Guns are Good

Are cars good or bad? If you say good, what of the more than 35,000 annual domestic deaths due to motor vehicle crashes? If in consideration of these losses, hundreds of thousands of injuries, and their polluting exhaust you conclude that cars are indeed bad and therefore their use should be further limited, you may be discounting the higher lifestyle and freedoms that the automobile affords millions.

Many believe guns are bad. It’s a reasonable position, as their effects upon the human body are horrific. It’s especially easy to vilify guns in the wake of senseless mass shootings as recently happened at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. We can all imagine ourselves or our loved ones innocently attending classes or going out for an enjoyable night at the movies and suddenly subject to an unthinkable attack.  It is reasonable to take action to prevent that from happening.

Homicide by firearms number around 11,000 annually (and falling – the murder rate is down 50% from its historic highs in the early 1990’s, but it is spiking as much as 73% this year in some cities.) Suicide gun deaths are double that. A few thousand fewer people die each year by the bullet as do in motor vehicle accidents. Our reactions to these unpalatable incidents are very different, though.

Perhaps it’s because traffic deaths are overwhelmingly accidents. Only about 500 or so gun deaths are accidental. The others are all intentional. As mentioned, two thirds of these deaths are suicides. Of the homicides, historically around 75% are committed by people with a criminal history. Crimes of passion and first-offender murderous gun-wielding madmen are relatively rare.

But this doesn’t stop left-leaning politicians from calling for more gun control each and every time a lunatic strikes. Their argument is that it is innately wrong that guns should be so common and easy to obtain. I suppose they also believe that it follows that if we enforced even more gun restrictions than are currently on the books, there would be a reduction in these events. Though this may be sensible on the surface, fewer guns = less opportunity = fewer murders, the evidence does not support the claim.

We won’t be able to fully prosecute the gun control argument here. I do wonder why these same politicians never point out that every mass shooting (defined as more than four deaths aside from the perpetrator and numbering over the past century at around 170 or so) with two exceptions since 1950 occurred in places where it was illegal for citizens to carry guns. Gun free zones in fact act as advertisements where perpetrators can be relatively assured that there won’t be people there to prematurely thwart their efforts. Advocates for more gun control also don’t discuss the profiles of mass shooters  – almost always young, white, and male with a 60% likelihood of having been previously diagnosed with mental disorder. Some suspect that the behavior of some recent mass murderers may be linked to harmful side effects of powerful psychotropic drugs used to treat their behaviors.

Pundits and politicians also seem reluctant to discuss deeper social realities that may relate to these tragic incidents – the breakdown of the nuclear family, the lack of a clear demarcation between boyhood and manhood, the onset of violent video games, the worship of celebrity, and laws that make it nearly impossible to commit a person to a mental institution without their consent.

One might reasonably doubt that those politicians are really trying to solve the problem. It seems at least possible that they have ulterior motives. What might those be? You might consult the literature of their ideology and study history for answers. I’ll leave that up to you.

President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and many others blame the gun for the crime. Hillary said in a recent speech that it is wrong not to hold the gun manufacturers accountable for these deaths. (I wonder how GM and Ford feel about that one.) I think it’s safe to say that they and their supporters fall into the “guns are bad” camp.

History makes a counter argument. How did society function before widespread firearm ownership? In Europe and non-industrial parts of the world, power was held by the strong. The big man called the shots. The lord, baron, governor, duke, or king ran, what were in essence, protection rackets. There was no such thing as a middle class. There was little freedom or personal ambition and therefore progress was slow.  It was a world that lacked justice and Thomas Hobbes famously described in Leviathan where life was “solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.” In too many places, this describes life to this day.

Women were particularly vulnerable. They were nearly universally considered second class citizens, somewhere between men and children. This was not because women lacked strength of character and of mind, but strength of arm. The gun has served as an equalizer in society and indeed is a factor in ushering in the modern age.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is amazingly powerful. It was written short and sweet so as to be difficult to subvert. That hasn’t stopped the efforts of the left, as its spirit would forbid the existence of a gun free zone. Often, those who favor the restriction of firearms refer to the Second Amendment as out of date and not suited for modern life. To hold this view, you must ignore the rationale that the authors themselves gave for its prominence in the Bill of Rights.

The reason that the Second Amendment is in our Constitution is this – to protect personal power. James Madison explained the role of the militia (private armed citizens.) It was necessary as a check against any governing force, foreign or domestic.

Madison and his contemporaries understood human nature better than our current crop of leaders. In an ideal world, guns would be unnecessary. Everyone would be enlightened so as to eschew violence and warfare. They would not seek dominion over others. But as the men of America’s founding knew, this is not human nature.

