Pocket Gofer 17

POCKET GOFER 17

Download the Pocket Gofer 17 here.

ON LEADERSHIP IN A DEMOCRACY

• BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AN EFFECTIVE LEADER
• OUR SITUATION TODAY
• WHAT MIGHT BE
• CONCLUSION

The late Peter Peterson in his book Running on Empty: “America’s founding statesmen had one great aspiration.  ———–.  They associated honest and prudent public accounting with principled leadership, a virtuous citizenry, and a prospering economy.  Chronic deficits spelled corrupt leadership, political decadence, and economic ruin.”

Jefferson: “To preserve our independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.  We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude.”

Eisenhower: “I believe fanatically in the American form of democracy, a system that recognizes and protects the rights of the individual and that ascribes to the individual a dignity accruing to him because of his creation in the image of a supreme being and which rests upon the conviction that only through a system of free enterprise can this type of democracy be preserved.”  This belief enabled Ike to perform as a very capable leader, both in the military and in government.

In February 2005 US Comptroller General David Walker addressed Congress: “Our nation’s fiscal policy is on an unsustainable course, and our fiscal gap grew much larger in —– 2004.  Continuing ——- will gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living and ultimately our national security.”  Clearly, the man knew of what he spoke.

We’ve been looking around and thinking.  The conclusion that we are damn near out of stock in public sector leadership is very difficult to avoid.

Recently the business sector has generated some bad press.  Several top leaders have been caught misbehaving, and probably more to come.  Maybe there is a public-private connection, caused by a decline in morality in our once-great nation.

Congress jumped on this one in order to distract the public from some shenanigans that its members were up to.  President Bush set up a Corporate Fraud Task Force.

But on the sly he took 59 agents from corporate fraud and transferred them to anti-terrorism.  Therefore the Fraud Task Force was itself a fraud.

President Obama seemed hostile to business, as was FDR, who fiercely bit the hand that fed him.  The Obama government’s fiscal policy was so uncertain that businesses hesitated to make any job-creating investments without knowing what taxes they will be forced to pay.  But the man kept preaching jobs, jobs and more jobs.

After reflection we concluded that if we put our thoughts on paper we might pick up some insights into the problem.  All of us who are concerned must ask: How can this country function without effective leaders?  So, let’s ask.

About 50 years ago leadership was taught as tell, sell, consult or total involvement (democratic).  Training sessions described the tough guy (usually a man) who barked commands as the “tell ‘em” type.  PG4 elaborates.

The leader who decided what the outfit was going to do and how to do it and then persuaded the troops to his/her viewpoint was the “sell” type.  Then there was the “consulting” type, who would chew the issue over with his/her people and then decide what to do and how.

Finally, there was the leader who talked the whole mess out at length with his staff, and then all arrived at a collective decision.  This was the “total involvement” type.

Different leaders naturally took to different types.  Also, the situation would often call for a different type.  For example, some kind of emergency would frequently require a leader who could seize the initiative and “tell ‘em.”  (Katrina springs to mind.)

In ordinary conditions the same person might tend toward one of the other three categories.  Furthermore, each member of the crew soon discovered that he/she could work better with one or another of these types of supervisor.  This fact often determined the company or section selected for employment.

In those days instruction included delegation of authority from above.  However, responsibility for seeing that a job was done, done right, close to budget and on time remained in the upper level.  This retention of responsibility placed an emphasis on good and comprehensive training and later follow-up.

We recall a time when we were stationed overseas with the US Navy.  Two of us were walking on our base when an officer whom we knew passed by us.

We both saluted him and received an answering salute, which was the custom.  When the officer had moved beyond hearing our buddy said, “Did you salute the stripes or the man?”

We chewed on that one for years.  In an effective organization should respect and authority be delegated from above (stripes) or conferred from below (man)?

What we described above is really instruction in supervisory management, not leadership.  In this pocket gofer we will investigate the difference, and we will see that most of what makes a good leader cannot be taught directly one to another.  (Eisenhower never enrolled in Leadership 101.)

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AN EFFECTIVE LEADER

After thinking about it we now perceive this person as having wise vision, courage, persistence, sales ability, and a habit of actively seeking constructive criticism.  The first trait involves knowing in what direction to guide the organization. This insight is acquired through learning and reflection, on which more later.

The second shows up when telling people, whenever in our mature judgment it is necessary, what we know they don’t want to hear.  The risk here lies in making enemies in an organization.  This risk can be minimized by emphasis on discussing ideas and recommendations instead of people (Pocket Gofer 13).

The third is being able to continue saying it even when the tide of opinion turns against us.  In its early stage a vision is not shared by others.  Often these people are comfortable with things as they are, so they are reluctant to change their thinking.

The fourth is ability to convince the people that it is in their interest to agree with and to follow the leader’s thinking.  Giving them opportunities before the decision to discuss the issue gets them involved, and is therefore an effective selling tool.

Finally, the fifth is encouraging changes over time, including in the leader’s thinking.  Nobody is perfect.  A leader will tap into a variety of resources, including people, in an effort to ensure that any recommendations for change are sound and in synch with the vision.

Nothing stands still except today’s Washington.  Lacking effective leadership, the place has got itself tied up in knots.  Should we expect anything different when we know career politicians are not leaders?

Now we can see why effective leadership cannot be taught one to another.  Just how would anyone teach vision to someone else? Courage?  Persistence?

Good leaders can and do acquire these vital traits and skills, but only indirectly from others.  The key lies in prying loose quiet time alone for internal reflection when everyone else is wired 24/7 and multitasking.

President Franklin Roosevelt once described the presidency as the loneliest job he had ever had.  He was a top-down “tell-‘em” leader, so by his nature he felt lonely.  (Raised amid wealth, he didn’t hold down many jobs.)

When he took office in 1933 the country was in crisis.  Therefore he might be forgiven for adopting a “tell-‘em” style.

President Clinton was not a leader by any definition.  He and other career politicians unintentionally supported our argument that “leader” and “career politician” make up a contradiction in terms (Pocket Gofer 3).

He was not selected to run for president due to his capability as a leader.  Rather, the big potatoes in the Democratic Party thought he could win an election, or maybe even two.

We recall Bill stating that he would make education the centerpiece of his second term.  Ah, ……..?  Well, yeah. 

In his excellent book Democratic Capitalism, Ray Carey: “When the ideal is not clearly presented ——, the consequence is that more poorly educated citizens elect more equally poorly trained leaders whose governance by default leads the world back into the same old folly and violence.”  In Pocket Gofer 10 we argue that top officials don’t want educated citizens.

Obviously those potatoes were right.  As has been so often in the past, the result was a politician in a job that calls for a leader.

Could Bill be a leader?  Yes; almost anyone could be an effective leader.

But it is not easy, as we shall see.  This is one reason why we lack good ones.

This pocket gofer will help to identify good leaders among us, and show how we can help them develop into better ones.  We will do this by conferring authority upon them through the democratic process as they help us to govern ourselves.  Thus: not so much the stripes; rather the man/woman.

Mr. Carey’s book elaborates on the potential of capitalism as the only nonviolent means of creating and accumulating wealth.  He identified some individuals who prospered mightily in spite of a government that is not democratic.

Arthur Brooks asked, “What’s Wrong with Billionaires? (Wall Street Journal 3/2007): “—– money by itself does not bring happiness.  ———-. What people hunger for is not money per se, but success at creating value.

“Bill Gates ——– proving that giving money can signify as much success to a person as accumulating it can.  —- as long as a fortune is earned (as opposed to stolen ——-) ——— directly related to the comfort of others.  Larry Ellison’s company had created tens of thousands of jobs, introduced technology that has benefitted all parts of the economy and paid billions in taxes.”  Today it looks like Jeff Bezos is moving toward joining this group.

OUR SITUATION TODAY

We citizens want to believe in our public officials.  To do this we need to perceive in them virtue and self-discipline along with those traits and skills noted above.

Possession of these traits enhance a leader’s credibility.  We get frustrated when we discover that we cannot believe.

We demonstrate here the lack of vision and courage.  Members of the American congress have become wimps.  (And thieves; See PG7.)

For decades they have focused on the short term, that of getting re-elected.  Therefore let’s tell the troops we have minimum taxes but secretly spend lots in order to buy votes.

This predictably creates ever-increasing debt.  They got away with this long enough so that it became a habit.

We were fortunate enough to be blessed with nearly continuing economic growth, and so they went beyond “long enough” and the habit became ingrained.  Today they are hooked on the spending drug.  But this nasty habit has finally been outed; we have the emperor’s clothes.

One good example of many comes to mind. During World War II the War Department in Washington created around 3,500 military installations in this country.

Afterward it became the Defense Department, and it created hundreds of installations overseas.  This colossal bureaucracy is still at it, 75 years later.

Someone might argue that the department has prevented WWIII.  Maybe so.  But today’s massive bureaucracy has morphed into a foreign war machine, world history’s biggest loose cannon.  For this Frankenstein here is no money in preventing war.

Nearly all installations are still in place and new ones are being built, long after the end of the big war and even after the end of the cold war.  There are two explanations for this immense drain on the US treasury (our pocketbooks).

One lies in the defense bureaucracy.  As we have argued elsewhere (Pocket Gofer 15), bureaucracies often begin with a worthy goal.

But much later the original goal gradually changes to another: eternal survival and continuous growth.  This describes the ailment that infests the “Defense Department,” among many others.

The other lies in pork back home.  Those thousands of installations mean jobs for workers and votes for congressmen.  We are surely not experts, but we can guestimate that today we need probably 200 or so, and less with each passing year (see Pocket Gofer 18).

Those jobs and vast physical plant contribute little to economic development.  Rather, they use up scarce resources that could be utilized in furthering such development.  Now, grab this one:

The Defense Department somehow managed to win a recent fight against “porky” congressmen in Indiana.  Officials closed two big bases near Indianapolis.

One of these changed to private sector activity.  Benjamin Harrison State Park was created on 2,000 acres of wilderness.

But what about all those lost jobs?  Well, 4 million square feet of commercial buildings and 1,000 homes were built on base land.  These created close to 12,000 jobs, more than the base had.

Not only are these jobs in the private sector, where they add to economic development instead of subtracting from it.  This private land annually generates $7 million in property taxes, whereas the military paid no taxes.

The other shutdown erased 2,600 jobs.  But Indianapolis’ mayor put the facility up for competitive bid.  Hughes Electronics beat six other companies.

Central government workers went home on Friday.  On the next Monday 98 percent of them returned, this time employed by Hughes.  In CA Ford Ord closed.  Cal State University opened a new campus there.

There is evidence that nearly two new civilian jobs have been created for every one lost on the few bases that have closed over the past 35 years.  And yet the bureaucracy lives on and on.

Thus, wars come and wars go, but pork goes on forever.  And on our dime.

Julia Malone (10/1999 column): “High on the list of pork projects are 20 C-130 transport planes, pushed through by —— Gingrich —– built in his home district —–.  ——.  Those huge transports have another ally in congress, since some are destined for National Guard units in the home state of senate majority leader Trent Lott ——.

“ —– also has sought funds toward building a $1.5 billion ship that the navy has not requested, but that will keep the shipyard busy at his Gulf Coast home town of Pascagoula.”  Malone referred to letters from Gingrich imploring Air Force officials to ask for the planes.

Senator McCain sifted through a defense bill.  He found another $4.5 billion in pork that had been sneaked into it by lawmakers.

We think members of congress can build as many planes and ships as they please.  Just don’t do it with taxpayer money.  PG14 springs to mind.

Neither America nor any other country needs these things, as the world pauses at the entrance to the Age of Reason.  What is needed are peacekeepers, not weapons.  (Combine this with a UN supported by its members, for which we argue in Pocket Gofer 12.)

Government officials accentuate the positive, — benefits, and eliminate the negative, — debt, and everyone is happy.  This is what we citizens want to hear, and every career politician obliges with great pleasure.

Recall how President Reagan and the congress preached “feel good” economics, while rampant spending and faked tax cuts quadrupled our national debt to nearly $4 trillion.  ($23 trillion now.)

Everyone is happy except our children, and their children, often as yet unborn.  The pedigreed short-termist sees no problem here: he/she won’t be around to listen to complaints about the tremendous obligation being strapped onto future citizens’ backs by “our” government.

By now thinking citizens can look ahead and see what will happen.  The young will refuse to pay off or even pay interest on the stupendous debt, so the government will be forced to “monetize” it (print enough extra money to retire it).

Inflation will blast off, the purchasing power of the dollar will vanish, and the economy will go into free fall.  There will be a depression that will make the one in the 1930s seem like a one-aspirin headache.  As of today we may be headed that way.

Some thinking citizens have voted with their (figurative) feet.  A February 2015 webcast: “A record 3,415 individuals renounced their U.S. citizenship or long-term residency in 2014, according to a list released by the Treasury Department on Tuesday.

“Many Americans abroad are finding that retaining their ties is not worth the cost and hassle of complying with the U.S. tax laws,’ says Andrew Mitchel, a lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who tallies the lists of names released quarterly by the Treasury Department.”  And Obama wanted to increase taxes??????? 

Updating to 3/2010 we see the news media (read “press agents for government”) hyping recovery from a deep recession.  Government wants folks spending again because this creates jobs.  See PG5 for a “saga of the media.”

However there are many economists who are monitoring a housing market that remains far from healthy.  Sales of new and existing houses have been falling for the past three months.

Lost jobs exacerbate this grim trend.  If it continues we will probably have what economists call a “W” recession, where a second dip in the broader economy follows the first.

Now, the above forecast of a depression is only a forecast.  Nevertheless consumers are well advised to keep their seat belts fastened.

The elites will cover their arses.  They have already planned for any depression by voting themselves pensions that equal or exceed their salaries.

They have lined up tax havens (foreign countries with almost no taxes) where they will park their assets shortly before the depression hits.  As for us ordinary yokels, we will be on our own.  Rats are the first to abandon a sinking ship.

Because parents look to their “leaders” and adopt similar habits they go along with this nonsense.  We find ourselves forced to conclude that current generations are hell-bent on having it all now and passing the bill on to future generations.

Even though life spans are increasing we imagine folks of today figure they won’t be around to listen to youthful screams of “FOUL!”  Because foul it is, and will be.

We have learned in other gofers that both parties have joined together to pull off the Grand Deception (see Pocket Gofer 19).  They also know that if not enough of us perceive a real crisis there is no need to rock the boat.

