phaedo2000.com Blog

What is a moderate?  Oxford: Avoiding extremes; temperate in conduct or expression.  Ok, makes sense – in theory.  How about in practice?  I have heard several suggestions.  One is that extremes tend to be loud and pushy, so don’t be loud and pushy; another is that anyone who is moderate lacks conviction: a mugwump, who is someone who sits on a fence with his mug on one side and his wump on the other (political slang; 1884 presidential election for Republican Party reformers who refused to support the candidacy of James G. Blaine).  From that I would take it that it depends on the perspective of he/she who is the moderate.

But moderate in what?  In the U.S. political environment, where parties develop platforms, the expectation of each is take it or leave it; you are either with us or against us (the U.S. two party system was developed to focus differences at a party level rather than leave them to be fought over publicly in multi-party parliamentary systems, often ending bringing down governments with no-confidence votes).  But it has been shown that some 50% of voters call themselves moderate, so what does that mean?  Depending on which of the above definitions you prefer, it either means you don’t support either party’s platform or you are turned off by the radical posturing.

I prefer to take the position that there is likely something in between and that the two extremes are simplistic constructs that assume the voter lacks the sophistication to understand the complexity of the issues.  This is actually to a great extent true, but it also obfiscates the complexity of the issues and frequently results in unintended consequences, or short term solutions that don’t address the real issues.  In either case it is in the party’s interest to pursue both for several reasons.  First is the short term view taken of most issues: voters want to see immediate results and terms are relatively short.  Another might be that many politicians don’t understand the issues any better than the voters.  But there is perhaps an even more important concern: fund raisers prefer strong controversy because it aids their cause and gets results better than alternatives; and let’s face it, in the age of television advertising for candidates it really is all about fund raising – money – unfortunately.

So, controversy.  We, the people, thrive on it; we really do.  We are opinionated, often emotional, and not deeply knowledgeable about the deeper nuances of an issue, particularly when it comes to unintended consequences.  Too often it comes down to, don’t bother me with the facts, just listen to what I have to say.  And it has been proven that negative campaigning (advertising) works; we remember something bad better than we do something good.  And we don’t particularly care for compromise; in fact we abhor it, because with a compromise “nobody wins” (besides, we don’t understand them or their rationale).  Where parties (and their fund raisers) triumph, however, is in playing the platform, particularly by bashing the opposition rather than extolling their candidates’ views, because we all know (or should) that it is far easier to destroy than to build.  Take any campaign idea; careful thought and analysis must go into developing a policy recommendation, and what does it take to tear it apart?  And what does most campaigning concentrate on?  aided and abetted by supporting media, of course.

So how does one organize the self-proclaimed moderates into an effective voting block?  it is a serious challenge.  Why?  because most self-proclaimed moderates possess the same pre-programmed human nature tendencies as the fringe radicals (non-moderates): we are better at criticising than we are at building or developing.  But the moderates have another challenge on top of that: platform.  Most more flexible thinking moderates do not necessarily feel the same about all the policies in a platform, which is why we created the two-party system.  In this sense, and others as well, the party platform is an effective device for projecting and protecting elite power.  But that notwithstanding, there is and will always be a profound challenge when it comes to harnessing public opinion – beyond the superficial; it’s like herding cats.

We have a challenge today that, if not unique, it is at least complex and daunting.  The amount of information available is part of it, but urbanization is perhaps an even greater part: the America of today is not like the America of 250 years ago for many reasons.  The nature of immigration is one; due to motivation for immigrating here: opportunity; money to be blunt – there is less acceptance of the principles that formed our republic, causing immigrants to be more, and often wish to remain, culturally divergent such that in some cases those principles are even rejected out of hand, while the opportunities are still strongly embraced.  Urbanization is even more important because whereas the 1779 population was primarily self sufficient, the 2011 mostly urban population is not; it is very difficult for apartment dwellers or even suburban property owners to raise their own food.  But the nature of employment is also relevant; losing a job through no individual fault is not something easily handled alone, and even subsistence costs in our nation have become staggering.  Then there is the problem of distance, travel, automobiles and fuel.  So one has to accept that the challenge has changed.

