Warning! Long article ahead!
Today in social entrepreneurship we had a rousing lecture by our professor, Ron Lindorf, who is a highly successful entrepreneur. What follows is what he said to us, usually in his words.
Ron, at age 12, experienced his older brother's death, forcing him to confront the reality of mortality at a young age. This, he says, provided the ability to "not care what other people think. There's no bets on death." While in Jr. High, he started a successful window-washing business, employing two brothers from his school at $2 an hour while making $55 from each job. While pursuing his graduate degree in communications at BYU he bought Volkswagen cars for cheap, drove or trucked them down to California, and sold them there for more than a 700% markup. Needless to say his class attendance was not the best. In fact, in 6th grade his report card gave him full marks (a 1) for achievement but the lowest marks (a 3) for effort. He says, "I did exactly the amount of effort needed to get those 1s." Speaking of his entrepreneurial spirit, he said, "I'm not like those other guys. There are those entrepreneurs who are just smart. Captain of the track team, head boy in a group . . . they're the annoying ones. I'm a reluctant entrepreneur. Nobody would hire me and so I just thought, how can I generate some revenue?"
We don't make our own decisions often enough, Ron says. Growing up in the church, our decision making skill is sometimes crippled. We are a product of the thousands of small decisions we make during our lifetime, and there are plenty of bad decisions to make even in the framework of how our lives are planned out. "Is it better to marry the right person at the right time outside of the temple or to marry the wrong person at the wrong time inside of it?" Ethical decisions are some of the decisions that we don't see as often. Those that have made some bad decisions have learned early on how to make good decisions. We need to make more of our own decisions.
An important factor is an internal locus of control. This is what Ron developed in his high school years after his brother died. This is a critical component of a successful entrepreneur. Changing the world, not letting the world change you. Figuring out that "you don't have to let other people muck around with what you decide."
Ron gave the example of the L.A. Riots. During the riots, not a single 1st generation Korean immigrant with the entrepreneurial spirit had their business burned down. Why? Because the same spirit that pushed them to come to America and start their own business (usually a liquor store), to find a location, and to push for a better life for them and their children pushed them to climb on top of their roofs with AK-47s and illegal semi-automatics and pistols and shoot at the feet of anyone who looked like they were coming to cause trouble. They had that spirit that enables them to risk it all, and then to stand on the roof and defend it when their whole life's work, 10-15 years, is threatened. Not one of their businesses were touched.
"Some time long ago," Ron said, "we all had to decide. We were pitched two different ideas. One said, 'Look, it won't be hard. I mean, you can have security, you can go home at 5 and get a pay check every two weeks, there won't be any risk.' The other one said, 'Hey, it'll be hard. There'll be times when you fail, when you make mistakes, when you risk it all. There will be rough patches. You will have to work from nine to midnight every night after your wife goes to bed. But in the end it will be fair." Every measly human on this planet chose plan B. This is how Ron sees the world. So why can we go work at the post office and show up every morning and salute and go to work and then get off at five and do that for 40 years with nothing changing? We can get up and go to work among the devil's followers for 40 years and do nothing. But can we not come up with ideas about how to make it better? Can we stay an extra hour once in a while to get some things done? A person who does this, he says, will make it to leadership positions. Moving up within the system. Even that is following Christ. Sometimes it seems like forever that things don't happen and all the extra work does nothing. But somehow it will pay off.
Instant gratification. America doesn't know how to put it off. This part kind of led into a discussion about inflation and about how it's a silent tax on the people of the lowest income level and the middle class. So what do policy makers do? They can't tax the people who elect them or they're booted out. The upper level doesn't have enough wealth to keep up with a $10 trillion national debt. So what do we do? We let people overseas buy our bonds. Of course, as Ron says, "it's somewhat patriotic to hose the Chinese when they buy up our debt and then our dollar inflates." He also brought up the fact that as American car makers fire people over here and then outsource to other countries it actually creates a middle class in China and India. Bucketloads of people who would normally earn $1 a day are now earning $3-9 a day. Our world is going on sort of it's own wealth redistribution system.
All the people who originally came from England to this country were the ones who took the risk. They said goodbye to people who they'd never see again for some fantastic story they had heard, sold what they had and acquired a little capital, and risked everything. Every single person in the country has that in their DNA. Maybe it was from a couple generations ago.
