What if Elections Can’t Fix Washington?
October 7th, 2010 // 8:57 am @ Oliver DeMille
“Clearly there was only one escape for them—into stupidity. They could keep society in its existing shape only by being unable to grasp that any improvement was possible.” —George Orwell
Orwell was speaking of the national leaders during Britain’s decline, but his words certainly could apply to the United States today.
Independents rose as a powerful force in America along with the Internet, and today they are deeply frustrated with America’s direction.
They voted President Obama into office in huge numbers, only to see him continue to spend their nation into deeper debt.
National politics in America have long been divided between the blue states along the coasts and the red states in the middle, with battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida swinging the votes.
Today independents control the electorate in nearly all states, and they have swung away from Obama –- especially in the swing states.
For example, 65% of independents in the battleground state of Ohio now say President Obama is doing a bad job.
But politics are only the tip of the iceberg. In a national survey fifty-year-old men were asked which country they see as the biggest threat to America in the 21st Century, and the answers were revealing: only 2% said Russia (and this from men raised in the Cold War), 19% said North Korea, 20% said Iran, and 25% said China.
Among twenty-year-old men asked the same question, 6% said Russia, 17% North Korea, 16% Iran and 23% China. Interesting.
But both groups put “Ourselves” as the top answer. A whopping 31% of fifty-year-old males and 33% of twenty-year-olds consider the United States the biggest 21st Century threat to the U.S.!
What are a third of American men so afraid of? Why do we increasingly consider “Ourselves” the biggest threat to America?
In the same survey, asked what worries them the most, the top answers were: 1) unemployment, 2) the size of the federal debt, 3) the possibility of a terrorist attack. And note that survey takers came from across the political spectrum.
Be Very Afraid?
A lot of Americans are concerned that our own government is the problem, not because it isn’t doing enough but because it is doing way too much—especially overspending. However, it is doubtful how much an election can fix this.
Only 19-22 (depending on the specific issues) of the heated Congressional elections across the nation offer winnable candidates who are strongly anti-government-spending. Though these candidates are called “crazy” or “fringe” by much of the media, they have the overwhelming support of both independent voters and Tea Partiers.
Still, even if all 22 win and additional Republican candidates take the House and even the Senate, how much can they actually change things? Unless they take on entitlements, budgets will most likely overspend for many years to come.
When asked directly what they plan to do, few Democrat or Republican candidates are willing to say they’ll reduce social security, Medicare or other entitlements.
Indeed, the American voter seems to passionately want government to stop spending money on everyone else—but to keep helping his own family.
“I want my government program,” the voter says, “but those other people are costing us too much!”
“Yeah,” says another, “I’ll vote in candidates who promise to cut the debt and deficit and stop spending taxpayer money, and I’ll vote out anyone who threatens my favorite government programs.”
If that last sentence didn’t make you laugh or cry, you should read it again.
Some Americans who live or travel abroad a lot are amazed at how much Americans at home are addicted to government programs and want the government to solve every problem and protect them from every accident and danger. Yet many of these same Americans rail against government spending.
As for repealing the 2010 Health Care law, Republicans would have to take the House and the Senate, and then they would have to garner enough votes in Congress to override a Presidential veto. That’s not going to happen any time soon.
In response to this point, Republican leaders say they’ll only need enough House members to deny funding to implement the new Health Care system. The name for this in the media will be “Shutting Down the Government,” and even the Gingrich-led “Contract With America” House of Representatives wasn’t willing to do this.
Real repeal isn’t likely with just one turnaround election—Republicans would probably need to win in both 2010 and 2012 to make this happen.
Big Questions
Maybe this sounds too pessimistic, but my point is to wonder what will happen if independent and Tea Party voters put Republicans back in control of the House or even the entire Congress and nothing much changes in Washington.
Republicans will still blame Democrats, and vice versa, but what will independents do?
Consider: They rise up against the Obama agenda and send new leaders to Washington, but nothing really changes. Government spending even increases.
Barring major world crises, I think this is just what will happen. And then the debate will repeat itself in 2012.
This brings up a number of additional questions. For example:
- Will the independent dialogue about 2012 be that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats, or that the Republicans need more members in Congress and even the White House?
- As we move toward 2012, will Republican behavior cause independents to see President Obama as an embattled Clinton-style administrator who just needs more time to make his policies stick, or as a Carter-like politician who is in over his head and should be replaced?
- Can the economy handle two more years of high government spending and regulating?
- Is the Obama Administration nimble enough, in the tradition of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, to reinvent itself and swing to the middle? Will it make hard choices that reduce government spending and build the private sector? Is President Obama truly a statist who believes in big government or a left-leaning pragmatist who is willing to tighten the nation’s belt and restore a free enterprise economy? If he chooses the first, he may lose the independents for good.
- If, for whatever reason, a Republican candidate wins the presidency from Barack Obama in 2012, will the resulting Republican Administration drastically increase government spending, regulation, debts and deficits like Bush did when he took over after Clinton? How would the independents and Tea Parties who elected him react to yet another betrayal?
- Have we reached a point in American politics that all candidates from both parties promote smaller government during campaigns but drastically increase spending once in power (like Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama)? Is this just the reality of politics now? And if it is, what will independents, Tea Parties and fiscally responsible liberals and conservatives do?
- Is a major third party inevitable? Is it even realistic? Would it just give more power to the side it disagrees with most?
In short, are elections even capable of fixing our problems any more? And if the American people give up on elections as the real solution to major national problems, what will they do next?
The Future of Independents?
These are big questions. They go to the very heart of what it means to be Americans and what our future holds.
Americans are deeply and passionately concerned about government over-spending, too much regulation of small business, increasing debts and deficits, and high unemployment.
Washington claims the recession is over, but most Americans don’t feel positive changes in their pocketbooks and are still experiencing a significantly decreased economic reality.
They are tired of symbols instead of substance from their leaders. For example, even if the Obama Administration pushed through its tax raise on the top 2% of taxpayers, the resulting $34 billion next year would only cover 9 days of the deficit.
And this, along with more government spending, is the big White House push to help the economy? “Come on, man…”
As independents read the fine print in this and other proposals from the White House and Republican leaders, they are becoming less optimistic that either party is serious about real solutions.
