Citizen Oversight

Leadership Crisis 2012

2012-01-05T10:00:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-10T08:07:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-02T07:09:00.001-08:00

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

2009-07-12T17:03:00.000-07:00

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

2008-11-06T17:46:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-05T17:17:00.000-08:00

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

2008-11-03T12:30:00.000-08:00

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".

Storm Warnings

2008-10-26T16:30:00.000-07:00

The media is anointing Obama our next President. However, before people get too enraptured with unified government under the Democratic Party think about what might happen to two of our most sacred rights – secret ballots and free speech.

One of the foundations of the Democratic Party is unionized labor. Senator Barack Obama and his Democratic colleagues in Congress have made passage of the misnamed “Employee Free Choice Act” a major priority. Secret ballots have been fundamental to our democracy since the 1850s. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 guaranteed secret ballots in union representation elections.

The Roosevelt Democrats demanded secret ballots because they wanted to protect union supporters from intimidation from company officials. Ironically, Kennedy-Obama Democrats want to reverse this 73-year-old protection to allow union organizers to intimidate pro-management employees.

Union representation has dropped to 7.5 percent in the private sector (membership public sector unions has actually grown to 35.9 percent). The drop in private sector unions has occurred because modern managers realize that collaborative management produces higher worker productivity and morale. Unions are marginalized in collaborative work environments. The drop in union membership reduces the amount of money unions use to support Democrats running for office. Therefore, the Democrats must find new tactics to increase union membership – even if this means reversing decades of federal labor law and destroying a fundamental component of our democracy.

The other target of the Democrats will be reinstating the misnamed “Fairness Doctrine”.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ended the “Fairness Doctrine”. This doctrine required equal time for all points of view on all television and radio broadcasts. FCC Chairman, Mark Fowler, and his colleagues foresaw the digital age and the rapid rise of cable television. They wisely decided that the marketplace for ideas should determine who is heard and how often. As more channel options arose, listeners and viewers would simply gravitate to those stations and shows that reflected their views or were naturally more balanced.

The ending of the “Fairness Doctrine” has stimulated the rise in political pundits and major news shows offering clear ideological perspectives. It has also allowed conservatives to virtually take over Talk Radio. This is where the Democrats want to change the rules. The liberals in Congress are not content to dominant the so-called “mainstream media”. They want eliminate the ideological marketplace and return to an era of limited choices. Liberals are certain that their left-skewed news shows will be able to masquerade as “objective” while conservative commentators will be relegated to highly controlled token appearances.

As Americans we should vigorously oppose changing rules that support our democracy. Neither Party should undermine free expression. The Democrats will be deservedly punished in 2010 and 2012 should they attempt such sordid power grabs.

How to Lose an Election

2008-09-27T17:07:00.000-07:00

Does John McCain really want to be President? I ask this because he and his campaign are doing things that are hurting their cause.

Example #1
Friday night’s debate was hijacked by Jim Lehrer and Barack Obama. It was supposed to be about foreign policy, but the first 35+ minutes was about the economy.

A case can be made that the economy was important enough for McCain to consider canceling his debate appearance. That said, McCain should have steered the debate back to discussing America’s becoming a debtor nation. He could have also been more assertive regarding his doubts about the $700 billion bailout. He could have observed that most Americans are against such sweeping government intervention to basically bailout the financial elites without any strings attached. McCain needed to put more distance between Bush and himself. It is really okay to say you do not trust Paulson – most Americans don’t.

The debate’s detour threw McCain off his “game” while giving Obama traction. McCain did make up lost ground in the final portion of the debate, but the damage was done – Obama and his media allies could declare a tie. This was to be McCain strongest showing, not a draw that leaves Obama ahead by 4-6 points in most polls.

McCain could have created a “game changer”. Early and often Lehrer coaxed both candidates to directly address each other. McCain should have taken that opportunity to become the interlocutor. He could have laid-out his brief against Obama – directly – and forced Obama to look him in the eye instead of Obama using Lehrer as a crutch.

Example #2
McCain’s spinmeisters and surrogates need to become aggressive. They should not allow the mainstream media to get away with saying “McCain accused Obama of being the most liberal member of the Senate”. That is not an accusation – it is a documented fact! In every possible vote ranking, and in the assessment of objective sources like the National Journal, Obama is consistently identified as America’s most liberal Senator.

Example #3
I still do not know what McCain was thinking when we pulled the plug on everything mid-week. Presidents should be able to multi-task. They will have to conduct photo-ops with winning teams, do “grip & grins” with visiting dignitaries, while pondering major policy issues during an average day. He could have gone on David Letterman’s show and talked about serious subjects as he has before. That would have allowed him to roll out Sarah Palin (who was also in New York) doing her own version of a top ten list such as “things you didn’t know about Alaska”. McCain certainly should not have lied to Letterman about his schedule – Dave holds grudges and has a huge following among McCain’s target audience.

Example #4
Sarah Palin should not be kept under wraps. She should have been fully briefed after the convention and then sent off to barnstorm talk radio. This would have (a) helped her perfect her core talking points, (b) allowed her to reach far more people than she has during the last month. Over 13 million people tune into Sean Hannity's radio show, while only 7.5 million watch Charlie Gibson on the ABC Evening News. Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham garner 5.5 million listeners and 4 million consistently hear Michael Medved, while only 3.3 million watch Katie Couric on CBS; (c) you can "appear" on talk radio while not having to be in the studio. Palin could call into these shows and still travel to rallies or prepare for her debate; and (d) Conservative talk radio would have been a much friendlier venue. When the mainstream media groused about Palin not being on their shows McCain could have played his “liberal elitist” card. It is sad to see the McCain campaign mishandling their best asset.

Example #5
The McCain campaign and conservative pundits need to defend Palin. I challenge all the anti-Palin conservatives to play out every alternative convention scenario for the night of September 3. There is not one person who could have stepped out on that stage and generated a 14-point pro-McCain swing in the national polls. The only reason the polls swung back is the financial crisis thrust Bush’s dysfunctional administration back onto the front page and reminded people why the Republican brand had imploded. Those who have “buyer’s remorse” about not having Governor Romney talking about the economy forget how many Obama commercials featuring Romney’s attacks on McCain would have run by now.

Every politician has a mixed record – that is why Americans are so cynical about their government. McCain, Obama, and Biden each has enough baggage that they only wish they were as “clean” as Palin. Palin is a breath of fresh air because she actually saw that there were corrupt and incompetent Republicans and fought the establishment to remove them. That is unheard of in this era of the “partisan prism”. McCain should have positioned Palin to speak in detail about government reform, as this will be her portfolio if she becomes Vice President. She should have been discussing reform “swat teams” and reinventing government, instead of watching Obama preempt that issue.

As to Palin being unfit to govern – a random assortment of people waiting for a Metro bus could have run the country better than President Bush and his administration. Common sense and being grounded in a small town and small state culture will always trump Washington cronyism.

Cox's Conundrum

2008-09-23T12:58:00.000-07:00

There are many reasons behind the current meltdown of America’s capital markets. Here is one that I know of firsthand.

In May 2006, senior aides to Chris Cox, Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), approached me to become the agency’s Executive Director. They were faced with mounting pressures to make major changes. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) had just published a harsh critique on management and information deficiencies within the agency.

Cox’s senior staff and I held an extensive meeting on May 16. During this meeting they outlined an aggressive reform agenda for bringing the SEC into the 21st Century, to make its operations more transparent, and to use its extensive databases to create more agile and proactive monitoring of capital markets.

I was impressed with their zeal for reform and their willingness to move aggressively and creatively. It reminded me of the House management reforms Cox had supported when I was the Chief Administrative Officer.

They asked me for a “think piece” on how this could all happen. My follow-up memorandum was a detailed blue print for making the SEC more accountable to Congress and the public, while using information technology to enhance the monitoring of companies and capital transactions.

To my amazement, the blue print was rejected out-of-hand. It was considered too bold and too aggressive. It was like the May 16 meeting had not occurred. Eventually, they choose an Executive Director who was very junior and who had been a “morale consultant” in human resources. This person had never designed or led strategic change or managed information systems. The reform initiative was dead on arrival.

I wrote Chairman Cox on June 28 attempting to reopen our dialogue on strategic change: “I would like to help you address the material weaknesses identified by the GAO, as well as improving fundamental agency operations. These projects may include, business continuity, IT security, modernizing and formalizing the agency’s operational procedures and policies, cost reductions, and assuring the success of the next generation of online systems used by the public.”

I never received an answer. Now Chairman Cox must answer these and other questions as to why he did not act when he had both the mandate and the opportunity.

A Rare Victory

2008-09-20T17:26:00.000-07:00

Local activists do not often get to celebrate as clear a win as those in Jefferson County did today.

The rededication of the Charles Town Jail marked a strategic victory for preservation. The victory was not just the saving of a historic structure, but was also about the triumph of the rule of law and open government.

The Charles Town Jail was built in 1918 by A. B. Mullet. This was the firm that designed and built the San Francisco Mint and the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House. It was unusual for a small town to have such a major firm design its jail. The building was a unique blending of state-of-the-art security for the jail, with late-Edwardian style for the jailer’s personal dwelling that comprised a third of the structure.

Unique history was soon added to this unique style. In September 1921 William Blizzard and three thousand unionized coal miners marched toward nonunion coal mines near Blair Mountain in southern West Virginia. There had already been bloodshed. On May 19, 1920, ten people were killed in a shoot-out between union organizers and private security agents from Baldwin-Felts in Matewan in Mingo County. This clash was brilliantly chronicled in John Sayles’ 1987 movie of the same name.

Fearing more bloodshed, and to throw the weight of the state behind the mine operators, West Virginia Governor Ephraim Franklin Morgan called on President Warren G. Harding to send federal troops to support the Logan County Sheriff’s deputies in stopping the march. Harding even sent a squadron of airplanes to strafe and bomb the marchers. A five-day “war” ensued leading to the marchers dispersing. Over 600 miners were indicted on various charges and fifty- four, including William Blizzard, were charged with murder and treason.

The treason trials were considered too emotional and political to be tried anywhere near the mine fields. They were held in the furthest courthouse in the state – Jefferson County. The new jail and numerous rooming houses in Charles Town were swamped with the defendants, their families, supporters and opponents, and the news media. In the end only a few were convicted, and an amazing chapter in America’s labor history came to a close.

The Jefferson County Jail is a major witness to our turbulent past. However, in 2000, the Jefferson County Commission voted to demolish the Jail stating it needed the space for expanding a gravel parking lot. The Jefferson County Preservation Alliance to Save our Heritage (JCPASH) was formed to stop the destruction. Numerous lawsuits and court hearings ensued. The preservationists asserted, correctly, that state law required public buildings to undergo a historical review prior to demolition. When this was upheld at the West Virginia Supreme Court, the County government asked local legislators to change the law to allow dedicated funds to be used to demolish the structure without further scrutiny. Thankfully, an accounting error co-mingled some of these funds. When this was unearthed during another court hearing the Circuit Judge blasted local officials for their treachery. Newly elected commissioners were then able to reverse the vote and the jail was saved.

It is the duty of every citizen to tell their public officials when they are wrong. JCPASH had to mobilize hundreds of local citizens, wage an expensive six-year series of lawsuits, and elect two new commissioners before the government complied with a forty-year old law. The rededication of the jail was also a recommitment to citizen activism and the need for everyone to remain vigilant and outspoken in the face of tyranny and illegality – at all levels of government.

Behind the Curve - Part 1

2008-09-11T20:00:00.000-07:00

Our modern world obsesses on the 24-36 hour news cycle. Soundbites and factoids are kings. While this makes for exciting entertainment, it diminishes any sense of perspective or reflection. The result is a fixation on what is considered urgent instead of what is really important.

We are in the midst of two major historic waves. One began in 1914, the other in the 1970s (to be discussed in a future blog). Historians a hundred years from now will look back at these waves with some perspective. Unfortunately, most commentators and political leaders are completely missing these waves - to the detriment of our future.

World War I erased four great dynasties and empires from the map. A framework for governance (most would say domination) that stretched back over four hundred years was torn apart during a four-year orgy of bloodshed. The casualties were: the Austrian Empire under the Habsburgs (1452-1918), Germany under the Habsburgs (1438-1918), Russia under the Czars (1547-1917), and the Ottoman Empire (1299-1923). We are still grappling with the power vacuum left by their demise.

World War II was triggered by the dictatorships that arose to fill the gaps left in Austria, Germany and Russia (Nazism and Communism). This, in turn, weakened two additional European powers and led to a global decolonization, England (1538-1965), and France (1605-1962). The Cold War (1945-1989) was fought mainly because the Communist dictators of Russia (then known as the Soviet Union or USSR) wanted to control strategic resources and lines of communication among these newly independent states in order to achieve world domination. The Soviet-led Warsaw Pact faced-off against the US-led NATO alliance over control of the lands occupied by the former German and Austrian empires.

The fundamental flaws in communism and totalitarianism won democracy and independence for most of Central and Eastern Europe. However, a totalitarian Russia still threatens its neighbors and is showing a renewed thirst for global dominance.

The fall of the Ottoman Empire unleashed forces that have only recently become a factor on the world stage. The winning powers of World War I established dominance over the former Ottoman lands. Unfortunately, there were more cartographers than anthropologists in the room when the Middle East map was drawn. Just like with the imperial division of Africa in the 19th Century, the post World War I shaping of colonies and protectorates left bitter tribal and sectarian rivals within artificial borders. The result was a unleashing of violence and internal strife that plague the Middle East to this day.

Colonialism only occasionally incubates viable leaders. Therefore, the delayed independence for the nations of the Middle East became rich soil for the growth of radical Islam and its extremist proponents. Deep-seated hatreds for Jews and western colonial administrations fermented ill-fated Arab embraces of first Nazism and then Communism. The West’s love of Middle East petroleum bridged these ideological gaps with commerce, but the animosity lingers.

Historical waves, like tsunamis, cannot readily be seen until they break upon an unsuspecting shore. The current challenges with Russia and the Middle East are part of this historic pattern. This means there are no quick fixes, and that most “current wisdom” solutions are flawed because few see things from a long-term perspective.

Small Town Values

2008-09-06T15:17:00.000-07:00

One of the major themes arising the Republican Convention was “small town values”. This was short hand for the fact that rural America votes mostly Republican and urban America votes mostly Democratic. This is starkly displayed in the 2004 electoral map.

Many pundits made fun of this theme. They either ignored this electoral truism or denigrated the concept as masking some nefarious issue agenda.

Small towns do represent a different culture and perspective on life. I grew-up in Lee, New Hampshire - population 500. I now live in Harpers Ferry (“greater Harpers Ferry” is a combination of Harpers Ferry – population 310, Bolivar – population 1200, and a few water district customers – population 50). I wrote about small town values in my book, “Naked Emperors”. An excerpt should enlighten the pundits as to what they are missing:

"Harpers Ferry is a true community. Everyone knows everyone else. There is a fundamental commitment by all who live there to help honor its long history and to make things better for the future. Such a mix is increasingly rare in America. My ability to escape the transitory and false nature of Washington, D.C., and to immerse in this corner of real America, provided a much needed balance and a “dose of reality” to what I had to cope with working in the nation’s capitol.

