Democrats have to be careful about making any promises to improve the situation in Iraq. Rather, they should make the distinction between changing drivers and repairing cars.
Iraq may simply be a car wrecked so badly that it can't be repaired. Sometimes even the best doctors can't save the patient.
But the guy who wrecked the car is Bush. And the Democrats should be terribly careful to continue to make him responsible for the fiasco we've seen so far and the fiascos to follow.
Rather than promise to fix the car, the Democrats should emphasize the need to change drivers. You don't have to know how to repair the car to know that the guy who wrecked it ought to be replaced behind the wheel.
Democrats can do a much better job of foreign policy than George and the Neocons and they should limit themselves to that promise. If George can suck them into promising that they have a good repair for Iraq and hold them responsible for fixing his mess, the errorist has won.
R World (Ron Davison muses aloud)
13 November 2006
They Think You're an Idiot - Prove Them Wrong
Perhaps no issue more squarely puts the neoconservatives into the camp of unAmerican than their opposition to the estate tax. Quite simply, it is not enough for them that inheritences up to $6 million are exempt from taxes. They think it is unfair for folks inheriting more than $6 million to pay taxes at all.
There can only be a few explanations for such support. One is that you think that the working stiff who is stupid enough to have been born poor or middle class should be the one paying taxes on the income he has earned so that the fellow born rich doesn't have to be taxed a dime on the money he has done nothing to earn. The other is that you think that neither the working class stiff or the rich should pay the taxes but that, instead, the next generation should pay the taxes, deferring the cost of government to the next generation in the form of debt.
There is, of course, one other explanation. The rich actually think that you are an idiot and would eagerly support tax relief for Paris Hilton and her trust fund buddies, agreeing to pay their share out of your hard-earned income.
There can only be a few explanations for such support. One is that you think that the working stiff who is stupid enough to have been born poor or middle class should be the one paying taxes on the income he has earned so that the fellow born rich doesn't have to be taxed a dime on the money he has done nothing to earn. The other is that you think that neither the working class stiff or the rich should pay the taxes but that, instead, the next generation should pay the taxes, deferring the cost of government to the next generation in the form of debt.
There is, of course, one other explanation. The rich actually think that you are an idiot and would eagerly support tax relief for Paris Hilton and her trust fund buddies, agreeing to pay their share out of your hard-earned income.
12 November 2006
Top Down or Grass Roots?
There are at least two ways to arrive at government regulation, programs, or spending. The first is as a result of experts conferring in private rooms. The second is as a result of the public meeting in town halls.
The politicians in DC still don't seem to realize that this process makes more difference than the particular outcome in terms of support or protest.
Watch for the politicians who learn how to use technology to involve a wider swath of people in the formulation of policy. When a politician steps out of DC to involve groups in town hall meetings -- meetings that involve dialogue and not preaching -- that politician will rapidly rise to power and prominence. And the politicians still trying to contain politics to the beltway are going to be taken completely by surprise.
If the last election taught nothing, it should be that Americans simply don't trust supposed experts conferring in private rooms. Even better than transparency is involvement. If politicians want power, they should do all they can to disperse power by engaging others in a dialogue in which their input actually changes policy.
The politicians in DC still don't seem to realize that this process makes more difference than the particular outcome in terms of support or protest.
Watch for the politicians who learn how to use technology to involve a wider swath of people in the formulation of policy. When a politician steps out of DC to involve groups in town hall meetings -- meetings that involve dialogue and not preaching -- that politician will rapidly rise to power and prominence. And the politicians still trying to contain politics to the beltway are going to be taken completely by surprise.
If the last election taught nothing, it should be that Americans simply don't trust supposed experts conferring in private rooms. Even better than transparency is involvement. If politicians want power, they should do all they can to disperse power by engaging others in a dialogue in which their input actually changes policy.
11 November 2006
Keepers of the Worldview
A theory is comprised of a set of testable hypotheses. By contrast, an ideology is not subject to tests. For some reason, the world of science and technology has been largely defined by theory but the world of business and politics has not. In the place of theories that are continually challenged we have, instead, defenders of worldviews.
Today, the keepers of the worldviews in the world of politics are, oddly enough, media personalities. I rarely watch TV news but did this election week, sitting in a hotel in the DC area on election night and the next two evenings. I was flabbergasted by how seriously the political reporters take themselves - Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews (who confuses hard-hitting questions with rudely interrupting), and Bill O'Reilly obviously are so impressed with their view of the world and the importance of articulating that for us mere mortals who would otherwise be unable to make sense of the world.
