Leadership Crisis 2012

Well. It seems we're to have a British waterworks with an Arab flag on it. Do you think it was worth it?
- Dryden, “Lawrence of Arabia”

The Pre-Christmas deal to maintain payroll tax relief is only the latest in a string of cobbled together arrangements that have kept the federal government stumbling along. This cycle of confrontation, brinksmanship, and last minute deal-cutting will only intensify as the November, 6, 2012 election day draws closer.

What is to be done about governing the federal government? It is one thing to offer a clear choice to voters during a campaign. It is quite another to never leave campaign mode. The resulting battle of soundbites has created chaos in Washington, DC and disgust among most voters. Trust and faith in Congress and the White House have both sunk to historic lows.

Some insights can be drawn from my favorite movie of all time – “Lawrence of Arabia”. The movie provides breathtaking cinematography, a majestic soundtrack, and exhilarating action sequences. It also provides a cautionary tale on the difference between warfare and governing. In the movie, T.E. Lawrence and his Bedouin army become experts at blowing-up trains, but they fall into chaos when they try to govern Damascus.

Our current political leaders have all become experts at blowing-up trains. Both sides display skill at stopping things and delivering pithy rejoinders about who is to blame. However, both sides have lost the ability to govern. The only way both sides think they can gain or retain power is to ignite passions on fringe issues and demonize opponents on all issues. Common ground has vanished. Worse, it is viewed as the domain of the weak.

Wreaking havoc with your opponents is necessary when you are preparing the way for political victory and a fundamental “regime change”. However, what if there is no plan after battlefield victory? That is the current problem. Both sides want perpetual warfare because both sides have no interest in peace. There is no need for governing skills, as there are only lulls in the fighting.

The gold standard for modern political leadership is Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, like myself, devoted years to preparing for his revolution. This included Members and staff in Congress “wrecking trains” and “tearing-up rail lines” on a daily basis to prevent President Carter and the Democrats from doing more damage to America. Our parliamentary warfare was designed for a purpose – every bill defeated was one less law we would have to reverse once Reagan was President. Every bill delayed was fewer days Carter would have to implement the new law and thus making it easier for Reagan to dismantle.

The difference between what we did from 1978-1980 and the current warfare is that we had a core understanding of what was to come. Reagan and the conservative movement had a clear vision of what was needed to save America, defeat communism, and rein-in big government. We knew that November 1980 would be a shift from fighting on the outside to fighting on the inside. We would be required to rebuild some of the “rail lines” using conservative principles, while using our new inside resources to destroy communism. Therefore, governing became a mix of settlement and disruption.

The current political landscape is total disruption and the only vision is further disruption. This would be somewhat tolerable if permanent gridlock was the desired outcome. But, it is the antithesis of what is needed with America’s economy needing to be rebuilt and America’s role in the world needing to be rethought.

Could Reagan do in 2013-2016 do what he did in 1981-1989? Unfortunately - and sadly - no. The current political atmosphere is too toxic. Inspirational words and deeds would be torn apart by all involved. Politicians and pundits, with a few exceptions, are all so self-absorbed, that no one is willing to rally around anyone. It is like a bunch of ancient warlords – factions within factions with blood feuds barring rational dialogue, let alone compromise, from occurring.

A better leader for our times is George Washington. His fundamental belief in a viable nation allowed him to remain above the fray. More importantly, from presiding over the Constitutional Convention to his final days as President, Washington was able to select the best of both factions for the overall good of the country. Pure Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism would have been led to either autocracy or mob rule. Only Washington could see the brilliance in both men and steer them and their supporters toward a workable and governable mix.

No matter who prevails during the coming brutally hyper-partisan months that lie ahead, they should look to our first President as their leadership model. They should focus on the 80% on which most people agree, tread lightly on the 2% on which many people emotionally disagree, and confront rational differences on the remaining 18%. Only then can we move away from this current governing crisis and return to the path of achieving a “more perfect union”.

