The Politics of Personal Responsibility

The world has seldom been more politically polarized, especially when it comes to the roles and responsibilities of the federal government. Perhaps that is a shocking understatement of the current political situation in our country, but our language can only go so far. There is more personal hatred among candidates and political affiliations, and people are losing friendships because of different political beliefs. There is something wrong with that, and if our society is to continue to thrive (or, perhaps, thrive again) we need to strive to understand each other a bit more. Unfortunately, politicians and other talking heads (I'm looking at you, Chris Matthews and Sean Hannity) perpetuate the misunderstandings of the "other side" on a daily basis, and feed the hatred that continues to grow.

As with most disagreements, the majority of this particular issue involves a misunderstanding between two different ideological camps: libertarian thought and statist thought. Without including social issues (which are, surprisingly yet fortunately, nearly non-existent in the discussion this political season), these are the two primary ideologies active today. Most people fall somewhere in between these two camps, but the two extremes absolutely HATE each other. One side believes the other wants an Orwellian Big Brother type of government. The other side believes their opponents want an "every-man-for-himself" type of society. While there are elements on either side (including, possibly, many politicians) that do want those things, the reality is that most people have much more pure intentions.

As someone who falls far closer to the libertarian ideal, I'll attempt to explain how that ideal works for most people. I'd encourage any of my more liberal friends to explain the human reality of most people who subscribe to the statist ideal.

There is an obvious dichotomy between political theories. Some theorize that the federal government is inherently evil and only exists for two or three specific reasons. Others believe that government is put into place as a means to regulate society, ensure order (both economic and social) and provide safety nets and protections for its members. Others fall somewhere in between. That is, some believe that government should be more active than simply providing protection from threats foreign and domestic and regulation of interstate commerce, but not so deeply active that it regulates issues that are not catastrophic to society as a whole. Even the definition of the "social catastrophe" varies from group to group. Still others (like myself) believe that, while government is best when it is smallest, it is unreasonable to expect many of the government programs that currently exist to simply go away without causing social unrest (at best) and social catastrophe (at worst).

The perception of many people who disagree with my viewpoint (as perpetuated by many of the talking heads) is that we want you to have to fend for yourself, and that it is neither our responsibility to provide for you, or your right to expect such care. While there are certainly those who believe this, it is simply an oversimplification of a political ideology as well as a mischaracterization of the people who ascribe to it. Most people who believe in the personal responsibility ideal do not want our less fortunate neighbors to starve, or to lack access to quality healthcare, or to lack access to quality schools. We do not lack compassion - in fact, we are some of the biggest donors to private charity every single year! Not only that, we also volunteer our time to direct charities (that is, going out and actually serving food, providing medical care and offering educational opportunities, among other things) with shocking regularity! The reason for this is that we realize that proven private charity is more effective and efficient than public charity. We put our money in organizations that show efficiency and expediency in the use of our donations - that is, we tend to donate to activist organizations whose administrative (bureaucratic) costs are lower and whose track record shows success in their goals. No, we don't give to organizations whose primary function is to organize rallies and raise more money to organize more rallies to raise awareness of something. We value action and results, not just excitement and awareness.

We believe that social involvement is better on a more granular level. Having grown up in poverty in inner-city Philadelphia, I learned quickly that it is easier to ask your neighbor for a cup of milk or some other type of assistance. More importantly, I learned that it is difficult to rely on the government (in the form of welfare, whether it be federal, state or local). I learned that my neighbors understood my situation and had a genuine desire to help in any way they could. Now, I can look at that and say that the very same cup of milk I would have borrowed from a neighbor (let's value that at $.50) would have cost exponentially more for government to provide, figuring in only administrative costs. Not to mention, it would have taken significantly longer for me to receive the cup of milk because of the need for approvals and other bureaucratic processes. The simple fact is that the local community is far more capable, efficient and effective at providing for the needs of its members than any government.