But in this world of complexity where there is enough data to support just about any reasonable worldview, it is vital to have keepers of the worldview who defend it from the facts, events, and people who would erode its authority. Or at least that is what the elites seem to believe.
The truth is there is an enormous amount of power and wealth to be had in pushing a worldview that is accepted. All of these personalities are paid huge salaries and have real influence over policy. Sadly, what they are doing is often little based on theory and more often seems based on ideology. Just imagine public policy making as dramatic and as impressive advances as science and technology has over the last century. Just imagine the adoption of the scientific method in the world of politics. Perhaps it's time the FCC stopped fining indecency and began fining fact-free assertions.
Today, the keepers of the worldviews in the world of politics are, oddly enough, media personalities. I rarely watch TV news but did this election week, sitting in a hotel in the DC area on election night and the next two evenings. I was flabbergasted by how seriously the political reporters take themselves - Lou Dobbs, Keith Olbermann, Joe Scarborough, Chris Matthews (who confuses hard-hitting questions with rudely interrupting), and Bill O'Reilly obviously are so impressed with their view of the world and the importance of articulating that for us mere mortals who would otherwise be unable to make sense of the world.
But in this world of complexity where there is enough data to support just about any reasonable worldview, it is vital to have keepers of the worldview who defend it from the facts, events, and people who would erode its authority. Or at least that is what the elites seem to believe.
The truth is there is an enormous amount of power and wealth to be had in pushing a worldview that is accepted. All of these personalities are paid huge salaries and have real influence over policy. Sadly, what they are doing is often little based on theory and more often seems based on ideology. Just imagine public policy making as dramatic and as impressive advances as science and technology has over the last century. Just imagine the adoption of the scientific method in the world of politics. Perhaps it's time the FCC stopped fining indecency and began fining fact-free assertions.
Rethinking Government
Our founding fathers were Enlightenment thinkers, heavily influenced by the philosopher John Locke who was, in turn, heavily influenced by Rene Descartes. Descartes might have been the first to define analytic thought, advising one to break seemingly intractable problems into smaller pieces that could be more readily understood before aggregating those insights into a whole. Descartes believed that if parts of a problem could be understood, the whole problem could be understood. Adam Smith believed that if each individual did what was best for him or her economically, the whole community would be taken care of. Our founding fathers believed that if each representative did what was best for his district that the whole country would be taken care of. Descartes' analysis was the foundational worldview onto which rested the construction of capitalism and democracy.
As it turns out, the analytic approach is not always best. Since Descartes, we've had a variety of thinkers who have shown us that understanding of the pieces is not always an effective means to understand the whole. You can know all about the gases hydrogen and oxygen and not predict that in combination they'd form a fluid with radically different properties. Systems thinking, or synthesis, points to how emergent phenomenon can define a thing far more than analysis of its parts would reveal. Keynes invented macroeconomics, basically pointing out that in a Depression what might make perfect sense to each individual would actually be awful for the overall economy. When sales are low, businesses are not going to invest. When they don't invest they can't hire. When they don't hire, households lose income. When households lose income, they can't buy. When households don't buy, sales are low and businesses are not going to invest. What makes sense for each part of the economy makes no sense for the overall economy.
Descartes first changed thinking about thinking. Adam Smith changed thinking about economics, and our founding fathers changed thinking about government, both basing their perspective on Descartes' analytic thought.
Systems thinkers have again changed our thinking about thinking. John Maynard Keynes has changed our thinking about economics. As yet, we've had no parallel change in government based on systems thinking. Perhaps its time to think about how we'd do that. Perhaps the task should begin with thinking about how we'd design Congress to encourage its members to care more about the country than their own district.
As it turns out, the analytic approach is not always best. Since Descartes, we've had a variety of thinkers who have shown us that understanding of the pieces is not always an effective means to understand the whole. You can know all about the gases hydrogen and oxygen and not predict that in combination they'd form a fluid with radically different properties. Systems thinking, or synthesis, points to how emergent phenomenon can define a thing far more than analysis of its parts would reveal. Keynes invented macroeconomics, basically pointing out that in a Depression what might make perfect sense to each individual would actually be awful for the overall economy. When sales are low, businesses are not going to invest. When they don't invest they can't hire. When they don't hire, households lose income. When households lose income, they can't buy. When households don't buy, sales are low and businesses are not going to invest. What makes sense for each part of the economy makes no sense for the overall economy.
