Government

Force- or Freedom-Government

June 22nd, 2011 // 10:22 am @ Oliver DeMille

Two Kinds of Government

Government was invented by people for two reasons:

To institutionalize force over others
To protect the inalienable rights of all people in its care

Or, in other words, for force or for freedom.

All governments in history have tended toward one or the other.

When a force government attempts to protect the inalienable rights of its people, it loses strength and power. This is the message of Machiavelli.

When freedom government attempts to institutionalize force over others (of the poor by the rich or of the rich by the poor), it loses its strength and power. This is taught at length in The Federalist Papers (see papers 16-20, 51).

Because of this, free government should not do anything except protect inalienable rights.

If it attempts to do more, it moves into the realm of force government.

Unfortunately, the left has too often forgotten this limit of free government, and the right has forgotten that the people, all of us, must address and fix social challenges in private—non-governmental—ways. The problems of the poor, the downtrodden and the struggling are not government’s problem.

These are our problems. Both the left and right need to get clear on this, and in our day we all need to take massive action to address the multiple social challenges of our world. The role of free government is to protect inalienable rights; the role of free citizens is to take action to solve the plight of the needy.

“Did we come here to laugh or cry?
Are we dying or being born?”

—Carlos Fuentes

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

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

He is the co-author of the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

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

Category : Blog &Culture &Government &Liberty

Simple Freedom

June 21st, 2011 // 9:48 am @ Oliver DeMille

“I left the fairy tales lying on the floor of the nursery, and I have not found any books so sensible since.”

–G.K. Chesterton

Freedom is not a complex idea. But we do live in a complex world, and only complex government forms have proven able to keep those with power from exerting too much of it. The American founders mixed the simple and the complex. They simply pitted power against power, institution against institution, authority against authority. And they simply put the people in charge of it all.

The details are more complex. The House represents the people. The Senate represents the states, and also, naturally, the wealthy. The President represents the nation. The Court represents the Constitution. The States represent themselves, but also the people. The Constitution represents itself; the people just have to read and apply it. It also represents the people—it is written by them to the government, outlining limits of what the government may and may not do. The electors in the Electoral College, which elects the President, also represent the people. This is the way it stood originally.

In simple terms, the following were represented once: the wealthy and the nation. On the complex side, those which were naturally less powerful than the wealthy and national government were represented twice: the States, and also the Constitution. The least naturally powerful, the regular people, were represented in our Constitutional model four times; this is complex in design, but what could be more simple than a government by, for and of the people?

On the side of complexity, the founders mixed the ideas of Polybius, Montesquieu, Hume, Blackstone, Adam Smith and others in this process. On the side of simplicity, the people simply need to read the Constitution and the great freedom classics to understand freedom.

Another simple reality is this: When we lose our freedoms in such a system, it is always the people, not the system, which has failed. The people have all the power—if they understand freedom, read history and the Constitution, and stay actively involved in maintaining their freedoms, the complex arrangement of Constitutional freedoms will not fail.

But when the people turn to other matters and neglect to maintain their freedoms, when they allow the 17^th Amendment or Butler v. the U.S. or the insertion of party politics into the government, for example, to reduce the power of the people, it becomes more difficult for later generations to promote freedom. Still, the Constitution is there and a wise citizenry has the power to reboot American freedom.

When the understanding of the citizens is simple, the actions they must take to be free are complex—even confusing. When the understanding of the citizens is complex, the actions they must take are simple.

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

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

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 &Constitution &Government &History &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship

A Big Problem

June 17th, 2011 // 11:11 am @ Oliver DeMille

Be Afraid

We have a problem. We have a big problem. Or, as the old quip put it, “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

As an optimist, I am usually skeptical of anything that sounds overly negative. However, I recently read a list of statistics in the Harper’s Index that I think is cause for serious concern.

Two items on the list have received a lot of press:

Standard and Poor’s “revised its U.S. debt outlook to ‘negative’” on April 18, 2011.
It has never before ranked the U.S. anything but ‘stable.’”

This should give us all pause. But this is a fixable situation, one which can be solved by a return to American entrepreneurialism, initiative and ingenuity.

The increase of unemployment once again in May 2011 can likewise be effectively overcome by government policy changes that incentivize private investment and spending. Many corporations are sitting on significant surpluses right now, but they are loathe to spend them without a real change in the way the U.S. government spends money and treats business.

In short, our current economic problems can be dealt with by the principles of freedom and free enterprise—if only Washington would give freedom a try. Note that neither Republican nor Democratic presidents have taken this approach for over two decades.

American vs. Chinese Views on the Free Market

But these aren’t the statistics that should worry us most. The figures which really concern me have gotten little media attention:

Percentage of Americans in 2009 who believed the free market ‘is the best system on which to base the future of the world’: 74
Percentage of Americans who believe so today: 59
Percentage of Chinese who do: 67

If this trend continues, we’ll face drastically worsening major problems.

