January 13, 2010
Political Decisions
Political decisions must, by definition in a diverse society, alienate some in that society. This truism is dictated by the concept of opportunity cost. For those without business school backgrounds, opportunity cost is the cost of not having selected the other choices. Every decision anyone ever makes, carries an opportunity cost. Example: The wife takes the shortest route to work. In doing so, she avoids alternative longer routes which may make her drive more interesting, less hazardous as the lesser traveled routes, or less fortuitous in passing up the opportunity to give Bill Gates a ride after his HumV broke down, which he appreciates with a sizable thank you check of a million dollars.
In taking the shortest route, the opportunity cost was a more interesting drive, greater risk, and missing B. Gate's thank you check. Note however, that there are two kinds of opportunity costs, here. Those one can foresee, and those which one cannot. The less interesting drive and greater risk costs of the wife taking the shortest route, are foreseeable. She considers these costs and in deciding to take the shortest route, consents to bear those costs attending her decision. Bill Gates breaking down on the lesser traveled route, however, could not be foreseen. She may regret reading in the paper the $Million dollar thank you check another person received for helping Bill Gates on that day and road she chose not to travel, but, it was not foreseeable, and therefore, blame or responsibility for missing the reward by taking her usual shortest route, does not logically attend her decision.
An enormous amount of media and political coverage is spent on assessing opportunity costs which could not be foreseen, and which come to light only after the political decision was implemented. Politicians love to use such unforeseen opportunity costs as a bludgeon on the heads of political adversaries, but, the public should know better than to buy into such false critiques and rhetoric. Regretfully, the public by and large, is incapable of even detecting when this is taking place.
All political decisions should be viewed in these terms to more accurately understand how they are made, and more accurately critique those decisions based on the weighing of the costs attending each of the decision options, and whether or not, they were foreseeable costs. If this sounds a little more complex than most voters wish to engage in, I would have to agree. However, our founding fathers understood that as many voters as possible be capable of such assessment if this democracy was going to work, at all. And with that understanding, they chose to grant the vote to classes of citizens most likely to be able to assess political decisions in these terms; white, male, landowners. In their day, males were better educated than females, whites were better educated than African Americans and slaves, and landowners had motive to take an interest in what the government was doing, eminent domain and taxation being what it was under King George.
The point however, which the founding fathers understood keenly, was that democracy cannot work if ignorance chooses the deciders. This is, in fact, the primary cause of the rise of political parties after George Washington's first term as president. The parties formed to inform the voters, and select educated and informed candidates for office, who would make sounder decisions by calculating the opportunity costs and avoiding those choices in which the costs attending them outweigh the benefits of that decision.
Adam Smith refers to this kind of decision making as acting with "enlightened self-interest" and he presumed such interest would be the foundation for the "invisible hand" that moves the market place. When the invisible hand is guided by ignorance instead of enlightened self interest, that hand becomes enormously destructive as we just witnessed with the collapse of the housing, financial, and job markets over the last 24 months.
In the book taking the country by political storm, "Game Change," written by political journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, cite sources within the McCain campaign at the time of choosing and prepping Sarah Palin, claiming that Sarah Palin had to be given basic high school history and geography lessons in World Wars I and II, the Korean War, what it was about, where it is, and why there is a North and South Korea, and how these wars connected to each other and the Cold War, and Viet Nam, in preparation for her debate with Joe O'Biden, whose last name she just couldn't nail down, precipitating her asking Sen. Joe upon entering the stage, if she could just call him Joe. He agreed. But, even that failed to keep Ms. Palin from referring to O'Biden on that stage. (See 60 Minutes' excerpts regarding the books coverage of Sarah Palin by clicking here.)
When ignorance guides the candidate selection process, when the greed for power so dominates a Party's or candidate's views as to blind them to the opportunity costs of bad decisions, when voters vote for a party that demonstrates year after year, violations of its own platform and principles, and remain loyal to that party, the nightmare of the founding fathers granting universal suffrage is realized beyond all dread. If even half of what is reported in "Game Change" is true, we have been given our wake-up call as to the tenuous nature of our nation's future.
American politics are mired in ignorance, incompetence, avarice, and the Peter Principle. And this ignorance that begets more at the highest levels of government, begins with voters, who vote as if for an NFL championship contender, instead of voting as if their life and future depended upon their vote, which, by the way, it does. There is only one way to correct this debilitating condition of modern American society, and that is with dramatic education reform.
Unfortunately, the reform Pres. Obama and Congress are contemplating entirely misses the mark. Pres. Obama clearly states his view of education is to prepare children for the work place. That's it. No more. While it is vital to our national interests to insure as many of our young people as possible are optimally prepared to enter the work force, this myopic view fails to consider that the majority of our lives are NOT spend in the work place, but, in traffic jams, consuming products, raising families, paying taxes, and making political decisions which impact all these other activities.
I am frankly, wholly disheartened by Pres. Obama's focus, which demonstrates an acute lack of understanding of a broader education than just Constitutional Law, which he appears to have acquired and uses in his personal life. Yet he fails entirely to grasp the significance of that broader education for use by the rest of American citizens of the future. I make this point, because our schools are more and more vocationally oriented, as if preparing little machines for repetitive tasks on an assembly line, rather than embellishing all the potential of every child to conduct their lives with confidence, with adequate information, and most important, with an understanding of human knowledge in its broadest strokes, to insure their own offspring have the broadest base of knowledge upon which to draw from in their earliest formative years when values, discipline, and principles are first forged.
This last sentence above goes to the heart of the education dilemma in America. Education begins at home. Schools don't receive children until their first 5 formative years have already passed. Therefore, it is often not even possible for our public and private schools to shape the values, discipline, and principles in a positive way when hostility, combativeness, and defensiveness have already shaped the temperament of the child. Nor, would we want schools to engage in that early formative training of our young. But, really bad parenting is correlated with really limited education.
To break the cycle of ignorance, apathy, and uncivil behavior in our society, we must educate all of America's future parents as far as their abilities and our resources can take them. Our schools must being to teach students the basic principles of good parenting, the basic principles of good citizenship, and the basic principles of money and time, and their good management. Our schools must teach an unbiased American and World history, so that we can produce future leaders in America who are not limited by such biases in recognizing reality for what it is and dealing with forthrightly. And our schools must begin to teach the basic principles of government, in a non-partisan way, such that our future voters will be capable of assessing their representative's record in office objectively, and in terms of their own enlightened self-interest, which is what our founding father's vision of democracy in choosing our leaders was predicated upon.
The most important political decision to be made today for our nation's future is how we are going to reform our educational system in America. There is a general consensus that reform is needed, but the urgency and import of that reform has not even begun to be discussed in political circles. We pay an enormous amount of taxes for an incredibly insufficient and ineffective educational system in America. To have a future for our nation, we must address this issue today.
David, I agree with what you are saying about the educational system but I have a bit of dificulty with the phrases “opportunity cost” and “enlightened self-interest”. The first is simply the choices you make in life and the path that takes you. There really is no way to predict the ‘what ifs’ and dwelling on them is unhealthy. If you mean the process of weighing decisions that will affect or create a particular outcome then I can see the “cost” aspect. Now to be “enlightened” is to be educated but to add that to “self-interest” and I see an arrogant know-it-all looking out for his/her self without any thought of what will happen to those around them. This concept seems to apply to many in politics today. They also seem afraid to upset the applecart because it will jeopardize their careers.