And one needs to note how focused that challenge has become, dominated as it is by cost – economics; and in many ways that sums up the real challenge of organizing moderates.  The complexity of living and governing has become so demanding that not nearly enough voters understand it and its ramifications.  But more to the point, it is less Economics 101 that is so difficult to understand, as finance, and particularly international finance.  Much as we prefer to bring things down to individual – our – circumstances, global finance doesn’t fit the mold very well for the specific reason that actions that occur, over which we have no control, can and do influence us directly and sometimes brutally.  More frighteningly, they often derive from irrational responses of others, driven by greed, panic and ignorance.  Those that do not understand, or do not believe the explanations they are being offered, can have great difficulty in finding the trust and respect needed to make the right decisions or support them.  Who, after all, does one believe when elite opinions are diametrically opposed or elite leaders and experts prove themselves to be wrong, or worse, inept?

This is the “moderate” challenge.  And additionally we have reached the point of basic differences of outlook of life, which goes beyond fringe politics, even though the fringes use it to their advantage.  How to deal with the debt/deficit situation points clearly to that basic difference.  So does immigration.  So does abortion.  And so, although no one would admit it, does fundamental morality.  The differences in policy statements among us are not that different; but, as has so often been said, the devil is in the details; and the details are devilish to treat via compromise, especially when fantasy, reality and emotion come into play – and conflict.

Why have fraud and corruption increased so explosively?  Well, has it?  It sure seems so, doesn’t it?

I would suggest that one reason is that there is so much money – well, funding – splashing around the world, Afghanistan and Iraq being recent cogent examples.  Incredible amounts of money are being thrown around, tempting people who have never seen anything like it, with apparent abandon; no one even seems to care about it, much less control it, or even effectively account for it.  As Everett Dirkson (former Illinois senator) once said: a billion here and a billion there; after awhile it begins to add up.  That was long, long ago; now billion would be trillion.

In talking about it, however, one must also accept that communication is soooooo much more ubiquitous, and nailing corruption is one of the favorite subjects.  Perhaps (and I have no corroburating proof) it is merely being more aggressively exposed – or even “invented”; how much is proven and how much just slowly goes away because it cannot be proven?  How much is attack tactics to undermine opponents? it has long been known that allegation is almost as effective as proof when it comes to destroying someone.

On the other hand, corruption is and always has been alive and well – ALWAYS.  In many countries low salaries of government officials have long been an incentive for corruption.  On the one hand officials can convince themselves that low pay forces them to help themselves; on another many governments allegedly assume that they will enhance their salaries via corruption and keep salaries low as a consequence.  It comes to much the same, providing a built in incentive encourages corruption.

That brings up something that I heard the other night, which I cannot corroborate, but will pass on anyway.  The Chinese government recently, it was alleged, conducted a study into why the United States has been so successful.  Ignoring such obvious advantages as being protected by two oceans, being endowed with incredible resources, and having the advantage of building from scratch, they (again allegedly) stumbled upon another significant factor: Christianity; specifically the tendency of Christians to “love thy neighbor” which drives them to greater respect for such things as rule of law and contracts, and thus their willingness to obey and defend them as obligations among neighbors.  The obvious next step in this discussion is to suggest that recent problems, deterioration of such principles, at least in this country, derive directly from our movement away from religion.

I find that a little too convenient, but would like to throw this out for consideration: why is it that contracts (written or verbal) carry so much weight in the United States and so much less in many other countries?  Why does the traditional hand-shake still impose upon most of us the obligation that it does?  Is honesty, sincerity and social responsibility (note our high donations rates as opposed to most others) more deeply embedded here than elsewhere?  Why?  Is it beginning to deteriorate?  If so, why?

There is much to think about here.

It is a flood, albeit one that is a mile wide and an inch deep, or maybe in our case a world wide and an inch deep.  I wonder what it is like to watch American television from say, Indonesia, or India, or even Paris.  We do insist on displaying our dirty laundry; in fact we revel in it.  I can just see the young researchers burning midnight oil to discover the most recent “most stupid mistake committed by a high school football team” or the latest indiscretion of some childish and pampered movie actress - oops, I think they are all called actors now, right?  Non-discrimination, you know.

Or the “seasoned” international reporter flying into name-a-big-city, checking into a five star hotel and calling for his local stringer to come and brief him.   While he makes his reservations to leave tomorrow, gathering piles more of it to keep the constant flow flowing.  Or…well, I don’t have to tell you, it’s everywhere and ubiquitous.  And bloggers (like me?) are creating even more of it.