Many in Washington never have such an opportunity. The result is a kind of science fiction world that politicians, lobbyists, journalists, and bureaucrats enter, and most never to leave. The insane laws, the absurd regulations, and the excesses in spending, flow from a sensory deprivation of real world inputs. Those inside the beltway actually believe that their every word and every deed is more important than anything done by anyone living outside this tiny world. They believe they are somehow brighter, better, and, therefore, inherently more deserving of trust, tax dollars, and media coverage.

What a shock to the psyche of these Washington-centric people if they would chance upon a $5.00 a person all-you-can-eat spaghetti dinner at the Friendship Fire Company in Harpers Ferry. They would find the people knowledgeable about the world, but uncluttered with the minutia of “who is who” for some fleeting moment of illusionary power and influence in Washington. Harpers Ferry people talk about many things, including world affairs. But what is foremost on the minds of people at this spaghetti feed is the cycle of life. Who died, who got married, who was born, and who is graduating from school. Yes, there are always world affairs and national concerns swirling outside the boundaries of Harpers Ferry, but people focus on people. Whose personal achievement should be celebrated, whose sorrow should be comforted, and whose misfortune should be aided, become the issues of importance. People think about, care about, and do something about, people. They do this, sometimes individually, sometimes collectively, without having to pass a law or petition a bureaucrat.

This is the America that remains beyond the view of the ego-glazed eyes of Washington and the national media. It is not the America of self-absorbed talk shows or of lurid but lucrative headlines. It is an America that quietly maintains the center of gravity for our timeless civic culture. In its own simple, common sensical way it propels the nation forward and sustains its core values and traditions, regardless of fads, crises, or technological wonders."

90% versus 95.5%

2008-09-05T16:44:00.000-07:00

The Republican Convention is over and the sprint to November 4 has begun. The next sixty days will not be dominated by two sets of candidates, but by two numbers.

The final avalanche of balloons had not yet been unleashed when the pundits and Obama surrogates began their drumbeats about Senator John McCain voting for Bush Administration policies ninety percent of the time. Lashing McCain to the mast of Bush’s sinking ship has been in the Democrats playbook for months. They are banking on history. Only three candidates have created a “third term” in their own right since Reconstruction – Taft, Hoover, and Bush 41 [see my Blog “GOP Dilemma” from February 9, 2008].

The key issue is whether McCain actually represents a third term for Bush. Pundits forget that this election is the first one since 1928 where neither Democrats or Republicans had a clear heir apparent. This is one reason this election cycle has had so many twists and turns. McCain ran against Bush 43 in 2000 and presented a clear choice from Bush. Over the last seven years, McCain has trimmed his reformist sails to garner Republican support. This paid-off with McCain gaining the Republican nomination early in the primary season.

This is where Thursday night’s introductory film provided a moment of unintended irony. “When you have lived in a box, your life is about keeping others from enduring that box.” This was about McCain’s ordeal as a Prisoner of War. But it could also be a metaphor for his years of supporting President Bush. He lived in the conceptual box created by the Washington elite and the Bush presidency. He won the nomination remaining inside that box. He is now breaking out of that box, thinking outside that box, and reaching outside that box, so Americans do not need to endure another four years of that box.

McCain’s selection of Alaska Governor Palin was the first clear sign that he was returning to his reformist roots [see my Blog “A New Hope” September 3, and “Palin in Perspective” August 29]. His acceptance speech was extraordinary. He assailed the Bush administration and once again became the reformer of 2000. McCain’s new platform of reform and change was met with a mixture of applause, silence, and skepticism. Too many Republicans are still drinking from the Bush Kool-Aid vats – still unwilling to break free from their partisan prisms to admit to the epic failures of Bush and his Administration.

Liberal pundits and Obama surrogates are being disingenuous in repeating “90%” ad naseum. McCain has left that box behind. His actions and rhetoric are now about the future, “We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington”.

I am as skeptical as anyone about how politicians will say anything to get elected. This is why you have to look beyond one speech to a lifetime pattern of actions. Most of his career, McCain has been better than his 90% voting record with Bush.

That is why the other number is equally important. The National Journal documents that Barack Obama has supported liberal policies 95.5 percent of the time. Obama’s speeches reach beyond being a dogmatic fringe leftist. This is why he won his party’s nomination and is leading in the polls. However, there is nothing in Obama’s life that shows him as anything other than the most liberal person to ever run for President. His selection of Joe Biden, America’s third most liberal Senator (with a 94.2 score), speaks volumes about the kind of change that will be coming under an Obama Presidency.

During the next sixty days, McCain will be bombarded with his 90% support of Bush. He must continue to prove that his breakout from the Bush box is real and that he is once again the reformer he always was. The Mainstream Media must also make Obama answer for his 95.5% liberal record. Americans need to look at each candidate’s lifetime of actions before they decide which version of change they are really going to get.

A New Hope

2008-09-03T23:30:00.000-07:00

The Mainstream Media (MSM) has always viewed Republicans, and more specifically conservatives, like anthropologists discovering a lost tribe in the Amazon. They are amazed they exist at all and never fully understand their culture, traditions, and language. This is why the MSM totally missed the story of the week - things are finally looking up for the Republican Party.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin burst onto the scene on Friday, August 29. Many in the media groused about McCain upstaging the afterglow of Thursday night’s Obama extravaganza. No matter what day McCain selected his running mate, the media would have found fault in any McCain announcement - other than a concession statement.

The MSM expressed amazement at the choice of Palin. Just like Obama’s “veepstakes”, the MSM had created their own “short list” for Vice Presidential candidates, out of thin air, and then proceeded to chase their own rumors for weeks. Had the media actually been following the campaign they would have discovered that McCain’s managers had been quietly recruiting female staff for the future Vice Presidential choice since mid-July. You don’t create a new staff, especially a mostly female staff, if the choice was going to be anyone with an existing campaign operation, like a former male rival.

The MSM immediately attacked Governor Palin with a ferocity not seen since the final days of Watergate. Their laudatory declarations for Obama’s “change over experience” were turned upside down in order to fire torpedoes into Palin. Pundits who championed Representative Geraldine Ferraro’s Vice Presidential bid in 1984 contradicted themselves to score points against Palin. What seems to be wonderful for a liberal cannot be tolerated in a conservative.

Palin is only part of this week’s bigger story. The GOP had been drift since 1996. The corrosiveness of the Bush dynasty had driven many activists into early retirement. Some even voted straight Democrat in 2006 just to express their outrage against those blinded by party discipline. The failure of the Republican Congressional revolution and the big government, foreign adventurism of Bush 43 had demoralized the ranks. As 2008 unfolded the poor Republican field led to the static campaign of Senator John McCain. There was little hope that real conservatism, let alone victory, was possible for a generation. By July 2008 a number of conservative insiders were projecting an Obama win of up to 320 electoral votes.

Then this last week happened. Governor Palin ignited the conservative and Republican base. The MSM got it totally wrong - it was not about abortion, Christianity or small town values. It was about a Republican leader able to move beyond partisanship to actually change government. Palin fought Alaska’s Republican establishment, defeating their top leaders and firing their legions of corrupt flunkies. Palin broke out of the partisan prism that had destroyed the modern GOP. She realized that both donkeys and elephants defecate and that crap is crap no matter who creates it. Her crusade for open, honest, efficient government earned her 82 percent support among her fellow Alaskans.

Just after the Palin announcement, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, stepped onto the national stage. Hurricane Gustav was threatening a reprise of the death and destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina, whose anniversary was eerily three years ago this last weekend. Jindal’s amazing grasp of details, and clear, commanding, communication style eased everyone’s fears and quickly became a symbol of modern leadership. Jindal’s own life-long crusade against one of the most corrupt governments in America has earned him 77 percent support from a grateful citizenry.

So, when the Republicans convened in St. Paul, they were resurrecting themselves from the depths of despair. They were no longer resigned to going through the motions toward ultimate defeat and a return to the political wilderness. They were vibrantly preparing themselves for possible victory and the knowledge that a new generation of ethical crusaders, like Palin and Jindal, may lead them to a bright and dynamic future. The lost tribe had found new hope.

The Gustav Factor

2008-09-01T14:17:00.000-07:00

This Republican Convention badge is a unique symbol of our resilient democracy, not because of what it shows, but because of what it is made of – cardboard.

The Republican’s held their 1944 National Convention in Chicago from June 26-28, 1944. This was at the height of World War II. It had been only twenty days since the allied landings in Normandy. War did not curtail our democratic processes, but adjustments were made. Metal was needed for the war effort; so cardboard badges replaced the elaborate officer medals worn at previous conventions.

This story of our democracy adjusting to changing circumstances is playing out at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota. Hurricane Gustav was predicted to be a category 4 “storm of the century” when Senator John McCain and Republican leaders scaled back their first day session. Modern conventions have become mostly infomercials, but they still serve a fundamental legal purpose of certifying the party’s nominees. This is a requirement for being on the general election ballot in most states.

McCain and the GOP did the right thing. The level 2 hurricane that plowed into the Louisiana coast is still causing billions of dollars of damage and destroying people’s homes and livelihoods. This is not the time to see party officials firing political spitballs at the opposition.

As of this writing the New Orleans levees are holding. Hurricane Katrina breached its first levees within two hours of hitting the city on August 29, 2005. The major levees were battered for nearly eight hours before they gave-way.

The GOP still needs to continue its adjustments in the wake of Gustav. The convention’s communications infrastructure could be retooled for fundraising phone banks. Food from the various receptions could be donated to evacuee centers. The existing line-up of entertainers could be reconfigured for a telethon later in the week.

The Republicans need to balance conducting their official business, and communicating their election message, with caring for those in need. How well they strike that balance will tell their story better than any speaker.

Palin in Perspective

2008-08-29T12:05:00.000-07:00

The selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican nominee for Vice President brings the first real executive experience to either national ticket.

I first raised this issue during my book tour in March. I was worried that the compressed primary schedule pushed most of the presidential campaign into 2007. This gave “home field advantage” to the Washington elites. The 2007 race for media attention and money was the domain of lobbyists and special interests. The result was three Senators becoming the front-runners – Clinton, McCain and Obama.

Senators are the ultimate Washington insiders. They are all millionaires. Their primary goal is to produce volumes of media releases and rhetoric. Their $2 million operating budgets and 20-35 staffers are managed by a chief of staff with fully delegated powers. It is rare for a Senator, from either party to have any executive experience. The last all-Senate ticket was Kennedy-Johnson, who ushered in one of the most turbulent and tragic decades in America history (only surpassed by the Civil War and Depression eras).

America now has hope. Governor Palin is a chief executive officer who leads 15,000 state employees, and oversees a $1.5 billion budget. This means she spends her days making real decisions that impact the daily lives of Alaskans. This is the real world, not the surreal one of Washington power players chronicled in my book “Naked Emperors”.

Palin is a real reformer with real results. She is all about taking tangible actions to clean-up government and make it more efficient. In every elected office, she has led successful change efforts to reduce waste, help whistle-blowers, and fight corruption.

Washington, DC is long over-do for a major overhaul. This is why “change” has become an overused slogan during this campaign cycle. In most cases, this is just empty rhetoric. Obama and Biden mouth great platitudes about change, but never did it. McCain has led legislative change, but has not been in a position to implement it. Palin is the “real deal”.

Down Memory Lane

2008-08-24T15:12:00.000-07:00

The Democratic National Convention begins on August 25. It will be a well-packaged series of presentations designed to position Barack Obama (National Journal’s Liberal Rating 95.5) and Joe Biden (National Journal’s Liberal Rating 94.2) at the center of the political spectrum.

Americans need to look beneath the infomercial trappings to see the real face of a future Obama Administration. Monday night features tributes to Senator Ted Kennedy and former President Jimmy Carter. There will also be speeches by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and a range of liberal and labor union lobbyists. Additional labor union and liberal lobbyists will be at the podium on Tuesday and Wednesday.

An Obama administration will draw inspiration and personnel from these left-of-center groups. His administration will be populated by people who either directly worked for the Kennedys or Carter, or wished they had been old enough to work for them. Congressional staffers who currently support Speaker Pelosi’s worldview will move into the Executive Branch.

Obama-Biden will be the most liberal team ever elected. They are more liberal than Carter-Mondale, and are more liberal than any other Democratic ticket since McGovern-Shriver. No amount of symbolism or rhetoric changes this basic fact.

Monday night’s Kennedy tribute will undoubtedly be nostalgic about the entire Kennedy family. I am sure many talking heads within the mainstream media will draw countless and pointless parallels between Obama-Biden and Kennedy-Johnson. These will be along the lines of young charismatic barrier breaker (Obama – race; Kennedy – Catholic) runs with Senate veteran.

There are parallels. Obama-Biden have a combined Congressional service of 38 years (Kennedy-Johnson had 37 years). They, along with Kerry-Edwards, are the only all-Senate Presidential ticket in American history. People forget how young Johnson was (age 52). Biden is 66. This means the average age of the 1960 ticket was 47, while the average age of the 2008 ticket is 56.

Americans need to remember the legacies of Kennedy-Johnson. They tampered with the planning of the Bay of Pigs, leading to America’s worst pre 9-11 intelligence failure (April 15-19, 1961). [For those who think Kennedy was blameless and duped, please read “Give Us This Day” by E. Howard Hunt].

Kennedy tried to recover from this debacle with an equally disastrous summit with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna (June 4, 1961). Emboldened by the Kennedy’s weakness and inexperience, Khrushchev built the Berlin Wall (August 13, 1961) and placed offensive missiles in Cuba (starting in May 1962). The subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis (October 16-28, 1962) is considered Kennedy’s greatest triumph. He is hailed as a great leader for facing down the Soviets and avoiding nuclear war. Taken in context, honoring Kennedy is like honoring a pyromaniac who saved lives after starting the fire in the first place.

In addition to this series of reversals with the Soviets, Kennedy approved the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government (November 1-2, 1963). The CIA-sanctioned killing of President Diem and his brother sent that country into a tailspin of instability that resulted in America’s longest war and its eventual communist takeover (April 30, 1975).

So when the mainstream media basks in their 1960’s nostalgic glow, Americans need to remember the facts of that era. When, Obama and Biden talk about change, Americans need to demand to know what is the Obama-Biden vision and inspiration. It may not be a pretty picture.

100% - A Solution?

2008-08-19T17:20:00.000-07:00

Containers can be scary. Containers are the vehicles of villainy in films like “Sum of All Fears” and “Lord of War”. In this imaginary world, terrorists fill containers with nuclear bombs, armaments, and warriors, then ship them into our unsuspecting and unguarded ports.

In the real world, this has never happened. However, drug dealers and human traffickers are able to move contraband into America with dismaying regularity.

Over 30,000 containers arrive at U.S. ports every day. We are the world’s largest economy. Our economy relies on timely arrival of material from all over the world. It also relies on seamless interactions between U.S. companies and their overseas partners. Any disruption of this vast supply chain would cripple us.

Therein lies the dilemma. How to be safe without crippling our economy?

In the wake of the 9-11 attacks, the Congress passed various laws mandating increased port security. The 9-11 Commission recommended 100 per cent inspection of containers before they reach American soil. In 2007, the Congress passed this mandate.

