“So still he seems to dwell nowhere at all; so empty no one can seek him out.” —Han Fei Tzu, chapter 5, translated by Burton Watson

To retain their freedoms, the ruling masses must be still and empty.

In theory, this is possible, but it is exceedingly difficult. Crowds are naturally not still.

The reason of a crowd reaches no higher than the average of its collected capacities, but its passions escalate in the direction of its most ardent members.

The anonymity that crowds provide allows their members to pursue these passions without shame. They are full of fears which are easily fanned into panics.

The ruling masses are like an unruly stallion. His wild behavior is easily predicted by astute trainers.

His passions and fears ultimately allow him to be broken, and they become the bit and the reins by which he is steered.

If only he were still and empty! The trainers would always approach him with caution, not knowing what to expect.

He could submit according to his own will. Trainers would not be able to discern whether he was broken or not. With his animal might, he could shake them off at any moment that suited him.

The ruling masses in republics must cultivate stillness and emptiness.

Representatives who sincerely desire the freedom of the masses may be discerned by the degree to which they encourage stillness and emptiness.

Only when the ruling masses are still and empty will they be ruled with that confidence which the strength of their numbers justifies.

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

About Stan Szczesny

Several years ago, I walked by Encyclopedia Britannica’s “Great Books of the Western World” set and realized that I was about to graduate from college without having read any of the authors listed there. So I dropped out of school and set a goal to read all of those books. The goal took eight years.

Along the way, I found schools that supplemented my change in approach to education. I completed a B.A. at George Wythe University and an M.A. in Eastern Classics at St. John’s College.

Now, I’m moving forward. I drive a 1976 van. I have a wife and 4 children under the age of 7. We don’t have much, but we stay happy talking about Francis Bacon and Confucius.

You can connect with me by reading my Great Books blog.

“The ruler must not reveal his desires; for if he reveals his desires his ministers will put on the mask that pleases him.” —Han Fei Tzu, chapter 5, translated by Burton Watson

The ruling masses must not reveal their desires; for if they reveal their desires, their representatives will put on masks to please them.

The representatives will not fear the masses, and they will manipulate them with great ease, for knowledge of a people’s desires gives cunning men the means to control them.

The masses will fear their representatives, for they will sense that they know only the masks.

They will vote in ignorance, for they will not vote for a man, but for a mask.

The difficulty which the ruling masses must overcome to gain power over their representatives is immense beyond comprehension.

A wise monarch who guides the state by his own will may wear a mask. He may keep his ministers, the elites, and his people in suspense, for they will not know his desires.

Not knowing which masks to wear, they will reveal their true talents, their true faults, and their true desires to him.

But the very principle by which republics function renders concealing desires almost impossible for the ruling masses.

They must announce their will. They must choose representatives, and they must tell those representatives what they want them to do.

Soon, the representatives exploit the desires of the masses.

They tell the masses what it is that they must do to obtain those desires. They become the source of satisfaction.

In this way, republics sow the seeds of the destruction of their own freedoms.

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

About Stan Szczesny

Several years ago, I walked by Encyclopedia Britannica’s “Great Books of the Western World” set and realized that I was about to graduate from college without having read any of the authors listed there. So I dropped out of school and set a goal to read all of those books. The goal took eight years.

Along the way, I found schools that supplemented my change in approach to education. I completed a B.A. at George Wythe University and an M.A. in Eastern Classics at St. John’s College.

Now, I’m moving forward. I drive a 1976 van. I have a wife and 4 children under the age of 7. We don’t have much, but we stay happy talking about Francis Bacon and Confucius.

You can connect with me by reading my Great Books blog.

Here are some things to consider in 2012, several possible trends which could make significant changes in our world by the end of the year ahead:

1-Barring major events, the news of 2012 will most likely be all about the election, especially the presidential election.

But the real potential for election change will be in the Congress.

The most important determinant of how America will run after the 2012 election will be whether Congress remains split or if one party gains control of both houses—regardless of what happens in the presidential race.

This won’t be the media focus, but those who understand American politics will keep their eye on the coming changes in Congress.

2-More Democrats are arguing for less government spending.[i]

This shift in thinking is getting very little press because the election story is so dominant in the current media.

Since few Democrats are using this frustration with government spending as a reason to vote for non-Democrat candidates, it receives sparse coverage.

But it is a significant change, regardless.

Many Republicans and most independents and moderates believe that Washington spends too much already.

If more Democrats continue to adopt the same view, it may become a major story in the years ahead.

3-The credit rating agencies that downgraded the U.S. credit rating in 2011 are still very closely watching the U.S. economy and some indications are that further downgrades could be ahead if the economy continues to struggle.

Along with this, for the first time in many decades, U.S. securities are less stable than some other investments,[ii] and money flow away from the U.S. is increasing—especially since the middle of 2011.

If these trends continue, U.S. economic challenges could drastically worsen in the next twenty months.

4-Some leaders in Saudi Arabia have voiced concerns about how the U.S. handled Egypt, especially President Mubarak, during the 2011 Arab Spring.[iii]

As the popular uprising grew, the Obama Administration eventually suggested that Mubarak step down.

Regardless of whether or not this was the right approach, the sentiment among some Saudi and other Middle Eastern leaders goes something like this: “If that’s how the U.S. treats its allies, do we really want to trust Washington for anything?”

Ironically, many in Israel are feeling the same emotion.

Add to this the under-reported influence of Saudi investors in major European and U.S. businesses and banks, and this trend may be the most impactful in years to come.

Western economic dependency on Middle East oil is well known, but the bigger danger may come from direct investment in businesses and banks.

If massive sums of Petro Dollars were pulled from Western banks, for example, the term “too big to fail” would take on a whole new meaning.

5-We have been warned about cyber terrorism for some time now. Is 2012 the year?

6-Will Israel bomb an Iranian nuclear facility?[iv] If so, how will the Obama Administration react?

