Liberty

The Hillary Clinton Emails (A Different View) by Oliver DeMille

March 16th, 2015 // 12:30 pm @ Oliver DeMille

The Curve

If you follow my articles on a regular basis, you’ve probably noticed that I seldom write about topics that are in the current news cycle. I usually address such issues a week or more after they stop dominating the nightly news. There is an important reason for this.

The way the television news presents many political topics can be very emotional. This often leaves watchers strongly influenced and emotionally geared up—one way or another.

Instead of jumping into that emotional boiling pot, I prefer to take a more reasoned approach. And waiting a few days or weeks can allow people to absorb the news, think about things, and then take a fresh look at the topic once emotions have calmed a bit. This usually leads to deeper thinking and more wisdom.

The topic of the Hillary Clinton emails is just such an issue. Here’s my take on it, and though I think you’ll find it quite different than the various news reports on the subject, I believe this view is well worth considering. So, here goes…

Reality Politics

Our current “gotcha” method of politics is a stain on our society. Watch the national news on almost any given evening, and a politician or potential candidate is being attacked for his or her latest weakness, mistake, or controversial choices. And in presidential politics, the din is even more constant.

The latest series of commentaries and diatribes against Hillary Clinton’s emails is yet another example of this problem. News programs clamor to break the latest development, talking heads line up to add their two cents of criticism, and potential 2016 Republican candidates jockey to call for the strongest censure.

Is it any wonder that most Americans don’t like politics very much? Or that many of those who do enjoy it too often treat it all like a reality show—a la Bachelor, Survivor, Celebrity Apprentice, the tabloids, or even the latest Kardashian saga? No surprise that independents shake their heads in disgust. Whichever party is the target of the latest news, the critics from the other side seem to pop up in droves.

Just once I’d love to hear a serious presidential contender step forward and take the high road. “I don’t really care about these allegations,” he or she would say. “I’ll leave that to the press and to people who are interested in these things. For me, they’re just a distraction.

A Better America

“The real question is a lot more important: Is Mrs. Clinton the best person for the job of President? Are her values, goals, and vision for this country what we want to lead us into the years ahead? Will her policies get us where we truly want to go? Because I believe in something I think is better for America, and I’d like to focus on that.

“I believe in an American future where…

“I see the United States making the hard choice to…

“If America is going to get back on track, and really live up to our great potential, every citizen needs to…

“Free enterprise is the hope for our future because…

“What really matters most to America’s next decade is the genuine, heartfelt decision to…

“…and that’s the kind of nation I want to pass on to our children and grandchildren. The policies I’ve outlined will get us there. So I’m not going to get sidetracked by these attacks on my opponent. There is too much at stake. No leader is perfect. Everyone in public office can be attacked by those who have nothing better to do.

“But that’s not really what this election or this nation is about. Not at all. There’s something much more important going on. If Mrs. Clinton is the best leader to take America into the future, then you should vote for her. The rest is mere distraction. If you share her vision and goals, then support her. If not, if you share the vision and direction I’ve outlined today, vote for me.

“These other things may be important, or not, but they aren’t as important as the real challenge—not by a long shot. The true question we should be addressing today is what kind of America do we want, how are we going to get there, and who is the best leader to make it happen? That’s the real issue. And ultimately it’s the only issue that really matters.”

Of course, both parties like to point fingers, make accusations, and jump on the bandwagon when they spot a potential weakness. But that’s not what America is about. Or, if it is, then we’re going to continue into decline. Period.

Taking a Stand

I’m convinced most Americans don’t like the negativity. Yes, it seems to influence elections. And that’s sad. Because it shows a certain lack of independent thought, a missing element of leadership on the part of some voters. A nation dedicated to an ongoing game of gleeful whack-a-mole against the latest candidate’s foibles simply isn’t all that serious about its own future.

I’m not suggesting that the media shouldn’t report the news. Journalists have a job to do, and the nation is more informed when they do it accurately. But voters, candidates and party leaders shouldn’t give in to every temptation to jump into the muck, get happily worked up over every personal flaw in their opponents, or go negative whenever a glimmer of opportunity to criticize someone presents itself.