But what is it doing to us?  It should be good, right?  Information is a GOOD thing.  But how much of it is pure garbage?  Most (like mine, although admittedly) is opinion, although much of it presented as fact.  So how much of it is believable?  Think what it must be like teaching history today?  They don’t teach us real history; yeah, right, and what is that?  Where do you start?  It has been said (for this I have two references, although both opinion) that today people discard anything over eight years old (or before the late 1980s – two opinions) as irrelevant and therefore of no value.  Really?  No wonder we get ourselves into so much trouble trying to save the world.  But even if it were all true, how can anyone even attempt to put their arms around even a fraction of it?

Anyway, no need to belabor the point; you can fill in the blanks.  We are drowning in information – much of it of dubious veracity – and have little idea which is true, right or even useful.  And how much of it is being used against us?  Oh woe.

And hasn’t it always been?  Greed is not a new concept.  The United States has always been known for materialism, and therefore money; but have you noticed how everyone else weighs in as soon as they are able?  We don’t have a corner on that market, and in fact, because of our effectiveness in rule of law we have been more successful than most with control of that great icon of greed: corruption.  I say our effectiveness in maintaining law and order, but there can be no doubt, regardless of individual beliefs and convictions, that Christian morality and its teachings have also had something to do with that, whether anti-Christians want to accept that or not.

And that, I believe, has had more than a little to do with an economic success that is undeniable; and of course the advent of credit cards has had something to do with it as well, along with a very carefully honed and effective advertising capability; we have led the world in advertising.  But then developments such as TV and computers, which we no longer monopolise, has helped enormously.  However, in the end Americans are voracious consumers and that consumption has encouraged the supply that has resulted in demand that makes it all possible.  And, of course, a step beyond that is the the technology incentive the feeds the whole shebang.  It is discouraging, but not surprising, to see the equally greedy, but considerably less knowledgeable, demonstrating against this edifice of plenty.  The liberal progression pendulum that has led to this situation was bound to swing beyond acceptable limits, and a comeuppance was bound to come, and has arrived.  Unfortunately everyone remains blissfully happy as long as things are going well – for them - but turn surly when they don’t.

There are, however, some aspects of the current anti-business/anti-investment environment, apparently espoused and even talked up by our current administration, that have not been discussed, and particularly pertaining to investment.  I admit to being uncomfortable with the gambling mentality of today’s investors, and feel that perhaps opening speculative investing to banks has contributed.  But be that as it may, investment in the ediface is what feeds the beast and we can’t have it both ways; it’s just that to pay for the feeding we have lost track of the conservative financing that sustained us for many years; in short, we, both individuals and government, have lived beyond our means.

So what is the aspect that has not been discussed?  the other end of investment.  It’s all about those greedy, over-paid investors, isn’t it?  Well, who are these investment bankers who are making themselves so rich at our expense?  The most powerful and best known are so-called institution investors that attract investment of individuals of all kinds, but also of companies that invest with them to build retirement funds for employees, something to which we have become very dependent since they pay retirement salaries – and unlike government, the profits that have been accumulated for that purpose have not been borrowed, and actually exist.  And what are we going to do if we clip their wings.  Government contributions, as we all should know, come entirely from taxes which come from us, one way or the other, either directly or through companies that we also pay for our purchases and services; so if we pay for that, and the government takes a cut, why not just do it for ourselves and eliminate the middle man?

Of course it’s much more complicated than that, and the only point I am trying to make is that trying to destroy “Wall Steet” has unintended consequences: bringing down our system of building retirement systems that make retirement payments to us.  The combination of government’s overspending on many things, including unearned benefits (including Social Security and Medicare which are clearly oversubscribed considering the government has spent that too) and crimping the economic engine that feeds both it through taxes and the institutions that build and fund our retirement accounts, is something we need worry about.

Much may need to be “fixed” and controls (effective rule of law) are an excepted necessity, but must be carefully applied; it is a very large and complex “system”, understood by few; abused by some; and attacked, it seems, by all, most of whom are ignorant of how it works and susceptible to panic when it doesn’t, as they expect it to.  We need be very careful of what we wish for because it might not be sustainable.  And guess who loses in the end?