Now the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has issued a report stating that the 100 per cent inspection mandate might actually make our ports less safe. They assert that 100 per cent inspection is (1) very difficult to achieve, (2) hamper cooperation from our trading partners, and most importantly (3) divert resources from looking at truly at-risk containers and shippers. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08538.pdf and http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08533t.pdf

Welcome to the world of risk management.

The U.S. Customers and Border Protection Service (CBP) of the Department of Homeland Security has been highly successful in working with our trade partners to improve port security standards and practices. This includes an “alphabet soup” of organizations and programs: the World Customs Organization (WCO), the Container Security Initiative (CSI), Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT), and the framework of standards to Secure and Facilitate Global Trade (SAFE Framework).

The bottom line – not all containers, ports, or shippers are created equal. To treat every container and shipper as an equal threat would mean having inspectors devote an equal amount of time to every container in every port. In reality, there are some very safe and secure ports and many well-managed and secure shippers. 100 percent inspection would be like police breaking into every home in a city looking for a robber they suspected may be hiding in just one neighborhood.

The other reality is that CBP has to depend upon other nations’ customs units to comply. There are 173 members of the WCO and, as of July 2008, 154 of them have signed agreements to implement the SAFE Framework.

The SAFE Framework is not 100 percent inspection. It is an approach based upon state-of-the-art inspection techniques and the highest standards of risk management. Risk management is used by companies and governments the world over. It identifies, assesses, and prioritizes risk and then develops the means to reduce and eliminate that risk. Risk management is used in assuring the safety of aviation, food, pharmaceuticals, and every manufactured product. Is it perfect? Of course not. Does it assure the integrity of what we use and consume? Absolutely.

Think of your home. You can never prevent every accident. You and your family would have to wear heavy protective clothing and add guardrails and safety enclosures around everything from your stairs to your toaster. It would be prohibitively expensive, but worse, it would cripple your daily lives to the point of nothing getting done. However, you can take basic, ongoing, precautions that eliminate hazards and prevent accidents. You can also raise awareness among family members, and educate them in safe procedures, so they act in a safe manner. Splinters and paper cuts may still happen, but serious injuries will be avoided.

Port operations are the same thing. A few years ago, I worked with Dubai Customs on conducting critical risk self-assessments (CRSA) to assure port security. They were very focused as (1) they handled over 75% of all shipping in the Persian Gulf, (2) Dubai was committed to becoming the top center for world trade, and (3) they were only 100 miles from the Iranian coast. Zero tolerance of security gaps was their goal. CRSA was their approach, not 100 percent inspection. To this day, no security issues have arisen, while port operations and Dubai’s reputation as a leading trade center continue to expand.

The US needs its overseas partners to embrace the SAFE Framework to assure their port security. It depends on the hundreds of legitimate cargo companies to embrace improved inspection standards to maintain the integrity of packing and shipping containers. The GAO is correct in stating that demanding 100 per cent inspections at all foreign ports is methodologically unsound, undermines these critical partnerships, and focuses scarce resources on the wrong problem. I am a big fan of Lou Dobbs, but in this one instance, he and the 9-11 Commission are wrong. We should worry more about terrorists bringing in weapons on a chartered fishing boat from the Caribbean than in a Maersk container shipped from Sydney.

The End of the Reagan Era

2008-08-13T11:46:00.000-07:00

Russian tanks pour into a Central-Asian nation. An American President seems disturbingly clueless and passive, unwilling to disrupt the illusion of warm relations. The American economy is sagging and gasping for gasoline. Federal government spending is out of control with daily reminders of the incompetence of its officials.

Welcome to December 1979. That month marked the nadir of America in the world. The Soviet Union was resurgent across the globe, taking full advantage of President Carter’s ineptitude and rosy-eyed worldview. The oil shocks of the mid-1970s were reaping a bitter harvest as the Administration’s fragmentary energy policy stalled in Congress. The US economy was in a steep downward spiral as inflation and jobless rates climbed.

Does this sound familiar? August 2008 is looking a lot like December 1979. Russian tanks are now pouring into Georgia, a sovereign, pro-West, democracy. This is actually worse than the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan as that action was against a Soviet-backed puppet state.

The decline of America in the 1970s was reversed when Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981. The historic rise of Reagan and conservatism took sixteen years from the time Barry Goldwater won the Republican nomination in 1964 to the great election landslide of 1980. America has since enjoyed twenty-eight years of general economic expansion, world dominance, and the growth of freedom.

It has taken less than eight years for President George W. Bush, and his acolytes, to systematically unravel and dismantle this forty-four year conservative trajectory. It is a tragic legacy for America and the world. No one should ever forget or forgive.

Embracing Ethics

2008-08-10T12:46:00.000-07:00

The sordid tales of politicians having “zipper problems” and then lying and covering-up their foibles are erupting at a sickening rate. Former Senator John Edwards is now on record accusing the media of lying and making-up stories about an affair that was, in fact true. We now know that Edwards was the one spreading lies. Kwame Kilpatrick, the Mayor of Detroit, landed in jail for ignoring his bail arrangements (see my March 25, 2008 blog). He remains unrepentant and defiant to the detriment of his constituents.

It was, therefore, wonderfully restorative to spend that last few days fully immersed in a discussion on professional and health care ethics. The American College of Dentists is developing ways to enhance the ethical standards and practices of dental professionals: dentists, their assistants, students, and faculty. The ACD was founded in 1920 by a group of visionary leaders who believed dentistry must always plan for the future. Their goal is to elevate the standards of dentistry, to encourage graduate study, and to grant Fellowship to those who have done meritorious work. The ACD has long been regarded as the "conscience of dentistry."

I was invited to participate in the ACD’s latest planning session. It was very much like sessions I have attended related to other industries and corporations. It is reassuring that there are so many corporate and industry leaders who understand how important ethics are in assuring integrity and professionalism. In each case, they understand that ethics is an operational imperative and their duty is to make ethics an operational reality. This is no just about doing the “right thing”, but about achieving a competitive advantage in the global marketplace by assuring consistent excellence and earning trust.

It brought to mind two vivid examples of private sector leadership in ethics. In the early 1990’s the Independent Insurance Agents of America hired my team to help them rethink and reposition their industry for the information age. They were concerned that the rise of ATMs would make local insurance agencies obsolete as people would opt to file claims electronically. Extensive meetings with the association's leaders and the staff of ACORD, their industry “think tank”, resulted in discovering the fundamental strength of local insurance agents – their generational knowledge of their clients changing needs. I coined the term “relationship banking” to describe this long-term relationship and the ability to anticipate and assist customer needs based upon earned trust.

More recently, Hershey Foods offered an "early out" retirement package to "thin the ranks" of its supervisors and managers. Unexpectedly, far more people took advantage of this generous offer, leading to a major challenge for their manufacturing operations. They turned to my team to help them build a new generation of leaders.

Hershey is one of the most ethical companies in America. Their top executives understood that it was imperative their new leaders fully embodied their ethical culture. Therefore, the very first action was for Hershey's top executives to define and describe their culture and ethics as tangible, observable, characteristics. They then asked us to identify how their new leaders displayed these characteristics as part of their daily activities.

We asked people to agree or disagree with a series of declarative statements, both as they related to themselves as individuals and for their plant collectively. We assumed people would rate themselves higher than their colleagues so the object was to find the biggest gaps. These gaps helped us target individual, plant-wide, and company-wide interventions to bring the entire organization up to it ethics aspirations. Our interventions were through training or coaching.

Most importantly, Hershey executives were highly active in every step of this process. It was the most vivid display of ethical leadership I have ever witnessed. The result was an “echo-chamber” of validation and affirmation that resounded throughout every level and location of Hershey Foods. The years I spent assisting Hershey Foods were some of the most uplifting in my career.

It is truly unfortunate for our nation that our politicians see ethics as compliance and not as a personal attribute. Even more unfortunate, most politicians see ethics as a “flag of convenience” or more accurately, connivance. As long as they can wave the ethics banner they do not have to actually be ethical. If they are caught being unethical, they parse and pander hoping they can survive the news cycle.

We need to find ways to demand ethical behavior from our elected and appointed officials, at all levels. Only when ethics becomes a fundamental element of our democracy will credibility be restored to our public institutions.

Running On Empty

2008-07-30T22:00:00.000-07:00

Congress is stumbling towards one of its longest summer recesses. The Republicans, for the first time since losing the 2006 elections, are finally acting like a viable opposition party. Their issue is forcing a vote on offshore drilling. Speaker Pelosi is stalling any real action until her pollsters and operatives find a way for Democrats to respond to consumer pain at the pump while not alienating environmentalists.

Once again Washington politicians want Americans to turn to them for leadership, but hope empty rhetoric will suffice. They top Marie Antoinette – it is now “let them eat symbols” instead of “let them eat cake”.

Policy avoidance would be enough for Americans to dislike and distrust Congress. However, members from both parties are also proving they have not lost their appetite for graft and corruption. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. He has admitted to raising $12.2 million from companies and individuals, associated with his committee, for the “Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service”. He has also used his power to earmark tax dollars for his Center. Many of the “gifts” look like back door donations that skirt federal election and tax laws. This sordid paper trail was even too much for The Washington Post, which launched its own investigation and has bluntly editorialized about the whole matter not passing “the smell test”.

Not to be outdone, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of making false statements to conceal lobbyist gifts. It is the first criminal charges filed against a sitting Senator in fifteen years (when fellow Republican David Durenberger was indicted). This complex web of transactions and undocumented improvements to Stevens’ vacation home are part of a larger FBI probe into corruption within the Alaska state government. In 2006, the FBI raided the offices of six Republican state senators looking for evidence of bribes from the Veco Company. It is no wonder they attracted FBI attention. The six state senators had unfortunately called themselves the “Corrupt Bastards Club or Caucus” to the point of creating coffee mugs and baseball caps emblazoned with “CBC”. Equally unfortunate for Senator Stevens, his son, Ben Stevens was a member of the CBC.

Corruption, dysfunction, issue avoidance, and empty rhetoric have become the framework within which Congress operates. It is dismaying that the Democrat-led institution took less time to lose its way than when it was led by the Republicans. Americans deserve better. We have ninety-seven days before the November elections to demand better.

Housing Woes

2008-07-25T20:59:00.001-07:00

House sales continue to slump. The latest figures show a 33.2% drop in new home sales from June 2007. Media and financial pundits have filled the airwaves with complex reasons for the worst housing market since the Great Depression. There is one additional reason they missed – corruption.

Last month Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon had to explain receiving thousands of dollars in gifts while providing tax breaks and zoning changes to developer Ronald Lipscomb. She denies any prid-pro-quo and defends the gifts as stemming from a “personal relationship”. A grand jury has been convened to review the matter.

One of the reasons America’s housing bubble has burst is that thousands of houses in hundreds of subdivisions have been built based upon corruption, not market forces. Local governments require economic analysis and market projections to prove the financial viability of a subdivision before it is approved. Yet numerous reports rejected by local zoning officials as being made of “whole cloth” are later overturned by other officials. Why would local officials approve developments that will not make money?

Every house in a subdivision requires at least $1.50 in services for every $1.00 raised in property taxes. This means that residential growth will either bankrupt a community or require major tax increases. In addition, new houses balloon student-teacher ratios, crowd highways, and lengthen emergency response times, creating unacceptable risk and harm. So why would local officials approve developments that will hurt their communities?

These disconnects with reality happen through callous disregard for the community. Unfortunately, this callousness is usually bought and paid for by local developers. Recently, a zoning official retired and went to work for developers. “They are now paying him over the table instead of under the table,” mused an activist.

Rapid sprawl can usually mask this disregard for market forces. Questionable projects make money because so many people are buying anyway. However, when market conditions weaken, these shaky developments crumble like poorly constructed buildings in an earthquake. Pundits looking for reasons for the historic scope and depth of America’s housing slump should explore how the market was first undermined by low ethical standards.

Bomar's Boondoggle

2008-07-17T17:00:00.000-07:00

It is just one hundred and ten days before the election, but the National Park Service is working overtime to waste tax dollars. National Park Service Director Mary Bomar is requiring everyone one of her cash-strapped park superintendents to attend a summit on increasing the capacity of National Parks.

The numbers are impressive. Four hundred and seventy-nine officials, including thirty-two from headquarters, are meeting at the Snowbird resort in Utah. Each attendee must pay their own way from their own budget. Travel alone runs around $479,000. The stay at Snowbird piles up an additional $154,000 using government summer per diem rates for the area.

For two-days, attendees heard inspirational presentations from outside speakers and discussed the changing nature of park attendance. No one was bold enough to mention that Bomar’s “Core Operations” (see my February 15, 2008 blog – “National Treasures”) has gutted park operations or that its official intent has been to eliminate or dramatically reduce public programs in each park. The workshops on “increasing capacity” were also a joke as Bomar and her predecessor, Fran Mainella, have presided over a strategic crippling of Park Service capacity.

The official media releases from the summit offer a cheery tableau of unity and rekindling of team spirit. The last release talks about an “emotional closing”, including putting together a time capsule to pass on to a new generation of leaders. Bomar even waxed poetic about parks being special places. The final component of this “Potemkin village” was screening excerpts of PBS’s new series on National Parks. Instead of forcing park professionals to attend this taxpayer-funded swan song for Bush operatives, the money should have been spent on saving our history. We don’t need new propaganda-inspired time capsules. We need real resources to reverse seven years of wanton disregard for our heritage.

It is a sad commentary on how the Bush Administration has so decimated the Park Service, and so demoralized its ranks, that the careerist attendees were afraid to use the summit to launch a full-scale rebellion against these years of abuse. There needs to be a full accounting for the years of neglect and under-funding that have occurred under Bush and his henchmen. Thankfully, the Interior’s Department Inspector General is beginning to probe into how years of mismanagement have destroyed national treasures and are placing many more items at risk. We can only hope the next President takes decisive action to erase and reverse Bush’s shameful legacy.

Saving the Senate

2008-07-09T16:19:00.000-07:00

The Senate is back in session after its Independence Day Recess. They returned to their dismal stalemate on major issues, which has been the hallmark of this Congress.

There are just twenty-one legislative days until the August Recess. Then everyone’s attention turns to the Summer Olympics and the National Party Conventions. When the Senate reconvenes on September 8 it will meet for probably twenty more days before everyone leaves for the final weeks of campaigning.

The entrenched partisanship is unlikely to allow anything of substance to move through the Senate, except possibly a continuing resolution to keep the government operating through the election. Therefore, our tax dollars and political energies will be spent watching the Senate cloak its dysfunction with mountains of rhetoric. Neither side wants to cooperate or compromise as everyone assumes they will be in a better political position with a new President.

There is a better way.

The Senate has a unique opportunity to show political leadership. For the first time in American history the two major party nominees are both serving Senators. The only other time anything close to this has happened was when numerous people ran (or stood) for the Presidency with multiple and weak party affiliations prior to the Civil War.

The Senate could host a series of major debates between McCain and Obama. Under Senate rules the two candidates could spend hours, even days, debating each other. They could even give mock “state of the union” addresses with the other delivering a rebuttal. These could be done with each one alternating between giving a standard 45-minute address and the other giving a 15-minute rebuttal every week. The rotation could be decided by a coin toss.

The other option is to take legislation from the calendar and give McCain and Obama as many hours as they want to discuss these major issues in detail. Other Senators could also set-up forums where they could take on a major issue each day or week and discuss what they would do in the next Congress. In all of these scenarios, CSPAN and the major networks would cover such sessions gavel to gavel. The stage is already set and the rules are already in place. No games, just real debate.