My oldest daughter is going after her 2nd degree - so happens it is as a teacher. Already she sees how little freedom of choice in the cariculium(sp) she will have. They have to teach the test. This is the major fault with the eduction system because it extends into the college arena today. Self thought and exploratiion are being stymied when it should be encouraged to grow. Teachers nolonger have the authority to maintain discipline within their own classrooms nor are they freely allowed to hold back a child if they are not meeting the standards. It has done this country great harm to have kids pushed thru school unable to read, write or even do basic math. History texts are being edited to the point where they are nolonger accurate - it is all being dumbed down.
I believe parents could have a greater impact at correcting what is happening with the education system if they would only get involved there and with their own kids by filling in the gaps at home if necessary.
David - I should have followed that link for enlightened self-interest - I see how it is being used now.
Posted by: Kathryn at January 13, 2010 07:49 AMDavid, Partisanship and enlightened self interest are the key words in this well written piece. I have been participating fairly regularly in political discussion pieces at the local level. The process has bought me to the conclusion that probably the biggest obstacle today with regard to individual education on all things political is the media. People today simply seem to rely on obviously agenda driven news sources to provide an opinion for them. There seems to be little effort to discern fact from reality. I am seriously concerned as to just how capable todays masses are of forming an educated non partisan opinion on their own. This of course trickles down to the education level as problematic. If most adults are so easily influenced by the enlightened self interests of agenda driven news outlets, how are we to expect our children to realize the value of making an educated evaluation over simply accepting the one that is presented to them. I agree that education reform is urgent. But I also feel it has to start at home, at the parent level. Parenting is a responsibility that should include teaching our children to be open minded and fair at the individual level when determining consensus.
Posted by: RickIl at January 13, 2010 10:47 AMRickIl, I agree. Parenting improves with the education level of the parents. Politically, we can’t force parents to change the way they parent. But, we can politically and as a society, commit to dramatically improving the education level of tomorrow’s parents.
To a point, older parents make better parents. Better education is correlated with delaying the decision to have children. This too would have a positive effect on improved parenting, education, and citizenship for the next generation.
Getting Americans to invest today in something that won’t bring a return until the future is a national psychology that is really costing this nation its future. Folks just don’t get, for example, that the economy will improve through deficit spending today that will abate when the economy improves. And that is a very different issue and dynamic from the systemic deficits which Medicare and Medicare present over the next 70 years.
Bringing back the economy with stimulus deficits is an investment that will pay dividends for many years to come. Medicare and Medicaid and health care inflation however, present deficits that continue to weaken and undermine the nation’s future. If folks could learn to distinguish in this way between what is in their long term interest and its cost and what may have appeal only today but cost them forever, we could achieve a political consensus about some of the challenges we face. But, if that is to become the case, it has to begin with education reform that invests in the parents, workers, and citizens of tomorrow the way we invested in the Space program back in the 1960’s through today.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2010 04:22 PMKathryn, thanks for the comments. I understand about ‘enlightened self-interest’. Most graduate MBA’s profess to being familiar with the term, but, in fact, have never read Adam Smith’s works which go to great lengths to explain the concept which was intended to guide the ‘invisible hand’ in the free marketplace. Which goes a very long way in explaining why our economy, our debt, and our politics are so dysfunctional these days. Ignorance rules in America. Fix the ignorance and our nation’s future will improve dramatically.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 13, 2010 04:27 PM
Managed to post this on the wrong article. One more time: Need to step back from political correctness and the Republic Sentry Party for this one. People are asking what can we do about the failures we are seeing all around us. Healthcare, education, social dysfunction, crime, etc. Most seem to want more cops, more prisons, more government control. Wrong, IMO. A shortsighted, short term approach which will deliver us into the hands of the Corpocracy, democracy, socialism then anarchy, lock, stock and barrel. Plz don’t ask what lock, stock, and barrel really means.
IMO, our entire social fabric has become unknitted ?? Rampant gang warfare, children perpetrating violence upon other children and adults, a failed education system where, in some areas, the graduation rate is near 50%. Higher education comes with no moral or ethical code other than make as much money as you can however you can. What has happened?
IMO, the church has been pushed out of the public square. There are rumblings of late about hate speech law being used against religious leaders. While one case in point doesn’t prove me right it can exemplify the problematic causality. If we look at the background of the parents of the three boys who set the fourth youth on fire recently, I think you would find that none were ever involved in a church or religious environment. I can recall, before government took over our schools, that each Wed. morning religious leaders from different denominations would assemble the students in the auditorium for half an hour or so and put the fear of God into us. I do believe that’s why soaping a few windows on Halloween night was about as bad I ever wanted to be. But, government did take over the schools and out the door went the preachers.
Is religion the ultimate answer? No, of course not. We also need some enlightened self interest. For example: I don’t know a thing about Haiti but I would suggest that for Port a Prince to go from a population of approx 250k ten years ago to approx 2.5M today the Catholic religion is highly involved. As I understand the Catholic religion doesn’t promote birth control. Nor does that religion promote the law of the land when it comes to illegal immigration. Put your self enlightenment to work on that one.
IMO, self enlightenment doesn’t come from blindly following a particular religion or a particular political party. I recently posted on the next thread down about Thomas Jefferson and the Decla or Indep. Where our rights are granted by the Creator, not the government. And, how FDR tried to pass a second bill of rights giving us a right to housing, education, and jobs. Otherwise, I suggest we dig down on our self enlightenment as to whether we want the government in control of every facet of our lives. Over my cold dead body! Did Sarah Palin say that?
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Roy said: “Higher education comes with no moral or ethical code other than make as much money as you can however you can.”
I have to disagree on this one. While there is no guarantee that higher education will have an impact on a person’s ethical and enlightned self-interest growth, it increases the potential for growth, significantly. The reason is simple. Higher education develops one’s rational and logic skills. Enlightened self-interest is a product of rational and logical perceptual processes based on objective assessment of one’s position in the world and the reality that world presents.
Roy said: “IMO, the church has been pushed out of the public square.”
You are joking, right? This country has more churches per capita than any other nation on earth, including mosques, synagogues, and temples. The public is inundated with churches. One cannot drive 2 miles in any city today without coming across a church, and not more 5 miles in suburban communities, and churches are at the heart of small town and rural civic life.
Churches, synagogues, mosques, and temples are only as good as the quality of their preachers/teachers, many of whom, are in it for the ease with which it provides a living off the donations of the flock. Not many other professions where handouts are so lucrative. There are however, some really great teachers of wisdom and responsible living in our religious centers, and they constitute one of the great strengths in American culture and life across all religions.
Religious leaders are not exempt from civil law, nor should they be. If they invoke hate speech and incite violence against members of society as a result, they should have NO immunity from civil law. There is no world religion whose fundamental tenets teach hate. None. Ergo, if a religious leader does prostyletize hate against others in society, they are not a religious leader but a fraud.
Roy conjectures: “If we look at the background of the parents of the three boys who set the fourth youth on fire recently, I think you would find that none were ever involved in a church or religious environment.”
Pure speculation, and I would take that bet. The problem is that one hour on Sunday morning cannot undo the hundreds of hours each week spent under influences at home, in the neighborhood, and at school. We all know those who attend church and live their lives as if Church did not exist the rest of the time.
Roy said: “I recently posted on the next thread down about Thomas Jefferson and the Decla or Indep. Where our rights are granted by the Creator, not the government.”
I will take partial issue with this statement as well. Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the convention of a deity, which was prevalent throughout all advanced cultures in Europe at that time. Jefferson could have just as effectively used the words, intrinsic human rights, as opposed to “endowed by their creator”.
