The case of the classified data

Recently, and not for the first time, conservative heads were exploding because emails from/to Hillary Clinton were discovered that contained classified information. Some things simply make me chuckle.

First, a disclaimer: I could care less that Hillary Clinton is involved. I'm not convinced she's presidential material (her husband proved he wasn't) and she hasn't really ever accomplished anything that makes me think she could handle the job in a respectful and humanly decent manner. (The last US President who managed that was Jimmy Carter, but we all know how his administration has been spun. End of digression.) So, this isn't about her, it's all about the accusation, and I don't care who's making it.

At the beginning of my working career, I ended up being an intelligence analyst at the edge of the Free World (5 km as the crow flies from the Iron Curtain) at the height of the Cold War. I wore civilian clothes and was primarily charged with gathering intelligence from any and all sources, even exploiting my contacts, whenever and wherever possible. In a sense, I was the "spy who was out in the cold". An important part of my "job" was conducting "liaison" with local national agencies in order to gather, what I was told was highly sensitive information that was vital for the national security of the US of A. Fair enough.

At least once a week, my partner and I would travel out to the railroad crossing point between East and West to get the word on what was slipping over and across the border. The border police were great guys: friendly, helpful, always positive, appreciative of the fact that we could speak the local language, and they were generous. They went through every train that came out of the Eastern Zone and gathered up all the newspapers, for example, that the travellers left behind (litter-leavers know have no national allegiance). We dutifully took these back to our office, where the miraculous happened.

Our "product", so to speak, were "intelligence reports": the more you submitted, the higher you were rated, and we were no slackers, I can assure you. Out came the "form" (everything in the military has a form), the key data was filled in (in triplicate, of course), and the newspapers were simply attached. Everything, however, that left our office was, by policy, classified SECRET. And so, the form was stamped SECRET at the top and bottom of every page, and each and every page of the attachments (i.e., the newspapers) were stamped SECRET as well. This was all bundled together into a double-enveloped package, stamped appropriately, then paper-taped across every edge of tape and on every seam before being taken up to the mailroom for sending to our "customer", the translation detachment at our next-higher echelon of authority. There, once received, droves of translators translated every single headline and word and stamped every page they produced with SECRET on top and bottom of the page. And the translations were reworked as well into "reports" all of which were classified at least SECRET, though those reports in which the analysts believed to see something "important" were classified at higher levels. It would take a total of about 40 years for our newspapers to eventually be unclassified, but in the interim, the national security of the USA would not be compromised.

Yeah, I love it when journalists play the "classified" card. They have no idea what it means. I have some idea and I can tell you that most of what I saw classified were things anybody anywhere with even the slightest amount of interest could have collected for themselves.

But they didn't. Why? Because the "secrets" weren't worth the paper they were written on.

Are we going to do it or go for it?

Sometimes things boil down to simple choices. This is one of those times. I'm not talking about an instant, a mere individual "now". No, the choice itself is simple enough, but it's timing is, well, a bit more profound. Any halfway reasonable person recognizes that we, at least as denizens of the modern, Western World, but maybe even humanity as a whole, are at a watershed. What we decide to do is going to affect us for a long time to come.

No, I'm not going Chicken-Little on you. I'm quite calm and collected, as a matter of fact, even though there are more than enough "reasons" for me to be simply ranting and raving. It's not about one thing, no single issue. We've painted ourselves into a corner and the choice is whether we want to get out of it or not. If we simply sit or stand around till the paint dries, the house will have been torn down by the authorities and we'll just get carted off for trespassing and obstruction. Nobody really likes to talk about it because too many others will just shout you down or declare you paranoid, but if you just stop, take a deep breath, and look around you will a clear, detached, unemotional view, you realize pretty quickly that we're in over our heads.

Too many things are broken to be fixed: you can't fix the government, because the game is fixed; you can't fix the economy, because the game is rigged; you can't save the environment, because of the fixed and rigged games; you can't expect justice in a world made up of just ourselves and our think-alikes; you can't get informed by watching Faux News or its equivalents; you can't get smart by only having your own opinions; you can't ask for or demand solutions to problems that only suit you; you can't be inclusive if you're an isolationist; you can't be tolerant if you're an exclusionist; you can't expect change if you're not willing to change yourself. And that, dear friends, is where we are.

This is, believe it or not, my 400th post. In almost all of them, I have been saying the same thing, but the responses I get (mostly offline, that is true ... or via other media) tell me that I'm not getting through. I am surprised how many people agree with most of what I have to say, and I'm just as surprised how unwilling almost all of them are to do anything about it. And that, dear friends, is the crux of the matter.

