The leadership you know and distrust?

In a recent NPR piece, Americans Distrust Congress? That’s No Surprise, writer Andrea Seabrook interrogated  America’s growing distrust of congressional leadership. Seabrook starts the argument well but just flat misses the big picture. One of the building blocks of her argument is a Pew Research Center survey which indicates 22% of polled respondents (2,505 adults) were satisfied with the government. That is not good. The numbers also show that just 25% had a favorable opinion of Congress; 40% had a favorable opinion of President Obama. Now if that were you or I and 60-75% of those we worked for disliked us, it would be a wise to polish the resume and send out those Linked-In requests before the door hits us in the rump.  In follow-up questions, 56% of the respondents said they were “frustrated with the federal government.” Given the state of the economy, the jobs market and the housing slump, I can appreciate her findings with only two additional words; well DUH!!!!.

Seabrook talks with Congressional scholar Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute. He says the frustration stems from the “permanent campaign.” A great phrase for the continual political push for electoral popularity that spills beyond campaign season tainting the motivation for governing. I call it constantly kissing the public’s @$$.

Continually kissing the public’s @$$ is not good for your pride, your lips and most importantly, the country. It robs the people of tough principled leadership, replacing it with governance by popular opinion, which as we’ll see shortly is contrary to American principles. It’s important to note that the play for popularity stokes the fires of divisiveness, keeping the country divided making vision based leadership and extremely difficult proposition.

The idea that polls should determine policy is un-American and shows a breakdown in our founding principles.

The representative government provided by the constitution was supposed to protect us from this type of fickle temperament.  Check out this defense for the creation of a senate written by James Madison in the Federalist No. 63:

To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.

In other words, folks will get themselves worked up and bring about the downfall of the government if they aren’t protected from their passions.

Principled leadership? What a neat idea!!

Politicians should make decisions in the best interest of  the electorate, not what’s most popular. This would be rule by majority which fundamentally sucks chicken nuggets and is one of the reasons our “forefathers” sought to establish a representative government. Leading through vision is what we call principled leadership. Typical of the American political landscape, there is little agreement on the value and usage of principled leadership. In the case of George W. Bush, Republicans applauded him while Democrats derided him. Now that Obama is in office the argument is the same, the sides have merely switched. Carl Cannon wrote a great article pointing to the lunacy of governing by polls instead of principled leadership.

As is demonstrated by the divisions over principled leadership, the electorate is polarized. In her article, Seabrook interviews Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center who sifts through the data and confirms that “Americans themselves are extremely divided.”  So, as Seabrook concludes, how can we hold our officials accountable for their pandering divisiveness when we as Americans are so divisive? The prudent question; why are we so divided?

As the electorate, we send our politicians to Washington to not only legislate on our behalf but to make the Federal government work for our personal communities through legislative initiatives and federal funds. Sadly, projects destined for our districts other than our own are deemed “pork barrel” while those that fill our local coffers and slim our local mainstreet unemployment rolls are “essential.”

As Americans we won’t give up our guns; primarily cause we’ll need them to shot dead anyone trying to curtail our individualism. There is no judgment on the value of individualism here. It has played a vital role in the rise of capitalism and the generation of the American entrepreneurial spirit. It is simply an assertion that its presence is fuel for a bi-polar political process that rails against pork spending, while individually seeking government grants and subsidies.

Political figures generally are not spared affliction of indidualism and pander to the petty politics that arise out of electorate ME-ism and poll popularity.  Unfortunately, America’s Not In My Back Yard mentality is subject to the laws of reaping and sowing. Our hypocrisy is sown throughout or political landscape and we reap divisive, knee jerk governance and ever shifting foreign political climates. Hopefully we can begin to set aside just enough of our individualism to act in the best interest of our entire country and not just the block we live on.

Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace… One School at a Time by Greg Mortenson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Finding your life’s purpose and changing the lives of nearly 24,000 children and their parents in the process is sometimes less about running after defined dreams and sometimes more about listening to the wind. Three Cups of Tea is the story of Greg Mortenson, an extreme mountain climber, who in failing to conquer the second highest mountain in the world, stumbled across his life’s work, changing the future of 24,000 impoverished children and their families in the process.

The book was written by Mortenson and writer David Oliver Relin and published by Penguin in 2006. It was a New York Times best seller and 2007 winner of the Kiriyama Book Prize for Nonfiction. It’s easy to understand the book’s popularity given the region which Mortenson’s work finds him in. The mountain regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan are now at the heart of the war on terror and central to winning that war, says Mortenson, is educating the children, especially the girls.

