Government

The Silver Lining in The Scandals

May 21st, 2013 // 4:42 pm @ Oliver DeMille

It’s starting to seem like it was the Obama Administration that made the following saying famous: “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

The idea behind this quip was that when a big crisis came, the White House should use it to push its big-government agenda.

In an ironic twist, the current triple scandals (IRS, Benghazi, and Associated Press) are accomplishing exactly the opposite.

The White House and indeed most of the executive branch is spending a great deal of its energy right now dealing with the scandals.

The result is that less money, time and effort are being spent on spreading big government.

At the same time, more Americans are paying attention to what is happening in Washington.

The word “scandal” seems to create more interest in what is happening than business as usual.

The more citizens who pay close attention to what the government does, the better for freedom.

In short, we’re experiencing at least two positive side effects of the current scandals:

1. The executive branch is doing less, because it is focused on responding to the scandals
2. More regular citizens are watching their government.

It’s sad that it takes scandal to accomplish such things, but at least they are happening.

Perhaps the most amazing thing in all this has been the Administration’s continued trust in government agencies.

After all the press and firings in the aftermath of government officials enjoying taxpayer-funded trips to Jacuzzis in Hawaii, you’d think the White House would be carefully watching its agencies and officials.

But even though it has asked for resignations from various agency officials, the Administration has emphasized that lone people and/or “isolated” bureaus made mistakes and held fast to the idea that government should be trusted.

At the same time, the Administration continues to express major distrust for businesses and pretty much anyone outside of government.

Why the double standard?

The various press briefings from the Administration emphasize a sense of, “Just trust us; after all, we’re the government. Of course we are telling the truth and doing the right thing.”

This flies in the face of the Framers’ view of government.

The American system and Constitution were founded on the idea that government is dangerous and that freedom can only last if the people mistrust the government and keep a close eye on it in order to keep it in line.

As Jefferson put it: “Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

In Jefferson’s world, the assumption was that government officials should be generally suspected of being involved in “mischief.”

A healthy mistrust of government was a central point to maintaining freedom.

George Washington said: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like a fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Madison added that government is the most dangerous threat to freedom: “I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations…”

For Madison, the great danger to freedom was government increasing its power over the people in “gradual and silent” ways.

Government has done this for a long time, and under the leadership of both parties at different times.

When it gets caught, it’s a scandal.

Just as the Johnson Administration is known for Vietnam and the Nixon era for Watergate, many other presidencies are known for their crises: Reagan for Iran-Contra, Bush I for higher taxes after promising it wouldn’t happen, Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, and Bush II for missing weapons of mass destruction.

In all this, why exactly do politicians keep suggesting that trust in government is the solution to America’s problems?

Such situations are basically the only times (under our current system) when the people are likely to make their influence felt and help other citizens see the dangers of big government.

Now is such a time.

In fact, America was founded on the belief that a healthy and active mistrust of government was essential to staying free!

We need more citizens to realize that Washington isn’t going to fix our biggest national problems, that the only real solution is for more Americans to be better citizens.

If we don’t get more involved and help take our nation in the right direction, more scandals will come.

A lot more.

What happens in Washington in the weeks ahead as these three scandals play out is less important than what happens among the regular people.

If we emerge from this crisis as a nation that still basically trusts its government, there will be no silver lining in the scandals.

If we as a people realize that as government grows, these type of crises will increase, we will at least learn something from all this.

If we as a people become more prone to keep a close eye on our government, to wisely and peacefully mistrust it and at the same time get more positively and proactively involved to ensure that it truly does the will of the people, this year can be a helpful turning point in America’s history.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

And three of them at once is a huge opportunity.

If we ever do turn America back to a path of freedom, away from overreaching big government, it will be during a time like this.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

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

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Current Events &Featured &Government &Politics

Electionocracy

May 21st, 2013 // 12:22 pm @ Oliver DeMille

We now live an Electionocracy. This means that the elections never end.

Once a person is elected to office, especially at the national level, he or she doesn’t get to stop campaigning and focus on governing.

Instead, everyone in office is required to keep campaigning even as they serve.

One the one hand, this is a negative development in a democratic republic because it keeps election politics always in the limelight.

The president is seldom seen as the nation’s chief executive, for example, but as the head of the Democratic or Republican Party.

Thus, even as he tries to govern and lead, he is forced to keep one eye constantly on politics.

That’s the bad news.

The good news is that this keeps more of the American people involved and paying attention to the actions of government.

