“Hi Bryan,
“How are you doing?

“Just wondering, a friend of mine at work was pretty ticked off at you for a show of yours she listened to this weekend. She said that you were saying that Fox [N]ews fans are delusional, and that you didn’t reference what people should be watching or listening to instead.  Just curious if you have time, could you further explain?”

Uh-oh.  Looks like I might have some ‘splainin’ to do.  All right, let’s get to it.

Yep. I said that people who rely SOLELY on Fox News for their information, thinking that they’re no longer being propagandized are, in fact, deluding themselves.  

Of course the same is also true for those who depend entirely upon CNN or NPR or any other single source of information.

The problem is that there is no unbiased source of mass communication and the single greatest challenge for anyone who wishes to be informed today is to be capable of sifting through all the spin and propaganda to clearly comprehend the way things really are.

It’s not so much a matter of which information source we use as a matter of developing our ability to use critical thinking skills in order to correctly interpret that information.

As citizens, our greatest responsibility during times of crisis is to think clearly and independently.

My biggest beef with Fox News is that too many people think they’re getting all the information they need when, in fact, the information is just as spun and the debate is just as controlled as anything they’d get from the mainstream media.

Information Versus Truth

Too often we forget that information isn’t always the same thing as truth.

Talk radio listeners exacerbate the problem when they become content to simply repeat whatever talking points they hear Beck, Rush or Hannity saying.

Parroting someone else’s words creates a dependency that tends to make a person dogmatic in their viewpoints. Dogma coupled with an inability to articulate one’s own thoughts is a perfect recipe for defensiveness when one encounters a differing viewpoint.

Before retiring a few years ago, Charley Reese was a writer of unusual clarity.  Here’s what he had to say about thinking we know it all:

“But since our means of learning are limited so that we can never learn everything about anything, we should avoid being dogmatic. I don’t mean living in a constant state of uncertainty, but we should at least always concede the possibility that what we think is so isn’t so. I have trouble understanding people who get emotionally upset when they bump into an opinion they disagree with.”

Does that last sentence not describe the scorched earth approach taken by many of the top names in talk radio who feel they must shout down, marginalize or hang up on anyone whose opinion differs from their own?

If you dare deviate from what the talking heads of ANY of the mass media sources consider the acceptable parameters of debate on a given issue, prepare to have disapproval heaped upon your head.  

And the rancor won’t just be from the commentators, but also from those faithful viewers or listeners who have hitched their ideological wagon to a particular star.

Whether it’s the person who just knows that “our news media” would never lie or the one bearing their testimony of “Brother Beck” to you, your dissent, however mild, represents a threat to their worldview.

Charley Reese made a recommendation years ago that I took to heart and I offer it now to you:

“Take this little test: Pick out any national issue or any national political figure and ask yourself, What do I really know about this issue or this person? The honest answer in most cases will be not much that hasn’t been spoon-fed to you by liars and propagandists.”

Once this realization occurs a person can begin to actually study the issues for themselves and take responsibility for their own viewpoint.  

The beauty of this approach is that it is much more based in reality than simply taking talking points from a professional propagandist.

There is real effort involved in thinking for yourself, but the payoff is that you will never be at the mercy of another in knowing what to think about a given issue.

One last quote from Charley Reese to drive the point home:

“Remembering and imagining are not thinking. Emotional reactions or ideological reactions are not thinking. Belief in the ‘word magic’ of labels is not thinking. Faith is not thinking.”

“Thinking is the use of reason to determine the truth as best we can. To do that, we have to shuck emotions, desires and wishes and look at the world in its nakedness as it is, not as we wish it were or as someone else has told us it is.

“Reality is not affected by our desires or by our comprehension. We glean data from our senses of that world outside our bodies and use our brains to draw inferences from the data. We have to conform to it; reality will not conform to us.”

My point on my radio show was that we need a propaganda-proof citizenry now more than ever, but few Fox News viewers or talk radio listeners would ever admit they were being bamboozled.

Liberal Arts: The Remedy for Propaganda

This is where there is simply no substitute for a true blue liberal arts education.

It’s been nearly 60 years since Mortimer Adler and then-president of the University of Chicago Robert Hutchins set about publishing the Great Book series containing the greatest works of Western thought spanning a period of nearly three millennia.  

The published collection is a remarkable achievement in and of itself, but the purpose for which Adler & Hutchins set about compiling the Great Books of the Western World is as timely today as it was in 1952.

The first volume of the 54 book set is titled “The Great Conversation,” and in it the editors make a powerful case that the disappearance of the great canon of Western Thought from education portends a calamity rather than progress.  

They clearly saw that while America’s standards of living were continually rising in terms of material comforts, a majority of adults were becoming impoverished morally, intellectually and spiritually.  

The predictable result of this type of educational malnutrition is a trend where each successive generation is further impaired in its ability to think for itself.

In Hutchins’s words:

“We believe that the reduction of the citizen to an object of propaganda, private and public, is one of the greatest dangers to democracy.

“A prevalent notion is that the great mass of the people cannot understand and cannot form an independent judgment upon any matter; they cannot be educated, in the sense of developing their intellectual powers, but they can be bamboozled.

“The reiteration of slogans, the distortion of the news, the great storm of propaganda that beats upon the citizen twenty-four hours a day all his life long mean either that democracy must fall a prey to the loudest and most persistent propagandists or that the people must save themselves by strengthening their minds so that they can appraise the issues for themselves.”

Hutchins understood that study of the great books provides one with a more well-rounded grasp of humanity, history, politics, morals and economics that enable the reader to effectively exercise their own mental abilities rather than waiting for experts to tell them what to think.

It’s been nearly 60 years since Hutchins made the following prescient observation:

“The trials of the citizen now surpass anything that previous generations ever knew.  Private and public propaganda beats upon him from morning till night all his life long.  If independent judgment is the sine qua non of effective citizenship in a democracy, then it must be admitted that such judgment is harder to maintain now than it ever has been before.  

“It is too much to hope that a strong dose of education in childhood and youth can inoculate a man to withstand the onslaughts of his independent judgment that society conducts, or allows to be conducted, against him every day.  For this, constant mental alertness and mental growth are required.”