For that reason, guns are necessary. Like it or not. I believe the world is best served when moral and peace-loving people are better armed than those who are not. In the hands of the just, guns stop evil dead in its tracks. Therefore guns are a great good.

What Troubled Boys Can Teach Us

A group from the Allegany Boys Camp, located in the scenic deep woods of western Maryland, recently visited our church. The residential all-year camp was established for boys with emotional and behavioral troubles. The boys and their leaders shared songs and gave us insight into their daily life. I was impressed by some of the powerful techniques they employed to effect positive personal change. Their methods are apt for people from all walks of life in all organizations.

To one degree or another, we are all imprisoned by patterns of thought that limit our functionality, compromise our inter-personal relationships, and rob us of the peace and joy that we are supposed to experience in life. In extreme cases people break free of these chains via a “reset button.” A classic example is the addict “hitting bottom,” whereby they either muster the resolve to make needed changes or die.

In the case of the boys who live in camps such as the Allegany Boys Camp, they may or may not hit bottom. They’ve already been removed from their family environment where they couldn’t learn to function in a healthy way. Instead, they experience life broken down to the very basics as a way to shatter their limiting paradigms. A wilderness camp that lacks electricity or running water suits perfectly.

We take so much for granted in our modern life. We lack perspective about what is truly involved in the creation and delivery of the goods and services with which we are accustomed. We take the people in our lives for granted.  We assume that things will always be as they are, regardless of our personal decision making and behaviors. That assumption is dangerous, sometimes deadly.

The boys at the camp have some clothes and personal toiletries. That’s it. Their days are completely structured. That structure is well thought out. They deal with first things first, like when they wake each morning they make their beds and clean their tents. The boys engage in strenuous challenges that afford them opportunities to learn new skills and make important decisions. Their schooling is reminiscent of “unschooling,” or directed learning from life experiences. (Other than math – the counselors said it was hard to teach math that way.)They take on serious projects like designing and building the large and sometimes elaborate tents that provide them shelter. As they learn, achieve, and grow, they earn privileges. A bunch of other good things happen too.

Of course they gain more perspective about modern life and the important relationships in their lives. They learn that they are not isolated and alone – that others have walked similar tortured walks and emerged victorious. They share serious and not-so-serious experiences, and my guess is that they form bonds unlike they have ever previously experienced in their lives. Their new relationships, skills, and continual accomplishments build self-esteem and confidence. This erodes victim mentality, diffuses anger, and awakes them to the possibility of a brighter future.

The camp’s leaders shared two practices that particularly stood out. First, to accomplish the many tasks necessary at the camp, they employ a three-step process: 1) Plan, 2) Execute, 3) Evaluate. Each part of the process is equally important, and every boy must participate in all three steps. Second, when problems inevitably arise, they confront the issue immediately and together. Nothing is left to fester.

These deceptively simple practices hold power for all of us. In our workaday lives, we often operate unmindfully, at warp speed, and in response to circumstantial demands. We imagine that step two, execution, is what matters most. We give ourselves permission to sweep issues under the rug. This mentality is costly, both personally and corporately in our families and our organizations.

Planning and evaluating suffer under the demands of deadlines and pressures of crisis management. Yet this is where intelligence is both applied and gained. You may hear it said that “life is a marathon.” This may be a disadvantageous way to think. It’s perhaps more powerful to think of life as a series of wind sprints.

Before we do, we think. We take the time necessary to properly plan. Then, when it’s time to execute, we do. We run that wind sprint flat out and give it our all. After, we stop, take a breath and see what we may see. We are intentional about learning from our experiences. We ask good questions, such as: What went right? What went wrong? Why? What do we know now that we didn’t know before? If I had it to do over, what would I do differently? This manner of living our lives, running our teams, and functioning in any corporate activity is far superior to keeping our heads down and mindlessly hamstering away.

We are mostly risk averse. We generally dislike confrontation. We want to conserve energy. For these reasons, the most common disposition is to let things go. What things? Things that bother us. Things that we do that bothers us and things that others do that bother us. We’ve learned to worship our comfort zones, hold our tongues, keep a stiff upper lip, be a team player, don’t make waves, and avoid being seen as a troublemaker. This may be fine for incidental issues. But the ones that recur? They won’t go away on their own. They get worse. When we lack the courage to address them quickly and decisively, they cost us far more.

The culture of the Allegany Boys Camp creates the expectation that issues will be courageously confronted and that these issues are the business of the entire group. One person’s problem is every person’s problem. If families and work teams adopted this mindset and our organizational culture became informed by these practices, I believe that it would lead to higher function and healthier and happier relationships.

Thank you to the leaders and the boys of Allegany Boys Camp. Your generous sharing of your stories inspires me. I hope they inspire you too.

Must Violence Be Everywhere?

