These days, the apparently 2nd-most divisive issue (after abortion) Americans are grappling with is extending the status of marriage to gays and lesbians. The climate for this debate has escalated as a result of several state Supreme Courts ruling that gays and lesbians have the constitutional right to marry, which in turn has provoked a run of anti-gay marriage laws and amendments explicitly outlawing same. While the recent California ballot initiative may yet be overturned on the grounds that an unconstitutional process was followed with this initiative, the debate is sure to continue. For traditional believers, this issue strikes at the core of their religious faith, as the whole discussion is ultimately rooted in religious/biblical beliefs. For gays and lesbians, the argument centers around their perceived right to have the same opportunity of marriage as any other citizen.
Let us first separate both outside edges of this discussion. Firstly, I am not personally gay, so I have no personal stake in either outcome of this debate. Secondly, there is a large group of people who oppose same-sex marriage because they reject homosexuality itself, hence by extension they oppose any form of recognition to such relationships. But not all anti-same-sex-marriage people are automatically anti-gays and lesbians; this is a seismic shift in public opinion over the last 30 years. There is not only a growing body of straight people who are supporters of full same-sex relationships, but there is a similarly growing group who can be supportive up to a point but in good conscience just cannot make the leap to same-sex marriage. For them, there remains something about “marriage” that inherently defines a male/female union.
Vermont was the first state to formally endorse “civil unions,” a legal status that gave to same-sex couples defined rights and privileges that were closely akin to marital legal rights. Massachusetts has allowed same-sex marriage for several years now; the sky over Boston has not fallen, same-sex children have not turned out extraordinarily degenerate, crime rates have not increased. Traditional male/female marriage thrives unabated, and our species continues to be adequately re-stocked. Connecticut will be the next state to follow. I am quite confident that Connecticut, and the California couples who married in the legal interim, will experience similar very ordinary results. Many employers and insurance companies have already moved to grant similar benefits to same-sex couples. Yet our Republic still stands.
There are actually two issues which we must relook at. One is the meaning of marriage itself. I am not convinced that there is an inherent constitutional right to marry, but it seems pretty clear that there is no constitutionally-based discrimination in who can marry. My most radical conviction is that the institution of marriage in America is in itself unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment mandate for the separation of Church and State. Marriage in America mixes two concepts. One is the granting of inter-dependent legal rights and responsibilities to two individuals for such things as automatically shared property ownership, required financial/physical support, implicit power-of-attorney authority in emergencies, parental rights and responsibilities, etc. All of this is codified and is equally applicable to all citizens in that jurisdiction of legal age.
But marriage is also a religious rite, practiced and conferred within the differing rules, traditions and dogmas of each religion, and therefore is NOT commonly applied to all people. It is done to express a spiritual and emotional commitment between two individuals that is beyond the range of state contractual rights, and to do so in witness by family, friends and the individual’s religious community. In virtually all religious traditions, the chief meaningful requirements are love, commitment, and personal fulfillment. I can see where some religious groups might theologically position their concept of marriage as additionally requiring a male-female relationship, along with other cultural roles and expectations. If one particular denomination or church has the right to define such as they see fit, then other religions just as rightfully should be entitled to stake out their theological positions – such as among a man and many wives (or vice versa) (currently legally banned); or between same-sex individuals (banned in 48 states); or requiring the same nationality; or only allowing separate races (once true and now banned); or requiring participants to be of the same faith (varying rules in Catholicism).
Complicating this is the mixing of legal authority for marriage. The State inherently grants to religious practitioners the power to create a legal marriage. Most all marriages are created this way. Thereby the State endorses the varying patchwork rules of our religious groups and their mixed (and perhaps unconstitutional?) rules. And we have made religious practitioners “agents of the State” ― a mixing of state and church most definitely abhorrent to our Founding Fathers’ principles. The lesson continues to be: when we mix canon with civil law, religion with state, individual beliefs with universal enforcement, the results are never good.
The only way out of this protracted social battle is to go back to square one and separate the two issues. For the State, let any two people (“domestic partners”) be granted a defined packaged set of legal rights (a “civil union”) upon their petition, recognized universally. In fact, virtually every such right can already be granted now by individual contracts or assignment of agency between any two people. So let us just make a consistent legal package easy for everyone to obtain. For “marriage,” let us simply remove any legal basis by the State, and return that designation (“husband and wife”) to the religious groups who rightfully own it. If Episcopalians or Southern Baptists determine that they have to split into Group A and Group B over same-sex marriage permission or prohibition, then so be it; religious groups have historically separated and subdivided themselves before over all sorts of differences (e.g. interpretation of texts, dogma, forms of ritual, family rules, governance). Ultimately, it is only in separation that there can be a coming together.
