SPECIAL REPORT Part III: Republican, I Guess…
October 2nd, 2014 // 1:00 pm @ Oliver DeMille
From the desk of John Q. Public….
Dear Next President,
Taking the White House is a tall order, and twice you’ve failed to win the day. But this time can be different.
It will have to be different. Political operatives like to believe that the electorate is rational. “Blue states, red states, electoral votes, do the math.” But this is a foreign language to most voters.
The pundits are sure: “Swing voters in the swing states, especially Hispanics, women, and independents. The metrics tell the story.”
No they don’t. The voters aren’t following this. “It’s the machine, the people and organization on the ground,” the experts assure us. Actually, it isn’t.
Here’s what happened in the last two presidential elections. Conservatives and Republicans, as well as Right-leaning independents, really only had one choice. It was “Republican, I guess…”
That’s the problem.You tried to win. You tried to play the game. You hired the best and the brightest and listened to your advisors. But the operatives were wrong. Twice.
They told you how to win, when the American people don’t want a winning candidate.
The Key Word
The American voters want something very different. They want to feel a certain way. They want to be inspired. They want to look at you on their screen, with the sound off (or even on), and feel something special.
They don’t want to feel like you’re another candidate who wants to win. This doesn’t connect. You have to not want to win. You have to want something a lot more important. Something big. Something the whole nation needs.
The voters know you’re a great administrator. You balanced budgets. You upgraded education. You’ve led in your career field. You have character.
And yet, the voters just don’t care. Knowing all these things, they voted for the other side. Twice in a row.
You gave us, at least in the TV optics, more Bob Dole or John Kerry. Not on policy, of course. But the feeling was the same. Tall. Trim. Dark suit. Distinguished. Accomplished.
This approach doesn’t make enemies, but most Americans don’t vote for it. Yes, they want trustworthy and capable. You’ve got that. But they want something more.
They want “cool.” They want exciting. They want genuine. They want authentic. They want you to clearly and boldly stand for something great. They want sparks to fly when you address them!
Those on your side already agree with you, and those against you have already made their plans. But a bunch of voters, more than enough to change the election, are waiting to see who makes them feel something great about their vote. That word “great” is the key.
Still Freedom
In the last two campaigns the biggest vision most people got from Republicans was “Not Obama.” If the next Republican presidential campaign is just “Not Hillary,” we’ll see the same results.
Whoever is telling you how to play to win needs to be off the team. You can seize this moment. Don’t play to win. Don’t be a candidate. Americans don’t like candidates.
They like leaders. Take this opportunity to be a teacher. A persuader. A symbol of a future America that is more. Better. Great. Stand for something that moves us. Make us care.
This will shock the voters, and they’ll perk up and take another look. Reagan won because he promised to bring freedom back to America, and to stand boldly for freedom around the world.
Freedom is still the quintessential American idea, much more than policy and talking points.
That’s what was missing in 2008 and 2012. “Republican, I guess…” is the professional politician’s path. “How can we win? Okay, experts, let’s do it that way.”
Wrong approach.
What about doing it your way? If it feels like the professionals are running things and the candidate is, well, a candidate, you’ve already lost.
It has to feel like you are doing it your way, because you are a great leader and your nation needs what you have to offer.
And it will feel that way when it is that way.
Lead us in a powerful direction, like you couldn’t care less whether or not you win but you’d give anything to get America back on the path to freedom!
That’s moving.
“Care Less” to Impress
The path is hard. Those who haven’t walked it can’t possibly hope to understand. They criticize and armchair quarterback. The one bloodied in the arena has to weigh the options and make tough decisions.
But Republicans now have two strikes.
Trying to win isn’t working.
Time to lead. Forget winning.
Tell America what it needs to hear, and let the chips fall. “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.” We need a rebirth of freedom, and we’ll vote for the man or woman who we believe will take us there.
That’s incredibly moving. It’s what voters yearn for. And running against Senator Clinton, who already looks and feels presidential, it’s the only chance. If the voters are tentative, it’s because you are.
Take an unequivocal stand for freedom. And don’t back down. Don’t try to win the primaries, just try to bring freedom back to the center of all American dialogue. Make it about freedom!
Own it. Fire the air traffic controllers. During the primaries, burn the boats. Stand for what really matters. Don’t impress anyone. Just take a stand and lead. That’s the true way to win support.
Also, forget the other candidates. Ignore them.
Show America why you are the one to support—because your vision for the nation is so moving. Teach them your vision, connect with them by being boldly true to yourself. Ignore polls. Ignore trying to impress.
Nothing impresses like not caring if you impress.
Have real confidence, the genuine confidence of knowing that your principles are true and that the nation desperately needs to apply them.