And where symbolism does matter most, the Obama Administration is still portraying itself as hostile to American business (even major 2008 Obama donors are appalled) and many Republicans continue to denigrate minorities.
Government seems entirely out of touch with most Americans, even as it makes individual and family life ever more difficult.
A majority of Americans want things to change, especially in the economy, and many are depending on the voting booth to solve the deepening problem. But what if even this doesn’t work?
Maybe the best we can hope for, as a number of independents now believe, is for a perpetually split government—where neither party ever holds the White House and Congress at the same time.
In this model, if a Democrat wins the White House and the Supreme Court has a conservative majority, independents will vote Republicans into the House and Democrats to the Senate.
If, on the other hand, the President is Republican and the Court is mostly liberal, they will make the House Democratic and the Senate Republican. There are several variations, but the idea is to always pit Democrats against Republicans and give neither a mandate.
Unfortunately, both parties are big spenders. Maybe fighting over what to spend will at least reduce the rate of government’s growth, or so the argument goes.
A New Challenge
But we are about to experience something new and, perhaps, different.
There have been many votes in history that left the American electorate frustrated and disappointed with how its voting-booth “revolution” didn’t seem to change much of anything in Washington.
But the first such event in the Internet Age, and in an era with more independents than either Democrats or Republicans, was the 2006-2008 election cycle.
Independents and the online world turned against President Bush in 2006 and the frustration deepened into the election of 2008.
In a very real sense, the new politics (of independents and the Internet) rejected the old (Bush, Television Era) and brought in the new (Obama, Internet Generation).
But how will the new majority (of independents and the Internet) deal with rejecting itself? Since the beginning of the party system, every loss was followed by a refocus on winning back power for your party.
What happens when the independent majority rejects Republicans, replaces it with Democrats, then rejects Democrats too, only to bring back Republicans, and then decides that Republicans and Democrats are equally bad? What does the majority do then?
What do independents do in such a situation, without party ties to fall back on, when they realize that neither party is going to fix things. Democrats or Republicans would just blame the other party—they’ve done it for decades.
But independents? They actually, seriously, want a solution. They want the nation to work, and they are unlikely to settle for anything less than real change.
And what if unemployment increases during all this, or credit availability tightens again, the recession returns, inflation spikes, another housing bubble bursts, or debts and deficits soar?
One thing seems certain: We are in for a wild ride in the years ahead.
Probably a few independents will give up on politics. Others will go back to the parties.
But the large majority, I think, will do neither. They will likely flirt with the idea of a new third party, but I doubt they’ll make this stick. They just aren’t wired for it. They want common-sense leadership, not more party game-playing.
There will, inevitably, be a few on the fringes (left and right) who wrongly advocate violence—“pitchforks in the street!” But beyond being morally wrong this course would also accomplish nothing positive.
It would, if ever followed by anyone, only serve to decrease our freedoms. And fortunately very few independents would support this anyway.
What if Elections Don’t Work?
What is the majority to do if elections don’t change things and solve our national problems? Maybe we won’t have to find out.
Maybe Democrats in leadership will turn pragmatic and get control of over-spending and over-regulation, or maybe Republicans will gain more power and make these desperately-needed changes.
But I don’t think most independents are holding their breath in anticipation of either of these possibilities.
The Tea Parties have given many on the right hope for the potential of the 2010 election, but it seems to me that most independents are unconvinced.
They have turned their backs on the Obama agenda because it is so clearly against their economically responsible values, and because it’s too late to do much except vote.
But in reality they are simply buying time. A lot of independents right now are studying things out in their minds, hoping but not really believing that the November elections will help things turn around.
The problem is big: Neither party is going to stop spending and regulating, promising frugality and then just spending more anyway. This is American politics now, and it isn’t likely to change easily.
A lot of independents are just now accepting this. And as it sinks in, they are responding with neither anger nor frustration. Instead, they are taking a step back and asking serious questions.
It is unclear now what the answers will eventually be. But they are coming, and they are likely to bring drastic changes to American politics in the next decade.
If (when?) the independents and tea parties win big on election day and then watch the new leaders keep increasing spending and regulations, they will be faced with the challenge every powerful nation in decline confronts:
- Do they settle for Orwell’s “stupidity,” put their heads in the sand and just try to get by as best they can while the ruling class runs the nation into the ground?
- Do they quietly prepare for the major crisis which must come unless we change course, organizing their personal affairs to somehow survive, protect their family, and perhaps even profit when it comes?
- Or do they do something wise and effective that will restore America’s freedoms and prosperity?
- And if they choose the latter, what precisely should they do to accomplish this?
This is the challenge of independents and all who love freedom in our time. The election of November 2, 2010 will come and go. Americans will vote, the media will report, and winners and losers will celebrate and mourn. But these larger questions will remain.
If I’m wrong about this, I’ll be the first to cheer. But I’m convinced that it’s time (past time, in fact) for those who care about freedom to get to work on coming up with real solutions.
In taking this kind of action, any citizen will only make herself a better leader in our time. Whatever the future holds, more leader-citizens are needed.
And the time may be coming when such leaders are the only real hope of our nation.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Connect With Oliver:
Category : Current Events &Economics &Government &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics
The Deeper Importance of the 2010 Election
October 7th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
Blame is easier than leadership.
It’s been long enough since the announcement of the “Great Recession” that a shelf of books are now out—each outlining the “real” causes of the recession and its unsettling impact on the American psyche and economy.
Unfortunately, most of these books are essays on blame.
The two major political parties predictably blame each other for America’s economic woes.
Democrats say that Republicans caused the recession, while Republicans say that Democratic policies (from the stimulus to health care and beyond) have made the recession worse, increased unemployment, and slowed a recovery.
Since most recovery numbers are based on government spending rather than private sector growth, many on the Right dispute that the publicized recovery is real.
To a large extent, the media has joined with one side or the other in this debate.
Weekly talk shows pit conservatives against liberals, volleying the two partisan views of past and present economic challenges. Magazines and national newspapers echo this argument.
A Dearth of Solution Thinking
Usually books take a deeper look at the issues than other media, understandably using the longer format to give readers more depth and analysis on whatever topics they address.
