American Business Needs Good Teachers

A disturbing trend could befall the quality of job candidates available for business hiring in the not too far distant future. We are at risk of finding that the pool of potential hires may be deficient in language and mathematical processing skills and in their ability to think critically relative to past generations. Why might this be so? Simply put, the United States is now experiencing a shortage of highly qualified teachers. And there is no end in sight of this problem. 

A weakening of the teaching profession consequently leads to more students receiving less instruction and lower quality education. It is hard to imagine how a nation that is unable to educate its children adequately can expect to succeed commercially, especially in a globalized economy. Yet, this is the situation the U.S. is now facing. 

Tuan Nguyen, Chanh Lam, of Kansas State University and Pula Bruno of the University of Illinois in an August 2022 paper entitled Is There a National Teacher Shortage? revealed there are 36,000 vacant teacher openings and 163,000 teaching positions being occupied by underqualified instructors. They contend these are conservative estimates. 

Josh Bleiberg, an education professor at the University of Pittsburgh, claims the quantity of qualified teachers is falling nationwide and the few states seeing an increase in certified teachers are still not able to keep up with growing enrollments. 

One does not have to look too deeply to see why this is the case. Professor Bleiberg’s research discloses that teacher wages, when adjusted for inflation, have been mostly stagnant from 2000-2020, while student caseloads have been consistent. 

Also, during this time teachers and administrators have witnessed an expansion of accountability initiatives designed allegedly to improve teacher proficiency. Although some accountability measures are necessary, too many have been based on student test scores, leading to needless stress, system gaming, and dilution of curriculum. Making maintenance of teacher credentialing more rigorous with no corresponding compensation increase is bad business. 

The National Center for Education Statistics reports that students earning bachelor’s degrees in education has gone from 176,307 in 1970-71 to 104,008 in 2010-11 to 85,058 in 2019-20. And this decline is before the pandemic. 

We cannot underestimate how negative Covid has been for the teaching profession. The terms and conditions of teacher employment degraded overnight. Concerns about their own health and safety while trying to manage instruction remotely or in super-spreader classroom environments while also dealing with students who had experienced the loss of family members has been extremely detrimental. Many older and more experienced teachers chose early retirement rather than risk their physical and emotional health. 

Moreover, we now have the politicization of education and use of teachers as punching bags by those who claim students are being brainwashed with various culture war issues of a racial or sexual nature. Let’s throw in the risk of school shootings and we can see why a national problem exists. Given the relatively low pay, high productivity demand, health and safety risks, and politically oriented pressure it is no wonder many otherwise great teachers are saying, No Thanks! 

This is not just a problem for one industry. It is a potential loss for our economy if we have ill-prepared students growing up to become our available workforce. It is in the best interests of business to recognize the looming threat and to get on board attempting remediation. 

As a nation, we can start by accepting the value teachers provide and offering them the prestige they deserve. Teachers are much more of a resource than they are an expense. It is past time to honor them for being the assets they are. From there we can tackle issues of adequate compensation, reasonable employment conditions, and greater self-determination. 

It is for the greater good of our economy, our country, and our children that we get this right. 

The Democratic Party Moving Forward

The 2020 election is finally over. The feeble claims of election fraud by the Republicans have been shunted to the background of most Americans’ minds, at least for now. For most, getting past a year of Covid deaths, infections, and restrictions to an eagerly anticipated vaccinated future of health and socialization is looking to be a much more appealing topic. But of course with me politics never really takes much of a break, so now seems like a good time to assess the current condition and purpose of the Democratic Party.  My main interest today is in offering my take concerning the principal priorities and direction of the party in 2021 and going forward.

I have been a registered Democrat since 1972, but really a party “member” since childhood. Growing up among Irish Roman Catholics in Massachusetts during the 1960s can do that to a person. Therefore, to greater and lesser degrees over the years I have been keenly interested in what the party has stood for. Although my party affiliation was never in serious doubt, I nevertheless persist in being drawn to the party to define and occasionally question its influence on my ideological values. Being able to think more independently these days has not really changed my desire to still gauge the party’s principles and positions to see how I align, or not, with them. What follows are my thoughts about the Democratic Party at the start of the Biden/Harris era and what I think the mission of the party should be over the next several years.

Since at least the turn of the last century, if not earlier, Democrats have branded themselves as the “People’s Party”. This calls attention to the long-standing bifurcations of the ruling class and the working class, the wealthy class and the middle class, the haves and the have-nots, the rich and the poor. The Democrats have traditionally thrown their lot in with the cohort who directly operate machines, drive buses, teach children, clean hotel rooms, stock shelves, etc. You get the picture. This has always been a large part of the American electorate. They need representation. Democrats make sure they fit the bill. Workers and their families are the sine qua non of the Democratic Party.

However, there has been an obvious, dramatic, and troubling shift occurring in recent years for this core constituency of the Democrats. Many of the working class find Trump and his brand of in-your-face, authoritarian, tear-down-the-institutions style of politics preferable over traditional legislating as a means of achieving their political aims. Given the choice of intelligent, prudent, democratic give and take, which requires not just staking out a position, but compromise with those of differing persuasions in order to gain as much political benefit as possible, much of the working class has decided hate, nihilism, and rejection of America as we’ve known it is preferred.

I have to say, my initial reaction to this trend is disgust with these people. Although the domestic terrorists who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 may not be completely representative of the Trump voter writ large, I think it is fair to say they exemplify where the energy of Trumpism can be found. And it is deplorable.

Now here is the emotional me speaking. Violence, belief in lies, repudiation of democracy, and adoration of such a flawed man as Trump are negative traits no matter how you slice them. There are no two sides to this story. People such as those who conducted the insurrection don’t need extra time to be heard or more “fair” media coverage or their own unregulated social media. Their tactics are unsupportable, illegitimate, and criminal. It seems just to me that any of them who stepped onto the Capitol grounds beyond the original police line and especially those who entered the building should be tried and if found guilty in a valid court of law be incarcerated. Lock them up!

After a deep exhalation and counting to ten please allow me to go on. Again, I do not believe all working class Americans have become as despicable as the ones who raided the Capitol on January 6, but their clown did get 74 million votes in the 2020 election. That is a lot! There are clearly many who thought Trump deserved a second term as president. Some of this I understand. Sure, some if not many of those votes are from lifelong Republicans who would vote for any candidate with an “R” after their name. There are those who probably liked his tax cutting, conservative judicial appointments, tough stance with China, and oversight of the good pre-Covid economy, but chose to hold their noses and vote for him anyway despite his boorishness. Of course, it is also understandable that some of Trump’s votes were from citizens who distrust liberalism, “wokeness”, and profligate fiscal spending. As hard as it is, I can accept these voter rationales. I may not like them, but I get not everyone is going to agree with my political take on things.

Nevertheless, it is jarring and sad that the very cohort of workers I felt in support of for basically my whole adult life I now view with suspicion. Beyond the principled conservatives and lifelong Republicans, who I can understand up to a point, there are too many Americans, quite a few from the working class, who enthusiastically support Trumpism. At this point in my political journey I have great difficulty countenancing their position. It is hard to see they are worthy of an effort to “reach across the aisle”. They are akin to enemies of the republic. I can tolerate a lot, but I do not see how I can put up with these self-righteous, hate-filled, conspiracy-addled threats to our 245-year old country.

I have no trouble saying Democrats should go forward clearly knowing that there is this segment of the population, which may be beyond reach, whether they’re from the working class or not. As a party we should not feel compelled to expend much time and energy trying to win them over. Sorry, but folks who believe Democrats are run by a pedophile ring who drink the blood of children are simply too tainted to bother with.

That said, there are some inconvenient truths in need of reconciliation by Democrats—and myself. Trumpists are Americans too. There is a wide segment of our citizenry who feel left out, shunted aside, marginalized, degraded and demeaned, and unheard by the elites of this country. Democrats have to ask themselves why this is. Conventional theories point to feelings of deprivation brought on by globalization, panic among whites who see themselves losing historic levels of power and influence, inconsolable gaps between the lives of rural and urban Americans, and wealth flowing to the more educated, all combined with a show of little respect for traditional hands-on work. And all of these grievances get juiced by social media. Democrats may not be entirely sympathetic about these Trumpian triggers, but we have to recognize that they are significantly driving the opposition. It is wise to know what gets your challenger out of bed in the morning.

Democrats have a tendency to over-categorize the American population. The party tries to assess the state of the nation by examining the plights, conditions, and issues of a multitude of core and peripheral demographic groups. This may seem like a reasonable and systemic approach for understanding the citizenry, but unfortunately, such a reductionist process tends to result in a perspective that is too meticulous, painstaking, and provincial. Democrats rightly engender the criticism of engaging too much in identity politics. Electorally, it makes complete sense for strategists to form alliances from smaller citizen cohorts in order to gain higher voter tallies. But when the task is actual governing, leaders need to be more skilled in identifying and promoting broad-based policies designed to positively effect the largest population swath as possible.

Regarding the population as a whole encourages government to specify large-scale, wide-ranging, and comprehensive policy initiatives that are rooted in culturally recognizable common sense. It focuses on what unites us more than what what divides us. When dispersion of government induced benefits are enjoyed by more people, leading to far-reaching problem resolutions and improvements in the lives of people, then government is seen as more benevolent and less intrusive. Communities that might be seen as unrelated and disparate when studied at close range become part of a wider fabric mutually strengthened by their common national government.

This is the kind of all-inclusive governing paradigm I hope Democrats adopt in the years ahead. Citizens who feel forgotten and left out by their government need not and should not feel that way. Grievances abound whether coming from Trumpism or recent immigrants or any of the other demographic groupings which exist. I urge the Democrats to skillfully address these complaints and injustices in a thematic and integrated policy-driven manner combined with a strong intention to not leave anyone out. Inclusivity should be a term people think of immediately when they think of Democrats. It is not only consistent with the historic desire to help “the people” and the disenfranchised, but may actually get some of these Trumpists to ease up on their cultural fear and paranoia of being left out and marginalized long enough to rejoin the world of the sane.

For quite some time now I have wished the Democratic Party would enthusiastically adopt an “Opportunity for All” ethic. Instead of trying to please this group or accommodate that group, the go big and go wide game plan most often associated with Franklin D. Roosevelt seems particularly cogent at this time. Since Ronald Reagan, the New Deal has been on defense. Practicing fiscal conservatism and restraining deficit spending have been to greater and lesser degrees the marching orders for Washington since the 1980s. However, given the cyclical nature of American politics, the time now appears right to exercise an activist federal government unabashedly advocating for citizen support in finance, education, healthcare, social justice, and equity. Together these interventions provide opportunity for each individual and family to succeed in America. It is unrealistic to predict specifically what outcomes each individual will realize as a result of such governmental support, but there should be no question that each person is provided with the means to actualize their potential no matter where they fall in the demographic mix. The “Land of Opportunity” has become a quaint and unfulfilled slogan in need of revitalization. The Democrats should lead this effort.

Opportunity for All speaks to what is the major principle of the modern Democratic Party—equality. Where the energy on the political right is about liberty, the vitality on the left is centered on equality. Given that liberty and equality are of, well, equal weight one would think the two sides should be able to function together to forge comprehensive agreements honoring these core principles that point to what is best about America. Regardless, the Democrats are best at taking up the mantle of equality. Thank God someone is. Equal treatment, equal justice, and equal rights are key areas in need of powerful champions. Equality is the Democrats’ North Star and it should guide the development and execution of all Democrats do politically and in governance. Opportunity for All fits ever so neatly into this ethic.