Every so often over the past 60 or so years the congress has met to increase the upper limit on the national debt.  This has got to the point where the media don’t bother to report each instance.  Today that debt is $23 trillion and counting.  One would think the media ……

But friends, today enough of us are awakening, so all of a sudden a historical routine gesture has become a sticky wicket.  There was on the docket in January 2011 a fight brewing over the debt limit.

It will either force the two parties to negotiate or continue the gridlock that keeps government tied up in knots.  The latter would mean no fiscal policy and business executives disinclined to invest in job-creating enterprises.

Warren Bennis in his book On Becoming A Leader argued for a “learning organization.”  He claimed that a true leader is always looking for opportunities to rock the boat.

This is because the boat navigates in the uncharted seas of change and therefore must also learn to appreciate learning as well as change.  Don’t wait for a crisis, because this generates an emotional reaction, haste and bad decisions instead of utilizing reflection based in reason.  (9/11 springs to mind.)

Bennis says a manager is hired to do the same things better, while a leader is hired to determine which better things to do and why.  There are places in an organization for both.

Top officials in government should not be managers, but conditions have gradually evolved during the past 200+ years such that they perceive no other alternative.  They have no vision beyond the next election (Pocket Gofer 3).

What is worse, they can’t even manage a bloated, wasteful, and corrupt operation except for their benefit.  They are supposed to be our servants, but they are no damn good at that, either.

MORALITY LOST: Can we forgive our representatives for their behavior?  Let’s put ourselves in their shoes for a moment: imagine us as one of them.

We make a bunch of promises, the people believe some of them, and we start getting the idea that we are pretty good.  They see us sacrificing opportunities to earn megabucks in the private sector, and crowds greet us with cheers.

People look up to us because they think we can give them something for nearly nothing.  Eventually we actually start thinking we can really do these things.

We feel powerful, important.  We develop an appetite for more of the same, as it feels so good.  But to do more things, presumably for the people, we need more power.

But this need gradually changes to personal power seeking because it is human nature.  It also has no place in a democracy; see Pocket Gofer 13.

These rising expectations build up over decades as each political party strives to promise more and provide more than its opponent.  It’s a good life, rubbing shoulders with VIPs and enjoying all those perks at taxpayer expense.  Makes us feel like VIPs ourselves.

We forget that the people elected us with the intent that we become and remain public servants.  Human nature seizes our brains and hearts as we slide away from public service and toward self-service.  In this way the whole society slowly slides into a rut.

We recall some journalists referring to President Reagan and his wife as King Ron and Queen Nancy.  Shortly after his retirement Lewis Lapham wrote a book called The Wish for Kings.

Even today the sad fact remains that many blokes would rather be subjects (ruled) than citizens (led).  We shall have more to say on this topic below.

Economist Paul Krugman: “For years, opinion leaders have told us that it’s all about family values.  And it is — but it will take a while before most people realize that they meant the value of coming from the right family.”

As for the congress, how much sheer, unadulterated stupidity can we stand?  Thomas Friedman in a 11/1997 column: “If you just took the first 435 names in the phone book surely, surely you could come up with a more intelligent, worldly body, than the 435 narrow-minded, short-sighted, weak-kneed, navel-gazing characters now representing the American people in the House of Representatives.

“—– the congress spent its last week barring the president from signing any more free-trade agreements, —— from paying America’s overdue UN dues — at a time when the US is trying to rally the UN to deal with Iraq — and barring the president from adding $3.5 billion to the IMF (International Monetary Fund) so that —— can better deal with financial meltdowns before they hit America’s shores.

“Both the IMF and UN payments are being held hostage by Newt Gingrich until Clinton gives in to demands of republican anti-abortion fanatics.”  This must take the biscuit.  Forget our own long-term welfare; forget that of the rest of the world.  Whew!

Forward to 1999.  A report proposed cutting the 66 percent of the illegal drugs budget that goes to law enforcement down to 33 percent.  The saving would be split evenly between treatment and education.

But calls for more cops, more firepower, longer prison sentences, and more prisons will continue without pause.  Never mind that drug use accounted for 85 percent of the huge increase in central government prison populations between 1985 and 1995.

Tom Teepen in a 3/1999 column: “At some point even the dippiest fool figures out that he can’t get through a brick wall by running into it harder each time he tries.  Just how badly are we willing to bruise ourselves before we start looking for a way around this brick wall?”

Ah, here is the kicker!  The elites are not being bruised.  We are the ones being ripped, while mostly those of us who don’t vote are also the victims of drug-related robberies, muggings, and murders.

The elites want prison populations to continue expanding, especially so long as they can force state governments to pay for the expansion.  This trend moves the society closer to the time when they can declare a police state (Pocket Gofer 19).  And then what?

We hear a voice.  It is saying look what happened back in November 1994: a “Republican Revolution.”  The people have finally seen through the mess that we described above and officials are taking positive action.  Surely now we are on the way to a solution of the sickness in Washington.

HOLD IT!  We remember the “Reagan Revolution.”  Is someone pulling the wool over our eyes again?

We once believed that a president who operates above the fray would shape up the 535 clowns in the congress.  We have offered some comments about several, and found them wanting in terms of the five traits that we seek in a good leader.

But to fully demonstrate the astounding loss of morality in our government we need to turn to Bill Clinton.  Columnist George Will said he was not our nation’s worst president, but he is the worst person to have been president.  (That was pre-GW Bush.  Would that change today?)

We begin with money.  One of many to comment was Schulman in a 6/2000 column:  “Over the past seven years, President Clinton has traded in the bully pulpit of the presidency for the roastmaster’s podium at the $5,000-a-plate dinner.

“Since January 1997, Clinton has spoken at more than 350 fundraising events, an average of one every three days.  ——–.  But, at that same time, he has all but abandoned presidential speechmaking, rarely deigning to employ the majesty of his office to build support for his policies.”

Having behaved in this way for three and a half years, surely there was no “majesty” remaining to employ.  (We object to Schulman’s use of this term to describe the office of a public servant.)

Call it credibility.  If Clinton had behaved like a leader, he might have used his high earned credibility to successfully broker a peace agreement between Palestine and Israel.  Sad to think of what has happened after this blown opportunity.

But friends, think of the eight-year loss of presidential leadership in our nation.  Instead of leading, the man spent over 30 percent of this time grubbing for money.

Small wonder most of his policy recommendations went nowhere.  And Gore lost anyhow in 2000.

“He prefers to govern thru campaign commercials, —– thru 30-second spots.  But the results have been indifferent.  Nearly all his plans languished.

“Presidential speeches have explained the necessity of reforming the banking system and the tax code; they roused public opinion to move a recalcitrant congress.  In forsaking this tradition, Clinton has both diminished the office of the presidency and marked a quiet revolution in American politics.”

The results of this revolution: “—— debate policy and decide issues thru 30-second spots.  Fund raising has become so all-consuming because governing itself relies heavily on paid political advertising.”  A thinking citizen might wonder what happened to Lincoln’s government “—— of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

“Soft money can win elections, but it cannot steer the nation toward new, ambitious objectives.  That requires rhetorical leadership — persistent, persuasive argument from the bully pulpit.

“The genius of Clinton’s predecessors was to harness the symbolic powers of their office ——.  ———.  By becoming fund-raiser in chief, Clinton has dissipated that legacy.  His own reputation, and the presidency, will suffer for it.”  The latter has indeed.

In 1998 journalists described him as “compartmentalizing” his life.  Maybe this clever word-stretch got the attention of some editors and thus got a few more writers into print.

When applied to a person (Webster doesn’t do this) it means throwing up a wall that separates public life from private.  California governor candidate Dan Lundgren said, “To suggest you can be honest in one significant part of your life and be dishonest in another and that side never affects the other, I don’t find it possible.”

Clinton found it possible.  His poll ratings dramatically improved after the Monica Lewinski scandal broke.  Unless the poll results were rigged (this happens) what does this say about citizens’ morality?

The most famous philanderer the White House has ever seen (and there have been several — Kennedy) must have thought he had just invented gold.  A logical conclusion must be that the more fun he has with women outside of marriage the more popular he becomes.

We saw nothing in print, but another logical conclusion is that a million husbands’ heads were spinning.  And perhaps as many wives were thinking.  Is this how presidential leadership improves morality?

Next came Juanita Broaderick’s credible claim that Clinton raped her in 1978.  This forced (and we do mean forced) democratic “leaders” to toss this one off as just a “he-said, she-said” bit of fluff.  These are the same folks who for years harangued about victimization of women.

Sometimes the prez got himself into such deep doo-doo that he grabbed at anything in order to distract public attention from some incredibly dumb thing he has done.

The Economist (8/1998) reported that the attack on a factory in the African country of Sudan occurred presumably because it was making an ingredient for nerve gas.  But whichever US agency had compiled the evidence was directed not to hand it over for independent analysis, as that might reveal intelligence sources.

No connection with the two American embassy bombings in Africa was proven, which might have justified the attack.  Apparently American government officials figured none was necessary.  The ploy to distract public attention had worked.

So why pick on a factory in a dirt-poor African country?  We don’t know.  Maybe Clinton thought he could more easily get away with this one.

The Sudanese government wanted an inquiry.  Rotsa ruck.  Actually,  we later happened upon the evidence.  The factory was making prescription drugs.

Look at the massive tragedy in Darfur, a part of Sudan.  The world apparently expected the government of the same country that bombed a pharmaceutical plant to move its army in to save the lives of around a million black citizens who are being terrorized.

We wondered, exactly what is American government policy toward Sudan?  We’re still wondering.

In view of these antics and allegations we find it impossible to understand why Bill continued to appeal to women.  We have always thought these people fully as intelligent as their male counterparts.

Over the past 40 years or so our society has gradually become infested with lawyers and trials.  Must be thousands of people giving evidence and taking oaths these days.  This undermines the impact of each instance; oath taking was rare before the era of BIG GOVERNMENT.

Maybe this development convinced Clinton that he could lie under oath and get away with it.  With hurt in our hearts for our country, we admit he was right.  Respect for the law had been injured.

Richard Reeves in a 2/1998 column: “I believe there is a difference in public and private character, and in public and private behavior.  Many things are left well enough alone.

“I believe hypocrisy is essential to civilization.  God forbid people begin speaking or acting out the dark or foolish things in their minds and hearts.”

Clinton did these things.  Reeves is a respected columnist. In the same piece he argued strongly against any man taking advantage of his daughter.

But if someone else’s daughter gets diddled by a public figure this is okay?  “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.”  Shouldn’t someone start thinking about this trend?

Another columnist, Paul Weyrich (2/1999 column) commented on the situation after the impeachment charade.  The column is titled “Now That Morality Has Lost.”  (Is Trump resurrecting morality?)

“You don’t have to go back 40 or 50 years to think of a time when a president would have been driven from office for doing what Clinton did.  Indeed, it might have still happened even 20 years ago.”

The really sad implication of this whole fiasco for the future of the USA is allowing Clinton to go free after lying under oath and obstructing justice.  This makes a mockery of the Rule of Law (absolutely no one is above the law), and shreds parts of the Constitution.

The Economist (9/1998): “An American president has no power except his own moral authority, his ability to persuade and set the example.  But these depend on his character.

“By recklessly pursuing Monica Lewinsky and then emphatically denying it, Mr. Clinton knew he was endangering the whole program on which he was elected.  He went ahead anyway.

“That is why his friends in the democratic party are now so hurt.  They supported him for his administrative energy and his huge political talents, hoping against hope that he would heed his own mantra of ‘personal responsibility.’  But he let them down, and did not even have the grace to make a decent apology.

“—– nothing in his presidency condemns him like his failure to leave it.  He has broken his trust and disgraced his office, but he clings on.  ——-.  But every time he wriggles through —— he does more damage to his country.”

“A Crisis of Trust,” is how The Economist sees the situation (The World in 2016).

 “Trust — or, too often, the lack of it — is one of the central issues of our time.  Without trust, institutions don’t work, societies falter and people lose faith in their leaders.  The Edelman Trust Barometer has been tracking trust in institutions for the past 15 years, and the warning signs are now plain to see.  For the first time since the Great Recession, half the countries we survey have fallen into the ‘distruster’ category (—– below 50%).

“Here are five trust trends to look out for in 2016: First, trust —— developing world — currently 12 points higher than in the developed world — will decline as economic growth slows and corruption is revealed.

“Second, CEOs will see the need to take a broader view of their mandate in society beyond short-term gains ———-.

“Third, the concern about the pace of innovation, and the motives behind it, will heighten.  Technology remains the most trusted industry, but for the first time this past year, ——— ebbed in most markets.

“Fourth, the mainstream media will see a further decline in their central role as the credible source even as more companies and governments become story-tellers, creating their own content for consumers via short, sharable and visual pieces of content.  Responders for the first time rate online search higher than TV and newspapers as their first source of credible information.  ———- peer-to-peer communication is trusted over the traditional top-down model.”  We have been flogging bottom-up for years, knowing that top-down is too often manipulated.  See PG4.

“Government is now the least-trusted institution: —————.  Yet over half of those surveyed want more government regulation of business, especially in financial services, energy and food.”  We still stand against government meddling in the marketplace.  In financial services too much government regulation of banks (plus other dumb things) did much to bring on the 2007-8 financial crisis.  See PG8.

We have long since concluded that in terms of damage to the country Clinton has every other president beat, seven ways to Sunday (but probably not young Bush).  We could interpret his sleazy and unlawful behavior to mean he helped our project along.

Soon many citizens may be hypersensitive toward some new and different thinking.  (In a much different way George Bush also helped our project.)

The British newspaper Economist loves to criticize this country, and Clinton provided ample opportunity (2/2001).  “Ever since he left office on January 20^th he has repeatedly seized the limelight from his successor, ——– scandals about White House vandalism, financial impropriety, and presidential pardons.

“It would be hard for Mr. Clinton to have had a worse start to his new life, short of pardoning Charles Manson and moving in with Monica Lewinsky.

“At the same time, the former first couple’s lust for loot has given the impression of poor breeding, if not outright kleptomania.  The Clintons not only decamped —— clutching $190,000-worth of gifts ——-.  Mrs. Clinton even set up a surreptitious ‘wedding list’ to encourage Clinton supporters to buy furniture for their new houses, taking care to pocket the goodies before she was sworn into office as the junior senator from New York.”

This one strains our credibility: There were STILL supporters for these two??  Hopefully about six.  If there were significantly more than this, the implications for the loss of morality in the entire society would be truly frightening.  (After the 2016 presidential election we hope America is finally free from the Clintons.)