It is all well and good that you think something, but it doesn't make a hill of beans of difference unless you do something about it. If you're only interested in what you can get out of it, how you can benefit, then it is better that you do nothing at all. Too many of you -- maybe even most of you -- are willing to complain, fret and moan, and just about everyone I encounter has a bevy of "reasons" why they are incapable of doing anything about anything.

I have neither tolerance of nor understanding for that. It's a cop-out, as we used to say; it's merely an excuse, as we say in Standard English. The defining character of this moment is either putting up or shutting up.

Time to pack it in?

Sometimes I'm sure we all feel like there's just no use in fighting anymore. Things aren't getting better. What is any one of us, individually, supposed to do? After all, each of us is just one person. That's right. But, so what?

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but we humans are different from our animal cousins in a very important way: we can talk. We can communicate both concretely and abstractly. We can question and we can explore. Our language abilities give us a tremendous leg up in the evolution game, to say the least. But it is this special skill that we use to little.

There are a couple of preconditions to making talking effective, however. (For a lot of us, this is the hard part.) First of all, not everyone thinks like we do. Not everyone sees the world like we do. Not everyone believes the things that we do. And that's OK. In fact, it's an advantage, collectively, if we allow it to be. Second, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but not all opinions are created equally. Opinions should be the result of thought, not a substitute for it, so just having one means nothing. We have to learn to provide support for the opinions that we have. Third, we have to be open to difference. This means not only allowing for other opinions, but also for other ideas and approaches. Sometimes it's not one thing but a combination of a variety of things that provides the best solution to a problem. Fourth, we have to be patient. We need to allow others to express themselves just as we want to be allowed to express ourselves. But, fifth, related to this, we have to learn to listen. I don't mean we have to find out what's wrong with what someone else is saying but strive to understand what s/he really is saying. Language is by its very nature ambiguous. We can think we've said something clearly but it may still be ununderstandable to someone else.

In other words, we need to relearn how to talk with one another, not just talk to, and especially not talk at ... no we need to practice talking with one another again.

Some of us are able to do this within our families, though Lord knows there are enough families in which this doesn't happen anymore. Some of us can do this with our close friends, but have trouble doing it with strangers, and this brings us to a sixth precondition, namely, all talk is personal. Every time we open our mouths (or write something like this blog) we are sharing part of ourselves with others. This takes a certain amount of courage. We can't be afraid to share.

The seventh, and final, precondition to be met is we need to be on the look out for what's common, not what separates. These days we focus too often what makes us different, not what makes us alike. For as different as we are, we humans have an awful lot in common. It is the commonalities that we find strength. In the differences we can find new ways to make the strengths stronger.

Why do I think this is an answer ... something as simple as learning to talk with one another again? I believe I'm on the right track for the simple reason that it is very easy to say, but we all know, it is extremely difficult to put into practice. That's a dead giveaway.

Afraid of the game?

Don't get me wrong. I know you are all readers of integrity and courage, of moral fortitude and strength of character. Still, I know, and you know that deep down, we shake in our boots. While putting on a calm, determined and fearless countenance to the world, inside we're mush. If we're honest, we're afraid of everything.

If we're working, we're afraid of losing our job because we can't live without the next paycheck. If we're unemployed, we're afraid no one will want us and we'll be forced onto welfare or worse. If we're healthy, we're afraid we'll get sick, especially if we're Americans (because we know a serious illness is the end of life as we know it). If we're successful, we're afraid we'll fail. Some of are afraid of appearing weak in any way, shape or form. If we have anything, we're afraid someone will steal it or tax it away. We are afraid of what the terrorists are up to. We are afraid of being mugged, raped, or killed just walking down the street. We don't like to admit it, but we're a fearful lot.

I hear this undercurrent in almost every discussion I have, with just about anyone, and the actual subject of conversation doesn't make the slightest bit of difference at all. The truth of the matter is, we live in constant and -- too often -- abject fear. We spend the better part of our waking hours just whistling in the graveyard. (You remember those times as a kid, having to walk through the graveyard at night. What do you do? You whistle. Why? Because even though you know there is no such thing as ghosts, a bit of sound overcomes the oppression of silence and the maybe-if-I-make-noise-they'll-leave-me-alone.) Oh, it's not reasonable and rational behavior, but we do our best to give it that veneer. Hey, whistling is harmless, after all.

This is what amazes me about life these days. We're supposed to be such an informed, enlightened, intelligent society. We Westerners have allegedly put all superstition behind us. We live in modern, democratic societies, where freedom is writ large, where liberty is a God-given right. Yet, we give up those rights voluntarily, we transfer our personal power to others willingly, and we shut up rather than put up. If we speak out, others will think we're jerks. If we're too adamant, others will think we're bullies. If we're passionate about issues, others will think we're obsessed. We worry a lot about what our neighbors think of us. Why? Because we never really talk to them about anything that matters, because most topics -- religion (most likely), politics (most definitely) -- are just taboo. After all, there's always the weather, the local sports teams, vacation plans, and yard work.

