What is Leadership according to Taoism?

The very great leaders in their domains are only known to exist.
Those next best are beloved and praised.
The lesser are feared and despised.
Therefore when faith is insufficient and there is disbelief,
it is from high value placed on words.

Tao Te Ching, Ch. 17

Why does government exist at all? Because men are not saints and therefore order must be established and maintained. Harmony cannot exist on its own where men are not saints. Without harmony there is no freedom, no prosperity, and no justice. When government is established how do we judge its greatness and effectiveness?

The Tao teaches that the greatest leaders are only known to exist. How could this possibly be??? In America, we are always learning in the news what our President is doing, what his positions are, how he proposes to change things, to make things better. If we don't, people ask "what is he doing?", "why isn't he doing something about this, or about that?", "he must be weak, incompetent, or simply does not care about the problems that plague society". And so we seek government where the President is beloved and praised. Everyday we take polls to learn how people feel about our President and what the think of the job he is doing. Everyday the President and his advisors take note of these polls as does everyone else serving in public office or in the bureaucracy. We gauge success or failure by use of approval ratings. It is because we place an overly high value on words.

What if the President did not have daily press briefings? What if he did not take interviews? What if the only speech you heard was the State of the Union? In the early days of the American republic, most people never heard the voice of the President, received publications of his speeches and words very rarely, in fact it was not known to the people what the President was doing unless he was declaring war, peace, signing a major piece of legislation, or nominating someone to a post. Otherwise it probably didn't matter. Was there anarchy? Were those Presidents irresponsible? Those Presidents were Washington thru FDR. FDR became the first to engage the people on a weekly basis, the first to be on television, and the first to be a constant in the lives of the people.

Taoism would caution modern society on its constant demands on the President, both in words and action. It would also caution our obsession and high value on words. So the question is do we buy this?

Imagine a society where the people do not really hear daily about their President or their Congress. They know who they are and periodically what they do but for the most part they only "know them to exist". How is this possible? First, the people would have to live where the actions of the federal government seldom affect their lives. Second, when there is cause for complaint, the people do not see the federal government as providing the solution. Perhaps a local magistrate or some private action would provide a more expedient resolution, whatever the case they don't look to central government. Third, the people are living peacefully and prosperously and see no problems requiring government interference. There will always be problems or issues, but no great injustice, no war, no violence, or no poverty that demands large scale action.

Today, liberals and many moderates do not see this kind of world. The federal government must serve an important role in the daily lives of the people. They are taught that are major problems with this country that require solutions. Things are wrong. There is poverty, social injustice, racial injustice, legal inequality, inadequate social services, global warming, and there are people out there that will take advantage of you if no one stops them. They are next taught that these are big and complicated problems that require big and complicated solutions that only the federal government can provide.

Conservatives have different beliefs. They resent the role the federal government has in their daily lives. They believe there are problems, some big, some small. But many, they believe, are exaggerated. They question the level of alarm that many have on the issues of the day. They are also highly suspicious of the required solutions. They feel they do not warrant big and complicated solutions and certainly do not think the federal government can provide those solutions. They feel the federal government is already in excess and that further action is not desirable in the least.

So how do conservatives convince others? One way is they debate the scale of these problems, which has been marginally effective at best. Most people believe these problems exist and are big. Another way is to argue the federal government cannot solve them. This has been more effective but there is an obvious question: then how do we solve them? Conservatives are not very good at answering this second question. Sure they have answers, but they have proven unpersuasive to others. Often the retort is that there are other ways but its not through the federal government. But people want clear solutions and clear details. They want words, they want something to praise. To them, conservative solutions just don't seem compassionate or "good". Their liberal education leaves them skeptical.

What about the Tea Parties? What you are seeing today is a massive rejection of the big and complicated solutions offered by the federal government. People do not believe it is the solution to these problems, but believe these problems do exist. Is that enough to get us back on track? No its not. Because the people are still looking for leadership and solutions they can praise. We are stuck in the middle rung of governance and need to get out. Until then, the defeat of liberal democrats on today's issues may provide conservatives a victory but it may be short-lived. It won't be long before the people give republicans another chance and if they cannot solve this puzzle, their reign will be short-lived as well.

I don't have a theory on the solution yet but am working on it.

U.S. needs to start teaching men to fish

The Proverb: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish. Feed him for a lifetime.

The U.S. does not seem to see the wisdom in this proverb. Today we hand out fish to people that need it because of a bank meltdown, layoffs, economic downturn or whatever. We extend unemployment benefits past six months, isn't that just handing out fish? We give tax credits to people who don't even pay federal taxes. We gave bailouts to automakers and banks. We gave bailouts to states so they could keep their public employee unions happy and keep those high quality pension systems intact.

And where are we now? Outta fish.

Here is the liberal democrat explanation: Some people have trouble fishing because of historical and cultural barriers, or that the Wall Street crisis is so severe that people are no longer be able to fish on their own and will starve without the government handing out fish for a couple years. Maybe some people just aren't good fishermen, and so we need to help them. Where does that lead us? According to studies there are more people dependent on the federal government than at any point in U.S. history. We are now supplying more fish to more people.

Why is it that as time passes and we have progressed in the modern era, we seem to have become steadily more incompetent as fishermen. Why is it that despite the breakthroughs in nutrition, exercise, vitamin supplements, and carcinogens that there are so many more of us with physical and psychological defects that make it difficult for us to fish. Has the modern era made us more incompetent?

The answer is no.

