My Political Spectrum

My Political Spectrum

Top 10 Corporate Political Contributors via WSJ

I am fascinated that there is not one health care or insurance company on the list in light of the Obama Health Mandate going into effect this year. It is also interesting to note that when you purchase these kind of services you are also contributing to one party or another. Last night I went to a Dreamworks movie, and did not realize that I was contributing to the Democratic Party. Finally, Gambling is the #1 corporate contributor to the political process. This makes me a bit ashamed of the republican party. :(

Right or Privilege (How to fix bureaucracy)

This is a post that started under the heading, “We have met the enemy and he is us”. A good friend once told me, good can be the enemy of the best. This describes bureaucracy well. Bureaucracy is insidious. The initial purpose of creating an institution is to solve a social problem. The group affected by this problem is growing and a systemic solution is called for. With the creation of this system every thing can start off well. That is the problem. Competent managers can work organizations so efficiently that they need fewer resources. As resources grow they expand aggressively to meet the demand of the problem. However, problems are meant to be solved. The organization adapts and meets the need sometimes very fast, and sometimes more slowly. The end result is the same. The organization has become disconnected from its function. It naturally searches out other reasons, and quickly arrives at protecting the organization itself. An ill conceived problem like sickness or ignorance is never totally eradicated. When a problem grows the feeling of entitlement can increase. The irony of bureaucracy is that systems are set up to organize a solution, but they can end up perpetuating it.

The biggest difference between right and privilege is the motivation behind it. A right gives us a sense of entitlement, and therefore a lack of a need to please. A privilege is earned and can be taken away at any point. The fear of loss is at the root of privilege. Fear can be a very motivating, and emotion is an essential part of communication. When people feel that they deserve something they do not attempt to please. The process of communication becomes lazy, and people turn to anger instead of pleasure. Anger can cause communication breakdown. To bureaucrats the sustainability of the system is more important than anything else. They will use the negative emotion of entitlement to sustain their system. When the service they provide is a right, then they are more concerned with pleasing their employees. Privilege is different. Privilege motivates a bureaucrat to increase efficiency for the consumers of their service. These emotional forces can do more than effect a bureaucrat’s organization. They can undermine the very reason these institutions were created. 

Of course when problems become embedded in our society we turn these organizations into institutions. The Army protecting our defense, and the police, protecting our safety are examples of this. These institutions will never be replaced because the problems are so overwhelming. In the case of the army, we will never lose our fear of strangers. When we consider the police we will always recognize people like to be selfish and not share with others. Roadways are important because the weather is ever changing, and it is monstrous problem to keep up with. When we simplify these problems, and put them on the same level as problems with a beginning and an end, then we plant the seeds of bureaucracy.

The fix for bureaucracy comes down to the basic forces driving the process. The forces seem to be caught up in the answer to this question. Is the systemic solution to a social problem a right or a privilege?  If we say it is a right this creates a strong breeding ground for bureaucracy. If we say it is a privilege, then society can be accused of being cold or harsh. I think there are very few things that we can consider a right. We have a right to life. Having a right to life needs to be balanced with the inevitability of death, since we are all destined to die. Some would say that health care is included in this right. If the right to life is also balanced with the inevitability of death, then choices must be peppered into to the process of determining quality of life. Hospice is an example of this. Comfort over cure can be an excellent emotional choice over fighting a fight that can not be won. Who is determining this choice is at the heart of the health care argument. My opinion is that it should be determined by those who are closest to the problem.

The Constitution also tells us we have a right to liberty. Is liberty a right? Libertarians would agree wholeheartedly. The only problem with this is that it must be balanced against the Declaration of Independence. In this document equality not liberty is the featured value. When I last visited the National Archives in Washington, DC I noticed that both documents were equally revered in the vault where they were stored. The movie, National Treasure, and its popularity would validate the values of The Declaration in our national experience. Both political parties have embraced these values. Mitt Romney likes to call himself a “Log Cabin Republican”. A log cabin republican is a conservative who embraces the egalitarian values of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the modern Republican Party. This is a value embraced by the both parties. Liberty must be balanced with equality to produce the value that Americans call freedom. Freedom is a privilege that is earned by balancing these values in a way that enhances domestic tranquility.

