Friends of Foes? (Obama’s Liberal Detractors Grow) by Oliver DeMille
June 30th, 2014 // 6:57 am @ Oliver DeMille
President Versus
Modern citizens tend to see what happens in Washington as mainly partisan, and certainly party disputes are a major part of our governance. But they aren’t the only conflict in play.
In fact, James Madison pointed out in Federalist 10 that freedom is protected when factions, parties, government branches, and even levels of government are pitted against each other.
When Democrats in the White House find themselves arguing with Democrats in the Congress, for example, or when House Republicans face off against conservative governors and other state- and local-level Republican officials, the normal power of partisan politics can be reduced.
Everyone tends to benefit when this happens, because it creates an additional check on any part of government seeking too much power.
If anything, it is unfortunate that this doesn’t occur more often.
Right now the Democratic Party is dealing with just such an internal battle. It takes the form of the President versus Congressional candidates who are running for office this year and need to break from the White House in order to get enough votes. Also the President versus Hillary Clinton and other potential Democratic presidential candidates who are trying to build their own following.
It also includes the President versus various Democratic Washington insiders who feel that his more controversial policies are hurting the Party. And the President versus past members of his administration, current members who keep “leaking” inside scoops to the media, and the usually liberal media that is now pressing the President more aggressively than at any point since his election in 2008.
Fighting Allies
In short, it seems to be the President versus a lot, if not most, of his own Party—not just in Washington but in many states and locales as well.
George Will noted that the President has faced strong opposition among his own party in a number of major crises during the past year. Such conflicts include sharp criticism about the failures of the Obamacare website, the Snowden revelations about government spying on its own people, the IRS scandal, the White House “negotiating with terrorists” and swapping prisoners with the Taliban, the President’s seeming weakness in dealing with Putin and the Ukraine, the controversial EPA rules, Democratic opposition to Presidential appointments (e.g. Larry Summers), Democratic resistance to the President’s attempts to use force in Syria, etc.
All in all, the President’s own party is rendering his policy agenda and even his responses to national crises very difficult. Oh, and no surprise, the Republicans are doing their part to oppose him as well. But it is the division in his own party that is really creating a problem for him—the word popping up now in the press is “incompetence” or “a lack of presidential competence.”
Most national Democratic leaders are quick to verbally support the President in conversations with Republicans, but among their constituents and on Capitol Hill they are increasingly going their own way. Even when it directly conflicts with the Administration.
As the elections heat up for 2014 and in preparation for the big one in 2016, many Democrats are finding that Obamacare and perceived problems with the Obama Administration are hurting them among voters. They are naturally distancing themselves from the Oval Office, and this trend is spreading.
Lasting Wisdom
Madison wanted a divided government (3 branches competing against each other, as well as the state and federal levels closely watching the excesses of the other), and the constitutional system is at least partially still working in this way. To have Democrats checking Democrats and Republicans checking each other brings an extra smile to many independents. If a Republican were in the White House, a major international crisis could bring the GOP together in support of the President, but it doesn’t seem likely that anything similar will help President Obama. In fact, international affairs seem to be the focal point of the Democratic divisions.
The most powerful “Tea Party” work seems to be occurring among a growing number of Democrats who are committed to checking what they consider to be excesses of the current Administration.
The Constitution never ceases to amaze! Even as Washington grows to massive levels and most Americans agree that the government is deeply broken, the framers’ wisdom still manages to keep even the most powerful office in the world from exerting truly unchecked influence. This must be frustrating to those in power. Bravo Madison, Dickinson, Franklin and all your colleagues. Bravo!
Of course, if the framers were here today, they’d no doubt point out that this will only last so long. If we don’t become the kind of citizen-leaders they were, we will lose the rest of our freedoms—sooner rather than later.
(If you haven’t read Oliver DeMille’s new book, We Hold These Truths To Be Self-Evident, this is a great place to start! This may be one of the most important books so far in the 21st Century. It is truly a Must Read!)
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 &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Government &Leadership &Liberty &Politics
The Hillary Machine: A Surprise is Coming, by Oliver DeMille
June 14th, 2014 // 5:31 am @ Oliver DeMille
Setting the Field
The Hillary machine is gearing up. A new book by Hillary Clinton is coming out. The liberal media is gushing about Hillary—will she run, or won’t she?