What are you going to believe?  It is said that statistics lie and liars use statistics; how can that be?  Statistics are numbers derived from collected data.  Uh huh.  Looking up statistical data for the populations of New York City and Temple, Texas on the Internet shows NYC at 8,214,426 and Temple at 54,514; of course the NYC population is as of 2006 and Temples is as of the census of 2000.  No matter, what if each grew by 10,000 people: that would be a growth rate of about 1/100 of a percent for NYC and 1% for Temple; the conclusion would be that Temple is growing 100 times faster than New York.  Wow.  And that would be true if you were talking about percentage growth.  So?  It depends on how that information is delivered and what it is intended to convey.  I once read that some very high percentage of students in Florida could not name contiguous states.  Really?  I wonder how that statistic was determined.

Polls?  Anyone who has taken one knows how they are presented: check yes, no, or no opinion.  Hmmmmm.  And what was the question?  It often depends on how it is presented as to the results it achieves.  What if half of us neither completely agree nor disagree but could present arguments for something in between; how do we answer?  50% of respondents have no opinion.  Wow.  I have found very few political polls that I can unequivocally answer yes or no, so I don’t answer.  Does that skew the results?  Polls are presented as scientifically prepared; perhaps they are, whatever that entails, but the wording of the question can influence the results – and opinions.

And many opinions these days are presented as facts and argued that way, but without data to back them up.  But if they need data all they have to do is reference polls and statistics, although, as shown above, it is often difficult to find out when information found on the Internet was placed there; data changes continually and when that data was collected can make a critical difference.

Then, of course, there is propaganda.  Propaganda can be black, white or grey depending on how complete the information is.  Grey propaganda, which includes most of advertising, presents facts selectively.  They always have truth; but how much competing information is just not presented.   In advertising there are checks for falsehoods, but what about omissions?

It helps greatly to have a frame of reference; be skeptical.  There are many, many ways to present things that cause them to appear as the presenter wishes them to appear, but can’t be trusted.  Beware, and don’t believe anything at face value, is a good rule of thumb.  Or as they say with regard to making a purchase, let the buyer beware.

First let me say that many people who have lived and worked with Arabs have been truly enchanted by them.  And what are Arabs?  Tribal people who, originally lived in the deserts of the Arabian subcontinent; but with Muhammad and the subsequent initial  conquests, the term Arab was bequeathed, if I may use that term, to the conquered peoples of North Africa.  Today it is less common to speak of Arabs and more common to speak of Muslims or Islamists, but even though Muhammad was apparently not a Bedouin, Bedouin traditions lie heavily upon the religion.  The life of Bedouins was (and frequently still is) hard and challenging and the resulting toughness has become a characteristic of Arabs, but so has pride, tribalism, hospitality, paternalism and independence; they are truly an intriguing people.

But my purpose is not to delve into Bedouin, Arab or in fact Muslim culture, but to observe with some interest how little most people, including members of the media, aside from those who have studied them and lived with them, possess.  Nor am I going to go into detail about that, other than to point out three instances that contribute to understanding, at least for me.

First, and trivially, I have noticed the quotation, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” more and more frequently of late, without attribution; it is an Arab proverb.  I have also read frequently about the importance of the Arabic language to Arabs: a flowery, uniting, intoxicating, eloquent language that seems to elicit exaggeration, over assertion and repetition.  It has even been said that the expression of a threat in Arabic can be so impressive that it becomes no longer necessary to go to the trouble of actually carrying it out.  And finally – this more a feature of Islam, but one needs always remember the roots of Islam are in the Arabian pennisula – that Islam is a pattern of life, complete and un-partitionable, meaning primarily that religion and politics are and must be one and the same; it is not acceptable to observe separation between church and state.

I suggest that in partaking of the news, these three at least should be taken into consideration, and particularly when a Muslem talks of “democracy” (as well as rule of law) it is likely that his picture of it (them) is different from that of Westerners.  Why?  Because they must be viewed through the prism of the Koran, the book, not of religion but of life.  I read recently a comparison of the number of books published in the West versus those published in Muslim countries and was not surprised at the disparity, as it has often been said by Muslims that there need be no other books since all that is needed to know already exists in the Koran.

