What the Dog Saw - Malcolm Gladwell

What the Dog Saw and Other Adventures by Malcolm Gladwell
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

What can I say about Malcolm Gladwell except everything he has written has been an absolute joy to read.

This unlike his other books I have loved, Outliers, Tipping Point, is merely a collection of essays that have appeared in the New Yorker.

At over 400 pages the book is no quick read but the essays are so damn enjoyable that I finished quickly enough.

Again, this is only receiving four stars in comparison to two of his other works which were worthy of the fabled five star praise.

View all my reviews

Thomas Jefferson and The Idea of Responsibility.

In 1956, the United States Congress decided to change the motto on the Great Seal of the United States from e pluribus unum (out of many, one) to In God We Trust. Standing from where we are fifty-six years later that seemed like a catastrophic mistake.

The idea that as a whole, this nation, is greater than any one of its inhabitants is a platform with which one of the greatest societies this world has ever seen was founded. The motto which replaced it resonates profoundly within me. The idea that responsibility shall be removed from the masses and placed in the hands of an "omniscient being" thus removing any obligation from the people of the nation to steer its course is troubling.

Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. - Thomas Jefferson

Of course, it is only a motto but if you begin to dissect the problems that have recently plagued the nation it becomes apparent one thing has been missing; responsibility. Responsibility to do what has been best for those after us, for those before us, and for us.

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

It seems Thomas Jefferson understood at the onset of the Republic in this country that history shall always repeat itself. If anything has happened, that is ever apparent, is that a certain sense of patriotism is lacking from the current generation of not only the rule-makers but also the masses. Fortunately, the last two generations was not forced to earn their liberty with guns. The Revolution, the Civil War, The Spanish-American War, World War I and World War II were all explosively decisive wars that allowed a nation to rally behind a flag, an ideal, and a purpose. Since no single war America has taken place in had an evident affect on American people (with the late exception of the 9/11 attack). Therefore, I feel the current lack of apparent concern for America, as it was, is simply related to the fact that we have not earned this nation as those before us have and are then simply less attached to its overall success.

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. - Thomas Jefferson

The Ole' Economic Paradox And My Extrapolations on It.

Ayn Rand, for a PhD educated woman, seemed to have a distaste for university education, or rather a distaste for the formality it has become. I infer this only because of the normality of passages like this "Once, Taggert Transcontinental had had a chief engineer, a silent, gray-haired, self-educated man, who could not be matched on any railroad..." I only bring up Rand's principles and ideologies because it brings up what I like to call the "Economic Paradox." Academicians, for the most, seem to thrive in a world of borrowed theories and plagiarism (although cited plagiarism). Every half century or so a mind as fresh and genius as John Nash will propose the Nash equilibrium and impose a new sort of economic model like the Game Theory and or Adam Smith with his "invisible hand" or Karl Marx with his "Communist Manifesto." I know, revelations are constantly being made in the astronomical and physical side of the sciences but in the world of economics and political science (I will not address neither the arts nor history) it seems that we have arrived at an utter and complete stagnation of original thought. I attribute this to a "traditional liberal arts education" to be on its deathbed, and the educational stance that prohibits or rather looks down upon absolutely original thought. As opposed to promoting the rational questions of the human mind we beat it to submission in order to succeed in our current economic model.

From this observation, which could be horrifically incorrect from the onset, I can derive only two things. First, the system from which we are currently practicing in both economics and politics are tired. E.g. Capitalism and democracy have run their course in America. It seems at some point around the industrial revolution both had fused and we are now more of a capitalist democracy than anything else. Much like the Greeks practiced, fundamentally at least, a sort of aristocratic democracy. To expand on that thought it takes fiscal means to form political capital and those without the personal fiscal means of expanding on that capital are forced into bed with a party (not political necessarily) with the means of assisting that growth. This, in turn, removes the power from the electorate and rests in the hands of the wealthy, for wealth is where political capital is derived thus, removing the power from the majority (the basic principle behind democracy.) This proposes a sort of innate paradox that states that this capitalist democracy benefits those atop the situation. Or in simpler, but rather out of context form:

As modernity provides, we all live under capitalist principles, with the powers that be, namely, being the only ones that profit from that situation (or the wealthy and extremely educated) why would we or they pursue reform? Reform not in the political sense but the ideological and economic sense.

It seems, just by my observation, that capitalism may not be the most evolved form of economic principle but merely one the ensures its own survival.

Secondly, it seems if this system were to flourish a sort of technocracy would take root, but it has not. Of course, some very brilliant people are the minds behind the men in Washington but not necessarily those that are in charge. This can be attributed to four things: i) the inability of the masses to remain informed (and this is no detriment to the men and women that prefer their priorities to politics) ii) a media, and the masses, that prefers sensationalism to information (again a news organizations sole job is to profit). iii) A politicians only job is to be re-elected. Therefore, reform that may be beneficial in the long haul but that which strikes against current public opinion is not a battle worth fighting. Adversely, short-term fixes which may be harmful long-term but have strong public support are the items worth championing. iv) Lastly, in reference to the third principle, since a politicians innate goal is to be re-elected he must gain more political capital which is in fiscal means. Meaning that those with money but in search of power are able to a) contribute campaign funds or b) lobby for their position to be heard and most likely championed (politicians want to make money just like the rest of us as well). Whereas, the voter, or the demos in democracy, is forced to watch, without the capital fiscal or political, without more say in the system than one mere check in a ballot box.

Therefore, I am forced to draw the conclusion that although, this system is not near as efficient as it should be there is little to nothing to be done about it. Unfortunately, capitalist principles do not necessarily apply to a government with which has no natural competition.

I apologize for the lack of coherency it was quite a rant.
cheers.
mb.

ps. Cheers to mi amigo Matt Rennie for the conversation which sparked these ideas.