I refer you to Jefferson’s opening paragraph in that document which reads:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Clearly, Jefferson is defining the creator as whatever force brought the natural universe into existence, and whether or not that force remains active is left as an open question, whereas, Natural Laws governing our world are everywhere present. Jefferson was no believer in an intervening higher power in human affairs. If that were the case, there would have been no need for the U.S. Constitution as a substitute for divine intervention.
You use the term ‘self enlightenment’ to mean what, self-education? That is an entirely different concept than Adam Smith’s “enlightened self-interest” as a guide to decision making. Enlightened self-interest doctrine encompasses the acknowledgment of our dependence upon each other; and democratically elected government is nothing more than an organized effort of the majority of a people to help themselves in matters which alone, they would be powerless to affect.
Adam Smith’s “enlightened self-interest” requires our individual decisions protect others upon whom we depend for our quality of life. That fundamental concept is also at the root of all moral and ethical teachings, which acknowledges the importance of treating others as we would like to be treated in order to reap the rewards and benefits of remaining a member in good standing of society at large.
On average, no individual buys more locks than a thief. A thief has an intimate knowledge of how easy it is to lose what he owns to the greed of others. Whereas an honest person has far less reason to be concerned about theft, not having an intimate knowledge of the workings and motives of thieves. Doesn’t mean an honest person is stupid and doesn’t buy locks at all. But, an honest person does not covet the belongings of others and has less fear of others coveting what he/she owns, as a result. In addition, an honest person values more in their life than their personal belongings, often valuing character and honor in their behavior above that of their accumulated manufactured objects. Protecting their character and honor captures more of their focus and resources than spending them on multiple locks and defenses to protect their belongings.
The likes of Mother Theresa and Mahatma Gandhi relinquished care about physical ownership of manufactured goods, which became part of their character which earned them places in history as among the greatest of people to have lived.
So, I hope you will acknowledge the difference between self-enlightenment and the formal treatise of ‘enlightened self-interest’ as laid down in more than a thousand pages of one of the greatest works of its time, The Theory of Moral Sentiment, by Adam Smith. Enlightened self-interest is a social concept, not an individual perspective or proscription. Enlightened self-interest cannot be achieved outside the context of family, community, and society. Self-enlightenment as that of a hermit, can.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2010 10:09 AMDR
Where did you learn to read and write?If like most of us,it was in a public school,then they are doing something right. Government cannot do everuthing . Parental responsibility goes a long way. As BHO puts it,we cannot expect the government to turn off the TV and make kids do their homework.We cannot expect significant improvment until we get back to the point where working people can earn enough that they can can afford the luxury of have enough time with their families. When I grew up very few mothers HAD to work. Kids were cared for after school. Now in American nieghborhoods look like ghost towns during the week.
While I agree a broad education is an important feature of the ability to see things in a broader light, the first order of business in life is food and shelter.
A technical or vocational education provides the opportunity to eat and shelter one’s self and save something in reserve.
Unfortunately, High Schools do not provide for any skills other than flipping burgers or going to college. Many won’t get the opportunity to get to college. These people do need vocational skills. There needs to be a paradigm shift if America wants to see this change into a more skilled electorate. Offering opportunity to higher education to an elite few is no longer sensible in America.
What I find in this country is attitudinal shifts about education based on class. People who like Sarah Palin are opposed to education. They find the eggheads of the world to be out of touch with their “values”. Some are desirous of maintaining this status quo, as the wealthy class in Haiti seems to be. Ask yourself who is promoting a dumbing down of the system, and then ask yourself why.
While there has always been a class system in America that values education differently, today we are seeing a surging population of uneducated masses, much like in Haiti. Most readers here know the long troubled past of Haiti. We are going to see televised and in papers much of this story over the next few weeks. Beyond the carnage of a natural disaster, we have an opportunity to see a future devoid of serious education.
One needs to ask oneself if this is the road we want to choose for America. Choose wisely.
Posted by: gergle at January 14, 2010 11:03 AMbills, my experience is the same as yours. We have made progress in many ways as a society, but, backslid a lot on others. It doesn’t have to be this way. We can be better than we are, and should never stop working toward that end, by refuting and rejecting those who would hold our nation as a people and our humanity and civil potential back.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2010 11:45 AMgergle said: “While I agree a broad education is an important feature of the ability to see things in a broader light, the first order of business in life is food and shelter.”
I agree, gergle, but, would add that in this country, food and shelter are directly dependent upon either education or charity. There is just no getting around education being the challenge of our time.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2010 11:47 AMDavid,
A thief buys more locks because of projection of his own issues onto others and a little paranoia in the mix, not really an issue of knowledge.
While religious belief can provide comfort and even emotional stability to many, it may as well lead to self enlightenment, but not without real world education. I would proffer that most religious leaders are frauds, in that what they teach is based on fraud.
Self poverty while making good PR, and a form of self discipline, was hardly real in the case of Mother Theresa or Mahatma Ghandi, not that they didn’t lead austere lives. They had a wealth of resources that most never have. It wasn’t their self deprecations that made them famous, however. It may have added to their mythology, however.
Posted by: gergle at January 14, 2010 11:59 AMgergle, you raise a very fundamental dialogue that must take place in American society regarding education. And that is how much education is each individual capable of?
A great many people in any society will never be able to grasp the intellectual concepts of Adam Smith, Rousseau, of Hegel for example. But, that is, in my opinion, no reason for them not to be exposed those concepts at some point to insure equal opportunity of education. On the other hand, those whose intellectual prowess is not college oriented, should nonetheless be entitled to vocational training and retraining as necessary, in order to maximize their potential contribution to their own welfare and that of society at large, IMO.
Our schools therefore, require reforms that move them away from cookie cutter templates, and assembly line efficiency, which fails so very many students both challenged and gifted, for the loss of productive citizens in both the challenged and gifted categories, carry enormous opportunity costs for the society at large, in the forms of crime and lost creativity and innovation.
I agree with you that we need vocational schools for those not college bound, but, in addition, we need to insure that those vocational schools also teach vocational students what they need to know to manage their finances, to make as objective and informed voting choices as possible, and what they need to know in order to conduct themselves in society as law abiding and respecting citizens. That is a very tall order, but, it is not impossible. It does require an investment in education in an unprecedented way for America, which equalizes the opportunity for all to prepare themselves for higher education, while at the same time, providing the vocational safety net for those who will decide they are not college material, as well as the personal skills to manage their lives in the most productive and effective manner possible.
Education must begin to be viewed as a lifetime process and our society must begin to accept the responsibility for lifetime education in a society which is replacing jobs with technology at a dizzying pace. Of course, becoming a more self-sufficient nation and paying the premium for that self-sufficiency will go along way to restoring many vocational jobs which have been exported in the last 5 decades.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2010 12:02 PMDavid,
Along with Health Care, I do see this as a paramount issue. The issues are similar in the runaway inflation they are experiencing, and the opposition from the party of luddites.
If we expect to be competitive in the future world,and survive as a democracy, we have to universalize higher education, and as you pointed out, change the idea that parenting is a free for all.
Posted by: gergle at January 14, 2010 12:03 PMgergle said: “A thief buys more locks because of projection of his own issues onto others and a little paranoia in the mix, not really an issue of knowledge.”
Yes, on the projection. No, on the knowledge. What sane thief would choose to risk incarceration if they could achieve the income of thievery by legitimate means. There is a reason the Mafia goombah’s attempted to transition to legitimate business if they lived long enough to learn the lessons of life. Knowledge, learning, and gainful employment of those are often the difference between a law abiding citizen and parent stealing food or clothes to feed their children.
