TOLERATING THE INTOLERABLE

One indicator of the degeneracy of European liberalism is crime. Many countries where crime was once virtually unknown now have a serious crime problem, albeit mostly of the petty variety. Visitors and tourists are often the primary (and easiest) targets, so as I prepare for another European trip I find it necessary to take certain precautions that never would have even come to mind in the past. Moving around the United States, Canada, or even Mexico you don’t think much about pickpockets and street scams, but in many European cities they are thriving. New York City, where I live, was once caricatured by Europeans with mock stick ups and the like, but is now the safest big city in the US and one of the safest in the world, thanks largely to Rudy Giuliani and Ray Kelly. 

Why is Europe experiencing this crime wave? The answer is what we in the US call “liberalism” (though the term has a different meaning there). Many countries have allowed themselves to be invaded by people up to no good due to liberal asylum laws and ease of admission. Where stricter laws exist they are barely enforced. But what is most striking is how lax the laws are. In Spain for example, pickpockets get all of three days jail time and a fine, no matter how many times they are caught. For the pickpockets and street hustlers it is just part of the cost of doing business so there is basically no deterrent. The result is that cities like Barcelona have become pickpocket heaven. These criminals are virtually all foreigners, as are many of their targets, i.e. tourists. The change is just mind-boggling from a few decades ago. It is as though the country has gone to the opposite extreme from the austere strictness of the Franco era. Similar conditions have led a country like Greece, where crime was once nonexistent, to now have a problem with it.

At the root of this problem is tolerance pushed to a loony extreme. In the contemporary western world the worst thing one can be is intolerant. That being the case, people go to great lengths to avoid being labeled “intolerant,” or “racist” as in the United States. To avoid this one must be nonjudgemental, no matter how rudely something violates a sense of propriety. This means there can be virtually no standards, which ultimately means that anything and everything must be tolerated. It warps the idea of tolerance, which in moderation is a moral principle, into circumstances where there can be no moral principles. 

A corollary to this is when a society loses belief in itself. When there is no sense of common good there is no hope for the future. All that matters is getting the most one can out of the present, and thus basically assenting to how anyone else gets theirs. But common sense should tell us that the more you tolerate crime the more likely you are to become a victim of crime. The US has not yet succumbed to this lunacy but the trajectory is heading that way, as moral principles once commonly held fall away, and the notion of tolerance is skewed to provide cover for the most morally indefensible kinds of behavior. A society that does not have the conviction to defend itself is doomed to fail, and it is truly sad to see what is happening to our European cousins. 

HOW TO SAVE THE POST OFFICE

Postal service seems to vary considerably between the city (where it is miserable) and my summer house community, where it is wonderful. Sadly it is the rural post offices that are most threatened by the Post Office’s fiscal problems, but from them we can see the kernel of an idea of how the Post Office can be rescued. In these areas the Post Office is more than a mail service. It functions as a community and information center, sometimes the only one.

We should look at postal facilities as more than post offices. They are in fact an extension of the federal government in every community. In many, for example, you can pick up tax forms or items related to passports. So why don’t we build and expand upon this? Why not use it as a base for some of the other things (sometimes too many things) that the government does or provides so that it functions more like a general field office. The convenience and savings are potentially enormous. It could reduce duplication, excess facility costs that could be shared, and provide an enhanced and efficient base for public services. 

It’s time to think outside the box and consider how this might be implemented. This is just a suggestion, but there could be a follow-up study (provided it doesn’t become too obscure) to consider the feasibility of this approach, such as what agencies could combine and piggy-back some of their operations. We already have a built-in vast network of facilities throughout the country. Why not make better use of them? 