Likewise, the arc of economic-political-societal commentary in books usually includes a significant section outlining important, needed and under-utilized solutions.
But right now such solution-oriented commentaries are noticeably few—and strikingly similar. Many repeat partisan views in chapters so short they would make newspaper editors proud.
There are three main themes in this genre:
- Republicans Blew It and Big Banks/Corporations are Greedy and Evil,
- Democrats are Blowing It and turning into Scheming Socialists
- Big Institutions in Washington, Wall Street, Main Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and anywhere else where Big Institutions lurk are Ruining America
A fourth (though minor) theme is that the recession was a global reality tied to the increasingly interconnected world economy and that American citizens and leaders had little power in the whole thing.
In all four of these themes the focus is blame, and therefore the solution is to “throw the bums out.”
The Right wants to “take back” America in the 2010 congressional elections, while the Left wants to hold their own in the elections and keep offering regulatory solutions.
Activists are increasingly determined to push both sides further to the extremes.
In short: where blame is the main point, solutions are seemingly simple.
The Problem
Unfortunately, such “solutions” are unlikely to accomplish very much. One side will win, and the blame game will increase right along with the problems.
The worst-case scenario for the 2010 elections is lots of press, lots of emotions, and little change.
I’m not saying that the elections don’t matter; they do. Nor am I suggesting that this debate isn’t important. It is.
My point is simply that there is more to it than many politicians and journalists are admitting.
Unless we get past the blame game and engage a true national discussion about solutions, we are unlikely to see things really improve—no matter who is in office.
One book, The Great Reset by Richard Florida, develops the ideas that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and another, The Battle by Arthur Brooks, takes readers inside the Obama West Wing and the inner workings of the President’s choices in 2009-2010.
Both are worth reading closely—regardless of your political views. Another recent book, Capitalism 4.0 by Anatole Kaletsky, gets serious about suggesting some solutions.
None of these books are free from the blame game, and Kaletsky’s attack on the Bush Administration is one of the worst blame-focused rants in all the books now coming out on the topic.
But for readers who can look past his angry tirades, Kaletsky’s work is worth studying because at least part of his analysis gets past blame and helps us understand the recession in its broad historical and international context.
The History of Capitalism
In contrast with the four popularized themes listed above, Kaletsky suggests that the global recession grew out of the historical trends of our time.
He argues that capitalism will continue to grow because of its proven ability to adapt. Such adaptation follows a pattern:
- A crisis exposes the weaknesses in the latest adaptation of capitalism
- Society and government respond to the crisis and alter the details of how capitalism is applied
- The changes evolve until they succeed in re-establishing prosperity and growth
- The new adaptation allows economies to flourish
- Weaknesses in the new adaptation eventually cause another crises and the pattern repeats
Over time, according to Kaletsky, this has created at least four adaptations of capitalism.
Capitalism 1.0 grew out of the crises of the Napoleonic era and was characterized by the Laissez-Faire type of capitalism. This was defined by the separation of economics and governments, and its strengths allowed great growth of wealth and powerful economies.
Eventually the weaknesses of 1.0 led to the Great Depression in America and Western Europe.
The response was what Kaletsky calls Capitalism 2.0, an era of major government involvement in the economy—not full socialistic control of the economy, but much higher levels of regulation and government intervention.
This started in the New Deal and grew through the 1940s-1970s.
The eventual negative result was the inflation and stagnancy of the late 1970s, which was followed by a transformation to Reaganomics: a focus on big-government spending for international projects combined with lower taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.
The idea behind Capitalism 3.0 was that if those with money were incentivized to spend more, this would create more jobs and increase business and personal opportunity.
In each of these periods, the economy responded to the positive features of the given adaptation of capitalism. On the downside, the negatives of each adaptation led to the next inevitable crisis.
The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 was caused not mainly by greedy bankers or weak housing loans, according to Kaletsky, but rather by two successes of Capitalism 3.0:
- the spread of capitalism and therefore market interconnections globally
- bank and government success in controlling inflation worldwide
These strengths led to weaknesses: when some places saw economic downturn, it quickly spread to the other areas around the world, and governments which allowed their big banks to fail pulled the brunt of world capital struggles down on top of themselves.
The Emergence of a New Economy
The result, just now emerging, is Kaletsky’s Capitalism 4.0. In this adaptation of capitalism, we will likely witness a new relationship between markets, economies, and governments.
Where 1.0 showed the pros and cons of nearly total government isolation from the economy, 2.0 exposed the strengths and weaknesses of major government intervention in the economy.
In 3.0 we started mixing market and government roles by having government intervene in what it considered “vital” sectors (like military and transportation), while mostly staying out of the rest of the economy.
According to Kaletsky, 4.0 will follow a different mixing guideline by increasing the government intervention in some areas and lessening its role in others.
The specifics will be determined, in this scenario, by which things respond better to free markets versus those which respond more positively to significant government involvement.
For example, Kalentsky thinks government must get deeper into financial regulations and management but leave education and health care more to the free market.
Clearly the Obama Administration is not following Kalentsky’s suggestions, no matter how much he agrees with them in blaming Republicans for our problems.
But any leader—in business or government—should consider Kalentsky’s analysis. I disagreed (and also agreed) with a number of things in his book, but his suggestions exceed the tired, old two-party talking points and deserve consideration.
So, The Election . . .
We clearly live in a time where both government and business involvement and changes are needed to re-establish a truly flourishing free-market approach to American prosperity.
Neither extreme—a total government pullout from the economy nor increasingly socialistic levels of regulation and micromanagement of nearly every sector of our economy—is desirable.
We need the government to take wise and effective action to boost the economy—at times increasing regulations that work and also consistently reducing and repealing the numerous regulations and government interventions that are slowing and hurting the economy.
The regulatory load on investors and entrepreneurs is especially bad for economic growth.
Government simply must find ways to do less, or the economy will continue to sputter and struggle.
Yet there are certain things that government can and should do best—like keep the free-market playing field even and open for all potential investors and entrepreneurs.
Perhaps the proper role of academics, journalists and authors is to analyze, to suggest—and even to blame. But as long Washington is caught in the blame game, far too little effort is given to leadership.
Our elected officials need to stop pointing fingers and give more attention to solving our economic challenges.
