Does America Got Talent?

Nowadays the most popular T.V. shows are neither comedies nor dramas - they are called reality T.V. shows.  Among the most popular are American Idol and America’s Got Talent.  Both shows audition thousands of American hopefuls who truly believe that they have a great talent.  The judges on these programs reduce the thousands to about 48 or 24 and then ask the American public to judge the performers and by their vote select and reject participants until only one remains.

Both shows originated in England (yes, I said England, not Great Britain or the U.K., but England!).  Both use judges from England as well as a few Americans to see if America really has talent.  And do we?

We watch the many pathetic souls who believe that their life’s salvation depends on some great talent if only it could be discovered.  We watch only to learn that in that case there is absolutely no hope for their salvation, since their talent was only  imagined.  It’s like watching the characters from Midnight Cowboy competing hoping for a miracle that never happens.

It soon becomes painfully obvious that barely a handful of the contestants have a talent of any real value.  The choices are usually so obvious that the voting seems spot on.  But then when the only really talented people remain, the top five or six, the voting becomes a popularity contest rather than one for talent.  The clearly best singer or act might not win because of some personal characteristic that does not appeal to the masses.  In American Idol it is usually because the talent seems too gay or too ethnic.  The winner is usually the nice, white, Christian person with some real talent, just not the most. The most recent winner was an exception to the rule.

I look at our country and see a similar situation.  We have nationwide, statewide and local talent contests every two, four and six years.  In every race, there are more contenders than positions and so the people must choose the one with the most talent for the elected office. Many of those running think that they have great talent that needs only to be discovered.  Many think that they can lead their electorate by making wise decisions on their behalf.  And we see it again now as the minority party tries to select a nominee to run against the President of the United States in “America’s Got A Talented Leader.”

There have been about nine people who formally announced their ambition to run for the highest office in the land.  How many of them have any talent for this competition?

There is the smartest of the group.  He has a Phd. in something basic like history.  He has white hair and used to be the Speaker of the House until his caucus told him to stop speaking for them and invited him to return to private life suggesting the professorial route given his education.  He chose the lobbyist/consultant route given his apparent propensity for greed and gluttony.  He had been doing the worst of the group putting his foot into his mouth each time it opened.  He reminded us why he lost his government job 15 long years ago.  We had almost forgotten how severe his hypocrisy really was.  But he somehow stayed in the competition and by a process of elimination rose to the top of this unsightly heap.

There is the one also exited from office and whose name means something unimaginably vile while his political opinions are almost worse.  He would eliminate Social Security and Medicare.  That would really do the trick.  No doubt, this candidate is eligible for neither so why should anyone else be?

Then there is a businessman who must have gotten lucky and made some money somehow.  It was not with intellect - no thinking or analysis there.  He got confused about what Libya was, came out with an absurd economic plan and then forgot about the settlements made to women who claimed he harassed them while he was carrying on a 13 year extra marital affair which he confused with a friendship with benefits.

These three contestants would have been eliminated at their first audition if this were a talent show.  That would leave six.  Check them out.

The leader of this group has been on the show before.  He was a contestant four years ago and was doing well until his policies came back to contradict him at every turn.  People quickly saw him as a phony who would say anything to get a vote.  His big pluses are that he is very rich and very good looking.  But those are his only pluses.

The understudy who was hoping to be there when numero uno falls, has a first name that seems to be an abbreviation of his character flaw - timidity.  He could not help appearing desperately weak while being too nice to be saying all those terrible things about his opponents. He has since departed quietly from the stage, almost unnoticed.  His best bet would be to change his name, grow a beard to strengthen his chin, die his hair white and run as an unknown, in Canada.

There is also a backup understudy who might even be related to the declared front runner.  They are both rich and are both very handsome and they share the same religion.  The understudy is more of an independent than a bone fide contestant in this talent show.  He is there just in case the judging audience comes to its senses, an unlikely scenario.

Then there are the next two.  One can only wonder who persuaded them to consider running for an office they could never win.  The two are very similar but not in good ways.  They both claim to be evangelical which means against gays, minorities, the poor, welfare, abortion and science.  They both feel that G-d speaks to them and that they respond because they want to help G-d do His work.  Neither has a clue about economics or foreign policy.  Their mantra is identical - cut taxes and shrink the government to its minimal and let the kindness and wisdom of the free market system driven by the richest among us rule the day.  The fact that both have spent their entire professional lives working for the government does not seem to faze them, it might actually strengthen their argument by making government employees look even worse.

At least with America’s Got Talent and American Idol, the five finalists have talent.  In this case the only one among them with any talent is the one most neglected because he is such a libertarian.  If he were on the talent shows he would lose because he isn’t the type to be popular even if he is the most talented.  Could he ever be forgiven for raising the son who went on to become Kentucky’s junior senator and its senior crazy?  Will he try to deny paternity at this late date?