We don't believe that government has all of the answers, and we wish to hold the government responsible for its track record. Before that, though, we wish to explain the idea behind our ideal: that government cannot get out of its own way. As Americans, we value leadership. We like the idea that someone has enough intelligence (both social and academic) to understand and explain something, but most importantly we value the ability to translate that understanding and communication into action. Somewhere along the way, we allowed egomaniacs to hijack out political process (which is a natural thing to happen: those who think the most highly of themselves tend to put themselves forward to be "in charge" of others). Egomaniacs tend to lead us to talk alot, but accomplish relatively little. Most politicians and talking heads are egomaniacs. After all, what do they do? Does the spending politicians approve involve them feeding a hungry person or providing shelter to someone who is homeless? The evidence is all over our major cities and, increasingly, our suburban and rural communities. It goes without saying that this egomania drives most politicians on all sides of all issues. Even more, the longer a problem exists (from a lack of action, usually), the longer the politician or talking head can opine on the best way to solve the problem without ever actually accomplishing anything, which is simply another way of feeding their egos.

So, I've established that government is run by egomaniacs focused more on the attention and recognition they can receive rather than on accomplishing anything of substance. I've also established the premise that society functions better on a granular level. Let's talk about what personal responsibility means. Personal responsibility means three things: you are responsible for your own success, you are responsible for your own failures and you are responsible for your own decisions. Let's look at the statements a slightly different way. No one else should be forced to make you successful; after all, is success not earned really success? No one else is responsible for your failures; if you fail, it's because of something you did, not because of something someone else didn't do. No one else is culpable for your decisions; the choices you make bring consequences, and those consequences (good or bad) fall squarely on you. Looking back to the discussion of how a granular society works, let's examine how these apply.

In the example I used of borrowing a cup of milk, the neighbor is not obligated to share their milk. It is not the neighbors fault that you didn't succeed, and it isn't their responsibility to ensure that you do. However, they are not obligated to decline your request. In a society, most neighbors would gladly share what they have - within reason - to help you in a pinch.  If you interview for a job, it is not the responsibility of the interviewer to make you successful. Instead, what you bring to the table will determine the outcome of the situation. If you don't get the job because your qualifications don't match the requirements, it is not the interviewer's fault that you failed. At this point, you have the option to decide to take whatever steps are necessary to improve your situation, or you can choose to remain in your situation. The key, though, is that the choice is yours. Most members of society are willing to help those in need with what means they have - without compulsion. The reality, though, is that the less they have available, the less they will share. The more a person if forced to give up, the less they will give out willingly.

Now, let's look at how these statements apply to government. If the government is to be involved in the successes, failures and decisions of individuals, the entire picture is different. If government is responsible for your success, there is little accountability and great risk. When there is no "face" to the source of your "success" (be it government funds or government compulsion), you are less likely to feel a responsibility to justify it. Likewise, when government makes it its business to prevent failure, behavior is less likely to change to avoid it. When important decisions are made for you (via regulation, compulsion or other government involvement), you are less likely to put great thought into your decisions. This is an ugly picture, but this is the best case scenario in a society run by an intrusive government. The reality is that the massive expense (both in terms of money and time) that comes with government involvement, the entire system degrades. Think of it this way: I ask a neighbor for $20 for groceries. The neighbor has a reasonable expectation that I will use it to purchase groceries and it's likely a one time thing. It costs my neighbor $20, and there is built-in accountability. I'm unlikely to use the money for something other than the stated intention and my neighbor is likely to take an interest in making sure I don't have the need to ask for money again. Now, let's imagine that I ask the government for $20. I have to fill out a form, it needs to be approved by someone (or, more accurately, several people, all collecting salaries for approving my request for $20). Finally, a week later, I get $20 from the government. There is no accountability as to what I will use the $20 to purchase (despite having put a reason on the $20 application in order to gain approval) and there is no expectation that I won't simply return the next time I need $20 (or more). In the first situation, the cost is lower, it is more efficient and there is significant motivation to change my circumstances due to the accountability that is built in. In the second situation, the total cost of the process is significantly more than $20, it took longer to get the funds and there is no built in accountability, therefore no motivation to change my circumstances.

