The American Dream, though dimmed by bad laws and bad news, is still alive.

I know this because Queen Karina and I discovered Shark Tank, an enthralling TV show for entrepreneurs and investors.

After watching the first season, I found myself overwhelmed to the point of tears with a deep respect and even reverence for the American Dream and those who dare dream it.

So today I honor you, the Dreamers, Risk-Takers, Pioneers, Innovators, Entrepreneurs, and Producers, upon whose intrepid backs has been built the greatest country in the history of the world.

Continue Reading on Life Manifestos »
 
 

Why can’t the freedom movement seem to get any traction?

Why have we lost battle after battle for at least the past century?

It’s because we tend to make the good the enemy of the perfect, the pragmatic the enemy of the ideal.

To be clear, it’s because the most passionate among us have adopted a rigid, dogmatic, uncompromising “either-or” stance in the fight.

Rather than winning hearts and minds in the trenches inch-by-inch, we drop rhetorical nuclear bombs and make enemies of potential supporters.

There’s one critical distinction that explains this tendency and, if understood, can overcome it and make all the difference to our success:

Do we view the fight for freedom as an election-cycle battle, or as a 100-year war?

These vastly different mindsets generate completely different strategies and tactics and produce completely different results.

If we view the fight as an election-cycle battle, the battlegrounds are primarily political and governmental.

The tactics include:

• Public, energetic, and angry marches and demonstrations
• Passionate, vitriolic, and partisan commentary that preaches to the crowd and riles the base but fails to win new supporters
• Literal, logical, and personal argumentation
• Directing energy primarily at getting individual political candidates elected

But in a 100-year war, the battlegrounds are cultural and educational, and the short-term tactics above shift to the following long-term strategies:

• Personal, lifelong, classical education in the quiet of our homes
• Respectful, thoughtful, open-minded discussion with people across the whole spectrum of belief, with the intention of winning hearts and minds, rather than simply spewing passion or proving how smart and “right” we are
• Symbolic, metaphorical, and artful story-telling and persuasion
• Directing energy toward reforming education, building families and communities, and becoming successful entrepreneurs (see the three choices in FreedomShift by Oliver DeMille)

In a 100-year war, we moderate our passion and smarten our strategy.

We heal the roots of our demise, rather than hacking at the symptomatic leaves.

We work from love, rather than anger.

We reform from the outside-in and bottom-up, rather than the top-down. In other words, we focus on fixing ourselves, rather than Washington.

We understand that studying Montesquieu in our homes is far more effective than waving banners in the streets.

We spend our time and energy teaching the rising generation the depths of freedom and political philosophy, rather than debating opponents in chat rooms and on radio and TV shows.

We build successful small businesses, rather than complaining about losing jobs overseas.

In a 100-year war, idealism and pragmatism aren’t mutually exclusive. We’re more concerned with direction than destination.

In other words, we don’t reject particular policies because they’re not ultimate, black-and-white ideals.

Rather, we judge them based on whether or not they take us closer to the ideal, however slight the progress.

In a 100-year war, we learn and teach principles, rather than fight candidates.

To be perfectly clear, we don’t waste time forwarding mass emails about the status of Obama’s birth certificate.

Most importantly, in a 100-year war, independent freedom lovers create an inclusive tent, rather than an exclusive club.

For example, many conservatives denigrate environmentalists, or as they’re disdainfully labeled, “tree-huggers.”

But many of these environment-conscious, thoughtful people are also highly-conscious and passionate about local, organic food production and sustainable agriculture — which is a primary battleground for freedom.

So rather than building on common beliefs and bringing these people into the tent of freedom, many conservatives banish them with narrow-minded labels.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is also a favorite target of many conservative commentators.

But wise freedom-lovers would do well to harness their energy.

The truth is that they raise a critical point that most conservatives fail to see: Vast inequities in wealth distribution and power are, in fact, killing America — every bit as much, if not more so, than governmental wealth redistribution from rich to poor.

The government does favor those with capital over those with little or none, big businesses over small businesses, which creates these unfair and unsustainable inequities.

We don’t have to occupy Wall Street with them, but we can at least be wise enough to recognize where we agree in order to work together toward a more free, just, and sustainable society.

We can start winning more friends and creating fewer enemies. We can be pragmatic coalition-builders, rather than dogmatic clique-builders.

I’m as passionate about freedom as anyone — freedom is my mission.

But passion alone isn’t going to win the fight for freedom.

The war will be won through wisdom.

Two days ago I published Monte and Laura Bledsoe’s letter, which detailed the infuriating inspection and threats by bureaucrats on their Quail Hollow Farm CSA on October 21, 2011.