So how watered down is your DNA by Corporate America? The fire of creating an income generating activity as a business has gone out of 90% of the people, statistically speaking. Of course, Ron recognizes that not everybody can be an entrepreneur. As an entrepreneur, this is how he sees the world to explain what he does to himself. The whole purpose of Corporate America, he says, is to preserve the status quo. "'I don't think we can do that.' ' Even if it increases your revenue by $4 million in a $10 million company?' 'Well....'
"It's because they like security! Go home at five and have security."
Entrepreneurs are weird. Talking to many people, Ron has found that entrepreneurs all have some sort of story. Or that all entrepreneurs have some sort of story. They all had to discover, or decide, rather, what he and Gibson (the other instructor of the class) discovered. They don't let what people think affect them. At all.
So are we going to work among the devil's followers our whole lives and lay down and die when the riots start? Or are we they type of person that crawls up on the roof with our AK-47 after risking everything to come to America and start a business? Internal locus of control! Don't let what other people think affect you! Trust more in the Atonement! We're supposed to make mistakes. Honest mistakes. Learn wisdom in thy youth. How? We have to learn through experience. Ron advises to work for somebody else for five years to make mistakes on somebody else's time and money. But don't just sit around!
Anyway, needless to say, an hour and a half of listening to this brilliant, accomplished, spiritual, driving, caring man was something.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Friday, July 11, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
News Article both Saddens and Brightens
Published on June 1st, a recent New York Times article discusses President George W. Bush's recent commencement address at Furman University. My personal discussion on the article and event appears below.
I am saddened by the faculty at Furman.
Well, not all of the faculty.
First of all, let me explain what I believe. People have the right to disagree with the President. People have the right to their own opinions. People have the privilege of signing a petition sheet:
Furthermore, look at the message that President Bush is giving the students. That is just the sort of direction the country needs in these troubling times, regardless of his actions in Iraq. Let's get the country headed in the right direction.
This does kind of show though - as a coworker of my mother said:
The Republicans want to control nothing but one's morals; the Democrats want to control everything but one's morals.
When it comes to morals, I wish the country would choose to have good morals to begin with. Then the whole conundrum of whether to force morals on anybody wouldn't have to be dealt with.
I am saddened by the faculty at Furman.
Well, not all of the faculty.
First of all, let me explain what I believe. People have the right to disagree with the President. People have the right to their own opinions. People have the privilege of signing a petition sheet:
More than 200 Furman professors and students signed a statement criticizing Bush administration policies and the Iraq war.See, that's OK. That is fine. What gets me is when people don't show respect for the office of President of the United States, the highest office attainable in this country. Nobody but those who have sweat and labored, and yes, even lied to get there (not something I'm endorsing - completely the opposite) know how difficult, how challenging, and how pressured the President is. One may or may not agree with the President, but one should still respect the work and the will of the people in force behind him (I'll say that until there actually is a her President, then I'll worry about political correctness). The President is the Cheif Citizen. He is the Chief Executive, the CEO of the United States. He is the Chief Legislator, setting the course for public policy. He is the Chief Diplomat. He is the leader of the country, and regardless of one's views, should be held in a higher esteem and treated better than he is.
Furthermore, look at the message that President Bush is giving the students. That is just the sort of direction the country needs in these troubling times, regardless of his actions in Iraq. Let's get the country headed in the right direction.
This does kind of show though - as a coworker of my mother said:
The Republicans want to control nothing but one's morals; the Democrats want to control everything but one's morals.
When it comes to morals, I wish the country would choose to have good morals to begin with. Then the whole conundrum of whether to force morals on anybody wouldn't have to be dealt with.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lanahans Round 2
Once again it becomes necessary to turn again to governmental politics for tomorrow.
James Ceaser/Andrew Busch - Red Over Blue
The elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 brought with them a major increase in Republican leadership. There are four major policy dimensions: the economy, welfare issues (health, education, etc.), national security, and what has variously been called "social" or "moral" concerns. The red-blue divide leads to dichotomous thinking. The gender and race gaps in voting are closing, and more and more it is the issues that take the lead in polarization. The political realignment theory discuss before is attacked by David Mayhew. Ceaser and Busch take a less "dramatic" version of the realignment theory and apply it to the election of 2004. Conservatism has gained enormous ground. To me this means that our country has become like a prevelent female attitude (females, please take no offense from this) - trying to get to age 20 or so as fast as possible, then spending the rest of her life trying to remain that age. Same with conservatism and our country.
Earl Black/Merle Black - The Rise of Southern Republicans
This is mostly about the Solid Democratic South and its shift. The shift in the south toward Republicanism has "restored competition to America's presidential politics [and] revitalized congressional politics." There was a Great White Switch when Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The South has become a most important high stakes component of the national two-party war.