Mortenson’s story is vividly detailed in this well written book which provides and understanding of village life high in the mountains of the Karakoram Mountain range located in Pakistan and bordered by China to the east and India to the south. The strongly Christian Mortenson is taken care of by a village of strangers after losing his way on an expedition in the mountains. He is cared for with kindness by the residents of the Korphe village and eventually comes to see their leader Haji Ali as his mentor. Through Ali’s eyes, Mortenson begins to realize how inaccessible education is in this part of the world. He also begins to understand that the inhabitants of the area would give anything to have a school and makes a fateful promise to help the village build a school, and in so doing sets his future in motion.

As a precursor to understanding the war on terror and its root causes, this book is invaluable. Throughout the book we see first hand how brutal poverty and lack of access to the essentials of life make them easy targets for Islamic extremists who provide food, clothing and an extremist education that fuels the war on terror. By educating the girls, not just boys, Mortenson believes that the society will in turn become more educated.

Throughout the book we watch as Mortenson is kidnapped, swindled, caught in firefights and even has local Muslim leaders issue religious pronouncements, Fatwas, against him and his work. The journey is an inspiring story that displays how one person’s promise and determination can change the fate of a nation and indeed,the world.

The writing style is fluid and quick. There are some gaps in the writing, for instance the time he initially spends in Korphe is abbreviated and we miss understanding some of the passion that fuels his initial promise. But at 336 pages, the adventure and the rich characters more than make up for it.

Another interesting subtext for this book is religious tolerance and respect for other cultures. As a Christian, Mortenson is primarily educating Muslim children. Rather than providing a Christian based indoctrination, Mortenson strove to provide the children with a balanced education that could save them from the extremism that was popping up everywhere in the country. As an infidel, the Muslim word for a non-Muslim, his mission was that much harder and that much more improbable. When asked if he was a Muslim while in the region, his response was that he was a Christian, but that he respected Islam. That respect ultimately allowed him to go in places and meet people the U.S. military could only hope to know.

Dr. Greg, as he came to be known, was more popular than the president in the region as he served the needs of the poor in exemplary fashion. For Christians called to serve and for those interested in understanding exactly why there is a war on terror and for those daring to be inspired, I highly recommend Three Cups of Tea by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver Relin.

View all my reviews >>

My inner pundit was sidelined and soulfully sulking half a world away as the U.S. health care reform saga unfolded. The vitriol that was generated by the legislative push to pass this law was a pugilistic display of anger and disrespect. Legislative members were spit on, called ugly names and even received death threats. Not that America is the bastion of peace, but surely our legislative scuffles don’t appear on YouTube in the abundance of other countries (funny!!). The Australian, a daily newspaper in Sydney, Australia,  ran a headline characterizing the fight as “Obama’s battle for America’s soul.”  In reality, the fight is not his alone.

What is it about healthcare reform that has the country up in arms, violent with the tongue? Who is against healthcare reform? Who is for it? Not an easy answer, but in a country that is good at generalizing and slicing statistical data for group definitions, we probably can get there.

It would seem that a logical start for mitigating the madness would be  deciphering the unusual suspects responsible for the protests and the vehement opposition to healthcare reform. The primary groups are the Tea Party, Conservatives, libertarians and some independents.  They share a disdain for big government, big price tags and governmental intrusion in the lives of its citizens.

Exactly what would a Libertarian look like. Of course this is a generalization, but data says they have the following characteristics:

• 30% have a college degree
• 31% have an income greater than $75,000
• 59% are male
• 82% of  white

Pew Research,Politics and Candidates

Summary:  Well educated, male, wealthy and white – generally speaking.

Next up, the Republicans. What characteristics would they have?

• 37% are college educated
• 47% make more than 75,000 a year
• 22% are non-white
• 10% of the non-white segment is black
• 41% is older than 61 years of age
• 42% are  male

Gallup Poll

Summary: Educated, wealthy, white and older (starting to see a trend?)

It’s interesting to reflect that these numbers were from mid last year, and during that time period, the Republican party has been hemorrhaging members to the Tea Party movement which is a distinctly different group.

The Tea Party is the final group will take a look at. On paper, some of the characteristics of this group include:

• 75% of are college educated
• 60% of them are men
• 80% are white
• 10% are Latino
• 66% of them make more than $50,000
• 34% of them (including the 66% above) make more than $75,000 a year

CNN

Summary: Well educated, young, white and conservative (generally speaking)

The Tea Party is the youngest group on the scene, generally comprised of Republican,  Democratic, Libertarian and Independent defectors. This group has been at the heart of agitation against healthcare reform making themselves appear larger than the mere 16% of the population that identifies as belonging to the group. Rasmussen Reports.

