In 1942, the eminent economist Joseph Schumpeter coined one of the most profound terms in modern economic theory: "creative destruction." In his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, he argued that free market capitalism is always a messy work-in-progress. It is an economic system that is inherently unstable due to the dynamics of entrepreneurship, competition, technological discoveries, innovations, and productivity improvements. These systemic characteristics destroy existing products and markets while providing greater value to consumers. Because he approved of thses characteristics as modes of positive economic behavior, he said that in the long run such destruction of old businesses was creative of new and better products. It was actually creative, even though some interests and individuals were damaged, while on the whole many people benefitted. He saw economic growth as spurts of creative destruction along with entrepreneurship and innovation.
Unfortunately, history tells us of many negative modes of economic behavior. The free market system is unstable for many bad reasons, too. Businessmen can destroy their own enterprises along with the whole free market economic system with absolutely no creativity. Schumpeter ignored the dark side of American capitalism: the abuses and stupidity of too many bad business practices, personal greed, and the creation of monopolies to eliminate competition and fix higher prices. In the American economic system there is extraordinary pressure on enterprises to show attractive short-term profits -- to make money, as much and as soon as possible. Americans prize immediate successes. The fixation on short-term goals often leads to short-sighted decisions and corporate policies, and investments. Managers get bonuses for quarterly profits even at the expense of long-term business growth. There also have been corrupt businessmen who have deceived customers and investors through false claims and down-right lies. They often cover up their greed and selfishness with false reports and falsified tax returns. In he pocess they can destroy customer and investor confidence with ripples through the entire economic system. Consumers will stop spending and investors will sell off stocks when they lose trust in business.
In a national democracy with a nation-wide economy where individuals are workers, consumers, investors, voters, and taxpayers all at the same time, does the government have the responsibility to protect the people by regulating business practices and policing non-creative destruction of the free market econmy as though they were victimized by common criminals or attacked by hostile foreign invaders? Too many conservatives and business people would say "no way" and "over my dead body." Along with plenty of innocent dead bodies as well. If left entirely on its own, the greed, selfishness, and stupidity of a few players would make the free market system so unstable that it might destroy itself.
Copyright 2018 Stephen M. Millett (all rights reserved)
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Tuesday, July 24, 2018
The Curse of Sarah Palin
A milestone of contemporary American politics was hit on September 24 and 25, 2008, when CBS aired Katie Couric's interviews with Gov. Sarah Palin, the GOP candidate for Vice President. At the time, many people were appalled by the Alaskan governor's superficial knowledge of American domestic and foreign issues. They should not have been. The curse of Sarah Palin was that it was not what you knew or how much experience you had but rather what you believed in that counted most. She expressed a feeling of frustration and indignation that reflected the mood of many Americans who would later support Donald Trump. And still do.
The idea that candidates for public office should be well informed is now seen as elitist. It reflects the values of well-educated Americans who dominate the professions, high skilled occupations, and most middle management in manufacturing and services. They are the American urban upper middle class. They place the accent on proven competency for any position of responsibility, regardless of race, gender, ethnic origins, religion,or personal orientation. They respect preparation, analysis, and rational problem-solving. These same people get denounced as liberals, do-gooders, and snobs. By 2018 they might even be accused of constituting the Resistance.
Gov. Palin called Barack Obama a socialist. Name calling was certainly not new. What was new was the deliberate use of disinformation and blatant lies to attack political opponents. For example, Palin popularized the wrong idea that Obamacare would create medical review panels that might deny coverage to the chronically ill and dying. She called them the death panels, and her followers believed her.