John White - The Values Divide
The twenty-first century is an intensely personal political realm. The value divide between liberals and conservatives over lifestyle issues has become a chasm. There is a huge difference between those who attend church and those who don't. Duh. According to White, values matter today more than ever, but politics can't cope.
Mark Monmonier - Bushmanders and Bullwinkles
Gerrymandering and remapping are discussed in this segment. And I'm tired...and I'm done with this segment. Sorry for the lame post, but I'm...really...tired.
James Ceaser/Andrew Busch - Red Over Blue
The elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 brought with them a major increase in Republican leadership. There are four major policy dimensions: the economy, welfare issues (health, education, etc.), national security, and what has variously been called "social" or "moral" concerns. The red-blue divide leads to dichotomous thinking. The gender and race gaps in voting are closing, and more and more it is the issues that take the lead in polarization. The political realignment theory discuss before is attacked by David Mayhew. Ceaser and Busch take a less "dramatic" version of the realignment theory and apply it to the election of 2004. Conservatism has gained enormous ground. To me this means that our country has become like a prevelent female attitude (females, please take no offense from this) - trying to get to age 20 or so as fast as possible, then spending the rest of her life trying to remain that age. Same with conservatism and our country.
Earl Black/Merle Black - The Rise of Southern Republicans
This is mostly about the Solid Democratic South and its shift. The shift in the south toward Republicanism has "restored competition to America's presidential politics [and] revitalized congressional politics." There was a Great White Switch when Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The South has become a most important high stakes component of the national two-party war.
John White - The Values Divide
The twenty-first century is an intensely personal political realm. The value divide between liberals and conservatives over lifestyle issues has become a chasm. There is a huge difference between those who attend church and those who don't. Duh. According to White, values matter today more than ever, but politics can't cope.
Mark Monmonier - Bushmanders and Bullwinkles
Gerrymandering and remapping are discussed in this segment. And I'm tired...and I'm done with this segment. Sorry for the lame post, but I'm...really...tired.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Lanahan Readings...Again
Mr. McKeehan is really loading it on us now. We have to read eight excerpts from our Lanahan book, four sections out of our book, complete two+ online political ideology surveys, then write a three page paper on it...all by Wednesday. Today's Monday.
So here goes...I've already read a few excerpts and done the essay, so this will be relatively short.
V.O. Key - Public Opinion and American Democracy
Key attempts to explain the relation between people's opinions and the political leadership's opinions. In his opinion public opinion is useful as a parameter the ruling elite can maneuver in. This concept refers to what Key calls "Opinion Dikes." He says this because public opinion never exercises any initiative. It is more static. He finishes by saying the responsibility for indecision, decay, and disaster rests with the opinion-leader group because they influence public opinion, which in turn provides broad ideals of what is acceptable for governmental leaders to accomplish.
Lawrence Jacobs/Robert Shapiro - Politicians Don't Pander
The title says it all. The authors argue that politicians create a version of public opinion that coincides with their own objectives, and the media takes this view and makes it appear to the public that the politician's version of public opinion is in fact true public opinion. Gradually this effect shapes public opinion itself into what politicians want. The authors say that only the "heat of an imminent presidential election and the elevated attention that average voters devote to it motivate contemporary politicians to respond to public opinion and absorb the costs of compromising their policy goals." This seems to suggest that parties have different agendas and policy goals than do the people, which is a reasonable assumption. Politicians use to crafted words to simulate responsiveness. They create the appearance of responsiveness.
Walter Dean Burnham - Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics
Walter Dean Burnham talks about "critical realignments" and several key characteristics of this types of elections. First, they are associated with short and intense disruptions of traditional patterns of voting behavior. Second, the elections are characterized by abnormally high intensity, including the intensity of ideological polarizations. This intensity causes incumbent leadership to become more dogmatic, which in turn contributes to the intensity. Abnormally high voter turnout is also present. These realignments are like a train going slightly off course and then snapping back on to the rails with a bang. They occur with startling periodicity. These realignments are the result of the inability for parties to make gradual adjustments along vecotrs of emergent political demand.
That's all for tonight, folks.
So here goes...I've already read a few excerpts and done the essay, so this will be relatively short.