Also, it keeps the executive branch from overextending even more than it already does—because it has to put a lot of resources into politics.

This is actually a positive in a nation where the biggest problem is massive government.

With all that said, people are already lining up to influence the midterm elections of 2014 and even the presidential election of 2016.

Here are a few tidbits:

• Many pundits feel that the IRS scandal of targeting conservative groups will have more negative impact on the Democrats in the 2014 midterm election than anything else since the Obama Administration took office. It may serve as the Democrat’s Achilles heel.

• Hillary Clinton is far ahead in polls of possible Democratic candidates, but she is only a few points ahead of some top potential Republican challengers. In contrast, the leading Democratic candidate has been far ahead at this point in recent elections.

• In early fundraising, Marco Rubio is ahead of Rand Paul. Chris Christie and Paul Ryan are also strong in the polls, but for now Rubio seems to have an edge.

But the biggest shocker in all this is that the central issue of the 2014 and especially 2016 elections will probably be Obamacare.

This is surprising to many progressives, who felt that this issue was over when it passed in 2010, then when the Supreme Court upheld it in 2012, and later once President Obama was reelected.

But this issue just won’t go away.

Even though Barack Obama was and is personally popular, his health care policy remains highly unpopular with many Americans.

This disapproval is increasing with the Benghazi, IRS, AP and other scandals. Each time a few more people lose trust in government, they tend to increasingly dislike Obamacare.

So, yes, we now live in what could easily be described as an Electionocracy, and things will probably only heat up in the coming months.

Both parties will blame each other for most of America’s ills, and the number of crises will likely increase.

That’s our current direction, and nothing seems poised to bring real solutions any time soon.

In truth, the future of America is ultimately up to the actions and choices of regular Americans more than those of Washington.

But who we elect will have a drastic influence on the nation’s direction in the years just ahead.

If you want to know how elections are going to turn out, keep a close eye on how most Americans feel about Obamacare—especially as it is further implemented in the next three years.

Any significant changes in approval or disapproval of Obamacare will signal the trajectory of the next two elections.

In an Electionocracy, it appears that one or a few top issues will determine who leads our nation.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

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

Category : Blog &Citizenship &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Government &Politics

A Looming Crisis — & a Call for Solutions

May 6th, 2013 // 3:51 pm @ Oliver DeMille

Most Americans have no ideas it is coming. But it is just around the corner.

It’s one of those technical changes that only wonks pay attention to, so few people realize how big this will be.

In fact, it’s a serious crisis in the making. And unlike the Y2K scare in 1999, this crisis is a sure thing.

What is it?

Well, put simply, this coming January, many companies will be required to extend Obamacare health care to their employees.

The costs of this are significant, and will force many small and larger businesses to make some very tough choices.

The result will be a lot of layoffs, downsizing, reduced pay, and outsourcing.

Service will suffer, and response times will plummet.

Most families and individuals plan on a yearly basis, running January 1 to December 31, so they may not know how that a lot of businesses run on a fiscal year—from April 1 to April 1, July 1 to July 1, or October 1 to October 1.

This is very important, because we just witnessed the first big round of businesses (whose fiscal year is April to April) factoring in the costs of the January 2014 Obamacare requirements.

The number of layoffs and cuts is a serious concern.

But those who run April to April have only had to factor in three months of Obamacare costs so far, so the damage has been minimal.

It’s going to get increasingly worse on July 1, and then by October 1 it will start having a major impact.

By the first of January, when everyone will have to pay the higher costs, the effect will be huge.

Again, because this is a numerical concern, most people aren’t paying attention. Here’s the crux of the problem:

• Our economy is already struggling with a weak recovery.
• The increasing tax and regulatory burden on business has dampened innovation.
• The schools seldom teach innovation or initiative—indeed they usually promote the opposite.
• International innovation is rising.
• Business is reticent to invest or spend, because the current environment in Washington is highly uncertain.
• Big business, which has a high surplus right now, is finding better political environments in other nations—so the money will naturally flow to where business is treated better.
• The Obamacare requirements are making business a lot more costly, and they mostly kick in this coming January.

A lot of businesses are scrambling.

For example, in the past few months I’ve received email from a number of friends who are business owners or who consult with small businesses—saying that their only choice is to either lay off a lot of employees or shut down their business.

One company, for example, is trying to prepare for next year, but has realized that the additional cost of Obamacare for their firm will be at least $18,000 a month.

