of almost all human societies.

If you love freedom, read Item #1 as well. It’s very important to understand this reality. (See, for example, Federalist Papers 1, 2, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 51)

III.

The American framers knew this history, and they tried to find a middle ground. They hoped that by separating powers and further checking and balancing the forces of government, they could keep the elite economic class working in the Senate and in the Executive branch, and the elite political class busy in the House of Representatives and the Court—all fighting each other. Fighting enough, in fact, to keep both elite groups too busy to dominate the regular people.

The framers’ plan worked and it failed. It worked because it improved the situation from what it had been before. The branches of government do attract much of the attention of the elite economic and elite political classes, and they do fight each other—a lot. Enough, in fact, that they dominate the regular people less than before the Constitutional system (for example, compare the English system from 1078 to 1894, and the Continental model from 1530 thru 1915).

But the Constitutional system failed too—because both elite classes still spend some of their time dominating the regular people. Result: we live in a society that isn’t fair, and is often unjust.

Did the founding model improve things a bit? Yes. Demonstrably so. Did it entirely fix the problems of unfairness and injustice? Not even close. But it did better than any of the societies aiming for equality—just look at Russia, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, all of Eastern Europe between 1945 and 1989, and nearly all of Western Europe after the 1960s.

The elite economic class and the elite political class are still growing, and still inflicting their various agendas on the rest of the people. Thus our modern world: Not fair, not just. Also: not particularly free, and not very equal.

IV.

To understand this more deeply, compare the two groups as they currently operate in the United States. The elite economic class (largely Republican) is trying to convince everyone to support it by calling for “freedom,” “liberty,” “capitalism,” and “free markets.” It uses these phrases and slogans as catchwords for its real agenda: “Let’s use economics to increase our power over the elite political class.”

The elite political class (mostly Democrats) does the same thing. It uses terms like “equality,” “social justice,” “democracy,” “fairness,” “higher minimum wage,” “free college for everyone,” and so on to promote its actual agenda: “Let’s use government to increase our power over the elite economic class.”

In all this, here’s the thing that everyone who wants to avoid being swayed or manipulated by the spin machines of either side needs to understand:

Both groups—the political elite class and the economic elite class—win when they keep their message complex. They both lose when the regular people understand very, very basic principles of freedom and fairness.

As a result, they both put a lot of money and resources into influencing academia, the media, the professions, and the entire upper middle class.

Let’s get specific. When anyone argues for “equality,” you have to move it out of the realm of complex, academic, deep, intellectual, and expert, and into the realm of very, very simple. The same is true when anyone argues for “freedom” or “free” markets, etc.

If you’re in a place of complex, the elites are winning. If you get to very simple, extremely basic, the regular people might win.

V.

So how do we take complex “equality” and complex “freedom” and make them truly simple? The answer is easy. Just know the following two definitions of “equality”:

Equality of Opportunity. Everyone has the same opportunity before the law, meaning they can do whatever they want as long as they don’t violate the inalienable rights of any other person. And this has to be simple, not complex! Meaning: people can do anything, as long as they don’t violate someone’s inalienable rights. This might sound like too much freedom to the intellectual crowd, but the regular people get it. It works.

Equality of Result. The government tries to make sure everyone has the same results—a generally similar level of income, similar levels of ownership, similar levels of wealth (or poverty). Or, failing to obtain this, they settle for enforcing limits on how much any business, person, or family can own or grow—to try to keep everyone at least somewhere near the same level.

Anyone who argues for Equality of Opportunity is likely on the side of the regular people. They want things to be simple: A government that protects us from foreign invasion and local murderers, rapists, and thieves—and does nothing else at all.

That’s simple: nothing else at all. Protecting inalienable rights, period. And doing nothing else.

Go beyond this, and you’re into complex. Seriously: Any fudging of this moves society into complex, where the elite classes can step in with their experts and intellectuals and take charge.

Again: The simple approach wants government to allow people to do whatever they want, and own whatever they choose to earn, as long as they don’t violate anybody’s inalienable rights. Period.

In contrast, the forces promoting Equality of Results usually want either the elite political class to win, or the elite economic class to win. The political elite class dominates the regular people by using government to regulate, intervene, and keep down the power of the wealthy elite—or so they say. But in all of history this has never once actually happened.

What happens in real life is that elites promising “equality” and “fairness” get elected or appointed to power, and then they and their friends use their position and influence to rig the system so they end up keeping more of the money and power for themselves. This is what has happened every single time. No exceptions.

Literally—there are no exceptions in history. No matter how good the theory of equality and fairness may sound, nobody has ever done it in a lasting way. Some have gotten close—but within a few years it broke down. Always.

Always!

But that’s not all. If the economic elite class dominates, it does the same kind of thing. It promises the people that it will keep the political elites from dominating, and then once it is in power it works to rig the system so it can dominate the regular people. Again, this is how it always works.

This bears repeating: There are no lasting exceptions in all of recorded history. It always ultimately turns this way, as long as either of the elite groups (political [Left] or economic [Right]) have the power.