The first step is to free up small business entrepreneurs and investors who provide most of the jobs and growth in the economy.
A second step is to make investment in American businesses once again highly attractive to world investors.
Both of these are roles for those we elect, and if it is “the economy, stupid,” these are the real issues of the 2010 election.
Whoever wins at the voting booths this coming November, and whatever the experts say that night as the networks and cable channels cover the election like a major sports tournament, the real future of America depends on whether or not the people select leaders who will free up the economy.
A free economy, within the bounds of wise and effective laws, is a prosperous economy. An increasingly regulated economy is an economy headed for less prosperity and decreased opportunity.
Whatever your politics, less prosperity and decreased opportunity are simply not acceptable goals for the upcoming elections.
Yet unless we accomplish more than simply voting, these are the results we will probably see in the years after the election.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Current Events &Economics &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics
Types of Tribes
October 6th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
NEARLY ALL OF THE WEAKNESSES I listed here are found in many traditional tribal cultures.
In our day new kinds of tribes are emerging with huge potential influence, power and popularity.
Indeed, the 21st Century may be the era where tribes become the most influential institutions in the world.
The trends are already in play, and nearly every major institution, nation and civilization is now made up of many tribes.
In fact, more people may be more loyal to their closest tribes now than to any other entity.
There are many types of tribes in the history of the world. A generic overview will obviously have its flaw and limitations—as will any inductive study, from personality typing to weather forecasting.
But with the necessary disclaimers and apologies, we can still learn much from the generalizations as we seek lessons to apply to ourselves.
There are several significant types of tribes in history, including:
- Foraging Tribes
- Nomadic Tribes
- Horticultural Tribes
- Agrarian Tribes (communities)
- Industrial Tribes
- Informational Tribes
Each is very different, and it is helpful to understand both the similarities and unique features of these types of tribes.
Note that the fundamental connecting factor which kept these tribes together was their means of production and their definition of wealth.
Families usually sacrificed to benefit the means of production. On a spiritual/emotional level, one way to define a tribe is a group of people who are invested in each other and help each other on an ongoing basis.
All these types of tribes meet this definition.
Level One Tribes: Everyone Knows Everyone
First, Foraging Tribes were usually established by family ties—sometimes, small family groupings and in other cases, larger groups with more extended family members. In marriage a person often left the tribe to join a new tribe.
Foraging tribes lived by gathering and hunting together. Their central means of production were legs: the ability to go out and find food for the family.
Children were the greatest source of wealth because they grew and provided more legs to the tribe.
These tribes were often female-centric, and their gods were fertility goddesses and earth goddesses who provided bounty of food.
Nomadic Tribes hunted and gathered, but also pillaged in order to survive and prosper. They traveled, some within a set area and a few more widely ranging.
They were nearly all herding societies, using animals to enhance their ability to hunt, gather and pillage. Their means of production was their speed, provided by great runners or herd animals.
They usually traveled in larger groups than Foragers, and intermarried within the tribe or from spouses taken during raids. Marriage meant joining the tribe of your spouse.
Nomadic Tribes were usually dominated by males and often practiced plural marriages. Herds were the central measure of wealth.
Third, Horticultural Tribes planted with sticks, hoes or hands, and tended crops to supplement food obtained by hunting.
Because hoes and sticks can be wielded equally by men and women, these tribes were often female-centric. Men hunted and women planted and harvested, bringing an equality to production.
Hands were the central means of production, used either in hunting or planting. Children were a measure of wealth, and deity was often a goddess of bounty.
These first three types of tribes make up the first level of tribal cultures, where nearly all tribe members worked each day to feed themselves and the tribe.
In the second level, specialization created free time for many to work on matters that have little to do with sustenance—from education to technology to arts and craftsmanship, and even extending into higher thinking of mathematics, logic and philosophy.
Level 2 Tribes
Agrarian Tribes began, as Ken Wilber describes it, when we stopped planting with sticks and hoes and turned to plows drawn by beasts of burden.
The change is significant in at least two major ways: First, pregnant women can plant, tend and harvest with sticks and hoes, but often not with plows, cattle and horses. That is, in the latter many pregnant women were in greater danger of miscarriage.
In short, in Agrarian society farming became man’s work. This changed nearly everything, since men now had a monopoly on food production and women became valued mostly for reproduction.
This was further influenced by the second major change to the Agrarian Age, which was that plows and animal power produced enough surplus that not everyone had to work to eat.
As a result, tradesmen, artists and scholars arose, as did professional tax-collectors, politicians (tax-spenders), clergymen and warriors.
Before the Agrarian Revolution, clergy and politicians and warriors had nearly all been the citizen-farmers-hunters themselves.
With this change came class systems, lords and ladies, kings and feudal rulers, and larger communities, city-states and nations.
The store of wealth and central means of production was land, and instead of using whatever land was needed, the system changed to professional surveys, deeds, licenses and other government controls.
Family traditions were also altered, as farmers found that food was scarce after lords and kings took their share.
Men were allowed one wife, though the wealthy often kept as many mistresses as their status allowed. Families had fewer children in order to give more land, titles and opportunity to the eldest.
Traditions of Agrarian Tribes, Communities and Nations are surprisingly similar in Europe, Asia, the Middle East and many colonies around the world.
While small Agrarian communities and locales often followed basic tribal traditions, larger cities and nations became truly National rather than tribal.
The fundamental difference between the two is that in tribes nearly all the individuals work together frequently on the same goals and build tight bonds of love and care for each other, while in nations there is much shared history and common goals but few people know each other or work together regularly.
As society nationalized, most people still lived and loved in tribal-sized communities.
Whether the ethnic communities of European cities, the farming villages of the frontier, church units of a few hundred who worshiped but also bonded together throughout the week, or so many other examples, most people during the Agrarian Age were loyal to national government but much more closely bonded with members of a local community.
When life brought difficulties or challenges, it was these community tribal members that could be counted on to help, comfort, commiserate, or just roll up their sleeves and go to work fixing their neighbors’ problems.
Community was also where people turned for fun and entertainment.
For example, one great study compared the way people in mid-century Chicago watched baseball games, attended cookouts and nearly always went bowling in groups, to the 1990s where most Americans were more likely to watch a game on TV, grill alone and go bowling alone or with a non-family friend.
