phaedo2000.com Blog

We – the world – are so discontent.  Why?  Well, because it’s not what we want it to be.  And what do we want it to be?  We want it to be…well, what we want it to be!  Which is?  The world, it seems, has devolved into a cesspool of expectation; we want more and better of everything – for ourselves.  Yes, but…

What does that mean?  No one really seems to know how you get there from here.  Two of my favorite themes: ignorance and over simplicity; after entitlement that is.  Modern liberalism, where rights have been overdone, is part of it; so it television fiction where everyone seems to be, and enjoy being upper middle class.  Which is?  hmmmmmmmm.  Having fun?  Well, being comfortable – and having everything that everyone else has.  That, after all, is our right, is it not?  Perhaps the quintessential example of it all is the Occupy movement that took over the world (sort of, at least according to the media) for a short time: its theme?  it’s not fair.  What is not fair?  Anything I say that is not fair.

Bottom line, it is easy to tear down, and much more difficult to build up.  Notice, if you will, the number of professional degrees being awarded, and the number of soft degrees.  But even more telling, look around for high skills; not rocket science high skills but hands on high skills: plumbers, electricians, mechanics, carpenters.  Not just people who accomplish what those skills require, but who take pride in doing them well.  And even more challenging: those skills that bring together technical education and hands on competence.

But let’s go beyond that: making a government work.  “Democracy” is by definition a juggling of different views on how that – governing - should be done, but also by definition, an understanding of what it takes.  And the circle is completed.  Those that are doing it don’t know what they are doing, we think, but we have no clue as to what they should be doing, and almost total lack of understanding of what it takes to get there.  And that’s without going into unintended consequences.

Add to that the reasoning behind most of the unrest, chat-chat that ultimately can lead to anarchy and overthrow: unbridled emotion, tinged with ignorance resulting in panic.  Unemployment: panic.  Stock market drop: panic.  Public unrest: panic.  Overwhelming debt, either personal or national: panic.  And what do we do about it?  panic, always after the fact.  The problemg trying to look at it cpmes with generalization, which may be our concept of egalitarianism; we are all in it together and no one is really responsible; certainly it’s not MY fault.  This is mob mentality, and maybe that’s where the chat-chat comes in: ubiquitous electronic chat-chat capability is the greatest aider and abettor the world has ever seen; one has to wonder what world anarchy would look like with all the electronic gadgets, at least as long as they stayed functional, which wouldn’t be long with panic/anarchy.  People, after all, are the greatest variable in any situation, and it is a total unknown because there are no laws as to how people will react to emotion and panic.

So what’s my point?  More to the point, what’s my solution?  I don’t have either; I just felt the need to vent.

Freedom is a good thing; we can all agree with that.  It defines us; it makes us what we are and what our lives have become.  Of course, we all know, or at least we all used to know, that, as they used to say, one’s freedom of swinging ends where an other’s nose begins: unlimited freedom, after all, is anarchy.  So we realize there must also be rules – laws – laws to define the complex relationship that is the interface between fists and noses.

Freedom, however, can also be problematic in other ways, specifically when they morph into entitlements.  You know, entitlement to well paying jobs, nice houses, fancy vacations and the like.  The problem is that resources are inevitably limited; even the trust states (those with natural resources in high demand) have found that out.  To put it simply, there will never be enough for everyone to have everything he or she would like to have, particularly since getting begets wanting more.  And this applies to any kind of resources because in one way or another available resources must be paid for by someone, somehow.

So the argument must be to respect freedoms, not only that of others but our own, as they are neither unlimited nor free.  What did they used to say?  moderation in all things?  Reasonableness too.  And respect – for each other, the environment, limits – limits of everything, including our ability to produce all everyone wants at prices everyone is willing or able to pay.  When we begin to reach limits the water comes to a boil and we are faced with the dichotomy of freedom, as we are increasingly trying to define it and entitlement; they are not the same.

Culture Matters; I cribbed that part of the title from a book by Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington.  The combination, culture and power, suggests that what we now fondly (and not always accurately) view as nationality, is a sticky wicket.  We have learned that in spades in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the EU got a tasted of it in North Africa as well; nations and nationality are not always the same, as tribal identification often demurs.

Specifically we have learned frequently, but even more lately, that dissenters will accept help from wherever they can get it, and promise almost anything to secure it, in order to achieve their objectives.  So why are they dissenting?  That’s where the wicket gets the stickiest, because there is seldom a simple answer.  First, who is it that is dissenting?  All or a select few?  And over what is it that they are dissenting?  And why?  David Kilcullen’s book, The Accidental Guerrilla, tries to make a clear distinction between an organized guerrilla effort and local unrest; they really do constitute different levels of dissent.  And the so called Arab Spring of North Africa?  The jury is still out on that one, but reality is beginning to sink in.