They’ve now posted these four disturbing videos documenting the events.

I urge you to watch them.

The Bledsoes and people like them are my heroes.

It’s these types of people — entrepreneurial “mini-factory” owners, as Oliver DeMille puts it in The Coming Aristocracy — who will restore America.

As Oliver writes,

“…Others wonder how effective mini-factories can be in light of stifling regulation. That’s the whole point.

“By creating mini-factories, we both produce individuals with a pro-innovation, pro-free enterprise mindset who will ease regulation through voting, as well as organizations that by nature fight misguided regulation.

“It creates a drip system as an antithesis to bureaucracy and faulty regulation — drop by drop, on individual and organization at a time, the aristocratic system will be overwhelmed and deconstructed.

“In our current model of government and corporate dependence, aristocratic institutions, laws, and policies encounter only nominal resistance.

“More to the point, relatively few people are even aware of how burdensome our current regulatory environment is. Employees are largely shielded from red tape. Ironically, they feel its effect indirectly in almost every aspect of their lives, but few make the connection.

“Create a multitude of mini-factory owners and it’s a different story. Suddenly, freedom issues are brought to the forefront as more and more people clash with bureaucracy, and mass consciousness is awakened.”

Thank you Bledsoes, for having the courage to clash with bureaucracy and helping to awaken mass consciousness.

Watch these four videos now.

Delve into this week’s must-read articles:

“An Unconstitutional Killing: Obama’s Killing of Awlaki Violates American Principles” by Ron Paul

“Awlaki was a U.S. citizen. Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced.”

Makes you wonder how, exactly, Obama’s foreign policy differs from Bush’s and how in the world he ever won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers warned of this precise thing:

“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”

“The Forever Recession (and the Coming Revolution)” by Seth Godin

“Job creation is a false idol. The future is about gigs and assets and art and an ever-shifting series of partnerships and projects. It will change the fabric of our society along the way. No one is demanding that we like the change, but the sooner we see it and set out to become an irreplaceable linchpin, the faster the pain will fade, as we get down to the work that needs to be (and now can be) done.”

“The Lost Decade?” by David Brooks

“…the ideologues who dominate the political conversation are unable to think in holistic, emergent ways. They pick out the one factor that best conforms to their preformed prejudices and, like blind men grabbing a piece of the elephant, they persuade themselves they understand the whole thing.”

You have three brains competing in your head.

All three are valuable. But only one of them holds the keys to thriving in tough economies.

If you let the other two dominate, be prepared to struggle.

The visionary Entrepreneur asks, “How can we make/do this better? What is the market demanding?”

The pragmatic Manager asks, “How can we systemize this? How can we control the chaos?”

The hard-working Technician asks, “How can I get the Entrepreneur and the Manager to leave me alone so I can just do it how I want to?”

During recessions, cash isn’t king; innovation is king. The companies who adapt and shift resources the quickest crush slower but more capitalized companies.

“But trying new and different things is risky.”

Not nearly as risky as maintaining the status quo, crossing your fingers, and hoping the economy will turn around.

“Think of risky undertakings as ‘experiments.’ Regardless of whether your experiment succeeds or fails, you’re going to learn something useful.” -Roy H. Williams

Change is Your Friend

The Entrepreneur faces reality and acts boldly. He’s never content with stagnation or mediocrity. He thrives on growth and creation.

But growth requires change, and Managers and Technicians detest change.

You’ve heard it before: “If you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten.”

Are you content with your current results? If so, stop reading this and get back to work.

If not, what are you going to do about it? Are you going to wait for the stars to align? Are you going to let external circumstances dictate your results?

Or will you take charge and keep innovating until you figure out what works? What other option do you have?

“To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often.” -Winston Churchill

What Do You Have to Lose?

If your business is declining or simply maintaining, then what you’re doing isn’t working.

So what do you have to lose? Money? You’re losing money already — and you’re only going to lose more the longer you wait.

This doesn’t mean you blindly throw stuff up against the wall and hope something sticks; innovation need not be reckless.

It means you set your box aside and brainstorm long and free to think in ways you’ve never thought before. It means you dig deep and analyze market trends.

It means you execute, watch your data, then shift your strategies based on what the data tells you.

The Manager and Bean Counter in your head will warn, “Now, let’s not be hasty. Those new ideas don’t have a track record. We don’t know if they will actually work.”

Never let your skeptical Manager make strategic decisions when decline is imminent and change is required.

Put your Entrepreneur in charge.

You may get a few scrapes and bruises along the way, but he won’t quit. He’ll pull you out of the wreckage of temporary failure time and time again. And eventually, you’ll succeed. It’s inevitable.

