Complaining: The Drug of the Millennial

It seems each generation has an “addiction”.  For my grandfather’s generation it was smoking, for my parent’s generation it was drugs, and for Millennials it appears to be complaining.  Like all addictions, complaining began with an enabler: lack of discipline, participation trophies and, most of all, the idea of not just starting on an even playing field, but requiring an equality in outcome no matter the input effort.

We now have a generation that is addicted to complaining. You didn’t get your way? Complain. You didn’t get the grade you wanted on an assignment in school? Complain. You lost a game? Complain.

Millennials have forsaken hard work, dedication and respect as the tools to move through society and gain prosperity.  For too many, complaining has become a route to reap rewards from the ambition of others.

According to surveys, Millennial's number one issue in the workplace is fairness.  But fairness is in the eyes of the beholder.  Translated, it can be taken to mean, if I get my way it is fair, otherwise it is not.  This concept of fairness is juvenile and, as working adults, needs to be left in the childhood sandbox where it started.

We subscribe to the notion of equal opportunity that removes artificial barriers.  But beyond that, prosperity takes tremendous individual effort, risk and some luck!  Try scaling a mountain.  The ones that make it to the top all started with the equal opportunity to try.  But on the path from the base to the summit, weather, skill, strength and determination make the difference between those who make it up the mountain and those who do no…fairness has nothing to do with it.

Presidential Policies – A Non Sequitur

A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from its premise.  For example, summer is a wonderful time which makes dogs better than cats.  The premise, summer, is not connected in any logical way to making dogs better than cats.  Presidential policies too are replete with non sequiturs.

Donald Trump wants to stem the flow of foreign trade with China and Mexico.  He derides these countries for taking American jobs.  He degrades the “stupid” bureaucrats in Washington for making bad trade deals, like NAFTA, and scolds Carrier Corporation for moving its manufacturing to Mexico.  For Trump, NAFTA is the premise that caused Carrier to move - this is a non sequitur.  Carrier moved because of the excessive tax and regulatory burdens imposed on it by the government.  NAFTA just made Mexico a potential place to move to, but NAFTA was not the premise for the move.

Hillary Clinton would cure anemic economic growth with, among other big government programs, infrastructure spending to the tune of about $55 billion a year.  Her premise is that government spending has a multiplier and any government spending will increase demand.  This is a non sequitur.  President Obama and the Congressional Democrats allocated close to a trillion dollars in economic “stimulus” in 2009 – with a portion dedicated to infrastructure – yet their touted “recovery summer” of 2010 did not materialized: unemployment spiked over 10% when they assured us that the stimulus would hold unemployment to under 7%, and workforce participation sank to the lowest level since the 1970’s.  So the premise that government stimulus will spur demand and accelerate economic growth does not follow.

Partisans will cheer their candidates and not stop to question policies they accept as dogma.  However, non-partisans need to be clear minded and question the premise before being agreeable to the policy.

The Poison of Populous Partisans

On August 1st Hillary Clinton held a rally in Omaha, NE.  In attendance and on-stage to promote Clinton’s campaign was renowned investor Warren Buffet.  One of the items Mrs. Clinton focused on was increasing taxes on the wealthy – what Buffet has also proposed.  She railed against the wealthy, proclaiming that the wealthy had to pay their fair share of taxes, and she would not tolerate Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy.  She exclaimed “We’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class”. Then, with a stern and determined look on her face, she pointed her finger into the crowd to emphasize as she shouted “And we are going to raise taxes on the middle class!”  The crowded erupted in applause, as she looked at them in an air of certainty and, Buffett, seated behind Clinton, clapped profusely to show his approval too.

This miss-step by Clinton, to raise taxes on the middle-class, unfazed the crowd as their cheers continued.  Nor did anyone tap Mrs. Clinton on the shoulder to correct her vow to raise taxes on the middle class.  She gave it no heed either, as she continued her speech.   This is the poison of partisans who do not even listen to their candidate, as they are deaf to the candidate’s words while they cheer in delight.  These people have a “mob” mentality and, like locus, will devour anything in their path.

Political partisans, especially those of the populous bent, should be feared.  Populism is an enemy of democracy.  As we have covered in Vigilance The Price of Liberty, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to protect our liberty from encroachment by government and – the tyranny of the masses a.k.a. populism.

When candidates Trump and Clinton insight populism, they actively work against what the Constitution stands for.  Promoting division by demonizing success, pitting the classes against the masses, and brow beating identity politics is divisive and dangerous to liberty and prosperity.

We need to carefully listen to the candidates and have open discussions to challenge their views.  We must be objective and free to be persuaded by fact and reason.  And unless we tune-out the partisans and parties we face the threat of sacrificing our freedoms to fear and jealousy.

Political Theater

Politics is a matter of theatrics that plays to the heart and not to the mind.  Electing a president is not about thoughtful debate of public policy but of appealing to basic instincts of humans.

We should not be surprised because we, largely as a people, have nary a clue at what government is granted the authority to do, the most basic concept of freedom, and the requirements to be a good citizen.  As such, we listen to what each candidate will “give” us whilst he paints a dire picture of life with his opponent.