Revolution (organized dissent) is nothing new; it was practiced unsuccessfully for hundreds of years in Europe before finally becoming successful in France in 1789, and then because it gained the support of a large number of influential contributors, with their own agenda.  And it happens in China, locally and relatively low key, with monotonous regularity – but in the Philippines almost continually, on a more organized basis.  Kilcullen argues that most dissent is local and based on specific and definable grievances, whereas the intent is not to overthrow the government but to right perceived wrongs (particularly pertaining to “rights” and “freedoms”); we are prone, particularly with democracy in mind, to see dissent in these latter terms.  But at the next level are those that disagree with the manner in which governing is being conducted and think they and their friends can do a better job.  The role of power?  Is there anything in which power and the desire for it does not play a part?  The next level is, of course, purely for power.

It helps to understand the nature of the dissent and the culture that fosters it and that opposes it.   And there is a significant difference in the nature of dissent when it is instigated entirely from within and when it is aggressively aided from the outside – mainly, I would argue, because of culture.  Help me is one thing; tell me what to do when it is successful is quite something else.  Just because people are unhappy doesn’t mean that they will happily embrace a solution from outside; and overthrow of a current government does not mean invitation to introduce something, often including new culture, from someon else, nor does it often forsee the chaos that usually ensues in the process .  Culture matters because it is ingrained in local thinking, becoming part of the way people view their lives – which is their culture.  Can it change?  Sure it can, but only slowly, and only if the changes are embraced by the people being changed.

The European Union kicked out Gaddafi, but the culture remains much as it was.  Nor has replacement of the Taliban in Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein in Iraq done much to change the local cultures in those countries.  And outsiders that think that they can jump in and change cultures overnight are in for a rude awakening, mainly because they will inevitably come up against those seeking power within the culture.  So why didn’t they do it themselves? for the same reason the peasants in Europe didn’t: they didn’t have the power to do so and their grievances were more topical the cultural.

Unfortunately for the world in general (and probably in the long run for the people involved as well) we who KNOW that our culture is the right one are blinded to the reality of ingrained culture and the nature of dissent.  And as often as not overthrowing a governing entity ends up changing little but personalities at the top – that often have an uncomfortable learning curve to undergo.  Sometimes (and one must think about this) putting down rebellion is kinder in the long run than allowing it to be successful, harsh and unfeeling as that might seem.  Facing the new, when it overturns culture, merely to support a change in power, is very difficult for many.  On the other hand merely voting for change doesn’t always work either, as we have seen frequently in the world where “democracy” is superficially embraced, but its tight control, countenanced by culture, shapes it differently than one might expect.

Postmodernism? Why postmodernism?  I don’t know, just popped into my consciousness this morning.  The word – concept – seems to pop up everywhere; our president keeps being referred to as our first postmodern president.  Actually the concept itself is not new, dating back to the late nineteenth century, but in reference to art; later it was in reference to architecture.  So what now?

First, premodernism: a period dominated by tradition and authority (Catholic Church for example).  And modernism denoted the rejection of authority in favor of reason and science – and the individual as the source of meaning and truth.  So quite logically postmodernism is the period on “a rejection of the sovereign autonomous individual with an emphasis upon anarchic collective, anonymous experience.”  I think that means something like anything goes, and includes diversity, where no one’s idea is any better than anyone elses; kind of chaos without conflict; we do whatever we want but never become conflicted about it – no controversy, live and let live.  We each have our own personal reality and are highly skeptical of anything said to apply to all.  It is “post” because it denies the existence of any “ultimate” principles.  Make sense?  It gets worse, but that’s enough for now.

First we had Walton Pond, then Brave New World; now postmodernism, kind of a mixture of self-delusion and hypocrisy.  It seems to come quite naturally from a hopey changy fixation with fantasy, doesn’t it?  No wonder we are broke.

An article by Chris Vogner of the Dallas Morning News addressed the subject ”Movies are art, not history” in today’s edition in a very balanced way; Vogner is a movie critic, but also an avid reader of history.  We should view movies as art, he says, and not as history.  Yes, we should, and realize as well that sometimes dry and often unexciting history does not make good modern entertainment, particularly on the fast-moving media of the screen.  Unfortunately too many do not see it that way, and since they read very little and take less interest in history (anything over ten years old is ancient and of no value?) they absorb what they see on the screen and accept it as reality.  These are the same young people (particularly young people) who claim they get all their news from late night shows.