Her beliefs morphed into the Tea Party movement that merged with the alt right to support Donald Trump. In 2016 they captured the Republican Party. Today, President Trump consistently exploits disinformation to shore up his base of supporters, which might be as large as one-third of the American active electorate. This base includes white men of the Baby Boomer Generation who are still fighting the battles of the 1960s, unrelenting Republican partisans, anti-regulation vested interests, the very rich who hate income taxes, people with lesser education and skills who have lost once well-paying jobs due to technological changes and industry restructuring, deeply religious people who adhere to a rigid reading of the Bible, and rural populations in decline who have nowhere else to go. They are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-Muslim, anti-free trade, anti-immigration, and pro-military. They worry about the Iranians, ISIS, and the North Koreans, but not the Russians. They blame their own troubles on the snobbish urban elite that looks down on them, assertive minorities, Hispanic immigrants, and social deviants. They greatly fear violence in the forms of crime, riots, and acts of terrorism (but not so much school shootings). They see conspiracies everywhere and dread social upheaval. And yet, if the U. S. were to have a violent revolution or a new kind of civil war, wound it not come from the Trump supporters after the eventual political fall of their hero? After all, they are the people who are armed to the teeth and warn "Don't Tread on Me"
(C) 2018 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
The idea that candidates for public office should be well informed is now seen as elitist. It reflects the values of well-educated Americans who dominate the professions, high skilled occupations, and most middle management in manufacturing and services. They are the American urban upper middle class. They place the accent on proven competency for any position of responsibility, regardless of race, gender, ethnic origins, religion,or personal orientation. They respect preparation, analysis, and rational problem-solving. These same people get denounced as liberals, do-gooders, and snobs. By 2018 they might even be accused of constituting the Resistance.
Gov. Palin called Barack Obama a socialist. Name calling was certainly not new. What was new was the deliberate use of disinformation and blatant lies to attack political opponents. For example, Palin popularized the wrong idea that Obamacare would create medical review panels that might deny coverage to the chronically ill and dying. She called them the death panels, and her followers believed her.
Her beliefs morphed into the Tea Party movement that merged with the alt right to support Donald Trump. In 2016 they captured the Republican Party. Today, President Trump consistently exploits disinformation to shore up his base of supporters, which might be as large as one-third of the American active electorate. This base includes white men of the Baby Boomer Generation who are still fighting the battles of the 1960s, unrelenting Republican partisans, anti-regulation vested interests, the very rich who hate income taxes, people with lesser education and skills who have lost once well-paying jobs due to technological changes and industry restructuring, deeply religious people who adhere to a rigid reading of the Bible, and rural populations in decline who have nowhere else to go. They are anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-Muslim, anti-free trade, anti-immigration, and pro-military. They worry about the Iranians, ISIS, and the North Koreans, but not the Russians. They blame their own troubles on the snobbish urban elite that looks down on them, assertive minorities, Hispanic immigrants, and social deviants. They greatly fear violence in the forms of crime, riots, and acts of terrorism (but not so much school shootings). They see conspiracies everywhere and dread social upheaval. And yet, if the U. S. were to have a violent revolution or a new kind of civil war, wound it not come from the Trump supporters after the eventual political fall of their hero? After all, they are the people who are armed to the teeth and warn "Don't Tread on Me"
(C) 2018 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
Monday, July 9, 2018
The Great American Fearleader
President Donald Trump has emerged as the Great American Fearleader. He exploited American fears in 2016 to win votes and he continues to manipulate them for his growing political power and his own personal glorification. He consistently makes inflammatory statements and does things that further flame the fears that in turn solidify his political base. He then presents fake solutions to those fears that make him look like a great American savior. Whatever he does, he will claim that he has indeed made America great again.
Let's look at just three example.
In 2017, Trump denounced the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as the "Rocket Man" who threatened the U.S. with nuclear missiles. He flamed global fears of North Korea setting off a nuclear holocaust with massive American retaliation that might draw in China and Russia, too. Then Trump met with Kim in June 2018 in a highly staged diplomatic adaptation of reality TV and announced that North Korea no longer posed a nuclear threat to the U.S. He incorrectly claimed that Kim had in good faith assured him of North Korean denuclearization, but subsequent negotiations have shown that the North Koreans have no intension of abandoning their form of nuclear deterrence. Will the North Koreans eventually come to verifiable nuclear disarmament? We shall see.
Trump has said that unfair trade agreements have allowed foreign countries to exploit American consumers and workers. He claimed that trade with China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico was to blame for offshore manufacturing and the loss of millions of American jobs. To restore fair trade, if not tree trade, Trump has imposed tariffs on goods from these countries, which in turn have imposed tariffs on American goods that are likely to hurt further millions of American farmers, workers, and consumers. We have now a trade war. No doubt Trump will come up with some kind of solution that appears like a great American victory. We shall see.