I find it sad not only that this is all the talent the minority party can bring at such an important election, but that the American people are not surprised at our lack of political talent.  We have gotten used to being disappointed, so human failure is no shock to us. We’ve gotten used to inadequate news coverage of complex issues, and inadequate medical care caused by assembly line like appointments necessitated to maximize corporate profit.  We accept the fact that our public schools can not properly educate our children and that our precious tax dollars will be squandered in vain attempts to assist countries controlled by dictators.  We recognize that most of our T.V. shows and commercials as well as most of our movies will fail to entertain or enlighten us.  We have already stopped believing our politicians but nowadays we don’t even expect them to be intelligent, informed or having any integrity, with one notable exception, and from him we expect perfection, meaning doing everything we want. 

Foreigners always say that they hate the American government but love the American people.  Many of us have learned to accept that as making any sense at all.  In America we freely elect fellow Americans to run our government.  How are the two different?  The answer is they are not.

We Americans who know that we are the greatest people on earth living in the greatest country on earth under the greatest political system on earth, also accept all these afore-mentioned short comings in direct contradiction of and opposition to greatness.

Does America got talent? Does the emperor got new clothes?

Private and Public Ownership

For thousands of years, the notion of private property and ownership has been basic to Western Civilization beginning before the Old Testament and reinforced again in the New Testament.  We own many things.  Our possessions include our furnishings, clothing, cars, and real estate as well as less physical things like our names, our memories, our talents, our personality, our thoughts and, to some degree, our loved ones - human and otherwise.  Victims claim that losing their family member was like losing part of themselves.  Those who have dogs are called dog owners.

There is also the notion of public ownership.  Citizens are part owners of their homeland and residents are part owners of their public spaces, like parks, highways and bridges.  Those who pay for, use and depend upon public facilities have a vested interest in their continued availability.  Citizens elect representatives to not only make and enforce policies for the greater good, but also to properly maintain our public property.

The private sector which affects the flow of private property is driven by the profit motive, enlightened self-interest.  In our western, capitalistic society, the banking industry controls the flow of capital - the cause and effect of private ownership, by deciding to whom to lend money and for whom to deny it.

The public sector is controlled by government agencies whose bottom line is the efficient and effective distribution of public services to create and maintain public property not profit. 

Private sector workers are primarily motivated by the same profit motive as is their industry.  In this sector, in order to ensure maximized profit, employees are evaluated based on their    ability and effectiveness.  Just as private sector firms are competitive, so are their employees.  Only the best survive.  The better you do, the better you do.

In the public sector, workers are motivated either by a love of service to the community or the comfort of knowing that their jobs are safe and that their performance will not be used for or against them when it comes to raises and promotions.  This environment can foster a spirit of cooperation rather than competition.  It can also cause some to become less enthusiastic about doing much at work since it makes very little extrinsic difference.

We see this in education where poor teachers who have seniority don’t have to worry about losing their jobs because any layoffs that occur will affect the least senior teachers no matter how excellent their work has been.  We see this in our city’s and probably our state’s civil service system.  Public employees testing for promotional opportunities can not be judged on any of their past evaluations, no matter how behavior-based, because they could be subjective.  The promotion must be based on seniority as well as the results (subjective or objective) of a standardized oral and/or written examination.  Seniority and test taking ability are considered more important than actual performance.

The same is true in many public sector agencies where transfers to other units are granted based on seniority of the requester and the request and not past performance.

The effect of this difference in private and public sector performance is striking. The private sector employee is motivated by fear of job loss and ambition to succeed as well as any intrinsic motivations that might be involved such as pride in one’s work, wanting the organization to succeed, being of service and a nice working environment. The public sector employee can enjoy job security and excellent present and future  fringe benefits like a good pension, with some getting 90% of their pay in retirement and a Cadillac health plan.  There also is the satisfaction of serving the public to help make life that much more pleasant for the people affected by their services - police officers save lives and arrest criminals; firefighters save burning buildings and rush people suffering illness or injury to the hospital to sometimes save their lives; nurses and social workers help those in greatest social or physical need. Public sector gardeners can provide the community with beautiful spaces filled with nature as relief from the concrete and metal that surrounds us.

We must encourage our private sector by making wise purchases that reward quality and creativity, while our government agencies insure that the private sector companies can compete fairly and honestly in the free market to provide goods and services as effectively and efficiently as possible.

We must motivate our public service sector by treasuring our public property and insisting that it be maintained. Government agencies must stimulate their staff to maximize performance by holding them accountable to achieve certain agreed upon objectives and  responsibilities and by basing their career successes on their actual performance and not just their seniority.  

Historical, as well as current evidence, strongly suggests that the population is best served when there is a thriving, competitive, law abiding and creative private sector complemented by a vibrant, hard working, efficient and effective public sector to do what the other sector can’t or won’t.