© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Washington, we have a problem.
Now, I am neither an economist nor a rocket scientist, I am just a consumer, and as such, along with the rest of you, I am responsible for two thirds of America’s economic activity.
And, along with the rest of you, I don’t have much trouble defining the problem:
In the last ten years, the cost of energy has gone through the roof, taking the price of everything that moves, from food to flashlights, along with it.
Similarly, the cost of housing is up more than 50%.
Unfortunately, our real income has actually declined, along with the value of our homes… and in the last two weeks, the value of our retirement savings has declined more than 20%… some two trillion dollars worth of evaporated wealth.
But, if you had turned on the television and watched C-Span, as I did while generating this article, you would have seen the hearing, conducted in the House of Representatives on October 7, 2008, regarding the collapse of AIG Insurance.
Several former CEOs testified during that hearing. Probably most of us think that both corporate America and our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, have failed us.
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. In corporate think, the above problems seem to be our fault.
I strongly suspect that if you asked the average citizen, he or she would tell you that they feel that both corporate America and our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, made out like bandits during the period of high flying and free wheeling, without much in the way of restrictions or regulation, or concern for the American public for that matter.
Virtually every nickel we contributed to the growth of the American economy, through productivity improvements and cost reductions, was channeled to the occupants of America’s executive suites.
Less than ten days after borrowing $85 billion from us to keep from going broke, the executives of AIG spent $400,000 on themselves at a management retreat at an ocean front resort. (One of the Representatives even had pictures of the resort, and a breakdown of the costs of the rooms!)
That’s FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS… and it obviously occurred to no one running that company that this might not be the best time to continue business as usual, as is their right and due. What good is being a Master of the Universe if you can’t enjoy the perks?
To borrow a notion from Ross Perot, perhaps we should reconsider who we put in charge of our financial well-being.
Perhaps we should reconsider allowing lawyers to become elected officials.
Perhaps we should do the same with CEOs.
Because what was to be witnessed during this hearing was not an effort to get at the truth and underlying causes for our current economic emergency, but lots of posturing, blame assignment, and defense of the status frigging quo.
You can’t really blame these guys; if any of us were trousering (oops, my bad, or skirting) $60 million a year, we would also mount the best defense that money could buy in support of our right to haul home such lucre.
Yesterday, we posted a poem by Pablo Neruda (http://theviewfromoutsidemytinywindow.blogspot.com/2008/10/post-no-52-and-now-some-pablo-neruda.html). Apparently neither the former CEOs nor any of our politicians have read You’re the Result of Yourself. It’s well worth a read.
Lawyers, particularly experienced ones, develop a skill for asking the right questions to get to the heart of the matter. They also know how to make arguments in favor of their positions, and against those of others.
That’s what they get paid for.
What should concern us now is that none of this is appropriate in connection with the current financial mess in which we find ourselves as a nation. And time’s awasting....
What we need now is for our politicians, leaders, and the members of our government to “dig deeper,” and try to expose the underlying causes of this situation (no matter who’s at fault), and how we might best prevent it from occurring again.
What we do not need is yet another PR campaign, pointing to a light at the end of the tunnel, and pretending that it is not an oncoming freight train. (By the way, the laws of physics repeatedly suggest that you will not beat that collision.)
I’m one of the few people who actually enjoys listening to hearings before governmental bodies. Any sensible person would not. Frequently, those being questioned present prepared statements, exculpating themselves from liability, and then proceed to provide responses more concerned about liability than solutions. In many instances they are accompanied by counsel who coaches the witness.
Even more disturbing is the manner in which the “questions” are posed, if you can really call them questions. During the House hearing, for example, we witnessed Representatives essentially make speeches, reflecting their positions, and condemning the conduct of AIG. They chose the words to characterize the conduct, and they injected emotion into the issue, when and where they saw fit.
It was more than clear that the purpose of these self-serving speeches had more to do with elections than economic enlightenment.
Once they had almost used up their allotted time, they would ask a very short question, which would be very difficult to answer considering the 3 minute monologue preceding the question. When the witness tried to answer, he was frequently interrupted by the Representative, only to have the time expire without the witness having said anything of real value or substance.