Be that as it may, better understanding of how these people think would be quite useful in understanding what they do, and why.
friend.

Wow, the world is about to crash; it’s the end of everything we have known.  Really?  We surely are on a tear though, and, as always with propaganda, there is at least a grain of truth in it all.   That grain of truth is, in fact, a pretty big pebble called debt.  It’s serious, and something has to be done about it; but it does not signal the end of the world; it doesn’t happen that way.  There is at least one stop before that, and it’s inflation, serious inflation.  We don’t want that.  But the talk is just about what one might expect in a power struggle.  Power for what?  Oh, just about everything.  Jobs, success, layoffs, unemployment, pay reduction, higher taxes, expectations; same as always, but the stakes are higher, and the pucker factor has increased.  And a trademark of human beings is things always appear worse than they are; and the power seekers are milking it for all it’s worth: politicians, dissidents, media and just about everybody.

Other trademarks of human beings are that they are opinionated, usually without the requisite knowledge to support their decisions; they love to complain; and, believe it or not they would rather destroy something than build it.  Well, that’s not quite true; actually we tend to take the path of least resistance, something like water running down hill.  And to put it simply it’s much easier to complain and tear down than it is lead and build up.  Anyone can complain, and almost anyone can destroy.  But building is tough; so is leading; and so, particularly is leading in an incredibly complex environment such as a national, or even state government, and especially in an environment such as ours where the leadership is deliberately checked and balanced to guard against their taking over, as in a dictatorship.  Many leaders would much rather run the whole show by themselves (that is, with their own picked associates) than to have to convince others and make compromises.

The process is not pretty; so why do they pursue it, those active and potential leaders?  What, after all, is the alternative?  Give up?  Not likely; we’ve been there before.  In fact we were there in 1779 when the Constitution was ratified.  The disagreement?  Pretty much the same as the one today: strong central government versus Federalism.  On the political spectrum strong federal government can become too strong with the end game a dictatorship; and Federalism becoming a breaking up of the whole into 50 separate entities.  Neither is going to happen.  But settling it down will see some tough infighting and pain for more than a few, because the situation is much more complex than it was a little over 200 years ago.  If the stakes are almost the same, the implications are different because instead of being a bunch of rural communities mostly self sufficient, we have become a vast urban community mostly reliant on the efforts of others.  Think about it; what do we do if the farms stop producing, the trucks stop delivering, the stores close, or if the refineries stop producing gasoline – and so forth?  But on the other hand, what will the farm, truckers, store and refineries do without sales?

Anarchy?  Sure looks like it doesn’t it, especially in locales where working together has never been tried very often?  But it mostly looks like that because the outbreaks are so newsworthy; they scare us and we stay glued to the news.  Dictatorship?  Not hardly, at least not here, no matter how much some would love the opportunity to ride that horse; but, as I have written before, there are those who benefit from polarization, and they are the ones collecting money for “the cause”  and winning the power.  Polarity plays well.

Our prescribed solution is to select leaders who are capable of doing what has to be done.  So how are we doing?  Not very well, not because there are no capable leaders but because the chosen strategy is fault finding – dirty politics; tear down the opposition any way you can, even if it means creating lies that make him look bad, or painting him (or her) as someone who is incapable, undesirable, inept, deranged, intent on destroying everything we cherish, or – gasp – not in agreement with what we believe (if we even know what we believe, or why).  And there is the complexity: economics; who understand economics?  Actually it’s even worse than that: it’s finance.  Oh, that even has a scary ring to it.

So why don’t we just let the experts do it?  Who are the experts?  And how can we trust them, since some support a strong central government and some espouse Federalism, and few agree.  It’s a conundrum.  But here is the real problem: much of finance breaks on confidence, and confidence is rooted in what people THINK.  We have long known that investment depends strongly on greed and panic: fight or flight.  And with all those power brokers (financial, political, ideological, educational, and personal – we are after all our own power brokers are we not?) vying for attention, spewing propaganda, throwing money around, and throwing their (our) weight around however they can; it can get pretty nasty, and awfully murky.  Who to believe?