Descartes first changed thinking about thinking. Adam Smith changed thinking about economics, and our founding fathers changed thinking about government, both basing their perspective on Descartes' analytic thought.
Systems thinkers have again changed our thinking about thinking. John Maynard Keynes has changed our thinking about economics. As yet, we've had no parallel change in government based on systems thinking. Perhaps its time to think about how we'd do that. Perhaps the task should begin with thinking about how we'd design Congress to encourage its members to care more about the country than their own district.
Why The New Congress is Guaranteed to Disappoint
The Democrats have taken back the House and Senate. For that I'm glad. Nonetheless, the 110th session of congress is certain to disappoint and the fault lies not in human nature but in the design of government by our founding fathers.
It is common to decry our form of democracy as great but its execution poor because of the greed and corruption of politicians. This kind of apologia sounds rather like defenders of communist ideals who say that communism would have worked if only people weren't so selfish. Adam Smith's capitalism worked in large part because it did not depend on the butcher or baker transcending his self interest but, rather, used that. What is needed is a new design of government that does not depend on the transcendence of human nature.
One of the reasons that our 110th Congress is guaranteed to disappoint is that it is based on the assumption that if each representative does what is best for his or her district, they will automatically do what is best for the whole country. Each congressman does all he can to lower taxes and increase government spending in his district. To the extent that he is successful, he simply drives up the national debt. This may be among the simplest explanations of why public opinion of one's congressperson is invariably higher than the opinion of Congress.
The problem with Congress is not a problem of poor representatives. It is a problem of poor government design.
It is common to decry our form of democracy as great but its execution poor because of the greed and corruption of politicians. This kind of apologia sounds rather like defenders of communist ideals who say that communism would have worked if only people weren't so selfish. Adam Smith's capitalism worked in large part because it did not depend on the butcher or baker transcending his self interest but, rather, used that. What is needed is a new design of government that does not depend on the transcendence of human nature.
One of the reasons that our 110th Congress is guaranteed to disappoint is that it is based on the assumption that if each representative does what is best for his or her district, they will automatically do what is best for the whole country. Each congressman does all he can to lower taxes and increase government spending in his district. To the extent that he is successful, he simply drives up the national debt. This may be among the simplest explanations of why public opinion of one's congressperson is invariably higher than the opinion of Congress.
The problem with Congress is not a problem of poor representatives. It is a problem of poor government design.
Attention Tuning
All around you is a sea of information. Some you can perceive and some you cannot. We're wired to hear things from one spectrum of the wavelengths around us, to see things from other spectrums yet need to rely on cell phones, radios, TVs, wireless cards and the like to perceive others. And even if you have an FM radio, say, you still have to tune it to actually hear any particular station. Until you tune the radio, you have only static. It is not that the stream of coherence and information doesn't already exist - it's just that you cannot perceive it until you tune in to that exact frequency.
Some of life is like colors - as long as your eyes are open you will see whatever colors are presented. Some of life is like radio or TV - until you tune to a specific frequency you will miss it altogether.
Traditional education is like eyes open. You show up in the modern world and a series of people fill your consciousness with a stream of information that you can use. A sense of mission is like radio or TV - until you focus on a particular potential you will miss opportunities and the spectrum of possibilities for realizing that potential.
Get a sense of your own potential, get excited about what it could mean, and your problem won't be in failing to see possibilities but, rather, in narrowing your focus. Having a sense of your own potential is not a guarantee of a great life - but it is a guarantee that you won't walk blindly past great opportunities.
Some of life is like colors - as long as your eyes are open you will see whatever colors are presented. Some of life is like radio or TV - until you tune to a specific frequency you will miss it altogether.
Traditional education is like eyes open. You show up in the modern world and a series of people fill your consciousness with a stream of information that you can use. A sense of mission is like radio or TV - until you focus on a particular potential you will miss opportunities and the spectrum of possibilities for realizing that potential.
Get a sense of your own potential, get excited about what it could mean, and your problem won't be in failing to see possibilities but, rather, in narrowing your focus. Having a sense of your own potential is not a guarantee of a great life - but it is a guarantee that you won't walk blindly past great opportunities.