In all cases voters will have an opportunity to watch the Senate do what it historically does best – discuss major national issues in an open forum. This could revolutionize the campaign process and do a great service toward informing voters of where everyone stands.

To make this happen the Senate leadership would have to agree on ways to expedite the passage of minor bills, like naming Post Offices. This could be done by grouping them into omnibus packages. Currently these bills serve as time wasters as Senators maneuver behind the scenes on major issues. As there is no hope for major action, let’s move beyond parliamentary games and bring real issues to the forefront in real ways.

Zimbabwe Hypocrisy

2008-07-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

There was a time when Zimbabwe was a wealthy nation able to feed itself and export food throughout southern Africa. There was a time when there were no death squads, masses of refugees, or famine. Unfortunately, those were the days of white ruled Rhodesia.

When Rhodesia unilaterally declared its independence on November 11, 1965 the world recoiled. England initiated harsh sanctions that very day. The United Nations Security Council, with the backing of all western democracies, voted sanctions within the week. For fourteen years Rhodesia was a pariah in international circles. The UN passed numerous resolutions denouncing white rule and closing every possible loophole to deprive Rhodesia of outside trade and diplomatic relations. Rhodesia was barred from membership in the UN and all other national bodies. Only other pariah states like South Africa and Taiwan dealt with them openly.

Two armed insurgencies arose to violently confront the white regime. The Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) was trained and funded by communist China. The Zimbabwe People's Liberation Amy (ZIPRA) was trained and funded by the USSR.

The combination of violence from within and isolation from abroad forced the government of Rhodesia to agree to end its whites only rule. A major agreement with England was signed on March 3, 1979 quickly followed by interim elections in April. The US and other western powers ended their sanctions on June 12, 1979, once the transition to majority rule was well underway.

This history is in sharp contrast to the current reaction to Robert Mugabe’s bloodthirsty rule. Mugabe, whose Chinese-sponsored forces first crushed the whites, then his Soviet-backed rivals, and then the whites again, has always been a dictator. This is not unusual on a continent plagued with numerous sociopathic rulers. What is distinctive is not only how overtly and ruthlessly Mugabe has suppressed the last remnants of democracy and freedom, but that no one is doing anything about it. Of course there is lots of rhetoric and hand wringing. However, on July 1, at the African Union meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, there was Mugabe being seated, and openly meeting with his counterparts. Zimbabwe may be denounced, but its embassies remain open, and its memberships in all international organizations remain intact. No sanctions have been invoked by anyone.

This is the worst kind of hypocrisy. Thuggery is thuggery no matter the color of the despot’s skin. It is shameful that those nations, who so instantaneously and completely isolated Rhodesia in 1965, are now so willing to let empty rhetoric be their only response. The people of Zimbabwe have suffered enough. It is time to take decisive action.

DMV Adventure

2008-06-30T15:56:00.000-07:00

I had to renew my driver’s license today. My hour wait at the West Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) provided an opportunity to watch government dysfunction unfold around me.

First, don’t you wonder how Donald Trump or Paris Hilton renew their driver’s licenses? No matter how many people work for them, they still have vouch for their identification and residence and still have to have their photo taken. Do they stand in line like the rest of us poor mortals or do DMV’s have celebrity expediters?

My hour at the DMV began at 12:45. Given that today is the end of the month, and is during a week when many people take the entire week off, you could assume that this would be a peak demand period. It was. People filled most of the seventy chairs in the waiting room with another dozen milling around and twenty more waiting to get their processing ticket from the information kiosk. I looked over at the eleven service counters. Only three windows were operational! During the course of my hour three more windows opened for operation, leaving five closed.

This service center has been open for over a year. Given that everything is automated, including printing of service tickets, you can assume that they have a detailed overview of how many people, on the average, use their center including patterns linked to time of day and day of week. You would assume lunch hour would always be a busy time. So, why doesn’t the DMV stagger everyone’s lunch period to limit the number of windows that are off-line?

I then noticed six office doors behind the service counter. Lights were on and doors were open and people occasionally scurried between them. I assumed that these were DMV supervisors or functionaries. None of them glanced at the service counter as they made their way among the offices. Another curiosity – Wal-Mart uses one head teller to oversee and support up to 42 checkout lines. Why is there a need for six DMV officials to support eleven service windows along with the two-person information kiosk? Given that everything is automated, what occupies the time of these six people? Why are they not filling in at the counters during peak demand?

Countries like Estonia allow people to renew their licenses using cell phones. It is amazing that DMVs across America obsessively continue to conduct business as they have since the 1920’s. Even if you assume national security requires everyone to physically show-up, why does it always have to be such an ordeal? Why does it have to be so inefficient?

My DMV experience is not unique. Similar dysfunction has happened at DMVs in other states where I lived. It is a glimpse into why government, at all levels, is so expensive and so ineffective. There is no bottom line. There is no interest in whether people are served or how well they are served. There is no sense of urgency. Every DMV functionary will get paid no matter what really happens so why worry? It is our money and, in this case, our time being wasted. We should ask the candidates what are they going to do about it.

Inside Baseball

2008-06-21T15:09:00.000-07:00

There are daily reminders why Americans hold their Congress in such low regard. Today’s example comes from a “dust-up” between Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) and the Secretary of Interior. It is all outlined in the June 19 issue of The Washington Post.

The National Park Foundation decided to hold a reception celebrating National Parks. Unilever underwrote the festivities. The “dust-up” occurred when the announced venue was the Capitol Hill Club, the national Republican club situated across from the Cannon House Office Building.

On April 21, Rahall wrote Interior Secretary Kirk Kempthorne decrying the partisan venue. National Park Director, Mary Bomar, responded to Rahall on May 30, defending the location.

This is the kind of “inside baseball” that fills an average day in our nation’s Capital. Minor slights over protocol can derail major policy initiatives. Personal feuds can sink compromises. Egos get in the way of the peoples’ business.

The case of Rep. Rahall, taking the time to engage over a reception’s venue, and the media’s reporting, gives us a glimpse into a strange parallel universe where such things matter.

Over the last four years the Bush Administration has been gutting the National Park Service under the guise of a management review called “Core Operations” (see my February 15, 2008 blog – “National Treasures"). Entire park units have been closed, major education programs have been curtailed, and priceless national treasures have been put at risk. Yet, not one hearing or public letter from Rep. Rahall on the wanton and fundamental destruction of one of the major agencies under his committee's jurisdiction.

This is one more reason why there is so much disdain for Congress. Real things happen, that affect real Americans, and nothing is said or done. The priority and zeal is for making an issue out of the trivial. The only value of these minor issues is to placate the ego of some official or provide an opportunity for some pedantic partisan cheap shot. Shame on Congress, for wallowing in non-issues to the detriment of those that really matter. Shame on The Washington Post, for covering such stories while ignoring the real world.

Fear & Loathing in Frankfurt

2008-06-15T11:07:00.000-07:00

Americans need to get over their fear of foreigners.

A few weeks ago an advertisement featuring Rachael Ray wearing a scarf was pulled because of criticism that she was wearing “Islamic dress”. The advertiser claimed it wasn’t Islamic inspired, but pulled the ad anyway. The outrage from various commentators and bloggers was just not worth the hassle and potential consumer backlash.

While eating a Big Mac at the Frankfurt Airport I saw at least a half-dozen teenage girls wearing this same scarf. Yes, it is probably Islamic, as several of these girls spoke Arabic. But it was clearly a popular item as an American blond girl was wearing one on my flight from Cairo. So, the bloggers were right, the scarf has Arabic, and possibly Islamic origins. So what?

Teenage girls embrace new fashions on nearly a weekly basis. I can attest to this with my own fifteen-year-old. I imagine Rachael Ray’s handlers thought she should wear something that appealed to younger viewers. It’s called marketing and positioning of a brand.

Why are some people so afraid of an Arab scarf? What’s next – banning pita bread? Middle Eastern style has been a part of America since the early 19th Century. Victorian homes and turn-of-the-century advertising posters incorporated “arabesque” designs. Films like “Lawrence of Arabia” have captured our imagination. Since the first Gulf War, increasing numbers of Americans have served in the Middle East and brought back an interest in its culture. That is one of the reasons hummus is served at cocktail parties and why Arabic music has found its way into the songs of Sting, the Pussy Cat Dolls, and beer ads.

America is a “nation of immigrants”. We hold numerous celebrations relating to our respective countries of origin. So it is truly ironic that we are also the most parochial people to ever populate a world power. Aside from Hispanics, few Americans speak another language. Only a small fraction of our population travels abroad. Many of our high school students cannot find Canada on a map, let alone Qatar.

A certain amount of parochialism is one of our greatest attributes. Our civic culture focuses on our neighbors and our local community. It is the underpinning of our democracy and federal system. But America is part of an increasingly integrated, and interdependent, global system. Our greatest weakness is our inability to understand, cope, and leverage this phenomenon. This more severe parochialism has fostered a growing fear of foreigners and their cultures.

I am not advocating we give up our grounding in our communities in order to know the leaders of nations we may never visit. I am advocating that we realize that most of the world is a safe place filled with people who, while speaking a different language, worshipping a different deity, and wearing different cloths, are fundamentally like us. They love their families, they work hard, and they are focused on their own villages and communities.

Anyone traveling outside the US quickly realizes that our country is rarely on the minds of people around the world. It is rarely mentioned in major national and regional news media. That is not something to be feared, but is something to factor into the way we view the world. What is happening around the globe is not always about us. It is about maintaining civility and a level of liberty and security that allows people to freely interact and for commerce to be conducted.

One of the sad legacies of the Bush era is their inspiring Americans to be more fearful of the world. I remember in February 2003 when the Administration wanted Americans to cower in our homes surrounded by duct tape and plastic sheets. At that time my family and I were enjoying a cruise on the Nile. We felt safer there than we do walking near the U.S. Capitol.

Fear has become an integral part of politics in America. Questionable candidates have been elected and dubious laws have been passed in the name of protecting us from an array of bogeymen. Yes, there are psychotic despots who are doing terrible things to their countrymen, and there are religious nut-jobs who like to kill at random. There are ways to deal with this dangerous minority. Making Americans afraid of other cultures and assailing globalization is not how we should proceed.

Indigestion

2008-06-09T17:21:00.000-07:00

The Senate once again proved how much it is out of touch with reality.

On June 8 it finally voted to privatize its restaurants. Senate food operations have been losing money since the 1970s. More importantly, the restaurants have been costing American taxpayers up to $2 million a year to cover these losses. Senate staffers have also been “voting with their feet” by patronizing the House’s better run, and higher quality, private restaurants for years.

The House of Representatives privatized its restaurants in 1993. Privatization turned their operating losses into a profit center. During my tenure as the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, I met with my colleagues in the Senate and with Republican Senate leaders. I repeatedly asked them why they weren’t privatizing their restaurants. Their excuses were that “the situation wasn’t that bad”, “we can fix the problem internally”, or “we can’t get enough votes for privatization” (even in the Republican-dominated Senate!).

Thirteen years later, and after an additional $18+ million in taxpayer subsidies, the Senate finally did the right thing. It took Senator Dianne Feinstein displaying dogged persistence and some unprecedented intestinal fortitude to force this reality check through the Senate. A die-hard group of Senators opposed restaurant privatization to the bitter end. They explained that they opposed privatization efforts elsewhere in the federal government and did not want to look like hypocrites. This raises an intriguing question – why would anyone want to preserve obviously inefficient operations anywhere in government?

The bias for symbolic, dogma-based, decisions over management-based decisions has driven up the cost of government for generations. This does a disservice to taxpayers who pay the bills and all those who are the beneficiaries of government services.

Over the years I have conducted cost reviews of government programs. Universally, I have found at least 36 percent of government operating overhead to be avoidable waste. This is amongst programs that are considered “well-run”. As a staffer conducting Congressional oversight, and later as a government executive, I have uncovered federal programs that do not generate any tangible value at all! In other cases, I have found programs that provide some marginal benefits, but at ludicrously wasteful levels of inefficiency.

Overall, American taxpayers obtain an average of 26 cents of value for every dollar spent by their government. So, out of a $4 trillion federal budget, we are obtaining slightly over a trillion dollars in actual value with the other $3+ trillion ripe for cost-reduction. And we still have politicians and pundits asserting that they don’t know where and what to cut!

Crossing the Line

2008-06-04T16:52:00.000-07:00

When did the media begin running our democracy?

During the 2000 Presidential election the media changed the colors of the electoral map. This reversed nearly a century of the media portraying Republican states as blue and Democratic held states as red. The colors echoed those used throughout Europe for conservative and right parties versus labor or socialist parties. Old videos of the 1980 and 1984 Presidential election coverage show the U.S. all blue for the Reagan landslides. It is why “Blue Dog” Democrats were Congressmen from “blue”, or Republican, states who supported Reagan.

Once the media confused everyone about what was a red and blue state they began using those colors to frame every campaign and commentary. We never had so much “red state” “blue state” references until they unhooked the colors from anything meaningful. Why did everyone else follow suit? Why didn’t conservative and Republican leaning media just ignore this revisionism?

A more insidious media intervention is underway in the 2008 Presidential campaign. The media is trying to dictate when each phase of the campaign begins and ends. Party rules in both parties state that there is no official nominee until delegates cast their votes at national conventions. The media is demanding that this should be abandoned so they can begin covering the general election - right now!

Recent history of Presidential nomination fights show that they end at the national convention. In 1992 Governor Bill Clinton had 1,234 more delegates than were needed of the nomination, yet Governor Brown and Senator Tsongas still retained their delegates and went through the roll call of states. In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis had 824 delegates more than were needed for the nomination, but Jesse Jackson allowed his 1,219 delegates to cast votes at that convention.

On the Republican side, Nixon had just 26 more than needed for the nomination in 1968, so Governors Rockefeller and Reagan, along with eleven other candidates, went through the first ballot with their delegates intact.

It is hard to imagine Walter Cronkite or Huntley & Brinkley demanding that Senator Eugene McCarthy dropout of the 1968 race before the convention even though Senator Hubert Humphrey had 456 votes more than needed for the nomination. I do not think Frank Reynolds or Ted Koppel would have carped to Senator Ted Kennedy about dropping out before the 1980 convention when President Jimmy Carter had already clinched his renomination with 456 more delegates than were needed.

Democracy and freedom of expression visibly frustrate pundits who want everyone to dance to their preconceived notions and adhere to their seat-of-the-pants predictions. They should go back to reporting and analyzing the news, instead of trying to control it.

Shameful

2008-06-01T18:51:00.000-07:00

The 2008 Presidential elections are unique for many reasons. It is the first time since 1928 that neither major political party had an heir apparent. It is a year where major issues were discussed and where American faced strategic challenges. Candidates and voters were all finding news ways to connect via information technology and information outlets not even available in 2006.

It is therefore appalling that the mainstream news media (MNM) has completely opted-out of the proceedings. This is according to a new report compiled by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

The study monitored Presidential campaign coverage by 46 MNM outlets since January 1, 2008. Nearly 80 percent of the coverage was about the race itself – polls, results, and campaign activities. Eleven percent dealt with candidate crises like Reverend Wright or Bill Clinton’s role in Hillary’s campaign. Less than 7 percent of the stories were about the policy stands of the candidates. The MNM’s examination of the candidates’ actual records made up less than 2 percent of the news stories.