“And the sleaze keeps coming in.  On February 5^th the Washington Post revealed that the ‘personal’ gifts that the Clintons carted off with them included $28,000 worth of furnishings that were given not to the Clintons but to the National Parks Service, to form part of the permanent White House collection.  (‘I would never give a gift to the Clintons,’ said one enraged donor.)”

Let’s take a quiz on how Clinton measured on the five criteria of an effective leader that we discussed near the beginning of this pocket gofer.  How did he do on a wise vision for the future of our nation?

Clinton’s vision was apparently a central government awash in tainted money.  He worked incredibly hard to bring reality to this vision, spending more of his time grubbing for money than on any other activity (or any other president) for the entire eight years of his time in office.

Did he display the courage appropriate to a top leader?  He got off to a shaky start here, when he dodged the Vietnam draft.

Then he tried to erase this image by authorizing exportation of tons of weapons and bombing a factory in Africa.  Does this mean he regained courage, or was he trolling for votes when he okayed these actions?  Or distracting the news media from some really dumb thing he did?

Was he persistent in anything besides speechifying for money and womanizing?  He got NAFTA (North American Free Trade Association) passed into law.

How did he do with an issue even more important, such as Palestine-Israel?  We guess we will give him a D-plus on this one.  At least he tried.

What is his score on sales ability?  Well, this cat could sell seven lean years to a (ancient Egyptian) Pharaoh.  We admit he was great on this one.  So was Adolf Hitler.

And finally we measure him on listening ability, so he can know the public will and thus act effectively as an agent of the people (which is democracy).  Hmmm.  Seems to us that all he did was talk.

He did not even listen to his conscience.  Maybe he can be forgiven for this, as we’re not sure he has one.

Billionaire George Soros argued that the resources for moral and economic leadership in the world are in place today: the UN, the Bank for International Settlement, the IMF (International Monetary Fund), and World Bank, and WTO (World Trade organization), and the International Criminal Court, “——– if the America would only lead.”

Thomas Paine: “Of more worth to society is one honest man, in the sight of God, that all the crowned ruffians who ever lived.”  Career politicians have their definition of honesty.

President Washington’s farewell address: “Not unconscious in the outset of the inferiority of my qualifications, experience in my own eyes, perhaps still more in the eyes of others, has strengthened the motives to diffidence of myself ——-.”

The father of our country humbled himself before his bosses, the citizens.  From Joseph Ellis’ book: “Washington was accustomed to leading by listening.”  Can anyone name a recent president whose behavior matches these examples?

Washington continued: “The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you.  It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, ——-, of that liberty which you so highly prize.  But as it is easily to foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken, many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of truth, —–.”

Some folks believed that we were better off with the next president.  Let’s dig into GW Bush and give him a Clinton-like going over.  Two very different men, for sure.

The man apparently entered high office with a very poor grasp of American history.  He traded on the Bush name, much like FDR.  If family connections determine who occupies top public office who needs history?  Someone said he was out of his depth in the job.

After two years the Economist (4/2003): “George Bush could hardly have worse qualifications for the job of war leader.  He wriggled out of serving in Vietnam, ran for the presidency promising to keep America out of foreign entanglements, and enjoys a rocky relationship with a resource that Winston Churchill regarded as more important than bombs and bullets: the English language.”

He also sneaked into office on the strength of a few hanging chads.  He needed a mandate to lead, and then 9/11 provided it. 

We recall that Bush ordered his army to attack Iraq the previous month, which alienated about a fifth of the citizens and the UN.  The Economist called him a “—– divider rather than a uniter.”

Inspections showed that Sadam Hussein did not have any big weapons.  So Bush and Britain’s Tony Blair “sexed up the intelligence” and blasted forward.

“This newspaper went on to salute Bush for his dogged determination.  With benefit of hindsight (always 20/20) we see that determination, when dogged, runs a serious risk of phasing into bullheadedness.”

Here is the place to appreciate the difference between persistence and bullheadedness.  The latter admits to no new information that might reveal a mistake; Bush did not listen.  Therefore Iraq became a seventeen-year quagmire.

He used the pentagon to try to cram democracy down throats of Iraqi citizens.  But democracy is persuasion, not violence.  It enables building; the pentagon is dedicated to destroying.

Let’s see: Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, detained without being charged, no access to a lawyer, torture, “rendition” to other countries for more torture, Jack Abramoff, Donald Rumsfeld’s incompetence, massive waste and fraud with Katrina and Rita, etc.

The Economist (2/2006): “—– Australian television broadcasted previously unseen pictures of Iraqi prisoners being abused by their American guards in Abu Ghraib jail in 2003.  The pictures, whose publication the pentagon had stopped in America (our emphasis), showed half a dozen corpses, —-.”  Free press, anyone?

Maybe we should not be unhappy.  The pentagon also censors any photos of coffins and horribly maimed soldiers returning to this country.  So much for the First Amendment.  The first casualty of any war is truth.

We need to mention the vice-president about here.  We think Dick Cheney was the brains behind Bush’s behavior.  He was clearly the most powerful veep in American history.  He said “deficits don’t matter,” and millions of naïve souls believed him!

The Economist (9/2004) agreed: “The biggest mistakes ——–, from the blithe acceptance of soaring deficits to the insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD, have Mr. Cheney’s fingerprints all over them.  He resisted attempts to get both congressional and UN approval for the invasion of Iraq.  He has repeatedly favored secrecy and ‘executive privilege’ over consultation and compromise.”

In March 2010 the budget deficit had millions of citizens seriously bent.  They looked at $3 trillion for the current year but didn’t think about the fact that a still more serious problem will come up if the issue is not confronted now.

Congressional spendaholics have over decades ignored deficits, and now the chickens are coming home to roost.  Totally uncontrolled spending is at the core of the problem.  Friends, we wonder if these self-centered career politicians will finally get what they have been asking for.

President Obama had an excellent opportunity to seize the helm in his state of the union speech in early 2010.  He failed to go eyeball-to-eyeball with the spendaholics.  Furthermore he was awarded a Nobel peace prize; shortly afterward he sent hundreds of additional soldiers abroad.

He appeared to have no idea how to trim a deficit that has over years led us to a national debt of $13.7 trillion and counting.  Like all career politicians, he is apparently locked into the spending mentality.  (It’s $23 trillion today.)

At the least, he lacked the courage to face down the congress.  People were really steamed about this issue, so the result was an approval rating of just 44% and over half of us believed the nation is on the wrong track.

Maybe we citizens must grab the reins.  “There is a deep populist anger brewing in America, —– (Economist 1/30/20).”  Today we know that “populist” is top-down rulership.  See PG4.

The Economist continued: “America cannot return to budgetary health without tackling entitlements.”  We apparently have a congress full of wimps who value getting re-elected this fall over the United States of America defaulting on its obligations.

If we love our children we should pitch the whole bunch of bums out of office this year.  “Clean out your desks.  You’re fired!!”  See PG7 and Peter Schweiker’s book: Throw Them All Out.   

Retiring senator Evan Bayh (whose father was also a senator) recommended precisely this, to be done at the fall election.  He said they should be replaced by politicians who care about reforming the system.

We argue don’t replace them with more politicians.  Pocket Gofer 3 shows exactly why this will fail: unless the system is reformed there will only be more of same.

This can only be reformed by citizens; keep politicians out of it.  That said, we salute Mr. Bayh for his contribution from inside the system.

Today thousands believe that the system that the news media call democracy is broken.  We agree that government is tied up in knots and the nation is therefore ungovernable.  As for jobs for the 15 million of us without work the government has no clue.

Bush’s “pre-emptive force” doctrine had leaders of allies concerned that he not only planned to remake the Middle East.  This egomaniac also meant to take over most of the advanced world.

The kicker here lies in the presumption that American intelligence services will accurately provide advance warning of all threats, so he can deploy his big guns and soldiers before such threats can be carried out.  After 9/11 and a laundry list of other failures, we are on shaky ground (see PG 11).

The Economist sounded off on morality (6/2003).  “You are taken prisoner in Afghanistan, bound and gagged, flown to the other side of the world and then imprisoned for months in solitary confinement (Guantanamo Bay) punctuated by interrogations during which you have no legal advice.  ————–.  You might not be told all the evidence against you.

“For years America has rightly condemned the use of similar military courts in other countries for denying due process.”  Here we have a double standard, which is not democratic.

We constantly remember the government’s hidden agenda: keep us peasants in a continuing state of tight-sphinctered panic.  This means that thinking citizens among us hesitate to speak out and criticize.  See the essay on the External Threat Gimmick.

Not only this, but there aren’t many of us who make the effort to think about government.  “The masses have little time to think.  And how incredible is the willingness of modern man to believe (Mussolini said that).”  We clearly need more citizens who think and speak out and damn the torpedoes.  Edward Snowden springs to mind.

They may be labeled as the next “enemy combatants” and salted away (Economist).  “—— his administration ———-.  ——– has also claimed the right to arrest American citizens, even on American soil, as ‘enemy combatants’ and to imprison them without charge until the war on terrorism is over.”  This is unconstitutional and ridiculous.

Little time to think?  Time management is little more than setting down priorities.  If we believed sufficiently deeply in our nation’s future for our children there would be no time problem.  We would lack only the need, after a long absence, to get back into the habit.

Friends, here is the biggest kicker so far.  When people of any nationality are treated in this manner it only makes certain the prediction that the war on terror will never be over.

The American supreme court recently ruled that those poor souls in Guantanamo Bay will be tried in civilian instead of military courts.  President Bush fought this move tooth and nail.  Should we call this courage?

Ah, well.  At least the supreme court stuffed a bit of constitutional due process of law down the craw of the Texas gunslinger.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was the chief ramrod in Iraq.  He got accolades for winning the war so quickly, so Bush let him run the (so-called) postwar show.

But this issue also deserves some independent observation.  Saddam lost at least half a million men in a senseless eight-year war with Iran, sustained a second war in 1991, and then endured 12 years of economic sanctions.

He was surely in no shape to again face the wrath of the Great Satan.  Realizing this, he wisely decided not to fight, so he either destroyed his WMDD (weapons of mass death and destruction) or sent them out of the country.

Now we see that Rummy’s lightning-quick “victory” was a media-hyped sham.  There was no war to win.  Many Iraqis today feel the same way as did Kuwaitis when Saddam sent his army into Kuwait in 1990.

The military created an abominable mess in Iraq, and both Bush and Rumsfeld were far too bullheaded and lacking in courage to confront reality and let go.  Occasionally we still see news of American soldiers being killed, and we hurt for them and their families.

The Economist (11/2006) had to sound off.  “Iraq, Katrina and Guantanamo have become globally recognized one-word indictments —– simultaneously incompetent and cavalier.  At home, he (Bush) has failed to get government spending under control, especially when it comes to the ‘entitlements’ ———— that will overwhelm America’s finances ———.

“——- but talk of impeaching Mr. Bush is dangerous.”  So also were the discussions that led to the Declaration of Independence.

Bush called Rummy “the best secretary of defense our country has ever had.”  Even a gullible public could not swallow this one, so it forced Bush to fire the man who was probably the worst secretary.

As time passed the quagmire had an effect on the president.  The Economist  (10/2003) wrote: “Almost overnight, it seems, Mr. Bush has been changed from the dominating commander-in-chief, ——— into a man at the mercy of events, accused by almost half of his countrymen of doing a bad job, ———.”

This is a good sign, as we would love to see a world free of dictators.  “——- the famously disciplined Bush White House has been discovered leaking unfavorable information about other members of the administration.  Clearly, there are signs of disarray.”  (Did Trump take note of this?) 

The Economist (10/2008): “The crisis underlined Mr. Bush’s two biggest personal weaknesses — his leaden tongue and his indecisiveness.  He failed to explain in simple language that a crisis on Wall Street also means a crisis on Main Street. 

By January 2010 things had loosened up just a little, but unemployment hung in there at some 10 percent.  Government wants people to resume borrowing and spending, but its long-standing strategy of keeping the peasants panic-stricken and the job situation restricts them to hunkering down.  This situation is likely to bring on a double-dip recession.

Newsweek’s cover in early April crowed, “America’s back!  The Remarkable Tale of Our Economic Turnaround.”  Business Week saluted Obamanomics.

Is the recession over? The National Bureau of Economic Research has a recession dating committee.  It met on April 12 and could not agree on an end date.

Does the NBER smell a double-dip?  We have argued that today’s news media are press agents for the government.  We saw no coverage of the NBER’s indecision.  What we did see were two of the government’s press agents (above) speaking out.

In early May we saw some figures indicating an upward trend in new jobs formed.  We would like to believe them.

We will survive.  We will survive because the elites will need us, just as ancient Rome needed slaves.

Surely this pocket gofer would be horribly incomplete without Trump.

“Pandemic Polarization,” Economist 3/21/20: It is hard to pick the best illustration of the administration’s failings on covid-19.  There have been so many.

“Having been in the crowd to hear Donald Trump dismiss the virus as the Democrats’ ‘new hoax’ three weeks ago, Lexington (columnist) is still grappling with the president’s denialism.

“Yet the problems extend beyond the president’s rhetoric.  John Bolton’s decision to scrap the NSC’s dedicated pandemic unit is another contender.  So is the CDC sticking with a faulty viral test when the WHO (World Health Organization) could have provided a working alternative; also the turf wars among the white house’s cast of stuck-ups and cronies; and Mr. Trump’s latest xenophobic attack on China.  It is a stunning catalogue of failure.”

“In A Time to Build, the conservative thinker Yuval Levin discerns a ‘twilight age’ of national frustration and joylessness, which he ascribes to a part-justified, morally sapping loss of trust in institutions.  In another new book, Why We’re Polarized, Ezra Klein escribes the corrosive role that racially infused partisanship plays in that.”

“Ever since Mr. Trump’s election, many have asked whether he could rally the country against a major threat.  The worst of their fears seem to be justified.”

“Watchdogs in the Dog House,” Economist 5/9/20.  “——- April, the Office of Inspector General for the department of health and human services (HHS) ———.  ———–.  ————.  Her name was Christi Grimm, ——— May first —— her replacement.

“On April 3^rd he removed Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community IG (Inspector General)———.  On April 7^th, —– ousted Glen Fine ——— Pandemic Response Accountability Community —— and from his post as acting IG for the dept of defense.  ———- 14 statutory federal IG positions are now vacant.

“The Inspector General act of 1978 ——— established IGs in 12 federal agencies.  The number has since grown to 74.

“——- IG’s role remains the same.  They audit and investigate to prevent waste, fraud and abuse (our emphasis) ————.  ———- enjoy substantial independence.  The agency boss cannot assign or block investigations; IGs have subpoena power and hire their own staff.”  Would that the news media as an institution follow suit!!