On Labor Day I took my family to Mt. Gretna. The plan was to hike the beautiful trails and treat ourselves to ice cream at The Jigger Shop. We did in fact hike, and we did get ice cream. But not at The Jigger Shop.

Not ten minutes before we arrived, it had become a crime scene. We knew something was amiss when police sped past us as we approached. We saw ambulances and speculated that somebody must have had a heart attack. The truth turned out to be worse.

A woman was murdered by an abusive man from whom she had been trying to escape for at least a year. He chased her out of her gift shop and shot her dead in the parking lot of The Jigger Shop. Shortly thereafter he turned the gun on himself. We arrived to see employees and patrons huddled in the nearby places to which they had fled. We learned of the details from bystanders as Life Lion helicoptered the perpetrator out. At this writing he is in critical condition.

The experience had a surreal quality. Maybe it was the contrast between the charming hillside, wooded streets, and storybook cottages, some of which were elaborately decorated with blooming flowers and imaginative sculpture, and the flashing lights, police tape, covered prone body, and the knowledge that no place, no matter how serene, is free from violence. In the aftermath of this experience, it’s clear that violence happens any time in any place.

Since we have lived in our current house there have been at least four separate homes on our street where police have arrived in response to domestic violence. Right now, within the circle of people I personally know, there is a person in hiding from a potentially violent spouse. The experience my family had on Labor Day is sadly not uncommon. Every day it seems that there is a similar story – today it is a beautiful Texas dentist who was murdered. According to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, someone is physically victimized by their intimate partners once every three seconds.

That’s why I’m surprised to learn that the trend is not towards more domestic violence, but away. This Bureau of Justice Statistics report  cites a 64% decline in the years between 1994 and 2010. This makes sense, as the rate of violent crime is shrinking with the aging of the population. It just doesn’t seem like it. I suppose that’s why we must be careful about conclusions we draw from anecdotal evidence.

Domestic violence has always been a feature of society. Statistics for domestic abuse pose challenges for accuracy, but it is accepted that roughly one third of women and one quarter of men worldwide suffer at least one instance of domestic abuse during their lifetimes. By any measure, the problem is pervasive.

What, if anything, can we do as individuals and a society about this?

There are those who argue for increased gun control, as fewer guns mean less gun violence. The argument may hold water if one can successfully show that it would fall more than the suppressive effect that armed victims have upon perpetrators (individuals, gangs, and governments.) One would also have to show that the policy would indeed keep guns from the hands of criminals and that the net effect would be worth the cost of freedoms and the changing of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

This would also leave unaddressed the fact that the rate of domestic violence is as high or higher among unarmed populations. The issue is not one that will be remedied through legislation – it is already illegal to physically assault another person (at least in our country – in countries that abide by Sharia Law husbands are free to beat their wives.) This problem is like most of our other problems – it is a problem that stems from sickness of the soul.

People who abuse others have likely themselves been abused. It is through their experience that this behavior is normalized or somehow deemed appropriate. They clearly suffer from emotional problems, and these have myriad causes, from the side effects of medicine to genetic disposition. But there is also a clear cycle of violent behavior.

All human beings, like all creatures, can be violent. This includes everyone, emotionally damaged or not. What leads to peace and domestic tranquility is a sense of well-being and safety, an appreciation for the connectedness between people, and a well-developed sense of morality.

Where these things are lacking, violence ensues. An unmarried mother is ten times more likely to suffer domestic abuse than a married one. Welfare recipients are four times as likely, with some studies indicating that as much as 82% of welfare mothers experience abuse. Education and wealth do not inoculate against domestic violence, but they sure do reduce its likelihood.

Yet more school and more money do not provide satisfactory answers to this problem to me – how about you? I suspect we would benefit by something a little more powerful and pervasive. Something more radical.

Perhaps not coincidentally, Jesus Christ was a radical. In a world at least as violent (granted, without guns) than our own, he taught love and peace. In the gospel of Mark 9:50, he described how this works: “You must have the qualities of salt among yourselves and live in peace with each other.” What he meant was that just as salt seasons and preserves food, moral people influence, inspire and elevate those around them.

We can take from this a strategy to deal with the issue of domestic violence (or any other moral issue.) We must start with ourselves. We need to tend to our spiritual health so that we might “flavor” the spiritual health of those around us.

You know what I like best about this strategy? It focuses us on that which we can exert some power – ourselves.

I Used to Like People

Don’t get me wrong. When I meet somebody or spend time with clients, friends, family, or brand new acquaintances, I enjoy the experience. I’m generally positive and supportive. I relish moments of real connection. To me a stranger is just a friend I haven’t yet met.

But something has been shifting. Maybe it’s me. Maybe it’s society. Probably it’s both. My attitude is morphing into: “I love meeting and spending time with quality people.”

