A Question of Balance
Life is all about balancing immediate needs against long-term goals. Often, this is segregated into talk of tactical (short-term) and strategic (long-term) activities. Note that these activities regularly conflict, as what is important immediately may have no relevance to, or be counterproductive to the long-term needs. However, your long-term strategy may never see the light of day if you don’t take care of the immediate fires.
The writer of Ecclesiastes says, “There is nothing new under the sun”. I think that is safe to say. While we have progressed in a number of ways, progress has not overwhelmingly changed the nature of man. Man can still do good, desire to do good, and hope to do good. Inevitably, though, society will do something wrong. For all we want to believe man can be changed for the better, man will still falter. After all, we are imperfect; we cannot be made perfect. You can see a number of societies where man has actually regressed.
It is also safe to say that every human movement, in time, will develop factions. Every movement will have a solid starting point, then will accumulate a number of somewhat agreeing proponents. The differences, though, will vary enough to cause those factions to break off from the main group. Most often, you will see this with religious organizations, but you may also see it with geopolitical movements and business entities.
So, let’s face facts: the model state, while great to discuss, will never exist (unless you believe in salvation and Heaven, but we’re not going there with this post). What do exist, for a variety of situations, are the current state and the desired state. The current state, obviously, is where we are today, regardless of the instigators involved, whether we like them or not. They are not the first to make mistakes, and they won’t be the last to do so, either.
The desired state may start out as the ideal state, but will be tempered by a number of constraints: time, money, law, knowledge, culture, conflicting and aligned opportunities, among others. Forsaking political parties, and how we love to bash our least-favored party, we are where we are.
My question is, where do we want to be?
- Who is “we”? For me, at BraveHumans, “we” are the citizens of the USA. Why? How dare I clean up someone else’s mess if I can’t clean up my own, and we have more than our own fair share of messes.
- What governing model are we using: pure democracy, representative democracy, socialist republic, communism or anarchy (i.e. absence of government)?
- What degree of free markets are we discussing? Are we talking no regulation at all, full regulation, or a mixed bag? If mixed bag, which industries and why?
- What level of national self-sufficiency are we discussing in terms of security, diplomacy, and finances?
Note that, in my opinion, the Constitution and amendments, as written, are not up for discussion. As interpreted, however, that’s completely open for debate.
Recent posts and comments are trending liberal (that should be obvious, as I am the only right-leaning Human contributing right now). I’d like to see some comments from conservative individuals, so that we can keep BraveHumans as a truly open site.
I think we can, with relative ease, define where we are today irrespective of party opinions. The fun is in discussing where we want to be. The difficulty is in defining the strategic and tactical goals, and bringing them to fruition.
Let the fun begin!
February 22nd, 2007 09:06
Excellent post. Really thought provoking. I agree with the sentiment that we are not perfect, and neither is society. It reminds me of all the arguments about Utopia being a really bad thing…
February 22nd, 2007 12:06
(1) Oh how I agree with this sentiment. We have so much housecleaning to do at home.
(2) I think we are already in anarchy, and we dress up the pig and call it democracy.
(3) This is a really hard one. I think we have run willy-nilly to the free market with our technology and have given it to anyone who will pay. I am not sure how I feel about this.
(4) We can never be 100% secure, just vigilant; Our diplomacy is weak and we need to show a little more mettle; our finances are a total mess and have been since we left he gold standard and went to fiat money.
February 22nd, 2007 20:11
Jonathan,
Thanks for stopping by again. Someone will always question the status quo, so I don’t think there would ever be a free utopian society.
webduck,
Good to meet you. I don’t think we have anarchy, per the definition I am using, but I do think we have disorganized government (ah, the joy of two parties fighting for power, instead of fighting for improving the country).
We are always adding new laws, but not enforcing the ones we have. I’m waiting for the law that says I have to tie my right shoe first, or be fined $100. Oh, that’s right! No one would enforce it, because no one would remember it (except for the “right shoe” advocacy group, of course).