Yes, the decision to live austerely while others suffered debilitating poverty was real in the case of Gandhi and Mother Theresa. It doesn’t mean huge amounts of resources did not pass through their hands; it did. But, that’s what made them heroic historic noble figures. The wealth passed through their hands to relieve the poverty of others.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2010 12:11 PMDavid,
I have an idea we should begin vocational education nearer to the age of 12. While there is potential for abuse of child labor, we are prolonging childhood in many who need a more focused regimen. We expect 18 year old’s to choose a life career without any exposure to what it actually entails. Having skills by the time one is 18, so that one may make more informed and independent life choices, away from “parents” lacking in ability, may be the way to go.
I don’t believe everyone can become a physicist, but I do believe many can grasp the basic concepts, far more than many believe. I’ve watched many people from poor backgrounds, who performed poorly in school, mature to develop an interest in higher concepts, but are locked into providing for a family that doesn’t allow them to continue much growth.
Some employer/societal pact seems to be in order to allow these people to grow. Making higher education available to them would truly be a trickle down theory that would work, in my opinion.
Posted by: gergle at January 14, 2010 12:12 PMgergle, all worthy ideas worth exploring, trying, and measuring.
Formal reasoning cognitive skills, (often referred to as abstract learning capacity), is, on average arrived at between the ages of 12 and 13. Which, would indicate that you are quite correct regarding vocational training beginning at 12.
I would go so far as requiring every 12 year old to learn janitorial, housekeeping, and cooking skills by the time they enter the 10th grade. This would give Americans a little better appreciation for the workers in our society who are the glue that hold it together and keep it from drowning in its own filth and disarray.
I think politically, this would give a living wage a whole new definition for voters educated in this fashion. In addition, if these young people who go on to become businesspeople, specialists, or technicians, ever get laid off, they will have rudimentary vocational skills to fall back on, not to mention vocational skills to help them pay their way through college if they can’t afford it any other way.
Then in grades 10 through 12, they can specialize in a more demanding vocational skill if they choose like welding, auto body repair, bookkeeping, textiles, or woodworking, as these require more demanding abstract reasoning or visualization skills. Again a great fall back if college doesn’t work out. And in America, a very large percentage of students entering college, never finish. Now that’s a safety net that has real cost efficiency built in for society at large.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 14, 2010 04:24 PMWe can’t afford the HC bill even before it becomes law. Today the Corpocracy offered up $60B over 10 years of proposed tax on some union HC packages. Reason being that unions own enough congress persons, aka Corpocracy, to have the laws written as they want them.
Will be interesting to see if the oil patch gang can get a win in Mass. and upset the filibuster proof Senate.
How did this country ever get to the point where the federal government has so much control over our lives? Wasn’t meant to be. Too much democracy, not enough Republic. Maybe it is better to have the states appoint their Senators to the Federal govt. As an alternative I like the idea of a Republic Sentry Party where members can vote to reject from office their congresspersons if they aren’t doing their job.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 15, 2010 09:48 PMRoy Ellis said: “We can’t afford the HC bill even before it becomes law.”
What can we afford, Roy, if not providing medical care and health to Americans when they need it?
If we cannot afford the HC bill, then we CERTAINLY cannot afford to provide health care and emergency services to Haitians. Is that really your contention, that Haitian victims of the earthquake should not receive American federal assistance at this time because we cannot afford it? To be consistent, that must be your contention, for surely you cannot deny Americans medical care via the HC bill, yet support providing medical care to Haitians, arguing Haitian health care is affordable but Americans is not.
And your statement: “Too much democracy, not enough Republic. Maybe it is better to have the states appoint their Senators to the Federal govt.” is very illogical.
More Republic only gives Politicians more power to answer to themselves, only. Democracy holds out the potential for citizens to hold politicians accountable to someone other than themselves.
And having the States appoint Senators, is also illogical as a solution. The simple reason is, the States would choose those Senators by a vote of their politicians. What makes you think State politicians are any better than federal politicians? They aren’t. In some ways, they are worse. You might try to argue they are closer to the people. But, a quick glance at eligible voter turnout at a State election not accompanying a Presidential year election, demonstrates the voters take far less interest in the workings and dealings of State politicians than federal. Which leaves State politicians more opportunity to serve themselves instead of the State or people. Can you say Blogojevich or Palin? How about Gov. Mark Sanford? Crooked politicians in State Congress far outnumber crooked State governors, but, you likely wouldn’t recognize the names of the many crooked State politicians in State Legislatures, and neither would most people in that State.
I think what we can agree is needed is more oversight and accountability over politicians by the voters and investigative media, and non-elected public servants charged with law enforcement. That is not more Republic, nor even more Democracy. It can result in more responsible government however, if we can restore the effectiveness of checks and balances between the voters and their representatives, and between elected officials and law enforcement public servants.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2010 04:44 PMDR wrote; “Folks just don’t get, for example, that the economy will improve through deficit spending today that will abate when the economy improves.”
I find this an interesting statement in an article about educating our children. I wonder if the author would like this theory taught in our schools?
Using the theory of; “government deficit spending leads to balanced budgets”, perhaps our schools could teach our children how to apply that in their own lives to enrich themselves. Let’s listen in on the teacher instructing her students.
Class…when you are adults, should you find yourself deep in debt, the correct course of action is to spend more money. The wrong course of action is to cut back on unnecessary expenditures. You see children…by continuing to spend more money than you earn you will force your employer (taxpayers) to give you a raise (more taxes) so you will feel no pain and continue to find ways to further in-debt yourself.
At some point your employer will be paying you enough in wages (taxes) that you can begin to pay off your indebtedness. Now children…please don’t ask me from where the employer (taxpayer) will get all this extra money to fund your extravagance…we’ll cover that in Econ 303 which is reserved for your great grandchildren.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2010 04:48 PMDR writes; “If we cannot afford the HC bill, then we CERTAINLY cannot afford to provide health care and emergency services to Haitians.”
Correct on both counts. We can’t afford either. To afford something in my sense of the word, means not going into debt to purchase something or having sufficient income to make payments on what we have acquired thru borrowing.
Can we afford HC and aid to Haiti…yes and no. Can we do both on borrowed money…yes. Can we make the payments on the money we have already borrowed and want to borrow…for now…yes. For how long can we continue to make the payments on money we have borrowed…not long.
Most of us know what a “Ponzi” scheme is. It is the theory of the “greater fool”. The greater fool being the last one(s) to buy into the scheme and the one(s) who loose everything invested.
Government deficit spending depends upon foolish voters who continue to expect more government services on borrowed money and higher taxes on those who produce the wealth of the nation. Government produces no wealth, only individuals produce wealth upon which government can, and does, take a slice.
Right now we have about five people in the wagon for every five people pulling the wagon. When number 6,7, and 8 stop pulling and climb into the wagon it’s all over folks.
The greatest thing education can do for the masses is to teach them to be independent. Anything else may be nice…but not critical to their survival.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2010 05:10 PMRoyal Flush asked: “I find this an interesting statement in an article about educating our children. I wonder if the author would like this theory taught in our schools?”
Of course. If you don’t understand the concept of investing, you won’t understand the meaning of my comment. Investing is giving up resources in the present for the reasonable chance of getting those resources returned in the future in addition to payment for the use of those resources. Deficit spending currently for 2 or 3 years to rescue a faltering economy, with the reasonable chance that the recovered economy will dramatically increase tax revenues back to the people’s government for 5 or more years following, has a sound historical record of returning revenues to the government well beyond the deficit spending employed to recover the economy.
