blogSoda

9.04.2008

Rules or Tools - What's Your Preference?

Thanks for all the comments on the last post (especially you, nanchu... those halloween flags are the bee's knees). I've been intentionally steering clear of politics on this blog. I much prefer capturing my kids' cuteness and my own idiocy. However, too many things have become lodged in my craw lately...

Those of you who know me know that I might lean a bit to the left, politically... There's a basic philosophical principle that causes me to do so, but I'll get to that later. As a counterpoint, I'd like to point out that if John McCain had gotten the nomination in 2004, I probably would have voted for him. I'd like to think this indicates an ability to think beyond party lines, but maybe it just means Kerry was a really bad candidate. It really disappoints me that the John McCain of 2008 bears little resemblance to the stand-up guy I thought he was 4 years ago.

I guess the big difference (for me) between the current candidates comes down to one thing: vision. I feel like Obama has a sense of where America has been and a vision for what America can be. I don't get that vibe from McCain. I feel like McCain is just a passenger on the RNC bus - like they told him if he just sat in the right seat, they'd drive him to the White House. Though, this may be a product of my liberal leanings as well... Let me get to that point now.

As a parent or pedagogue, you are a leader. Maybe not a leader of public policy, but a leader of a small union (be it family or classroom). As such, you basically have two levers at your disposal to help the children move forward in life: rules and tools. You either set constraints to inhibit some behaviors or provide tools to encourage others.

Certainly, you need both. 3 X 3 will always equal 9 and you need to drill that. But when it comes to thinking critically to make a complex decision, tools and the understanding to utilize them will be more help. Most people lead with one or the other - You're either a "here's how you should do it" teacher, or a "here's an approach to solving this, how would you do it" teacher. This is the distinction I see between parties.

Republicans seem focused on rules (don't get gay married, don't have an abortion, don't be a Muslim, etc.). The Democrats seem focused on giving tools to those who need them (the poor, the middle class, immigrants, etc.). I think the basic philosophical tenets are thus:

If you think your problems are caused by other people and think we need rules to stop them, you are a Republican. Tom Ridge said it this (ominous) way at the convention tonight: "There's no need to change, per se... But we need to leave nothing to chance."

If you think that the solution is in organizing and equipping individuals with the tools they need to improve their situation, then you are a Democrat. Obama had this quote at the other convention: "That’s the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper."

This extends outside our borders as well. While this past administration has been focused on "spreading democracy," this has played out as tough talk telling others to do as we say and dropping bombs when they don't. The GOP actually laughed at the notion that Obama would resolve crises by going to talk to foreign leaders. I'm with Teddy Roosevelt on this matter - speak softly, but carry a big stick. I'm pretty sure he didn't mean "start whackin' 'til they say uncle." Bill Clinton had this gem of a sound byte in Denver: "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

It all comes down to a difference in perception. So which do you prefer: tools or rules?

13 Comments:

  • We are a lot closer than you realize. we've always been pretty different. I introduced you to Boy Scouts, D&D and Computer Club. You introduced me to, well, you know. You lean to the left, I'm pretty central now, but do have a slight lean to the right.

    I voted for McCain in 2000, but G.W. beat him. I agree, this McCain is different than the 2000 McCain. I'm not 100% decided yet, but I think Palin pushed me off the fence to the Obama camp. Not cause her daughters preggy, or any other rumor. It's because she's too much a part of the religious right for me. McCain had to do it to have any chance of getting elected. The Conservatives thought he wasn't one of them. (Which I liked) and I don't think he had a chance. Now, he actually does because the lemmings love her. She actually did a great job and if I didn't disagree with her Extreme evangelical views, I might be voting for them.


    I guess I am just a cynical old man now. I too actually believe in making sure people have the tools to succeed. Thats how I have been in my professional life and have helped many build great careers. (many more successful than mine) It's also what I tried to do with my failed charity.

    Due to early experiences with other companies I have worked for, I have been extremely cynical and careful of how we deliver the tools. I have seen A LOT of abuses of the food stamp and welfare system first hand. I have wasted hours in court defending my actions in court because the union felt an illegal act didn't justify termination. I have had my life threatened by a union who was unsuccessful in organizing at my location.

