Dear Mr. Rivera: I chanced to see your appearance on the O'Reilly Factor while at a friend's house. I was disappointed in your reaction to Gov. Rick Perry's position on state sovereignty and I also disagree with you about Mayor Bloomberg, on whose campaign I worked in 2001 and 2005. In particular, you resorted to name calling, saying that Perry had resorted to a "fringe" position.
The question of centralization and decentralization ought to be placed in the context not only of American political debate but also of the development of managerial knowledge. The trend toward centralization began with William Jennings Bryan's candidacy, or perhaps with Abraham Lincoln, was carried forward during the Wilson admininstration, amplified during the FD Roosevelt administration and amplified further since the 1960s. By the 1920s managers of large businesses realized that decentralization is a more efffective managerial strategy than centralization. The fact that Republicans like T Roosevelt and Democrats like FDR pushed for centralization at the very time that leading managers like Alfred Sloan were recognizing the advantages of decentralization was a function of fallacies of the Progressive and New Deal ideology. We know that centralization is wrong because conglomerates that are well run have almost all resorted to decentralization. The federal government, where mismanagement is the rule, has insisted on centralization because of an awkward political inheritance that equates decentralization with racism. Your reference to this legacy was a sorry non-sequitor.
The tragic results of the centralizing strategic error that occurred in the 20th century have been manifold. They range from a bloated, ineffective federal government, to inflation due to the Federal Reserve Bank, to failed public benefit plans like Social Security and Medicare. I do not think it is "fringe" or "extreme" to judge that the increase in Social Security benefits in the early 1970s was ill considered and harmful to subsequent generations. It resulted from incompetent political decision making processes (i.e., overly centralized democracy resulting in transfer from later to earlier generations) and was harmful to future generations of an entire nation rather than of a single state. In contrast, the depredations on inner cities caused by urban renewal in the postwar era was more localized because it occurred on a state by state basis. Had Robert Moses taken his wrecking ball to the entire nation, the entire nation would have gone bankrupt in the 1970s instead of just New York City.
I don't expect you to be familiar with the range of managerial literature that emphasizes the benefits of decentralization, but such an idea is very much within the tradition of pragmatism. Sadly, the majority "consensus" of Democrats and Republicans that has emphasized a rigid and ill considered policy of centralization and reduction in state power over many decades might be better considered to be an "extremist" or "fringe" viewpoint. Majorities have been wrong many times, and this is one of them. In any case, calling people who disagree with you names like "extremists" is not a sign of clear thinking. It is a tactic in which the centralizers have long engaged, at least since Theodore Roosevelt. This sort of behavior might silence opponents, but it does a bad job of uncovering the facts.
I would add that your love of Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also ill considered. His association with the Independence Party from whom he recruited hapless "volunteers"; his failure to cut or improve New York City's government; his failure to attract new business to New York when times were good on Wall Street; his failure to reform the corrupt construction codes; and his indifference to the plight of small business people in New York, whom he has harrassed in a variety of ways, speak to a second or third rate mayor, not one to extol.
Sincerely
Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The United States of Goldman Sachs
The recent spectacle of an American President bowing to a Saudi King is a reminder that the United States of America is in serious trouble. The fact is, there is no longer a United States of America in the sense of the nation's being a free republic. Rather, the United States is now an aristocracy under the guidance of the Goldman Sachs investment firm. Barack Obama is merely an employee of Goldman Sachs, as is the US Congress. The American people are simply too stupid to care.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Petition: Reject Obama's Attack on American Sovereignty
Recently, the President of the United States, Barack Obama, bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. This is a national disgrace because it suggests that Mr. Obama has rejected republicanism. In turn, this would suggest that he is a traitor.
The American Center for Law and Justice, located here (h/t Nancy Razik), has a petition protesting Obama's rejection of American sovereignty, a necessary component to republicanism. It reads:
President Obama:
Don’t Surrender our National Sovereignty!
President Obama is embarking on a new and troubling direction for our nation. Some are calling it the “Selling of America” — surrendering our national sovereignty in the interest of international cooperation. This is contrary to our very founding. We must hold America’s leaders accountable! Stand with the ACLJ and send a powerful message to President Obama — America is NOT for sale. The U.S. is a sovereign, independent world leader — and must not surrender its autonomy. Please read the form below carefully and declare your membership with the ACLJ by adding your name to our Letter of Protest.
LETTER OF PROTEST
TO:
President of the United States, Barack Obama
As a concerned member of the American Center for Law and Justice and a proud citizen of the United States of America, I join with Chief Counsel Jay Alan Sekulow in protesting your Administration’s push for “transnationalism.” America’s sovereignty is not for sale. It should be protected at all costs, esteemed as our Founding Fathers envisioned, and governed under the authority given by our United States Constitution.
Ceding America’s independence in the interest of international cooperation is unacceptable. It is subservient to our national interests and stands as a threat to American democracy and the future protection of our citizens.
