The Independent-Entrepreneurial Society

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 15:59

(Promoted from user blogs. -Patrick)

In a recent WSJ op-ed, author Michael J. Malone points out that America is continuing its tradition of pioneering new frontiers by becoming the world's first entrepreneurial society. He isn't just talking about business, but an entrepreneurial and independent spirit that cuts across society, manifesting itself in working from home, home schooling, MySpace pages, Second Life avatars, and creating YouTube videos. Americans are transitioning from seeing themselves as cogs in a post-WWII industrial machine to behaving as independent creators.

This no doubt is in part a function of what Clay Shirky calls "cognitive surplus", the intellectual free time that is no longer being wasted on passively watching TV and, less and less, sitting in a cubicle. This has largely been discussed in the context of Obama's success in capturing that cognitive surplus in user-generated content, and the success of wiki sites.

Read on.

The political implications, however, could be of great benefit to conservative politics. The GOP, at least when true to its small-government principles, is ideally suited to capitalize on this trend. The Democrats, who may be riding high today on Republican blunders, still offer solutions stuck in the old model of working for a company for 30 years, and then retiring to collect your various entitlements. Even Obama, while running an innovative campaign, offers no real policy innovations recognizing that Americans are taking increasing responsibility for their own futures.

Meanwhile, a Republican party that offers policies on course with the Independent-Entrepreneurial society could reap real benefits at the ballot box over the long term. Policies that offer ownership of one's own health insurance (rather than depending on an employer or government), that create individual retirement accounts rather than dependence on the Social Security bureaucracy, that ease the process of passing what you've created on to your children, and in short maximize liberty to use your cognitive surplus as you please and to keep more of what you produce will ultimately be of interest to the new and growing participants in the new American frontier.

The Democrats have nothing to offer these entrepreneurial Americans. Republicans who recognize this trend and communicate conservative principles in ways that resonate at the kitchen table (or more appropriately at the Starbucks with the free wi-fi) may find that over the longer term, things aren't nearly as bad as they may seem in 2008.

Interested to hear everyone's thoughts.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (3 votes)

Tom Readmond's blog

Comments

I like this...

Submitted by Kevin Boyd on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 16:12.

I just hope that Republicans can get the message...

The winning message

Submitted by karasoth on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 16:18.

BE REPUBLICANS

shocking

Devil's Advocate

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 17:46.

First of all, good luck w/this stuff from the opposite side of the great divide. How wonderful that Clay can bring is all together! :)

And now, to play devils-advocate specifically on the point of Health Care: doesn't a systemic or network-centric appreciation of the issue strongly suggest looking at laying in universal coverage as a piece of automatic/dumb infrastructure rather than an latter-day investment vehicle?

Health is an issue in which outcomes are very explicity not restricted to individuals persons -- theres a baseline social aspect to the problem, whether you're looking at disease or just costs. As such, don't hyper-individualized solutions like Health Savings Accounts seem undermatched systemically, as well as, you know, kind of mean to people who can't really afford to save up because food and shelter are immediate priorities?

you still don't get it

Submitted by fabric on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 21:34.

Social Security is not a retirement program. It's an insurance program. It's insurance that you don't end up eating cat food in your old age. Social Security is part of a responsible retirement plan for the bulk of retirees, and a safety net to at least keep you out of the gutter if you are irresponsible, or just plain unlucky despite planning responsibly.

Josh beat me to the healthcare issue. Everyone should have healthcare. Stop measuring it in dollars and start measuring it in health. There's a much easier solution than what you are proposing.

As for:

Democrats still offer solutions stuck in the old model of working for a company for 30 years, and then retiring to collect your various entitlements.

What are these said solutions? Please back this up, not because I'm playing gotcha, but because I honestly don't know which you are talking about? Is it because they support unions? Unions can certainly overstep their bounds, but they've certainly done some good in the past. I'm not sure what else is being referred to hear.

I get it...

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 22:49.

or, at least I get that you consider a massive, compulsory government program to be the default necessary solution to a social need. No one wants seniors eating cat food. But the idea that I can't be trusted to hold my own accountability for at least a portion of the compulsory takings from my paycheck seems to reek of the generally condescending approach liberals take to a number of issues. Personal savings accounts and/or HSAs may not be right for everyone, but I'd at least like them to be options for those of us who can and wish to take ownership of our own futures.

My larger point, though, is not to debate the merits of conservatism (I feel certain my liberal friends above wouldn't succumb to even the most compelling explanations), but to point out that liberalism is less suited to appeal to a society that is becoming increasingly individualist and entrepreneurial, and less collectivist and dependent on others (be it corporations or government) for its sense of economic security. Of course, I think this liberal impulse has always been more generally at odds with the American psyche of rugged individualism, which may explain why the Democrats have only elected two presidents in 40 years, and only re-elected one since World War Two.