TPTB know this and they play on it readily. They can feed it (after all, they control the media and who goes searching for alternative news sources), they legislate it, they convince us that they are helping us out. They're not. They never have, and they never will.

It's a pretty hopeless situation, when you get right down to it. Well, actually, it's just sad.

But, but, but ...

Now, I know what a lot of you are thinking, and I'm no mind-reader. You're wondering just how whacked I must be to come up with a crazy idea like that. Maybe it's something in the water. Maybe, and maybe not. I'm a big fan of principles and this is one that is very, very fundamental.

We may complain about our representatives in government, but we elect them. We say the system that only counts votes that are cast is fair. We agree that the minority should have the say. Do you see how quickly we get from agreeing to hey-that's-not-what-I'm-saying? The current democratic systems that are in place -- regardless of how democratic they appear on the surface -- are all rigged to promote minorities. Those who are selected to do the governing quickly come to believe that it is they who should decide. They are all charged with voting their consciences, which is fine, in principle, but if their conscience is at odd with the so-called will of the people, then what? And, what if a substantial group gets together and decides that we don't need all these freedoms anyhow because too many people don't know how to handle it. Is it OK for those elected representatives to simply imbue themselves with more authority than they should and make decisions that are no longer in the interest of those they represent? Well, that's how it works now.

For all the complaining that I hear about "government", I rarely hear the complaint that we, the citizenry, are too complacent. I don't know of an elected body that doesn't have everything that most of us would like to have: full healthcare coverage, a good salary, an excellent retirement plan even if you don't work at your job a whole lifetime, expense accounts, reduced-priced services just for you ... the list goes on. How can we with good conscience say that they deserve all this if the theory says that these people are working for us. Isn't that the idea of democracy to begin with: the elected representatives are "servants of the people"? Well, yes, that's the theory, but welcome to reality.

The mere fact that they do what they do and get away with it and all the rest of us do is complain is pretty substantial evidence in my book that we have given our power to them ... freely, willingly, knowingly. You might want to argue about that last one, of course, but if you buy into the system, if you think that the way it is all set up is fair and just and equitable, if you glorify your founding documents more than you care about your neighbors, well, then I have to agree with George Carlin: you get the government you deserve.

There are others of you who will be quick to point out that if you get too far out of line, if you question the system too directly, the authorities will be at your door. You're right. Americans, for example, have sat back and allowed the "system" to remove habeus corpus, detain citizens as terrorists on mere suspicion, to restrict freedom of speech, to establish a system in which money replaces justice and democracy, and generally to put the populace on the defensive. America, particularly in the wake of the Occupy movement, has shown that it is not adverse to using excessive force to quell peaceful dissent, and I refuse to even get started on how they are conducting their foreign policy these days. What is more, too many other governments are willing to go along, if not try out some of these shenanigans themselves.

There comes a time, however, in every one of our lives, when we have to ask ourselves how we feel about power. We can't avoid it. We have to decide how to deal with it.

The name of the game

It's encouraging to know that there is a chance we may get out of the current game, but I'm not placing any bets at the moment, nor am I ready to start a betting pool. Still, there are glimmers of light here and there, and I, for one, believe we should acknowledge and encourage every one we see. Nevertheless, if things are going change for real and permanently (which they are anyway, but we still have a chance to participate, if we want to), it is helpful to get a full grasp of the concepts involved. For this reason, a not-so-subtle shift of focus ...

Truth be told, there is a game, and it's the same one that's been played since as far back as we can collectively remember. It's name is Power. It's an odd game actually, because it only works if everyone shares the same beliefs. It's not a real game, but it is nevertheless real. It is not a fair game in reality, but it is in theory. It's a mind game, but one in which brilliance, intelligence or even wisdom aren't of much use. It's a subtle game, and it's deceptive. Consequently, we need to keep our wits about us, and we need to understand how we got to where we are.

No, no, no reason to stop reading. I'm not going to bore you with a traditional history lesson. Instead, I want you to stop for a moment and think about the following statement:

Only if we grant power to something can it have power over us.
- Jean Gebser

It's not an easy thought, I know. You have to keep going back to it and reflect upon what he is actually saying. One thing I'm pretty sure he's saying, though, is that power is not A given, it is simply given. And now, even more of you are probably asking yourselves: just what is he talking about? Fair enough. Let me try to explain.