So by and large, the group is characterized as being  predominately white, well educated, upper class, conservatives. This group, because of their wealth is typically insured and is more likely to run a small business in contrast to the rest of the population.

Juxtapose this with the opposing segment which would be lower income mixed race (including the majority segments of minority populations) and there is an automatic divide that can be seen along racial and class lines with smatterings of educational skirmishes thrown in for good measure. A proverbial clash of the titans.

The divide between the group is from the start far and wide.  Let’s be clear, this battle is about the cheddar, the dinero, the loot. Politics is a hungry beast fed by the battle for finite resources amongst willing and unwilling pawns. Obama’s strong-arm tactics are a forced redistribution of  resources in no uncertain terms. His healthcare reform is a Robin Hood fantasy with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid filling in as his merry men. Sorry, merry people.

The conservative coalition,  who has the most to lose in healthcare reform,  are the haves who’ll end up shouldering the additional taxation both personally and in the small business situations; it’s a fight for resources that belong to them in an economy that is already hostile to their growth. If Robin Hood were alive, he would be best suited to stay out of conservative neighborhoods after dark.

Despite their motive, this conservative coalition doesn’t see the conflict in terms of the haves and have nots; this boils down to an issue of principle – founding principles at that. They tapped into a spirit that is inborn into the American way of life. Rather than view the argument from the smelly side of concern for their country men’s welfare, they found a rallying cry that hearkens back to the founding of the U.S. and is enshrined in the formation of the country.

It’s amusing to know that other countries can see this as well. In an extremely interesting article written by Geoff Elliott in The Australian he contrasts the American view of national healthcare with the Australian view. You can read the article here. What emerges from the comments on the post, unfortunately, is that Americans are viewed as self centered, greedy capitalists unwilling to share their spoils with even their own country men.

In his article Elliott highlights the nature of the US split from Britain and Australia’s moderately peaceful split from the colonial power. The US split was brought about due to agitation against the existing governmental power. The indomitable I was bred in America. The I became more important than the we. There is no moral judgment here, just an understanding that individualism is part and parcel with being American.

Indeed, agitation was enshrined and encouraged to keep the government from tyranny and obstruction. For the conservative coalition, the additional taxes and modifications to their existing healthcare would indeed be obtrusive. In true American fashion, these segments of the population revolt. So although it is a practical issue, this segment rails against the principle of the matter giving rise to terms like Socialism and Marxism.

The opposing side of principle is practicality -  easily delivered with any number of dismal statistics about the state of healthcare in America. Take for instance a study completed last year by Harvard University which linked a lack of healthcare to the deaths of more than 45,000 Americans. Granted, this number wouldn’t even fill half the Rose Bowl, but these are human lives representing mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles etc. This number do not include those whose quality of life is hampered because of lack of access to healthcare.

With the economy still sputtering from a glut of greedy insurance practices and an over inflated housing market, the job numbers are still dismal and on the daily push the unemployed to the roles of the uninsured. If you’ve got the guts, you can check out state by state unemployment statistics here.

Even for those who are insured, there is no guarantee that it will be enough. It was estimated that last year over 60% of Americans who declared bankruptcy, did so because of medical bills. Many of these were insured during the time of their illness.

It should be difficult for the most loving liberal to look unflinchingly at the plight of the conservative coalition; their backs are against the wall. The healthcare reform bill of 2010 is a solution that violates the spirit of America’s promise to be unobtrusive to all of its citizens, despite its noble aim to prop up the most vulnerable among us.

Shifting the healthcare burden to a narrowly defined segment of America although convenient is ultimately problematic. We would hope that the conservative coalition would be active participants in solving the problem. Charity is a virtue, while theft is a crime.

There is a solution somewhere in the middle if the Democrats can address the principle within the problem; distributing the burden equitably. And we can only hope the conservative coalition can work through the practical issues realizing there is no way the country can allow 32 million people to gamble that they’ll be OK for another day.  My guess is that this will continue to be a political football for years to come. I just hope that we as Americans don’t lose our souls in the process.

Saw a recent Facebook post from Raj in regards to the Tea Party. Interesting conversation around the vitriol generated by this group and some of their recent 1st amendment selections.

Raj – The racist core of the Tea Party movement is obvious to everyone except the media. It’s pretty obvious what they mean when they say they want to “take their country back”.