That’s a question not easily answered; welcome to democracy.  It would help if we concentrated on leaders’ strengths rather than their weaknesses, but unfortunately doing otherwise works, and often better.  Why?  Because we believe the bad more readily than the good.  Also unfortunately, passing through this major disconnect; one that has been building for far too long for a number of reasons, the major of which is that we have put off confronting it; is going to be painful for many; and many DO NOT WANT to endure pain, and can you blame them?  But we have allowed it to get to that point, and the pain is going to come; so now we wrestle over how and who.  And since there really isn’t any place to run (flight), our inclination is to fight.  And there we are.

Do we believe in democracy (that is, a democratic republic)?  Well, yes and no – or maybe, maybe.  One solution is to ignore the problem and let it get worse, like a festering wound we can let it get infected; rather than heal the sore, if we let it go, we are likely to have to cut off the leg.  Ouch.  But at the moment we can’t agree on how to heal the sore.  More than likely cooler heads will ultimately prevail and recognize before the rest of us, that something has to be done, and will try to make it happen.  And we, or some of us, won’t like it, and will resist.  Welcome to democracy.  Let’s hope those cooler heads will prevail before it gets much worse.  In the meantime it would help if instead of trying to destroy each other we gave some thought to working together.  In the end, hopefully enough will, and those who are either too stupid or pig headed will be pushed aside; but not after causing much pain for the body politic in the process of trying to avert pain for themselves.  It’s the way we are – human beings, that is; and it is particularly how the lunatic fringes – the outliers – are; they are always with us, and we just have to learn to realize who they are and to learn to live with them, and not allow them to destroy us.

I have suggested, and will again, that we have entered an era of lower rates of taking responsibility; it’s not my fault is too common a rallying cry.  But a thought came to me last night that pushed me into finding blame for finding blame; this may sound like an old saw, but what might be the role of lawyers in this process?

Don’t get me wrong, lawyers are a necessity and an important one: to deal with disagreements in which damages must be assessed or not, there must be a qualified and respected referee.  This is what lawyers were created to do.  But once created, they, like all of us free enterprise entrepreneurs, naturally seek out the next opportunity, wherever we might find it.  Several years ago I remember reading that tort lawyers were beginning to refer to them as new “products,”  and in traditional businesslike evaluation, the opportunity had to exceed the cost, including risk.  Let there be no doubt that there is major risk in tort law as the nature of the “product” requires significant investment on part of tort law firms that might not show pay-back for years – if then.

Law and its ramifications went through a period of high popularity several years ago, before it peaked, as evidenced by all the law shows on television, exciting the interest of many, including many to whom the lure of law school and becoming a lawyer elicited considerable attraction, resulting in a whole bunch of lawyers looking for “products.”  But beyond that it also worked its way into our cultural awareness.  I tentatively contend that is one of, and perhaps the major reason we began to become so interested in the blame game: to wit, there was money in it.

Think about that and the ensuing cry of “sue em.”  To show you an example of that allow me to relate a personal incident.  My son was walking along the sidewalk and slipped off the curb, almost falling in a way that could have injured him; “dad,” said his very young son brightly, “you can sue!”  Suing has become the logical extension of the blame game because, many have come to believe, it can make you rich.  Now we can argue, and tort lawyers do, that the number of cases that have resulted in enrichment have been few (although highly publicized), and that is likely true, but it’s not the point; the point is that perception is everything.  And that perception is that the culmination of blame games is sue and get rich.

The most famous example perhaps is the lady who poured hot McDonald’s coffee upon herself, resulting in a law suit – that she won.  Few are aware that it was overturned on appeal, but that certainly didn’t change perception, since the suit victory was sensational and received vast publicity; the result of the appeal was treated as a non-event.  But look at recesses in school and playground equipment.  The most significant results of law suits are the extent to which people threatened by them defend themselves from ever having them filed, by building in redundant safe guards.  Good, you say, we need them.  Ah, but the cost that is generated by overdoing it?  Consider the excessive testing that is alleged to be endemic in the medical profession; spiralling medical costs?

It goes further than that, I believe; it has generated the ubiquitous belief that there are causes of everything, and none of them are the fault of the victim.  Carelessness?   nah.  Inattention?  Stupidity?  Hey, it had to be caused by something, and therefore SOMEONE, someone presumably who is sue-able, such as guns being the root cause of accidents by weapons.  My sister had a vision of a riding camp, for which she purchased, and still owns, several horses.  The demand was there, but insurance was either unattainable or unaffordable.  Why?  the threat of legal action if there were accidents, and the attendant increased rates of insurance.

