phaedo2000.com Blog

Here is one for consideration: if the U.S. Postal Service goes out of business who will deliver all that advertising mail; our junk mail, their (advertisers) one means of bringing attention to their products or services?

One of the reasons the Post Office can’t achieve solvency (my opinion; I have no facts to back it up and don’t even know if such exist) is the requirement (imposed by the government) that it deliver this kind of mail at reduced rates and below the cost of service.  I presume that, in this country where advertising is king – and precious to those who advertise (and that is about everyone) - that it will cost business (small business particularly that is) revenue.  They surely can’t go to television, where advertising costs are prohibitive for all but gargantuan businesses (and politicians); email?  perhaps.  Cold calls (computerized)? maybe.  Small businesses, after all, are the creators of jobs and are the center of concern these days; will a Post Office demise drive up their costs or reduce their business – or even make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to open a business?

I wonder if anyone has given that consideration (surely the unintended circumstances surprised government can not have); if so I have seen no mention of it, or mention of the fact that the Postal Service is required to provide this service at below cost.  Just wondering.

Revolutions are nothing new, but the current ones in Africa and the Middle East are interesting because of their expectations, which are that if they shout democracy often enough and loud enough into their Blackberries the West will come and help them win them.  And then what?

First it is fairly clear that their definition of democracy and ours are quite different.  Theirs?  That everyone votes, they win, and assume power.  What else is there?  Oh, and suddenly everyone becomes satisfied, jobs pop out all over – really well-paying jobs of course, there is luxury everywhere, and everyone will be pretty much free to do whatever they want.  Isn’t that what it sounds like?  Governing?  Doesn’t that just take care of itself?  The Communists said it would.

Then there is that pesky irritant: governing, and the cooperation that it requires.  Does anyone think that the Libyan rebels are just going to walk in and start running things?  Or the Palestinians for that matter?  Differences of opinion among Arabs?  Why, who might think that could occur?

I am not into predictions, but it is very difficult for me to be optimistic about revolutionary changes in countries that have no experience with or understanding of a democratically chosen and run government.  And Afghanistan?  They not only don’t understand it, nor really want it; they seem to be going to fight it to the last man, and steal whatever they can in the process.  There really are few grounds for hope.  And then what?

We are, you know, crashing hypocrites – and voracious complainers.  We also are known for always looking for the worst, which makes us prime targets for negative advertising (read: negative politics).  We are also, coincidentally, nurtured on advertising (propaganda), thus making us prone to swallowing it, hook line and sinker, without a great deal of questioning – because we want to believe it.  And, contrary to what was intended, we keep ourselves relatively ignorant about politics and our leaders.  One might note (it has been said repeatedly) that career politicians were not what was intended.  They should have been however, since that’s what all courtiers in all courts forever were.  Why did Willy Sutton say he robbed banks when asked? because that’s where the money is; enough said.

So why is American (in fact democratic) politics what it is?  Because that’s how we are – humans, voters.

We want to hear what we want to hear, and therefore believe it when we hear it.  We tend to think, believe the worst.  We love scandals and conspiracies.  We are detail ignorant and take things at face value – good and bad, but more-so bad.  We pretend to expect our leaders to be much better than we are, but love it when we find they are not.  We admire ambition, but become angry when it goes too far.  We favor our own friends but become angry when they do the same.  We strive to get ahead, but criticize when others do and succeed where we do not.  Criticize, criticize, criticize; we love it.  And it works, and always has.

So we have the best available government, which is as imperfect as we are, and try continually to tear it down.  In short, we want what’s best of us, individually, and criticize anything that produces otherwise.  We can’t help but want to tear them apart when they don’t give it to us.  The definition of that is hypocrisy (at least it includes it).  But we don’t want to hear it.  We need to grow up, to mature, but for the most part it is not going to happen.  Fortunate we are that we do as well as we do, even though we so little appreciate it.

We talk a lot about elite without giving much thought to what it is or means; but human nature says that we are not all equal in ability, much as many think we should be, and part of our naturally provided mental capacity also provides us with the ability to discriminate – that is to recognize differences, including talent and ability.  But saying that doesn’t mean that we discriminate in the same manner, discerning differences in the same way.  And just as we are not all equal, or the same, our differences, including differences of experience, cause us to think differently as well, resulting in having widely differing opinions, which we see every day in many, many ways.