The editors of the Great Books in no way pretended that the series was a panacea by which all of our problems could be answered.  

Instead, they recommended them as tools to further one’s self-education by allowing the reader to come face to face with what the greatest thinkers of the past 3,000 years had to offer.  

Only those who have actively put in the effort of studying great thinkers like Herodotus, Plato, Descartes, Machiavelli, or the many others whose works comprise the Great Books can accurately attest to the insight such study provides to better understanding the current issues and crises of our own time.

It was once considered self evident that a liberal education (meaning a well-rounded one) was how a person gained the necessary thinking skills to be capable of perpetuating liberty.  

Today, in ideological circles, the very word “liberal” causes some to have palpitations and others to reflexively genuflect to the state as their master and savior.

The Great Books won’t teach a person what to think, but by studying the great ideas (even the ones that were wrong) our minds become trained in how to think and how to ask the right questions.  

This type of education doesn’t even require a formal classroom setting.  Most liberally educated people got that way by diligently spending a bit of time reading and studying daily in the privacy of their own study or bedroom.  

There are no shortcuts to self education and that’s why the concept is such a tough sell to generations that prefer to plop down in front of the TV or computer and be entertained.

Mortimer Adler said it best:

“Anyone who has done any thinking, even a little bit, knows that it is painful. It is hard work-in fact the very hardest that human beings are ever called upon to do. It is fatiguing, not refreshing. If allowed to follow the path of least resistance, no one would ever think…

“Whoever passes by what is over his head condemns his head to its present low altitude; for nothing can elevate a mind except what is over its head; and that elevation is not accomplished by capillary attraction, but only by the hard work of climbing up the ropes, with sore hands and aching muscles.”

Instead of waiting for someone to tell us what sources to tap for information, we need to develop our thinking skills to the point that we can avail ourselves of many sources and accurately sift truth from error.  

This type of independent thought is what inoculates a citizenry against the effects of propaganda from any side of the political spectrum.

********************

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at The White Rose Society and writes firearm reviews for The Truth About Guns. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan:

Collectivism, though at its apex and seemingly more powerful than ever, is on the decline; individualism is on the rise.

With its rise, individualism, also known as libertarianism, poses threats to American culture and governance.

It also provides significant, positive opportunities that have not been available for more than a century.

It is imperative that we identify the dangers of mainstream libertarian thought and provide alternatives in order to capitalize on the opportunity to create a balanced, sustainable, free, and just society.

As is so common throughout history, we may swing the pendulum from collectivism to libertarianism to find that they are both equally dangerous and unsustainable.

The danger posed by libertarianism — or the opportunity — is predicated upon how it will be defined and practically applied.

The Decline of Collectivism

Collectivist institutions are splitting at the seams and crumbling due to financial infeasibility, dramatically changing age demographics, and the cultural mediocrity that they instill.

Foreign wars, which necessitate higher taxes and thus enable the centralization of power, are becoming less and less popular, both for financial and moral reasons.

All forms of collectivism are showing themselves to be unsustainable as a matter of empirical fact, rather than subjective value judgment.

The popularity of Ron Paul, and a general decline of trust in the government and other modern institutions, especially among the youth, also evidence the decline of collectivism.

The Fragmented Nature of Libertarianism

While there are universal tendencies shared by modern libertarians, libertarianism as a political movement and ideal has not yet gained the coherence necessary to appropriately use it as a specific, functional label.

The tagline of the Libertarian Party is “Smaller government, Lower Taxes, More Freedom,” which is about as universal as the movement gets.

However, Lew Rockwell — one of the most popular and widely read libertarian websites, boasts the tagline “Anti-State, Anti-War, Pro-Market,” which is clearly more ideological, more concentrated, and therefore more divisive.

While Ayn Rand preached the “virtue of selfishness,” Leo Tolstoy advocated self-transcendence and Christian service.

And in contrast to Rand and Tolstoy, whose messages center on personal morals and values, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Henry Hazlitt, and others generally avoid such concerns and focus primarily on the economic aspect of freedom.

Attempting to define libertarianism appears to be an irony and even a contradiction, since at its core libertarianism viscerally rejects any label or identification that would even hint at forced or inauthentic uniformity.

As a response to collectivism — or sameness — libertarianism celebrates diversity and independent thought.

However, since it appears to be the default heir to the decaying throne of American politics and culture, defining it is one of the most vital steps to steer it in the right direction.

And doing so must take place within the context of identifying its flaws, in order to correct them.

Three Prominent Dangers of Libertarianism

In spite of its fragmented nature, libertarianism in general displays three universal characteristics that, unless replaced, will limit its impact and sustainability as a freedom movement.

As a disclaimer, understand that identifying them is a difficult task, since libertarianism largely remains undefined and open to interpretation.

In other words, if you identify yourself as a libertarian yet do not associate yourself with these flaws, then this does not apply to you. If the shoe fits, wear it; otherwise do your best to steer mainstream libertarianism in the right direction.

1. Self-Interest

A product of Ayn Rand, who has emerged as the preeminent spokesperson for modern libertarianism, self-interest is expressed in the oath taken by Rand’s ultimate hero, John Galt:

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.”

At the heart of libertarian thought seems to be the sentiment, “I want to be left alone to live my life the way I see fit.”

While the quest to be free from governmental oppression is natural and commendable, this is hardly an inspiring alternative to liberalism.

Wanting to be left alone to pursue one’s self-interest is a poor substitute for wanting to make the world a better place.

2. Flawed Definition of Freedom

The default definition of libertarian freedom is the freedom to do whatever a person wants, as long as they do not harm or encroach upon the natural rights of others.

In other words, “license” is probably a more accurate word than “freedom.”

Johnny Kramer, columnist for Lew Rockwell, recently wrote an article entitled What Libertarianism is Not wherein he says,

“Libertarianism is not a philosophy of morality or a guide to proper behavior. It is simply a political philosophy that holds that everyone should be legally free (in other words, free from coercion) to do as they please, so long as they don’t violate anyone’s body or property (in other words, so long as they don’t initiate coercion against anyone else); and that the State, if it should exist, should be bound by the same rules as the rest of society.”

This misguided and limited definition quickly degenerates into hedonism, decadence, and ultimately, societal decay, as displayed by the Greeks and Romans.