The economy is in dire straits, and eight more years of current policies will be a disaster.
In fact, truly free economic policies haven’t been Washington’s focus for almost three decades, regardless of which party was in the White House. Foreign policy is in the same messed up boat. This upcoming election is vital.
What America Needs
But we don’t need another politician. We need a leader. We don’t need another candidate. We need a voice for freedom, one that gets the nation to collectively sit back and listen.
You can be that voice.
But only if you’re a voice for something a lot greater than elections, winning, education, energy reform, etc. These things are part of it, of course, but only a true voice for freedom can speak the genuinely American dialect.
People are of tired of politicians.
They want someone to lead a rebirth of freedom and help make America great again.
This is the voter’s heart. It is also the way to put the United States back on the right path.
Oh, and by the way, this letter is addressed to whoever decides to take up the torch for real change, for an America rededicated to the main thing that made this country great—real freedom and the people who work and sacrifice to make it great.
Senator Paul, Governor Romney, Congressman Ryan, Senator Rubio, Governor Christie, Governor Perry, Senator Lee, Governor Huckabee, or someone else—whoever the next great leader is—this is the blueprint.
We have to feel like you really care about the right vision and direction for the nation, and that your vision is big enough and bold enough to truly make us care as well. Freedom is the message that will win.
And that means you’ve got to ignore the experts and transcend the politician, the candidate, the one who wants to impress, and you’ve got to show us that it’s not about you.
It’s about something a lot bigger.
Having a Vision
When you show us that it’s genuinely about our future, and give us something that really, finally, resonates, we’ll be with you—not just on election day, but for the years ahead.
One thing is for certain, Senator Clinton’s campaign won’t make the mistake of trying to impress everyone or just tear down her opponents.
They’ll be out in force promoting big ideas for the years ahead. Not just any ideas, mind you. They’ll be advancing Mrs. Clinton’s ideas, in a big way.
There will be lots of mudslinging—there always is—and answering the critics. But ultimately the American people will elect the individual who ignites their passion and interest.
The “cool” leader will win, the one with the most epic and resonate vision for our future.
Senator Clinton is hugely popular, with a strong list of accomplishments, but she isn’t invulnerable.
She can be gaffe prone, and her vision of further social reform will look weak when compared to someone with a great vision of American rebirth in the economy, leadership, and freedom.
A vision that captures our passion will sway the election. Nothing else will.
How to Win It
If the Republican candidates play small ball, even in the primaries (and no matter what the experts tell them), they’re going to lose. Your only chance is to aim for the fences.
It’s got to be about a decisive, moving vision of a truly greater America.
And it’s got to be centered on a future where freedom once again becomes the watchword for every American, and every government policy and program.
We yearn for this, from coast to coast, and only this is going to hit the home-run that is needed to get our nation back on track.
That a refocus on freedom can sweep a different president into the White House is incidental. It’s about recapturing the idea of freedom and the conviction that America’s role is to stand for it in a truly great way.
This is who we really are. It is who we truly want to be. Nothing else comes close.
Whenever we stray from this, America goes into a period of decline. When we get it back, we flourish. Freedom really is our lifeblood. Our essence. It is Americanism at the core.
It is time to get it back, and we’ll vote for a leader who effectively makes this our generation’s opportunity to shine. We’re all hoping that 2016 is the time.
Don’t play politics. Don’t try to win. Instead, lead a true rebirth of freedom!
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 : Citizenship &Community &Culture &Current Events &Featured &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Producers &Statesmanship
SPECIAL REPORT Part II: Who I Want for President
September 15th, 2014 // 10:34 am @ Oliver DeMille
Diverging Paths
The good news is that the 2016 presidential election has the power to put America back on the right track.
The bad news is that same election could make things a whole lot worse for us.
If the United States votes for eight more years of a White House philosophy that believes in more big government, 2016 will be the year we officially endorsed the decline of America.
In a recent article I suggested that Rand Paul or Mitt Romney have a real chance in the next election. I received a lot of responses to this article—more than usual.
Some of them agreed, others showed support for these or different candidates (Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rick Perry, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mike Huckabee, etc.), and still others suggested that the Democratic party is our best hope.
In all this, nobody addressed my main point. It went something like this:
“Wouldn’t it be nice if we elected a president who actually believed in following the letter of the Constitution? How refreshing! What a great boost that would be for freedom—in the U.S. and around the world.”
Freedom President
I suggested that Rand Paul would likely be that kind of leader, and I’m convinced that Mike Huckabee, Mike Lee, and perhaps others would fit this mold.
Think about it! What a powerful concept: A president who reads the Constitution and simply follows it. Now that’s a truly great idea.
