phaedo2000.com Blog

It is a messy process, they say, and “they” are right, it really is messy.  And it has probably gotten messier more recently because our communications are more potent, and more pervasive; there is more money sloshing around out there willing to pay for power and influence; and because it lasts so much longer, or seems to.

But why does it have to be messy?  It is the nature of the beast; democracy (and its republican representative counterpart) seems to bring the worst out in us.  But wiser heads suggest that, since we all have our own opinions – and need to if democratic representation is to work – there will be differences in those opinions as to who should represent and how he should do it, and let’s face it, a bunch of selfishness is part of the equation.  So as voters express their opinions, there is bound to be emotion stirred up, and anger displayed; it is after all a competition and we really are competitive.

I have two concerns though, on what I see as a trend.  One is negative campaigning, by both contestants and the adoring, or not so adoring, media, which, clearly, has a lot of influence – and always has had for that matter.  But, I have been told repeatedly, negative campaigning works; we remember bad much more thoroughly than we remember good, even when it’s not true.  The second is an off shoot of the first and it is that we seem to be having trouble staying with issues – perhaps because we really don’t understand them.  And what that leaves is character; but that returns us to the first since negative character attacks trump positive character presentation.  To wit we are not much concerned with good character but jump all over what we perceive as bad character.

And that, being lose/lose leads to another offshoot: qualifications and ability.  For whatever reason, and I suspect that it is a long growing liberal trend (classical liberal not the political liberal of today) that leans toward the belief that we are all basically the same under the skin, same wants, same expectations, same rights and should therefore be viewed in that light.  Which, unfortunately, means that those that get ahead must be doing something underhanded and should be censored.  How else could they be more successful than we?

Interesting, because we certainly don’t use the same criteria to select a plumber or a cabinet maker; nor certainly an athlete, actor or singer.  Does that mean we are willing to invest our trust in a failure?  Would we want to have our representative a homeless drug dependent drop-out if he were likable and seems to understand what it is like to be in our shoes?  Ok, that is extreme, but it suggests something, and that is that we have little appreciation for what it takes to be a part of running a nation.  They are all crooks, I hear often.  No. they are not all crooks.  They are stupid and corrupt.  No, they are not that either.  They are, however, guilty of being human and sharing the same foibles as the rest of us; some, of course. more than others.  They succumb to temptation; yes, they do.  They should represent THE PEOPLE who have elected them.  Ah, that’s a good one; and what might that be?  We can’t agree on much of anything, so which loud bellyache should they respond to?  Another ahhh; they will respond to the most influential.  Corruption?  Because they are reduced to begging – continually – for money to support their campaigns?  Look at the circular irony of all this.  Think of our reaction if someone financed his own campaign with his own money; now think of someone who has no money and depends on contributions to conduct a campaign.  We are very judgmental, particularly when someone is different than we would have him be; which is what?  A saint?  No, we’d find some way to tear him apart too.

So, the democratic process of electing leaders is messy, and it is messy because each of us has very strong feelings about things that become important to us, what we think, what we feel, what we want, what we expect and how we vote.  So why, pray tell, do we think ours is better than other forms of government?  Because other forms of government leave us with a single opinion: that of the leader, however selected.  Our way takes all those opinions, shakes them up and spits out TEMPORARY leaders who can be replaced without a revolution.  Yes, messy.  And you have a better solution?

I understand the vicious competition among media; including the uncontrolled, often unedited and opinion overburdening of non-mainstream bloggers rushing to scoop the mainstream; but I would suggest this is having an effect on the media as severe as television is having on professional and “non-professional” sports entertainment.  Add that to the “selling” of degrees to the unqualified and un-motivated – and much more, but that’s enough for now – and it’s not difficult to be concerned.