Far too much time on this issue is being spent over semantics and political demagoguery. Yet we must recognize the very real power that drives people to have their union blessed within the spiritual framework called “marriage.” The greater challenge of gay marriage is to our ability to accept, coexist with, and not fear ideas and people different than ourselves, rather than insisting on a universal sameness. What ultimately counts are the values of love, responsibility and caring. Jesus said, “Render under Caesar [the state] what is Caesar’s (“civil union”); render unto God what is God’s (“spiritual marriage”).” Human beings may grapple with this topic, but I have no doubt that God’s love is encompassing enough to include any human acts driven by a desire to love and commit to one another. Within that greater context, I have no doubt that the institution of marriage will continue to be quite safe in America.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Underwriting Corporate Mismanagement
The latest chapter of our economic collapse now centers on what to do with our Big Three US automakers. Cries of impending doom fill the air. Chants of “it’s not our fault” are spoken daily by both the corporate CEOs and the autoworker union leadership; all blame is elsewhere. So the three well-dressed CEOs flew into Washington in their luxury jets to jointly ask for $25B in a “bridge loan” to keep them afloat as they continue to spend their way into zero-cash poverty.
They sat together smugly as they tried to virtually blackmail Congress into giving them the money “because you cannot put 2 million people out of work.” Yet there was no contrition expressed; there was no sense expressed that “we’re in tough times so we have to operate differently”; most importantly, there was no PLAN for corporate survival. There was no knowledge about whether $25B was even enough to achieve the interim funding goal, or was just a down-payment on future installments. No arrangement was even determined for how much of the $25B each corporation would get. It was simply “pay us something so that we can operate business-as-usual.” Chrysler’s CEO acknowledged some measure of personal commitment and responsibility to all of this by announcing that he had gone to a “dollar-a-year” compensation; GM’s head had cut his compensation by 50%; but Ford’s CEO stubbornly expressed that his compensation level was “just fine at this time, no change is needed” (@$7-9M). It was as embarrassing and frustrating a public relations debacle as I have seen in a long time, and a sad testament as to how low the bar has now been set for corporate executive capability.
What these people, and their union counterparts, seem to fail to understand is basic investing and lending principles. The American people do not lend or invest in companies, whether directly or through financial institutions or the US government, because we like you or not. We do not do it, and should not, because nice people need jobs if they are jobs that contribute unmeaningful work at an excessive price. We do not financially prop up companies who produce and/or overprice unneeded or shoddy goods, or provide poor customer service and follow-up to the sale. No thank you, we look to find other providers instead. And the past business/financial plans of these companies have simply been continually out of sync with America’s greater needs.
When we invest or loan, we do so not in a company or individuals; we invest in a PLAN. A plan that takes us into the FUTURE. A Future with an above-average chance to SUCCEED. To date, these 3 companies and their CEOs and union leaders are offering none of these ingredients. There is no Plan whatsoever; $25B is being requested to maintain an antiquated Past way of doing business; hence the probability of long-term Successful Viability is highly limited. Why would we go for this unacceptable high-jacking scheme?
It is fairly easy to be successful when times are good; hard times require people of special talents. There are many good CEOs and small business owners out there whose good reputations are being besmirched and overshadowed by the visible incompetents. There are CEOs and business owners who are smart and capable enough to see the current shape of things, figure out the handwriting on the wall, and react smartly and adroitly to guide their companies through this current storm. Probably arriving in better long-term shape than they are in now. We need to recognize these business leaders and support them in those intelligent ways that we can.
So what to do with GM, Ford and Chrysler? The probability is that Congress will ultimately blink and fork over some operating cash for these companies. The extreme economic and political realities will demand it. In and of itself, I am not necessarily opposed to government loans/investments in private businesses if done for specific objectives under tight conditions for a limited timeframe. So it should be in this instance. But this funding should come with heavy strings attached. Specifically: a) replace the current management team in each company, along with at least 51% of their Boards; b) renegotiate the union contacts and executive pay to be competitive with industry rivals, i.e. challenge the union to choose either the losing battle to protect wages and benefits at the expense of jobs, or adjust to winning a battle to define and support new competitively-sustaining jobs, and further require executive compensation to set a new model for corporate responsibility; c) submit a clear strategic plan with detailed tactical plans for how these companies will realign themselves to the realities of the US auto buying marketplace. Not a plan of tokenism and public relations, but a long-term plan reflecting serious deep change in thinking, costs, entitlement, and marketplace.