7-Ironically, a focus on jobs may finally become a focus in Washington during the election year of 2012. The bad news is that the parties are unlikely to work together to make real changes.

Hopefully, this turns out to be untrue, but if current trends continue little will actually occur.

The good news in all this is that a relatively few changes would bring a drastic positive change in momentum and infuse the nation with positive innovative energy.

For example, four changes could establish a massive change of direction and rebirth of American success (like the shift in American perspective which occurred when Reagan took over leadership from Carter).

The four include:

1) a rollback of all federal policies since 2000 that have hurt small business and dis-incentivized innovation, growth and hiring

2) an effective long-term policy to fix the problem with entitlements, balance the budget and get control of our national debt

3) a restructuring of American education funding to support technical training, community colleges and other non-traditional methods to increase the competitiveness of our workforce

4) a move away from international invasions and wars abroad while maintaining a strong national security presence

I am not predicting that these will occur, but they would be greatly beneficial to the nation if they did.

Finally, each year brings its share of surprises.

For example, who could have guessed in 2010 that the year ahead would bring the death of Osama bin Laden or the refusal of the White House to take leadership in a serious jobs plan?

Whatever comes in 2012, America needs to get its financial house in order and re-incentivize business growth and hiring.

These are vital priorities.

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

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.

Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.–George Washington

In 1930s Germany, a unitary leader plead for sufficient power to make his homeland safe from the threats faced by his nation.

The German people and their parliament, in the name of security, allowed him to assume virtually unlimited power to make them safe.

The draconian measures implemented to prevent terrorism were soon turned upon the citizens of Germany and they, along with millions of others, lost their freedom.

Who could have imagined how terribly wrong it would go?

In our day, Americans are being asked to trust the head of the Executive Branch to exercise unprecedented power for the purpose of securing the homeland against the threat of terrorism.

Draconian powers including indefinite detention and extra-judicial executions are being authorized against foreigners and Americans alike in a worldwide war against terror that we’re told will last for generations.

It’s no exaggeration to say that the increasing parallels between the former Weimar Republic and modern America are becoming difficult to ignore.

Disturbing as that realization may be, it’s not half as unsettling as the raucous cheers and applause of those who actually celebrate the emerging authoritarian state inflicting harm on others without recognizing the corresponding damage being done to their own liberties.

Like the Germans of the 1930s, Americans appear to be afflicted with a nationalistic short-sightedness that seeks to excuse virtually any abuse of government powers, so long as those powers are directed at others for the stated purpose of making us safe.

As a nation, we stand at a crossroads with the choice of restoring limited government that keeps us free by safeguarding our inalienable rights, or creating an unlimited police state that will promise us security even as it fits us for our restraints.

How our experience with unchecked government power will end is anybody’s guess.

The passage of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with its provisions for indefinite military detention at home and abroad represents an unmistakable departure from the concept of limited government in America.

With the open assertion of executive power to detain anyone anywhere without evidence, trial or due process the bill heralds the approach of a presidential dictatorship legally authorized to use the U.S. military to impose its will domestically.

The 2012 NDAA follows hot on the heels of the extra-judicial assassination in September of an American-born radical Muslim cleric named Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.

The cleric’s death by Predator drone missile was ordered by the president after a secret panel within the Executive branch labeled al-Awlaki an “enemy combatant.”

No indictment was issued.

No evidence presented.

No proof required.

The president simply ordered the snuffing out of an individual (as well as a few innocent bystanders) based on his word alone.

This wasn’t the first time such extra-judicial killings have been authorized by the Executive branch, but it’s the first time that the power to do so was openly and brazenly acknowledged.

How could such a naked abuse of government power stand virtually unchallenged?

Attorney Glen Greenwald explains:

“What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.”

In our haste to embrace absolute security at the cost of proper government and our essential liberties, we’re making the same mistake many Germans made in the 1930s of mistaking patriotism for its belligerent counterfeit: nationalism.

Orwell addressed this phenomenon beautifully in his Notes on Nationalism written in 1945.  He makes a clear distinction between patriotism and nationalism as follows:

“By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”

The desire to dominate others has been an observable part of human nature throughout the history of mankind.

Writer Christopher Manion notes that St. Augustine, in his work City of God, identified libido dominandi or the lust for power in the very first page.

Manion goes on to point out that, “these lusts are more powerful than simple physical appetites. And they tempt us all.”

A perfect example of this mindset can be found in the ongoing Republican presidential debates.

Of the seven candidates still in the running, six of them are seeking to solidify their voter base by promising to expand government powers to secure America.  Most say they would engage in more aggressive, unconstitutional wars abroad.

They have affirmed their support of torture, indefinite detentions, and continued expansion of the global War on Terror.

They are united in their belief that American exceptionalism justifies the projection of military power around the globe out of the fear that “If we don’t dominate the world–someone else will.”

Concern about the proper role of government has no place in their dialogue; only the desire to see American military might continue as the dominant force globally.

Warmongering, exploiting fear and creating enemies to vanquish is a key to maintaining their power.  It’s no coincidence that the more we send our military abroad to police the world, the less free we become here at home.

One solitary candidate has proven the exception by advocating fidelity to the principles of limited government and strict adherence to the Constitution.

This approach would mean less intrusive government and greater freedom at home and less meddling and interventionism abroad.

Too often, this candidate’s message is met with anger and derision by those whose lust for power over others would be checked by such reforms.

For freedom to be maintained, three things are required.

We must be an educated, independent-minded, clear-thinking people.

This can only occur when we have inoculated ourselves intellectually against the daily onslaught of propaganda that beats against us on all sides.

Mass media in America today does not serve to inform and enlighten the public so much as it exists to sell us the agenda of those in power.

To counter this manipulation of public opinion, there is simply no substitute for the power of a good old fashioned liberal arts education.

A classical education enables us to more clearly see the world as it is.  It also leaves us better equipped to speak with clarity and power while persuading others across a broad spectrum of beliefs and viewpoints.

We must be capable of practicing public and private virtue.