Now we know that many of you will simply say, “That’s the way these things work.”
However, in this period of economic uncertainty, that’s just frankly, unacceptable. That any of our politicians would place their continued occupation of a political position above our need to know and the financial interests of the American people is not only sad, but something in which we should no longer acquiesce.
This is ridiculous folks. Even I, an insignificant nitwit, could pose a series of questions designed to get to the bottom of this mess. Why can’t our highly compensated, highly educated, highly sophisticated, highly experienced elected officials pose questions that really matter, without consideration of their interests?
What’s more disturbing is that the ineffectiveness of conducting a hearing of this sort, at least in terms of getting to the root of the problem, is fairly obvious, even to the casual observer. That our politicians think that this is appropriate, and acceptable to us, is, quite frankly, pissing me off.
This is the question we need to have asked and answered until it makes sense even to an insignificant nitwit:
“You gentlepeople have managed to hitch this great country’s economic star to a wagon, and the mule just died. How do you propose we fix that, this week?”
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Showing posts with label responsibility. Show all posts
Friday, October 10, 2008
Monday, June 2, 2008
Post No. 15: Hmmm, Respect - That's a Novel Concept.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There is a childhood story that I often tell that illustrates the point which I would like for you to entertain. I was in the third grade. I had just finished using the boy’s bathroom, when someone sprayed some water about as I was about to leave. I instinctively placed my hands near my eyes, but kept walking out of the entrance, which was right next to the entrance to the girl's bathroom.
Unfortunately, while my vision was obscured, I bumped into another young girl, who I did not know, and hit her in the face. Somehow the event morphed into a premeditated, conscious assault on this young lady, for whom I had some unspecified ill will. I was taken to Mr. Cundiff’s room, and he promptly (since corporal punishment was condoned in those days) abused my rear end, while saying that I should never hit another female.
Perhaps it was simply an opportunity which he seized to teach me one of life’s lessons. However, I realized at that point that truth, honesty, and doing the right thing do not always work for you every single time. The preconceptions of others can be powerful. However, I always believed that in the long term, those principles would place one in good stead. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is because of my third grade experience that I have always tried to withhold judgment about certain events, until I considered the facts. I also appreciate that, lacking personal knowledge, and without first hand information from witnesses, one runs the risk of making a bad call. Additionally, we all must keep in mind that there are many other factors which potentially come into play, with the two most obvious being bias and motivation.
A friend of mine in corporate America reminded me that in the corporate setting, someone “speaking up” is frequently just looking to torpedo their career. That led me to query, “Why do people think that an employee who is uncomfortable with what is going on around him or her, would be motivated to, and should, bring up a controversial subject, or challenge his superiors, during the course of his employment?” I mean think about it. What would you do? To not take that factor into consideration is just plain crazy. It’s science fiction.
Most folks are financially dependent on their jobs. Questioning the appropriateness of the conduct of one’s superiors is problematic, to say the least. Most observers of large, bureaucratic organizations will attest to the fact that as the size of the organization grows, and the importance of the issue increases, the likelihood of the truth becoming an afterthought, if not irrelevant, increases accordingly. I don’t care how much spin you try to put on it.
This was hammered home last night as I watched a relative of Pat Tillman (who entered military service, deferred a potentially lucrative pro football career, and was deployed to Iraq) discuss, on C-Span 2, Book TV, how the Pentagon and Secretary Rumsfeld handled the friendly fire death of Tillman. She made a comment which hit home with me. Paraphrasing, she said that this democratic concept is supposed to be a pretty good system, closer to perfection than most. She continued that Tillman believed in, and fought and died for, this system. She just wants to see the system work to the best of its capability. She lamented that when we have less than straightforward and candid interaction with those in power, it adversely affects the system, and further erodes our faith in the system. She concluded that the enlistees, who bought into the program, along with their families, deserve to be treated with respect. (And that is separate and apart from the intellectual honesty that we also expect from our leaders.)