Every discussion on this question is used as an opportunity to encourage voters to support “the first woman president.”
A prime time national TV special is dedicated to her, in a fashion usually only reserved for State of the Union coverage.
Just watch the ads. Her face fills the screen in a larger-than-life campaign style poster. Talk shows gush about how deftly she’s handling her skeletons—from Lewinsky to Benghazi. Monica Lewinsky herself does a once-in-twenty years article putting the whole thing to rest.
Commentators and anchors mention and re-mention how brave Hillary is the face of these difficulties.
If you are a fan of Mrs. Clinton, this all makes perfect sense. If not, you are likely frustrated as the media coverage amps up.
Not Quite the Norm
Of course, this is presidential politics as usual. Except that it isn’t. The election is well over two years away. Most presidential elections don’t get started until after the midterm elections. So why now?
That’s the surprise. The Hillary machine is gearing up to do something the Obama team never could. Despite President Obama’s personal popularity, he never had coattails. He got elected twice, but he lost the first midterm in a huge, historic way, and even when he got re-elected he carried very few Democrats with him.
Unlike Ronald Reagan, or even Bill Clinton, Obama didn’t have much of a coattail effect.
Hillary might. It seems like she will. Thus the interesting timing. For months Republicans have been anticipating a big sweep in the 2014 midterms. Strengthening their power in the House. Winning back the Senate. Maybe overturning Obamacare.
Of course, the President would veto such a vote, but at least the Congress would have its say. And it could certainly defund parts of the Affordable Health Care Act. This would set up the GOP for a powerful run in 2016 where it might gain enough Senators to override a veto.
Republicans have been licking their chops for months. After all, just look at how many seats they gained in the last midterm.
The Odds
But now Hillary has stepped into the fray. Not officially. Just powerfully. Will she have coattails? All indications are “yes, absolutely.” Obama won with small margins over Romney in three key voting groups: women, Latinos, and independent voters in the swing states. These carried him to two victories.
By all accounts, Hillary will have significantly bigger majorities in all three of these electorates.
The more noise she makes before the 2014 midterm, the more likely these groups are to vote and encourage their friends to go to the polls this year. If she has coattails on election day, like she does in the surveys, she’s going to rain on the Republican’s parade. Not just in 2016, but this year in the midterms.
And as for 2016, she is the presumptive winner. No Republican is even close. No Republican is even mentioned in the same sentence as her potential opponent. It’s the most fait-accompli presidential election since Reagan ran for re-election. It’s almost uncontested at this point.
Of course, a lot of time still has to pass, and a lot could happen. But where is a possible contender who can ignite political passion and excitement at Hillary’s level? Or even close to it? Nobody is on the horizon. Will such a person eventually rise? Maybe. Maybe not.
An Early Start
Why is Hillary doing this now?
Because she can.
Because it leaves the Republicans ineptly twiddling their thumbs, hoping someone, anyone, can gain a national following and hopefully slow her down a little.
Because the sooner she starts, the sooner the electorate will get tired of hearing about Benghazi and stop caring about her skeletons.
Because it just might swing the 2014 midterms away from a sure thing for the Republicans—making the 2016 run a referendum against conservatism on every level, a true mandate for one party that would be unequalled since the sweeping Reagan election of 1984.
Creating the Legacy
But most of all she is doing this because Hillary is, for good or worse—depending on your viewpoint—not just another politician. She is a reformer, pure and simple. Her history proves that she isn’t a “let’s win, and then enjoy the fruits of office” politician at all. Nor is she a “let’s set a legacy for history” seeker as much as the last four presidents. She wants action. She wants change. Even as a first lady she promoted Hillarycare.
Imagine what her plans are as president. She’ll take action, not play politics. More than Bush, Clinton, Bush or Obama. She’ll push, cajole, shame, and relentlessly exert the power of the White House to get Congress in line behind her Rooseveltian agenda. If she has coattails now, in 2014, even before she officially runs, she’ll be unstoppable in 2016-2024.
Whether she is a Hawk or a Social Crusader remains to be seen, and will probably depend on world events.