V.O. Key - Public Opinion and American Democracy
Key attempts to explain the relation between people's opinions and the political leadership's opinions. In his opinion public opinion is useful as a parameter the ruling elite can maneuver in. This concept refers to what Key calls "Opinion Dikes." He says this because public opinion never exercises any initiative. It is more static. He finishes by saying the responsibility for indecision, decay, and disaster rests with the opinion-leader group because they influence public opinion, which in turn provides broad ideals of what is acceptable for governmental leaders to accomplish.
Lawrence Jacobs/Robert Shapiro - Politicians Don't Pander
The title says it all. The authors argue that politicians create a version of public opinion that coincides with their own objectives, and the media takes this view and makes it appear to the public that the politician's version of public opinion is in fact true public opinion. Gradually this effect shapes public opinion itself into what politicians want. The authors say that only the "heat of an imminent presidential election and the elevated attention that average voters devote to it motivate contemporary politicians to respond to public opinion and absorb the costs of compromising their policy goals." This seems to suggest that parties have different agendas and policy goals than do the people, which is a reasonable assumption. Politicians use to crafted words to simulate responsiveness. They create the appearance of responsiveness.
Walter Dean Burnham - Critical Elections and the Mainsprings of American Politics
Walter Dean Burnham talks about "critical realignments" and several key characteristics of this types of elections. First, they are associated with short and intense disruptions of traditional patterns of voting behavior. Second, the elections are characterized by abnormally high intensity, including the intensity of ideological polarizations. This intensity causes incumbent leadership to become more dogmatic, which in turn contributes to the intensity. Abnormally high voter turnout is also present. These realignments are like a train going slightly off course and then snapping back on to the rails with a bang. They occur with startling periodicity. These realignments are the result of the inability for parties to make gradual adjustments along vecotrs of emergent political demand.
That's all for tonight, folks.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Our First Government Test
Tomorrow is our very first AP Government test. I will use this blog as a studying aid.
Philosophers
Thomas Hobbes - Englishman
Philosophers
Thomas Hobbes - Englishman
- In a State of Nature mankind is brutish and selfish and the system is very individualistic
- Social Contract - we give up some rights for protection
- Solution (I guess) was to have one ruler: a monarch
- Natural Rights - Life, Liberty (not racial liberty), Property (he was coming out of a feudalistic society)
- People's obligation to rebel and institute a new government because
- Government is responsible to the people
- Solution is to have a body created by the people as the ruler
- Absolute monarchy is indeed inconsistent with civil society - it is worse than a State of Nature
- England transitions from Divine Right to Constitutional Monarchy
- 3 functions to government - Legislative, Executive, Judicial
- Popularly elected legislators
- Popular army as counterbalance to both executive and legislative
- Mankind is naturally neither good/bad but corrupted by society
- Moral/Able leaders are needed
- A prince must know how to avoid the reproach of those vices which would lose him his state.
- A prince should be feared, not hated or loved. Fear should be his aim.
- The only way to establish and maintain a democracy is to have no "gentlemen" about - lazy, corrupt, etc people
- Let republics only be established where equality exists.
- Humans have a right to their own thoughts and the expression of those thoughts
- However, they cannot infringe upon other's same rights
- Public policy emerges from competition among groups
- Power flows from resources, which can include intangibles
- Power is distributed among various sources
- Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition
- Right to Bear Arms
- Quartering of Soldiers
- Unreasonable Search and Seizure - Warrants upon probable cause
- Trial and Punishment - Due Process of Law - Just Compensation of Aquirings
- Speedy/Public Trial - Assistance of Consul - Confront/Compulse Witnesses
- Trial By Jury if > $20
- Cruel/Unusual Punishment - Excessive Bail/Fines
- Other Rights Not in the Constitution
- Powers Not Delegated in Constitution Reserved to States/People
- Private Parties Cannot Try a State
- Electors Vote for both President and Vice-President
- Slavery Abolished
- Citizenship Rights - State Due Process Clause - Equal Protection
- Voting Not Based on Race
- Income Tax
Monday, January 28, 2008
State of the Union Address
Tonight I watched, along with my family, the State of the Union address given by President Bush. Actually, I only watched about a little more than a half of the full address, as we have no TV and I forgot about it anyway. I had to load up to a live stream on CNN, and the speech was already in progress.
I have maintained for years that if the dim-witted politicians who attend the address (and of course I'm being very ironic and untruthful here) would stop clapping after every third word the speech would only last 20 minutes, plus or minus a few for introductions, etc. I'm waiting for the President who announces, "please hold your applause until the end of my address this evening". Then I'll know we've found a top-notch President.