We need whistleblowers in our society, regardless of whether they are telling the truth. They force us to periodically revisit the internal, behind the scenes operations of our governmental agencies, and keep them honest. Just the act of conducting an investigation serves a useful function.
You tell me, did Scott McClellan do the right thing? I don’t know. Obviously you folks with hard positions, either way, are privy to first hand and credible information which has not been made available to the consuming public. Please share it with the rest of us. I’m sure that there are many others who would appreciate being equally well-informed....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
There is a childhood story that I often tell that illustrates the point which I would like for you to entertain. I was in the third grade. I had just finished using the boy’s bathroom, when someone sprayed some water about as I was about to leave. I instinctively placed my hands near my eyes, but kept walking out of the entrance, which was right next to the entrance to the girl's bathroom.
Unfortunately, while my vision was obscured, I bumped into another young girl, who I did not know, and hit her in the face. Somehow the event morphed into a premeditated, conscious assault on this young lady, for whom I had some unspecified ill will. I was taken to Mr. Cundiff’s room, and he promptly (since corporal punishment was condoned in those days) abused my rear end, while saying that I should never hit another female.
Perhaps it was simply an opportunity which he seized to teach me one of life’s lessons. However, I realized at that point that truth, honesty, and doing the right thing do not always work for you every single time. The preconceptions of others can be powerful. However, I always believed that in the long term, those principles would place one in good stead. It’s simply the right thing to do.
Perhaps it is because of my third grade experience that I have always tried to withhold judgment about certain events, until I considered the facts. I also appreciate that, lacking personal knowledge, and without first hand information from witnesses, one runs the risk of making a bad call. Additionally, we all must keep in mind that there are many other factors which potentially come into play, with the two most obvious being bias and motivation.
A friend of mine in corporate America reminded me that in the corporate setting, someone “speaking up” is frequently just looking to torpedo their career. That led me to query, “Why do people think that an employee who is uncomfortable with what is going on around him or her, would be motivated to, and should, bring up a controversial subject, or challenge his superiors, during the course of his employment?” I mean think about it. What would you do? To not take that factor into consideration is just plain crazy. It’s science fiction.
Most folks are financially dependent on their jobs. Questioning the appropriateness of the conduct of one’s superiors is problematic, to say the least. Most observers of large, bureaucratic organizations will attest to the fact that as the size of the organization grows, and the importance of the issue increases, the likelihood of the truth becoming an afterthought, if not irrelevant, increases accordingly. I don’t care how much spin you try to put on it.
This was hammered home last night as I watched a relative of Pat Tillman (who entered military service, deferred a potentially lucrative pro football career, and was deployed to Iraq) discuss, on C-Span 2, Book TV, how the Pentagon and Secretary Rumsfeld handled the friendly fire death of Tillman. She made a comment which hit home with me. Paraphrasing, she said that this democratic concept is supposed to be a pretty good system, closer to perfection than most. She continued that Tillman believed in, and fought and died for, this system. She just wants to see the system work to the best of its capability. She lamented that when we have less than straightforward and candid interaction with those in power, it adversely affects the system, and further erodes our faith in the system. She concluded that the enlistees, who bought into the program, along with their families, deserve to be treated with respect. (And that is separate and apart from the intellectual honesty that we also expect from our leaders.)
We need whistleblowers in our society, regardless of whether they are telling the truth. They force us to periodically revisit the internal, behind the scenes operations of our governmental agencies, and keep them honest. Just the act of conducting an investigation serves a useful function.
You tell me, did Scott McClellan do the right thing? I don’t know. Obviously you folks with hard positions, either way, are privy to first hand and credible information which has not been made available to the consuming public. Please share it with the rest of us. I’m sure that there are many others who would appreciate being equally well-informed....
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Post No. 14: A Tribute to Mel's Mother
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In my Article No. 6, entitled A Few Thoughts on the Qualifications for Parenthood, I raised some theoretical issues which a prospective parent, or a governmental entity regulating the conduct of parents, might consider in a carefully orchestrated, Utopian world. Of course, it was simply an intellectual exercise designed to stimulate thought.