10 November 2006
Post-Modern Politics
The dada movement in the 1920’s was perhaps the most fascinating example of artists taking license to use consumers of art as the medium for art. Dada was a term intentionally chosen because it was meaningless. Yet it was an exercise in social manipulation that one has to think helped inspired modern politics.
Tristan Tzara, founder of the dada movement, advertised an event starring the popular Charlie Chaplin. Hordes showed up to see him. When they learned that not only was Chaplin not there but that they’d been lied to, they rioted – not realizing that they were Tzara’s medium and the riot was his art.
Today, dada has transformed into blah – blah, as TV and talk show hosts like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Al Franken, and Olbermann work in the medium of public outrage. Outrage is the medium and elections are the pieces of art.
Tristan Tzara, founder of the dada movement, advertised an event starring the popular Charlie Chaplin. Hordes showed up to see him. When they learned that not only was Chaplin not there but that they’d been lied to, they rioted – not realizing that they were Tzara’s medium and the riot was his art.
Today, dada has transformed into blah – blah, as TV and talk show hosts like Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Al Franken, and Olbermann work in the medium of public outrage. Outrage is the medium and elections are the pieces of art.
For Every Political Action there is an Equal and ...
Yesterday George once again authorized military training in Latin America. Why? It is to counter what is seen as a leftward movement in the political climate south of us. Leaders like Ortega, Lula, and Chavez are making George nervous because they are neoliberals.
Yet I think that one can make the argument that this perceived tilt towards the extreme left is more of a reaction to a perception that the US has tilted towards the extreme right. To the extent that citizens in Central and South America are threatened by our national interests and corporate and financial clout, they'll be inclined to do what they can to counter that influence in their region.
Re-asserting our military presence in the region will do little to alleviate their concern about our influence and will actually exacerbate the trend towards the left. One might have hoped that George would have learned a lesson from when his foray into the Middle East to combat terrorism actually created more terrorists.
Yet I think that one can make the argument that this perceived tilt towards the extreme left is more of a reaction to a perception that the US has tilted towards the extreme right. To the extent that citizens in Central and South America are threatened by our national interests and corporate and financial clout, they'll be inclined to do what they can to counter that influence in their region.
Re-asserting our military presence in the region will do little to alleviate their concern about our influence and will actually exacerbate the trend towards the left. One might have hoped that George would have learned a lesson from when his foray into the Middle East to combat terrorism actually created more terrorists.
08 November 2006
Lazy may not be your problem
“Sometimes we confuse work ethic with love of what you’re doing.”
- Jim Dietz, SDSU Baseball Coach, speaking of Tony Gwynn
When I taught Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People seminars, folks would receive feedback about how well they did in each of the 7 habits. Invariably, people scored lowest on habit 3 - put first things first. At first blush, this suggested that they weren't driven enough, organized enough - didn't do enough to set and keep priorities. Years later, I don't see it that way.
Habit 1 is “be proactive.” Habit 2 is “begin with the end in mind” - articulating a compelling vision by which to live one's life. Habit 3 is to then “put first things first” - doing the things that support your vision. My own opinion is that breakdowns in habit 3 actually reflect problems with habit 2. If people have discovered or created a truly compelling vision, putting first things first will not be a problem. If they have a vision that comes from a sense of obligation instead, putting first things first will be a chronic problem.
Finding a sense of purpose that resonates is difficult work. If you think that you are not disciplined, you may find that you simply have not created a compelling vision for yourself. Compelling suggests that it is exciting, suggesting a possibility that captivates you. It also suggests that is credible to you - something that you see as possible, perhaps even probable.
Once you've truly found yourself, even you may have trouble stopping you.
- Jim Dietz, SDSU Baseball Coach, speaking of Tony Gwynn
When I taught Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People seminars, folks would receive feedback about how well they did in each of the 7 habits. Invariably, people scored lowest on habit 3 - put first things first. At first blush, this suggested that they weren't driven enough, organized enough - didn't do enough to set and keep priorities. Years later, I don't see it that way.
Habit 1 is “be proactive.” Habit 2 is “begin with the end in mind” - articulating a compelling vision by which to live one's life. Habit 3 is to then “put first things first” - doing the things that support your vision. My own opinion is that breakdowns in habit 3 actually reflect problems with habit 2. If people have discovered or created a truly compelling vision, putting first things first will not be a problem. If they have a vision that comes from a sense of obligation instead, putting first things first will be a chronic problem.