3. Emphasizes Individualism; Downplays Family, Community, and Religion

James Ure wrote in a previous article:

“Tellingly, the word ‘individual’ appears fifteen times in the first twenty sentences of the [Libertarian Party] platform, but the words ‘family’ and ‘school’ only appear once each, the words ‘church’ or ‘religion’ only appear a few times, and the words ‘community’ and neighborhood’ do not appear at all.”

As we also learn from Mr. Ure, family, community, and religion are “institutional mediating entities” that balance the desires for individual freedom with the demands of communal cooperation.

An overly individualistic society is a fragmented, unsustainable society, lacking forms to perpetuate itself.

Three Counter-Balancing Ideals

To counteract the above three dangers of libertarianism, three ideals should replace them, with a deliberate, conscious, and transparent effort: public virtue, an expanded definition of freedom, and a shift from focusing on the individual to focusing on family, community, and religion.

1. Public Virtue

“There must be a positive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real liberty.” -John Adams

As one of the Four Foundations of Freedom, public virtue means to voluntarily sacrifice personal benefit for the good of society.

For example, Robert Morris, a relatively obscure figure in American history, was one of the wealthiest colonists who spent his entire fortune — and even borrowed from others — to finance the Revolutionary War.

As Oliver DeMille writes:

“One [historical] record remarked: ‘If it were not [proven] by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign…was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.’

“When the War ended, this self-made millionaire spent three and a half years in debtors prison after he lost everything. His wife…watched possession after possession disappear during the War. When Robert went to prison after giving so much to the cause of freedom, she tended a borrowed little farm and walked each day to the prison with her daughter Maria to visit her husband.

“Robert left prison a broken down old man and died shortly thereafter. The financier of the Revolution, and his family, understood public virtue…”

In most cases, such a profound display is not necessary; we simply have to do our best to serve others on a daily basis.

It’s grossly incomplete to proclaim that the government should not take care of people; those who are able and privileged have the duty to care for the handicapped and the aged, serve the underprivileged, uplift the impoverished, and educate the illiterate.

The easiest and best way to eliminate bureaucratic and illegitimate government entitlement programs is to replace them with private institutions operated voluntarily by virtuous individuals.

Most libertarians believe that the proper role of government is to protect unalienable rights. But keeping the government contained in its proper sphere is predicated upon the people expanding their love of rights to include a strict adherence to their duties to their fellow man.

As Viktor Frankl wrote,

“Being human always points, and is directed, to something or someone other than oneself — be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter. The more one forgets himself — by giving himself to a cause to serve or another person to love — the more human he is and the more he actualized himself…Self-actualization is only possible as a side-effect of self-transcendence.”

Instead of starting with the thought, “I want to be left alone,” a better approach would be to start with, “I want to do my best to serve others so that the government doesn’t have to.”

The one says, “Leave me alone”; the other says, “How can I serve?”

It’s obvious which one leads to a more healthy, sustainable society. The incomplete sentence, “The government should not redistribute wealth” must be finished with “…and the people have the duty to ensure that all members of society are well cared for.”

The rejection of forced charity must never lead to the neglect of the right forms of voluntary charity, as does Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

2. Expand the Definition of Freedom

Freedom is so much more than being free from the illegitimate constraints of the government. Freedom is a much broader, more comprehensive concept than “freedom from“; it also includes “freedom to.”

The new definition of freedom must include two critical aspects: 1) a primary focus on how an individual can become personally, internally free regardless of external circumstance, and 2) the fusion of rights with duties.

Spiritual, financial, physical, mental, and emotional freedom are ultimately far more important than governmental freedom, since the one is predicated upon the other; the more personally free individuals are in a society, the more free their government will be.

Viktor Frankl, locked in a concentration camp cell, is more free than the drug or pornography addict in America.

As Edmund Burke said,

“Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.”

It’s nice to be free from governmental tyranny. But we must also realize that we are free to love in the face of hatred, forgive cruelty without hesitation or reservation, to love those who hurt us as much as we love those who honor us.

We are free to eradicate all feelings of revenge, bitterness, enmity, and malice; to replace hatred with love, bitterness with understanding, pride with humility, vengefulness with forgiveness, cruelty with mercy and compassion. We are free to choose how we respond to oppression.

Furthermore, we must realize that inherent with our rights to freedom are corresponding duties.

We have a right to free government; we also have the duty to maintain such a government. As Thomas Paine wrote:

“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.”

We have the right to do whatever we choose to do with our bodies; we have the duty to be true to marital covenants and to protect the unalienable rights of unborn children.

We have the right to view whatever we want; we have the duty to shun pornography in all its forms.

We have the right to administer our finances how we see fit; we have the duty to stay out of debt and produce more than we consume.

Political philosophy removed from personal morality is like an individual without a heart or an automobile without an engine; personal morality is what makes political and economic liberty function.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin,

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

3. Shift From Individualism To Familial & Communal Association

Healthy society isn’t comprised of individualistic hedons doing whatever they feel like doing; it’s comprised of virtuous, faithful, and tight-knit families and communities who know and serve one another, who provide support and encouragement to each other, who work together, who mourn with each other, and who share a common heritage and common values.

Collectivism and individualism are opposite sides of the same imbalanced coin. Family, community, and religion provide balance. They preserve and perpetuate culture. They restore society when it has lost its way.

While collectivism leads to an oppressive, centralized breakdown of society, individualism causes divisive decay. The solution to each is to bolster the health, strength, and vitality of family, community, and religion.

Conclusion: The Opportunity

Libertarianism has an unprecedented opportunity to reclaim America’s freedom. But to do so it must eliminate its flaws and define itself appropriately.

Specifically, it must eliminate the flaws of misguided self-interest, a limited definition of freedom, and an excessive focus on individualism.

It must define itself as a movement that includes political and economic freedom from oppression, as well as personal freedom to do what’s right. It must stress duties as much as it stresses rights.

It must shift from individualism to communalism — not forced or governmentally-imposed collectivism, but voluntary familial, communal, and religious associations.

The foundation of libertarianism must be much more than wanting to be left alone; it must be based on a desire to serve, to contribute in meaningful and lasting ways to society.