This does not limit itself to movies and history, however.  We are trained, it seems, by soundbite news and TV specials to be impatient with detail and satisfied with simplistic survey material, lacking in depth.  In fact that is one of the current critiques of our schools: not enough depth of detail (in addition to boring repetition); we have neither the interest nor patience to deal with what it takes to really learn anything today.  Too many of us are in too much of a hurry, and too intent on the entertainment quotient, to the exclusion of detailed information.  Thus we really don’t think all that much.  One commenter quoted in Vogner’s article suggested that a historical movie caused her to want to read more about it; forget that, not today.

Look at our political debate formats; same thing, really.  Little detail, little depth (there isn’t time) and too much focus from viewers on superficiality; what makes more sense with a population with no patience and not much more interest in details?  Policy?  Who even understands it?  Two minutes is enough for anyone, right?  And much more than our television news reporters are allotted.

But as with movies, what we believe is that which is fed us superficially, in a way over-simplified manner.  To put it in perspective, it’s little more than propaganda, since over-simplification lends itself to exactly what propaganda is all about.  Better than bumper stickers, but not much.  And we lap it up, and believe.

There is a current roiling of the waters that is beginning to smack of what Marx termed (and preached) as class warfare; but it is taking a decidedly modernist approach.   Strange the things we do to ourselves – for whatever reason, and there are many, that lead us into contention; we do love our contention; it defines us, after all.  Let’s see if I can sort it out (as I envisage it) such that any sense can be made of it.

There is, I have read several times, a shortage of industrial labor in the United States.  Engineering shortages are nothing new, mainly resulting, I am assured, from the difficulty of the curriculum and the reluctance of many students today to undertake anything unduly difficult; but then we have a solution for that, we hire them from places like India and China where they are plentiful and apparently eager (even though we have a work visa challenge that has been somewhat intractable, but that’s another story).  But this is other; a shortage of available industrial skills.  It seems that a number of very high tech industries, that accomplish tasks and produce products not available from any other source, are unable to find qualified workers.

The causes for that seem to be several, but related.  First our penchant for college education and related careers has discouraged us from pursuing hands on skills, which are perceived as “keeping us down,” that is, forcing us into labor that is beneath our high expectations.  But many of these skills require some sophisticated training, if not college, then challenging technical schools.   And since they are challenging, and difficult, that ties us back to the above paragraph.  I shall not describe it as being lazy, just otherwise oriented.  But let me add two personal examples.  I talked with a hot tub mechanic, whose work entails difficult and demanding effort, and he (who works by himself) told me he had many applicants who would welcome working with him, but when tried showed no inclination to actually do the work.  The other was a plumber, who I asked if they had any trouble finding applicants.  He said they did not, but they had great difficulty in getting the applicants licensed.

I have heard the same sort of discouraging comments from teachers about their students, many of whom demonstrate neither motivation nor desire to do much of anything.  In all cases the expectation (for remuneration) is high, but the willingness to work for it does not match it.  They also, it has been said, have become known for searching for easier options (courses with less work or teachers who ask less).  Some will say they would prefer to do what they like to do, but few have much idea what that is, save to be with and socialize with their friends.  An unemployed woman with limited or non existent skills (on a program on publice television), asked what she wanted to do replied that she wanted to work in an office, because she liked people and enjoyed dressing up.

Ghandi’s second deadly sin was wealth without work; Christianity’s last deadly sin is sloth.  And here is where the class warfare weighs in more heavily; those who earn large salaries (or remuneration) are resented (by many, apparently), because they earn large salaries, despite both the training required and the hours spent to do so.  This is not an argument that all heavy remuneration can be defended, nor even for that matter that all high remuneration is resented (to wit in entertainment occupations), but in general that tendency seems to be growing.  And interestingly many entertainment opportunities do not require college training, but many cite the oft quoted statistic that college graduates make “a million dollars (or so)” more than those that do not graduate from college – which average those very high earners and not so high earners to arrive at that figure.  Then there is that same argument that we “want to do what we like,” without either knowing what that is or what jobs provide it.

So what is happening?  Again, I won’t cite laziness, but how about naivete combined with unreasonable expectations?  Not only in terms of remuneration, but in terms of effort, work hours and vacation time.  And we point disparagingly at Greece.  We need to come to grips with this challenge, but there is no indication we are even making the effort; perhaps because we don’t understand it but perhaps because we don’t want to.

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.