The American public deserves far better than this. The multi-million talking, and sometimes “shrieking”, heads should be ashamed of themselves. Americans are facing major issues with the economy, immigration, the environment, healthcare, and energy. There is a real substantive debate about the role of government in America and America’s role in the world. Each candidate pledges change, but we should find out what kind and how much is really going to happen if they are elected. None of this seems to matter to the MNM.

As I have observed in other columns, the overpaid reporters and anchors of the MNM would rather be drama critics (covering the performance) or sportscasters (covering the race). These are the easiest things to report, as they require no more than looking at the same things everyone else is seeing and then making some high-handed comment that supposedly enlightens us poor mortals. Shame on the MNM for ignoring real news. Shame on us for watching their drivel.

The Future of Teaching

2008-05-26T19:03:00.000-07:00

Another school year is coming to a close. As students fan-out to playgrounds and summer jobs the perennial challenge is raised anew – where will we find enough quality teachers to meet the needs of our next academic year?

The perennial answer is “pay they enough”. But this addresses the wrong part of the challenge. For decades local school boards, and politicians at all levels, have fixated on competing for young professionals, fresh from college, to populate the classrooms of America. This keeps the teacher debate mired in a no-win proposition. Even in this stagnant economy, the public education system cannot amass enough of money to outbid the private sector for top talent.

Every top graduate, save for a dwindling number of idealists who may opt for teaching or the Peace Corps, aspires to work for the highest bidder. This is the marketplace at its most efficient. But this results in teachers being those who are not the top talent. Worse, state certification systems require public school teachers to have in depth knowledge of “teaching methods” not of a particular topic. I have watched as teachers, even private school teachers, get basic facts wrong as they present history, English, and geography to my fifteen-year-old.

The solution is to shift the marketplace. Our society is aging, but our seniors are remaining healthy and active. Public school systems need to shift their teaching requirements so that these “greybeards” can be brought into the classroom. A retired or semi-retired professional is (1) going to be attracted by far less money than a twenty-something, (2) have far more knowledge to impart than a twenty-something, and (3) be far more interested in teaching young people than welcoming people to Wal-Mart or to a fast food counter.

To tap this large and growing labor pool teacher unions, and their political allies, need to place the future of education above union membership. State boards of education need to break free of their fixation with teachers needing to know “teaching methods” instead of knowing real subject matter.

It is easier and cheaper to teach a subject matter professional how to teach, than it is to teach a teacher a subject. I have yet to see any real results from having public school teachers acquire in depth knowledge of “education methods”. If anything, the fixation on teachers knowing methodology instead of content has “dumbed-down” generations of Americans.

This entire matter was addressed at the first “Quality in Education” Conference sponsored by the National Governors Association. Over 2,000 education professionals and officials convened in Houston, Texas in November 1992. One of the first recommendations from the breakout sessions was to adjust teacher certification and recruitment policies so that retirees could be tapped as a full-time or part-time classroom resource.

It has been sixteen years since that national recommendation surfaced. We are no closer to its reality.

With Friends Like These...

2008-05-16T11:11:00.000-07:00

Efforts to prevent an electoral tsunami against the Republicans on November 4 suffered another major set back. Once again it was from a self-inflicted wound.

Senator John McCain gave a major address outlining the outcomes of his possible first term. It was an attempt to “rebrand” his candidacy and put some distance between President Bush and himself. In an ideal world, McCain’s comprehensive trail balloon should have been the focus of pundits through the Sunday talk shows.

Then President Bush stepped-up to the podium at the Israeli Knesset and hurled a rhetorical bomb linking Democrats with appeasement. McCain’s address is immediately driven from the first tier of news coverage. Then the partisan salvos flew between Democratic leaders and Bush over the remark. Then McCain stepped into the fracas to defend Bush.

Where does one begin on such a meltdown?

First, Bush violated a fundamental American tradition – “partisanship ends at the water’s edge”. For generations, leaders from across the American political spectrum resisted attacking each other when on foreign soil. Bush crossed that line. He exploited a memorable moment in US-Israeli relations to launch a lame partisan attack.

Bush’s attack was even more ridiculous since his historical analogy was based upon the remarks of Idaho Republican Senator William Edgar Borah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Edgar_Borah.

Don’t Bush’s speechwriters do any homework? The Republican Party had a deep-seated isolationist wing until the 1960’s. Using nearly fifty-year-old isolationist Republican rhetoric to score points against the Democrats was ludicrous.

Bush’s remark also confused talking to people with “appeasement”. Talking is talking. Appeasement is a decision or action that capitulates to the other side without any counter balancing advantage for our side. Every President, and his senior officials, “hold their nose” and talk to unsavory adversaries. The issue should be, “how does this interaction fit within our broader strategic objectives?”. Only then can the value of talking be weighed. Bush chose the pander to the dwindling minority of people who still view him as credible instead of raising a far more serious and important point.

The worst offense of Bush, among all these offenses, is the trap he laid for John McCain. Just like when Reverend Wright displayed his self-obsession by upstaging Obama, so now does Bush display a similar disregard for others by hurling himself into the 2008 Campaign. His timing could not have been worse. He upstaged and derailed McCain’s major effort to avoid being viewed as Bush’s third term. It also forced McCain to close ranks with Bush over a false and tangential issue, thereby placing McCain squarely as the protector and caretaker of Bush’s status quo.

The damage done by Bush is just one more straw on an already broken camel’s back. The Republican Party’s only hope is to ask President Bush to take a vow of silence until November 5, 2008.

Inversion

2008-05-08T19:33:00.000-07:00

Many things are challenging America’s civic culture. One of the most far reaching is the collapse of continuity.

Since our nation’s founding American communities have been held together by an institutional memory of history and culture. Every community had its “founding fathers” or “town elders” who stewarded their uniqueness. Changes occurred, people came and went, but there was a core of continuity that assured civic institutions and civic value were maintained.

This civic culture is disappearing. Recently a survey of potential homebuyers discovered that 73% desired new homes. That means a house built in a subdivision that may not have even been platted a year ago. This disengagement from existing housing stock, and existing neighborhoods, has led to a marked decline in volunteerism and community involvement across America.

If gets worse – when local citizens do get involved it is usually about national issues (Iraq, abortion, gay marriage) not community concerns. Ignoring local issues can mean the abandonment of local history and preservation. When people forget what made a community unique they do not notice when that history is bulldozed aside for a national big box store or new subdivisions. Occasionally, new streets in these subdivisions are named after some local event or the new shopping mall is named for the estate it demolished. These out of context place names are fast becoming our sole link to our past and to what built a viable democracy.

This does not seem to concern most “Gen-Xers” and “Millenniums”. The generational shift is toward immediate return, leaving context and memory out of equation. They discard their Ipods and cell-phones for upgrades every few months, so why not do the same with neighborhoods and communities?

Surveys continually document Americans’ critical lack of knowledge about geography, history, and basic civics. This ignorance is getting worse every year. It does not bode well for the future of our civic values and our public institutions.

We are in danger of “inversion”. A stagnant lake can invert bringing dangerous gases to the surface that kill-off wildlife. Inversion can also happen to a community – community uniqueness, common purpose, knowledge, and continuity are replaced with aimlessness and immediacy. Such an inversion will kill-off a community’s civic pride and the wellbeing all those who live there. We need to find ways to reconnect people, especially young people, with America’s civic and civil traditions and values. Only then can we assure a basis for a common dialogue on, and commitment to, our future.

Order out of Chaos

2008-05-02T16:46:00.000-07:00

We should all take a moment, today, to remember one of the most important unknown people in American history. On this date in 1837, Henry Martyn Robert was born.

His distinguished career included overseeing construction of the extensive fortifications around Washington, DC and Philadelphia during the Civil War. He later co-chaired the 1901 commission that made recommendations for improving coastal barriers and breakwaters after a major hurricane destroyed Galveston, Texas. But it was his contribution between these two roles for which we should pay him homage.

In 1876, former Brigadier General Robert wanted to bring some order to the various San Francisco civic meetings he attended or presided over. He decided to compile “Robert’s Rules of Order” to help his colleagues with their civic tasks.

Initially, publishers were not interested in such a compilation. Robert’s used his own money to publish the first 4,000 copies. It is now one of the most read and referenced texts on meeting management in the world. Robert passed away on May 11, 1923, but his role in bringing order to countless meetings lives on.

In September 2001, the National Association of Parliamentarians commemorated the 125th anniversary of Robert’s Rules by placing a brass plaque in front of his former home at 1812 N Street, NW in Washington, DC. For the rest of us, we should honor his memory by making sure all our meetings run well.

A Real Energy Solution

2008-04-24T18:05:00.000-07:00

Americans are struggling with paying higher prices at the pump. Regular unleaded could be over $4.00 a gallon by summer. Such rises in fuel costs are already affecting food costs and will undoubtly shrink summer vacation travel.

Politicians, as usual, are scrambling to show how much they are concerned about higher gas prices and their impact on average Americans. They are using this “gas crisis” to unearth and promote a wide array of ideological stock answers. Liberals want to investigate and tax oil company executives; conservatives want to drill in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Neither will solve our nation’s short-term or long-term energy needs.

America is facing the historic expansion of the global economy. The fall of the Soviet Empire and the rise of the information age put two hundred national economies in play. This is the “flat earth” written about over the last decade. People in emerging economies all aspire to have the same consumer goods and lifestyles as America and other major western economies. That means cars, appliances, and electronics. These all require energy. More cars mean gasoline is going to continue to be used by more and more automobiles in more and more countries. Competition for consumption means a permanent rise in prices, both worldwide and in America.

America’s drivers shifting to bio fuels or hydrogen are years away. However, there is a more immediate, as well as long-term solution - teleworking. According the a report just released by the AeA (formerly the American Electronics Association) 1.35 billion gallons of fuel worth $4.5 billion at current prices of $3.33 per gallon could be saved if everyone with the potential to telework did so just 1.6 days per week. The Environmental Protection Agency calculates that this much saved fuel would prevent 26 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, only 24 million, or 16.3 percent, of the 147 million professionals in America are teleworking more than a few days a month. The rest are not teleworking at all!

Teleworking, or telecommuting, has been underutilized since the dawn of the information age. 21st Century managers and business owners, instead of embracing telework, have held onto 1950’s “command & control” management dogma. This nearly sixty-year-old mindset states that workers can only be productive if they are hunched over their desks. Another part of this mindset is that you, as a boss, are only in control if you can watch these workers being hunched over their desks.

The result of this ancient management approach is that millions of people jump into their cars and fight rush hour traffic just to sit in front of computers and make telephone calls. They could do this from their home, but most bosses refuse to move into the 21st Century. This mindset is also focuses on “activity” instead of “results”, thereby crippling the productivity of the American economy.

The Congress continues to promote teleworking legislation related to government employees, but it has not provided effective tax incentives to private employers. Teleworking would solve many issues regarding Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act compliance, family and medical leave, the multiple time zones of the global economy, and the need for more highways. It is time for politicians to break free from stock ideological answers and find ways to move managers and business owners into the 21st Century. Our fuel bills and our lungs will both get a break when they do…

They Live

2008-04-13T11:35:00.000-07:00

The image in Vice President Cheney’s glasses ignited some wonderful speculation across the “blogosphere”. One of the more inspired takes was linking the image to John Carpenter’s 1988 film “They Live”: http://gawker.com/378357/cheneys-glasses-reflect-terrifying-truth

In that film, an out of work construction worker finds a pair of glasses that unmasks the space aliens among us. As the campaign season continues a number of things are happening that are unmasking the truth about candidates and the media.

Obama’s remarks about rural people embracing guns and religion out of bitterness has shown him holding the same contempt for real America as most liberal politicians. For him to demean people exercising their rights under the first and second amendments of the U.S. Constitution is truly unnerving. He and his surrogates are focusing on the “bitter” portion of the remark, but they have already been unmasked.

Obama’s lofty statements about embracing diversity are just campaign rhetoric. He is willing to pander to Americans in the “flyover” sections of our country to get their votes. Once in office, he will revert to form and listen to the usual liberal elite and the Washington power brokers. So much for change...

A CNN reporter apologized for fixating on Obama’s “bitter” remark and the misstatements of the Clintons, exclaiming, “we just have nothing new to talk about until April 22”.

Excuse me. Admitting that the news media has to wait until the next primary election to find something “important” to report is appalling. We have three people running for President. The media should be aggressively probing every aspect of their policies, their inner circle, and their record. This long hiatus between primaries offers an ideal opportunity for the media to provide real insight into who will be our next leader. Instead, the talking heads are adrift. It is time for these news outlets to fire their multimillion “talent” and find some real news reporters.

The final unmasking occurred at a local Republican Lincoln Day Dinner. Lincoln was born on February 12, 1809, but local GOP party organizations across the nation hold their tributes when speakers or good weather are available.

This Lincoln dinner was held in a fire hall and had all the trappings of grassroots politics. Then the program began. A long line of candidates from Governor to local tax assessor came to the microphone to plead their case for contributions and votes. Even accounting for the neophytes, it was a deeply disturbing showcase of what is wrong with today’s politics.

Several candidates actually thought it was Lincoln’s birthday, showing their basic ignorance of our history. Others spoke about national issues, although they were running for a local office, showing their basic misunderstanding of the job to which they aspired. Many cited their only credentials as having lived all their lives in the area or having a loving spouse. One undercut this credential when he had to look down at his written remarks to read, “I could not be here without recognizing my loving wife”. He also had to peer down at his written speech when he later stated, “I am a lifelong Republican”. My skin crawled.

Then various incumbent legislators stood at the podium. They ignored the 150+ audience in order to banter with their colleagues sitting nearby. They must have thought they were the new “rat pack” and that the audience just came to watch their interplay. The inherent insincerity among legislators made the spectacle even more obtuse. Maybe I have been involved in politics too long. When I was younger such events left me energized, this one left me depressed. Or maybe politicians are just getting sloppier with their deceptions.

Get a Life - Redux

2008-04-07T17:32:00.000-07:00

Many people responded to my April 2 posting. Several of my former colleagues pointed out that I was wrong to castigate all of Congress regarding webcasting hearings.

They were right. I stand corrected and chastened.

Congress has, in fact, moved into the 21st Century. This move is not universal, but it seems that the Democrats have been more aggressive than the Republicans in making their hearings and meetings accessible on the web.

That said; the results are still a mixed bag.

For once the Senate is ahead of the House on moving with the times. All but four committees have both live webcasts and archived webcasts. The stragglers are:

Armed Services – no webcasting
Energy & Natural Resource – live webcasts, no archive
Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs – live webcasts, no archive
Small Business & Entrepreneurship – live webcast and archive of only most recent hearing

The House is a really mixed bag. Most Committees offer both live and archived webcasts. Here are the stragglers:

Appropriations – many subcommittees still offer no webcasts
Education and Labor – no webcasts, just the use of “e-hearings” for remote witnesses
Financial Services – live webcasts, no archive
Homeland Security – live webcasts, only audio archive
Natural Resources – live webcasts, no archive
Oversight & Government Reform – none
Rules – none
Small Business – highlights posted on “You Tube”
Ways & Means – live webcasts, no archive

It is surprising that, of all committees, Oversight would still be in the dark ages. Given Chairman Waxman’s zeal for oversight, you would think he would want his efforts showcased through every possible technology.