I know, that’s just politics. But that’s the problem. Politics should be better. “It’s not,” the experts say. But let’s not listen to them. Candidates can choose the high road. If that brings about their loss, they should be proud to lose. To paraphrase Thoreau, if being petty, vindictive, and/or negative is what it takes to get elected, anyone who wins an election should be deeply ashamed.

Besides, we’re tired of candidates who really want to win. We want a candidate who really wants to stand for a great America, and to do so regardless of how many votes such a stand garners or repels. Yes, that might seem naïve to those inside the Beltway, but it’s still true. We want a leader. Really.

Finally.

Moreover, voters can stop boosting the ratings of those who feed on the negative. If this is idealistic, it’s only because the ideal is worth supporting.

I, for one, am going to just pass on muckraking politics. I’m no fan of Hillary Clinton’s suggested policies, and I won’t be voting for her, but the candidates who jump on the bandwagon to attack her over every new potential negative—I just don’t respect them. Get a platform, take a stand, make us support you because of what you represent, stop grasping at straws and throwing rocks at Hillary. Or at anyone. Stop going on every television program you can and talking about your opponent’s flaws. It makes you look small. It is small, in fact.

I’ll vote for the candidate who takes a stand—not only for the issues I support, but also for the dignity to be professional, classy, positive, and optimistic. And yes, even idealistic and noble in the way he or she treats opponents and those who disagree.

Past, Present and Future

Leaders like George Washington, Winston Churchill, and Ronald Reagan didn’t win by tearing down the other guy, relying on distasteful personal invective, or playing “gotcha” games. These tactics were too petty for them. They laid out a bold vision for their nation, made a case it for it, and let the voters decide whether or not to support it.

And they stayed on message. (For example, Washington spread his influence and vision mainly through letters, not by campaigning. Churchill was notoriously congenial with opponents, and Reagan was famously optimistic even in addressing controversial topics.) They didn’t let the media, polls, or ratings set their talking points.

I want to vote for a candidate with a powerful vision for America’s future and a new era of greater freedom and prosperity, a realistic and principle-based plan to achieve these things, and a firm stand against wasting time attacking others. And I want to live in a nation of voters who turn off the TV or stop watching programs full of angry jabs about little issues.

It’s time for us to get real. Let’s finally get to the big things: Like what we truly want to be as a nation, what policies will take us there, and which leaders can effectively help it happen. Anything less is a vote for more of the status quo—a nation of bickering, blaming, backbiting, and decline—and that’s a bad decision for all of us.

We can do better.

Call for Greatness

So when candidates or their campaigns join the petty negative attack bandwagon, like a group of mean girls bullying on Facebook, instead of just leading us in a Reagan-esque focus on what we need to truly make America great again, I’m going to scratch them off my list. I don’t want a finger-pointing president, or one whose main goal is to win the White House. We’ve had those—from both parties—and they made things worse, not better.

We need a great president. Just look at our economy, the rising national debt, Russia, China, the Middle East, race disputes in our cities, etc. We face real problems, and many of them are incredibly dangerous. No mediocre president will do.

Whoever you are, we need you to be great. And the surest way to be a great president is to be great, to do great, to simply act great. Starting by focusing on your great plan for America rather than trying to win by exposing the flaws in your opponents. We’re tired of small-minded, petty candidates and “leaders.”

I hope a lot of voters will join me in this watch for a real candidate, one whose bold vision, effective plan, refusal to go negative, and deep understanding of freedom and prosperity will make us all proud to be Americans again. If there’s no such candidate out there, then I really don’t care who wins. Anything less just guarantees further decline.

We need a great president, or bust…

Literally.

And “great” includes positive, optimistic, and unswervingly focused on the big things that really matter.

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship

How Freedom Might Win in 2016

February 14th, 2015 // 8:18 pm @ Oliver DeMille

The New Field

I was wrong. I thought Mitt Romney would run in 2016, but he declined. Where does this leave the election? More importantly, with a large field of potential candidates, is there a path for freedom? Meaning, can someone like Rand Paul who really believes in applying the Constitution in our modern times actually win?

The definite answer is “maybe.” But, more than any election since at least the 1980s, there is a narrow chance of this happening in 2016.

To explore this, we need to clearly understand two important points.