Absent this, then I say let them go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as recommended recently in an OpEd article that a friend forwarded to me, written by Mitt Romney in the New York Times reflecting upon his father George’s successful turnaround of American Motors back in the 1950s. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Let+Detroit+Go+Bankrupt&st=nyt). Chapter 11 will de facto force these changes onto these companies, though it will also cause much unwarranted investor chaos. With Chapter 11, the sky will not fall, and doomsday will not arrive, and cars will still be sold; the airline industry and others have already demonstrated a successful life after Chapter 11.
But most importantly, get new people behind the automotive desks. As these CEOs now return to Congress with a whole new skin-deep public relations program to try to make up for their last performance, we need to remember that their problems are NOT new. These companies have been in trouble for a generation. The current economic conditions did not cause their failure, they only clearly exposed it and made us say “no more.” It is clear that only external forces move these current leaders, not innate talent. The last time I looked, there was not a George Romney or Lee Iacocca bold corporate leader to be found among them.
They sat together smugly as they tried to virtually blackmail Congress into giving them the money “because you cannot put 2 million people out of work.” Yet there was no contrition expressed; there was no sense expressed that “we’re in tough times so we have to operate differently”; most importantly, there was no PLAN for corporate survival. There was no knowledge about whether $25B was even enough to achieve the interim funding goal, or was just a down-payment on future installments. No arrangement was even determined for how much of the $25B each corporation would get. It was simply “pay us something so that we can operate business-as-usual.” Chrysler’s CEO acknowledged some measure of personal commitment and responsibility to all of this by announcing that he had gone to a “dollar-a-year” compensation; GM’s head had cut his compensation by 50%; but Ford’s CEO stubbornly expressed that his compensation level was “just fine at this time, no change is needed” (@$7-9M). It was as embarrassing and frustrating a public relations debacle as I have seen in a long time, and a sad testament as to how low the bar has now been set for corporate executive capability.
What these people, and their union counterparts, seem to fail to understand is basic investing and lending principles. The American people do not lend or invest in companies, whether directly or through financial institutions or the US government, because we like you or not. We do not do it, and should not, because nice people need jobs if they are jobs that contribute unmeaningful work at an excessive price. We do not financially prop up companies who produce and/or overprice unneeded or shoddy goods, or provide poor customer service and follow-up to the sale. No thank you, we look to find other providers instead. And the past business/financial plans of these companies have simply been continually out of sync with America’s greater needs.
When we invest or loan, we do so not in a company or individuals; we invest in a PLAN. A plan that takes us into the FUTURE. A Future with an above-average chance to SUCCEED. To date, these 3 companies and their CEOs and union leaders are offering none of these ingredients. There is no Plan whatsoever; $25B is being requested to maintain an antiquated Past way of doing business; hence the probability of long-term Successful Viability is highly limited. Why would we go for this unacceptable high-jacking scheme?
It is fairly easy to be successful when times are good; hard times require people of special talents. There are many good CEOs and small business owners out there whose good reputations are being besmirched and overshadowed by the visible incompetents. There are CEOs and business owners who are smart and capable enough to see the current shape of things, figure out the handwriting on the wall, and react smartly and adroitly to guide their companies through this current storm. Probably arriving in better long-term shape than they are in now. We need to recognize these business leaders and support them in those intelligent ways that we can.
So what to do with GM, Ford and Chrysler? The probability is that Congress will ultimately blink and fork over some operating cash for these companies. The extreme economic and political realities will demand it. In and of itself, I am not necessarily opposed to government loans/investments in private businesses if done for specific objectives under tight conditions for a limited timeframe. So it should be in this instance. But this funding should come with heavy strings attached. Specifically: a) replace the current management team in each company, along with at least 51% of their Boards; b) renegotiate the union contacts and executive pay to be competitive with industry rivals, i.e. challenge the union to choose either the losing battle to protect wages and benefits at the expense of jobs, or adjust to winning a battle to define and support new competitively-sustaining jobs, and further require executive compensation to set a new model for corporate responsibility; c) submit a clear strategic plan with detailed tactical plans for how these companies will realign themselves to the realities of the US auto buying marketplace. Not a plan of tokenism and public relations, but a long-term plan reflecting serious deep change in thinking, costs, entitlement, and marketplace.
