When does enough finally become ENOUGH?

I've discovered, over a lot of time, that I can create an energetic discussion with almost any American, on almost any political subject, with little effort. The significance of that is that most Americans have opinions on most political subjects, and a decent amount of knowledge about those subjects. Much of the knowledge may be wrong, often deliberately warped by a special-interest group that person clings to, but it's encouraging to at least have strongly opinionated Americans, rather than a flock of head-buried storks determined to remain ignorant of political issues.

For many years, Libertarians have had a bumper sticker proclaiming ENOUGH IS ENOUGH (vote Libertarian), but when IS enough really enough?

The real question is when is "enough" enough to get you to take some action?

Although Americans are opinionated, most are pathetic when it comes to taking action on political issues. I can't begin to count the number of times I've had one of those energetic discussions, resulting in the other person agreeing with me, but then found them unwilling to take any action to match their strong opinion. The action, no matter how small, seems to be disconnected from the opinion. We talk a good line, but seem exceedingly reluctant to act on our beliefs. It's fine to deal with an issue as an abstraction, but not as a concrete reality.

Over time, I've concluded that the disconnect between belief and action, among Americans, has its roots in three terrible, widespread ideas:

1. The belief that bad things only happen to someone else.
2. The belief that government only harms those who deserve it.
3. The belief that someone else will take care of it.

In working with those who have already been "bombed" in some way by government, I've heard each of them proclaim "I can't believe this is happening to me". I've heard it from those facing the threat of eminent domain, from those with a family member in prison on drug charges, from those who discovered that a simple divorce can turn into a legal nightmare, from those who found themselves virtually trapped in a welfare program, and from those who were being forced out of business through inspections, zoning, or regulations.

Government operates on written laws and regulations, which don't distinguish between violations by "good people" and "bad people". It's the action that triggers the bad result, and "extenuating circumstances" or "good intentions" or the fact that a simple mistake caused the violation are usually not even part of the equation. The law is a hammer that can strike anyone, anytime... even good people.

As the number of laws on the books increases, which is does continually, the more people become ensnared by violations they were unaware they were committing. The federal criminal code today spans some 1,400 pages. The Federal Registry which records all of the regulations the federal government imposes on businesses, now exceeds 75,000 pages. All of that is only federal. Add in all the state laws and those of various levels of local governments, and it's likely that each of us unknowingly violates some law every day. As we travel, we become subject to the laws of all the jurisdictions we pass through. That means that each of us could be arrested at any time, Whether we are arrested depends on the whim or capability of enforcement bureaus.

I believe that most Americans understand that their individual risk of running afoul of the law is high. Likewise, most Americans believe that the cost of government is far too high. Most of us agree that government is simply too big.

Dissatisfaction with the power and cost of government, no matter how deeply felt, is not enough to solve the problem. When I hear people complain about such things, there is seldom a solution attached to the end of the complaint. We seem to believe that either there is no solution available, or that we are helpless to make it happen. We're willing to stay informed about the problems, willing to complain about it with outrage and fervor, but then we're willing to just let our words float away rather than take any action.

As a libertarian involved in politics, that dead-end... all talk, no action... has been a source of continual frustration. Hundreds of thousands of people have been drawn to the Libertarian Party because they could see that libertarians had all the right ideas about the size and scope of government. Unfortunately, those people discovered that the political solution is one that will take time, effort, and dedication, and most of them left, unwilling to apply themselves to that extent.

Believe me, those of us who do stay involved in politics for an extended period of time, feel the same frustration as those who enter and exit quickly. It is not unusual for dedicated Libertarians to occasionally break away from political involvement to recapture what most of us consider a "normal" lifestyle, then return again to "fight the fight"... repeatedly. I've done the same thing.

All of this begs the question... how can we effectively regain control over our own government? Are there actions that enough people can realistically take that can have a real and relatively quick result? I think there are, if enough of us can, with real conviction, stand up and say "Enough is ENOUGH!"... and mean it. My next commentary will be somewhat radical.

Stuff happens, but why?

"Stuff"... meaning unexpected, unplanned events that rise up and change life. We all know it does happen, usually at a most inconvenient, vulnerable time, and it seems to "bunch up" too... stuff happening in several places at once.

Of course, a lot of stuff happens because of our own actions, or inactions... one of the uncomfortable facts of life. Perhaps my favorite reading is that which examines history, attempting to discover and explain WHY an important historical event happened the way it did. One of my favorites of that genre is "Secrets", by Daniel Ellsberg, which describes the complex machinations of the upper levels of our government that led to a long, long series of incredibly stupid decisions in the conduct of the Vietnam War. The stupid decisions were, for the most part, not caused by evil intentions, nor stupidity, but primarily a bad system. The "system" in the upper levels of government is fraught with intense loyalty to superiors, desire to be a team player, desire to be promoted, and deathly fear of failing in any of those areas. The result is much guessing about what ones superiors want, reluctance to be decisive, and fear of saying something that will meet with disapproval.