Charisma and Coolidge

First, in every presidential general election the most likeable candidate wins. Always. And in presidential politics “likeable” means both “fun, cool, engaging” and also that a majority of voters believe the candidate really cares about them.

This reality isn’t negotiable. The U.S. electorate always chooses the most likeable candidate for president. So if a Republican candidate isn’t more likeable to the general electorate than Hillary Clinton, he or she won’t win.

Second, there are two major groups of Republicans running for the White House: Establishment Republicans and Serious Freedom-Lovers. It’s been over thirty years since a Serious Freedom-Lover won the presidency. Since 1988, Republican nominees have been a long list of Establishment Rep’s: Bush I, Dole, Bush II, McCain, Romney. And before Ronald Reagan, Republican presidents were all Establishment Rep’s through Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, and all the way back to Freedom-Lover Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s.

In the 2016 Republican primaries, Establishment votes will naturally split between candidates such as Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich.

Likewise, Freedom-Lover votes will be divided between people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, etc. And a few potential candidates might appeal to both sides, like Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, and Carly Fiorina.

Where the Votes Sit

So what does this all mean for the Republican primaries as they select a nominee to face Hillary Clinton in the general election? While it’s still early, a few things are becoming increasingly clear:

The Establishment Rep’s will tend to centralize their support behind one of the following: Jeb Bush, or perhaps Chris Christie, John Kasich, Scott Walker, or Marco Rubio. It is most likely Bush’s to lose, or Kasich’s, Rubio’s, or Walker’s to win.
The Freedom-Lover wing of the GOP will most likely split between various candidates, not concentrating strong support for any one person.
But the only path to victory by a Serious Freedom-Lover is for voters in this wing of the party to centralize support behind one or at the most two candidates.

Currently, based on the polls, Republicans with a reasonable chance of becoming president are Bush, Rubio, Christie, Paul, and Walker. Let’s compare how each of these do on likeability in the general election:

Candidate	Youth	Independents	Latinos	Swing State Voters	Overall GeneralElection Likeability
Bush	Weak	Medium	Strong	Medium	Medium
Christie	Medium	Weak	Weak	Medium	Weak
Paul	Strong	Strong	Medium	Strong	Strong
Rubio	Strong	Medium	Strong	Strong	Strong
Walker	Weak	Medium	Weak	Medium	Medium

These can, of course, change as the election unfolds. But the problem for Republicans, as it has been since 1992, is that the factors that make a candidate strong in the GOP primaries are very different than those that make them strong in the general election. Compare:

Candidate	Likeability in Most GOP Caucuses and Primaries	Likeability in General Election
Bush	Strong	Medium
Christie	Strong	Weak
Paul	Medium	Strong
Rubio	Medium	Strong
Walker	Strong	Medium

Chains…and Weak Links

In other words, the Republicans have a structural problem. They look for different things in selecting a nominee than the general electorate looks for in choosing the president. Using this system, candidates who are Strong in the GOP primaries are usually Weak or Medium in the generals, while candidates who are Strong in the generals are Medium or Weak in the GOP primaries.

In contrast, the Democrats look for the same things in the primaries that the voters look for in the generals. This is a significant advantage for the Democrats. If Hillary Clinton were added to the chart above, for example, and the heading were changed to “Electability in the Democratic Primaries,” she would rate Strong in both the primaries and the general election. Elizabeth Warren would rate Strong in both as well. Joe Biden would rank Medium in the primaries and Weak in the general—which is why Democrats won’t make him their nominee.

In 2008 Barack Obama rated Strong in both, while McCain (in normal Republican fashion) was Medium in the primaries and Weak in the generals. Romney in 2012 ranked Medium in the primaries and Weak in the general among women, youth, swing state voters, independents and Latinos.

2016 could prove unique because two of the top five potential Republican nominees rank Strong in general election likeability. This is especially significant because they are both strong in the Serious Freedom-Lover camp. But winning the nomination will certainly be an uphill battle for them.

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

odemille The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

Among many other works, he is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy, and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny.

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

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship

The Bedrock of Freedom: The Ben Carson vs. Rand Paul Debate by Oliver DeMille

February 13th, 2015 // 9:27 am @ Oliver DeMille

Measles, Vaccinations, Common Core,
and the Deeper Issue We’re All Experiencing

The disconnect right now is tearing our nation apart. Over and over, people engage in the Surface argument, while the Deeper issue is actually a lot more important.

