Category: Current Events

Inner/Other

One of the most prescient books I read in my college years was the book The Lonely Crowd by David Riesman. Its main thesis was that modern man can be divided into two groups according to their social modus operandi. One group Riesman called inner-directed; for them, social interaction is constrained by their tendency to acquire early in life an internalized set of goals. The second group he calls other-directed; they have a social character whose interaction is driven by their tendency to be sensitized to the expectations and preferences of others.

One of the characteristics of a great social theory is its power to explain. I have turned to this division time and again to help me understand people’s actions. Lately, for example, I was contemplating why I (a strong inner-directed personality) seem to find it easier to go against the group in a committee setting, pushing a different course of action than a friend who is more other-directed can.

Many times I’ve wondered how Christianity will fare in a world becoming progressively more other-directed. Persuade an inner-directed person of the truth of Christianity and he will go that direction even if he has to go it alone. But an other-directed person, who takes his cues from the crowd around him, will struggle terribly in a secular world. Does that mean the Church should modify its approach to winning souls to account for this?

And what does the rise of the other-directed masses mean for politics? Years ago I wrote the following in the margins of my copy of The Lonely Crowd: By using one’s peer group as the basis for establishing norms, one opens the door to ‘tyranny of the group’ [i.e. despotic peer pressure.] This way, people end up mimicking an elite, including their personal ideas and actions. That’s a good explanation for people’s actions, from the oxymoronic ‘cookie cutter individualism’ of the 60’s to the mindless mobs of today.

While it was considered a landmark study in its day, one seldom hears any reference to the work today. (The book’s actual thesis is much more involved and complicated than I mention here!) But I thank him for his proposed explanation for people’s ‘guidance system’ because it has helped me understand events in my life.

DEBT

It is so hard to understand how people can become so enamored of debt. But they are. And we as a nation are.

Yes, I know the typical responses. Debt allows us to live above our means today; it gives us an advance on ‘the good life’ while we struggle to achieve it. In advance cases, it even allows us to live beyond our lifetime earning capacity.

Economists have taught for a long time that interest is based on time-preference; it is the money we spend to allow us to live in the future today. ‘Why wait’ is the mantra.

BUT, it comes at a cost!

Interest is the enemy of the consumer. It is a transfer of money to the lender; it is a gift to the lender. And since money is another form of labor, of earning capacity, interest is a transfer of our labor output to the lender.

And since what we are trading is future earning capacity, we stunt our long-term living standard proportionate to the interest we pay. A portion of our future earnings will be given to the lender for his enjoyment, and will not be available for our own use.

Since people (and companies, and nations) continue to kick the can down the road by rolling over their debt, the truth of the decreased living standard is not always obvious at first. But bankruptcy courts and people working in their 70’s to pay off their debts prove the point. (For companies, it often happens during what we call recessions. For nations, the time span is even longer, but the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela are among those who’ve shown the way.)

On a personal level, we reduce our potential living standard by giving a portion of our wealth away to the lender to increase his living standard. Almost by definition, the lender is wealthier than the borrower, so the dynamics of debt transfers wealth from the poor to the wealthy. This is true on the personal level as well as the societal level. (This goes a long way to explain the increasing ‘wealth gap’ in America, for example.)

This is not to say that all debt is evil; sometimes it is necessary or worthwhile. But for those who value their time and labor, those times are few and far between, and should be approached with caution. Most debt is based on covetousness and a desire to hoodwink reality. Neither end well!

Baseball v. truth

The Fresno Grizzles were embarrassed when a video they showed between Memorial Day games had some unexpected editing in it. The video had a speech by former President Reagan praising American troops. But in a statement talking about “enemies of freedom,” the editors showed several pictures of such enemies – including Fidel Castro and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). The Grizzles apologized, saying the video was “misleading and offensive” and did not portray their opinion.

Now I assume the Grizzles’ front-office managers know more about baseball than do the editors of the video. But they clearly have no understanding of politics or economics or history. Politics, economics and history all clearly show socialism is, indeed, an enemy of freedom. AOC is a socialist. Even someone who doesn’t know the word syllogism understands the deduction that AOC is, therefore, an enemy of freedom.

Socialism requires some sort of central planning; freedom, with its ability to change course and make new deals rejects the concept of a national, central plan. Economic freedom allows all participants in the market to pursue their own goals; socialism is premised on the edicts and dictates of the elite who set the vision for the group. Historically, it has been the socialist countries who have had gulags and forced mass starvation; countries with less government interference in society have allowed people the chance to grow and blossom as individuals.

The Green New Deal is, undoubtedly, the most radical socialist scheme ever “seriously” proposed in modern times. Calling AOC an “enemy of freedom” is a mild epitaph. To identify the conjunction as “offensive” is itself offensive – and sad.

AOC was right, and Hannity was wrong!

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) (aka AOC) tweeted on Sunday that “As horrific as this president is, he is a symptom of much deeper problems….Even foreign influence plays on national wounds that we refuse to address: income inequality, racism, corruption, a willingness to excuse bigotry.” She continued, “In order for us to heal as a nation, we ALL must pursue the hard work of addressing these root causes.” (https://mashable.com/article/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-trump-mueller/#4xfKGXcCuPq7)

AOC is correct. Trump was elected because he was seen as offering a better way forward to address the problems facing America. The Democrats ran on a platform of class and race warfare, pitting various groups against others. Their candidate was seen as the epitome of political corruption, and had obviously been part of DC’s War against Middle America for many decades. The problems AOC identified are real, but they were caused or exacerbated by her party, and the answers the party offered were designed to create more problems.

So AOC is correct –on a deeper level than she knows, but on a level she rejects – Trump is the result, not the problem.

Meanwhile, on his show on Tuesday, March 26, Hannity made a statement I fear is not correct. Discussing the impact of the Mueller report on people’s evaluation of the media, he said: “This has been two-years of never-ending, non-stop lies and conspiracy theories. Frankly, they ought to be apologizing and embarrassed, but that will never happen… They’ve been promising this to their audience. They can’t recover, from my perspective,”

Oh how I wish he were correct, but I doubt it. The world view that led them to believe the reporting in the first place – without evidence – is still intact, it was not challenged. Paradigms do not change because an anomaly was found, only a questioning of the view’s basic premises will lead to that change. Lies, for many people, do not cause them to turn away. As evidence, I present the political scene. Growing up during the 60’s and 70’s, I remember the hand-wringing by my professors in political science and sociology classes while they proclaimed the Vietnam-war induced distrust of government was fatal and permanent. As a Libertarian, I was hopeful, but disappointed. Those most vocal then in their ‘mistrust’ are now running the government. I see no reason to believe the media will fare any different.

But just imagine how much better life would be if AOC would recognize interest-politics was wrong and abandon statism in favor of truly rational policies. But that won’t happen, and unfortunately, neither will Hannity’s prediction.