Unease about the growth of China’s power has been increasing in the U.S. for some time, but the concern has mostly centered on America’s economic decline versus the growth of China as a major totalitarian world power.

Add to this the knowledge that over two-thirds of Chinese believe free enterprise is the key to the future—at the same time that American belief in free enterprise is waning—and our sense of what the 21^st Century will bring takes on a new direction.

In the United States, youth are widely taught that the key to life and career success is getting a good job, while in China an emphasis for the “best and brightest” in the rising generation is to engage meaningful entrepreneurship.

If this continues, the status and roles of these two nations will literally switch in the decades ahead: China as superpower, the U.S. as a second-rate nation with a stagnant and struggling economy. Many experts point out that China has a long way to go to “catch up” with the U.S. in military strength, but how long will this take if the U.S. economy continues to decline while China’s booms?

I have two main thoughts on this: First, good for the Chinese people! If they can consistently nudge their society and government in the direction of increased freedom, they will join or possibly even become the world’s most important leaders. The truth is that freedom works—in China as much as everywhere else. Second, and most importantly, America needs to give freedom a chance.

A majority of Americans believe in free enterprise, but many in Washington seem convinced that the government can do things better than the American people. The future of our freedom and prosperity depends on a flourishing environment of freedom.

Government can do us all a great service by altering its current policies and removing the numerous obstacles to free enterprise. This one significant shift is vital. The fact that many of our national leaders seem committed to avoiding such changes is a big problem. The longer this lasts, the bigger the problem becomes.

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

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

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

Category : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Foreign Affairs &Government &Producers &Prosperity

The Senate Question

June 6th, 2011 // 4:53 pm @ Oliver DeMille

It appears obvious that most Democrats will support President Obama in the 2012 presidential election and that most Republicans will vote for the eventual Republican nominee. Independents, who will actually determine the election, are looking at things in a more complicated light.

Many independents dislike a number of the Obama Administration’s policies, as proven in the 2010 midterm election, but they remain unimpressed with Republican leadership since November 2010. Indeed, it was independents who threw Republicans out of power in 2006 and again in 2008.

While most pundits seem to believe that the 2012 election will hinge on issues of the economy, some independents are targeting the Senate as the hidden key to November 2012. Many independents would like to see the House remain Republican, the Senate swing Republican, and the White House remain Democratic—thus increasing the checks and balances on two sides which can’t seem to get it together.

A few Republicans are making the same argument, but for different reasons. When Republicans talk about winning the Senate in 2012, they are hedging their bets—they clearly want the presidency, but they’re lowering expectations so they can claim victory if they simply take the Senate.[i] Independents, in contrast, genuinely see split government as the best possible scenario.

The majority of independents support high profile policies from both the left and the right. For example, independents overwhelmingly want serious economic changes. They are deeply concerned with the spending increases of the Obama Administration, and they scratch their heads in bewilderment at the Obama team’s refusal to get serious about jobs and economic policy.[ii] On the other hand, most independents can’t grasp the Right’s seeming hatred of immigrants and frigid attitude toward the struggling poor. They dislike President Obama’s healthcare plan but feel that healthcare reform is needed. There are many other examples of how independents like and dislike views from both left and right.

In short, independents aren’t convinced that either party has the answers. If Republicans control all three houses, they predict, we’ll see more military spending and rising domestic social problems as funds shift from our inner cities to third world conflicts—and overall spending won’t likely decrease. If the Democrats run everything, in this view, there will be few checks on Washington’s spending and overregulation of practically everything. The answer seems to be the right kind of split government.

Independents have already supported various constructions of government:

Republican White House, Republican Senate, Republican House
Republican White House, Democratic Senate, Democratic House
Democratic White House, Democratic Senate, Democratic House
Democratic White House, Democratic Senate, Republican House

None of these have delivered what independents wanted. The worst results, many independents feel, occurred where government was not split, where one party controlled all three “houses.”

The key to overcoming this dilemma may be the Senate. The White House and House of Representatives are natural competitors based on the structure of the U.S. Constitution: the Executive is the Commander-in-Chief, while the House holds the purse strings. Thus by constitutional nature the office of the president puts a high priority on international affairs while the House’s primary focus is domestic policy. The Senate has a direct role in both domestic and international policy, and sits as the major check and balance on both the President and the House of Representatives.

Since the rise of independent power in the Internet Age, we haven’t seen the following structure of government:

Democratic White House, Republican Senate, Republican House

The nuances in this formation are interesting. Such a model would keep a Democratic Commander-in-Chief in office, and the natural Democratic tendency to move conservatively in international relations would most likely limit American foreign policy to the most important international involvements—as opposed to the Republican proclivity for international power agendas.

