Common Wisdom versus Greatness in the American Election
July 14th, 2012 // 2:49 pm @ Oliver DeMille
The common wisdom says that incumbent presidents run on their record, and that the state of the economy determines presidential elections.
According to the numbers, right now the common wisdom is wrong.
The economy is still sputtering, but 51% of voters in battleground states like President Obama’s handling of the economy while only 42% like Romney’s economic plans (CNN/ORC International Poll, June/July 2012).
Furthermore, 41% of national voters believe Obama has a clear plan for improving the economy while only 27% believe Mitt Romney has one (Fox News Poll, July 2012).
In short, President Obama’s numbers aren’t great, but Governor Romney’s are worse. And 68% of Americans blame George Bush, not Barack Obama, for the poor state of the economy (Gallup Poll, July 2012).
Why is the common wisdom failing?
Analyst Juan Williams had it right on Fox News Sunday when he said that a majority of Americans see Mitt Romney as “a rich guy.”
It’s a rich guy versus a cool guy, and cool will always win in the American electorate.
Many Republicans and conservatives have criticized Mitt Romney for not having an effective plan to fix the economy.
Leaders from the Right—as different as Rush Limbaugh, Bill Crystal, George Will, and The Wall Street Journal—are concerned that Romney is doing little to establish himself as a serious leader on the issues.
They argue that he seems caught up in responding to attacks by Barack Obama and alternatively attacking Obama.
To have any chance in November, Romney needs to make real gains by September.
He may have little chance of being seen as cool, but he has every opportunity to go all in: To use his strengths and provide real leadership and a vision of what America can be and how he’ll lead us in the direction of American greatness over the next four years.
The common wisdom says, “It’s the economy, stupid!”
For the entire post-World War II era the common man has selected the candidate who seemed the most cool, the most likely to lead.
But both of these actually boil down to leadership.
Candidates must have strong, effective plans to take us in a moving and positive direction in the future, and they must be able to articulate this.
In 2008, Barack Obama very effectively presented a vision of a better America, a nation of change, a new era of unified cooperation in Washington, and a citizenry acting on the chant of “Yes, we can!”
Critics say that after inauguration he failed to deliver on these promises, but nevertheless he projected a moving vision and rallied a majority of voters behind it.
So far, neither candidate has done this in 2012.
If neither candidate can effectively articulate a great vision of the future, the incumbent will most likely win the election.
For this reason, the Obama campaign may be waiting to promote any sweeping grand vision of American leadership.
Why risk it if they’re winning anyway?
Thus the ball is in Romney’s court.
If Romney rolls out a great, Reaganesque vision of America, the Obama team will have to do the same and we’ll have a great debate in 2012.
Right now the high vision of the campaigns is, “We can’t go back to the failed policies of Bush,” versus “We must repeal Obamacare and Barack Obama or our economy will fall off a cliff in the next four years.”
Neither of these reach the level of a high debate.
They effectively speak to the base of each party, but the base was always going to vote for its candidate.
The real issue is independents, and neither side has effectively spoken to them.
President Obama is ahead in this battle because he has reached out in petite visions to special interest groups from Latinos to same-sex groups to women.
As Jimmy Fallon said in a late night comedy sketch, “President Obama said Americans need someone who will wake up every single day and fight for their jobs. Then he said, ‘But until we find that guy, I’m still your best choice.’”
We are experiencing a mini-campaign, focused on negative bantering about the small things.
Even the one big topic of debate, health care, is being discussed in micro-terms: about pre-existing conditions, adult children on their parents’ insurance, etc.
No candidate has yet taken bold leadership on the grand scale, to capture the American mind and propel the nation on a powerful, compelling journey toward the future.
The hottest days of summer are still ahead, and the American voters deserve a real debate on the biggest questions.
The opportunity for real leadership is here, and the voters are watching, hoping, for someone to step up and show us what leadership really means in the 21st Century.
Americans sense that our challenges are going to increase, and that it’s time for another great American leader like Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan.
Note that neither FDR nor Reagan were the great leaders they became before they were elected, but they were both openly and clearly committed to a great vision of America’s future.
The election of 2012 will go to whichever candidate stands up and projects the image and agenda of greatness.