Opportunity for All also of course includes more than the working class. A clear trend over the past generation has been the expansion of the knowledge economy with its growing segment of the college educated not afraid to play on a global stage and who seem to be attracting large amounts of capital. Encouraging Americans to be smart and competitive is not a bad thing as long as it does not lead to exclusionary practices of who is allowed or not to participate in sharing of the gains, resulting in excessive wealth inequality. All economic signs point to globalization and technological advances as being prime economic shapers for the foreseeable future. Democrats should encourage our capacity to engage economically with our global competition given this new world order.

The challenge of our nation’s founders and framers of our Constitution for each subsequent generation has been to carry forth the republican principles of the United States. These principles emphasize liberty, individual rights, and sovereignty, while shunning power based in aristocracy, monarchy, and corruption. To date, each generation has to greater and lesser degrees continued this tradition despite wars, social turbulence, and technological changes. Now it is our turn. America is in the process of becoming a more racially and ethnically diverse society representing influences from around the world. The face of America may be changing, but the mission has not. Our test is best encapsulated by Martin Luther King, Jr. who preached that we are all equal and should benefit from the same rights and privileges.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” This grasps the spirit and the goal of the Democrat Party as we advance today and tomorrow. Let’s get to work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Employment and the 2020 Election

Here we go again. Time for another national election to choose a new Congress and a new president. The feeling in the air is that this election is more urgent and consequential than our garden variety face-offs, particularly at the presidential level. This choice of president is viewed as fundamentally determinative of the direction of the country and with starker contrast than most such contests. Or so both Republicans and Democrats claim. Great attention is being paid to this election and hopefully significant participation will be realized, which together should lead to a substantive and declarative outcome — like it or not. 

Typically, “It’s the economy, stupid!”. This time the sense is, “It’s the culture, stupid!”. Without getting into the developmental concerns related to our civilization’s maturation or lack thereof, economic claims, projections, and promises will likely continue to drive much of the partisan discussion. 

Are we Americans going to orient ourselves toward the past in an attempt to retain economic successes driven by tried-and-true practices previously delivered by legacy-styled business operatives or are we instead going to innovate and design for a paradigm-shifting economic future characterized by increasing competition, transformation, and multiculturalism? The decision we make will have consequences for the vitality of the economy going forward and for the quality of the employment it will spawn. 

Conventional wisdom states that if the economy is sufficiently robust, then vigorous employment will take care of itself. Indeed, high employment levels are intrinsic to a strong economy. Widespread employment matters. So, it is worth examining the economic approaches both parties are offering to see who is most prepared to fashion a jobs-rich environment over the next four years. Here is my broad summary of the selection before us. 

Donald Trump has shown us his economic priorities through past performance, which included low unemployment rates. Given that Republicans did not present a party platform this year we have to assume they are thinking ‘steady as she goes’. 

The Trump administration’s economic focus has been on individual and corporate tax cuts, deregulation targeted primarily to the energy and financial sectors, trade protectionism, immigration restriction, and rejection of a federal role in providing universal healthcare. In recent months there have also been attempts to resurrect the economy from the devastation of the Covid-19 pandemic by promoting a reopening or ‘get back to normal’ agenda. 

Joe Biden, despite pressure from the Democratic Party’s left flank, is not proposing sweeping or revolutionary changes to the economy, but does advance ambitious federal interventions, nevertheless. Principally, he is centered on reinvigorating America’s middle class by encouraging greater inclusivity across lines of race and levels of education with less income inequality and a reclamation of optimism born of opportunity. 

He wants to expand Obamacare, impose a more progressive tax code, eliminate middle class student debt, raise the federal minimum wage, encourage low-carbon manufacturing, combat climate change, and much more. Biden/Harris also have a 7-point detailed plan to defeat Covid and plan for future such threats. 

Both the incumbent and the challenger want full employment. Which ideology is likely to produce this universally desired outcome? Excluding all other factors which will influence who gets my vote, I see the following as salient with regards to employment. 

The past 150 years have generated great economic advancements resulting in profound improvements in the lives of many millions, both as consumers and as producers. We have learned a lot about how to engender wealth and to provide life enhancing products and services. There are lessons from the past worth carrying on. 

But the past is gone. What we must look forward to is the future with all its uncertainty and ambiguity. Meeting this challenge requires a mindset that sees more opportunity than threat from the future. I think it is this frame of mind that impresses me more than candidate tactics and positions. Durable, but resilient employment will best come from an outlook that sees the world as it really is and that enthusiastically leans into the contest. 

After the Pandemic

As I write this essay the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020 is ongoing. This pandemic is breaking all of the rules. Among them is the enormous impact the contagion is having by upending national economies and the day-to-day lifestyles of many millions. To a greater extent however, we are being shaken from our oblivious slumber to suddenly find ourselves facing long term consequences of how global functioning and our individual lives are to continue as a result of this catastrophe. Unlike most news events in the modern era that seem to captivate attention dramatically, but briefly, before being swept aside by the next story this pandemic may well be a catalyst for changes in how the world’s citizens perceive priorities and policy strategies for years to come.

What strongly strikes me about the Covid-19 pandemic, aside from the conspicuous fear of contracting the disease, is that this may be an opportunity to jolt us from our provincial and staid world view, immersed as it is in a belief of limited repercussions for our actions, to rather an acceptance of the likelihood that we all share a much larger and more intricately woven realm of causality. Covid-19 serves as an example of a harsh lesson—the proverbial knock upside the head. It is a natural, albeit perverse, environmental phenomenon profoundly impacting our collective environment and forcing us to reorient how we live. We are being summoned to pay attention to something bigger than ourselves. Let us heed the call.

Our lives have always been subjected to the whims of nature. The conventional claim these days among environmental activists and other less strident observers is that we are witnessing, if not participating in, a growing tension between humans and nature. Certainly the data on climate change suggests a transformation is underway in the human-nature relationship. If we accept the premise that humans depend on nature, and given the power of humans to effect environmental change, that nature depends on humans, then the quality of this interaction becomes increasingly significant. As this insidious virus makes clear, mutual co-dependence of humans with their environment is worth a public re-examination and debate about how best to proceed, because something is evidently amiss.

Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2), a type of Coronavirus that is similar to but characteristically different from flu virus, has been introduced into the human population with devastating consequences. An examination of how and why this has happened will help us to see if indeed this pandemic is part of a larger story about how we humans intercommunicate with the planet. And this story, along with any conclusions we may draw from it, can inform us about what are more sustainable and beneficial practices we could or should pursue moving forward.

As you may remember from a science class somewhere in your past there are tiny life forms known as microbes or microorganisms. Bacteria is the most commonly referred to microbe, but there are others. What all microbes have in common is that they are very small and are all comprised of cells. In fact, some are only one cell in size. Their purpose is to play a critical role in the overall health and richness of a biome and to a larger extent of an ecosystem.

Viruses on the other hand are a whole different kettle of fish. Think science fiction alien-like, ahh, thing. They have been creepily described as existing on the margin of living things. They are 1/100th the size of a typical microbe and not comprised of cells. Instead, a virus or virion is a collection of genetic material that encodes proteins. It is encapsulated by a protein seal and exists in one of two ways—either in a dormant state just ready to strike when a vector or host comes along or it becomes “alive” once it infects the hosts’ cells and begins executing its genetic codes, resulting in a rapid reproduction of itself. But of course, despite its treacherous demeanor, we shouldn’t forget that viruses are here for a good reason. By transferring genes they promote genetic diversity, similar to the role played by sexual reproduction. Life on this planet inherently needs adaptability in order to survive and horizontal gene transfer, what viruses do, helps life fulfill this need.

A clear big takeaway from the Covid-19 pandemic is that nature can still pack a wide-ranging punch, even to a population who thinks of itself as seasoned, sophisticated, enlightened, and prepared for anything. It can be useful to remind ourselves that epidemics and pandemics have occurred before and some fairly recently. History is replete with real-life horror stories of communities ranging from towns to civilizations being decimated to one degree or another by such invisible killers.

For example, during the war between Athens and Sparta around 430 BCE the besieged citizens of Athens fortified themselves behind what were called the “long walls”. The overcrowding over time is presumed to have led to a not yet definitively identified pathogen outbreak among the people. Impaired mental functioning, inflamed eyes and organs, bloody throats, and foul breath preceded death. Approximately 100,000 died.

Perhaps the most well know historic pandemic was The Black Death, also remembered as The Plague, which killed nearly half of Europe’s population roughly during the years 1346 and 1353. A now likely extinct bacterium was transmitted from fleas on infected rodents, causing death from Asia to Europe. The disease followed the Silk Road route. Once infected rats who stowed away on merchant vessels to the Mediterranean and Europe offloaded the sickness spread widely.

More recently, the so-called Spanish flu (1918-1920) killed perhaps up to 100 million people around the world. It came in three waves with the second wave in the fall of 1918 being the deadliest. The Asian flu in 1957 and 1958 killed 116,000 Americans. I could go on.

It is a fair hypothesis to state that environmental degradation and mishandling will lead to unintended and severe consequences, such as pandemics. Some would say we’re past hypothesizing as evidenced by measurable and demonstrable adverse ecological conditions of recent times. Given our obvious inherent fragility two questions naturally arise: Should we be interacting with nature in a more intentional and respectful way that ensures or at least improves the chances of better lives for all people? And correspondingly, how do we best mitigate and prepare for environmental disruptions that negatively impact our lives?

We can examine the veracity of the above supposition by seeing if there is a link between environmental deterioration and social welfare. Before proceeding let’s be clear on definitions. Environmental degradation includes: reduction of high quality life sustaining natural resources such as air, water, and soil; destruction of ecosystems; annihilation of habitats; wildlife extinction; pollution or the introduction of deleterious impurities into the environment. Social welfare includes those universal objectives that bring value and excellence to life such as: health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; freedom and equality; literacy and knowledge; or as Thomas Jefferson succinctly put it, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If a causal link can be established between human activity that leads to environmental decline or disruption and the worsening of social welfare, then we have highlighted an urgency and potential outline for constructive policy making, business practices, and individual behavior going forward.

Now is an optimal time to look at the factual information showing a connection between how we interact with nature and what She does to us as a consequence. As I’ve indicated, Covid-19 should be seen as a wake-up call. It’s impact has been so substantial that there is no question all of us are now paying attention. What is most evident is that a novel virus has arisen and penetrated our world. How exactly this happened is still being examined as of this writing, however epidemiological and genetic evidence points to it being very similar to a bat coronavirus seen in China and that a transfer from bats to intermediary animals and then to humans occurred. A California microbiology professor Kristian Andersen directed a team looking into the virus’s genesis. Their conclusion, “We propose two scenarios that can plausibly explain the origin of Sars-CoV-2: natural selection in an animal host before zoonotic [animal to human] transfer; and natural selection in humans following zoonotic transfer”. In other words, new pathogens are likely to continuously undergo evolution in the animal world and they can transfer to humans who can serve as adequate hosts.

On the surface zoonotic transfer appears to be a naturally occurring process, albeit a potentially dangerous one. However, as the line between the habitats of wild animals and the human world becomes increasingly porous as a result of greater human encroachment we may be boosting the chances of zoonotic transfer and therefore of the disease risk associated with it. For example, this wet market practice being practiced in some parts of the planet, in which live animal species are interacting unnaturally due to human commerce may be extremely hazardous. Given how localized outbreaks can become global so quickly in the modern era, the danger of such markets should be called into question despite their cultural history and local importance. Developing sound methods of engaging with wild animal populations that reduce instances of harmful zoonotic transmissions would seem to be lesson #1 from this disaster.