THE REPUBLICAN COASTAL DISEASE

The national Republican party is increasingly in danger of going the way of the moribund New York party I’ve written about previously here, where yet again the party establishment is lining up behind another gruff, inarticulate candidate whose only virtue is money, and who is certain to wind up an embarrassment if nominated. It doesn’t even matter that such candidates aren’t even Republicans, or are recent converts of convenience, as long as they are willing to part with some cash for the party establishment apparatus. When a party starts looking for candidates who can self-finance you know it is in trouble, as it portends nothing more than a lack of a broad-based support network. The party in California is in the same shape, although there at least the last statewide candidates were good. 

This pattern just confirms the phony depiction of the Republicans as the “party of the rich,” never mind that the super-rich actually favor Democrats. It is in fact a bona fide middle class party, but it doesn’t help when the last candidate for President, as good and decent a man as he was, only confirms this stereotype. People see this and form their perceptions, often concluding that “he doesn’t represent people like me.” The only way the party can gain strength is to do the nitty gritty work on the ground and build from the bottom up, rather than wait until election season and hope the right candidate comes along. Even if such a person does materialize they can’t magically create a functioning party structure where none exists, which is pretty much the case at the moment on both coasts. 

The party establishment often gets the blame from conservative activists, and there is some truth to this, to the extent that they have frequently connived to rent out the party line. No one should be able to buy a nomination for office in either party, but it continues to happen. But that is ultimately where failure commences, when the party ceases to represent the people it is supposed to represent. The usual prescription to correct this is to limit the amount of money in politics. However, it is in fact such restrictions on donations that has handed rich guys the keys to the party since they are willing to spend their own money, making campaign finance rules ludicrous. I’ve argued a number of times here that what we need is electoral reform: first a limit on how long campaigns can go on, and second, that candidates ought to be nominated by the elected officials of the party, who after all, have been chosen for public office by the electorate. However, the prudent way to approach big questions is incrementally, not in a rush to “reform” or correct a situation that often backfires due to unforeseen circumstances. Any change should first be tried out in a few states to see how it works before becoming a national template. 

Republicans aren’t losing on ideas as much as organization, or the lack of it. It is increasingly impossible to win an election if you write off large geographic sections of the electorate. The problem isn’t with “minorities” as we hear all the time, but rather with geography. The division into so-called “red” and “blue” states, or tactics to maximize the party’s “own” turnout may occasionally work, as in the past few presidential elections, but it is a terrible long-term strategy. Both parties are guilty of this. The way to start repairing this is to ask the questions “Why aren’t we getting the vote in these states?” and “What can we do to appeal to them?”  

A decade ago former Governor Zell Miller wrote a book called A National Party No More about the Democrats. The same could now be said about the Republicans. When a huge block of voters on both coasts are basically written off it is that much harder to win an election.The national party should look at states where they are faltering and resuscitate the local parties. It was not so long ago that California or New York could be successfully contested. They should be again, by doing the necessary work of building a party from the ground up instead of from the top down. 

GOVERNING TO THE MAX

The federal, state, and local governments always adapt the most optimistic scenario of revenues going forward, and then proceed to go ahead and spend on that basis. When these projections don’t materialize they are caught unprepared, especially at the state and local level, since they cannot print money like the federal government. Prudence would suggest that rather than proceeding on the rosiest assumptions, more cautious figures ought to be used. Instead they assume that things will be as good or better than they are at the moment, never worse. This is not to suggest that more realistic projections are not made in some cases, but those tend to be ignored in practice. 

But things do occasionally get worse and revenues do fall below expectations. Everyone else has to tighten their belts when things go south. Businesses have to cut back ,as do individuals, but not the government, or it goes into crisis mode. In the recession everyone else has had to do more with less, but government just keeps growing, especially at the federal level. Locally, when the economy tanks there is less flexibility. If suburban property values fall, as they have in the housing bust, the income from property taxes that local governments depend upon is going to be reduced since houses are worth less. With reduced revenue they must choose between cutting back or increasing taxes, opting for the latter to the extent they can get away with it. 