How do we stop this cycle from repeating? How do we reverse the process? Some have suggested injecting competition into the organization. Some have suggested term limits. Term limits can jolt us with fear, but upsetting the apple cart will also result in wasted apples. Competition can motivate us though an opportunity to gain, but when the competition is targeted incorrectly, then the target can be easily missed. An example of this is high stakes testing producing poorly educated students. The profit motive or the opportunity to gain is a target that is hard to hit in education. With every right there comes privilege. Rights must be balanced with privilege to give meaning to institutions. Institutions must become flexible and adaptable to change. When new technology is developed organizations must change to accommodate greater efficiency. The rights associated with a systemic solution must never lose a sense of privilege that a need is being met.

It does not matter if an institution is set up by the Republican or The Democratic Party. In either case bureaucracy is a problem that undermines the very purpose of government. The common good must be protected by balancing right and privilege, just as our freedoms are protected by balancing liberty with equality.

State of the Union and Compulsory Education

I watched the president’s state of the union speech tonight. Overall it was a good speech. I disagree with him about a comment he made about education. 

What would happen if the compulsory education age was raised to 18 years of age?

In the inner city today every teacher knows the secret that most bad students in the urban areas of our country drop out. They do not want to be in school, and the teachers do not want them there either. They disrupt learning, and seasoned high school teachers long to get posts above the 10^th grade. By then most of the trouble makers drop out of school. Teachers who hang in there are rewarded with students who want to learn.

Compulsory education is not the answer to our education crisis. Students are not motivated by forcing them to stay in school when they do not want to be there. The father of American education, John Dewey, would say this is a bad policy. Students are motivated by connecting meaning with learning in the classroom. Teachers who are good at doing that should be rewarded. However, if the system is set up with accountability measures that stifle creativity, then good teachers must operate under cover to introduce innovation and real world problem solving into the classroom. Good teachers are no longer the sage on the stage. They need to be a guide on the side. Teachers across the nation are learning to coach and mentor student directed learning. This is difficult to do. It is much easier to take out a work sheet, and keep the pencils moving and the students mouths shut.

The lesson of education from Finland is a simple one. If you want to fix the education system, then honor the profession of education. Pay teachers well. This will accomplish two purposes. Student will aspire to be teachers. The teaching profession will then attract the best and the brightest.

Compulsory education has never been the answer. School choice has proven that. School choice is injecting systemic meaning into the educational system. Home schooling brought education back into the home where our values can be better connected to our values. Neither of these strategies depends upon compulsory education. More of this systemic change is needed. Solving the educational crisis in our country has never been to teach to the test with high stakes testing. This strategy just places a lid on achievement. In attempting to raise the bottom we cap the top. Teachers know that every student can contribute in a classroom that emphasizes teamwork in problem solving. These creative teaching opportunities do not happen where lesson plans are dictated by the results of high stakes tests. The negative reinforcement measure of compulsory education stirs rebellion instead of embracing meaning in education.  

Anybody but Ron Paul

Jon Huntsman announced his withdrawal from the Republican race for the presidential nomination today. He was the one candidate that I could get excited about. I like Jon Huntsman for the following reasons...