It is my sincere hope that this trend to the web continues and that the stragglers catch-up.

The true final frontier for webcasting is the Executive Branch. Every day each agency and department holds hundreds of hearings, briefings, meetings, and judicial proceedings (before administrative law judges). Except for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, webcasting or even adequate public notice and access to these activities is fairly rare. Maybe the public will start demanding that all of our public officials open their doors and let us in.

Get a Life

2008-04-02T10:31:00.000-07:00

On April 1, Pica Paperdoll, Glitteractica Cookie, and an array of other avatars, attended a virtual version of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The committee’s stated purpose was to delve into possible terrorist use of Second Life, and other virtual reality environments, for online recruiting. One could debate the novelty versus substance elements of the hearing, but I want to raise a different issue.

Early in 1995, I recommended that every hearing room in Congress be wired to allow for live video and audio transmission. Many of these meeting rooms already had an array of audio capabilities, some going back to the days of radio.

My plan was simple – install two small robotic cameras in each hearing room. One camera would face the Members, the other would face the witnesses. In the era of the early Internet, I recommended offering these feeds to CSPAN. “We could have CSPAN 2-50”, I quipped. Later, the technology would allow for direct feeds to the Internet via “webcasting”.

My idea was met with cries of horror from nearly all Members. “We don’t want the hearings to be that public!” was echoed by Members from both parties.

Public hearings should be public. Most Congressional hearing rooms hold between 50-200 people. A few can hold up to 400. That means that only a microscopic few out of 300 million citizens get to attend and witness one of the most the fundamental functions of Congress.

CSPAN does a wonderful job broadcasting hearings, but the numbers are against it. On an average day, when Congress is in session, there are approximately 45 House and Senate committee hearings and meetings. Some of these have witnesses, some are mark-ups and votes on legislation. CSPAN may broadcast two of these hearings a day. That means, at best, normal citizens are able to watch maybe 8 out of 180 meetings a week, or 4% of what is really happening.

The avatar hearing proves that Congress can webcast hearings. I live in tiny Jefferson County, West Virginia with a population of 48,000 people. Three years ago the county government spent $4,000 to wire two meeting rooms for webcasting. Now every meeting is online, both real time and through a permanent archive.

If Jefferson County can do it, why can’t the Congress?

"Super" Solution?

2008-03-27T18:10:00.000-07:00

The race for the Democratic Party nomination for President has fixated the “chattering class” in all news venues. Fundamental to this fixation is the mathematical truism that, short of some cataclysmic event, neither Senator Hillary Clinton nor Senator Barack Obama will have enough delegates to win the nomination after the primary season ends in early June.

That leaves two huge loose ends – what to do about the Florida and Michigan delegates and the role of the super delegates. The path to addressing either issue is a minefield waiting to blow-up the Democratic Party’s chances in the general election. Any resolution of Florida and Michigan may still leave both candidates short of the votes needed for the nomination. All roads still traverse the world of the super delegate.

There is a way to elevate the wooing of super delegates away from back room deals and unseemly promises and pay-offs. It could both salvage the nominating process and give the Democrats a “new lease” on their party’s life.

Imagine it is Friday, June 6. All 793 “super delegates” convene in a special convention whose proceedings are open and broadcast to the world (there would still have to be a decision about whether super delegates from Florida and Michigan would be allowed to participate). The first two hours of this convention is a debate between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy. This debate is not moderated; it is one-on-one like the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. Each candidate is allowed a ten-minute opening statement (order decided by a coin toss). Then it’s a “free-for-all” until each gives a five-minute closing statement (whoever went first in the opening gives the first closing remarks).

The convention takes a short break and then two officials from each campaign take the stage for a ninety-minute debate on the “electability” of their respective candidates. Once again there is a ten-minute opening and five-minute closing statement with an unmoderated “free-for-all” in between.

After another break, the two candidates return to the stage for another two-hour debate on domestic issues under the same ground rules. Who ever opened in the first debate goes second in this debate.

After these three major debates, the super delegates cast, by secret ballot, a nonbinding vote on who should be the Democratic nominee. The results are immediately reported to the nation.

Such an event would undoubtedly refocus the nomination process. The winner of this ultimate “straw poll” would have clear momentum for the nomination. It would be an amazing forum redefining the campaign process with ripple effects into the general election. It may also serve to help the “die hard” supporters of each candidate understand why their candidate may have to cede the field to the opponent prior to the Denver National Convention, thus opening the door for party unity during the general election.

This suggestion is offered as a way to make sure everyone who has been energized during this unique campaign season is not turned-off by outlandish shenanigans relating to rules or credentials fights at the convention itself. While Republicans may relish the thought of the Democrats having a Chicago 1968 style meltdown in Denver, it would diminish the integrity of our electoral process for years to come.

No Shame

2008-03-25T22:08:00.000-07:00

Sex scandals are popping up like spring crocuses.

Now we have Kwame Kilpatrick, the mayor of Detroit, embroiled in scandal and facing eight felonies for diverting $8.4 million in tax dollars to cover-up his affair. In his case, a mountain of emails and text messages prove that he and his chief of staff lied under oath. Mayor Kilpatrick is indignant to the charges and his attorney is trying to find legal loopholes to suppress the evidence.

Welcome to the era of “if you have no shame you have no limits”. David Paterson, only days into being Governor of New York, is now admitting to major drug use and still parsing about dallying with public employees. Senator Larry Craig continues disassembling about wide stances and his legal rights after getting caught in a gay sex sting. Senator David Vitter dismisses his link to prostitutes as “old news”. These, and countless other cases involving lesser elected and appointed official across America, are showing us that the concept of “public servant” is as extinct as the dodo bird.

Remember the “good old days” of the Watergate scandal? Most of Nixon’s officials were actually sorry for what they did and full of guilt. They resigned, they plead guilty, they served time, and in many instances, became changed men. Egil "Bud" Krogh personally visited and apologized to those he wronged and is now teaching ethics so people learn from his mistakes. Charles “Chuck” Colson started a highly successful prison ministry. John Dean became a crusader for open and accountable government.

President Bill Clinton changed the ground rules. He first lied about Jennifer Flowers. Then he lied about Paula Jones. Then he lied about Monica Lewinsky. In each case the mainstream media went along with his lies because he was so defiant and unapologetic. Many commentators thought of Clinton, at worst, as a charming rascal. Whenever evidence surfaced that proved Clinton lied, he cavalierly dismissed it as “old news” even if were only months old.

Clinton was the ultimate cynic in an age of cynicism. I remember wondering why he and Hillary walked from the Marine One helicopter to the White House, hand-and-hand with their arms bent, a very awkward stance. Then one day I watched the video on CNN. Their hands were above the news scroll! They or their staff had actually calculated the fixed camera angles to make sure people saw them holding hands. On another occasion President Clinton began weeping when the cameras turned to him at a funeral and then went back to smiling and laughing.

The Clintons raised insincerity to a high art. We are now reaping a bitter harvest of “public officials” who thumb their nose at the law, their oath of office, their public and personal responsibilities, and at all of us. Their lack of shame, ethics, and morals, eviscerates public trust in government. Our civic culture and the future of our nation are at risk.

It is time to bring back a quaint concept – ostracism. We should deprive these people of our applause, our attendance at their events, and their being at the podium of our organizations. They do what they do because they can get away with it – with impunity. We need to show our own moral fortitude by saying “not this time”. If we don’t draw the line now then when will we?

Fair Game

2008-03-21T18:51:00.000-07:00

And the hits just keep coming…

One day after taking office, New York’s newest Governor, David Paterson, admitted to multiple affairs. The clean start in the wake of the Spitzer fiasco melted away like a spring snow.

The news media reported the story, but also raised an intriguing issue – when it is proper to report and comment on the private life of a public official?

As a libertarian, my general rule of thumb is that people can do whatever they want outside of their official duties unless (1) it is illegal, or (2) it impairs their ability to carry out those duties.

I would add three provisos to this general rule.

Sexual Harassment
Many office affairs have nothing to do with lust or love. They are all about power. If a boss, a teacher, or a clergyman requests sexual favors from co-workers, students, or parishioners, they are abusing their position or status. The sexual partner crosses the line because they either are afraid or they seek a favor to move ahead. In either case, the relationship only happens because the initiator is on an ego trip that can ruin the lives of all they touch, literally and figuratively. That is why the military has such strict rules about officers dating enlisted personnel.

There are already stories about Paterson having affairs with state employees. Just like the affairs of Governor and then President Clinton, such trysts are based upon an implicit or explicit threat or favor that is totally unethical and improper. New Jersey Governor McGreevey crossed a similar line. His disingenuous attempt to become a gay martyr could not disguise the fact that he rewarded extramarital sex with improper employment opportunities. If state employees were involved then Paterson should exit or face a full investigation.

Hypocrisy
If a politician says one thing but does the opposite they should be exposed. This goes for policy frauds of all stripes. When I worked on a congressional staff, I used to walk past pallets of Congressional District newsletters that used to line the basement corridors of the Longworth House Office Building. Time and time again, I would see newsletters with photos of ultra-liberal anti-defense Members standing next to military aircraft or tanks trumpeting how they helped get a manufacturing contract for their district. They wanted to have it both ways – vote liberal, but mask that reality from their constituents.

If a politician champions anti-gay legislation, but is gay - that is fair game. If a politician becomes a national leader against pedophiles, but uses the Capital Page system as a farm team for future lovers, then his exposure is fair game. It is about accountability and integrity, not intolerance.

Truth in Advertising
If a politician parades his or her spouse and family before the cameras, plasters them on brochures, or uses them in campaign ads, then it is fair game to expose their dalliances. Politicians use their spouses and family members as a “Good House Keeping Seal of Approval”. It is their symbolic way of telling the voters, “See, I am normal, I am just like you”.

If that portrait of a happy family and monogamy is a fraud, then the voters have a right to know that they have been had. It is another form of "resume padding".

These guidelines are not intended to launch witch-hunts against every public servant. However, many politicians, at every level of government, have the smug mindset that they are better than the rest of us and thus inherently deserving of trust instead of having to earn that trust. One of the main reasons there is so much cynicism about politicians is that the voters are finally waking-up to these scams. Just like in the film, “The Matrix”, voters are realizing that many politicians are creating a fictitious world in which they gain power while feeding us falsehoods.

The Real Reason we are in Iraq

2008-03-19T21:24:00.000-07:00

March 19 marks the five-year anniversary of America being in Iraq. It has also been just over seventeen years since a sequence of largely unreported events put us on a path to our current predicament.

At 4:00 a.m. “Saudi time” on Sunday, February 24, 1991 the U.S. launched a brilliantly designed and executed ground war into Iraq as part of “Desert Storm”. This end run around Iraqi forces in Kuwait (Operation Deep Strike) stands along side Austerlitz and Chancellorsville as one of the great battle maneuvers in history.

Only a handful of military and intelligence officials admit to what happened next. Several of them have confirmed these details to me and they are verified on a few websites.

Desert Storm’s original plan was to completely encircle and destroy the Iraqi Republican Guard units defending Basra [http://www.hoskinson.net/gulfwar/dstorm13.html]. On Tuesday, February 26, at 7:00 p.m. “Saudi time” the final armored units required for this encirclement entered Iraq and sped toward Basra. At that same time U.S. air strikes were obliterating retreating Iraqi forces along Route 80 near the town Al Jahra. These strikes destroyed 1,400 vehicles and killed thousands of Iraqi soldiers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death].

As Wednesday, February 27, dawned CNN and other news organizations ran extensive video of the Route 80 carnage quickly renamed the “Highway of Death”. Some reporters and commentators began to question whether the “Highway of Death” was a gratuitous killing spree. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was disturbed by the “shooting gallery” scenes and by the negative turn of news coverage. He shared his concern with President Bush and key White House advisors.

Debates raged in the White House about finishing the job of encircling the Republican Guard at Basra and “cutting losses” regarding negative media coverage. One staffer suggested that a compromise might be to end the ground war the next day (Thursday, February 28) at noon “Saudi time” as that would be exactly the 100-hour mark. This was immediately embraced as a “great number for the history books”. At 9:00 EST that evening a cease fire was announced to take effect nine hours later (4:00 a.m. EST or noon “Saudi time”).

Ground commanders, including Desert Storm commander General Norman Schwarzkopf , were shocked at the news. Lead armor units were less than 20 miles from completing their encirclement of the Republic Guards near Basra. The cease fire halted their advance leaving a strategic gap through which the Guard units resupplied and reformed under the U.S guns. A provisional ceasefire was formally signed three days later on March 3, 1991.

Unfortunately, this provisional ceasefire allowed the Iraqi military immediate use of their airspace and required U.S. forces to begin their withdrawal from Iraqi territory. [http://iraqimojo.blogspot.com/2006/11/ghosts-of-1991.html]

Then matters got worse. On February 15, 1991, President George H. W. Bush issued statements calling on the Iraqi people to overthrow President Saddam Hussein. It was hoped that Iraqi generals and key Sunni leaders would use the war as their opportunity for an uprising. On March 3, 1991, the same day as a provisional ceasefire was signed, uprisings did occur, but among the Kurds in the north of Iraq, and the Shiites in the south.

Bush officials were concerned that the Kurdish uprising might ignite Turkish fears of a greater Kurdistan and the Shiite uprising might trigger Iranian intervention. U.S. officials decided the best policy was to stand by and watch as Iraq brutally suppressed both revolts, killing over 100,000 civilians. Iraqi armored units and supply convoys moved with impunity while Iraqi helicopters flew by U.S. forces on their way to strafe rebelling Shiites.

We need to remember these events as we mark the fifth anniversary of the current Iraq war. Many myths arose from the 1991 war including the “big lie” that we considered taking Baghdad. This masks the disastrous decision to arbitrarily end the war and allow the Republican Guard units to be resupplied and reform under U.S. guns. It masks the inane provisional ceasefire that prematurely reopened Iraqi airspace for military operations. And it masks the miscues of the Bush administration encouraging revolt only to watch thousands of civilians get slaughtered.

When we ponder why the current administration is so obsessed with Iraq, realize that it may have something to do with Bush 43 and Vice President Cheney (who was Secretary of Defense during Desert Storm) wanting to correct the mistakes of Bush 41. We are all paying the price for the mistakes of 1991 and may for many more years to come. “He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations." Exodus 34:6-7

Despensable Men

2008-03-13T13:22:00.000-07:00

The culture of power unfortunately attracts more of those wishing to abuse the system than those wishing to use it for the common good. Governor Spitzer is just the latest in a long series of officials whose fantasies of sex and power collided with reality. He will not be the last. Future Spitzers, Craigs, and Clintons already believe they are more clever, more careful, or more indispensable to avoid the consequences of their actions.

New York Governor Elliott Spitzer has had his political day of reckoning; his legal reckoning still awaits. At least he did the right thing on Wednesday by resigning. In so doing he spared his family a media circus and allowed state government to return to normalcy. Many others have also pulled the ripcord when confronted with similar charges – Governor James McGreevey, Congressmen Bob Livingston and Mark Foley, and Senator Gary Hart. Others choose to remain in office hoping to outlast the public’s interest or ire – President Bill Clinton, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig, and Congressman William Jefferson.