Public virtue means that we are willing to step up and do things that will benefit others generally without thought of recognition or personal reward for ourselves.  Public service used to actually include a degree of public virtue.

It can take forms other than public office, but it requires a willingness to serve others to the best of our abilities.

Private virtue means that we rectify our own hearts and minds, as Confucius suggested, before we set out to correct others. It’s not enough to insist that others be good, we must be willing to govern ourselves first.

By setting our selves and our homes in order, our communities and states will follow.

We must be willing to love liberty more than we hate our enemies.

We must have correct forms in our government and our personal lives. 

A form is what gives wet concrete its structure, limits and purpose.

Without a proper form, the concrete would flow uncontrollably and become useless.

In a similar sense, correct forms in government are what define its proper role and upper limits.

They are what allow the powers of the state to be used wisely and humanely for securing our natural rights rather than for simple domination or mischief.

In our personal lives, correct forms include strong marriages and families and sound personal financial practices as well as greater self-sufficiency.

When these elements are widespread throughout a society, self government and freedom flourish.  When they are generally lacking, even well-schooled, highly technologically advanced societies can be led into the abyss.

Military might and domination alone cannot make us or keep us a great nation.

Abiding by correct principles and doing the right things for the right reasons–regardless of circumstances–can.

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

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:

Why can’t the freedom movement seem to get any traction?

Why have we lost battle after battle for at least the past century?

It’s because we tend to make the good the enemy of the perfect, the pragmatic the enemy of the ideal.

To be clear, it’s because the most passionate among us have adopted a rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising “either-or” stance in the fight.

Rather than winning hearts and minds in the trenches inch-by-inch, we drop rhetorical nuclear bombs and make enemies of potential supporters.

There’s one critical distinction that explains this tendency and, if understood, can overcome it and make all the difference to our success:

Do we view the fight for freedom as an election-cycle battle, or as a 100-year war?

These vastly different mindsets generate completely different strategies and tactics and produce completely different results.

If we view the fight as an election-cycle battle, the battlegrounds are primarily political and governmental.

The tactics include:

• Public, energetic, and angry marches and demonstrations
• Passionate, vitriolic, and partisan commentary that preaches to the crowd and riles the base but fails to win new supporters
• Literal, logical, and personal argumentation
• Directing energy primarily at getting individual political candidates elected

But in a 100-year war, the battlegrounds are cultural and educational, and the short-term tactics above shift to the following long-term strategies:

• Personal, lifelong, classical education in the quiet of our homes
• Respectful, thoughtful, open-minded discussion with people across the whole spectrum of belief, with the intention of winning hearts and minds, rather than simply spewing passion or proving how smart and “right” we are
• Symbolic, metaphorical, and artful story-telling and persuasion
• Directing energy toward reforming education, building families and communities, and becoming successful entrepreneurs (see the three choices in FreedomShift by Oliver DeMille)

In a 100-year war, we moderate our passion and smarten our strategy.

We heal the roots of our demise, rather than hacking at the symptomatic leaves.

We work from love, rather than anger.

We reform from the outside-in and bottom-up, rather than the top-down. In other words, we focus on fixing ourselves, rather than Washington.

We understand that studying Montesquieu in our homes is far more effective than waving banners in the streets.

We spend our time and energy teaching the rising generation the depths of freedom and political philosophy, rather than debating opponents in chat rooms and on radio and TV shows.

We build successful small businesses, rather than complaining about losing jobs overseas.

In a 100-year war, idealism and pragmatism aren’t mutually exclusive. We’re more concerned with direction than destination.

In other words, we don’t reject particular policies because they’re not ultimate, black-and-white ideals.

Rather, we judge them based on whether or not they take us closer to the ideal, however slight the progress.

In a 100-year war, we learn and teach principles, rather than fight candidates.

To be perfectly clear, we don’t waste time forwarding mass emails about the status of Obama’s birth certificate.

Most importantly, in a 100-year war, independent freedom lovers create an inclusive tent, rather than an exclusive club.

For example, many conservatives denigrate environmentalists, or as they’re disdainfully labeled, “tree-huggers.”

But many of these environment-conscious, thoughtful people are also highly-conscious and passionate about local, organic food production and sustainable agriculture — which is a primary battleground for freedom.

So rather than building on common beliefs and bringing these people into the tent of freedom, many conservatives banish them with narrow-minded labels.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is also a favorite target of many conservative commentators.

But wise freedom-lovers would do well to harness their energy.

The truth is that they raise a critical point that most conservatives fail to see: Vast inequities in wealth distribution and power are, in fact, killing America — every bit as much, if not more so, than governmental wealth redistribution from rich to poor.

The government does favor those with capital over those with little or none, big businesses over small businesses, which creates these unfair and unsustainable inequities.

We don’t have to occupy Wall Street with them, but we can at least be wise enough to recognize where we agree in order to work together toward a more free, just, and sustainable society.

We can start winning more friends and creating fewer enemies. We can be pragmatic coalition-builders, rather than dogmatic clique-builders.

I’m as passionate about freedom as anyone — freedom is my mission.

But passion alone isn’t going to win the fight for freedom.

The war will be won through wisdom.

Here is the section from my new book on Jonathan Edwards.Here is another great American who utilized the power of resolutions in his life. Have you implemented RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions for LIFE into your life? Let’s start a resolution revolution together. Sincerely, Orrin Woodward

Jonathan Edwards was a preacher, theologian, a missionary to Native Americans, and shortly before his death, accepted the Presidency of the College of New Jersey (Princeton University).

Edwards “is widely acknowledged to be America’s most important and original philosophical theologian.”

Furthermore, Author George Marsden, writes,

“Edwards was extraordinary. By many estimates, he was the most acute early American philosopher and the most brilliant of all American theologians.At least three of his many works – Religious Affections, Freedom of the Will, and The Nature of True Virtue – stand as masterpieces in the larger history of Christian literature.”

But Edwards began his ministry with little advanced billing.