Of course, if Republicans like those of the last 9 years are in charge, deficit spending to recover from recession does NOT abate, it just goes on and on and on well after the economy has recovered. But, what Republicans did in the last decade, is unprecedented. Doubling the national debt which took 200 plus years to create, in just 8 years, is unparalleled in American history. Not even Democrats and FDR rivaled the deficit irresponsibility of Republicans in the last decade.
The simple fact is, our government’s revenues have dropped precipitously since the onset of the financial and mortgage sector collapse, resulting in an unsustainable path toward national bankruptcy if the economy were to not recover. You might attempt to argue the solution is to just cut government spending to match the meager federal revenues, but that would put 10’s to 100 million or more Americans into poverty states rivaled by Haitians before the earthquake. Cut medicare and Americans will suffer as so many Haitians do now due to lack of health care. Cut Social Security spending and 10’s of millions of Americans will be plummeted into homelessness and poverty making American urban streets appear more like Haitian streets today. Such poverty, and lack of services, as we are beginning to witness in Haiti, leads to lawlessness and uprisings full of violence. Ergo, that argument has no merit.
In fact, that argument belongs to the individual who would impoverish millions of fellow Americans in order to retain a few hundred dollars more per year of their own income. Many of your arguments follow through to that logical conclusion were they to be implemented as policy. Hardly and ethical or humanitarian argument as I see it, and certainly at odds with Adam Smith’s concept of “enlightened self-interest”, which dictates that one must invest in one’s family, community, and nation if one wishes to continue to depend on the security and benefits that come from inclusion in that family, community, and nation.
Only the very short-sighted, foolish, and selfish would bring their nation’s people to ruin for the benefit of retaining a few dollars more per year for themselves. To make such misery worthwhile, one must extract sufficient profits from family, community, and national deprivation as to afford to maintain and improve one’s quality of life in the wake of the destruction of one’s national security, social and cultural balance and harmony. Which is what leaders in Haiti have done for a couple of centuries.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2010 05:28 PM
Royal Flush offers the argument: “To afford something in my sense of the word, means not going into debt to purchase something or having sufficient income to make payments on what we have acquired thru borrowing.”
Then by your own argument, Haiti cannot afford to help itself with this natural disaster, and the humanity there should be ignored and allowed to suffer and die, with the ‘good’ arguments of Ebeneezer Scrooge, or deplorable characters in a Charles Dickens novel, which would permit you to retain an extra few dollars per year from taxes in coming years.
Thank you for your candor in this regard, Royal Flush.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2010 05:32 PMI agree somewhat David. We had more States rights back in to 40’s and 50’s and some really corrupt states. So, either way we get screwed. But, not so with a 3rd party like Republic Sentry where the membership can vote to reject elected/appointed officials from their party. Thus, as a party member in one state you could vote to reject an elected/appointed senator/rep from any other state. Should that not get an honorable mention? I like that SOLUTION. Restated: We need more Republic and less Democracy with a strong 3rd party (with a different political attitude) oversight for elected and appointed officials.
David, I have no problem saying we cannot afford to pay for the Haitian disaster. Could be (I didn’t say ‘I think’)the reason China only coughed up a mil or so is because they feel they are paying for the disaster by loaning the US $1 or $2B to coa. We are $12T down now and the administration wants to triple debt by 2019 to something like $20T. Good post response Flush.
Roy said: “But, not so with a 3rd party like Republic Sentry where the membership can vote to reject elected/appointed officials from their party.”
Roy, I agree entirely with this statement. This was supposed to be the case with the Democratic and Grand Old Parties. That they self-police their own candidates and elected rep’s in order to insure their party’s dominance as the majority party. But, along the way, they incrementally chose the acquisition and retention of power by any means, over the efficacy and credibility of their parties platform and ideals.
Which begs the question, how would the Sentry Party avoid the same problem? What value have ideals without the power to employ those ideals? And having power, why should ideals be allowed to override the inevitable loss of power at the hands of those more concerned with pragmatism, selfishness, and greed?
This is why any lasting reforms in America must begin with education which promotes Adam Smith’s concept of “enlightened self-interest” and teaches the next generation the math of calculating opportunity cost attending every decision they and their representatives make.
Failure to do these things, will only result in America cutting off her nose to spite her face, and undermining her future for the sake of specialized wealthy interests motivated by greed, whose wealth buys them influence over those in power, and those in power with the desire to take the wealthy contributions offered, to pay for their marketing and advertising campaigns to get or stay in power.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2010 05:47 PMDR wrote; “Then by your own argument, Haiti cannot afford to help itself with this natural disaster, and the humanity there should be ignored and allowed to suffer and die…”
Poor argument…if not A, then must be C. Why couldn’t it be “B”.
The key word here is the use of the word “should”. That implies choice. Haiti doesn’t have any choices in the matter. Example…if I can’t save your life I “should” let you die. The choice is not mine to make. An accurate statement would be “if I can’t save your life I can’t save your life”. It has nothing to do with me ignoring you or allowing you to die. It is beyond my control. That is where Haiti is today.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2010 05:57 PMRoy, this administration has no desire to move the national debt from 12 Trillion to 20 Trillion by 2020. Obama is not stupid whatever else you think he may be.
To avoid the 20 trillion national debt rise, Congress must both raise taxes, which the public refuses, and cut social services, which the public refuses. Just look at the arguments from GOPUSA attacking Democrats for raising taxes and cutting Medicare benefits and spending in the Health Care bill. Those arguments are effective against Democrats PRECISELY because the American people NEITHER want their taxes raised NOR their safety nets cut.
It is not about what Obama wants. It is about what the American people want and the polls which demonstrate what it is they want. They want a free and easy solution to the national debt and deficit crisis.
Well, I am here to say in all candor, there is no such solution. Any and every solution to the debt/deficit crisis will exact very painful and unwanted changes equal to, or surpassing, the public’s dismay over the national debt rise.
Don’t fall for the sloganeering solutions. Just cut spending, or just raise taxes. Hogwash. Cutting spending will cause significant political backlash from those dependent upon that spending, whether it be engineers at NASA or Medicare recipients. Cut spending, and you cut votes. Raise taxes, and you cut votes.
Obama inherited a no-win scenario with Republicans doubling of the national debt in 8 years and a failed economy, and financial crisis worldwide. Charting a way through is going to require government action, and any government action to rectify this no-win scenario is going to cost a number of Americans. It is not Obama’s fault that Americans want affordable and available health insurance and access to health care, nor Congress’. It is the fault of previous presidents and Congress’ that this demand by the American people was not met long before this.
This health care cost inflation problem for federal government’s deficits and debt has been discussed and researched for almost 2 decades now, and no action taken except by Republicans who expanded Medicare with the Rx drug plan and used deficits to pay for it.
Now, you want to blame Obama and this Congress for offering up affordable and available health care WITHOUT deficit spending, paying for its implementation instead? I am left incredulous.
The only target I can see for criticism over the health care bill is the American people who refuse to accept the reality that what they want will cost them, and there never was a free ride before, just hidden deficit spending for expansion of Medicare which they applauded, until they woke up and opened their eyes after the national debt had doubled in 8 years.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2010 06:07 PMRoyal Flush, your argument is obtuse and false. We are providing Haiti with emergency health care. Ergo, we are affording it. It is getting paid for, though through borrowing from future tax payers.
It is not a matter of America NOT BEING ABLE to provide Haitians with emergency health care. We are. Your premise is invalidated by the reality.
And if we ARE affording the Haitians with needed health care, which we are, why are we so reluctant to provide the same for Americans who pay the taxes and will be paying for Haiti’s health needs?