“As for King Trump, he seems to see only the political headaches that IGs cause, not those they solve.”

Economist 3/28/20: China v America.  “— such that America, despite having had months to prepare for it, will soon have more covid-19 cases than China.

“But this would require his supporters to denounce his handling of the virus, of which there is currently no sign.  Republicans admire it.  And even if their faith wobbled, Mr. Trump’s China-bashing would be likelier to sustain his popularity on the right than to endanger it.

“Instead of rallying its allies in a global response to the pandemic, it has continued to alienate them.  Mr. Trump gave the Europeans no forewarning of his plan to bar non-American visitors from their countries this month.  Instead of rising above China’s propagandists, he got into the mud with them.”

“Everything’s Under Control,” Economist 3/28/20, and “Creating the Coronopticon,”  “But history suggests that after crises the state does not give up the ground it has taken.  Today that has implications not just for the economy, but also the surveillance of individuals.

“It is but a small step from there to long-term state support for national champions that will have just been bailed out by taxpayers.  ———.  ——– lumbering, less dynamic kind of capitalism.”  Capitalism needs to be free of government meddling in order to thrive.

“But the main defense against the overmighty state, in tech and the economy, will be citizens themselves.”

“The belief that personal data are being passed on to the government in secret could erode exactly the sort of trust on which an ‘all in it together’ fight, as called for by Boris Johnson, the prime minister, depends.”  This is a critically important point; see PG5.

“The Collectivist Temptation Shows Itself in Current Crisis,” by George Will; News &Observer 4/5/20:  “—- simultaneously —- isolation of “social distancing” and the social solidarity of shared anxiety.  ——- exacerbated a tendency that was already infecting America’s body politic before the virus ——-.

“It is the recurring longing for escape from individualism, with its burden of  personal responsibility.  —— infuse their lives with synthetic meaning by enlisting in mass movements or collective efforts.  ——— unity from a clear and present danger or, when that is lacking, from national, ethnic, racial or class resentments.”  Confused by a lack of leadership, people gravitate toward groups with similar beliefs.  Responsible individualism is an important part of the Constitution.

“Today’s pandemic is an even more valid justification ———-.  ————–.  What is not justified are attempts to use today’s real emergency as an excuse to rewrite the nation’s social contract in order to accustom Americans to life suited to permanent emergency.”  Here we see why, beginning with Clinton, top officials have agreed to the pentagon’s desire for continuous war al a George Orwell (who wrote a book titled 1984 in 1949.

“Progressive flirtation with the preposterous Green New Deal is so revealing because it envisions federal micromanagement of the economy and individual choices forever.”

“If you are not a socialist by age 20 there is something wrong with your heart.  If you are still a socialist by age 30 there is something wrong with your head.”  Today they call themselves “progressives,” which is socialism lite. 

In PG18 we discussed the fall of the Soviet Union and the incredibly dumb things the American government did to Vladimir Putin shortly after he became president of Russia (2000).  Masha Gessen is a young Russian author described Putin’s government today: The Future is History.

“Makarov was doomed as soon as he was first suspected, falsely, of having sexually abused his daughter.  His attempts to fight the charges — he asked for more tests, mounted a thoro defense and then appealed his sentence — only made the law enforcement machine pursue him harder.

“This was not a new mechanism.  Law enforcement and the courts had functioned this way for a long time — in fact, they had functioned this way in the Soviet era, and the system was never dismantled ——–.”

“The pedophilia investigation became a potent weapon of political warfare.  —————–.  ———- claimed that Umland, who has pedophile proclivities, has been fired from Stanford, Harvard and Oxford, for making homosexual advances to his colleagues.”

“And the little girl, the girl all the prosecutors and the police and the psychologist were supposedly trying to protect — she was being destroyed too.”

“—– that Magnitsky had inadvertently stepped on the toes of high-powered officials who were embezzling state money.  For this he had been tortured and killed.”

What we write here may surprise — even astound — many American citizens.  But should it?

Alexander Dugin 2012 – “——- from a stage mounted at Poklonnaya Mountain, Moscow’s repository of victories over invaders from Napoleon to Hitler, he “Putin)  addressed tens of thousands of people, some of whom had been bussed there from other cities and towns:

“‘Dear Russian people.  The global American empire strives to bring all countries of the world under its control.  They intervene whenever they want, asking no one’s permission.  ————.  They have invaded Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.  Syria and Iran are on the agenda. 

“’But their goal is Russia.  We are the last obstacle on their way to building a global evil empire.  Their agents at Bolotnaya Square (major demonstration) and within the government are doing everything they can to weaken Russia and allow them to bring us under total external control.”  Doubters are encouraged to think what we taxpayers have over decades  permitted the pentagon to do.  Here we see how the other guy might react.

“Interviewed by a major Television vehicle,  Dugin ——- also mentioned traitors and, pressed by Posner, said that they should be annihilated and, pressed further, he said their names: Navalny, Nemtzov, Kazyanov, Rychkov.  He said what he believed to be true of them, and what he believed all Russians should know: that these men were employed by the Americans.”

PLANNED GRIDLOCK: Career politicians’ objective is to keep Washington precisely as it is while convincing us that they are struggling on our behalf to force real changes.  Any rocking of the boat and the action might also derail the gravy train that brings in all that loot.

They don’t want Washington to change.  It i$ obviou$ to u$ that they like the place ju$t a$ it i$.

Author Pete Peterson could not resist.  “—– all too easy for a politician these days to elicit a rousing round of applause from any audience.  ——— three things: first, identify a terrible ‘problem’ in America; second, declare that this problem is ‘wrong;’ and third, announce that, with his ‘leadership,’ America will right this wrong — all at no cost to anyone present, of course.

“The politician hands a painless promise to the crowd, and they hand him a painless vote.”  For each “painless,” read “empty.”  Russian worker: “They  pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work.”

A leader thrives on change.  He/she welcomes it because he sees it bringing new opportunities to improve the operation.  But for Washington insiders change is a threat.  Public officials in a democracy must have dissent; it guides them toward improvement.

We give each president a “honeymoon” of 100 days.  In March 1933 the newly inaugurated Franklin Roosevelt hyped his “100 days” miracle kick-start for a nearly dead economy.  (It didn’t work.)  Over decades “100 days” eventually became a habit.  The news media allow each new administration that much time to create a miracle.

This is ridiculous, but it’s so.  We seem to expect instant results in every organization.

Expecting miracles is no way to govern.  Near-miracles is the best we can expect, and these must be done by citizens. 

mmm

Especially during the past 50 years, national and state governments have grown like weeds until today they are effectively beyond the control of their top officials.  In the case of the US government a major policy decision probably has a 5-7-year lag time before the results are felt out in the hinterlands.  This is the biggest organization in the world.

That fact does not for one minute stop the candidate from promising major change within 100 days.  No, sir!  Is this crazy?  Yes, sir!

Only in America?  Hell no; politicians in many places in the world do this.  Hard to believe, but it still wins elections provided that a candidate can blow a bigger bubble than can his/her opponent.

We believe that a good leader can buy him/herself a lot of extra time through establishing and maintaining an honest dialog with the citizens who are paying his salary (and for a lot of other things).  People can be amazingly patient when they understand the reasons why instant results cannot be delivered.

Furthermore they can be amazingly cooperative when they are given the opportunity to participate in decisions that affect their lives (Pocket Gofer 16).  Finally we observe that lag time would be far less in a small government; see Pocket Gofer 15.

Note the reference to two of our previously identified traits and skills: sales ability and seeking of criticism.  There is another advantage to this approach to leadership.  That is, citizens are convinced that there are no secrets, provided of course that the leader is being truly open and honest (Pocket Gofer 5).

If that is not enough we can ponder the implications for today’s Grand Deception: it would blow the lid off.  It would make the Watergate cover-up look like a shadow play staged by children.

But, alas! Pocket Gofer 19 shows that both parties are in it together.  With the arrival of gridlock in Washington they developed a new twist on the Grand Deception: pretend to quarrel and blame the other party for the gridlock.

We figure if we want to watch a professional wrestling “match” we’ll light off a cold one and turn on the TV.  Cheaper that way.

AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION: Few writers distinguish between leaders and rulers.  The first governs citizens thru bottom-up, while the latter rules subjects via top-down decrees and an often wimpy legislature.

The  Economist 9/2015: “Making people more self-confident is good.  But power also makes them more self-centered.”  Lord Byron: ‘Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ 

“Finally, power turns people into hypocrites: not only are powerful people more likely to cheat, they are also more likely to condemn cheating or other forms of moral failure in other people.”  Trump springs to mind.  Also PG4. 

Gideon Rachman writes about “Macho Men,” (The World in 2016, The Economist)

“Across the world — from Russia to China and from India to Egypt — macho leadership is back in fashion.  The patron saint of the world’s macho leaders is, of course, President Vladimir Putin.  – forging personal relations with fellow tough guys such as President Abdel Fatah al-Sisi (Egypt) ———- President Jacob Zuma in South Africa and Victor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary.

“In Russia, Egypt, Turkey, Hungary and South Africa, —— emphasizing strength above all ——- erosion of democracy and an assault on civil society.

“——- also spread to Asia, ——————.  In each case — Xi Jinping in China, Shinzo Abe in Japan and Narenda Modi in India — replacing leaders who had a lower-key and more collective mode of leadership.

“The big question in 2016 ——– spread to the major western powers.  ———- Obama ——- prefers lofty rhetoric to menacing stares.  Angela Merkel —— low-key approach ———– David Cameron in Britain is too laid-back ———-.

“But the signs are that 2016 might see the west begin to flirt with tough guys and gals.  The early leader ——– Trump ———.”  Hold it.  Mr. Rachman, you are not writing about leadership when you talk macho.  Leadership is not force; it is persuasion, listening and setting an example.

The Economist (6/2017) happily supplements Rachman: “America is creating a vacuum in global leadership.  Does China really want to fil it?” 

We hope there is truth to this statement; America has not done well at global leadership, largely because Washington reeks with career politicians and this type does not breed leaders.  Rather, career politicians are rulers.  And we guess we must include the pentagon here.

“Even analysts who make a living predicting a great shift of wealth, power and global leadership from America to China never anticipated the speed with which Donald trump appears to be marginalizing his homeland.

Masha Gessen wrote a book: Surviving Autocracy (reviewed in The Economist 7/4/20.)

“Two days after Donald Trump was elected, Masha Gessen argued in the New York Review of Books that he was ‘the first candidate in memory who ran not for president, but for autocrat — and won.’  The piece offered advice, such as ‘Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.’

“——- given as he is to ‘ignoring and destroying all institutions of accountability.

“The determination of the press to appear (our emphasis; see PG5) objective and balanced, as well as its weakness for hope, have prevented it from accurately describing Mr. Trump’s predations ——.  Congress was riven and cowed.

“—— whereas any attempt at negotiation is an front to his power — something that needs to be quashed at any cost.”  Gessen was born in Russia.

“The Trump Chronicles,” (The Economist 9/2018) published a review of Fear: Trump in the White House, by Bob Woodward. 

”——- his own lawyer, John Dowd ——- cited — the president is ‘a f—— liar.’  —– his underlings praise him lavishly in public, then tell journalists that he is a ‘moron’ (attributed to Rex Tillerson, ——-), an ‘idiot’ (attributed to John Kelly, his chief of staff) and —— understanding of ‘a 5^th or 6^th grader’ (attributed to James Mattis, the defense secretary).

“Mr. Woodward brings decades of Washington gravitas to the job.  Together with his assistant, Evelyn Duffy, he interviews everyone he can, on tape if possible, and gathers documents.  Then he reconstructs key moments of the presidency so far,

“Mr. Woodward’s style, ——– is to report debates between the commander-in-chief, his cabinet and advisers.  The impression this gives in ‘Fear’ is, initially, of a reasonably normal administration.  But the veneer of normalcy peels off fast.  Mr. Woodward’s Trump has no friends.”  Trump is his friend.

The Economist warms to the task (11/2018): “The Trump Cult.”  “The main reason most people loved Mr. Trump did not seem to concern his qualities or policies at all.  It was – above all they hated democrats, ——–.”  Could someone squeeze some reason into this sea of hatred?  “——–.  ——divisive appeal. It is what he strives to amplify.  It was why Hillary Clinton, the right’s favorite bogey, was his perfect opponent. 

“Polling in 2016 suggested ———- for Mr. Trump despite having doubts about his character and policies.”  We find little reason to hate Hillary.  In fact, we have no objection to a woman president.  But not Hillary; she is a career politician and hence an establishmentarian, which is what we did not and do not need in this country.  We are and have been for decades struggling under a top-down authoritarian regime.

Still at it. (The Economist 11/2018): “Donald Trump’s trade war will make American agriculture less competitive and more distorted.

“Mr. Trump, having disrupted global trade flows, is now using $12 billion of taxpayer money to offset some of farmers’ losses.” 

While the American news media have some second thoughts concerning their blind allegiance to the top-down government in Washington DC, we will continue with The Economist, a British newspaper.  Editors seem to enjoy criticizing America.  We thrive on it.

 “What marks —– first two years is his irrepressible instinct to act as a wrecker.  His destructive tactics were supposed to topple a self-serving Washington elite, but the president’s bullying, lying and sleaze have filled the swamp faster than it has drained.  

“—— came into office with a mandate to rewrite America’s immigration rules and make them merit-based, like Canada.  Yet —– ham-fisted with congress ——– that chance is now gone.  ——–.  ———. 

“But America has spent half a century and billions of dollars building its relations with Europe.  In just two years Mr. Trump has taken a sledgehammer to them.

“Moreover, —– acts, he does not recognize boundaries, legal or ethical.  He has already been implicated in two felonies and several of his former advisers are in or heading for prison.  As his troubles mount, he will become less bound by institutional machinery.

“Most of the senior staff who have left the administration have said that he is self-absorbed, distracted and ill-informed.  He demands absolute loyalty and, when he gets it, offers none in return. 

“Assailed by his presidency, American democracy is fighting back.”  We can help.  Any talk of 2020 must occur after the nonviolent rebellion if it is to be realistic. 

It is a relief to observe Trump doing something right (The Economist 1/2019):  “President Donald Trump thinks America is being ripped off.  ‘We have spent $7trn — trillion with a T — $7trn in the Middle East,’ he told a crowd last year, exaggerating slightly.  ‘You know what we have for it? Nothing. Nothing.’” 