Trial by media is nothing new, but the competition above is driving it to new and breathtaking heights (or depths).  I scan a list of media links every morning and have noted (how brilliant of me) the similarity of the offerings.  The GOP “debates” are a case in point, but only one among many.   Several of the candidates for nomination have been ruthlessly chopped off at the knees by unproven innuendo, parrotted ubiquitously  - that suddenly disappeared when the intent proved successful.  You might excuse me if I question allegations - so many similar, and almost continuously - with the same intent.  Yes, I know, politics (power) is a dirty business and democratic republicanism hasn’t made it any cleaner than it has always been – and believe me it has always been ruthlessly dirty.  But in this day of unbelievably successful communications and BIG money (not only at the top, please, all throughout) one has to question motives, especially when they are never pursued beyond the assassination.  Wondering where that money could come from, if in fact there is money passed, and why it might be accepted is futile to contemplate, but impossible to not wonder about.

It has long been said that everyone has his/her price (everyone? no not EVERYONE, but…) and more recently that everything is for sale.  The fact that we are awash with available money makes that just that more possible.  Temptation is a terrible thing when expectations are as high as they are across the specturm of our society.  But media, at least nominally, used to pride themselves on integrity; now, I would contend, that despite their pride in that and desire to continue it, they are being pushed to mix it up – to make money.  Blame it on the big ones?  Why?  the rest of us are pure and innocent?  Susceptibility to temptation is not confined to the top.

My most recent example is that of  the Italian ship captain whose cruise liner hung up on the rocks.  The accusations in the media were reverberating before the rocking of the beached ship even stopped.  Was he guilty?  I don’t know, and all I have to go on are media reports that, frankly, I automatically resist believing; I do not believe the media – in general – is reliable any longer.  Having said that, however, I must admit that I have sources in the media that I have come to trust over the years.  I still do, but skeptically; I question everything these days and do my best to arrive at my own opinions by comparing and challenging – or withholding them.  It’s quite difficult though, and one reason it is is that many contributors do nothing more in terms of investigating than quoting others – and often the same others – which is not investigation – or research, if you like.  But who has time for real research any more with the leaking, gossiping, prevaricating hypocrisy with which all are confronted.

Enough.  Suffice it to say that I am disgusted with it all – and very worried at what it portends.  I really do feel that I cannot believe or trust any public utterances any more, and I have never before been there.

The worst consequence of laws made by legislatures, after those that are deliberately disruptive, are those with unintended consequences.  They usually result from excessively short term views and too little thought, something that afflicts our Congress overly much in its members’ quest to be elected.

Perhaps the most egregious current example lies with the housing bubble, where a quest, allegedly based on “fairness” but more likely for the purpose of buying votes, caused many too many to buy more house than they could afford.  Driving down interest rates through government coercion was only part of the problem; perhaps the greater part was encouraging (through low down payments) investment in second and third houses for speculation.  But I would contend that spending funds allocated to Social Security and leaving IOUs also qualifies, as it is a seriously contributor to our unsustainable debt.  Promising anything to anyone at low contributions to Medicare is of course another, as with wildly excessive promises to Medicaid recipients.  In fact one could argue that open Medicaid embodies an even more obvious unintended consequence, where people have found that a way to save on insurance is to go to a Medicaid accepting hospital where no one can be turned away.

Another example that has not yet been totally accepted into law is term limits.  This is one I had not thought of until I read an article arguing against it.  The argument was that already too much responsibility is left to (often young and inexperienced) staffers who are not elected, causing Congress people, who are elected, to trust their judgement.  But then I would contend that we, the voters, are hugely guilty of unintended consequences by electing officials that are neither experienced or qualified – because we LIKE them.  Con men take advantage of the same weakness.

I once received a letter in response to an article I wrote on the subject of planning, from General Bruce C. Clarke (Vietnam era).  General Clarke contended that he had been credited with foresight when in fact his secret was intensive planning.  In the interest of preparing for unintended consequences he tasked his staff to consider and make at least rudimentary plans for any consequence they could think of, no matter how unlikely.  With those plans in hand he was confident to have a starting point to meet any unintended consequence, which of course war is rampant.  I was mightily impressed by that argument, despite realizing what intensive effort it required.  But then I would suggest that any decision which depends on the logical reaction of people has similar threats, particularly where financing and investment is concerned.

We are all susceptible to unintended consequences; they almost always result from not doing enough thinking about what could go wrong with a decision beyond what was intended.  I say almost because there are always “black swans” that can occur which no one could have anticipated.  Some argue that the housing bubble and crash was a “black swan;” I do not agree.  The timing perhaps, but it was patently obvious that housing was overpriced at levels that could not be sustained.

