http://archive.aweber.com/socialleadersCenter for Social LeadershiopFri, 02 Mar 2012 17:55:54 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/CaO1g/h/Two_Kinds_of_Voters_by_Oliver.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference Two Kinds of Voters By Oliver DeMille There are two kinds of voters: Traditionalists and Pragmatists. Knowing the difference is vital--especially during election years. It helps us be better voters and guardians of freedom. The 2012 elections--local, state, and national--are pivotal to freedom. If we learn to understand the differences between these types of voters, we can work together more effectively to ensure a positive result--no matter who wins. Traditionalists Traditionalists have strong allegiances to a party or political viewpoint. They tend to see all politics as Left versus Right, Republican versus Democrat, or Liberal versus Conservative. From this perspective, politics is a battle between the "righteous" thinkers and statesmen on your side and the "evil" ideologues and self-serving politicians and bureaucrats on the other side. Traditionalist voters on each side have their own lexicon of highly-charged key words and a stable of trusted writers, news analysts, and pundits. Most importantly, Traditionalists have a list of key issues which define their political views and drive their political emotions. Such issues include abortion, immigration, welfare, health care, national security, education and many others--including, most recently, the Keystone Pipeline, religious freedom, class warfare, and contraception. Again, such voters take strong sides on these issues, vehemently support one side and listen to little debate from the other side. Often they go to extremes, overstating the morality of their side and vilifying any who disagree. Liberals and conservatives often dislike each other, and usually disagree on the issues, but they basically understand each other. They are warriors for (or at least supporters of) their political views, and so they "get" other Traditionalist voters even when they are on different sides of the aisle. They think the other Party is wrong, but they are somewhat similar in the way they approach political life. Pragmatists Instead of being "warriors for truth," Pragmatists view politics as managers. For them, political battles are routine decisions that citizens must make--just like administrators must show up for work, deal with the challenges that arise, and then go home to their private lives. This professionalism in their voting role is one of the reasons political polls are often wrong in predicting how elections will turn out. Polls of Traditionalists are mostly accurate, but surveys of Pragmatists are usually misleading. Pragmatists frequently answer surveys with the goal of impacting them, and this isn't an accurate indication of how they'll actually vote. Such voters are very literal about their citizenship: every civic action they take is done with a deliberate attempt to impact the outcomes and results. Indeed, Pragmatists have no worries about just skipping an election if they don't think their vote will change the outcome (such as when one candidate is clearly far ahead). They don't see voting as an important civic duty, but as a pragmatic opportunity to impact things. This doesn't mean that Pragmatist voters who don't bother to vote will ignore the election. They'll write blogs, try to impact polls, or help fund the candidates and causes they support. But they'll only do things they think will actually make a difference. Comparisons Where Traditionalist voters support a candidate because they feel he or she is "right" or "best" for America, Pragmatists vote for what they think is the most desired election result. For example, a Pragmatist may well vote for one party in the Presidential race and another party in a Senatorial campaign because she thinks the best governance will come from the White House and Senate being run by different parties. Or consider the voter who told CNN that he would vote for Ron Paul, but that if Paul dropped out or didn't get the Republican nomination he would vote for Barack Obama. From a Traditionalist perspective this comment makes no sense. Why would anyone choose the two extremes and reject everyone in the middle? For Pragmatists, this makes sense in several ways. First, it is a strong way of voicing support for Ron Paul and maybe convincing a few voters to change their vote to Paul. Second, it makes everyone stop and think, which is a high priority for Pragmatists. Third, and perhaps most significantly, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are both Pragmatists, while the other candidates are more Traditionalist. Pragmatists can be just as strongly supportive of any given issue as Traditionalists, but they approach it differently--they are interested in real change on the issue. Traditionalists, in contrast, tend to emphasize winning the election and then hoping the elected officials will do better than their opponents would have. To reiterate: Traditionalists emphasize candidates. Pragmatists focus on real policy change. Many Pragmatists are independents because they don't believe party politics are good for the nation (except when they decide to personally run for office, in which case their pragmatism kicks in and they join a party). Both major political parties have their share of Pragmatists, many of whom are political professionals, activists on the far Left and Right, and party insiders who have great influence in elections. Still, many Pragmatist voters dislike institutionalism and distrust big organizations. Pragmatist voters tend to find the Left-Right bickering over the issues both annoying and wasteful. They enjoy a good debate, however, as long as it deals with real issues and detailed solutions that can really work. Pragmatists also give kudos to any good debater on either side (something Traditionalist voters hardly ever do because they tend to think the candidates on their side are doing well while the politicians from the other side are wrong and therefore debating badly). Traditionalists tend to band with other people who agree with them on either conservative or liberal values. They seldom talk politics with people of different views, and when they do they frequently get upset. They dislike arguing about politics and find themselves angry and frustrated when others directly challenge their political views. They like rallies and debates where their side trashes the other side. Pragmatists, in contrast, often genuinely like political arguments. They enjoy debating with people from other viewpoints, and also take pleasure in learning new ideas from people and sources that are both allies and opponents. Pragmatists tend to think about politics on their own or in discussions with a few close friends rather than in big groups or official events, and many like to take different sides of arguments to see how others respond. Pragmatists seldom like political events where someone lectures; they prefer to discuss and debate. They'll support liberal views in an argument with a conservative father-in-law and later that same day promote conservatism when arguing with a liberal professor. The father-in-law will be convinced that his daughter has married a "flaming liberal" and the professor will swear that his student is a "wild-eyed conservative." In fact, they are both Traditionalists dealing with a Pragmatist. The Pragmatist son-in-law/student just wants to fix what's broken--as efficiently and effectively as possible, and the sooner the better. He also likes to argue about politics and to make people stop and think more deeply. Many Pragmatists don't really know how to be conservative or liberal. They see too many issues on both sides where the typical progressive or conservative dogmas are shallow or flawed. For example, many Pragmatists who grew up in liberal families or communities just can't condone (or understand) the liberal penchant for compulsive government over-spending. Similarly, a number of Pragmatists from traditionally conservative backgrounds find it ridiculous (and even immoral) that many conservatives give seemingly constant lip-service to freedom from the excesses and bureaucrats in Washington D.C., while they simultaneously want to deny the opportunity for freedom to foreign-born immigrants--without even seeming to realize that this is a contradiction. Traditionalists see elections as a choice between competing liberal and conservative values, while Pragmatists tend to summarize each election around the most important central issue. In short, Traditionalists tend to think that elections are about liberal versus conservative values, issues and candidates, and they hardly realize that Pragmatists exist. In fact, most conservatives and liberals categorize Pragmatists simply as members of the other side. "If you're not with us," many Traditionalists assume, "you must be with that other party." For their part, many Pragmatists are annoyed by Traditionalist politics and content to stay uninvolved in supporting certain issues and campaigns. As a result, many who could work together remain alienated even though they actually agree on nearly all goals and could be effective political allies. How This Applies in 2012 This year will be a Pragmatist election. The question is the same as 2008 and 2010: Which party is most likely to get our economic house in order? Only a major world crisis is likely to change this focus, though President Obama's campaign is trying to swing the narrative away from the economy and make this a Traditionalist party election. In short, if independents in the battleground states vote Traditionalist in 2012 (based mainly on social issues), President Obama will be re-elected; if they vote Pragmatist (with a focus on freeing up the economy), he will be unseated. Second, while many people on the Right tend to see President Obama as a far-left liberal and those on the Left most often see him as a centrist (note that both "liberal" and "centrist" are Traditionalist labels), his record and modus operandi is clearly Pragmatist. President Obama has genuinely progressive goals, to be sure, but his personality, approach and methodology is strongly Pragmatist. The other strongly Pragmatist in the campaign is Congressman Paul. Some would call him a Traditionalist because he has long promoted issues that had little chance of winning, but to do this would be to misread his efforts; he has always focused on bringing real change to his agenda items, not just symbolic support. Ironically, however, though Ron Paul has taken a Pragmatist approach for many years, a lot of Pragmatists don't support him because they don't think he can win. Rick Santorum is the most Traditionalist of the current candidates. The one exception in his otherwise Traditionalist stable of issues is his strongly Pragmatist stance in support of the manufacturing sector. Interestingly, both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich swing between Pragmatist and Traditionalist approaches. Romney has taken a Traditionalist voice while his history is more naturally Pragmatist. Gingrich is a strong Traditionalist in his long public life, but seems to take a Pragmatist tone in his private and business life. Depending on whether either of these candidates becomes the Republican nominee, in the general election expect either Romney or Gingrich to focus nearly his entire campaign strongly on one Pragmatist issue: Who can best fix the U.S. economy. This election will be swayed by Pragmatist voters, which gives President Obama a natural advantage unless his opponent can convince Pragmatists that a Republican can more realistically and effectively renovate the economy. The Greatest Need A key to winning this election (at the local and state levels as well as nationally) is to create effective coalitions of Traditionalists and Pragmatists with shared election goals. This is not an easy marriage. The two types of voters see each other as part of the problem. Even when Traditionalists and Pragmatists accept the need to work together, they generally approach their relationship with basic mistrust. Conservative Traditionalists almost always have a hard time believing that conservative-leaning Pragmatists are really on their side. In most cases, they have been warriors of conservatism for a long time. They have come to associate conservatism with certain catch phrases, key words and mutual affection for iconic media personalities. Pragmatists loathe what they consider shallow and mindless partisanship. As a result, they dislike catch phrases, key words and iconic personalities. The same problems exist between liberal Traditionalists and liberal-leaning Pragmatists. Ironically, politics requires us to get outside our comfort zones and work with people from differing views in order to obtain the best results for our locales, states and nations. It may well be this very process of political interrelationships and personal citizen involvement that keeps us free in the long term. When a free nation is in decline or struggles, the greatest need is simply for better voters. We need to become such voters, and we all need to reach out and work more effectively with people who are different in order to accomplish real change in modern America. If we do this, the 2012 election will be a success, whatever the electoral results. Who we elect is ultimately less important than how we elect, because our citizen involvement beyond the voting booth is determining our national future. As the major campaigns continually amp up the negativity of their attack ads, this is increasingly true. Our leaders now seldom set the example of civility and honest debate, and if our citizens follow their path the future of freedom will continue to decline. Fortunately, each of us can directly impact this sad trend. We must push through political barriers and have honest and friendly dialogues with people from all political viewpoints. This takes maturity--a characteristic of free people. Our freedoms, or their lack, are less a result of the leaders in society than of the citizens. In our time, better voters and better citizens are needed. Each of us can do better. There are many in our society that divide, criticize and attack. More citizens are needed who build bridges and promote unity. Whatever kind of voter you are, it is essential to realize that in the current environment the citizens are the true leaders. It is time for each of us to lead. Oliver DeMille is the author of FreedomShift and other books on freedom and education.******************* Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-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, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles Why Freedom-Lovers Are Their Own Worst Enemies By Stephen Palmer Family Roles By Oliver DeMille Fear or Respect the Police? By Bryan Hyde Training the Factory Workers for the Farm By Kevin Mogavero Three Wrong Lessons By Oliver DeMille Width or Depth: Less May Be More By Chris Brady Jonathan Edwards: Resolved to Serve With Humility By Orrin Woodward What Are We Socializing Them For? By Stephen Palmer Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:55:54 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/6DgQA/h/The_Elephant_in_the_Room_The.