Finding a sense of purpose that resonates is difficult work. If you think that you are not disciplined, you may find that you simply have not created a compelling vision for yourself. Compelling suggests that it is exciting, suggesting a possibility that captivates you. It also suggests that is credible to you - something that you see as possible, perhaps even probable.
Once you've truly found yourself, even you may have trouble stopping you.
07 November 2006
Uh-Oh! My Parents are Home
George Bush must feel like a high school kid who threw a party because his parents are away for the weekend who has just heard them unexpectedly drive into the garage. Now the mad scramble to see how quickly he can hide all the empty beer cans before the new session of Congress is sworn in next year.
At last - the frat boy has adult supervision.
At last - the frat boy has adult supervision.
Set a Clapping Quota Already - Please!
I find the state of the union speeches repugnant. Why? More applause than even great performers get during musical, comedic, or dramatic performance. It seems symptomatic of what is so false and pretentious in politics.
Tonight I watched Rahm Emmanuel speak to a very happy audience. He was announcing a win of the Congress - a big deal. I'm delighted that the frat boy may finally have adult supervision. So why mar this moment with gratuitous and incessant clapping?
My idea about the first thing that the new Congress should do? Set a quota on clapping for political speeches. Introductory applause. Two interruptions. And then a rousing close. More than that and you aren't allowed to introduce legislation for six months.
Tonight I watched Rahm Emmanuel speak to a very happy audience. He was announcing a win of the Congress - a big deal. I'm delighted that the frat boy may finally have adult supervision. So why mar this moment with gratuitous and incessant clapping?
My idea about the first thing that the new Congress should do? Set a quota on clapping for political speeches. Introductory applause. Two interruptions. And then a rousing close. More than that and you aren't allowed to introduce legislation for six months.
Out with the wild-eyed ideologues!
American people are fairly pragmatic. The vote results in today's election are not a vote for liberals - most of the Democrats who are winning tonight are not anybody's idea of wild-eyed liberal. Many of them are social conservatives.
Instead, the "vote the bums out" attitude is a rejection of what is widely perceived as wild-eyed ideologues who to this day cannot admit that their policy does not work. Some Americans are conservative and some are liberals. The swing voters are pragmatic. When you move into a state of denial, you can expect to lose their vote.
Instead, the "vote the bums out" attitude is a rejection of what is widely perceived as wild-eyed ideologues who to this day cannot admit that their policy does not work. Some Americans are conservative and some are liberals. The swing voters are pragmatic. When you move into a state of denial, you can expect to lose their vote.
What Even Conservatives Don't Understand About Deficits
I've heard liberals and conservatives express confusion about why supposed conservatives would support such large and sustained deficits. There is a good reason for this.
If your major constituency is the rich, there is a very good reason to sell as many bonds as you can. When the government spends more than it takes in from taxes, it has to close the gap by selling bonds - getting money today by promising to pay interest on that debt over a defined period of time. If you are rich, the backing of the United States is about as sure a means to protect your money as you can find. If you are sufficiently rich, you have an incentive to protect at least a portion of your money in very safe investments.
So, what is the downside? One is that the fastest growing portion of the government budget is interest payments. Interest payments squeeze out other expenses. The other is that the government squeezes out the private sector in investment markets. Quite simply, if the government did not sell any bonds, investors would be forced to put them money into the private sector - corporate bonds or equities.
If your major constituency is the rich, there is a very good reason to sell as many bonds as you can. When the government spends more than it takes in from taxes, it has to close the gap by selling bonds - getting money today by promising to pay interest on that debt over a defined period of time. If you are rich, the backing of the United States is about as sure a means to protect your money as you can find. If you are sufficiently rich, you have an incentive to protect at least a portion of your money in very safe investments.
So, what is the downside? One is that the fastest growing portion of the government budget is interest payments. Interest payments squeeze out other expenses. The other is that the government squeezes out the private sector in investment markets. Quite simply, if the government did not sell any bonds, investors would be forced to put them money into the private sector - corporate bonds or equities.
A Difference Between Reagan and Bush
Bush the younger has said that he wants his presidency to be like Reagan's, not his father's. He has erred terribly in his attempt at emulation.
Perhaps more than any candidate, Reagan understood the theater of politics. When he wanted to stand tall, he invaded Grenada, one of the smallest countries in the world, and did not even allow the press to cover that invasion so intent was he on controlling image.