Let's go back to the things I've talked about in the past few posts. Why is it that politicians can't agree? Why is it that the coalition talks in Germany are so hard to move forward? Why do we all feel so helpless most of the time in the face of political realities? It's simple, actually, because we've given up our own power and transferred it to others. The reason that the alternatives I spoke of in the last post seem to be making headway is that those involved are simply ignoring those who think they have they say. And, why do they think they have the say? Because we have more or less told them that they do. The problem is really not the politicians. The real problem is us ... or at least some of us, at least those who are more than willing -- for whatever reasons -- to grant their power to someone/something else.

Don't delude yourself into thinking this is an easy thought to grasp. It looks simple enough, I'll grant you that, but it takes a bit of time and effort to actually penetrate into its actual meaning. When you get it, though, it's a long overdue "AH HA", I assure you.

Same old game?

Well, well, well ... who would have thought that the Americans would have pulled it off? I would, and did. So we've got another six months of breathing space till the gyrations begin again. If there ever was a demonstration of the "game", this was it.

Though the US will now pay its bills and borrow more money, nothing has been resolved. The spin machines are operating at full power; everybody's responsible for saving the country, if not the world; the others were responsible for such reckless behavior; not a single thing has changed. There was nothing learned (other than maybe the other guy just might not cave when you expect); and there's always another day. In this case, it's a few months, but what difference does that make in the scheme of political things?

What the shutdown and standoff made crystal clear, though, is that whatever they are doing in Washington, it has nothing to do with what any of us might want or what might be of benefit to any of us little people. This isn't a simple matter of Washington being out of touch, it is about the fundamental principle of modern government: it's about those who govern, not those who are governed, and governing has lost its meaning of service to the general population, it is only about power. The Tea Party will continue to try to stop the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans will look for more hostages for the next round, and the Democrats will strut and gloat for a while and then realize that they, too, have to get ready for the next round. It starts in the spring.

On this side of the Atlantic, the expected has become news as well. The Greens and the CDU/CSU admitted they don't have enough in common to form a government, but, just as expectedly, maybe they could find enough should the SPD not manage to get together with Merkel & Co. The front door was closed, the back door unlocked; and you let the other guys step forward to take the hit for success or failure. We all know it's more the latter than the former. Though the polls indicated that the German people wanted a Grand Coalition, it's becoming increasingly clear that nothing will happen, no problems will be resolved and the ruling parties will spend the next four years fighting over who is really ruling, and nothing further will be resolved.

It is time to simply recognize and openly admit that they are going to do their thing, no matter what the rest of us want, and each is going to continue looking out for their own interests not ours. We're all faced with the same problems: crumbling infrastructure, an unbearable debt burden, upward pressure on unemployment, decaying and increasingly obsolete and inappropriate educational systems, aging populations, impending environmental disaster, decreasing standards of living, and as good as no future for our children, but what are TPTB in Germany and the US doing? Fundamentally the same thing: arguing amongst themselves as to who has the most say in doing what they want, not what the people might want, or even what might actually need to be done.

I would say the disconnect between the governing and the governed is pretty much complete. In all that's going on, what I miss more than anything else is even a hint that it's about the pursuit of the general welfare on the basis of anything even slightly resembling democratic processes.

But, it does look very much like the old adage is true: people get the governments they deserve.

Just a techno-game?

I'm sure there are any number of you who immediate responded to what I've been advancing that this is what you've been saying all along. The Internet, the Web, changes everything. Free access to information and the wider distribution of technology is going to save us all. Actually, it isn't. It's not even about the technology. It's about what you do with it. TPTB, of course, are trying to bend it to their advantage, and there are lots and lots of folks going along, but the momentum is actually with the rest of us.

Yes, it is becoming more and more difficult for TPTB to keep things secret. Yes, there are more and more people communicating with each other. And yes, much too much of this communication takes place simply via the technology. But that is changing. There is a growing number of people who are using the technology simply to find new ideas and then are communicating them in good old-fashioned manner -- that is, face-to-face -- with people in their communities. We learn about the power of mass movements on the Internet (for example, Occupy or Arab Spring) and we start wondering if that wouldn't work in downtown Topeka or in Dresden or in Milan, or in Smalltown or Kleinstadt. We become aware of the massive influence of huge international corporations, how politics here, there, and everywhere are more or less corrupt and we start asking ourselves if it is worth the effort to get involved at all. We start to see that while the problems of the others are not exactly the same, they are terribly similar, that there are analogies than can be made, and that maybe, just maybe, the others are more like us than we thought. We ask ourselves whether what they've done maybe we could do too.