I found President Bush's speech talking a lot about "empowerment", and I agree. I am more inclined to be in favor of more of a government where the government just empowers private businesses and entrepreneurs and scientists. I like that idea. However, in my viewing of the last half of the speech I noticed that the President kept talking about increasing the budget for this and allocating double for that. How will we keep from deficit spending?
I found the democratic response to the State of the Union to be void of any real content. It was full of platitudes; she was just like Hamlet. "Join with us, and we can do great things. We can end all of these problems, just like the majority of Americans wants to do!" She never presented any alternative plans or anything with real substance, just trite, vapid comments in a monotone voice.
I have a great respect for President Bush. I have a great respect for anyone who is capable of uniting the multifarious diversity of this great nation in order to win the office, and I have a great respect for those that continue in the office and do their duty.
I find it interesting that one of President Bush's main points was that we must trust in the American people. I find that interesting because in AP Government we have been reading about how the Founding Fathers (at least according to Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition) distrusted the people and the masses, but concluded that popular sovereignty was the best option anyway because they could place the "rapacious self-interest" of man in another man's way to keep the playing field level.
I have maintained for years that if the dim-witted politicians who attend the address (and of course I'm being very ironic and untruthful here) would stop clapping after every third word the speech would only last 20 minutes, plus or minus a few for introductions, etc. I'm waiting for the President who announces, "please hold your applause until the end of my address this evening". Then I'll know we've found a top-notch President.
I found President Bush's speech talking a lot about "empowerment", and I agree. I am more inclined to be in favor of more of a government where the government just empowers private businesses and entrepreneurs and scientists. I like that idea. However, in my viewing of the last half of the speech I noticed that the President kept talking about increasing the budget for this and allocating double for that. How will we keep from deficit spending?
I found the democratic response to the State of the Union to be void of any real content. It was full of platitudes; she was just like Hamlet. "Join with us, and we can do great things. We can end all of these problems, just like the majority of Americans wants to do!" She never presented any alternative plans or anything with real substance, just trite, vapid comments in a monotone voice.
I have a great respect for President Bush. I have a great respect for anyone who is capable of uniting the multifarious diversity of this great nation in order to win the office, and I have a great respect for those that continue in the office and do their duty.
I find it interesting that one of President Bush's main points was that we must trust in the American people. I find that interesting because in AP Government we have been reading about how the Founding Fathers (at least according to Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition) distrusted the people and the masses, but concluded that popular sovereignty was the best option anyway because they could place the "rapacious self-interest" of man in another man's way to keep the playing field level.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Lanahan Readings for AP Government Tomorrow
Round 2 from the Lanahan readings:
Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority:
The Tyranny of the Majority is an apt title for this work. This reading appears to be the introduction to a collection of law review articles. In it Guinier defines the difference between a majority rule and a majority tyranny. She argues that in our society, the minority groups are not given a voice when the majority group feels secure in it's position. As soon as defectors transition to the minority, the majority must give the minority a voice because sooner or later the minority will turn into the majority, and if the majority does not apply the Golden Rule, neither will the minority when it is their turn for power. As soon as the majority becomes a permanent majority, and doesn't have to worry about a constantly shifting majority, the minority voice goes out the window.
To solve this problem Guinier suggests a procedural rule for voting in which the minority is still given rights. I agree with this idea. It is called cumulative voting. Each person is given the same number of votes as the number of issues they are to vote on. They are then free to "stack" their votes all on one item, or to spread them out however they wish. By forming coalitions, minority groups can stack votes and win at least one of the items on the ballet. By doing this they sacrifice the other items, which are then won by the majority. The majority of the items is won by the majority, which is as it should be, in my opinion. However, she has a valid point. The minority is often overrun in a society like ours, where our strict majoritarianism viewpoint is dominated by a winner-take-all attitude.
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite:
Mills begins this excerpt by declaring that the majority of individuals living in the United States today has doubts as the efficacy of their lives, their work, and their effect on the government. The government is ruled instead by a "power elite", who occupy such pivotal positions such that their inaction has far more drastic consequences then what they actually decide. He doesn't actually place Congress in the power elite. They are the second sub level of the elite, controlled by their heads. He writes much about hierarchies of power and of institutions that compose the elite. One would think that institutions of learning or powerful families compose the elite, but Mills names "the big three": the economic, the political, and the military domains. These three areas effectively influence all of the other sidelined institutions because their decisions have immediate, powerful consequences. As Mills puts it, "religious, educational, and family institutions are not autonomous centers of national power; on the contrary, these decentralized areas are increasingly shaped by the big three, in which developments of decisive and immediate consequence now occur."