The problem is that presidents don’t do this anymore. Worse, the American people don’t even expect them to do it.
The truth is that most recent presidents would tell you they did follow the Constitution, but when they say this they’re talking about the Supreme Court’s definition of the Constitution. That’s not what I mean.
I’m referring to following the Constitution the way the American founders used the phrase: by reading what it says, and following it. Not by using Supreme Court rulings or Attorney General letters as excuses or grants of executive authority.
This is a really big deal. If we don’t read the document and just follow it,* we aren’t really benefiting from what the Constitution is all about.
And freedom will continue to decline.
Contrast Politics
For example, when President Obama announced major airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, he made sure to point out that he had the authority to order such military operations without any vote from Congress.
He called this following the Constitution, but it isn’t. The document is very clear: only Congress can vote for long-term military operations.
The president can act to stop a direct, immediate threat to the U.S. homeland, but anything beyond that requires a decision by Congress.
In contrast to Obama’s words, when Rand Paul was asked if the president needed Congressional authority for his long-term military plan, he responded that yes, this is exactly what the Constitution says.
It was refreshing to hear a top potential presidential candidate refer to the authority of the Constitution instead of the interpretations of the Court.
Sadly, Americans aren’t accustomed to hearing such words. Politicians refer to past precedents, the War Powers Act, Supreme Court decisions, earlier Congressional approvals that could be interpreted to apply in the current situation, and other policies—and all these distract from the real point.
The framers wrote the Constitution so the regular people could read and tell—with no help from experts—when their government officials were following it and when they weren’t.
False Authority and Failing Checks
It has become commonplace for the White House to simply ignore the Constitution, to intervene when and where it chooses, without regard to the document, and to claim that the Court gave it such power or that Congress allowed it such powers.
But the Constitution doesn’t give the Court or Congress the authority to grant the executive any powers. The Court can check the Oval Office, as can Congress, but neither have the Constitutional power give the Executive additional authority.
The people, not the Court, are the final experts on the Constitution. Presidents routinely pay little heed to the Constitution because the people let them get away with it.
The people keep electing candidates who openly say the role of the president is to go beyond the Constitution—especially in foreign relations, but also in domestic policy. As long as we keep voting this way, we keep losing more freedom.
Recent presidents from both parties have egregiously ignored the Constitution. And among the current potential candidates for president, it is commonplace to speak of following the Constitution and mean the modern, Beltway view of the president’s powers—ignoring the actual words in the document itself.
That’s why I’m so impressed when I hear Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee talk in a totally different way. Or Mike Lee, though he’s shown no interest in the 2016 presidency.
Again, wouldn’t it be great to elect a president who doesn’t consult Washington insiders but rather the pages of the U.S. Constitution when an issue arises.
Imagine a president who would tell Congress that we need serious military action but he won’t take it without their approving vote.
That kind of leadership is sorely missing in America, and one of the top causes of our decline.
Keepers Above the Law
One root of the problem is that most Americans today don’t really believe in limits on government. For example, just watch how the police behave in almost every cop-oriented television drama and movie.
They frequently don’t wait for a warrant, they smash in doors of homes and apartments with guns waiving and SWAT units swarming. The good cops, the best officers in these shows, are the ones who push the law to its furthest limits and even break it when they deem it “necessary.”
The more they ignore or circumvent the Constitutional guidelines and get away with it, the better cops they are. Or so they are portrayed.
I’m not saying that the Hollywood version of police actions is always accurate in real life (though the increased militarization of law enforcement is a serious, growing threat to regular citizens).
I am saying that these TV dramas and movies are a very real portrayal of how most Americans believe the cops are and should be.
This is what our culture has come to consider good police work—finding ways to sneak around or get away with just ignoring Constitutional limits, protections, and due process.
Vice as Virtue
Most Americans won’t say it in so many words, but they are used to thinking of police officers as above the law in many—if not most—situations, and of expecting the good cops to bend the “annoying” Constitutional limits and just do whatever is needed to go get the bad guys.
And if this is how they see the police, consider how much more they admire this same bravado in the President.
Of course, both parties whine when a president from the other party exerts unconstitutional influence or executive orders to expand his power. But they frequently defend their own party’s president in the same, or worse, abuses.
It’s literally endemic in our modern system. It bears repeating until we realize what a major threat this is!
The way our majority culture now sees it, the best cops and government leaders do whatever it takes, even bending or ignoring the Constitutional rules, to “do the right thing.”
Think of the most popular police dramas and movies—the main character(s) is always the “good guy” who breaks the Constitutional boundaries in service of the greater good.