Thanks for visiting. Hope to see you again soon.
February 22nd, 2007 22:03
Hello all,
Great post. I guess I’m going to be rose-colored glasses guy on this one, but here goes.
1. Who are we? Americans trying to make what we have significantly better than what it currently is. What we well disagree about is exactly what better entails. For some this would be something closer socialism, while other prefer Libertarianism, while others prefer something completely different. My hope is that there is some meaningful and powerful middle where we can (mostly) meet most of the time.
2. I think we have a representative democracy that is currently functioning quite poorly. For me a great deal of the trouble is that even an honest and well-meaning representative often ends up representing someone other than the people who voted for them. This is always going to exist, but is currently at a high point in the history of recent US politics. I recommend a recent book largely focused on this topic called The Broken Branch (focusing on Congress). That being said, I think the basic structure and system of rules we have is likely as good or better than anything else we’re likely to try. Bottom line-the system is still fixable.
Anarchy is what they have in Somalia, Darfore (Darfur?), and much of Iraq. What we have in the US is still a far cry from that.
3. I think a limited free market is needed. Capitalism works well in MANY ways, but at least under the current model focuses on short-term profit (pleasing stockholders TODAY) to the exclusion of virtually all else. We need balance provided by government and labor to counteract this tendency.
One current idea I have recently heard of is the start of trans-national labor Unions to balance the power of transnational corporations.
4. As far as self-sufficiency I think the better route long-term is more open interdependence. I don’t think we can be a national island. The economy is world-wide and that isn’t going to change unless we experience a virtual collapse of the current system. This WOULD be anarchy and I’d much rather not see it.
-Grant
February 22nd, 2007 22:25
These are HUGE questions! I want to interject that we are an Authoritarian Government at present. We are being repressed as currently we are still in a war that most of “us” no longer want to be involved in and our President is listening to none. I think that we are for sale to the highest bidder as far as our Industry goes with little to no thought as to consequences to our middle and lower class labor force. I don’t believe that we will ever reach anything near a “utopia” but do think that “we” would like to see a leveling off of inflation and a lowering in the unemployment rate. This is my view of it!
February 23rd, 2007 11:47
Hi Carol,
Welcome to the site.
Your comments are intriguing. I find your comment about authoritarian government in the U.S. interesting, considering your friends on the right have valid arguing points about Clinton’s time in office. (With many things he signed into law, I’m sure your friends on the left had some problems with him, too.)
So, without engaging in hyperbole, why call out the Republicans when the Dems have made the same mistakes over the past two decades? Let’s call it what it is: politics. It certainly ain’t governance.
And, what difference is there when the “highest bidder” for the right is a company or industry, but for the left it’s an environmental or quasi-political organization? Both sides are being bought. (Let’s face it, environmental advocacy IS an industry, as is governmental consulting.)
What is wrong with the current unemployment rate? I always thought natural unemployment was around 6%. Aren’t we below that now?
Please quantify your comments so that I can get a better understanding. And, back to my original post questions - where do want us to be?
Thanks,
Rick
February 23rd, 2007 13:10
The fifteen year trend of the annual rate of inflation was down until 2004.
The unemployment rate under both Clinton and Bush averages out to about 5.2% for each man.
We have had someone being repressed in this country since the beginning; Slaves, Indians, the South, the poor, etc. ad nauseum.
Since the Civil War, central gov’t has realized that it can grow. Since the New Deal, central gov’t has realized that if you dress the pig up, the people will ASK for the gov’t to grow.
As to the main questions:
#1 “We” very often appears to be “me.”
#2 Our governing model is supposed to be Representative Democracy under the Rule of Law. It is pretty much neither at this point. Right now I’d say we are a sort of monarchy under the tyranny of law. By tyranny of law I mean that everyone everywhere is somehow or way in violation of some law. This, coupled with unchallenged examples of what happens to those who go astray (WWI Pensioners marching, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales, etc etc.) keeps us in fear of crossing some line and showing up on the radar. Thus the gov’t, through the oppression of law and corrupt judicial system, can keep us pent up at home watching TV. A sort of voluntary control of the masses.
#3 Ow. That’s deeper than I want to think for right now. Suffice it to say that I lean WAAAY toward complete laissez-faire market.
#4 What?
So, ultimately, where do we want to be? We, that is “I” want to be smaller. I think the USA would be better off as a few smaller countries with common goals, kind of like the EU.
The USA was a great idea, but as large as it has gotten, it’s untenable. In terms of this discussion, it’s too tall a stack to be balanced.
When the country was founded, the Constitution called for one representative in the House for every 30,000 people. This gives a good deal of accountability. In 1941 the apportionment act was passed which sealed the number of Reps at 435 (the number it was at since 1910).
In 1990, the “ideal” sized congressional district (found by dividing the population by 435) was 572,466! Nineteen times the size given at the inception of the nation. My opinion, your opinion, the will of the people is LOST in a sea of anonymity.
Could the entire US be returned to its roots if we went back to the 1:30000 model? Doubtful. In the early days, politicians had homes, farms, and businesses to run. They did their job in DC, then returned to take care of their business. Now that we pay them over $80 an hour, they don’t need to do that. So, using the 1990 census numbers again, returning to the 1:30000 model would mean we would need 8300 Representatives in the House.
Each rep (with leadership exceptions) is payed a salary of $165,200. See where I’m going? 8300×165200=$1,371,160,000.00/year in salaries.
Want fries wid’ dat?
So we don’t have the representation envisioned from the beginning, we have a STRONG federal government that does NOT like states’ rights, and we have a population that votes itself cash from the tax coffers, making them unlikely to want to change.
It cannot be balanced. Not realistically. If I thought it probable that you could convince every welfare recipient (from corporate welfare down to the ghettos) to give up their money, then convince the politicians to give up their money, I’d be more optimistic. But we all know that would not be realistic.
So we teeter. When it falls, it’s gonna suck.
February 23rd, 2007 15:12
To clarify as I may have been unclear.
I do not think that we are living in a Democracy anymore as our current President does not listen to “we the people” presently. Why should he? He is a lame duck President and the whole mess will be left to his Predecessor.
The unemployment rate nationally is something like 4.6% which means we may start experiencing some inflation if History repeats. I mispoke previously.
The United States ranks 9th in “first-world” Countries as being the most economically free - so this is better than I originally thought.
Where do I want us to be?
This is such a difficult question because it is unattainable. I would like to see us at Peace with the World. A President in office that is credible and has his pulse on the Nation as far as is possible. I would like to see less apathy, and more activism. I would like to be in a place where it is safe for our children to play and for our elderly to walk down the street without fear. I would like…..
February 23rd, 2007 18:49
Jonathan,
I thought you were a different “Jonathan”. Thanks for stopping by. (Wanted to clear that up before I continued.)
Grant,
Defining “the middle” is difficult until we define the ends that we all accept as appropriate. It’s easy for us to look away from the extremes, but the extremes are what define us. Everything else is, well, tolerable, safe, secure. I do not accept socialism or communism as valid forms for the U.S. any more than I accept anarchy.
I am close to Scott regarding free markets. I don’t like government intervention, primarily because it leads to more government intervention. Can’t take those hands out of the cookie jar, now….
As far as the concept of “unions”, you would need to redefine it away from the Teamsters and AFL-CIO definitions. In the labor trades, there is much wrong with the advocacy and use of union members. There is abuse here like there is anywhere else. I’m not for expanding this abuse into a global situation.
I believe interdependence occurs when we first are first as self-sufficient as possible. Otherwise, we become dependent.
Carol,
I think I am still missing your point. Bill C. did the same thing by taking an unelected, non-political non-appointee and putting her in charge of health care reform. No matter how “smart” she is, she was neither elected by the public nor appointed by parliamentary procedure to take that position. That sounds like tyranny to me.
My point with the questions is that we need to get out of the tit-for-tat finger pointing, and talk about issues irrespective of party. Let’s be honest: both sides are in the wrong. I guess conservatives might see it more because they experienced it first with the opposing party (Clinton), then with their own (Bush).
I may agree that we need more activism and less apathy. Now, let’s define what you mean by activism so we are working with the same definition….
February 23rd, 2007 19:55
Scott,
It sounds like you are ready for a confederacy.
I was going to bring up the 1:30,000 ratio, but you beat me to it.
Your numbers about the cost make a good point, but there is another way you spin the numbers. Currently costs are $165,200 x 435 = $71,862,000. Suppose you had the 8,300 representatives, but kept the same total salary. The amount per representative would be $71,862,000 / 8,300 = $8,660.
This would actually make a lot of sense, since each congressman represents only 30,000 people. It shouldn’t be a full-time job. The thing is, given a congress that large, and at that pay scale, it wouldn’t be practical to have them all reside in Washington. But they could do much of the work electronically, and come together only occasionally. If we as citizens wanted this kind of congress, it is certainly workable.
Carol,
I’m always a little saddened when someone says the world we want is something we can never have. If I honestly believed that, I wouldn’t have helped start BraveHumans. We may face huge challenges, but we have all the tools we need to make the America, and even the world, a just an equitable society. Not a perfect society, but one we can be proud of. Our heritage is filled with people who founded a democracy, freed slaves and gave women the right to vote. All of these were once thought impossible or impractical. We just have to follow in the footsteps of those who were willing to challenge the doubters.
February 24th, 2007 12:39
By Activism I mean in a general sense, intentional action to bring about social or political change.
February 24th, 2007 15:57
Carol,
So, if I decided racism and sexism were wrong, and called for an end to Black History Month (race segregation) and all-girls schools (sex segregation), would you consider that activism?
Rick
February 26th, 2007 13:14
Yes, I would consider this to be Activism, although I don’t know how many would pick up the cause.
February 26th, 2007 23:45
Hi Rick,
You make a good point that we need to know what the extremes are because in some sense they do define us. They are lines a society collectively will not cross. But by the same token I think we let the extremes define us to too great an extent. It’s one of the reasons that I have hope for Bravehumans. For me this is about finding the MIDDLE that defines us. I think we have pretty good idea at this point what lines various groups will not cross. How about finding the ones they will?
As far as the problems with Unions. I agree. The current large Unions are often quite problematic. But as far as a completely free and open market (as Scott seems to suggest) with no constraints on it, I find this problematic as well. A publicly held corporation is responsible to only its stockholders. They, in turn, care only for a profitable return on their stock investment. This is primarily a short-term concern because if a company goes belly up trying to prop up artificial short-term gains, the stockholders hope they can see this coming and move on to a new investment before it happens. If a company does not provide a high enough short-term return, the stockholders again leave and look for a better investment. Everything else is details: The employees, the town the company exists in, the long-term health and profitability of the company all take a back seat to short-term gain. Not to beat a dead horse but this is what brought us Enron, Worldcom and others. I, for one, Look for a BIT of oversight from some outside agency and (as sad as it is) the Feds seem the best choice.
-Grant
February 27th, 2007 12:18
Hi Carol,
I purposely used those examples because I believed you would be against them. I know a number of people that believe “activism” is only when their issues are being positively promoted, but look for censorship when an opposing view is being promoted.
I appreciate it that you see advocacy for all issues as being important, even those with which you might disagree.
Grant,
Interesting point on finding the middle. I hadn’t thought of it that way before.
As we know from our own branches of government, the defining of appropriate checks and balances is an intricate undertaking. We don’t police it well amongst the “civil” servants, and therefore I don’t trust that those “civil” servants are the appropriate people to police businesses, markets, et al.
Cleveland, OH is painfully aware of the “everything else is details” issue, but is also proof positive that the politicians are not the people to fix it. Ugh!