However, during the course of writing the piece, I was reminded of an article written by Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times some years ago in the vicinity of Father’s Day. Morrison recounted a number of newsworthy stories about failures in parenting, and their unfortunate consequences. She then went on to thank her parents for being “normal.” Of course, she did not define normal, other than to say that whatever they did worked, and resulted in Morrison being a positive and productive member of society.
At the time that I read Morrison’s article, I thought about the various ways in which parents confront parenting issues. Parents can take affirmative action in certain regards, thus encouraging their children to explore the world outside the family. They can also take affirmative steps by placing restrictions on the conduct, or engage in protective or punitive conduct. They can also choose not to take action, or not respond to certain conduct on the part of their kids.
Morrison spoke of how we hear so much of the parents who fail, and so little about the successful ones. I thought of that Saturday when I received word from Mel, my friend of thirty years, that his 93 year old Mother had passed. In his brief, but eloquently worded message regarding his Mother, he noted, “Throughout her life the one attitude I never saw her manifest in anyway was "Why me?" Even during her darkest hours she was only able to see the many blessings God had given her.” That’s a pretty powerful statement for one to choose to describe the essence of one’s Mother.
I never met Mel’s Mother. However, I tried to envision who she was by thinking about Mel, and how his Mother’s influence must have had a significant and positive effect, on Mel, and who he is as a human being. In my workshops, I often describe the antithesis of Mel’s Mother’s attitude as the “victim mentality.” Lots of things come with thinking of oneself as a victim. Blame is inappropriately directed to others. One’s own responsibility is typically difficult to recognize. One’s functioning as an adult become problematic. Mel is none of these things. He’s just about one of the most responsible guys that you would ever want to meet. And there are some other positive attributes which Mel’s Mother obviously passed on to Mel, consisting of Mel’s irrepressible positive energy, his ability to laugh, his ability to appreciate the world outside of himself, his internal consistency, and his refusal to think negatively of others. I always felt that Mel was genuinely surprised at the dark side of humans, when he witnessed it.
By simply reflecting on this one brief statement by Mel, I realized the power that a parent can exert on a child, in a positive sense. Stop and think about that each time that you engage your children, or the children of others, and you are in the midst of anger, condemnation, jealousy, spite, or you feel that you have been treated unfairly or discriminated against. Take the higher ground, like Mel’s Mother. It will have far more positive, long term ramifications.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
In my Article No. 6, entitled A Few Thoughts on the Qualifications for Parenthood, I raised some theoretical issues which a prospective parent, or a governmental entity regulating the conduct of parents, might consider in a carefully orchestrated, Utopian world. Of course, it was simply an intellectual exercise designed to stimulate thought.
However, during the course of writing the piece, I was reminded of an article written by Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times some years ago in the vicinity of Father’s Day. Morrison recounted a number of newsworthy stories about failures in parenting, and their unfortunate consequences. She then went on to thank her parents for being “normal.” Of course, she did not define normal, other than to say that whatever they did worked, and resulted in Morrison being a positive and productive member of society.
At the time that I read Morrison’s article, I thought about the various ways in which parents confront parenting issues. Parents can take affirmative action in certain regards, thus encouraging their children to explore the world outside the family. They can also take affirmative steps by placing restrictions on the conduct, or engage in protective or punitive conduct. They can also choose not to take action, or not respond to certain conduct on the part of their kids.
Morrison spoke of how we hear so much of the parents who fail, and so little about the successful ones. I thought of that Saturday when I received word from Mel, my friend of thirty years, that his 93 year old Mother had passed. In his brief, but eloquently worded message regarding his Mother, he noted, “Throughout her life the one attitude I never saw her manifest in anyway was "Why me?" Even during her darkest hours she was only able to see the many blessings God had given her.” That’s a pretty powerful statement for one to choose to describe the essence of one’s Mother.
