NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/bit/listserv/csgl/1387

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-06 | 5.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usc!news.aero.org!marken
From: [e-mail] (Richard Marken)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Subject: Re: dear Rick
Date: 5 Nov 1992 21:03:06 GMT
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Lines: 133
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aerospace.aero.org

In article <[e-mail]> Ed Ford <[e-mail]> writes:
>from Ed Ford (921105:1030)
>
>(From Rick Marken 921104.1400)
>
>>It's over.  The 12 year nightmare of greed, division, deceit, and
>>selfishness is kaput...
>
>I don't know what election you were watching, my friend, but most of
>the U.S. Congress is back, bad check passers and all, the organization
>that creates and passes the bills and funds the projects, pork and all.
>You democrats in control theorists clothing have placed the problem
>only on the president.  Now it's all yours, completely yours.  To quote
>New York Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of Bill Clinton's victory. "My
>God, now it's OUR deficit."
>
>>ALL people are control systems -- not just rich, protestant,
>>heterosexual, white males.
>
>Gee, what do you call Clinton and Gore, Buddhists?

Tom Bourbon added:

>Ditto

Ouch. Et Tu, Tom?

Well, let me just try to correct this little disturbance (for the
sake of my own perceptions, of course).

First, a quick note on "bad check passers"; it might sound great
if you already dislike congress people but these people were
hardly abusing the system; I don't even fault the republicans who
did it. These folks were led to understand that they could write
checks against their account even though their paycheck was not
yet deposited. They were taking a perk that, perhaps, was not
explicitly provided, but this was certainly not craven abuse of
power; just a misunderstanding (except in a very small number of
cases). It was a non-issue and the election results suggest that
it was not much of a factor.

As for the congress being the source of all our ills -- well, I
agree that there is a great deal of "pork barrel" stuff going on,
but it is rather bipartisan. And the president is supposed to set
the agenda, right? And there have been presidents who have been able
to successfully deal with congresses of the other party. It ain't
easy to deal with the special interests in congress -- but that's
part of the job of the president, I'm afraid. Maybe he should have
tried a little cooperation rather than confrontation.

But the main reason for my remarks was this:

My image of a president is of someone who should lead by articulating
as best as possible a consensual system concept which, if adopted
by most people in the community, could lead to cooperative efforts that
improve individual control. Reagan and Bush did not articulate (to
me) such a system concept (well, Reagan kind of did). My own
perception of the system concept communicated during this era was
one that encouraged interpersonal conflict and greed as an economic
policy, that was actively hostile to cultural diversity, and that
encouraged only one approach to conflict resolution -- force. All this
is just perception but I felt like a definite outsider during this whole
period (Bush even said that I should be disenfranchised -- he said
that athiests are not really american citizens; silly and harmless
but it contributes to a perception). So there is a certain zeitgeist
that is communicated by leadership; and it is that zeitgeist that I
found very uncomfortable (to me -- that's just a reflection of my
reference for a system concept; apparently, 37% of the people were
at least OK with the Reagan/Bush zeitgeist).

I think the loop gain between actions of president/congress and
individuals in society is pretty loose. But there are some influences;
not always intentional. Something did happen during Reagan/
Bush that is upsetting to me: it came to pass in that time that the
wealth controlled by the top 1% went WAY UP and that controlled
by the lowest 50% went WAY DOWN. Now I don't think Reagan/Bush
tried to make this happen ON PURPOSE and I don't think
they influenced this on their own (congress is part of the problem)
but it happened; and it is a result that is consistent with the
system concept I was picking up: "conflict is good and the strong
survive and get the goodies. The poor, the weak, etc, ie the people
who didn't vote, are just left behind -- the fact that they were out
on the streets is just evidence of their incompetence". Well, that's
their system concept. I'm happy because I see a new president who is
already starting to articulate a coorperative system concept, a non-
punitive system concept. It's not perfect (from my point of view) but
its a hell of a lot closer to the kind of system concept I like than
was the one articulated by Reagan/Bush.

Of course, I also like Slick because 1) that was my nickname too, when
I was a kid and 2) he is exactly the same age as I am. We went though
the same stuff; we experienced the Vietnam era from the same perspective,
we're both very smart and cute, we both have grey hair, we both have
very smart/very cute wives;we both value knowledge over belief; we both
care about people; we are now in charge.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled control theory discussion.

Regards

Rick


     **************************************************************

Richard S. Marken                   USMail: 10459 Holman Ave
The Aerospace Corporation                   Los Angeles, CA 90024
E-mail: [e-mail]
[phone] (day)
[phone] (evening)