    These are a few examples that have changed the way I want to assist others. Don't get me wrong, these isolated incidents don't stop me from being charitable, I just modify how I contribute.

    i won't give a homeless person money, but I will buy them a sandwich if he's hungry. I also don't give money to those with a sign on the offramp, but if I see them doing something to try and earn it (no nothing illegal) I will support that.

    I guess I'm for helping people help themselves, but they must be willing to help themselves.

    I just don't think hardworking people should be required to foot the bill for others. I think giving back to your community is the right thing to do and should be rewarded, but not mandated.

    Those are the reasons I have a hard time voting for the left, but the list against the right has outgrown the list against the left for me.

    Wish I had another option, someone who represented me. That used to be McCain.

    Sorry John, Looks like Obama will get my vote this time.


    Then again, I'm In California, so it doesn't matter who I vote for. (and I'm sure I'm still voting in Chicago too. (twice))

    By Blogger Bucky Pilsner, At 11:33 PM  

  • Right. You need both rules and tools. I understand your point about welfare, but that seems more a failure of execution than a failure of strategy. Rules are actually easier to understand than tools. I think that's why they're attractive to a lot of folks. Did you break the rule? Then, you're wrong. Tools are more complex, because it's a matter of whether or not the tool is being used effectively. If it's not, then you need to make adjustments, not call the tool a failure and throw it away. For every abuse of welfare, there are many others using it responsibly and doing the best they can to secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. There's a lot of Section 8 housing in our 'hood. There are some real clunkers in there, but there are many more families that appear to be living to the best of their means.

    I've said this to a few people, but I feel that if you don't have liberal leanings, you just don't know enough human beings.

    By Blogger bigsoda, At 7:52 AM  

  • Do you think it depends on who is making what rules. I can think of a variety of rules Ds abhor having imposed on them by Rs. There are also many rules Rs resent having imposed on them by Ds.

    Do you also think it depends on who you most trust to provide tools? Individuals or government? There are several examples of government making rules so that they can provide the tools, and fail miserably - gun violence in Chicago being a perfect example.

    By Blogger OleKobe, At 10:18 AM  

  • I've always been impressed with the Asians. So many of them come to this country without any advantages at all. Yet within a short period of time, they are performing better in school and earning more money than the average American who was born and raised here. You never hear them complaining about rules or crying out for more tools.

    By Blogger OleKobe, At 12:45 PM  

  • Yeah, guns are one of those areas where the Dems went with rules and I agree that's the wrong approach. I don't necessarily think it failed, it just didn't succeed. There are urban areas where guns aren't illegal where gun violence is also rising.

    It kind of reminds me of criminalizing drugs. That hasn't really stopped drug usage either. Where both rules really fail is that they have created these black market economies with guns and drugs as the currency.

    I agree you want the right people delivering and supporting the tools. As a strategic guy, I realize that all tools and tactics must be traceable back to strategy, which must be traceable back to goals and objectives, which must be traceable back to mission and vision. It's all derived from a vision. If the vision includes a world where gun violence is the problem, I don't think the solution is, "Okay, on a count of three, everyone drop your guns. 1, 2..."

    The problem with rules is that some people, invariably, end up on the "wrong" side of a rule. The problem with tools is that they can be misused for personal benefit. I would love to see an approach taken by the government to supply the tools to succeed, and follow with rules to prevent their misuse. I know it's more complicated than I'm making it, but I think that's the right approach.

    By Blogger bigsoda, At 1:02 PM  

  • The Asians are an interesting case because Asian culture is very rules heavy. The not-so-subtle difference is that the rules are not legislated, but tacit in their society. The rules are taught by example and enforcement at home. Once you have a firm grasp on "the rules," the tools become easier to take advantage of.

    My 2.5 year old daughter can count to 10 in English, Spanish, and Japanese. She can also read a handful of 3-4 letter words. Not because we've mandated it, but because my wife and I have equipped her with the tools. She also says "please" and "thank you," but that's because we've laid down the law. She will go far (of course, I've gooched it now and she'll be a holy terror tonight...).

    If we, as Americans, can get off our lazy asses and lay down the ground rules at home, the public sphere becomes a lot easier to run.