This is a fairly small company, with close ties to its people.

The last thing it wants to do is lay off employees. But what to do? The costs are simply prohibitive.

Laying off is the obvious option; and after digging deeper, it may be the only option.

How would you counsel companies in this predicament? (Note that most companies are dealing with this right now.) What ideas do you have? I’m sincerely asking for input.

What can they do?

Thousands of companies are asking the same thing right now, and many others will do so before the end of 2013.

This is going to be a real shock to the economy.

A crisis is coming.

But back to the question. How can small companies that are already financially tight comply with the new regulations—without laying off or cutting salaries?

I’m hoping you see some real solutions.

The obvious one is to innovate—to expand sales into new markets and make a lot of extra cash.

The regulatory challenges of such a strategy are, alas, a serious problem. At least in the United States.

So, thinking like an owner, what would you do?

I know you don’t have financials or details in front of you for any one company facing this challenge, but take a stab at this problem anyway—because almost all businesses are doing the same thing right now. It’s the only realistic way to look at Obamacare, because it’s the way pretty much every business owner is looking at it.

Specifically: Costs are going up significantly, with no offsetting increases in income.

In fact, higher taxes and increased regulations make growth even more difficult.

In this environment, how can you absorb the Obamacare costs without laying off a bunch of employees?

Or letting them go and hiring all new people who are desperate for jobs and will work for much lower pay?

Or simply taking your business to Brazil or India or some other country where growth is actually rewarded?

Please send me your responses. What can be done?

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

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

Category : Blog &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Government &Leadership &Producers &Prosperity

The Latest Filibuster

March 11th, 2013 // 1:11 pm @ Oliver DeMille

A Giant Step for Mankind…

Okay, the subtitle of this article is a little overblown, but I heard something that I found just plain fascinating the other day.

In fact, it is something I haven’t heard for a long time.

I was researching in a university library, sitting at a table looking for data in a stack of scholarly journals, when I heard the most unlikely thing in such a place.

“Rand Paul’s filibuster is so cool,” a girl’s voice said. My mind was focused on tables of World Bank summaries of currency values in industrial nations, and there were a lot of voices as students walked past and talked.

Most of them talked about classes, romances or roommates, and I tuned out to their words as I researched.

But my ears perked up and my mind tuned in when I heard these words.

I looked up to see a college girl, probably late teens or early twenties walking with three friends. The others nodded in response to her words.

“Really?” I thought, “Somebody thinks a national Republican figure is cool?” When I’ve heard such words before, it was always reserved to President Obama.

I mean, Ronald Reagan gets his share of praise from the older crowd, but the college students I’ve overheard recently saying a politician is cool have all mentioned either Obama or Ron Paul.

But a Republican who really could win the nomination, this was something different.

As a writer, I like to read and research in libraries (‘cause that’s where the books are, to paraphrase Willy Horton), restaurants and other public areas.

People walk by talking about things, and often they say something that helps an author’s thought process.

I went back to my research, and I forgot about the incident until I went to lunch.

As I balanced my attention between a salad and a copies of the World Bank tables, I was shocked to hear a girl from the next table say, “Did you see the filibuster yesterday? Rand Paul is so cool.”

I turned my head, expecting to see the same group of students, but to my surprise a whole different group sat there nodding.

What has happened?

Is it possible that Republicans will come up with a cool candidate in 2016?

Maybe.

It’s a long way off, to be sure.

But the hippest candidate always wins, or at least has in every election since the technicolor media age began in earnest around 1980.

Howard Dean once said that the way to know who won a presidential debate is to turn off the sound and just watch their body language.

On an even bigger scale, just turn off the television and internet and ask college-age students which candidate is really cool.

Jeb Bush suggested recently that he might run, Time magazine called potential candidate Marco Rubio the Savior of the Republican party.

Or did it just ask us if Rubio might redeem a party that can’t seem to get the Latino vote vital to winning the White House.

The whole idea of electing a cool president is frustrating for many on the Right, who see this as shallow popularity contesting in what should be one of the most serious votes anyone makes in an election year.

Still, the cool test wins every time, whether or not it should.

One thing is for sure.

Hillary Clinton is considered way cool, so if Republicans have any desire to take back the presidency in 2016 they need to meet a high standard.

More Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters may be ahead, but Senator Paul’s filibuster seems to have caught many young people’s attention because it was so sincere.