Obviously, I'm not talking about mass movements (yet) or mind-changing attitudes (yet) or illuminating insights (yet). I'm merely pointing out that in addition to the widespread apathy that so many complain about, there are a good number of people, everywhere, who are simply acting as if the system as it is and the mainstays of that system (that would be TPTB) don't matter. They don't want to fight city hall nor do they want a new herd of do-nothing politicians in Washington or Paris or Berlin. No, they simply want to get on with their lives the best they can and they are finding others of like mind and interests, not halfway around the world, but down the block, if not simply next door.

There is a growing number of people who realize that here and now is more important than then and there, that we should have more say in what affects us directly. There is a growing realization that if my neighbors are doing OK, I'm probably doing OK, too. That there is more than enough to do right here where we are that has a bigger impact on their lives than hollow political promises and self-centered and self-interested entities far away.

The upside to our modern communication technologies is that we can be inspired by the successes of others who may be far away, and we can also learn from the mistakes and failures that others make. This access helps us realize that we are not alone with our problems, but the only ones that can solve them is us. The downside is that we might think that we can use these technologies to affect things far away, but we can't, nor should we. We humans were built and programmed for small-scale, near-environment success. We can handle groups of probably not more than 150 individuals, our families counted among them. But, we have larger overlaps between our groups than we realize, but we're awakening to that fact as well.

Maybe small is beautiful after all.

And now what?

For those of you who have been following this thread over the past couple of weeks, I'm sure there are some who are now yammering about how it's all nice and well to complain, but how about suggesting a solution. I would just like to say that's anything but the way forward. Oh, sure, I know I could come up with suggestions. That's not the problem at all. The problem is that we need to find a way to start talking again.

That's the real thread I've been harping on: we can't or don't or won't talk to each other like reasonable adults, because, I believe, we have simply become unreasonable. There's too much nonsense in the discussion. I don't care if you think you're right or left ... everybody I talk to is in the center, or so they claim, and everyone else is "out there" somewhere. What kind of nonsense is that? I don't care if your for against anything, but I would like to think there's more to all of it than a simple well-that's-my-opinion-and-that-is-that.

The way I see it all right now, everybody's wrong; nobody's right. Why? Because as I noted a couple of weeks ago, we need to decide collectively what we want, and we have no real collectivity anymore. At bottom, it's all about values, and as I have been saying repeatedly, we have no idea of agreeing on values independent of some predefined position. The Fundamentalists (of all colors, shapes and sizes) will tell you there is no chance without getting You-Know-Who involved. The humanistically inclined will tell you there is no chance as long as He is. If religion has something to offer, then it has to be offerable beyond the confines of a strictly encoded doctrine or dogma. It has to be something to that appeals to the humanist as well as the "true believer". On the flip side, should any secular thinker have a suggestion, it must be frameable in a form that the religious individual can understand. In other words, we have to stop accusing the other and start listening to them.

But, I'm not convinced that this is possible anymore. I'm serious. I'm deeply disturbed by the low level of discourse that I experience every day. I'm deeply disturbed by the obstinence and intolerance of the participants. And, I'm deeply disturbed by the readiness and willingness for violence -- be it physical or psychological -- of too many in the discussion.

What we need to realize that the "system", if you will, is broken. It cannot be fixed. Yes, let me repeat, there is no way to fix it. The only chance we have is to change it. If we don't there is going to be more suffering than the world has ever known. You think I'm exaggerating? Just wait. You don't really want me to be right.

So what can you do about it?

There is no question that every country on earth spends more than it should, and there would be very little argument, I think, that just about any citizen of any country would tell you there is a lot of waste in his or her government. If we want to allege, however, that we, the people, have any say in the matter anymore, then we the people need to get back in the game. That's what the Occupy Movement was about. That's what the 99% metaphor is all about. That is what upholding democratic ideals is all about.

We're in a pretty awkward situation. There's no doubt about it. And, what is so frustrating is that it is obvious that the big guys are playing divide-and-conquer with the little folks ... again. If you don't want to be taken for a fool, my advice would be not to act like one. If you don't want to participate in crazy discussions, don't say crazy things. If you want a better deal for your neighbor and yourself, you've got to start talking to your neighbor again, and you both have to spread the word and get out and do something about it.

To me, the first thing that has to be done is to get money out of politics. As long as money is there, there is simply no room for anything or anyone else. Yes, your elected representative would have to bite the hands that feed them. Yes, those who opposed the biting would have to be the first to go.

The second thing that has to be done, as far as I'm concerned, is to start a reasonable, yet passionate, discussion about what is important to all of us? Each and every one of you is required to ask yourself what you think government is about, and what it should be about, and why it might be in everybody's interest if everybody's interest were put back into the political equation.