New Newt is Old Newt

The following is an excerpt from my 2008 book, "Naked Emperors". This is the opening scene of Gringrich's inner circle critiquing his management style.

One of the issues about "New Newt" is that Gingrich is "new" every time he wakes up. He lives in a world that is the opposite of "Ground Hog Day". Gingrich resets his personality, his perception of reality, and his priorities as if nothing occurred before. It exhausted his staff and destroyed his own revolution.

The book xcerpt follows:

PROLOGUE

June 17, 1991

"Newtworld is in trouble"; deadpanned Dan Meyer followed by a round of laughter.

The Quality Management Awareness Session was going well. The four-hour session, tailored for Gingrich's three major organizations (“Newtworld” was referred to by Gingrich’s staff as a large amusement park with various theme areas: GOPAC, the Minority Whip's Staff, and the Personal Office), included several workshops that always netted results. This was the power of a Philip Crosby Associates (PCA) course; it mixed fun with brutal insight. From the fun came a comfort among attendees to identify and deal with their "awkward realities". From dealing with these realities came commitment to do something about them.

Thirty minutes into the session with the Minority Whip's staff the room was energized. "We've got work to do," noted Tony Blankley. Everyone nodded in emphatic agreement. Linda Nave and Hardy Lott quietly made notes based on the flip chart at the front of the room.

The list, generated through a structured brainstorming approach, was indeed stark. It had been developed first from individual worksheets, leading to a brief discussion among groups of twos and threes, then on to the entire group of eleven identifying and explaining their "biggest problems" facing the Whip's organization.

"The good news", I began, "is that your list is similar to the problems facing every type of organization and corporation, worldwide. Remember the fire fighting cycle we started with":

"We find ourselves in this vicious cycle of being surprised by the unexpected and the unplanned. We cease to manage. We only react. We don’t have time to management because we are always firefighting. Because we are firefighting we don’t have time to solve the underlying problems that may help us prevent future fires. Guess what? By not taking the time to prevent problems, even more fires break out! The circle then begins again, with even less time to do what we want. This constant firefighting costs us time and money, it lowers morale, and it ultimately impacts our organization's ability to meet our goals and the needs of our customers."

“Only by using prevention methods can we ever stop this cycle. We are going to learn how prevention is one of the main principles of Quality Management. These principles have given others the ability to break free of this firefighting cycle. You can do the same thing here.”

“What happens when the boss is a pyromaniac?" Dan Meyer queried. The room resounded in applause and laughter.

Life after the Super Committee

My column regarding the Super Committee and what Congress can do now was published in the New York Daily News on November 28, 2011.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fight-cut-debt-target-rampant-federal-waste-article-1.982076

Reshaping the Budget Battlefield

Finding government waste is like hunting cows. Actually eliminating government waste is another matter.

Governments, at all levels, are grappling with the dual tsunamis of an economic downturn colliding with budget busting entitlements and the fundamental inefficiencies of the public sector.

McKinsey & Company recently added their findings to the mountain of reports that identify government waste. According to McKinsey the federal government is wasting as much as $134 billion annually (about 15 percent of $1.21 trillion in discretionary spending).

McKinsey’s numbers are overly modest. Over the thirty years I have analyzed and eradicated public and private sector waste, I have found that the public sector wastes between 30-100 percent on a program by program basis. That means that even the best run programs, at any level of government, wastes double what McKinsey reports. That places the potential federal waste at well over $268 billion annually.

Posting numbers may raise awareness and urgency, but remains a publicity stunt unless real action takes place.

The first positive step is for elected officials to use the tools they already have. They can just say “no” to spending increases. They can refuse to reauthorize programs. They can demand real evidence of tangible and sustainable outcomes before appropriating one penny to a program. These laws are already on the books for the federal government and most state and local jurisdictions. It just requires the political backbone to take such actions.