Every thing has become centralized. I tend to agree with this pronouncement. Mills seems to be describing a process in this paper, more so than a state of things as they are currently. He would have to be describing this process in order for his ideas to bear any relevance to our world today (the book was written in the 1950s). If what Mills says is true about how the larger corporations are increasingly affecting the political system and the political system acts to intervene in the economy, the triangle of power becomes an unchangeable matrix that are so intertwined one cannot be disavowed without huge ramifications. I don't like it. I would rather have a system where each component of the government was as autonomous as it could be, either succeeding or failing without too much of an impact on the government. I can foresee problems arising from this type of a system.
Mills goes on to say that the power elite of America is formed from the "warlords, the corporation chieftains, [and] the political directorate". Mills remarks that these power elite are not part of a conspiracy, not part of any plan, but are just part of the system which has grown up and they continue to use their positions to consolidate them even more.
Richard Zweigenhaft/G. William Domhoff, Diversity in the Power Elite:
Building on Mills's thesis, Zweigenhaft and Domhoff talk about the non-traditional power elite (Jews, women, blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans, etc). Their main point is how centuries of multiculturalism has affected the power elite and what effect it has had on the power elite's relation to the rest of society. Side note: They called Mills iconoclastic. The authors go on to examine how the chances of minorities getting past the "glass ceiling" in the corporate world has been examined by several big wigs and even been examined by sociologists studying how sports has affected development of skills deemed essential in the business world. I just came across one of the most humorous lines I have read today: "Many women managers are convinced that their careers suffer because of discrimination against them by golf clubs". I think that's a bit extreme! A lady named Sally was applying to be a manager at Microsoft. She thought she did well in the interview, had an excellent resume, and had impeccable references. Unfortunately, she was contacted a week later by a harried executive apologizing for her failure to be hired. "Those awful golf clubs!" She exploded. "They're the entire reason I wasn't hired!" As you can see, this situation seems a bit ludicrous to me at the moment. Maybe I'll read on and see what the authors mean!
The authors then begin to talk about African Americans in the power elite. It is their opinion, and I agree, that multicultural diversity has strengthened the power elite.
In conclusion, the authors say that the diversification of the power elite has not changed the nation's economic differences a bit.
Robert Dahl, Who Governs? and A Preface to Democratic Theory:
Dahl begins by talking about political inequalities, and how in a patrician oligarchy the inequalities were all collected into a single group. If you were better than somebody else politically, you were also better then them socially, materially, etc. However, now, it is more diversified, lending our government to be a plurally governed society. He is essentially refuting Mills's argument that there is a power elite by saying many groups rule the government because of their dispersed inequalities.
There are two strata. A political stratum and a apolitical stratum. The ideas and skills of those in the political stratum are diffused into the general population. To me, if the political stratum were removed, and those from the apolitical stratum had to step in and fill their place, then if there was a difference in the major decisions and procedures of the time I would consider the rule to be based in the political stratum, as responsible as those politicians might be to their constituents. However, if there was little or no difference, the power would seem to me to be in the apolitical stratum, and the political ideas are diffused into the political stratum the same way in which the ideas from the politicians are diffused into the hoi polloi. As I read through some of the differences in here between the two strata, I cannot help but want to be included in the political stratum, as time-consuming as it sounds. Dahl gives some of his own ideas on the subject: he believes that "when movement into the political stratum is easy, the stratum embodies many of the most widely shared values and goals in the society". I agree, and contend that in this case, due to the nature of the system, the government is run more by the people than most would assume. Dahl also says, "the political stratum does not constitute a homogeneous class with well-defined class interests". It is this split, this heterogeneity, that allows the paradoxes that Hartz and Kammen talked about. It is these paradoxes that allows our government to be such a compromising nation. I imagine a tug-of-war rope with both sides walking horizontally as well as pulling. You notice that the middle of the rope, the measure of our nation's public policy, slowly moves in the direction of the majority. It is these paradoxes, combined with Guinier's tyranny of the majority, that defines our government.
In the excerpt from A Preface to Democratic Theory, Dahl alleges that "the making of governmental decisions is not a majestic march of great majorities united upon certain matters of basic policy. It is the steady appeasement of relatively small groups".