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference The Elephant in the Room The 2012 Election, the Tea Parties, and the Thing That's Missing by Oliver DeMille The 2012 election could turn out to be a disaster. In fact, it may already be headed in that direction. Many conservatives, independents, moderates and fiscally-minded liberals currently have a sense that something is wrong, that amidst all the debates and the many hours of daily media coverage on the election, something isn't sitting right. Something feels...well...off. Though many can't put their finger on what is wrong, this uneasy feeling remains. Those who keep an eye on the ups and downs of candidate popularity in the polls, and who watch the unfolding of events from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and beyond (not to mention nearly daily input from the White House), wonder if the problem is simply that the candidates are lacking. Others take sides with a certain candidate and blame their inner voice of concern on worries that their candidate will lose. With all the talking heads addressing the election, it is surprising how few people are talking about the real issue. Make no mistake: the real issue, though it has received almost no press, is the Congressional and Senatorial elections. All the energy is being sucked into the presidential contest, but it isn't the most important election of the year. Since almost everyone who is closely watching the election is focused almost entirely on the run for the White House, it isn't surprising that most of us instinctively feel that something is missing. No matter what happens in the presidential election, the makeup of the House and Senate in 2013-2014 is going to determine the future of our economy and nation. Certainly the inhabitant of the White House will have a role in this, but he won't be the lead character in the drama. Not really. The media, with its nose for celebrity and its fascination with the almost-royal nature of the executive, will probably focus on the President during the next three years, just like it has since the post-1945 rise of Washington D.C. as the center of world power. But the future of the economy, of regulation and deregulation, of deficits, debts, entitlements, tax policy, massive increases or frugal decreases of government spending, of whether the United States will once again become the world's leading economy or bow to the rise of China--these will be determined by Congressional votes. The White House will of course raise its voice on these essential issues, but Congress will make the decisions. So it is a major problem that few of those who pay attention to the election are giving their best efforts to making sure we get a Congress that will make the needed changes. Independents took their votes away from the ineffectual Republican Congress in 2006 and 2008, and then did the same thing to the regulation-addicted, overspending Democratic House in 2010. The Tea Parties pushed their own revolution for economic responsibility in 2010 and made it an historic election with a strong message that our leaders simply must get our nation's financial house in order. It remains to be seen where independents will stand in 2012, or to what extent the Tea Parties will show up, but anything less than another historic swing in the direction of fiscal responsibility will lead to bigger, more inefficient government and deepening financial crises. The reality is that the 2012 election will have a drastic impact on the future of America. We have reached a point where our fiscal irresponsibility simply must be addressed or we are in for major problems right away. We cannot sustain current levels of debt and the growth of deficits, spending, regulations, economic impotence, or the further credit downgrades that are ahead unless we make real changes. If things don't change soon, we will witness the end of the American experiment in freedom and innovation. Many Americans seem to understand this, but something is still holding them back from igniting a real outpouring of political passion and involvement. Voter turnout has been surprisingly small in the contests held so far--and with so much at stake, this is a budding catastrophe. Is the problem, as many in the media have suggested, that the current field of candidates isn't particularly exciting for many voters? Or is it that the onslaught of negative attack ads has driven people not just away from certain candidates but from politics in general? After all, every candidate has been attacked over and over. Or is it just that the passion of the 2010 election has worn off, that the people are tired of the constant bickering and would rather focus on other things? Whatever the reasons for the reduced levels of passion, there is a lot of frustration, anger and interest still simmering under the surface. But as long as it is focused on the presidential race, it will never reach its potential to change things in lasting ways. The real battle is the Congressional election, but almost nobody is taking notice of this. If one of the Republican candidates wins the presidency but doesn't have a supportive Congress, little will change in Washington. Our nation simply cannot afford more business as usual--the economy isn't up to four more years without serious economic upturns that will only come by freeing the economy and incentivizing investment, hiring and growth. On the other hand, if the Congress is strongly pro-growth, then even a Democratic White House won't be able to stop the move toward a truly free economy. In such an election outcome, Congress would likely shut down all major proposed spending proposals from the White House and also go back and repeal or de-fund past regulations that hurt the economy. The Congress could simply refuse to fund a budget that doesn't fix our national economic problems, and if the President threatens to shut down the government the Congress could agree to shut down all nonessential functions and happily announce to the American people how much money the shutdown will save per week. All the pressure would on the Democratic President to acquiesce. The same pressures could be used to pass plans that create long-term fixes to our debt, entitlements, etc. In short, the nation needs Congress to be made up of representatives who will vote for less regulation, pro-growth incentives and long-term economic fixes. Whatever happens in the presidential race, the Congressional race is the key. The Party system is getting in the way of how people are viewing the 2012 election. The emphasis on the presidential race is capturing most of the attention and energy, and this is a serious mistake. This election has the potential to significantly improve the direction of our nation, or to send it spiraling into unmanageable debt and recession, but those who care about freedom and prosperity need to put their focus on the Congressional elections. That is where the real action is, regardless of how little notice this receives in the media. Independents, Tea Partiers, moderates, conservatives and fiscally-concerned liberals need to put their focus on the Congressional races of 2012. Whether President Obama or one of his challengers wins the presidential contest, the future of the nation really depends on what happens in the Congressional elections. It's time to get this message out to anyone who cares about the 2012 election and the future of America. Do you know your local and state candidates? Are there debates or town meetings in your area? Who are the local lynch-pins that would benefit from your support, input and participation? *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-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, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles Why Freedom-Lovers Are Their Own Worst Enemies By Stephen Palmer Family Roles By Oliver DeMille Fear or Respect the Police? By Bryan Hyde Training the Factory Workers for the Farm By Kevin Mogavero Three Wrong Lessons By Oliver DeMille Width or Depth: Less May Be More By Chris Brady Jonathan Edwards: Resolved to Serve With Humility By Orrin Woodward What Are We Socializing Them For? By Stephen Palmer Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:36:45 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/DyEaM/h/What_to_Look_for_in_2012_by.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference What to Look for in 2012 By Oliver DeMille Here are some things to consider in 2012, several possible trends which could make significant changes in our world by the end of the year ahead: 1-Barring major events, the news of 2012 will most likely be all about the election, especially the presidential election. But the real potential for election change will be in the Congress. The most important determinant of how America will run after the 2012 election will be whether Congress remains split or if one party gains control of both houses--regardless of what happens in the presidential race. This won't be the media focus, but those who understand American politics will keep their eye on the coming changes in Congress. 2-More Democrats are arguing for less government spending.[i] This shift in thinking is getting very little press because the election story is so dominant in the current media. Since few Democrats are using this frustration with government spending as a reason to vote for non-Democrat candidates, it receives sparse coverage. But it is a significant change, regardless. Many Republicans and most independents and moderates believe that Washington spends too much already. If more Democrats continue to adopt the same view, it may become a major story in the years ahead. 3-The credit rating agencies that downgraded the U.S. credit rating in 2011 are still very closely watching the U.S. economy and some indications are that further downgrades could be ahead if the economy continues to struggle. Along with this, for the first time in many decades, U.S. securities are less stable than some other investments,[ii] and money flow away from the U.S. is increasing--especially since the middle of 2011. If these trends continue, U.S. economic challenges could drastically worsen in the next twenty months. 4-Some leaders in Saudi Arabia have voiced concerns about how the U.S. handled Egypt, especially President Mubarak, during the 2011 Arab Spring.[iii] As the popular uprising grew, the Obama Administration eventually suggested that Mubarak step down. Regardless of whether or not this was the right approach, the sentiment among some Saudi and other Middle Eastern leaders goes something like this: If that's how the U.S. treats its allies, do we really want to trust Washington for anything? Ironically, many in Israel are feeling the same emotion. Add to this the under-reported influence of Saudi investors in major European and U.S. businesses and banks, and this trend may be the most impactful in years to come. Western economic dependency on Middle East oil is well known, but the bigger danger may come from direct investment in businesses and banks. If massive sums of Petro Dollars were pulled from Western banks, for example, the term too big to fail would take on a whole new meaning. 5-We have been warned about cyber terrorism for some time now. Is 2012 the year? 6-Will Israel bomb an Iranian nuclear facility?[iv] If so, how will the Obama Administration react? 7-Ironically, a focus on jobs may finally become a focus in Washington during the election year of 2012. The bad news is that the parties are unlikely to work together to make real changes. Hopefully, this turns out to be untrue, but if current trends continue little will actually occur. The good news in all this is that a relatively few changes would bring a drastic positive change in momentum and infuse the nation with positive innovative energy. For example, four changes could establish a massive change of direction and rebirth of American success (like the shift in American perspective which occurred when Reagan took over leadership from Carter). The four include: 1) a rollback of all federal policies since 2000 that have hurt small business and dis-incentivized innovation, growth and hiring 2) an effective long-term policy to fix the problem with entitlements, balance the budget and get control of our national debt 3) a restructuring of American education funding to support technical training, community colleges and other non-traditional methods to increase the competitiveness of our workforce 4) a move away from international invasions and wars abroad while maintaining a strong national security presence I am not predicting that these will occur, but they would be greatly beneficial to the nation if they did. Finally, each year brings its share of surprises. For example, who could have guessed in 2010 that the year ahead would bring the death of Osama bin Laden or the refusal of the White House to take leadership in a serious jobs plan? Whatever comes in 2012, America needs to get its financial house in order and re-incentivize business growth and hiring. These are vital priorities. [i] Meet the Press, December 25, 2011 [ii] Face the Nation, December 25, 2011 [iii] Meet the Press, December 25, 2011 [iv] The Atlantic predicted that this might happen in 2011. *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-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, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles Why Freedom-Lovers Are Their Own Worst Enemies By Stephen Palmer Family Roles By Oliver DeMille Fear or Respect the Police? By Bryan Hyde Training the Factory Workers for the Farm By Kevin Mogavero Three Wrong Lessons By Oliver DeMille Width or Depth: Less May Be More By Chris Brady Jonathan Edwards: Resolved to Serve With Humility By Orrin Woodward What Are We Socializing Them For? By Stephen Palmer Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Sun, 08 Jan 2012 03:00:50 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/Nv9Ts/h/The_Dangerous_Misleading.