His first pastoral position in 1722, at 19 years of age, was far away from his Connecticut hometown, in New York City, then a thriving metropolis of 10,000 people.

Dr. Stephen Nichols, author of The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards, writes of the young pastor,

“Amidst all of this uncertainty and flux, this young man, Jonathan Edwards, needed both a place to stand and a compass for some direction. So he took to writing. He kept a diary and he penned some guidelines, which he came to call his ‘Resolutions.’ These resolutions would supply both that place for him to stand and a compass to guide him as he made his way.”

A.C. McGiffert described Edward’s method of resolutions, “Deliberately he set about to temper his character into steel.”

Tempering is a process to “toughen” the metals, just as written resolutions “toughen” the internal person through study and course corrections.

The tempering process takes time, but the internal fortitude and self-mastery gained living one’s convictions, not one’s preferences, is worth any price.

Jonathan Edwards dutifully wrote out 70 Resolutions (see appendix) between 1722 and 1723.

Edwards committed to read the 70 Resolutions once per week for the rest of his life, and fulfilled that commitment, reading the resolutions more than 1,800 times over the next 35 years.

Here are two of his resolutions.

1. Resolved, that I will do whatsoever I think to be most to God’s glory, and my own good, profit and pleasure, in the whole of my duration, without any consideration of the time, whether now, or never so many myriads of ages hence. Resolved to do whatever I think to be my duty and most for the good and advantage of mankind in general. Resolved to do this, whatever difficulties I meet with, how many and how great soever.

2. Resolved, never to say anything at all against anybody, but when it is perfectly agreeable to the highest degree of Christian honor, and of love to mankind, agreeable to the lowest humility, and sense of my own faults and failings, and agreeable to the golden rule; often, when I have said anything against anyone, to bring it to, and try it strictly by the test of this resolution.

Edwards would have many occasions to apply his resolutions.

After his pastoral service in New York, on February 15, 1727, Edwards joined his father-in-law, Solomon Stoddard’s congregation in Northampton, Massachusetts.

In 1729, Stoddard died, leaving Edwards the sole minister in charge of one of the largest, wealthiest and proudest congregations in the colony.

Stoddard, in his later years, had introduced several doctrinal changes not founded upon scriptures.

Edwards, being new, continued the innovations when he assumed pastoral leadership.

But, in 1749, after years of successful ministry and intensive biblical study, Edward’s conscience balked at the doctrinal errors, precipitating an angry response from church members.

The controversy concluded with Edward’s dismissal by the margin of one vote.

Many would have railed against the injustice, but Edwards, dignified as always, preached his farewell sermon with the truth, love and grace, exiting Northampton without rancor or bitterness.

Edwards was, as Randall Stewart wrote, “Not only the greatest of all American theologians and philosophers but the greatest of our pre-19th century writers as well,” making his gracious humble spirit even more impressive.

He didn’t fight for his rights; instead he merely accepted the ruling as God’s Will, taking a position as missionary to the frontier Indians.

Edwards consistently displayed a grace-filled spirit of forgiveness to his many detractors, some who, years later apologized for their involvement in the misinformation spread.

Can one imagine the infamy of being associated with the congregation that dismissed one of the best theologians and philosophers in American history?

But Edwards, in his final years, never missed a beat, writing several classics of Christian literature, leaving an enduring testament to the power of character-based resolutions to transform a person from the inside out.

Edwards faithfully lived his principles externally because that is who he had become internally.

Specifically, he didn’t just give lip service to his resolutions, he truly lived them.

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

Orrin Woodward is the co-founder of TEAM, a leadership development and training company, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Launching a Leadership Revolution.

Named by the International Association of Business as a Top 10 Leadership Guru, he is dedicated to building leaders and entrepreneurs and promoting freedom and prosperity.

Orrin blogs regularly at Orrin Woodward. He lives in Port St. Lucie, Florida with his wife and four children.

Connect With Orrin:

Here is a portion of the introduction from my new book RESOLVED: 13 Resolutions for LIFE. George Washington focused on building his character every day. This is important for all of us. Have you resolved to grow personally and professionally? Sincerely, Orrin Woodward

By nature, young Washington had a fiery temper, but he developed an iron-willed discipline in order to check its excesses.

Richard Norton Smith, in his book, Patriarch, said,

“The adolescent Washington examined Seneca’s dialogues and laboriously copied from a London magazine one hundred and ten ‘rules of civility’ intended to buff a rude country boy into at least the first draft of a gentleman”.

The French Jesuits had originally developed the 110 Rules as principles to live by, and Washington’s methodical writing process helped him to adopt many of these maxims as his personal resolutions for life.

As Richard Brookhiser, author of Founding Father, wrote,

“His manner and his morals kept his temperament under control. His commitment to ideas gave him guidance.

Washington’s relation to ideas has been underestimated by almost everyone who wrote of him or knew him, and modern education has encouraged this neglect. . .

His attention to courtesy and correct behavior anticipated his political philosophy.

He was influenced by Roman notions of nobility, but he was even more deeply influenced by a list of table manners and rules for conversation by Jesuits.”

Character and self-mastery were his goals through living his guiding ideals of fortitude, justice, moderation, and the dignity of every human being.

For Washington, life became a series of resolutions to live by.

He wrote and studied many such maxims throughout his life. Here are two examples. (see appendix for more)

1. With me it has always been a maxim rather to let my designs appear from my works rather than by my expressions.
Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.

2. Washington developed and studied his maxims repeatedly, becoming convicted of the correctness of the maxims, teaching virtue over happiness and duty over rights, resolving to live based upon the principles implied within them.

Katherine Kersten, in George Washington’s Character, asks:

“What would Washington have accomplished if happiness, rather than integrity and service, had been his life-goal?

Instead of suffering with his men through the snows of Valley Forge, he might have followed the example of Benedict Arnold, another Revolutionary War General.

Though brave and talented, Arnold valued his own well-being and prosperity above all else.