Absent this, then I say let them go into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, as recommended recently in an OpEd article that a friend forwarded to me, written by Mitt Romney in the New York Times reflecting upon his father George’s successful turnaround of American Motors back in the 1950s. (See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Let+Detroit+Go+Bankrupt&st=nyt). Chapter 11 will de facto force these changes onto these companies, though it will also cause much unwarranted investor chaos. With Chapter 11, the sky will not fall, and doomsday will not arrive, and cars will still be sold; the airline industry and others have already demonstrated a successful life after Chapter 11.
But most importantly, get new people behind the automotive desks. As these CEOs now return to Congress with a whole new skin-deep public relations program to try to make up for their last performance, we need to remember that their problems are NOT new. These companies have been in trouble for a generation. The current economic conditions did not cause their failure, they only clearly exposed it and made us say “no more.” It is clear that only external forces move these current leaders, not innate talent. The last time I looked, there was not a George Romney or Lee Iacocca bold corporate leader to be found among them.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Differing Views of a Mountain
In the next few years, this country has some enormous decisions to make about its directions, and our government’s best role and what services it should deliver how to we the citizens. The process of arriving at these decisions is inevitably going to bring out many divergent opinions across the political and philosophical spectrum. Will we listen respectfully and learn from each other in this process, or continue to posture ourselves in the “I’m Right / You’re Wrong” dialog that has so crippled us for far too long? I offer the following narrative as a context for this forthcoming national discussion, written some months ago but held until an appropriate time, such as is now.
*****
I was recently standing alone on the front porch of my mountain home, looking at the clear view of layers of mountain ridges in the distance. For me, such a view affirms “the biggestness” of this world and our life in it, and testifies to the extraordinary design creativity that is part of God. But I also began to think about what others might see if standing in this same exact place, looking at the same picture in their eyes.
· The naturist, who sees in these mountains an unending nurturing home for myriad wildlife and plant life coexisting together;
· The geologist, who sees in these mountains the beauty of mounds of rock piled upon each other from millions of years of physical pressure and erosion;
· The farmer, who sees in these mountains all of the steep angles and knows this is “worthless” farm country;
· The natural food aficionado, who sees in these mountains nature’s farm already producing all the sustenance needed;
· The logger, who sees in these mountains all the trees that can be taken out of these woods for the new homes that can be built;
· The home developer, who sees in these mountains large parcels of one-acre home sites waiting to be bulldozed out into “vacation homes”;
· The conservationist, who sees in these mountains so many of those vacation homes to thereby obviate the original vacation attraction;
· The outdoors person, who sees in these mountains virgin woods in God’s original state to experience;
· The mystic, who sees in these mountains a gathering of nature spirits that tie all the elements into equilibrium and interdependency;
· The spiritualist, who sees in these mountains proof of a God that is un-provable.
We are all looking at the same picture. But we each “see” something different. Yet the mountain simply sees itself as “the mountain.”
The Buddhists talk about seeing the “emptiness of things,” seeing things as they truly are versus what we choose to interpret onto them. As we grow in chronological age we overlay our personal experiences and lessons learned onto that which we see, and thereby narrow our view. As we grow spiritually we conversely see all of these overlays, and yet we also see none of these. It is simply what it is: the mountains. And that is what we now see clearest of all.
*****
The mountain may have its Facts of trees, rocks and dirt. But its Truth is relative, and its Rightness or Wrongness is entirely subjective to the lens of our own personal experiences and exposures that shape our individual perspectives. Our Wisdom is found in our capacity to hold all of those divergent views together in our hearts and minds, and our ability to reach beyond them all to find and build upon the largest common thread that runs through them all.
“People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they’re not on your road doesn’t mean they’ve gotten lost.” (H. Jackson Browne)
*****
I was recently standing alone on the front porch of my mountain home, looking at the clear view of layers of mountain ridges in the distance. For me, such a view affirms “the biggestness” of this world and our life in it, and testifies to the extraordinary design creativity that is part of God. But I also began to think about what others might see if standing in this same exact place, looking at the same picture in their eyes.