In terms of clinging to a diminishing career model, the total dominance of labor unions within the Democratic party is indeed a good start, since liberal Democrats oppose even the basic right of a worker to have a secret ballot on whether to unionize (again at odds with our more individualist, and not to mention democratic, impulses), but Democratic rhetoric tends to center around long-term job security provided either by the state, or a private employer thus coerced by the state (look no further than the Democrats' hostility to free trade). In the Malone article I mentioned in my original post, he cites a study in which young adults now consider self-employment a better source of job security than working for someone else. The Democrats can hardly be considered the champions of the self-employed or the entrepreneur, since, if they are successful, the Democrats will immediately punish them with higher tax rates and anti-business rhetoric.

I'm sure you disagree, but nearly everything the Democrats propose aims to insert government, increase collective financial obligations (i.e. taxes) and reduce individual accountability, ownership, choice or incentives for economic success -- no individual retirement accounts, no health savings accounts, no school choice, no secret ballot to unionize, no permanent estate tax reduction, and a progressive tax code that promises you that if you start making money, we'll jack up your tax burden and tell less fortunate Americans that their lot in life is a direct result of your insidiousness.

As I said, arguing about the merits of conservatism versus liberalism is probably a waste of your time and mine, but my thesis is that a conservatism that champions individualism and entrepreneurship will be the more appealing choice for the growing number of Americans in the Independent-Entrepreneurial Society.

I don't mean to waste yr time

Submitted by Josh Koenig on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 00:31.

I don't want to waste anyone's time, but I think that this:

Is a discussion worth having. I'm not unsympathetic to conservative philosophy. I believe that self-reliance and personal responsibility are cornerstones of any worthwhile society. They're just not the only cornerstones, especially when it comes to issues -- again, I'll cite Health, but most basic social infrastructure counts, and not even for "feel good" reasons like keeping your grandma from starving -- where the success of any person is inextricably bound to his/her neighbors'.

Look, you don't have to tell me about how it sucks paying taxes. I gave 53% of my take-home income to the government, and I don't even like the war! But if you look beyond the immediate issue of self-gratification, there's a logic at work here.

I'm an entrepreneur. I build my business by working with other intelligent people, and for largely intelligent clients, based on the prior work of lots of smart people. Having all these intelligent people around requires a pretty good educational system, of which the Public component is important. In very real ways, my success (and ergo income) is predicated on the services my tax dollars support. I'd like it if we balanced thigns a bit more on the ultra-wealthy rather than my newly middle-class back, but I don't really resent paying my share.

I'd love to send the money I pay to give my employees health insurance to a program that wasn't run for profit (and a 25% "administrative" overhead) and would allow me to lure away people who are too afraid to leave their company for fear that my newish business wouldn't be there to support their kids. I see issues like guaranteed education and universal health care as being precisely about freedom: in a very real way we're all held back if we're not all liberated.

See, it's not about the lone person versus the amorphous blob. Its about appreciating the systems and networks (as well as individuals and institutions) that drive the bigger picture. The distinction you draw between "individualistic" and "collectivist" modes of operation is a false one, especially if we're talking about the future. In hewing to the post's original cite of Prof. Shirky, we're living through a massive synthesis of these two quintessential human traits.

Let me break it down.

Strictly speaking, there are no pure individuals. People are born of mothers, and if things are working right, of fathers too, and other family members. They have neighbors, classmates, friends, coworkers, competitors. "The Individual" is an inhuman concept, because we all exist, understand ourselves and the world, and calibrate our every act in response to other people.

At the same time, almost all institutions are horrifically inhumane bureaucracies in which our wost aspects are on display. Petty power politics; mind-numbing and soul-crushing adherence to protocol; groupthink, etc. This is as true in most Fortune 500s as it is in any other large institution, but I digress.

The point is that for the first time an alternative to institutional conscription or individualistic windmill-tilting is available. This is the real opportunity, and currently neither pole of political power is very well-organized to address it, which is what makes it interesting territory. So, if you're only interested in people who agree w/your argument I understand -- trying to organize within the right requires building your own echo chamber, which is no small feat -- but if you want the strongest argument possible you'll at least consider some of what others have to say.

Anyway, hopefully that's an honest response and next time we can do this without all the strawmen.

See, it's not about the lone

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 13:41.

See, it's not about the lone person versus the amorphous blob. Its about appreciating the systems and networks (as well as individuals and institutions) that drive the bigger picture. The distinction you draw between "individualistic" and "collectivist" modes of operation is a false one, especially if we're talking about the future. In hewing to the post's original cite of Prof. Shirky, we're living through a massive synthesis of these two quintessential human traits.

Probably true about modes of operation. However, in terms of the constraints governments place on their citizens, wars have been fought over the distinction between "individualism" and "collectivism." I doubt the people who fought those wars considered these distinctions to be "false" or the issues surrounding them as "straw men."