How is it some Americans are want to show empathy, generosity, and mercy at a cost to foreigners, but, not their own countrymen and women? This is a cognitive dissonance that reflects a very unhealthy national psychology prevalent in America.
Republican supporters argued for years in support of the Iraq War that the Iraqi people deserved to be free on our deficit dollars. These same Republican supporters now argue against health care insurance and access to 10’s of millions of Americans who paid for and will continue to pay for that war in Iraq. It is the very definition of cognitive dissonance.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 16, 2010 06:16 PMDR wrote; “Royal Flush, your argument is obtuse and false. We are providing Haiti with emergency health care. Ergo, we are affording it. It is getting paid for, though through borrowing from future tax payers.”
Whoa…slow down. You are criticizing statements I never made. Please provide the quote you are responding to so I can follow along.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 16, 2010 06:27 PMhere it is in a nutshell. the economy is your car, and it just ran out of gas. gotta get it started again, so we poor a little gas in the carb (the stimulus). the problem is we borrowed the gas from the chinese, and neglected to put anything in the tank to keep it going once it starts (business tax cuts, and incentives to grow here). so what do we do? we buy a bigger car with an empty tank( grow the size of gov’t)? brilliant!
Posted by: dbs at January 16, 2010 06:43 PMDavid,
Educational failure or success depends more on where you live than almost any other government service in place today. I do not believe that we have a general failure in the educational system. Instead what we have are a number of individual failures (and assuming a normal curve as many successes and many points in between).
I will agree that there are common denominators in the successes and failures. However, to try to implement a universal solution for eductation will in all liklihood result in at best a regression to the mean than to the mode.
Posted by: Rob at January 16, 2010 07:37 PMDavid, not aware of some previous edict the Dem’s had to ensure their party ran clean of corruption and stayed in power. The Regan Rep’s had some kind of ten commandment thing that they would like to reimpose for 2012 as they are currently akin to a bag full of beat up assholes.
Now, the Republic Sentry Party will do it thusly: Five or six rules total, once the Party is legalized and set in motion, to prevent the Party from EVER being co-opted by special interest/moneyed influence.
#1 – Members must agree with the rules and agree to support the party’s agenda. (legalizes enforcement of the rules)
#2 – A rule cannot be changed or deleted without approval by 65% of the majority of the membership vote. (Makes it near impossible, similar to a constitutional amendment, for corruptive influences to change the rules and/or co-opt the Party)
(Next deals with members oversight of elected/appointed gov. officials)
#3 –If 20% of national party members complain (submit a pro-forma complaint to the Party website) about a party member who is elected/appointed as a Congressperson, ambassador, UN rep (etc) an automatic up/down vote is mandated for that member. (Pro-forma complaints are automatically processed and published immediately on the Party website.)
#4 – (Same as #3 but covers State party members and state elected/appointed officials. State elected/appointed officials would be subject to up/down vote by members of that state’s party. Note that Congresspersons are oversighted ?? by the national party membership)
#5 – If an offending official fails to garner 65% of a favorable vote that official is rejected from the Party. (That person will, of course, continue to serve out the remainder of their term of office but will receive no support from the Party for any future political endeavor)
Now, if an official wants to go against the agenda that person would need to get on the Party website and communicate to the Party base as to what they propose by holding mini cpans, emails, or whatever. Once they are sure they have gained approval of the majority they can proceed with their proposal without fear of being rejected.
This is the 21st century. People don’t trust people in life or death situations. There are signed contracts to ensure parties act as agreed. Politics ain’t no different. They work for us.
I believe about eight volunteers for each state would be sufficient to keep a lookout for perceived wrongdoers. They would act as minute men to get the word out.
On education, check out www.republicsentry.com agenda. Recommends operating HS’s as college prep schools. Recommends putting volunteer/part time retired professionals into HS math and science classrooms for some number of hours each week. plus other stuff. At 12 years of age a kid needs to know the diff between a computer engineer and an RF engineer for example. Needs to see examples of math used in getting to the mooon etc.
On a roll. Listening to classical country from the 50-60’s and hot bloggin!! Life is sweet!
Rob, don’t agree. These schools graduating 50% are in large cities, near the colleges and universitites.
Let me try.
How many of those children have attend college prep HS’s? How many have the funds to attend a college or the backgrounds to get a loan for their education? Why has the cost skyrocketed for education while wages have decreased in this country? Could it be the Corpocracy likes it that way? Consider that 50% of grad students are foreigners and most don’t go home. They stick around the good ole US of A. Instead of gearing up to hire a supposedly 46k shortage of nurses why did the Bush admin want to import 40k nurses from the PI? Why are these inner city kids pitted against illegal immigrants for low and semi-skilled jobs? Today, the admin made it legal for the illegal Hatian to remain in the country and work. They assume the Hatian wasn’t working to beging with? 18 months they can remain in a legal status. Same thing was done for the Salvadoran’s several years back and don’t you know - they remain in a legal status today. Why do we need 26 temp visa programs to take care of so called skilled/cheap workers for Microsoft and Intel, etc? Duke univ and some others recently completed a study that there is NO shortqage of skilled graduates in the US. That many grads are unable to find work in their chosen field. That was before the recession. Better get ready for the JOBLESS recovery because that’s whats coming asap.
Not so much the location Rob.
Reublic Sentry agenda calls for training prisoners for low-med skilled jobs, certifying and finding jobs for them. Time off for certification. Recommends building modern, hitech merchant fleet for training skills at all levels. Serve as mil xport when needed and serve as testing lab for consumer products, lead, ecoli, etc as countries won’t let the US establish test facs on their soil.
Otherwise we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Royal Flush,
It made no sense to me that deficit spending would actually reduce deficits, either, in my first Economics 101 course in college. But after some study of macro-economics I understood the fallacy of applying a macroeconomic theory to a micro economic situation such as personal finance.
Even Chicago’s Freidman understands monetary and fiscal policy effects and Keynes development of these ideas.
This is the problem sometimes explaining these ideas to people unfamiliar with the subject of economics, or even to non physicists the ideas of quantum mechanics. Some of the ideas just don’t make sense to someone unfamiliar with the reasoning and facts behind the theorems.
But it certainly makes great political fodder. This kind of argument is why I say the Republican party is the party which is advocating ignorance.
Sara Palin is a prime example. I’ve been reading a biography of John Adams. In the first chapter it describes how Adams and the Sons of Liberty was an exercise in using ignorant mobs to stir up sentiment and create problems for the Tories. Adams would then turn about and show disgust for the very rabble rousing he was involved with. It’s a technique that has been around a long time.
Adams and his cousin were some of the more disturbing founders. While it seems to have led to a good end, the methods seemed rather seedy.
Roy said: “Consider that 50% of grad students are foreigners and most don’t go home.”
Roy, that is a common myth and illiterate reading of the data by some reporters and bloggers. Most foreign students eventually go home. It varies enormously upon country of origin, (the harsher the conditions the more likely they are to remain in the U.S.) and upon their field of specialty, (computer and physical science, and engineering graduate students having the highest stay rates.)
A recent study writes this year:
According to the study’s findings, very few foreign students would like to stay in the United States permanently—only 6 percent of Indian, 10 percent of Chinese and 15 percent of Europeans. And fewer foreign students than the historical norm expressed interest in staying in the United States after they graduate. Only 58 percent of Indian, 54 percent of Chinese and 40 percent of European students wish to stay for several years after graduation.
The bottom line is the vast majority of foreign students who graduate do not want to stay here in America permanently. Of those who do graduate, depending on country of origin, higher percentages end up choosing to stay for a few years after graduation, apparently to acquire a high paying job to pay off their education debts, and then most will return to their homes and families where they can be much bigger fish in much smaller ponds.