George bought into the myth of omnipotence, the image that Reagan projected, and decided that he, too, wanted to be strong in the world, standing up against and battling evil. The problem is, he thought there was substance behind the theater and took on a real war, the outcome of which could not be so easily managed.
Reagan was smart enough to realize that it was easier to manipulate perceptions and voters than reality. George, like a fan of magicians who doesn't understand illusion and really does try to catch the bullet with his teeth, took on the impossible task of invading and rebuilding Iraq. This has proved to be a far cry from standing tall on the shores of Grenada, a country that could have been subdued with a SWAT team.
Like Reagan, George is performing theater. Unlike Reagan, George doesn't realize it is theater.
Perhaps more than any candidate, Reagan understood the theater of politics. When he wanted to stand tall, he invaded Grenada, one of the smallest countries in the world, and did not even allow the press to cover that invasion so intent was he on controlling image.
George bought into the myth of omnipotence, the image that Reagan projected, and decided that he, too, wanted to be strong in the world, standing up against and battling evil. The problem is, he thought there was substance behind the theater and took on a real war, the outcome of which could not be so easily managed.
Reagan was smart enough to realize that it was easier to manipulate perceptions and voters than reality. George, like a fan of magicians who doesn't understand illusion and really does try to catch the bullet with his teeth, took on the impossible task of invading and rebuilding Iraq. This has proved to be a far cry from standing tall on the shores of Grenada, a country that could have been subdued with a SWAT team.
Like Reagan, George is performing theater. Unlike Reagan, George doesn't realize it is theater.
05 November 2006
Iraq - agreement means trouble
Years ago, almost everyone agreed that we should invade Iraq. Pundits, politicians and the common person all agreed. Today that agreement has shattered after a brutal encounter of policy with reality.
Today, almost everyone agrees that we should build up Iraqi defense and security forces. Pundits, politicians, and the common person all agree that this is the predecessor to our exit from Iraq. This commonly held, never thought-through opinion will prove just as faulty as the decision to invade.
Already the long-oppressed, now in rule Shia are using their official power to take revenge on Sunnis. Even medical staff is killing wounded Sunnis in the hospital. Hatred of America is widespread. Iraq has descended into a Civil War.
So, how can it be that the only real agreement about Iraq is that these people should have more sophisticated weaponry, more knowledge of military strategy and tactics, and better military communication equipment? Into this kind of situation the consensus is that we need to provide more military capability? We really think that people intent on genocide will right their ways if only they had a stronger military?
Some days it is harder than others to be a populist.
Today, almost everyone agrees that we should build up Iraqi defense and security forces. Pundits, politicians, and the common person all agree that this is the predecessor to our exit from Iraq. This commonly held, never thought-through opinion will prove just as faulty as the decision to invade.
Already the long-oppressed, now in rule Shia are using their official power to take revenge on Sunnis. Even medical staff is killing wounded Sunnis in the hospital. Hatred of America is widespread. Iraq has descended into a Civil War.
So, how can it be that the only real agreement about Iraq is that these people should have more sophisticated weaponry, more knowledge of military strategy and tactics, and better military communication equipment? Into this kind of situation the consensus is that we need to provide more military capability? We really think that people intent on genocide will right their ways if only they had a stronger military?
Some days it is harder than others to be a populist.
Murdering Moderates
155 Iraqi professors of both sects, mostly moderates, have been assassinated since the 2003 invasion, the Hindu has reported. When things get extreme, extremists thrive.
At one point I had this fantasy that the Iraqi war was a plot by moderates on both sides - a way to lure violent extremists from both sides into a battlefield. The eventual result? Only moderates who stayed away from violent solutions would be left standing.
But of course, violence doesn't work that way. And it is particularly disturbing for Iraq that even moderates are being targeted because moderates are always the glue that holds societies together.
A similar thing will happen Tuesday in this country. The murders will be political, of course, but it will be moderates who will be victims. Anyone who fails to feel some measure of delight at the prospect of Republicans losing their grip on Congress has simply failed to pay attention to this 109th Congress. Nonetheless, it is quite sad that their reign of error will be truncated by the political death of moderates.