I wonder if, perhaps, liberals might consider that dismissing the concerns of Americans regarding their liberties as "individualistic windmill-tilting" might, in fact have something to do with their problems in middle America. The fact that you consider something "the matter" with Kansas may be why it doesn't buy what you're selling.

Tom, if you're interested,

Submitted by Lisa on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 23:07.

Tom, if you're interested, Bonnie Erbe wrote recently about the dilemma facing socially-moderate entrepreneurial voters.

Thanks Lisa

Submitted by Tom Readmond on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 23:30.

Very interesting article, and probably quite accurate. However, since it is unlikely the GOP will give up some of its strongest support by thumbing its nose at social conservatives, socially liberal entrepreneurs will still have a tough choice to make: their social beliefs or their pocketbooks. I'm betting some, but not all, will choose the latter.

On the other hand, a study last year by the Kansas City-based Kaufmann Foundation found that 450,000 people a month were starting small businesses, and the five states with highest rates of entrepreneurial activity were Georgia, Montana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Maine -- 80% of them "red states." The lowest rates were Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Illinois and Delaware -- 80% "blue states." Could it be that liberal policies in the blue states are driving entrepreneurs into red states, or that red states are more encouraging of entrepreneurship? Or is it that those who are more inclined to be entrepreneurs are also more inclined to be conservatives? Either way, I think it bodes well for a conservative message targeted to entrepreneurs.

Good, Thought Provoking Post

Submitted by Whitehorse on Tue, 05/27/2008 - 23:08.

I read this article & think that the entrepreneurial trend could portend positives for the future. Most people who start their own businesses are conservative by nature, and the ideals of conservatism resonate. What the Republican party needs to do is twofold:

Get back to core conservative principles that win at the ballot box and work in "real life
Properly articulate these core conservative priniciples

We may not see much in the way of progress in 2008, however for the future we could see this working as the message is articulated and concrete examples are fought for and passed.

Universal healthcare & soc. sec NOT good

Submitted by Rohan on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 06:40.

I like to get to the point quickly. Health care is NOT a right. Period. Universal health care has failed EVERYWHERE it has been forced on people. Social Security is a government-run Ponzi scheme. It is certain to collapse along with Medicare, etc, in the coming years. Our children will hate us for forcing them to clean up our mess.

The republicans in leadership don't get it and never will. They need to be destroyed this November so new blood can try and get back to freedom and personal responsibility.

distinction: GOP and conservatism

Submitted by The Cato Letters on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 12:28.

It also needs to be said that there is a difference between conservatism, which is really classic liberalism, and much of the GOP today, including this nonsense "compassionate conservatism". Compassionate conservatism, in my opinion, is nothing more than a socially conservative economic liberal who sees government as the solution rather than private enterprise. If we are to win elections again, this distinction must be made i.e. we must place equal emphasis on Milton Freidman and Hyack style economic conservatism that is currently place on roe v wade, gay marriage, etc.

Great blog!

I like to get to the point

Submitted by fabric on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 17:33.

Re: health care - try looking up how they do it in Taiwan, Germany, France, Sweden and Australia. I believe it's been quite successful, they have health care at least as good as ours, if not better, at half the per capita cost. You can quibble over those specific items, but no matter how you slice it, they haven't failed.

Medicare is a problem, but it's tied into the whole health car cost issue. Social Security does not have the same problems as medicare. As for a Ponzi scheme, most Ponzi schemes aren't security by Treasury bonds, which is where the SS surplus has been going for the last 23 years. Too bad that surplus is being used to fund our current general budget deficit. But the program you ridicule is in such good shape it's actually being used to loan money to the rest of the government. The mess isn't social security, it's the current administrations mis-management of the US budget.

or, at least I get that you

Submitted by fabric on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 17:39.

as stated by a later poster, this isn't an either or propposition. If you base this on savings rates, most people can't be trusted to fund their retirement. Feel free to disagree, but you'll eventually pay for these people, directly or indirectly, without SS. I don't feel that social security taxes are that onerous, and you can use that as a very conservative portion of your retirement. Yes, I could probably do better with this money myself, but I feel the social good to all US society makes it a worthy investment. I think you'll find most people agree.

not buying it

Submitted by Rohan on Wed, 05/28/2008 - 18:00.

Social security IS a Ponzi Scheme, The money is spent as soon as it comes in. It is dependent on a continuing stream of new cash to pay off recipients. There is NO cash set aside or "saved"'

Medicare, medicaid, etc. costs are exploding as the population ages. Future spending on these areas will not be able to be sustained. I suspect the health care systems you mentioned in other countries aren't quite the nirvana you imagine. I would also bet they are on a downward slope as far as quality of care. Even so, it gets down to the basic truth that health care is not a right. Government has NO business getting involved in it. People should get back to personal responsibility and take care of themselves and their families.