I really like this quote about our country from Dahl:
Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority:
The Tyranny of the Majority is an apt title for this work. This reading appears to be the introduction to a collection of law review articles. In it Guinier defines the difference between a majority rule and a majority tyranny. She argues that in our society, the minority groups are not given a voice when the majority group feels secure in it's position. As soon as defectors transition to the minority, the majority must give the minority a voice because sooner or later the minority will turn into the majority, and if the majority does not apply the Golden Rule, neither will the minority when it is their turn for power. As soon as the majority becomes a permanent majority, and doesn't have to worry about a constantly shifting majority, the minority voice goes out the window.
To solve this problem Guinier suggests a procedural rule for voting in which the minority is still given rights. I agree with this idea. It is called cumulative voting. Each person is given the same number of votes as the number of issues they are to vote on. They are then free to "stack" their votes all on one item, or to spread them out however they wish. By forming coalitions, minority groups can stack votes and win at least one of the items on the ballet. By doing this they sacrifice the other items, which are then won by the majority. The majority of the items is won by the majority, which is as it should be, in my opinion. However, she has a valid point. The minority is often overrun in a society like ours, where our strict majoritarianism viewpoint is dominated by a winner-take-all attitude.
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite:
Mills begins this excerpt by declaring that the majority of individuals living in the United States today has doubts as the efficacy of their lives, their work, and their effect on the government. The government is ruled instead by a "power elite", who occupy such pivotal positions such that their inaction has far more drastic consequences then what they actually decide. He doesn't actually place Congress in the power elite. They are the second sub level of the elite, controlled by their heads. He writes much about hierarchies of power and of institutions that compose the elite. One would think that institutions of learning or powerful families compose the elite, but Mills names "the big three": the economic, the political, and the military domains. These three areas effectively influence all of the other sidelined institutions because their decisions have immediate, powerful consequences. As Mills puts it, "religious, educational, and family institutions are not autonomous centers of national power; on the contrary, these decentralized areas are increasingly shaped by the big three, in which developments of decisive and immediate consequence now occur."
Every thing has become centralized. I tend to agree with this pronouncement. Mills seems to be describing a process in this paper, more so than a state of things as they are currently. He would have to be describing this process in order for his ideas to bear any relevance to our world today (the book was written in the 1950s). If what Mills says is true about how the larger corporations are increasingly affecting the political system and the political system acts to intervene in the economy, the triangle of power becomes an unchangeable matrix that are so intertwined one cannot be disavowed without huge ramifications. I don't like it. I would rather have a system where each component of the government was as autonomous as it could be, either succeeding or failing without too much of an impact on the government. I can foresee problems arising from this type of a system.
Mills goes on to say that the power elite of America is formed from the "warlords, the corporation chieftains, [and] the political directorate". Mills remarks that these power elite are not part of a conspiracy, not part of any plan, but are just part of the system which has grown up and they continue to use their positions to consolidate them even more.
Richard Zweigenhaft/G. William Domhoff, Diversity in the Power Elite:
Building on Mills's thesis, Zweigenhaft and Domhoff talk about the non-traditional power elite (Jews, women, blacks, Latinos, Asian Americans, etc). Their main point is how centuries of multiculturalism has affected the power elite and what effect it has had on the power elite's relation to the rest of society. Side note: They called Mills iconoclastic. The authors go on to examine how the chances of minorities getting past the "glass ceiling" in the corporate world has been examined by several big wigs and even been examined by sociologists studying how sports has affected development of skills deemed essential in the business world. I just came across one of the most humorous lines I have read today: "Many women managers are convinced that their careers suffer because of discrimination against them by golf clubs". I think that's a bit extreme! A lady named Sally was applying to be a manager at Microsoft. She thought she did well in the interview, had an excellent resume, and had impeccable references. Unfortunately, she was contacted a week later by a harried executive apologizing for her failure to be hired. "Those awful golf clubs!" She exploded. "They're the entire reason I wasn't hired!" As you can see, this situation seems a bit ludicrous to me at the moment. Maybe I'll read on and see what the authors mean!
The authors then begin to talk about African Americans in the power elite. It is their opinion, and I agree, that multicultural diversity has strengthened the power elite.
In conclusion, the authors say that the diversification of the power elite has not changed the nation's economic differences a bit.
Robert Dahl, Who Governs? and A Preface to Democratic Theory:
Dahl begins by talking about political inequalities, and how in a patrician oligarchy the inequalities were all collected into a single group. If you were better than somebody else politically, you were also better then them socially, materially, etc. However, now, it is more diversified, lending our government to be a plurally governed society. He is essentially refuting Mills's argument that there is a power elite by saying many groups rule the government because of their dispersed inequalities.