For example, consider the national discussion of whether the government should mandate vaccinations against measles and other similar diseases. The Surface issue is whether vaccinations are safe, or whether in some cases they are hurtful to a child. But the Deeper issue is much more important: Who should make the decision about vaccinations for your children? Government? Or you as the parents?

I recently watched two interviews with U.S. presidential hopefuls that clearly illustrate this point. In the first interview, Ben Carson was asked about measles and vaccinations. He stated that vaccinations should be firmly mandated by government for all children. Period.

Rand Paul took a slightly different approach. He said that vaccinations work and that children should be vaccinated, but that the more important issue is this: Government doesn’t own such decisions about children, parents do. Parents should have the final say.

Both of these men are medical doctors, and both have a history of commitment to the principles of freedom. But in this case, one called for government mandates and the other called for sticking with freedom. Very interesting.

Force and Reason

Ben Carson went on to say that the idea that vaccinations are widely damaging has been debunked, but then he added an interesting point. He said that of course a few children are allergic or otherwise react poorly to vaccinations, but overall the benefits of widespread vaccination are worth it.

That’s reasonable. But, if reason is to be our guide, which of the following is more reasonable:

1-Educating the populace about the scientific facts, then using government force to mandate what parents must choose for their children?

2-Educating the populace about the scientific facts, then letting parents make choices for their children?

This illustrates the current growing division between those who generally trust the government and those who usually distrust it. This disconnect is now a major feature of our nation. It shows up in numerous important issues, including:

1-The government should mandate Common Core across the nation to raise standards for schools and students.

Vs.

2-Parents should have the final say on whether or not Common Core is good for their specific children.

Or:

1-The police are justified in using deadly force as needed, because law enforcement is paramount and force is frequently necessary—and police and government agents are nearly always in the right.

Vs.

2-The community should be very vigilant about any use of force by the police to ensure that it was truly justified, because police forces and governmental agencies sometimes overstep their bounds and aren’t held accountable.

To Trust or Not to Trust

America is split, more each year, by these two major perspectives: “We almost always trust the government to do the right thing,” versus “We don’t usually trust the government to do the right thing.”

Through most of the 20^th Century, by the way, an average of 78% of Americans held the first view (trust), while today only 23% of Americans believe the government will do the right thing most of the time. That’s a huge change.

And clearly the disconnect isn’t partisan. It divides both major parties, and it also divides independents. Just look at Common Core, for example. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are strongly against it, while Jeb Bush is a firm supporter. Bobby Jindal and Mike Huckabee supported it at the state level and then opposed it when it became a federal program. And all of these men are leading Republicans.

Or look at the vaccination issue. Some of the strongest supporters of government mandates are top Democratic politicians, while many of the communities with the lowest rates of vaccination (and highest levels of anti-vaccination activism) are university neighborhoods dominated by progressive faculty and administrators.

On the Right, many Republican voters demand that everyone get vaccinated, while a vocal opposition calls mandatory vaccination a socialistic plot. Ben Carson versus Rand Paul, so to speak, but spread through the population regardless of party.

Now, change the Surface issue, from, say, vaccinations to police use of deadly force in Ferguson, Cleveland, or New York, and the sides quickly shift.

Bad Comparisons

Here’s another example:

1-The government should regulate and then force the education of all children ages 5-16.

Vs.

2-Parents should have the right to make the final educational decisions for their family.

This one clearly hits very close to home, but the divide is still there. Ben Carson said something really interesting while he was making his case for mandatory vaccinations. He compared them to seatbelt laws and also laws against texting while driving. I like Ben Carson, so this surprised me because these two things shouldn’t be treated the same. (He probably would have clarified this if he had time to elaborate.)

The main intent of “don’t text while you drive” laws is to protect other people from bad driving, while the focus of seat belt laws is to protect the driver.

In the case of Common Core, supporters often speak as if their major goals are to improve society, while many parents who dislike Common Core care mostly about the education of their own children. And pro-vaccinators often cite public health statistics at the same time that anti-vaccination parents point to anecdotal examples where specific children were harmed.