What’s a “quality person?” My answer is this: people who get it. They get the basics, such as: “life is more than my following my base desires,” “if it is to be it’s up to me,” “I am to love and support others,” “I continually learn and grow.” Many do indeed get it. But many, it seems increasingly, don’t.

I see it whenever I drive. So many drivers are distracted, unfocused, neither courteous nor considerate. I mean, when a light turns green and there’s a line of cars behind you and the drivers all want to get through the light, hit it! Some leave gaps so large it seems that they’re doing it on purpose to piss people off. No, usually they’re just that clueless.

It is a reflection of our times, I suppose. It’s everywhere: restaurants, malls, crowds of all kinds. By virtue of the miracle of the digital age, so many are physically proximate but mentally distant. It amazes me to see groups of friends out presumably for a fun night, but instead their heads are down in their smartphones, and they invest their attention not in their companions but elsewhere. It is just plain sad when it’s a couple on a date.

My attitude likely comes with age. As we grow and mature, more and more of society’s doings strike us as superfluous, even misguided. The immature, regardless of age or era, are ruled by emotion. They’re self-indulgent. The immediate trumps the long run. They abandon their personal power in the illusion that it is someone else’s responsibility. They naively expect life to be “fair.”

I find myself struggling for patience for people who have the mindset that is an outgrowth of these limiting beliefs. I suppose it isn’t accurate to say that I don’t like them; I just wish their lights were on. Sometimes I fantasize about doing what Cher’s character in the 1987 film Moonstruck did – slap the person hard and shout: “Snap out of it!” (It didn’t work for her; it wouldn’t work for me.)

It isn’t completely their fault. For decades now, schools from Kindergarten through grad school indoctrinate a certain type of thinking as much as they teach students how to think freely and creatively for themselves. Education performance has been declining for 40 years. Well-meaning but misguided programs teach to the test as though this is a remedy. Teachers themselves lack context and a brand of group-think is limiting the capacities of multiple generations.

This effect has reverberated throughout society. With the onset of the digital age, many game-changing innovations have been created. The world is smaller and more connected as we can find detailed information about almost everything almost instantly. But something is being lost, too. Information and knowledge is of little use without the context to perceive why one thing matters over another. As the speed of society has increased, people less frequently slow down for careful consideration. An important part of social interaction, a part that serves to glue us together, is atrophying.

The degradation manifests itself in many ways. Some of it is visible. Americans are physically flabby. You’ve most likely seen the stats. 69% of adults over 20 years of age are considered overweight, 36% are considered obese. This is in one sense a symptom of the wealth that our society has created. Nobody wants for their next meal. Or even the next snack. But I suspect there is something more here too.

The blight is largely invisible. If we could quantify a similar scale with respect to mental health, the stats would be worse. People exercise their minds less than they exercise their bodies. Master Jung, the martial arts master who founded the school where I first studied, used to say: “If people had the same level of control over their body as they do their mind, most would be unable to walk.”

He said that in the 1970’s. That insight has stayed with me my entire adult life. If anything, it’s worse now. We’re distracted. We don’t think things through. We don’t even realize that we can control our minds. We imagine that it is up to others to deal with tough issues. This is extremely dangerous.

It is dangerous for our souls. It is dangerous for our families, communities, organizations, and our nation. It is dangerous for the cause of freedom. Why? Two reasons: 1) It coarsens society, and 2) It opens the door for despotism.

As I write my heart aches along with those who have seen the story for the loved ones of those who were shot on live television in Virginia. The perpetrator appears to be a disgruntled ex-employee of the news station. He suffered from the effects of a coarsened society. All those limiting beliefs I mentioned earlier? He had them.

There is plenty of outrage in the media for an act like this; more so because of the drama of it happening on a live broadcast, the fact that it happened to media members, and that it serves the cause of those who want more gun control. There is a suspicious lower level of outrage for the thousands of Christians in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East who are systematically being persecuted and killed in horrific ways. For that matter, the horrors of the systematic harvesting of baby parts committed by Planned Parenthood and revealed in a series of covert and shocking videos do not seem to be gathering as much collective interest either.

Rhetoric in this presidential campaign season is focused as usual on jobs, illegal immigrants, Islamofascism, government regulations, and various program initiatives. All are important, yes. But they are also distractions. Rarely do we hear discussions about what matters most: the care of our spirit.

That coarseness we’re talking about? Some of it is behind the political rise of Donald Trump. He takes no crap. He suffers no fools. He is unafraid. He says what he really thinks. Americans are so starved for leaders with these qualities they are willing to overlook or accept traits that would be political poison in a different time. This leads to the second danger.