Out of self-interest, he plotted to betray West Point to the British, and died a traitor to his nation.

What can we learn from Washington and his contemporaries about character-building?

They teach us, most importantly, that “the soul can be schooled.” Exercising reason and will, we can mold ourselves into beings far nobler than nature made us.”

The ending quotation summarizes character-based training beautifully – “the soul can be schooled”.

Washington attended this class daily on his way to developing the nobility of character needed to unite the American colonies.

General Henry Knox spoke truthfully when he shared that it was the strength of Washington’s character, not the laws of the new Constitution, that held the young republic together.

In a tribute to his friend, Congressman Henry “Light-Horse Harry” Lee eulogized Washington, saying,

“First in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen, he was second to none in humble and enduring scenes of private life.

Pious, just, humane, temperate, and sincere; uniform, dignified, and commanding; his example was as edifying to all around him as were the effects of that example lasting…

Correct throughout, vice shuddered in his presence and virtue always felt his fostering hand.

The purity of his private character gave effulgence to his public virtues…

Such was the man for whom our nation mourns.”

Lee’s tribute testifies to Washington’s faithful application of his resolutions into his life, living his maxims both privately and publicly.

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

Orrin Woodward is the co-founder of TEAM, a leadership development and training company, and the New York Times best-selling co-author of Launching a Leadership Revolution.

Named by the International Association of Business as a Top 10 Leadership Guru, he is dedicated to building leaders and entrepreneurs and promoting freedom and prosperity.

Orrin blogs regularly at Orrin Woodward. He lives in Port St. Lucie, Florida with his wife and four children.

Connect With Orrin:

When 28 year old Jared Massey was tasered alongside the highway by a Utah state trooper in 2007, the incident elicited a lot of strong opinions.

Comments ran the gamut from, “The motorist was a criminal who deserved it” to “The trooper is living proof that the police are out of control.”

As is the case with most incidents of this nature, the truth is most likely to be found somewhere in between the two extremes.

Contrary to the declarations of absolute guilt or innocence on the part of the motorist and the trooper, the video shows that neither side was entirely wrong or entirely right.

The trooper’s actions were upheld by his superiors and Massey received a $40,000 settlement for his troubles.

But the incident was a solid learning experience for the rest of us.

The trooper, while beginning the stop with polite professionalism, quickly became the more confrontational of the two when Massey refused to simply shut up, sign the ticket and take it.

The men were obviously on different wavelengths and it appears that the trooper, as he explained to a sheriff’s deputy later, finally decided to show Massey who “was really in charge.”

For his part, Massey fell short on a number of fronts, but his lack of cooperation was among the most minor of them.

He failed to realize that in any disagreement with a law enforcement officer, the side of the road is the absolute worst place to try to argue your case.

As at least one former police officer puts it, “You have to be willing to lose on the side of the road, in order to win the real battle; not being arrested and taken to jail.”

That advice, by the way, is not for the sake of hardened criminals, but for ill-informed people like a motorist who through his own ignorance, inadvertently provoked a frustrated trooper and escalated his traffic ticket into a tasering, his arrest and jail.

He simply didn’t understand that the deck is hopelessly stacked against any person who tries to reason, complain or argue his way out of a citation at roadside.

And if that person happens to encounter into one of those thankfully rare officers who feel the need to show their dominance, the motorist will soon be enjoying a long, lonely ride to jail.

Apologists for Massey maintain that the video proves our police are becoming increasingly brutal in enforcing the unbending will of the state.

Apologists for the trooper claim that failure to immediately bow and scrape to an officer’s authority heralds the imminent onset of anarchy.

Both are painting but a partial view of the bigger picture, though there are elements of truth in each viewpoint.

Few people have an accurate foundation by which to understand what their local police actually do on a daily basis, unless they are related to an officer or have attended one of the excellent citizens’ academies offered by many departments.

Those who have had the opportunity to observe for themselves and to speak to officers firsthand can attest to the professionalism and down to earth nature of the vast majority of their local police force.

Most police take seriously the confidence placed in them by the public they serve and when one of their officers crosses the line, they aggressively weed out those who would betray that trust.

Police are expected to respond to some of the worst situations imaginable and to bring order to temporary chaos while behaving impartially and respecting the rights of those with whom they are dealing.

That’s a tall order for mere mortals.

But the vast majority of officers do it anyway knowing that not many people understand their profession and fewer still will hesitate to criticize based upon that incomplete understanding.

Having said that, there are some highly disturbing trends in how the state uses its police powers.

With the increasing procurement of federal funding and equipment by local police agencies across the nation under the auspices of homeland security, there is a real danger of local law enforcement becoming just another arm of the federal government.

Somebody get these guys a terrorist event. Stat!

The ever-increasing militarization of even small town police forces and the use of paramilitary tactics in serving arrest warrants on even the most mundane, non-violent offenses have served to create an “us vs. them” mentality among some members of law enforcement.

What starts out as a group of sheepdogs can quickly become a pack of wolves.

When officers no longer see the public as a community to be served, but rather as an adversarial mass of potential criminals who need to be managed for the safety of the state, trouble isn’t too far off.

The official mentality is shifting from training peace officers to training code enforcers and this creates a corresponding hostility toward those who are not agents of the state.

It also fosters an attitude in which lack of accountability to the general public can lead to a sense of being able to operate above the law.

This flies in the face of one of the nine principles of policing as espoused by Britain’s Sir Robert Peel, who was considered to be the father of modern policing.

His instruction was: “Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.”

Law enforcement officers perform a difficult and stressful job that depends upon the respect and trust of the public they serve.

But when the mindset of, “It’s better to be feared than respected” takes hold, both they and the public will find themselves increasingly polarized and more prone to viewing one another as a threat.

Keeping government operating within its proper role is the best defense against the creeping tyranny of a state that is tempted to use the police to advance its interests over the the public’s.

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

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:

The fact that I’m politically unaffiliated makes a lot of people uncomfortable; they want to know exactly where I stand.