If governments simply adapted more realistic assumptions they would be in far less trouble, as several states are now, and there would be more stability, But when times are flush and the tax revenues roll in they make sure they spend every penny of it, usually for “unmet needs,” instead of either reducing debt, maintaing a rainy day account, or returning money to the people it belongs to through tax reductions. They usually go for the maximum they can squeeze out, and this is a feature that has been characteristic of all governments throughout history, no matter what form they take. 

There is a reason for this, which takes us to my Prime Axiom: All entities constantly seek to grow and expand. Whether it is the state, social institutions, business, educational or religious institutions, at the top of the agenda is continued growth and expansion. It is a collective organic compulsion that takes on a life of its own. Rare is the entity that seeks to reduce itself. There is an even more basic reason for this; people always want more. Whether it is power, money, glory or simply more stuff, everyone wants more. That being the case, people in institutions continuously want more out of the environment they operate in. They feel compelled to be bigger tomorrow than they are today. it is no surprise that government acts in the same way. The differences is that there are fewer checks and limitations on the state than there are  in any other domain. They get to write their own rules. 

Once we understand how compelling these characteristics are in human nature, it is easy to see why government, which is composed of human beings, inevitably grows without limitation. The state always seeks to govern with the maximum number of resources it can obtain.  This leads to ever increasing incursions into the private sphere, which is diminished, as it retreats before the endless state appetite for power and revenue. But as the government takes on more and more, its effectiveness becomes less and less, until it can no longer honor its commitments and heads towards collapse. 

How then do we reduce the insatiable appetite of the state? It can only happen if people become aware of the process that is engulfing all of us. There are some states where government has changed course, limiting itself and lowering taxes, and it is no surprise that they are growing while other states with high taxes and regulation are losing jobs and people to them. It is only when we realize what we are doing to ourselves, for we do have a government composed of the representatives of the people, that we can begin to reverse course. We do not always need more and more, and must learn to limit ourselves. Some things do not get better with growth and expansion, for where the state is concerned, it contains the seeds of its own demise. 

SOME VERY GOOD BRANDS

We often complain about companies that perform poorly, but seldom give credit when they consistently perform well. Here are a few that I think are deserving of some plaudits.

The Eastman Kodak corporation has fallen on hard times since the advent of digital photography, but I can’t say enough good things about the products they are producing currently. They are also continues to be one of the most consumer-friendly companies around. I recently bought a printer from the Office Hero series that does just about anything one might want, notably duplex printing, network wireless connection (easily set up unlike some others), and faxing, along with beautiful color prints. When the printer I purchased had a problem with slightly skewed pages they promptly sent me a replacement. The printer also uses the special inks that Kodak developed that are significantly cheaper than other brands. They continue to make the finest grade of photographic paper in the world, as well as film, of course. I also bought an inexpensive Kodak waterproof video camera that takes remarkably good images, above or below the pool surface. I’ve always found everything they produce to be completely reliable and of good quality, and choose their products whenever possible.

Some might be surprised to hear me say good things about an airline, given how miserable air travel can be these days, but personally I have always gotten good service from American Airlines. They make good on frequent flyer miles, and when things go awry they are pretty generous with compensation. They have also put us up a couple of times with a hotel and meals due to Caribbean flights that had to be canceled because the island destination airport was unexpectedly closed. They’ve never turned down a reasonable request, and although they are technically bankrupt you’d never know it from the level of service. They also have a really good worldwide network with other airlines, so if they don’t fly somewhere they’ll put you on an airline that does and still give you mileage credit. They have an excellent website where you can book the cheapest fare directly, as well as rent a car or book a hotel at a good price. Now that they are merging with US Air the network will be even more extensive. I just hope the merger doesn’t change American from the way it operates now. 