Both parties’ conventions touted exaggerated pictures of our current state of affairs and offered slogans – that are not to be confused with plans or policy.  So let us shine a non-partisan light of some key points of where we are:

• Economy – GDP has grown for 15 of the last 16 quarters but the rate of growth is under 2%, which is less than half of what it has been post-recession in over the last 80 years.
• Unemployment – the unemployment rate (U-3) widely quoted by politicians and the media is 4.7% but the broader unemployment rate (U-6) is over 9.5%.
• Workforce Participation – this is the measure of the percent of working age people in the workforce and it is 62.5% the lowest since the 1970’s when Jimmy Carter was president.  This translates to some 94 million Americans that are not in the workforce.
• Stock Market – is at record highs of over 18,000 and interest rates for home loans are near record lows of under 4%.
• Safety – global terrorism as well as domestic crime is way up and the number of policemen killed this year is on pace to double from the previous year.

If the economy and safety are the most important items to Americans then the facts above are not encouraging.  Which is why about 70% of Americans surveyed say they believe the country is on the wrong course.  There needs to be deep dialogue in these areas, yet there is not.

Minimum wage, child care, abortion rights are insignificant issues that appeal to interest groups and are insufficient to deal with an underperforming economy.  Wrangling over what to call terrorism, while necessary, is insufficient by itself to wipe-out the radical infestation that is killing innocents.

Unfortunately, political theatrics cross party lines. The dramatic “law and order” speech given by Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump at the Republican convention, and bright and cheery “love” speech by Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton play to fear and hope.  Politics should be more than a 3-ring-circus but, unless and until we demand better, the conventions will look like the half-time show at the Super Bowl than a forum for responsible citizenship.

Can't trump Trump

Humans react rather than reason in most matters – especially in dealing with politics.  As such, the better candidate is one that can tap into emotions.  Love is a puny driver to motivate people to the polls but, anger and fear will have proven quite effective.  That is why in this election for President when the demographics, electoral map, and media bias should make Hillary Clinton’s candidacy a “coronation”, the most unlikely candidate, Donald Trump, is within the realm of probability to assert the biggest upset since Harry Truman beat Thomas Dewey in 1948.

Trump’s acceptance speech at this week’s Republican Convention was a masterful and powerful work that painted America and the world in the clutches of dark corruption, chaos, and calamity.  Hillary Clinton was the Queen of all things deceitful and Donald Trump the only man capable to restore law and order.  No doubt his message of “I am your voice” will resonate across party lines and compel many to go vote for him.  This, for lack of a better word, analysis of Trump is not of policy or substance, but his seemingly innate ability to communicate on an emotional level that can reach the average American voter.

As such, look to this election cycle to have less than the usual low level of reasoned debate – from both candidates – and brace yourself for the onslaught of fear and division.  The winner will be the one who can instill the highest anxiety.  It will not be Ronald Reagan’s Good Morning America, but a race to the bottom, where voters are driven to vote against the candidate they fear more rather than the candidate they support more.  

Thanks Ruth

This week Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsberg had a bout of candor.  For some it was shocking, but for us it was refreshing.  It exposed what we have written about: liberal justices see themselves as dispensers of social justice, not dispassionate justices of the law and guardians of the Constitution.  In an interview with the New York Times, she spoke of her aversion to Donald Trump and a variety of decisions the court made that should be overruled.  Particularly revealing was her thinking on the Second Amendment.  Previously she expressed that a right to bear arms is tied to serving in a militia, but now she plainly expresses the Second Amendment is as just “outdated” as “its function has become obsolete”.  This is an astounding thought from a justice of the Supreme Court.

First, Justice Ginsberg knows full well that the right to bear arms and a militia are separate considerations of the Constitution.  Second, and more importantly, she is eminently aware that the Constitution is a grant of enumerated powers from the people to the government, and that those powers may only be amended by the people pursuant to the process defined in the Constitution.  Yet, here she is, declaring that she would take a right - specified in the Bill of Rights - from the people without their consent.  This is the philosophy known as the “Living Constitution” that liberals purport as their justification to usurp the consent of the people.

Liberals would argue that the late Justice Antonin Scalia was an activist just as Ginsburg.  However, Scalia’s “activism” was being bound by the Constitution and not revising it based upon his view of morality or decency.  As we write in our book, Vigilance The Price of Liberty, Scalia was particularly concerned that the Living Constitution was “illegitimate”, as the job of the Court is not to make law, but to resolve laws that conflict with the Constitution. Scalia argued that resolution of the Constitution should be as lawyers, not sociologists.  The crux of his concern, and ours, is who decides what is best for us.  Ourselves or five justices?

Ginsberg demonstrated she does not have the judicial temperament nor fidelity to the Constitution to be a justice of the Court.  If we remain silent, then our liberty is threatened.  However, if we are vigilant and speak against public officials who would break their oath to defend the Constitution then they will think twice before putting their notions of what is best for us before ours.

Conceal Don't Feel

FBI Director James Comey this week pronounced that Hillary Clinton had no “intent” to act illegally, and therefore no crime was committed – case closed.  However, she did indeed consciously and intentionally act to conceal her official activities while holding a high level public office of the United States.  She spent considerable resources to enable this intent that included procuring infrastructure, hiring people to implement the infrastructure, and maintaining the infrastructure and processes to fulfill the intent over four years while she was Secretary of State.

The problem with this, separate from Comey’s determination of legality, is that in a democracy, concealment is in direct contravention of a democracy’s requirement for transparency.  Clinton’s concealment signifies a women who sees two sets of rules.  Where she feels not part of the public, rather, above it and its laws.

Hillary Clinton is a major player in flouting the rule of law but she is not alone.  It runs rampant in our political system, across the aisle, and through every bureaucratic circle.  There is a rift that separates those who rule and those who are ruled, which can only be closed if enough of us get smart and collectively become vigilant to demand a government that is better and virtuous.  We have said before, knowledge is power and there is power in numbers.

Be Vigilant. Be Free.