GOP/ Democratic Convention

I like Romney’s entrepreneurial spirit. I do not like his tendency to make every decision his discretion.

I like Obama’s commitment to the middle class. I do not like his propensity to solve big problems with bureaucratic solutions.

Republicans empower people who value their individual liberty. A personal liberty can neglect individuals that can not stand up for them selves.

 Democrats solve problems of inequality. They use central planning to maximize resources, and also reap bureaucratic inefficiency.

Both parties have strengths and weaknesses. I am a Republican because I value my individual liberty over equality. My value is based upon my desire to please the God that I serve in all that I do. I know that everyone does not share my faith. I feel that both parties have perspectives that must be shared and considered when creating and implementing public policy. Equality is one of the founding values of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Republicans have taken equality for granted. In some cases this is because of their faith, and in other cases they choose selfishness.

The Democrats have an advantage over the Republicans when it comes to creating systems to save the middle class. Democrats are in a better position to create a system, and Republicans can better manage it. Many of the liberal think tanks are filled with bright people with great ideas. I read and listen to many of them. The two parties must work together to solve these difficult problems. At this point I am sure I have alienated many of my friends who would call me a wishy-washy moderate. Democrats should create systems to save the middle class and let Republicans implement it. What is an example of a system that needs to be created?

Medicare is the #1 entitlement problem in our country. Senior citizens are the fastest growing, and arguably the most easily exploited group in our country. We need to use the $700 billion saved from Medicare Advantage, and plug it back into the system. We need to let the Republicans manage that money and implement its execution. I understand that this kind of scenario would turn American politics on its head. But, if this means that we have increased domestic tranquility, then everyone would be for it. When people in other countries jealously look at our country what is it that makes them jealous? Is it liberty, equality, or even freedom that they long for? I have traveled around the world, and I do not think so. I think they want our standard of living. They want cell phones that talk to them and automobiles that do not use gasoline. They see the large number of people who have access to these conveniences, and want them as well. I worry that it won't be long that I will be longing to be in another country because they have what I want.

So today I am advocating for changes in our government. The values of our two party systems are too good to not have them in play at the same time. I have a dream of a shared and collaborative government. I am proposing that the Democratic Party run the legislative branch of our government and the Republicans execute it. I sit and write this as I watch the speeches of the Republican National Convention. The speeches are inspiring, and it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of the moment. I know however, that in another couple of weeks I will be equally swept up by the speeches of the Democratic Convention. I like big ideas with conservative execution. We need the power of both parties to solve the problems of our deficit. I had high hopes for the Simpson Bowles commission. I followed their progress, and as a grandfather myself I embraced their love for their grandchildren. I was crest-fallen when our legislature and the president could not come to an agreement to solve our deficit. I have lost confidence in my government, and I believe that we must try something new to grease the polarization and unite bipartisan solutions through the introduction of different political structures. My wife tells me that I am spitting in the wind. I love my country, and I am grateful for the life it has provided me. I can talk freely about the things that I truly care about without the fear of reprisal. I feel a mounting dissatisfaction with our government, and its lack of action. I am ready for drastic measures of self correction. My hope and prayer is for a radical moderate force of citizens who will have the courage to execute a moderate idea of realistic compromise.

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