Some may say that these proposed ideals stray from being universal.

While it’s imperative for any movement to stick with universals in order to create coherency and momentum, it’s even more important to define what those universals are.

If the libertarian universals are simply “smaller government, less taxes, and more freedom,” the impact and sustainability of libertarianism will be severely limited.

If, on the other hand, it expands its universal tenets to include the morality of public virtue, the depth of personal freedom beyond mere political and economic freedom, and the necessity of strong families, communities, and religious associations, it can be the movement that restores the American republic and secures liberty for generations to come.

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a darling of the forces of so-called “law and order” (so long as it’s being enforced against someone else), was quick to take a stand in defiance of the court’s ruling by launching an immigration sweep timed to coincide with the law taking effect.

In the meantime, the airwaves bristled with the outraged pronouncements of individuals who are utterly convinced that illegal immigration is the prime source of America’s problems–followed closely by the Muslim question and Barack Obama’s true nationality.

Not to be outdone, the more radicalized supporters of illegal immigration began staging noisy demonstrations of their own by taunting supporters of the law and demanding repeal of SB 1070.

The illegal immigration issue is quickly developing into a perfect storm of obnoxious ideologues eager to collide head-on at 100 miles per hour.  

Sadly, it appears both groups are likely to get their wish.

Let’s suppose for a moment that we could wave a magic wand and effectively deport every person who is in this country without official government permission.  

Another wave of the wand would make our borders airtight thereby stanching the flow of illegals into the U.S.  

Now, take a deep breath and tell me what about our nation’s situation will have fundamentally changed?

Will our nation still be drowning in public and private debt?

Will out-of-control taxation and government spending on entitlement programs at home and projecting imperial power abroad still continue unabated?

Will American society still be continuing its descent into a cultural cesspool of false education ideas, immorality and the worship of material things?

Will the expansion of government at every level continue to intrude further into our personal lives even as our liberties diminish in the name of security?

Be honest.  

Do the cries for a stronger crackdown on illegal immigration address the greatest problems facing our nation or do they simply address one symptom of a much larger problem?

Henry David Thoreau:

“For every thousand hacking at the leaves of evil, there is one striking at the root.”

While illegal immigration and its attendant problems are a real concern, they are hardly the root of the what’s destroying America.  

The real tragedy is that so many Americans have allowed themselves to be duped into being defined by who they are against rather than by the principles for which they stand.

It’s easy to be against something and easier still to be against someone.  All you need is a grudge and a convenient target against which to direct your outrage.

But to actually stand for something is a much more weighty matter.

Standing for something requires one to understand both the problem at hand and the principles at stake.

This distinction is too often lost in the swell of emotion that is the hallmark of the angry mob.

Connor Boyack, a kindred spirit in the defense of liberty, puts it like this:

“It is unproductive and pointless to debate an issue without analyzing the underlying principle. Practicality, logistics, feasibility, popularity, and all other secondary interests should be set aside until all parties understand the core of the issue.

Whether the discussion is about illegal immigrants, Muslims, home schoolers, polygamists or any other group, we cannot lose sight of the fact observed by Will Grigg when he noted that even our supposed enemies are created in God’s image.  

With this principle as our baseline, we can begin to examine solutions that don’t require us to reduce others to a caricature that, at best, downplays their humanity and, at worst, diminishes them to mere insects to be stomped on.

For those who are truly interested in making a difference, Shanon Brooks of ReValue America asks a question that is worth considering:

“Do we have a reputation of community service and sacrifice or are we seen as the ‘angry radical’ that can only point a finger and identify the flaws of others?”

There are many good people who see the problems that must be addressed, but they remain uncertain as to how they can best “do something” that will have impact.  

Standing and shouting with the angry mob may be cathartic, but those who invest the necessary time and effort to quietly gain understanding and then to apply it through meaningful service to others will provide solutions that have far greater impact.

We sometimes forget that it only takes one person leading out correctly to inspire positive action in others.

Consider becoming that person.

********************

Bryan Hyde is a radio host, husband, father, graduate student at George Wythe University, and seeker of truth. He does professional voice work through his company One Clear Voice.

Bryan blogs at The White Rose Society and writes firearm reviews for The Truth About Guns. He and his wife Becky are raising their six children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Bryan:

It’s been long enough since the announcement of the “Great Recession” that a shelf of books are now out—each outlining the “real” causes of the recession and its unsettling impact on the American psyche and economy.

Unfortunately, most of these books are essays on blame.

The two major political parties predictably blame each other for America’s economic woes.

Democrats say that Republicans caused the recession, while Republicans say that Democratic policies (from the stimulus to health care and beyond) have made the recession worse, increased unemployment, and slowed a recovery.

Since most recovery numbers are based on government spending rather than private sector growth, many on the Right dispute that the publicized recovery is real.

To a large extent, the media has joined with one side or the other in this debate.

Weekly talk shows pit conservatives against liberals, volleying the two partisan views of past and present economic challenges. Magazines and national newspapers echo this argument.

A Dearth of Solution Thinking

Usually books take a deeper look at the issues than other media, understandably using the longer format to give readers more depth and analysis on whatever topics they address.

Likewise, the arc of economic-political-societal commentary in books usually includes a significant section outlining important, needed and under-utilized solutions.

But right now such solution-oriented commentaries are noticeably few—and strikingly similar. Many repeat partisan views in chapters so short they would make newspaper editors proud.

There are three main themes in this genre:

1. Republicans Blew It and Big Banks/Corporations are Greedy and Evil,
2. Democrats are Blowing It and turning into Scheming Socialists
3. Big Institutions in Washington, Wall Street, Main Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley and anywhere else where Big Institutions lurk are Ruining America

A fourth (though minor) theme is that the recession was a global reality tied to the increasingly interconnected world economy and that American citizens and leaders had little power in the whole thing.

In all four of these themes the focus is blame, and therefore the solution is to “throw the bums out.”

The Right wants to “take back” America in the 2010 congressional elections, while the Left wants to hold their own in the elections and keep offering regulatory solutions.

Activists are increasingly determined to push both sides further to the extremes.

In short: where blame is the main point, solutions are seemingly simple.