Either way, she won’t sit still, content with a few wins. If she ends up being a Social Activist, she will likely make Obamacare look like the first small step of a national progressive revolution. She may well eclipse FDR as the modern reformer and usher in a whole new level of government size, participation in everyday life, and influence. This won’t be anything new.
If we vote for it, we’ll get what we asked for.
If you like this direction, sit back, get some popcorn and smile while you watch the show unfolding over a year earlier than expected. If not, you’ve got less than six months to do something about it.
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 &Current Events &Government &Politics
Where Do You Stand on a Constitutional Convention?
June 3rd, 2014 // 11:18 am @ Oliver DeMille
An Invitation to Join the Current Debate
Please participate in a conversation with us. Here goes:
Background
I received the two emails within a week of each other, and they really made me think.
First of all, they made me happy. I’m so glad there are two people out there so passionate and studious about a topic that most Americans don’t ever think about.
That’s great.
The fact that there are two such people actually making contact means there are certainly a lot more engaged with the issue, and actually these were only 2 of dozens of notes I’ve received on the same topic. Wonderful.
We need this kind of citizen participation in order for our freedom to work and last.
The Debate
Second, well…just consider these two notes:
“Oliver, why do you support a Constitutional Convention that will send delegates from each state to rewrite our Constitution? Don’t you know that the participants will be almost entirely today’s politicians and attorneys, and possibly a few famous Establishment Academicians from the Ivy League or Berkeley thrown in, and that they’ll reject everything in the Constitution, get rid of the three branches and the checks and balances and who knows what else? Anyone who supports this just doesn’t understand freedom.”
I had to respond that I have never supported a Constitutional Convention, in fact I have written against it on various occasions. Some readers got confused when I quoted a couple of well-known supporters of a Convention, thinking I agreed with them.
Actually, those who read my full article could see that I quoted them to show that they were up to no good—because these particular supporters of a Convention want to use it to reject the Constitution and go to a Parliamentary system. Bad idea for freedom.
I have to point out, however, that some people who support a Convention do so for all the right reasons. Still, if a Convention happens, its actions will all depend on who gets sent as delegates.
The second note was very different, though similar in tone:
“Oliver, how can you not support a Constitutional Convention? I know you think it will be hijacked by today’s lawyers and politicians and used to throw away the Constitution and replace it with something much worse, but how is that any different from what’s happening anyway? If we don’t hold a Convention, we’ll continue to see the politicians and special interest groups just circumvent the Constitution, and the President, Congress and Court just ignore it when it’s inconvenient.
“This problem is getting worse, and most people really think that we’re under the Constitution. But we’re not. It’s ignored or circumvented every day, and this trend is only growing. At least with a Convention the loss of our freedoms will be out in the open. People will know what’s happening. And there is a chance, a slim one I grant you, but a chance, that the people and states will send good delegates who really do something to refocus on the principles of the original Constitution and help restore our freedoms.
“Without a Convention, there is absolutely no chance of this at all. Why don’t you support at least a chance for freedom? Without a Convention, Washington will just continue to destroy the Constitution piece by piece until our freedoms are entirely gone. A Convention gives us a slim chance for freedom, while no Convention gives us no chance.”
I’ve heard this argument before. In fact, I heard it from one of my mentors, W. Cleon Skousen, who said almost exactly the same words. When he said this back in the 1990s, I argued that the Constitution was still mostly intact, and we should give the natural tension between branches of government the time it needed to correct the problems.
He countered that it was headed in the wrong direction and would soon become unsalvagable without either a Convention or some major world crisis that forced a Convention—or something like it. Most of his predictions have certainly come true, the Constitution is much less followed or valued than it was just twenty years ago when he and I enjoyed in a number of deep discussions on this topic.
For example, the Spring 2014 edition of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy has no less than 8 full articles on how the federal government is right now further ignoring or circumventing the Constitution and drastically encroaching on state’s rights!
Would such states now feel the need to send good, freedom-supporting delegates to a Constitutional Convention just to get their rights back?
Should those of us who have opposed a Convention change our minds before all of Cleon’s predictions happen?
Or will a Convention just speed up the loss of our freedoms and give us less time to do something else—outside a Convention—that really could work? After our long and deep discussions, Cleon and I agreed on how we thought this point would go.
More later on what we decided…
What Do You Think?
So, what do you think of these two arguments? More importantly, where do you stand?