Given the severity of the Covid-19 disruption to our lives it’s natural to yearn for a “return to normal”. Let’s unpack what normal was just a few short months ago. Edward Cameron is an Irish climate scientist and strategist living in Vermont. His description of the month before the pandemic started in earnest, also fondly remembered as “normal” times, is useful to contemplate. Commenting on stimulus money being spent by governments in reaction to the public and economic threat of Covid-19 he wrote in May 2020, “There will be a temptation to seek a return to the economy as it was on 31 December 2019. Should we spend these trillions of dollars and succeed in rebuilding the stock market, while still living in a world where more than 3 billion people live on less than US$ 2.50 a day? Should we grow GDP back to pre-crisis levels and still live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty and 805 million people worldwide do not have enough food to eat? Should we put people back to work but still live in a world where 750 million people lack adequate access to clean drinking water—killing an estimated 2,300 people per day? Should we resuscitate the price of oil and commodities and continue our long march towards climate catastrophe? Would we call that success? Would that world be a better world than the one we have now?”

Point taken. Going back to normal has a downside. Of course, we all want the security of living with familiar comforts and predictability. Such consolations provide us with happiness and mental health. Yet, it’s worth keeping in mind as we yearn for familiarity that many benefits come at an ecological price not often considered and these rewards are not as widely shared as we might like to think, thereby creating unresolved social tensions. A critical fact about epidemics historically is how they expose vulnerabilities in what had been normal prior to the scourge. These weaknesses inherent in societies’ living standards and political decisions are where infections take hold and tragedies ensue. Compounding the grief is the realization that while microbes and viruses seek to exploit soft pockets made available by human practices, it is those most at risk from these customs who bear the greatest brunt. We see this being repeated with Covid-19 as the infirm, poor, disadvantaged, and elderly are infected and die at the highest rates.

There are many like Edward Cameron calling for this crisis to be a moment of opportunity for ushering in a better world. Profound social changes have often followed epidemic disruptions. History shows social perspectives are altered impacting religion, economics, politics, and lifestyle habits in the aftermath of large-scaled cataclysms. Sometimes this leads to massive improvements like the loosening of the Roman Church’s dictatorial hold on Europe following the Bubonic Plague or what can result is disastrous such as the rise of the Nazi Party subsequent in part to the Spanish Flu pandemic. It’s naive to think there will not be a momentous reaction to the Covid-19 pandemic. The quality of the response depends on the excellence and persuasiveness of thought leaders and political talent.

An emerging line of reasoning hoping to direct the post-pandemic effort connects issues that often are viewed as separate challenges, specifically poverty, wealth inequality, and environmental devastation. Many of us first saw this amalgamated approach with the progressive left’s Green New Deal. The proponents of this process advocate for going really big, by tackling a range of environmental improvement and social welfare concerns, even racial injustice, all at once. The claim is there is an inherent inefficiency in tackling these problems separately or in a siloed manner. For example, if the focus is solely on emissions reduction to reduce global warming at the expense of addressing how agriculture, a leading emitter of particulate emissions, feeds the world’s population, then progress on favorable change is curtailed.

Despite the impassioned argument for going big with a set of multiple reforms simultaneously I’m left questioning the political practicality of initiating too sweeping of a reform movement all at once. An energized opposition is likely to become too much of an impediment, resulting in no substantial change occurring. To be clear, each component of a Green New Deal-type plan—poverty, wealth inequality, equal opportunity, and environmental devastation—seeks to remedy a critically pressing concern. And viewed holistically, a thread can be found linking these issues. However, making legislative progress on any one of these in isolation is a herculean task. Instituting meaningful policy on all of them together in a single comprehensive move seems like a very heavy lift indeed. So, whereas I can appreciate the desire to link environmental and social action at a policy level, the legislative impediments arising from this strategy could very likely weaken and dilute the attempt.

That said, I nevertheless find Cameron’s reference to socio-ecological resilience to be quite informative and promising. To be more specific, I find the term ‘resilience’ appealing, especially in the context of strategic resilience, which I believe is his intention. Progress, innovation, and change don’t happen unless there is an underlying ethic of reflection, preparedness, agility, and risk taking. These are traits that often seem to be in short supply among many groups of people, including those of us in the “first world”. Resilience as aptly described by Cameron pertains to the development of capability “to anticipate, avoid, accommodate, and recover from shocks”. Such thinking is in line with business continuity planning, a most useful and proven approach to executing strategic resilience. Business continuity planning is a systemic process designed to minimize threats, recover from disruptions, and maintain operations with just the right balance of sustainability and adaptability to allow for ongoing functionality. Covid-19 lays bare societies’ agility and viability vulnerabilities worldwide. A more premeditated methodology built around strategic resilience will better prepare us for the dangers and disorders yet to come.

“The main part of preparedness to face these events is that we need as human beings to realize that we’re all in this together, that what affects one person anywhere affects everyone everywhere, that we are therefore inevitably part of a species, and we need to think in that way rather than about divisions of race and ethnicity, economic status, and all the rest of it.”  Frank M. Snowden, a professor emeritus of history and the history of medicine at Yale University. Professor Snowden articulates what is the greatest challenge for us to customize a post-pandemic world. It is not just waging a fight against invading pathogens. It is not immediately halting all ecological ruination. It is not instantly remediating the effects of world poverty and injustice. It is finding a way to work together, to find common ground, to forge partnerships across diverse and opposing ideologies and world views that take us collectively to a place of harmony with nature and universal social well being.

Political divisions will always be with us—and they should be. As much as Washington and Adams warned the young American nation about the drawbacks and pitfalls of partisanship our early countrymen quickly resorted to establishing institutions whereby like-minded people sharing political positions and philosophies could coalesce and compete. Bias and partiality drives politics in every nation in one form or another and varying levels of cooperation and animosity facilitate or diminish government action and decision making in each of these places. Rhetorical conflict can result in progress or not. In the best of situations leadership quality and citizen enlightenment merge to discover solutions that elevate conditions for the greatest number of people. It is not the eradication of disagreement that is needed, it is the crafting of positive options from the scrum of our differences that is called for more than ever in the post-Covid world.

“With all the riots and BS going on, I’m starting to miss the days of the #chinesevirus at least that was laughable nonsense. Where did all that go?” Conservative contributor to Twitter from New Mexico. 

“I’m never wearing a mask…We ruined the economy for nothing.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from Washington, DC.

“Let’s all be honest. Democrat Governors all over the Country let criminals out of prison so they could show up for the riots. The plandemic was the lie they told. These riots were planned right down to the bricks.” Conservative contributor to Twitter from California.

The above quotes were taken from my Twitter feed on June 3, 2020. For the past week the nationwide protests have been occurring following the videotaped murder of an African American man by a white Minneapolis police officer. I could of course add many many more quotes of this type, but I think these make my point. There is a significant segment of America who dismiss and don’t accept the urgency of attacking a viral pandemic raging through their country. Can you imagine these folks rallying to combat climate change?! Whereas the marketplace of competing ideas yields the best solutions, as I’ve noted above, there does come a point where paralysis can set in due to unbridgeable chasms of opinion. We may very well be a this point.

I purposely follow a lot of conservative contributors on Twitter to help give me a sense of what this part of the population is thinking. Granted, Twitter seems to be a platform where MANY extreme views from the right and the left make their instantaneous presence, and despite the velocity of these well caffeinated and provocative conjectures, it may not be any more of an accurate reflection of mainstream viewpoints than any other source. But it is informative nevertheless, to read the thoughts of those who I do not encounter on a daily basis in real life. My grand takeaway is becoming that America is not only profoundly polarized politically, but now appears to be such a large and unwieldy country that to think of coalescing around a national purpose of any sort these days looks to be pathetically unrealistic. It makes thinking we can tackle threats that require national unity, rational problem solving, and concerted effort fanciful. And to be fair, the left can be soundly obnoxious themselves, particularly on the extreme end of the wing. Together our partisan palsy puts all of us at greater risk of mishandling future natural epidemics at a time of accelerated globalized change. This is not smart people.

The fundamental test therefore lies in comprehending, on a near universal scale, the common ground on which we all stand. Doing so involves a mind-shift toward seeing the world through everyone’s similarities, shared purpose, and sense of oneness. Of course there will be differences of opinion and perspective. But where is it written that any nation need cleave itself over these contrasts and disagreements? We should make clear to ourselves that collectively we can achieve greater liberty and prosperity for everyone by adhering to principles of equality in justice, brotherhood, and multicultural acceptance. I’ll drag out a banal, but incisive phrase—there is more that unites us than divides us. Or perhaps, we can simply listen to Desmond Tutu, “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.”

Finding common ground with those with whom we have disagreement does not start with sending links to articles highlighting one’s point of view, or by pointing out “incontrovertible” data, or by quoting experts in science, economics, education, and so forth. It starts with identifying shared values. We all live in communities we want to be prosperous and safe. We all want the best for our kids. We all want the freedom to live life as we choose. We all want to live long comfortable and flourishing lives. At our roots, we are moral, emotional, social, and intuitive, not rational. Reaching each other over how we feel about issues will forge alliances more than trying to get ourselves to think alike. Debate at a cognitive level can often be fruitless outside of a university-like setting. We think what we want to think. But appealing to our widespread sentiments of what feels right provides greater hope we can build coalitions.

Working within the framework of one’s civilization can reveal beneficial touch points in trying to find common humanity. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist in Virginia recognizes care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity as supporting morality, which I’ll define as a culture’s sense of right and wrong. Exploring these areas with the goal of intentionally establishing areas of agreement among disparate people allows us to seek agreements and reach accord. Understanding the moral interests and human nature of others is the place to reach them. Developing trust makes it easier to agree on win/win approaches. When we figure out an improved way of collaboratively merging reason and intuition we will have a greater chance of productively connecting to face incoming environmental and social challenges that we will surely face together in the future, whether we are ready for them or not.

Covid-19 should be seen more as a forewarning than as a one-off unexpected cataclysm. We are being alerted to not only future pandemics, but to a range of calamities that can result from the lack of congruence between humans and nature, including the efficacy of how science and governments respond to these threats. Will we snap back to a normal goaded by pent-up demand as Pilita Clark in the Financial Times describes as spending, “…money we don’t have, on things we don’t need, to create impressions that don’t last, on people we don’t care about?” or will we be guided by a desire for preventative science-based planning and funding that is cooperatively engaged across disparate agencies, departments, businesses, and even nations? Resisting the fratricidal tendency many people have to express hate, xenophobia, and scapegoating when faced with fear, as these forthcoming scourges will likely engender, could be our biggest obstacle to the necessary teamwork such times will call for. If so, this will be enormously difficult.

All times are a stress test of one sort or another each with their own zeitgeist of idiosyncratic incitements that make or break the people of their age. The grand conflict of our epoch is integrally enmeshed in the quality of the relationship between the earth’s dominant life form and their planet. We have had a shot fired over our bow. The time for awareness and resolve is on. How we engage this struggle will determine the kind of world we bestow upon or deprive from future generations. Whatever turns out to be our legacy we cannot say we weren’t warned.

Book Review: The Virtue of Nationalism

The Virtue of Nationalism by Yoram Hazony

Basic Books, New York, 2018

The term Nationalism, as a descriptor of political philosophy, cultural identity, and governance methodology has been undergoing a reexamination in recent years. This evaluation is resulting in political lines being starkly drawn around how civil and partisan engagement is to be exercised among the citizens of 21st century sovereign states. The significant emergence of populist right-wing movements in a number of western countries during the 2010s is forcing us to review the advantages and disadvantages wrought upon societies and economies concerning the manner in which globalization’s interactions and integrations have been playing out over the past thirty or forty years. By investigating the way in which global exchange practices are developing in this increasingly hyper-connected world we can better determine whether nationalism, a profoundly universal social innovation, which emerged from the Enlightenment three centuries ago, continues to be a beneficial and relevant social organizing principle going forward.