Nonetheless, we go to great lengths (supposedly) to vet our national representatives, and have the right to expect attention to consequences of legislation they address, and deserve better, especially when their motivation is to “buy” votes through bribing voters, which is how I see unsustainable promises beyond the term of the office they are seeking.

We have all been made aware of the far reach of the Internet and perhaps success in spreading information.  Being a skeptic, however, I always harbor subtle concerns for anything that encourages demagogic spreading of ideas without attribution or verification and often without understanding of implications and unintended consequences.  In other words I do not trust mobs and their emotional motivations, however they are constituted.

I stumbled this morning on a phrase in a STRATFOR report on jihadism.  STRATFOR (stratfor.com)  is a non-political commercial intelligence group that was developed to provide intelligence services to offshore business entities, but has spread to more general assessments.  The phrase was:  ”While these various elements of the jihadist network are distinct, the  Internet brings them together, especially at the grassroots level. Videos,  websites and online magazines indoctrinate aspiring militants in the jihadist  ideology and provide a forum for like-minded individuals and groups.”  In the past we would have described them as excellent propaganda vehicles, but I think we’ve gone beyond that, althought that certain still applies.

Add this to the rapid spread of the “occupy” movement across the U.S. and to other parts of the world, and its effective use in the “Arab Spring” demonstrations that so enthralled the international press.  Communications, properly employed, can have great educational value but they can also be used for less positive applications, as we have seen with television and even (my opinion) the inane, mindless, constant babble of teenagers on emails, Twitter and Face book.  On the crime scene the term often used is “copycat” and it has been applied to all sorts of spontaeous mayhem, including the current gang attacks on vulnerable victims either for the macho image it extols or use on Face book.  Ignorance particularly, it seems, is vulnerable to emotionally violent suggestion, particularly when illustrated as instant communication, with which it be can spread rapidly.

This is not a new discovery of inovation in uses of technology, nor can successful and popular technology be easily controlled or even directed.  As a commercially availaable tool it will be used as users wish to use it, and the individual annonimity of the Internet exaccerbates its utility, both good and bad; good for those who are curious and want to learn, and bad for those who are easily influenced but such as popular violence.

Thus I have no solutions; not even suggestions.  Certainly I doubt government’s ability to effectively confront the bad without destroying the good, but I am confident  it will try, likely with doubtful results.  But the examples above have convinced me that it is something to think about – and be aware of and concerned about; emotionally instability of people – not all but a significant few – has been proven too often.

Politics is nothing new; wherever there have been men (people) there have been politics.  Our republican system was supposed to change that, but none were sure it would, and some were (and are) quite cynical about it.  We are, after all, still people and susceptible to what is known as (although many reject it), human nature.

The current mutual undermining attack strategies are both disgusting and frightening.  But consider the sources.  Most politicians know relatively little about much beyond politics, and are dominated by it – it is their life, their career.  We have, however, a number of very talented and knowledgeable people; do we listen to them?  Mostly not; we are too mired in competitive (power) politics, with little ability to see beyond our prejudices and personal ambitions.  Most of our problem today is ignorance, including short vision horizons and  lack of understanding of unintended consequences.  Very few politicians, unfortunately, see beyond their own ambitions and limited understanding.  In a recent speech our president informed us that free market economics do not work and have never worked (Kansas), as he directs pursuance of European style socialism (or something very close to socialism); which works?  Current circumstances, as well as history, would suggest otherwise.

And voters?  Repubicanism requires knowledgeable voters with open minds.  Forget that.  Our modern world of continual electronic propaganda has taken care of that.  Are our current problems intractable?  No, they are not, but to surmount them will require cooperation and pain.  Ahhhh there is where it comes a cropper: pain.  Voter pain and politics are anathema to each other; we, the voters, are not willing to withstand pain – or even discomfort for that matter, and politicians are loathe to make us, for obvious reasons.  And in their defense (voters), because of profligacy, many have put themselves in a position where pain will destroy them; but politics can not allow that to happen.