Level 3 Tribes
Indeed, by the 1990s America was deeply into the Industrial Age.
Industrial tribes (no longer really Tribes, but rather tribes, small “t”) were built around career. People left the farms, and the communities which connected them, for economic opportunities in the cities and suburbs.
Some ethnicities, churches and even gangs maintained community-type tribes, but most people joined a different kind of tribe: in the workplace.
The means of production and measure of wealth in Industrial tribes was capital. The more capital you could get invested, the better your tribe fared (at least for a while) versus other tribes.
Competition was the name of the game. Higher capital investment meant better paychecks and perks, more job security, and a brighter future—or so the theory went.
While it lasted, this system was good for those who turned professional education into a lucrative career.
With level three came new rules of tribe membership. For example, individuals in industrial societies were able and even encouraged to join multiple tribes.
Where this had been possible in Agrarian communities, nearly everyone still enjoyed a central or main community connection.
But in the Industrial era, everyone joined long lists of tribes. In addition to your work colleagues, Industrial professionals also had alma-maters, lunch clubs like the Kiwanis or Rotarians, professional associations like the AMA or ABA or one of the many others, and so on.
With your kids in soccer, you became part of a tribe with other team parents; same with the boy scouts and girls clubs.
Your tribes probably included a community fundraiser club, donors to the post office Christmas food drive, PTA or home school co-op (or both), church committees, car pool group, racquetball partners, biking team, local theatre, the kids’ choir, lunch with your friends, Cubs or Yankees fans, and the list goes on and on and on.
In level three, the more tribes the better!
The two major tribes that nearly everybody joined in Industrial society were work tribes and tribes of friends.
Between these two, little time was left for much besides work and entertainment.
But make no mistake, the guiding force in such a society, the central tribe which all the others were required to give way for, was making the paycheck.
Families moved, children’s lives conformed, marriages sacrificed, and friends changed if one’s work demanded it. It was not always so, and this morality defined Industrial Age culture.
One big downside to Paycheck Tribes is that they cared about your work but not so much about you. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons why Industrial tribes weren’t really even tribes.
The other major reason is that you had only a few close friends and most people didn’t truly count on any non-family group or neighborhood or community to really be there for you when you needed it.
That’s why this is called National society, because it’s not really a tribal community of bonded, connected people who truly love you and will take a stand for you.
Of course, there are some who build and maintain fabulous agrarian-type relationships, friendships and communities during Industrial eras.
It is just harder and less naturally occurring than in the other types of tribal periods and places. The main reason for this may be simply that capital is less naturally connective than legs, hands, family, church or a caring neighborhood.
This is not to say that companies can’t care, love and connect. In fact, I think that is exactly what they’ll have to do to truly succeed in the Information Age.
However, during Industrial Ages connecting and caring and building relationships is less valued by many. Those who put family, friends and other vital relationships first find much happiness and community connection during any period of history.
Fortunately, we live in a time when the new e-tribes are growing and increasingly available.
Level 4 Tribes
The sixth type of tribe is the Information-Age Tribe.
We are all still struggling for the perfect name. The term “e-tribe” is too narrow, since many of the new relationships are not online.
I’ll settle for calling them the New Tribes, and let the future show us exactly how they turn out.
The New Tribes appear to be a whole new (fourth) level of tribe, for a number of reasons.
To begin with, people are joining many of them like during Industrial times, but also limiting them somewhat to reflect what is truly important to them.
For example, where in levels one and two people belonged almost exclusively to one tribe and in level 3 they joined dozens of tribes, now most New Tribers are active members of a few, important tribes, usually at least four per person.
In addition, many members of New Tribes want to be leaders in tribes, and many leaders of New Tribes want the members to all lead. That’s a huge improvement on levels 1-3.
Also, members of New Tribes seem to care about each other much more than Industrial tribes but also even more than many ancient-style and agrarian tribes.
I think this is because people had little say about who their tribal and community members and neighbors were down through history, but in the New Tribes you can make your very best friends your daily confidantes.
The interaction is powerful, and it can and does create deep bonds of friendship and caring.
The Future of New Tribes
Few people realize how widespread the New Tribe revolution has become.
The many examples of online New Tribes show how rapidly this trend is growing. But there is even more to it than that.
One cycle of business growth says that all new things go through four levels:
- They are ignored.
- They are laughed at.
- They are opposed.
- They are accepted as obvious.
The growth of New Tribes is at the Obvious stage.
For example, tribal currency is now the most widely used money in the world. That may surprise some people who believe that the dollar or the yen or some other national currency is most used.
But try this experiment. Pull out your wallet or planner, and see how much money you have in government-printed currency.
Then see how much you have available in private bank currency (checks or debit cards).
Finally, how much are you carrying in tribal currency (from, say, the Visa or Mastercard tribes, or Discover or American Express)?
While it is true that these private currencies exchange into government money, the truth is that your credit account is most likely a niche or tribal account rather than a government account.
And I dare say that more than a few readers are befuddled by this example, as they transact very few purchases by pulling out their wallet, with the actual plastic in hand; they most often buy over the phone or online—further making the point.
The significance of this is huge. How much wealth are you carrying in sky miles, for example? Or hotel or travel points?
The reason companies issue loyalty cards is to get you to stop being in the traveler niche and instead join the Delta or British Airways tribe.
While you still have your wallet or purse out, look through it to see how many tribal membership cards you carry. Costco? Sam’s Club? Trader Joe’s? An automobile club? What else? Do you carry a church card, or a school card?
The point of all this is that New Tribes are here to stay, and indeed that before the 21st Century ends they may well take over many roles that were traditionally governmental.
For example, the phrase “I’ll fedex it” has replaced “I’ll mail it” in many corporate circles, and toll roads are becoming more popular around the world.
Just like government railways were phased out by private airlines, look for the rise of many more tribally-led industries and services in the years and decades ahead.
For New Tribes to fully achieve their positive potential, it is helpful and perhaps essential for them to learn from the best lessons of the tribes throughout history.