Will it be easy? Not on your life. Will it be fast? Hardly. Will we succeed? Maybe not. Is it going to demand sacrifice. Most likely. So perhaps, the first question you should ask yourself at all is whether your own well-being is worth the effort.

The crashes of 1929 and 2008 were warnings for those who were willing to listen. It was selected, specific, private interests that caused it, but it was unrestricted, general, public interests that paid for it. That can't possibly be right, and it cannot be sensibly argued by our free-market friends. But, then again, some people like to have it all ways that benefits them.

And who's going to pay for it?

It always comes down to who pays, doesn't it? Well, it is a legitimate question. Government live from revenues. When revenues don't cover what you want or have to pay for, you need to borrow to get the money you need. We all agree that this is how the game is played. We also most likely agree that there is a lot of spending that is unnecessary and if we could reduce some of this waste, we'd be generally better off, but we wouldn't be in great shape. Why? Because you can't starve yourself back to health. If you don't have enough to pay for what you want and need, you have two options: reduce costs (which will only get you so far) or increase revenues (which may not solve your problems, but could certainly help).

This is how most of us try to manage our family budgets, but for some reason, the national budget obeys different rules? I don't think so. It has been documented, repeatedly, that the Bush tax cuts did not do what they claimed they would do: increase investment and generate job growth. It has been documented, repeatedly and reliably, that the who idea of trickle-down economics is just as "voodoo" as Bush I thought it was before he was forced (?) to embrace it. It was Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbels, who taught us that if you repeat the lie long enough, the people will believe it. And it would seem that even a vicious, twisted mind can come up with an accurate thought as well.

No, there's not way around it: revenues have to be increased and the tried and true way to do it is to have everybody pay their fair share. That's not what's happening now, and everyone who insists that's the wrong way to go has simply been proven wrong already. You can try to play the free-market card, of course, but the free-marketeers like to ignore the fact that good old Adam Smith was one of the first to propose and endorse the idea of progressive tax rates. It's just that simple. Even he recognized that unfair tax structures would disadvantage more people than they help. What is more – and this is something the free-marketeers will never tell you – is that Mr. Smith also said one of the primary roles of government (and he wasn't even speaking about anything democratic) is to protect the ordinary citizen from the undue, unfair, and most likely corrupt, influence of business. He firmly believed that if left unchecked, the big players would get together and destroy the little ones and take advantage of their customers. Yeah, but who reads all of Adam Smith anymore?

Whose job is it anyway?

It should be becoming slowly obvious to even the most contrary observer that a lot is not right with the way government works. It's not just the "little countries" like Greece or Spain that we have to whip into shape, the big countries need to be doing their part to show the way, to exhibit a bit of leadership, in getting things in their respective countries sorted. If you have sacred cows, however, they will not be slaughtered, or even touched. But what is the consequence of such?

The consequences are really quite obvious: if you have no money, certain things cannot be done. Who has decided that defense, for example, is inordinately more important than, say, communications or transportation or health? And what do you do about those things that simply cannot be solved by the ubiquitous, omnipotent market?

An Hungarian friend, a student of the infamous Chicago school of economics, recently asked me if I knew how many Chicago-school economists were needed to change a light bulb. Of course, I told him, I had no idea. The answer, he said, was "none"; the market will take care of it.

And there we have the rub (again). Whose job is it to ensure that the citizens of a country can be in a position to pursue their liberty or happiness? Who should finance the roads that everyone uses? Who should provide the infrastructure for communications that everyone uses? Who should be responsible for ensuring that every citizen has access to quality education? Who should be responsible for ensuring that those who have suffered doing something for everybody (like the military) are properly taken care of when they can't take care of themselves? Who should be there to determine what the minimum standard of dignity is for a resident of a country? Yes, of course, the government ... but the government in the form of an effective system of representation that sees to it that what is considered important for everyone – not just for a select few – is accomplished. And that's what we don't have right now and what we are having less of each and every day.

Safe from whom?

So, the ideal is more effective spending, but how does one decide what stays and what goes? One of the best examples of distorted priorities and twisted logic, of course, is US defense spending. Oh, sure, most Americans will tell you that it is important to remain safe, to be secure from military threats, but they don't often stop to ask who's threatening whom. What is more, they don't spend enough time thinking about what it means not only to be safe, but to stay safe and secure in the long-term. And, they certainly don't think about the price they actually pay for what it is they think they're getting.