Recent reading and podcast listening of mine in the areas of politics, economics, and philosophy has brought to my attention the latest work from Yoram Hazony, an Israeli political philosopher, entitled The Virtue of Nationalism. The impression initially given to me from the above sources is that this work is popular among conservative intellectuals as a serious promotion of nationalism’s positive effects and praiseworthy underpinnings going well beyond mere political theater and hyperbole to instead a revealing and scholarly justification of the concept’s current embrace among many on the political right.

Nationalism used to have a positive connotation with me, but since the Trump phenomenon its reputation now seems personally tarnished by its associations with xenophobia, jingoism, racism, and extremism. All told, this seemed like a good time to try understanding my political opposition more by peering into an erudite attempt to explain nationalism’s measure, worth, and modern relevance.

I went into this reading with a view of nationalism shaped largely by two influences, one my study of conventional American history, which by and large speaks of American nationalism as a blessed and hard fought gift to the world, created out of righteous revolution and gallantly sustained throughout numerous external threats and invasions. Secondly, beyond the American experience, I’ve observed nationalism as the glue that has held the world’s people together in an appropriate order of self-governing societies bound by common histories, languages, cultural traits, and religions. My key observations are that nationalism encourages pride, patriotism, and a rallying of collective spirit, leaving each citizen feeling as if they belong to something grand and historic. The national state model allows people to join in a synergistic manner to establish and protect their independent means of continuing prosperity and cultural longevity while safeguarding themselves against external threats. If one nation can’t defend its interests alone, then it joins in alliances with others whom they share concerns. I have always thought this arrangement was a marked improvement over the primitive feudalism of previous eras with its near constant bloodshed and tyrannical rule. Overall, nationalism has felt natural and fitting — until this time.

Nationalism has become a political hot potato and as with many topics of late with which there should not be widespread disagreement, such as environmental protection, universal access to healthcare, and shared prosperity, nationalism is now the cause célèbre, pitting those on the right, who seek a return to an allegedly diminished sovereignty, with liberals who view cooperative global connectivity among peoples as inevitable and positive.

For many, nationalism has revealed a dark side. Areas of contention include claims that a form of neo-nationalism in the west has arisen of late characterized by regressive and revisionist thinking; claims of racial superiority; intolerance of diversity; an embrace of outmoded social behaviors; denial or rejection of cultural and historical changes now underway; less respect for the rights of all citizens; a willingness to increase conflict with other countries such as allies; and less readiness to initiate and establish international alliances. In short, a debate now exists about whether or not nationalism contributes to universal welfare, peace, and prosperity around the planet or if it is instead an outdated relic of a more pugnacious and bellicose past.

Also, nationalism now has a novel and disturbing face to it. Donald Trump, Brexit supporters, eastern European strongmen, white supremacists, and angry old white men (and some women) many of whom possess only a basic level of formal education. It’s reasonable to ask, can there be anything redeemable of an idea endorsed enthusiastically by this lot?

To be fair, there have undoubtedly been tensions leading to a reassessment of how international relations are deployed and of globalization’s value more broadly. Growing numbers of Americans and Europeans see unsustainable and uncontrollable levels of immigration occurring; trade agreements that seem to favor cheap labor abroad at the expense of domestic workers; technological and business shifts overly favoring the highly educated; greater corporate empowerment leading to increased wealth inequality; terrorism targeted at the wealthy nations; and a sense that multi-state federations and alliances, such as the European Union, United Nations, and NATO, are weakening nations’ ability to determine their own policy initiatives and address adequately their own unique national interests.

Together these issues have called into question our rush to tightly connect the world technologically, economically, politically, and culturally. Many are welcoming this set of challenges as an excuse to reaffirm the benefits of nationalism and caution against any alternatives away from it.

Yoram Hazony constructs a thoughtful, well researched, ardent, and academic defense of nationalism, placing the practice in a long-term historical context. For critics of  nationalism as it has become to be understood today, in particular as a reactionary political movement, it is worth reading this sober and reasoned rationale advocating a means of governing and ordering of societies that is still quite recent in the annals of history. One element of credibility I expected from Hazony was his perspective on the topic as an Israeli citizen and self-admitted Zionist. The Hebrew nation was intentionally forged from centuries of enmity, bigotry, conflict, and genocide, providing Hazony and perhaps all Israelis, with a profound reverence for a system codifying independence, self-reliance, and empowerment for the Jewish people. He did indeed deliver his thesis from this vantage point, giving his claims added authenticity, if not veracity.

A principal dichotomy Hazony relies on to gird his central argument is the fundamental choice countries must make between having governments rooted in self-determined independent sovereignty or authoritative and centrally planned multi-state aggregations. The question is which system is worthy of development that best advances freedom, prosperity, peace, and moral integrity. Is it a belief countries should be free to pursue their interests, further their cultural traditions, and navigate their way through a world brimming with threats and opportunities? Or is it one ingrained with the notion global integration is a requirement for reducing racism and belligerence, while promoting tolerance, fellowship, and fairness? In other words, Hazony views the essential preference as one between nationalism and imperialism.

Hazony reaches into history to provide guidance and justification for the crucial ruling decision nations must make today. Empire has a long track record in the western world stretching back to Assyria, Persia, Babylonia, and Egypt. It is due to the latter empire with its authoritarian brutality and forced devotion to polytheism and pharaonic command, which gave rise to the reactive origins of nationalism found in the Old Testament. The Bible became the first document to present a political order alternative to imperialism as well as the tradition preceding it, tribalism. Of note, Mosaic law prohibited Israelites from launching incursions into nearby kingdoms and stipulated internal governing standards, which together formed the early parameters of the national state.

Later significant expression of nationalism occurred during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. Rejection of the imperialistic Roman Church, following the invention of the printing press, occurred in England, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, and Sweden, leading eventually to the Thirty Years’ War, which broke the Roman church’s hold over much of Europe, resulting in the formation of national states throughout the continent. A common attribute of these nations was a self-proclaimed right of self-determination and adoption of moral requirements determining the legitimacy of governments, often codified in constitutions. This continued to serve as the building model of most nations reaching into the 20th century.

Nationalism today has been altered substantially by two penetrating developments—the philosophical emergence of what Hazony calls the “liberal construction of the West” and Germany’s 20th century attempts to forcefully apply nationalism as a springboard for empire building. In the first case, western political thought has been dominated since John Locke (1689) by a sanctified belief in individual rights and consent. By superseding loyalty and kinship to cultural, religious, and tribal origins with individual freedom and equality the nation state loses its moral fiber and tradition-bound purpose. In addition, the rationale for national boundaries is diluted or seen as unnecessary in a liberal world where universal principles that improve the lives of all humankind can be put into practice the world over. Hazony complains that defense of old-styled nationalism is not even given the time of day among the multiparty educated elites who are all in with the Lockean paradigm.

Germany saw the nations of England, France, Spain, and Portugal forming colonial empires around the world and thought they should have one too. The difference with the Germans was in their belief that instead of colonizing far-flung parts of the world they could establish their empire in Europe. Hence, World Wars I and II. Following the atrocities of Nazi Germany, a conclusion widely accepted was to believe nationalism could be inherently extreme and the cause of such horrendous crimes. By taking away their status of nationhood peace and prosperity would instead reign over Europe.

The result of these traumas is that the true national state, as Hazony sees it, has given way to a neo-imperialism most glaringly expressed in the European Union, United Nations, and Pax Americana. The faith buttressing these entities assumes the western world has identified liberalism, by which is included the rule of law, market economies, and individual rights as the true all-encompassing way to achieve peace and prosperity. He contends this comes at the expense of a conviction in nationalism based on self-determination and moral allegiance principles as the correct and proper way to govern. As is obvious to him, this doctrine can best be achieved via international alliances and other state integration schemes, which smack of imperialism and a drift away from sovereignty. The current wave of nationalism in Europe. Brazil, the U.S. and elsewhere is a rejection of the liberal construction of the West and the neocolonialism it implies.

Mr. Hazony attempts a reasoned case for his preference of nationalism over the other major political order alternatives, those being clans/tribes and imperialism. He basis his claim not on mere emotional devotion or an infatuation with institutional tradition alone, but through a carefully constructed logic centered on the ultimate eminence of people’s mutual loyalty to one another. Beginning with an endorsement of the idea that political order needs to precede philosophies of government he goes on to recognize politics as a means of persuasion uniting like interests of a community toward achieving common goals. Members of any collective join for one of three reasons: they are coerced, paid off, or see the aims of the group as sharing in the same values as their own individual aspirations. This latter motive, the most influential of the three, leads to an all powerful mutual loyalty, which is foundational to the formation of families, clans, tribes, successful institutions, and nations themselves.

The precious bond of mutual loyalty, progressively arising as it does from families and clans to tribes and nations, outweighs in importance personal gain, one’s survival instinct, and even the ability to live totally free and independent, according to Hazony. Any philosophy of government must take into account this fundamental truth — group cohesion resulting from reciprocal fidelity creates the highest quality and sustainable associations and institutions. To diminish or to be blind to this tenet is to follow a path toward enabling organizations with weak attachments and a fragile ability to meet threats, to benefit from opportunities, or to satisfy the individual needs of constituents. He accuses the current liberal construction of the West as falling into this trap by relying solely on individual consent and freedom as the keystone of government.

Hazony offers a useful analogy to make his point, by which he compares the two institutions of business and family. In business, employees and customers engage with the organization to greater and lesser degrees depending primarily on an expectation of what benefits are to be derived which will enhance one’s lifestyle and material well being. We could say it is a consensual relationship. The family, on the other hand, is comprised of members to whom one is devoted well beyond what comforts they provide. Indeed, family members may be quite difficult, nevertheless parents largely accept the obligation to pass on cultural inheritances to their children, which they had received from their parents, grandparents, and ancestors. The commitment to one another within families is a much stronger bond than is found elsewhere, particularly more so than within commercial relations. The claim is therefore made that a true lasting connection to one another in a nation is much closer to family than to business.

Nationalism is the sweet spot between the rule of clans and tribes, which leads to near constant warfare and anarchy, and empire with its inevitability of subjugation. It is only in the national state where citizens of common heritage, language, religion, and history join to form and give allegiance to a political order that in turn provides national freedom to all. Hazony claims a collective freedom must precede individual freedom and to think any individual can be free when their family or fellow citizens are not is folly. National freedom as expressed in free institutions and domestic power centers strengthens domestic peace and common well-being. Moreover, national freedom is founded on a empirical belief that the truths which hold a people together must result from a plurality of viewpoints over time rather than from a single universal precept delivered on high.

Hazony concludes his book by trying to address one persistent criticism of nationalism — the charge it promotes intolerance and hatred. The counter argument boils down basically to: ‘Well, imperialist movements do so too.’ Finally, much time is spent defending Israel’s nationalism, which frankly to me appears as an open and shut case given the history Jews have faced, despite their inability thus far to temper or mitigate the aggressiveness imposed by them onto their neighbors.

In general, I have to give Hazony credit for laying out a solid case for the continuance of nationalism. I agree with much of his rationale. Primarily, his placement of nationalism between tribalism and imperialism and his critique of these extremes is credible. A political order whereby individuals are able to benefit from established cultural teachings, uphold the future of their civilization, and further an idiosyncratic but legitimate expression of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is clearly acceptable. I embrace an approval of intercultural diversity, tolerance of differences among peoples, and a context requiring negotiation among disparate parties. A world of national states sets the stage for such interaction. He makes an obvious case that tribalism and imperialism impede such a scrum in favor of a more minimized and overly reductionist outlook favoring restricted thinking of how communal interplay should occur.