Simplicity and Standards

This all makes sense, if we take the time to really consider it. In short, those thinking in terms of the mass population naturally overlook the specific, individual cases (“they’re just anecdotal”) while many a concerned parent logically ignores the statistical tables (“my son isn’t just a number”) and focuses on the potential danger if her child just happens to be one of those who is harmed.

Both views have merit. Both are reasonable. Both make sense. But back to our original question: To whom are we going to give the final say?

The answer depends on what level of society is best equipped to deal with each specific situation. Consider:

If it’s a question about nuclear attack or foreign invasion, the federal government was designed to deal with it.
If it’s a question of crime or direct danger to everyone, it’s a state or provincial issue.
Or, if anything in level B can be handled more effectively at a local level, it should be.
If it’s about what’s best for an individual’s education, prosperity, or health, let the individual choose. This is the essence of freedom. If it’s about children, let’s trust the parents.

This simple little system is essential to freedom. Without such standards, freedom is quickly lost.

The Level

So, let’s get specific. Do the measles meet the “danger to everyone” level in B or C above? No. So leave such health decisions to the parents. Same with Common Core. Of course, if Ebola is the issue, level B kicks in because it truly is a “direct danger to everyone.” It may even be level A, depending on the circumstances. But Common Core and the measles are nowhere near level A. Not even close.

In fact, this system of doing things at the right level, and only at the right level, is the key to maintaining freedom and applying wisdom on nearly every issue. For example:

-Seat belts? Level D.
-Drunk driving or text-driving? Level B. (It would be level C if people didn’t travel very much, but in our current world conditions, if every local area has a different law, far too many drivers will be confused and the laws will be ineffective at protecting the life and liberty of others.)
-Police using deadly force? Level B.
-Oversight of any use of deadly force? Levels A-D.
-Compulsory school laws? Level D only. Seriously, leave to families those things best handled by families.
-Dedicated study and wise oversight of all laws? Level D.

This isn’t just the Deeper level; it is the bedrock of freedom.

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

odemille President Obamas Free College Tuition Plan Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

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

Category : Aristocracy &Blog &Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Featured &Generations &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Prosperity &Science &Statesmanship

President Obama’s Free College Tuition Plan

January 30th, 2015 // 5:42 pm @ Oliver DeMille

Some (Widespread) False Traditions about College, Grades, and Career

A Good Plan?

President Obama proposes making two years of community college free for everyone. As The New York Times reported (“Expanding Community College Access”), the Administration’s “preliminary plans…call for an estimated $60 billion in new spending over ten years…” That’s right. Just throw more money at it and things will get better, right?

Actually, no. What if, instead, we didn’t raise taxes $60 billion for the program (plus the extra funds necessary to administer it) and left these resources in the hands of the private economy?

This gets to the crux of one of our deepest and most pressing problems today. When we see a need in society—almost any need, it turns out—someone proposes a government program. The costs of such programs, and the regulations of implementing them, make our economy less inviting for investors and innovators. Naturally, jobs, capital, and opportunities go to other nations.

The result? The economy struggles even more. And, behold, a politician in Washington takes note of the increased struggles and suggests yet another economy-killing government program.

This downward cycle is literally fueling our national decline. These types of government programs have had real results: Where one wage earner in a household made enough for the family to live on in the 1950s, today it takes two wage earners plus a steadily increasing amount of debt for households to pay for a lesser standard of living.

Cause and Effect

Such government programs are touted as real benefits, but the more of them we implement in society, the wider the gap grows between the rich and the rest.

If this new community college program is adopted, the results are predictable:

The quality of community college education will decrease (just as high schools did when government made them free and ubiquitous)
More community colleges will be built (requiring tax increases)
Fewer educational entrepreneurs will offer true educational innovations
More people will get two years of college
Two years of college will become much less beneficial
More young adults will live in their parent’s basement—for longer
S. citizens will lose more jobs to international competitors
The U.S. standard of living will further decline
There will be a few good community colleges, and a lot more poor ones, and national leaders will talk incessantly about “solving the community college crisis”
The quality of education in most high schools (not just community colleges) will further decrease

“But how can you say these things?” the proponents of the new program will ask. “More jobs today require some college education, so how can free community college be anything but a great plan?”