How great a leap is it from that to an “it’s not my fault” attitude among children, children who, incidentally, grow up without losing that attitude.  Poverty as the most important reason for crime is a pertinent example.  Dysfunctional families as the basis of poor performance in school is another, that conveniently morphs into blame the schools and blame the teachers.  The fact that many poor students come from failed families might be a truism, but tell the kid “it’s not your fault, it’s your parents’ fault?”  Kids might not be doing well in school, but they are not dumb; give them an excuse, and guess what?  Could that perhaps be ONE of the causes of lack of motivation among students today?

I realize the problem goes far beyond simple cause and effect (result), and am not suggesting that everything is the fault of lawyers any more than everything is the fault of bad parenting; but i do strongly argue that motivation and responsibility have taken a serious hit in recent generations, for which there are probably as many explanations as there are possible causes; and cultural perception is, if not the cause, at least a major symptom.  Unfortunately I have not yet come upon any realistic way of changing that perception; it is too convenient and it has been deeply internalized, unfortunately.  But somehow, for us to move on, it must be reversed.

First, I believe, comes our amazing economy; it has said that everything is for sale and everyone is selling something.  Now, that is surely an exaggeration, but I have read that something like 50% of our working population can be classified as salespersons.  After all, teachers are selling, and so are politicians; along with all the rest.  We even have to sell ourselves in the process of gaining employment.  But we are also, most of us, in the “business” (self employed?) of selling ideas, convincing others of our views and beliefs.  This is not a bad thing.  It causes us to think and inspires us to communicate, and in the process generates new ideas and better ways of doing things.

But in the process the art of open minded sharing seems to have been at least temporarily eclipsed and that is where taking ourselves too seriously comes in: we (many of us) immerse ourselves so thoroughly in our own thoughts and beliefs that we lose capability to absorb those of others.  And the reason that is a problem is that the best thoughts come, not necessarily from cooperation, but from building upon the success of others: scientists like to say (although all do not necessarily accept) that knowledge of one develops from standing on the shoulders of those that have come before; being wrong may often lead others to merely take another tack from the basic work that has already been accomplished.  Closed minds are more likely to lead to dead ends.

I would contend that that is a major strength of Americans, particularly through our diverse backgrounds and different experiences;  what a valuable crucible from which to begin.  Alas, ego can often get in the way.  My way or the highway?  I’ll throw compromise into the mix as a tangential value, but that’s not the direction I wish to take.  Instead I shall take the negative path, the path of closed minds; unfortunately they abound.  Why?

Many reasons can be cited, ego and conceit being one.  But lack of confidence is another; and ignorance is yet another, ignorance in that lack of broader understanding can generate unwillingness to open the mind resulting in feeling threatened.  There are surely others; the human brain is complex and heavily influenced by experience, which if limited will inevitably lead to – guess what?  Limited ability to be willing to broaden.  But there is another part of the formula and that is self importance, perhaps a combination of all the above.  Self importance: many of us take ourselves too seriously, thinking we and our ideas are inviolable: we are the ones they have been waiting for.  Think about it: ideas that might pop into our heads – really cool, and perhaps more than a little erudite; if only everyone else could see it and UNDERSTAND it, as we do.  Now sometimes the next day it doesn’t look quite so cool, but what if it does?  that is when we either work on it further or might just begin to take ourselves too seriously.

Of course that is not limited to ideas – how about ability?  looks?  talent?  But also recognition, appreciation, admiration and the acceptance of others.  Is this not what this generation of believing (or so it has been reported) that each will experience fame within his or her lifetime?  I suggest that taking one’s self too seriously is one result of that – taking what we perceive is our “specialness” beyond casuality, and beyond incentive to build upon it.  Once enough others perceive the same it often gets way out of control; entertainers are an egregious example, but scholars may be similar.  Writers?  Artists?  and certainly politicians qualify.  Looking back from success we might say they wouldn’t have gotten there had they not taken themselves so seriously and continued working in that direction.  Almost surely true, and vital for motivation; but looking backward it certainly is irritating, isn’t it?  how seriously they take themselves on arrival and beyond?

