During a recent business trip to Savannah, I had a very interesting conversation with a member of that unique social scientist group ---- my cab driver. I always find these conversations insightful, given their exposure and conversations with such a diverse audience of riders. (A few weeks earlier in Houston, my driver from the Philippines gave me a long and refreshing discourse on his excitement in almost becoming a new U.S. citizen.)
In this case, my driver was highly motivated to discuss the issues of $4/gallon gasoline. Certainly highly pertinent and of direct consequence to this small business entrepreneur. After we each concurred with the seriousness of this economic grenade thrown at our economy, the question was “so how do we fix it?”
His main point was that our people can no longer avoid the reality of our excessive oil consumption. Even forgetting all of the political overtones of this issue, the need to realign our power needs with smart sources of supply has to become our major priority. My driver argued a strong case that, once we break the unholy alliance of Detroit automakers with Houston oil companies and create space for American scientists and entrepreneurs, solutions are there waiting to be had. Whether it be better mpg optimization of the gasoline we do use, or the use of non-gasoline fuels, or the use of simplified economical cars appropriate to their functional use (versus driving Hummers to the local grocery store), the answer is NOT continuing in the same old directions. We do not need more oil; we need a whole new thinking about our transportation needs --- and the lifestyles we live that demand such transportation.
Given the extreme difficulty in getting us to make changes in our lifestyles, family, and work mentalities, my driver’s belief was that $4/gallon was the best thing that could happen to us. (Notwithstanding the obscenely excess profits retained by the oil companies.) That appears to be the level of pain necessary to finally move us into action.
When he also made a pitch for more off-shore drilling, my response was “but if we need to move to a fundamental change, isn’t chasing more oil simply a fool’s mission that continues to divert us from the hard job we need to focus on?” He switched gears and went to my argument: partly the strength of my unarguable logic, partly his adroit reading and accommodating of his backseat client!
He also related a story about passengers from Brazil that he had driven. That country’s focused and coordinated effort to switch to domestically-created bio-fuel is a standard for “what can be done” to aspire to. His passengers confirmed that @48% of Brazil’s fuel is bio-fuel. But they said the equally important news is that they are using sugar cane residue as their bio-source, which has no impact on the food supply (unlike the corn that we are unwisely diverting into fuel). Further, most of the remaining fuel consumption is coming from natural gas, not oil-based gasoline. All of this has reduced their import of oil/gasoline to almost nil --- and gotten them off the world petroleum market merry-go-round.
The bottom line is that Jimmy Carter’s energy warning 35 years ago, ridiculed at the time, was right. And we are all responsible for doing nothing about it. The blame belongs to all of us, but it is counter-productive to spend much time on that. It is not about America wasting our time talking about summer gas tax holidays, off-shore or Alaska drilling, or diverting corn into ethanol at a net financial and carbon loss. It is not about stupid ideas and nonsensical political slogans.
It is about designing new function-appropriate cars. It is about new fuels that are replenishible and harvestable from stable political environments. It is about relocating homes / work / neighborhoods / to eliminate bumper-to-bumper cars on our “expressways.” It is about redesigning the workplace for telecommuting, or distributing corporate operations to the rural communities that need them. It takes big picture, integrated thinking coupled with a national plan. John Kennedy sent the nation to the moon. George Bush didn’t even know gas had reached $4.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Support Our Troops
In my driving, I frequently pass vehicles with bumper stickers proclaiming “Support Our Troops.” The good news is that this is one instance in which we have actually learned something from our Viet Nam experience: the separation of the duty of military personnel to observe the directives of its civilian policy-maker leaders, versus those policies and directives themselves. (Unfortunately, the moral dilemma illustrated at Nuremburg from WWII and My Lai from Viet Nam of taking “just following orders” to the absolute is still being painfully worked out.) Notwithstanding, continually reaffirming to our young men and women that their sacrificial efforts in many various forms on our behalf is important to do.
The other day, a truck passed me with a billboard of a bumper sticker that read “My USA supports our troops. NO aid or comfort to our enemies. No way.”