If neither candidate does this, voters will probably just stick with the incumbent.
In short, it’s common wisdom against common wisdom: cool versus the economy.
But Americans don’t want to follow the common wisdom, they want to be led by greatness toward a truly great vision of the future.
They want to be touched, moved and impressed.
They want to rally behind a great leader.
They want to believe that their vote will make all the difference, that the president in 2013 will take bold steps that put America on the path to greatness.
The nation is ripe for a candidate who exudes great plans, a great vision, and great leadership.
Right now either candidate could rise to this need, and the best-case scenario would be for both to step it up and embrace American greatness.
Whoever does this most effectively will win the election.
Both candidates are avoiding risk right now, but what we need is a leader who leads, who goes all in and stops thinking about winning the election and invites us to an America that wins the 21st Century.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
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 : Blog &Culture &Current Events &Economics &Featured &Government &Leadership &Politics
The Most Important Election in Modern Times
July 10th, 2012 // 10:01 am @ Oliver DeMille
Most elections are called “the most important election” by those running for office—after all, if they can get more voters enthused and active, it improves their chances of victory.
But in 2012, the U.S. election truly may be the most important in our lifetimes.
We are at a crossroads, and November 6 will turn us in one direction or the other.
With the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare, the battle lines are clearly drawn.
And while many conservatives don’t want to admit it, President Obama is still the frontrunner.
As I’ve written in the past, most red states will vote for Governor Romney and most blue states for President Obama, but the election will be decided by independent voters in the battleground states.
Right now, Obama is 2-3 percentage points ahead with independents in these swing states.
That’s not a huge lead, and polls will almost certainly shift several times in the months ahead, but Romney isn’t ahead.
Conservatives also struggle with why President Obama is still popular.
But in every election since 1952 the candidate who seemed more like a leader has won.
And Obama is still popular with swing voters in battleground states.
Conservatives tend to determine popularity based on policy, as do liberals, but many independents decide who is popular on the basis of non-political factors.
Moreover, the President’s policies on education have impressed many independents.
He gave more schools increased local controls and took on the teacher’s unions (though not enough).
Where George Bush centralized control of education more to Washington, Obama went the other, better, direction.
Many independents also like President Obama’s belief in more open immigration.
Though critics are quick to point out that we’ve deported more people under Obama than under any other president, Obama’s announcement that we won’t deport those who came as children is very popular among independents—even more in most battleground states.
Because of the high numbers of Hispanics in swing states, this one issue may sway the election.
Typical Republican criticisms that Democratic Presidents are soft on foreign policy won’t sell to independents in the post-bin Laden era, which scores points for the President among swing voters.
With all this, the President’s biggest asset may still be his personality.
Though his opponents scoff at this, he really does come across as a guy everyone wants to like.
He sings well, dances well, plays basketball well—in short, he’s cool.
If you hate his politics, you think being cool is beside the point or even unpresidential, but a majority of independents in the contested states really like having a cool president.
Besides, Obama came across sincere and committed when he went to Washington to change things—like a Jimmy Stewart character.
A lot of people still hope that’s the real Obama, and they’re waiting for him to truly lead.
Unfortunately, they think, the partisan extremes of Washington D.C. don’t allow a president to really lead anymore, but if he doesn’t have to worry about another election he can just lead like he always wanted to.
Most conservatives underestimate how much swing voters really like Barack Obama.
On the other hand, the big challenge for Obama with swing voters is Obamacare, and this hits hard in three ways.
First, is it overwhelmingly unpopular with American voters.
Only 28% of Americans thought the Supreme Court decision to uphold the law was a good ruling.
And swing voters dislike it almost as much as conservatives.
Independents haven’t found the Obama Administration’s explanations of Obamacare credible, and its unpopularity is growing.
Second, Obamacare is the main Obama achievement of the last 4 years, and many independents see it as the only major Obama accomplishment.
The problem is that voters elected Barack Obama to fix the economy, and many feel that he put healthcare (and, as a result, government expansion) ahead of jobs and economic opportunity.
In both the 2008 and 2010 elections, swing voters strongly supported the candidates they perceived as best for job creation.
Now they wonder: Why hasn’t President Obama done anything major about jobs? Why did he put all his capital into Obamacare?