Unfortunately, elected officials don’t want to anger special interests by eliminating favored programs, no matter how obsolete and ineffective. Instead, they opt for furloughs that hurt working people. Worse, they mandate across the board cuts that ironically reward waste and harm efficiency as the more wasteful programs can easily absorb these cuts while better run programs suffer.

The public should demand more. One way would be to create a public referendum on spending priorities, which would be very different from the failed California initiatives of May 2009. This better way was discussed in a previous column, “Building a Better Budget” [The Washington Times, February 5, 2007]. In that column, I explained how to give every taxpayer a hypothetical $100,000 to allocate within a federal or state budget as part of their annual tax returns. This linked taxes and spending in a powerful and empowering new way. It may take several years to refine this advisory process into a binding one. Either way, direct citizen input into government budgeting would fundamentally shift decision power away from special interests to the betterment of all.

Another possible solution is for federal and state governments to form 21st Century versions of the “Hoover Commission”. Both President Truman in 1947, and President Eisenhower in 1953, turned to former President Herbert Hoover to form commissions which strategically rethought government operations. These commissions recommended consolidation of functions, elimination of duplications, and realignment administrative processes throughout government . Just like an untended garden gets weed infested and overgrown to the choking point, so does government benefit from a “constant gardener”.

The McKinsey report offers another ray of hope when it asserts that, “Simply doing the same tasks in new ways, as it turns out, can be extremely powerful”. One of the greatest impediments to government efficiency is the bureaucratic culture. In this culture, the wrong things are rewarded: more spending, more personnel, more office space, and more activities. Many public officials, especially career managers, see their pathway to prestige and influence through amassing resources, not accomplishments.

Government, at all levels, can use this culture to its advantage. The bureaucracy resists change and efficiency because it fears loss. What if government allowed bureaucrats to reinvest their savings in their own enterprises? Instead of loss, efficiency would be viewed as gain or survival.

The exchange of waste for value has worked in a wide variety of settings. Every public employee can immediately list dozens of procedures and policies that do not make sense and drive them crazy. I have run “cost of quality” or “efficiency” workshops in dozens of federal and state agencies. In every case, the incentive structure was “you are empowered to eliminate these wastes” and more importantly, “you are authorized to keep and use every penny you save”.

Under the “waste for value” approach to reducing waste bureaucrats immediately grasp how their identifying where they are doing “stupid things stupidly” is not a witch hunt for blame, but a scavenger hunt for unleashing previously encumbered resources. This hunt for waste also opens their eyes to the powers of strategic thinking, collaboration, and prevention.

Another element to this scavenger hunt is prioritizing effort to results. An integral element for success is creating a four-quadrant “prioritization grid” where solutions are divided into easy to achieve, hard to achieve, high return on effort, and low return on effort. Recently, one federal operating unit not only realized that over a third of their operating budget was recoverable waste, but also that hundreds of improvement opportunities fell into the “easy to achieve-high return on effort” box. All those involved immediately and enthusiastically proceeded with eliminating their wasteful ways.

No one action will help government “thread the needle” through our current crisis, but a combination of the political will to “just say no”, engaging citizens in directly determining their fate, and redirecting bureaucratic energies are a start.

Reversal of Fortune

What kind of President will Obama be?

He has numerous role models ranging from the utter failures of Bush the younger and Carter, to the mediocrities of Bush the elder, Eisenhower, Ford, Kennedy, and Johnson. He can learn from the brilliant flame-outs of Nixon and Clinton or be inspired by the clarity and certainty of Reagan.

There will be many reality checks in the coming months and years ahead to help Obama and Americans focus on what is working and what needs further refinement. The most fascinating phenomena will be watching how the changing power position of Republicans and Democrats may change their world views. In Washington it is all about partisan pot shots, not principle. You are for or against something because your opponent has taken the opposite stance. No one cares if the other side actually has a good idea – admitting such a thing may undercut your next fundraising campaign or harangue on CNN.