Will a Constitutional Convention help us?
Do you think it gives us a slim chance for a restoration of freedom?
Do you think anything else realistically gives us a better chance?
I have a strong opinion on this, but before I share more about it I want to see what you think. Seriously, what do you think can turn our nation in the direction of freedom (and end our current direction of decreasing freedom and inevitable decline)?
Is a Convention the answer?
What, if any, other truly realistic policy answers are there? Specifically?
I’m excited to see how many people care enough to answer, and what great ideas you have.
How to Share Your Vote
Please don’t just rehash the two views above. If you think a Convention is a bad idea, for the reasons above, just write: “My vote is against a Convention.” If you think a Convention is needed for the reasons above, just write, “I’m for a Convention.”
But if you have any third ideas beyond a Convention that can really fix America, or different reasons for or against a Convention, please share them.
[Be civil and polite in this; I’ll just delete any name-calling or uncivil responses or words toward anyone or any view joining this discussion. Every view deserves to be heard.]
This topic is too important to turn impolite.
This is a very important discussion, and I’ll tally the responses and share some that really add to the topic, along with my own ideas on what needs to happen—in a future article.
I look forward to reading your thoughts!
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 &Constitution &Culture &Current Events &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics
7 Kinds of Government (An Alarming Analysis) – Oliver DeMille
May 5th, 2014 // 11:42 am @ Oliver DeMille
Power and Obedience
Every government seeks to increase its power. And “power” is control over obedience, according to the great writer Bertrand de Jouvenel.
“Force alone can establish power, habit alone can keep it in being…”
But one more thing is needed to have absolute power: credit. (This is Jouvenel’s word, meaning “recognition” or “validation” – not lending.)
This means that any government wanting great power must come up with some way to openly reward people who obey its commands.
In short, any entity trying to control obedience must find a way to use force, to maintain a habit of obedience among the people, and to give credit and recognition to the most obedient.
This makes obedience popular and lucrative, and disobedience dangerous and unpopular.
To gain the obedience of the masses, Jouvenel taught, a government must first convince the people that they should obey. Then it must show them that they will hurt if they don’t obey, and be rewarded if they do.
Part I: Six Bad Types and One Good Type of Government
There are seven main ways to persuade the people that they really should follow a government, and six of them have been used multiple times in history to increase the power and force of bad governments. Freedom is decreased any time the people believe any of these six:
- The Divine Right of Kings (“God made me your ruler, and your eternal salvation depends on obeying me and my agents.”)
- Majority Rules (“If most of the people vote for it, the rest should follow, even if the vote is evil or ridiculous, because we are all part of the whole and must follow the majority decision.”)
- Benefits to the People (“If you vote for me, I’ll make sure you get more of x and less of y.”)
- The Need for Order and Security (“If the government doesn’t have the power to protect you, bad people will hurt you; so give us more power—we promise, we’ll never, ever abuse it. Just trust us.”)
- The Pure Force Doctrine (“If you don’t obey us, here is what we’ll do to your parents, spouse, children, reputation, body, and possessions…”)
- The Invisible Government/or/A combined Pure Force and Order and Security system on Steroids (“A few of us will know the secrets and make the decisions so that the rest of you can relax and enjoy life. Trust us, because though historical governments have abused power, we never will.”)
Any government or politician arguing any of these six dangerous doctrines should immediately set off a warning bell to every citizen.
Exactly none have ever maintained their trust; all have been abusive of their power and their people.
Moreover, all six of these arguments are fallacies; none are a true reason for giving power or obedience to a government.
The Seventh Form: You
The solution to all of these is the 7th form of government: The Informed Citizen. This is the doctrine of regular people 1) having the vote to determine who will lead them, and who will not lead them, and also 2) having the wisdom to keep a close eye on everything government does and keeping it in line if this is ever needed.
Without the second part of this—regular people closely watching government and keeping it checked—all governments end up as one of the six bad types. In all six, freedom is eventually lost. In fact, all six types eventually turn into The Pure Force style of government.
But don’t just take my word for it; do the math: There is no exception to this in history.
By the way, the worst type of government system is The Invisible Government. In this model, the government operates largely in secret, exerting Pure Force whenever and however it wants without effective media or citizen oversight.