I never met Mel’s Mother. However, I tried to envision who she was by thinking about Mel, and how his Mother’s influence must have had a significant and positive effect, on Mel, and who he is as a human being. In my workshops, I often describe the antithesis of Mel’s Mother’s attitude as the “victim mentality.” Lots of things come with thinking of oneself as a victim. Blame is inappropriately directed to others. One’s own responsibility is typically difficult to recognize. One’s functioning as an adult become problematic. Mel is none of these things. He’s just about one of the most responsible guys that you would ever want to meet. And there are some other positive attributes which Mel’s Mother obviously passed on to Mel, consisting of Mel’s irrepressible positive energy, his ability to laugh, his ability to appreciate the world outside of himself, his internal consistency, and his refusal to think negatively of others. I always felt that Mel was genuinely surprised at the dark side of humans, when he witnessed it.
By simply reflecting on this one brief statement by Mel, I realized the power that a parent can exert on a child, in a positive sense. Stop and think about that each time that you engage your children, or the children of others, and you are in the midst of anger, condemnation, jealousy, spite, or you feel that you have been treated unfairly or discriminated against. Take the higher ground, like Mel’s Mother. It will have far more positive, long term ramifications.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Friday, May 30, 2008
Post No. 12: What I Hope We Learn from Scott McClellan
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
“Doing the right thing is not rocket science.”
This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant.
Being a linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This “event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration, has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work with me for a while.
After practicing law and providing business management consulting services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility.
We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be delivered during our workshops and other projects.
Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way” to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event. What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of action to take, it is a powerful force.
In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth; here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so, it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did this happen?”
The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”
This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones. It also does not matter the political party or President in office. Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how they could have done the right thing.
Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was, in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.
Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three - we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are. When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our involvement, and consider changing course.
I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.
Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a mistake.”
Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me see clearly.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
This is the mantra that my good friend Laughingman has been pounding in my head for going on thirteen or more years, and with more frequency since I started this blog. Laughingman is the Senior Fellow and Founder of the Institute for Applied Common Sense. When I first met him and he handed me his card, I was immediately taken with the concept, although I did not quite understand what it meant.
Being a linear thinker and not particularly bright, it’s taken me a while to develop some appreciation of the application of common sense. This “event” involving Scott McClellan, and his experiences while serving as the White House Press Secretary in President Bush’s administration, has served to further develop my appreciation of the concept. Work with me for a while.
After practicing law and providing business management consulting services for a total of over 25 years, which were followed by a major personal failure, I decided to re-invent myself and become a motivational speaker. I teamed up with Laughingman, and other baby boomers around the country, and developed a number of products. Our team will soon embark on a nationwide tour of colleges and universities to engage students in a discussion about personal responsibility.
We will utilize adults, like me, who have encountered and recovered from various difficulties in life, as teaching vehicles, in conjunction with the latest research on the brain and decision theory. Our goals are the following: (a) to provoke thought; (b) to encourage students to consider their choices in life; (c) to assist students in analyzing the decisions that they make along with the consequences; and (d) to have them recognize the importance of taking personal responsibility for their choices. Our ultimate goal is to come up with some fresh, new ways to address their personal and societal issues.
One of the goals which we will achieve, during our discussion of issues, will be the de-personalization of the analysis, by avoiding subjective and partisan approaches. We believe that the analysis will improve through objectivity (as much as it can be achieved) and creativity, along with “digging deep” to expose the root causes of the problems that we encounter, instead of merely being distracted and sidelined by the symptoms. We can thereafter craft better solutions. The articles appearing on our site reflect the type of thought process and critical thinking through which we will navigate students in our sessions. These articles are precursors to the content that will be delivered during our workshops and other projects.
Getting back to doing the “right thing,” I first misunderstood the concept in that I felt that by suggesting that there is a “right way” to do something, one implicitly suggests that there is no other way to do something and still have it be “right.” And then I thought about it. I recalled that there were many times during law firm partnership meetings, that we had to deal with some uncomfortable issue or event. What always amazed me was the fact that you could have ten different attorneys in the room evaluating the situation, and have every, single one of them say, “Why didn’t they do X?” I realized that when you have a unanimous appreciation of the appropriate or “right” course of action to take, it is a powerful force.