The United States is a powerful, sovereign, independent world leader and must not surrender its autonomy. I respectfully raise my voice in protest: America is not for sale.
Please consider signing it here.
The American Center for Law and Justice, located here (h/t Nancy Razik), has a petition protesting Obama's rejection of American sovereignty, a necessary component to republicanism. It reads:
President Obama:
Don’t Surrender our National Sovereignty!
President Obama is embarking on a new and troubling direction for our nation. Some are calling it the “Selling of America” — surrendering our national sovereignty in the interest of international cooperation. This is contrary to our very founding. We must hold America’s leaders accountable! Stand with the ACLJ and send a powerful message to President Obama — America is NOT for sale. The U.S. is a sovereign, independent world leader — and must not surrender its autonomy. Please read the form below carefully and declare your membership with the ACLJ by adding your name to our Letter of Protest.
LETTER OF PROTEST
TO:
President of the United States, Barack Obama
As a concerned member of the American Center for Law and Justice and a proud citizen of the United States of America, I join with Chief Counsel Jay Alan Sekulow in protesting your Administration’s push for “transnationalism.” America’s sovereignty is not for sale. It should be protected at all costs, esteemed as our Founding Fathers envisioned, and governed under the authority given by our United States Constitution.
Ceding America’s independence in the interest of international cooperation is unacceptable. It is subservient to our national interests and stands as a threat to American democracy and the future protection of our citizens.
The United States is a powerful, sovereign, independent world leader and must not surrender its autonomy. I respectfully raise my voice in protest: America is not for sale.
Please consider signing it here.
The Unity Philosophy Failed Because Laissez Faire Succeeded
In the US, the notion that there needs to be a strong central state began with the Federalist Papers. The Federalists left a considerable degree of decentralized authority with the states, but from the beginning there was ambiguity as to how decentralized decision making ought to be. Centalization was re enforced with the Civil War, which further strengthened the federal government and opened the door to Progressivism. The Progressives were not necessarily centralizers. However, the key federal legislation that came from Progressivism, the Hepburn Act, the Federal Trade Commission, the federal income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank as well as imperialist ventures like the Spanish American War were all centralizing. On the other hand, much of the Progressive legislation, such as Workers' Compensation, housing codes and wage and hours laws respecting women and children proceeded at the state level. The New Deal served as a centralizing force on Progressivism, and may be viewed as the culmination of 160 years of Hamiltonian federalism.
The centralizing trend came about because of conflicts about morals and economic opportunism. As Charles Beard and other Progressives argued, much of the motive for the federal Constitution was economic gain to domestic manufacturers, which Hamilton wholeheartedly supported as did Madison and Jefferson to a lesser degree. But abolitionism and then concern about trusts led to moralizing about the economy. Until the post-bellum era Protestantism had been associated with local community as in John Winthrop's City on a Hill. The states were separate religious communities and did not aim to impose their religious-based moralities on other states. But slavery posed a national moral problem, as did the central bank. Thus Calvinist morality took on a national scope. The notion that the nation was a moral community took hold. Among the advocates of this notion were the late nineteenth century Mugwumps, who were among the first media-based national moral movements. The Mugwumps were mostly Protestant, although there were a few Catholics and Jews among their ranks as well (there were few Jews in America in the 1870s but there was a handful of notable Jewish Mugwumps, such as Simon Sterne). The Mugwumps were not necessarily religious, but they had been religiously trained and applied the morality of their education to the economic problems facing America, for instance, the corruption associated with the railroads, the Greenback inflation and most of all the need for a civil service to counteract the urban corruption of the political boss system. Although the Mugwumps were laissez faire in ideology they were very much the precursor to the Progressives in that they focused on national issues and saw national solutions in terms of the need to rationalize government.
The trend toward centralization thus came out of the Civil War and was re enforced by one outcome of Progressivism: the intensification of Jim Crow laws, especially in the South. As the results of Jim Crow became evident in the early twentieth century, the need to counteract it took hold in a reincarnation of the Civil War in terms of the Civil Rights movement. As well, the Roosevelt administration saw economic problems as resolvable at the federal level. Thus, Social Security, labor law, wage and hour laws, securities regulation, agricultural regulation and public works took hold in the public mind.
This was occurring precisely as it became evident to managers in America's large industrial firms that centralization does not work. This was noted by Alfred Chandler in his book "Strategy and Structure", especially with respect to Alfred Sloan. Sloan modeled General Motors after the federal government, downloading responsibility to the automotive and other manufacturing divisions just before Roosevelt saw fit to centralize decision making in Washington.
As it turned out, Sloan was right, although subsequent generations of General Motors executives dropped the ball. As General Motors re-centralized it failed to be able to compete with innovations of the much smaller Toyota Automotive in the 1950s. These innovations were known as lean manufacturing. As well, Toyota was able to adopt the ideas of Edward I. Deming.
