Over the past several weeks TheFundamentals has posted essays and references to other essays/articles that touch upon issues of leadership. Ted Koppel spoke about initial measured response from Mr. Bush and then overkill by Mr. Bush. He spoke to the issue of the continuation of these policies under Mr. Obama. He spoke to the failure of our political leaders to rein in both the military activities and other governmental activities that occur under the umbrella of safety and homeland security.
TheFundamentals quoted from President Eisenhower on much the same topics. Prioritize, don’t overreach or establish unreasonable goals; only so much can be done; don’t burden future generations with debt as you try to do things today that sound good/feel good but are elusive and immeasurable in their accomplishment.
Both Bush and Obama have reached way too far with other people’s money and we want to take out a few minutes in this essay to address this failing. Government is established to basically keep order and keep fairness or equity in various aspects of human and group endeavor. It is not the primary place to seek charity or subsidies to buy cars, homes and insulated windows. Charitable organizations and churches and not for profit organizations are the appropriate place to seek needs funded with other people’s money. Unless we embrace this fundamental, America will continue to attract vote buying candidates for public office. We must return to responsible and consistent fiscal, monetary, tax and pro competition policies to replace the corrupt policies of subsidies, vote buying, protected classes and appeals to special interest groups.
Now why do we bring up this matter in an essay on leadership? Our leaders today play a game of giveaway. The game is offer more and get more votes. The game is figure out what larger groups of voters seek and then try to buy them to support your candidacy. It is not at all a game of setting rules, expecting fairness and sacrifice and it is not about seeking commitment to do more with less. Think back to the slogan that JFKennedy offered in his inaugural address. What can you do for your country? Not what your country can do for you.
JFKennedy followed Dwight Eisenhower into the presidency. Eisenhower said set limits. Set priorities. Control those who would seek undue influence. Control what you do. Don’t promise too much. Be sensible. Don’t burden future generations with your plans and schemes and spending.
All this is now gone. No one is talking about cutting back. No one is talking about even balancing spending with receipts. No one is talking about limiting laws and rules and bureaucrats and lawyers. No one is insisting on sacrifice and frugality. These concepts in this paragraph are never even brought up in the American political conversation. Why would a well founded, fundamentals following, sensible, responsible individual throw their hat in the ring to swim against this current; this tsunami of entitlement, giveaway promiscuity?
Managing and spending other people’s money is a fiduciary responsibility in most agency relationships. If you don’t do it with reasonable care, you can be sued and in some instances even subject to criminal penalties. A good leader, be he or she a business person or a regular citizen who lives by the standards of responsibility and common sense is not going to enter the arena of American politics. It is a counter values based environment. It does not run on the rules of goals and objectives and measurement and accountability. It runs on the promiscuity of corruption and excess and very minimal measurement standards. All one need do is examine the major areas of government involvement. The budgets are not balanced. The pensions are not funded. The employees are not given measurable tasks with consequence for failure. The main thing is to always find votes to buy and then find some more. This is not leadership. This is not an attractive vocation for a person who lives by measurement, accomplishment and accountability. A person with fundamental values.
There is great concern in this land of ours that spending is out of control; debt is at the point of self destruction and that the so called leaders, the people in charge, don’t have a clue about what to do so they just keep following what they did yesterday and the day before. Recently, we published brief bios of those identified as being important financial leaders. No; nada real life experience in the entire gang. All have been in their jobs for years. They are not the solution; they have nary a clue about what to do. To use Obama's metaphor, they drove the car into the ditch. Obama just can’t admit that he was in the back seat giving directions.
There are many people who can and would lead us out of this vote buying, future mortgaging debacle that is our public sector. All we have to do is let them know that we will embrace their values and their standards and their accountability techniques. We have to let them know that we want their fundamentals and we will not insist that they buy us off with promises and giveaways and more deficits and more debt. Right now, they think politics stinks because they see the weak people we put in office. We settle for low accomplishment, non competitive vote buyers. The good leaders don’t trust us. They just want some inclination that we are serious. We will follow good leadership. We will sacrifice. We will ask what we can do. We will not ask what someone can do for us.
That’s how simple it is to get good leaders. Show them that you want them. Show them that you will not settle any longer for poor, weak leadership. Good leaders are not going to play a vote buying game. The expression that comes to mind is “build it and they will come.” It’s true. Ask for; no, insist on; no, DEMAND good leadership. Support good leaders. They will come! Tell them we don’t want anything other than good values, common sense and fiscal responsibility. They will get the job done. And, hallelujah, they will then go back to what they do best. Work. They will not hang around to become lobbyists and diplomats and presidential commissions can kickers.
There are a lot of good leaders who will do the job and not stick around. All they want to know is that they do not have to sell out their good values and their fundamentals trying to buy votes and please one group after another who are constantly seeking something from their government. So stop thinking and asking someone to do something for you and you start asking what you can do for your country. And then you do your part when the good leaders lead you to responsible policies and balanced budgets. You do your part and you let the new leaders know that they must make sure everyone else does the same. The new, good leaders will get the job done. Faster than you can believe. And then they will leave. That is what good leaders do. It is a fundamental.
2 comments:
I agree for the most part with The Fundamentalist’s point. As a caveat, I have no problem with using tax incentives for public good. Public good is often greater good. I believe that giving a taxpayer an incentive to install energy efficient solar panels or buy electric cars is good national policy. Taken together it lessens our dependence on those in the Middle East who are not truly our friends and reduces the trade deficit. I also encourage using tax policy to eliminate incentives to send jobs overseas and using it to keep jobs here. I also disagree with the Fundamentalist with regard to his belief that helping those in poverty is the job of charity alone. If we were a more charitable society, it might work. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that private charities have the wherewithal to meet the needs of the poor. Moreover, feeding a child before school and at lunch increases their probability of academic success and helps in some way to break the cycle of poverty through achievement.
Having said all that, I generally agree with the essay. Special interest money has hijacked the political process. I have read articles about how the Democrats are concerned that Wall Street money is going to Republicans and another regarding unions using their money to sway the upcoming election. One can expect more legislation sponsored by Democrats favorable to the financial industry over the next two years. One can also expect the Republicans to one up them.
The electorate is in the middle, but the money is on the fringes. Only the foolish believe that small elements of our society with a great deal of money, such as the various Tea Party PACs or Moveon.org speak for America. These groups, however, are able to gather huge amounts of money to run ads and create the power to change the electorate’s impressions of candidates. For instance, a coal company in West Virginia appears to have all but purchased a seat on the State Supreme Court. That court will decide an important case relating to that company. Does that seem proper?
Regardless of how one feels about Medicare prescription drugs and the latest health care reform, the pharmaceutical industry's money and thus power shaped the process and thus the result. Similar instances show the base problem with politics. My son’s IPod includes a song called C.R.E.A.M., which stands for “Cash rules everything around me.” It appears that it does.
The Citizens United decision from last year's Supreme Court term was perhaps the most destructive decision since the 19th century. Unless our country finds a way to rein in the use of money in politics by special interests on the right and left, we will fall further behind. The next election cycle determines policy, rather than the greater good. It is sad. It may require a Constitutional Amendment, but America must change the process. Something has to alter the arc on which our country travels or we will go further along that arc to ruin.
Il semble que vous soyez un expert dans ce domaine, vos remarques sont tres interessantes, merci.
- Daniel
Post a Comment