I’ve edited out Harris’ very kind comments to me, for the record:
Dear Mr. Goldberg,
You make an excellent point about the American tradition of “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, try again,” and I am in complete agreement with you about how important this has been to our long run success. Henry Ford is a wonderful example. However, I would like to make the following point, with which I think you will agree.
This attitude of “try, try, try again” is natural to the entrepreneur, who by definition is a risk-taker, and hence is fully aware that there is a necessary connection between high risk and high profit, just as economist Frank H. Knight argued.
But this same attitude will not be found in those for whom it never makes any sense to take a risk: academicians and those moving up the corporate ladder. For them, routine is the path to success, and not risk–though, of course, we are now talking about two quite different notions of success.
The pertinent question, however, is this: Which model is the appropriate one to guide our political leaders? The risk model or the routine model?
To me, and I suspect to you, the answer is obvious: The risk model. The risk-taker is not surprised that his risk hasn’t paid off, and immediately goes back and begins to meditate, “Where did I go wrong?” For Henry Ford, it was the realization that the future of the automobile was not the high price luxury yacht model, but the inexpensive bicycle model.
Alas, those people who have been following the routine, and who go wrong, are apt to look around for someone else to blame. Hey, we did everything by the book…so how could we have messed up? Certainly, the book couldn’t have been wrong.
At which point they start holding hearings, to find out who didn’t follow the correct procedure. (Sound familiar?)….
Your fan,
Lee Harris