In fact, many people living in an Invisible Government system don’t even realize that Pure Force is happening every day – until they’re the ones on the receiving end of power abuse. And under an Invisible Government, such “complainers” are often branded as paranoid or rebellious non-conformists who are rocking the boat for everyone else, who prefer to enjoy the “security” and “prosperity” the uber-powerful government provides. (The big party poopers. Why can’t they just get back in line and enjoy the gettin’ while the gettin’s good??)
The only way to stop the six bad kinds of government—including eventually becoming a Pure Force government—is The Informed Citizen society. Without this, no nation can last.
The American founding generation, and the American framers, established an Informed Citizen model. It wasn’t perfect, and because of slavery it never fully flourished until after the Civil War. Once slavery was abolished, the Informed Citizen system began to deepen and expand.
By 1945, the United States, with less than 6% of the world’s population, was producing over half of the globe’s goods and services.
Turns out that freedom works.
But freedom only lasts when The Informed Citizen stays strong and active.
Are you such a citizen?
Part II: How to Know Which System Your Government is Following
Today we live under an Invisible Government model (with Pure Force steadily increasing in power) where a few power elites are expected to know the secrets and make the big decisions so the rest of us can just live our lives.
If this trend continues, the entire freedom system of the United States will experience further decline. (Are those just words, words, words to you? I sincerely hope not. Ponder for a moment what that means for your children, and your children’s children.)
If this trend continues, the entire freedom system of the United States will experience further decline.
The way to determine which system your government uses is simple: How does your government and nation treat the weakest, most vulnerable, least powerful among you, les miserables; and, how does it treat your enemies?
As Jouvenel said, expansionism is part of the character of a nation seeking more power.
By these measures, Rome was powerful but it wasn’t great. Slaves, women and children were chattel, literally owned by their masters. Enemy cities were leveled, the inhabitants tortured and killed or sold into slavery.
The ground was salted so nothing could grow for generations to come.
Likewise, the British Empire was powerful but cruel. The lower classes were frequently treated like slaves (read Dickens, for example), the wealthy were often aloof and domineering, and the people in foreign colonies such as those in India and Africa were consistently exploited and mistreated.
Money and power were used to manipulate nearly every transaction and relationship.
In contrast, once slavery was abolished in the United States, America stood for the principle of freedom to millions around the world.
It raised a Statue of Liberty in the New York Harbor that invited all the poor and mistreated from around the world to immigrate to our shores and join us in freedom.
It fought for European and Asian freedom and asked for no colonies or tributes in return.
During this era, America genuinely aspired to live up to the ideals of an Informed Citizen system.
Two Paths…
This focus has changed in recent times. How do we now treat the poor or struggling immigrant yearning to be free? The unborn baby? The captured enemy? We exclude, we terminate, we torture.
Yet because the regular citizen does not hold the torturer’s knife we are able to (falsely) claim a semblance of morality. We comfort ourselves in plausible deniability.
This is precisely how Invisible Government works.
But when our government agents torture in the name of our protection and freedom, they act in our name.
This means we bear responsibility—unless we attempt to decry and end such behaviors.
When they came for the unborn babies, we turn a tearful eye. But it kept happening—to millions.
When they came for the captured enemy we turned a blind eye to torture. We played Javert, thinking the government knew best. But even if this were true, when we allow our government to torture it will eventually turn such measures on us.
This is a law of history.
When they come for the weary immigrant, who risks his life just to send a few dollars home to feed his child like a modern Jean Valjean, we frown in disgust and send him on his way. An Abraham, a Jesus, the Bishop in Les Miserables would have thrown open their arms and proffered (personal) resources of sustenance, hospitality and welcome.
Too few of us follow their example.
We stand at a crossroads in modern America. On the one hand, we are quickly headed toward overwhelming Invisible Government that spies on us, expands its controls over us, and every day increases its tentacles of force.
On the other, we can be Informed and Active Citizens.
These are the two choices.
“The face of power changes,
but not its nature.”
—Bertrand de Jouvenel
(See FreedomShift, by Oliver DeMille, for more commentary on and solutions to these trends.)