John Lewis hit with the ‘n-word’ by tea party demonstrators | Political Insider

blogs.ajc.com

Demonstrators outside the U.S. Capitol , angry over the proposed health care bill, shouted Saturday at

I don’t exactly see the Tea Party singing ‘Kumbaya’ and running out to compassionately seek opinions of the local Native American Tribes, Latinos, Blacks or any other group that doesn’t look like them and think like them.

To them, these groups are stereotypes out to steal America’s riches through draconian measures like health care reform that is surely a precursor to enslavement, the forceful takeover of land or the silencing of their voice in the land they raise their children in. Maybe they have more in common with those other groups than they actually realize. …

See More They believe with the stroke of one pen, Obama and the Dems will undue the time space continuum, erasing Elvis from our collective memory while sending them to a Tule Lake-ish socialist internment camp in CA. It’s as if Obama and the Dems have mastered some brilliant Harry Houdini trick to disappear the Rule of Law and the checks and balances inherent in our government.

I don’t get why they don’t come out and say what’s really on their mind instead of hiding behind their weakly fabricated arguments. Let’s be real, someone in that crowd finally said what I’ve had a suspicion they were thinking all along.

There is a classic eastern proverb that goes like this, “When two elephants are fighting, it is the grass who suffers.” Unfortunately for the people of  Zimbabwe, there is no end in sight for their suffering. It will take an estimated $5 billion for Zimbabwe to recover from it’s 10 year old recession according to an article written by Brian Latham on Bloomberg.com. Given  Zimbabwe’s dire outlook, they should probably take a number and get in line for a bailout from the US government.  However, Latham’s article unveils the sour outlook given Zimbabwae by the us based on the country’s poor human rights record.

This begs the question though, who is really punished in the end? This situation is remeniscent of the scene in Gaza. Though the “leaders” bear the brunt of the responsibility for their people, when they are deemed ineffective, what is the correct response?

If I told you my son drew the picture to the left, you might be disturbed. You might consider the fact that my son is a 10 year old fourth grader. As the neurons in your brain fired, you would have to reconcile the sheer violence in the picture with the experiences of a silly fourth grader. What does the picture say about his life?

Sure, you could chalk it up to his over abundance of imagination, but, quietly, in the back of your mind, the details might touch you where alarms can’t be silenced. Your eyes would dart feverishly, feeding details to your brain. Though you might be calm, your pulse would quicken and you would start mentally listing who you could call. The detail of the black guns, the curved clips, the wooden handles and the bursting muzzle fire would shake you. You would continue the silent debate over whether to call for help or mind your own business.

Indecisive, you wouldn’t call anyone as you continued looking desperately, frantically for reassurance that everything was ok. And this was all a joke. I would be sad to inform you that this drawing is not a joke. Who could you tell? Who could make sense of it? Who could explain it away?

You would hope this was a normal child expressing a vivid imagination. But we both know, the imagination birthed by crayons couldn’t explain the clarity of vision and the details of destruction clutched between your sweaty fingers. The crimson shades awkwardly registering against the neutral grays tell you something is very wrong. Not only because it exists, but because of its abundance. Like it, the number of bullets ricocheting across the paper would leave a lump in the pit of your stomach.

After you looked at the paper you could ignore the voice in your head, or you could do something. What would you do?

The picture above was actually drawn by a child in Chad as part of Drawings of Genocide. Young children caught in the chaos of war see things we wouldn’t let American children see on TV. But know that WE know it isn’t a child we know, does it make a difference? If so, why?

I am humbled to know where I’ve been placed and despite a shaky economy, and a shrinking dollar, my kids draw pictures I can hang in my office or on the fridge. Hopefully, God willing, we can make a difference for someone else’s child so they can draw beautiful pictures of life and not gruesome scenes of death.

Here is how you can help children of Genocide in Darfur and other countries. I hope that anyone might take a small stand, no matter how small it is to bless someone else’s child with a brighter future. You can take a peek at:

OurPledge.org

Republican National Convention Chairman Michael Steele is getting the business from all sides after apologizing to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh. It should have forward thinking Republicans doubled over in agony. The idea that presents itself goes like this. Is Steele really that weak or is Rush the political Godfather of the Republican party?

Late last week on Breaking the News with DL Hugely, Steele defiantly stated that he was the defacto head of the Republican party and that Rush Limbaugh’s comments were incendiary and ugly. To say the least, I was excited, a good fight had come to town and I wasn’t going to have to contact my cable operator to get in on the action. But like a boxing match in the early days of Mike Tyson’s career, it was over before it started.

Kneel Before Rush

When Rush Limbaugh went on the air the next day, he took Steele to task and like a political rookie with no constituents other than his own backside, Steele up and apologized. So their were two big questions coming out of this.