It’s also hard to quarrel with the value of mutual loyalty among like people, a fundamental dogma of his pro-nationalism argument. The bond folk experience from common backgrounds, values, and interests is profound and motivating. The sense of belonging is integral to personal mental and therefore collective health. Anyone who feels pride in their heritage, which is most individuals, knows how significant fealty and homage to one’s people is. Such fidelity to a group’s ancestors and the culture they imparted over generations should be honored, refined, and respected. However, it is on this overarching topic of mutual loyalty where I begin to question Hazony’s premise.

He makes clear that there are limits to mutual loyalty. In Hazony’s nationalistic world citizens begin forming the bonds of loyalty first to their families and from there to their local communities and to country. Historically, loyalty followed a path from family to clan to tribe and over time to nation. But that is as far as collaborative devotion can apparently reach. His claim is that without the ties of tradition loyalty toward others dissolves. What we are left with at best is a grasping of like interests from which to form political alliances with those outside of our cultural and national sphere. The default position is that members of a nation exclusively contain a limited and unique set of objectives necessary to sustain their people which are not shared with foreigners. And because there is not a universal commonly accepted principle that applies to everyone around the planet, or so he says, there is a natural constraint as to how far mutual loyalty can go. I ask myself, are the world’s inhabitants really that separate and different from each another?

Technology and a global economy join people in interdependent ways. We rely on each other for our common welfare and bounty in ways that is increasingly difficult to do at just a national level alone. International trade and cultural exchanges benefit a nation beyond what domestic practices, policies, and programs alone can do in the modern era. Not only that, but global climate change places everyone in the same existential boat. Our very survival no matter where we live is largely subservient to how global decision makers react to the scientific data beckoning us to act in a coordinated manner. Do we not jointly participate in a world marked more by what unites us than what divides us? Is not our common need to live fruitful lives in the here and now, while fashioning a plentiful future for our children, the elusive universal principle Hazony claims does not exist?

Hazony seems to have a limited view regarding the foundational thinking pertaining to political order, which emerged from the 18th century’s age of reason known as the Enlightenment. He restricts it to Locke’s reasoned claim of “perfect freedom” and “perfect equality” or in short, individual freedom, as the one grand unifying principle driving the theory of government that now dominates the West. However, I suggest expanding the notion of what qualifies as ordering principles derived from the Enlightenment beyond just individual freedom, as noteworthy as it is. Other conditions conventionally thought of as forming the basis of the good life inspire contemporary political action as well. Steven Pinker highlighted such requirements in his book Enlightenment Now (2018). In addition to freedom and happiness he identifies health and longevity; sustenance and abundance; peace and safety; literacy and knowledge; and environmental quality as critical outcomes all people should experience. Surely, attempts to ensure individual freedom and results such as those noted by Pinker together serve as a more complete unifying principle agreeable to all nations supporting a theory of government. Perhaps Martin Luther King put it best: “We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.”

To be clear, the above criticism is not a rationale for empire building. Hazony lays out quite well the pitfalls of a single multinational governmental structure. I agree the loss of national sovereignty can lead to a weakening of culture and a reduction of local decision making, both of which fly in the face of self-determination.

Be that as it may, Hazony singles out the European Union as a particularly flawed imperialistic gamble personifying the way nations should not be going. As is obvious, the EU is modeled on federalism and is populated largely with nations and citizens who want to be a part of it, especially now that the UK is gone. Advantages of the union include protection of basic political, social, and economic rights through implementation of a single market with no cross-border transaction fees; high uniform standards of food safety, consumer and employment rights, and environmental regulations; added global relations clout coming from a unified voice instead of 27 smaller voices; enhanced minority citizen rights; and more. Above all, the greatest benefit to date is the degree of relative peace throughout the European continent. After the bellicose debacles of the twentieth century this is no small achievement. I find it difficult to share Hazony’s glum assessment of the EU’s impact on governance and on the lives of European citizens.

Lest one think Yoram Hazony is simply a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, I would like to point out a fundamental point of his that popular liberalism can take comfort in. He goes to some lengths criticizing individual consent or freedom as inadequate on its own for basing a political theory. Indeed, this is the crux of his problem with the historic liberal construction of the West. Rather, he expounds on the virtues of mutual loyalty as the crucial missing component of current western political thought. What Hazony then actually does is to promote collectivism, community, and public cooperation as paramount while debasing an over-reliance on individualism. This plays right into the popular liberalism of American Democrats and European Social Democrats and says to popular conservatism in the West that its ideology is left wanting.

In summary, Yoram Hazony has prepared a sagacious defense of nationalism that I recommend to anyone drawn to a consideration of political theory, governing principles, and what is motivating the political right these days. Yet, I’m still left with the feeling that to promote nationalism without explicitly condemning its obvious shortcomings in the areas of racism and intolerance, not to mention the impracticality of isolation in a commercially globalized world, is leaving me somewhat unconvinced of Hazony’s brand of nationalism’s purity. Also, I don’t get that if in an empire one member’s national views are disregarded by the empire’s leaders it is despotism, but within the nation state if a minority’s views are ignored by a nation’s leaders it is an accepted price to be paid for the larger good of nationalism, then I see an inconsistency.

But even with these foibles I cannot support a removal of nationalism in favor of a one-world government. Nationalism is a system that may need reform, but not revolution. And thanks to Hazony, I can now better separate nationalism’s true value from the lunatic rhetoric delivered by the cast of nationalistic characters on today’s political stage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Impracticality of Too Much Socialism

Socialism as an answer to our nation’s economic problems just will not go away. And it is not likely to during any period, such as ours, when there is a widely accepted view that wealth inequality is too flagrant and demeaning to lower- and middle-income Americans. 

Inadequate social cohesion or a feeling that society is too fractured between those that have and those who do not have enough wealth and resources, leading to a lack of shared prosperity, continues to fester in the public mind. A strong case can be made broadly identifying economic collectivism as a unifying principle, which best ensures financial stability across all class and demographic sectors. If we agree societies are best measured by how all people are treated, particularly those at the edges, then an economic system, in which production and distribution of goods and services is a collective responsibility, as socialism claims to be, can look appealing. 

However, there is a serious theoretical disconnect between the widespread ends socialism proposes and the practical means of getting there, especially given the American values mindset and economic tradition, based as it is on capitalism and individualism. 

Socialism prides itself on believing there really does exist a profound rational approach to achieve a moral objective. Well defined policies, detailed planning, targeted interventions, distributive actions, and data-driven predictions, all executed by like-minded proficient and professional managers will achieve universal goals from which all will benefit. All that is needed, we are told, is for the country to place its trust in a single administrative class of skillful specialists and what will follow are resources being allocated reasonably and wisely, thereby eliminating all want and suffering. 

Of course, this socialist managerial group of supervisors need unfettered power and control to achieve these ends. They cannot have their time interfered with by negotiations and compromising with others who may disagree with their approaches. To do so would dilute the effectiveness of their policies. Insular command and control of the nation’s decision-making apparatus must be maintained if progress is to be realized. Indeed, a unified rationalist process is foremost in a socialist governance structure. A single on-high leading voice must be heard for economic benefits to best be disseminated. 

Socialism is highly concerned with distribution. In fact, apportionment of wealth would appear to be the only concern we need to address. What is glaringly absent in socialist rhetoric is barely any mention of production. Where does the money to be distributed come from? As best I can make out, socialist production is to come from mandated and deliberate economic planning, supported by a commonly accepted ethic stating we are all in this together and therefore we will all work for the common good, like it or not. Can we look to examples throughout history where this has successfully worked? China and Vietnam, maybe. Are these realistically models for the United States? 

There are those who give rise to wealth. Entrepreneurs, corporatists, and businesspeople generate economic value, but they are disparagingly referred to as the problem, because they hoard wealth for themselves and their ilk. Raiding their coffers is just and fair, because they are greedy and self-interested, or so the rationale goes. 

Perhaps socialists and far-left liberals should find solace in the meaningful ways socialism has already permeated our lives at a policy level. Let’s face it. We already are partly socialist. Social security, Medicare, Medicaid, labor protection laws, minimum wage, industry subsidies, government mandated work standards, and soon to be universal healthcare are obvious examples. The political debate is about balancing socialism with free-market neoliberalism, not choosing one solely over the other. 

No one ideological group holds the all the required reason and knowledge to dictate a one-size-fits-all economic order. A mix of views debated vigorously brings any hope all constituents’ interests will be addressed. 

Entrepreneurism’s Evolving Promise

Entrepreneurism has a strong and positive brand…and it should. Its contribution to the growth of the economy and by extension to the betterment of lives is immeasurable. Counting the total costs of national goods and services only begins to calculate the value of entrepreneurial activity. 

A harder metric to identify, but no less important, is the qualitative significance of longer, healthier, and happier lives we collectively enjoy due to the innovation, risk taking, and intelligence of successful entrepreneurs. 

It could be said that the popular image of the entrepreneur is the self-confident driven performer productively balancing inspiration and perspiration, flawlessly timing the market, persevering with a laser-like focus, and venturing forward willingly into uncertainty, all leading to the realization of sweet success and generous profits as a just reward. We value that illustration. It is reassuring. It goes a long way to shaping our national and cultural identity. 

It is known too that start-ups with an eye toward growth furnish boosts in hiring, strengthened competition, and improved productivity by injecting fresh products, services, and business designs into new markets. 

Given the near universal gains we receive from entrepreneurism what possible improvements can be expected from the practice? Well, I can suggest one. A quarter in which we desperately need entrepreneurs’ creative problem solving is in the promotion of shared prosperity. The time is right for an entrepreneurism that cares less about concentrated wealth and more about dispersing capital, particularly to key stakeholders such as employees and citizens of communities in which businesses operate. 

We do not need corporate social responsibility manifestos to get there, just energetic, aware, and engaged business owners who choose to direct their talents toward providing a greater degree of distributed benefits over the more common asset consolidation we more typically associate with entrepreneurs. An alternative form of enthusiasm and sense of reward can be derived from constructing enterprises that intentionally advance expanded economic growth and strong job creation among the greatest number possible. 

The political pressure to confront wealth inequality is growing and looks to be a key issue in the upcoming election season. If the current trajectory of wealth amassing does not change, then the call for government intervention will only increase. Some or most governmental intercessions will undoubtedly be seen as interference and obstruction among many in business. Encouraging executives both young and old to integrate into a shared prosperity ethic may mitigate policy making coercion. 

It is not as if entrepreneurs and business leaders have not practiced this approach before. It has been widely reported that the period from the end of World War II until the 1970s was more economically stable due largely in part to the relative lack of discrepancy between management and rank & file. Granted this was a time of strong unions and more widespread political endorsement of income flattening approaches by government. However, one cannot help but wonder if the shared sacrifice evident during the war spurred a nationwide value system whereby wealth distribution was more easily realized. Can we care for each other similarly now? 

Perhaps the most endearing gift entrepreneurs give us is tangible creativity. They model and encourage thinking, which develops into options from which consumers can select the most solution-oriented or life augmenting potentialities. This has historically sparked human progress. It continues to do so.  

Given the current and ever-present range of problems in the world calling for answers and resources we look to the influencers, thought leaders, and groundbreakers to develop and implement transformative strategies, services, and products. 

Purposely including and addressing those Americans being left behind by a shifting and segregating economy could turn out to not only be nationally unifying, but also good business. 