Politics is about compromise - finding a peaceful solution to clashes of worldviews and values. Only fools think that there are violent shortcuts to political compromise or think that soon everyone will "get it" and the idiots on the other side will admit the error of their ways, repenting of being naive (pick one: conservatives or liberals or environmentalists or pro-lifers or ...) and joining with us in the forward march of progress. As the influence of moderates over the process wanes, the political process becomes more defined by acrimonious name-calling than progress.
Iraqis may think that they are murdering moderates but the real victim is a sense of inclusion in the political process by the average person and a resultant sense of optimism about the future of the country. As we vote moderates out of office, the result is similar – the average person feels more alienated and less optimistic about the direction of the country.
At one point I had this fantasy that the Iraqi war was a plot by moderates on both sides - a way to lure violent extremists from both sides into a battlefield. The eventual result? Only moderates who stayed away from violent solutions would be left standing.
But of course, violence doesn't work that way. And it is particularly disturbing for Iraq that even moderates are being targeted because moderates are always the glue that holds societies together.
A similar thing will happen Tuesday in this country. The murders will be political, of course, but it will be moderates who will be victims. Anyone who fails to feel some measure of delight at the prospect of Republicans losing their grip on Congress has simply failed to pay attention to this 109th Congress. Nonetheless, it is quite sad that their reign of error will be truncated by the political death of moderates.
Politics is about compromise - finding a peaceful solution to clashes of worldviews and values. Only fools think that there are violent shortcuts to political compromise or think that soon everyone will "get it" and the idiots on the other side will admit the error of their ways, repenting of being naive (pick one: conservatives or liberals or environmentalists or pro-lifers or ...) and joining with us in the forward march of progress. As the influence of moderates over the process wanes, the political process becomes more defined by acrimonious name-calling than progress.
Iraqis may think that they are murdering moderates but the real victim is a sense of inclusion in the political process by the average person and a resultant sense of optimism about the future of the country. As we vote moderates out of office, the result is similar – the average person feels more alienated and less optimistic about the direction of the country.
04 November 2006
When Good Politics Makes for Bad Policy
The growing gap between effective politics and effective policy has already cost us trillions and will get worse before it is corrected.
The most obvious example of this conflict can be seen in the policies pursued by Israelis and Palestinians. No political party can gain popular support unless it talks tough about retaliation. Yet the policy of retaliation has simply sustained a horrific condition of mutually-inflicted terrorism. In that situation, good politics makes for bad policy; what is effective at the polls fails when it makes contact with reality.
When leaders fail to articulate the stakes and make clear the links between present actions and future conditions, the press focuses on the story of politics. Rather than report on policy the media focuses on polls. When this happens, societies' become increasingly dysfunctional.
The most obvious example of this conflict can be seen in the policies pursued by Israelis and Palestinians. No political party can gain popular support unless it talks tough about retaliation. Yet the policy of retaliation has simply sustained a horrific condition of mutually-inflicted terrorism. In that situation, good politics makes for bad policy; what is effective at the polls fails when it makes contact with reality.
When leaders fail to articulate the stakes and make clear the links between present actions and future conditions, the press focuses on the story of politics. Rather than report on policy the media focuses on polls. When this happens, societies' become increasingly dysfunctional.
U.S.A. - under surveillance always?
We live indoors. We walk outdoors from our houses into our cars, only briefly passing through the open air. We live behind walls and our neighbors are unable to see us shower, sleep, stare at the walls or pick our nose. Most people would be outraged if they were told that they could no longer expect such privacy and that friends, neighbors, or the government would be watching them go about their daily routines, knowing that they'd be constantly monitored.
Yet this is the direction we're moving in terms of the life of the mind. Sadly, many Americans who would be outraged at the thought of someone looking in their windows as they got dressed yawn at the thought of someone monitoring their phone calls, book purchases, video rentals, and web surfing. According to at least one international comparison, we now rank as poorly as China and Malaysia, categorized as surveillance nations.
This matters for so many reasons. Perhaps the most important is that we have yet to reach the pinnacle of development, a peak that simply does not exist. Old social constructs - old worlds of theocracies, aristocracies, and robber barons - never willingly give up control. Challenges to their control is always initially perceived as subversive. If the state is successful at monitoring our thoughts and communications, where is the room to challenge the state, how do we further develop in ways that are a threat to the old constructs?
And if history teaches us nothing else, it is the inevitability of this: governments that put in place measures to protect the state inevitably use those measures to protect the governing party or administration. There is no exception to this rule - only differences in the time it takes for someone to make the inevitable leap.