Those attitudes are not limited to government; I've seen them operate in the very same way in a corporation with a powerful CEO. Underlings afraid to give the boss bad news or even modest news, so the boss really has no idea what is going on, and thus makes bad decisions that nobody has the courage to dispute.

In a top-down organization, information is supposed to flow upward freely, so that proper strategies can be laid and the whole effort coordinated. For that to work properly, all members need to believe that they can openly speak the truth without fear of termination. That's the ideal that is seldom met, but in a private corporation, most members are relatively sure that if this job doesn't work out well, they can find another. They can choose to take a risk by speaking out openly, knowing that worst case is a temporary setback.

It isn't quite that simple in government. If one is drummed out of a high government position, the alternative is often leaving government service completely, with no other government organization to turn to. So, the stakes in speaking out are very high within government.

Of course, in government, the decisions are more far-reaching and potentially destructive than in a corporation, and government doesn't have the final profit/loss marker that can eventually force mistakes and misunderstandings out into the open. So... the Vietnam War went on, and on, and on, through President after President. We are watching the same thing happen again in Iraq. Bush is already laying resolution of the mess on future leaders.

The new book I'm reading that explains another historical situation in terms of WHY some particular stuff hit the fan is "Shattered Sword" The Untold Story of the Battle of Midway, by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. Since spending a year with the U.S. Navy at Midway Island in the 60's, it has been a favorite historical episode of mine. There has never been any doubt that the battle of Midway was a turning point in the Pacific War. Crippled by the attack at Pearl Harbor, the American fleet could easily have been completely crushed at Midway, leading to an invasion of Hawaii, establishment of Japanese bases there, making attack and invasion of the U.S. itself far more practical. I'm oversimplifying an extremely complex time, but the results of that battle shaped the future, and an American defeat there could have changed our futures forever.

The book "Shattered Sword", by means of intense research, unveils what really happened, and WHY, demolishing many myths that have been accepted as truth in the 60 years since. Yes, there was a lot of incredible heroism involved... on both sides, and there WAS a lot of luck involved in the eventual outcome. I was pleased to find that, contrary to what I had been taught, that the American forces from the tiny atoll of Midway played a much more important role in the battle that is usually presented as a contest between aircraft carriers that happened to take place near Midway. The location of the Japanese fleet was first discovered by planes from Midway, and the initial attacks of land-based planes from Midway, although complete one-sided losses, were the beginning of placing the Japanese fleet in a defensive, reactive posture and they never managed to take the offensive again.

The book spends a good deal of time on the "doctrine" of the Japanese Navy, and reveals the same "bad system" described by Ellsberg within the upper echelon of the U.S. government... political battling, enforced loyalties, and fear of speaking out. Bad decisions made at the top, or vague decisions, or indecision, caused by poor communication, underlings afraid to speak out, or unwilling to raise the wrath of a superior, and all of that complicated by an systemic willingness to bury individuality in favor of being a faithful servant to the overall plan. The Japanese players, in sharp contrast to the Americans, were handicapped by being part of a doctrinal system that forced almost blind compliance to what had been decided in the past, with little flexibility in dealing with the battle as it actually developed. I should add that the American naval personnel acted with an unusual amount of extemporaneous action, probably because they thought of themselves as desperate, scrambling underdogs, but also because the U.S. forces encouraged more individual initiative.

The result of the doctrinaire Japanese organization was real confusion, mixed with over-confidence, fear of being seen as weak or fearful, and poor communication. Large organizations seldom work efficiently; there is just too much communication that needs to be unaffected by political considerations. In an organization that demands loyalty and compliance, communication is always twisted. It's simply a function of size and the amount of power involved. A military force is such an organization, as is the Executive Branch of our government.

"Shattered Sword", as did "Secrets", easily raises parallels with the ongoing actions in the Middle East. Once again, the issue is thrown in our faces... how can the most powerful (by far) military in the world be thrown into chaos by inferior forces. Japan projected capturing Midway as a cakewalk, just as the U.S. considered "freeing" Iraq to be a brief action. The Japanese presumed a quick, decisive victory, just as the U.S. believed that "Shock and Awe" would quickly destroy resistance in Iraq. The Japanese offensive was upset by a series of annoying attacks that did relatively little damage, just as is occurring in Iraq. Confusion and damaged morale is inevitable.

The lesson to be learned is clear: Concentrated power is not only dangerous, it's difficult to manage. Powerful top-down organizations are at best clumsy and wasteful, at worst they are simply disastrous. Our government proves that on a daily basis. The individual players make little difference; the size and power of the system is the Achilles heel that will, sooner or later, fail. The bigger government gets, the more power it wields, the worse the results will be.

Government grows like an ignored weed. Until we stand up and fight for a reduction in government power, it will continue to grow... until it strangles us. Then we can all utter a final, gasping "Stuff Happens" and turn a blind eye again.