That person’s passion on the subject was clear. The danger in this passion is that proper and needed debate on the policy and direction questions is so often quickly dismissed under the “support our troops = support our policy” umbrella. Weak policy hides under fake calls of patriotism; outdated policies survive under the demagoguery that “a change of direction increases the vulnerability of our troops.” Such statements reveal the rhetoric of a fool.
“Supporting our troops” does not preclude arguing with our political leaders about the missions we give to those troops. These troops are an important investment for our nation; they are critically needed at certain moments in our nation’s life. But they are an instrument of human lives. Their use requires our greatest wisdom that we can possibly bring to bear, wisdom that arises from open debate and cautious judgment. Being clear about their objective, keeping them from being used stupidly, and ensuring the full complement of their toolkit, is collectively the true best possible support we can give to them.
The other day, a truck passed me with a billboard of a bumper sticker that read “My USA supports our troops. NO aid or comfort to our enemies. No way.”
That person’s passion on the subject was clear. The danger in this passion is that proper and needed debate on the policy and direction questions is so often quickly dismissed under the “support our troops = support our policy” umbrella. Weak policy hides under fake calls of patriotism; outdated policies survive under the demagoguery that “a change of direction increases the vulnerability of our troops.” Such statements reveal the rhetoric of a fool.
“Supporting our troops” does not preclude arguing with our political leaders about the missions we give to those troops. These troops are an important investment for our nation; they are critically needed at certain moments in our nation’s life. But they are an instrument of human lives. Their use requires our greatest wisdom that we can possibly bring to bear, wisdom that arises from open debate and cautious judgment. Being clear about their objective, keeping them from being used stupidly, and ensuring the full complement of their toolkit, is collectively the true best possible support we can give to them.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Primary Observations
Our long presidential primary season has mercifully come to an end. Perhaps not quite up to par with “our long national nightmare has ended,” but close. As required, almost 20 aspirers have been winnowed down to two left standing, with a couple of 3rd-party crusaders nibbling at the fringe. Excluding the issue of its elongated timeline, it was certainly one of the most interesting primary campaigns in years, and most engaging in the level of citizen participation. And very revealing in many forms. I offer the following observations:
1. Cut future primaries to be shorter and less costly. Enough said.
2. The campaign introduced us to a diverse variety of characters. Some of these should never have kidded themselves (Brownback, Dodd). Some enlivened the discussion (Paul, Huckabee, Kucinich). Biden distinguished himself with his intelligence and experience and finally found his persona. Romney is still looking for true character. Guiliani never found a strategy that made any sense. Edwards connected but was always second choice.
3. In the end, McCain snuck in between the Republican confusion about what they wanted or didn’t want. Hillary and Barack captured the “new day” imagination of voters who need to see a major turn in direction and the players.
4. At certain milestones, there is always a general turnover in politics. John Kennedy ended the reign of the WWI generation who led us through WWII, and (except for Carter’s election) moved leadership to the young “greatest generation” vets of WWII. Bill Clinton said goodbye to the WWII generation and passed the mantle on to the Viet Nam/60s generation. Whether McCain will be the last of that generation, or Obama will represent the handing over to the kids of the 60s, we will have to see. The generational contrast will be a significant factor this fall.
5. For perhaps the first time, every state (and even Puerto Rico!) primary mattered to the final outcome on the Democratic Party side. This was a wonderful yet unexpected side outcome of this election.
6. For that reason and others, people were very wrong to call for Hillary’s early concession and withdrawal from the campaign. As were the news media for building steam under that call. Similarly, Huckabee was right to go on until McCain had the definitive numbers in hand. You fight until the closing bell or you have no fight left; you do not sit down in the 3rd quarter and bail out.
7. If Obama wins in November, he will owe a big “thank you” to the Clintons. Truth is and thoughtful intelligence notwithstanding, he is inexperienced on the national stage and with the national media. Bill/Hillary are among the toughest competitors to go up against. Obama is a better and more viable candidate this fall for having been so tested through this primary. And he was thereby forced to build a national organization that can now be drawn upon in the fall. In contrast, McCain’s early victory did not translate into early funding or organization building.