NCIS, CSI, Blue Bloods, Hawaii Five-0, Law and Order, Chicago PD, Arrow, Bones, Castle, Criminal Minds, NCIS Los Angeles, Agents of SHIELD, Scandal, Covert Affairs, 24, The Blacklist, and many others, all follow this plotline.
These aren’t obscure programs; they are among the most popular in our era. One or more of them is almost always playing on American prime time, and our culture is inundated with their messages.
The Power of 2016
This is how we see government officials, and especially the government agents who carry guns or work in the Oval Office. Again, I’m not saying people openly support this view in polls; I’m saying it is now part of our gut-level cultural expectation.
A majority of Americans now think government agents can and even should routinely push and even break Constitutional limits.
Yes, some people watch cop shows or government dramas and think, “That’s terrible! How can our leaders consistently get away with just disregarding and even flouting the Constitution? They should be reprimanded and removed.” But such Americans are a small minority.
Most of the electorate considers such behavior by police and top executive officials as the norm, and as what is needed to get the job done.
When someone they personally know or identify with gets pushed around, they cry unfair. But when it’s just other people suffering at the hands of abusive government actions, most voters turn a blind eye.
Would I like something different, a president who reads the Constitution to see if he has the authority for a certain action and then realizes he doesn’t and chooses to stay within the bounds of that great document? You bet I would. The future of freedom depends on it.
The thing is, I think we actually have the power to elect such a leader in 2016. Watch what the potential candidates say. So far, Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee are excellent examples of leaders who talk a lot about following the Constitution and really stand for this approach. Regardless of political parties, that’s the kind of President we want.
* Of course, the people have made changes to it over time, including the Amendments and the end of slavery and reduction of racism (there is more work to be done on this). Note that these changes were made by the people, not the federal government, and following them is in keeping with the people overseeing their leaders and holding them to the Constitution.
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 &Government &Information Age &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship
The New Ivy League by Oliver DeMille
August 27th, 2014 // 6:34 am @ Oliver DeMille
The Dinosaur Reality
The day of turning a college degree into a ready job and high pay is over. That was then. The new economy is different now, and many graduate schools are taking note.
For example, The New York Times reported:
“On a spring afternoon at Michigan State University, 15 law students are presenting start-up proposals to a panel of legal scholars and entrepreneurs and an audience of fellow students. The end-of-the semester event is one part seminar and one part ‘Shark Tank’ reality show.
“The companies the students are describing would be very different from the mega-firms that many law students have traditionally aspired to work for, and to grow wealthy from. Instead, these young people are proposing businesses more nimble and offbeat: small, quick mammals [entrepreneurial businesses] scrambling underfoot in the land of dinosaurs [oldstyle mega-businesses].” (John Schwartz, “This is Law School?” The New York Times, August 1, 2014)
Many schools are increasingly emphasizing entrepreneurialism in a new economy where the traditionally educated law school graduate faces a dearth of jobs. “With the marketplace shifting, schools have increasingly come under fire for being out of touch.” (ibid.)
Professionals in the Basement
A surprisingly high number of law school and other professional school graduates are moving back home to live with parents, and those who do get jobs are finding the work stifling and unrewarding in an environment with a glut of professionals holding degrees.
Those who don’t like the cutthroat and grinding work are easily replaced.
In fact, a Forbes study recently noted that being an associate attorney is the least happy job in the nation. (See Psychology Today, July 2014) It has relatively high pay compared to most entry-level career paths, but the hours are extreme and the other rewards are minimal.
With the glut of attorneys in the market, a large number of law school grads are ending up as paralegals anyway—which seldom helps them to pay off their huge student loans. (ibid.) Medical careers are nearly as bad for most young people—at least for the first eight to twelve years.
A recent poll of college graduates showed:
“People who take out significant college loans score worse on quality-of-life measures, a trend that persists into middle age…. Even 24 years after graduation, students who borrowed more than $25,000 are less likely to enjoy work and are less financially and physically fit than their counterparts who graduated without debt.
For more recent college grads, the discrepancy is even more pronounced….
“About 70% of college grads have debt (Douglas Belkin, “Heavily Indebted Grads Rank Low on Life Quality, The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2014), and those with graduate or professional schooling have even more debt on average than those with a four-year degree.
“Catherine L. Carpenter, vice dean of Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, tracks curriculum across the country. She said schools are trying to teach their students to run their own firms, to look for entrepreneurial opportunities by finding ‘gaps in the law or gaps in the delivery of services,’ and to gain specialized knowledge that can help them counsel entrepreneurs.” (op cit. Shwartz)
A Return to Apprenticeship
Some of the schools themselves are turning more entrepreneurial as well. The Times reported:
“All law schools, including the elites, are increasing skills training by adding clinics and externships…. [T]he University of Virginia will allow students to earn a semester of credit while working full time for nonprofit or government employers anywhere in the world.” (Ethan Bronner, “To Place Graduates, Law Schools Are Opening Firms,” The New York Times, March 7, 2013)
This kind of non-traditional learning harks back to the time when most attorneys learned by apprenticing with practicing lawyers—usually with no formal law school at all.