When people feel desperate and their care for others is diminished, they take drastic actions. They will tolerate if not support outright immense cruelty and injustice. The last thing we need is a demagogue. But this is precisely what happens when minds and hearts shut down. People want an easy answer and a strong personality in a leader can embody one in their minds.

What we really need is the opposite: to think more clearly and be more loving. I suppose this means that I can’t just be dismissive and only seek people who I deem “quality.” I’ll have to continue to try to engage in as meaningful way possible everybody I meet. Oh well; life isn’t supposed to be easy.

$70,000 for Everyone!!

Dan Price, CEO of Seattle-based Gravity Payments, made headlines this past spring when he announced a plan to pay everyone in his company at least $70,000 per year, regardless of their position or tenure. His employees wildly cheered him and he was lionized by many in the media for his people-oriented, forward-thinking approach to compensation.

All those with a basic understanding of economics and human nature knew better.

Forbes and others are now reporting how right these skeptics were. In just a few short months and before the plan could even be fully implemented, the Gravity Payments ship has run onto the rocks. It seems that his highest achieving employees found themselves riled by the idea that their salaries weren’t much more than the newest intern. I know; a real head scratcher.

The results are potentially catastrophic for the company. Some of Price’s key people flew the coop. A few important customers are said to have also left, nervous about the company’s long-term viability and suspicious that the policy would ultimately be priced into their services. Price himself is reported to be experiencing difficulty with the transition from his previous $1 million salary to $70K. He’s supposedly had to rent out his house. I’m sure there are plenty of other adjustments ahead for him – $70K doesn’t go as far as it used to.

You’re probably in one of two camps on this issue: 1) You’re with Dan and the other idealistic hopefuls in wondering what went wrong and pondering ways to fix the unexpected problems, or 2) you’d say something like: “no s#*t Sherlock.”

I’m sure Dan and his like mean well and are in the main lovely people. They just don’t quite appreciate a few important truths. It’s not all their fault. They have been systematically taught to think in a way that fails them. Today, most Americans are victims of this conditioning.

The case of Gravity Payments highlights two concepts that are important in our critical thinking. The first is in the field of economics. Everybody needs to understand the basics of market dynamics, which dictate the optimal allocation of resources. Here is the classic chart that illustrates the concept:

This illustrates the relationship between providers of goods and services and their consumers. One side of the equation, called the supply curve, maps out the quantity that a market will provide at any particular price point. More revenue = more production. Not too hard to picture.

The other representation, known as the demand curve, plots the quantity of the good/service that will be purchased at each price point. Higher prices mean fewer will buy the good. Makes sense, right?

Markets, when operating in free conditions (a caveat that exists less and less frequently), converge to a point of equilibrium. This equilibrium matches the available good or service with the demand for that product. The price is determined by this natural force and it facilitates the most efficient allocation of goods, whether it is peanut butter or accounting services.

Our government (or sometimes consortia of government and/or private entities) often tinkers with the equation to produce a result that they deem superior. What everyone must understand is that these ends are only superior from a particular vantage. For the society as a whole, it is always a net long term loss – a sacrifice – to impose price controls, tariffs, quotas, or caps. Such policies invariably cause surpluses and shortages that damage real people.

People most often lose sight of this reality when it comes to wages. There is a sense that certain people deserve or don’t deserve certain wages. Much talk centers around the “outrageous” salaries that professional athletes, entertainers, or CEO’s receive. Conversely, many look to a minimum wage that should be imposed upon the market so that people may avoid squalor. They fail to appreciate that the market works whether they agree with its determinations or not.

The compensation of athletes and entertainers is a direct function of the money generated from their talents. They’ve always been well paid, but it’s more dramatic today because these industries generate massive amounts of money and the players have negotiated over the years a bigger piece of the pie that once went in greater proportion to team owners, record companies, and movie studios.

In the case of CEO salaries, companies compete for the services of those whom they believe the most competent to lead their organizations. The price for this talent is set by competition that will offer greater incentives in order to attract top talent to their firms. This populates the CEO demand curve. The value, or at least the perceived value, is informed by the needs and economics of the industry.

This same dynamic sets the price for labor at the lower end of the spectrum too. Minimum wage laws, well-intentioned they may be, damage the people they are meant to help. Remember, when prices are artificially increased, fewer goods are consumed. When that happens, providers shrink their operations or disappear altogether. This means fewer available jobs. New dynamics emerge that affect not only the lowest wage earners but the prices for items all along a supply chain where their labor is involved. This results in a higher cost of living to go along with fewer employment prospects. I’ll let you fill in the blank on who gets hit hardest by these two damaging effects.

Markets are complex and ever-changing. This is perhaps one reason why we sometimes do not see these kinds of basics. But principle does not change. If you want to reach the highest quality decisions for you, your family, your organization, your community, or your nation, you must do so with respect to first principles.