Your reference to 50% of grad students being foreign applies to science and engineering students and comes from over generalized reports of a study of science and engineering students research published in 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences, in which it was found that higher stay rates occurred amongst science and engineering students and from China and India. The Stay Rate was higher from certain countries of origin like China, and lower from European countries, for example. The average figure for stay rates of all foreign graduate students never really appears in the study.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2010 03:36 AMRoy said: “David, not aware of some previous edict the Dem’s had to ensure their party ran clean of corruption and stayed in power.”
Me neither, unless you are referring to the first political parties following George Washington’s presidency. Parties were forming during Washington’s presidency on differences in ideology and around issues like national security and our relationship with England, and included the issue of slavery. The ideology drove the parties then, not the acquisition of power to the point of usurping ideology. That came later, after Reconstruction, primarily, and no doubt due to the increased literacy rates of the urban areas and industrialization of the print media as a political forum, driving the costs of false advertising way, way down.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2010 03:43 AMRoy, your rules for the Sentry Party are laudable on their face. But, importing them into the real world of American politics will have quite different results than expected, I suspect. For example:
“#1 – Members must agree with the rules and agree to support the party’s agenda. (legalizes enforcement of the rules)”
This rule will run headlong into conflict with existing laws under the FEC regarding membership and enforcement without due process. A member who pays their dues cannot be deprived of their membership purchased by those dues without due process. The FEC has some rules about that due process.
“#2 – A rule cannot be changed or deleted without approval by 65% of the majority of the membership vote. (Makes it near impossible, similar to a constitutional amendment, for corruptive influences to change the rules and/or co-opt the Party)”
This rule at first appears very tempting. But, will likely result in rigor mortis setting in preventing the Party from adapting to changing political conditions, causing ever increasing numbers of disaffected members to leave the Party over this or that frustrated effort to change and improve the rules.
“#3 –If 20% of national party members complain (submit a pro-forma complaint to the Party website) about a party member who is elected/appointed as a Congressperson, ambassador, UN rep (etc) an automatic up/down vote is mandated for that member. (Pro-forma complaints are automatically processed and published immediately on the Party website.)”
Rules 3 thru 5 allude to the Party’s dissociation from an elected official if that official doesn’t abide the party’s platform. I think you will find those having been rejected by the Party will simply rename themselves Independent or Dem or Rep. and use the power of their incumbency to remain in office. I commend this rule for the party. I am just not sure it will have the presumed anti-incumbent effect on election day for the excommunicated official.
Power corrupts, which makes Party rules null and void for those corrupted by power. I give you Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter as current examples. They would prefer their Party support them, but, power dictates that switching parties is in order if their Party won’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I think you are on the right track regarding the redesign of contemporary political parties. To the extent that the Sentry Party will hold their own accountable, I am all for it. That said, there simply is no effective substitute for voters holding their own representatives responsible, regardless of Party affiliation.
Politics is about power and the numbers on Election Day, not rules. Which is why every attempt to legislate against corruption of our politicians fails. Such legislation comes from those self-same politicians, who by and large operate on the maxim that all rules and ideals must be subjugated to retaining power, for without power, the rules and ideals cannot be promoted. It is a perverse tautology, but, real nonetheless and pervasive in our American political system and all democratically elected societies with mostly fair and accountable elections.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2010 04:05 AM#1 – Members must agree with the rules and agree to support the party’s agenda. (legalizes enforcement of the rules)”
David’s response: “This rule will run headlong into conflict with existing laws under the FEC regarding membership and enforcement without due process. A member who pays their dues cannot be deprived of their membership purchased by those dues without due process. The FEC has some rules about that due process. “
Briefly looked at FEC.GOV and found nothing related. Will get back on this one.
David’s response: “#2 – A rule cannot be changed or deleted without approval by 65% of the majority of the membership vote. (Makes it near impossible, similar to a constitutional amendment, for corruptive influences to change the rules and/or co-opt the Party)”
This rule at first appears very tempting. But, will likely result in rigor mortis setting in preventing the Party from adapting to changing political conditions, causing ever increasing numbers of disaffected members to leave the Party over this or that frustrated effort to change and improve the rules.
IMO, no likely David. If 65% of majority membership have voted to reject a person not likely to be a ground swell of discontent. Initially the agenda will be solely reform oriented with no social issues included. We first need to coalesce around reform of government and get to the divisive stuff after reform is achieved. The agenda will change as candidates, incumbents are forced, thru fear of their constitutents, to broach new majors on the Internet website thru mini Cspans, emails, tweets/twitters, whatever.
David wrote: ““#3 –If 20% of national party members complain (submit a pro-forma complaint to the Party website) about a party member who is elected/appointed as a Congressperson, ambassador, UN rep (etc) an automatic up/down vote is mandated for that member. (Pro-forma complaints are automatically processed and published immediately on the Party website.)”
Rules 3 thru 5 allude to the Party’s dissociation from an elected official if that official doesn’t abide the party’s platform. I think you will find those having been rejected by the Party will simply rename themselves Independent or Dem or Rep. and use the power of their incumbency to remain in office. I commend this rule for the party. I am just not sure it will have the presumed anti-incumbent effect on election day for the excommunicated official.
Power corrupts, which makes Party rules null and void for those corrupted by power. I give you Joe Lieberman and Arlen Specter as current examples. They would prefer their Party support them, but, power dictates that switching parties is in order if their Party won’t.
Don’t get me wrong. I think you are on the right track regarding the redesign of contemporary political parties. To the extent that the Sentry Party will hold their own accountable, I am all for it. That said, there simply is no effective substitute for voters holding their own representatives responsible, regardless of Party affiliation.
Politics is about power and the numbers on Election Day, not rules. Which is why every attempt to legislate against corruption of our politicians fails. Such legislation comes from those self-same politicians, who by and large operate on the maxim that all rules and ideals must be subjugated to retaining power, for without power, the rules and ideals cannot be promoted. It is a perverse tautology, but, real nonetheless and pervasive in our American political system and all democratically elected societies with mostly fair and accountable elections.””
Can’t see someone who gets rejected from their party as continuing to be a strong political force. Quite the opposite, I believe rejecting a few would encourage many voters to come on board. I believe it would force other parties to adopt some ‘rules’ as well to remain competitive as a party with accountability for their leaders. For instance, rejecting the La. Rep who sold her HC vote for $100M might bring voters, looking for trust/accountability, flocking to your party. I agree voters have the power of the ballot box to hold politicians accountable but they have failed, over and over, miserably. I do believe Republic Sentry offers a better mousetrap.
Thanks for your response David. It’s been hard to get any debate, dialogue going on the viability of such a party. I believe the time for tautology is long past. We need to be thinking and acting on solutions before things get much worse, IMO.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
David, haven’t found anything to support your suggestion the FEC would rule against a party attempting to enforce a rule that allows for rejection of a party member. Can you point to anything specific? At any rate, having members of any organization agree to abide by the rules of that organization simply seems to be good operating procedures. Why would anyone want to involve themselves otherwise unless to subvert?
Re the 17th. Popular election of senators damages forever the bicameral check of the states on the people and the people on the states. We have a facade of a bicameral legislative branch yet it is no longer in place, both are merely houses of the people with state resources and minorities (areas senators were to guard) being left unguarded against abusive natures of majority rule. Corruption is much easier to control than destruction, which a democracy has always collapsed into. The 17th pushed us dangerously heavy into pure representative democracy and with the on-going efforts to finally rip the last, albeit damaged, layer away and popularly elect the president the deed Wilson and his progressives long dreamed of, turning us into a democracy, will be complete. Restore the elective systems originally instituted by our Constitution. It is the only way to protect our federalist republic. The level of corruption is subjective as there hasn’t been a bicameral system in place since 1913.