In 2016 he condemned the flow of Mexicans into the U.S.: "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He characterized illegal immigrants and furthermore all Hispanic immigrants as poor people and criminals who would victimize Americans because the U.S. had become the "dumping ground" for all the world's problems. He further warned of Muslim immigration that would allow terrorists into the U.S. to kill Americans. So Trump instituted by executive orders a ban on immigrants from selected countries. In 2018 he encouraged the give-no-quarter crack down on illegal immigrants crossing the Rio Grande River by separating children from parents. Now he promises to reunite immigrant families and still maintain border security. He asserts that nothing less than a wall will secure Americans from the exploitation of foreign people. We shall see. But how long will it take?
(c) 2018 Stephen M. Millett. All rights reserved.
Let's look at just three example.
In 2017, Trump denounced the North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un as the "Rocket Man" who threatened the U.S. with nuclear missiles. He flamed global fears of North Korea setting off a nuclear holocaust with massive American retaliation that might draw in China and Russia, too. Then Trump met with Kim in June 2018 in a highly staged diplomatic adaptation of reality TV and announced that North Korea no longer posed a nuclear threat to the U.S. He incorrectly claimed that Kim had in good faith assured him of North Korean denuclearization, but subsequent negotiations have shown that the North Koreans have no intension of abandoning their form of nuclear deterrence. Will the North Koreans eventually come to verifiable nuclear disarmament? We shall see.
Trump has said that unfair trade agreements have allowed foreign countries to exploit American consumers and workers. He claimed that trade with China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico was to blame for offshore manufacturing and the loss of millions of American jobs. To restore fair trade, if not tree trade, Trump has imposed tariffs on goods from these countries, which in turn have imposed tariffs on American goods that are likely to hurt further millions of American farmers, workers, and consumers. We have now a trade war. No doubt Trump will come up with some kind of solution that appears like a great American victory. We shall see.
In 2016 he condemned the flow of Mexicans into the U.S.: "They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." He characterized illegal immigrants and furthermore all Hispanic immigrants as poor people and criminals who would victimize Americans because the U.S. had become the "dumping ground" for all the world's problems. He further warned of Muslim immigration that would allow terrorists into the U.S. to kill Americans. So Trump instituted by executive orders a ban on immigrants from selected countries. In 2018 he encouraged the give-no-quarter crack down on illegal immigrants crossing the Rio Grande River by separating children from parents. Now he promises to reunite immigrant families and still maintain border security. He asserts that nothing less than a wall will secure Americans from the exploitation of foreign people. We shall see. But how long will it take?
(c) 2018 Stephen M. Millett. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 10, 2017
The Garrison State Today
On February 24, 2017, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association told the Conservative Political Action Conference that "Right now, we face a gathering of forces that are willing to use violence against us....Among them and behind them are some of the most radical political elements there are. Anarchists, Marxists, Communists and the whole rest of the left-wing socialist brigade."
This is an example today of the concept of the garrison state identified by Prof. Harold Lasswell in 1941. Lasswell was describing the totalitarian regimes of both the fascist right (Hitler and Mussolini) and the Communist left (Stalin). His concept became further developed as the siege mentality, whereby a whole society can believe and act as though they were captives within a besieged city (or country).
We continue to see many examples of governments in which the leaders persistently cry out against foreign threats and internal subversion. They not only exaggerate the threats, they exacerbate them in order to foist a sense of great danger that will convince people that they need to support the government's policies. These include higher military spending, the law and order crackdown of dissidents, the promotion of traditional social and religious values, and the suppression of free speech and press. In the end, the goal is not so much to protect the country as it is to promote the interests of certain internal groups and to maintain the individuals and the party in power.
President Donald J. Trump, with the solid support of his base, including the National Rifle Association, is the current leader of an emerging garrison state in the U.S. He is encouraging the siege mentality of Americans by emphasizing the dire threats of radical Islamic extremists and terrorists, ISIS, the nuclear threat of North Korea, the nuclear threat of Iran, proposed restrictions to the Second Amendment, and the dangers of illegal immigrants, especially Hispanics, to the safety and security of Americans everywhere. He discourages the freedom of speech and the press by denouncing stories that challenge him as "fake news" to be disbelieved and rejected.
Trump is not concerned with unifying the American people. On the contrary, he feeds contentious divisions and social unrest with fear and anger to increase the siege mentality. He himself and his White House staff display symptoms of deep paranoia.
