Larry Bradley's Weekly Ezine Issue #16
Reflections, Musings and a Challenge
This week’s effort will provide you with a lot more questions than answers. The confluence of several events and anniversaries has me in a reflective mood.
We’ll pick up on the theme from the last two weeks next week.
I’ll note first (in no particular order) that the Primary Season is over. Doubtless many of you and/or the people you love would have written “finally over”. To those of you with those feelings, you must sympathize with the spouse whose significant other makes them a baseball, football or basketball widow/widower and how they feel when the World Series, Super Bowl or NBA Finals is finally over with. Speaking of the NBA Finals (that are just starting), I’m reminded of what my late fraternity brother Lewis Grizzard wrote about them. “If the same people who were in charge of the NBA schedule were in charge of World War II, the Japanese would still be in the running.”
I miss Lewis, his column, his books and his humor. He’s been gone 14 years now. I often wonder what he would have to say about current circumstances.
At any rate, the end of the Primaries leaves us with many questions, some of which will not be answered until the General election is finished. Why are so many dissatisfied with the candidates? Why was Obama unable to win so many of the final contests? Is his a team going into the playoffs that had a terrific early season and is now in decline? Would the Republicans have selected a different candidate had they used the same system as the Democrats? Because so many Republicans had no voice in having John McCain as their candidate, will they support McCain in the General Election? Who will be the Vice Presidential candidates? Which criteria should have more weight in picking a running mate—the assistance the running mate brings to the ticket in this election or the desire to put in place a likely successor 4 or 8 years from now?
Other events that have me in this thoughtful mood include these. Two years ago I had a manuscript ready to be converted into a book. A year ago I started this Blog to complement the book. These anniversaries invite reflection on goals and achievements.
My goal was to change the way American politics are done for at least the next 50 years. I had the goal because I saw the current method as detrimental to the long term health of our nation socially, economically, and security-wise. I still do.
I wrote my book with the thought that we way think and talk about politics makes us think we are diametrically opposed to one another with a 50/50 split among the population. The reality is that we actually agree on a hell of lot more than we disagree about. We have difficulty in coming to that realization. We have difficulty because we resist acknowledging and dedicating the time and trouble required to fully consider what we believe about and what we want from government. It’s just so much more fun and easier in our busy lives to put other people in categories and call them names. Making that transition is what I had in mind when I wrote Part I of the book.
The second thought I had when I wrote the book was there were three issues we needed to resolve in the same way we resolved Prohibition. We needed to resolve those issues because they are distorting our political process.
Those issues are National Defense, Abortion and Gay Marriage. Resolving National Defense means we need to reach consensus on a disciplined approach, not a politically expedient approach, for the answers to these three questions.
• How can we staff our military to share sacrifice equally among all our people?
• How do we balance forward thinking military readiness with domestic needs?
• How do we ensure that when we commit to war that war is the only option left?
Resolving the other two questions means we must recognize and fight against the effects of the Abilene Paradox. That’s what Part II of the book is about.
Standing here at a vantage point two years later, here are some of the things I would say I have learned and how I intend to proceed as a result. I have learned there are people who are not interested in politics from the standpoint of reason, intelligence and logic. I have learned that both Parties are to blame for our current state of affairs, not just one alone. Both the Parties and the public contribute to the perpetuation of the myths that keep us at odds with one another. I have learned that if we wish to increase the effectiveness of government, then we must first transform our political system.
What I’ve learned tells me there should have been a Part III to my book. So what I will do now is write Part III as a separate book. I will also continue to work on the exposing the myths and educating voters. Most of all, I will advocate two changes to our voting system I believe can overcome the duopoly of the two major parties and give us effective and efficient government again. We cannot rely on a benevolent executive to give us those things. Relying on a benevolent executive means depending on an individual human being and human beings are flawed. Systems are what enable us to overcome our weaknesses and maximize our strengths.
Once the election is over, I will continue to observe the actions of whichever party wins and comment on how well they are serving us.
Today is also the 40th Anniversary of the death of Robert F. Kennedy. I am certainly no Robert F. Kennedy, but one of his sayings has stayed with me. He said, “There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why. . . I dream things that never were and ask why not?” So long as the system is as it is, we will continue to get the results we’re getting. Why not join me in making the changes necessary to have a better system?