The Problem

Unfortunately, such “solutions” are unlikely to accomplish very much. One side will win, and the blame game will increase right along with the problems.

The worst-case scenario for the 2010 elections is lots of press, lots of emotions, and little change.

I’m not saying that the elections don’t matter; they do. Nor am I suggesting that this debate isn’t important. It is.

My point is simply that there is more to it than many politicians and journalists are admitting.

Unless we get past the blame game and engage a true national discussion about solutions, we are unlikely to see things really improve—no matter who is in office.

One book, The Great Reset by Richard Florida, develops the ideas that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and another, The Battle by Arthur Brooks, takes readers inside the Obama West Wing and the inner workings of the President’s choices in 2009-2010.

Both are worth reading closely—regardless of your political views. Another recent book, Capitalism 4.0 by Anatole Kaletsky, gets serious about suggesting some solutions.

None of these books are free from the blame game, and Kaletsky’s attack on the Bush Administration is one of the worst blame-focused rants in all the books now coming out on the topic.

But for readers who can look past his angry tirades, Kaletsky’s work is worth studying because at least part of his analysis gets past blame and helps us understand the recession in its broad historical and international context.

The History of Capitalism

In contrast with the four popularized themes listed above, Kaletsky suggests that the global recession grew out of the historical trends of our time.

He argues that capitalism will continue to grow because of its proven ability to adapt. Such adaptation follows a pattern:

1. A crisis exposes the weaknesses in the latest adaptation of capitalism
2. Society and government respond to the crisis and alter the details of how capitalism is applied
3. The changes evolve until they succeed in re-establishing prosperity and growth
4. The new adaptation allows economies to flourish
5. Weaknesses in the new adaptation eventually cause another crises and the pattern repeats

Over time, according to Kaletsky, this has created at least four adaptations of capitalism.

Capitalism 1.0 grew out of the crises of the Napoleonic era and was characterized by the Laissez-Faire type of capitalism. This was defined by the separation of economics and governments, and its strengths allowed great growth of wealth and powerful economies.

Eventually the weaknesses of 1.0 led to the Great Depression in America and Western Europe.

The response was what Kaletsky calls Capitalism 2.0, an era of major government involvement in the economy—not full socialistic control of the economy, but much higher levels of regulation and government intervention.

This started in the New Deal and grew through the 1940s-1970s.

The eventual negative result was the inflation and stagnancy of the late 1970s, which was followed by a transformation to Reaganomics: a focus on big-government spending for international projects combined with lower taxes on the wealthy and big corporations.

The idea behind Capitalism 3.0 was that if those with money were incentivized to spend more, this would create more jobs and increase business and personal opportunity.

In each of these periods, the economy responded to the positive features of the given adaptation of capitalism. On the downside, the negatives of each adaptation led to the next inevitable crisis.

The Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 was caused not mainly by greedy bankers or weak housing loans, according to Kaletsky, but rather by two successes of Capitalism 3.0:

1. the spread of capitalism and therefore market interconnections globally
2. bank and government success in controlling inflation worldwide

These strengths led to weaknesses: when some places saw economic downturn, it quickly spread to the other areas around the world, and governments which allowed their big banks to fail pulled the brunt of world capital struggles down on top of themselves.

The Emergence of a New Economy

The result, just now emerging, is Kaletsky’s Capitalism 4.0. In this adaptation of capitalism, we will likely witness a new relationship between markets, economies, and governments.

Where 1.0 showed the pros and cons of nearly total government isolation from the economy, 2.0 exposed the strengths and weaknesses of major government intervention in the economy.

In 3.0 we started mixing market and government roles by having government intervene in what it considered “vital” sectors (like military and transportation), while mostly staying out of the rest of the economy.

According to Kaletsky, 4.0 will follow a different mixing guideline by increasing the government intervention in some areas and lessening its role in others.

The specifics will be determined, in this scenario, by which things respond better to free markets versus those which respond more positively to significant government involvement.

For example, Kalentsky thinks government must get deeper into financial regulations and management but leave education and health care more to the free market.

Clearly the Obama Administration is not following Kalentsky’s suggestions, no matter how much he agrees with them in blaming Republicans for our problems.

But any leader—in business or government—should consider Kalentsky’s analysis. I disagreed (and also agreed) with a number of things in his book, but his suggestions exceed the tired, old two-party talking points and deserve consideration.

So, The Election . . .

We clearly live in a time where both government and business involvement and changes are needed to re-establish a truly flourishing free-market approach to American prosperity.

Neither extreme—a total government pullout from the economy nor increasingly socialistic levels of regulation and micromanagement of nearly every sector of our economy—is desirable.

We need the government to take wise and effective action to boost the economy—at times increasing regulations that work and also consistently reducing and repealing the numerous regulations and government interventions that are slowing and hurting the economy.

The regulatory load on investors and entrepreneurs is especially bad for economic growth.

Government simply must find ways to do less, or the economy will continue to sputter and struggle.

Yet there are certain things that government can and should do best—like keep the free-market playing field even and open for all potential investors and entrepreneurs.

Perhaps the proper role of academics, journalists and authors is to analyze, to suggest—and even to blame. But as long Washington is caught in the blame game, far too little effort is given to leadership.

Our elected officials need to stop pointing fingers and give more attention to solving our economic challenges.

The first step is to free up small business entrepreneurs and investors who provide most of the jobs and growth in the economy.

A second step is to make investment in American businesses once again highly attractive to world investors.

Both of these are roles for those we elect, and if it is “the economy, stupid,” these are the real issues of the 2010 election.

Whoever wins at the voting booths this coming November, and whatever the experts say that night as the networks and cable channels cover the election like a major sports tournament, the real future of America depends on whether or not the people select leaders who will free up the economy.

A free economy, within the bounds of wise and effective laws, is a prosperous economy. An increasingly regulated economy is an economy headed for less prosperity and decreased opportunity.

Whatever your politics, less prosperity and decreased opportunity are simply not acceptable goals for the upcoming elections.

Yet unless we accomplish more than simply voting, these are the results we will probably see in the years after the election.

***********************************

Oliver DeMille is the founder and former president of George Wythe University, a co-founder of the Center for Social Leadership, and a co-creator of TJEd Online.