Actually, more jobs require a higher level of education. But calling it “college education” is just labeling. The level and quality of education students received in four years of high school in 1930 or 1953 was higher than nearly all college juniors have today.

Why did high school education decline? Mostly because of the many government programs that got in the way of market forces and educational quality.

So why are we proposing more of them? We shouldn’t be.

Part II: The Real Issue

But let’s go deeper into college education. Specifically, let’s deal with the real issue. The true concern. It is right in front of us, but only a few people are talking about it. This is vitally important.

Sometimes our most common beliefs in society turn out to be wrong, or at least different from the reality. For example, a lot of young people today are told that the key to a successful life is a good career, and the way to ensure a good career is getting into a good college, picking the right major, and getting good grades.

Many high school and even elementary students busily study each night to prepare for the SATs and such life success—based on this oft-repeated promise. They spend years sure that good grades will lead to promotions, wealth and status.

But the truth is often very different. A report from the Chronicle of Higher Education showed the reality of what employers look for when hiring:

“Health care companies care most about your major”

“White-collar companies care the most about your GPA”

“Media and communication companies are gaga for internships and…indifferent toward your classes”

“Ironically, education employers care the least about grades” (quotations from Derek Thompson, “The Thing Employers Look For When Hiring Recent Graduates,” The Atlantic)

This is not what most young people are told—by teachers, school administrators, academic counselors, even parents. How can they make good career-prep choices when most of what they are told about the relationship between schooling and career success is inaccurate or at best incomplete?

The Scale

I’ve long taught that schooling should focus on great education, not the growing trend of “hire education,” but this view is in the minority. Many people believe the main purpose of education is career prep, and students are often frustrated when the reality turns out to be something different.

In an economy where many graduates are already without jobs, these false traditions (e.g. “the key to a successful life is a good career, and that comes from attending a prestigious college, picking the right major, and getting good grades”) take on increased importance. Many young people believe in these ideas as promises, not urban myths.

The Chronicle of Higher Education report showed the following (ibid.):

On a scale of 1 to 100, the importance of your college’s reputation to prospective employers is 5.

Not 85. Not 55. Not 50. Not even 15. Just 5. How can 5 out of 100 be worth all the focus people give it?

Using the same scale, the importance of your GPA is 8.

That’s right, 8. All the work, the effort, the tears and struggles to get top grades, and they’re only an 8 to employers? Not 8 out of 10, mind you, but 8 out of 100! As top students know, the difference in work and effort required between A- and A is about the same as between C and A-. So, it’s no surprise that students are stunned to learn how little employers actually think or care about grades.

Even your college Major only scores 13 on this scale.

But it gets worse. This score of 13 is actually driven up by the health care industry. If your career is in health care, it’s quite a bit higher, but if you’re in a different industry, it’s much lower.

In short, for most people, the gatekeepers that bring you in to (or keep you out of) a great career don’t care about what school you went to, your GPA, or your major.

The Forgotten “Why”

So what do prospective employers look at? Again, according to the Chronicle report:

The number one thing is internships.
Number two is employment experience.

Really? Then why are so many young people counseled to avoid work and put all their time into getting good grades? And why are they told to put most of their efforts into admittance to the most prestigious schools?

The focus should be on internships and work experience. Amazing.

This is a major departure from what most educators tell their students. It’s very interesting, and something any parent should consider.

It also brings me back to my original view. Use schooling, reading, and other learning to get a great, truly excellent education. That’s why schools were invented, after all. The rest is, literally, minor. The research now proves it.

The Real Solution

The solution—unless you work in the health care field—isn’t two more years of government-funded schooling, but better education in the years before college. Followed by the same increased quality during college, or even instead of college. We don’t need more mediocre schooling—we need a drastic improvement in what we already have. Seriously.

Get a great education before you turn 18 by reading, studying, digging into the classics, etc.—and then continue it in college or working directly with great mentors instead of college—and don’t let 5%, 8%, and <13% things like the “right” school, GPA, and the “right” major determine (or get in the way of) your education.

And, along the way, get some great experiences with internships and work experiences. Include a number of important classics in your reading. This will bump your whole education to a higher level, and with a better education and better experiences, your career options will only improve.