“The Entrepreneur is the visionary in us. The dreamer. The energy behind every human activity. The imagination that sparks the fire of the future. The catalyst for change. The Entrepreneur lives in the future, never in the past, rarely in the present. He’s happiest when left free to construct images of ‘what-if’ and ‘if-when.’” -Michael Gerber

The “Box” is Your Enemy

I was once in brainstorming mode while consulting with a company.

I threw out idea after idea after idea, only to be immediately shot down on each of them by one of the owners.

She was in Manager mode, so she only saw all the reasons why we couldn’t do them.

Whether or not the ideas were feasible isn’t the main problem in this scenario. The problem is the endemic skepticism. The immediate discarding of any idea that’s even remotely outside the box.

My question for the owners was, “Okay, if not all the ideas I’ve presented, then what? How will you grow? What are you willing to do differently than anything else you’ve ever tried? Because everything you’ve tried in the past isn’t working.”

What will make or break your business during recessions is how you make decisions.

Is your Manager making your decisions, or is your Entrepreneur?

By definition, Managers don’t use the thinking processes that instigate rapid, fundamental, and drastic change.

Managers and Number Crunchers are highly creative when it comes to proving why ideas won’t work, yet astoundingly deficient when it comes to generating the ideas themselves.

This isn’t a criticism–it’s simply not their job to innovate. But when innovation is critical, you must learn to defer to your inner Entrepreneur.

“The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.” -Dr. Linus Pauling

Crush the Box

When the economy is great, you have the luxury of being comfortable. You no longer have that luxury.

If you’re not dedicating people, time, imagination, money, energy, and other resources to a growth strategy, either accept the reality that your results won’t change or start putting resources to innovation.

Managers and Technicians have their place, but to innovate and grow you need to put the Entrepreneur in charge.

“The Entrepreneur is our creative personality–always at its best dealing with the unknown, prodding the future, creating probabilities out of possibilities, engineering chaos into harmony.” -Michael Gerber

Buckle your Manager in the backseat. Put your Entrepreneur at the wheel. Slam on the gas pedal of innovation.

It’s going to be a wild ride.

This news story, reporting on last night’s GOP debate, included the following exchange:

“Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt,” Perry jabbed in the debate’s opening moments, referring to one of Romney’s Democratic predecessors as governor of Massachusetts.

“As a matter of fact, George Bush and his predecessors created jobs at a faster rate than you did,” Romney shot back at Perry, the 10-year incumbent Texas governor.

Interesting exchange, given that both Perry and Romney are on record as saying the government doesn’t create jobs.

Here’s Rick Perry:

This story reports that “Romney said he has ’59 specific proposals — including 10 concrete actions’ he would undertake on his first day in office to turn around the economy,” then quotes Romney:

“Each proposal is rooted in the conservative premise that government itself cannot create jobs. At best, government can provide a framework in which economic growth can occur. All too often, however, government gets in the way. The past three years of unparalleled government expansion have retaught that lesson all too well.”

In other words, to these status-quo, pandering politicians, government doesn’t create jobs — unless they can personally take credit for it, or disparage an opponent for not doing it.

In a recent interaction with a staunch Republican, she mentioned she believes in spending less than she makes — because, after all, she is a Republican.

I was frankly floored by her belief that Republicans stand for fiscal responsibility.

A political party is what it does, not what it says.

And I see no evidence that Republicans are any more fiscally responsible than Democrats.

In fact, check out the chart on this Wikipedia article, which shows the National debt by presidents’ terms.

Jimmy Carter shrunk the national debt by 3.3% during his term, while Reagan increased it by 11.3% and 9.3% in two respective terms.

The debt increased under George H. Bush’s leadership by 13%, while decreasing 0.7% in Clinton’s first term and 9.0% in his second term.

George W. grew the debt by 7.1% his first term and 20.7% his second, while Obama’s first-term budget grew the debt by 13%.

As economist Mike Kimel writes:

“The last five Democratic Presidents, Clinton, Carter, LBJ, JFK, and Truman all reduced the debt, and one has to go back sixty years to find a Democratic President who, facing the Great Depression and World War 2, allowed the debt to increase. On the other hand, the last four Republican Presidents, GW Bush, GHW Bush, Reagan, and Ford all oversaw an increase in the country’s indebtedness. It has been more than thirty years since a Republican President left office (albeit in a scandal) having reduced the National Debt.”

I care nothing for political rhetoric.

No matter how much lip service the Republican party gives to fiscal responsibility, they offer absolutely no credible proof that they actually believe it.

I’m also incredibly tired of the Republicans’ blame game.