A few law schools are also implementing innovative ways to help their graduates get jobs, or work in firms set up specifically for this purpose by the law schools. For example, Arizona State University set up a special nonprofit law firm so that some of its graduates would have a place to work and learn to practice law.
“[There is] a crisis looming over the legal profession after decades of relentless growth…. It is evident in the sharp drop in law school applications….
“[P]ost-graduate training programs appear to be the way of the future for many of the nation’s 200 law schools. The law dean of Rutgers University just announced plans for a nonprofit law firm for some of his graduates.” (ibid.)
Entrepreneurship and Life
Other innovations are trying to deal with the crisis.
“At Indiana University’s law school, Prof. William D. Henderson has been advocating a shake-up in legal education whose time may have come. ‘You have got to be in a lot of pain’ before a school will change something as tradition-bound as legal training, he said, but pain is everywhere at the moment, and ‘that’s kind of our opening.’” (op cit. Shwartz)
“‘This is the worst time in the history of legal education to go to law school,’ said Patrick Ellis, a recent graduate [of Michigan State University]. ‘I am not top of my class, not at a top-10 law school, but I’m confident I’m going to have a meaningful career because of this [entrepreneurial studies] program.’” (ibid.)
Entrepreneurialism is injecting life into many sectors of the economy. In fact, it always has. Without entrepreneurship, free economies cannot flourish. But when the economy is as sluggish as the new market today, entrepreneurs are the main hope.
Note that it’s not just law school grads who are facing a tough economy. Don Peck wrote:
“The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults…. The economy now sits in a hole 10 million jobs deep…[and] we need to produce roughly 1.5 million jobs a year—about 125,000 a month—just to keep from sinking deeper.
“Even if the economy were to immediately begin producing 600,000 jobs a month—more than double the pace of the mid-to-late 1990s, when job growth was strong—it would take roughly two years to dig ourselves out of the hole we’re in…. But the U.S. hasn’t seen that pace of sustained employment growth in more than 30 years…” (Don Peck, “Can the Middle Class Be Saved?” The Atlantic, March 2010)
In addition, to pay for college, many more students are staying home and learning in local schools or talking courses online. (See, for example, Tamar Lewin, “Colleges Adapt Online Courses to Ease Burden, The New York Times, April 29, 2013.)
And over half of college students who go away to earn their degrees have moved back home after graduation in recent years—they aren’t finding jobs, and home is their only option in many cases. (Harper’s Index, Harpers, August 2011).
Deep Holes Around the World
In fact, this problem is prevalent in Europe as well as the United States.
As one report noted:
“By the time the parents of Serena Violano were in their early 30s, they had solid jobs, their own home and two small daughters. Today, Serena, a 31-year-old law graduate, is still sharing her teenage bedroom with her older sister in the small town of Mercogliano, near Naples.” (Ilan Brat and Giada Zampano, “Young, European and Broke,” The Wall Street Journal, August 9-10, 2014)
With few jobs available in her field, she “spends her days studying for the exam to qualify as a notary in the hopes of scoring a stable job.” (ibid.)
The reason the European economies are struggling is the same as the American challenge–with one difference: the media is more open in saying what is really causing the problems in Europe.
For example, “[the young European’s] predicament is exposing a painful truth: The towering cost of labor protections that have provided a comfortable life for Europe’s baby boomers is now keeping their children from breaking in [to economic opportunity].” (ibid.)
Dead or Alive
In the United States, such protections include Social Security, Health Care laws, Government Pensions, other entitlements, and the debt necessary to maintain these programs—along with the high levels of regulation that hamper entrepreneurial ventures.
But why are people turning to graduate school to learn entrepreneurship, when the best entrepreneurs tend to learn their craft by application in the real market? It appears to be a matter of trying to avoid risk—of attempting to do what works in the new economy (entrepreneurship) while hedging one’s bets by still doing what used to work in the old economy (college degrees).
As one interesting article captured this theme: “College is Dead. Long Live College!” (Amanda Ripley, “College is Dead. Long Live College!” Time Magazine, October 18, 2012, cited in Allen Levie, “The Visual Tradition: The Coming Shift in Democracy,” unpublished manuscript.)
Both “college is dead” and “long live college” can’t technically be true at the same time, but today’s students and their parents aren’t sure which to believe. Still, the best road to entrepreneurship is clearly the path of actually engaging entrepreneurialism.