There’s a misguided perception that Independents hold an insipid, contradictory hodge-podge of middle-ground beliefs because we can’t make up our minds.

Just because dogmatic ideologues can’t squash my holistic beliefs into their narrow box of prejudicial “truth” doesn’t mean I don’t live by resolute principles.

So for those wondering where I stand, here is my Political Independent’s Manifesto:

• The classical philosophy of constitutional and personal liberty guides my political beliefs, actions, and votes — not one-sided party ideology.

• All man-made parties and ideologies have truth and error, and no political party has a monopoly on political and economic truth.

• Because of human nature, centralization of power corrupts people and principles. I am therefore intrinsically suspicious of all federal politicians and policies — regardless of party.

• I judge and vote for federal politicians based on how well they understand and adhere to the constitution, as proven by their voting record, not their rhetoric.

• I judge politicians and parties not by what they say, but by what they do.

• Both Democrats and Republicans are equally to blame for our current fiscal, economic, political, and cultural problems, and for the steady decline of freedom in the past century.

• As parties, neither Democrats nor Republicans offer legitimate, deep, and lasting solutions to our deeply-embedded problems.

• Freedom is the result of treating all individuals, institutions, and entities equally before the law, regardless of race, color, gender, wealth, or status. Generally speaking, Democrats are the party of big government, while Republicans are the party of big business. Both approaches stratify society, intensify unhealthy class structure, and concentrate wealth and power in the hands of few.

• Ultimately, in a democratic republic, the People are to blame for any loss of freedom. Freedom depends far more on what happens in the minds and hearts of individual citizens than what happens in Washington.

• Our problems will be solved and our freedom restored to the extent that citizens and leaders can see beyond party platitudes, shed ideological blinders, and think holistically and generationally.

• I am far more concerned with forms of government, rather than issues. For example, repealing the 16th and 17th amendments (forms) will do far more to restore our freedom than hacking at the leaves of illegal immigration (issue).

• While Democrats emphasize compassion and Republicans emphasize self-reliance, both are equally vital in a free and healthy society. These two values are not — at least should not be — at odds with each other. Ideally, compassionate service should be performed voluntarily, not through the force of government. Regardless, it should be a high and honorable aim for all free citizens no matter what party they belong to.

• I believe in local autonomy and diversity. I support certain policies on the local or state level that would be inappropriate and unconstitutional on a federal level. Local and state governments should influence citizens much more than the federal government. It’s not about being for or against government, but rather how much government for what specific purposes and at what level.

• Neither of the two major parties have a clear, coherent, and freedom-based foreign policy. The current mainstream neoconservative foreign policy of interventionism, nation-building, promoting global “democracy,” and waging “war on terror” is misguided, inimical to freedom, and if unchecked will ultimately lead to de facto empire. I believe that American interests are far better served and that we will be much safer and more free by dramatically scaling back our military presence in the world; by being a light to the world, not a policeman.

• Our freedom will not be restored by any party, but rather by independent-minded, liberally-educated private citizens who see and act beyond the limitations of party.

Recommended Reading:

• FreedomShift: Three Choices to Reclaim America’s Destiny by Oliver DeMille
• “Beyond Liberal & Conservative: Independents, Post-Moderns, & How to Really Understand the Issues” by Oliver DeMille
• “Breaking Free From the Two-Party System” by Kyle Roberts
• “Rising Above the Partisan Stage Show” by Chris Brady
• “Are Republicans Really the Party of Fiscal Responsibility?” by Stephen Palmer
• “The Lost Decade?” by David Brooks
• “America’s Seven-Party System” by Oliver DeMille
• “Independents & the Tea Party Movement” by Oliver DeMille

“We’re not going to bail our way out of this crisis, we’re not going to stimulate our way out of this crisis, we are only going to educate, ultimately, and imagine and invent our way out of this crisis.”
—Thomas L. Friedman, Meet the Press

 

“By 2020, the U.S. will be spending $1 trillion a year just to pay the interest on the national debt.
Sometime between now and then the catastrophe will come. It will come with amazing swiftness.”
—David Brooks, The New York Times

On the same week[i] the White House released its prediction that unemployment will get even worse every year in 2012, 2013 and 2014, Friedman and Mandlebaum’s book entitled That Used to Be Us focused the national dialogue on the deepening decline of the United States.

Fortunately, Freidman and Mandlebaum also outline a plan for how America can come back soon.

Harry S. Dent’s newest book, The Great Crash Ahead, further elaborates on this topic.

Friedman and Mandelbaum’s argument goes something like this: the United States is in serious trouble because of four great trends that are bringing massive change.

Our decline didn’t start with the housing crisis in 2008, but back in the late 1980s at the end of the Cold War.

Four Trends

First, according to Freidman,[ii]

“We made the worst mistake a country or species can make, at the end of the Cold War, when we misread our environment. We interpreted the end of the Cold War as victory…not understanding that it was actually the onset of one of the biggest challenges we’ve ever faced as a country.

“We had…unleashed two billion people just like us. But the nineties turned out to be quite a party thanks to the peace dividend, thanks to the massive productivity boost of the Internet and thanks, most importantly in many ways, to the collapse in oil prices, which was like a huge tax cut.”

Second,

“9/11 set us on a really bad course. We spent the last decade—in many ways necessarily, in many ways excessively—chasing the losers from globalization rather than the winners.

“And we made up for a lot of the fall behind…by basically injecting ourselves with steroids. Just as baseball players did it to hit home runs, we injected ourselves with credit steroids, creating a huge housing boom and construction boom to create jobs.”

Third,

“The number of people who can compete, connect and collaborate exploded in the last decade. You know,”

Freidman continued,

“I wrote a book in 2004 called The World is Flat, which was about this connecting of the world. We’ve gone from connected to hyper-connected…. When we sat down to write this book, I actually went back to The World is Flat, I looked in the index, and I realized that Facebook wasn’t in it.