He is the author of A Thomas Jefferson Education: Teaching a Generation of Leaders for the 21st Century, and The Coming Aristocracy: Education & the Future of Freedom.

Oliver is dedicated to promoting freedom through leadership education. He and his wife Rachel are raising their eight children in Cedar City, Utah.

Connect With Oliver:

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority. –Alexander Hamilton

Simply put, legitimate foundation means the will of the People at large, while legitimate authority is the express permission granted by the People to the government to perform some function.

Put together, they form the philosophical foundation of the powerful idea that man does not exist for the state, but that the state exists for man.

Legitimate Foundation

The idea that the government should exist according to the will of the People and solely to benefit the People at large was revolutionary in the 18th Century. Previously, governments primarily benefited those governing, or special interests.

The American Founders taught that the will of the People, as expressed through constitutional means, is the only solid, sustainable, and legitimate foundation of republican government.

This does not mean, however, that they were referring simply to the concept of majority rule alone, as we learn from Federalist Paper #51; the idea is to guide the nation by the will of the majority, while protecting minority rights (i.e. preventing the majority from taking private property).

Legitimate Authority

Thomas Jefferson spoke of legitimate authority in the Declaration of Independence when he wrote,

“…That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

The United States Constitution was the first (and to my knowledge the only) constitution to be instigated by, or to have originated in, the People, then ratified by the People.

In other words, the People, through their colonial representatives, called for the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Representatives at the Convention represented the People within their respective territories–not the government itself.

They were authorized by the People to do the will of the People. Our Constitution was initiated and created from the bottom up, rather than dictated from the top down.

Then, after its creation by the representatives of the People, the Constitution was taken back to the People–once again through their colonial representatives–to be ratified, or accepted.

Previously, the historical norm was for the government–whether through a monarchy, aristocracy, or other form of ruler’s law–to dictate from the top down the laws and constitutional forms that the People must obey.

As David Hume wrote in 1752,

“Almost all the governments which exist at present, or of which there remains any record in story, have been founded originally either on usurpation or conquest or both, without any pretense of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people.”

Why It Matters

To drive the point home with these critical concepts, think of illegitimate versions of the same concepts.

For example, illegitimate foundations of government would include a government being founded by the will of a monarch or a dictator, a special interest group, one branch of government solely, etc. and primarily to protect and benefit such individuals or groups.

Illegitimate authority would include any government imposing arbitrary laws without permission from the People to do so through constitutional means, any branch of government engaging in extra-constitutional activities; a special interest group, such as a banking cartel, exercising undue influence upon the People without their consent; etc.

Any time a government, individual, institution, or special interest group imposes any law, regulation, policy, program, or procedure without the express permission of the People through constitutional means–and backs it up with force and violence–tyranny ensues.

In fact, the word “tyranny” itself originates from the Greek, meaning “illegitimate ruler.”

It’s like your in-laws meddling with your children — only much worse, since it usually involves pesky things like theft, murder, rape, and pillage.

Danger From the People

However, an even more important point must be made, which is that the greatest danger to popular governments lies with the people themselves, rather than with illegitimate rulers or laws.

With the right and ability to vote and legitimately influence public policy comes the temptation for the People to vote themselves benefits from the national treasury. As Benjamin Franklin wrote,

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Our nation flipped this ruinous switch in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments and the passing of the Federal Reserve Act. I’ll save my analysis of these for another article.

The point is that with rights and privileges come responsibilities. We are so blessed in America to enjoy a constitutional structure based on legitimate foundation and legitimate foundation. However, this also means that We the People are primarily responsible for the maintenance of our freedom.

This requires education. As Thomas Jefferson wrote,

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

Recommended Reading:

Federalist Paper #38
Federalist Paper #22

*****************************

Stephen Palmer is a marketing consultant and persuasive writer with KGaps Consulting, a co-founder of The Center for Social Leadership, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Killing Sacred Cows: Overcoming the Financial Myths that are Destroying Your Prosperity.

He is a liberal-arts graduate of George Wythe University and a graduate of the “non-traditional business school” Wizard Academy.

Stephen resides in Round Rock, Texas with his gorgeous wife Karina, awesome son Alex, and princess daughters Libby, Avery, and Laela. Stephen and Karina blog about their magical life on Palmer Journeys.

Connect With Stephen:

Email: spalmer [at] kgaps [dot] com

Freedom. What does it mean?

Although the Greeks and Romans discussed Liberty and Independence and what it meant in their city-states and republic, Freedom is essentially an Anglo-American concept in political philosophy, having its origin in ancient Germanic languages and being used in the culture of the Anglo-Saxon.

Here I investigate the roots of this word, common usages today, and implications for criminal justice.

This concept first struck me as I was reading Montesquieu’s Spirit of Laws, one of the most influential books of the U.S. founding era.

The word fredum appears almost at the end of the book in a discussion about ancient Germanic law (Montesquieu gets his information from Tacitus, the great Roman historian). Upon reading it I was struck by the obvious similarity to the English word freedom.

Montesquieu comments that fred in Swedish means “peace.” Another word that has the same root as fredum and freedom is friend.

Additional meanings (besides peace) include: beloved, dear, one’s own. Dum or dom means: quality, realm, state of, or office.

Montesquieu describes a system of criminal justice in which the offending person (the “criminal” in our modern terminology) is placed, by the community, into a state or situation termed fredum, which is “compensation for protection granted from the right of vengeance.”

The “justice” system among these Germanic tribes

“…was nothing other than granting to him who had committed an offense one’s protection from the vengeance of him who had received it, and obliging the latter to accept the satisfaction that was his due so that, among the Germans, unlike all other peoples, justice was rendered to protect the criminal from the ones he had offended.”

I was surprised about two aspects of this concept: 1) that this “barbarian” people had a system set up to protect an offender from the immediate vengeance of the offended until an agreed-upon solution could be reached; and 2) that the word used to describe this situation was essentially the same word we revere as Americans: freedom.

According to Montesquieu:

“It was the guilty man who paid the fredum for the peace and security that he had lost because of the excesses he had committed and that he could recover by protection.”

How well does our modern, “civilized” criminal justice system allow the offender to make amends and satisfy the offended?

