Can an ideologue win?

by

The cover story of Time (2013, November 18) examined Chris Christie. Christie, according to the article, is a self-proclaimed pragmatic non-ideologue. He seems to have little use for politicians who would rather stand on principles and lose than bend a little on principles, win elections, and govern.

It is possible to lead and not be elected or even occupy a position of leadership. It is also possible to be elected to office or to occupy a position of leadership and not lead. The other possibility is to not lead, and not be elected to office or occupy a position of leadership, which is the path for most people. Most people are not leaders. Many people who get elected to office or occupy positions normally associated with leadership seem to either not lead at the new level or to not be effective in their attempts to lead.

A surprisingly low number of people who get elected to so-called higher office or find themselves through appointment or other means to be in positions of leadership actually seem to stand out as leaders. One reason for that is that few positions provide the opportunity to stand out uniquely as a leader. People elected to serve in a legislative body, whether a town or city council or the US House of Representatives, have several peers who probably also have aspirations to be seen as a leader. Mayors, sheriffs, governors, and presidents are unique in the opportunity to demonstrate leadership as a consequence of their actions by virtue of their lack of peers at their specific level of governance.

In the United States, people get elected to legislative office because the electorate hopes or believes that their vision and ideology has merit, which perhaps they can, once elected, champion that agenda so that it becomes policy. The US electorate has voted few ideologues into the presidency of the republic. Ideologues seem rarely to be effective in governing. Even when elected, the reality of having to share governance with others who do not embrace the same ideology.

Reference
Scherer, M. (2013, November 18). Born to run. He coasted to re-election in New Jersey with a campaign designed for higher office. Why Chris Christie is the GOP’s most serious 2016 contender. Time, 182(21), 24-28.

The U.S. Economy following the November Election

by

The U.S. Economy following the November Election I generally disagree with Rana Foroohar of Time magazine; we usually seem to see the world differently, perhaps through different lenses. In Foroohar (2012a), however, I find several points of agreement.

Foroohar (2012a) noted the bet made by Fed chairman Bernanke that implementing quantitative easing (QE), in both iterations, would be complemented by political moves to simplify the tax code and to improve the confidence and optimism of business leaders to invest in job creating activities. Instead, the Norquistians, who seem to dominate the Republicans in Washington, DC, and the Democrats, who seemingly never passed a course in finance or accounting, never mind a full business curriculum, continue to constipate the bowels of governance. Bilateral cooperation in 2012 seems to mean collaborating with anybody who agrees to do what I want, holding fast to some illusory ideal of no increases in revenue or decreases in the spending I want, in the embodiment of Voltaire’s perfection-as-the-enemy-of-the-good scenario.

As a result of the QE imbalance, US equities and corporate cash are at relative highs, while confidence, never mind certainty, in the direction of financial and economic policy remain at or near all time lows. Ironically, as Foroohar (2012a) observed, the beneficiaries are the wealthiest 10% who own 90% of U.S. equities, the very group the Democrats love to bash and resent. While commentators lament the stalemate in federal governance, the targets of proposed higher taxes are reaping the benefits. Ironically, as long as both sides rigidly stick to their platforms, the wealthy in the U.S., both individuals and institutions, gain. The losers are the sustainable economy and those praying for job creation, or are they?

Foroohar (2012b) noted a housing market recovery, improved consumer confidence, increased consumer spending, reduced delinquencies on credit cards, and lower mortgage debt, apparent indicators that the consumers in the lower 90% of the wealth continuum are also benefiting from the current economic condition. The question of sustainability, however, remains. Foroohar (2012b) pointed to lower-than-expected third-quarter earnings reported by industrial and tech corporations and artificially-low interest rates as indicators of unsustainability. Bernanke and the U.S. governance structures may have helped dodge a deeper recession but little they have collectively done and not done seems to be able to stimulate capital spending and hiring and more than seasonally-adjusted modest levels. If we can find some sustainability, perhaps a do-nothing Congress may emerge as a good thing, at least doing no harm.

References
Foroohar, R. (2012a, September 24). The S&P soars, the economy snores. Ben bankrolled stocks to boost demand. But what if the wealth effect doesn’t work? Time, 180(13), 24.

Foroohar, R. (2012b, November 5). The two-faced economy. Consumers are spending, corporations are not. Which group is getting it wrong? Time, 180(19), 21.