For example, check out this campaign ad from Governor Rick Perry:

Perry’s outrageous claim of “The President’s refusal to control spending,” is utterly false and shamefully misleading.

Furthermore, it demonstrates either a complete disregard for or ignorance of the Constitution.

Article 1 of the Constitution makes it very clear who holds the purse strings for the federal budget. For Perry to blame this solely on the Executive — especially given the fact that we have a Republican majority in Congress — is unconscionable.

At some point, rank-and-file Republicans must realize that their party left them a long time ago.

It’s time to view status-quo candidates and worn-out political promises through new eyes.

MSNBC reports:

“Some surveys have found that 87 percent of Americans don’t like their jobs.”

This is unfathomable to me.

But it gets even worse when you realize the lie that supports the statistic.

Jane Boucher, author of How to Love the Job You Hate: Job Satisfaction for the 21st Century, says,

“Most of us can’t just quit our jobs.”

This is language of slaves.

We can’t quit our jobs or else what?

We lose income and benefits? And there’s absolutely NO other way to make a living than at our current jobs?

We can’t quit our jobs because that’s all we know? And we’re utterly incapable of assimilating new knowledge and learning new skills?

We can’t quit because we’re helpless children waiting for our masters to give us something to do?

We’re really this trapped in the freest, strongest, most prosperous nation in the history of the world?

Is this really the America for which patriots have fought, bled, sacrificed, and died?

Free men and women choose.

If they don’t like something, they change it. If they see something that needs improving, they innovate.

If they want a better life, they fight for it. If they want more money, they produce and earn more.

They realize that “job security” is a myth, and that the only true security in life is one’s ability to choose and respond to circumstances.

Political and economic freedom are worthless if you don’t exercise them.

There’s a tendency to see successful business owners and think, “He’s smarter/more talented than me. She had more connections than me. He got lucky.”

That may be true for a tiny percentage of businesses.

But what gets hidden by the flashing light of success is the long, dark hours of failure. Of back-breaking labor in lonely trenches. Of fear-ridden, sleepless lights agonizing over crucial decisions.

“Our achievements speak for themselves. What we have to keep track of are our failures, discouragements, and doubts. We tend to forget the past difficulties, the many false starts, and the painful groping. We see our past achievements as the end result of a clean forward thrust, and our present difficulties as signs of decline and decay.” ~Eric Hoffer

Succeeding in business is more a product of perseverance than intelligence. Those who stick it out until the end learn the most, so they appear smarter.

“Our greatest glory is not in never falling but in rising every time we fall.” ~Confucius

Consider the case of Marie Curie. Her and her husband, French physicist Pierre, worked

“…in an old abandoned leaky shed without funds and without outside encouragement or help, trying to isolate radium from a low-grade uranium ore called pitchblende.

And after their 487th experiment had failed, Pierre threw up his hands in despair and said, ‘It will never be done. Maybe in a hundred years, but never in my day.’

Marie confronted him with a resolute face and said, ‘If it takes a hundred years, it will be a pity, but I will not cease to work for it as long as I live.’”

She was, of course, eventually successful and countless cancer patients have benefited greatly from her perseverance.

• Thomas Edison’s teachers said he was “too stupid to learn anything.” He was fired from his first two jobs for being “non-productive.” As an inventor, Edison made 1,000 unsuccessful attempts at inventing the light bulb. When a reporter asked, “How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?” Edison replied, “I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps.”
• Louis Pasteur was only a mediocre pupil in undergraduate studies and ranked 15th out of 22 students in chemistry.
• Henry Ford failed and went broke five times before he succeeded.
• R. H. Macy failed seven times before his store in New York City caught on.
• F. W. Woolworth was not allowed to wait on customers when he worked in a dry goods store because, his boss said, “he didn’t have enough sense.”
• When Bell telephone was struggling to get started, its owners offered all their rights to Western Union for $100,000. The offer was disdainfully rejected with the pronouncement, “What use could this company make of an electrical toy.”
• Michael Jordan and Bob Cousy were each cut from their high school basketball teams. Jordan once observed, “I’ve failed over and over again in my life. That is why I succeed.”
• Leo Tolstoy flunked out of college. He was described as both “unable and unwilling to learn.” No doubt a slow developer.
• 27 publishers rejected Dr. Seuss’s first book, To Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street.
• Jack London received six hundred rejection slips before he sold his first story.

“Little minds are tamed and subdued by misfortune; but great minds rise above them.” ~Washington Irving

I put my money on guts over smarts.

Intelligence can be gained through perseverance, but it can’t compensate for the lack of mental and emotional toughness.

*If you’re reading this in an RSS reader or email, you may need to watch the video on my blog.