Instead of a system in which just compensation and restitution can be made to the offended party, we dehumanize the offender by incarcerating the individual in order to pay his “debt to society,” leaving the debt to the offended unpaid and preventing the offended party from recovering what it lost.

An alternative would be to embrace a more “barbaric” criminal code to replace the “civilized” criminal code handed down from Rome to England, which during the American Revolutionary period had penalties characterized thus by Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities (note: Tellson’s was a major English bank):

“But indeed, at that time, putting to death was a recipe much in vogue with all trades and professions, and not least of all with Tellson’s. Death is Nature’s remedy for all things, and why not Legislation’s? Accordingly, the forger was put to Death; the utterer of a bad note was put to Death; the unlawful opener of a letter was put to Death; the purloiner of forty shillings and six-pence was put to Death; the holder of a horse at Tellson’s door, who made off with it, was put to Death; the coiner of a bad shilling was put to Death; the sounders of three-fourths of the notes in the whole gamut of Crime, were put to Death.

“Not that it did the least good in the way of prevention–it might almost have been worth remarking that the fact was exactly the reverse — but, it cleared off (as to this world) the trouble of each particular case, and left nothing else connected with it to be looked after.

“Thus Tellson’s, in its day, like greater places of business, its contemporaries, had taken so many lives, that, if the heads laid low before it had been ranged on Temple Bar instead of being privately disposed of, they would probably have excluded what little light the ground floor had, in a rather significant manner.

How did we get to a point in our history in which we execute someone for petty theft (300 years ago)? Or that we legislate mandatory “three-strikes” punishment for “career criminals” that the system seems to create?

Can fredum work in our day? Can we embrace a more civilized, fair, and equitable system of justice that promotes correction and natural consequence for the offender and restitution or compensation for the offended?

Only then can we move closer toward fredum/freedom: the state of peace.

****************

Mike Wilson received his B.S. degree in Chemistry from Brigham Young University and pursued graduate work at the University of California, San Diego, where he earned a M.S. degree in Biomedical Sciences prior to obtaining his M.D. at the UCSD School of Medicine.

He lives in Cedar City, Utah with his wife Jenni and their six children and practices emergency medicine in St. George, Utah while working on a Ph.D. in Constitutional Law at George Wythe University. He is also an Associate Mentor at GWU.

Mike’s passion is promoting idea that the common man has power and capacity to affect grand change in the world through true principles of love, goodness, and virtue. Because of his Jeffersonian trust in the common man, he considers himself a “little d” democrat (an ideal, not a political party).

He believes that the cause of liberty is founded essentially in widespread powerful education, checks on power, and promotion of virtue and goodness. Force is never a real solution to problems for Mike and the statesman’s role is to understand the ideal, see where society is, and then put himself in a position to move society in the direction of the ideal.

This connection is a critical bridge builder: sister languages, the Arabic, and the Aramaic, the written language which was once the global language, stretching from the Near East to Malabar in India and East China.

It is intriguing to note that Dr. Sidney Griffith, a Catholic priest and noted Syriac scholar, states that:

“Neither Qur’anic nor Aramaic Scholars have seen fit to make the linguistic connection, and it is about time that connection was made.”

Western academia has been primarily concentrated on Biblical Greek. What we need now is to consider the Aramaic/Syriac New Testament, written in the language Jesus actually spoke, as an additional tool for comparative analysis.

I have found this an invaluable tool working with the Islamic world in seeking bridges to the common ground. Muslims respect the similarity of words, meanings, and relate to the Eastern traditions and idiomatic nuances of the Aramaic.

They are very similar to the Arabic of the Qur’an and the Hebrew of the Torah; and can help unlock useful mysteries within the Eastern Holy Books.

The Prophet Muhammad and Aramaic

Some Islamic historians tell us that trusted Assyrian and Syriac speaking believers in Jesus interacted with the Prophet Muhammad and likely read to him from the Aramaic Eastern Text. The very word Qur’an, which means “The Recital,” is derived from an Aramaic/Syriac word qiriana.

Original Revelation of the Holy Books (Why the Aramaic has special meaning for Muslims)

The most compelling logic for use of the Aramaic New Testament in building bridges to the Common Ground deals with the Muslim view of “original revelation.”

Islam holds that God, through the angel Gabriel, spoke the revelation to the Prophet Mohammed in Arabic and is considered the official language of “The Recital.”

Thus, the only accepted written version is Arabic. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic, Muslims believe (consistent with Islamic logic) the “Holy” written version of the Gospel would be in Aramaic.

It is helpful to note that Aramaic was the first written Semitic script of the three, followed by Hebrew and finally, Arabic.

The ever widening “gulf” separating us is unfortunate, but it is my hope that studying the related Semitic languages of the East will serve as a key foundation, providing evidence that our faiths have more in common than we have believed in the past.

**************************************

Mark Siljander is an ex-Congressman and the author of A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest To Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide.

He represented Michigan for fifteen years, which includes three terms as a Member of the United States Congress, where he served on the International Relations Middle East Subcommittee and was Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee. He was the primary sponsor of the African Famine Relief Act.

Mark was later appointed by President Reagan as a US Ambassador (Alt. Delegate) to the United Nations in New York, where he served as a member of the Middle East and Africa Strategy Group of permanent representatives.

Ambassador Siljander is a student of several languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and has spent over ten years studying the three Holy Books of the Abrahamic faiths.

With over 26 years serving in the power circles of Washington and semi-official travel to nearly 130 countries, he has generated unique opportunities for frequent access to world leaders.

These experiences have led him to develop a unique paradigm for the peaceful resolution of conflict that has been successfully applied in several challenging areas of the globe.

Mark Siljander reinforces his conflict resolution efforts through regular travel overseas with Congressional and high-level delegations.

While seeking peace and human rights are notable and essential goals, the idea of using force to set up a system claiming to foster true freedom is a farce.

Let me tell you a story…

ONE DAY IN NOVEMBER 2001 I received a phone call from a worried Assyrian friend in Detroit.

He had been talking to his relatives back in Iraq, “My people tell me that Saddam wants to talk with someone in the U.S., but nobody here will talk to him.”

I called the US Department of State and spoke to an official (prefers to remain anonymous) who served in Iraq and told me no one from the US had officially or otherwise communicated with Saddam or his regime since 1997, more than four years ago.