In thinking about Scott McClellan, I kept saying to myself that I did not want to judge either side, and take a position, if for no other reason than I did not have any first hand information. So how was I supposed to deal with this? It was really bothering me, and then it came to me. For purposes of this analysis, I decided to assume that both sides were telling the truth, as I had during the case of the Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill hearings. (By the way, in that situation, I really did feel that they were both telling the truth; here, it is a fiction created for analytical purposes.) By doing so, it allowed me to immediately go to the next place, and ask, “How did this happen?”
The answer? It came about simply as a result of people in the Administration not being straight with us. It doesn’t matter who it was. It does matter when it was. Shakespeare got it “right” by noting, “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.”
This ain’t rocket science. You know that we’ve been deceived about numerous issues on various occasions. It does not matter which ones. It also does not matter the political party or President in office. Bill Clinton was no better; he was just smoother. It is interesting that perhaps the straightest shooter, Jimmy Carter, did not fare well. Unfortunately, being less than straight in political office has become the norm. There’s too much spin; and too many attacks on messengers and those who dare question suspicious conduct. You see how this is not rocket science? If the members of the Administration had been straight with the American public on a regular basis, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That’s the first example of how they could have done the right thing.
Let’s move on to the second. You will recall that many people came to Bill Clinton’s defense when the Monica Lewinsky allegations first surfaced. Madeline Albright and others hit the talk show circuit and the pavement, and passionately defended their president, and took heat for him. When he finally fessed up, they all looked like fools. To put his friends and loyal staff out there to later be embarrassed was, in my opinion, far worse than any impeachable offense. It was simply wrong. Encouraging your friends to extend their necks on your behalf based on a lie, is simply wrong, no two ways about it. Clinton could have done the right thing in the first instance by simply telling the truth, and not placing his friends in that situation. This is not a moral judgment, but rather a common sense judgment. I can almost guarantee you that Scott feels that he was misled and hung out to dry on something. Once again, it does not matter the issue.
Former President Clinton provides me with material to discuss a third example of what potentially could have been a right thing to do. Once he was caught up in his web, he should have realized that the work that he tried to accomplish on behalf of the Democratic Party was bigger than the man. He should have simply resigned, and let his Vice President, Al Gore, take over, and continue the policies of his Administration. Instead, Clinton made himself the issue, and not the causes and policies supported by his supporters. Example number three - we should all be reminded that everything is bigger than we are. When what we do hurts the bigger cause, we should re-evaluate our involvement, and consider changing course.
I am somewhat concerned that we have reached a point in our political evolution where an elected official can not admit fault, and still stay in office. We automatically demand that they resign. However, I would suggest that we remember that there is more to a person than the worse thing that he or she has ever done. We allow the leaders who blame their indiscretions on drugs or alcohol, and seek rehabilitation, to stay in office on the premise that they were not actually responsible. We also allow those who deny any responsibility to stay in office, unless the proof against them is overwhelming, or they are subsequently voted out. And yet, the politician who stands up and says that he was wrong is immediately forced to resign.
Example number four: one can’t solve a problem without admitting there is a problem, and taking responsibility for one’s actions. It’s simple as that. This Bush Administration is unbelievable. (By the way, this is not coming from some die hard Democrat. When I was making some “real money,” I was a full on Republican in practice and in heart, if not per registration.) It’s almost as if they do whatever they want to do, with impunity, and don’t care what we think or feel, or the consequences. “These guys are absolutely wild!” And I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I can not recall these folks ever really providing us with an unqualified, “We’re sorry. We made a mistake.”
Is such an admission still possible in American politics, or is it the immediate kiss of death? Folks, you can’t muck up, and then pass blame to others for your muck up! Take this gas situation for example. It’s absolutely incredible that we sit on so much oil and natural gas within our reach, protect it for our various reasons (some of which may be valid), use gas like there is no end in sight without developing alternative sources of energy, and then blame OPEC or the Saudis for our current increase in price. Get real! It’s unbelievable! All we have to do is just apply some common sense. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
So there you have it. Right thinking; doing the right thing. It’s not that difficult after all, is it? Thank you Scott, for helping me see clearly.
© 2008, The Institute for Applied Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)