Frank's Musings

What makes the rural and urban regions ideologically different? They get the same TV and radio broadcasts. They go to the same colleges and universities.  They live, after all, on the same planet.

Mainly because of the relatively sparse propinquity of non-family members rural residents are accustomed to or prefer relying on themselves for resolving most business and home-ownership problems.  One important consequence of this process of self-selection is that a larger proportion of society’s producers and doers has located in the least populated parts of the country.   Their isolation seems also to engender distrust of the judgment of the people who have selected to live and work with a wide range of collaborators in the urban regions of the country—whether that be in many professions, large businesses, academia, or the arts and general communications media

Demographic growth in the world’s leading democratic countries has been accompanied by increased urban concentration of those who are responsible for discovering and determining what needs to be produced and done.  Coupled with tax considerations and real estate values, it is not surprising that there should be a left-right split between the two types of regions.  By definition, the relative differences in population density between the two regions also contributes to more autonomous and conservative attitudes among rural residents in comparison to urban residents.  This is not an exclusive characterization of opposing segments of society; but rural districts of any democracy will usually display a less adventuresome, more traditional attitude towards public policy than the urban districts. 

Successful governance of any liberal democratic country depends on cooperation between these two components to achieve an economically and socially vital political entity.  The time-honored method of conducting that function, through elected representation, may no longer be adequate for performing that task.  In particular, modern communications technology and the high level of popular education have made a more direct method of self-government possible through universal use of the Internet.  New electoral methods and compensation models must be adopted in order to control the influence of special interests on the appointment of those who formulate the will of the people into effective policy and then carry it out.

We get it. Those of us who try to discover and determine what needs to be done depend on others to get it done.  We accomplish things better when we work together.  In a liberal democracy, both halves of the team must respect the other. 

Our system has been built on rewarding the conceptualizers a lot better than the doers.  It has congratulated those who have been able to amass great wealth for their occasional donations to improve the welfare of those who have earned less or even nothing for their contribution to global progress—actually producing the physical artifacts of society and its essential procedures.   

It is this latter sector of society at whom the eleemosynary efforts of society’s leaders are supposedly targeted.  However, members of the workers group often know better how they could benefit from a portion of the excess funds in the accounts of their leaders than administrators of those funds do themselves. 

For this reason, monetary rewards to society’s leaders should be tempered in order better to balance the levels of compensation to both human components of the economy.  Whereas the cost of satisfying the aspirations of each group may differ substantially, there is little justification for taking responsibility for providing those joys of life away from the people who would receive them.   Part of those joys--medical, entertainment, personal possessions, etc.--comes from constituting their makeup.  Certainly, the truly destitute should be cared for through charity; but society’s doers must be rewarded commensurate with the crucial role they play in the advancement of the economy, and not with charity.

Reducing the large gap between compensation levels in a liberal  democratic economic system will inevitably diminish resentment of the “haves” by the “have-nots.”  The recent political upheavals in the U.S., including an attempt at violent insurrection, may be obviated if the leadership segment of the country were to recognize its interest in promoting the common happiness of the entire society. This will begin with a willingness to revise the leaders’ feelings of satisfaction from recognition by their peers for contributing to the general welfare instead of for winning the race to billionairedom. That will require new leadership with a compelling message for both the conceptualizers and the doers.

The overriding principle of Kevin McCarthy’s career has been achievement of the House speakership. But he would not have accomplished that goal if the Republican Party were not dominated by politicians who also have no higher principle than their own career advancement.

The U.S. House of Representatives under the GOP will probably become a showcase for media-directed demonstrations of the nihilistic anti-government policies that have brought the GOP into the majority. They recognize that, ironically, their constituents expect them to reduce the impact that the government has on the general welfare.

The media have been complicit in this devolution of one of the the law-making bodies of our democracy. The dependence of 35-40% of Americans on the electronic media for their news and opinions has allowed politicians who are skillful entertainers to build reliable followings that support their career ambitions.

Donald Trump took advantage of this to win the Presidency in 2016. Now that most Republican representatives owe their election victories to the same group of disaffected citizens, Kevin McCarthy has traipsed the same path.

There really is only one option for a free society significantly to reduce gun violence: regulate personal access to firearms. This may sound oppressive, but any human population includes individuals who are not capable of controlling their emotions and acting as a danger to others.

We don’t have the means to identify all those potential murderers.   It is folly to risk the consequences of allowing even their minuscule number to arm themselves with the easiest tool for weaponizing their rage.

Freedom is the highest social value of our liberal democracy. However, safeguarding that value should not come at the expense of survival in that society.

Modern IT and other technological advances have overpowered the self-management capabilities of the average human intellect. Just as we would not seat every one of us in reach of a nuclear launch button, we cannot permit universal unsupervised use of dangerous deadly weapons. Carrying out that limitation on arbitrary choice would do more for the general welfare than freeing all members of society to be potential killers.

Practical measures to accomplish this limitation can be devised to balance society’s security with individual freedom. Handguns, whether automatic or not, must be reserved for public law enforcers. Hunting firearms should be issued only under supervision exclusively during authorized hunting expeditions. Weapons of war must be issued to official military agencies; not sold at all.  Personal security should be enhanced by well-funded and -trained police.

The objective is to eliminate the seemingly accelerating frequency of tragic mass shootings in all advanced democratic societies. Such measures will, of course, be costly, but incomparably cheaper than the destruction of happiness caused by gun violence today.