8. Hillary, even though she lost, is a far different and better person and politician than when the primaries started. A better campaigner and more understanding of herself. The last two months of her candidacy leading to her campaign-ending speech and Obama endorsement, were masterful.
9. The news media were typically abysmal. It was all about the election game of polls, the numbers, who’s ahead, and what trivia can be converted into inane headlines. With few exceptions, they were minimally about issues, factual research, calling out candidates on their claims, or providing clarity to the smokescreens and pandering of candidate’s speeches. Thankfully, there is still “The Daily Show” and its reruns of leaders’ and candidates’ past statements to serve that function (comedically or not).
10. The big question is: will John McCain be able to prevent his election apparatus from succumbing into the Lee Atwater / Karl Rove campaign negativity and have the “new campaign” he has promised on meaningful issues instead of personality and phony hysterical sound bites that we have endured these past 8 years? Or will it be another year of arguing about lapel pins, cooking recipes, who’s a true patriot, class/racial/ethnic divisions, and fear? Propaganda, image and distorted words? We shall see which John McCain shows up for this election. Both McCain and Obama have thus far exercised good judgment in disavowing, or calling to task, inappropriate statements and actions by their supporters.
11. We will miss Tim Russert’s insight, humor, and integrity.
1. Cut future primaries to be shorter and less costly. Enough said.
2. The campaign introduced us to a diverse variety of characters. Some of these should never have kidded themselves (Brownback, Dodd). Some enlivened the discussion (Paul, Huckabee, Kucinich). Biden distinguished himself with his intelligence and experience and finally found his persona. Romney is still looking for true character. Guiliani never found a strategy that made any sense. Edwards connected but was always second choice.
3. In the end, McCain snuck in between the Republican confusion about what they wanted or didn’t want. Hillary and Barack captured the “new day” imagination of voters who need to see a major turn in direction and the players.
4. At certain milestones, there is always a general turnover in politics. John Kennedy ended the reign of the WWI generation who led us through WWII, and (except for Carter’s election) moved leadership to the young “greatest generation” vets of WWII. Bill Clinton said goodbye to the WWII generation and passed the mantle on to the Viet Nam/60s generation. Whether McCain will be the last of that generation, or Obama will represent the handing over to the kids of the 60s, we will have to see. The generational contrast will be a significant factor this fall.
5. For perhaps the first time, every state (and even Puerto Rico!) primary mattered to the final outcome on the Democratic Party side. This was a wonderful yet unexpected side outcome of this election.
6. For that reason and others, people were very wrong to call for Hillary’s early concession and withdrawal from the campaign. As were the news media for building steam under that call. Similarly, Huckabee was right to go on until McCain had the definitive numbers in hand. You fight until the closing bell or you have no fight left; you do not sit down in the 3rd quarter and bail out.
7. If Obama wins in November, he will owe a big “thank you” to the Clintons. Truth is and thoughtful intelligence notwithstanding, he is inexperienced on the national stage and with the national media. Bill/Hillary are among the toughest competitors to go up against. Obama is a better and more viable candidate this fall for having been so tested through this primary. And he was thereby forced to build a national organization that can now be drawn upon in the fall. In contrast, McCain’s early victory did not translate into early funding or organization building.
8. Hillary, even though she lost, is a far different and better person and politician than when the primaries started. A better campaigner and more understanding of herself. The last two months of her candidacy leading to her campaign-ending speech and Obama endorsement, were masterful.
9. The news media were typically abysmal. It was all about the election game of polls, the numbers, who’s ahead, and what trivia can be converted into inane headlines. With few exceptions, they were minimally about issues, factual research, calling out candidates on their claims, or providing clarity to the smokescreens and pandering of candidate’s speeches. Thankfully, there is still “The Daily Show” and its reruns of leaders’ and candidates’ past statements to serve that function (comedically or not).
10. The big question is: will John McCain be able to prevent his election apparatus from succumbing into the Lee Atwater / Karl Rove campaign negativity and have the “new campaign” he has promised on meaningful issues instead of personality and phony hysterical sound bites that we have endured these past 8 years? Or will it be another year of arguing about lapel pins, cooking recipes, who’s a true patriot, class/racial/ethnic divisions, and fear? Propaganda, image and distorted words? We shall see which John McCain shows up for this election. Both McCain and Obama have thus far exercised good judgment in disavowing, or calling to task, inappropriate statements and actions by their supporters.
11. We will miss Tim Russert’s insight, humor, and integrity.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Buying the Presidency - Part 2
Awhile back, a long-time friend wrote to me in regard to my blog of February 5, 2008, that questioned Mitt Romney’s fundraising and spending approaches in support of his candidacy for president. My good friend raised two critical-thinking questions for me: 1) did my concerns about Mitt’s wealth reflect envy on my part, and 2) isn’t Mitt (or anyone else) free to spend his/her money as one chooses?
I am in the process of responding to my friend directly about question #1; that seemed to be too parochial a question to answer within this blog medium. My response to his question #2 is below. The discussion still seems to be pertinent, since Mitt Romney is currently making such an open play for the Republican vice presidential nod.
*****
Do I object to people spending their money as they wish? No, certainly not unless I would invite the same objections to my own spending decisions. I can hope that a person understands that their wealth came from many others, no matter how smart or hardworking or entrepreneurial s/he might be, and therefore there is some level of responsibility due to those “others.” I can hope that people retain their humility in the presence of wealth, realizing that neither wealth nor education necessarily equates with good character, responsibility and fairness. But at the end of the day, it is each person’s decision as to how they use the resources that come their way.
The decisions that they make, and the motivation that drives those decisions, will visibly demonstrate their character, values and judgment. Those decisions thereby serve as the basis of my choices of who I respect not just for their accumulation of wealth, but also for their use of that wealth. If you then choose to go into the public place of government service on my behalf, then my respect of you (or not) now becomes particularly important.
For me, the issues in this instance are neither the accumulation of wealth nor the spending of it. As with most things, it is the thinking and the motivation behind people’s actions that I react to. With Warren Buffet, I admire his success at accumulating wealth (versus his total dollars), AND his humility and grounded-ness at living with his wealth, AND his use of his wealth. With Bill Gates, I can question how he accumulated his wealth, I can accept how he is living with his wealth, and I can respect how he is now using it (though his motivation may still require some examination). With Donald Trump, there is no facet of him and his wealth that begs admiration, unless you consider wealth important for its own sake. But each of these people is certainly free to engage wealth as each chooses.
For Mitt Romney, it was not his wealth I objected to, which he seems to have come to quite legitimately. It is his attitude that came through so pervasively, i.e. that his electability should be predicated on his wealth, that being successful in business inherently qualifies one to be successful in governmental leadership. The reality is that American government is not a business, was never designed from the get-go to be “run like a business” (although that does not preclude utilizing business-like operating efficiencies). Political leadership and achievement is about vision, compromise, building consensus among divergent but equal stakeholders, attending to and balancing conflicting needs rather than playing to “niche market segments” (a la Karl Rove and George Bush). It is not about electability, it is about governing.
The US Congress is not a stockholder’s meeting, the Supreme Court is not a corporate board, and state governments are not subsidiary corporations. It was Romney’s lack of understanding and connection with many facets of the American citizenry, and the failure to truly understand “government” for what it is, that I think ultimately undermined him. It is why his (or any other) campaign must show a broad body of public support – via volunteerism, fundraising, and ultimately votes – in order to qualify one for public office (versus being designated as corporate CEO).
Mitt Romney could have spent as much of his own money as he wanted to get elected. But as Iowa and New Hampshire showed so clearly, if you do not work from a body of principles that comes ahead of electioneering, if you do not ultimately make a human connection with enough people such that they feel you understand them and deserve their trust to act in their collective best interest, no amount of TV ads can buy you the presidential seal.
I am in the process of responding to my friend directly about question #1; that seemed to be too parochial a question to answer within this blog medium. My response to his question #2 is below. The discussion still seems to be pertinent, since Mitt Romney is currently making such an open play for the Republican vice presidential nod.
*****
Do I object to people spending their money as they wish? No, certainly not unless I would invite the same objections to my own spending decisions. I can hope that a person understands that their wealth came from many others, no matter how smart or hardworking or entrepreneurial s/he might be, and therefore there is some level of responsibility due to those “others.” I can hope that people retain their humility in the presence of wealth, realizing that neither wealth nor education necessarily equates with good character, responsibility and fairness. But at the end of the day, it is each person’s decision as to how they use the resources that come their way.
The decisions that they make, and the motivation that drives those decisions, will visibly demonstrate their character, values and judgment. Those decisions thereby serve as the basis of my choices of who I respect not just for their accumulation of wealth, but also for their use of that wealth. If you then choose to go into the public place of government service on my behalf, then my respect of you (or not) now becomes particularly important.
For me, the issues in this instance are neither the accumulation of wealth nor the spending of it. As with most things, it is the thinking and the motivation behind people’s actions that I react to. With Warren Buffet, I admire his success at accumulating wealth (versus his total dollars), AND his humility and grounded-ness at living with his wealth, AND his use of his wealth. With Bill Gates, I can question how he accumulated his wealth, I can accept how he is living with his wealth, and I can respect how he is now using it (though his motivation may still require some examination). With Donald Trump, there is no facet of him and his wealth that begs admiration, unless you consider wealth important for its own sake. But each of these people is certainly free to engage wealth as each chooses.
For Mitt Romney, it was not his wealth I objected to, which he seems to have come to quite legitimately. It is his attitude that came through so pervasively, i.e. that his electability should be predicated on his wealth, that being successful in business inherently qualifies one to be successful in governmental leadership. The reality is that American government is not a business, was never designed from the get-go to be “run like a business” (although that does not preclude utilizing business-like operating efficiencies). Political leadership and achievement is about vision, compromise, building consensus among divergent but equal stakeholders, attending to and balancing conflicting needs rather than playing to “niche market segments” (a la Karl Rove and George Bush). It is not about electability, it is about governing.
The US Congress is not a stockholder’s meeting, the Supreme Court is not a corporate board, and state governments are not subsidiary corporations. It was Romney’s lack of understanding and connection with many facets of the American citizenry, and the failure to truly understand “government” for what it is, that I think ultimately undermined him. It is why his (or any other) campaign must show a broad body of public support – via volunteerism, fundraising, and ultimately votes – in order to qualify one for public office (versus being designated as corporate CEO).
Mitt Romney could have spent as much of his own money as he wanted to get elected. But as Iowa and New Hampshire showed so clearly, if you do not work from a body of principles that comes ahead of electioneering, if you do not ultimately make a human connection with enough people such that they feel you understand them and deserve their trust to act in their collective best interest, no amount of TV ads can buy you the presidential seal.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
12 Year Old Girl Silences the UN
For this blog posting, I am going to let someone else speak . Someone quite eloquent. This is a short video clip of a then-12-year old girl making a speech to a United Nations Conference on Environment and Development a few years ago. The message is still timely. I recommend you click on the following URL location and take a listen.
From the mouths of babes ......
From the mouths of babes ......
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Talking To Your Enemies
“You talk to the most awful in order to get what you claim to be looking for --- Peace. And you will be surprised ... You don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with the person you regard as your enemy.” (Bishop Desmond Tutu, South Africa)
A few weeks ago, former president Jimmy Carter scheduled meetings with Palestinian Hamas leaders in Gaza, and with leaders of Syria. He sought to continue his quest to try to bring some resolution in the Israel / Palestinian / Middle East dilemma. The effort was based upon his belief that no progress will be made without recognizing the reality of the role and influence that these players have, whether we may like it or not. His efforts were predictably criticized by the Bush administration as ill-timed and improper, followed by charges/counter-charges as to whether he was asked by the administration not to go.
Subsequently, President Bush went to Israel to participate in the celebration of their 60th year as a nation. Instead of playing the true positive statesman/presidential role, he instead appallingly took the low road; he pandered to that local audience by calling people who would talk to terrorists and enemies of Israel as akin to “the appeasers who talked to Hitler, leading to tanks rolling into Poland” in 1939. As is typical with this President, disagreeing with his views equates to being a traitor to freedom and our country’s well being. His words and performance were deservingly outrageous to all who seek genuine peace and an equitable resolution to these most difficult problems.
Never mind that his Secretary of Defense recently said that talking to these same people was ultimately going to have to happen. Or that John McCain (notwithstanding his sad continuing quest to be “politically right” rather than principled) echoed Bush, ignoring that McCain had already previously acknowledged that Hamas et al were “the new reality” that we had to recognize and deal with. And all of these words of refusal to talk to Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah ignored the reality of our current talks with Korea after years of silence ― talks that have been the only cause of some movement and progress by Korea, however slight.
Then, to top it all off, yesterday it was announced that Israel and Syria have already been conducting secret peace talks using Turkish mediators, “with a goal of reaching a comprehensive peace.” The U.S. was nowhere to be seen in this announcement. The very audience that Bush played to with his appeasement labeling was the same audience already talking to an audience “undeserving” of conversation with us!
Northern Ireland has had 10 years of peace, however tentative, because the “ruling party” finally sat down with “the terrorists” and gradually inched their way to trust ― combined with the mothers of Northern Ireland marching to say “no more.” South Africa ended years of racial apartheid and minority oppression when government and rebel leaders sat at the table, overcoming their long hatred, and took a chance with each other. Begin and Sadat finally said “it is time for a change,” and Israel / Egypt / Jordan have had 30 years of relative peace with each other. Progress in relationships, for countries and with individuals, does not come from silent isolation or from punishment for being bad.
Yet George Bush and his people continue to preach “hate my enemies” rather than “find common peace with my enemies.” Yet as was recently said to me, “If Bush was a president with a sound foreign policy then we would not be in the mess we're in. Taking Bush's foreign policy advice is akin to asking a blind man to lead a sight-seeing tour.” Or as the Governor of Ohio said, “who is even listening to this man anymore?”
Neville Chamberlain’s mistake as Prime Minister of Great Britain was not in talking to Hitler; it was what he said to him. Chamberlain gave Hitler the belief that England would not defend its neighbors, that it sought peace at any price. So Hitler took the apparent invitation and marched out believing there would be no consequences to his actions, no resulting war. It took Winston Churchill to correct that critical misunderstanding. Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah will not act out of fear of America, nor will they respond to our attempted punishments. Neither will Russia, or most any other nation. We have nothing to fear from talking, except perhaps fear of talking succeeding. That is one risk we should take.
“You don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with the person you regard as your enemy.” Such a simple lesson.
A few weeks ago, former president Jimmy Carter scheduled meetings with Palestinian Hamas leaders in Gaza, and with leaders of Syria. He sought to continue his quest to try to bring some resolution in the Israel / Palestinian / Middle East dilemma. The effort was based upon his belief that no progress will be made without recognizing the reality of the role and influence that these players have, whether we may like it or not. His efforts were predictably criticized by the Bush administration as ill-timed and improper, followed by charges/counter-charges as to whether he was asked by the administration not to go.
Subsequently, President Bush went to Israel to participate in the celebration of their 60th year as a nation. Instead of playing the true positive statesman/presidential role, he instead appallingly took the low road; he pandered to that local audience by calling people who would talk to terrorists and enemies of Israel as akin to “the appeasers who talked to Hitler, leading to tanks rolling into Poland” in 1939. As is typical with this President, disagreeing with his views equates to being a traitor to freedom and our country’s well being. His words and performance were deservingly outrageous to all who seek genuine peace and an equitable resolution to these most difficult problems.
Never mind that his Secretary of Defense recently said that talking to these same people was ultimately going to have to happen. Or that John McCain (notwithstanding his sad continuing quest to be “politically right” rather than principled) echoed Bush, ignoring that McCain had already previously acknowledged that Hamas et al were “the new reality” that we had to recognize and deal with. And all of these words of refusal to talk to Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah ignored the reality of our current talks with Korea after years of silence ― talks that have been the only cause of some movement and progress by Korea, however slight.
Then, to top it all off, yesterday it was announced that Israel and Syria have already been conducting secret peace talks using Turkish mediators, “with a goal of reaching a comprehensive peace.” The U.S. was nowhere to be seen in this announcement. The very audience that Bush played to with his appeasement labeling was the same audience already talking to an audience “undeserving” of conversation with us!
Northern Ireland has had 10 years of peace, however tentative, because the “ruling party” finally sat down with “the terrorists” and gradually inched their way to trust ― combined with the mothers of Northern Ireland marching to say “no more.” South Africa ended years of racial apartheid and minority oppression when government and rebel leaders sat at the table, overcoming their long hatred, and took a chance with each other. Begin and Sadat finally said “it is time for a change,” and Israel / Egypt / Jordan have had 30 years of relative peace with each other. Progress in relationships, for countries and with individuals, does not come from silent isolation or from punishment for being bad.
Yet George Bush and his people continue to preach “hate my enemies” rather than “find common peace with my enemies.” Yet as was recently said to me, “If Bush was a president with a sound foreign policy then we would not be in the mess we're in. Taking Bush's foreign policy advice is akin to asking a blind man to lead a sight-seeing tour.” Or as the Governor of Ohio said, “who is even listening to this man anymore?”
Neville Chamberlain’s mistake as Prime Minister of Great Britain was not in talking to Hitler; it was what he said to him. Chamberlain gave Hitler the belief that England would not defend its neighbors, that it sought peace at any price. So Hitler took the apparent invitation and marched out believing there would be no consequences to his actions, no resulting war. It took Winston Churchill to correct that critical misunderstanding. Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah will not act out of fear of America, nor will they respond to our attempted punishments. Neither will Russia, or most any other nation. We have nothing to fear from talking, except perhaps fear of talking succeeding. That is one risk we should take.
“You don’t negotiate with your friends. You negotiate with the person you regard as your enemy.” Such a simple lesson.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Wright Stuff
I recently experienced a clear demonstration of the significant shortcomings of the national press media in America. For weeks, we had been exposed to film bites of pastor Dr. Jeremiah Wright enthusiastically condemning the United States for its shortcomings, including his use of the singular phrase “America be damned.” All of which would have gone by without notice EXCEPT that Dr. Wright just happens to be the pastor of presidential candidate Barack Obama.
These excerpted statements by Dr. Wright led to never-ending headline ravings by the national news speakers and opinion-givers, all of whom never met a headline controversy they are willing to either explore in depth or let die. Finally, a clearly wounded Dr. Wright decided to fight back to try to redeem his injured reputation.
The medium he chose for this counter-offensive was PBS’s interview show with Bill Moyers, one of a handful of national journalists that I respect for their thoughtfulness and thoroughness. What emerged from that hour’s quiet conversation and respectful verbal investigation was a totally different Jeremiah Wright. Thoughtful, very well read and educated, rational, with deeply reasoned messages that he carefully explained. A person with a background of patriotic military service to his country, who had taken a small church in Chicago’s difficult South Side and built a commendable record of growth and support to his community. I ended watching this in-depth discussion with an acute re-appreciation for how little real “information” we receive from the ratings-driven snippets that pass for news in this country. So many people draw conclusions about their fellow human beings from such snippets of words and opinions that have so little context of explanation.
Unfortunately, having made such a positive turn of impression with Bill Moyers, for some inexplicable reason Dr. Wright then proceeded to undo all that he had gained. In an appearance at the Washington Press Club --- televised by several news networks almost in its entirety --- he opted to put on a performance that was a looney-tune caricature of himself. He descended into new race-divisive and unsupportable statements in stark contrast with his reasoned comments in his individual interview, thereby reaffirming the worst criticisms of him. Feeling his oats? Long on adrenalin? Focused on his own ego, his own selfishness while on center stage? Who knows, but it was a grievous and unfortunate error, undermining the case statement for himself he made on PBS. Yet his human frailty and would-be martyrdom of that moment still did not weaken criticizing the news media for creating and continuing much of this would-be controversy in the first place.
The unfortunate thing in this follow-up event was the negative spillover on the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent concern for his parishioner, but also on the larger issues of race relations and spiritual goals. The angers of the Jeremiah Wrights and Al Sharptons and their generation are more than understandable. But these spokespersons undermine their arguments and their objectives by their words. Problems are rarely solved from hate and anger, and ultimately progress will only come when we focus on right for right’s sake, not right for guilt’s sake. Anger and hatred are separating forces, not unifying ones. So Obama was forced to follow in the footsteps of John Kennedy, Mitt Romney and others to explain how as president he would separate his actions in that secular office, responsible to all stripes of Americans, from his personal religious obligations to his church and church leaders. Maybe this is a question every presidential candidate should grapple with and answer, hopefully with the opportunity to do so in a quieter less public arena. Maybe such questioning and understanding is ultimately the real and only gift of this whole Jeremiah Wright episode.
These excerpted statements by Dr. Wright led to never-ending headline ravings by the national news speakers and opinion-givers, all of whom never met a headline controversy they are willing to either explore in depth or let die. Finally, a clearly wounded Dr. Wright decided to fight back to try to redeem his injured reputation.
The medium he chose for this counter-offensive was PBS’s interview show with Bill Moyers, one of a handful of national journalists that I respect for their thoughtfulness and thoroughness. What emerged from that hour’s quiet conversation and respectful verbal investigation was a totally different Jeremiah Wright. Thoughtful, very well read and educated, rational, with deeply reasoned messages that he carefully explained. A person with a background of patriotic military service to his country, who had taken a small church in Chicago’s difficult South Side and built a commendable record of growth and support to his community. I ended watching this in-depth discussion with an acute re-appreciation for how little real “information” we receive from the ratings-driven snippets that pass for news in this country. So many people draw conclusions about their fellow human beings from such snippets of words and opinions that have so little context of explanation.
Unfortunately, having made such a positive turn of impression with Bill Moyers, for some inexplicable reason Dr. Wright then proceeded to undo all that he had gained. In an appearance at the Washington Press Club --- televised by several news networks almost in its entirety --- he opted to put on a performance that was a looney-tune caricature of himself. He descended into new race-divisive and unsupportable statements in stark contrast with his reasoned comments in his individual interview, thereby reaffirming the worst criticisms of him. Feeling his oats? Long on adrenalin? Focused on his own ego, his own selfishness while on center stage? Who knows, but it was a grievous and unfortunate error, undermining the case statement for himself he made on PBS. Yet his human frailty and would-be martyrdom of that moment still did not weaken criticizing the news media for creating and continuing much of this would-be controversy in the first place.
The unfortunate thing in this follow-up event was the negative spillover on the campaign of Barack Obama, without any apparent concern for his parishioner, but also on the larger issues of race relations and spiritual goals. The angers of the Jeremiah Wrights and Al Sharptons and their generation are more than understandable. But these spokespersons undermine their arguments and their objectives by their words. Problems are rarely solved from hate and anger, and ultimately progress will only come when we focus on right for right’s sake, not right for guilt’s sake. Anger and hatred are separating forces, not unifying ones. So Obama was forced to follow in the footsteps of John Kennedy, Mitt Romney and others to explain how as president he would separate his actions in that secular office, responsible to all stripes of Americans, from his personal religious obligations to his church and church leaders. Maybe this is a question every presidential candidate should grapple with and answer, hopefully with the opportunity to do so in a quieter less public arena. Maybe such questioning and understanding is ultimately the real and only gift of this whole Jeremiah Wright episode.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)