Both leaders and participants of tribes gain much wisdom by studying the best practices and traditions of the world’s tribes.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Community &Economics &History &Information Age &Tribes
Basic Tribal Culture
October 5th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE MAJOR CULTURAL TRADITIONS of the world’s history, which can be described as Warriors, Farmers and Competitors.
Warriors
Warrior cultures believe in enemies, battles, winners and losers, us versus them, strength, courage, victory, personal skill, honor, resiliency, and a bias toward action—among other things.
They tend to see the world in terms of “our tribe” above all else. Many in history called themselves “the people,” or “the chosen.”
The tribes which became the nations of Norway (Norse), England (Anglos), France (Franks), etc. were from this tradition; other examples are found around the world.
Farmers
Farmer traditions valued security, hard work, frugality, sexual morality, responsibility, loyalty to community, savings and assets, land ownership, integrity, education, honesty, steadiness, family loyalty, neighborliness, and prosperity defined by abundance of food.
They built communities, simultaneously promoted individual freedom and conformity to community norms, and considered themselves successful when they produced bountiful harvests and saw their children married well (to spouses who embodied the values of the community).
Competitors
Competitor traditions saw the world as (usually) friendly competition between children at play, youth at courting and adults at work. Even the elderly competed to brag about the best lives, worst pain, most accomplished son, most neglectful daughter, most talented grandchildren, and whatever else came up.
For example: “I have two sons who are doctors and a daughter who is a lawyer,” versus “My grandson is a star quarterback who just won a state championship and his sister just got a scholarship from a national competition she won in Washington, D.C.”
People in such societies like competitive entertainment to escape from the pressures of their competitive schools and jobs.
A lot more could be said about these three major traditions, but the key point here is how they relate to tribes and freedom.
Warrior societies are tribal by nature, and they grow by conquering and colonizing other societies. They see life as a big battle, and raise their children and spend their days in battle mode.
They believe that life is about either conquering or being conquered. They see those with farmer and competitor traditions as victims.
Farmer societies are also tribal, but see the world as a big desert that needs to be turned into a garden. The more people who will adopt their values and join their quest to beautify and expand the garden, the better.
To them, the warriors and competitors are savages and wild outsiders who should be avoided and kept away from their society.
Pitfalls of National Culture
Competitor cultures are National (as opposed to tribal): interested in education for career, working moderate hours in order to enjoy daily entertainments, uninvolved with neighbors unless there is some other relationship to pull them together, and selfish with their free time.
They see the world as a big race, and individuals want to be the winners instead of the losers. In fact, they generally look down on “losers” and avoid them lest losing somehow “rub off” on them.
They see warrior and farmer cultures as quaint and backward, at best, and often with a more critical eye. Clearly, those cultures aren’t winning the race.
Competitor cultures divide their competitions into those that matter and those that don’t. They join tribes for the ones with little at stake, but stay individually focused on the ones that matter most.
Career and money are the competitions that matter more than any others in these cultures. Even family relationships have to take a back seat to most career considerations.
In other words, competitor cultures appear tribal by habit, but are nationalistic when they feel something is really important.
National cultures therefore desperately need the lessons taught by traditional tribal cultures.
But there are also pitfalls and negatives typical to tribal cultures, and we want to learn what they are and avoid them.
The American founders took on a deliberate process of statecraft, weighing the merits and failings of forms, models and ideals from societies throughout history.
I would assert that such a considered approach to our future as a nation and society is called for today. The goal is to adopt the best from national, tribal, warrior, farmer, competitive and other cultures, and at the same time reject their flaws and weaknesses.
With this in mind, let’s discuss what the tribal ideal really is.
With the assumption of local governance under the direction of concerned and involved citizens who were invested in one another’s success and security—basically a tribal council at the community level—the American founders established constitutional forms to create a cooperative and interactive union of states.
We have lost too much of the tribal foundation that was the animating spirit of American culture—the underlying weave of the fabric of freedom—and it is hard to overstate the case for recapturing it.
The Tribal Worldview
Just as there are religious worldviews, secular worldviews, materialistic worldviews, etc., there is an overarching tribal worldview.
Just like there are many views and differences within, say, the religious worldview, there are many different tribal perspectives.
And just as there is an overarching religious worldview (there is a higher power, and I should live in harmony with it/Him), there is also a profound and powerful tribal worldview.
One of the best ways to begin to understand any worldview is to ask, “What is the world, and what is the purpose of life and the universe?”
This is a complex question, of course, but it can be answered in simple terms and the early answers are often the most important. By understanding tribal culture at this basic level, we understand a great deal about ourselves.
The Universe
As I have studied tribal cultures from around the world and throughout history with these questions in mind (What is the world? What is the purpose of life and the universe?), I have categorized recurring themes, forces and societal roles; the labels used here are my own.
In generic tribal thought, the universe is made up of certain vital entities. For example, first come the Obeyers; these do their part in the universe unfailingly. They include suns, moons, planets, rocks, canyons, rivers, mountains, valleys, etc.
Many ancient religious temples and writings are full of these Obeyers. Obeyers set an example to all others, and they are the basic building blocks of everything. Many ancient stories center around references to and morals learned from valleys, rivers, mountains, etc.
Next are the Growers: the trees, grasses, plants, fruits, and so on. They build the universe by growing. Their growth feeds the others, bringing the power of the sun into assimilable form.
Many ancient religions and philosophies are built around the Growers and grower symbols.
The Movers include animals, fish and birds. They move around the world, spreading minerals and seeds from the Obeyers and Growers as they travel.
Many tribes consider some of the Movers, especially birds, to be messengers, teaching us as we interact with them in the world. They also provide food to others, and feed the Growers when they die.
The Movers are a key part of the universe, as are the Growers and Obeyers.
The Fishers are an interesting group. They change the environment by building dams to fish like beavers, or storing nuts like squirrels. Bees and others fit this category. They somehow raise and harvest food, not just wander and search for it.
In some traditions they are called farmers, and in others spiders (which weave webs to capture food). By their fishing, storing, farming, weaving, etc., they benefit the environment and all of life.
People are expected to learn from all of these parts of the universe, and to follow their good examples. Each type of entity is judged by how well it promotes and benefits life, which Obeyers, Growers, Movers and Fishers all do.