Reclaiming Civility in the Workplace

As I pen this piece, during one of the final days of 2017, my mind reflects over the tumultuous year just passed. In my judgment, it has not been a good one. A dominant reason for my opinion has to do with what I see as stark evidence of the deterioration of civil behavior. 

This year exhibited degradation of civility on two fronts. One is the startling revelations in recent months of sexual impropriety in the workplace and beyond that are historic and pervasive. The second, which is relatively new to the scene, is the detestable leadership style being practiced and modeled by the President of the United States. 

The civility downturn issue I raise here elevates to a cultural level, but in keeping with the career and employment theme of these pieces, I’ll confine my thoughts to the effect declining civil discourse and offensive interactions are having and could continue to have in the places where we work. 

To begin, let us contemplate the monumental disclosures and resulting tolerance shift commonly known as the #MeToo movement. Since women increased the pace of sharing professional employment roles in far greater numbers than ever approximately fifty years ago, true workforce equity has been elusive. The combination of rigid gender stereotypes, the inherent inequality of hierarchical structures, and the sexual tension palpable among some co-workers establishes an environment in which predatory behavior occurs. Women who forcefully reject such treatment and men who understand its fundamental unfairness are now letting those in power know enough is enough. 

This social shift is long overdue and compels management across all industries, still mostly occupied by men, to participate and collaborate with female colleagues on equal footing and to dissolve outdated norms. It is hard to imagine that the clock will ever turn back. Managers and co-workers alike are on notice that behavior which violates basic decency against others in a sexual manner could well result in career ending consequences. 

The other and more recent challenge to our declining pattern of civil engagement with potential impact to the workplace is embodied by President Trump. To be clear, I am not interested in scoring political points and my claim here is not intended to be partisan, but Donald Trump’s model for success and leadership is debased, contrary to decency, and a disgraceful example of how those in powerful positions should act. 

The serial lying, bullying provocations, juvenile name calling, lack of intellectual engrossment, and pathetic narcissism represent leadership at its worst. Is there really a political ideology or set of guiding principles so valuable that it justifies these leadership behaviors? Having such a role model speaking on behalf of our nation, occupying a position that influences our youth, and demonstrating that this is what American success now looks like is an embarrassment and affront to our values as a country. 

It is imperative that Americans of moral character and basic virtue rise above the example set by our president and to show the true spirit of civility in the workplace and elsewhere. It can reasonably be argued that as a people over time we have abandoned shared responsibility in a move toward a selfish and a self-centered style of economic individualism. Perhaps President Trump’s mannerisms reflect how far this has gone. 

The year 2017 has given us a wake-up call. We can rally and repair by first admitting some deep-seated flaws exist in the way we interact in the areas of mutual respect and collective caring. The forces against us are formidable. Our positive tendencies are for the time sidelined. Let us not just hope for a better and more civil 2018 but let us actively work toward making it happen. We are better than this. 

The Growth of Cognitive Careers

Economies, and by extension careers, reward those human characteristics most in demand. When muscular strength was most in need during times dominated by agriculture and mechanical ability became required to operate and maintain machinery during the industrial age, those abilities were rewarded and revered leading to employment for those possessing such skills. 

The age we have now entered, particularly since the invention of the microprocessor, is one around which cognitive competency or intelligence is highly honored. High paying and stimulating jobs are increasingly going to the smartest among us and there is no end in sight of this trend. 

Historically, there has always been a need for intelligent people, but the correlation between cognitive ability and compensation was never as strong as it is today. One could have been an astute lawyer, financial planner, or mathematician at the turn of the 20th century, but the economy just did not reward those people at the levels that can be done today. We have created a much more complex economy requiring well-informed, inventive, and knowledgeable people who can navigate and derive value from what is for many of us a puzzling network of esoteric information in so many areas. The employment landscape for people with certain kinds of cognitive capacity is flourishing. 

For years we have heard about high unemployment rates and at the same time we have heard there is not enough talent to hire for hard to fill positions. The jobs that are vacant seek individuals with know-how in management, engineering, data analysis, and many other areas where information processing, creativity, and workforce resourcefulness is called for. 

Professionalism is deepening across fields that include medicine/healthcare, law, higher education, the sciences, the military, advanced manufacturing, and finance. Routine and relatively low-skilled operations will not bring competitive advantages to these career categories. Only accelerated thinking will. 

As a result, we are seeing the growth of an educated class. According to the U.S. Census Bureau only 4.6% of the U.S. population had attained bachelor’s degrees or higher in 1940. Today it is 32%. As this educated class continues to earn at relatively robust rates it appears to create an impression of inequality and disenfranchisement, such as we see being exploited in our current presidential election. 

However, meeting the cognitive demands of a more intricate and perplexing economy requires educated people. Blaming success is not enough to improve the lot of us all. Directing one’s individual energies to where the expertise is most needed will. 

The number of us prepared to optimally function in the globalized cognitive economy is not enough if we are to continue being among the world’s leaders in innovation, business, and social transformation. Without relatively easy access to higher education for those with the potential to take the most advantage of this opportunity means we all lose. Let us agree that lifelong learning is essential for each one of us and entry into a college experience that challenges and pushes us to maximize our cerebral capacity benefits us personally and collectively. 

However, the expense of higher education is too high and makes going to college prohibitive for too many Americans. The cost of college has risen too much and too fast. To put this cost hike into perspective the New York Times’ Economix blog shows that since 1985 the cost of general consumer items has jumped 200+%, gasoline prices have risen approximately 300%, and medical care 350%. But college tuition and fees — 575%! Are you kidding me? How is this in our best interests? This destructive level of inflation needs to be controlled. Our long-term economic development relies on it. 

Equality of opportunity is a virtue and should be the basis of much of our public policy. Opportunity is stifled when only the rich can afford to go to college. Opening the doors to higher education invites more participation in cognitive careers and expands the education class to more inclusiveness. 

The Employment Challenge of the White, Blue-Collar Worker

So, here we are amid the 2016 Presidential race, an election cycle that is likely to go down in American history as one of the most unusual and unpredictable contests ever for selecting our next president. A chief factor contributing to the volatility of this election concerns a rarely seen and powerful reaction coming from a cohort that has been with us for well over a hundred years — the racially white, economically middle class, high school-only educated worker, once commonly referred to as the blue-collar worker. 

The anxiety, fear, uncertainty, and anger of this significant electoral group has shaken up and defined this cycle’s race in a way that most of us, including the political pundits who follow this stuff for a living, did not see coming. This class angst has led to the rapid rise of at least two presidential candidates, who were not expected to be major players when they entered the fray and is driving much of the conversation among all of those still contending for the big prize. 

There are concrete and measurable reasons for the white, blue-collar worker to be apprehensive and they fall across economic, racial/ethnic, demographic, and educational domains. Technology is eliminating many low and mid-skilled jobs. Globalization is increasing competition. Whites are seeing minorities increase in numbers and power sharing. Having less than a college degree puts one at a greater employment disadvantage. When members of this contingent, particularly males, see that their fathers had an easier time achieving the middle class dream than they can, then a deep demoralization sets in. 

A report by two economists that received much attention at the end of last year showed that death rates for white, less-educated Americans aged 45–54 have increased since 1999. Drug/alcohol-related deaths and suicide are propelling this boost. Clearly, something is amiss, and it appears to have reached a breaking point with this election. 

The social and economic causal conditions mentioned are colossal and not reversible. Oversimplified diagnoses coupled with over-promising, which is what presidential candidates largely seem to be offering, will not allay the real fear people are feeling. Strong leadership that empathically acknowledges the discomfort, unease, and confusion people are feeling is a start. But rather than offering unrealistic and bombastic “solutions” it needs to be recognized that as a country we need to rally around outcomes that do not pit one class, race, or ethnic group against another, but instead meet these complex challenges with national resolve. 

In a word, jobs are at the crux of this issue. It is reasonable to ask, what is the white, blue-collar worker with only a high school education to do? To begin answering this I go way back to Aristotle who said that in order to achieve true happiness we must depend on ourselves. Of course, collective action politically and economically is important, but most fundamentally each of must assess on our own the world we are now in and determine for ourselves the best course of action to take for sustainable employment given the daunting headwinds we face. This takes clear, critical, and reflective thinking, resulting in high quality decision making. 

Each of us needs to think of ourselves as an entrepreneur. No, we are not all going to start businesses, but we are going to be approaching our careers similarly by developing, organizing, and managing the enterprise of “myself”. This involves initiative, risk, and when done well, reward. A good entrepreneur finds opportunities from among many distractions, they are innovative when conventional approaches do not work, and they are organized and productive in meeting their goals. Does being like an entrepreneur require a college degree? For many yes, for others no. 

There is a lot of need in the world. We are far from saturating all the actual and potential jobs that are or will be available. Triggering an action with an uncertain outcome is not easy and it is fraught with unpredictability, but our careers depend on it — even for the white, blue-collar worker. 

The Future of Careers

The official U.S. unemployment rate is down to 6.1% (in New Hampshire 4.4%). This is the lowest it has been since September 2008, the month we all realized the U.S. economy was in a tailspin. The raw number of employed workers has also recovered from the start of the recession. 

So why do we still feel in a funk about the employment recovery clearly underway? Perhaps it is because the recovery is taking so long. Or maybe it is due to the poisonous political relations turning into a national fratricide. It could also be the growing mainstream realization that capital has become densely concentrated among a relative few while the middle class feels its power and influence waning. 

I think all these developments play significant and disturbing roles in our continued malaise. However, there is another factor tugging at our collective insecurity. It is an insidious threat running just below the surface and not yet apparent to most, except for those who see their jobs and careers steadily dissolving. Call it automation, robotics, technology, or robo-sourcing. Whatever you call it, the reality of machines replacing people in the workplace is as historic as craftsmen and artisans being replaced by factory workers during the Industrial Revolution. 

I am not talking about just low-skilled jobs which do not require much education being erased. We all know that has been going on. The news is that computers are becoming better at replacing mid-level jobs and there is no end in sight to this trend. 

Here are some examples of a possible near-term future: Why hire a paralegal when computers can research and collate case histories and precedents? Let’s reduce family expenses by eliminating auto insurance, since our new car is autonomously operated. Who needs mid-managers when employees are now empowered by sophisticated software to give them direction? 

Examples such as these (and there are plenty more) of automation reaching into and killing traditional careers will become more numerous. No wonder we feel unsettled. Uncertainty for our jobs is the new certainty. 

Every great story involves individuals or groups trying to handle adversity with the goal of regaining equilibrium in their lives. Among the great stories of our age will be how working people adjust, manage, and flourish given the challenge of ubiquitous career disruption. This will not be easy. There will be a lot of anguish, questioning, indecision, and yes successes as we share in the development of a new economy characterized by new rules and choices. 

How we as individuals adapt to a world in which technology handles all the work tasks comprised of rote, logical, ordered, and sequential attributes will be centered around one fundamental question —What can people do that computers cannot do? 

In answer to this question there appear to be at least two areas in which people are superior to machines. One, people can be creative, innovative, and novel. We have viewpoints and experience leading us to devise new and exciting ways of doing things. We can make decisions and present new perspectives as opposed to merely accomplishing tasks and computations. 

Secondly, Hollywood movies about falling in love with operating systems aside, people can relate emotionally with other people. We can touch feelings, inspire and comfort others, understand, bless, and believe in other people. To date no automaton can do that. 

Careers subsisting on creativity and human contact will survive and thrive. They are already the basis of many careers currently and jobs requiring facility in these areas will likely expand. We will have our machines, but above all we will still need and have each other. Maybe even the Creative Arts could experience a boom the likes of which we have not yet seen. Time will tell. 