We are still left wondering why these “falls from grace” happen with such regularity. Spitzer’s own words provide some insight, “From those to whom much is given, much is expected”. Even in his moment of public atonement, Governor Spitzer could not resist elevating himself above the rest of us mere mortals.

Everyone who is married, regardless of position in life, is bound to be honest and trustworthy to their spouse. Every employee, regardless of employment, is duty bound to keep their mind focused on their job while at work.

Governor Spitzer’s lapse into aggrandizement gives us a glimpse into his psyche. It links his situation to all the others. Powerful men are quick to believe their own media releases and create a false reality in which they are indispensable to their nation, their state, their community, their church, or their corporation. Being so indispensable allows them to move to a new plane of existence where they can do anything they want and get away with whatever they want because they are so vital to the future of others.

Citizens and the media need to make sure that we avoid falling for the manufactured mystique that surrounds politicians. They are just like us. They need to be treated like the rest of us. There should never be a moratorium on morals, ethics, or the law - no matter how important someone thinks they are.

Why Not the Best?

2008-03-06T08:30:00.000-08:00

The news media covers elections as either sportscasters or drama critics. They either fixate on the “race” - even overusing sports analogies or they focus on the performance art of speeches, rallies, photo ops, and debates. No one is asking the most fundamental question – what will the government, the country, and the world be like after four years of Clinton, Obama, or McCain?

Hillary Clinton’s reversal of fortunes on March 4 was “manna from heaven” for the news media. Instead of spending five months before the national conventions discussing issues and what the candidates really stand for, they can continue in sportscaster and drama critic mode.

The media also knows that this ultimate reality show competition has provided them with record viewership. In many cases the talking heads are reaching audiences ten times the size of those watching regular, non-campaign, cable news. They don’t want the ride to end.

These news outlets and talking heads face the challenge that in-depth analysis of issues and candidate stances can be boring stuff. In an era of 15-second sound bites and Youtube moments audiences will be channel surfing before the media finished their introductions. The media has a responsibility to find ways to bridge this entertainment expectation gap in order to give us something meaningful. Unfortunately, the media is simply going with the flow – much to the detriment of our nation’s future.

William F. Buckley

2008-02-27T20:00:00.000-08:00

I only met William F. Buckley once. That was during the fortieth anniversary reception for National Review in 1995. I shook his hand and thanked him for reshaping America.

Mr. Buckley was the Thomas Paine of 20th Century conservatism. He gave the isolated pockets of conservative thought and activism a central identity. In an era before the Internet and cable television, his show “Firing Line” and his magazine “National Review” reminded conservatives that they were not alone and that their philosophy was both noble and ascendant.

The campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan would not have been possible without William F. Buckley. They would have still run, but they would not have had the ability to so immediately and effectively tap the grassroots wellsprings of conservatism. The revolution within the Republican Party in 1964 and the revolution in America in 1980 were his progeny.

I pay homage to William F. Buckley on page 74 in my book, “Naked Emperors”. For me, and millions of other young conservatives, Buckley was more than a great writer and more than an icon of our movement. He rose to the level of being an “Epiphany Person.”

An “Epiphany Person” is someone who guides us to a profound understanding of life itself. These encounters are epochal moments, as uplifting and all encompassing as the light entering the cave described in Plato’s “Republic”:

“At first, when any of them is liberated and compelled suddenly to stand up and turn his neck round and walk and look towards the light, he will suffer sharp pains; the glare will distress him, and he will be unable to see the realities of which in his former state he had seen the shadows; and then conceive some one saying to him, that what he saw before was an illusion, but that now, when he is approaching nearer to being and his eye is turned towards more real existence, he has a clearer vision.”

Buckley’s insights, commentary, and humor gave us lessons about philosophy, public policy, and life that we took with us wherever we went. For many of us, his words propelled us to elective and appointive office and shaped our actions and deeds while in those offices. Buckley’s words and thoughts continue to guide us through new encounters and experiences in the 21st Century.

William F. Buckley was the “indispensable man” of our time. I, like every other conservative, will be forever in his debt.

Reality Check

2008-02-26T09:15:00.000-08:00

Politicians from across the political spectrum are scrambling to find new and unique ways to be on the “change” bandwagon. These politicians, and their handlers, all sense how the American public has soured on Washington, DC and politics as usual.

It would, therefore, be instructive to get a “reality check” on some of change agenda promised during the 2006 campaign and supposedly implemented, with great fanfare, at the beginning of the current Congress:

Reality Check #1 – Independent Voices
Numerous Democrats were swept into Congress in districts that usually voted Republican. Many of these Democrats got elected promising to remain independent and not to vote in lock step with Pelosi and the liberal leadership in Congress. Guess what, they ended up voting in lock step with Pelosi. But they found a wonderfully innovative way to disguise this fact. Every day these “independent” Democrats vote against the adoption of the previous day’s journal. This meaningless roll call vote on the Congress Record often serves as a quorum call to begin the legislative day. However, since it is a leadership initiated vote a “no” vote drives down a Member’s “party loyalty score”. I give The Washington Post credit for blowing the whistle on this scam. I hope voters remember it as the campaign progresses.

Reality Check #2 – The Ethics Reform Act of 2007
The era of lavish lobbyists “wining and dining” Members was over! Not really. Four days after the legislation was passed, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) slipped some legislative intent language into the Congressional Record. This after-the-fact language allowed the House Ethics Committee to rule that lobbyists can still “wine and dine” Members at this year’s National Party Conventions if (1) they hold a reception honoring more than one Member, (2) their dinners and receptions are paid for through a third party, and (3) they are held after the convention adjourns for the day. In the last instance, wouldn’t a party normally be held after hours? This after-the-fact legislative intent intentionally created these loop holes in the law. It makes a travesty of lobbying reform and disclosure. We still have five months to demand an end to this sham.

Reality Check #3 – Campaign Finance Reform
Rules banning donations from corporations, unions, and large nonprofits being used to pay stipends to Senators and Congressmen. However, these rules do not ban such payments to spouses and other family members.
· The campaign Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) paid her son $320,409.
· The campaign of Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) paid his daughter-n-law $306,718.
· The campaign of Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) paid his daughter $138,933,
· The campaign of Senator Michael Crapo (R-ID) paid his wife $78,514.
· On the House side, 72 Congressmen funneled over $5.1 million in corporate and labor campaign donations to family members.
Efforts to close this major loophole were rejected in Congress without any media outcry.

Reality Check #4 – Lobbyist Influence
All three Presidential contenders have pledged to fight special interests and distance themselves from Washington lobbyists. However, lobbyists are key figures in the campaigns of Clinton, Obama, and McCain. On February 26, 2008, The Washington Post’s “In the Loop” section published a stunning list detailing millions of dollars being funneled by lobbyists and industry groups into all three campaigns. Most disturbingly, for all three campaigns, law firms, the backbone of the Washington lobbyist establishment, led the list of donors.

We have eight months before the election. That should be plenty of time for the media and the general public to demand an accounting of these and other lapsed promises before we vote for anyone.

Tale of Four Audits

2008-02-21T12:10:00.000-08:00

When people “Google” my name, “Management and Financial Irregularities in the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer” pops up. My supporters know the real story behind this report while my detractors use it as a handy device to dismiss everything I say and write.

This report was the fourth of four audit reports related to my tenure. It is a saga discussed in detail in my book “Naked Emperors”. For those who have not read the book, and even for those who are familiar with the story, a “SparkNotes” version of what happened is in order.

My book focuses on the forces for and against reforming the U.S. House of Representatives after the historic election of 1994. The four audits became battlegrounds for these forces to collide in shaping the reality of the moment.

Audit #1 – Price Waterhouse – Report No. 95-HOC-22, July 18, 1995. This is covered on pages 237-238 in “Naked Emperors”.
This report was billed as the first truly independent audit of the U.S. House of Representatives. All prior reports were internal or heavily influenced by House Leadership and especially by the Committee on House Administration (CHA).

The report was an historic indictment of previous mismanagement of the Congress. Price Waterhouse found such a lack of policies, procedures, and documents that it could not render an opinion. This report would serve as the basis for the reform of the House and a validation of Leadership’s and my approach to strategic change. Surprisingly, Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA) as Chairman of the new Committee on House Oversight (CHO) chose to suppress any release and media coverage of this major document.

House leaders and I thwarted Thomas’ subversion and got the story out to the American public. In retrospect, Thomas’ attempt at sabotage was about crippling the reform effort so that little or no change would actually occur. He had been forced by House leaders to finally acquiesce to some key reforms in June, his stalling tactics having delayed these reforms since March. Thomas was furious that the July audit proved his efforts to preserve the status quo was ill advised.

Audit #2 – Price Waterhouse – Report No. 96-HOC-05, July 30, 1996. This is covered on pages 270-273 in “Naked Emperors”.
This report was poised to give the House a “clean” audit. However, at the last minute, Thomas refused to update the CHO’s mass mailing procedures, thereby downgrading the report to a “qualified opinion”. Allies of the reforms considered this further sabotage by Thomas.

Thomas also tried to force Price Waterhouse to criticize the way the reforms had been implemented with specific attacks on my team and me. Thomas threatened to end the Price Waterhouse contract if they refused. This highly unethical and possibly illegal effort was exposed and the Speaker took Thomas to the “woodshed” during a meeting of the lead reformers. However, no other sanction occurred and Thomas continued his efforts to tarnish the reforms.

Audit #3 – KPMG - Report No. 96-CAO-15, December 31, 1996. This is covered on pages 283-291 in “Naked Emperors”.
Thomas proceeds with hiring a more malleable group of auditors (KPMG) to attack the reforms and the CAO. KPMG is given the deadline of having their criticisms of the CAO and the reforms published in time for the House Republican Conference consideration of House Officers for the 105th Congress. I uncover the plan and appeal to the Inspector General to be an honest broker in the matter. The IG reports back to Thomas, who uses it as a way to remove me as CAO. The reason given for my removal is “inappropriate” ex parte contact with the IG, just what Thomas was caught at in August without any sanction.

I write a full rebuttal to the audit report (available on www.scotfaulkner.com ). This rebuttal is never included in the report.

Audit #4 – KPMG - Report No. 97-HOC-12, September 24, 1997. This is covered on pages 292-294 in “Naked Emperors”.
Thomas decides that purging me, and my inner circle, is not enough. In order to consolidate power in the newly revived Committee on House Administration (CHA), Thomas needs to completely revise history. He demands a special IG report describing the CAO and his allies as hampering House reform and portraying Thomas and the CHO as the true leaders of the reforms. Thomas also wants to erase my credibility in Washington, DC. Dozens of CAO staffers and reform allies alert Newt Gingrich to Thomas’s power play and his misuse of House resources for personal vendetta. Gingrich, once again, does nothing to curtail Thomas. While media accounts, and several books describe what really happened in the 104th Congress, the final IG report remains the first item found on Google searches. Thomas achieves his goals, going on to be a major power in the House, and ultimately cashing in for a lucrative lobbying position.

National Treasures

2008-02-15T16:57:00.000-08:00

I do not understand why the Bush Administration hates the National Park Service (NPS).

Over the last seven years the Bush Administration has under funded park operations by over $600 million a year. They have also created a $5 billion backlog in deferred maintenance. They have also reorganized in ways designed to hamper land acquisition and derail private partnerships and donations. These actions have ground construction and land acquisition to a virtual halt. The President’s FY 2009 Budget identifies $351 million in unobligated NPS construction funds and $185 million in unobligated land acquisition funds. These NPS funds are found on pages 649-650 of the President’s budget appendix (pdf pages 53-54). http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/appendix/int.pdf

However, the most heinous Administration actions strike at the fundamental survival of the National Park System. The Bush Administration has been secretly shutting down park operations and undermining our park system through a program called “Core Operations”.

“Core Operations” is mandating that every national park reduce its current operations by at least twenty percent over the next five years. In addition, each park is being told that they will have to absorb all cost increases related to inflation, personnel, and benefits within these reduced budgets. “Core Operations” has already resulted in wholesale terminations of public programs, firings and forced transfers of personnel, and the closing some park units. All this is being done without public knowledge or input. In fact, this program’s guidelines specifically ban public input and prevents park managers from considering customer and stakeholder interests.

The first signs of this resource starvation have recently surfaced in a report from the Inspector General of the Department of Interior. That report disclosed how the National Park Police are being plagued by low moral, poor leadership, and bad organization. Most importantly, the report sounds the alarm that our national monuments are at risk http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/02/06/travel/14_50_482_4_08.txt.

The Administration’s reaction to this report, and other reality checks, is denial and punitive efforts to silence its critics. Theresa Chambers learned what happens when career officials speak out about what is really happening. In 2004, Ms. Chambers, as the Chief of the U.S. Park Police, spoke out about the Bush Administration’s neglect and its impact on our national parks and monuments. Her concern for our nation’s treasures earned her a rapid demotion.

The Park Service is not always the most efficient or effective at preserving our national treasures and providing public programs. We all remember the $1 million spent in 1988 on an “environmentally friendly” outhouse in Glacier National Park http://www.jldr.com/oh1mill.html and the $330,000 spent in 1997 on an outhouse along the Appalachian Trail that did not have any running water http://www.theplumber.com/outhouse.html. But such fiascos do not justify the current systematic undermining and dismantling of the agency protecting our national treasures.

If the Bush Administration is right about our being in a global struggle against radical Islam then it should be of paramount importance that we preserve and protect the icons that define our nation. During the Christmas season the Bush White House made a big show of promoting the Park Service. The official Christmas tree featured park ornaments and the family’s dogs became junior Park Rangers in the annual Bush Christmas video. There is clearly a disconnect between these symbolic acts and the Bush administration’s own jihad against our national treasures.

This assault on the Park Service comes at a pivotal time in America. We are facing a major crisis in our civic culture. We are victims of our own success. Today we can watch 100 different television stations and visit millions of websites. This means we are no longer obtaining information in any common format or source. We are rapidly losing the collective experience and collective memory that are the foundation of a civic culture. We no longer have a common frame of reference that defines us as Americans and as a nation.

The collapse of civic culture has ended more civilizations than invasions and disease. This is not about immigration or diversity. It is about how we maintain our public values and institutions when people forget who we are and how our system works. In West Virginia public high schools civics is now an elective. Guides at the U.S. Capitol have to explain federalism and the three branches of government to US tourists and school groups.

The basic principles of our civic culture, and the history that created it, must be taught as a central part of preparing the next generation. One way to preserve our civic culture is to support the stewards of our collective memory – the 388 units of our national park system. This fundamental concept seems to be lost on President Bush, Secretary Kempthorne, and Park Director Bomar. We may have to wait until the next President before there is a clear commitment to preserving our past in order to assure our future.

GOP Dilemma

2008-02-09T21:54:00.000-08:00

I just completed a day at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). There were as many buttons, signs, and T-shirts displaying anti-Senator John McCain sentiments as for him.

The Republican Party has been ideologically adrift since July 1997. The ill-fated “Palace-Coup” by House conservatives against Speaker Newt Gingrich signaled an end to their 1994 revolution. From that moment on the great Conservative-Republican coalition formed in 1978 fell apart. Only the disarray among the Democrats and 9-11 forestalled the complete collapse of the GOP until 2006. Today the Republican Party is shattered into numerous warring factions grounded in single-issue groups, candidate-specific committees, think tanks, and journalists.

