LIE-IEI: Change through Economy
The LIE-IEI type plays an important role in the formation of public policy. Whereas most LIEs are quite frankly fearful of the public and its moods, LIE-IEI sees themselves as having a tight leverage and control over the course of social policy by means of its pocketbook.
LIE-IEI thought goes in three primary directions, two up and one down. The upward direction, from the EM type to the IM type, mostly manifests as NiFe controlling TeNi and FiSe. Where the people are aligned, there is money to be made, and where goes the populace, so goes tolerance for claims and the distribution of resources. The direction downward, from TeNi IM to NiFe EM, observes that general economic conditions influence the course of popular sentiment and the struggle for "souls". By exerting one's monetary power, it become possible to shape public sentiment through the intentioned withholding of resources and, through the vise of legality and its enforcers, force people to repress themselves to get them (or at least choose an alternative to the restricted resource). Then, with the people aligned to this gambit, the potential for profit on the terms of the withholder is that much greater, and the process is repeated until the population is fully aligned to the interests of the LIE-IEI.
There are two primary ways that LIE-IEI ambition manifests itself, depending on the political orientation of the individual. The negativist sees problems with the current market, perhaps believing it is not what it "should" be, and aligns people to the withholding of the undesirable market element to the end of forcing the alignment of the people's choices around an alternative. For example, consider the environmental lobby which invests in ethanol and other renewable fuels. Here we see a general dynamic between proponents of taxation on non-renewables (such as fossile fuels), and the oil/natural gas companies and their ideological allies who oppose such taxes. Taxes go up; the oil companies lose money; the consumer cost is shifted to the consumer; the theory that consumers will pay even more for oil is proven. The price of gas goes up, up, up. The taxes vanish in protest, and the price goes up to match the demonstrated market cap. The liberal LIE-IEIs praise the increase, that people are now compelled away from fossil fuels. Both sides of the aisle benefit by playing off of each other.
There are two angles on LIE-IEI independent of political orientation: TeNi and NiFe themselves, and the relationships between aspects of the same kind. Gamma Te processes both wealth and trade (joined by the concept of employment), where beta Ni processes both choice and ideology (the twin components of alliance). Thus there are LIE-IEIs who emphasize the strategic end, and LIE-IEIs who emphasize the conversion of national business models in the direction of their specific ideologies. Somewhere these two find a common cause in each other, and this is the financial end of national/international scheming. (the historical end is upheld by the ILI-IEIs, as you might imagine). This not to say that all gamma NT IEI EMs are scheming devils... there is a responsible middle path. We observe rather that it can be difficult at times not to see good cause for such schemes, regardless of their repercussions.
Who are LIE-IEIs in positions of influence today? The most remarkable may be Grover Norquist. Mr. Norquist is arguably the "power behind the throne" in GOP politics, wielding his vast alliance and connections on behalf of his organization, Americans For Tax Reform. He was appointed by Reagan to oversee Iran Contra; was instrumental in the 1994 defeat of the Clinton health plan; and according to reports, anointed George W. Bush as the Republican nominee in 2000. As an LSE-IEI, Mr. Bush would hardly be in a position to argue with the insight of his more intuitive partner in policy -- the tax cut plans Bush pushed were largely Norquist's handiwork. Norquist remains powerful today -- indeed, as recently as this morning, Republicans on Capitol Hill complained to reporters that they were afraid to negotiate tax hikes with the White House for fear that Norquist would paint them as out of line with conservative principles, effectively serving them on a silver platter to the Tea Party. If the U.S. does eventually default on its debt, Mr. Norquist will no doubt shoulder much of the blame in the eyes of historians.
Together with the Family Research Council, Americans For Tax Reform. Yet in recent years the characteristic LIE value for personal freedom, for themselves and everyone, has clashed with Protestant evangelism, particularly over the issue of gay rights. This is natural for Norquist, who as an IEI EM feels an obligation to break past established cultural barriers in a push for greater and greater humanitarian unity. Having made these bonds, it is the responsibility of LIE-IEI to uphold, unconditionally, the freedom of their contacts. As such, Mr. Norquist finds himself at odds with his own ambition, as his self-same commitment to the inalienable rights of all threatens to break his coalition and with it, his power.
Another article on Norquist, this one with more emphasis on his EM.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 07-13-2011 at 06:01 PM.