Liberty on Tap since 1984
Failure... what America needs...
I was told that America needed to be a better place in which to live. We needed change. Things were bad and only getting worse. We were in the middle of a major meltdown. We needed stimulus. We needed bailout. We needed… more government. And wow, did we ever get more government!
The following is the first in a series entitled: What America REALLY needs.
America needs to become more comfortable with failure. Failure is a precursor to success. Sometimes the formula requires multiple failures before we achieve success. Each failure is a learning experience, an opporunity for growth, and without failure it is difficult to succeed on a long-term basis. Losing does not mean that your life is over. Not trying means that your life is over.
We have such fragile self-esteems, such an aversion to the very idea of failure as anything less than total devastation, that we would rather pass our children from one academic grade to the next, instead of explaining to them that it is critical for them to try it again and get a better grasp of the fundamentals before moving on to the next level. Each building block is essential to future learning. It is perfectly natural and should be perfectly acceptable that not every child is going to learn at the same rate, any more than all children will develop the same physical skills at the same age, if ever. We are all about “fair” and “equal”, however, so we take our natural, parental love for these children and contort it into an unhealthy need to shield them from all shortcomings and disappointment, forgetting for a time that the real world is not at all concerned with their self-esteem.
I never really gave a lot of thought to how much a trillion dollars was until we started bailing out companies that were “too big to fail”. I used to wonder how bad things really would have been if AIG had been allowed to fail, to go into bankruptcy and have its carcass picked at by financial companies that were doing things the right way and were solvent enough to pick up those discounted assets. I used to wonder about the repercussions if General Motors would have simply filed for bankruptcy, instead of borrowing $60 billion and then filing for bankruptcy anyway. I don’t wonder about those things anymore. You see, the magic of a successful big government power grab is that now we will never know those answers. The government can never be proven wrong. It is quite possible that letting nature take its course would have cost us an additional three, seven, even ten years of recession. (Recession in this instance is defined as a standard of living significantly lower than the ridiculously inflated idea of how we deserve to live embraced in the 1990s.) We will simply never know, nor will we have the opportunity to learn much from a failure artificially avoided.
We need to grow stronger as a country and as a society. An important ingredient in that recipe is an understanding that education, work ethic and innovative thought will always provide more benefit to the whole citizenry than is received from simply installing more government. We need to make significant changes to how we view the world, changes that we are unlikely to make as long as the possibility of failure is artificially removed. We need to create an environment in which businesses see clearly that their survival relies on their ability to become more competitive and more efficient, where individuals are driven to continually educate themselves, open their mind and enhance their skill set.
And, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
Future installments:
Americans need to say what they mean and mean what they say.
American needs to have faith… in something.
America needs to realize that the rest of the world might see things differently.
America needs the rehashed lessons of Ed Stadler.Views: 8
Comment
-
Comment by Philip J. Stadler on September 1, 2010 at 5:29pm -
I think that this has been a good open discussion, but we're still using labels. Herein lies the problem: I don't buy into a system where everyone who defines themselves as a Republican is good and everyone who is a Democrat is bad... or vice versa. I don't really care about the subtle nuances between a Socialist and a proponent of Social Democracy, nor will I jump on the bandwagon of a bunch of Corporatists trying to pass themselves off as Capitalists. These are all just labels and, for the most part, meaningless. Rather than tell me what you are, tell me who you are by answering the following questions:
1. Do you believe an individual, to the extent that they have their full mental and emotional faculties, is capable of and entitled to self rule?
2. Do you believe that the centralized federal government can provide goods and services to its public cheaper or more efficiently than the free market?
3. Do you believe that the centralized federal government can accurately and adequately identify and address social issues occurring in great variety throughout each and every locality across this country?
The first three... there are many more. I want to know your answers to these and how and why you came to the conclusions you now hold dear. I do not want to see which political party membership card you carry in your wallet.
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on September 1, 2010 at 2:16pm -
Jim,
I don't disagree that A and B are happening. I just don't see the evidence for C - that is, a calculated conspiracy to nationalize industries and otherwise transform our economy into a socialist or communist one.
I do think the term "Social Democracy" is much more appropriate, and agree that at least in the realm of health care, the Democrats want to expand government influence. Of course, we disagree as to whether or not this is a good thing, but I don't think there is any evidence that the trend in Health Care is a harbinger for other industries.
The car industry is a red herring. Obama nor the Democrats want the Federal Government to be permanent owners of GM. It is the 2000s version of Conrail.
I believe (but don't have time to look up the exact figures) that the federal budget is forecast to decrease after a peak in 2011 or 2012. Yes, we are experiencing incredible deficits right now, and we have to do some serious work to become more fiscally healthy (which will include both cutting spending and raising revenue). But, in my view, things like the Stimulus bill, the bailout of GM and the bailout of the financial industry were, for the most part*, necessary. Things would have been a lot worse without them.
*I'm still not totally sold on the bailouts. Perhaps in the long run letting GM go under and losing all those manufacturing jobs in the heartland would have been a good thing. Likewise, it's possible that we'd be better off down the road if AIG and other big banks crashed and we had a frozen credit market for much longer than we actually did. But it was a calculated decision (made by Bush for the financial industry, Obama for the other two) that looked to solve the Big Picture/Long Term problem. No doubt we will have to pay for this in the future.
Sigh... I long for the halcyon days of Clinton, when we actually had a fiscally sound government.
PS: Increasing regulation is a far cry from socializing/nationalizing industries, which is the conspiracy theory that Ron is promoting.