Perhaps the simplest distinction between good and bad government is this. In a good government, the individual's life is private and government policies and practices are transparent. In a bad government, the government's policies and practices are private and the individual's life is transparent. In just the last century, we have spectacularly evil examples of this very thing in Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, and Hitler's Germany.
Yet this is the direction we're moving in terms of the life of the mind. Sadly, many Americans who would be outraged at the thought of someone looking in their windows as they got dressed yawn at the thought of someone monitoring their phone calls, book purchases, video rentals, and web surfing. According to at least one international comparison, we now rank as poorly as China and Malaysia, categorized as surveillance nations.
This matters for so many reasons. Perhaps the most important is that we have yet to reach the pinnacle of development, a peak that simply does not exist. Old social constructs - old worlds of theocracies, aristocracies, and robber barons - never willingly give up control. Challenges to their control is always initially perceived as subversive. If the state is successful at monitoring our thoughts and communications, where is the room to challenge the state, how do we further develop in ways that are a threat to the old constructs?
And if history teaches us nothing else, it is the inevitability of this: governments that put in place measures to protect the state inevitably use those measures to protect the governing party or administration. There is no exception to this rule - only differences in the time it takes for someone to make the inevitable leap.
Perhaps the simplest distinction between good and bad government is this. In a good government, the individual's life is private and government policies and practices are transparent. In a bad government, the government's policies and practices are private and the individual's life is transparent. In just the last century, we have spectacularly evil examples of this very thing in Mao's China, Stalin's USSR, and Hitler's Germany.
31 October 2006
Sex & Violence
I saw that Saw III was the top grossing film over the weekend. From what I've read, it falls into the category of the “can't be too graphic" horror movies that sound about as appealing to me as a trip to a dentist who doesn't budget for anesthetic. Putting aside personal preferences, it again brings up the question of movie ratings.
We expect our children will eventually engage in graphic sex and hope that they're never involved in graphic violence - either as thug or victim. Even in very violent cultures, on average there are more acts of sex than acts of violence. A sane community will do what it can to eradicate violence and regulate sex. But only a crazed community would work to eradicate sex and merely regulate violence. Such a community would soon disappear. So how is one to make sense of our movie ratings?
Graphic sex is rated X while graphic violence is rated R, suggesting that we're actually less squeamish about killing than procreation. This odd priority impacts policy.
California has a proposition on the ballot (Prop 83?) that will regulate sex offenders, limiting them from living within a certain distance of parks and strapping them with an electronic bracelet. Oddly, such measures are not first taken against those with a violent streak, but sex offenders - a loosely defined group that includes 18 year-old men who've had sex with a 17 year-old girlfriend. Yet someone who is out after serving time for second or third-degree murder, or someone who has a history of repeatedly violent acts, escapes these odd provisions.
Molestation is not a trivial thing, but it is certainly easier to recover from than murder. So why the special provision against the prospect of molestation but no corresponding provision against the prospect of other violent crimes, crimes that leave physical as well as emotional scars? Could it be that years of accepting the values implied in our movie rating system has distorted our perception of threats?
We expect our children will eventually engage in graphic sex and hope that they're never involved in graphic violence - either as thug or victim. Even in very violent cultures, on average there are more acts of sex than acts of violence. A sane community will do what it can to eradicate violence and regulate sex. But only a crazed community would work to eradicate sex and merely regulate violence. Such a community would soon disappear. So how is one to make sense of our movie ratings?
Graphic sex is rated X while graphic violence is rated R, suggesting that we're actually less squeamish about killing than procreation. This odd priority impacts policy.
California has a proposition on the ballot (Prop 83?) that will regulate sex offenders, limiting them from living within a certain distance of parks and strapping them with an electronic bracelet. Oddly, such measures are not first taken against those with a violent streak, but sex offenders - a loosely defined group that includes 18 year-old men who've had sex with a 17 year-old girlfriend. Yet someone who is out after serving time for second or third-degree murder, or someone who has a history of repeatedly violent acts, escapes these odd provisions.
Molestation is not a trivial thing, but it is certainly easier to recover from than murder. So why the special provision against the prospect of molestation but no corresponding provision against the prospect of other violent crimes, crimes that leave physical as well as emotional scars? Could it be that years of accepting the values implied in our movie rating system has distorted our perception of threats?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)