Several months ago I wrote a post about the idea that capitalism had triumphed over communism. I would like to expound on that a bit this morning, based on a discussion I had with a good friend last night. I hope that my thoughts are clear and cogent. If you have any questions or different ideas I would be delighted to hear them.
We were discussing the way the government and the economy interact. There are those who feel that the best government is the government which governs least. That is, the government exists to help ensure a level playing field, whatever that means at the time, and for the most part should limit itself to ensuring personal liberty and freedom.
Others take the view that the government is independent of the economy - that the various vicissitudes that exist in an economy or market are beyond the control of the government and its actions.
Still others view the government as the representation of the social contract we have made with each other. For example, we have made it a priority in our country to provide free, compulsory education. This has been deemed by our society at large as a net positive thing. All of these elements which belong to the social contract are good and beneficial to all of us - a more educated, creative, and motivated work force enables us all to prosper both in terms of overall production increases, as well as in the removal of the social burdens that undereducated populations place on the rest of the society.
Part of the problem with each of these is that they are inherently flawed from the beginning. Personally, I feel that these flaws are best overcome through public, civil discourse, where people who are well-intentioned and educated can help inform the discussion about the various problems they see. What our governance has devolved to, however, is a series of barbs directed at the other party in an effort to garner public support and opinion.
The Tea Party is a good example of this. As far as I'm aware, they have no real agenda except to castigate others. They throw aspersions and innuendo around like it was candy at a Fourth of July Parade. They claim to have fiscal responsibility as their rallying point, in addition to other "conservative" values. But we are finding that the folks that represent this movement in Congress do not actually hold true to what they say they will do or what they believe.
This is, of course, because the governing of the world's largest economy, the world's largest debt, the world's largest military, etc. is an inherently complex task. One simply cannot snip one strand of the web without there being diminishing in the rest of the web. Remove taxes for public schools? OK. Then one must deal with the consequences of such an action, including finding appropriate education for those who can afford it, as well as having to deal with increased social services for those who can't.
What if we eliminate those social services? Those who are too lazy to contribute to society should not be able to be carried on the backs of those who are/do contribute.
This last point is perhaps the most strident voice we hear. Conservative values point to the individual as the ultimate stop for all responsibility. An individual must make correct choices and then reap the benefits of these choices.
Liberal values point to the need for each person to help each other person - that together we achieve more than we would as an individual. This is the basis for every society, every network, every friendship, every marriage. I cannot play the violin, blow glass, grow wheat, refine oil, or make sure the water and air are clean. But there are those who can. I contribute my skill set to the whole, which whole in turn contributes what it can to me.
When it comes to education - and I keep returning to that because the guy I was speaking with last night is teacher, but which is metaphorical of any government-subsidized social service - it becomes a matter of priorities. If our priority is for social improvement through rugged individualism, personal responsibility, and self-governance, then steps need to be taken that direction. However, if our priority is a more (forgive the loaded term) socialist (meaning in this context society-driven) agenda, where each helps take care of each other, then that is where we should wend our way.
Personally, I feel there's a middle ground. I believe in personal freedom. I just also believe (perhaps naively) that we should personally and whole-heartedly choose to help one another.
Perhaps this is the problem with our discourse. I believe that people are good, and those who are in leadership or governance positions have good intentions. The problem is that good intentions do not grab headlines. Mud slinging is much more popular than compromise, and popularity sells newspapers (or web headlines, or tweets, or whatever). Thus, our discourse becomes one of 10-15 SECOND sound bites, rather than meaningful, thoughtful, and respectful exploration of all points of view. We are more interested in being personally RIGHT than in doing what is BEST for everyone.
Which is a shame.
I don't think it was always that way, nor do I think that it has to remain that way. But what is required is very difficult because it involves the admission that my point of view may not be correct. That required humility. Humility is not typically associated with strong leadership. Yet, in my view, it is essential. The best leaders are not those who come charging in on their white horses to carry off the national debt on their shoulders. The best leaders are those who seek working and workable solutions to real problems, creating a legacy of long-lasting meaningful dialog, and who appeal (not appease) even to their enemies.
I also think it's important for leaders to seek out these "enemies" and strive to make them friends. This can be done through respectful engagement, something we're sorely lacking in. You never see the headline: PRESIDENT AND OPPOSITION LEADERS MEET AND EACH TRIES TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER! Just doesn't happen. It could, it just doesn't. I've always been of the mind that I must first seek to understand others, then make myself understood. That way, when I DO try to make myself understood, it is with the approbation and regard of those who once considered themselves in opposition - at least ostensibly - to what my position was. And we may find that we're not that far off, anyway.