In response to the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, one of the most cowardly acts of violence committed, a war was declared on terrorism. But like all the wars the US has waged on ideas before, like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, this one was condemned to failure before it even started. The US spends more on defense than the next 20 big-military spenders combined. That is, the next 20 countries, who even have defense budgets worth mentioning, all together don't spend as much as America. And what does America have to show for it? Nothing positive. The threat of terror is as large as it ever was. They have spent trillions of dollars they never had, incurring more debt than they will ever pay back. They are committing troops in remote locations that are either coming home in body bags or wounded in some way that they are hardly productive members of society any more (and of course, there's as good as no money to support them then). But most of all, most of the world simply sees the US as a big, tough bully that is simply trying to impose its will on other people. I'm not saying that they are; I am only saying what impression they make in more places than not (especially if they aren't a ally). So it seems reasonable to me to ask if you are really getting your money's worth. It doesn't seem so.

There are government programs that do no good and it is good and proper to reconsider whether they should be discontinued. The criteria for discontinuing, however, should never be political positioning, but instead, whether they do what they intend to do, and whether they are providing value for money. Anyone involved in the defense industry, I can assure you, thinks it's a good idea because they make inordinate amounts of money that they can then contribute to political campaigns to get the things they want. It is obvious that this is what is happening, but we find one euphemism after the other to simply lie to ourselves that it is the right thing to do. I'm not saying, of course, the whole defense budget should be eliminated, but if you want to trim fat, start with the fattest pieces.

What do we pay for?

Fortunately, for us in the West, some very bright people have thought about this already and have at least given us a place to start. We (supposedly) strive toward ideals such as "liberty", "justice", "equality", in the US explicitly stated "the pursuit of happiness", "safety", "security", and some form of "well-being". So, if we know what they are and agree what they are, what's this whole discussion about? Good question, but the truth of the matter is we don't agree, neither on the values nor about what they mean.

All of these concepts have been around for a lot longer than any of us who are reading this now. What went through Jefferson's head when he was drafting those concepts into the Declaration of Independence, or what Robespierre had in mind when the French were implementing their revolution were very different, though they were both claiming to aspire to the same ideals. Even more different is our idea of these concepts today compared to how they were being used 250 years ago. Liberty applied only to male landowners, and equality was defined in terms of fractions of human beings. It's not that those minds then were misguided, rather it is a simple fact that our understanding has changed. What is different between now and then, though, is that they talked about their understandings, they debated and discussed. And we don't do that much anymore. We say we know and the others have no idea. There is no agreement, no consensus, there is simply an attempted imposition of wills.

Far-fetched? I don't think so. Some of these words don't even mean what we think they mean anymore. Examples? We once thought that habeus corpus was an important right to ensure justice, but the National Defense Act effectively nullified it because you can be arrested and turned over to a military tribunal who is not bound by this ideal. All that's necessary is the suspicion, not proof, of having terrorist intentions (not deeds). Or "equality": we say we're equal but women still only earn 75% of what men do in similar positions; or it's just fine to subsidize Viagra, but not medications that women might have necessary to prevent more serious reproductive problems. And the recent debacle regarding extended health insurance coverage in America speaks volumes about how far we disagree on the notion of "well-being".

So, which of these examples are part of the public dialog? Where are the reasonable discussions and debates taking place that are forming our general consensus regarding these issues? Nowhere. Who has time? Who can worry about those things when you're trying to figure out what to do with your kids between your multiple minimum-wage jobs or when you've managed to finagle an earlier tee time? Exactly. Big-ticket items like what kind of country we want to live in don't even cross our minds. They're not on our list of priorities, so we leave them to the people we hired to do our thinking for us: our elected representatives. And look where that has got us.

What do we aspire to?

Fortunately, for us in the West, some very bright people have thought about this already and have at least given us a place to start. We (supposedly) strive toward ideals such as "liberty", "justice", "equality", in the US explicitly stated "the pursuit of happiness", "safety", "security", and some form of "well-being". So, if we know what they are and agree what they are, what's this whole discussion about? Good question, but the truth of the matter is we don't agree, neither on the values nor about what they mean.

All of these concepts have been around for a lot longer than any of us who are reading this now. What went through Jefferson's head when he was drafting those concepts into the Declaration of Independence, or what Robespierre had in mind when he was implementing their revolution were very different, though they were both claiming to aspire to the same ideals. Even more different is our idea of these concepts today compared to how they were being used 250 years ago. Liberty applied only to male landowners, and equality was defined in terms of fractions of human beings. It's not that those minds then were misguided, rather it is a simple fact that our understanding has changed. What is different between now and then, though, is that they talked about their understandings, they debated and discussed. And we don't do that much anymore. We say we know and the others have no idea. There is no agreement, no consensus, there is simply an attempted imposition of wills.