First was Michael Steele that inept or politically ignorant to challenge someone who had absolutely no skin in the game and the ear of a considerable portion of his party. Uh, yes; yes he was.

Two, does Rush really carry that much juice that he can make Republicans cower in their boots while gushing apologies for even thinking anything contrary to the Limbaugh agenda. This last remains to be seen. With a party this is in serious trouble and beginning to splinter, Limbaugh may very well be the wedge that splinters the party into a new direction.

The biggest problem faced by Republicans will be attracting voters beyond their dwindling base. The antics of Limbaugh can only hamper these efforts, so the first challenge of the next real Republican leader will be to deal with the Limbaugh question.

Clearly NPR commentator Juan Williams feels like he has been viciously maligned by the left for his recent comments about Michele Obama. No need for me to dig all into the drama, that soap opera has aired. You can rehash it over at the Atlantic. While taking a quick peek at The Factor, tonight, host Bill O’Reilly questioned Juan’s move to the right. Juan gladly released some steam by tattling on the left and telling papa O’Reilly that he’d been viciously mauled by attack dogs from the left Attempting to stand his ground, Juan grumbled like a curmudgeonly old man, as he tattled on the left to O’Reilly. It’s pretty clear that Juan is going to be carrying psychological scars for quite some time.

I’ll post the video as soon as I can get my hands on it.

Personally, I believe he was way out of line and in his comments about First Lady Michele Obama. But knowing how the left gets down, I’ll keep my nose out of this one.

Never thought I’d live to hear the words “poor Republicans” fall from my lips. Well that day has come. The Republicans who seemed to be standing back up after November’s drubbing at the polls, were back in the dumps. It took only one speech to dim their horizon. Less than 30 minutes after Barack Obama’s 2009 Presidential Address, I was looking at my TV in disbelief. Jindal appeared to be a fake and a fraud. I was duped.

Bobby Jindal, the Louisiana governor, who was tapped as the Republican darling turned out to be nothing more than a 4th grader masquerading as an elected official. And I actually liked this guy. As I listened to the four letter sentences stammer forth from his talking head, my mind began to wander to something familiar that I couldn’t place but had seen this before.  I got it.

It was the 1988 movie “Big,” starring Tom Hanks. You know the one where the little boy wishes himself into an adult’s body? Only this time it was little Bobby.

Given the Republicans recent track record for scouting talent, I should have been less than surprised. Their selection of Michael Steele as the RNC chairman was, I believe, less then genuine and borderline obscene. I can’t really speak to his qualifications, but I believe the RNC, having lost to an individual of color had a sobering moment to digest.  A moment when the realization drifted in on a cold Alaskan wind and they realized, they were out of touch. Rather than allowing calmer heads to prevail and reason to carry the day, they were taken by the shallow politics of race and their contentious decision ultimately laid bare the lack of comprehension of their conundrum. I think they erroneously surmised from President Obama’s election that American’s wanted diversity. In a knee jerk reaction, they looked around and found the first, if not the only , dark skinned rebuttal to Obama’s win and America’s racially coded electoral challenge.

When I saw the crowds at the Republican convention, and the rallys organized by Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin, I was amazed. I was unaware that such pockets of monolithic genetic similarity still existed on the stage of national politics. That the Republican leadership mistook color for character to me is amazing. Instead of looking for the right candidate, they opted for the politics of color and race in the selection of Michael Steele, the very same inequitable sin of convenience they castigated the left for.

This is bolstered by the fact that Steele was regarded as an outsider as he held no RNC post prior to his election as the chairman. Within the last 30 years, no RNC chairperson elected during a tight balloting process has come from outside the RNC ranks. This might be plausible in Steele’s case if Republicans had a better track record with minorities or had larger numbers as representative members. Not the case and this was plainly clear when looking out upon the crowds that attended the National Convention and the campaign rallys.

This is not to say they dislike minorities, but between their legal assaults on illegal immigrants in this country, their fear tactics against the Muslim community, their desire to legislate female reproductive rights, their stripping of affirmative action programs, and their desire to cut programs to the poor in favor of the rich, they are not making a lot of friends in communities that don’t look like them. The judgment as to whether they are on the right or wrong side of these issues is not important to the discussion. Only the fact that those who DO support these measure are by an large respectable swaths of the electorate.

I have a ton of Republican friends and I’m sure I’ll get grief over this post, but, I can handle it. Question is, in 2012, who are the Republicans gonna get to do their dirty work or will they get screwed again?