Category Archives: All Politics Is Local

Photo Finish Leadership

The first photographs were taken in the early 1800’s. Photography for ordinary people began when George Eastman’s Kodaks became popular in the early twentieth century. Physical photos reigned for little over a century before the current age of digital representation.

From the time before photography, we have only a few painted pictures of legendary figures like Napoleon and George Washington. Now, if we’re in the right place at the right time, we can take a selfie with one of our leaders.

During primary voting season, our favorites change in a few weeks, first ones discarded like we delete our numerous digital photos. A few days after a newly elected leader takes office, we begin looking ahead to the next election, the next leader.

How do our perceptions change with the changes in physical representation? Perhaps today’s casual shots of our movers and shakers, some less than flattering, are one reason a leader has such a short window to inspire and produce meaningful work.

Voting Against Ourselves

Wayne Flynt, a retired professor at Auburn University, has written much about poor whites in his native Alabama. In his book, Keeping the Faith, Flynt suggests an answer to why the less advantaged so often vote for politicians who pass legislation detrimental to them.

“For ordinary people, black and white, who were just moving inside the magic circle of middle-class economic security, fear of losing the first home they had ever owned or the private academy where they sent their kids to school, made them easy prey to demagogues and fearmongers with much greater wealth to protect.”

Working class folks, scrambling to hold down jobs, juggling too many tasks, have little time to read analytical articles or surf the net for opinion pieces. They are prey for those leaders who filter the news for them.

Self-addicted politicians, often wealthy or in league with the wealthy, know how to exploit fear. They play on fear, touting themselves as saviors to defeat all enemies, whether real or imagined, as easily as Hans Solo shoots a storm trooper.

Celluloid heroes aren’t much help when we leave the theater, though.

A Hard Fought Campaign, But No Character Assassinations

The election results were certified after a close race between the two candidates. Generally, character or motive of the opposition candidate was not called into question by either group’s followers (other than one or two heated letters to the newspaper). Instead, the campaign stuck to the issues.

Campaign financing was not a problem. Neither candidate appeared to have wealthy sponsors.

The winner garnered 297 votes against his opponent’s 262. A difference of only thirty-five votes separated the candidates for mayor in our small Washington state town.

The current mayor, not standing for reelection, had endorsed the candidate who eventually won, as had most of the city council. Were those endorsements a factor in a closer race? We are told that voters today are disillusioned with anyone currently in political office.

Or perhaps it was the rabbit issue, pitting those for a solution (mostly humane suggestions, except one mentioning a falcon) versus those who wanted the increasing rabbit population to remain unmolested.

Or perhaps the election divided those who wanted a funicular or other mechanical means for moving tourists from the harbor to the town against those who favored keeping the status quo.

At any rate, the real test begins, now that the spirited but largely civil race is over. Can meaningful dialog remain between the elected and those who lost? Or will the work of the city now bog down in dysfunction, like that of government in the other Washington?

If the city government continues to work, the other Washington should study our example.

George H.W. Bush, Where Are You When We Need You?

George H, W. Bush, father of George W. Bush, may be the last gentleman in the American political maelstrom.

The gentlemanly qualities of the elder Bush sprang from self-discipline and a desire to serve others. He was a naval aviator in World War II, almost losing his life for his country.

As president, he did break his promise about not raising taxes and even expanded the government, considered unpardonable by some politicians. Perhaps he thought the purpose of government is to serve the people and believed that a complex age demanded more services.

One of the reasons he lost his bid for a second term as president, it is said, is that he hated campaigning and abhorred bragging about his accomplishments.

Bush understood foreign affairs better than most presidents. Perhaps that is the reason he brought the first Gulf conflict, liberating Kuwait in 1991, to a successful conclusion in record time, then had the wisdom not to extend the war into Iraq.

Bush, according to an article in The Economist, “never claimed that his side had a monopoly on wisdom. In his inaugural address as president, he deplored ideologues who question not just opponents’ ideas but their motives.”

Ah, for such a public servant today.

I Can’t Remember Not Voting in an Election

Maybe it’s because I’ve lived in countries with no elections, no voting. Others have elections but in name only. The leader always receives an unbelievably high percentage of the vote, the results greased by corruption. In others, violence mars the election, and voters stay away from the polls for fear of losing their lives.

Apparently, my regard for voting is not shared by many of my fellow citizens. Only about forty percent of registered U.S. voters bothered to exercise the privilege in recent elections, not even half of those eligible.

I understand the temptation to walk away from what has become almost a blood sport, turned off by the partisanship, mud slinging, and outright lying. The amount of money spent on campaigns is what I can only describe as sinful, using that word deliberately.

It won’t change as long as we stay away. Elections with a high voter turnout tend to result in changes; lower turnout favors the status quo.

I’ve always cast a ballot, absentee in those years I lived away from home (beginning in college). I know how rare the privilege is in much of the world. Ask those fleeing refugees.

Should a Healthy Young Person Be Forced to Buy Health Insurance?

Should we require a healthy twenty-five-year-old to buy health insurance or pay a penalty if he/she doesn’t?

Let’s consider a young man we’ll call George. George is healthy, exercises regularly, eats right, and doesn’t abuse alcohol or drugs. He’s never been sick with anything but an occasional cold or passing stomach virus.

George is driving back to his apartment one evening from work. A drunk driver going in the opposite direction suddenly crosses the median and crashes head on into George’s car. The drunk driver, a repeat offender, has no driver’s license and no insurance.

George has serious injuries. He is rushed to the hospital where doctors save his life, and after several days, set him on the road to recovery. However, the immediate hospitalization in intensive care costs thousands of dollars. Rehabilitation will cost additional thousands of dollars.

George doesn’t have health insurance to help pay the costs, and, as a young man just starting out, has few savings.