So yes, we feel that despite the hopeful employment numbers we are not very hopeful. Since we are not going to return to the past let’s start looking forward to and planning for a future that will certainly be different, but not necessarily bleak. 

The Declining Middle Class and Its Jobs

The middle class is being displaced and with it the jobs typically held and performed by labor. This trend is threatening the way of life for millions of Americans and could change the economic, social, and political fabric of the United States. 

There are two principal occurrences underway driving this phenomenon with no end in sight for either: 

  1. The migration of low and mid-skilled jobs to developing countries with cheaper labor compensation.
  2. The automation or robo-sourcing of tasks typically performed by minimally skilled employees.

If you are now in a job that can be outsourced or automated start making plans immediately for an employment change, because chances are your job is not going to be around much longer. 

This is a good news/bad news story for business. As more relatively lower-skilled workers are finding themselves increasingly irrelevant their erstwhile employers are finding productivity does not suffer as a result. On the contrary productivity is increasing.  

Outsourcing and robo-sourcing are growing in popularity among business owners because they increase productivity and decrease costs. Good deal for the bottom line…bad deal for labor. Look at the stock market. It booms while the employment numbers generally lag. 

Much of what has historically made the middle class possible has been the availability of mid-level jobs — those that require more skill and knowledge than menial tasks, but not the more sophisticated, analytical, and critical decision-making work performed by well-educated executives. Manufacturing is where many of these jobs used to be found. But the decline of U.S. manufacturing means the loss of mid-level blue collar work. 

Thankfully, there are still mid-level service sector jobs in healthcare, hospitality, retail, the trades, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, these jobs do not often satisfy the middle-class standard of living we have become used to. The jobs are hard to come by and many of them do not pay very well. 

The labor movement is in trouble. The collective strength of labor, which in the twentieth century helped assure decent middle-class compensation and placed the worker in a position where he and she could share in the fruits of production, has been significantly weakened. These days unions only represent about 12% of the workforce and the competition for fewer and fewer good paying jobs is growing fiercer. Even government work is drying up.  

The guy with only a high school diploma is competing against cheap labor from overseas and increasingly robotics here at home. This is not a solid negotiating position to be in for finding and retaining a decent paying middle class job. 

There are no quick fixes or easy answers for the middle class. Sure, aspiring to great paying management and executive work can and should be a goal for many, but realistically that is not for everyone. 

Sustaining a viable middle class will require availability of mid-skilled employment that can be achieved with mid-level education, say the equivalent of an associate or bachelor’s degree. This type of employment should also pay a salary between minimum wage and executive compensation. What a critical mass of those jobs will be moving forward is unclear. But if we are to be more than a nation of haves and haves-nots in the 21st century, then we had better figure this one out soon. 

The Continued Growth of the Independent Worker

Among the workforce phenomena already underway prior to the recession, but which has picked up pace since, is the increasing role of independent workers. These soloists are typically defined as part- or full-time workers who do not violate the employee-defining guidelines set by various state labor, revenue, and employment security departments. 

They are called by a variety of names, such as independent contractors, consultants, freelancers, self-employed, temporary, on-call workers, and even solopreneurs. Whatever you call them, their ranks are growing. 

In September, MBO Partners, a service provider for independent workers and companies that hire them, released their second annual “State of Independence in America” survey. What they found was that the trend toward project or portfolio work was increasing across all demographic cohorts of today’s workforce. Conditions appear to be coalescing that allow for growth in this non-traditional employment sector. 

My own speculation is that the combination of more workers accepting, perhaps begrudgingly, the new normal of an uncertain economic environment both domestically and globally, in combination with affordable technology improvements, is allowing for expansion of independent contracting. 

Time will tell if independent contracting is a sustainable, non-cyclical, and viable career option. However, this survey reveals some interesting points of transition within a population historically used to finding economic security by way of a single employer. Nearly 17 million workers operate as independents currently, up one million from last year. Projections are that 23 million will be their own boss in five years. 

The number of independents who claim satisfaction and reduced anxiety with this career choice is also growing. Many in fact intend to hire employees as resources allow, suggesting that independent contracting may be a gateway to larger entrepreneurial ventures. 

The GenXers, those aged 33 to 49, seem to embrace this concept the most out of the demographic groups measured. Given their relative vitality coupled with some years of actual work experience they are more open to taking control of their career and lifestyle destinies, certainly more so than their employer-loyal parents. 

Perhaps somewhat counter intuitively, the Gen Y (aged 21–32) workers appear to have a more mixed view of independent working, at least for now. The difficulty they have been facing in recent years entering the workforce and gaining valuable work experience may be skewing their attitude. After all, independence may not be a choice for them, but simply their school-of-hard-knocks reality. 

Many Boomers (aged 50–66) on the other hand have their own reasons for resisting migration to this level of work autonomy. In short, they were not brought up this way. Rather, dedication to an employer who in turn provided economic security has been their norm. But increasingly this generation too is seeing the benefits of more self-reliance and determination as evidenced in the survey. Increased flexibility, less workplace politics, more control over scheduling, and greater opportunities to practice their individual skillsets on their terms is being seen as attractive. 

I see significant advantages for our collective careers in encouraging individual economic independence. Although it may never, and perhaps should not ever, entirely replace the traditional employer-employee relationship there is nevertheless value in workers adopting a more flexible and adaptable economic position within the general workforce. 

Maybe we could start preparing our youth by insisting that our schools replace some of their course load, which is of marginal importance for the mainstream, like algebra and medieval history, with financial literacy and entrepreneurism.  

And Boomers, accept it. You are being ejected from the traditional workforce sooner than you expected. Your choice is becoming the pasture or carving a niche that matters to the marketplace. 

Change is only going to become more exponential, not less. Preparing yourself for independent contracting may be the best way to position your career for it. 

To State the Obvious

It is time to start stating the obvious. This is not your garden variety recession. We are not likely to bounce back to either the levels or type of employment that we had prior to 2008.  

Yes, I know technically we are no longer in a recession, because we have not had two consecutive negative growth quarters since 2009. To be precise we are in a period of sluggish GDP growth. But to most Americans it feels as if the recession that started in December 2007 is still with us. This has gone on longer than it took the U.S. to defeat Germany and Japan in World War II! 

Since we are stating the obvious, let us dispel a myth. No, the recession and its length are not Barack Obama’s fault. Carrying on with that thinking takes us off reflecting on what is really going on and how we need to adjust. Does anyone out there really think that if John McCain and Sarah Palin or even Mitt Romney had won the 2008 Presidential election that the economy would be all that much different today?  

What we are experiencing is much bigger than Republicans vs. Democrats and their ideologies. The world is undergoing a fundamental transition, a realignment of wealth and power, and we Americans better be ready to compete in the emerging global economy unless we want to be yesterday’s story. 

My principal economic concern has to do with joblessness. A society that does not have most of its citizenry gainfully employed is a society experiencing too much hardship. My principal concern is not that we are relinquishing our former status of disproportionately over-consuming the world’s resources. That was bound to change sooner or later. Much of the rest of the world is catching or has caught up to us in terms of living standards. America now must share more resources, like oil, and that is part of the pain we are feeling. 

But back to employment. Some fundamental job-related trends were underway before the recession and have been accelerated by it. For example, increasing self-employment, more engagement in project or portfolio work, and a pick-up in the passive candidate or hidden job market (think networking). Realizing these trends and getting-with-the-program, as it were, will help job searchers prepare. 

Note that a growing trend is not to sit for hours scrolling through postings on job board sites and electronically broadcasting your resume willy-nilly. To be clear, I am not saying do not try to get your defined message and brand out there, but do not think that sitting at a computer alone is a well-rounded job search. It is not. 

Securing fulfilling employment is no more complex than weight loss. Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories and exercise more. Want to advance a career? Develop self-marketable expertise. As simple as this sounds, we all know it can be profoundly difficult to implement. Just as we know to not fall for diet fads, we should also know to avoid simplistic messages, especially from politicians, who proclaim we can return to old patterns of employment. 

A globally competitive workforce requires intelligence, foresight, creativity, and resilience. You are at root your own boss. Examine the landscape before you and take appropriate action. Rely as little as you can on the benevolence of corporate deal makers to pave the way out of the employment malaise. If your skills intersect with commercial needs, great. But if you find there are no doors to open, then you may have to build a door. 

Americans have traditionally thrived, because of independent and innovative thinking. These times call for as much of that as any other time in our history. Do not wait for monthly Labor Department statistics to energize you. To state the obvious, get out there and make it happen. 

What Is Behind “Occupy Wall Street”?

“At many stages in the advance of humanity, this conflict between the men who possess more than they have earned and the men who have earned more than they possess is the central condition of progress.” — Theodore Roosevelt, 1910. 

As any student of history knows, there is a relatively limited set of macro issues that ebb and flow in various manifestations over the long-term. This quote from President Roosevelt, a Republican, from 100 years ago seems tailor made for describing the discontent expressed by the current Occupy Wall Street movement underway today. Despite the movement’s excessively grassroots and decentralized focus it is an example of a long-held view that reemerges occasionally in American history — that concentration of wealth among a few and the consequent constricted distribution of resources can get the masses riled. 

The economic dislocation being experienced by so many over the past three years is starting to be seen from a perspective not generally voiced during this Great Recession until quite recently. That being the economic downturn is largely the result of intentional manipulation by the richest segment of society (the 1%) to protect their financial interests at the expense of everyone else (the 99%). 

 This is a dramatic change of view, which may have more political implications in 2012 than economic ones. It represents a possible shift in popular thinking that until now seems to have been dominated by hard right conservative ideology stating government is more to blame for the bad times. 

Even astute political observers did not see this one coming. Although the future of the movement is uncertain, now that the Occupy protests are here it is not all that surprising they are occurring. The two Americas made up of the haves and the have-nots seem to be becoming more starkly divided. Many of the nouveau-poor are not just experiencing temporary employment and financial setbacks, they are seeing their worlds turned upside down. The rules have changed, dreams have been shattered, and the new normal is much more insecure and harsher than in the past. 

If the discontent was somehow being shared across all classes and economic strata, then the anger might have been more muted. But it is not. Those who have slipped down the ladder are instead seeing the “swollen fortunes of the few” (another TR phrase) being enjoyed by people, many of whom seem to be culpable for creating this mess in the first place. 

Although the Occupy protesters can sometimes be seen as having a muddled message and questionable tactics, for example letting their energy be diluted by directly battling police (part of the 99%) more than the 1% they claim to oppose, there are elements of the current political narrative that do seem to be instigating their clamor. Here are three main motivators of Occupy Wall Street that I am hearing from their sympathizers: 

  • The Bush tax cuts for the rich must be maintained, because they make it possible for the rich to create jobs. Really? These tax cuts have been around ten years. It is hard to say they have been stimulating much job growth as of late. 
  • The more vigorous and vocal Tea Party movement promotes shrinking government thereby encouraging the growth of the private sector. But for all the wealth generation potential of the private sector they were also the ones involved in selling over-speculative housing-related investments and encouraging bad mortgages. In other words, greed and self-interest can rule in the private sector over the concerns of the commonwealth. 
  • No one from Wall Street has yet been sent to jail even though the collateral damage to the economy has been far worse than any robbery. This charge has some genuine weight. 

Shared sacrifice and wealth distribution appear to be what is called for by Occupy Wall Street. Whether a legitimate demand or not, this belief has become a new variable injected into the national conversation about how the Great Recession began and what kind of America will emerge from its wreckage. 