Next come the Lovers. Lovers benefit life to the extent that they love. When they don’t love, they hurt life and all the other entities.
The Lovers include all humans and also the spirits (or God, gods, and/or ancestors, depending on the tribe). Humans exist to love.
The Shadow Side
In addition to the good parts of the universe that benefit life, there are those that attack life. These include the Thieves, Murderers, Manipulators and Destroyers.
Thieves take one’s implements of life because they think it will benefit their life. They are mistaken, and cause pain for all by wrongly attacking life.
Murderers take life in order to promote their own life, and in so doing increase total pain. Murderers are seen as worse than Thieves.
Manipulators are an interesting category, often considered to be much worse than thieves and murderers. Manipulators set up systems that steal or kill, but in a way that the thieves and murderers aren’t directly blamed and in fact get away with it more often.
Such systems include anything that skews the natural way things should be, such as class and caste systems, manipulative and deceptive laws and governments, tricky lending and business deals, etc.
In this worldview, the only thing worse than Manipulators are Destroyers. Destroyers are those whose very nature has changed, who no longer are fallen Lovers, but are truly motivated only by hate and pride.
Note that while Movers, Fishers and Humans can be Thieves and Murderers, only humans can become Manipulators or Destroyers.
Since the very purpose of humans in the universe is to bring as much love as possible into the world, it is a colossal tragedy if a Lover becomes a Manipulator or a Destroyer.
By the way, in many traditions only Manipulators become Destroyers.
Now, with all this said, imagine how people in this culture feel about those who set up abusive, forced, corrupt and controlling governments, economies and laws: They are the worst of the worst.
Even those who support, condone or allow such manipulative governments, laws and economies are doing the work of the Destroyers and attacking life and all that is good.
This is one reason that tribal societies so adamantly mistrust most national cultures and people: It seems to many of them that the very basis of national culture is manipulations and exploitative systems.
It is also why it would be so valuable for them to learn the constitutional principles of freedom and how to apply them. But our purpose here is not to admonish the tribal cultures, but to learn from them.
Major Weaknesses of Tribalism
At this point, we should note that while traditional tribal culture does have much to teach us from its idyllic simplicity, it is far from perfect. Studying its pitfalls and common flaws is also instructive.
When tribes are run by small councils of all adult members, these weaknesses can be mitigated.
But when tribes don’t follow the leadership of councils of all adults, they turn against themselves; whatever other form of government they adopt, it becomes corrupt.
When this happens, various problems arise. The problems that follow are the normal for tribes that are not led by councils of all adults.
Economic Control
Tribal culture generally gives a great deal of economic power to tribal leaders.
Interestingly, most tribes distribute political power well between the executive (who gets power only in the face of external challenges and only for the duration of the challenge), the judicial (often a shaman and in many cultures left to families⎯both of which are usually independent of the executive and legislative), and run by the legislative (sometimes councils of elders, sometimes the combined adults of the tribe, sometimes both).
Of course, there are tribes that fail to follow these models, but the freest tribes use these basic systems.
Still, even with political freedoms, few historical tribes have economic freedoms.
The trust of the chief, the head elder (male or female) or the shaman is often absolute.
And, indeed, such leaders often adopt a sort of royal mentality where they believe that what is good for the leader’s finances is good for the whole tribe. In this form, nobody sees undue control of everyone’s finances and ownership as a negative.
But often, it creates the loss of political freedom—including parental choices, like who should marry whom—and a strict caste system with no economic or social mobility.
Many tribes face long-term poverty for most members of the tribe. Such poverty never persists in a truly free-enterprise model, which includes both freedom and opportunity.
Often tribal leaders see this as a threat to their power and, by extension, the tribe’s security and viability.
Emerging tribes with a charismatic leader who seeks control over individuals’ and families’ finances are cultish, and history is littered with the tragedies that such arrangements can lead to.
If a tribe wants to sell things, that’s great. But trying to pool resources or give up control of personal property should of course be met with serious suspicion.
This discussion also exposes a national-culture flaw: the idea that in learning from other cultures we should not judge their systems, traditions and behaviors.
Perhaps this is true when the goal is to maintain purity and academic objectivity in anthropological studies, but it certainly not true when our purpose is to learn and apply the best of tribal (and national) cultures to the tribally-nationalistic-globally-connected societies of the future.
If some calamity changes the world drastically, the same lessons will need to be applied in the new local societies that will be forged.
We need to measure the parts of each culture by how well they promote and support an environment of freedom, prosperity and happiness for all.
Interpersonal Politics
In a small group, political power is often swayed by personalities, likes and dislikes, trysts and history, baggage and personal weaknesses. Nothing can keep this from happening, and in a free system and voluntary tribes it doesn’t matter much.
In a local or official tribal system where the government has actual power over life, death, imprisonment, finances, etc., systems should always be established that keep this from happening.
By “systems” I mean written constitutions with separation of powers, checks and balances well-structured.
Class Power
Most tribes are aristocracies. This is a problem, because the class system is usually established by those in power and dominated by certain families.
In a local structure, or any model where the tribe or community is non-voluntary and/or actually has government power, the solution to this is to establish a legislature of all adults in the tribe.
As the tribe grows in size and geographical scope, local councils representing perhaps no more than 150 households continue to govern themselves, and may send representatives to a regional council to manage affairs of mutual interest to the coalition of local councils.
Conformity
Tribes often flounder economically and fail to grow because the people become too socially conformist. When tribes demand sameness on many levels and in nearly every aspect of life, they shut down creativity, leadership, wisdom and progress.
This is natural to any group, and in national cultures it is often called “groupthink.”
It is important for any group to continue learning, thinking, risking and trying.
Of course, certain violent and anti-social behaviors from rape to murder and so on cannot be tolerated. But stopping criminal behavior is far different from scripting people’s lives and socially enforced hyper-conformity.
This also translates to a socially-enforced closed-mindedness with respect to new ideas and a lack of tolerance for diversity, which lead to a stagnation of creativity and a tendency toward thought-policing.
Lack of Diversity
These conspire to cause narrowness of thinking, along with many of the other problems listed above. On the one hand, the whole point of tribe is joining together based on commonalities.