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference The Dangerous and Misleading Problem With Our Elections By Oliver DeMille OUR POPULAR CULTURE is given to extremes--everything from extreme sports to extreme makeovers. If this trend were limited to our entertainment, it might be just fine. Unfortunately, it is found even in our elections, where the stakes couldn't be higher. The American founding generation was known for how strongly its members took sides and promoted their views, but also for its openness in listening to other views, learning from contrary perspectives, and changing its mind when the ideas of opponents made sense. In our time, this wisdom is practically nonexistent. We may not admit it, but we seem to want extreme politics. We want our candidate to blast the flaws, weaknesses, and misguided views of the opponent. The more extreme and angry the language, the more we support a candidate. We want a fight, and we want our candidate to bloody the opponent. Voters claim to want respectful and civil discourse, but the majority votes for the outspoken, loud, and aggressive. The Effectiveness of Attack Politics When President Obama is moderate, measured, and judicious, conservatives say he lacks leadership, while liberals call him ineffective, uncommitted, and disappointing. When he pushes back, takes strong positions, and goes on the attack, conservatives call him a terrible leader and a dangerous opponent, while progressives flock to support his revitalized presidency. The majority responds to aggression, not to wisdom or civility. Likewise, the liberal media once routinely praised Senator John McCain for his fair, balanced, and moderate approach to the issues--until he became the Republican candidate for president and the media turned on him as an extreme conservative. At the same time, conservatives supported his Senatorial leadership but then angrily labeled him a liberal in conservative clothing during his presidential bid. Mitt Romney failed to capture widespread conservative support mainly because he seemed to lack passion, anger, and edginess. The charge of flip-flopping is really a frustration with Romney's modulated tone. Both Obama and Gingrich have a long record of switched sides on numerous issues--more, in fact, than Romney. But they know how to go on the attack, and this quickly dissipates any sense of them being wishy-washy. Even when Romney goes on the attack, his words sound like they are being dictated from a teleprompter--not shouted from his angry gut. Aggressive and angry candidates generally have more success than those who are mild and soft-spoken. In the following chart, the more aggressive candidate from each election era is marked in bold: Election More Aggressive/Strident More Mild/Gentlemanly 1980 Reagan Mondale 1984 Reagan Mondale 1988 Bush Dukakis 1992 Clinton Bush 1996 Clinton Dole 2000 Bush Gore 2004 Bush Kerry 2008 Obama McCain Note that in recent elections the more vocally aggressive person has always been the winning candidate. Looking ahead to the 2012 election, this trend provides several interesting scenarios (some of which won't happen but are still instructive): 2012? Obama Romney Gingrich Obama Christie Obama Trump Obama Obama Paul Bachman Obama The practical problem for candidates is this: To win their party nomination they need to appeal to their base by strongly attacking the other party's candidate, and then to win in the general election they must appeal to independents by not being too extreme. Thus candidates such as Mondale, Dukakis, Dole, or Kerry get the nomination but not the support of independents. An interesting twist on all this is the technique of attacking someone other than the opposing candidate. This allows candidates to tell independents they're taking the high road and simultaneously show their base that they are sufficiently angry on the attack. Reagan, Clinton, Obama and others have used this by positioning themselves as Washington outsiders with Washington as the enemy and changing the culture in Washington as the great mandate. Gingrich has recently put a new spin on this by shrewdly turning his anger against the media--something that clearly resonates with his conservative base and even many independents. Obama has attempted to do the same thing by turning his anger against Wall Street and the rich. Mirroring domestic politics, voters connect more with candidates who talk tough and take a hawkish stance toward potential national enemies like China and Iran. Those who argue for moderation toward nations such as China or Pakistan--e.g. Gore, Kerry, Huntsman, Paul, or Santorum--tend to lose support to those promising more belligerent positions. Aggressive Leadership Our societal conception of leadership idealizes aggressiveness, killer instinct, and strength as much or even more than virtue, wisdom, and integrity--from our high school football fields to our Ivy League lacrosse teams and from our corporate boardrooms and reality television programs to our prom queen elections and even the U.S. Capitol building. The old Greek proverb that God loves the good but blesses the bold is a good description of how our modern voters seem to think. Is the Anger Warranted? All of this obscures the problems of a nation literally on the brink in far too many ways. Unemployment remains painfully high, and even small decreases in the unemployment rate are the result of more people giving up their search for work rather than more real jobs in the economy. Consider these sobering realities: Of those who have lost and then found new jobs since the Great Recession, only 7% have found a job that pays as much as the one they lost. When those not seeking jobs or only finding part-time work are included in the statistics, our real unemployment rate is nearly 20% (see further commentary and details here). An astounding 44% of Americans receive food stamps or some other form of government food assistance. Since 2008, the average U.S. household has seen its net worth decrease 9.9%. In contrast, during the same time period the increase of net worth for those serving in Congress is a positive 24%. In 2008, 9% of Americans and 16% of Chinese struggled to pay for food. By 2011, 19% of Americans and 6% of Chinese struggle to pay for food. Things are worse than the numbers reflect, and currently they are not getting better. No wonder many voters are deeply frustrated and genuinely angry with numerous government policies that hurt the economy, and while they don't really want violence, they don't feel understood or supported by moderate words, restrained plans, or relaxed rhetoric. They want angry words, their candidates to win, and those they blame for all our problems to lose and lose painfully. Sound and Well-Informed Judgment Trumps Anger Madison foresaw such challenges when he called elections peaceful revolutions--not actually violent, but passionate and extreme like all true revolutions. The founders knew that in elections passions run deep, and they knew that lasting freedom depends on the wisdom of the people. As he wrote in Federalist Paper 1: [W]e, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance...furnish[es] a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And even those who are right, Madison continues, aren't always motivated for the right reasons: Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives...are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question...[In every major national discussion] a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposing parties, we shall be led to conclude that that they will [promote the justness of their argument and] increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declarations and the bitterness of their invectives. The only lasting solution, Madison says, is for the citizens to calmly and closely examine the details and apply their sound and well-informed judgment. To help reduce the negative influences of too much emotion in politics, the framers filtered the direct vote for presidents through the Electoral College and the election of Senators through state legislatures. Still, they knew that the key to successful democratic society is effective elections by the people, and the key to effective elections is a wise, informed and virtuous people. The Critically-Needed Reversal in Focus So, we have a problem. The two biggest facets of this problem are: 1: In our current system we tend to almost universally see the presidential election as the most important in the nation, the congressional elections as more important than state elections, and state elections as more important than local. In the same vein, we tend to see government programs as more important than private enterprises and philanthropic programs, and institutions as more important than families. 2: We tend to think that the solution to our problems is better, wiser, more civil, prudent and noble candidates rather than better, wiser, more civil, prudent and noble voters. In the founding era, it was the opposite. They saw families and private entities as more important than government institutions and the local and state as more important than the national level. They also felt that the future of our nation depended not on better candidates but on better voters. We may or may not need better candidates, but more importantly we need to be much better spouses, parents, neighbors, leaders and voluntary servants in our communities, churches, charities and families. We do have an election problem, because we have a leadership problem--on all levels. The most effective way to overcome this challenge is to become greater leaders in our homes and communities. Excellent leaders are more likely to use wisdom in elections, and less prone to being swayed by angry and aggressive rhetoric. As long as we put our faith in aggressive candidates on the attack, we are going to keep being disappointed with the results of each election. The 2012 election will be no different. The Solution: Better Voters This isn't to say that milder, less aggressive, or more civil candidates have the answers--not at all. The solution to our modern American election problem is simple:Better voters. Voters are the hope of our future, specifically voters who are more calmly and consistently involved in politics on a daily basis both during and between elections, more locally focused, less emotional and wiser, less swayed by the media and the experts, more principle-centered, and more deeply studied in the principles and details of freedom. If becoming a nation of such voters is too much to ask, then the future of freedom will be short. *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-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, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles Why Freedom-Lovers Are Their Own Worst Enemies By Stephen Palmer Family Roles By Oliver DeMille Fear or Respect the Police? By Bryan Hyde Training the Factory Workers for the Farm By Kevin Mogavero Three Wrong Lessons By Oliver DeMille Width or Depth: Less May Be More By Chris Brady Jonathan Edwards: Resolved to Serve With Humility By Orrin Woodward What Are We Socializing Them For? By Stephen Palmer Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:57:39 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/IkSVM/h/A_Top_5_Reading_List_for_the.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference A Top 5 Reading List for the 2011 Holidays By Oliver DeMille I DON'T REMEMBER most of the Christmas gifts I got as a kid, but I remember the copy of Aesop's Fables my dad gave me around age 13 or 14. As I sat with a mound of gifts from the day, he fished the book out of the pile, held it up, and said, This will change your life if you let it. I believed him - and it did. A quality book is a gift that keeps teaching long after the holidays are gone. If a great book isn't part of your family's holiday traditions, start a new tradition this year. Somehow a great book takes the holidays to a whole new level. Thomas Jefferson said he couldn't live without books, and the truth is that reading is one of the most engaging and enjoyable forms of entertainment and also among the most interactive and interesting ways to learn. Leaders are readers, and a nation of readers is a nation of leaders. Every year I share a top reading list just before the holidays. This year each title is a recent 2011 book I think every American should read. Each would be a great Christmas or New Year's present to yourself and others. I don't know about you, but for me it just doesn't seem like Christmas unless I receive two things under the tree: a new Nerf football and a book that I just can't wait to read! I guess that goes back to childhood for me. Here are the best books of the year: The Top 5 1. Resolved: 13 Resolutions for Life by Orrin Woodward If you are going to get one book for the holidays, this is it. I have never read a better book on leadership than this one. It outlines 13 resolutions every person should make in our modern world, and gives specific helps on how to turn them into habits. Indeed, this book could be titled The 13 Habits of Success and Happiness for Everyone. The stories and examples from great leaders of history and current events are moving and uplifting. It is on par with the great leadership works like Good to Great, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Acres of Diamonds, A Message to Garcia, Theory of Constraints,The E-Myth, Cash Flow Quadrant, Leadership and Self-Deception, The Radical Leap,One Minute Manager, Rascal, and Emotional Intelligence. It is truly a revolution in leadership books, and is a great gift for adults and teens alike. In fact, this book is like a full leadership education for every young (and less young) person. It's a must-read for every leader--and the potential leader in all of us. 2. That Used to Be Us by Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum The authors outline the coming decline of America that will occur unless we make significant changes soon. Above all, we need a return to the values of innovation and entrepreneurialism. The government has an important role to play in all this, since many Americans are already trying to make the changes only to run up against government roadblocks. This is an excellent and important book, and a good gift for anyone who thinks deeply and cares about America's future. 3. Out of Our Minds by Ken Robinson This is an excellent book on what American education must do to prepare our youth for the realities of the 21st Century. It blends the best idealism of great educators with the pragmatic realism of business and societal needs, and presents an effective vision of what education can and should be in our time. Beautifully written, it will be an enjoyable read for all. This is a fabulous gift for anyone who wants--or needs--to know more about the ideals ofLeadership Education. 4. The Social Animal by David Brooks This book gives the reader a bird's eye view of our modern society--our strengths, weaknesses and the challenges ahead. This is a must read for concerned Americans. The research and details in this book are vital knowledge for all modern people who care about the future of freedom, culture, family and business. Don't miss this book. Readers will never see the world the same again, and they'll understand what is really going on at a whole new level. 