“When I said ‘the world is flat,’ Facebook didn’t exist, or for most people it didn’t exist, Twitter was a sound, the Cloud was in the sky, 4G was a parking place, Linked In was a prison, Applications were what you sent to college, and for most people Skype was a typo…

“That all happened in just the last seven years. And what it’s done is taken the world from connected to hyper-connected. And that’s been a huge opportunity, and a huge challenge.”

Fourth, we’ve witnessed a huge generational shift.

“We went from the Greatest Generation, whose philosophy was basically to save and invest, and we are still living off their saving and investing, to basically the Baby Boomer generation, whose philosophy turned out to be ‘borrow and spend.’

“And we’ve really shifted from a generation born in the Depression, World War II and the Cold War—these were serious people, they wouldn’t think of shutting down the government for a minute—to a generation…that is much less serious.

“We’ve gone from basically the values of the Greatest Generation…to a Baby Boomer generation whose values are situational….

“You put them all together, and I think you really account for a lot of the hole we’re in right now…”[iii]

The book goes in more depth on each of these themes. More importantly, the book outlines some well-considered solutions.

For example, major employers, according to Friedman, are “all looking for the same kind of employee now: Someone who can do critical reasoning and thinking…who can adapt, invent, and reinvent the job, because in this hyper-connected world change is happening so fast. You know, there are companies now in Silicon Valley that do quarterly employer reviews…because their product cycle is changing so fast. You can’t wait until the end of the year to find out you have a bad team manager.”[iv]

Clearly, Freidman argues, education has got to change—it’s been too rote, and now it needs to prepare thinkers, leaders and innovators.

This is a hard job for an industry made up of mostly non-entrepreneurial, deeply security-minded types.

“What we argue in the book…going forward there really are just going to be two kinds of countries in the world: HIEs and LIEs: High-Imagination-Enabling countries and Low-Imagination-Enabling countries.

“Forget Developed and Developing….

“We’re not going to bail our way out of this crisis, we’re not going to stimulate our way out of this crisis, we are only going to educate, ultimately, and imagine and invent our way out of this crisis.”[v]

Friedman and Mandelbaum’s analysis is much needed in our current nation.

We train our youth not to take risks, and to get the “right” answer rather than the wise answer.

These two big problems are a serious challenge.

Without wise risk, prosperity and leadership are impossible.

Friedman’s 5 Pillars

The authors of That Used To Be Us note that the United States won at every major historical turn because we followed what Friedman called “the 5 Pillars”:

1-“Educate our people up to and beyond whatever the level of technology is…

2-“Immigration. Attract the world’s most talented and energetic people…

3-“Have the world’s best infrastructure…

4-“Have the right rules for incenting, capital formation and risk taking…

5-“Government-funded research.”[vi]

Note that these five form a powerful private society where the government maintains the right rules and incentivizes free enterprise.

All five have significantly decreased since the year 2000, really since 1989, and today the Right is strongly against 2 and 5 while the Left is adamantly against 4.

Both are caught in the trap of trying to accomplish 1 and 3 using the same old methods that haven’t worked for over two decades.

No wonder we’re in decline.

We’ve stopped doing the most important things that brought America’s original and lasting successes.

The Left pushes too strongly for government-only solutions while the Right rejects any government role.

As journalist Paul Gigot noted,

“The irony is, of the past thirty, forty years, that the prestige of government has collapsed most rapidly when government has tried to do…far more than it is capable of doing.

“Government prestige increased under Ronald Reagan, the great supposed enemy of government, because he showed when you focused on a couple of things and did it well, and got the economy growing, that people said, ‘You know what, they’re competent there. It’s working.’”[vii]

We need government.

We need it to protect equal rights for everyone and maintain a system where all are treated equally before the law.

This encourages free enterprise, economic growth and improved prosperity.

Societies without such governments have little freedom.

Of course, the danger is that good government can become overbearing and put a damper on economic growth and success.

Today we have government that has clearly over-reached in a number of ways, and a backlash from the Right that wants little or no government.

We need to adopt a middle approach, good government that is, in a phrase used in the American founding, “strong and limited.”

Actually, in The Federalist Papers the term was frequently “vigorous and limited.”

We want a strong government, and at the same time we want a limited government. That is what good constitutional government is all about.

Many from the Right may consider the Friedman/Mandlebaum book a push for too much government just as many from the Left will wonder that it doesn’t push for more government solutions.

American citizens should take a step back and consider the proposals on their merits, however.

I don’t agree with every suggestion in this book, but I find a number of them to be well considered.

On the big topic, the broad concept that both government and the private sector must work together in their proper roles in order to get our nation back on track, I think the book is right on.

On the subject of education, this book is especially valuable. In truth, as the authors affirm, bailouts and stimulus packages—as necessary as they may be in certain crisis situations—will not solve America’s problems.

Real solutions depend on wise policy from government and mostly from innovation and leadership in the private sector.

Indeed, the best government can do is remove the current regulatory pressure on small business and allow the entrepreneurial American spirit to get our economy growing again.

Another recent book addresses these same issues from a different perspective.

Doom-and-Gloomers

I have long been a fan of the work of Harry S. Dent because his predictions, like those of John Naisbitt and Alvin Toffler, have been strikingly accurate even though they have been more specific, and therefore more likely to fall short, than those from most other forecasters.

Dent argues in his latest book, The Great Crash Ahead, that “the great economic crisis of 2008 will likely return in 2012, or 2013 at the latest, and will be even worse.”

His analysis is alarming, but interesting. Note that Dent is not a doom-and-gloomer.

Remember, when multiple authors in the mid-1990s were predicting a major crash ahead, Dent published The Roaring 2000s, which forecast that the stock market would boom for the next decade.

He also said that the boom would increase until a shock and downturn in 2008.

For most of his career, Dent has taken on the doomsayers and offered a counter-intuitive forecast of economic boom ahead.

The fact that he said the cycles would turn in the other direction in 2008, and that now he says they’ll get even worse, should concern every American.