But the thing which makes tribes flourish is truly caring about each other, connecting, bonding. And connections based on both commonality (such as the shared value of freedom of choice) and diversity (such as the shared value of freedom of conscience) weave a much stronger fabric than one based on sameness.
Conclusion
The New Tribes of the 21st Century would do well, of course, to avoid these pitfalls. As stated, nearly all of these go away when a tribal society is governed by small councils of all adults in the tribe. If the tribe is too large for everyone to have a voice, smaller sub-councils are needed.
Historical tribes do have their weaknesses, but these also have much to teach us. Our generation of citizens needs to understand the good and the bad from the great tribes, nations and societies of history.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Why Tribes are Vital to Success in the 21st Century
October 4th, 2010 // 4:00 am @ Oliver DeMille
SETH GODIN’S RUNAWAY BESTSELLER Tribes took a quaint anthropological label and turned it into a pop culture buzz-word.
And while his timely ideas helped articulate a fresh and needed approach to marketing and beyond, the power of tribal culture is far greater than any publishing or sales phenomenon.
Whether he realized it or not, Godin swerved into a truth of huge ramifications — far more significant than social networks or marketing wizardry.
Tribes are not only the shape of our past, but the key to our future; and they have everything to do with freedom.
Several millennia of history seem to argue that there is something both natural and functional about tribal society for human beings. And yet most moderns have little sense of its value, nor less, its relation to our freedom and our future.
Our Tribal Roots
On many occasions I have asked well-read college students, including executives and masters/doctoral students, to diagram the American government model which established unprecedented levels of freedom and prosperity to people from all backgrounds, classes and views.
It’s turned out to be something of a trick question, as they usually do it in the wrong order — and they invariably get the most important part wrong.
Specifically, they start by diagramming three branches of government (a judicial, an executive and a bicameral legislature) and then sit down, thinking they’ve done the assignment.
When I ask, “What about the rest?” they are stumped for a few seconds.
Then, some of them have an epiphany and quickly return to the white board to diagram the same thing at the state level. This time they are sure they are done.
“What level of government came first in the American colonies?” I ask.
After some debate, they agree that towns, cities, counties and local governments were established, many with written constitutions, for over two centuries before the U.S. Constitution and many decades before the state governments and constitutions.
“So, diagram the founding model of local government,” I say.
They usually diagram a copy of the three-branch U.S. Constitutional model — which is entirely incorrect. This little exercise would be a whole lot more amusing if its implications were not so troubling.
This sad lack of knowledge indicates at least one thing: Americans who have learned about our constitutional model have tended to memorize it largely by rote, without truly understanding the foundational principles of freedom.
We’re like apes at the switch: highly trained, but with no earthly idea what all the machinery is for — or any sense of our lacking.
Civics 101
The first constitutions and governments in America were local, and there were hundreds of them.
These documents were the basis of later state constitutions, and they were also the models in which early Americans learned to actively cooperate to govern themselves.
Without them, the state constitutions could never have been written. Without these local and state constitutions, the U.S. Constitution would have been very, very different.
In short, these local constitutions and governments were, and are, the basis of American freedoms and the whole system of Constitutional government in the United States.
The surprising thing, at least to many moderns, is that these local constitutions were very different than the state and federal constitutional model.
True, they were harmonious in principle with the ideals that informed the state and federal models. And there were some similarities; but the structure was drastically different.
The principles of freedom are applied distinctly to be effective at local and tribal levels.
Freedom at the Local Level
Another surprise to many is that nearly all the early townships and cities in the Americas adopted a constitutional structure very similar to each other. They were amazingly alike.
This is because they are designed to apply the best principles of freedom to the local and tribal levels.
But there is more. A similar model was followed by the Iriquois League as well, and by several other native American tribal governments.
This same model of free local/tribal government shows up in tribes throughout Central and South America, Oceana, Africa, Asia and the historic Germanic tribes.
Indeed, it is found in the Bible as followed by the Tribes of Israel; this is where the American founders said they found it — primarily in Deuteronomy chapter 30.
This pattern is not accidental, coincidental or imitative. It is a predictable model based on natural law and human nature; and an understanding of these leads to the establishment of efficient, effective and freedom-producing local forms.
And it is these local “tribal councils” that are the roots of freedom, from which all the more complex and over-arching forms at the state and federal levels are derived.
Detach these from their tribal-governance roots, and you end up with a very different outcome.
Foundations of American Freedom
The most accurate way, then, to diagram the American governmental system is to diagram the local system correctly, then the federal and state levels with their three branches each, separations of power and checks and balances.
But how exactly does one diagram the local level?
The basics are as follows.The true freedom system includes establishing, as the most basic unit of society, local government councils that are small enough to include all adults in the decision-making meetings for major choices.
This system is clearly described in Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, Volume 1, Chapter 5, and in Liberty Fund’s Colonial Origins of the American Constitution.
These town, city, or tribal councils truly establish and maintain freedom by including in the most local and foundational decisions the voices and votes of all the adult citizenry.
These councils make decisions by majority vote after open discussion. They also appoint mayors/chiefs, law enforcement leaders, judges and other officials.
All of these officials report directly to the full council and can be removed by the voice of the council.
Representative houses and offices are much more effective at the larger state and national levels.
But the point that cannot be stressed enough is: The whole system breaks down if the regular citizens aren’t actively involved in governance at the most local levels.
In this model, every adult citizen is literally a government official, with the result that all citizens study the government system, their role in it, the issues and laws and cases, and think like leaders. Without this, freedom is eventually lost.
Indeed, in a nation where the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, is it any wonder that a population of unengaged “citizens” is the beneficiary of a government constantly increasing its power at the cost of our freedoms? What other outcome can reasonably be expected?
Once again, the most successful tribes, communities and even nations through history have adopted this model of local governance that includes all citizens in the basic local decision-making.
The result has always been increased freedom and prosperity. No free society in history has lasted once this system eroded.
Tocqueville called this system of local citizen governance the most important piece of America’s freedom model.
Today we need to better understand the foundations of tribal culture so that we actually, truly begin to understand local and tribal governance in a system of freedom.
This will be vital to the future of freedom in a world where the new tribes are taking the place of historical communities.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd.
He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Citizenship &Community &Constitution &Government &History &Liberty &Tribes