• He was not flashy. I think that a candidate that has less charisma will tend to be more systematic about problem solving on behalf of our country. He will work on meaningful things that are boring, but make a large impact on our lives. Huntsman prioritizing of simplifying the tax code is a good example of this.
• Huntsman was the son of a manufacturer. I believe that one of the best ways to get our economy back is to focus on manufacturing again. Manufacturing is positioned to make a huge come back in the United States with the advancement of robotics. We must have a leader who is forward thinking enough to see this and make room for this change. 
• Huntsman was a member of the Obama administration. This shows that he could  he could put partisan bickering aside to get the business of America done. He was a moderate who adapted to change, instead of extreme ideological views that alienate middle America from both sides of the process. 
• Huntsman was familiar with our main competitor in bringing back manufacturing to the US. He was the ambassador to China. The strategy to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" by Sun-tzu, a Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC), is great advice for our relationship with China.  
• Huntsman's strategy to keep banks from getting too big to fail is excellent. The banks are the most likely capitalists to expand our economy into the world bank. These are dangerous and unexplored waters. The European Union fortunately, went out ahead of us, and is suffering the consequences.
• The shrinking middle class is a bi-product of this global monopolization of markets.
  Just as our country was able to regulate capitalism in the past. I have faith that the right leader can regulate greed in such a way that incentive is maximized, and the wealth is spread around. 
• The moral issues of our day is the last reason on this list. It is not last because it is least important. It is last because this point forms the springboard for the rest of this post. Problems like abortion, and the flip side Euthanasia, marriage and cohabitation, runaway government spending and Keynesian economics are threatening to un-glue our institutions. When we redefine institutions too rapidly this short term selfishness can un-moor our vales in ways that wreck many peoples lives.

I am alarmed at the growth of libertarian ideology in our country. The philosophy of Ayan Rand is one that is both selfish and short sighted. There have always been people who would jump at ideas like get rid of the IRS, and to interpret Social Darwinism as the guiding principal of our country. It is bait that will cause many of us to squirm in the long term. It is what Joaquin Posada likes to call Marshmallow thinking. People who jump at short term gains do not wait for the long term benefits. They fall subject to fickle market pressures. The market does not always make sense. To base our governing principals on the fickle nature of the stock market is like eating your desert before your dinner. There may be a momentary satisfaction, but in the end the result is a stomach ache. Over a prolonged period of time this behavior could even lead to more serious stomach bypass surgery.

Ron Paul is the candidate who best defines this ideology. Dr. Paul's prescription of libertarian ideology may provide short term benefits to the younger population of our country for a short time. However, like most medicine what makes it effective is that it is a poison. The poison of libertarian philosophy will kill our babies and seniors, inebriate our youth, and make us irresponsible citizens who will not come to the aid of our neighbor. Is the priority of getting our fiscal house in order worth all the baggage that is likely to accompany it?

I think that it is possible to act fiscally responsible within our current democracy. We must back common sense bipartisan approaches like Simpson Bowles. We must choose to cut our deficit and welcome the Austrian school of economics. John Maynard Keynes has seen his day. It is time for the pendulum to swing back toward fiscal conservation. Libertarian philosophy is not the answer. It opens up far too many questions in the long term that none of us would find acceptable.

My prediction of the Republican nomination for 2012

 If the candidates were players in a game of RISK,  then it may go down like this. Bachman rolls a six and takes Iowa. She later takes Minnesota. Romney rolls a ten and takes New Hampshire. Gingerich rolls a ten, and takes South Carolina. Ron Paul rolls a four and drops out. Santorum rolls a six and takes Pennsylvania. In the end Michelle Bachman loses because she can not forge enough alliances, Ron Paul loses public support over his isolation policies; Romney is not likeable, Santorum extreme, Gingerich bombastic, only Huntsman remains as the last man standing. Perhaps the most moderate true conservative of the bunch. The similarities between this political season and global economic expansion are not perfect, but they are interesting. As a candidate attempts to isolate they are destined to fail. The most inclusive and expansive thinkers are the candidates that rise to the top. 

My previous post was about how the world economy is like a giant game of RISK. In the paragraph above I have applied this analogy to the 2012 presidential nomination process. Please read the post,

RISK, recovery, and the future of the nation state 

 Happy New Year!