Student Loans: Expense or Investment

The burden of student loan debt on individuals, particularly young unemployed ones, is certainly starting to get a lot more attention in the media. College costs have experienced higher rates of inflation than for most consumer areas. The American Institute of CPAs for example reports that for the 2010-2011 academic year alone, 4-year state colleges for in-state students rose 7.9%, while for out-of-state students the rise was 6%. The inflation rate for 4-year private colleges was 4.5%. This compares to a general consumer rate of 3.9% for the past twelve months, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistic’s Consumer Price Index, a measure of U. S. inflation. 

Among the economic complaints raised by recent protests of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that student loan payments are creating too high of a debt position for young people trying to enter the workforce. In fact, it could be said that this issue is one of the significant catalysts of the movement. Starting out adult life faced with ten or twenty years to pay off tens of thousands of dollars of debt in this economy with no job is enough to make anyone scream. 

In my own personal life, I sense the anxiety. My daughter recently graduated with a 4-year degree and between my Parent PLUS loans and her Stafford loans we are looking at substantial debt. For my portion alone the Federal government is giving me up to thirty years to pay this off and from where I sit right now, I’ll need that much time. If it takes me thirty years to pay off this loan, I’ll be 88 years old! I have real doubts that I will live that long. 

My situation is indicative of a situation facing the generations right now. I am a Baby Boomer who has always believed that education is an investment. I have bought into the notion that there is a direct correlation between the level and quality of one’s education and the number of career options and earning potential one has throughout life. 

Even recent statistics have supported this view, such as the fact that of the 9.1% unemployed in September 2011, 78% have only a high school diploma. My daughter on the other hand is looking at her amount of student loan debt more as an expense right now and is truly questioning whether the B. A. was worth it. Time will tell. I still think the college education gives her a higher launching pad for her career and hope the debt will not diminish that advantage. 

I was chatting with a businessman from Belgium a few years ago over lunch. We were in Boston being trained to administer and interpret the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. I asked him about the income tax level he lives with in his country, and he did say it was quite high, if I remember correctly close to 50%. 

But he did not seem that upset after seeing my jaw drop. When I asked him why he was not outraged he cited two reasons. One, he does not pay any medical expenses and felt that he and his family received good medical care. The other reason was that one of his children, who was at the time enrolled in a university, could attend at no additional expense. He seemed content with the concept of receiving quality service for the high taxes he was paying. 

I do not know which system is best, the European or the American. But I do know this. The system that promotes the greatest amount of education for the most people will be in a better position to compete in the 21st century global economy. If higher education is not pursued by more and more Americans because it is seen as too much of a crushing expense, then it will diminish our talent pool and our competitiveness. This is a situation to be avoided. 

Let Us Please Place Job Creation as Number One

I noticed the day after President Obama’s big jobs speech before Congress on September 8 that Mark Zandi, the often cited Chief Economist from Moody’s Analytics, praised it. True, he is an old-style Keynesian, but he is among the most respected economists in the country, so he deserves a listen to. Among the benefits he sees from the American Jobs Act are:

  • Confidence would return to the public and therefore a stabilization of the economy would result.
  • Just under 2 million jobs would be created with the unemployment rate being cut by a percentage point.
  • GDP growth would be two percentage points higher next year.
  • The $450 billion price tag would be paid between $250 billion in tax cuts and $200 billion in spending increases.
  • If passed, another recession could be averted.

It has little chance of being passed by the Republican controlled House. Now that would be fine except that it is not clear what the Republicans are offering for immediate stimulation to employment. In fact, it seems that they do not like the word stimulation.

We are being asked to encourage reduction of government, which will in and of itself release an explosion of private sector expansion and economic growth. So the private sector that seemed to play a rather large role in creating the Great Recession is going to lift us out of it because government is diminished? Really?

If there was a credible plan to create jobs by Republicans aside from the usual cut taxes for the rich and reduce regulations I would be all ears. I want jobs to start growing as much as anyone and I really do not care which ideology produces them as long as they get created. But now that one of the two major political parties has been shanghaied by the Tea Party, who does not place job creation as their number one priority, we are not getting a full collaborative effort from all sides.

I will give the Tea Party credit for sounding the alarm on the growing Federal debt, which if left unchecked would constitute major economic problems, including unemployment in just a few years. However, what are they contributing to the debate of job growth now? Not much from what I can hear.

They seem more committed to eliminating the President’s job than in generating new ones for Americans. They are a one trick pony. Just reduce debt and morning in America will return. They seem to think that managing the Federal budget is no more sophisticated than balancing the family checkbook.

Perhaps most troubling is the Tea Party’s reluctance to negotiate and compromise with those who have a different viewpoint. They are so confident in the righteousness of their position that working across the aisle is seen as weakness and capitulation. There is value in decisions made as a result of consensus. And now is a time for our leaders to work together to expand employment. The Tea Party strikes me as an impediment rather than as a serious partner.

I guess we’ll never really know if Mark Zandi’s ecomomic predictions will come true. Probably the most President Obama will get out of that speech is a reelection campaign position. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate stays in the 9% neighborhood.

Perhaps government really cannot effect economic change and private capital (which the private sector is not releasing) is all that matters. But don’t we elect Federal leaders to solve national problems? And isn’t that best done when collaboration occurs? This climate of polarization during a time of national crisis is very disheartening. We should demand something greater from those we elected.

Entrepreneurs and Joblessness

It does not look like joblessness is going to be easing anytime soon. Even though business orders are up, cash reserves are high, and overtime is wearing out employees. Unfortunately, economic conditions still do not seem to be stimulative enough to increase hiring. 

For the unemployed this is especially aggravating. Most are hopeful, perhaps desperate is the more accurate word, that “companies” will someday begin hiring again, that employers of businesses both large and small will again provide all the jobs we need like they did before. 

And what help can be expected from the government? Although the Democrats stimulus plan helped to avert another Great Depression and created or saved 2-4 million jobs it has not sufficiently convinced businesses or their lenders that there is enough stability and predictability to start hiring. The Republicans, on the other hand, are still convinced that no government plan is best and that if we can just keep taxes to the rich low and markets free of regulation all will recover nicely (President Bush’s tax cut to the rich is now nine years old and that worked out well, didn’t it?!).  

This joblessness problem is bigger than politicians can remedy with trite ideological positions and reheated campaign phrases. Here in New Hampshire, listening to the current crop of political ads can hardly give hope to the jobless. They sound like parodies of… well political campaign ads. 

We hear candidates telling us that their honesty and business acumen will “fix the economy”. Really? This is one heck of a big mess that will not be solved by way of polarization, finger-pointing, and outrageous claims of superhuman economic abilities. It begins with everyone seeing themselves as Americans first and Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Tea Partyers, or whatever, second. Nobody and no political persuasion have all the answers. When the nation’s most renowned economists cannot agree on what is the right course of action, then that tells me that this is really complicated and requires the collaboration of our greatest efforts, not simplistic political phrases. 

If I had a quick and easy answer or method to suggest that would lessen the pain of unemployment, believe me, I’d give it to you. But just like our candidates, be they lobbyists, lawyers, or magazine editors, I don’t have a magic bullet for fixing this unemployment mess and I have yet to run into anyone else who has one. 

So, while we wait for our leaders to work together, jobless Americans need to be as proactive as they can. Assume for starters that we are not going back to Pleasantville. For the short-term, anyway, there is going to be a new normal. I think it will help to get yourself in the mindset of treating yourself as if you were self-employed… an entrepreneur. Avoid wallowing in despair and depression and instead face your situation as if you are trying to generate business for your own owner-operated company, the business of you. 

Be clear on what you can offer and then constantly look for opportunities to practice your skills. Volunteer, work temporarily, accept positions for now that pay less than before, keep studying, keep networking, do whatever it takes to stay in the game. Recessions historically generate entrepreneurial activity and given how deep this one is, the entrepreneurial reaction of citizens should be strong. 

Losing your identity is as bad, if not worse, than losing your money. Can you still say what you “are”, be it bookkeeper, truck driver, or seamstress? You are out of work, not out of life. Find a way to stay engaged in what you do and in who you are. Losing your job is not the same thing as losing your profession. 

The evidence that we are headed more and more into a freelance nation is continuously being reinforced. Waiting for the old normal of “getting a job” may never again be the same for millions of Americans. Begin making the mental shift now to being independent. It may be the only thing related to your work that you can control. 

Jobs and the Political Parties

With the 2010 mid-term election campaign season heating up it is a good time to look at where the two different major political parties stand on job creation.

It is clear that the economy is the most important campaign issue and the most prominent economic theme on most people’s minds is job creation. To the extent that law makers can affect employment, the parties have staked out strategic positions, which they hope will help them win in November. As someone who shares in the hope that everyone who wants a job can have one, here is my take on who offers the best hope.

To start with, job creation is largely a private sector and business responsibility. Although government financed jobs are just as valuable and valid as private sector jobs, the public sector cannot and should never expect to sustain the economy largely through tax payer based employment. From that premise, it becomes necessary to rate the parties on what they think the role of government should be in creating or facilitating the conditions by which the private sector can grow and create jobs.

True to tradition, the Democrats are looking for more interventionist and activist ways of involving government to stimulate the private economy, while Republicans are trying to minimize government involvement believing that business and entrepreneurism alone can improve economic conditions. Let us see how these approaches have fared in recent political history.

Essentially, Reaganomics have had their way for the past twenty-five to thirty years, by which I mean the Republican penchant for reducing taxes on wealthier Americans and reducing governmental regulations on business have held sway. Even President Clinton talked about the era of big government being over. The best that can be said from a jobs perspective is that employment followed the economic bubbles and busts of the 1990s and 2000s resulting in the Recessionary mess we now have. If the economic tide had lifted all boats, then the pulling of the economic plug in 2008 drained all of us and quickly.

Let us look at the last couple of years in particular. The current Recession began in December 2007. By the fall of ’08 with panic starting to set in we had the Republican nominee for president telling us the fundamentals of the economy were fine while the Democratic nominee was warning us of economic doom and gloom.

President Bush’s Treasury Secretary saw it imperative to begin a program of government funded bailouts to keep the country from plunging into another Depression. The newly elected president realized that government financial intervention needed to continue for the banks and extended it to two of the major American auto companies. Without those bailouts, unemployment would have been much higher.

In 2009 President Obama, having inherited a $1.3 Trillion deficit, and the congressional Democrats involved the government further in passing economic stimulus legislation. This seems to have maintained more jobs than it created, but it can be said to have kept the unemployment rate from getting worse than it did.

As we all know, the economic recovery has been slow and the high unemployment rate remains largely stuck between 9.5 and 10%. In response, the political debate seems to be between the Republicans who say that everything the president and Democrats attempt should be thwarted and the Democrats saying that increases in targeted expenditures along with more regulation, particularly in the financial industry, is needed. So whose approach can result in more jobs?

This Recession began largely because of unsustainable spending and speculation on behalf of many in the private sector who were able to get away with it. Had there not been government intervention we would now be experiencing the second Great Depression in our nation’s history with much higher unemployment than now. To prevent a Depression government essentially transferred the unsustainable spending from the private sector to the tax payer in the form of an increased budget deficit. A robust business climate is needed to seriously reduce that debt.

Republicans are still wedded to the belief that low taxes to the rich and a low regulatory climate will create a long-term healthy economy. There really is nothing new in their game plan except to cooperate even less than before with the Democrats.

The track record of this approach from the last three decades is not encouraging, however. The Democrats still believe that government should be a check and balance to the power of the markets so that excesses such as those that have led to the current Recession and that have hurt so many Americans are mitigated.

The power calibration between free markets and government spending and intervention is tricky and far from a guarantee that it can right the economic ship, but I prefer action over inaction. I will take my chances with President Obama and the Democrats.