Far-fetched? I don't think so. Some of these words don't even mean what we think they mean anymore. Examples? We once thought that habeus corpus was an important right to ensure justice, but the National Defense Act effectively nullified it because you can be arrested and turned over to a military tribunal who is not bound by this ideal. All that's necessary is the suspicion, not proof, of having terrorist intentions (not deeds). Or "equality": we say we're equal but women still only earn 75% of what men do in similar positions; or it's just fine to subsidize Viagra, but not medications that women might have necessary to prevent more serious reproductive problems. And the recent debacle regarding extended health insurance coverage in America speaks volumes about how far we disagree on the notion of "well-being".

So, which of these examples is part of the public dialog? Where are the reasonable discussions and debates taking place that are forming our general consensus regarding these issues? Nowhere. Who has time? Who can worry about those things when you're trying to figure out what to do with your kids between your multiple minimum-wage jobs or when you've managed to finagle an earlier tee time? Exactly. Big-ticket items like what kind of country we want to live in don't even cross our minds. They're not on our list of priorities, so we leave them to the people we hired to do our thinking for us: our elected representatives. And look where that has got us.

What's it supposed to do?

I certainly don't want to get into the whole nation-state discussion, so let me say at the onset that we're talking primarily about what we call countries. Big or small, densely populated or not, we have these things called countries and somehow they have to be managed, but managed how, to do what?

A good friend recommended an opinion piece that talks about the fundamental ideas that I'm addressing, but takes a different, let us say, political tack. It is more than worth the read, for it helps put the discussion in a sound historical perspective, but I would like to direct our attention beyond the political to the personal. In other words, I'm trying to get you to think about what you think.

Maybe they don't need to be managed, maybe they're self-organizing, but I doubt they are. They must have some reason to exist, and when we know what that reason is, we can go about trying to figure out how to make them run most efficiently. No, the question is, why do we have them at all? Or, what do we think government should be doing"?

It's the answer to that question that we, as a society, probably disagree on most. We like to think that we know and agree, but the fact remains that we don't agree and we don't discuss it ... in fact, I don't think that many of you have given it much thought. Governments are so self-evident, we don't think much of them at all. They are bothersome, always telling us what to do, they want things from us, and whatever it is, it's always wrong, but that doesn't answer the question, it just expresses our personal attitudes.

Here is where our financial fans have to leave the discussion. The purpose of government cannot be expressed in terms of money; it is expressed in terms of ideals or values. These aren't things we can buy and sell, and they are certainly not anything the market can handle. As I've said before, there are some areas of life that can't be treated as, nor should they be treated as, markets. If you look at the Constitution, for example, all you find are principles of organizations. Whatever ideals or values may be there are implied. The bill of rights gets a little closer, there are some statements but mostly only hints in the Declaration of Independence, so what we are left with is what we might call general consensus. And if there has ever been a slippery notion, this one – consensus – certainly qualifies.

Whatever these ideals and values turn out to be, I would suspect that we all agree that regardless of what we may think government is, we think a good part of its job is seeing to it that those ideals and values should put into practice in some recognizable way. Oh, it is actually all so very simple.

What do we really want?

OK, let me take another run at this. I suppose I should be more patient. Let's start at a beginning ...

For simplicity's sake, we're going to start in the political realm, for no other reason than that's where we've been as of late. Of course, a long-lost friend of mine raised the question, so he got me thinking about a possible answer. What is more, we're coming up on elections in the USA and Germany, and Lord knows how much drivel, if not downright misinformation, is going to be spread around this time. And since the Americans are the first ones to go through this, we can use them as an example of what I'm talking about. So where do we start?

To my mind the first question we must answer is a very simple one: what do you think the purpose of government is? What my friend brought to mind was this whole idea of "big" government or "small" government or too much or too little government, as the case may be. I think what everybody wants is a government that does "what it's supposed to" (regardless of what we think that is ... we can get to that in a moment) and does it "efficiently" (whatever that might mean as well). In manufacturing, for example, some process are simply complex and large; others are smaller and leaner, but the goal toward which manufacturing strives is efficiency (economies of scale and scope), not size. To paraphrase a whole other area of human interaction: size doesn't matter. Some things have to be big to work. Other things need to be small to work. There cannot be one single size that fits all.

What all things can be, however, regardless of their size is "efficient". So, it struck me that this is one of those areas of life where size just doesn't matter. It really isn't about how big your government is, rather it's about how effective and (for those financial nuts amongst us) efficient your government is. I truly think that what everyone really wants (in this regard, at any rate) is a government that actually works.

You see, I told you it's a very simple question, and the answer isn't all that complicated either. The "problem" here, if you will, is that this question immediately generates a follow-on question ... a question that is perhaps more challenging: what's a government actually supposed to be doing? It would seem to me that a working government (or a working machine or process or ...) is one that does what it is supposed to do. So what is a government for? That's the real question.