So, let's review who was for what during the last eight years:

Republicans were solidly for an imperial presidency. They cheered every expansion of presidential power and executive privilege.

Republicans were for national government. From “No Child Left Behind” onward, Republicans ignored the tenth amendment to our Constitution in order to promote nationalism over federalism.

Republicans were anti-libertarian. They enthusiastically curtailed basic freedoms and kicked down every barrier to privacy in their zeal to find terrorists in our midst. The fact that they found about as many real terrorists as they did weapons of mass destruction was immaterial.

Republicans were for big government. Budgets expanded, earmarks were embraced, and new agencies were built.

Republicans ignored congressional oversight. The Bush administration could do no wrong. Foibles were overlooked or forgiven. At one hearing Rep. Tom Davis shrugged and said it was no big deal that $5 billion in cash was missing in Iraq.

Democrats, on the other hand, became zealots for oversight. Rep. Waxman held one hearing after another on a wide range of issues. Senate Democrats hauled countless Administration officials before their committees to explain their actions.

The media was also relentless in their exposing Bush and Republican scandals and incompetence. Conflicts of interest, cronyism, and nepotism were documented and railed against.

Now everything is different. The Democrats are in the driver’s seat throughout Washington. So, the question must be asked. Will this change of fortune change everyone’s point of view? Will Republicans still cheer a strong presidency under Obama? Will Democrats still want to zealously review executive branch actions? Will the media continue to root out Administration scandals?

For a vivid insight let’s turn to today’s “Morning Joe” program. Chris Matthews, one of the relentless attack dogs against Republican skullduggery, had the following exchange:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work, and I think that --
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Is that your job? You just talked about being a journalist!
MATTHEWS: Yeah, it is my job. My job is to help this country.

Let the games begin!

Perdition

I will always remember the horns. Washington, DC sounded like downtown Cairo with its deafening cacophony of automobile horns.

I was driving along 14th Street and then onto K Street, traveling home after seven hours of broadcasting at the Voice of America. Exuberant people were everywhere, on the sidewalks, in the middle of the street, in doorways. All were chanting “Obama! Obama!” and waving Obama signs, posters, and hand lettered Obama bed sheets. Federal Protective Service guards at the Reagan Building were smiling and waving back at the lines of honking cars. DC policemen were smiling and waving from each intersection. One would have thought the Washington Redskins had just won the Super Bowl by sixty points.

The cheering for Obama’s brilliant victory will echo throughout his Presidential transition and again spill into the streets during his Inaugural. At some point, the serious business of whom Obama selects for his Administration and how he begins to dig America out of two wars and a major recession will supplant the festivities. In the meantime, Obama’s supporters deserve their celebration.

The Republican Party has suffered similar defeats in the past. Bill Clinton trounced incumbent George H.W. Bush by 370 electoral votes in 1992 and then beat Bob Dole by 379 electoral votes in 1996. People forget that the only close elections in our lifetime were George W. Bush’s, Jimmy Carter’s, and John F. Kennedy’s. You then have to travel back to 1884 for the next close race.

The Republican finger pointing and fratricide began, even as the votes were being tallied. Acolytes for Romney and Huckabee were already blaming Palin. Bush people were blaming McCain. Conservatives were blaming Bush or minimizing the loss as an aberration rising out of the financial crisis. Before things get any further out of hand there are some things to keep in mind as the Republicans seek a way back to the halls of power.

First, the Republicans deserved to lose. They had morphed into a sad vivisected version of themselves. There was very little said or done by President Bush, his administration, or the Republicans in Congress, that would not have ignited a conservative firestorm had any of it been done by a Democrat. Yet the movement was mostly silent.