GW Bush and Tony Blair attacked Iraq because of his nonexistent weapons of mass death and destruction, and also figured we and the Brits would get a steady supply of cheap oil.  Wrong on all counts.  Trump has a point. 

Centuries ago French King Louis XIV famously said: “L’etat, c’est moi.”  The state is me.  We think Donald Trump is the present incarnation; surprised that some journalist has not yet jumped on this massive superego trip.

Ever since Trump’s election congress has sought his tax records; previous presidents have always done this according to law.  The Economist 5/2019:  “——- vowed to fight ‘all the subpoenas’ ———-.  ———.  This week he lost two crucial skirmishes.

“On May 20^th a judge in Washington rejected Mr. Trump’s request to block a subpoena instructing Mazars USA, his accounting firm, to hand over financial records stretching back to 2011.  Two days later a judge in NY thwarted an attempt by Mr. Trump, three of his children and the Trump organization to stop Deutsche Bank and Capital One from delivering banking records to two house committees.

“The president —— ruling was ‘crazy’ and ‘totally the wrong decision by, obviously, an Obama-appointed judge.’  Judge Amit Mehta was indeed appointed by Trump’s predecessor.  But his 41-page ruling is a straightforward application of a 90-year-old supreme court precedent recognizing that Congress’s power to secure ‘needed information’ is ‘an attribute of the power to legislate.’ 

“It is not ‘fathomable,’ Mr. Mehta wrote, that the Constitution would grant congress ‘ the power to remove a president for reasons including criminal behavior’ but deny it ‘the power to investigate him for unlawful conduct.’  Both Mr. Mehta and Judge Edgardo Ramos, who said the Deutsche Bank suit did not raise ‘any serious questions,’ refused to put their rulings on hold while Mr. Trump appeals.

“The cases could ——- supreme court, ———-.  But Laurence Tribe, a scholar of constitutional law —– cannot imagine the president prevailing there.  And if the president defies a court order, the constitutional crisis that some Americans have predicted since 2016 will arrive at last.”  Interesting.  Perhaps our thinking will receive some consideration.  See PG21.

Economist 4/18/20 – The Paradox of the Pandemic: “This suggests that America is fundamentally the same country of concerned, good-hearted citizens it ever was.  ————————.  —— why Americans can put up with, and thereby sustain, such dreadful national politics.  It plays a much smaller role in their lives than the apparent momentousness of its life-and-death issues might suggest.  In the current catastrophe, that is a consolation.  But it also stands in the way of the political renewal America so badly needs.” 

“The 90% Economy,” Economist   5/2/20: “The popular demand for change could radicalize politics faster than it did after the financial crisis of 2007-09.  The task for those who believe in open markets and limited govt is to ensure that this energy is channeled  towards the right sort of change. 

If the pandemic lowers the barrier to reform it will offer a rare chance to recast the social contract to favor those who have been shut out,  and to peg back those who enjoy entrenched privileges thru the tax system, education and regulation.  Perhaps the pandemic will enhance a sense of national and global solidarity.”  We will continue to pray.

Leading writer on leadership Warren Bennis said “—– managers and bureaucrats are less gardeners than mechanics —– they are fonder of tinkering with machinery than of making things grow.”

Living, growing things are not uniform.  Each takes on its own, unique form as it matures.

So also should it be with organizations.  They must be living, flexible, and vibrant lest they wither due to irrelevance as the world changes around them.

Just as people have finite life spans, so it is with organizations as they are made up of people.  A good example today of a bureaucracy that has outlived its usefulness is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).

It was formed in 1949 for one purpose only: to counter a perceived Soviet military threat to Western Europe.  The cold war ended in 1991, but we have shown elsewhere that bureaucracies go on forever.

What is really hard to believe is that this outfit recently expanded by adding member countries, right beneath the noses of weakened and embarrassed Russian officials.  We gagged when we saw this.

We are not alone.  In PG 18 we report on a similar reaction by the world’s foremost western authority on Russia.

Are we to believe that the American government really wants to help Russia meet a towering economic and political challenge?  We are to believe that the defense establishment (read Pentagon) wants to keep the money machine percolating.

Washington is no longer growing in the sense of changing to meet changing needs.  It only grows larger and less flexible.  Therefore it is withering.

Let’s summarize some of the key differences between a manager and a leader.  Bennis elaborated.

• “The manager administers; the leader innovates.

• “The manager is a copy; the leader is an original.

• “The manager maintains; the leader develops.

• “The manager relies on control; the leader inspires trust.

• “The manager has a short-range view; the leader has a long-range perspective.

• “The manager asks how and when; the leader asks what and why.

• “The manager has his eye always on the bottom line; the leader has his eye on the horizon.

• “The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it.

• “The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.”

Now we can see that each has a different type of personality, a different style when interacting with people.  Change and risk are a part of one’s mentality, but absent in the other.

Let’s turn the time machine back to the 1920s for a very good example of this difference.  Back then Alfred P. Sloan was chief of General Motors Corporation.

He installed a management system that was widely copied.  He was known as an excellent manager and the company prospered.

Information was passed upward through many layers of management, and it was modified a little as it went through each layer.  Top managers then took this and other information and compiled a strategic plan for the entire company.  This top-down document governed subordinate planning and implementation.

Sloan split the already huge company into divisions in an attempt to reduce the number of layers of management involved.  The system did the company well right into the 1970s, but then three things happened.

One was that new markets were formed between the boundaries of the divisions and therefore went unnoticed until it was too late to enter a market and dominate it.

The second involved a creeping irrelevance in an organization that had not provided for occasional sweeping change to match external changes in the overall marketing environment. 

That is, the system was bureaucratic.  It rewarded actions aimed at doing things right rather than doing the right things.

Sloan’s system minimized the impact of managers’ individual opinions.  After several decades of leadership the company began a slow decline.

The third thing had the company begging the government (read “taxpayer”) for help.  It received assistance, but this only made it weaker.  In 2008 it went thru bankruptcy.

Years ago we read an interesting book called The Peter Principle by Lawrence Peter.  In it he showed how and why most of us rise in an organization to our level of incompetence and then stay there until we either retire or get canned.

Cut to President GW Bush for a moment (Alterman and Greene): “’On the eve of the ——- September 11,’ Fred Greenstein notes, ‘there was a widespread view in the political community that Bush was out of his depth in the presidency.’”

Ahead to 2004 (Economist 4/2006): “Two years ago this newspaper narrowly favored Mr. Kerry’s incoherence over Mr. Bush’s incompetence.  Since then, republican incompetence has exceeded our worst fears.  How depressing to report that democratic incompetence has soared too.  America deserves better.”  But it will not happen until its citizens rise up and demand better.

Alterman and Greene continued: “Considerable evidence demonstrates Bush simply grew into a more stubborn, determined, and single-minded version of his earlier self, ‘growing,’ if anything, less flexible, more unilateralist, and more deeply committed to his own belief in his righteousness.”

The man apparently lacked the intellect and leadership skills for the job, so he appealed to God for guidance.  We have always believed that God helps those who help themselves.

Later the Center for Constitutional Rights published its own laundry list: spying on US citizens, lying to them about the war, grabbing unconstitutional executive power, and sending people overseas to be tortured.

The CCR has teamed with other organizations.  Beginning in July 2005 staged meetings where a short film was shown: “How to Impeach a President.”

We say great, under one important condition.  If we don’t have a comprehensive, workable alternative plan for governing the US of A we will end up with yet another clown in high public office.  That said, we humbly offer the pocket gofers and a totally new proposed Constitution for free and open discussion and debate.

Back to Mr. Peter.  If we keep learning and the organization keeps changing to meet new challenges, how will anyone know when we have reached our level of incompetence?  A capable leader will cause both of these to happen.

Many of us seem to be driven to rise to the highest level possible.  The difference between being driven and leading is subtle but crucial.

“Driven” suggests personal power seeking; this is the stock in trade in today’s Washington.  An ambitious politician is driven to make it to the top: the chair of an important committee wields enormous power.

This tendency applies as well in the private sector.  However, here the Peter Principle usually stops them short of the top.

It doesn’t work in the clubby atmosphere of Capitol Hill, where seniority determines chairmanships and hence personal power.  Small wonder that “our” representatives want to get re-elected, and re-elected, and re-elected.

We choose to define leading to include expressions of power in ideas (see PG 13) and rallying people around a good one while encouraging them to debate and criticize it in order to make it better.  Going beyond this we suggest that continuing self-development can and does provide an opportunity for even ambitious people to see themselves in a different light: as others see them.  This habit can transform a driven person into a leader.

In politics a driven person can attain the top, assisted by an imposing staff of spin-doctors and speechwriters, and by special interest money.  This is surface success at best.  The man/woman who rises to the top in this manner is not a leader.

In 9/2010 analysts argued that President Obama’s new proposals aimed more toward political rather than economic impact.  By then thinking citizens were not surprised at this.

Bennis argued for “—– the need for reflecting on our learning, so that the meaning of the lesson is understood; —–.”

Reminds us of the number of Californians needed to change a light bulb: one to change it, three to share the experience, and one to reflect on the implications.  Maybe the fruits, nuts, and flakes in our nation’s largest state are onto something real.

And then maybe not.  As of 2010 the state’s economy is slipping downward due in part to a long and dismal record of unreal voting behavior.

Reflection provides us with time and space for vital critical thinking.  Jefferson practiced it; so did Tom Paine.  We used to do a short talk emphasizing that people should read and listen carefully in order to get the full message.

Then they should reflect critically, rejecting some of what they learned outright, revising and modifying other parts, and accepting the remainder practically unchanged.  Finally they should assimilate the mix into their own evolving personal style.  In this way some of them would become leaders.

Too few of us do this. We feel like we’re under the gun all the time, fighting deadlines, putting out fires.

But when we shovel all the rest out of the way we are left with the fact that time is simply priorities.  If we believe in some activity deeply enough we will make time for it.

GROUPTHINK: The Economist (6/5/1993) had this to say: “At the heart of Bill Clinton’s crisis is this.  Too many groups of people, with mutually exclusive agendas, want him to be their very own president and remember him saying that he would be.”  Ah, that’s Bill for ya.

Saying what people want to hear is what politicians do, isn’t it?  How else does one get elected?  But political promises are hollow.

Friends, this is show bizz in today’s politics.  It will remain so until we say we’ve had more than enough.  It will remain so until we rise up on our hind legs and shout, “Give us truth, dammit, or you’re outa there!”

Writer Paul Greenberg (News & Observer May 2016): “Few things would be more welcome on the American scene whether right, left or center that a good thoro culling – a ruthless purge.”  This man seems to us a kindred spirit.

But Washington today is so far gone that even this is not enough.  To bring in the sweeping change that we need we must organize a force outside Washington and state government houses.  This is what we are about: grab a pocket gofer and gofer it!

In July 1997 the Economist reported on Italy’s government, which has changed about 48 times since World War II with no evidence of improvement.  We have here a perfect argument for our point just above.

“The proposed new constitution is a triumph for the old politics. ——-.  The idea of turning the current Senate into a punchier chamber with a strong remit for speaking for the regions was stymied by the current crop of senators, who proved unwilling to risk losing their own seats and perks (our emphasis).”

Our country was founded on the basis of individuals and their initiatives, not those of groups.  We admit that politicians have for decades pandered to groups.  They are better organized and are a precisely defined target to whom to aim appeals for tainted money.

But we should not expect special privileges from the government due alone to group membership.  Special privileges must be earned by each individual, and they accrue to him/her quite apart from government.

Okay.  We know that Washington is a special interest group and it enjoys many unearned privileges.  But that doesn’t make it right.

When our government grants extra unearned privileges to several groups scads of other groups immediately line up for their handouts.  Because the pot is only so big and interests often conflict many will come up empty (those who did not bring enough money).

Some of these will raise hell; nothing in this for us.  So the politicians gin up something for them to win their votes.

As ever more groups jump in this inevitably leads to gridlock and ultimately to a sinking ship of state.  We should never allow what’s-in-it-for-me? to triumph over what-can-I-contribute?  See PG6.

We conclude that we should never vote a career politician into the White House or the Congress.  A leader is focused whereas a politician cannot be.

He/she owes too many favors to too many divergent groups from whom he collects money and votes.  (Bill Clinton springs to mind.)

Trump argued that America has been ripped off for decades.  But look what he is doing about this half-truth: weaponizing economic issues (The Economist 6/2019): “America is aggressively deploying a new economic arsenal to assert its power.  That is counterproductive — and dangerous.”  True. 

“———- promised to restore America’s might.  His method —— weaponization of economic tools.  —— awesome force –— when it is unconstrained by rules or allies.  On May 30^th —- threatened crippling tariffs on Mexico ————.  A day later preferential trading rules for India were cancelled.  —————.  China faces a ratcheting up of tariffs soon, and its tech giant, Huawei, has been severed from its American suppliers. 

“The country’s autocratic leaders are enraged,  but ——– still seek ‘dialogue and consultation.’”  This is commendable, after Trump’s bullying.  “A tighter embargo on Iran, imposed over European objections, is strangling its economy.

“Enemies and friends know ——- economic arsenal to protect its national interest.  ———- block the free flow of goods, data, ideas and money across borders.”  America’s isolationists were outvoted about the time of WW1.  “———–.  ——— eroding America’s most valuable asset — its legitimacy.

“America controls or hosts over 50% of the world’s cross-border bandwidth, venture capital, phone operating systems, top universities and fund-management assets.  Some 88% of currency trade use greenbacks.”  With all these resources and their capability, why on earth must we put up with such horrendous government in Washington?

Maureen Dowd is a respected columnist; she hastened to augment our arguments (News & Observer 6/2019.)  “It is very disorienting when those who are supposed to be our highest moral exemplars have no morals – not even of the alley-cat variety.

“——- sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church, it was stunning to see wide swaths of clergymen, responsible for teaching children right from wrong, perverting right and wrong.

 “I have seen a lot of politicians lie —- even ones I swore never would.  I have watched other republican leaders play on white fears and choke off checks and balances.

“The president is an unabashed gargoyle atop the white house, chomping on American values.  The way Trump publicly wallows in his mendaciousness and amorality is unique in presidential history.

“There’s no vaccination against the vile machinations of Trump.  But there are some signs, in this sickened capital, that antibodies are kicking in.  The president and his top officials are getting taken to task by a range of government watchdogs.”

People who don’t understand the immigration issue bang on about foreigners stealing jobs.  We make three points that connect to truth.

One is that most immigrants are the young and ambitious.  They find work sooner or later, are very glad to have it, send money home to families and pay taxes.