Ultimately, I believe that our politics are not as divided as they would seem in the mass media. I believe that our goals as individuals and as a society are not that different from each other, and that reasonable, working compromises can and should be found. I believe I'll never get elected to office, though... HA!
We were discussing the way the government and the economy interact. There are those who feel that the best government is the government which governs least. That is, the government exists to help ensure a level playing field, whatever that means at the time, and for the most part should limit itself to ensuring personal liberty and freedom.
Others take the view that the government is independent of the economy - that the various vicissitudes that exist in an economy or market are beyond the control of the government and its actions.
Still others view the government as the representation of the social contract we have made with each other. For example, we have made it a priority in our country to provide free, compulsory education. This has been deemed by our society at large as a net positive thing. All of these elements which belong to the social contract are good and beneficial to all of us - a more educated, creative, and motivated work force enables us all to prosper both in terms of overall production increases, as well as in the removal of the social burdens that undereducated populations place on the rest of the society.
Part of the problem with each of these is that they are inherently flawed from the beginning. Personally, I feel that these flaws are best overcome through public, civil discourse, where people who are well-intentioned and educated can help inform the discussion about the various problems they see. What our governance has devolved to, however, is a series of barbs directed at the other party in an effort to garner public support and opinion.
The Tea Party is a good example of this. As far as I'm aware, they have no real agenda except to castigate others. They throw aspersions and innuendo around like it was candy at a Fourth of July Parade. They claim to have fiscal responsibility as their rallying point, in addition to other "conservative" values. But we are finding that the folks that represent this movement in Congress do not actually hold true to what they say they will do or what they believe.
This is, of course, because the governing of the world's largest economy, the world's largest debt, the world's largest military, etc. is an inherently complex task. One simply cannot snip one strand of the web without there being diminishing in the rest of the web. Remove taxes for public schools? OK. Then one must deal with the consequences of such an action, including finding appropriate education for those who can afford it, as well as having to deal with increased social services for those who can't.
What if we eliminate those social services? Those who are too lazy to contribute to society should not be able to be carried on the backs of those who are/do contribute.
This last point is perhaps the most strident voice we hear. Conservative values point to the individual as the ultimate stop for all responsibility. An individual must make correct choices and then reap the benefits of these choices.
Liberal values point to the need for each person to help each other person - that together we achieve more than we would as an individual. This is the basis for every society, every network, every friendship, every marriage. I cannot play the violin, blow glass, grow wheat, refine oil, or make sure the water and air are clean. But there are those who can. I contribute my skill set to the whole, which whole in turn contributes what it can to me.
When it comes to education - and I keep returning to that because the guy I was speaking with last night is teacher, but which is metaphorical of any government-subsidized social service - it becomes a matter of priorities. If our priority is for social improvement through rugged individualism, personal responsibility, and self-governance, then steps need to be taken that direction. However, if our priority is a more (forgive the loaded term) socialist (meaning in this context society-driven) agenda, where each helps take care of each other, then that is where we should wend our way.
Personally, I feel there's a middle ground. I believe in personal freedom. I just also believe (perhaps naively) that we should personally and whole-heartedly choose to help one another.
Perhaps this is the problem with our discourse. I believe that people are good, and those who are in leadership or governance positions have good intentions. The problem is that good intentions do not grab headlines. Mud slinging is much more popular than compromise, and popularity sells newspapers (or web headlines, or tweets, or whatever). Thus, our discourse becomes one of 10-15 SECOND sound bites, rather than meaningful, thoughtful, and respectful exploration of all points of view. We are more interested in being personally RIGHT than in doing what is BEST for everyone.
Which is a shame.
I don't think it was always that way, nor do I think that it has to remain that way. But what is required is very difficult because it involves the admission that my point of view may not be correct. That required humility. Humility is not typically associated with strong leadership. Yet, in my view, it is essential. The best leaders are not those who come charging in on their white horses to carry off the national debt on their shoulders. The best leaders are those who seek working and workable solutions to real problems, creating a legacy of long-lasting meaningful dialog, and who appeal (not appease) even to their enemies.
I also think it's important for leaders to seek out these "enemies" and strive to make them friends. This can be done through respectful engagement, something we're sorely lacking in. You never see the headline: PRESIDENT AND OPPOSITION LEADERS MEET AND EACH TRIES TO UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER! Just doesn't happen. It could, it just doesn't. I've always been of the mind that I must first seek to understand others, then make myself understood. That way, when I DO try to make myself understood, it is with the approbation and regard of those who once considered themselves in opposition - at least ostensibly - to what my position was. And we may find that we're not that far off, anyway.
Ultimately, I believe that our politics are not as divided as they would seem in the mass media. I believe that our goals as individuals and as a society are not that different from each other, and that reasonable, working compromises can and should be found. I believe I'll never get elected to office, though... HA!
Comments