125th Edition
Personal Initiative and Situational Resourcefulness
My heart goes out to the children and families affected by the catastrophic floods in Texas. Not surprisingly local, state, and federal agencies have come under severe criticism for poor preparation and inadequate warning systems. In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Costco Synolakis, a professor of engineering at the University of Southern California, suggests several reforms that should be implemented at the local, state, and federal level. There is nothing in his article that doesn’t make logical sense. But for some reason he doesn’t mention any role for personal initiative or situational resourcefulness. The lack of which seems to increase in tandem with the viewpoint that centralized planning can solve every problem, even though history shows that not to be the case.
Thankfully, there are heroes in every tragedy. People taking the initiative, acting instinctively and courageously, risking their own safety to save others. Only brave individuals can respond when time is of the essence. Even the most well-meaning, experienced government agencies are incapable of acting quickly enough. When you add in the risk-avoidance tendency and the it’s not my job mentality that bureaucracies often produce, the response in emergency situations is often too little and too late.
To my knowledge there isn’t a class in elementary, high school, or college that teaches personal initiative and situational resourcefulness. Maybe there should be…
On a related note, I recently finished perhaps the finest book written about Pearl Harbor called “A Day of Infamy” by Walter Lord. It is filled with amazing stories of personal initiative and situational resourcefulness. The book should be required reading for all high school students.
During that fateful morning, military personnel and civilians did things they had never done before but had to in the moment to protect themselves and their families. Cooks operated anti-aircraft guns, enlisted men took over for wounded officers, civilians became nurses and cared for the wounded. It was a tragic day for our country, but a day of heroism, sacrifice, and unbelievable courage. That generation learned personal initiative and situational resourcefulness, not in school, but in real life. On farms and in factories, in cities and small towns. As a kid I knew a lot of these kinds of people. For most of them there wasn’t much they couldn’t do when it came to day-to-day challenges like automotive and appliance repair, even basic plumbing and electrical work. It was natural and commonplace to be resourceful. It was as much an overall attitude as it was knowledge and experience.
Generally speaking, my generation isn’t quite as resourceful as the Greatest Generation for two reasons, one that is natural and unavoidable, and another that is rather unsettling. First, it’s a natural development in response to all the technology we have come to rely upon. Since things are so much more complex, it makes sense that a special technician would be called upon to fix whatever breaks. This dynamic has created millions of service jobs across various industries.
The second reason for the decline in personal initiative and situational resourcefulness is the continued growth in the administrative state. It is a challenge to think of any aspect of everyday life that some government agency or bureaucracy doesn’t regulate or control in some fashion. The more intrusive the government gets; the less personal initiative and resourcefulness individuals tend to rely on. This attitudinal shift is not all bad, but it does have unintended consequences that aren’t so positive.
As a result, today there are two powerful ideologies on an unavoidable collision course in our country. The first advocates for greater government control of our economy and the private sector. It doesn’t want anyone to get too far ahead or any group to get too far behind. A belief that socialism or more government control can create an economic utopia shows a profound lack of knowledge about economics and how market forces work, as well as a disregard or misunderstanding of history. The second ideology prefers limited government, free enterprise, and a commitment to individual freedom and opportunity.
A few points about this ideological battle. First, we need government at various levels to do certain things and do them efficiently and effectively. At the same time, we need a thriving private sector to fuel economic growth, innovation, and to compete successfully in the global economy. Finding the optimal balance between the public and private sector is never easy. Over our nation’s history the pendulum has, at times, swung too far in both directions.
When it swings too far toward over-regulation, higher taxes, and bureaucratic micro-management, growth and innovation tend to suffer. Alternatively, when there are too few government controls, income inequality tends to result. Economic growth increases, as does wealth creation, but not evenly.
My point here is this. We never get it exactly right, but we do tend to move back to the middle after we move too far in either direction. And that is a very good thing. We have a self-correcting mechanism in our DNA, comprised of common sense, wisdom, and experience. I also believe there is a divine component guiding us to eventually find steady ground away from either extreme, while reminding us that rights always come with responsibilities. We have free will. We make lots of mistakes. Over time we correct most of them. What an amazing world our incredible God created.
Please help me grow my readership by forwarding this to a friend(s). In the meantime, stay tuned for my next newsletter. Thanks!
Michael Kayes
*These views are my personal opinions and are not the viewpoints of any company or organization.