Taxes will go higher; entitlements will be trimmed and reduced.  We are not all equal; we are not equally capable; and we do not put forth equal effort.  Therefore we will not, nor will we ever, achieve equal results.  Can we accdept that?  Apparently not, so the pain will be more than it need be, and we will fight it every step of the way.  So what has changed historically?  Not much in the long run.  All is hunky dory when things are going well, but it starts to get a little rough when they are not.  Again in defense, our lifetimes are not all that long and a major set back, individually, results in failure.  So it is and so it has always been.  Politicians would have it otherwise, since it is in their interest, but they will fail in trying to make it so.

Prepare for the worst, but expect most of us to squeak through, although not all.  Pain is never equally distributed any more than abilty and knowledge are equally distributed.  “We” have gotten ourselves into this and “we” will work our way through it, but not equally.  Some will suffer more than others and those that suffer most will likely not be those that deserve it most.  Such is life.

Read into a little history and you will see that this is the natural condition; it is life.

We have all been exposed to it, either knowingly or not knowingly.  I personally find it both disgusting and irritating because most are stupid and unsupported by any kind of facts – just innuendo and emotion.  But they can be disruptive because people seem to love to believe them.  From the world ruler cartels of Jews, business magnates or financial powers to continual economic or political innuendos, we tend to eat them up.  Why?  mystery, envy, retribution, emotional instability or just because they are fun – for some.  But they are out there.

On the other extreme are “facts” released by “insiders” that portend big changes either good (for some) or bad (for many) designed to undermine something or other – or someone.  They are usually power oriented (to build or destroy), emotionally oriented and tantalizingly perception driven.  As with true conspiracies they are more likely to have something to do with misuse of power.  The same?  Maybe, but perhaps different only in scope.  Many are alleged wrong doing of one kind or another, either without facts or just enough to make them plausible.

In between is what has become known as crony capitalism: power favoritism of one or another faction, or dis favoritism; both resulting or potentially resulting in changing balances of power, either political or financial, if there are any differences between those two.  Crony capitalism, however, is more reality than fiction, spreading the wealth or withholding it through political manipulation.  But the lines among the three are not clear or well defined, and each can be used to feed into the other.  Competitiveness?  If you like, if one sees pursuit of power as mere competitiveness.  I prefer to view the differences as in the degree of destruction done and how much of that destruction is intended.  Unfortunately much of what we see in the realms of power seeking entails destruction, whereas competition is less likely to have that objective, even though it might have that result.

So what is the problem associated with good old fashioned conspiracy theory?  The potential for destruction; not only the competitive destruction of opponents, adversaries or competitors; but the destruction of confidence, trust and cooperation that ensues.  At any level some of this exists as, as humans, that seems to be what we seek, but at the most serious level we face deterioration that leads to serious dysfunction of the our ability to get along, to function or to progress.

So why do we do it?  It seems, sadly, to just be the way we are.

The pendulum always swings too far, as the observation goes; and this pendulum? that of the ME generations.  Too much? too much of everything and therefore too much expectation of even more?

I was reading this morning that STATFOR is up and running again after being hacked; STRATFOR is a civilian (for profit) intelligence company that publishes reports on straightforward and non-political observations of events occurring in the world, especially for companies doing business in overseas markets.  So why hack into it and steal credit card numbers and emails?  Well, the obvious is as unto any other heist; but apparently this was more “ideological” and the credit card numbers were a surprise bonus, apparently (it is still under investigation).  What ideology?  They also destroyed four control computers; ideologists, after all, are big into destruction.

But that’s just a footnote to the occupy-ers of late.  Ideologists?  Maybe of the ideology of the ME generations.  Everyone has a right to a “good” job, a “nice” home – and all loans to be canceled.  Yeah, yeah, sounds like the ME-ers to me.  But then another recent study examined morals and in the process makes the picture clearer: we have no right to judgment; one person’s cultural beliefs are as good as any other’s – ANY other’s.  Really?  That’s what “they” think, they being college student responders to questions on the subject.  It’s called relativism; or whatever, as long as it benefits me.  What ever happened to responsibility or repect for other’s rights?  Ah, I’ve belabored that one before.