There are two strata. A political stratum and a apolitical stratum. The ideas and skills of those in the political stratum are diffused into the general population. To me, if the political stratum were removed, and those from the apolitical stratum had to step in and fill their place, then if there was a difference in the major decisions and procedures of the time I would consider the rule to be based in the political stratum, as responsible as those politicians might be to their constituents. However, if there was little or no difference, the power would seem to me to be in the apolitical stratum, and the political ideas are diffused into the political stratum the same way in which the ideas from the politicians are diffused into the hoi polloi. As I read through some of the differences in here between the two strata, I cannot help but want to be included in the political stratum, as time-consuming as it sounds. Dahl gives some of his own ideas on the subject: he believes that "when movement into the political stratum is easy, the stratum embodies many of the most widely shared values and goals in the society". I agree, and contend that in this case, due to the nature of the system, the government is run more by the people than most would assume. Dahl also says, "the political stratum does not constitute a homogeneous class with well-defined class interests". It is this split, this heterogeneity, that allows the paradoxes that Hartz and Kammen talked about. It is these paradoxes that allows our government to be such a compromising nation. I imagine a tug-of-war rope with both sides walking horizontally as well as pulling. You notice that the middle of the rope, the measure of our nation's public policy, slowly moves in the direction of the majority. It is these paradoxes, combined with Guinier's tyranny of the majority, that defines our government.
In the excerpt from A Preface to Democratic Theory, Dahl alleges that "the making of governmental decisions is not a majestic march of great majorities united upon certain matters of basic policy. It is the steady appeasement of relatively small groups".
I really like this quote about our country from Dahl:
It is not a static system. The normal American system has evolved, and by evolving it has survived. It has evolved and survived from aristocracy to mass democracy, through slavery, civil war, the tentative uneasy reconciliation of North and South, the repression of Negroes and their halting liberation; through two great wars of worldwide scope, mobilization, far-flung military enterprise, and return to hazardous peace; through numerous periods of economic instability and one prolonged depression with mass unemployment, farm "holidays," veterans' marches, tear gas, and even bullets; through two periods of postwar cynicism, demagogic excesses, invasions of traditional liberties, and the groping, awkward, often savage, attempt to cope with problems of subversion, fear, and civil tension.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Study Habits
One thing I've learned is that in order for me to learn information I have to really get a good grasp of the material. I can't just memorize things; I have to understand the big picture and synthesize information somehow.
Ann G. Serow and Everett C. Ladd compiled an excellent book called The Lanahan Readings in the American Polity. It sounds boring, and in some cases it is. It is, however, a required reading for AP Government. I'm going to organize kind of what I get out of it so far in today's readings.
We have to read four excerpts for tomorrow:
Ann G. Serow and Everett C. Ladd compiled an excellent book called The Lanahan Readings in the American Polity. It sounds boring, and in some cases it is. It is, however, a required reading for AP Government. I'm going to organize kind of what I get out of it so far in today's readings.
We have to read four excerpts for tomorrow:
- #8 - Richard Hofstadter's The American Political Tradition
- #10 - Michael Kammen's A Machine That Would Go of Itself
- #9 - James Madison's The Federalist 10
- #15 - James Madison's The Federalist 51
- To me it seems that Hofstadter's driving impetus in this essay is his view of the Founding Fathers as attempting to create a government that is based on the view of the masses while at the same time distrusting those same masses. The Founding Fathers viewed man as a "rapacious self-interest, and yet they wanted him to be free". In subscribing to this philosophy, the Fathers stood in the middle of two extremes. It reminds me of Hartz's essay (although written seven years earlier), and Michael Kammen later capitalized on this same idea in 1972. That is, the idea of paradoxes in government. How can a government be derived from the people and the liberties they innately have, but be at the same time be ordained to control the inordinate self-interest of the people? Hofstadter argues that the Founding Fathers thought that democracy was the most menacing thing to liberty; that is, the ability to own property, to protect that property, and bestow upon every man the same liberties as another to do with that property what he will, dependent upon his own inpinging upon the rights of others. It is only when combined with Locke's view of property that we received our inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution today. I enjoyed when Hofstadter brought up the point that, "it was the opponents of the Constitution who were most active in demanding such vital liberties as freedom of religion, freedom of speech..." In the end, the Founding Fathers, according to Hofstadter, established the government to effectively umpire their continual strife with property, because they agreed with Hobbes that mankind is inherently brutish. However, in order to control that brutish nature they necessarily had to place the nature of man against itself to keep one party from gaining too much control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)