This brings us to the other lesson evident with Gravity Payments. People are people. They’re going to behave as people do. This means that, no matter how educated, well-meaning, enlightened, etc., people will react in predictable ways to specific circumstances. The key thing to remember here is that people will not accept, over the long term, that which they view as unjust.

Known since the time of Adam Smith, the phenomenon was called the Equity Theory of Motivation by J. Stacy Adams in the 1960’s. It means that people do not operate in a vacuum. They pay attention. It means that if you notice someone making relatively the same as you but who contributes less, you won’t like it. You will be likely to either ask for a raise or if you’re one of the passive-aggressive among us, you’ll find yourself simply contributing less. You and the organization suffer. This is precisely what happens in collectivist systems such as communism and socialism and it is why they ultimately fail.

A firm’s wages are priced into its products. Its products must offer value relative to the other options consumers have. So it is the competitive landscape that places the range in which a firm can remain viable and sustain its compensation policy. Dan Price was altruistically willing to reduce his personal compensation to share with his team. He lost sight of the effects on others on his team, not to mention his customers.

When we advocate “beneficial” policies such as cap and trade, minimum wage policy, and over-regulation, we likewise cause inefficiencies that cause far more harm than the benefits of the policy. Experience and history shows that markets collect and disseminate more wisdom than even the smartest among us. The most successful leaders have learned to best serve others not by managing markets, but by clearing barriers so that their organizations become more aware and agile as they systematically contribute to the well-being of its constituents.

“I’m Mad as Hell, and I’m Not Going to Take This Anymore!”

“I’m as Mad as Hell, and I’m Not Going to Take This Anymore!”

The famous cry from the 1976 film Network was prescient. If you don’t remember or know this classic, check out its most famous scene here: Beale’s rant. When you watch it, you’ll see that in 40 years, a lot hasn’t changed. Geniuses Paddy Chayefsky (writer) and Sidney Lumet (director) even imagined elements of reality television, YouTube videos, and sensationalist journalism 20 or more years before their time.

Can you relate to Howard Beale’s speech? Millions can. It may in part explain the quandaries political analysts find themselves in this young presidential campaign season. Perhaps unrest among the electorate is the crucial factor in the surprising-to-many polling numbers. There is, after all, more than a little Beale in the air.

The question is – was Beale right? Is getting mad the first step towards productive solutions?

History suggests both yes and no. Revolutions of all kinds are fueled by passions. Anger can be a powerful spur to action. Opposites of indifference, both love and hate move people to take risks and make sacrifices to change the status quo. The same ball these emotions may be, they have different spins. Each leads to very different ends.

The “love spin” can, at least in part, be applied to the American Revolution, for it was a revolution intended to historically elevate the individual. Through a combination of circumstances, wisdom, and many believe divine intervention, it was not a plea for the destruction of the system, but for independence and opportunity. Amid cries of “No taxation without representation,” it led directly to the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the longest lasting, most successful representative republic in human history. It ushered in the modern age.

A few years after the original Tea Partiers threw British Tetley’s into Boston Harbor, on the other side of the Atlantic, raged the French Revolution. Its rallying cry was “Liberté, égalité, fraternité!” While calling for democracy, it was, in essence, a class war that led directly to blood soaked streets at the base of the guillotine (during its height, called the Reign of Terror, an estimated 16,000+ were guillotined, another 15,000 – 25,000 less fortunate were executed with whatever means available at the time) and later the despotism and Imperialism of Napoleon. The string of resulting events set the stage for not only the Napoleonic Wars but both World Wars more than a century later.

Today, as then, people are angry. They have cause. Here are the big ones:

• Our government will not defend our borders or enforce immigration policy; illegal immigrants (in concert with enabling employers and officials) use resources, commit crimes, and do not pay taxes to offset the financial and social strain.
• The Obama Administration continues to dismantle and degrade our military, gutting it of its best commanders and most effective weapons systems while doing little or nothing about the deplorable levels of VA system medical care for veterans returning from America’s longest war.
• Urban populations see opportunity for improving their conditions slip further and further away; schooling effectiveness declines while the system resists innovation such as school choice and vouchers.
• The Obama Administration left a power vacuum in Iraq and has since allowed ISIS to gain wealth, territory, and influence; it is now the first terrorist group with a caliphate of its own. The group is now operating in America, with over 70 arrests in the last two years (a couple in NJ was just arrested this week in the attempt to organize a small ISIS fighting force.)
• The Obama Administration seems to be more sympathetic to the Mullahs than our allies in Israel and elsewhere, as reflected in the latest negotiated agreement with Iran.
• China and Russia, among others, continually conduct cyberattacks against private and public American institutions with seeming impunity.
• Our government continues to systematically decimate our currency through overspending, the Fed’s quantitative easing, and relaxed regulations that allow the top five banks to engage in perilous leveraged activity. These practices have robbed American wage earners and our progeny of the over $150 trillion, over half the wealth in the entire world. The 2008 housing bubble bailout alone cost every American household $108,000.
• Money continues to flow into the hands of the wealthiest, the middle class’s real wages fall, while a poor-without-prospects “dependence class” grows.
• Civility and decency continue a long decline and there is a dearth of voices who even want to reverse the trend, much less offer effective solutions.