Third, the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare puts the debate in stark relief: Big Government vs. Jobs and the Economy.
The Obama Administration has become the poster boy for “Bigger Government, Fewer Jobs.”
The campaign is talking itself blue in the face trying to reverse this view, but swing voters aren’t listening.
Which brings us to the real consequence of the Court’s decision—the Congressional elections of 2012.
Regardless of who occupies the White House for the next four years, the future of the nation will be determined by whether Congress is for More Big Government or Drastically-Increased Economic Opportunity.
The problem, as independents know, is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are proven fiscal leaders.
Democrats spend on domestic programs, and Republicans often outdo them in international spending.
While many Republicans are loudly decrying Obama’s massive domestic spending and increasing debt, few independents have forgotten that Bush tripled spending over the Clinton years and that big-spending Republicanism came when Republicans held the White House and both Houses of Congress before 2006.
Though Obama has overused the point, it remains true that Republicans gave us the Great Recession.
We need to elect Free Enterprise candidates, since big-spending Republicans are as bad for our economic future as big-spending Democrats.
Still, if Congress remains split (Republican House vs. Democratic Senate), or goes all Democrat, we are headed for bigger government with more socialist tendencies.
If Republicans control both houses, there is a chance for our freedoms and economy—and this time the people will send a clear mandate that they want smaller government and a growing free economy.
This really is the most important election yet in modern times.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
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 : Blog &Current Events &Featured &Government &Independents &Leadership &Politics
Covenant Government and the Sacred Trust of Freedom
July 10th, 2012 // 9:45 am @ Oliver DeMille
A friend recently told me that he considers family relationships much more important than politics.
He said marriage is a sacred, covenant relationship, and as such it is a higher priority than civil government.
I had two responses to this thought: First, I totally agree.
I think our families are a sacred trust and take a higher priority than pretty much anything—except our personal relationship with, and allegiance to, God.
Second, I wonder if our modern understanding of government has devolved so far from the time of the American founding that we don’t consider government a covenant or holding political office a sacred trust.
In fairness to my friend, he is a lover of freedom who cares deeply about our nation and the decline of liberty.
He is among the most dedicated students of freedom I know.
Lecturing him on anything related to freedom would certainly be preaching to the choir, and he certainly sees political leadership as a sacred trust.
But his words made me think.
Ideal government is a covenant, and was understood as such by the Israelites because of the teachings of Moses.
It was passed down over the generations and eventually became known as “The Divine Right of Kings”.
John Locke’s political treatises addressed the reality that such a divine right of any legitimate king was long lost by the time of the British monarchs.
The American founders discussed this concept at length, and the words “covenant,” “sacred,” and “trust” were widely used in connection with government.
A search for “covenant politics” in various founding writings and modern political journals will yield many interesting articles.
The word “covenant” is still used in our time—based on the legal tradition of Blackstone –in nearly every state and province of the United States and Canada in the common CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions).
In Anglo-Franco-American law, a “covenant” was originally a specific kind of contract where both parties promise to do something for the other, and the contract is binding on both parties, even if one of the parties fails to perform or defaults.
Thus, there are fundamentally two kinds of contracts in law: Absolute and Conditional.
Conditional arrangements make up over 99% of contracts, where if the other side defaults the contract is void for both parties.
But the oaths of government officials are of the Absolute variety.
The founders made government service a covenant, rather than a simple contractual, arrangement.
Regardless of whether or not the people fulfill their duties, government officials are expected to do theirs—as expressed in their oaths of office.
The law also differentiates between “express” and “implied” covenants—“express” being those that are clearly written out, and “implied” being those that should be assumed by any reasonable standard of duty.
Jefferson used this concept when he sent American troops to protect U.S. citizens against the Barbary Coast pirates without any Congressional declaration of war.
He openly admitted that he had no “express” constitutional authority to take the action, but that the responsibility of presidency gave him an implied duty to protect those he served.
He followed the same line of reasoning when he signed the Louisiana Purchase.
The difference between him and some modern presidents who have taken seemingly similar actions is that he openly admitted that he had no authority, but had acted solely on his sense of duty, and he would not have blamed Congress for impeaching him as a legitimate response.