Business as usual, I thought.

The ultimate tool of conventional engagement: a huffy silence. I knew my friend well enough to know that he wasn’t calling simply to complain or to voice his worries. He had something in mind.

That something quickly evolved into two “backdoor” diplomacy efforts, first with Iraq’s ambassador to Jordan and secondly, meetings with Saddam’s top officials in Iraq.

Having traveled to many countries, and having met some of the most despotic leaders of modern times, I drew rather firm inferences from these meetings, which I shared at a congressional debriefing after the trip, and later with the administration.

I presented three main points:

1) While Saddam, two weeks before our trip, pounded a podium insisting there would “never be inspectors in Iraq”, I was convinced he would allow inspectors; without conditions. This was based on conversations with then Iraqi Information Minister Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf, and Foreign Minister Naji Sabri and others.

2) If there were WMDs in Iraq, by the time either our military or inspectors arrived, they would be gone. After all, we announced our clear intentions to go to war a second time, giving Saddam ample time to move whatever he had.

3) We needed to give careful thought to what would come after Saddam. What type of government, resistance, how to deal with the Bath’ists post Saddam, the Sunni/Shiite schism, etc?

Although I briefed several members of Congress, Cheney’s people and the Administration regarding the trip, my words were not fully received.

No Hard Evidence

“How did I know these things?” asked one Senator. I responded that all the so-called intelligence that we were basing a potential war on was only inferences and intuition.

There were no conclusive facts, nor hard evidence. I was surprised that no direct or “backdoor” diplomacy had been engaged, or for that matter all nonviolent efforts at least attempted, since the stakes for the U.S. were very high.

My perceptions were based on the experience of discussing life and death issues with dozens of despotic leaders over 24 years. While I may be somewhat naïve, it is clear that they tend to lie, give false information, and deceive.

While not empirically founded, my perceptions were no more or less pragmatic than what was presented by the Western intelligence sources.

When discussing my thoughts on Iraq with the Bush Administration, it became clear they were not interested.

What proved to be a fateful decision to go to war had already been set in stone, and I simply stood in that path to war.

Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post pointed out:

“The key judgment was made by the Bush Administration in the spring of 2002—that the political status quo could not and should not be maintained in the Middle East.”

A Warning

I will never forget resting on the couch in my home study answering my cell phone. It was the congressman who had helped my undaunted efforts against the war for several weeks.

He gave me clear and chilling advice. “Stop pushing against the Iraq thing. The decision has already been made and your continued efforts could cause you serious problems.”

In my world that type of veiled threat was unequivocal. I would entertain the full wrath of the administration if I persisted.

Regretfully I surrendered to defeat and went on with my life.

I was later to learn that my “file” with the administration, which undoubtedly includes my varied efforts in Libya, Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq, would catch up with me and present one of the greatest personal challenges of my life.

The Bush Administration’s actions have led, as we know, to a lengthy war on multiple fronts. It will be some time until we are to determine the long-term viability of the fledgling democracies set up within these contexts.

Some countries with large Muslim populations do enjoy stable democracies, such as Indonesia. But in others, the neoconservative bulwark has seen fit to simply clip the wings of democracies who are not “minding their mother,” shall we say, or electing leaders who do not share the values they feel they must.

This was the case in Algeria, and with Hamas in Palestine. Through these situations, we see that democracy is not the ultimate value we are exporting, but a shell of the democracy we hope for.

Universal Human Longing

Step back for a moment and consider the human heart.

Our essential longings throughout history are not aimed at (or fulfilled) through a form of government such as democracy (or any other), but at a search for universal truth, universal meaning.

The early cave drawings point to human questions about the universe. Our instinctive human passions relate not only to our physical realities, but the spiritual as well.

In our conflicts on this globe, shouldn’t we acknowledge spirituality and the quest for spiritual truth as an essential motivator in the equation?

The neoconservative view that Muslims would welcome a taste of democracy (while at the tip of a gun) is as laughable as Islamic militants offering Islam through the same methods. Force is not the tool that wields true change.

Both attempts ignore the human spirit and respect for each other. If we rather act in such a way to touch a spiritual chord and sound a note of friendship, we have a foundational starting point in engaging each other. For people of faith, faith is infused in everything.

Respect for the primacy of that faith goes a long way in building trust, in laying a roadmap to peace.

Many ask, “But what is this shared spiritual reality? Muslims, Christians and Jews have been diametrically opposed for centuries.”

But we are not so far from each other. When the essence of your religion is caring for the widows and orphans, when you are to love the Lord your God, the Lord who is One; when you preach “if any one slew a person … it would be as if he slew the whole humanity: and if any one saved a person, it would be as if he saved the whole humanity,” we find that we can join together around this rule of compassion for others.

When working as partners and friends in the world, a renewed faith can foster the change of heart necessary in building a foundation that leads to the fruit of peace.

Any hope for sustainable peace must realize the prerequisite of engaging at a spiritual level when human culture and framework is so wrapped in the fabric of the spiritual.

**************************************

Mark Siljander is an ex-Congressman and the author of A Deadly Misunderstanding: A Congressman’s Quest To Bridge the Muslim-Christian Divide.

He represented Michigan for fifteen years, which includes three terms as a Member of the United States Congress, where he served on the International Relations Middle East Subcommittee and was Ranking Member of the Africa Subcommittee. He was the primary sponsor of the African Famine Relief Act.

Mark was later appointed by President Reagan as a US Ambassador (Alt. Delegate) to the United Nations in New York, where he served as a member of the Middle East and Africa Strategy Group of permanent representatives.

Ambassador Siljander is a student of several languages, including Chinese, Spanish, Arabic, Aramaic, and Hebrew, and has spent over ten years studying the three Holy Books of the Abrahamic faiths.

With over 26 years serving in the power circles of Washington and semi-official travel to nearly 130 countries, he has generated unique opportunities for frequent access to world leaders.

These experiences have led him to develop a unique paradigm for the peaceful resolution of conflict that has been successfully applied in several challenging areas of the globe.

Mark Siljander reinforces his conflict resolution efforts through regular travel overseas with Congressional and high-level delegations.