“Without the time to stay informed”

by

I cannot remember having ever agreed with Time’s Joe Klein on anything substantive, until his article published November 5, 2012 (Klein, 2012). Klein was speculating on a then-possible Romney election, Romney’s apparent move to the center, and the views of neoconservatives. Klein suggested that Romney’s sinusoidal positioning on issues would have been more disastrous with an informed electorate, rather than the current “overworked, overstimulated” (Klein, 2012, p. 23) electorate of the 2012 United States.

In “The Other Approaching Cliff” (Bryan, 2012), I wrote about the deterioration in the United States of the pillars of democracy: a free and independent press, a unified system of values, and an educated and informed electorate. I find it ironic that Klein (2012) seems to think that the U.S. electorate is under-informed because they are overworked and overstimulated. Being overworked during a period of high unemployment and under-employment corresponds to a reluctance among employers to hire, in favor of increased utilization of existing resources and a desire among the employed to work as much as the opportunities allow to pay down debt. Being overstimulated may more likely apply to those who are unemployed or under-employed because people who are overworked and over-utilized would seem to have time available for non-work stimulation.

So, perhaps the overworked do not have time to get or stay informed and those who are not overworked do not pursue the path of the informed for other reasons. Regardless of the reasons, an under-informed or uninformed electorate is bad for at least two reasons. First, people who are under informed would seem to gravitate to any idea or proposition that simply sounds good, with no basis for making that assessment. People who are under informed simply lack the background or framework to discern a good and viable idea from an idea that is meant for emotional appeal more than anything else. A lack of sound values compounds this problem because valueless or weak-valued people lack the rudder and keel in life to assess ideas and propositions against a sustainable direction in life.

The other reason and under-informed electorate is problematic is that it implies, at least in part, that those same members of society also are increasingly less able to contribute to the economy by holding jobs that are highly value-adding. As technological innovation makes production of goods and services increasingly more complex, at least some members of the under-informed sector of society will be increasingly unequipped for jobs that are increasingly available. Foroohar (2012) observed that innovation drives productivity growth, which, in turn, leads to economic growth and higher standards of living, including wages. I do not agree with Foroohar, who cited Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, in the suggestion that all the good ideas are already behind us. They suggested thy the pace of innovation, the kind that is life-changing, emerged between 1870 and the 1970s, and at a decreasing rate. This is not to say that innovation is on a steady, nearly 150-year decline, but that the truly life-changing stuff is already in play.

As a self-proclaimed optimistic, who would look for the proverbial pony in the pile of manure, my sense is that we simply cannot proclaim the era of life-changing innovation To be wholly behind us. Professors on university campuses and creative types in Institutional and private labs and garages are likely on the verge of some highly disruptive technologies. I can say this because I have the privilege of working with some of them. Even if the best innovations are behind us, and I do not believe they are, I know some pretty Remarkable innovation is coming.

Regardless of the reasons for an under-informed electorate, society needs to better educate and better inform its collective citizenry. Innovation in education is essential, if only for the reality that today’s students have so much more that is available to learn than students of in the 1970s and earlier. A recent visit to a UC San Diego Jacobs School of Engineering research expo made clear that today’s students study material at a depth and breadth that was unavailable and unknown during my undergraduate years.

The trick for leaders seems to be to help and guide and encourage people at all levels to want to learn and to be informed. Stein (2012) discussed the concept of low-information voters, a term coined by Popkin of UC San Diego, coincidentally my alma mater. Under-informed, low-information voters may vote for what they believe is in their best interests, but may be as likely to vote for ideas that they believe to be good for their communities and country, but which are not (Stein, 2012). Popkin Apparently has been promoting this idea of low-information voters as being among us since at least the 1970s. Might the presence, and possible rise in, under-informed, low-information voters explain some of the choices made in our elections? Seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

References
Bryan, J. (2012, November). The other approaching cliff. Retrieved from

Foroohar, R. (2012, October 22). More jobs, less pay. Productivity is no longer growing fast enough to boost wages. Time, 180(17), 23.

Klein, J. (2012, November 5). Mitt and the Bomber Boys. Would Romney really reject the bellicose neocon wing of his party? Time, 180(19), 23.

Stein, J. (2012, November 5). Block the vote. Proposed: Citizens will not have the right to vote unless they are as smart as me. Time, 180(19), 62.

The Other Approaching Cliff

by

In 2011, world financial markets and elected leaders more or less avoided the U.S. debt ceiling cliff.  At the end of the 2012 calendar year, the so-called fiscal cliff awaits, subject to a short-term or long-term detour created by a seemingly less-than-creative U.S. Congress.  Yet, it seems another cliff is appearing on the horizon, a cliff receiving little or no attention like the iceberg that sank the Titanic.

 

During the last five decades of my observing the U.S. electorate, hopefully filtered through increasingly critical thinking and emotional intelligence, it seems that two foundational elements of the U.S. system of governance are eroding.  Historically, the keys to effective U.S. governance have been an informed and educated electorate.  These two crucial characteristics depend on a free press and an effective public education system, two factors that seem increasingly ineffective.

 

Test scores and other indicators of comparative educational performance show the U.S. collective student body continuing a long decline compared to their colleagues in other countries.  This decline appears systemic and may point to a simultaneous decline in the absolute performance of U.S. students and improved test scores by their counterparts elsewhere in the world.  Teachers and their unions may be too easy a target for blame.  Ineffective teachers need to improve or seek new careers, but many teachers in the U.S. lack lack appropriate and necessary instructional resources and parental support to meet societal expectations.

 

Anecdotally, the decline in U.S. student performance seems to parallel the rise in two-income families.  When both parents work outside the home, especially if one or both parents work two or more jobs, mom and dad have no time to help with homework.  Seemingly simultaneous with the rise in two-income families in the U.S., in some cases driven by need as much as want, is the rise in participation in after-school sports and other extracurricular activities.  So students have less time for homework and parents have less time and, in some communities, less ability to help with that homework.  As a consequence, generations of students enter the workforce and electorate under-prepared by school systems and parents to make decisions in the workplace and in the voting booth.

 

The press in the United States is failing in their chosen calling of reporting news; in doing so, the fourth estate provides less information on which this increasingly under-educated and under-prepared workforce would otherwise rely.  Newspapers, magazines, electronic media, and cable and network television promote agendas rather than pursuing truth.  A so-called news program interviews two or more people who stridently assert inherently conflicting positions as fact.  Although both positions cannot possibly be true, the anchor or moderator or reporter rarely makes the effort to reconcile the positions and separate truth from fiction.

 

During the recent string of presidential debates, network fact checkers proved themselves unworthy of their titles or positions by failing to distinguish true from false.  News should simply be news and editorial clearly opinion without forcing the audience to classify the two.  News should be presented as fact and be consistently, reliably true with retractions or corrections presented when necessary.  However, the U.S. news media presents programming as commercial entertainment to secure advertising dollars.  The press may be free, for the most part, of government influence, but it is not independent.

 

So, the upcoming cliff may just be the continued degradation of the revered system of U.S. governance facilitated by an under-educated electorate and a less-than-independent press.  Unless leaders in the U.S. consciously and quickly begin to address the rebuilding of the three legs of our governance stool, the inevitable consequence seems to be continued societal fracturing and an eventual collapse over the cliff of basic governance.

 

An Arab Fall

by

This morning Fareed Sakaria noted the need to view the words of politicians as being politically motivated and within a political context.  When a politician speaks, we need to consider the intended audience and remember the political context.  Susan Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, interviewed by CNN’s Candy Crowley, and others observed that this week’s anti-West and anti-U.S. actions, resulting in destruction of U.S. property and the death of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, three other Americans, and uncounted others in more than 20 countries, was the act of a large group of people, who collectively represented a small minority of the residents of those countries.

The violent acts are troubling, disappointing, even enraging, but to respond against those nations as if the nations have attacked the U.S. would be as misguided, even ignorant, as the apparent inciting of the violence by a rumored anti-Islam film as being representative of and endorsed by the U.S. and the West collectively.  The West, and particularly the U.S., needs to respond, but that response must have focus, on the perpetrators and their leaders not the general population.  The identity of the perpetrators may be difficult to ascertain.

The Arab Spring phenomenon awakened unrest long nearly dormant because freedoms of speech and expression were historically more constrained than today.  The protests somehow connected to this ill-advised film, if it exists, simply would likely not have been possible less than twelve months ago in any of the countries where embassies and consulates have been attacked.  Somehow the countries that could suppress expression under previous regimes are no longer capable of providing security to the diplomatic community. That seems likely to be an indication of lack of will onthe part of government officials and community leaders.

Despite the lack of will or ability by leaders in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, and elsewhere, little or no evidence appears to indicate that the people in these countries have animosity toward the United States, the West, our leaders, or our citizens.  On the contrary, every current indication is that the perpetrators are not representative of the the general population and at least some of the elected leaders.  More to the point, the acts of violence seem to be more likely the result of a fringe element as unhappy with their new leaders as with the West and taking advantage of too many young people with not enough tondo as a result of high unemployment among the young, countries and regions desperate for leadership, and economies in desperate need of sustainable change.