Tomorrow is the 64th Anniversary of D-Day. Watch the beach assault scenes from Saving Private Ryan and then ask yourself this. If those folks had the guts to storm the beaches at Normandy, then don’t I at least have the guts to work for the better political system and government they gave me the opportunity to be a part of?
Mr. Bradley,
A couple of months ago I read your first book and found it very straightforward and enlightening. [I have never read a more convincing argument for abortion than your pancake analogy!] I am glad you are working on a second book. I hope you will address the issue of the role of government (if any) in providing a safety net for those in need. The New Deal, in short.
It seems to me that strict libertarians would like to completely obliterate the New Deal and believe (incorrectly, in my view) that government should provide very, very limited assistance to those less fortunate than ourselves and only to those with severe, untreatable mental or physical disorders. Otherwise, the argument goes: "Their predicaments are based solely on their *choices* so they are entirely responsible for their situations and for finding any solutions they might need." I also don't see them making much distinction between adults and children in applying this standard.
In one of your recent posts, you offered a scathing speech by Neal Boortz who seems to have a pathological hatred for the poor. He says: "That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life." I believe the libertarians' position on this is too harsh. While I agree the government has not found a successful, efficient balance in helping the needy AND providing sufficient incentives to lift themselves out of their situations, I still feel the government should ensure basic needs (including health care, by the way). How the government should effectively do this (to weed out the "perpetual loafers") I don't know but just because some people abuse the system does not give us a blanket excuse to scrap the whole idea. I think we also have to draw distinctions between offering short-term assistance for emergencies (the period between a sudden lay-off and finding a new job, for instance)and long-term assistance for those with more chronic, complex problems (homelessness for many veterans, say). I am still grappling with this issue and am open to other ideas. What are your thoughts? Thanks.
Reply to this
P.S. I bring up Neal Boortz for two reasons: you recently posted one of his recent speeches on poverty referenced above and you also mentioned him on another tread on Amazon.com. "Neal Boortz says it best in 'Somebody's got to say it'." I guess I am wondering if he was speaking for you as well in his speech on the poor. If so, why, and if not, why not?
Reply to this
Peter,
Thanks for your comment. Please call me Larry. I also appreciated your other comment.
Neal Boortz is like a buffet you can pick and choose from. For me, he's like the evangelist Mike Murdoch. Some things he says I agree with, others I do not. I post things by him and others like him as a means of exposing my readers to other thoughts.
In that particular posting, I probably should have done more commentary to indicate what my feelings were about it.
With regard to issues of poverty and other government programs, I'll reiterate a couple of things I said in my book. I believe in Benjamin Franklin's saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. In an ideal world, two fully functional parents would raise children who would become industrious, self sufficient, productive and functional adults. We do not, unfortunately, live in an ideal world.
Are there people who are lazy and in poor circumstances by choice? Absolutely. Do they deserve large scale government assistance? Probably not. Are there people who are in poor circumstances through no fault of their own and need a boost to get going again? Yes. Are there people who in such circumstances and no boost at all will help them. The answer is yes. Our difficulty is in creating programs that differentiate between the circumstances. If we don't have programs that attempt to intervene for children, for example, then we will have more and more children who grow up dependent on society instead of participating in society. Our long term interest is served in having those programs in those instances where children are at risk.
Such programs should attempt to work themselves out of existence, but the reality is that (to paraphrase the Bible) the poor you will always have with you. Something else to keep in mind on this topic from the Bible was the phrase noted yesterday by Robert Kennedy's children. "To whom much is given, much is expected."
One of my favorite books is Starship Troopers. There's a section in there where there is some survival training going on during a very cold night. The sergeant is asked how they can survive. The sergeant relates that if you've ever watched a herd of sheep on a cold night, then you've seen them mill about. The ones closest to the center are warm and the ones on the outside are cold. Consequently, those on the outside are always fighting to get on the inside and the ones on the inside will find themselves on the outside if they don't pay attention.
I am for self reliance and the self determination of the individual, but those are qualities that must be nurtured.
I am put off by narrow points of view by people who want to be in charge to make decisions, but do not want to be responsible for the consequences of those decisions or accounting for the long term ripple effect of those decisions.
Those are the principles I try to apply in judging the goodness of programs and their execution.
Thanks for asking.
Reply to this
Peter,
Thanks for your comment. I particularly appreciate your remarks about my abortion analogy.
I've made comments above on your other comments, including these.
Larry
Reply to this