· The naturist, who sees in these mountains an unending nurturing home for myriad wildlife and plant life coexisting together;
· The geologist, who sees in these mountains the beauty of mounds of rock piled upon each other from millions of years of physical pressure and erosion;
· The farmer, who sees in these mountains all of the steep angles and knows this is “worthless” farm country;
· The natural food aficionado, who sees in these mountains nature’s farm already producing all the sustenance needed;
· The logger, who sees in these mountains all the trees that can be taken out of these woods for the new homes that can be built;
· The home developer, who sees in these mountains large parcels of one-acre home sites waiting to be bulldozed out into “vacation homes”;
· The conservationist, who sees in these mountains so many of those vacation homes to thereby obviate the original vacation attraction;
· The outdoors person, who sees in these mountains virgin woods in God’s original state to experience;
· The mystic, who sees in these mountains a gathering of nature spirits that tie all the elements into equilibrium and interdependency;
· The spiritualist, who sees in these mountains proof of a God that is un-provable.
We are all looking at the same picture. But we each “see” something different. Yet the mountain simply sees itself as “the mountain.”
The Buddhists talk about seeing the “emptiness of things,” seeing things as they truly are versus what we choose to interpret onto them. As we grow in chronological age we overlay our personal experiences and lessons learned onto that which we see, and thereby narrow our view. As we grow spiritually we conversely see all of these overlays, and yet we also see none of these. It is simply what it is: the mountains. And that is what we now see clearest of all.
*****
The mountain may have its Facts of trees, rocks and dirt. But its Truth is relative, and its Rightness or Wrongness is entirely subjective to the lens of our own personal experiences and exposures that shape our individual perspectives. Our Wisdom is found in our capacity to hold all of those divergent views together in our hearts and minds, and our ability to reach beyond them all to find and build upon the largest common thread that runs through them all.
“People take different roads seeking fulfillment and happiness. Just because they’re not on your road doesn’t mean they’ve gotten lost.” (H. Jackson Browne)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Post-Election Observations - 2008
It is finally over, this marathon presidential election of 2008. And while it is still fresh, I offer some general comments about what we have seen during this long period of campaigning, regardless of your candidate of choice.
Best Run Campaign: Obama, no question. Highly disciplined, consistently on message (minus a few Biden relapses), smart visuals, overwhelming organization. Right out of past Republican election machines (without the sleaze) that left even Bill O’Reilly marveling. Hopefully an indication of his governing ability to come.
Most Intelligent Comment Made: From Colin Powell, who said of Obama “He is not a Muslim, but what if he was?” A disarming challenge to all of us, to the collective Republican Party, and to all small-minded bigots around the country regardless of political affiliation.
Biggest Broken Promise: No, it was not Obama’s reneging on limiting himself to public financing, which thereby allowed the Democratic candidate for the first time to have a greater financial war chest than his Republican opponent. Rather, it was McCain breaking his promise to run a “respectful campaign”; it was anything but.
Worst Campaign Selection: Sarah Palin. Trading our country’s future for support from a limited-interest group.
Good Campaign Selection: Joe Biden. The difference in credentials said it all.
Worst Political Decision: McCain’s call to “suspend his campaign” (he didn’t) and return to Washington to straighten out the financial mess. A national emergency became subsumed to electioneering (as Obama predicted). McCain didn’t deliver, and further he showed he was not even in command of his own party. He showed impetuousness and erratic behavior, not leadership. The man who would be on his white horse had it shot out from under him.
Best Political Decision: Obama’s strategy to “take it to the red states,” building on his organizational strength and financing resulting from his long national setup run against Hillary.
Biggest Lies and Lousy Arguments: Truth was, as usual, a major casualty of the election. The distortions made of facts, including the insulting use of “labels” (terrorists, socialists, etc.); the reach backwards by Republicans to tired old themes (e.g. tax cuts when we are already broke; “socialized medicine” from the 1950s) versus new ideas; drilling for off-shore oil that is a miniscule source for our needs and will not be available for 10 years instead of focusing on non-energy oil; etc.
Greatest Exhaustion: 21 months and over $2billion to elect a President is inane. Other than giving Obama time and training to be ready for the final stretch run against the other party, was all of this time and money really needed?
Big Anticipation: A few future weeks of political quiet on TV, and sending hundreds of mediocre, previously nameless self-appointed would-be political pundits and analysts back to deserved anonymity. Start with Joe the Plumber and the ridiculous airing of his irrelevant opinions for his 15 minutes of undeserved fame.
Looking Forward To: Being able to go to sleep at night without having to pray for the continuing good health of a President in order to keep a scary Vice President out of the White House (i.e. Cheney, Palin)
Biggest Hope: That the Karl Rovian ugly tactics have been sufficiently trashed by enough Americans that divisiveness and name-calling campaigns disappear. That patriotism no longer wears a party hat, and “Real Americans” are not separated good guys/bad guys, but includes all of our many diverse peoples, beliefs, geographies, religions, and aspirations.