On the other end it is more irritating still.  How many people do we know that do not qualify but think they do?  How many people drive their theories and beliefs on us unrelentingly, oblivious of how silly they sound?  Or their talent and attractiveness?  taking themselves too seriously.  Well, one might say, you have to have confidence; but where is the line between confidence and hubris?  In these times of instant fame and the lust therefore, it is a fine line, and those who go beyond it seem to be legion.

One might begin all kinds of arguments, pardon me, discussions (sigh, don’t I wish) from this point, and the entire field of self esteem building constitutes one of them.  Not that self esteem is not valuable, but one has to question whether bequething it is that useful.  And fame is the same; that one moment of fame bequethed by appearing on TV?  Did you see me?  Did you did you?

Alas, much as social scientists deny its existence, I see all this as human nature; but I surely don’t subcribe to nurturing it beyond what is deserved, which I define as encouraging them to take themselves too seriously.

We are experiencing difficult times, because, it seems to me, that we keep insisting on spending more than we bring in; most of us probably, but also the government.  I guess that makes it a cultural move.  You would think that fact (at least I view it as a fact) would be becoming evident, but apparently not.

Let’s see, in no particular order, we have the California dream law, whereby California (which is worse than broke) is undertaking to make college aid available to ILLEGAL immigrants.  Illegal means people who are in the country illegally.  Illegally – the Dallas Morning News ran an article this morning about crime hot spots, suggesting that their broad dispersal throughout the city suggested that they were more than pockets of poverty.  And guess what?  Every one of those hot spots showed heavy concentrations of illegals;  my, my.

And Libya is one I look at in awe, not sure how or why we got into that one;  well, yes I am: Europe found that they could spend lots more money they didn’t have if they cut back on defense, and left that up to us.  So when the Europeans jumped into a civil war in Libya, pitting a dictator that no one liked (with reason) against a rag tag, underarmed force of rebels whom no one knew much about, we had to bail them (the Europeans) out because they couldn’t afford it without us.  And we did, so now we, and the Europeans, kind of own that mess, yes, just like we own the messes we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Now the ragtags are fighting among themselves, suprise surprise, so what are we going to do?  Ignore it probably, although surely we will be sending them money to do with what we will not know.

GM went bankrupt so our government bailed them out.  But, you say, they paid us back.  Well, not really and not nearly all, because they really do still owe us money and a large chunk was just taken from bondholders and given to the UAW.  GM got into trouble because early on they figured giving away promises of retirement and healthcare benefits was cheaper than pay raises, and now (or at least recently) something like $1000 per sold automobile goes to funding that unfortunate move.  But no matter, the UAW is at it again, demanding all sorts of things that will cost GM money (GM still being about half owned by our government).  No matter, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead; they have already sold that line to Government Motors and are moving on to the other two US automobile companies.

Let’s see, what else?  Oh yes, protesters on Wall Street.  And what are they demanding?  Jobs, I suppose, but high paying jobs that will allow them to live as they have learned to live, without working too hard or starting to low (or at least staying there for very long), it would appear.  Isn’t that something like pressurizing lenders to make loans to people unable to pay them back?  In one form or another nothing seems to have changed.

And here I shall offer one not so well known.  A county in Virginia decided to sell (at deep discount) laptop computers to every student, beginning in high school, expanding to middle school, and presumably ultimately including grade schools as well, to some level.  The superintendent that engineered this brilliant move stayed on a couple of years (until the logistics of keeping them working completely kicked in), then bailed out and is now teaching, I believe, at the University of Alabama.  You only imagine the cost, but consider the results.  This year that county in Virginia finished significantly lower than sister counties that did not ”give away” computers in the annual standarized tests.  Now certainly with that much information we cannot put all the blame on computers; but if having computers is as important as adoring education experts made it sound when lauding the brilliant superintendent, don’t you think results would have reflected it by now?

Of course there is much more; we all know that problems with Social Security and Medicare, building over decades, has had much greater effect and presents a much greater funding challenge, but we don’t seem to be addressing that either.

Surely this blindness toward spending versus revenue has become a cultural problem, much akin, I will argue, with the general entertainment malaise that centers on fantasy, because clearly we have come to live in a world of fantasy.  Ah, fantasy, isn’t it wonderful?  Until it all blows up, of course, but that’s not our worry.  Is it?