-
Comment by Rick Henderson on September 1, 2010 at 1:49pm -
Marcotte,
We've sparred in other venues about Obama and socialism, and while I want to echo Jim, I'd also like to say that I'm taking a slightly different view of the president.
I would now say that Obama's goal is to permanently modify America's social contract, consciously giving the federal government a much larger role than it has had in the past. And that he is pursuing this aim without gaining the explicit consent of the public. And that -- beyond the lousy economy -- is one of several reasons his approval is tanking.
-
Comment by Jim Lakely on August 31, 2010 at 11:23pm
-
You may have a point there, Marcotte. But dude, this seems obvious:
"A" is what's happening, and it is part of the plan of the Democratic Congress (which wrote the bills) and Obama (who signed them).
"B" is also happening. We're going bankrupt. Check the global financial news and what other countries are beginning to bet on (Hint: It's not the strength of the American dollar). Which leaves ...
"C" ... it doesn't necessarily stand for "communism," but we're accelerating toward a social democratic government.
Before ObamaCare passed, the government was responsible for about 50 percent (maybe it's more) of health care spending in this country -- and that will only increase as the Baby Boomers increasingly retire, at a current rate of 10,000 a day.
The government has taken over GM and Chrysler, leaving Ford the only "independent-from-government" American car manufacturer.
Uncle Sam holds (I believe, but don't have time to check) between 50 and 70 percent of the mortgage industry through Fannie and Freddie and other schemes.
And federal regulations strangle just about every other industry in this country -- especially the financial sector thanks to the new (as in just passed by the current Democratic Congress and signed by Obama) "Frank-Dodd" or "Dodd-Frank" financial reform bill.
Oh, and I almost forgot the impending (if the Dems dare) total industry/consumer micromanagement via "cap-and-tax" bill on energy.
Dismiss the "theories" of Ron all you like. But I think the evidence shows he's a lot closer to the truth of the matter in his posts than you are.
Respectfully,
Your humble bartender
Jim
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on August 31, 2010 at 6:31pm
-
Marcotte, I have no idea what your post even meant...
From the many many posts of Ron's that I've read, this one included, it's evident that he subscribes to a theory that Obama and all the "Liberal Socialist Liars" are enacting a grand scheme to A) expand government spending and the deficit, which will lead to B) the financial bankruptcy/crisis of the federal government, which will be pretext for C) the Final Communist Solution, in which all private industry will be taken over by the government (or something like that).
I don't think Obama et al are either smart enough nor coordinated enough to pull off such a feat, even if it was their goal (which I don't believe either, for what it's worth).
-
Comment by Philip J. Stadler on August 31, 2010 at 3:23pm
-
Ron, my blog wasn't a strategy, it was a statement about one of the many things wrong with the way that a majority of Americans view society. If you read anything in it that led you to conclude anything other than the fact that I am as or more limited government, pro individual sovereignty than anyone, it was due to a lack of communication.
As far as your notion that the Tea Parties have achieved everything... I guess we'll see come November. I certainly hope that you are right, and that we don't simply replace a bunch of big government Democrats with a bunch of big government Republicans, but then that is one of the danger of labels.
I did enjoy, however, that you twice used the labeling "Liberals/Socialists/Statists" without once responding to the issue of the individual responsibility and personal accountability of the parents. This is the ONLY issue... without an insistence on individual responsibility and personal accountability, we are all Liberals, Socialists and Statists.
Marcotte, I have no idea what your post even meant...
-
Comment by Marcotte Anderson on August 31, 2010 at 12:48pm
-
Ron, your conspiracy theory about Liberal politicians requires a foresight and cunning that I doubt very much they have.
-
Comment by Ronald A. Lau on August 31, 2010 at 10:57am -
And what have such strategies achieved?
Nothing. We got Obama/Pelosi.
What have the Tea Parties achieved?
Everything. We now have people understanding what Liberals/Socialists/Statists are attempting, and more importantly, who the Liberals/Socialists/Statists are among us.
-
Comment by Philip J. Stadler on August 31, 2010 at 7:24am
-
First and foremost, I'm an idea guy, Ron. I feel that in the majority of cases, concepts unite and labels devide, so I leave most of the "calling out" and all of the labeling to the Tea Partiers. My objective is to challenge ideas, not to assume that everyone on the receiving end of a particular label embraces every idea of that group, or needs to be called out.
I consider lamenting a waste of time, and I am anything but weak!
Furthermore, I wasn't dumping the fragile self-esteem issue on the schools. Fragile self-esteems are primarily caused by and the responsibility of parents, and I refuse to let them pass the buck, especially to such an easy target as the public school system. The self-esteem problem begins and continues at home, and it is perpetuated in the school system only to the extent that parents allow it to be.
I have many friends who are teachers, and they cannot get parents to involve themselves, even come to parent-teacher conferences. These children are literally dropped off at school, apparently to be taught not only math and reading, but also the manners and respect that were not taught at home.
Blaming the institution without accepting personal responsibility for our contribution to the problem is akin to standing around with our hand out, waiting for the next government "gift". While I am concerned with the "very people we know are causing the problem", I am more concerned with the people allowing them to do so!
My essays are not directed at Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Statists or Capitalists. They are aimed at Americans.
P.S. Jim - Phil is fine. I answer to both and occasionally much worse!
-
-
Ron,
I believe you meant: "I agree with Jim, and:"
Cheers!
© 2012 Created by Freedom Pub.
You need to be a member of Freedom Pub to add comments!
Join Freedom Pub