And in Conclusion …: Regardless of your political convictions and desired outcomes, the objective assessment is that Obama ran a poised, focused, smart, and controlled campaign a la prior Republican and Bill Clinton campaigns. McCain ran an erratic, shoot-from-the-hip, lurching campaign that was continually looking for a message, constantly on the defensive a la Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. And so Obama won, and McCain lost. Competency still matters.
November 4th was an historical day of demonstrating an overwhelming expression of the democratic vote and peaceful change which we are called to represent to the world, reaching a new milestone in equal opportunity, hearing a very classy concession speech from the John McCain integrity we used to know, and receiving an excellent summation of where we have arrived from Obama’s victory speech. Now the real work of “delivery of promise” begins. That won’t be easy. That delivery needs the participation, help, hope and prayers of all of us.
Best Run Campaign: Obama, no question. Highly disciplined, consistently on message (minus a few Biden relapses), smart visuals, overwhelming organization. Right out of past Republican election machines (without the sleaze) that left even Bill O’Reilly marveling. Hopefully an indication of his governing ability to come.
Most Intelligent Comment Made: From Colin Powell, who said of Obama “He is not a Muslim, but what if he was?” A disarming challenge to all of us, to the collective Republican Party, and to all small-minded bigots around the country regardless of political affiliation.
Biggest Broken Promise: No, it was not Obama’s reneging on limiting himself to public financing, which thereby allowed the Democratic candidate for the first time to have a greater financial war chest than his Republican opponent. Rather, it was McCain breaking his promise to run a “respectful campaign”; it was anything but.
Worst Campaign Selection: Sarah Palin. Trading our country’s future for support from a limited-interest group.
Good Campaign Selection: Joe Biden. The difference in credentials said it all.
Worst Political Decision: McCain’s call to “suspend his campaign” (he didn’t) and return to Washington to straighten out the financial mess. A national emergency became subsumed to electioneering (as Obama predicted). McCain didn’t deliver, and further he showed he was not even in command of his own party. He showed impetuousness and erratic behavior, not leadership. The man who would be on his white horse had it shot out from under him.
Best Political Decision: Obama’s strategy to “take it to the red states,” building on his organizational strength and financing resulting from his long national setup run against Hillary.
Biggest Lies and Lousy Arguments: Truth was, as usual, a major casualty of the election. The distortions made of facts, including the insulting use of “labels” (terrorists, socialists, etc.); the reach backwards by Republicans to tired old themes (e.g. tax cuts when we are already broke; “socialized medicine” from the 1950s) versus new ideas; drilling for off-shore oil that is a miniscule source for our needs and will not be available for 10 years instead of focusing on non-energy oil; etc.
Greatest Exhaustion: 21 months and over $2billion to elect a President is inane. Other than giving Obama time and training to be ready for the final stretch run against the other party, was all of this time and money really needed?
Big Anticipation: A few future weeks of political quiet on TV, and sending hundreds of mediocre, previously nameless self-appointed would-be political pundits and analysts back to deserved anonymity. Start with Joe the Plumber and the ridiculous airing of his irrelevant opinions for his 15 minutes of undeserved fame.
Looking Forward To: Being able to go to sleep at night without having to pray for the continuing good health of a President in order to keep a scary Vice President out of the White House (i.e. Cheney, Palin)
Biggest Hope: That the Karl Rovian ugly tactics have been sufficiently trashed by enough Americans that divisiveness and name-calling campaigns disappear. That patriotism no longer wears a party hat, and “Real Americans” are not separated good guys/bad guys, but includes all of our many diverse peoples, beliefs, geographies, religions, and aspirations.
And in Conclusion …: Regardless of your political convictions and desired outcomes, the objective assessment is that Obama ran a poised, focused, smart, and controlled campaign a la prior Republican and Bill Clinton campaigns. McCain ran an erratic, shoot-from-the-hip, lurching campaign that was continually looking for a message, constantly on the defensive a la Dukakis, Gore and Kerry. And so Obama won, and McCain lost. Competency still matters.
November 4th was an historical day of demonstrating an overwhelming expression of the democratic vote and peaceful change which we are called to represent to the world, reaching a new milestone in equal opportunity, hearing a very classy concession speech from the John McCain integrity we used to know, and receiving an excellent summation of where we have arrived from Obama’s victory speech. Now the real work of “delivery of promise” begins. That won’t be easy. That delivery needs the participation, help, hope and prayers of all of us.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Election Choice 2008
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.
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 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)