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Community &Current Events &Economics &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics
Corruption By Any Other Name – Oliver DeMille
April 25th, 2014 // 10:41 am @ Oliver DeMille
Another Domino Falling
JP Morgan recently settled a case brought by the government, agreeing to pay Washington $13 billion for its role in the mortgage bubble meltdown.
This creates a very dangerous standard. When something bad happens, Washington will naturally seek to find fault in a place that brings it a lot of extra cash—the most profitable businesses.
As Ken Kurson put it:
“This settlement sets a terrible precedent. Companies with strong balance sheets can expect to become targets of the government…”[i]
This is another domino in the decline of our freedoms, and it’s a big one. This new approach allows, even incentivizes, government corruption. Let’s review how this process works:
- The federal government passes laws that require or incentivize businesses to give loans or offer services/products to people who can’t actually afford them. Businesses that refuse are penalized.
- As a result of this kind of bad policy, many businesses fail. Businesses that comply, but only make middling profits, are left alone.
- Businesses that comply, and make big profits, are targeted by the federal government and end up paying huge sums of money to the government.
Godfather Over Again
This is a great racket. It’s akin to a mafia protection scheme: “You need protection from us. We’ll provide it, for a fee. The fee will be set by us, without appeal or negotiation. If you don’t pay it, we’ll hurt you and/or your business—thus proving that you really did need protection.”
An official term for this new precedent is “corruption.” Except that the Supreme Court gets to determine the actual definition of the word. And who gave the Court the power to do this?
The Supreme Court did, in a string of cases starting in 1803 through 1936.
Is this recurring pattern starting to make sense?
“Wait,” the critics say. “The crash was real! And JP Morgan and other companies that participated need to pay! Right?”
As Kurson wrote:
“Of course, most of JP Morgan’s wrongdoing—70 to 80 percent of the exposure—was committed by two companies, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, it acquired in 2008 at the request, to the point of command, of then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. JPM acquired those companies as acts of mercy during a crisis.”[ii]
Let’s get this straight. The economy was tanking, so the government demanded that JP Morgan buy two flailing firms—to help save the economy. Then, when the fall came, the government targeted JP Morgan for the mistakes of these two firms and made it pay for them.
Godfather corruption indeed.
Who It Hurts
How are businesses responding to this emerging new economy? Many are closing. Others are going abroad, to China, India, Brazil, etc. Those that make enough from the U.S. economy simply pay the fines, settlements, and fees—it’s the cost of doing business.
The real problem is for American workers and families. JP Morgan has increased its litigation reserve up to $23 billion (from $3 billion in 2010).[iii] Other companies are learning to do the same.
What happens when the extra billions are refocused this way? Money moves away from salaries and purchases, the economy is hurt, private sector jobs are cut or curtailed.
The government is currently seeking similar payoffs from a number of other big companies. As this precedent sends its ripples through the economy, it will harm a lot of families.
More firms will move operations and jobs abroad, and others will shift more money from jobs and put it to litigation and fees.
Old Pattern, New Cloth
Oh, and just re-read the government’s pattern outlined above for the mortgage bubble, but this time read it with Obamacare in mind:
- The federal government passes laws that require or incentivize businesses to offer services/products to people who can’t actually afford them. Businesses that refuse are penalized.
- As a result of these bad policies, many businesses fail. Businesses that comply, but only make middling profits, are left alone.
- Businesses that comply, but make big profits, are targeted by the federal government and end up paying huge sums of money to the government.
This really is as shocking as it sounds. Yes, this really is happening in the United States.
The worst news in all this is that most people will do nothing about it, because this kind of financial news is considered technical mumbo jumbo.
Citizens usually just ignore it. “What can I do, after all?” is the typical response.
This is how freedoms decline: slowly for a while–then all at once. The amazing part is that when the “all at once” crash comes, almost everyone acts surprised.
But what can a regular person do? Really? It’s not like you can stop government overspending, party bickering, or a growing culture of corruption with a call to your Congressman or a letter to the editor.
The answer to this major post-modern question (What can a regular person do?) is interesting: We can start with not being surprised.