All of this contributes to a feeling of unrest, even impending doom. These are problems long in the making. Our government’s mishandling of health care, the EPA’s spilling of toxic material in Colorado, seemingly constant scandals such as Benghazi and Hillary Clinton’s emails, Fast and Furious, IRS bullying, FCC and EPA over-reach, and countless other corruptions and failures of governance erodes faith that the system is even capable of fixing itself. People look to the upcoming election as an opportunity for an outsider, somebody who will not necessarily “play ball,” to shake the status quo and enact policy initiatives that will address the critical issues before it is too late.

All of the above described have reason and cause. We struggle with two incompatible visions of the American future. Those on the left side of the scale see more and better governance as the path to a better society. Nancy Pelosi passionately expressed this vision when she opined that it was good for people to not have to work in jobs they don’t want to do, that they could be free to pursue relationships and pastimes that are not what we think of as productive in a traditional way. She was selling the merits of a permanent, dependent, underclass.

Those on the right side of the political scale see injustice in systematically taking from those who are productive in order support those who are not. They also believe that you do a person no favor when you keep them dependent. They believe that this stunts a person’s personal and spiritual growth.  Therefore they favor the reeling in of government function.

This fight between the left and right is an old one. It is coming to a head, as the system is straining under its enormous size, the additional weight of debt, and external pressures from around the globe. The situation is exacerbated by those in control who systematically sap it of its remaining lifeblood – money.

Americans are very aware of this dynamic. It has clearly affected the normal political calculus. In previous election seasons been-around-the-block candidates Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders expressed interest in potential runs. Neither was taken seriously. Today, they are front runners in the first Primary states Iowa and New Hampshire.

A week after the first debate, three of the top five polling candidates on the Republican side, Trump, along with Carly Fiorina and Dr. Ben Carson, have never held elective office. This is both unprecedented and remarkable. It is also healthy. New voices and perspectives may prove very useful.

But it is also potentially hazardous. Platitudes and rancor lead to dark paths. We are susceptible, because the system protects itself. Real, well-considered discussion is fleeting. We are fed through the media a polluted stream of partial truth and distractions. Political dialogue mostly consists of the exchange of barbs and insults.

What leads to better results, in our national politics as well as our organizations and even our neighborhoods and families, is respect and shared values. This is what we need to talk more about. We need not so much Megyn Kelly’s gotcha questions as we need to critically and actively listen to each other. We must be willing to learn.

Generally, I place little faith in politicians to effect positive change. Those candidates stuck in old paradigms, Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and even Donald Trump, are not currently positioned to effect the change they claim to desire.

But I see rays of hope. Specifically, the rhetoric of Dr. Ben Carson seems imbued with a spirit of love and healing. To a lesser extent, I see elements of this in Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, and even Mike Huckabee. My hope is that the discussion and resulting policy initiatives move in this direction. If so, it would be historic. It would be potentially productive, possibly restorative. We may be able to grow together past identity politics, the politics of division, to a place where we begin to appreciate that we are in the same boat and we mostly want the same things.

So sure, get mad. Go on a rant, if it makes you feel better. But then settle down in the knowledge that the solutions lie in openness, cooperation, honest learning, and caring about one another. It may even be possible to break the machine that is marching us to ruin and tyranny, and do so without bloodshed.

It will require love and courage. This I pray for all.

Happy Memorial Day – Sort Of

Like many Americans, my family celebrated this Memorial Day by flying a flag, getting together, relaxing, recreating, and doing some gardening and yardwork. Kathleen and I watched the Memorial Day Concert on the National Mall on PBS. It reminded us of the incredible sacrifices that many in our armed forces have made and continue to make for our country. The stories of some of these soldiers and their families are humbling.

But I have a confession to make. I used to be far more enthusiastic about these sentiments than I am today. I’ve really never been patriotic for America the place, though it is beautiful and there is nowhere else I’d rather be. Or even America the people, though we are the most generous and accomplished in history. I am however a patriot – for America the ideal. And that ideal is not in good shape.