The only time it doesn’t happen this way is when the regular people maintain the majority of the power—by keeping the government protecting inalienable rights, and doing absolutely nothing else. This creates a true Equality of Opportunity. But this is a very rare situation indeed.

It happened briefly—for some of the citizens—in ancient Athens (the Solonic era), for two short periods during the ascendance of Rome (see the Gracchi and the Aurelian eras), during the Saracen golden age and later in the Swiss Vales period, during the Frank and Anglo-Saxon golden ages, after the implementation of the Magna Carta and again after the English Bill of Rights (but only for aristos), and after the American Founding (but only in the North and West, and only for some of the population).

Again, it is rare.

We don’t live under such a system today. We are firmly dominated by the economic and political elites, and their battles with each other. They both claim to want to put the power in the hands of the regular people—but they never do.

Those calling for equality and freedom mostly want Equality of Results—either led by political elites (Democrats) or economic elites (Republicans). Neither of these ultimately promote the interests of the regular people. If they call mainly for “equality,” “fairness,” and “social justice,” they are nearly always political elites vying for ascendancy over their Republican enemies. On the other hand, if they call for “freedom,” “capitalism,” and “America first,” they are nearly always economic elites seeking to beat their Democratic foes.

People who are convinced by their slogans, catchwords, well-compensated intellectuals, and candidates are routinely disappointed, year after year after year.

VI.

Again: focus on the most basic principles. What we want is Equality of Opportunity—which is what government was created for in the first place. Jefferson outlined this very clearly in the Declaration.

This means simply that we want our government to protect Equality of Opportunity for everyone (strong protection against invasion, and violations of our inalienable rights—period), and do nothing else. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

A government that does anything else—whether in the name of “equality” or “freedom”—always ends up working for one of the dominant elite classes, or both.

So the next time someone tells you that we need more “equality” or “freedom,” find out what they mean. If they mean Equality of Opportunity, great. If they mean something else…one of the elite groups, intellectuals, writers, experts, or apologists have been bending their ear. This may seem too simplistic to some intellectuals—but it is true nonetheless. (For example, very closely scrutinize Federalist Papers 1,15,31,47-49,62 and 70.)

When government protects everyone from foreign attacks and domestic infringements on our inalienable rights—and does nothing else—we’re in the freedom zone.

Everything else done by government is an assignment from either the political elites or the economic elites, and their agenda is to keep the regular people in submission. Fact: they’re good at this game, and they’re still winning it.

VII.

One more thing. Understanding the historical roots of the idea of equality is very important. The word equality came from the ancient Greeks, and they meant something precise. Something specific. “Equality” was holding the same status before the law. But what does this phrase actually mean?

Well, for example, small landowners were “equal” with wealthy landowners, even if the wealthy owner had 100 or even 1,000 times the amount of land and wealth. (See Victor Davis Hanson, The Other Greeks) How could they be considered “equal” in such circumstances? Answer: on their land, their own private property, they had the final say. They couldn’t do something to somebody that took away that person’s universal rights, but they could kick that person off their land simply by choosing to do so.

It was their land. They actually owned it. Entirely. If the wealthy landowner with many thousands of acres came on the property of the subsistence owner with just ½ an acre—the small owner was in charge. Period.

They were equal—because on land one person owned, he had the power. And they both had this power, each on his own land. The law backed the owner up on this, even if the person losing a dispute was the very wealthy owner. If he was on the small owner’s land, the small owner was the boss.

Equal.

And vice versa, if the small owner, or anyone else, went on the big owner’s land.

This is where the concept began. “A man is the king of his own home.” All men are thus equal.

Note that there is no forced equality here. Only enforced equality. The difference is important. Jefferson put this exact concept in eloquent terms: “endowed by their Creator…” In other words, the big and small owners were equal because “Nature and Nature’s God” made it so.

They didn’t become equal because of some act of government, and they weren’t granted equality by some government decree. Instead, they were born equal, regardless of government. The government didn’t force equality—it had no right to do so in this worldview.

It could only enforce the equality that was already there, put there by “Nature and Nature’s God.” Put there by an endowment of the Creator, to cite the Declaration of Independence.

Furthermore, “equality” in this sense was inalienable. It was given to all men equally by birth, by the Creator. It was to be enforced by government, never forced by government.

In contrast, the type of equality we usually talk about today—always on the political Left, and even frequently on the Right—is the kind of equality that government forces. Government wants people to be equal, so it sets out to legislate it, or decree it, or adjudicate it so. This is force, pure and simple.

VIII.

Any time we see real Equality of Opportunity, we’re ultimately just talking about two owners each being the boss on his or her own land or home. When government tries to force equality, in contrast, it nearly always aims for a totally different kind of “equality”—not the kind that came from ancient Greece, but the kind that came from Assyria. In the Assyrian model, the King divided land “equally” among his subjects. They were “equal” in the sense that the King gave each subject what they had. Their ownership came “equally” from the same place—the government.