He acted according to what he considered his implied covenant duty and was willing to accept the consequences for exceeding his constitutional authority.
This clearly established the importance of covenant in governance.
Washington, Adams, Jefferson and Madison all followed the same course at different times when the chief executive had a duty to protect the national security of the U.S., and the Doctrine of National Preservation was a duty to which they were willing to sacrifice themselves on behalf of the nation.
In these cases Congress refused to exercise their check, impeachment, because they believed the leader had lived up to his Constitutional Oath to guard and “protect the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.”
The law, again based on Blackstone and English legal tradition, also differentiates between “inherent” and “collateral” covenants.
An “inherent” covenant is the cause of any and all fiduciary responsibilities –meaning, a responsibility that a person takes upon himself automatically by entering into a covenant relationship.
In contrast, “collateral” covenants must be clearly stipulated and understood by all parties involved.
There is a lot more of this, but I won’t bore you with all the details, like: Joint versus Several covenants, Principal versus Auxiliary covenants, Continuing versus Dated covenants, Full versus Partial covenants, Restrictive versus Universal covenants, Usual versus Special covenants, and about 10 others that are foundational in Anglo-Franco-American legal traditions.
One that I should mention is Transitive versus Intransitive covenants.
“Transitive” consists of those which pass the duty on to the covenanter’s agents, successors, and in some cases, posterity.
This is important because it shows why some people might argue that the governance covenant may be as important as the marriage covenant.
Obviously, a covenant is a covenant, a supreme promise, so ranking them by importance is a bit ridiculous.
That said, the marriage covenant is intransitive, meaning that my spouse and I are both bound by it, but when I die, my children don’t become her spouse.
If I held a hereditary government position, such as the anointed kings of old, however, upon my death my oath and covenant of good governance would pass with full responsibilities and duties to my heirs.
Government is a covenant, or at least good, free government is.
Under the U.S. constitutional model, positions requiring an oath are transitive; for example, when a president dies or becomes incapacitated, the responsibilities inherent in the oath of vice-president devolve all presidential duties upon him.
He must receive his full authority by collateral covenant and take an official oath; but if there is a gap between when the president dies and when the oath is taken, he has the full responsibility of the office by covenant.
(Note: Responsibilities, but not authority.)
Again, this is repeated in most military and other government positions that require an oath of office.
There are really only 3 types of government:
1) government by fiat, where the strongest take power by force and rule by might;
2) government by contract, where the government serves as a mercenary, responding to the highest bidder in order to obtain a profit for government officials;
and 3) government by covenant, where the constituents delegate authority tied to responsibility and the leaders put their responsibilities above their authority.
I believe that the marriage covenant is the most important agreement in all of society, second only to our promises to God.
And, in fact, the marriage covenant often included promises to a spouse, society and God.
Marriage has huge ramifications on all facets of society, including law and politics but extending much further.
But let’s not forget that good government is also a covenant.
It isn’t a mere contract, where if the people shirk their duties the officials may simply ignore the Constitution, or where if the officials are corrupt the people can just give up and let freedom wane.
We all have a responsibility to maintain freedom, and this obligation is transitive, meaning that it is our solemn duty to pass on as much, or more, freedom to our posterity as we inherited from our ancestors.
This is, in fact, a sacred trust.
Perhaps Calvin Coolidge said it best when he declared, as the President of the United States, that, “The protection of rights is righteous.”
If this is true, and it is, what would we call the act of destroying rights or of allowing them to be lost through distraction or neglect?
Such questions are extremely relevant right now in modern America.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the chairman of the Center for Social Leadership and co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
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 : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Featured &Generations &Government &History &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship
A Vital Leadership Trend that Isn’t Yet a Thing
June 27th, 2012 // 5:42 pm @ Oliver DeMille
We ne
ed a whole new level of leadership. And we need it soon. Just consider some of our pressing national challenges:
- 75% of current Americans worry that another recession is coming.
- U.S. consumer confidence in June is at a six-month low.