The problem is that some people think and reason and some people are ruled by emotion; emotion can and usually does wipe out reason.  Add that to selfishness, greed, me-ism entitlement, and lack of much knowledge and it’s not so difficult to understand.  Much of it tends to be what one might expect of children; we all did stupid things when we were children; well, most of us did.  The fact that these are not children just shows how long childhood lasts these days, I suppose, or how little incentive there is to leave it (ah, incentive, another subject I have worked to death).  Children are not expected to understand unintended consequences – or empathy for that matter.  We can ask where they come up with these ideas, and how they can stay with them for so long, and answers have been provided often and in detail; but it doesn’t seem to help, except to show that it is still sustained more by emotional immaturity than it is true ideology.  But it sure seems to be shaping our future.

I wonder where the pendulum is in its period.  Surely it will one day start swinging back the other way, won’t it; but when?

I was just thinking as I read through an Economist article about elections in Africa, and saw a picture of Hugo Chavez how ridiculous we humans are.  Politics as we practice it is truly a joke; the practitioners are all a joke.   Those who are in office seem to be the biggest joke of all, looking at the results.  When they speak?  joke.  When they make decisions?  joke.  When they strut and preen?  joke.  When they just stand there and pose for pictures?  joke.  I am really embarrassed with it all.  Yes I know the alternatives and realize they are worse, ranging as they do from anarchy to despotic monarchy, but that doesn’t make it any less a joke.

Before we can decide who “we” are perhaps we should give thought to who “we” have been.  We were a small – and weak – “country” ( and it took an effort to get to that point) comprised of mostly rural people with a diversity of ideas and beliefs.  The picture of a single nation of homogeneous thought and consistent beliefs is mostly myth.  The Constitution did not happen calmly, nor was it embraced blindly by all.  Washington once wrote to Jefferson asking how much liberty could the “people” handle.  It was admittedly an experiment, and for all intents and purposes still is; the experiment has been chaotic and emotional – and still is, even though the nature of the nation has changed dramatically from being small and rural to large, powerful, wealthy and mostly urban.  “We” don’t even agree on how that happened, because for the most part most of us really don’t know; even if we think we do, or for that matter even think about it.

Nevertheless that’s where we are.  We mouth the words that are the concepts of freedom, liberty, free-markets, property rights and individualism; but most of us see them through our own eyes in the context of our own lives, and do not agree with various interpretations.  We still have a diversity of ideas and beliefs, but with additions to the original mix they have changed and widened with the changes in the environment which is our nation.  And some of the bases for the concepts have been muddied; I would state morality as one, but that, as I said in Part I may be being modified by interpretation; but such fundamentals as honesty and responsibility must remain if that which we expect for our future is to maintain.  Without honesty and responsibility the concept of national vision that we have held cannot be sustained, and we will become what most of the rest of the world is and has always been – and might always be.

Books have been written on what that is, so we must leave it at that.  Either one understands it or doesn’t, and therefore accepts that who we were is who we still are or not; but more than that it will determine whether that is what we WANT to be, or not.  So what is it that we WANT to be?  I contend that is a difficult question for most to answer because they haven’t thought much about it beyond the hazy blur of poorly understood words and concepts, how they apply, and what they mean.  That is the question that is plaguing us and most of us are ill equipped to handle.  We are in the process of trying to answer it anyway; intellectually, emotionally, individually, collectively, and even in terms of pure survival, for some.  Change is with us because we cannot contain it, everywhere we look; we cannot contain it, but we can direct it, if we know where we want it to progress.  We don’t yet, and it will take us a period of time to do so, if we are able.  In the meantime, because we have not directed effectively in the recent past (some say ever), we are faced with a more difficult task today, and the longer we remain in flux the more difficult it will become.  We are facing challenging choices and no matter how we deal with them they will be painful, and we do not like pain and will resist it, individually and collectively.

I think about it a lot, and worry; I think we all should, but not with paranoia – or even resignedly.  We have the strength within us as a nation to deal with it; but it will test us mightily to do so, and how we face the test will determine the results.  Time is running short and the ultimate pain is growing, but perhaps that will provide us with the incentive we need to make the difficult choices.  Ultimately we WILL come out of it, but the view at the other side is not yet clear.