On the home front, a Republican-controlled Senate and House would be inclined to downplay Democratic spending agendas and militate against spending too much, taxing too much, or over-regulating. In other words, such a model of governance naturally tones down the passionate agendas of both parties and puts the head, rather than the heart, in charge on both the domestic and international fronts. The potential of such governance by Washington is intriguing to many independents.

Moreover, “wisdom above passion” is not nearly as likely in any other governmental makeup. For example, the opposite structure (Republican White House, Democratic Senate and House) encourages more passion from both parties and little fiscal or ideological responsibility at home or abroad.

Right now it seems that Republicans will hold the House in 2012 (though much can happen between now and election night). The presidential election currently leans in President Obama’s favor, but things will inevitably tighten as November 2012 approaches.

The real key to America’s future may rest in the Senatorial election. This will not be the focus of the media, of course, which will emphasize presidential politics, but it may be the most significant national election of 2012.

From an independent point of view, the best-case scenario may be a Republican victory in the House complemented by victory in either the Senate or the White House—but not both. The worst-case scenario would probably be to give all three houses to Republicans or all three to Democrats.

If Republicans hold the House and gain the Senate in 2012, and if President Obama stays in the White House, we will experience a new type of government structure: 1) a moderate independent majority of voters empowered by the Internet in an era of daily activism and influence in national debates, 2) a conservative Congress focused on economic moderation and checked in its international agenda, and 3) a liberal White House checked in its domestic spending agendas and dedicated to international moderation. Many independents would like to give this possibility a chance.

[i] Many lead Republicans believe that the GOP has a real chance to win the White House.

[ii] President Obama has proven to be a savvy politician, especially where the timing of his focus is concerned. If he changes focus and puts the emphasis on jobs as the central goal during the summer and/or fall of 2011 and into 2012, he may take away the Republican’s one major selling point.

Category : Blog &Government &Independents

The Little Fix

May 4th, 2011 // 2:45 pm @ Oliver DeMille

Sometimes small and simple things make all the difference. Malcolm Gladwell called this “the tipping point,” and an old proverb speaks of mere straws “breaking the camel’s back.” In my book FreedomShift I wrote about how three little things could—and should—change everything in America’s future.

Following is a little quote that holds the fix to America’s modern problems. This is a big statement. Many Americans feel that the United States is in decline, that we are facing serious problems and that Washington doesn’t seem capable of taking us in the right direction. People are worried and skeptical. Washington—whichever party is in power—makes promises and then fails to fulfill them.

What should America do? The answer is provided, at least the broad details, in the following quote. The famous Roman thinker Cicero is said to have given us this quote in 55 BC. However, it turns out that this quote was created in 1986 as a newspaper fabrication.[i] Still, the content of the quote carries a lot of truth:

“The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt.”

Consider each item:

Balance the budget. There are various proposals to do this, nearly all of which require cutting entitlements and also foreign military expenditures. Many do not require raised tax rates. But most Americans would support moderate tax increases if Washington truly gets its outrageous spending habit under control. Paying more taxes in order to see our national debts paid off and our budgets balanced would be worth it—if, and only if, we first witness Washington really fix its spending problem.
Refill the Treasury. This is seldom suggested in modern Washington. We have become so accustomed to debt, it seems, that the thought of maintaining a long-term surplus in Washington’s accounts is hardly ever mentioned.
Reduce public debt. This is part of various proposals, and is a major goal of many American voters (including independents, who determine presidential elections).
Temper and control the arrogance of officialdom. This is seldom discussed, but it is a significant reality in modern America. We have become a society easily swayed by celebrity, and this is bad for freedom.
Curtail foreign aid. The official line is that the experts, those who “understand these things,” know why we must continue and even expand foreign aid, and that those who oppose this are uneducated and don’t understand the realities of the situation. The reality, however, is that the citizenry does understand that we can’t spend more than we have. Period. The experts would do well to figure this out.

The question boils down to this: Is the future of America a future of freedom or a future of big government? Our generation must choose.

The challenge so far is that the American voter wants less expensive government but also big-spending government programs. Specifically, we want government to stop spending for programs which benefit other people, but to keep spending for programs that benefit us directly.[ii] We want taxes left the same or decreased for us, but raised on others. We want small business to create more jobs, but we want small businesspeople to pay higher taxes (we don’t want to admit that by paying higher taxes they’ll naturally need to reduce the number of jobs they offer).

The modern American citizen wants the government programs “Rome” can offer, but we want someone else to pay for it. We elect leaders who promise smaller government, and then vote against them when they threaten a government program we enjoy.

Over time, however, we are realizing that we can’t have it both ways. We are coming to grips with the reality that to get our nation back on track we’ll need to allow real cuts that hurt. The future of America depends on how well we stick to our growing understanding that our government must live within its means.

[i] Discussed in Gary Shapiro, The Comeback: How Innovation Will Restore The American Dream.

[ii] See Meet the Press, April 24, 2011.

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

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

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 &Economics &Education &Foreign Affairs &Generations &Government &History