5. On China by Henry Kissinger China is a growing major concern for nearly all Americans, and the topic of China and its impact on our future will only increase in the years and decades ahead. Kissinger shows a China that certainly is a potential threat, and suggests wise guidelines for dealing with such a powerful potential enemy in ways that are firm, respectful and intelligent. Ultimately, Kissinger argues, the reality of China as friend or enemy will depend on America's own integrity in being a strong, wise and effective world leader. If we are weak, undisciplined or unwise, the China threat will only grow. The topic and reality of China will only increase in the years ahead, and all American citizens should educate themselves on this rising trend. This book is a great place to start. *************** So that's my five top recommendations for the holidays. An excellent new year's resolution would be to read all of them--starting with Woodward's Resolved, since it will help the reader keep the other resolutions. An Extra Book to Stretch Your Thinking I have another book to recommend, because one of our biggest modern challenges is that more and more people are walling themselves into groups of like-minded thinking and banding together to reject outside ideas. We see such cliques in Washington politics, Hollywood values and especially the many online communities that most people participate in almost daily. But we can't have the kind of real societal progress we all seek unless more of us think more broadly. In short, as a nation we need to genuinely listen to the views of those who disagree with us and more humbly learn from the truths other views have to offer. To help with this, I suggest that each person choose one additional book that will stretch their thinking. The key is to read a book from a view beyond your normal circle of thinking, and to read it in a special way: looking past everything you disagree with and instead putting your attention to finding anything you do agree with and truly seeking to understand a different viewpoint. This is a hard exercise for many modern Americans, which is further evidence of how entrenched we tend to be in our clique thinking. For conservatives I recommend Back to Work by Bill Clinton, and for liberals I suggest The Thomas Sowell Reader by Thomas Sowell. Both were published in 2011. Moderates can read either or both. Whichever you chose to read, enjoy the process of reading outside your comfort zone and focusing on finding the things you can agree with even from a different viewpoint. So there's a list of books for everyone this festive season. Again, I recommend starting with Woodward's book and then proceeding to the others as they interest you. And don't forget to give books as gifts for the holidays. Everyone should get an important book for Christmas or Hannukah. Finally, why not give Aesop's Fables a try? Even if you've already read it, it is worth studying over and over. Happy holidays, and enjoy your reading! *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-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, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles A Political Independent's Manifesto By Stephen Palmer Capitalism Versus Free Enterprise By Oliver DeMille What My Dad Taught Me About Pain By Bryan Hyde Article V: A Potential Path to Restore State Sovereignty and Citizen Responsibility By Shanon Brooks The Big Debate on American Education By Oliver DeMille Turning Points for LIFE By Chris Brady Freedom From Stupid People By Kevin Mogavero What Are We Socializing Them For? By Stephen Palmer Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Tue, 29 Nov 2011 19:42:09 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/NB9nE/h/Monthly_Newsletter_America.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference America Flounders, China Blossoms By Oliver DeMille We have a problem. A big problem. Or, as the old quip put it, "Be afraid. Be very afraid." As an optimist, I am usually skeptical of anything that sounds overly negative. However, I recently read a list of statistics in the Harper's Index is cause for serious concern. Two items on the list have received a lot of press: Standard and Poor's "revised its U.S. debt outlook to 'negative'" on April 18, 2011. It has never before ranked the U.S. anything but 'stable.'" This should give us all pause. But this is a fixable situation, one which can be solved by a return to American entrepreneurialism, initiative and ingenuity. The increase of unemployment once again in May 2011 can likewise be effectively overcome by government policy changes that incentivize private investment and spending. Many corporations are sitting on significant surpluses right now, but they are loathe to spend them without a real change in the way the U.S. government spends money and treats business. In short, our current economic problems can be dealt with by the principles of freedom and free enterprise--if only Washington would give freedom a try. Note that neither Republican nor Democratic presidents have taken this approach for over two decades. But these aren't the statistics that should worry us most. The figures which really concern me have gotten little media attention: "Percentage of Americans in 2009 who believed the free market 'is the best system on which to base the future of the world': 74 Percentage of Americans who believe so today: 59 Percentage of Chinese who do: 67" If this trend continues, we'll face drastically worsening major problems. Unease about the growth of China's power has been increasing in the U.S. for some time, but the concern has mostly centered on America's economic decline versus the growth of China as a major totalitarian world power. Add to this the fact that over two-thirds of Chinese believe free enterprise is the key to the future--at the same time that American belief in free enterprise is waning--and our sense of what the 21st Century will bring takes on a new direction. In the United States, youth are widely taught that the key to life and career success is getting a good job, while in China an emphasis for the "best and brightest" in the rising generation is to engage meaningful entrepreneurship. If this continues, the status and roles of these two nations will literally switch in the decades ahead: China as superpower, the U.S. as a second-rate nation with a stagnant and struggling economy. Many experts point out that China has a long way to go to "catch up" with the U.S. in military strength, but how long will this take if the U.S. economy continues to decline while China's booms? I have two main thoughts on this: First, good for the Chinese people! If they can consistently nudge their society and government in the direction of increased freedom, they will join or possibly even become the world's most important leaders. The truth is that freedom works--in China as much as everywhere else. Second, and most importantly, America needs to give freedom a chance. A majority of Americans believe in free enterprise, but many in Washington seem convinced that the government can do things better than the American people. The future of our freedom and prosperity depends on a flourishing environment of freedom. Government can do us all a great service by altering its current policies and removing the numerous obstacles to free enterprise. This one significant shift is vital. The fact that many of our national leaders seem committed to avoiding such changes is a big problem. The longer this lasts, the bigger the problem becomes. *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online. He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles Self-Governance: Our Job as Citizens By Oliver DeMille How Avoiding the Stock Market Can Make You Rich By Garrett Gunderson Public Education's God Complex By Bryan Hyde How to Access Your Highest Power By Steve D'Annunzio The Rise of Social Leadership By Oliver DeMille Personal Greatness: Expect to Earn It By Chris Brady Why the Talent Myth is Holding You Back By Orrin Woodward Is America Becoming Like Europe? By Oliver DeMille Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:17:18 -0400http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/20bo6/h/Monthly_Newsletter_Is.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference Is America a Democracy, Republic, or Empire? By Oliver DeMille *Note to Subscribers: Oliver is now offering Social Leader Daily, a daily email with bite-sized insights and inspiration on freedom, leadership, education, and more. Click here to subscribe now. Some in Washington are fond of saying that certain nations don't know how to do democracy. Anytime a nation breaks away from totalitarian or authoritarian controls, these "experts" point out that the people aren't "prepared" for democracy. But this is hardly the point. A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy--but where a strong leader is prepared for tyranny--is still better off as a democracy. A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where an elite class is prepared for aristocracy is still better off as a democracy. A nation where the people aren't prepared for democracy but where a socialist or fundamentalist religious bureaucracy is prepared to rule is still better off as a democracy. Whatever the people's inadequacies, they will do better than the other, class-dominant forms of government. Winston Churchill was right: "Democracy is the worst form of government--except all the other forms that have been tried." False Democracy When I say "democracy," I am of course not referring to a pure democracy where the masses make every decision; this has always turned to mob rule through history. Of Artistotle's various types and styles of democracy, this was the worst. The American founders considered this one of the least effective of free forms of government. Nor do I mean a "socialist democracy" as proposed by Karl Marx, where the people elect leaders who then exert power over the finances and personal lives of all citizens. Whether this type of government is called democracy (e.g. Social Democrats in many former Eastern European nations) in the Marxian sense or a republic (e.g. The People's Republic of China, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics--USSR, etc.), it amounts to the same oligarchic model of authoritarian rule. Marx used the concept of democracy--he called it "the battle for democracy"--to argue for the working classes to rise up against the middle and upper classes and take back their power. Ironically, he believed the masses incapable of such leadership, and felt that a small group of elites, the "vanguard", would have to do the work of the masses for them. This argument assumes an oligarchic view of the world, and the result of attempted Marxism has nearly always been dictatorial or oligarchic authoritarianism. In this attitude Marx follows his mentor Hegel, who discounted any belief in the power or wisdom of the people as wild imaginings (see Mortimer Adler's discussion on Monarchy in the Syntopicon). The American founders disagreed entirely with this view. A Democratic Republic The type of democracy we need more of in the world is constitutional representative democracy, with: A written constitution that separates the legislative, executive and judicial powers. Limits all with checks and balances, and leaves most of the governing power in the hands of the people and local and regional, rather than national, government institutions. In such a government, the people have the power to elect their own representatives who participate at all levels. Then the people closely oversee the acts of government. One other power of the people in a constitutional representative democratic republic is to either ratify or reject the original constitution. Only the support of the people allows any constitution to be adopted (or amended) by a democratic society. The American framers adopted Locke's view that the legislative power was closest to the people and should have the sole power over the nation's finances. Thus in the U.S. Constitution, direct representatives of the people oversaw the money and had to answer directly to the people every two years. Two Meanings of "Democracy" There are two ways of understanding the term democracy. One is as a governmental form--which is how this article has used the word so far. The other is as a societal format. There are four major types of societies: A chaotic society with no rules, laws or government. A monarchial society where one man or woman has full power over all people and aspects of the society. An aristocratic society where a few people--an upper class--control the whole nation. A democratic society where the final say over the biggest issues in the nation comes from the regular people As a societal form, democracy is by far the best system.Montesquieu, who was the source most quoted at the American Constitutional Convention, said: "[Democracy exists] when the body of the people is possessed of the supreme power." In a good constitutional democracy, the constitution limits the majority from impinging upon the inalienable rights of a minority--or of anyone at all. Indeed, if a monarchial or aristocratic society better protects the rights of the people than a democratic nation, it may well be a more just and free society. History has shown, however, that over time the people are more likely to protect their rights than any royal family or elite class. When the many are asked to analyze and ratify a good constitution, and then to protect the rights of all, it turns out they nearly always protect freedom and just society better than the one or the few. It is very important to clarify the difference between these two types of democracy--governmental and societal. For example, many of the historic Greek "democracies" were governmental democracies only. They called themselves democracies because the citizens had the final say on the governmental structure and elections--but only the upper class could be citizens. Thus these nations were actually societal aristocracies, despite being political democracies. Plato called the societal form of democracy the best system and the governmental format of democracy the worst. Clearly, knowing the difference is vital. Aristotle felt that there are actually six major types of societal forms. A king who obeys the laws leads a monarchial society, while a king who thinks he is above the law rules a tyrannical society. Likewise, government by the few can either have different laws for the elite class or the same laws for all people, making oligarchy or aristocracy. In a society where the people are in charge, they can either rule by majority power (he called this democracy) or by wise laws, protected inalienable rights and widespread freedom (he called this "mixed" or, as it is often translated, "constitutional" society). Like Plato, Aristotle considered the governmental form of democracy bad, but better than oligarchy or tyranny; and he believed the societal form of democracy (where the people as a mass generally rule the society) to be good. Democracy or Republic? The authors of The Federalist Papers tried to avoid this confusion about the different meanings of "democracy" simply by shortening the idea of a limited, constitutional, representative democracy to the term "republic." A