Government is a necessary evil. Federal government exists to provide for the common defense against threats (both foreign and domestic), as well as to regulate commerce between the states (provide for a common currency). The more that it intrudes into other areas, the less efficiently society operates, the higher the cost associated with basic functions and the less upward mobility exists due to a lack of motivation and accountability. As individuals, it is our burden to either help those in need to change their situation or to live with the consequences of not doing so. The more government promises to do it for us, the more likely individuals are to ignore the people around them (in practice, not in "activism" and the "raising of awareness", as both of these feel good to the participant, but accomplish very little in reality). The best way to get people involved in their communities, involved in helping others and active in societal improvement is to reduce the involvement of government, thereby removing the expectation that government will do it, as well as the restrictions on individuals - caused by both regulation and taxation - from helping others on their own.

A better society is one in which people help people and take responsibility for their own actions. The more active a government is, the less active the people are, and that's bad for everyone.

Rand Paul... why he's right.

Before I begin writing this, let me say that my position is rooted in the inability of government to effectively regulate anything, and in the ability of person-composed companies to do what is right for their business. I believe, in fact, that government's inactivity in something is the road to the best-case scenario. I am, in no way, encouraging racism or any other type of prejudice.

Rand Paul was asked by Rachel Maddow if he would have voted for or against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Paul attempted to explain his position. Dr. Paul explained that he in no way supports racism, institutional or otherwise. He admitted that many of the provisions of the act were necessary. He also asserted - and was cut off - that there were things that government ought not be able to restrict, regardless of the moral implications.

Allow me to explain my interpretation of what I would hope he would have said.

People are generally followers. People also tend to be altruistic when their actions are broadly judged by society. Unlike at the beginnings of this country's history (or the current statuses of other countries), the larger majority of people recognize the general equality of all people - regardless of [insert the government required fine print non-discrimination verbiage... blah blah blah]. Paul's arguments are rooted in the elimination of institutional racism, and allowing the people to do with their businesses what they will.

If a business owner chooses to allow whites-only to patronize their establishment, they are necessarily limiting their customer base. This is not only because of the non-whites who will not patronize the establishment, but also because of the whites who value diversity and/or detest discrimination. Likewise, if a bar owner limits their customers to straight males, they will not only exclude females and gay males, but they will also lose the business of men who enjoy the company of women at such an establishment.

The market does work, despite the constant drumbeat of regulators blaming the market for their failed regulations. People will only purchase products or employ services in which they see value: that is, it is something they agree with, need or want and would not be embarrassed to employ (with some exceptions, but I'm talking about physical businesses here). If a business owner, regardless of their personal feelings about diversity, desires to maximize profits, they need to maximize their customer base. In fact, in most communities, an establishment of any kind wouldn't survive if they discriminated in their customer practices (or hiring practices, for the most part) even without government regulation.

As I write this, I'm watching the Flyers vs. Canadiens in the Stanley Cup Playoffs. It brings to mind a time when non-whites were completely disinterested in the sport. In the past decade, the NHL has seen more "minority" players on the ice, which has broadened the interest-base of the sport. What does that mean? Inclusiveness has actually increased profitability. Government didn't have to step in and institute a racial quota. The league and its teams see the benefit of racial diversity (taking talent into consideration, obviously) and now go out of their way to employ non-white players where talent allows.

Contrarily, professional basketball has been consistently thought of as a "black" sport in recent decades. Most of the superstars are black - and most non-black players do not make waves - so most of the fans of the league are black. Viewership of NBA games has decreased in the past several decades because of the perceived lack of diversity (and its decline). When it comes to basketball, most non-black "customers" prefer college ball, likely caused at least in part by the diversity of college basketball teams, as opposed to NBA teams. Don't even get me started on the WNBA.