So what is elite?  A perception of superiority; superiority in what?  In whatever we might be measuring with out perceptions.  In earlier times elite was measured by birth and priviledge and if it was not clear to all the elite would make sure that it was.  But that began to change somewhat with the development of money, trade and manufacturing where there became more to elite than priviledged birth and that has only grown since, with greater than ever diversity due to the growth of a broad and more powerful middle class.  Now we talk about many elites: in entertainment including sports, in academia and science, in business and in politics.  But then, although we seem to be emphasizing it less these days, there is also a skill elite among what we have come to refer to as blue collar workers.  I watched in awe last week in Richmond, Virginia as an elite crew with a crane and a basket removed four trees from a home that had taken the hit from hurricane Irene.  An interesting thing about this elite is that most large companies in the United States, despite our job situation, are searching for those with elite skills and cannot find them.  One spokesman said that their company and many others make products that cannot be made elsewhere, but cannot expand their production of them because they cannot find and hire the requisite skilled elite; and if they could, even if the didn’t have an open position, would hire them on the spot.

But the perceived elite of any state tends to be those that govern it, because the power they have to set policy and make laws that affect us all gives them a special power that we associate with elite, partly because the decisions they make, based on that power, determines to a great extent winners and losers; and of course one of the things we think of when we think of elite is winners – another facet of human nature; we all love winners and want to be one.  In studying power I have come to believe that no matter what the form of government that exists, we will be governed by the elite, for if no other reason that as soon as they assume the mantle of leadership they become elite, ipso facto.  And if you have any doubts they will let you know.

So how do politicians gain elite status?  Kings and emperors were born to it, or took it by force of arms.  Tribal leaders generally gain it through respect and ability, but also by force of arms – or guile.  Thus elite does not necessarily mean superiority of ability and intellect and that complicates it.  Democracy is no different except in how we – because it is we who do it – make the selection, and frankly we don’t do it very well because we all have different conceptions of what we favor; maybe in the aggregate we reach a better end, and at least we have the ultimate ability to change our minds through subsequent elections.  But as Winston Churchill put it, democracy (or republicanism actually) is far from perfect but it is head and shoulders above the next best – although not always in the selection of leadership elite.  Think for example of criteria that is used by different voters: personality, charisma, name recognition, emotion, recommendations (media for example) as well as proven experience and ability; and that is even if we can determine experience and ability effectively, or character for that matter.  That adds another criterion: propaganda; how can we know anything for certain with the amount of spin put out and bought and paid for in today’s elections?

But effectively chosen or not, in a democratic republic we the voters determine who our leadership elite will be, and thus we determine who will wield the power associated with the elected (and subsequently appointed) officials.  And they become our ultimate elite, at least for as long as they are in office, and usually after they, or many of them at least, leave office because the status seems to accompany them when they leave it.  Again I must remind that we have many other elite categories, earned in many ways, and many politicians move comfortably from their political elite category to other kinds, and even back again, creating what must be recognized as an elite class.

This is the general situation everywhere there is “democracy” at least in theory, although less so in reality in many places.  How so?  Is not “democracy” essentially the same everywhere?  Emphatically not, because even though ours is far from pure it has some extremely valuable safeguards, particularly checks and balances and limitations enumerated in our Constitution.  But the our government is far more than voting for people who automatically become elite, if they were not so already, and many overlook the rest of it.  First of all, we really believe that the legitimacy of our elite leadership is us, the voter; we the people, because our freedom to vote our consciences is assured, something that is not true in all democracies everywhere.  Much of that is due to our respect for and support of rule of law, also not available everywhere.  Add to that free enterprise, which in many ways transcends all the rest, provides us with opportunities that many do not share.  And finally the freedom and liberty we espouse is balanced by a responsibility we have always accepted and demonstrate through our concern of how government is conducted as expressed in confidence that it works – as long as we stay concerned.

Only, as time goes by I must question how well we are carrying on that transition to our young and new citizens (immigrants).  Only time will tell, and difficult times will test the tradition that has always been our foundation.  Too often today people coming to our country have too little appreciation of what underlies our successful republic and see only the economic opportunities that are the result; but even more of our home grown citizens are similarly deficient.  The lesson is obvious and the challenge is heavy.  I see it particularly demonstrated (or not) in something I cherish: respect; and that brings us back to elite and the reality of how we determine who will become ours.  Do we use the criterion of respect in making our selections?  And what is respect?  Character?  Demonstrated experience?  Qualifications?  Honesty and sincerity?  Do we still care about such?

We need to for we are the ultimate arbiters of who will occupy the positions of elite leadership in our country.  But, and this is almost as important: since we look up to those who prove themselves to be elite (politicians or other), it is incumbent upon us to decide and make clear what it is to which we offer our respect; another subject perhaps, but an important one to think about.