Pat 

RISK, recovery, and the future of the nation state

Have you ever played the game of RISK? When I was a boy I used to sing the song, “R-I-S-K, easy to play”. Could the current economic debate in the US, and the worldwide recession be like playing the game of risk? The differences are important. In the classic RISK game you roll dice to win countries by crushing armies. In this current world recession the analogy works best in economic terms. When we roll box cars on the dice today we steam roll economies and crush their currencies instead of their military.

In this new game nation states are forced to merge their economies. This forced consolidation of economies is leading to a face off of key trading blocks. They way I see it; there are six players in the game today. This is also coincidentally the right number to finish the game of RISK. The players are Latin America; The US & Canada, Chindia, Political Islam, Eurasia, and Southeast Asia. Latin America rolls a twelve to start. Brazil reinvents its currency and lifts South America to emerge as a market player. The US rolls a three and loses some markets to China who buys their currency with the resulting unequal exchange rate. Chindia rolls a ten next and expands its markets into the US. Political Islam and Africa roll next and receive Arab spring, immigration, and population cards. These are three essential components to long term economic growth. Europe rolls snake eyes and Russia picks up some of her influence.  Southeast Asia rolls a three as austerity and isolation has not worked out.

In the next round Latin America rolls a six. Free trade with the US is sputtering due to suspicion and tariffs. The US rolls a six. This is pretty much a stalemate between China and the US-Canadian block. China however rolls a twelve to exploit Latin America, Africa and Political Islam. The Arabs begin to self determine governments and the resulting economic trade with neighboring countries increase economic stability. They pass on their turn to build their strength. Eurasia passes on their turn, and attempts to consolidate their currency. South East Asia and Japan roll a three and are collapsed by an economic and literal tidal wave.

In the next turn, Latin America rolls a ten and expands their influence. The Canadian-US block rolls next and attempts to invade China by exporting energy resources to them. They roll a seven and win a marginal edge in economic trading. China rolls a ten and slows it’s exploitation of Africa the middle east and Latin America. Political Islam rolls a twelve and Turkey squeezes Iraq from the left and Iran squeezes them from the left. Africa remains vulnerable to economic exploitation. In Africa there are rich raw materials and weak governments everywhere. Europe rolls a three as they decentralize their economy and release failing states in a period of economic austerity. South East Asia rolls last with a six as they reach out to other countries.

If the economic game of RISK works out like the political one, then perhaps we will all land on our feet. The answer to the global recession is to merge the trading blocks and make them bigger. It is feasible that these six economic trading blocks can be merged into three. Europe can merge with Russia, and Africa’s political Islam, The US with Latin America and India, the Chinese with South East Asia and Australia; The Japanese, The United Kingdom and Israel will decline unless they change isolation practices.

It’s all about expanding markets for efficiency. The greed of Wall Street bankers is based on the premise of finding the level water mark of capitalism. For this reason I disagreed with the Wall Street protesters in a former BLOG post. I agree with them that there are reasons to be upset about our lack of opportunities, and wealth. I disagree that it could have been prevented. Unfortunately the invisible hand of our capitalist economy now transcends far beyond our borders. We are interdependent, and the only solution to recover our wealth as a nation is to expand our economy. Closing off our borders only dooms us to the fate of the past experiences of Japan and The United Kingdom. Both of these nation states have had stagnant growth for the past ten years because of isolationism shrouded by austerity. The day of the nation state is coming to an end. The time of trading blocks among countries with vested interest has begun.

Who will win the game? I guess I have to make prediction since this is my BLOG post. The country who will win is the one who will make the best choices about rolling the dice in the most strategic and timely places. The argument is how to make this decision. It is my argument that the greed of market capitalism should steer the ship. When a government attempts to tinker with this then it can confuse the trading blocks and delay the consolidation of a world economy. A delay can never stop it. It is as inevitable as the success of the last 100 years of US prosperity. Keynesian tinkering can cause much more hardship than long term benefit. Short term marshmallow thinking should never replace the efficiency of an economy of scale where there is enough wealth for everyone.