This is a scary reality for a generation that was raised to believe that school was basically the only route to career success.
Watching Results
Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that as go the attorneys, so goes the United States. Today the cutting-edge trend in legal training is a huge influx of entrepreneurialism.
Ultimately, as another report put it:
“It used to be that college was the ticket to the top. Now graduates are starting from the bottom—buried by student-loan debt that has skyrocketed to a collective $1.2 trillion” in the United States. (Kayla Webley, Generation Debt, MarieClaire, June 2014) Today’s college students and graduates are coming to be known less as the Millennial Generation and more as “Generation Debt.” (ibid.)
This doesn’t mean that higher education is dead. It means that “hire education” is going to be increasingly judged by how well it works—meaning how effectively its users succeed as entrepreneurs.
As a result, a lot of “higher education” innovation and non-traditional types of learning—many of them informal, self-directed and hand-on-building-a-business—are beginning to flourish.
Those who successfully entrepreneur (in law and nearly every other sector of the economy) are going to be the successes of the future. Entrepreneurship is the new Ivy League.
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 &Business &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Education &Entrepreneurship &Leadership &Mini-Factories &Mission &Producers &Prosperity &Statesmanship
Three Trends vs. Freedom by Oliver DeMille
July 2nd, 2014 // 12:57 am @ Oliver DeMille
Rewriting the Future
There are at least three great political-economic changes that have occurred in the United States in the last twenty years. Each is rewriting what our world and future looks like, and each is causing a decline of freedom. But none of them are inevitable.
The first trend is the huge growth of government, including government size, spending, and regulation in so many parts of our lives. The second is the major decline of success and opportunity for the middle class. The third is the increasingly important rise of China.
Put these three together, and the future seems bleak to many Americans—even if they aren’t sure why.
The irony is that the first two trends are, in fact, related. Despite what many in Washington say, the massive growth of government is at least contributing to—and may be the main cause of—the growing middle class squeeze.
Breaking the American Dream
Sadly, too many in government don’t see it that way. For some reason, a lot of people witness the deepening plight of the middle class and, inconceivably, think that the only solution is bigger and bigger government. More programs, more spending, more intervention, more regulation.
Yet the historical record is clear. Every major growth of the U.S. government has been followed by a decrease in the middle-class standard of living. Today, after over sixty years of unprecedented expansion of government, the average adult American worker can no longer provide a quality standard of living for a family. In fact, two working adults in a family seldom make ends meet.
Families are smaller, the American Dream of home ownership is switching to a European model of rentals, and more people are joining the lower classes—where family debt or government money, or both, are necessary to get by.
In fact, home ownership, once a staple of middle class lifestyle, is increasingly a financial burden on many people (see “Americans think owning a home is better for them than it is,” The Washington Post, April 21, 2014). In an article entitled “The American Middle Class Is No Longer the World’s Richest” (April 22, 2014), The New York Times reported that the U.S. middle class is getting poorer and as a result “most American families are paying a steep price for high and rising income inequality.”
Middle Going Down
The middle class young are being hit especially hard. Over 40% of today’s Millennial Generation young people move back home after leaving for college or work. As a group, they are the first generation since World War II to be significantly worse off financially than their parents. They aren’t buying cars, they aren’t buying houses, and they aren’t getting married; they’re living at home, hoping something will change in the economy to bring more opportunity (see Paul Taylor, CBS This Morning, April 26, 2014).
Speaking of the American middle class, Harvard’s Lawrence Katz wrote: “In 1960, we were massively richer than anyone else. In 1980, we were richer. In the 1990s, we were still richer.” Today we aren’t (op cit. “The American Middle Class…”).
A simple comparison of low regulation in 1960 to increased but still (by today’s standards) low regulation in 1980, then increasing regulation in the 1990s and massive regulatory increases between 2000 and today show a clear pattern: when we raise regulation and grow government, we hurt the middle class and grow the lower class.
Yet many experts suggest that the solution is more, not less, government intervention, programs, spending, and regulation (see ibid). This mirrors the old quip that “the beatings will continue until the morale improves,” except in this case “economy- and innovation-killing regulation will increase until the economy improves.” In reality, the opposite is occurring—bigger government is hurting the middle class and increasing income inequality.
The Choice
Whatever the experts think, the American people have a deep sense that something is wrong. Approximately 70 percent don’t believe America is on the right track (ibid).
This doesn’t translate directly to elections, however. A lot of people think that government is the solution to our economic problems, not the cause of some of our deepest challenges.
If current trends continue, China’s increasingly competitive economy will make a reality of what many in the American middle class now believe: that our children and grandchildren will face a declining standard of living while the same generations in China will see major economic increases.