When it comes to another form of transportation, the cruise ship, I am very enthusiastic about the Holland America line. The disasters that always seem to happen on cruise lines beginning with a “C” never occur on Holland America. Unlike other lines that keep making bigger and bigger ships that become cattle boats, their ships are mid-sized and optimum for a pleasant voyage. There is a great consistency from one ship to another so you feel right at home in a familiar setting. I know something of ships from when I was in the shipping business many years ago, and find the design of their vessels to be excellent. The dining experience and crew performance are consistently good, and you don’t get charged for a lot of onboard extras. They are generous to repeat customers, which they continue to get because the experience is so positive. Overall they are a step up from the other, larger cruise lines, but still have voyages all over the world, so that you can almost always find a ship going to destinations you want to visit. 

There are some others, but as I prepare for another trip these readily come to mind because I’m using them and think they deserve a shout out. 

THINGS AREN'T GETTING ANY BETTER

The political class would have us believe that things are getting better, and that they have improved over time. However, increasingly, people intuitively know that this is not the case. Yes, by the measure of things they own, from air conditioners to televisions, people have more because these things are cheap. But are they really better off? Experience tells us otherwise. 

In the 1950s it was possible for a policeman or fireman in New York City to not only own a home, but to have a summer house as well. He could support three children comfortably, and his wife could stay home. (Most women work today not because they necessarily want to, but because they have to, to make ends meet).  Needless to say none of this would be possible today. Never mind optional things, just getting by is much more of  a struggle than it was in the past. Now it could be argued that was an exceptional time, an anomaly in the scope of history, because America did not experience the widespread destruction that much of the developed world did and emerged from WWII in a singularly strong position. The argument goes that this could not last.

The problem is that the expectations of many have been based upon this period- that things would be at least as good, or better in the future. Whether everyone lived as well is not the point; even if they didn’t, they believed wholeheartedly that they could and would.  Some, mostly on the left, would argue that things weren’t all that good, and that somehow it wasn’t “real,” but simply stated it was a time when almost everyone was happy, except for the liberals. The last time there was even an echo of that sentiment was in the 1980s. Today a majority believe that the “American dream” is dead. 

But we don’t have to go back to the 50s to see what has happened. We can look back at a relatively dismal period, the 1970s, and see a significant difference. Since 1970 the earnings of men with a high school diploma have fallen 47% in constant dollars. Even men with college degrees are earning 12% less. We’ve gone from being the greatest creditor country in the world to being the largest debtor. Back then unemployment was 3.9%, or  half of what it is today. The economy is going nowhere fast and this is unlikely to change for millions of quite employable people, for whom things have not only not improved, but have gotten considerably worse. 

Sometimes we hear the argument that America is just going to have to wait until the rest of the world catches up. But the notion that an American worker be considered the same as a Chinese peasant is just unacceptable. The only way the promise of this country is fulfilled is if we continue to lead the way and maintain the best living standard in the world. This has not happened due to objective conditions alone, but mismanagement, by the government for sure, but also by the private sector. Selfish, short-sighted behavior based on quarterly  earnings is the norm these days, rather than the long term good. The focus is on immediate profits rather than quality products or the goods and services that are actually being produced. Across the board in all institutions, not just business, but nonprofits, universities, governments, etc.  top management is more focused on how they can maximize their benefits, rather than the substance of what the institution is about. 

i’m not going to get into all the other indicators of social decline, from morality to statistics like divorce rates to bad behavior and attitude, which are symptoms of more fundamental problems. What can be done to get back on the right track? There are no easy answers, but we can begin with enlightened leadership that has the right priorities. Then we desperately need policies that will spur economic growth and job creation as well as debt reduction. Unfortunately there is currently no inspired leadership from Washington, the administration is economically inept, and current tax and spending policies not only don’t encourage growth, they discourage investment.   In the absence of that there is just no way millions of unemployed people are going to be put back to work, that graduates will find jobs, or that those who are working won’t live in constant fear of losing their jobs. We do not have to be resigned to this. We need to be uplifted and inspired again. I do not want to go to my grave with the sad realization that our best years were during my childhood in the 1950s. From what was given to us we owe it to subsequent generations to provide something better.  