By scaring people, Trump is promoting an agenda that is highly favorable to certain interests and individuals in the U.S. He does this through increasing budgets for Defense and Homeland Security, restricting immigration, constructing a wall along our border with Mexico, permitting the private exploitation of public lands in the West, rejecting global climate change in favor of fossil fuels (especially oil and coal), and passing tax "reforms" that provide tremendous concessions to large corporations, corporate executives, stock investors, investment portfolio managers, and other very high income and wealthy people.
Those people of the Trump base without so much material but with high emotional interests indicate that they are OK with the crumbs from the table according to supply-side, trickle-down economic theories. They continue to trust Trump and long for making America great again, which they see as crushing all of Trump's and their own enemies, foreign and domestic, real and imagined.
It is obvious that high income individuals and the interest groups of the Trump base will gain much in material advantages from the siege mentality. But how will the base of true believers also benefit?
(c) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (all rights reserved)
This is an example today of the concept of the garrison state identified by Prof. Harold Lasswell in 1941. Lasswell was describing the totalitarian regimes of both the fascist right (Hitler and Mussolini) and the Communist left (Stalin). His concept became further developed as the siege mentality, whereby a whole society can believe and act as though they were captives within a besieged city (or country).
We continue to see many examples of governments in which the leaders persistently cry out against foreign threats and internal subversion. They not only exaggerate the threats, they exacerbate them in order to foist a sense of great danger that will convince people that they need to support the government's policies. These include higher military spending, the law and order crackdown of dissidents, the promotion of traditional social and religious values, and the suppression of free speech and press. In the end, the goal is not so much to protect the country as it is to promote the interests of certain internal groups and to maintain the individuals and the party in power.
President Donald J. Trump, with the solid support of his base, including the National Rifle Association, is the current leader of an emerging garrison state in the U.S. He is encouraging the siege mentality of Americans by emphasizing the dire threats of radical Islamic extremists and terrorists, ISIS, the nuclear threat of North Korea, the nuclear threat of Iran, proposed restrictions to the Second Amendment, and the dangers of illegal immigrants, especially Hispanics, to the safety and security of Americans everywhere. He discourages the freedom of speech and the press by denouncing stories that challenge him as "fake news" to be disbelieved and rejected.
Trump is not concerned with unifying the American people. On the contrary, he feeds contentious divisions and social unrest with fear and anger to increase the siege mentality. He himself and his White House staff display symptoms of deep paranoia.
By scaring people, Trump is promoting an agenda that is highly favorable to certain interests and individuals in the U.S. He does this through increasing budgets for Defense and Homeland Security, restricting immigration, constructing a wall along our border with Mexico, permitting the private exploitation of public lands in the West, rejecting global climate change in favor of fossil fuels (especially oil and coal), and passing tax "reforms" that provide tremendous concessions to large corporations, corporate executives, stock investors, investment portfolio managers, and other very high income and wealthy people.
Those people of the Trump base without so much material but with high emotional interests indicate that they are OK with the crumbs from the table according to supply-side, trickle-down economic theories. They continue to trust Trump and long for making America great again, which they see as crushing all of Trump's and their own enemies, foreign and domestic, real and imagined.
It is obvious that high income individuals and the interest groups of the Trump base will gain much in material advantages from the siege mentality. But how will the base of true believers also benefit?
(c) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (all rights reserved)
Sunday, September 17, 2017
Politics Are Personal
In my book American Ways, I identified the four corners of American politics: money, issues, organizations, and personalities (pp. 168-171). These four corners have provided the foundation of American politics since colonial times, but at different times some of these corners have appeared more prominently than others.
Money has always been important to pay for electoral campaigns. It has also played a major role in competing interests trying to win advantage through contributions and favors in the public arena; in return for their support, they see the kinds of regulations and taxes that they desire. They may also get repaid through government patronage and contracts. The border between money as a form of freedom of speech and money as corruption has always been hazy.
Issues have included both concrete matters, such as the gold standard in 1896 and the continuation of the New Deal in 1936, and abstract ideals, such as states' rights, personal liberties, and limited government. They include political, social, and economic ideals and ideology.
Organizations relate primarily to political institutions and parties. They provide the structure for the processes of American representative democracy. Congress, for example, passes laws according to very specific rules of order. Parties give cohesion and continuity between elections and the organization with which to get voters registered and delivered to the polls on election days. For some political leaders, party loyalty may be more compelling than issues and maybe even money.