Dent wrote:

• “Debt and stimulus is like any drug: it takes more to create less effect.”
• “Deflation is the only possible scenario in the decade ahead.”
• “The U.S. Dollar will appreciate and be the safe haven—not gold, silver, the Euro or the Swiss Franc.”
• “Home prices will fall by 55% to 65% from the top before this crisis is over.”
• “Stock [will] crash to between 3,300 and 5,600 on the Dow by the end of 2013, or 2014 at the latest.”
• “Also, the crash will be worldwide, not just in the United States and Europe, as the dramatic China bubble comes to an end.”
• “The trends for the coming decade are crystal clear: we are going to experience a deeper downturn and deflation in prices, not inflation. We call this the Winter season; it comes predictably once in a lifetime, currently every 80 years, which means that very few people will understand what is happening.”[viii]

Whether we face massive inflation ahead, as Ken Kurson has argued,[ix] or the deflation Dent predicts, the economic future promises to be challenging.

As Dent notes, from 1775 to the year 2000 Americans accumulated $20 trillion in private debt.

From the year 2000 to 2008 (latest numbers), we accumulated $22 trillion more—for a total of $42 trillion.[x]

No doubt this trajectory has increased since 2008.

Since the economic difficulties ahead follow patterns that we haven’t witnessed since the 1930s, most of the current common wisdom on economics is lacking or just plain wrong.

“Unlearning is the key to times of change and transition,” Dent wrote. “What worked in a boom does not work in a downturn.”[xi]

Here are some of the things which have changed:[xii]

• “It is your father’s economy”!
• Don’t buy a bunch of new stuff—get out of the spending habit.
• Make do with what you have.
• Expect lower wages and lower prices.
• Realize that debt is going to get a lot more expensive than it used to be.
• Realize that assets and savings will be worth more over time.
• Start thinking in terms of multiple streams of income.
• “In the new world, management is the problem, not the solution.”
• Entrepreneurship is in: “the coming decades and century will be seen as the age of the individual and the entrepreneur.”
• Keep your business “lean and mean.”

Dent’s charts, arguments and analyses are a great read.

Add to this view the following thoughts from Friedman and Mandelbaum’s book, and we have an important look at the probable future in the years just ahead:

“No one should ever have to say ‘I am moving from America to Singapore because it is more hospitable to innovation and entrepreneurship.’ Just the opposite should be true. ‘You will know you’re successful,’ said PV Kannau, the India outsourcing entrepreneur, ‘if new companies in China and Brazil say, ‘We want to move our headquarters to America because that is the best place in the world to do business.’’

That’s not happening right now, because our regulatory and tax scheme is far from the best in the world….

“Twenty years ago, even ten years ago, a report such as this one would never have been commissioned. The United States was the best country in the world for business of any kind, the one with the largest and most open market, the most transparent legal system with the strongest property rights, the biggest and most efficient financial system, the most modern infrastructure, and the most dynamic ongoing research and development in almost every field. It was a magnet for capital and talent. No company of any size, indeed no company that merely aspired to international growth, could afford not to operate there, and none needed a consultant to tell it that.

“Now, alas, things are different. Over the past decade especially, American has changed, and not for the better.”[xiii]

How many more voices need to say the same thing before Washington listens?

Until we free up the American economy, reduce the red-tape and taxes on small business, and become the most inviting economy on earth, our economic problems will continue.

Many believe they will get worse—much worse.

The real tragedy is that all this is avoidable.

Free enterprise works.

America knows how to incentivize and encourage business growth. It’s time to get serious about restoring our free-enterprise economy—and soon!

The United States has one of the highest business tax rates in the developed world, and one of the most burdensome regulatory schemes.

Of course we can’t compete in such circumstances.

The question every American should ask is simply, why?

Why would the country that stands most for freedom in all world history now turn its back on the principles of freedom that made it great?

Why would we put our trust in bureaucracy, regulation and government rather than the proven dynamism of American enterprise?

We Can Only Ask, “Why?”

Whatever the answer, unless we make changes quickly the economic forecast ahead is dismal.

Friedman said America is like a nation turned upside down.

At the bottom is an enterprising people passionately seeking to overcome economic challenges with innovation, ingenuity and tenacity, while at the top is a government consistently blocking the entrepreneurial efforts of its people.[xiv]

Again, we can only ask, “Why?”

When Paul Kennedy wrote The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers over two decades ago, many scoffed at his prediction that American hubris was leading to our eventual downfall—in the way so many great nations and empires of history have declined.

Even the leading voice of anti-decline, Joseph S. Nye, has suggested that many of Washington’s policies are making it difficult for the U.S. to remain the world’s economic leader.

Hopefully the solution won’t be as drastic as Friedman, Mandelbaum and Dent predict.

“Shock therapy,” they suggest, may now be the only effective way to change our country.

If this is true, we are in for rocky times ahead.

One thing is certain.

Friedman and Mandelbaum rightly argue that the best way out of this is not so much to study the fall of Rome, the Ottoman Empire, or other historical examples of what not to do, but to make a national focus of studying what worked best in our own American history.[xv]

We know the answers, because they are part of our national heritage.

It is time to put aside our modernist sense of superiority and admit that we want what past generations had economically and learn what worked for them.

It will work again, if we are willing to learn and make the needed changes, because the principles of freedom are timeless and powerful.

Decline is not inevitable, but only a wise people well-studied in the principles of historical success can avoid it.

We must become such a people.

[i] September 1-7, 2011

[ii] Meet the Press, September 4, 2011

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] From Harry S. Dent, The Great Crash Ahead.

[ix] See Ken Kurson, “Let Them Eat iPads,” Esquire, May 2011.

[x] Op. Cit., Dent.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] Ibid.

[xiii] Thomas L. Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, That Used to Be Us.

[xiv] Op. Cit., Meet the Press.

[xv] Op. Cit., Freidman and Mandelbaum.

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

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: