It has always been my intent that this blog be politically objective and as non-partisan as possible. Sometimes that is hard to do when discussion has to confront the actions of an individual. In those instances, I have tried to focus my commentary on the ethical and/or spiritual principles illustrated by those actions.
Tonight, I have to confront that same delicate dilemma. But there is a very important, if not critical, presidential election coming up in two weeks. Perhaps not THE most important election in our history as some have inappropriately called it (think Washington, our first; Lincoln on the eve of our country’s attempted dissolution; FDR on the eve of WW II). But certainly critically important in setting tone, priorities and directions for the next four to eight years after the disaster of the last eight.
So what should guide us when we enter the voting booth and try to make that important choice? Health care delivery is in desperate need of wholesale surgery. Our educational system needs a major re-schooling in how we communicate knowledge and inspire learning in students of all ages. The financial industry requires new insurance policies against greed and folly. Alternative energy solutions need a jump-start. Our overall economic environment needs to find a new delicate balance between regulation and control without stifling the incredible creativity of American entrepreneurs already waiting in the wings with new innovations. Ending our “first-strike” war and its attendant runaway unfunded costs while still enhancing our national security must be accomplished SOON.
Yes, these topics are all very important issues for voters these days. They are the principal grist of speeches and debates and position papers being thrown at the public in a never-ending stream each day. Yet as important as they are at this particular moment, I do not believe that they are the fundamentals on which our votes should turn. They are today’s alarms. Tomorrow, there will be others screaming for attention. And next month others still. Our 1-day vote has to therefore turn on a longer view of more fundamental criteria. And for these I would suggest the following as the truly critical needs for our country:
The first fundamental need is to restore our Rule of Law. In the past eight years, our Constitution has been trampled by politicalization, partisanship, prejudice over process, secretive decisions, official disinformation and factual distortion, and the loss of individual freedoms tending to a new “guilty until proven innocent.” Our Constitution and the laws derived from that are what keep our system of governing whole. Losing that framework sends the country ever closer to spinning out of control. The litany of specifics and examples is too numerous to list here, but has fed a steady stream of news reports to an increasingly fearful and cynical public. Restoration of governmental respect for law and its impartial administration is a first-order priority.
The second critical need is to reclaim our role as a True World Leader that we squandered after the special opportunity presented to us after 9-11. Ending the unilaterally-acting bully that we have become, lecturing the world on its conduct while ignoring the shortcomings of our own. In spite of all the difficulties we read about every day, the world is in fact poised to do some great things IF brought together in concerted actions without demonizing and finger-pointing each other. Without separating us into two absolute good guy/bad guy demarcations. And without insisting that every country and every people think the same, act the same, govern the same. This will only happen with fresh thinking about world views, conciliatory and respectful interactions with all peoples, embodying humility instead of arrogance, and providing the leadership of quiet demonstration of our values instead of empty rhetoric about values not truly lived.
The third critical need is to provide Competence in Governing. Winning elections may be a necessary first step to governing, but the supposed purpose in winning is to enable one to then govern competently and fairly across the broadest sweep of the many conflicting constituencies and positions of the American people. After 8 years of mediocre performance delivering critical needs, after 8 years of legislative stalemate or pandering to one narrow constituency, after 8 years of financial irresponsibility by both parties, talented competent people with technical skills for their jobs along with big-minded thinking (instead of small-minded parochialism) is necessary. “Shaking things up” is NOT what is needed; things have already been shaken up so badly they are completely broken. We need to put all of Washington’s Humpty-Dumpty parts back together again in a way that they work together as a whole, not instigate more fighting and arguing and shouting. This rebuilding will not happen with someone who continually criticizes and cannot deliver his own base party; one cannot claim bipartisan leadership if he cannot even show effective leadership of his own partisan party.
These are the three key criteria. Put these cornerstone changes of attitude and method into place, and all the detailed issues that will certainly come and go will have a chance to be properly resolved. Without those cornerstones, it will be more of the same that we have already experienced.
When I look at these two completely distinctive candidates, only one appears to have a chance to achieve these changes. We do not need a twin set of would-be mavericks to “kick butts” in Washington, we need a person who can listen to all sides and find a workable middle ground that moves us forward. We do not need a shoot-from-the-hip impulsiveness, we need a thoughtfulness that thinks through actions to their probable conclusions. Given two candidates neither of which comes from an executive/administrator background, we can only look at how each has run his campaign for clues as to how he might govern; only one has demonstrated a well-managed campaign across the country for the duration of this campaign using innovative 21st-century techniques while surrounded by top-quality advisors that have stayed steady yet adaptable and responsive to events throughout. Only one has shown the capacity to look at old issues from a new perspective. In these times, we do not need a person with a legendary temper and petulance, qualities that are now on full public display.
For this important election, it is as much about repudiating where we have been as it is about talking an informed risk in casting a hope for tomorrow. One candidate is simply from a past time, a different era, and time has moved on. It is time this country moves on with the other candidate. The resume may be shorter, but it is the RIGHT resume. It is the resume of Barack Obama.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday, October 5, 2008
McCain's Lost Way
“For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” (Jesus, Mark 8:36)
For many years I was an admirer of John McCain. The story of his imprisonment in North Viet Nam was a compelling statement of his character and strength of will. He continually talked about a willingness to decide political questions on their own merits, regardless of political party position or any popularity contest. He seemed willing to work with Senate colleagues of either party to accomplish the country’s legislative needs, as we often used to see in Congress in the 1950s/1960s. He was warm and accessible to news reporters, credited with being a “straight talker.” It was my belief that throughout this time he genuinely acted from a firmly held core value of “honor” that drove his actions.
Then eight years ago, he ran for president. He did well for awhile, until he went to South Carolina for its primary election against Bush the Junior. Here he ran into the new Republican attack-dog politics, and he lost. John McCain was never the same thereafter. The navy man who is the son and grandson of admired and successful naval admirals had come up short; failed and unsuccessful. He was forced to watch his rival George go on into the presidency that he had seen as belonging to him. “Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned,” but ambition is never so fueled as by the failure to live up to success expectations one perceives on him-/herself.
So after 4 years of lying in wait until his next opportunity could arise (preparing for the 2008 election), a very different John McCain emerged. One we did not recognize at first, until our slight confusion gradually gave way to a clear view of this new persona. John McCain had learned the “how to succeed” lesson all too well. Like the based-on-reality fictional Willy Stark who was beaten down by the entrenched political machine in the 1940s movie All The King’s Men, John took the devil that had beaten him and made that devil his new campaign platform.
So began the turnaround. He served as a commencement speaker for the evangelical preacher that he had once (accurately) denounced as a purveyor of hate and intolerance. He suddenly was a new forceful advocate for a Republican right agenda that he supposedly had always supported, albeit apparently not for public view. Ronald Reagan was now revealed to be his model and hero, though McCain has neither Reagan’s oratory skills nor his vision, and he glosses over Reagan’s true legacy of expanded government and bloated deficits from giving tax cuts on upper incomes. And after years of pronouncing himself to be a true-blue (true-red?) Republican supporter of free markets and deregulation, one Wall Street meltdown later he is all for “strong oversight and regulation of the financial industry.” Having for years understated his war experiences (as most war veterans similarly do), he now rolls out those stories at every opportunity in a play for the nobility / sympathy vote. (Notwithstanding that being a captive in war does not in/of itself make one either inherently more patriotic nor any more qualified to be Commander in Chief!)
In short, it is now a strategy of do and say anything and whatever is needed to get elected. George Bush and his team were singularly all about being elected; they had no clue about subsequently GOVERNING this country. John McCain is now about winning at any cost. The man who last spring promised to run a “respectful” campaign has so far done anything but. He is almost universally seen as the dirt-thrower this go-around, moving beyond the “stretching the truth” to outright and undeniable lies approaching “swift boat” demagoguery. Interestingly, he even uses a new campaign tactic of accusing his opponent of exactly his own weaknesses before they can be used against himself. The man who helped to write the current rules that try to limit the influence of lobbyists and their money in politics is now shamelessly surrounded by same. The man who thankfully protested against political sleaze in 2000 has become the poster boy for that very sleaze. Not surprising given that his campaign team is led by former Bush team players. And he caps this reversal of character by choosing an increasingly obvious incompetent running mate whose only qualification was to be a philosophical bone to the political party who doesn’t really trust (or like) McCain as their own candidate in the first place. This rather than truly considering “country first” and selecting a highly credentialed associate capable of leading this country if and when necessary.
The sad part is that I actually do not write this blog item as a specific criticism of John McCain the political candidate. Rather, I write it as a commentary about what happens when one loses sight of who she/he is, when the push of our inner demons and self-perceived inadequacies cause us to forget who we are truly about. It is what happens when winning by any means replaces integrity, and ambition trumps honor. In these incredibly difficult times, this country needs some hard, thoughtful discussions about the issues that face us. The opportunities that are possible, and the choices that we need to make. The ways we can find some common ground that has been missing, so that we can move forward instead of spinning in do-nothing circles.
This is a time when we need conversations among a wide variety of thoughtful and experienced persons. This is a time when we could benefit from the contributions of John McCain’s thinking and dialog. But not this erratic John McCain who we no longer know. We need the John McCain that we thought we knew in 2000. The one who seemed to speak from core values of honesty, integrity, and fairness. Unfortunately, that John McCain who once acted from a personal place of deep honor is now nowhere to be seen.
For many years I was an admirer of John McCain. The story of his imprisonment in North Viet Nam was a compelling statement of his character and strength of will. He continually talked about a willingness to decide political questions on their own merits, regardless of political party position or any popularity contest. He seemed willing to work with Senate colleagues of either party to accomplish the country’s legislative needs, as we often used to see in Congress in the 1950s/1960s. He was warm and accessible to news reporters, credited with being a “straight talker.” It was my belief that throughout this time he genuinely acted from a firmly held core value of “honor” that drove his actions.
Then eight years ago, he ran for president. He did well for awhile, until he went to South Carolina for its primary election against Bush the Junior. Here he ran into the new Republican attack-dog politics, and he lost. John McCain was never the same thereafter. The navy man who is the son and grandson of admired and successful naval admirals had come up short; failed and unsuccessful. He was forced to watch his rival George go on into the presidency that he had seen as belonging to him. “Hell may have no fury like a woman scorned,” but ambition is never so fueled as by the failure to live up to success expectations one perceives on him-/herself.
So after 4 years of lying in wait until his next opportunity could arise (preparing for the 2008 election), a very different John McCain emerged. One we did not recognize at first, until our slight confusion gradually gave way to a clear view of this new persona. John McCain had learned the “how to succeed” lesson all too well. Like the based-on-reality fictional Willy Stark who was beaten down by the entrenched political machine in the 1940s movie All The King’s Men, John took the devil that had beaten him and made that devil his new campaign platform.
So began the turnaround. He served as a commencement speaker for the evangelical preacher that he had once (accurately) denounced as a purveyor of hate and intolerance. He suddenly was a new forceful advocate for a Republican right agenda that he supposedly had always supported, albeit apparently not for public view. Ronald Reagan was now revealed to be his model and hero, though McCain has neither Reagan’s oratory skills nor his vision, and he glosses over Reagan’s true legacy of expanded government and bloated deficits from giving tax cuts on upper incomes. And after years of pronouncing himself to be a true-blue (true-red?) Republican supporter of free markets and deregulation, one Wall Street meltdown later he is all for “strong oversight and regulation of the financial industry.” Having for years understated his war experiences (as most war veterans similarly do), he now rolls out those stories at every opportunity in a play for the nobility / sympathy vote. (Notwithstanding that being a captive in war does not in/of itself make one either inherently more patriotic nor any more qualified to be Commander in Chief!)
In short, it is now a strategy of do and say anything and whatever is needed to get elected. George Bush and his team were singularly all about being elected; they had no clue about subsequently GOVERNING this country. John McCain is now about winning at any cost. The man who last spring promised to run a “respectful” campaign has so far done anything but. He is almost universally seen as the dirt-thrower this go-around, moving beyond the “stretching the truth” to outright and undeniable lies approaching “swift boat” demagoguery. Interestingly, he even uses a new campaign tactic of accusing his opponent of exactly his own weaknesses before they can be used against himself. The man who helped to write the current rules that try to limit the influence of lobbyists and their money in politics is now shamelessly surrounded by same. The man who thankfully protested against political sleaze in 2000 has become the poster boy for that very sleaze. Not surprising given that his campaign team is led by former Bush team players. And he caps this reversal of character by choosing an increasingly obvious incompetent running mate whose only qualification was to be a philosophical bone to the political party who doesn’t really trust (or like) McCain as their own candidate in the first place. This rather than truly considering “country first” and selecting a highly credentialed associate capable of leading this country if and when necessary.
The sad part is that I actually do not write this blog item as a specific criticism of John McCain the political candidate. Rather, I write it as a commentary about what happens when one loses sight of who she/he is, when the push of our inner demons and self-perceived inadequacies cause us to forget who we are truly about. It is what happens when winning by any means replaces integrity, and ambition trumps honor. In these incredibly difficult times, this country needs some hard, thoughtful discussions about the issues that face us. The opportunities that are possible, and the choices that we need to make. The ways we can find some common ground that has been missing, so that we can move forward instead of spinning in do-nothing circles.
This is a time when we need conversations among a wide variety of thoughtful and experienced persons. This is a time when we could benefit from the contributions of John McCain’s thinking and dialog. But not this erratic John McCain who we no longer know. We need the John McCain that we thought we knew in 2000. The one who seemed to speak from core values of honesty, integrity, and fairness. Unfortunately, that John McCain who once acted from a personal place of deep honor is now nowhere to be seen.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
The Religion Of Prosperity
An interesting phenomenon of the last few years is the emergence of the “prosperity theology” movement within religious settings. Joel Olsteen has seemingly emerged in the forefront of this movement, but there are a number of religious speakers working within this financial success umbrella. For many of these practitioners, such success definitely seems to be working well for them personally. A number of more traditional religious speakers have expressed serious concerns about bringing “financial success” so prominently into a religious/Christian setting. But given the large crowds attending these presentations, there is undeniably a broad audience interested in this message.
I have a somewhat mixed reaction to this movement, although I do not have a lot of personal interest in pursuing this theology for myself. However, in light of today’s economic turmoil and multi-billion dollar bailouts, the topic seems very relevant to consider. On the one hand, I am all for any spiritual framework that looks to de-emphasize the traditional guilt and damnation philosophy that makes up the core of many religions. A positive message of uplift that affirms people and the opportunities available to them is certainly welcome. The challenge for people to take responsibility for their lives and their outcomes, rather than continuing a cycle of negativism and victimization excuses, is certainly needed. Helping people to “unstuck” their lives and improve their financial condition can be a helpful trend.
In and of itself, obtaining wealth is fine. When matched to, and supportive of, our life’s fuller meaning and values, well-matched and measured financial success can be both satisfying and enabling. When financial success supports clearly understood greater values and purpose, such a pursuit can be perfectly appropriate.
The troubling part of all this is what appears to be the lack of a greater context for this emphasis on achieving financial success. Money as an end unto itself is an empty-calories diet --- filling and satisfying in the moment, but without long-term nourishment. An excessive sugar diet can easily turn from a treat to an addiction, if not ultimately a life-threatening long-term diabetic disease due to an inflow in excess of one’s capacity to absorb. So it can be with money.
What I do not hear (at least with sufficient emphasis) within prosperity theology circles is the caveat that one should first establish clarity in his/her life --- purpose, priorities, focus, work. I.e. what is it that truly fulfills us? Obtaining the finances needed to achieve that quest is the true financial success. Without this yardstick of what constitutes personal success, the chase for the dollar becomes completely open-ended.
What are one’s true drivers for financial success? When is enough enough? Will a person simply display the finances that one has achieved by the toys that she/he accumulates? Or is the driver rather about obtaining the finances that are necessary to simply allow you to fulfill the true YOU that you are within?
I have a somewhat mixed reaction to this movement, although I do not have a lot of personal interest in pursuing this theology for myself. However, in light of today’s economic turmoil and multi-billion dollar bailouts, the topic seems very relevant to consider. On the one hand, I am all for any spiritual framework that looks to de-emphasize the traditional guilt and damnation philosophy that makes up the core of many religions. A positive message of uplift that affirms people and the opportunities available to them is certainly welcome. The challenge for people to take responsibility for their lives and their outcomes, rather than continuing a cycle of negativism and victimization excuses, is certainly needed. Helping people to “unstuck” their lives and improve their financial condition can be a helpful trend.
In and of itself, obtaining wealth is fine. When matched to, and supportive of, our life’s fuller meaning and values, well-matched and measured financial success can be both satisfying and enabling. When financial success supports clearly understood greater values and purpose, such a pursuit can be perfectly appropriate.
The troubling part of all this is what appears to be the lack of a greater context for this emphasis on achieving financial success. Money as an end unto itself is an empty-calories diet --- filling and satisfying in the moment, but without long-term nourishment. An excessive sugar diet can easily turn from a treat to an addiction, if not ultimately a life-threatening long-term diabetic disease due to an inflow in excess of one’s capacity to absorb. So it can be with money.
What I do not hear (at least with sufficient emphasis) within prosperity theology circles is the caveat that one should first establish clarity in his/her life --- purpose, priorities, focus, work. I.e. what is it that truly fulfills us? Obtaining the finances needed to achieve that quest is the true financial success. Without this yardstick of what constitutes personal success, the chase for the dollar becomes completely open-ended.
What are one’s true drivers for financial success? When is enough enough? Will a person simply display the finances that one has achieved by the toys that she/he accumulates? Or is the driver rather about obtaining the finances that are necessary to simply allow you to fulfill the true YOU that you are within?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Greed Reclaims Its Due
This past week we have watched the virtual collapse of our American financial industry. At least a significant component of it in the investment banking and mortgage guaranty segments. Cumulative wide-spread greed once again has asserted its ultimate consequences, and those consequences will affect all of us in some manner.
In such times, it is awfully tempting to look directly at those industry CEOs who led these companies that are now going under. Tempting because it is so easy to do, and it is so accurate. Marginal leaders reaped the benefit of profits virtually pushed to them by the herd mentality of mass consumers who followed an expectation of guaranteed can’t-lose financial success. Then, when the shallowness of that business leadership and decision-making surfaced, these CEOs were sent packing. Unfortunately, those CEOs have packed a lot of cash into their exit suitcases from the wealth that they have fraudulently taken, with no accountability to their firms or the taxpayers now rescuing them. The issue of excessive executive compensation has been talked about for years, with nothing done to arrest it. It seems to be a nice, albeit somewhat exclusive, club to belong to.
As right as it is to castigate these CEOs for taking their ill-gotten gains and running, their bigger failure is that their actions and greed invariably helped to promote a broader such environment within their mega-companies. If the CEO is paid that much without accountability for company success, then it leads many on the corporate ladder expecting their pro rata share. At any cost, from any action that will achieve it. Except that the big bucks still only go to the top folks, they have never filtered down proportionally. (So much for the now discredited Reagan-era “trickle down” tax cut theories.) So in airline companies, automobile companies, and so on, worker-bees who are in fact critical to the CEO’s success are laid off or receive less-than-inflationary raises while simultaneously executive compensation continues to grow. The corporate resentment and “who cares” attitudes understandably increase across the organization.
The loss of caring and professional integrity can also grow in direct proportion to the growth in company size. As we continue these mega-mergers, operating decisions get made further and further away. Local ownership and oversight diminish. Despite reams of government regulations and published corporate policies, increasing anarchy grows in these increasingly distant everyday operational offices. In pursuit of sharing in the apparent expanding financial bubble, increasing numbers of lone rangers start making up their own rules, out of sight. Bad credit decisions get made; mortgage sellers and loan officers detached themselves from their outcomes since that mortgage is just going to be sold off to another company; your “local lender” has almost no control over lending decisions made about you as your loan passes from desk-to-desk, company-to-company, individual loan into a bundled security package. It is all detached, faceless, nameless, and conveniently hidden from visible guilt. And inappropriate consumers are taken into the wolf’s den of sleaze, enticed by a vision of a better status in their lives. As an economic commentator recently said, “bad capitalism drives out good capitalism in everyone’s rush to keep up [with each other’s income statement].”
Yes, it is easy to point fingers, because there are so many worthwhile targets to point to. But are we prepared to point one of those fingers into our own mirror? Not all of us outraged, innocent-bystander taxpayers are quite so innocent. Collectively, we have been willing to stick our heads into the sand and ignore the reality that we have helped to perpetuate, if not cause, this financial breakup. We continue to demand credit to buy what we cannot legitimately afford. We are willing to vote into office politicians who give out money to us that they do not have through ill-thought tax refunds and stimulus packages, special grants, and giving specialized allotment supports and tax loopholes to selected business / industries / agricultural operations. We do not protest too loudly when our president asks us to pay for the mega-billions being spent for the Iraq war by “going out and shopping” (no sacrifices), when we should have been asked to cut back our buying and instead invest in our own country (instead of leaving the war to the rest of the world to finance for us). As stockholders in these big corporations, we have endorsed the big CEO salaries and golden severance packages as long as we have seen our stock investments rise. As our fear of financial consequences grows, we have increasingly demanded guaranteed protection and safety from the consequences of our financial decisions.
Sooner or later, fast-rising economic booms always burst. We’ll demonize financial leaders because they deserve it. We will watch political leaders gyrate to the music of shifting public opinion while they try to look like they know what to do on our behalf. But will we also look in our own mirror and acknowledge our culpability in not first putting our own house in financial order, and in not demanding that our business and governmental leaders (of all parties) do the same for our collective “we”? Are we capable and willing to reject our own personal “bridge to nowhere” but reject it meaningfully, honestly and from the get-go instead of making it a meaningless after-the-fact sound-bite?
The financial bottom line of all of this is that we have collectively been living beyond our means for 8 years or more, and we have lied about it to each other and ignored it to ourselves. At our peril. Our peril has now come due. In abrogating our own sense of self-responsibility, my 5 grandchildren will have to help pay off the bills we have so foolishly created.
In such times, it is awfully tempting to look directly at those industry CEOs who led these companies that are now going under. Tempting because it is so easy to do, and it is so accurate. Marginal leaders reaped the benefit of profits virtually pushed to them by the herd mentality of mass consumers who followed an expectation of guaranteed can’t-lose financial success. Then, when the shallowness of that business leadership and decision-making surfaced, these CEOs were sent packing. Unfortunately, those CEOs have packed a lot of cash into their exit suitcases from the wealth that they have fraudulently taken, with no accountability to their firms or the taxpayers now rescuing them. The issue of excessive executive compensation has been talked about for years, with nothing done to arrest it. It seems to be a nice, albeit somewhat exclusive, club to belong to.
As right as it is to castigate these CEOs for taking their ill-gotten gains and running, their bigger failure is that their actions and greed invariably helped to promote a broader such environment within their mega-companies. If the CEO is paid that much without accountability for company success, then it leads many on the corporate ladder expecting their pro rata share. At any cost, from any action that will achieve it. Except that the big bucks still only go to the top folks, they have never filtered down proportionally. (So much for the now discredited Reagan-era “trickle down” tax cut theories.) So in airline companies, automobile companies, and so on, worker-bees who are in fact critical to the CEO’s success are laid off or receive less-than-inflationary raises while simultaneously executive compensation continues to grow. The corporate resentment and “who cares” attitudes understandably increase across the organization.
The loss of caring and professional integrity can also grow in direct proportion to the growth in company size. As we continue these mega-mergers, operating decisions get made further and further away. Local ownership and oversight diminish. Despite reams of government regulations and published corporate policies, increasing anarchy grows in these increasingly distant everyday operational offices. In pursuit of sharing in the apparent expanding financial bubble, increasing numbers of lone rangers start making up their own rules, out of sight. Bad credit decisions get made; mortgage sellers and loan officers detached themselves from their outcomes since that mortgage is just going to be sold off to another company; your “local lender” has almost no control over lending decisions made about you as your loan passes from desk-to-desk, company-to-company, individual loan into a bundled security package. It is all detached, faceless, nameless, and conveniently hidden from visible guilt. And inappropriate consumers are taken into the wolf’s den of sleaze, enticed by a vision of a better status in their lives. As an economic commentator recently said, “bad capitalism drives out good capitalism in everyone’s rush to keep up [with each other’s income statement].”
Yes, it is easy to point fingers, because there are so many worthwhile targets to point to. But are we prepared to point one of those fingers into our own mirror? Not all of us outraged, innocent-bystander taxpayers are quite so innocent. Collectively, we have been willing to stick our heads into the sand and ignore the reality that we have helped to perpetuate, if not cause, this financial breakup. We continue to demand credit to buy what we cannot legitimately afford. We are willing to vote into office politicians who give out money to us that they do not have through ill-thought tax refunds and stimulus packages, special grants, and giving specialized allotment supports and tax loopholes to selected business / industries / agricultural operations. We do not protest too loudly when our president asks us to pay for the mega-billions being spent for the Iraq war by “going out and shopping” (no sacrifices), when we should have been asked to cut back our buying and instead invest in our own country (instead of leaving the war to the rest of the world to finance for us). As stockholders in these big corporations, we have endorsed the big CEO salaries and golden severance packages as long as we have seen our stock investments rise. As our fear of financial consequences grows, we have increasingly demanded guaranteed protection and safety from the consequences of our financial decisions.
Sooner or later, fast-rising economic booms always burst. We’ll demonize financial leaders because they deserve it. We will watch political leaders gyrate to the music of shifting public opinion while they try to look like they know what to do on our behalf. But will we also look in our own mirror and acknowledge our culpability in not first putting our own house in financial order, and in not demanding that our business and governmental leaders (of all parties) do the same for our collective “we”? Are we capable and willing to reject our own personal “bridge to nowhere” but reject it meaningfully, honestly and from the get-go instead of making it a meaningless after-the-fact sound-bite?
The financial bottom line of all of this is that we have collectively been living beyond our means for 8 years or more, and we have lied about it to each other and ignored it to ourselves. At our peril. Our peril has now come due. In abrogating our own sense of self-responsibility, my 5 grandchildren will have to help pay off the bills we have so foolishly created.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Vice President Choice - Yes It Matters
Last week, John McCain introduced his choice of a running mate to the American People. Someone out of everyone’s radar screen, a political unknown from Alaska. A female on the Republican ticket for the first time. There is no question that her very newness has moved the spotlight, and her acceptance speech has generated cohesion and excitement in the diminishing Republican Party’s base of voters. But over the next weeks after the celebrity attention wears off, and the lens of detailed inquiry clarifies the focus, what has truly emerged here?
The short answer is that we see the continuation of raw and blatant politics, packaged up in the Karl Rove “spin and big lie” marketing tactics. If “experience” has been John McCain’s claim on the presidency, then how does his VP choice stack up to that? To wit:
· Fresh faces can be refreshing. But only if they bring something new to the fore. A new face on an old package will be seen through very quickly.
· Based upon her pronouncements and her record, former Buchannan-for-president supporter Palin’s politics are to the right of even George Bush! Be it energy policy (drill and drill some more), fiscal policy (more high salary tax cuts), anti-abortion (not even allowed for rape and incest, nor are individual “decisions” allowed --- even for her daughter). I expect more of these positions will continue to be detailed by others over the next weeks.
· The length and nature of her political and governmental experience are frankly laughable vis-à-vis becoming the #2 leader of this nation. What is even more sadly laughable is watching McCain campaign and honorable Republican officials squirming to try to convert that non-experience into something believable. Service in the PTA and mayor of 9000 people is creditable public (or community organizing!) service, but it hardly makes one specially qualified for the #2 national office.
· Neither does being the civilian leader of the Alaska National Guard make one a military leader. The real role of our national guards has been to provide local and humanitarian support, not a true military function. In their present service as part of the Iraq military force, however, they are totally subsumed to the US Department of Defense --- the governors are non-players. Sarah’s son going into military service may provide her with an empathy toward the difficulties faced by military families, but it will not provide any insight into managing the role of that military.
· Foreign affairs experience requires one to have experience with the needs and concerns of foreign nations and their leaders. Simply “living in a state next door to Russia” does not give any special insight into the conduct of foreign affairs, which requires dealing with over 175 countries which do not border Alaska. As one commentator said, “Saying that living next to Russia gives someone foreign policy experience is like saying that living next to Lake Michigan makes me a catfish!”
· If her gender is supposed to attract a new female vote, that does not seem to be working out. Her extreme domestic positions, once better known, will never pull over the Hillary voters. By several polls already, working mothers and traditional-mom Republican women are not necessarily supportive of her “5 kids with new baby + vice president” ambitions. She complained last spring about Hillary playing the “gender card” when complaining about the attacks on her, and said that she should be tough enough to play with the big boys, yet now any complaints on Sarah are “inherently sexist and unfair.” You can’t play it both ways.
I would normally agree with Obama and McCain that “family is off limits for political discussion.” But when your role as “mom” is presented as a qualification for the job (versus simply being a biographical line item), AND when as governor you line-item veto funding for sex education programs, then in that instance what happens in your own back yard thereby becomes a topic of legitimate discussion.
· So then we come to her acceptance speech. It was easy to see why many in Alaska like her, and probably many others in America who embody western frontier self-reliance and feisty take-‘em-on politicians. The self-described shotgun-toting moose-burger reformist proved this image true on that night. Except that she also showed a continuing sarcasm and insulting denigration to her opponent and people of different beliefs, while she conveniently made NO mention of her own political beliefs. She was able to talk at length about the only one issue with which she has apparent knowledge (oil energy). Then she lied about Obama’s tax proposals and her sale of the governor’s airplane (yes she listed it on E-Bay, but it didn’t sell and was subsequently sold privately). She further managed to completely skip over her being the object of a legislative investigation in Alaska about her ethical conduct.
All I saw in her speech was the specter of 4 (8?) more years of stalemate government in Washington, with continued bitter and ugly partisan battling. A naive in-your-face outsider reformer will be eaten alive by the Washington power structure, virtually assured to be Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It takes compromise and good working relations with respectful goodwill to bring change to the mini-kingdoms of Washington, D.C. Sarah Palin’s style of meat-ax combat may work in Alaska for a time, but will bring neither change nor benefit to the American public.
So is it reasonable to question Governor Palin’s positions and experience with respect to her being a potential vice president? Yes, given that a) it substantively consists of only 1.5 years as an isolated governor, preceded by typical introductory community activities and positions that can be attributed to millions of other Americans, and b) her positions are so out of sync with millions of voters. John McCain and his team profess shock that her background is being questioned by the national press and American public, such that he cancelled a Larry King interview because of a CNN reporter’s tough questions to a senior McCain aide about Palin’s experience. The real shock is that McCain and company were so unrealistic to believe that they could spring a complete surprise on a voyeur American public and not expect all of this snooping and grilling to roar forward. It is reflective of the same disdain of “the public’s right to know” that we have witnessed these past 8 years.
Someone recently asked me, “So does the VP choice really matter? Isn’t it really all about the presidential candidates and what they believe?” My answer was, and is, a resounding “No,” that the VP choice matters a lot. For 3 reasons:
1. Other than selecting his campaign team, the VP choice is the first real statement about the kind of people a president will surround him-/herself with. You ultimately elect a governing team, and the many Department Secretaries and policy minions that make up the Executive Branch are as important and consequential as the president. (Think “Brownie, you’re doing a heckofa job!”) Just look at the cast of characters who have come and gone over the last 8 years, where they’ve taken us, and the results of their tenure. Who has John McCain now implied will be the members of his cabinet and advisors?
2. Since Walter Mondale’s VP service to Jimmy Carter, the VP has come to have a very substantial role in Washington. The role has become a true advisor to the president, a key voice in decision-making, and a direct influence over some operational functions. As the past 8 years demonstrates, we need to be very concerned about what advice and input our president is receiving.
3. Since 1841, 7 vice presidents have become president upon a president’s death; another one upon Nixon’s resignation; and under today’s presidential succession/incapacity laws, Wilson’s VP would have ascended to the presidency. On that count, 1 in 5 VPs have had to step into the job. 72-year-old John McCain would be the 6th president since the last succession occurred. This is a real statistical probability.
We not only elect a vice president, we also elect a president-in-waiting. Think a potential President Dick Cheney (the most arrogant and destructive Washington player since Joe McCarthy’s excesses in the 1950s), or even a president Dan Quayle. With all the persons of real talent, experience, and character available in the Republican Party, some of whom were fully tested and vetted by the recent primaries (think Huckabee if you really wanted to appeal to the right wing without having to pick an unknown inflammatory loose cannon), is Sarah Palin really the best choice John McCain could come up with? A person who is now completely under wraps because the campaign refuses to allow her in front of interviewers until they can properly train her for the national stage? Most importantly, what does this first “executive decision” say about John McCain?
The short answer is that we see the continuation of raw and blatant politics, packaged up in the Karl Rove “spin and big lie” marketing tactics. If “experience” has been John McCain’s claim on the presidency, then how does his VP choice stack up to that? To wit:
· Fresh faces can be refreshing. But only if they bring something new to the fore. A new face on an old package will be seen through very quickly.
· Based upon her pronouncements and her record, former Buchannan-for-president supporter Palin’s politics are to the right of even George Bush! Be it energy policy (drill and drill some more), fiscal policy (more high salary tax cuts), anti-abortion (not even allowed for rape and incest, nor are individual “decisions” allowed --- even for her daughter). I expect more of these positions will continue to be detailed by others over the next weeks.
· The length and nature of her political and governmental experience are frankly laughable vis-à-vis becoming the #2 leader of this nation. What is even more sadly laughable is watching McCain campaign and honorable Republican officials squirming to try to convert that non-experience into something believable. Service in the PTA and mayor of 9000 people is creditable public (or community organizing!) service, but it hardly makes one specially qualified for the #2 national office.
· Neither does being the civilian leader of the Alaska National Guard make one a military leader. The real role of our national guards has been to provide local and humanitarian support, not a true military function. In their present service as part of the Iraq military force, however, they are totally subsumed to the US Department of Defense --- the governors are non-players. Sarah’s son going into military service may provide her with an empathy toward the difficulties faced by military families, but it will not provide any insight into managing the role of that military.
· Foreign affairs experience requires one to have experience with the needs and concerns of foreign nations and their leaders. Simply “living in a state next door to Russia” does not give any special insight into the conduct of foreign affairs, which requires dealing with over 175 countries which do not border Alaska. As one commentator said, “Saying that living next to Russia gives someone foreign policy experience is like saying that living next to Lake Michigan makes me a catfish!”
· If her gender is supposed to attract a new female vote, that does not seem to be working out. Her extreme domestic positions, once better known, will never pull over the Hillary voters. By several polls already, working mothers and traditional-mom Republican women are not necessarily supportive of her “5 kids with new baby + vice president” ambitions. She complained last spring about Hillary playing the “gender card” when complaining about the attacks on her, and said that she should be tough enough to play with the big boys, yet now any complaints on Sarah are “inherently sexist and unfair.” You can’t play it both ways.
I would normally agree with Obama and McCain that “family is off limits for political discussion.” But when your role as “mom” is presented as a qualification for the job (versus simply being a biographical line item), AND when as governor you line-item veto funding for sex education programs, then in that instance what happens in your own back yard thereby becomes a topic of legitimate discussion.
· So then we come to her acceptance speech. It was easy to see why many in Alaska like her, and probably many others in America who embody western frontier self-reliance and feisty take-‘em-on politicians. The self-described shotgun-toting moose-burger reformist proved this image true on that night. Except that she also showed a continuing sarcasm and insulting denigration to her opponent and people of different beliefs, while she conveniently made NO mention of her own political beliefs. She was able to talk at length about the only one issue with which she has apparent knowledge (oil energy). Then she lied about Obama’s tax proposals and her sale of the governor’s airplane (yes she listed it on E-Bay, but it didn’t sell and was subsequently sold privately). She further managed to completely skip over her being the object of a legislative investigation in Alaska about her ethical conduct.
All I saw in her speech was the specter of 4 (8?) more years of stalemate government in Washington, with continued bitter and ugly partisan battling. A naive in-your-face outsider reformer will be eaten alive by the Washington power structure, virtually assured to be Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. It takes compromise and good working relations with respectful goodwill to bring change to the mini-kingdoms of Washington, D.C. Sarah Palin’s style of meat-ax combat may work in Alaska for a time, but will bring neither change nor benefit to the American public.
So is it reasonable to question Governor Palin’s positions and experience with respect to her being a potential vice president? Yes, given that a) it substantively consists of only 1.5 years as an isolated governor, preceded by typical introductory community activities and positions that can be attributed to millions of other Americans, and b) her positions are so out of sync with millions of voters. John McCain and his team profess shock that her background is being questioned by the national press and American public, such that he cancelled a Larry King interview because of a CNN reporter’s tough questions to a senior McCain aide about Palin’s experience. The real shock is that McCain and company were so unrealistic to believe that they could spring a complete surprise on a voyeur American public and not expect all of this snooping and grilling to roar forward. It is reflective of the same disdain of “the public’s right to know” that we have witnessed these past 8 years.
Someone recently asked me, “So does the VP choice really matter? Isn’t it really all about the presidential candidates and what they believe?” My answer was, and is, a resounding “No,” that the VP choice matters a lot. For 3 reasons:
1. Other than selecting his campaign team, the VP choice is the first real statement about the kind of people a president will surround him-/herself with. You ultimately elect a governing team, and the many Department Secretaries and policy minions that make up the Executive Branch are as important and consequential as the president. (Think “Brownie, you’re doing a heckofa job!”) Just look at the cast of characters who have come and gone over the last 8 years, where they’ve taken us, and the results of their tenure. Who has John McCain now implied will be the members of his cabinet and advisors?
2. Since Walter Mondale’s VP service to Jimmy Carter, the VP has come to have a very substantial role in Washington. The role has become a true advisor to the president, a key voice in decision-making, and a direct influence over some operational functions. As the past 8 years demonstrates, we need to be very concerned about what advice and input our president is receiving.
3. Since 1841, 7 vice presidents have become president upon a president’s death; another one upon Nixon’s resignation; and under today’s presidential succession/incapacity laws, Wilson’s VP would have ascended to the presidency. On that count, 1 in 5 VPs have had to step into the job. 72-year-old John McCain would be the 6th president since the last succession occurred. This is a real statistical probability.
We not only elect a vice president, we also elect a president-in-waiting. Think a potential President Dick Cheney (the most arrogant and destructive Washington player since Joe McCarthy’s excesses in the 1950s), or even a president Dan Quayle. With all the persons of real talent, experience, and character available in the Republican Party, some of whom were fully tested and vetted by the recent primaries (think Huckabee if you really wanted to appeal to the right wing without having to pick an unknown inflammatory loose cannon), is Sarah Palin really the best choice John McCain could come up with? A person who is now completely under wraps because the campaign refuses to allow her in front of interviewers until they can properly train her for the national stage? Most importantly, what does this first “executive decision” say about John McCain?
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
$4 Gas
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)