During the 1980s, Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill claimed that all politics are local. My corollary is that all politics are personal. The personalities of candidates go a long way in attracting financial supporters and voters. Successful political leaders often exude exceptional personal charm. They can be poignant, charismatic, and entertaining. They can arouse public emotions, either inspirational optimism or angry indignation. Once in office, in complex negotiations over public policy the ability of leaders to trust each other and engage in productive inter-personal dealings count for a great deal.
It presently appears that personalities are extremely important to President Donald Trump. He was a well-known TV personality with high ratings before 2016 and he continues to crave public adulation in the White House. He is very wealthy and not much concerned with money (besides his own). He is not doctrinaire, contrary to much of his rhetoric; he is more interested in practical results than ideological purity. In this regard, Trump is at odds with the rigidly opinioned Freedom Caucus in the House. It has been reported that Trump does not care for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who highly values the integrity of the U.S. Senate and the long-term unity of the Republican Party. Trump likes to make deals in public policy like he made real estate deals. Therefore, he likes people he can relate to, joke with, respect, and ultimately trust. Such a person may prove to be a Democrat: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Looking forward, the compromises finally reached on Obamacare, immigration, budgets, and taxes may be reached through the social dynamics of the streets of New York.
(c) 2016 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
Money has always been important to pay for electoral campaigns. It has also played a major role in competing interests trying to win advantage through contributions and favors in the public arena; in return for their support, they see the kinds of regulations and taxes that they desire. They may also get repaid through government patronage and contracts. The border between money as a form of freedom of speech and money as corruption has always been hazy.
Issues have included both concrete matters, such as the gold standard in 1896 and the continuation of the New Deal in 1936, and abstract ideals, such as states' rights, personal liberties, and limited government. They include political, social, and economic ideals and ideology.
Organizations relate primarily to political institutions and parties. They provide the structure for the processes of American representative democracy. Congress, for example, passes laws according to very specific rules of order. Parties give cohesion and continuity between elections and the organization with which to get voters registered and delivered to the polls on election days. For some political leaders, party loyalty may be more compelling than issues and maybe even money.
During the 1980s, Speaker of the House "Tip" O'Neill claimed that all politics are local. My corollary is that all politics are personal. The personalities of candidates go a long way in attracting financial supporters and voters. Successful political leaders often exude exceptional personal charm. They can be poignant, charismatic, and entertaining. They can arouse public emotions, either inspirational optimism or angry indignation. Once in office, in complex negotiations over public policy the ability of leaders to trust each other and engage in productive inter-personal dealings count for a great deal.
It presently appears that personalities are extremely important to President Donald Trump. He was a well-known TV personality with high ratings before 2016 and he continues to crave public adulation in the White House. He is very wealthy and not much concerned with money (besides his own). He is not doctrinaire, contrary to much of his rhetoric; he is more interested in practical results than ideological purity. In this regard, Trump is at odds with the rigidly opinioned Freedom Caucus in the House. It has been reported that Trump does not care for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who highly values the integrity of the U.S. Senate and the long-term unity of the Republican Party. Trump likes to make deals in public policy like he made real estate deals. Therefore, he likes people he can relate to, joke with, respect, and ultimately trust. Such a person may prove to be a Democrat: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. Looking forward, the compromises finally reached on Obamacare, immigration, budgets, and taxes may be reached through the social dynamics of the streets of New York.
(c) 2016 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
The American Politics of Afghanistan
In Chapter 8 of American Ways, I observed that "Americans view their relations with other countries as more or less extensions of their relations with each other, with typically compatible combinations of self-interests and ideals, so that American foreign policy often has more to do with domestic than with international politics." (p. 281).
We saw an example of this general trend in American history in the speech that President Donald Trump gave on Monday, August 21, 2017. The President rejected the policy option of American withdrawal after 16 years of our fighting in Afghanistan and pledged eventual victory there over the Taliban, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. He did not say how this could be achieved or when. He did not specify what constituted "victory," but he said that it would depend upon conditions, also not defined, in Afghanistan and not upon some artificial timetable.
Although the President acted as though his new policy was based on careful analysis of the realities of the Middle East and South Asia, Trump's re-invigorated war in Afghanistan has more to do with domestic than international politics. It is based primarily on the ideals and self-interests of his political base, upon which he expects to win re-election in 2020. What are the political appeals of an extended war and the hope of victory in Afghanistan?