But this kind of equality is a poor counterfeit of the Greek version. Indeed, in the Assyrian approach, the King kept most of the land for himself and his relatives (royals). He typically maintained another big portion for his close friends and allies (aristos). Honored soldiers received the next level of “equality,” and the rest of his subjects got what was left over—according to the whims of the King.

Call this “equality” if you want, but it’s actually a totally different thing. It’s not even equality at all, even though it still passes for it in most intellectual circles today.

When Marx and Lenin promoted modern socialism and communism, they gave great wordplay to the Greek type of equality—and yet every system set up based on their template implemented the Assyrian structure. No exceptions.

IX.

Indeed, the early Greek meaning of “equality” developed during the pre-polis era. (Ibid.) When a lot of people left the farms and built up the early city-states (city = polis), this model changed. While the small landowner and the large, wealthier land baron still followed the traditions of equality (“If I am on your land, you are the boss, and on my land, I am the boss, regardless of how much land each of us owns—thus we are equal…”), the new aristocratic management class in the polis soon saw itself as superior to the farming “hicks” of the countryside.

The cosmopolitan bureaucrats owned no land, in most cases. So what was their status? They saw themselves as above the rural farm-based regular citizens of their society, and they began demanding special tribute to themselves. They didn’t ask to be treated as equals, but as superiors. The small and large landowners still believed in equality, but they found themselves dealing with an Assyrian-based urban aristocracy/bureaucracy that demanded taxes and titles—above that of all the landowners.

The polis-era landowners responded by arguing for equality—for everyone, including small landowners, big landowners, and the new class of urban managers. The urban elite, of course, rejected this idea—it would have made them equal in title and status with the nation’s “hicks.”

The urban aristos, however, had a problem when they adopted this new model. Sadly for them, they depended on these very “hicks” for all their food and sustenance. What to do?

Answer: They went with the Oriental approach, the Assyrian/Indian/Chinese model. They adopted monarchy. They argued that Kings and Queens would protect the whole nation better, and since the urban aristos ran most city-state governments, they were able to win the support of the urban working masses. They used “democracy” to support kings and queens who they promised would take better care of everyone.

The people who lived under the older system of pre-polis “equality” soon lost both their freedom and their equality. When they complained, they were informed by the urban aristocratic class that freedom meant having the honor of serving the King in whatever way he demanded, and equality meant accepting whatever station and ownership (if any) the King deigned to hand out to you. This pattern repeated across the Middle East, Near East, and West. (See Plutarch, Parallel Lives…; Will and Ariel Durant, The Story of Civilization; Arnold Toynbee, A Study of History; Hugh Nibley. Ancient State.)

Of course, the old crowd disliked this new approach. But the new, self-proclaimed “civilized” states had a name for the old landowners and their widespread freedoms and equality. They called them “barbarians.” In England the term was “boors,” and in America it was “hicks” or “clods,” as Victor Davis Hansen reminds us. (Op cit., Hansen) President Obama exemplified this attitude when he mentioned that too many Americans cling to their guns and religion. He might as well have openly used the word “hicks.”

The connotation (from ancient times to Obama) was that those in the big cities were smarter, better educated, wealthier, and in positions of power—while those in the “sticks” were less intelligent, less educated, less prosperous, and boasted few official titles of nobility.

Remember what the word “nobility” meant: “One who receives his position, status, title, lands, ownership, and assignments from the King.” For their part, the landowners (big and small) rejected nobility. They hated the idea. They wanted ownership: which for them translated to equality and freedom.

X.

Fast forward roughly two thousand years. Today, the two major models of equality have the following characteristics:

Note that both national parties—Democrat and Republican—are dominated by majorities who largely ascribe to the Assyrian values. Those who prefer the Greek principles are in a minority in both parties. They have higher numbers among independents than in either party, however; mainly because independent status by its very nature appeals to people who value standing out and emphasizing their individuality.

Again, original roots of both freedom and equality come from the same place—the pre-polis view of ownership, and of equal status and inalienable rights given to us by “Nature and Nature’s God.” This is the model the American founders adopted—Greek, not Assyrian.

The Assyrian approach has the King or other government—whatever it is—doling things (and rights) out to the people, telling them what they can and can’t do. The Greek approach is different. It maintains that “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

These exact words by Jefferson are perhaps the best summary of Greek equality (pre-polis) ever written. Specifically: the people are equal with each other, and they are, together, above the government. Unconvinced? Try this: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends [What ends? The ends of: “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”], it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government…”

The Declaration goes on and on—spouting one pre-polis Greek equality/Greek freedom viewpoint after another. Remember, this all started with: “…all men are created equal…”

“Equality” as it is used in the Declaration means pre-polis Greek equality, not aristocratic/bureaucratic-rule equality. They are very different.

Finally, to repeat: the American founders got their views of both equality and freedom from the pre-polis Greeks (who got it from the Hebrews—but that’s another article). It was the same culture. Same values. Today we usually just call it the culture outlined in the Declaration of Independence.