America is unique in all of human history. It is the only example of a brand spanking new country formed upon the ideal that the rights of the individual supersede the rights of the collective. The U.S. Constitution is the most successful attempt to codify this philosophy.

It worked pretty darn well. America, in the broad scope of human history, quickly rose to be the singular dominant economic, political, and social force in the world. The story of America is the story of the elevation of mankind from its age-old and ubiquitous “lives of quiet desperation” (Henry David Thoreau) to head-spinning achievements that have extended life itself and set millions and millions over the entire globe free from squalor and oppression. This did not happen by chance. Mankind was lifted through the unleashing of the potential that beats in the heart of every individual; and done so on an unprecedented scale. It brought, and continues to bring to our land, people from all over the world who know in their bones that this is all they can really ask of life.

Alas, most Americans underappreciate this. They’ve been taught, systematically, that the collective is paramount. They may still have the American spirit of “don’t tread on me,” which is the innate sense that government should not interfere in an individual’s daily life. But they’ve also been sold the lie that their worth and value to the world is as a member of one demographic group or another. They’ve come to believe that it is their duty to pay personal tax. This is the philosophy behind such bankrupt concepts as social justice, group rights, and identity politics. It is the foundation of ideologies such as communism and socialism, social constructs that have brought staggering levels of human suffering in the forms of Hitler’s National Socialism, Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s Peoples’ Republic of China, and countless others.

Collectivist philosophy has given birth to policies and laws here in the U.S that damage individual liberty and economic well-being.  It is why we have collectively ransacked wealth from future generations for goodies that the current generation has desired. The scale of this generational theft is so large that nobody really knows how much has been stolen. We’re told by politicians and pundits that it is the nearly $19 trillion national debt. But that calculation, mind-numbingly large as it is, leaves a whole bunch of stuff out, such as mandatory spending, unfunded liabilities, and the devaluation of the dollar. The estimates I’ve seen place the true toll at anywhere from $70 to $200 trillion, purportedly representing more wealth than has been created on earth over the entire history of civilization. It’s a moral transgression of appalling grandeur.

The narcotic habits of deficit spending and Robin Hooding resources to some people at the expense of others are diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Constitution. Statist leaders from Woodrow Wilson to Barack Obama have argued that this is not only okay, but desirable. They claim that progress demands changes. They fail to admit, recognize, or clearly consider some basic truths of human nature.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, are not accidental or somehow suited only for that place and time. They are timeless and universal because they were considered with clarity about human nature. They recognized that it was the weak, those with small or no voices, those whose opinions were not held by the majority, who needed protection from the strong.  It’s why we were not founded as a democracy. Even if 300 million people do not want to hear your opinion, in Constitutional America they can’t legally stop you from expressing it.

James Madison wrote: “If men were Angels, no government would be necessary.” He and the other Founding Fathers recognized that people in power generally want more power. That power comes at the expense of the individual. The innate flaws of mankind both require government and demand that it be tethered so that its power does not flow out of its banks. The Constitution more or less struck this balance for over a century.

But since then, floodwaters rose as power grew more and more centralized. Truly mammoth enterprises concentrated economic power in the hands of a few: the Rockefellers, Carnegies, and Morgans of the late nineteenth century. Their successors inevitably fell into the habit of stacking the rules in their favor. Landmark legislation, inspired by progressive philosophers from Europe, has been passed ever since. These include the passing of the individual income tax and the creation of the I.R.S., the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank (both established under President Woodrow Wilson), the creation of Social Security (under F.D.R.), the conversion of the dollar from the gold standard to a fiat currency and places the creation of money in the hands of the Fed (under F.D.R. and finalized under President Nixon), and the Affordable Care Act (under President Obama, for whom the law is known as Obamacare) are all significant steps down the gangplank to collectivism. They all circumvented the intent, if not the letter, of the U.S. Constitution.

Our servicemen and women who serve their fellow countrymen risk their lives and put their families through sometimes unimaginable ordeals. Some pay the ultimate sacrifice. They are increasingly being used as pawns by powerful interests to whom they never swore fealty. Their sacrifices often do not serve the interests of freedom and protection of fellow Americans but rather the interests of the powerful. This has been arguably true since World War Two. President Eisenhower warned that this would happen. He seems to have been right. It breaks my heart that a proud legacy is being so tarnished.

Collectivist thought is not an enemy you can fight by force of arms. It is a spiritual battle. I do not believe this battle is lost, but we’re alarmingly close. The protections given by the Constitution are meaningless in the hands of a people who do not share the values upon which it was founded. That’s why it has failed time and again over the past century. Absent a resurgence of those values, the ideal of America will die.

If that happens, peoples of the world, ask this in your moments of need: Who ya gonna call?

Better be Ghostbusters, because it won’t be America. She’ll be in the same boat you’re in.