At a very basic level, Trump's war in Afghanistan diverts national attention away from or makes up for domestic political disasters, such as the investigations into Russian meddling in the American elections of 2016, the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, and the white supremacy mess of Charlottesville. It's an old political maneuver to shift public attention from divisive domestic to unifying foreign issues.
In particular, Trump is arousing the patriotism of national unity that focuses on military might and service values. Among other demographics, one target is the aging Boomers who painfully remember Vietnam. They seek a military victory in the future that will compensate for the frustrations of Southeast Asia some half-century ago. This generation today is prone to hold in contempt those who might be soft on terrorism like those in the past who were seen as being soft on communism. They believe deeply in teamwork and social cohesion. Trump gains politically when he convinces people that he is a strong leader who knows how to solve problems with the advice of generals.
Furthermore, there are young men and women from small towns and rural areas around the country who enlist primarily because the Armed Forces present the best paying jobs to be had. Their families and neighbors know this, too, and they enthusiastically support the military as the industry that supports their children.
There certainly are Americans who deeply believe in a strong military to defend liberty and the American way of life against foreign enemies. They greatly fear ISIS and foreign-generated acts of terrorism in the U.S. Nobody wants another 9/11. And along with high ideals often come the self-interests of military patriotism, including the pay and benefits of the military, the revenues of military contractors and suppliers, and the election of representatives in districts and states with military bases and instillations. Defense has been a strong sector of the American economy, and a strong economy provides strong politics.
Trump is probably correct in his expectations that some kind of military success in Afghanistan could be called "victory" and leveraged for political gain. On the other hand, he is tempting the same fate of other nations and leaders who have tried and failed to extend their foreign policy goals into this region of the world, including the British and Russians over the last two centuries.
(C) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
We saw an example of this general trend in American history in the speech that President Donald Trump gave on Monday, August 21, 2017. The President rejected the policy option of American withdrawal after 16 years of our fighting in Afghanistan and pledged eventual victory there over the Taliban, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. He did not say how this could be achieved or when. He did not specify what constituted "victory," but he said that it would depend upon conditions, also not defined, in Afghanistan and not upon some artificial timetable.
Although the President acted as though his new policy was based on careful analysis of the realities of the Middle East and South Asia, Trump's re-invigorated war in Afghanistan has more to do with domestic than international politics. It is based primarily on the ideals and self-interests of his political base, upon which he expects to win re-election in 2020. What are the political appeals of an extended war and the hope of victory in Afghanistan?
At a very basic level, Trump's war in Afghanistan diverts national attention away from or makes up for domestic political disasters, such as the investigations into Russian meddling in the American elections of 2016, the failure to repeal and replace Obamacare, and the white supremacy mess of Charlottesville. It's an old political maneuver to shift public attention from divisive domestic to unifying foreign issues.
In particular, Trump is arousing the patriotism of national unity that focuses on military might and service values. Among other demographics, one target is the aging Boomers who painfully remember Vietnam. They seek a military victory in the future that will compensate for the frustrations of Southeast Asia some half-century ago. This generation today is prone to hold in contempt those who might be soft on terrorism like those in the past who were seen as being soft on communism. They believe deeply in teamwork and social cohesion. Trump gains politically when he convinces people that he is a strong leader who knows how to solve problems with the advice of generals.
Furthermore, there are young men and women from small towns and rural areas around the country who enlist primarily because the Armed Forces present the best paying jobs to be had. Their families and neighbors know this, too, and they enthusiastically support the military as the industry that supports their children.
There certainly are Americans who deeply believe in a strong military to defend liberty and the American way of life against foreign enemies. They greatly fear ISIS and foreign-generated acts of terrorism in the U.S. Nobody wants another 9/11. And along with high ideals often come the self-interests of military patriotism, including the pay and benefits of the military, the revenues of military contractors and suppliers, and the election of representatives in districts and states with military bases and instillations. Defense has been a strong sector of the American economy, and a strong economy provides strong politics.
Trump is probably correct in his expectations that some kind of military success in Afghanistan could be called "victory" and leveraged for political gain. On the other hand, he is tempting the same fate of other nations and leaders who have tried and failed to extend their foreign policy goals into this region of the world, including the British and Russians over the last two centuries.