Like a George Orwell satire, we continue to do exactly what causes more problems. Yet perhaps the greatest American contribution to history—a deep belief in and commitment to moral freedom and free enterprise—goes mostly unheeded. America needs to give its own greatest export (freedom) a try.
Freedom works, as we have shown for over two centuries. Whether America declines or flourishes in the 21st Century will be directly attached to whether we choose bigger government or increased freedom. And it’s up to the middle class to make this decision and make it stick.
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 &Current Events &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship
Were the Founders Lawyers or Entrepreneurs? A Surprising Answer
July 1st, 2014 // 12:47 am @ Oliver DeMille
A Difference Changes Everything
“You frequently mention that free nations have a lot of entrepreneurs,” my friend said, “but I’ve been studying the American Founding era and it turns out that many of the framers were lawyers. Why don’t you tell people that a lot more of us should go into law?”
It was a good question, so I nodded my head. “You’re right, but there is one big difference between law at the time of the founding and law today. The difference is so big, in fact, that it changes everything. Well, maybe not everything. But it changes the whole way law and freedom interact.”
I cocked my head to one side. “Actually, another friend of mine recently sent me a note about the same thing. He had always thought that most of the framers were merchants or farmers, but he was surprised to find out how many of them were lawyers. As much as I’ve said about the value of entrepreneurs to freedom, I guess I better mention how the legal profession fits.”
“I agree,” he responded. “If the founders are a good example of a generation that increased freedom, why wouldn’t we just emulate them on this?”
“I wish we could,” I told him. “But it’s illegal.”
Lawyers and Laws
He laughed…but when he noticed that I wasn’t laughing he stopped. “You’re not joking?”
“No, I’m not. It’s illegal be the kind of lawyer that many of the framers were. That’s the big difference I was telling you about.”
He looked really interested, so I continued.
“Let me ask you a question,” I began. “What would happen if you read a bunch of history, legal books, judicial decisions in court cases, and important government documents, and then decided to put a sign on the front of your house with your name, followed by “Attorney at Law”? You do this without attending law school, just lots of hard study and a good understanding of law and freedom, and you start marketing for clients?”
“Uh, I’d be in trouble,” he retorted. “You have to have a license to practice law. Go before the Bar, get state approval, and all that. And you have to graduate from law school in order to do this. I looked into it years ago when I was making career decisions.”
“So you have to graduate from a state-approved law school, right?”
“Of course.”
“Is that what the framers did to become lawyers?” I asked.
“I’m not sure. Some did, I think. Like Jefferson. Though I remember reading that Patrick Henry took the Bar without law school. Come to think of it, so did Jefferson. He studied law with mentors, but not at an official law school. Same with…well, a lot of the framers. Law schools didn’t come until later.”
“That’s the difference,” I told him. “In the founding era, depending on the colony, you could read and take the bar, or work as an apprentice, or read under the tutelage of a mentor, or in most of early American history and our Westward expansion a person could just practice law by hanging out a shingle and taking on clients. In our day, you have to graduate from a state approved law school and then get personal state approval in the form of a license. It’s a totally different process.”
Goal and Outcome
“Are you saying the way we do it now is worse?” he asked.
“That depends on how you are measuring it. A lot of people will say that the type of training students get in modern law schools is much better than when early lawyers just read a lot of books and cases. They’ll say that the modern methods turn out much better professionals than the old way ever could.
“And, honestly,” I continued, “this argument has merit. But only if the goal is professionalism and maintenance of the legal profession. In the founding era, the goal was different.”
“What was it?”
“It was to check the government. Think about it: When law schools have to be approved by the government, and the accreditation agencies for law schools have to be approved by the government, and all licensing for attorneys is overseen by the government, the attorneys are bound—at some level—by the government. The government can take away their licensing and their livelihood at any time, so lawyers are bound to do things in the approved and accepted ways. They can check the government only in ways the government allows.
“You can argue that this is a good system, or not. But it is very different from how the founders saw it. They viewed lawyers as powerful checks on government, as self-made experts who read the law, studied history, pored over court cases and government documents and the writings of the freedom philosophers—and used all this wisdom to keep the government honest. To keep it in its proper role. To keep it in place. Not to impress it or bow to its regulations and authority, but to stop it when needed.
A Broken Check
“But if the government licenses lawyers and every step of becoming lawyers, they can’t really go around checking the government at every turn. At least not at the same level as if they are truly independent. For example, when Edmund Burke wanted to warn the British Parliament against going to war against the American colonies on March 22, 1775, he told them they should avoid such a war because so many Americans were students of the law.”