breakdown of these pieces is enlightening: Limited (unalienable rights for all are protected) Constitutional (ratified by the people; the three major powers separated, checked and balanced) Representative (the people elect their leaders, using different constituencies to elect different leaders for different governmental entities--like the Senate and the House) Democracy (the people have the final say through elections and through the power to amend the constitution) The framers required all state governments to be this type of republic, and additionally, for the national government to be federal (made up of sovereign states with their own power, delegating only a few specific powers to the national government). When we read the writings of most of the American founders, it is helpful to keep this definition of "republic" in mind. When they use the terms "republic" or "a republic" they usually mean a limited, constitutional, representative democracy like that of all the states. When they say "the republic" they usually refer to the national-level government, which they established as a limited, constitutional, federal, representative democracy. At times they shorten this to "federal democratic republic" or simply democratic republic. Alexander Hamilton and James Wilson frequently used the term "representative democracy," but most of the other founders preferred the word "republic." A Global Problem In today's world the term "republic" has almost as many meanings as "democracy." The term "democracy" sometimes has the societal connotation of the people overseeing the ratification of their constitution. It nearly always carries the societal democracy idea that the regular people matter, and the governmental democracy meaning that the regular people get to elect their leaders. The good news is that freedom is spreading. Authoritarianism, by whatever name, depends on top-down control of information, and in the age of the Internet this is disappearing everywhere. More nations will be seeking freedom, and dictators, totalitarians and authoritarians everywhere are ruling on borrowed time. People want freedom, and they want democracy--the societal type, where the people matter. All of this is positive and, frankly, wonderful. The problem is that as more nations seek freedom, they are tending to equate democracy with either the European or Asian versions (parliamentary democracy or an aristocracy of wealth). The European parliamentary democracies are certainly an improvement over the authoritarian states many nations are seeking to put behind them, but they are inferior to the American model. The same is true of the Asian aristocratic democracies. Specifically, the parliamentary model of democracy gives far too much power to the legislative branch of government, with few separations, checks or balances. The result is that there are hardly any limits to the powers of such governments. They simply do whatever the parliament wants, making it an Aristotelian oligarchy. The people get to vote for their government officials, but the government can do whatever it chooses--and it is run by an upper class. This is democratic government, but aristocratic society. The regular people in such a society become increasingly dependent on government and widespread prosperity and freedom decrease over time. The Asian model is even worse. The governmental forms of democracy are in place, but in practice the very wealthy choose who wins elections, what policies the legislature adopts, and how the executive implements government programs. The basic problem is that while the world equates freedom with democracy, it also equates democracy with only one piece of historical democracy--popular elections. Nations that adopt the European model of parliamentary democracy or the Asian system of aristocratic democracy do not become societal democracies at all--but simply democratic aristocracies. Democracy is spreading--if by democracy we mean popular elections; but aristocracy is winning the day. Freedom--a truly widespread freedom where the regular people in a society have great opportunity and prosperity is common--remains rare around the world. The Unpopular American Model The obvious solution is to adopt the American model of democracy, as defined by leading minds in the American founding: limited, constitutional, representative, federal, and democratic in the societal sense where the regular people really do run the nation. Unfortunately, this model is currently discredited in global circles and among the world's regular people for at least three reasons: 1. The American elite is pursuing other models. The left-leaning elite (openly and vocally) idealize the European system, while the American elite on the right prefers the Asian structure of leadership by wealth and corporate status. If most of the intelligentsia in the United States aren't seeking to bolster the American constitutional model, nor the elite U.S. schools that attract foreign students on the leadership track, it is no surprise that freedom-seekers in other nations aren't encouraged in this direction. 2. The American bureaucracy around the world isn't promoting societal democracy but rather simple political democracy--popular elections have become the entire de facto meaning of the term "democracy" in most official usage. With nobody pushing for limited, constitutional, federal, representative democratic republics, we get what we promote: democratic elections in fundamentally class-oriented structures dominated by elite upper classes. 3. The American people aren't all that actively involved as democratic leaders. When the U.S. Constitution was written, nearly every citizen in America was part of a Town Council, with a voice and a vote in local government. With much pain and sacrifice America evolved to a system where every adult can be such a citizen, regardless of class status, religious views, gender, race or disability. Every adult now has the opportunity to have a real say in governance. Unfortunately, we have over time dispensed with the Town Councils of all Adults and turned to a representative model even at the most local community and neighborhood level. As Americans have ceased to participate each week in council and decision-making with all adults, we have lost some of the training and passion for democratic involvement and become more reliant on experts, the press and political parties. Voting has become the one great action of our democratic involvement, a significant decrease in responsibility since early America. We still take part in juries--but now even that power has been significantly reduced--especially since 1896. In recent times popular issues like environmentalism and the tea parties have brought a marked increase of active participation by regular citizens in the national dialogue. Barack Obama's populist appeal brought a lot of youth into the discussion. The Internet and social media have also given more power to the voice of the masses. When the people do more than just vote, when they are involved in the on-going dialogue on major issues and policy proposals, the society is more democratic--in the American founding model--and the outlook for freedom and prosperity brightens. The Role of the People Human nature being what it is, no people of any nation may be truly prepared for democracy. But--human nature being what it is--they are more prepared to protect themselves from losses of freedom and opportunity than any other group. Anti-democratic forces have usually argued that we need the best leaders in society, and that experts, elites and those with "breeding," experience and means are most suited to be the best leaders. But free democratic societies (especially those with the benefits of limited, constitutional, representative, and locally participative systems) have proven that the right leaders are better than the best leaders. We don't need leaders (as citizens or elected officials) who seem the most charismatically appealing nearly so much as we need those who will effectively stand for the right things. And no group is more likely to elect such leaders than the regular people. It is the role of the people, in any society that wants to be or remain free and prosperous, to be the overseers of their government. If they fail in this duty, for whatever reason, freedom and widespread prosperity will decrease. If the people don't protect their freedoms and opportunities, despite what Marx thought, nobody will. No vanguard, party or group of elites or experts will do as much for the people as they can do for themselves. History is clear on this reality. We can trust the people, in America and in any other nation, to promote widespread freedom and prosperity better than anyone else. Two Challenges With that said, we face at least two major problems that threaten the strength of our democratic republic right now in the United States. First, only a nation of citizen-readers can maintain real freedom. We must deeply understand details like these: The two meanings of democracy The realities and nuances of ideas such as: limited, constitutional, federal, representative, locally participative, etc. The differences between the typical European, Asian, early American and other models competing for support in the world ...And so on In short, we must study the great classics and histories to be the kind of citizen-leaders we should be. The people are better than any other group to lead us, as discussed above, but as a people we can know more, understand more, and become better leaders. Second, we face the huge problem all great democratic powers have eventually faced: how to reconcile our democratic society at home with our imperialism abroad. As George Friedman has argued, we now control a world empire larger than any in history, whether we want to or not. Yet a spirit of democratic opportunity, entrepreneurial freedom, inclusive love of liberty, freedom from oppressive class systems, and promotion of widespread prosperity is diametrically opposed to the arrogant, selfish, self-elevating, superiority-complex of imperialism. This very dichotomy has brought down some of the greatest free nations of history. On some occasions this challenge turned the home nation into an empire, thus killing the free democratic republic (e.g. Rome). Other nations lost their power in the world because the regular people of the nation did not reconcile their democratic beliefs with the cruelty of imperial dominance and force (e.g. Athens, ancient Israel). At times the colonies of an empire used the powerful democratic ideals of the great power against them and broke away. At times the citizens of the great power refused to support the government in quelling rebellions with which they basically agreed (e.g. Great Britain and its relations with America, India, and many other former colonies). Many of the great freedom thinkers of history have argued against empire and for the type of democratic republic the American framers established--see for example Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, the Bible, Plutarch, Tacitus, Augustine, Montaigne, Locke, Montesquieu, Gibbon, Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence, and Madison, among others. The Federalist mentions empire or imperialism 53 times, and not one of the references is positive. In contrast, the main purpose of the Federalist Papers was to make a case for a federal, democratic republic. Those who believe in American exceptionalism (that the United States is an exception to many of the class-oriented patterns in the history of nations) now face their greatest challenge. Will America peacefully and effectively pull back from imperialism and leave dozens of nations successfully (or haltingly) running themselves without U.S. power? Will it set its best and brightest to figuring out how this can be done? Or to increasing the power of empire? Empire and Freedom Some argue that the United States cannot divest itself of empire without leaving the world in chaos. This is precisely the argument nearly all upper classes, and slave owners, make to justify their unprincipled dominance over others. The argument on its face is disrespectful to the people of the world. Of course few people are truly prepared to run a democracy--leadership at all levels is challenging and at the national level it is downright overwhelming. But, again--the people are more suited to oversee than any other group. And without the freedom to fail, as Adam Smith put it, they never have the dynamic that impels great leaders to forge ahead against impossible odds. They will never fly unless the safety net is gone. The people can survive and sometimes even flourish without elite rule, and the world can survive and flourish without American empire. A wise transition is, of course, the sensible approach, but the arrogance of thinking that without our empire the world will collapse is downright selfish--unless one values stability above freedom. How can we, whose freedom was purchased at the price of the lives, fortunes and sacred honor of our forebears, and defended by the blood of soldiers and patriots in the generations that followed, argue that the sacrifices and struggles that people around the world in our day might endure to achieve their own freedom and self- determination constitute too great a cost? The shift will certainly bring major difficulties and problems, but freedom and self-government are worth it. The struggles of a free people trying to establish effective institutions through trial, error, mistakes and problems are better than forced stability from Rome, Madrid, Beijing, or even London or Washington. America can set the example, support the process, and help in significant ways--if we'll simply get our own house in order. Our military strength will not disappear if we remain involved in the world without imperial attitudes or behaviors. We can actively participate in world affairs without adopting either extreme of isolationism or imperialism. Surely, if the world is as dependent on the U.S. as the imperial-minded claim, we should use our influence to pass on a legacy of ordered constitutional freedom and learning self-government over time rather than arrogant, elitist bureaucratic management backed by military might from afar. If Washington becomes the imperial realm to the world, it will undoubtedly be the same to the American people. Freedom abroad and at home may literally be at stake. The future will be significantly impacted by the answers to these two questions: Will the American people resurrect a society of citizen readers actively involved in daily governance? Will we choose our democratic values or our imperialistic attitudes as our primary guide for the 21st Century? Who are we, really? Today we are part democracy, part republic, and part empire. Can we find a way to mesh all three, even though the first two are fundamentally opposed to the third? Will the dawn of the 22nd Century witness an America free, prosperous, strong and open, or some other alternative? If the United States chooses empire, can it possibly retain the best things about itself? Without the Manifest Destiny proposed by the Founders, what alternate destiny awaits? Above all, will the regular citizens--in American and elsewhere--be up to such leadership? No elites will save us. It is up to the people. @font-face { font-family: Cambria Math; }@font-face { font-family: Calibri; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri; }.MsoChpDefault { font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri; }.MsoPapDefault { margin-bottom: 10pt; line-height: 115%; }div.WordSection1 { page: WordSection1; } To get Oliver's books on similar topics, including The Coming Aristocracy and FreedomShift: 3 Choices to Reclaim America's Destiny, go to oliverdemille.com. *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online. He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles The Globocracy By Oliver DeMille Financial Velocity Trumps Compound Interest By Garrett Gunderson Food Safety at Any Cost? By Bryan Hyde The Incredible Power of Choice By John Robert Crawford A.P.R.I.L. Power Brings Soul Flowers By Steve D'Annunzio A New Look at Employment By Oliver DeMille Finishing Well By Chris Brady How to Achieve Dysfunction Through Logical Fallacies By David Grant What Gas Are You Putting In Your Tank? By Orrin Woodward Blame Independents By Oliver DeMille Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Anti-Federalists, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family The Chemistry of Genius? Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative America's 7-Party System Vampires as Aristocrats? Mr. Head Democrat: The Future of American Politics True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:01:03 -0400http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/1MDFE/h/Monthly_Newsletter_.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference The Intellectual Roadblock to Modern Progress By Oliver DeMille *Note to Subscribers: Oliver is now offering Social Leader Daily, a daily email with bite-sized insights and inspiration on freedom, leadership, education, and more. Click here to subscribe now. Liberals and conservatives have been locked in a debate for many years. This debate is holding back our progress as a free nation, and no real solution is yet in sight. The problem is deeper than most people realize, because it is based on an intellectual roadblock and few people know what it is or what to do about it. Until we understand this great roadblock, we will remain stuck in this rut. Liberal versus Conservative The ultimate "conservative" human is the hero, consistently rising above all challenges and overcoming all difficulties, usually at major personal sacrifice, to help others and/or oneself. A major "liberal" agenda, in contrast, is to point out that every man and women is ultimately flawed, weak, and broken, but that sincere and genuine service to those in need can redeem anyone. The liberal view is thus romantic, while the conservative perspective is heroic. Many conservatives yearn for "a hero, a leader, someone to take us where we need to go, a Washington, a Jefferson, a Teddy. We need a Reagan to say, 'Tear down this wall!' We need great leaders to make this nation even greater, and to do great things in the world. Not to force us through government programs, but to lead us as truly free citizens." This is primal conservatism. Many liberals take a different approach: "Washington, Jefferson, Teddy and Reagan were, of course, flawed like all of us, as were Hamilton, Lincoln and FDR, but some of them achieved greatness anyway because they dedicated themselves to emancipating the enslaved, helping the little guy, and increasing social justice for the voiceless and powerless. There is so much that can be improved in this world, and it is up to us to make it happen." Another intellectual debate between conservatives and liberals deals with the soul. The more we develop technology, the more it seems to take on a life of its own. Indeed man, in one view, is a biological machine, but infused with a soul, an inner eternal essence that is free of, albeit at times part of, this world. The debate about whether or not man has a soul (monism vs. dualism) is millennia old, but it has become even more interesting with the advent of the technological age. The world is either living or non-living, in the modern worldview, but unfortunately advanced technology and science blurs this perspective. Physicist David Bohm took on this paradox directly: "The electron, in so far as it responds to a meaning in its environment, is observing the environment. It is doing exactly what human beings are doing." If the universe has a goal, and everything is bending to its design, then all things have a soul or a driving inner essence. Whether or not humans have a soul, modern science sometimes very nearly suggests that everything has something akin to soul. (For example, see The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra.) Is man an initiator, a "prime mover," a creator, or simply a component part? Is he hardware running the universe's (or God's) programming, software driving the material world, or something else? The great books of East and West are filled with debates on these topics. The way intellectual debates impact mass thinking is seen in science. A generation raised with a view of the atom as clearly understood docile electrons orbiting around a nucleus with order and predictability sees economics and government much differently than a later generation taught that electrons don't "orbit" at all--they blink in and out, are only near the nucleus an undetermined minority of the time, and could be literally anywhere the rest of the time. The first generation huddles around its political parties, the second independently jumps around in its politics. Relativity, The Heisenberg Principle, Quantum Theory andString Theory have raised more questions than they have answered about the modern belief in dualism--whether everything is either physical or not physical. As Nobel Prize winners debate (some on the side of both matter and spirit as reality and others on the side of matter only), a few point out that there is really no empirical proof for String Theory or various other popular scientific theories.[v] We are proceeding on...what? Faith? Hope? A desire to help people (charity)? Educated guesses? These theories are certainly elegant, and many of us want them to be true, but without evidence...well, even most of the lead scientists only call them theories. Of course, all this hypothesizing, calculating, analyzing and discussion is often good science. But will we, as Ray Kurzweil suggests, reach a "singularity" at some point early in the 21st Century where technology becomes intelligent enough to begin literally thinking, feeling and reproducing on its own? Is there actually a ghost in our machines? Or, put another way, has matter actually been alive all along? Fritjof Capra's collection of ideas from Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islamic, Christian and other religious thinkers along with Einstein and various modern scientists supporting this very point is impressive. Does matter have spirit? It's a fabulous question, one debated in religious, philosophical and scientific circles for centuries. The artists, by the way, are less doubtful. Art has long held that great works like the Parthenon, the Mona Lisa, Beethoven's Fifth or Picasso's works carry a spirit all their own--one which has real and measurable impact on people. Generations of attendees of Shakespeare productions could well attest of the phantom clearly in the theatre. But modern man automatically discounts such appeals to unscientific feelings. Indeed, this may well be the real problem. If we reject ongoing evidence because we don't know exactly how to measure or interpret it, are we truly behaving scientifically? Shouldn't we figure out a way to assess, categorize and study what we feel, experience and sense? Such fringe science may be part of our future but it is seldom accepted in our time. In the political realm, conservatives frequently apply religious language to such things, effectively though not purposely taking them out of the national dialogue. In contrast, many liberals are more comfortable with non-religious secularism or even personalized spirituality, but they share little common language with which to converse about these things with those outside their customary groups. No national dialogue is really possible on this topic without a widely-accepted common language--regardless of how confidently scientists, mathematicians, religionists, spiritualists or secularists think their own dialect should suffice. Ironically, each of these groups, and others such as libertarians or environmentalists or self-help experts, spend a great deal of time talking about these same themes--but seldom to each other. The difficulty is the paradox itself: a large segment of society only accepts something as true if it is scientifically proven, but we cannot currently prove or disprove whether or not matter and machines are "alive." We can change the definitions of the word "alive," or argue about what such a definition may be, but this leaves few people satisfied or convinced. The Integral Approach Ken Wilber is an exception to this rut, and his multiple bestsellers show that there is at least the beginning of a widespread market for integrating these views. Wilber wrote in 2006: "During the last 30 years, we have witnessed a historical fact: all the world's cultures are now available to us. In the past, if you were born, say, a Chinese, you likely spent your entire life in one culture, often one province, sometimes in one house, living and loving and dying on one small plot of land. But today, not only are people geographically mobile, but we can study, and have studied, virtually every known culture on the planet. In the global village, all cultures are exposed to each other." This applies to national, ethnic, religious, gender, scientific, artistic, professional and various other cultural expressions. As a result, some people are attempting to search out and identify truth and wisdom from all sources. While this is officially called "The Integral Approach," something similar has historically been called a great classical or great books education--learning the best by coming face-to-face with the best thinkers, leaders and creators down through history and across the globe. One central idea of the Integral Approach is that a person will interpret what he experiences in life based on the stage he is at: me, we, or all of us. These levels progress from lower to higher. In other words, a conservative person at the "all of us" level is always going to understand things better than a liberal individual at the "me" level, just as a conservative at the "we" level will be less wise or understanding than a liberal at the "all of us" level. Taking this a step further, at the "all of us" level nearly all of the conflicts between liberals and conservatives effectively disappear. Indeed, for example, at the "all of us" level a religious believer is firm in her faith and deeply respectful of her atheist neighbor and glad that such diversity helps the world be more thoughtful, wise, interactive and, yes, sacred. The atheist friend, also at the "all of us" level, likewise celebrates her neighbor's religious beliefs and how they benefit pluralism, opportunity for dialectal progress and cooperative service to humanity. The first speaks of charity, faith, and reverence for life, the second of philanthropy, scientific progress and social justice--but they mean nearly the same things and can frequently cooperate in doing good. In our time of partisan clique-opinion political passions, some conservatives may respond, "This all sounds like a socialistic ultra-liberal politically correct nightmare." Some liberals might call it, "An ultra-right, over-religious mind-control utopian scheme trying to inculcate one set of values on everyone." These potential responses prove the Integral Approach's point, however. They both come from the "me" or perhaps "we" levels. Einstein seemed to understand this. He said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." If only we could learn to cherish and apply true wisdom--whatever the source. Whatever the Integral Approach accomplishes, and however it may or may not fall short, in a world with global travel, global technology, global communication and global relationships we better learn from the best of all cultures. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, and humanity can use all the acumen it can get. A Block to Progress? With the benefit of all this background, we come to the main point of this article: Modernity is blocked in its progress by a mostly unknown debate that is currently at an impasse. Until we clearly understand this block, articulate and widely discuss it, and come to a majority conclusion that the people of the world can accept and apply, we aren't likely to make much real progress in the 21st Century. For those who believe that freedom, opportunity through free enterprise, and a system that encourages widespread prosperity should be given to all people in the world, that these are in fact inalienable rights, this roadblock is of deep concern. So what are we still arguing about? John Stuart Mill must have understood this when he said, "In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny." When liberals argue for tolerance, helping those who suffer, giving more opportunity to the disadvantaged, spreading the rights and blessings of the Constitution to all people regardless of race or gender or economic status, and taking societal responsibility to improve the world, they are nearly always right. The same is true when conservatives promote individual responsibility, limiting government to roles where it is best suited to serve and leaving other things to better-suited private institutions or the individual, encouraging opportunity and progress through a strong free enterprise system, maintaining strong national security to protect freedom and prosperity from those who would attack it, the importance of morals and virtues in society, and the central role of the family. Here's the problem: When those who believe in a world of true caring and helping the downtrodden also deny freedom and promote a doctrine of increased governmental force, and when those who support freedom, free enterprise and personal responsibility through limited government also adopt a dogmatic attachment to blatant self-promotion that neither accepts nor feels responsibility for the plight of the poor, something is wrong. It is in the denial of freedoms and responsibility for others, the promotion of force and leaving the poor to their own efforts, and in the attacks on others that both major modern political viewpoints fall short. Both sides would like to move past this argument, but