We have been slowly persuaded that this group needs extra help, that group needs help, that its only temporary and only a one time deal. But entitlement programs are never temporary and it seems that these bailouts are massive and come around every 6-10 years. Meanwhile the needy groups are weakened into a sense of utter dependency. They never learn to fish because they don't have to. But what happens when we run out of fish to handout?

Examples: Look at the southside of Chicago and other parts of the country where liberal policies are enacted and government handouts are distributed at amazing rates. How are those communities doing now? How has the southside done thanks to all the community organizing that Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama have done over the past few decades? They are exactly where they were decades ago because the democrats have sold them false hope. The income disparity remains, the education disparity, the high crime, and other problems remain.

We need to stop handing out fish. It does not work, it makes people dependent and in this world you will eventually have to fish for yourself. The United States must find ways to teach its citizens how to fish, not just hand out fish. We don't do that through entitlements, high taxes, bloated public service programs, bailouts, or stimulus. The government must help citizens become independent, teach them how to fish.

It most cases it is merely getting the hell out of the way. Let the people learn on their own or let them return to fishing rather than just going to the big G store. In other cases it might be lessons on fishing, providing lures, line, and poles. But in the end, they have to catch the fish.

Government of the Sages: An Intro to Taoist political philosophy

Not exalting cleverness causes the people not to contend,
Not putting prices on hard-to-get goods causes the people not to steal.
Not seeing anything to want causes the mind not to be confused.
Therefore, The government of the sages empties the mind and fills the middle, weakens ambition and strengthens the bones, always keeping the people innocent and passionless.
It makes the sophisticated not dare to contrive;
action being without contrivance, nothing is disordered.

Tao Te Ching, Chapter 3

The Tao Te Ching is the famous book of poems and sayings that represent the essential philosophical foundation of Taoism. This chapter in particular demonstrates one of the key principles of Taoist political theory. Some of the following is the interpretation of prominent Taoist experts, but some of it is also my own interpretation.

The prominent phrase is that the government of the sages "weakens ambition and strengthens the bones". One of the essential objectives of government is to weaken the ambition of its people, particularly the sophisticated (the clever, intelligent, etc.). Ideally, a state is governed so that the sophisticated have no means of feeding their ambition or satisfying their desire for power and influence. The phrase "strengthens the bones" balances the idea by showing that this is not to be done by disabling the people physically. Taoism does not promote the systematic repression of people for the sake of order and equality.

This principle was widely accepted by the Founding Fathers, although they probably were not aware of the Tao Te Ching and certainly did not express it in such poetic terms. The Founders wanted a system of government where it was made nearly impossible for aspiring tyrants to seize control and satisfy their ambitions. At the same time they devised a Bill of Rights protecting the people from the government's attempts to usurp power or crush the ambitions of the people through use of force. The U.S. Constitution is a grand attempt at weakening ambition while strengthening the bones.

Exalting cleverness is something that unfortunately American society is known for. In Greek times, public figures were often judged on their oratory skills or mastery of rhetoric. This type of cleverness or trickery was often rewarded with elected office. In modern times, we place such an emphasis on not just the oratory skills of public figures, but also physical appearance, voice, and symbolic gesture. The Presidential debates, public speeches, ribbon-cutting events, and other such practices are done because we value figures with such abilities of showmanship. It is something that Taoism abhors and for good reason.

President Obama was highly regarded early in the campaign for his rhetorical skills, good looks, great speeches, and beautiful family. The American people did not seem to place emphasis on his lack of legislative record, or lack of achievement in public service in general. In fact his small record of extreme leftist policy was intentionally ignored because he sounded like a reasonable man who would reach out to moderates and even conservatives. We simply did not want to believe that such an elegant and good looking guy could have the same beliefs as Rev. Wright, Mr. Ayers, or Karl Marx.

The "pricing of hard-to-get goods" is very relevant today. Government is not to control the market through creating demand, as well as controlling or pricing goods. The government is attempting to create value in certain the areas of healthcare, insurance, carbon allowances, and other areas essentially "creating value" and setting prices. The State should not have a role in the economy. In this case, Taoism is clearly in favor of a free market and the Founders were as well.

"Not seeing anything to want" refers to the actual ambition of the State itself and not necessarily one individual or a group of ministers. Today we see the federal government "wanting" more control. In areas of healthcare and cap and trade, the legislation does not actually achieve the state objective (the health plan has been shown to not lower cost or provide better care, cap and trade has been shown that it will not significantly affect carbon emissions). It is not about climate change or lowering the cost of healthcare, it is about control. With more control, and more levers to pull, the government has greater authority and thus public office provides for the ambitious. It is done without the usual visual indicators of ambition like a secret police, a big powerful paramilitary force, or a suspension of individual rights. It is more clever and very well-contrived.

In an ideal system, the State is organized and governed by the rule of law. The rule of law imposes restrictions such as separation of powers, federalism, and Constitutional prohibition on certain acts by the state. A sophisticated aspiring tyrant "dare not contrive" in most cases but not all. We must all be careful and vigilant when the ambitious are allowed to contrive and the sophisticated propose grand designs and promote them through cleverness and showmanship. Some may even try to confuse the meaning of the Constitution in order to move past its potent restrictions. In a State where the Constitution becomes relative, all things are possible for the clever and ambitious.

Sadly, I think we failed in 2008. I think the sophisticated have rallied behind a clever and highly exalted leader with grand ambitions. We must reverse course in 2010 and 2012 and began restoring the legal limitations on the State to "weaken ambition" and while also protect the prosperity and strength of the people "strengthen the bones".