- The average price of a gallon of gas in the United States was $3.88 at the beginning of the year and it is $3.48 halfway through the year. Most experts predict that it will be below $3 a gallon by the end of 2012. A few say it will be above $4. Either way, we have a problem. Lower prices look like a positive trend, but they keep us addicted to foreign oil. The pattern is to jack up prices until they hurt so bad that we begin seriously seeking alternative energy sources, then ease back on prices a little until we give up on finding a better way. Then, when we’ve stopped weaning ourselves from our addiction, jack the prices up again. Only the right kind of leadership will solve this for the long term.
- President Obama’s support is down since 2008 in almost every voting demographic, but it is up 2 points among Hispanics. Few election experts believe Mitt Romney can win the election—especially in the battleground states—without a significant uptick in Hispanic support. And Romney came across to many as sharply anti-immigrant during the 2012 Republican primaries. Neither 2012 presidential candidate has yet shown the will to establish a truly effective national immigration policy.
- The July 2, 2012 cover story of Time Magazine reads: “The History of the American Dream: Is it Still Real?” The Asian, European and South Pacific versions for the same date held an alternative cover story: “Made in China: Why Apple’s Future Depends on the World’s Largest Market.”
- A June column in Newsweek calls this year’s graduates “The Not-So-Special Generation.”
- Over two-thirds of Americans want the government to use unmanned drones to hunt down criminals, but two-thirds do not want the same technology used to patrol highways and issue speeding tickets. We want more government oversight of others, less of ourselves.
- A majority of Americans want the government to decrease spending, but there is little agreement on cutting any specific program.
Many other serious national concerns could be cited, but one thing is certain: We are a nation deeply in need of more, and better, leadership.
Sadly, it appears increasingly evident that our political leaders may no longer be able to fulfill this role.
The story of Barack Obama is instructive on this point.
As a lifetime liberal with long experience and connections in the progressive community, President-Elect Obama took over the White House with big intentions of reframing our national politics into a less divisive, more cooperative endeavor.
He seems to have been surprised at the vehemence of the two-party system, and how quickly the opposing party lined up to get him out of office—regardless of what he did, or didn’t do, as a leader.
President George W. Bush, who came into office with big goals of creating a more compassionate conservatism, faced the same reality—the opposition lined up against him before he proposed a single policy.
Whether you are a supporter of President Obama, a critic, or more neutral, the reality of our new politics is frustrating.
The next president, either in 2012 or 2016, will likely face the same problem.
Welcome to the new system in Washington: A president isn’t judged for what he does as much as for which party he belongs to.
We are a nation with major struggles and we desperately need great leadership, but our political system has reached the point where our top elected officials have little chance of providing such leadership.
The system simply won’t allow it.
The next campaign starts the morning after Election Day, with no break between elections and no sense of a U.S. president we’ll all follow for four years.
Today’s system is more divided: the chief executive is now widely perceived as only as the president of the Republicans or the president of the Democrats.
We are at a crossroads in America.
We need great leadership as much as at any time in our history, but our political system no longer allows it to come from Washington.
We may have reached the point where only an Independent President will be able to get anything done.
Or, another solution may be a revolution of leadership, with leaders rising from other—non-political—arenas.
This may be one of the most important trends of the 21st Century, but it is not yet a trend.
Needed: A generation of non-political leaders to help America get back on track!
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Current Events &Featured &Government &Independents &Leadership &Liberty &Politics &Statesmanship
Type A Voters and the Simple Fix
June 7th, 2012 // 2:23 pm @ Oliver DeMille
Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago recently said in Foreign Affairs (May/June 2012):
For decades before the financial crisis of 2008, advanced economies were losing their ability to grow by making useful things.
“But they needed to somehow replace the jobs that had been lost to technology and foreign competition and to pay for the pensions and health care of their aging populations.
“So in an effort to pump up growth, governments spent more than they could afford and promoted easy credit to get households to do the same.
“The growth that these countries engineered, with its dependence on borrowing, proved unsustainable.”
Now many of the nations in Europe, North America and leading Asian countries are facing the consequences of their reliance on debt.
We call it the economic crisis of 2008, or the Great Recession, but it began long before the Bush or Obama administrations.
Indeed, during the Ford and Carter eras of the late 1970s, constitutional scholars widely warned of this very problem.
Sadly, their recommendations went unheeded.
It now falls to our generation to deal with the realities of over forty years of bad policy, and the economic challenges ahead will likely be worse than economists are admitting.