I then shared Burke’s words when he said:
Permit me, Sir, to add another circumstance in our colonies, which contributes no [small] part towards the growth and effect of this untractable spirit. I mean their education. In no country perhaps in the world is the law so general a study…. [A]ll who read, and most do read, endeavor to obtain some smattering in that science. I have been told by many an eminent bookseller, that in no branch of his business, after tracts of popular devotion, were so many books as those on the law exported…. The colonists have now fallen into the way of printing them for their own use. I hear that they have sold nearly as many of Blackstone’s Commentaries in America as in England…. This study renders men acute, inquisitive, dexterous, prompt in attack, ready in defense, full of resources…. They [foresee] misgovernment at a distance; and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.
I sighed. “The founding era had truly independent lawyers who owed nothing to government. And many American citizens read and became lawyers, not through official law schools like today, but as checks on government. That’s a whole different system. Citizens were the best checks, if they truly knew the law, because that’s where the lawyers of the era came from.”
My friend was nodding, so I added, “In fact, the same is true of teachers. In the founding era, teachers were hardly ever required to be certified or licensed like they are today. They just studied, read, and started tutoring and teaching. Those who were really good naturally attracted more students—same with lawyers attracting clients.
Freedom and Licensing
Again, today, certified teachers really work for and answer to the state—the entity that certifies them – and in most cases, pays their salaries. Independent teachers who just read and start teaching are more suited to be good checks on government, not its outreach program.
“The same can be true of any government licensing, such as psychiatric experts. Those who are licensed go to court and give their expert opinions, but people usually don’t take note that these experts can only make a living if they stay licensed. They must comply with state needs, trends and whims. They aren’t independent experts, they are naturally prone to support the government—at least more than they need to be real checks on it. If they don’t, they risk their licensure.
“Of course, if you ask many attorneys, certified teachers, psychiatric experts or others in this position, they’ll often assure you that this isn’t the case. But how can it not be? In any other setting this would be a clear conflict of interest. They’re dependent on the government, given their standing by government, and trained according to government-approved curriculum; this potentially weighs in every situation.
“They may feel that this isn’t full government control, because they can work within the system to fight for various views, and this is true. But it still amounts to a de facto conflict of interest, and it certainly doesn’t promote checks on government abuse the way a non-licensed system used to do.
“So to say that the American Founders had a lot of lawyers is to say that there were a lot of regular people checking the government, while to say that we have a lot of lawyers today is to say we have lots of professionals at least somewhat beholden to the government. The same applies to certified teachers and any others licensed by government.
Following the Old Route
“If society wants lots of licensing, then that’s what we’ll get. But let’s not believe that it creates checks on government abuse. If anything, it does the opposite. When Tocqueville said in Democracy in America that as the lawyers go, so goes America, it was too true! When lawyers were a clear, independent, unregulated check on government, the government was much smaller and more frequently checked. Today, when lawyers and credentialed teachers and many others are beholden to government for their continued licensing, there are fewer checks. Still some, but fewer.
“Of course, some of the lawyers, teachers and others still follow the old route—they are licensed, yes, but they read deeply, think about freedom and are a credit to their professions in the way they stand up for what is right. But the system is still very different, and anyone who cares about freedom should clearly understand the differences.”
“This all makes me want to be a lawyer,” my friend said. “To get licensed and use my law school education to really fight even more for freedom.”
“Bravo,” I replied. “I know a number of lawyers and teachers and others who do the same. I think they are courageous and vital freedom fighters. I also believe that we need a lot of similar leaders in the non-licensed areas, like entrepreneurship, the arts, private school teaching, and so on. If everyone does his or her best in his/her chosen life purpose, that’s where we’ll get the best results as a society.
A Little Bit of Lawyer
“But,” I paused, “this assumes that nobody’s best life purpose is to work daily to reduce freedom. That would be a tragedy, and I don’t believe this is where anyone should dedicate his or her life. Sadly, sometimes people don’t realize this is what they’re doing. We should all take stock of how our daily work is impacting freedom—no matter our profession, career field, job, or work.”
“If we’re hurting freedom, even just because that’s what our career tends to do, we have to change something,” he concluded. Then he paused, pondered, and added, “To sum up, I guess the founders were all a little bit lawyer, a little bit entrepreneur, and a little bit leader.”
“They even had a word for this,” I agreed. “Several words, in fact. Citizen. Voter. Elector. Constituent. American. All of these used to mean you were a little bit lawyer, a little bit entrepreneur, a little bit leader. You’re right.”
He smiled as he nodded. Then he said slowly, “That’s what we need today.”
(Learn about the 3 major ways to deal with these trends in FreedomShift, 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 : Blog &Citizenship &Community &Current Events &Education &Entrepreneurship &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Mission &Politics &Statesmanship