Because they are young they will not soon receive benefits from the payroll taxes they contribute.  The Wall St. Journal (5/24/2007): “The Social Security actuaries recently calculated that over the next 75 years immigrant workers will pay some $5 trillion more in payroll taxes that they will receive in SS benefits.”

As time passes they tend to improve their skills.  The lazy and non-adventurous stay home.

The second point relates to another trait prominent among immigrants.  Nearly all are either uneducated laborers or highly skilled professionals and academics.

Since 1901 about 70 of the 300 Americans that have won Nobel prizes were immigrants.  The vast majority of native-born American workers fit between these extremes, so relatively few lose jobs to immigrants.

The third point addresses complaints that immigrants were using taxpayer-financed welfare.  In 1996 legislation passed that reduced eligibility.

In April a fourth point blasted onto the immigrant scene when Arizona passed a very tough law concerning illegal immigrants.  Police can now stop and question anyone who looks like he/she might be an illegal immigrant.  This could include wealthy native-born Hispanics.

The law is supposed to stop illegals from bringing Mexico’s drug and crime problems across the border.  We defend some action in terms of states’ rights, especially when a poorly designed federal law is inadequately enforced.

On the other hand, no law can shut down the labor market; demand will always be supplied somehow.  We would like to see Mexico’s economy turn away from crony capitalism and toward classic capitalism.

Combined with a sound education policy, this would create jobs.  If only the US government would provide leadership!  In part due to gridlock, migration of Mexicans north is about equaled by those moving south.

Due to the congress kicking the immigration issue down the road for the past 3 or so decades, there are many thousands of immigrants from Central American countries camped on or near the border.  This massive suffering is the sobering result of the lack of a comprehensive national immigration law.  Congress acted as if the problem did not exist.

So President Obama took a swipe at this issue, creating DACA or Deferred Action on Childhood arrivals.  News & Observer 6/2019:  “The American Dream and Promise Act of 2019,—— people —– temporary protection under the DACA program, and others meeting similar criteria, would be protected from deportation and provided a path to citizenship.

“—— about 2m people could be eligible — who arrived in the USA as children, ——.  —- been raised in many cases as Americans.  Some don’t speak the language ——-. 

“So what sense does it make to tell them they can no longer live here?  Little to none, is the answer, which most of us recognize.  A Gallup poll from a year ago — and there’s no reason to think the numbers have changed markedly — found that three out of four republicans supported a path to citizenship for the Dreamers, and 92% of democrats ——–.

“—can grant deferrals —– calamities strike their home countries, such as devastating earthquakes in Central American countries, or civil war in Liberia.

“Called Temporary Protected status the deferrals allow people to remain in the US, and grant them permission to work until conditions in their home country have settled sufficiently ———.

“The Trump administration sought to end the protections for most of them, ——– orders have been blocked by courts.

“This is a problem for which we have an acceptable legislative solution that is bound up by gamesmanship, not policy differences.”  The congress only contributes to the immense complexity of this issue.  Apparently the white house has forbidden publishing current reports of their plight.  The News & Observer (7/2019) apparently sneaked around this block.  (Three writers collected those data.)

“—– dirty, hungry, scared and sick: Inside the Razor Wire in Clint, Texas, ———.”   We are trying to think how many times the congress kicked this can down the road.  So once again the old adage hits: “What goes around comes around.”  How sad.  We are embarrassed for our once-great nation.

“Since the border Patrol opened —— Clint —– 2013 ——–.  Separated from the surrounding —– by a razor-wire fence ——– stood on the town’s main road.

“Agents came and went in pickup trucks; buses pulled into the gates with the occasional load of children apprehended at the border, four miles south.  But inside the secretive site ——— who work there were grappling with the stuff of nightmares.

“Outbreaks of scabies, shingles and chickenpox were spreading among the hundreds of children who were being held in cramped cells, agents said.  The stench was so strong it spread to the agents’ clothing.  The children cried constantly.

“He described following orders to take beds away from children to make more space in holding cells, ——-.  The little-known ——– Clint has suddenly become the public face of the chaos on America’s southern border, after immigration lawyers began reporting ———–.

“Border Patrol leaders, ——— have disputed descriptions of degrading conditions —— claiming ——- rigorously and humanely managed.”  GAWD!  Brass ones.

“—— based on dozens of interviews by the NY Times and The El Paso Times of current and former Border Patrol agents and superiors; lawyers, lawmakers and aides who visited the facility; an immigrant father whose children were held there.

“The station was never intended to hold more than about a hundred adult men, and it was designed with the idea that migrants would be detained for only a few hours of processing before being transferred to other locations.

“Officials have allowed reporters and members of congress on controlled tours of
Clint, but prohibited them from bringing phones or cameras inside, ————-.”  All this makes us gag, and worse.

“—— Trump (N&O 6/2019):  “—— Trump has declared European and Japanese cars, Chinese telecom equipment and Mexican immigrants national security threats.” 

This is precisely what we meant 2-3 years ago when we argued that a top-down ruler can do anything he wants due to perceived “threats” to national security.  No democracy can possibly exist under such a condition.  Yet the media seldom report such instances and still call this country a democracy!  This is enough to make a thinking citizen gag.  Se PGs 4 and 19.

We conclude that groupthink and lobbyists distract thinking from moving toward an effective immigration policy.  This should empathize needed skills along with an education system that encourages natives to improve their skills in order to be competitive with anyone.

Here is a hint.  The department of labor estimates some 2 million job openings by 2014 in science, technology and engineering.  We see this field of learning called STEM: science, technology, engineering and math.  These fields are falling out of favor among natives, so anyone who graduates in these areas will probably command tall bucks.

Because he has authority conferred from below a leader doesn’t need tons of money to get elected (PG 4).  Possession of the five leadership traits and being responsive in office are all that is needed.

Therefore politicians keep up the windbaggery (called rhetoric in polite circles) as they don’t know what else to do.  The whole system has run out of steam.

All that remains is hot air.  There are much more heat than light, empty perceptions, and baloney as the coins of the realm.

Alterman and Greene wrote The Book on Bush.  “But all that is required for radical conservatives to remake America in their own image through the power of the presidency, the congress, and the courts is for the rest of us to avert our eyes and pretend that it is just not taking place.”  Friends, that is the tragedy of it.

WHAT MIGHT BE

Dr. Carl Rogers spent 50 years studying and counseling people.  He argued that people are basically good and want to do good.

The threat contained in the prospect of our souls rotting in hell had its origin away back when people were dumb, feared the supernatural, and were ruled by priests and shamans.  Centuries later came rule by armed conquest and military power.

This new type of ruler had seen how priestcraft could gather the flock and dominate it.  The threat changed from hell to neighboring tribes and later nations, but the effect was the same.

As elaborated in PG 18, we see here that the external threat theory still works (Krauthammer in the News & Observer, 10/24/10).  “The electorate apparently is deranged by its anxieties and fears to the point where it can’t think straight.

“Part of the reason ‘facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time,’ he (Obama) explained to a Massachusetts audience, ‘is because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared.  And the country is scared.'”

Krauthammer continued: “—– if you try to impose a liberal agenda on such a demonstrably center-right country — a country that is 80 percent non-liberal — you get a massive backlash.”

He concluded: “—- visible moral collapse of a system that, after two generations of increasing cradle-to-grave infantilization, ——–.”  This is a good example of top-down “leadership.”  In democracy bottom-up leads; see PGs 4 and 21.

Economist 10/30/10: “—- dangerous habit of dismissing tea-partiers and others who disagree with him as deluded, evil or just bitter.”  Ah!  The old, tried-and-true gimmick: if you don’t like the message just shoot the messenger.

Rulers thruout history have used this tool.  A leader listens to dissenting opinions; there may be something in them he/she can use to help citizens improve their lives.

In 10/2010 a Gallup poll listed five of Obama’s achievements and asked respondents whether they approved of them.  They liked one: reform of financial regulation (61-37%).

The other four were rejected: rescue of the financial system (61-17%); the stimulus package (52-43%); the bailout of the car companies (56-43%); and health reform (56-39%).

Today we know much more about ourselves and the world we live in.  We feel a firmer grasp on our destiny compared with back then.  Rather than living in fear of hell, we realize that we are actually pretty good people and that we enjoy helping others.  (Katrina comes to mind.)

We look ahead to a life where our actions are guided by reason.  That is, the merchant is gradually replacing the warrior in today’s world.

President Reagan may have sensed this incipient trend.  James Mann wrote Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War.  Here we refer to his meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev in Reykjavik, Iceland.

“Suzanna Masie, the author of a rather fanciful book about Russian culture —–.  —— held a remarkable 20 or so meetings with the president, —–.  —– she carried back-channel messages between Reagan and the Kremlin.”

Of course this bit of secrecy was kept beneath the media radar because it risked ending the cold war and bringing on peace.  And, sure enough, when Reagan returned home his astounded generals squelched the whole idea of eliminating missiles on both sides.

By 1986 a president answered to the pentagon, even tho the Constitution said he was commander-in-chief of the military.  The implications of this reversal go far beyond the cold war’s end.

Forward to the Obama era and, regrettably, we see no change.  Regarding the mess in Afghanistan, all you need, sir almighty commander-in-chief, is the courage to say “enough already!” and order the troops home.  Sadly, courage no longer exists in the Washingtonspeak lexicon.

But his boss, the pentagon, is far from ready to throw in the towel so it is leaning hard on him.  Not to wonder about this: these cats are career warhorses who don’t want to be put out to pasture.

Also no change in the media hype.  Obama has the “most powerful job in the world.”

Conventional wisdom won once again, even tho millions of citizens kept praying for peace. See below and Pocket gofer 11.

Top warriors and other power freaks in the government have not yet got the word.  They want to take the world backward, into the age of conquest and plunder.

So they combine with al-Qaeda and other foreign ogres to keep us in a constant state of fear.  This state does two vital things for the elites.

One is keep us dependent on the Great Father and Protector to fight off those terrible foreign ogres.  The other is distract us from thinking about the greater enemy within.

The trend toward an economic world is due to two major factors.  One is that the warriors have effectively run themselves out of business by developing such terrible weapons of mass death and destruction that war has become impractical as a solution for international disputes (PG 18).

The other factor ties into the first. In 1900 noncombatant casualties in war (women, children, and old men) were 10 percent of the total.  Today these innocent deaths make up close to 90 percent.  This massive tragedy cannot continue.

A missile travels 100 miles, a thousand or more.  Those who launched it have not the foggiest notion how many women and children it will kill and maim.  (For short trips there are armed drones, which are little besides killing machines.)

And if they don’t care they have lost their morality.  This means the Age of Reason is our only feasible road into the future.

If people want to do good they want to make a contribution for the good of others.  See Pocket Gofers 2, 6, and 16 where we argue that we feel good when we do good.

History has identified some people who seemed to be more interested in what they could give than in what they received.  To cover just one instance, Isaacson and Thomas in The Wise Men take us back nearly 75 years.

“To undertake the rescue of Europe was an act of supreme self-confidence.  Such boldness has diverse wellsprings; no single source suffices to explain why this particular set of men showed breathtaking initiative, while others, seemingly just like them, sat back.

“It is true that the social class into which they were born or later assimilated, America’s tiny turn-of-the-century aristocracy, instilled in some a sense of remarkable well-being and certainty.  Yet for many more of the gentry it also bred complacency and idleness.  Those who did choose public service felt a sense of duty that was truly cosmopolitan.

“—— brought to the immense task just the right mixture of vision and practicality, aggressiveness and patience.  They came together at one of those moments in history when time and place, upbringing and character, fuse into a kind of critical mass, and give ordinary men the power to forever change the way things are.

“—– their vision was spectacularly bold; it demanded a reshaping of America’s traditional role in the world and a restructuring of the global balance of power.”

The authors referred to the post-war Marshall Plan for helping to rebuild a war-ravaged Europe.  We see here no sign of any kind of paint-by-number approach to effective leadership, but the results spoke for themselves.  (The six wise men were Robert Lovett, John McCloy, Averill Harriman, Charles Bohlen, George Kennan, and Dean Acheson.)

VISION: We need to get a better handle on “vision.”  Obviously it goes considerably beyond reading the small print on an eye chart.

Equally obviously it goes beyond elder President Bush’s “the vision thing.”  He was a politician and hence not a visionary.

Nor is it clairvoyance, or the ability to see in the future what others cannot see.  The best crystal ball says nothing about what should occur in the future or what a leader should strive for.  This is thus not an easy task that we’re about, but we propose to have a go at it anyway.

Timing enters in; Ralf Dahrendorf in The Modern Social Conflict: “—— situation which is ripe for change, and in which there is a budding consensus.  One would probably not find it by opinion research, but once action for change is taken, a majority feels that this is what they have wanted all along.

“This is why those who take the action are so important.  They appear to be swimming against the tide, but in fact they have merely sensed the turning tide earlier than others.”

Looks like a kind of sixth sense.  If the leader gets it right he/she will need only limited sales ability as people would see the light ahead and be half sold already.  On the other hand the leader who can look further into the future would face a selling challenge.

Say a young adult moves away from the area where he/she was raised and subsequently enjoys a variety of experience.  He will have limited opportunity for reminiscing among those with whom he grew up.

This may mean that his thoughts will be relatively more focused on the future, provided that during his meanderings he feels he is moving toward something desirable and not just away from the undesirable.

Every nation or other organization needs visionaries: people who can sense cultural trends ahead of others and develop ideas for dealing with foreseen changes.  Does the historical experience that helps to define this person produce more of these than do other backgrounds?

For example, some of the men who framed our Constitution were visionaries.  We feel grateful that the environment of the time attracted this type of person to the task at hand, just as it did Isaacson’s six wise men.

Our forefathers and mothers voluntarily pulled up stakes in the Old World and shipped out without very much detailed information about what they were getting into.  They severed their roots, and in their absence were more or less forced to focus on the future.

What kind of person severs roots voluntarily?  These men and the brave women who came with them were fleeing what they saw as persecution.  But they were not just running from something awful.  They also perceived that they were running to something good.

In other words they had in the back of their minds a vision.  Admittedly there was little detail and faith played a major part.  That vision had much to do with individual freedoms, so they built a government that was designed to preserve their personal liberty.

We think that a visionary takes in a lot of information as he/she lives through a wide variety of experiences.  Aren’t we lucky that nature placed no limits on what and how much we can learn?

This enables him/her to look at problems and challenges from a variety of perspectives.  In this way he becomes a generalist and, hopefully, reflects frequently upon his new insights.