    By Blogger bigsoda, At 1:16 PM  

  • This post has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Bucky Pilsner, At 11:44 AM  

  • Republicans tend to go for the huge 'pie in the sky' laws that they know that they don't have a prayer of attaining, but that will fire up their base.
    Dems, on the other hand, pass a shit-ton of laws that directly affect our daily lives. IE: smoking bans, mandatory blood draws for DUI stops, traffic cameras everywhere, gun control, food/alcohol taxes and bans, control of media (Tipper Gore's PMRC), and various ordinances attempting to restrict free speech under the guise of "sensitivity".

    On the other hand, the Dems are more than happy to dole out "tools" if we're all good little children. That's why Washington, DC has the highest expenditure per student, yet 88% of District 8th graders are illiterate.
    Great job, fellas!

    By Blogger DC Liar, At 11:37 AM  

  • Actually DC Liar is correct, beat me too it.

    Plus you need Tools and Rules.

    I give my daughter assistance with her homework and makes sure she can understand it, but there is a point where I have to back off. I can't/won't do her homework for her.

    We can give assistance to people to get back on their feet, but we must "let go" at some point. I know there are rules that state this, we choose not to enforce them.

    It's like I've always said about modern day unions. They protect the non-performers and steal from those who work hard.

    By Blogger Bucky Pilsner, At 3:56 PM  

  • I hear you guys, and I'm obviously oversimplifying matters here. Forgive me as I muddle through political theory in a (somewhat) public forum.

    I'm liberal, but I'm not a namby-pamby about it. Do I think some people deserve some help? Yeah. Lord knows my family should have received some help when I was a kid (Bucky, you can back me up there). Do I think we should keep the water running if the sink is full of holes? No. But, I think we should fix the sink rather than cut off the water supply. Sometimes you need the rules to fix the tools. I'm with you, Bucky, on letting go. If we can find a way to determine if the aid is provided in vain, stop the aid. The problem is that welfare abusers may have kids that didn't do shit wrong. If there's a way to help them directly, I'm all for it.

    DC, you've helped me reconsider this whole Rules/Tools thing. The only difference I see is that a smoking ban is an annoyance (a real pain in the ass now that I've fallen off the wagon. well, it would be if I ever got to go to a bar...), but a rule effectively removing a woman's dominion over her body is anti-Liberty. All the PMRC ever did was boost record sales for 2 Live Crew, legal wiretaps to determine the appropriateness of phone calls is just Orwellian. Gun bans? Well, they're just as stupid as making weed illegal...

    So, I guess discretion is the word when it comes to both rules and tools. What's the real difference then? Is it hope vs. fear in the greatest battle of all time?

    By Blogger bigsoda, At 9:37 PM  

  • Wow, I just read over my post again and would like to state that it was not my intention to come off as a condescending prick. Which is rather difficult, since I AM a condescending prick. Sorry.

    As for the whole wiretapping/NSA fiasco, I never consider anything the Bush II administration does as indicative of the Republican party. That shit is anathema to the true Goldwaterian conservative ideals (along with wild spending, bigger government, and interventionist foreign policy). That treasonous prick wouldn't know the true policies of the party if they were stuck up his ass halfway to his throat(which it seems that they are).

    If you remember, the 'Defense of Marriage' (Anti-Gay Marriage) bill was killed by the REPUBLICAN leadership before it even hit the floor.

    Oh, and on the whole Roe v. Wade thinng; Here's an exerpt form a post I did back in '06:
    ...Roe v. Wade is a national decision; if it were to be reversed it would automatically become a states-rights issue. Thankfully, I have always lived (and will always live) in progressive states. I want those backward theocratic states to reap what they sow. I want the southern states to choke on unwanted pregnancies, heightened drop-out rates, and skyrocketing medical costs. Hell, any knocked-up Southern slut with any disposable income could still visit the scenic North, catch a Cubs game, go see the deer romp across a scenic prairie field, and get that pesky implanted zygote scraped from her uterine wall. It's a huge cottage-industry I tell ya...

    I've been having a similar ongoing conversation with Gundy about 'personal rights' issues, and if I have the time, I'm going to try and get a good post out of it for Lies and Exaggerations.
    Then you can see just how wrong I really am.

    By Blogger DC Liar, At 6:35 AM  

  • the 'Defense of Marriage' (Anti-Gay Marriage) bill was killed by the REPUBLICAN leadership before it even hit the floor.

    Well, this seems obvious. Half the party is gay.

    By Blogger Chris B., At 9:53 AM  

  • By Blogger Chris B., At 10:39 AM  

Post a Comment



<< Home