the big intellectual block has so far proven immovable. Understanding the Big Block What exactly is this block to modern progress? Three thinkers (Ken Wilber, Thomas Sowell and Steven Pinker), coming from different perspectives and significantly diverse backgrounds, separately arrived at the same conclusion: The intellectual blockage of our time is hybridized political theory. Each used different terminology, but the concepts are similar. Since this is patently an intellectual problem, it is little surprise that most people are unaware of the crisis or the debate that surrounds it. Indeed, since practical politicians have very little time for intellectual debates, and since many intellectual debates are usually irrelevant to current policy needs, few of our leaders know about this trouble either. Here we are at a major societal impasse, stuck in a system that doesn't work, while most of our ultimate leaders (the voting citizens) and active leaders (in Washington) are unaware of the problem. Our citizenry votes, gets more disappointed at the results, then votes again--over and over with increasing frustration. Leaders such as George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama campaign with promises of change--only to see things become more and more the same. Indeed, as irritated as American voters are over the problems in Washington, imagine how incredibly aggravating it must be for presidents and other political leaders who sincerely do want to change the negative cultures and systems inside the Beltway. Things won't change until the Great Conversation figures out how to overcome our current big block -- hybridized political theory. More precisely, it is the current hybrid which combines a sick version of "all of us" with a healthy, but lower, version of "we." In literal terms, "all of us" refers to the inclusive belief that all Americans and indeed all human beings on our planet deserve certain inalienable rights--and that all people and governments are living below our potential until we extend these rights to everyone. This "all of us" philosophy was most articulately promoted in The Declaration of Independence and has yet to reach its full expression. Too many people, most people in fact, are still not secure in their inalienable rights, and until America helps this reality occur it will always be broken--it has a mission to mankind, and it is failing to deliver. In contrast, the "we" political philosophy is based on the lower perspective that "my group" is more important than other people or groups and must be protected and promoted at the expense of other people. Another phrase for "we" is "me and mine." Of course, an even lower political perspective is the philosophy of "me," a selfish, self-centered view: "I am the only one who matters" and "I'll do whatever it takes and step on whoever I need to in order to get ahead." A step higher than "me" beliefs are the politics of "we": "My race, my religion, my social class, my family, my friends, my nation, etc. are more important than everyone else and we will do whatever it takes and step on whoever we need to get ahead and stay on top." Unfortunately, this "we" perspective has dominated most of world political history. Blocks on Left and Right If the debate were simply between the selfish "we" and the inclusive "all of us," it would have been settled shortly after World War II--if not earlier. But the problem is more complex, according to Wilber. At the time that "all of us" was gaining popularity in the world, it happened to coincide with the rise of modernism, industrialism, secularism and American collectivism. It borrowed liberally from each of these, and in so doing adopted some positive and also some negative characteristics. In this process the "all of us" view of society took on aspects of Marxism, making it a hybrid of Madison and Marx. As Thomas Sowell noted, Marxism itself is a hybrid of the Tragic struggle of the poor and weak to gain economic opportunity and political power, and of the future Utopian vision of using government force to serve the plight of the underprivileged. Arising as it did in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the widespread view of a political "all of us" unfortunately hybridized itself with Marx's teachings; for many who believe in the ideals of " all of us" over the lower and more selfish goals of "we," the world is split into those who are inhumanely self-interested and those who want government to enforce equality. The challenge: We live in a world where the two major choices are "Selfish Me and Mine" versus "Government-Forced Caring for Others." In fact, both choices are below us. And because of this, neither can win the battle and lead the world forward. When "Selfish Me and Mine" gains a lot of support, those who want a truly caring and better world object and pull back on its momentum. Then, in consequence, when "Government-Forced Caring for Others" begins to gain strength, those who truly want a free and better world for all rise up and slow its growth. We have been at this battle for a long time now--but with little progress. It will likely continue until we can find a way to fix the intellectual impasse. The world wants to move to a "Free and Cooperative Caring for Others and Improving the World," but to do so the intellectual debate must be resolved. The regular citizens may not know the details of this intellectual altercation, but they do see that something is wrong with both the "Selfish Me and Mine" approach and the "Government-Forced Caring for Others" agenda. Nearly every hotly contested issue of our time has roots in this debate. We live in a two-sided battle of culture, but neither side is morally superior or psychologically better than the other. Neither resonates with most citizens. Even most of those who for partisan purposes have chosen a political side are frequently disappointed with the leaders and policies of their own party. Still, the nobility of American liberalism is where it truly stands for helping the downtrodden: "If we shrug our shoulders at the avoidable suffering of the weak and the poor, of those who are getting exploited and ripped off, or who simply do not have enough to sustain life at a decent level, we are not of the left. If we say that that is just the way the world is, and always will be, and there is nothing we can do about it, we are not part of the left." Thank goodness for people who stand for this. The nobility of American conservatism is that it expects government to do what it can, within the limits of the Constitution, and to leave the rest to private entities and people. Since government has always been the greatest threat to freedom in history, this is the only way to keep government from becoming an enemy to all--the poor and weak as well as the middle class. In fact, when the government becomes all powerful, even in the name of helping the poor, the upper class that controls government gains almost total control over the rest of society. The most important way to protect freedom is to limit government. Thank goodness for people who stand for this. Solutions When they are thinking about it at the deepest levels, most conservatives agree with the caring goals of liberals and most liberals agree with the freedom goals of conservatives. Both groups want real freedom and real caring. There are, of course, a few liberals who want overreaching government and a few conservatives who want the poor to suffer--but these are very small factions. Nearly all citizens are believers of "all of us," the healthy kind of "all of us" which adopts freedom and caring instead of forced government caring. What is needed is for the intellectuals to allow the "all of us" philosophy to flourish in practice. The "pure" political models of monarchy and aristocracy kept most of humanity in a sort of economic serfdom for many centuries. The American framers overcame much of this with a Constitution built on branches and levels of government with separations of powers, checks and balances. But even with such a powerful Constitutional model in place, the American culture refused to extend its benefits to everyone. The resulting Machiavelli-Madison hybrid proved long uncaring for the plight of those caught in slavery, racism, religious bigotry and unbending class and gender dogmas. The later Progressive-Era hybrid of Madison-Marx kept the lower and middle classes from fully living the American Dream. Through all this, the hybrid of Madison-Smith (Adam) brought a great deal of prosperity and freedom to many Americans of all backgrounds. What is needed today is a Madison-Smith-Gandhi hybrid which combines Constitutional principles with a return to full free enterprise and a socio-cultural approach that sees all human beings as part of "all of us." Ken Wilber put it this way: "This is the great and exhilarating call of global politics at the millennium. We are awaiting the new global founding Fathers and Mothers who will frame an integral system of governance that will call us to our more encompassing future..." I realize this is a lot of commentary to say something very simple: Most Americans are increasingly adopting a belief system of caring deeply for the downtrodden around the world and also in protecting freedom by keeping the government in the bounds of its Constitutional limits. We are mostly independents now, and beyond official independents the majority of both Republicans and Democrats share this new perspective. Indeed, as a culture we have moved from selfish "we" to inclusive "all of us." Unfortunately, our party system (which, by the way, has never been in the Constitution) and subsequently most of our national leadership systems haven't yet made this shift in thinking. As freedom thinkers and political philosophers, our citizens haven't solved the confusion. Few of us, leaders or citizens, give it any thought at all. We see that things aren't working, but we don't realize the root cause. The root cause of our challenge is this: Society hasn't fully accepted the fact that government must be limited and that we must find effective private solutions to the problem of the poor, weak and struggling. We must rely less on government to solve our challenges, and we must as a society come together and passionately find effective ways to help everyone succeed economically. This is real, not utopian or idealistic, and now is the time. Those who see the world as competing groups must sincerely change to a worldview where all people in the world are genuinely loved and felt to be of equal importance, and those who want a more caring world have got to stop seeking to force their plans through government. Government certainly has its place, but when it moves beyond its basic roles freedom is reduced for all except the very elite. We need a lot more active caring from all, and more limited government in every nation. The scientist Max Planck said, "A new...truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because...a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. For this intellectual impasse to be over, two things must occur: 1) The leaders of conservatism must keep their attachment to limited government and free enterprise principles and also engage a serious and vocal new agenda to privately and effectively address the global plight of the poor and find, fund and implement real non-governmental solutions that bring economic and personal opportunity and prosperity to all human beings. 2) The leaders of liberalism must keep their beliefs in deep caring for all people, especially the underprivileged, give up their belief in government as the primary vehicle of social justice and societal change, and find, fund and establish an effective non-governmental, non-force-based worldwide strategy that gives true economic and personal opportunity to all people in the world. That's a lot to obtain. This is hard policy. But this is precisely the challenge of our generation. Our society will remain broken as long as a third of the people believe that government should solve all our social/economic problems and another third thinks that helping a stranger from Guatemala find real prosperity and happiness is somebody else's concern. The world's problems are not the government's challenges. They are yours. And mine. And until we get serious about fixing them for real, without the government, with all our abilities, resources, passion and dedication, we can kiss goodbye to our hopes of progress toward a truly free, prosperous and happy nation and world. *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online. He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles The Original Intent Scam By Kyle Roberts Egypt, Freedom, and the Cycles of History By Oliver DeMille Jesuits, Teens, Romance, and Frontal Lobe Development By David Grant Robert E. Lee and Self-Denial By Orrin Woodward The Sacred Path By Steve D'Annunzio Let Us Dare By Shanon Brooks A No-Party System By Oliver DeMille Reduce Expenses or Increase Production? By Garrett Gunderson Fruit on the Tree By Chris Brady The Presidential Election of 2012 By Oliver DeMille Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Anti-Federalists, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family The Chemistry of Genius? Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative America's 7-Party System Vampires as Aristocrats? Mr. Head Democrat: The Future of American Politics True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:29:22 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/1jr7B/h/Monthly_Newsletter_The_Rule.htm Empowering Ordinary Citizens to Make an Extraordinary Difference The Rule of Leisure By Oliver DeMille *Note to Subscribers: Oliver is now offering Social Leader Daily, a daily email with bite-sized insights and inspiration on freedom, leadership, education, and more. Click here to subscribe now. WHERE DID OUR AMERICAN DREAM GO? Somehow, point by point, it has slipped away from us, and taken with it our definition of middle class. Would that we could wake up and reclaim the best of that dream; but we've awakened to a reality where we can't even remember it clearly anymore. The American middle class hasn't seen increases in its standard of living since the mid-1970s. In fact, to maintain this standard of living it has had to make two huge cultural changes in the past three decades: Instead of one working parent, it has had to send both parents into the workplace in order to sustain its living standard. Instead of getting a job and buying a home and then getting married, it has mortgaged its way through life using debt to cover its major needs from education, home ownership and family cars to the basic expenses of life. Such debts typically last into retirement and are in fact increased during old age as healthcare expenses skyrocket. As a result, the real U.S. standard of living has decreased in the past several decades. People work longer hours, more people apart are required to work, and Americans live in significantly higher levels of debt. Gone are the unchallenged expectations of most people paying off the home and the cars, paying for the kids' college or retiring debt-free with a healthy nest egg. Since 1995 the middle class is disappearing and the gap between the upper and lower classes is growing. The number of two- and three-generation households is increasing, and the percentage of people who own their own homes is decreasing. In short, the American Dream is out of reach for more and more Americans--becoming the American Fantasy; or for some, who lay awake at night wondering how they're going to keep from losing it all, even The American Insomnia. The Role of Leisure To understand the rise and fall of the American middle class, we need to know where it came from, and what it was for. The future of the freedom is determined by how people spend their time. The two major uses of time (other than sleep) are 1) making a living (obtaining the necessities) and 2) leisure (other activities not related to immediate survival and security). One of the most significant developments during the rise and fall of the middle class is the major change in leisure. By some measures, leisure is the defining characteristic of society. How we use our leisure, who gets to engage in leisure, and how many in society are able to enjoy leisure--these are the determinants of civilizational progress. The underlying reasons for the decline of America's living standard are based on a generational misunderstanding, a myth in fact, about civilizational success and progress. In the years after World War II the middle class was taught that government can ensure economic success for all through a safety net (unemployment benefits, health insurance, free education, college training for any who want it, social security and other retirement benefits). In such a system, everyone can earn nearly upper-class levels of money and enjoy nearly upper-class levels of spending and--the cherry on top, that hallmark of achievement, that enviable perk that lets you know you've arrived--Leisure Time. This promise proved true, for the most part--mainly because the American Founding had established a system of freedom that offers widespread opportunity. What was missing in this post-1945 dialogue was the discussion of what a free man or woman could/should do with leisure time. The resulting evolution of society became a micro-emancipation that left a newly-elevated middle class unprepared for their newfound luxury--because they had no experience with or vision of the responsibilities that were entailed in the privilege. How people use their leisure time has a direct, lasting, and nearly immediate impact on society. The aristocratic nations learned this lesson over time: If those with leisure turn to mere entertainment, the society declines and collapses. This reality was proven in dozens of societies, from ancient Babylon, Athens, Persia, Macedon, Carthage, Rome, etc. to Genoa, the Swiss Cantons, Florence, Wales, Scotland and the German Principates, among others. The Rule of Leisure When the leaders of a nation (the leadership class which has leisure time) use their leisure for self-centered things rather than improving the society, their moral authority to rule decreases and the nation declines. Call it the Rule of Leisure: Those with the benefit of leisure must use it well or they will lose it. The phrase that perhaps best describes this is noblesse oblige, which means that anyone who possesses economic or social advantages is required by duty to act altruistically, honorably, and in the best interest of his fellow man. The Bible puts it more succinctly: Where much is given, much is required. This lesson was a central message of upper-class education in the great classics. It was learned and passed on to posterity by French, Spanish, German and English aristos for centuries, and read by the average American farmer, merchant and youth in the American founding era. It is discussed at length in Plutarch, Gibbon, Hume, The Federalist Papers, Democracy in America and other books read by most moderately educated Americans before the 1930s. In America it was usually simply called duty. That noblesse oblige is forgotten today, that our citizens in the middle class in general (with a very few energetic and vocal exceptions) have neglected to use our advantages for the protection of freedom and prosperity and to fulfill our role as the overseers of government, is the reason for the decline of the middle-class standard of living since 1975--and its potential collapse in the decades ahead. The reality is this: in a nation where the government is by the people, where it is the people who dictate to the government its operations and limitations, where each citizen is acknowledged as equal before the law and endowed with rights that do not devolve from the government but from natural law--in such a land as this, American's leadership class is the whole citizenry, which means that the average American citizen is part of the leisure class that determines our future. America's Second Great Leadership Crisis The U.S. is now facing our second major leadership crisis. The first occurred when generations of American leaders and citizens thought we could break the principles of societal success and get away with it--but slavery and discrimination are wrong, and we eventually had to weather the consequences of not putting an end to them sooner. The Civil War and its aftermath was the result of this first great leadership crisis. Hopefully we have the wisdom to avoid a repeat of history. Our second great challenge may prove as daunting as slavery and the fight for civil rights. The belief in using our leisure mostly for ourselves is widespread. Like slavery and discrimination, this belief is contrary to the laws that govern societal success, and every historical nation that lived by this belief suffered dire consequences. Like some young offspring of the very wealthy, as a nation we seem to think freedom is more about rights than responsibilities and prosperity is more about license to pursue pleasure than using leisure to serve. We think of our prosperity as a birthright, rather than a hard-won privilege entailed with the duty to improve the world and pass on something better to posterity. This is a mistake often made by nations with unsophisticated or young leisure classes, and America's last three generations (Boomers, born 1945-1964; Generation X, born 1964-1984; and Millennials, born 1984-2005) are the first classically un-educated American leisure class. Throughout history, an education for a future leader meant studying the great books, and being part of the leisure class as a citizen meant reading the great books throughout adult life. Career specialization has proven advantageous for societal and personal wealth accumulation, but ignoring the old lessons is proving a disaster for the prosperity of the middle class. We don't have to choose between the two, however. As the great former University of Chicago president Robert Hutchins put it, we would be even better career specialists if we also had a great education in history and the great books. The Lessons of History How often we return to the prophecy by Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. The idea that the future of our nation depends on our regular citizens using their leisure time to read the great books, serve in the community, look around and find people in need and help them, make extra money to donate to good causes, and in general work, sacrifice and give back to others is a surprise to most Americans. It's like the employed person in the cubicle who dreams of being his own boss, only to start a business and find that instead of a 9-5 career he now needs to work 90-hour work weeks, forego his hobbies and interests in order to make the company succeed and keep his employees and their families secure. The benefits and perks of ownership are available, he learns, but it will take some time and a lot of hard work to earn them. Many such people are tempted to go back to the relative ease of employment, just like many citizens who realize the true responsibility of freedom wonder if perhaps freedom is really worth it. It seems that the loss of freedom is the most effective way to persuade a person or a people just how precious it really is. Overcoming the Myth of Leisure As a citizenry, we have little concept of our personal noblesse oblige and the responsibility our years of national peace and prosperity have placed on us. We are a nation like college freshman away from home and parents' rules for the first time--we live on ramen, stay out until 4 am, max our credit cards and send our parents the bill. Except we don't have parents with deep pockets anymore--the stimulus has run its course and the local and state government bubble is just beginning. I remain optimistic, however. The great books are on our shelves, and the lessons of history are there for us all. We just have to read, listen and apply. Our freedoms came in a specific way, one forgotten to all except those who read the great books and histories. As Robert Hutchins wrote: Until lately the West has regarded it as self-evident that the road to education lay through great books. No man was educated unless he was acquainted with the masterpieces.... [T]he disappearance of great books from education and from the reading of adults constitutes a calamity. In this view education in the West has been steadily deteriorating; the rising generation has been deprived of its birthright.... The goal toward which Western society moves is the Civilization of the Dialogue. The spirit of Western Civilization is the spirit of inquiry. Its dominant element is the Logos. Nothing is to remain undiscussed. Everybody is to speak his mind. No proposition is to be left unexamined.... To put an end to the spirit of inquiry that has characterized the West it is not necessary to burn the books. All we have to do is to leave them unread for a few generations. On the other hand, the revival of interest in these books from time to time throughout history [Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, American Founding, etc.] has provided the West with new drive and creativeness. Great books have salvaged, preserved, and transmitted the tradition on many occasions similar to our own. It is time, past time, for a rebirth of the great books. Read one. Then another. The future of America, freedom and widespread prosperity hang in the balance. Perhaps awakening to a sense of our awful situation will not cause the burdens of debt and squandered opportunity to rest lighter on us. But the empowerment of knowing and understanding will arm us with the ability to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Our modern view of the American Dream was too superficial, too uni-dimensional. The physics of that dream make no sense in real life. It was all about what we got to have. But understanding our role as the leisure class will teach us what we must do and be in order to not only have but to bequeath the things we value most. The shortest distance between where we are today as a nation and an effective return to increasing our freedoms and widespread prosperity is for regular American citizens to read and study the great books. We need a rebirth of leadership leisure across America--from books to service and beyond. The time is now, and the future depends on our success in this endeavor. Perhaps the modern view of the American Dream is a fantasy, but the Rule of Leisure is real. *******************Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online. He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, The Coming Aristocracy: Education and the Future of Freedom, 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. Connect With Oliver: Connect and Engage Join Our Mailing List Click the image below to download our free e-book: Recent Blog Articles Building with Kryptonite: Small Business 'Bailout' and the Future of the American Economy By Oliver DeMille Will You Become a Whale Rider? By Stephen Palmer Why Freedom Cannot Ring By David Grant The Vital Shift from Issues to Forms By Kyle Roberts The Enlightened Entrepreneur By Steve D'Annunzio A Beginner's Review of the Qur'an By Shanon Brooks 15 Reasons Why Your 401(k) May Be Your Riskiest Investment By Garrett Gunderson The Leadership Quotient By Orrin Woodward In Defense of the Flip-Flop By Dave Wilson Anyone Could Lead Perfect People By Chris Brady Free PDF Downloads Social Leadership: A Fresh Vision for Old Problems Reweaving the Fabric of Freedom The Anti-Federalists, Entrepreneurship, and the Future of Freedom The Entrepreneurial Foundations of Free Society Entrepreneurs of the World, Unite! How to Become a Producer The Uncomfortable Mirror Overcoming Hamilton's Curse The Renaissance of Family The Chemistry of Genius? Rockin' to the Fourth Turning Blues Beyond Liberal and Conservative America's 7-Party System Vampires as Aristocrats? Mr. Head Democrat: The Future of American Politics True Abundance: The 5 Types of Producers Products www.TheSocialLeader.com Tue, 01 Feb 2011 03:00:36 -0500http://archive.aweber.com/socialleaders/aTNN/h/It_Answers_that_One.htm You've heard it. You've probably asked it yourself. You learn about America's problems. You're dismayed by the decline of freedom. But then you think, So what do we actually DO about it? There are answers. You can be empowered. You can make a difference. Discover the answers in Stephen Palmer's new book, Uncommon Sense: A Common Citizen's Guide to Rebuilding America. Download a free sample here, and purchase the book here. Here's what Oliver DeMille says about the book: Uncommon Sense is earnest, idealistic, counter-intuitive and vital; a Tea Party for the soul. At times it had my heart racing, and at times moved me to tears. This empowering work is elegant in its simplicity and profound in its potential to move the hearts and minds of our people to own their role as the Overseers of Freedom and to advance the cause of liberty. Read all reviews here. Book Description Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it. -Thomas Paine In 1776, Thomas Paine's Common Sense showered sparks on the tinder of revolution. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Americans formally claimed their rights, and that tinder exploded into a new age for mankind. But more than 200 years later, the flames of freedom are dying. We cry that Washington has failed us, but that is not where the blame lies. With our rights, We the People were given the duty to maintain them. We the People are the problem. And We the People are the solution. Our republic will be restored not through political revolution, but through a revolution of the soul--not as we point fingers upward, but as we turn inward. In an age of blame, this is uncommon sense. And it's precisely what America needs to rekindle her light. Download a free sample here, and purchase the book here. Mon, 17 Jan 2011 03:00:29 -0500