If something is not profitable, a business will likely not do it. For instance, a company that employs only one classification of people (based on gender, ethnicity, etc.), is significantly less likely to garner the business of the community at large. Forced diversity solves nothing - it's faux altruism that instills racial quotas, costs beyond what are reasonable and penalties for not complying with some bureaucrat's idea of diversity. It fosters negativity in the marketplace, the workplace and the community. Supporters of quotas are angry with the perceived lack of concern for diversity in those who disagree, and those who seek talent regardless of classification are derided for their insensitivity, and punished for their disdain for diversity.

In reality, people are most satisfied when they accomplish something on their own. When they are compelled to do something, they do it solely for the reason of compulsion. Think about when you were a child. If your parents let you pick your friends, you were satisfied with your choice and enjoyed yourself - and tended to have a modicum of diversity in your social circle. Contrarily, if your parents told you with whom to be friendly, you likely held an amount of disdain for the friends, for your parents and for the ends that your parents attempted to accomplish (that is, no matter what reason, the compulsion caused disdain that may not have been there prior).

The argument isn't about race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other meaningless classification. The argument is rooted in the difference between government compulsion and personal freedom. If we look through history, the most successful societies are the ones with highest degree of person freedoms. Governments only work when they have an enemy. Who is the enemy in the argument about compulsory inclusion of minorities? It ends up being the majority - regardless of culpability - especially those who are perceived as having been favored. For example, let's imagine that I am a candidate for a job, and the only other applicant is a similarly qualified minority applicant. I have a little more experience than the other applicant, and minimally higher results in my pre-employment testing. In some cases, an employer will - usually for fear of reprisal by the government, the other applicant, or both - choose the less qualified applicant to avoid potential consequences.

This doesn't happen as often as it's purported. However, it does happen, and it's detrimental to everyone involved. There is also a double standard. If a company employs mostly "minorities", there is no obligation (theoretical or actual) that they hire a white person, or a male. For government to impose penalties for ideas that do not cause physical harm is government overreaching.

People are more content when they are empowered to make their own decisions. When a person is compelled to do something, they gain little satisfaction from their actions and, as I stated, often disdain both the authority compelling them and the action they're forced to perform. It is not beneficial in a society such as ours (where people are free) to exclude people from employment or being able to patronize a business; in fact, to do so is most often detrimental. Wouldn't it make for a better society to allow qualifications - not genetics, physiology or personal choices - to determine someone's eligibility to participate in something? Wouldn't it lead to a better workplace environment if everyone there knew that they were there because of their fitness for the job and not because of some government regulated quota? Would it reduce - or even possibly eliminate - certain tensions in society if things were based on the wants, needs or practicalities of that society, and not based on government compulsion?

I would posit that our society would actually be more vibrant, that racial tensions would decrease dramatically, that businesses would be more successful and individuals would experience a greater amount of satisfaction with themselves and others around them if we allowed society (and the market) to regulate itself. Government intervention is like overuse of antibiotics - it decreases the ability of the body's natural immunity to fight off infection, and creates dependence on an external force to do a job that the body ought to be able to do on its own, as well as disables the body from adapting to future infections. In the end, the perceived altruism of government intervention is actually one of the most dangerous things for society.

Again, racism is a disease. Sexism is as well. There is no place for them in society. The point of my writing this is exactly that - society will dispel of them on its own, as long as it isn't dependent on government to do it for them. Rand Paul is right - the concept of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a great one, and the goal the same. But, in practice, it does more harm than good, fosters continued hatred and disables society from acting on its own.

Currently Brother, Sister By mewithoutYou In A Sweater, Poorly Knit see related

Humility

Sometimes, we have to realize that we aren't the best at everything. We come in contact with people who may think differently about us than we do about ourselves. Sometimes, no matter how hard we work, there's someone who does just a little better, or makes a stronger impression.

Today, I'm realizing these things all over again.