That’s hard to duplicate, but for now Rand Paul’s popularity in the college crowd is worth watching.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

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

Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics

Emotion and Politics

February 18th, 2013 // 10:35 pm @ Oliver DeMille

In all the commentaries about the president’s 2013 State of the Union address and the responses by Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, one really stood out.[i]

Democratic thought-leader Van Jones said it outright: “Marco Rubio is dangerous for Democrats.”[ii]

Why?

Because he gets emotional about the issues, and, as Jones pointed out, genuine, authentic, caring emotion sways American voters.

The GOP has long acted as if all politics needs to be intellectual, and emotions are often treated as weakness or shallowness by the Right.

But the electorate loves emotion, and votes accordingly.

Put simply, if a top Republican can unite large segments of the populace behind authentic emotional passion, he or she will be a serious challenger in the 2016 election.

The last Republican candidate to elicit such raw emotion was Ronald Reagan.

Jones went on: “Marco Rubio is to the heart, what Paul Ryan is to the head…. [Rubio’s] ideas are extreme, the Tea Party loves this guy, but he is dangerous for Democrats because he can connect in a way that other people with those ideas cannot.”[iii]

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama appealed to both the mind and the heart, and so did Reagan.

Indeed, great presidents know how to effectively communicate in both realms.

The problem for the GOP in 2016 is simple: primary voters want something different than the general electorate.

While Republican primaries usually pick a nominee based on emotion, and then disappointed Republicans intellectually reason that they should vote for him because he is better than the liberal alternative, the better course would be to use intellect in the primaries and select a candidate that can win the general election by swaying the emotions of the general populace. While Democratic primaries tend to select candidates based on intellect (emphasizing who can win the White House), the general election emphasizes emotions.

This is a headache for a Republican party deeply divided between the following factions:

Tea Parties: “We’re broke, and going more broke. Fix the finances. America is in decline because our financial house is a mess—and getting rapidly worse. Freedom means small, limited government that lives within its means and unleashes the power of free enterprise.”

Fiscal Conservatives: “If we don’t get our fiscal house in order, we will continue to decline. But drop the angry tone. Let’s just fix the finances. Freedom demands wisdom.”

Social Conservatives: “It’s all about morals. If we don’t turn our hearts to God, we don’t deserve our freedoms or prosperity. We are in decline because our values are under attack. Freedom means moral strength.”

Compassionate Conservatives: “Government should be limited, fiscally strong, and attentive to real social needs. America is in decline because it is widely divided by classes and racial conflicts, and the solution is for government to wisely reform, cut spending, raise taxes where needed, and emphasize public-private cooperation to increase social justice. Freedom flourishes when government and the private sector work together.”

Neo-Conservatives: “Free markets are flourishing in the world, and the future of freedom has never been brighter. American isn’t in decline, we just need a solid conservative in the White House. Freedom means taking responsibility in the world.”

Ron Paul-Style Revolutionaries: “We’re way past reforming things. We need an outright revolution, and we need a great man or woman to lead it. Progress and decline are simply a matter of who leads us, and it’s time to get a great leader. Fix the finances, stop being the world’s policeman, and make America free and great again. Freedom is cool.”

There are also a number of Special-Interest Republicans who focus on one central theme (such as immigration, gun control, etc.) in their voting.

In the end, all of these groups will most likely support the Republican candidate, but during the primaries each will put forth its favorites.

This is the perhaps the biggest irony in American presidential politics: While Republican primary voters are generally very emotional, the Right usually turns intellectual during general elections.

The problem seems to be that the various factions of conservatives have a hard time getting passionate about supporting other kinds of Republicans.

They see the need to unite behind one candidate, but their support is mostly intellectual—not raw, gut emotion.

Democrats don’t seem to deal with the same challenge.

They are emotional (as well as intellectual) during the primaries, but they generally transfer their emotional support to the chosen candidate—regardless of who they supported in the primaries.

Intellect will be required for a candidate from either party to make it to the 2016 general election.[iv]

Once the two top candidates are selected, their biggest challenge will most likely be convincing Latino and independent voters that they care about their interests and needs.

No candidate is likely sway either group without a genuinely strong emotional appeal.

The GOP’s biggest benefit in 2016 might be President Obama.

If his administration continues its drive to the left—continued spending, taxing, borrowing, inflating the dollar, and regulating—most conservatives will be deeply emotional about politics after four more years.

If their frustration reaches a boiling point, we may witness a waking giant.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

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

Category : Blog &Government &Independents &Leadership &Politics