David Esrati, on his web-site, makes reference to a Boston.com post, by Scott Kirsner, that suggests that New England should adopt a “mission statement.” Esrati says, “There is nothing wrong with stealing good ideas.”

This is Kirsner’s suggestion for a “mission statement” for New England:

1. Attract, educate, and retain the smartest people in the world.
2. Support them in solving important problems, developing innovative products, and building successful businesses.
3. Share what we’re doing with the rest of the world.
4. Keep getting better at Items #1-#3.

Kirsner’s suggestions stirred up some discussion on the Boston.com web-site, and Esrati’s web-site, but I’m surprised that none of the comments challenge the notion, whether or not, that Kirsner’s suggestion, in fact, is appropriate to be called a “mission statement.”

A “mission statement,” according to Wikipedia, “should guide the actions of the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a sense of direction, and guide decision-making.”   It hardly seems to make sense that the “mission” — the “overall goal” — of an entire region like New England should be to “Attract, educate, and retain the smartest people in the world.”

I thought the overall goal of New England, or Dayton, or any region in America, has already been established, and is what we frequently affirm — “liberty and justice for all.”

I’m sure that totalitarian states like North Korea would like to harness “the smartest people” so that they will solve problems, develop products, increase their overall competitiveness, put people to work, etc.  Every Stalinist State, of course, seeks to find talented and hard working people who will throw themselves into zealous cooperation to advance the “mission” of the State.

But getting people fired up, educated, motivated — especially “smart people” — is not the “mission” of a Stalinist State, nor of democratic state.  It is a means toward an end, the means to achieving an overall goal.

I’m guessing that when Kirsner says the “mission” of New England should be to, “Attract, educate, and retain the smartest people in the world,” he is emphasizing that New England needs to cultivate effective leadership to solve problems, build businesses, make technological breakthroughs.  But his idea sounds very topdown — we (the powerful) are looking for “smart people” to give authority and privilege to.  It’s a concept that is embraced by every Stalinist.

To fulfill our stated goal of “liberty and justice for all,” topdown cannot work. We need bottom-up, grassroots approaches.  Nobody would have thought to “attract” or to solicit the Wright brothers, or Thomas Edison.  These successful problem solvers, ground breaking leaders, probably would not have fulfilled the definition of “smart,” agreed to by the powerful of their time.

The emphasis should not be on cultivating an elite, as Kirsner’s “mission statement” suggests, but on vitalizing our democracy.  In a vitalized democracy each person would have the resources and the opportunity to grow into his or her potential, each person would be nurtured and encouraged by an interconnected and enriched community.  In a democracy, greatness and leadership bubbles up, it is not imposed by some authority who somehow discerns who is “smart” or who is worthy.

Kirsner is absolutely correct. Not only New England, but Dayton and all of America needs authentic leadership — really in every endeavor — in government, business, science, education, religion.  Our failure to allow authentic leadership to rise in our society is a huge problem.  The answer is not through further gearing up elitism, that is already rampant, but through vitalizing our democracy.

For Our Future’s Sake, We Must Transform Our System of Elitism To a System of Democracy
Our Democracy Must Be Revived — If We Hope To Achieve The Dreams of Our Wisest and Best

In yesterday’s Special Democratic Primary, 30% fewer voters participated in Montgomery County than in the last Special Primary in September, 2006.  This big reduction in voting rate must be blamed on the fact that in a money saving move, only four polling places were open in the entire county.  There are 310 precincts in the county.

The Montgomery County Board of Election (MCBOE) shows 5104 votes were cast in Montgomery County for a voting rate of 1.57%.   In the last Special Democratic Primary on September 15, 2006 — between Dick Chema and Charles Sanders — there were 7106 votes in Montgomery County, for a voting rate of 2.26%.  This loss of 2002 voters is a 30% decrease, and this big suppression of voting could well have impacted this election.

Joe Roberts won with 2,491 votes; Guy Fogle came in second with 2,093 votes.  David Esrati received 1,063 votes.

I’m disappointed that the Democratic members of the MCBOE agreed to the four regional voting center structure.  This was approved by the state, but the decision to make this big and experimental change happened at the local level. This strategy saved $250,000 for the state, but it did nothing for Montgomery County — except depress turnout and degrade the importance of this election.

David Esrati on his web-site has an interesting analysis, entitled “Centralized Disenfranchisement,” that points out a lot of problems with this Special Election.

Here is the chart as shown on Ohio’s Secretay of State’s Web-site.

In a interesting and lengthy (1850 words) blog, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor, warns of “deep-seated anxiety and frustration” growing in the population — particularly the middle class. He says anger is caused by the glaring inequalities in the system, and that our democracy is so corrupted by big money at the top that it is not working to fix the problem.

Reich points out, sorrowfully, had badly our democracy has failed to help regular citizens, and makes a big list of actions a democratic government could have taken had it been focused on attacking inequality. He points out that, instead, government’s actions — less regulations, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. — in fact, has steadily made the problem worse.

Reich says, “Democrats have been almost as reluctant to attack inequality or even to recognize it as the central economic and social problem of our age. (As Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, I should know.) The reason is simple. As money has risen to the top, so has political power. Politicians are more dependent than ever on big money for their campaigns.”

Excerpts from the article:

• The major fault line in American politics is no longer between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, but between the “establishment” and an increasingly mad-as-hell populace determined to “take back America” from it.
• Missing from almost all discussion of America’s dizzying rate of unemployment is the brute fact that hourly wages of people with jobs have been dropping, adjusted for inflation. … June’s decline in average hours pushed weekly paychecks down at an annualized rate of 4.5 percent.
• When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don’t have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing. America’s median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped.
• In 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent …. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America’s total annual income. … By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928 — with 23.5 percent of the total.
• The problem isn’t that typical Americans have spent beyond their means. It’s that their means haven’t kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.
• The puzzle is why so little was done to counteract these forces. Government could have given employees more bargaining power to get higher wages … Safety nets could have been enlarged to compensate for increasing anxieties about job loss …. With the gains from economic growth the nation could have provided Medicare for all, better schools, early childhood education, more affordable public universities, more extensive public transportation. And if more money was needed, taxes could have been raised on the rich.
• Big, profitable companies could have been barred from laying off a large number of workers all at once … Corporations whose research was subsidized by taxpayers could have been required to create jobs in the United States. The minimum wage could have been linked to inflation. And America’s trading partners could have been pushed to establish minimum wages pegged to half their countries’ median wages — thereby ensuring that all citizens shared in gains from trade and creating a new global middle class that would buy more of our exports.
• Democrats have been almost as reluctant to attack inequality or even to recognize it as the central economic and social problem of our age. (As Bill Clinton’s labor secretary, I should know.) The reason is simple. As money has risen to the top, so has political power. Politicians are more dependent than ever on big money for their campaigns.