(C) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
Saturday, August 5, 2017
The Importance of Process
In Chapter 6 of American Ways, I observed that "When Americans cannot agree on conflicting ideals and interests, they resort to agreeing on a fair and equitable process to resolve their conflicts peacefully." Since the earliest days of the colonies, Americans have asserted their individual ideals and interests. They often butt heads with other individuals doing the same. While Americans have enjoyed certain rights, they have never enjoyed the right to infringe the rights of other individuals. Had there been no agreed-upon procedures to settle numerous conflicts among individuals, Americans would have fought and killed each other off a long time ago.
Processes are extremely important to Americans. Most Americans have followed the axiom "live and let live." But to people with self-absorbed interests and absolute beliefs, the ends justify the means. We see this often in the business world of high-competition and high-expectations. Profits are what matter most to many business people and investors. But they have to stay within the boundaries of the law and social acceptability or they risk alienating authorities and customers. We also see people with uncompromising values who are willing to go to extremes regardless of who else gets hurt.
To most Americans since the 17th century, however, the means justify the ends. There are "right" and "wrong" ways to get things done, not just favorable or unfavorable results. If you live according to the rules, then you are entitled to your gains, and those gains become protected under the law with broad community approval. You are also respected by the community of other individuals.
What do the concepts of fair and equitable mean? "Fair" means that all parties in a dispute agree to a process by which to settle conflicts and then abide by the outcome. In the eyes of many Americans, "fair" may relate more to the process than to the results. If the process is run according to consensual rules, then you have to accept the results as fair even if they are not what you wanted. Then, you just move on. "Fair" also means that the process was run without trickery, corruption, or perversion of the rules. Many times Americans have tried to bend the process to get their desired results. Therefore, procedural knowledge and transparency are required. For example, judges, lawyers, and law enforcement agents must understand the American system of justice. And "equitable" means that all parties are treated the same with no biases based on political favor, power, wealth, or social standing. That's the concept, at least. Unfortunately, achieving the ideal is a continuous struggle in the practical world in which wealth and influence play such prominent roles in the day-to-day affairs of both business and government.
Furthermore, the concepts of fair and equitable in the operation of peaceful processes apply to the most powerful person in the country, the President of the United States. He or she cannot excuse any means to justify the ends. The Constitution lays out a process for national government with limited powers and internal checks and balances. Just as a judge in a court, the President has to know the proper institutional procedures and follow them with transparency. In addition, the sensitivities of the American people based on generations of social processes must be respected, even in the technological world of social media.
(C) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
Processes are extremely important to Americans. Most Americans have followed the axiom "live and let live." But to people with self-absorbed interests and absolute beliefs, the ends justify the means. We see this often in the business world of high-competition and high-expectations. Profits are what matter most to many business people and investors. But they have to stay within the boundaries of the law and social acceptability or they risk alienating authorities and customers. We also see people with uncompromising values who are willing to go to extremes regardless of who else gets hurt.
To most Americans since the 17th century, however, the means justify the ends. There are "right" and "wrong" ways to get things done, not just favorable or unfavorable results. If you live according to the rules, then you are entitled to your gains, and those gains become protected under the law with broad community approval. You are also respected by the community of other individuals.
What do the concepts of fair and equitable mean? "Fair" means that all parties in a dispute agree to a process by which to settle conflicts and then abide by the outcome. In the eyes of many Americans, "fair" may relate more to the process than to the results. If the process is run according to consensual rules, then you have to accept the results as fair even if they are not what you wanted. Then, you just move on. "Fair" also means that the process was run without trickery, corruption, or perversion of the rules. Many times Americans have tried to bend the process to get their desired results. Therefore, procedural knowledge and transparency are required. For example, judges, lawyers, and law enforcement agents must understand the American system of justice. And "equitable" means that all parties are treated the same with no biases based on political favor, power, wealth, or social standing. That's the concept, at least. Unfortunately, achieving the ideal is a continuous struggle in the practical world in which wealth and influence play such prominent roles in the day-to-day affairs of both business and government.
Furthermore, the concepts of fair and equitable in the operation of peaceful processes apply to the most powerful person in the country, the President of the United States. He or she cannot excuse any means to justify the ends. The Constitution lays out a process for national government with limited powers and internal checks and balances. Just as a judge in a court, the President has to know the proper institutional procedures and follow them with transparency. In addition, the sensitivities of the American people based on generations of social processes must be respected, even in the technological world of social media.
(C) 2017 Stephen M. Millett (All rights reserved)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)