LAST WORD ON LAST YEAR

When the holiday season comes around I try to tune out the unending political rancor, and realize just how caustic it is when the season dissipates and it returns to the forefront. It is true that most people don’t follow these things or give them much attention, but those who do are usually angry for one reason or another, or upset about something, or fearful of what may happen, even though it often never occurs. For me the recent election and its aftermath constituted a distraction from other things I’d rather be focusing on, and never intended to give it as much attention as I have. I’d rather stay disinterested, but before moving on I’d like to reiterate a few ideas.  

It is pointless for those on the losing side to try and assign blame for the results, but some silly “explanations” have been put forward. These usually reflect the tendency to try and fit the election outcomes to reinforce something one believed before the election, or to advance a particular agenda. This is followed by a call to get rid of people they don’t like or disagree with. A lot of this has been directed against people with strong religious views, i.e. evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, conservative Catholics, etc. - generally referred to as the “religious right.” A rather large number of people are then tarred with the antics of a minor fringe, and it is suggested that they should be ignored. They say these people have too much influence on social issues, and have alienated other people, who then vote for the other party, having been “driven away.” The fallacy in this is that these votes would otherwise have gone Republican, but there is no evidence to substantiate this claim. It is alleged that “exclusionary rhetoric” (which is often mentioned but rarely specifically identified) is the problem, and therefore this group should be excluded.  I don’t share much of the worldview of the religious right, but I know that purging people is no way to build a majority. 

Some people now feel under siege and threatened, based upon fears that certain things might happen, usually based upon rhetoric of the other side, rather than the more pragmatic reality any government must deal with. They feel that the country has been lost and America as we have known it is over.  I think this is a bit premature, at the very least until 2014, when the outcome will very likely be different.  A significant number of people have actually signed secession petitions for their state, which is like picking up your marbles and leaving the game because you lost. I shouldn’t have to say this, but it’s not a good idea for a number of reasons. First because even most so-called “blue” states are actually geographically predominantly “red” at the county level. Thus, that means ceding away most of the territory in those states and abandoning the people who live in those counties. Second, over 600,000 died in a war to preserve the union and it is a disgrace to their memories.  Third, assuming these states actually did secede, soon enough there would be divisions within those states, in terms of government and opposition; this is inherent in the political process. 

Election outcomes have been far worse. When I was a fifteen years old I poured my heart and soul into Barry Goldwater’s presidential campaign.   When he lost I was heartbroken,  at what I thought was the triumph of socialism and the end of our world. I recall being at the NY Conservative party office (because the Republican party establishment didn’t support Goldwater) on election night. Women were crying and  guys were cursing the television at every smirk that appeared on Walter Cronkite’s face. The results then were a rout; there were losses everywhere, from congress to the state legislatures, and majorities left virtually nowhere. That was a time when communism seemed to be advancing all over the world, and socialism did seem to be the wave of the future, and our opposition seemed hopeless. But history turned out very differently. 

For things are seldom as bad as they seem, nor as good as we would like them to be. Much of the despondency  (or triumphalism on the other side) I’m hearing in the aftermath of last year’s election is premature. Many have given this election a portent that is unwarranted, often based upon expectations that are unlikely to be realized. On the surface, a recent Gallup poll showing that “socialism” was now viewed positively by 39% of Americans ought to be worrying, until you look a little deeper. By the same survey apparently 25% of “conservatives” and 23% of Republicans also viewed socialism positively. What this tells me is that when it comes to political terminology most people are clueless. Maybe they think “socialism” means social media like Facebook? This makes one realize that the problem really may be less the other “side,” than a situation of general stupidity. You have to wonder what all the political effort and conflict means in the end when much of the public is at best, vaguely aware. Clearly there is yet much to be learned out there and that is something all sides ought to agree on.