Disappointment is a natural part of life. It's even necessary. Sometimes, no matter how hard we work at something, or how well we present ourselves, there's someone who does it better. And there aren't always two voids that need to be filled. Sometimes, we're not all chosen. Not everyone gets a trophy. Not everyone gets the girl, the job, the starting position on their team...

I suppose that I'm so used to being successful at whatever it is that I set my mind to that the relatively rare failures are more pronounced and disappointing. It stings to know that someone else thought even just a little bit higher of someone else, especially when you're as prideful as I can be. But, the reality is that you can't be the best at everything, and certainly not all the time.

Sometimes, your pride is hurt. Right now, my pride is hurt. And it's my own fault. Sometimes, at least in the opinions of some others - including people who are more important than yourself - others are just more qualified, better spoken, or just better. And that's okay. I'll take it as motivation to be even better than what I thought was "the best" this time, and be a bit more cautious with my pride.

Disappointment isn't different from any other emotion. It builds character. As the saying goes, "If it doesn't kill you, it'll make you stronger."

Why do we do the things we do?

So, I'm back in school. I'm taking Psychology 100 (which is weird because I'm one of very few non-traditional students in the class, but I digress). We talked about motivation last week, and it got me thinking... why do we do the things we do?

In various religious traditions, there are different reasons offered. The one with which I'm most familiar actually poses the idea pretty well: "I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate." (Romans 7:15). What motivates us to do things? Are our actions simply the product of constant environmental manipulation? Do we have full control or are we actually unable to clearly make our own decisions?

I guess the point of writing this is that the question has been weighing on me recently. I've tried to academize it like I usually do with things that make me uncomfortable, but I've had to look at it from an experiential standpoint. And, the inverse of that question - namely, why do I not do what I want to do - has really been present.

Decisions are never as simple as, "is it right or is it wrong." There are always mitigating circumstances, other variables and all that. I can't simply look at a situation and decide what to do. There's a situation where I know exactly how I feel about my desires. All it would take is a simple "step forward". But, because of all of the other circumstances surrounding it, I'm dragging my feet so much that it's frustrating. Weighing all of the different variables that could affect the very clear idea that I have is taxing. I really have 3 options: I can drop it and not deal with it, I can keep dragging my feet and continue getting frustrated, or I can jump in and hope my original idea is strong enough to withstand any of the variables that may come into play and deal with the consequences, both good and bad (but hopefully mostly good).

I guess I just hope that my motivation is well founded, and that whatever things are motivating me to hold back aren't. I haven't written on here in a while, and this is a meager excuse for a post, but venting is good.

Thoughts on a snow day...

- Robin Williams was way funnier in old lady drag. Now, he's just shrill, annoying and talks incessantly about stuff in which I'm not actually interested. But, I'm watching because there's nothing else on TV. I guess TV is snowed in today, too.

- My least favorite NFL team of all time is about to beat the (undefeated) newest addition to my least favorite NFL teams, and handily. I don't quite know what to think. There's a "rename the Cowgirls to the Hurricanes" joke brewing, but that would probably be highly inappropriate.

- Snow is nowhere near as fun when your discretionary funding is dependent upon people getting out to shop. It's even less fun when it comes in large quantities on what was projected to be the second biggest shopping day this year.

- That said, it is funny to see my car with a one-foot-high snow shadow.

- I cannot wait for vacation. Three working days this week, Christmas, family party, preaching in church, then skipping town for a while both because I can and because I feel it's the best way to clear my mind (and get away from my problems, which I feel is best right now).

- Speaking of preaching in church on December 27th, anyone who is around should show up at Chiques UMC for one of the services. 9:00 am for traditional worship, 10:30 am for contemporary worship. If nothing else, it'll be fun to watch me bomb twice in the same morning .

- I just wrote a post about how I'm watching Robin Williams' "comedy", thinking of terrible jokes about tonight's NFL game and speaking in church. As John Acuff (StuffChristiansLike.net) would say, that's a perfect example of booty, God, booty.