This is the real solution, regardless of whether or not the government adopts some costly new education program that won’t help very much and will in fact send a lot more capital, innovation, and jobs abroad. The program will only make things harder—for education, and for the economy.

Washington, please keep this plan to yourself. Literally: Put your kids through it if you want. Leave the rest of the economy alone.

Oh, and parents, pass this along to young people. A great education will greatly boost your career prospects, and for most careers a great education is not the same thing as your college, major, or GPA. Not at all. Whatever you do about these things, do what it takes to get a great education.

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

odemille The Main Source of the American Decline Oliver DeMille is the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestselling co-author of LeaderShift: A Call for Americans to Finally Stand Up and Lead, the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.

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 &Community &Current Events &Education &Entrepreneurship &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty

The Main Source of the American Decline

January 23rd, 2015 // 7:04 am @ Oliver DeMille

Land of the Free Land of Decay

These days, the word “decline” is frequently used to describe the United States. Where “China” is often paired with words and phrases like “rising,” “new superpower,” and “number one,” a different set of adjectives show up when the U.S. is discussed.

This trend recently reached a new low when the cover story on Foreign Affairs was entitled, “See America: Land of Decay and Dysfunction.”

Wow! And we thought “decline” was bad. But decay? And dysfunction? That’s hitting below the belt.

It gets even more interesting, however.

The Players and The Played

The article goes on to suggest that the cause of this “decay” and “dysfunction” is the power of various special interest groups. This is a popular argument, mainly because almost everyone loves to blame special interest groups.

But this proposition bears scrutiny. Indeed, if special interest groups really are the reason for America getting off track, it is one of the most important topics of our time.

In reality, however, something else is at play here. Yes, of course, special interest groups are a serious problem to the precise extent that they “control” government. But why do they control our government? Who allows this? It certainly isn’t written in the Constitution.

Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the Foreign Affairs article, notes that the classic book The Semisovereign People gets to the heart of our challenge. In short, voters are highly swayed by the two big political parties, by the media, and by special interest groups. Special interest groups “control” Washington because they set out to control the parties and the media.

The Madisonian idea of sovereignty in the people (that the voters have the final say in who their leaders are, and what their leaders can and can’t do) is undermined when voters are easily swayed. Period.

Semisovereignty—where the voters do what special interests convince them to do through the media and political parties—is an entirely different political arrangement. It is more like an aristocratic, elite, oligarchy than a democratic republic.

That’s where we are today. And, in according to this analysis, it is the source—not merely a source, but the root—of our decline, decay, and dysfunction. The voters, in this view, don’t know better than to vote as they are told by the interest groups, parties, and media.

This causes them to mistrust government, vote against higher taxes, and remain frustrated with Washington—no matter what it does. The touted “solution?” Be more like a European parliamentary system.

Sadly, too many people are buying in to this flawed narrative.

The problem with this entire analysis is that it is partially true, but not actually true. Meaning what?

Let’s get specific: The fundamental reason for decline, decay, and dysfunction is not a lack voter influence, but rather the exact opposite. American voters—the majority, at least—want more government services than they want to pay for. They want other people to pay for them.

Where We Build From

They want their government services, and they want them on Henry the Fifth terms. In other words, the typical American voter (let’s call him Tom) wants Washington to cut other peoples’ government programs—but none that directly benefit Tom or his family. That’s the crux of our decline and decay. Pure and simple.

Tom votes for the candidate promising that Tom’s favorite government programs will be protected while Alice’s “socialistic” programs will be cut. Alice, in turn, votes for the candidate who supports her “essential” government benefits while promising to cut Tom’s “greedy” or “imperialistic” programs.

Political parties, special interest groups, and media only dominate American politics because Tom and Alice—and a majority of other voters—take this approach. And our decline is assured if the cost of our government programs continues to depend primarily on debt.

Until Tom and Alice, or a majority of voters are willing to elect candidates who will end our debt-dependence and spend within our means (however hard the choices), the parties, lobbies, and media outlets will continue to sway the vote.

Don’t let the media, or anyone else, fool you. We are in decline because the electorate refuses to make the hard choice of fiscal and moral responsibility. Until we do, we’ll be a nation based fundamentally on debt—not principle.

Such a nation is…always…a nation in decline, decay, and dysfunction.