The Republicans ran out of ideas and began losing their way in the spring of 1995. They had a brilliant game plan to win the 1994 election and ram through the “Contract with America” in record time. But they had nothing after that. Only President Clinton’s “zipper problems” gave them the opportunity to consolidate power in 2000. Then the tragedy of September 11 placed America in a war culture through 2004. During this time the Republicans undermined personal liberties, pursued ill-advised foreign adventures, and financially drove America off a cliff with spending, debt, and incompetent administration.

The devastating 2006 election should have been a wake-up call. It was not. Widespread denial reigned in the conservative and Republican salons of Washington. What was worse, many people who should have known better continued to drink the Bush “Kool-Aid”, offering up ever more preposterous explanations for why things were going off the rails.

The Republicans have made their way out of the wilderness before – 1952, 1968, 1980, 1994, and 2000. If they ever hope to repeat this achievement they must do several things:

· Throw-out Bush and everyone associated with him. Every office-holder who enjoyed taxpayer wages and the power-trips of office should be banished from think tanks, universities, and media forums. Their hubris destroyed the Republican and Conservative brands and almost eradicated a 300-year-old movement.

· Throw-out every Republican leader who voted for ridiculously large budgets, who trampled on our freedoms, or refused to conduct oversight and hold the Bush Administration accountable for its many failings. They reneged on their most fundamental duties to our country.

· Refuse to listen to anyone who was a Bush apologist. This means most of the cartoonish pundits on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC who refused to utter a single syllable of criticism during the last eight years. Many of them, including Karl Rove, have already begun revisionism to avoid retribution for their roles in the current mess.

Many of these “Bushies” are already repositioning themselves to become players in the Republican resurrection. It would be as if Benedict Arnold popped-up the Constitutional Convention offering to write a section or two.

Actions should have consequences. Those who were silent now say they did it out of loyalty. Their inaction was, in fact, the worst treachery of all.

Think Globally - Vote Locally

Voters are already streaming to the polls taking advantage of early voting. The airwaves are filled with wall-to-wall election coverage. There have been more polling in the last four weeks than during the entire 2004 election cycle.

This is an important election. Eight years of President Bush’s warped version of Republicanism has left a nation ready for something different. Even if that difference may turn out to be mostly rhetorical. The economic downturn has extinguished McCain’s last hopes for an upset by further undermining the damaged Republican brand. However, the high undecided percentage means there large numbers of voters either not willing to vote for a black man to be President or are uncomfortable voting for someone with so little experience. The mainstream media’s obsessive Obama boosterism has deprived Americans of a serious review of Obama’s leadership skills and his true agenda once in office.

The desire for change, the hope for economic salvation, and the emotions surrounding Obama (pro and con) are generating a huge early vote and will probably drive voter turnout up to pre-Watergate levels. One thing all voters need to remember is that the Presidency is only one selection on their long general election ballots.

A President is our national symbol. Their tenure defines an era in our nation’s history. But, on a daily basis, their actions and inaction do not directly impact our daily lives as fundamentally as the obscure officials populating the “bottom” of the ballot. Unfortunately, many voters do not even bother to vote for these local candidates. There is as much as a forty-percent voter fall-off or “under vote” for these races.

In many ways local elections are more important than national elections. State and local government tax you the most (income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and user charges). Local government controls who teaches your children and what they are taught, it responds to police, fire, and emergency calls, it picks up your trash, maintains your roads, and in many locales provides sewer and water services. These are far more fundamental to our daily lives than most national legislation.

Since local races are decided with far less votes, your vote can be decisive. Local officials are also far more accessible as elected officials because they remain in your community - you can bump into them at the store and still call them at home.

So, before Election Day, take the time to learn about your local candidates. There will usually be a neighbor or friend who is a local activist closely following these races and will gladly provide insight as to who will best serve the community. On Election Day, take the time to complete the entire ballot. Please do more than vote straight ticket. At the local level partisan affiliation is mostly irrelevant. As a life-long Republican, I have voted for as many Democratic as Republican candidates at the state and local level. Our democracy will be stronger and our communities better if we all follow the old adage "think globally - act locally".