Problems and Solutions
We can know what is coming. A government addicted to spending and borrowing, and constantly increasing its spending and borrowing, is going to cause problems for the economy and for its citizens.[iv]
A government addicted to increased regulations is going to cause problems.[v]
A government that demands official secrecy from its own people while increasing how it spies on its own citizens is going to cause problems.[vi]
A government that inflates its currency and borrows from its biggest enemies and competitors is going to cause problems.[vii]
A government whose top officials routinely make promises during elections or to pass big agendas and then break them once they win is going to cause problems.[viii]
A government that uses statistics it knows distort reality (just revising them a few months later once decisions have been made), in order to support its continued ideological course, is going to cause problems.[ix]
A citizenry that turns a collective blind eye to these realities is enabling the very problems it fears. Then the people claims surprise when the crash comes.
Anyone who is surprised by the next crash has been lying to themselves for a long time.
False Recovery
As Allan Greenspan wrote in November 2013:
“One can hope that in a future financial crisis—and there will surely be one…”[x]
Calomiris and Haber noted that banking crises should be expected:
“The banking system in the United States has been highly crisis-prone, suffering no fewer than 14 major crisis in the past 180 years.”[xi]
The question isn’t if, but when, the next one will come.
Or consider what J. Bradford DeLong wrote in a piece in Foreign Affairs titled “The Second Great Depression: Why the Economic Crisis is Worse Than You Think”:
“The U.S. economy has enjoyed a recovery [since 2009] only in the sense that conditions haven’t gotten worse…. But it is unlikely that the economic downturn will be over by 2017…”[xii]
Greenspan suggested the second thing people can do. He wrote:
“Financial firms could have protected themselves…if…they had prepared for a rainy day.”[xiii]
Though he addressed this belated counsel to companies, it certainly applies to regular people as well.
Time and Two Steps
To summarize, we have covered two things a regular person can do about our current problems. First, know about them. Pay attention. Keep a close eye on the government, the economy, and current events. Read the fine print and the technical mumbo jumbo put out by government.
The English word for this daily activity and focus is “citizenship.”
The second is to prepare. Look around, see what is really needed, and what is likely to be needed in the years ahead—and take action to help your community flourish.
Not just for you, but for others.
The word for this kind of initiative and foresight is “entrepreneurship.” It isn’t pessimistic, doomsayer, or extreme. In fact, effective entrepreneurialism is precisely the opposite.
It only works if it is optimistic, positive, and sustained.
Without such citizenship and entrepreneurialism, the decline of freedom is only going to accelerate. We’ve still got time for these two things to work, but time is running out.
[i] Ken Kurson, “The Portfolio,” Esquire, February 2014.
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] See, for example, Edward Conard, “How to Fix America: Which Tools Should Washington Use? Unleash the Private Sector,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2013. See also: Fareed Zakaria, “Can America Be Fixed?: The New Crisis of Democracy,” Foreign Affairs, January/February 2013. For example: “In 1980 the United States’ gross government debt was 42 percent of its total GDP; it is now 107 percent.”
[v] Ibid. For example, the United States is ranked 76th in the world for its “burden of government regulations.”
[vi] See Jack Shafer, “Live and Let Live,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014. “[A]ccording to the White House review panel convened last year to examine the NSA’s surveillance practices, the bulk collection of phone records has stopped precisely zero attacks.”
[vii] See, for example, Minxin Pei, “How China and America See Each Other: And Why They Are On A Collision Course,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014. For example: “In 2007, the United States’ economy was four times as large as that of China; by 2012, it was only twice as large.”
[viii] E.g. “If you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” See also: Michael A. Cohen, “Hypocrisy Hype: Can Washington Still Walk and Talk Differently?” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014.
[ix] See Zachary Karabell, “(Mis)leading Indicators: Why Our Economic Numbers Distort Reality,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2014.
[x] Allan Greenspan, “Never Saw It Coming: Why the Financial Crisis Took Economists by Surprise,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2013.
[xi] Charles W. Calomiris and Stephen H. Haber, “Why Banking Systems Succeed and Fail: The Politics Behind Financial Institutions,” Foreign Affairs, November/December 2013.
[xii] J. Bradford DeLong, “The Second Great Depression: Why the Economic Crisis is Worse Than You Think,” Foreign Affairs, July/August 2013.
[xiii] Op Cit., Greenspan.
Category : Blog &Business &Citizenship &Community &Current Events &Economics &Entrepreneurship &Leadership &Liberty &Mini-Factories &Mission &Politics &Uncategorized