Those of us who helped shape the GOP’s twenty-year power arch are hoping that a Reagan will arise from our midst, unify us, and return us to our “promised land”.

John McCain is not that leader. It is, therefore, up to the GOP and conservative faithful to play out two stark scenarios:

Scenario #1 Do the Republicans fight to keep the White House with someone who is mostly conservative? McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union [ACU] Rating is 83%. Hillary Clinton’s lifetime ACU Rating is 9% while Senator Barack Obama’s ACU lifetime score is 8%. Do we really want America to go through four years of liberal mayhem?

Scenario #2 Do the Republicans move into full opposition, regroup, and resurge? If 2008 is a year that strongly favors the Democrats, then 2010 may favor the GOP in the off-year elections. A failed Democrat in the White House might give the GOP a change of retaking everything in 2012. This is what happened in 1976. The GOP lost with the moderate incumbent Gerald Ford, but resurged in the 1978 off-year elections and then won by a landslide with Ronald Reagan in 1980, even retaking the U.S. Senate for the first time since 1954. Will history repeat itself?

The great dilemma with both scenarios is the killer question for McCain during the autumn debates, “how will you be different from George W. Bush?”

The answer is going to be extremely difficult. “Change” is the buzzword of the year. If McCain says he will be too different from Bush he risks losing those who are still loyal to Bush. If McCain doesn’t differentiate himself enough, he risks losing everyone else.

Realists know that President Bush is a very unpopular President. They also know their history. In the last 128 years only three people, from the same party as their processor, have been elected in their own right. They were: William Howard Taft after Theodore Roosevelt in 1908; Herbert Hoover after Calvin Coolidge in 1928, and George H.W. Bush after Ronald Reagan in 1988. In all three cases, the outgoing President enjoyed high popular and was viewed as successful. So how can McCain add his name to this list?
The GOP cannot assume that Obama and Clinton will tear apart the Democratic Party on the way to their nomination. It is really up to McCain and his campaign team to reintroduce him to the American public during the GOP National Convention six months from now. They only have this one last chance to get it right with the electorate.

Weird Science

2008-02-04T18:00:00.000-08:00

The WASHINGTON POST just disclosed that the Bush Administration is paying a New York advertising firm $160,000 to better “brand” its Constellation Project. This is the $230 billion project to send humans back to the moon and onto Mars. Many scientists and Congress are rightly skeptical of both the goal and the expense of this effort.

There are many good reasons to continue funding America’s exploration of space. We should be launching satellites to monitor the earth’s environment and to provide early detection of near earth asteroids and other possible threats to our planet.

However, it does not make much sense to send people to other planetary bodies in the next twenty to thirty years. Sending humans into long space missions is risky and expensive. A mission to Mars will take at least 500 days. The challenges of providing for sufficient air, water, and food for such a mission are daunting. Once there, the landing crew will have severely limited time to explore before having to begin their return to Earth.

Why not continue to send rovers and other robots to the moon, Mars, and other planets? Spirit and Opportunity have been roaming around Mars since January 4 and 24, 2004, respectively. That is approximately 2,958 days of exploration time on Mars. It currently costs about
$2.8 million per month, or $33.6 million a year, for continuing these valuable explorations.

The Mars rovers cost about $600 million to develop and launch. In fact, the second rover cost only half the first rover because of “economies of scale” related to having the team and facilities already up and running.
Today’s technology would allow NASA to load up additional rovers with far more sensors, cameras and batteries. Teams of people, safe on earth, could command a fleet of rovers covering Mars for decades for a fraction of Constellation’s cost to place two people on the Red Planet for a few hours. If the Bush administration wants to create a legacy in space they should expand what is already working, not spend money for PR firms to promote costly publicity stunts.

Grassroots

2008-01-26T13:00:00.000-08:00

Today was the filing deadline for local candidates in West Virginia. As with every election cycle local activists were busy calling and meeting with potential candidates to make sure there were contested races for all positions on the ballot.

This is the essence of our democracy. Finding normal citizens who desire to make a contribution to their community by running for and then serving in local offices. These are the unglamourous jobs of tax assessor, county commissioner, sheriff, and other such positions that serve our communities.

The presidential and congressional races may dominate the evening news and the blogs, but local government impacts our daily lives more completely and fundamentally than all the egos in Washington, DC. Step back and remember who picks up our trash, runs our sewer plants, plows our streets, and answers our calls for help.

The recent $44.3 million scandal in the District of Columbia’s tax assessor’s office is a reminder of the importance of electing professional and ethical local officials. When people ask me what can be done to clean-up our politics I always say, “start at the local level”. It is at this level that an individual can truly make a difference and lead tangible and sustainable change.

We tend to forget that America is a federal system for a reason. The basis for our independence from Great Britain was the fact that the thirteen colonies had developed viable local governments and legislatures. This bulwark of local democracy was written into our Constitution. Numerous passages in that document and throughout the Federalist Papers echo this theme of preserving local government. Government should be close to the people. It governs best when it is closest to the need. Only when an issue or threat rises to a national or international level should a national government enter into the equation.

This is quite opposite from the current administration and most Washington politicians. For them the tenth amendment’s limitation on national government is dated and should be ignored. Every minor issue, even personal tragedies, are fodder for national debate and legislation. The drive is for elvating issues to the naitonal level in order to get their faces infront of the cameras. They forget that such selfish actions undermine the basics of our democracy and the protections we have against tyranny.

Another factor in local government is that so much of it is just about good management and integrity. There is no “Republican” or “Democratic” way to collect trash. It is all about being responsive to the needs of the citizenry, capably steward public funds, and assuring that public discourse and decisions follow proper processes.

In this environment voters easily cross party lines and vote for the best candidate without fear of upsetting some national balance of power. Realizing that the best candidate for a local office may be from the other party is liberating. It reaffirms that we are all Americans first and a party member second. Those local officials who rise to congressional seats should remember this basic truism when they enter the Washington arena.

Lobbying’s Seven Deadly Sins

2008-01-16T13:00:00.000-08:00

Many people ask me about my assailing Washington lobbyists. They also challenge me on whether there are any “good” lobbyists.

There have always been people who have acted as intermediaries between those in power and the general populace. This role has been filled by squires to knights, and courtiers to kings. During the Administration of President Grant these intermediaries mixed and mingled in the grand lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC and thus became known as “lobbyists”.

Lobbyists serve an important role. Not everyone can spend the time learning the Byzantine ways of our nation’s capital. Therefore, citizens, companies, and interest groups hire people who can craft legislation, testimony, and strategies to successfully promote a point of view. At the same time public officials seek out these very same lobbyists to help distill vast quantities of often conflicting information and advocacy arguments.

As government gets more complex and more pervasive citizens, those outside of Washington power circles increasingly require help from those who are part of these Washington power circles.

This is where things can go astray and democracy can be undermined.

First, lobbying is a business. That means those with the financial resources will gather more and better lobbyists than those who lack those resources. This marketplace for influence can undermine just causes in favor corrupt ones. Dictators have more money than revolutionaries, corporations have more resources than consumers, Lobbyists follow the money, and therefore, justice and morality take a back seat. I have many friends who tried lobbying and left the profession because it made them feel “unclean”. “The deserving can’t pay and the undeserving can,” explained one former lobbyist.

Second, lobbying is self-perpetuating. Lobbying is all about reaction. The trick is to do enough for a client to solve their immediate problem, but not enough to prevent future problems. If a problem goes away permanently, so does the client and the fees. Therefore, lobbyists seek remissions not cures for their clients.

Third, lobbying promotes more government. Even industry lobbyists rather seek special exemptions and subsidies over dismantling regulations. In 1979, Chrysler sought a government bailout, instead of using its crisis as a catalyst for regulatory reform. When conservatives raised this issue with the Chrysler lobbyists they just scoffed at the idea of regulatory reform over government relief.

Fourth, lobbying can be antidemocratic. Many lobbyists are hired to thwart the implementation of laws passed by Congress. I know one lobbyist who spent twenty years hampering the implementation of unleaded gasoline just so their company could extent their profits.

Fifth, lobbying is hidden. No matter how much Congress and the media talk about disclosure and ethics there is no way the public will ever know what really happens. Washington, DC is a very small town. There is no more than one or two degrees of separation between those who make decisions and those influencing those decisions. The power elite belongs to the same clubs, gyms, private schools, churches, or live in the same neighborhoods, and even the same condominiums. Such informal interactions happen constantly. So no matter how much a former official is banned from direct lobbying, they can be lobbying a colleague when they sit next to each other at a theatrical or sporting event.

Sixth, lobbying is ultimately about favoritism. The object of lobbying is to grant special treatment beyond what is officially allowed. There are certainly many lobbyists who promote issue oriented causes where their role is to strategically influence the legislative and regulatory process. These might be considered the “good lobbyists” as they give a voice to thousands of citizens in the Washington power circles. However, for every “good” lobbyist there are dozens of lobbyists who use government for individual interests against the general good.

Seventh, lobbying is addictive. Elected representatives approach lobbying like a drug addict. Some can take “one puff” and leave it alone, but most are hooked from the start. The more lobbyists assist an elected representative, the less likely that representative will want to hear from the electorate. The longer they are in Washington, elected representatives make a wonderful show of listening to their constituents, but actually key off of lobbyists, and then mask their true actions from the public. Lobbyists are more “user friendly” than sorting out what the electorate wants. Lobbyists can provide countless perks, many of them totally hidden from the public.

There is actually a term for this – “silver bullets”. These are special favors, include getting a child into a private school, making sure the representative or their spouse is appointed as a trustee to prestigious foundation, or promising a job with a corporation or with the lobby firm after they leave office. The “prid pro quo” can never be proven.

Lobbying may be a “necessary evil”. It will be part of government and Washington for the foreseeable future. We need to find ways to foster its the good side while effectively restricting its many abuses.

A Hundred Years in Iraq

2008-01-06T20:41:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, January 3, Senator John McCain admitted that he would not be surprised if America remained in Iraq “for a hundred years”. He defended his statement on “Meet the Press” on Sunday, January 6. In both cases, McCain cited South Korea and Europe where U.S. forces are posted decades after hostilities ended.

It would be more instructive had Senator McCain reached further back to a more applicable precedent – the Philippines.

In 1898, President William McKinley used questionable intelligence about the sinking of the Battleship Maine to go to war with Spain. Linking Spain and its colonies to what later proved an accidental coal dust explosion in a ship moored in Havana, Cuba is very much like the arguments linking Iraq to 9-11 and Al-Qaeda.

Just like with the Iraq War, President McKinley’s military advisors secretly prepared for war long before formal Congressional approval. A declaration of war against Spain was passed on April 19, 1898, and Admiral George Dewey attacked Manila Bay on April 30. Just like Iraq, superior U.S. technology and planning quickly bested the foe and conventional warfare soon ended.

Just like in Iraq, the U.S. assumed that they would be welcomed as liberators as they were ending centuries of brutal Spanish colonial rule. The U.S. even transported Philippine independence leader Emilio Aguinaldo from his exile in China to help rally local forces against the Spanish. However, relations soon turned sour as Aguinaldo and his independence forces wanted immediate self-rule, not an interim U.S. occupation.

Instead of “mission accomplished” the U.S. found itself fighting insurgents for four years. The capture of Aguinaldo on March 9, 1901 did not end the struggle as other leaders emerged. In fact, even though the U.S. declared a formal end to the “Philippine-American War” on July 2, 1902, various insurgent groups sporadically arose to fight Americans until 1913. There were nearly 7,000 American military casualties. Over 20,000 insurgents were killed along with 200,000-1.5 millian Philippine civilians. U.S. forces caused the deaths of more Filipinos in fifteen years of fighting than the Spanish had during their 300 years of colonial rule.

The U.S. remained a major presence in the Philippines governing it first like a territory and then as a commonwealth until driven out by the Japanese in 1942. Once U.S. forces defeated Imperial Japan policy shifted to promoting independence. The first free elections in a fully independent Philippines were held in April 1946, forty-eight years after the U.S. invaded the country.

The U.S. continued to maintain major military bases in the Philippines, including the Subic Bay naval base. The eruption of the Mount Pinatubo on April 2, 1991 buried much of the naval base and led to the U.S. ceding its last military outpost to the Philippines’ government in December 1992, ninety-four years after the U.S. invaded the country.

It is somewhat ironic that McKinley is President George W. Bush’s and Karl Rove’s favorite President. It is unfortunate that they decided to re-enact his Philippine venture in Iraq. Also, there are no volcanos in Iraq to help us close-out our presence in the year 2103. At least not geological ones…

Losing Hearts & Minds

2007-12-12T16:37:00.000-08:00

Karen Hughes, the soon to be former Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy, leaves behind a disastrous record. I only hope James Glassman is able to undo her legacy and rebuild our image.

What is especially sad is that the Bush Administration is trumpeting Ms. Hughes increasing her budget from $616 million to $845 million. Spending more for something that is not delivering is not the kind of success indicator we should applaud.

One of the final straws that ended Ms. Hughes’ tenure was the Pew Research survey on America’s image abroad. The survey found that majorities or pluralities in 33 of the 47 countries polled expressed a dislike for American ideas about democracy.

What is worse, the Pew survey showed a distinct decline in support for America. This included both more countries falling away from the US and sharp declines in key Muslim nations.

Ms. Hughes’ failure is only one of the many indicators showing that the Bush Administration has made every blunder imaginable in their war against terrorism.

First, Bush and his advisors have never addressed the root cause of terrorism – Wahabism. This obtuse view of Islam brought the Saud family to power in Arabia after World War I. In the 1970’s they began using their oil profits to promote this movement on a global scale. During my years in Africa, I watched as Saudi Arabia became the “McDonalds of Maddrassas”, building schools and mosques everywhere. This West-hating dogma has become one of the prime breeding grounds for Al Qaeda. Bush should confront the Saudis and find ways to derail their militant missionaries.

Secondly, the Bush Administration promotes “democracy” over “liberty”. This is a recipe for disaster in countries that have neither. It has led to Hamas taking over Palestine. Bush and his advisors have forgotten or never learned that economic liberty leads to other liberties, and these liberties will ultimately lead to democracy. History shows that the rise of towns and the merchant class led Europe out of the “dark ages”. Only after centuries of capitalism did democracy take hold.

One example of forgetting history is our development policy in Egypt. Starting in the mid-1990’s USAID worked with the Egyptian government in building its private sector through a series of highly successful programs. My company was one of the vendors who assisted in this effort. The Egyptian participants enthusiastically embraced management best practices so they could become more competitive in the global economy. However, in 2004, Bush officials, notably Elizabeth Cheney, terminated all these private sector programs in favor of elementary school support. They forgot that a large, educated but unemployed, populace is the easiest to radicalize. They also forgot that, in every culture throughout history, progress and liberty arose through growth in the merchant or business classes, not from government.

When I travel to the Persian Gulf I see vibrant market economies and safe stable regimes. Dubai is one of the wonder cities of the world showcasing technology, architecture, and management that are on the cutting edge of the 21st century. This is all happening less than a hundred miles from the Iranian coast. Dubai is an example of why it is important to have economic freedom that fuels economic vitality. Instead of sending Americans abroad to promote America, we should send Americans to learn about Arab successes.