The problems will likely still plague our children and grandchildren in their earning years.
Raghuram Rajan suggests the following fixes:
- Stop using debt as the solution to increasing demands for government and private spending
- Educate or retrain the sectors of workers whose jobs are being mechanized, replaced, or sent abroad
- Create government policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation
- Reduce regulations that hurt competition
- Shrink government as needed to reduce unnecessary and unproductive functions
- Move beyond attacks on bonuses and “the one percent” and emphasize the need to provide more entrepreneurial opportunity
- Avoid calls for stimulus
Of course, not all nations will follow identical policies, but these are the general principles of overcoming our economic challenges. Rajan’s article outlines needed changed in more detail, and one quote is worth repeating:
Americans should remain alert to the reality that regulations are shaped by incumbents to benefit themselves.
If only we could stitch this quote in needlepoint, frame it and hang it in every American living room.
And get every voting citizen to read each issue of Foreign Affairs.
We have less of a Washington problem and more of a citizen problem. Too many citizens are on vacation from our duties. We want to be Type B citizens who vote, attend jury duty and watch the news, and to look down on Type C citizens who don’t do any of these.
But freedom depends on Type A citizens, who closely watch what government does and make their influence felt.
Imagine an America where the first branch of government consists of thousands of unelected citizens who study history and the great classics, read proposed treaties, important court cases, executive orders, budgets, and top bills proposed at the local, state and Congressional levels. That’s the formula for freedom, and no other formula has ever worked—in America or in all of history.
When the people don’t actively watch out for their freedoms, they lose them.
When Presidents, Senators, Governors, Justices and CEOs have an entirely different level of education than the average citizens, freedom will decline.
Again, there are no exceptions in history. In fact, there is a word for such a divide between the education of the leaders and the education of the masses. The word is Oligarchy.
As Christopher Hayes wrote in Twilight of the Elites, “In reality our meritocracy has failed not because it’s too meritocratic, but because in practice, it isn’t very meritocratic at all…. In other words: ‘Who says meritocracy says oligarchy.’”
Hayes also noted that, according to Pew Research, Canada is almost 2.5 times more economically mobile than the United States, Germany is 1.5 times as mobile, and Denmark is 3 times as mobile.
So a young person in Denmark is three times as likely to rise from the middle to the upper class as our children in America. Indeed, the only advanced nation where such progress is less likely than in the U.S. is Britain—the modern icon of class divides.
Again, the solutions are relatively simple: reduce regulation that dis-incentivizes economic growth, adopt policies that encourage entrepreneurship and innovation, and stop relying on debt.
This will cause governments and households to tighten their belts in the short term, but long-term free enterprise will rekindle economic growth and widespread prosperity.
If only our leaders would take notice. As Hayes wrote in dystopian terms:
It would be a society with extremely high and rising inequality yet little circulation of elites.
“A society in which the pillar institutions were populated by and presided over by a group of hyper-educated, ambitious overachievers who enjoyed tremendous monetary rewards as well as unparalleled political power and prestige…, a group of people who could more or less rest assured that now that they have achieved their status, now that they have scaled to the top of the pyramid, they, their peers, and their progeny will stay there.
“Such a ruling class would have all the competitive ferocity inculcated by the ceaseless jockeying within the institutions that produce meritocratic elites, but face no actual sanctions for failing at their duties or succumbing to the temptations of corruption….
“In the way bailouts combined the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism, such a social order would fuse the worst aspects of meritocracy and bureaucracy.
“It would, in other words, look a lot like the American elite circa 2012.”
All of that would be fine, if the rest of the people lived in a society with true free enterprise. Let the super-elite act like elites always have, but let the regular people live in freedom.
Over time, freedom creates growth, opportunity, socio-economic mobility and widespread prosperity.
Alas, the elites seldom ever make such changes on behalf of the people. If we want to be free, regular people must start behaving like Type A citizens.
***********************************
Oliver DeMille is the co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of Thomas Jefferson Education.
He is the co-author of New York Times, Wall Street Journal and USA Today bestseller LeaderShift, and author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.
Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.
Category : Blog &Citizenship &Constitution &Featured &Foreign Affairs &Government &Independents &Leadership &Politics &Statesmanship