I recommend the implementation of a strong reform oriented 3rd party to head us in the direction of more Republic and less democracy.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Roy, voters can register with any Party they choose with the Elections Commission of their district. Your Party has no control over that, it is governed by the States and FEC. Which means your party has no control over who votes in your primaries and caucuses. Since Parties exist for the vote, and Parties have no control over the registration process for candidate selection on the ballots, no Party has very much control over the voters and people voting in the caucus or primary. Most jurisdictions even have candidate write-in provisions circumventing the Party’s nomination process in part.
Roy asked: “Why would anyone want to involve themselves otherwise unless to subvert?”
Bingo! In 2006 a host of Republicans registered Democrat in order to subvert the Democrat’s nomination process. Actually, rather clever given its semi-organized implementation. Or maybe that was 2008, I forget which election that was.
I agree with your position on membership within the Party. I am just saying, that it will not give the kind of control, I think you are hoping for. Then there is always the silent dissenters. Those who will join your party as the lesser of perceived evils, and will remain silent about their opposition to some of the party’s platform and candidates. This goes on in the Dem. and Rep. Parties all the time. The parties count on their membership coming out to vote, but, many don’t because they don’t agree with some aspect of the Party’s platform or candidate selections.
Roy said: “Re the 17th. Popular election of senators damages forever the bicameral check of the states on the people and the people on the states.”
I have to disagree with you on this one, Roy. The States are nothing more than lines on a map without the people residing in those states. To attempt to define the State’s interests as something other than the interests of the residents within those states, is illogical and borders on sophistry designed for elitist control of power, and political bosses. This was argued vociferously during the suffrage debates, and the people decided this issue, permanently, for better or worse. There is not reversing universal suffrage in America without civil conflict.
It is academic today to argue against universal suffrage. Our time and energies are better spent managing reality, rather than trying to turn back the hands of time on issues which will never be reversed without a dictatorial authoritarian government. In a democratic elected government such as ours, the people will not relinquish their vote. That is a simple and unmovable reality. We need to move on and deal with the reality that is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2010 05:45 PMRoy said: “We first need to coalesce around reform of government and get to the divisive stuff after reform is achieved.”
Which ignores the opportunity cost reality of reform decisions. A vast majority of Americans and politicians agree health care reform is essential to preserving our nation’s economic future. But, any attempt to reform it, results in factionalization over the choices and an absence of consensus to effect viable effective health care reform. Every reform will have its opponents in large numbers who will view the cost of this or that reform as too high for them to support.
The first thing you need to do is to garner enough voters to compete with the duopoly Party. Worry about reforms after. Your party cannot effect reform without a majority support for your party. To define reforms undermines any attempt to garner that public support. Keep it simple. Advocate reform, but don’t define it. Then you alienate far fewer potential party supporters.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 17, 2010 05:52 PMSo, I know of no specific FEC rule/reg that would rule Republic Sentry illigit. Your other points address the normal give and take with any political party. I believe a party that can take advantage of the Internet and provides for members oversight for elected officials will have strong public appeal. Not much traction yet but I see that as a resource problem and not so much a political one. Time will tell.
Not pushing for giving up universal suffrage. I’m pushing for the Republic Sentry Party to confront the Corpocracy/oligarchy. We need such a party to remove, or severely restrict the money influence, achieve real campaign finance reform and carry out a populist agenda that will lead to real reform of government. Currently, the parties are so polarized that the majority of voters have opted to be outside any political party. That’s good in a way, but only allows that majority to ping-pong between the two majors. Let’s have a 3rd choice that operates in the middle ground and gives people a real vote in their government.
Otherwise, we have the
DR wrote; “Keep it simple. Advocate reform, but don’t define it. Then you alienate far fewer potential party supporters.”
That advise sounds very much like obama’s campaign slogan of “change”. It works until one begins to understand exactly what changes are being advocated. Few, if any past presidents, have fallen as fast as obama in public approval in their first year of office. I attribute this directly to his call for change, without explaining exactly what this meant to Americans.
Now that American’s understand and have seen those changes they aren’t accepting it very well. The same is true if one were to have a party calling for reform without identifying what that reform entails.
Few people will follow a slogan for long. There must be some meat on the bone. Is it really all about not alienating supporters by saying nothing of substance or, attracting supporters by advocating positions that appeal to them.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2010 01:07 PMRoyal Flush, you are missing the point. The Sentry Party does not yet exist. It must exist and have supporters before it can legislate. To alienate supporters before incorporation is to counterproductive.
Every intelligent person knows that defining any position on any issue will alienate some or many, depending on the issue and definition. Party’s traditionally were defined by broad principles, not specific legislative policy. The Sentry Party if it comes into existence would do well to follow that tested example.
The meat as you call it, for a Party, is the set of principles. Roy is right to define the principles, but not specific legislative policies, if the first priority is to grow a Party from scratch.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 19, 2010 04:15 PMI wouldn’t join the “National Reform Party” by whatever name unless I knew what reforms they were advocating. Reform is just a slogan…meaningless. What you and Roy define as principles are just another name for policies. Right? I am not speaking of specific legislative policies, but rather broad policies that define positions on government spending, regulations, taxing, and individual and state rights among others.
To attract me, the party must display a conservative philosophy…to attract others, I am sure they would demand a liberal philosophy. How would a party be structured to attract both? Well…as you stated, it must be so loosely configured that it stands for nothing but the nebulous word…”reform”. That won’t work. At least…not for long.
Posted by: Royal Flush at January 19, 2010 05:11 PMRoyal Flush asked: “What you and Roy define as principles are just another name for policies. Right?”
No. Not right. Principles are guides to policy. The principle of a party holding its elected representatives to account for fidelity to the Party’s platform is a policy. Setting out to hold a party’s elected officials responsible to the needs of the nation is a principle, defining an overarching rationale for the Party’s existence. How they hold those officials responsible will become the policy.
Setting out to insure equality of voice in political expression is a principle. How to achieve that equality will become the policy.
Setting out to avoid corruption of the Party by wealthy special interests is a principle. How to handle wealthy special interest contributions shall become the policy.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2010 12:01 PMRoyal Flush, what conservative philosophy? That of Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, that of Palin and religiously based social conservatives, or, that of the trickle down economic philosophy now demonstrated to be a failure in all but a very narrowly defined set of economic circumstances wherein constricted capital is impeding economic growth and sustainability?
There are many conservative philosophies out there, some of which are not even philosophies but mere slogans for the uneducated, like smaller government is best. That is not a philosophy, that is mandate to eliminate government altogether by those without the education to carry the slogan to its logical conclusion. If smaller government is best, then no government should be even better. Illogical and just plain dumb. Government needs to be whatever size is required to secure the objectives of the nation’s liberty and relative security, domestic tranquility, and prosperity. Smaller is not better if smaller means those objectives are placed out of reach.
So, what do define as conservative philosophy? The Libertarian Party is very conservative on some issues and very liberal on others. Your comments allude to disappointment with the GOP’s past performance in power. Yet, the GOP professes staunchly to be the champions of conservative philosophy.
Perhaps, you were not meant to be a Party supporter, but an independent voter who votes based on the issues and the pragmatism toward solutions of the candidate seeking election.
Posted by: David R. Remer at January 22, 2010 12:14 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