This line of experience and thinking may cause a visionary to question conventional wisdom, in government and elsewhere.  Conventional wisdom evolves over decades and in the absence of serious questioning of its merits it gradually becomes entrenched.

Its proponents are generally high-profile, highly-paid VIPs.  They have learned to thrive on it.  Who are we mere mortals to question it?

We need to remind ourselves that these cats are milking the system that their and our ancestors had a hand in creating.  Naturally they aren’t about to question its legitimacy, and they take a dim view of any visionary who has the courage to speak out.

Let’s take a prevailing example for analysis.  We read the writings of those who are called geostrategic thinkers.  These are the cold warriors whose forebears got their start right after World War II.

At first we fought it, but the suspicion that their thinking is confined in some way kept turning us every way but loose.  We are now to the point where we call that thinking tunnel vision.

These writers seem to us to be programmed.  They cannot allow their minds to range far and wide.  Conventional wisdom confines them.

Today we stand at the dawning of a new world order.  The cold war has passed into history, and so has the age of the geostrategic thinker.

Predictably and unfortunately, the warhorses figure they aren’t ready to be put out to pasture.  There still remains fire in the belly.

“The manager accepts the status quo; the leader challenges it;

“The manager does things right; the leader does the right thing.”

Top military officers and pentagon officials cut their teeth and rose through the ranks by superior actions based on geostrategic thought.  This is what they are good at, and little else.

They finally get to the top and then some dingaling comes along and tries to tell them they should throw that line of thought out the window.  They should adopt something untried and possibly untrue, and with which they are totally unfamiliar: peace on earth.

Going against a gargantuan pentagon is a tough sell.  Hence a leader’s need for selling skills.  Eisenhower had these, and so he whipsawed those generals and admirals.

A change in perception is required.  Our perceptions are connected to our attitudes, and these are part of our personalities.  We act on our perceptions, and if our actions are successful this reinforces them along with the attitudes on which they are based.

When an outsider suggests a major change the listener, if he/she listens at all, is likely to perceive the message as an attack on his ego.  “I built a historic castle, and you are trying to tell me the sands are shifting and it will tumble if I don’t abandon it and build something altogether different and which I don’t understand?  Hell, I’ve spent all my life ———!”

Human nature suggests that top officials will go on with the old, tried-and-true formula until they cannot avoid noticing consistent failure and irrelevancy.  This is sad.

It means that millions and millions of people must suffer unduly and unnecessarily because the top people cannot or will not see the light.  The 67-year-old stand-off in Korea, the Vietnam War, and today the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan should be teaching us something.

We recall the old saw about an ounce of prevention equaling a pound of cure.  Applied here we see the need for listening skills in leaders.

In this way a leader would be constantly open to new ideas, some of which when argued, cussed, discussed, modified, and adopted would bring change when the time is right.  No need for all that suffering and inconvenience.

The kicker of course is that very few of us really know how to listen effectively.  More on this later.

If a vision for an organization or country is set forth in print and is the result of protracted debate and serious thought, someone should be readily available to give it practical form if the visionary has difficulty with the task.  That is, the visionary should be able to rely on capable resources and not have to do it all him/herself.

This is how it was done in 1787 when delegates to the constitutional convention assembled in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall to compile a document.  George Washington was selected to preside over the many meetings.  Although he contributed only a little to the discussions, criticisms, and arguments, everyone knew he was just the man to put the document into practice when completed and ratified.

During the past several decades, what instances of presidential vision can we identify?  Perhaps Roosevelt and his New Deal?  But it was a wrong vision and he allowed so little citizen criticism and debate that we suffer even today from the long, drawn-out aftermath.

Kennedy’s Camelot?  An empty political ploy.  The Reagan Revolution?  The republican revolution?  The vision thing?

Axis of evil?  PG 11 showed that President Bush and his neo-cons would have us astride the world as a military colossus.

Hitler built the Third Reich guided by the same vision.  Surely we don’t want to go backward to the 1930s.  Friends, we are coming up empty here.

COURAGE AND PERSISTENCE: In discussing these we mean to take nothing away from the warriors of the past, as many of them displayed valor under fire when anyone else would have cowered in fear.  Rather, our discussion centers on a new kind of courage: that which supports an idea under a different kind of fire.

Someone said, “An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come.”  Timing is important.

Courage of convictions is a valuable leadership trait.  However, if the leader is not right in his/her conviction it rapidly becomes bull-headedness.

President Bush was famous for this; he isolated himself because he refused to listen to advisers.  In 2006 he created the Afghan National Police in order to increase security in unstable areas.

Local men recruited were illiterate, petty criminals and druggies.  Many defected or sold their equipment to the insurgents.  The same scheme was tried in Iraq and failed.

Abu Fatma is a Kurd in Iraq.  “I’ve told the Americans, ‘If you keep alienating the people, all Iraqis will fight.”  We continue to believe that some day soon there will be a counter-surge.

Obama incurred the same risk as he stayed the course in Afghanistan in the face of a deteriorating situation there.  Lardner (News & Observer 5/2009): “The job of rebuilding Afghanistan is shaping up as an ominous sequel to the massive, mistake-riddled American effort to get Iraq back on its feet.”

Bull-headedness includes lack of ability to learn from mistakes.  Lardner added that there is no detailed accounting for how effectively the $3 billion allocated for reconstruction was spent.  Here is a fact that underscores learning: The Afghans threw the British out of their country in the 19^th century, the Soviet Russians in the 20^th, and now they are throwing out the Americans in the 21^st.

Furthermore Obama accepted the Nobel Peace prize while planning to expand the war.  We had hoped that hypocrisy was not one of the negative traits that the looters handed to him when he joined the government some sixteen years ago as a senator.  But then, he is a career politician.

However, wimpy career politicians do not swim upstream.  President Obama was doing this, but was he right?  Economist 8/2009): “His ratings were sagging particularly badly with electorally vital independent voters; 2/3 of them think he wants to spend too much of their money.

“Two of the most specific pledges he made —— to reform health care and to produce a cap-and-trade system to curb greenhouse gas emissions — are in trouble.  And an impression ——- far too ready to hand over the direction of domestic policy to congress; —–.”

Palestine-Israel was also not going well.  It appears that Mr. Persistence Obama was being out-persisted by Mr. Persistence Netanyahu (president of Israel).

In his June 2009 speech in Cairo Obama promised to be even-handed.  But four months later Netanyahu bluntly refused to rein in settlements-building.  Obama essentially caved.

The media covering this issue do not refer to lobbyist money coming from AIPAC: America-Israel Political action Committee.  Most of this plus taxpayer money keeps Israel in lopsided dominance over the Palestinians, and guarantees no end to this protracted and tragic conflict.

He could have withheld loans, reduced aid by what is spent on settlements and/or stopped UN vetoes of resolutions condemning Israel’s behavior.  He did none of these.  (We have argued for gradually reducing aid until Israel cooperates.)

“He must come down from his cloud and start leading.”  But career politicians are not leaders and the tainted money that the Israel lobby brings to congressmen eager for re-election is very generous.

In January 2010 the Arab TV station al-Jazeera aired an audio message (Economist 1/30): “Speaking ‘from Osama to Obama,’ the voice declared: ‘With God’s will, our attacks on you will continue as long as you continue to support Israel.'”

We must ask, is the money so good as to put 300 million citizens under this threat?  It surely seems that getting re-elected is not that all-fired important.  Is this the way to serve the public interest?

The accomplishment of consensus suggests effective selling ability, and this is a valuable skill.  But if we are selling the wrong product we are misguided.  John F. Kennedy comes to mind (he was a Big Government man).

We conclude that there is a place for conviction and consensus.  It comes down to the right product.  But this situation is in some respects more difficult than making and selling the right product to an accurately defined market in competition with other sellers.

In government the product is intangible, and the time frame for its use may span several decades.  Furthermore, it may affect the happiness of hundreds of millions of people.

These factors make it much more important to be sure the product is right, and not just for the moment of sale and warranty period.  It will still be around some 30 years from now.

However, contained in the flip side is an advantage.  Unlike a durable physical product such as a refrigerator the government’s product can be modified like computer software as its customers’ needs change over the years.

Of course this means listening to “customers”.  It means creating and maintaining an open dialog with them.  It means learning from them.

It means officials in government could be wrong, and they need to always accept this possibility.  Boiled down to the nitty-gritty it means government officials actively seeking and taking guidance from their bosses, the citizens. It means democracy (PG16).

How about an example of courage and persistence in the past few years?  We think of Israel’s Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine’s Yassir Arafat.  These cats were swimming upstream.  The current of violence in the Middle East kept growing stronger and yet they kept on paddling.

They were pursuing a shared vision.  Each may have lacked one of the other traits/skills of an effective leader, but we cannot fault them for lack of courage and persistence.

In 1995 Prime Minister Rabin paid for his courage with his life.  We were saddened by this great tragedy.  The only bright spot lies in human nature: today his spirit looks down on the Middle East peace process lurching forward step by tiny step in spite of deep, ferocious, and persistent hatreds on both sides.

Let’s bring these two traits home.  Shortly after the French Revolution (1789) the British threatened France once again.

Citizens of our country became angry.  Passions overruled reason and a majority in the US were ready to declare war on England.  Democracy is majority rule.

The steady voice of (former general and) President Washington courageously spoke out against war, pointing out that we were an infant nation and we had other things to do that would mean more to us down the road (vision).  His secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson, argued that we should never involve ourselves “—– in the broils of Europe.”

He too swam upstream.  Washington persisted with his arguments to the point where he risked losing the only reward he truly valued: the love of his countrymen.  Still he persisted.

Friends, this is leadership.  At a later time passions eventually gave way to reason (they always will, given time free from violence for reflection and discussion).  Then the people realized that their president was in the right.

Stephen Ambrose in his book Eisenhower: “—– as President, Eisenhower had gotten through many a crisis simply by denying that a crisis existed.  His favorite approach was to conduct business as usual, stick as close to a routine as possible, speak and act with moderation, and wait for the inevitable cooling down of passions.”

Sputnik flew in 1957, and immediately there was great pressure for more spending on space.  “—– said no, and kept saying no to the end of his term (1/1961).”  He thereby saved his country untold billions of dollars and no one knows now many war scares.

“Eisenhower’s calm, common-sense, deliberate response to Sputnik may have been his finest gift to the nation, if only because he was the only man who could have given it.”

More recently (Charles Krauthammer in an 8/1998 column): “This is the land of Bill Clinton, whose singular legacy is a lifetime of truth-bending profligacy free of ever having taken responsibility — and certainly not the fall — for anything. 

But not just Clinton.  Reagan: “Mistakes were made.”  Gore: “—– no controlling legal authority —–.” 

Friends, when it comes to bending truth we can hardly avoid mentioning our current president.  POLITIFACT, a fact checker, agreed with us (News & Observer 7/2019).

 “— misleading and false attacks on a group of female democratic congresswomen   at a rally in Greenville on July 17, claiming representative Ilhan Omar of MN suggested that al-Qaeda makes her proud ————.  Here are Trump’s comments about Omar and the facts.

“Trump: Representative Omar blamed America for the terrorist attacks on our country, saying that terrorism is a reaction to our involvement in other people’s affairs.”  This is true, at least in large part.

“Omar (who was an activist at the time) took issue with the idea that terrorism emerges out of the blue.  ’For us, it’s always `I must not have done anything.  Why is it happening to me?` Omar said.  ‘Nobody wants to take accountability of how these are byproducts of the actions of our involvement in other people’s affairs.’” 

The lady has a valuable point; politicians, bureaucrats (especially the pentagon) have always been professional finger-pointers.  Not only this, but look what we found out about GW Bush and 9/11.

See Robert Fisk’s book: The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East: In our 30+ years of actively seeking truth (and his, about the same) we have never seen a book more crammed with that vital commodity.  The contrasts that British reporter Fisk repeatedly makes between truth and the pap that we get from the news media are appalling.  (Equally appalling is the extreme difficulty Fisk had in getting his findings published.) 

“CHAPTER 21 – WHY?”  This whole chapter comprises the first truth we have heard about 9/11 since that day.

“This day represented not just a terrible crime but a terrible failure, the collapse of decades of maimed, hopeless, selfish policies in the Middle East which we would at last recognize — if we were wise — or which, more likely, we would now bury beneath the rubble of NY City, an undiscussible subject whose mere mention would indicate support for America’s enemies.”  For “we” read “our government.”

Herein lies the real tragedy of 9/11.  Bush reacted with great testosterone-induced emotion, thus shutting off any possibility of discussion leading to the necessary sweeping change in American foreign policy.  We recall that several voices were raised in complaint, but the media were muzzled so that none of these truth-oriented inquiries got any ink.  See PG18.

This one was so big that not even finger-pointing was permitted.  2,800 innocent American lives snuffed out, and the elitists in Washington said nothing.  2,800 families suffered in silence, and today most are still suffering.” 

What would Eisenhower have done?  Recall from Ambrose’s book titled Eisenhower how he whipsawed the pentagon and, after thinking about each of several crises, found a nonviolent solution.  Always count to 10: twice, and slowly.

Backward to President Truman: “The buck stops here.”  And he meant it.

SALES ABILITY AND CHANGE: We turn now to encouraging changes over time.  A leader does this by becoming and remaining open to ideas and criticisms, from outside the organization as well as from inside.

This is important, as human nature often gets us hung up on our own ideas to the point where we are no longer open.  We may not even realize it.

This has been called the NIHS, or not-invented-here syndrome.  “Hey, we live with these issues every day.  We know them inside out, up and down, and thru and thru.  How can any outsider offer anything worth listening to?”

Today there are resources everywhere, and many don’t cost much.  A leader has but to utilize them.  Of course, knowing which ones to use when and how is no piece of cake.

Effective leaders are self-confident because they are not self-contained.  Examples of resources include in-house experts, outside consultants, inside and outside computer storage, retired folks, directors, shareholders, employees, customers, family members, government agency personnel, libraries, books, magazines, newspapers, online information, etc.

And citizens.  We must remember that whenever someone contributes a good idea thank him/her profusely.  Better yet, reward him.  We should demonstrate how the idea helped the organization.  See PG13.

Ideas come and go with mouse-click speed.  We should encourage idea people to keep a pad and pen or blackberry handy lest a potentially good one escape unrecorded.

LISTENING: Selling active participation by citizens in a democratic community is equally difficult (PG16).  Strange as it may seem, listening skills can help the selling process.

We mentioned that few folks know how to listen effectively.  When a person talks he/she is only repeating what he already knows.

