| Technological Optimism |
During a recent trip to Massachusetts, I had an opportunity to visit the Norman Rockwell Museum at Stockbridge. The remarkable record of American life in the Rockwell paintings is wonderful. One display in the museum featured all of his
Saturday Evening Post covers in chronological order around the walls of the lower floor rooms.In this display, I noticed a consistent feature - Rockwell continually portrayed the positive aspects of the contemporary culture. As the covers chronicle the years of the Great Depression, we see ordinary people vividly displayed - but pessimism and suffering are never the dominant theme. Even the covers during World War II mix patriotism and pathos realistically, but they never depress the viewer.
These paintings reminded me of one of Ronald Reagan's great strengths. President Reagan always projected a positive, optimistic image - and he, like Rockwell, did this with a populist flair that made everyone feel he was just like them. Neither man seemed to have an elitist cell anywhere in his brain.
Whether in painters, politicians, entrepreneurs, scientists or others, this is real leadership. It is the art of drawing out the very best in the human spirit from each person - the art of mobilizing the best in men. This done, the concerted actions of most men, as individuals or as a nation, take care of themselves. There is always a positive road forward or, in the case of misadventure, a usable road back. The trick is to recognize those roads regardless of often confusing circumstances.
While human beings can be motivated - for short periods of time - by playing to their baser instincts of fear, greed, and envy, demagogues who do this are generally failures who ultimately become merely unsightly litter along the highways of recorded history. It is those who bring out the best in us - not those who control us by our faults - who deserve recognition as prime builders of our civilization.
Moreover, we never lose many of our childlike characteristics -nor should we, since they include our best instincts. One is that
children learn by example. We learn academic knowledge from books and learn to "watch our backs'' in some of the harder schools of life - but it is by example that we are led to emphasize our best features.Thomas Edison was a great leader - not because he held positions of leadership, not because he had no faults, not because he was an orator - but simply because of the example he set in his work. Within those generations were John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Henry Ford - each of whom accomplished specific things, but whose greater contribution to America may well have been the examples they set as to what could be done.
When men first set foot on the moon, it was not just current technologists who put them there. It was the examples set within Ameri-can society by its past generations of great entrepreneurs, inventors, engineers, and scientists that instilled the individuals and the country with the leadership by example that made them believe they really could go to the moon. John F. Kennedy deserves credit for mobilizing resources and setting a goal, but he could never have convinced Americans that they could go to the moon - regardless of his great skills of oratory. One cannot convince people of such things by lecturing to them. They were convinced - by example - by Edison, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, and thousands of other individuals whoseaccomplishmentssetexamplesfortheirpeersanddescendants.
Today free men are seemingly beset on all sides by unproductive demagogues who are controlling our government and many of our people by fear, greed, and envy. These sorts of leeches have, however, always been with us. The enviros will pass. The antitechnolo-gists will pass. And those who feed upon the worst in human nature -the William Clintons and Albert Gores - will also pass. They accomplish nothing and inspire no one. Their examples are negative and unenduring. They may delay our trips to Mars; they may impede our technological revolutions in health care and longevity; and they may postpone our future in which the currency of technological progress -
energy - becomes, like bandwidth on the Internet, so inexpensive that supplies are essentially infinite and effectively free - but our civilization will eventually leave them behind. We will pass them - smiling like Ronald Reagan, living as portrayed by Norman Rockwell, innovating like Thomas Edison, and refusing all goals except the great ones as did our most magnificent entrepreneurs and industrialists.While the American stock market is now ridiculously high by any rational standards and it may, indeed, be driven primarily by the fear of the middle-aged who have saved little and see their last chance in the gambling pits of New York, there may be another explanation.
The drift toward decentralization that started in the Soviet Union is spreading all over the world. The confluence of this trend (which frees individuals from the heavy hand of centralized government) with the astounding array of technological miracles that are flooding into the world from engineering, science, and individual entrepreneurs, may mean that the Year 2000 truly is a turning point - not downward into collapse - but upward into astonishing progress.
With abundant energy from nuclear power and coal, oil, and natural gas, 4 billion people in the third world are now lifting themselves from poverty and joining the technological revolution. This enormous increase in human resources will, as Julian Simon would predict, increase the abundance and drive down the cost of natural resources - leading to an even faster rate of industrial progress.
Could it be that our markets are now discounting these events? Sharply lower commodity prices can mean deflationary collapse, but they can also predict rapid technological improvement. High Ameri-can stock prices can be an investment mania, but they can also portend a nearing period of rapid economic expansion. America, by example, will be the epicenter of any such technological advance.
Timing is always the difficult part. I am sure that an extended period of astonishing technological advance is in our future - but when? Will a period of contraction come before it? The answer is - to plan for both. As I was advised by my mother 40 years ago, "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and take what comes.'' I think that 6 billion people, the miracles of science and technology, and the examples of our great innovators will not be denied. Having made self-sufficiency preparations as insurance against the worst, I actually expect the best - a technological expansion between 2000 and 2020 that will completely transform human civilization.