I keep seeing things about us that disquiet me, in one form or another.  We are changing; but then we have always been changing.  Are there causes or is it just the way humans evolve?  Some human offshoots of the evolution tree are extinct, did you know that?  But that’s another subject.

Let me illuminate some of the changes I think I see.

The thirst for fame, even momentary, seems to be an increasingly driving factor.  Three quarters of our population (statistically) are now members of face book (but then 60% of families own dogs – what does that tell us?).  And that seems to be driving some things.  For example the new “game” in town in for small gangs of people to look for someone to terrorise.  One confronts a properly non-threatening target and begins punching him or her.  If he falls to the ground the rest kick him and leave.  If he resists the entire group starts punching him until he falls and then they kick him.  Several of the group have cameras, and they are often girls, who film (usually video) the event – and post it on Facebook where they (the videos), I am assured, have become quite popular in terms of “hits.”  Getting attention on Facebook is IMPORTANT.

Which leads to communication technology, headed by personal access communication.  It seems to dominate our waking hours.  That’s beyond computers and television; it is personal hand held machines that allow us to talk to anyone anywhere any time, and apparently they are very active little devices.

We profess to be politically correct but can agree on very little, and have less interest in discussing things about which we disagree.  This leads to put-down criticism (whether we understand why or not) and develops very firm opinions of very superficial subjects about which we seem to love to pontificate – or argue (more like railing that arguing actually).  Often they include the word hate, which we also profess to abhor.

Relativism is rampant too, if one can believe those that delve into such things.  It’s less anything goes, than no one has the right to question someone else’s positions on morality; there is no right and wrong per se.  You notice inconsistencies here?  No wonder our young and other limited knowledge population are confused.

This extends, as I have said, to politics.  But look at how we have skewed that.  The most important thing in politics today is money; money to buy ads to propagandize the voting public (and those that don’t vote as well).  The upshot seems to be the one with the most money, tends to win.  Oh, and it is alleged that congressmen allocate 2 days per week to do nothing but talk to constituents; who are trying to convince them of something, ususally, I suspect, to give them something – not bribes, but something they think we should have that benefits them.  And at the same time we have concluded that all politicians are corrupt, without really defining what we mean by that word.

Sports and entertainment absolutely dominate the thinking of a major portion or our population, and we are desperate to know what they are thinking, what they are doing, what they expect to do and any other tiny element of their lives that might titilate us.  Including where they live and where they go: pure voyeurism, but especially where they live.  We adore big houses in exotic places.  You might have noticed that we particularly like to beat up on them: movie actors in uncompromising situations, athletes screwing up, deliberate mayhem (that we seem to love).  We adore violence – vicariously, of course (on a personal level we can’t even distinguish between pain and discomfort – and take pills for all of it).

Automobile traffic is bad and will get much worse, but much of the problem is caused by drivers that are unconcerned with laws, especially speed limit laws, but also following too close, cutting in and out of traffic; we all know all about that.  Has it always been so?  Well, there hasn’t been the volume, or the power of vehicles, or the restricted roadways due to volume.  And we seem to be attracted to violence there too – NASCAR?  Isn’t the violence there an important attraction?

And on top of all this our law enforcement minions are highly restricted since anything they do is criticized and attacked.  Law enforcement is the enemy, and the culprit if anything happens that effects us in a negative way.  But teachers are similarly restricted with the same result.  And the perpetrators?  Drivers?  Burglers?  Students?  It’s not their fault; it’s “our” fault.  And speaking of students, has anyone noticed the blatant lack of motivation demonstrated by many of them, and their rejection of rules intended to support the process?

It seems to me there are common threads among all this, and I know that’s not all of it, just what came to my mind as I rattled it off.  I think there is a pattern here, but then others may see other than what I see.  The importance of it is not to sit and crticize, or even feel sorry for ourselves and moan a lot.  It is to determine how we are to deal with it.  Things are changing and we seem (my view) not to be dealing with them well; so what should we be doing?  The approaches that seem to be developing are not very productive; where do we go from here?  This, after all, is who we seem to be and what we will be living with; or isn’t it?  Who are we?