When he listens he may learn something.  We have also reflected on the reason why God gave each of us two ears and only one mouth.

Or, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open the mouth and remove all doubt.”

There’s more.  It seems to us that the unavoidable law of supply and demand applies to words as well as to land, products, services, money, labor, etc.

That is, if we think someone talks too much each word carries less weight than if it were measured with more care.  President Clinton comes again to mind.

There is still more.  If we listen with empathy (walk in the speaker’s shoes, so to speak) he/she develops a subconscious obligation to listen to us when our turn comes to speak.

This helps communication, which is nothing more or less than shared meaning but so often difficult to bring off well.  (Spouses come to mind.)

Cut to the city councilperson presiding over a community political meeting in a democracy.  A Latino laborer rises to speak.  He thinks he might have a thought to contribute, but he has never talked before a group, his English is shaky, and he is scared stiff.

The councilman may be an upper level executive in a medium-sized company.  But in this situation it is his job to believe that this insignificant-looking, sloppily dressed, nervous fellow has something to contribute.  This is part of democracy’s faith in ordinary citizens’ capacity to make a contribution; see PG6.

His challenge is to help the laborer bring out his thought and phrase it so that everyone can understand it.  This done, all have an equal opportunity to argue in support of or against the idea and to add muscle to it in the form of constructive criticism (PG13).

This type of listening is truly empathic, as the meeting chair must reach across a culture boundary and meet the man more than half way.  It is a skill that must be developed.

Few of us have it in us by nature.  When done right the speaker feels good because he has made a contribution to good government.  Recognition before the meeting for his contribution greatly enhances this feeling.

It also takes time.  The democratic process is inefficient.

But we should bear in mind that our councilman with his patience and listening skills is recruiting a participating citizen.  This is where listening plays a key role in selling.

We need every last one of this type of citizen we can get.  Wisdom pops up in the most unlikely places and at the most unexpected times.

Ideas are everywhere, but good ones are few and far between.  A laborer may have lived much of his life in this community.

He/she may not have a college degree but he is street smart.  He knows the territory.  Therefore he has every bit as good a chance to make a contribution as does anyone else.

The councilman is well advised to constantly bear this in mind.  If we discover that he is not doing this he is not doing his job.  This means we fire him at the next election.

We citizens are his bosses.  We are not doing our job if we don’t hold his feet to the fire.

Friends, this is democracy.  We may live to see this day.  It is up to us.  The congress and state governments cannot help.  These outfits are infested by too many career politicians.

Long slog from here to there, but if we stand united and work together the job can be done.  See PG20.

People support what they help to create.  If as a result of a citizen’s contribution a majority passes a community law we can be sure that that citizen will obey it.  Ditto those who contributed to its development, and many others, including those who spoke against it and were heard.

When a community sets out to paint a governmental landscape there should be a paintbrush in every hand.  Such a community is not likely to have a serious problem with crime.

CONTINUING LEARNING: This must be a part of every successful leader.  If we take our learning seriously we will come to know ourselves, like ourselves, and discipline ourselves.  With this then comes liking others and enjoyment of doing things for and with them.

Bennis: “No one — not your parents nor your teachers nor your peers — can teach you how to be yourself.  Indeed, however well-intentioned, they all work to teach you how not to be yourself.”

Bennis here emphasized the need for inner learning, or that which we initiate for ourselves.  Put another way, it is learning about ourselves.  Reflection can play a vital part in this effort.

We can buy this, but we are a little uncomfortable with his put-down of a basic education coming from outside the self.  That is, we cannot learn to be ourselves until we know how to learn.  That should be an objective of formal, disciplined, parent-enhanced elementary education.  See PG10.

Next, Bennis borrowed a bit of the 1972 Club of Rome Report on learning (quoted).  Maintenance learning, the most prevalent, is “the acquisition of fixed outlooks, methods and rules of learning designed to maintain an existing system or established way of life.”

We note how well this ties in with and reinforces conventional wisdom, thus making it conventional.

“Shock learning, almost as prevalent now, occurs when events overwhelm people.  As the authors put it, ‘Even up to the present moment, humanity continues to wait for events and crises that —– catalyze or impose this primitive learning by shock ——.

“’Shock learning can be seen as a product of elitism, technocracy, and authoritarianism.’  Learning by shock often follows a period of overconfidence in solutions created solely with expert knowledge or technical competence, and perpetuated beyond the conditions for which they were appropriate.”

The first reminds us of our military training: Tell ‘em what you are gonna tell ‘em; tell ‘em; then tell ‘em what you just told ‘em.  Repetition is a good learning tool, especially for maintenance learning.

Shock learning is prevalent now because our institutions have not enjoyed the benefit of sweeping renewal for 87 years (since 1932-33).  This means they are ill suited to anticipate and deal with events, and crises must therefore be the frequent result.

It is actually a double issue.  It consists of stale, bureaucratic institutions and overemphasis on specialization while failing to develop generalists whose thinking and arguments are useful as a counterweight.

This means that specialists are free to examine the proverbial elephant just as did the six blind men of the legend: each feeling a different part of the animal and drawing a different conclusion.  The medical profession comes to mind.

Bennis says that with innovative learning we “—– are free to express ourselves, rather than endlessly trying to prove ourselves.”

This is freedom.  We compare it with the treadmill to which the driven man/woman is strapped: the workaholic; the rat race; the type “A” manager, etc.  (The winner of the rat race is still a rat.)

Reflection is a habit that few of us cultivate in our action-oriented, multitasking culture.  It is of great importance, so the key is to set a high priority on reflection time and keep the faith if it doesn’t seem to bear immediate fruit.  We have learned that this requires self-discipline: too easy to end up doing something else.

There is a story about the original Henry Ford.  He once hired an efficiency expert to help him sharpen the operation.

After a week the expert told Ford, “That fellow down the hall with his feet up on the desk.  He is worthless, and I think you should fire him.”

Ford’s response was swift.  “That man came up with an idea which saved the company $150,000.  As I recall, his feet were in the same position then as they are now.”

There was a character who claimed there are three types of people: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen and those who wonder what happened.  Obviously we would like to be the first type.

However, when we reflect on reflection (sorry about that one) we conclude that we would like to be the second and third types on a part-time basis.  Otherwise we risk making the wrong things happen.

Most of the world’s top “leaders” are older people, the theory being that they are the wisest.  This worked quite well in the era of Confucius (circa 550-480BC) because nothing much changed from one generation to the next.

This state of being went on forever, or nearly so.  The old man was the boss and no young upstart dared to question his judgment (Confucius was a male chauvinist).

Centuries passed.  Then along came the Industrial Revolution (circa 1750-1850).  Technological change became a driving social force.

After this time old men (and women these days) simply by becoming old could no longer expect to be effective leaders.  The policy of promotion by seniority became less useful.

Furthermore many spent their younger years on the fast track.  Therefore they were preoccupied with crisis management and took no time to reflect on who they were and where they were taking the organization (and themselves).

These too are not geared for leadership.  Their backgrounds may have caused them to be visible and therefore electable, but these experiences have not prepared them to be the wise, visionary leaders whom we need today.

What’s a leader to do?  We suggest continuing learning, continuing intellectual stimulation, and a habit of frequent reflection.

A commitment to these activities might even keep us free of Alzheimer’s disease (just a thought; no evidence).  A side benefit has our adult children more likely to perceive us as “with it” rather than as a grouchy old _______ (feel free to fill in).

Mistakes are an effective learning tool.  We admit to having made a few; back us into a corner and many more would surely come forth.

Have we learned from these sometimes embarrassing, sometimes expensive experiences?  We dare to think so.

A leader does not point fingers when something goes wrong.  Rather, he/she joins his people in finding the cause and in devising a plan to repair the damage and to prevent a recurrence.

With this policy in force staff members feel they can take calculated risks, allowing their thinking to range far and wide.  As they give voice to these thoughts we might identify a future leader.

Risk and reward are the foundation of business success, and failure does not mean eternal damnation.  Rather, it provides a continuing learning person an opportunity to take another shot at it from a new, different, smarter, and better perspective.

In today’s politics mistakes can still be an effective learning tool.  Nevertheless, officials all too frequently repeat history.  For example (a repeat from elsewhere, for emphasis): During the 19^th century the Afghans threw the British out of their country; they threw the Soviet Russians out during the 20^th century; and during the 21^st they are throwing the Americans out.  Those who cannot learn from history are surely doomed to repeat it.

Does this mean they cannot learn?  We don’t know.  When Washington says, “Mistakes were made,” they were probably not mistakes and have simply been dressed up to look that way.

Whenever they paint themselves into a corner, officials prefer to be thought of as fools rather than thieves.

WISDOM: Thomas Paine claimed that wisdom cannot be taught, nor can it be called forth on demand.  It just pops up in the most unexpected places.  His faith in humanity motivated him to argue that everyone has wisdom, but most of us go to our graves with it still stuck inside us.

This is why democracy has such great potential.  Thru it public officials can tap into the collective wisdom of the neighborhood, community, state, and country.

We can and must do it ourselves for ourselves.  This is Lincoln’s government “—– of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Big Government officials cannot do it for us.  And they don’t listen because they don’t really want to hear what we have to say.  Therefore they fake it.

The past 60 years have proved that one beyond any reasonable doubt.  “What can the peasants tell us?”

Now we can clearly see the need to challenge conventional “wisdom.”  We suggest that if enough challenging and criticism occur and it gets to be a habit there will be no conventional wisdom.  It will not get the chance to become entrenched to where a few thinking people would feel a need to question it.

A PREDICTABLE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) consists of the world’s (approximately) 30 wealthiest countries.  Possibly excepting the “iron lady” (Margaret Thatcher), none of these countries has recently seen a real top leader.

Most of the OECD countries are called mature democracies by the news media.  By now we surely see that by our definition these top-down governments are not democracies.

However, there has been some thinking suggesting that the electioneering process in most so-called democracies has evolved to the point where a real leader is not likely to be selected to carry the party banner.  Even if one were selected the probability of victory would be slim.

Therefore political parties select candidates who can win instead of those who can lead.  In other words they would rather enjoy the trappings of personal power (PG13) than operate the government in the interest of the public good.

Enough already.  Let’s get back to the bright side.  We believe we should slavishly follow no one.  A true leader develops a following, but it is a critical following.

Followers constantly question his/her decisions and actions as their leader, demanding justifications and strong arguments, explanations why other paths were rejected.  We offer other paths for debate and go to bat for them.  The news media would be delighted to help out.

A true leader has the self-confidence which is necessary to accept criticism of his/her ideas and policies, the courage to act on conclusions cranked out through the political process, and the sales ability to point out and convince his bosses of our errors whenever appropriate.

Leadership is the management, not of the supernatural, not of weapons, not of wealth, but rather of information and knowledge.  This statement brings effective leadership up to date.

CONCLUSION

Friends, our lives are God’s gift to us.  What we do with our lives is our gift to God.

Faith has an element of blind acceptance of some dictum, often spiritual, as it cannot be demonstrated in hard terms.  Doubt is the inherent skepticism that stimulates the constructive criticism by which ideas become good and better.  These traits exist within us as individuals.

We have learned that maintaining a vital balance between these is a dynamic process.  That is, those of us involved will at one time be working on the faith side of the balance and at another time on the doubt side.

Too much faith and the organization blindly leaps into the abyss.  Too much doubt and nothing ventured nothing gained.

Trust is a social concept.  Without mutual trust an organization cannot work toward realization of its full potential, nor can the individuals involved in it.

Almost anyone can be a leader.  Being an effective one is something else.  This is why we are in such desperate need. 

We can provide them.  There was a time when we had them.  They inspired millions to build our nation.

We have concluded that as in the other OECD countries our institutions and government have grown too large, and far too old and creaky.  They are today at the point where the environment within which effective leaders can best function no longer exists.  To put it bluntly, we no longer have a democracy.

The time when we can do something about this sad situation is here.  Like good leaders we will mobilize our nonviolent resources and tap into them while we do the job that must be done.

To close we refer to millennials (born 1981-1996) some of whom may be voting for the first time in this fall’s presidential election.  They are America’s future, and our pocket gofer program has been aimed primarily toward these deeply concerned citizens.

We believe that Trump and Joe Biden are both unsuited for the job.  We have written about Trump’s mentality.  After running for president 2-3 times previously over several election cycles Biden is a career politician.  PG3 contains facts about such people.  Thus his promises are as empty as those of any congressman.  Not only this; he is an establishmentarian, a proponent of conventional wisdom like Hillary.

The whole idea behind such promises is just to get elected.  After success all bets are off.  Not only this: Like others like him, he has received many favors along the way.  Once in office, these folks will line up outside his office.  Mr. President, it’s payback time!”

For decades we have voted for the Librarian candidate because his thinking cruises near ours.  No media coverage; all news media vehicles are press agents for the government.  Right now we are not sure of his/her identity, but we will know when a ballot is given to us.

All this suggests that active millennials will be tempted to do as the Russians did in 2016: influence the election, possibly by promoting PG21.  (Ideally, the project will launch before the election.)

——- PUBLIUS II

TITLES OF OTHER POCKET GOFERS WHICH WE CAN DIG INTO,

DISCUSS, CRITICIZE, AND ACT ON:

 PG 1 – ON HEALTH AND FITNESS IN THE USA

PG 2 – ON VOLUNTEERISM

PG 3 – ON THE CAREER POLITICIAN IN A DEMOCRACY

PG 4 – ON THE BOTTOM-UP APPROACH TO GETTING THINGS DONE

PG 5 – ON THE COMING OPEN SOCIETY

PG 6 – ON MAKING A CONTRIBUTION

PG 7 – ON CORRUPTION AND ACCOUNTABILITY

PG 8 – ON GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF BUSINESS AND THE PHANTOM

PG 9 – IT’S ALL IN THE FAMILY

PG 10 – ON EDUCATION IN THE USA

PG 11 – ON THE US AS A WORLD CITIZEN

PG 12 – ON THE UN AND POTENTIAL CONFLICTS

PG 13 – ON PERSONAL POWER AND IDEAS

PG 14 – ON RESPECT FOR TAXPAYERS’ MONEY

PG 15 – ON BIG, SMALL, AND GOOD GOVERNMENT

PG 16 – ON DEMOCRACY AND OUR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

PG 18 – ON WAR, WEAPONS, AND PEACE

PG 19 – ON THE GRAND DECEPTION

PG 20 – ON LIFE IN A DEMOCRATIC COMMUNITY

PG 21 – PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF A CONSTITUTION