As American industry found that decentralization was necessary to competent management, the federal government became more insistent on centralization. Part of this was due to intensification of the Civil Rights struggle in the 1960s, but part was due to the egos and greed of politicians and academics who oversaw federal policy. Thus, plans like Medicaid and Medicare which could have been experimentally adopted at the state levels, with the best results revealed, were thrown into existence in a slipshod manner at the federal level without the pragmatic advantage of state-based experimentation. Policies concerning health care, social security, pension regulation, health and safety regulation, auto safety, pollution and most of all monetary policy were adopted at the federal level, typically with poor to mediocre results.
The failure of the Great Society Programs; the mismanagement of social security; the crippling effects on inner city blacks of urban renewal and labor laws; the instability due to monetary policy under Richard M. Nixon and the early years of the Carter administration might have given the centralizers pause. But it did not.
Unwilling or unable to grasp the reasons why centralization does not work, they continue to push for dramatic, centralized solutions to America's problems. The result: the sub-prime crisis; the series of bubbles that occurred in the 1990s and 2000's; declining real hourly wages; a failing social security system (or a social security that fails to provide an adequate retirement benefit despite 14% annual contributions by workers and their employers); and declining career opportunities for young people.
Despite these and other failures, the "progressives" continue to agitate for the same failed, centralized approach. This should be called the "pathology of centralization".
The centralizing trend came about because of conflicts about morals and economic opportunism. As Charles Beard and other Progressives argued, much of the motive for the federal Constitution was economic gain to domestic manufacturers, which Hamilton wholeheartedly supported as did Madison and Jefferson to a lesser degree. But abolitionism and then concern about trusts led to moralizing about the economy. Until the post-bellum era Protestantism had been associated with local community as in John Winthrop's City on a Hill. The states were separate religious communities and did not aim to impose their religious-based moralities on other states. But slavery posed a national moral problem, as did the central bank. Thus Calvinist morality took on a national scope. The notion that the nation was a moral community took hold. Among the advocates of this notion were the late nineteenth century Mugwumps, who were among the first media-based national moral movements. The Mugwumps were mostly Protestant, although there were a few Catholics and Jews among their ranks as well (there were few Jews in America in the 1870s but there was a handful of notable Jewish Mugwumps, such as Simon Sterne). The Mugwumps were not necessarily religious, but they had been religiously trained and applied the morality of their education to the economic problems facing America, for instance, the corruption associated with the railroads, the Greenback inflation and most of all the need for a civil service to counteract the urban corruption of the political boss system. Although the Mugwumps were laissez faire in ideology they were very much the precursor to the Progressives in that they focused on national issues and saw national solutions in terms of the need to rationalize government.
The trend toward centralization thus came out of the Civil War and was re enforced by one outcome of Progressivism: the intensification of Jim Crow laws, especially in the South. As the results of Jim Crow became evident in the early twentieth century, the need to counteract it took hold in a reincarnation of the Civil War in terms of the Civil Rights movement. As well, the Roosevelt administration saw economic problems as resolvable at the federal level. Thus, Social Security, labor law, wage and hour laws, securities regulation, agricultural regulation and public works took hold in the public mind.
This was occurring precisely as it became evident to managers in America's large industrial firms that centralization does not work. This was noted by Alfred Chandler in his book "Strategy and Structure", especially with respect to Alfred Sloan. Sloan modeled General Motors after the federal government, downloading responsibility to the automotive and other manufacturing divisions just before Roosevelt saw fit to centralize decision making in Washington.
As it turned out, Sloan was right, although subsequent generations of General Motors executives dropped the ball. As General Motors re-centralized it failed to be able to compete with innovations of the much smaller Toyota Automotive in the 1950s. These innovations were known as lean manufacturing. As well, Toyota was able to adopt the ideas of Edward I. Deming.
As American industry found that decentralization was necessary to competent management, the federal government became more insistent on centralization. Part of this was due to intensification of the Civil Rights struggle in the 1960s, but part was due to the egos and greed of politicians and academics who oversaw federal policy. Thus, plans like Medicaid and Medicare which could have been experimentally adopted at the state levels, with the best results revealed, were thrown into existence in a slipshod manner at the federal level without the pragmatic advantage of state-based experimentation. Policies concerning health care, social security, pension regulation, health and safety regulation, auto safety, pollution and most of all monetary policy were adopted at the federal level, typically with poor to mediocre results.
The failure of the Great Society Programs; the mismanagement of social security; the crippling effects on inner city blacks of urban renewal and labor laws; the instability due to monetary policy under Richard M. Nixon and the early years of the Carter administration might have given the centralizers pause. But it did not.
Unwilling or unable to grasp the reasons why centralization does not work, they continue to push for dramatic, centralized solutions to America's problems. The result: the sub-prime crisis; the series of bubbles that occurred in the 1990s and 2000's; declining real hourly wages; a failing social security system (or a social security that fails to provide an adequate retirement benefit despite 14% annual contributions by workers and their employers); and declining career opportunities for young people.
Despite these and other failures, the "progressives" continue to agitate for the same failed, centralized approach. This should be called the "pathology of centralization".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