Who pays for the costs associated with the accident? I do, along with other taxpayers.

We pay because a young man refused to acknowledge that he is as subject to mortality as anyone else. More importantly, we pay because too many of us see insurance as an individual issue, not as part of pooling resources for the community.

I have a right to insist that all buy health insurance because I pay when the uninsured need medical help beyond their means to pay.

Candidate With the Most Tweets Wins

The Cold War diplomat, George Kennan, a former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, was an old-fashioned patriot who served his country because he believed in America.

Kennan influenced U.S. foreign policy as few diplomats or other public servants do. His policy of containment helped us avoid outright war with the Soviets, while waiting until the Soviet Union dissolved, surpassed by a politically and economically superior West.

Two trends in his beloved country bothered Kennan during his later years, For one, he feared its citizens were too involved in consumerism.

Secondly, he feared Americans were too prone to see complex issues in simplistic terms.

We might remember his admonitions when our political campaigns descend to tweetable sound bytes.

Economy Class Government

Anyone who travels frequently by air might have qualms after reading that the United States doesn’t have enough air traffic controllers. Because of the shortage, many controllers regularly work six days per week. Six day work weeks, given our current lives crammed with too much to do, is questionable, but especially, I would think, for those who shoulder literal life or death responsibilities.

I had my own personal experience of employee shortage when I worked for the U.S. State Department overseas. My job included handling the applications of foreigners to visit the United States. U.S. laws forbid the issuance of a visa to a foreign national whom the visa officer has reason to believe might in some way harm the United States.

In the U.S. embassies and consulates where I worked, we didn’t have enough staff to handle the load, due to earlier cuts in hiring. I frequently worked ten and twelve hour days as did my colleagues. Yet we couldn’t possibly interview the sometimes hundreds or more applicants each day per interviewer. Some we could only look at their documents, a poor substitute for a personal interview.

Many passed without interviews, including some young men who highjacked planes for the 9/ll terrorist attacks. Penny wise and dollar foolish?

Era of the Best Bad Solutions

“And so, we’ve got groups here in town, members of the House and Senate . . . who whipped people into a frenzy believing they can accomplish things that they know—they know—are never going to happen.”
—John Boehner, CBS Face the Nation, September 27, 2015

Politicians have always made promises they knew they couldn’t keep, declared in order to win elections. What is different about today’s elections is not only that the promises are especially outrageous. Even more amazing is that more citizens appear to actually believe them.

One candidate for president has promised to end the Syrian refugee crisis by sending all the Syrians back to Syria if elected president. And how will he do this? Take control of all the nations who have Syrian refugees? Force them to do his bidding? Set up some miraculous delivery system through battlefields for millions of refugees?

We have grown up listening to stories of World War II victories as though they were inevitable. In addition, post World War II was a favorable economic time for the United States. The nation had survived war with its factories and infrastructure intact, unlike Europe and much of the world.

American leaders from Eisenhower to Kennedy had known war, as had many members of Congress. The political parties had their partisan moments, but more often than not, they cooperated for what was best for the nation, knowing how close we came to losing it.

One cannot picture them risking America’s standing in the world by a willingness to bring the government to its knees over a single issue.

We live in a time of no perfect solutions, worsened by selfish political posturing. Yet we yearn for that magic bullet to solve our problems. It doesn’t exist.

To reach solutions, we have to listen and, when our turn comes to suggest, do so with genuine ideas, not quick fix solutions suitable only for sound bytes on the evening news.

Dealing with the Whole Enchilada Syndrome

Our politics have descended into the Whole Enchilada or Nothing Syndrome. We either get all we want or we threaten to destroy the system.

When is it ever possible for mortals to have perfect knowledge? Negotiation, diplomacy, and compromise are necessary because none of us is God.

Genuine listening, give and take, and civil dialog work best in an imperfect world.

We can’t always work out a win/win solution but more often a some/some resolution. Nobody hogs all the cake and ice cream. We enjoy a better party if everybody shares some.

 

Five Suggestions for Surviving This Election Cycle

By the time this election is over (if it ever is) we will be sick of every candidate. Each will probably have at least one scandal dragged up against them by opponents.

We may struggle to find any candidate we like enough to vote for. Perhaps the one who offers the most comic relief will win.

No quick fix exists, but here are five partial solutions:

1) Limit your time watching election coverage except in cases of obviously news worthy events. (Example: Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump join forces to establish an independent ticket.)

2) Read a book about the current condition of the country’s political system.

3) Read a book about America’s place in a changing world.

4) Research the Internet for articles exploring growing inequality in our nation’s economic system.

5) Write emails every few weeks to your elected representatives asking them to vote for a constitutional amendment against excessive campaign funding. If the candidates have less money, they can’t afford such long campaigns.

 

Going Beyond Democrats and Republicans: Why Not a Third Political Party?

Dick Meyers asked that question in an article for The Seattle Times (August 9, 2015). After all, political parties aren’t even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Nothing says we must have political parties, much less limit them to two.

Third parties appear from time to time, but generally are too quixotic or too one-issue oriented for the average American. What about a party focused more widely and deeply on many issues?

As more and more citizens become disgusted with either party and become independents, the followers who remain tend to be more extreme. Thus, voters often must decide between two candidates from the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. Each party must play to its base, then try to shift gears and appeal to independents in the general election, the swing voters.

To avoid saying anything that would scare off voters from either group, politicians tend to mouth meaningless platitudes: “I’m for peace. I’m for jobs. I’m for a great America.” They coat their opponents with scorn and harsh criticism verging on accusations of criminal behavior.

What about a middle-of-the-road party that speaks to today’s independents, the fastest growing segment of the electorate?

 

How Do We Get Re-elected After We’ve Done It?

“We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we have done it.”
— Jean-Claude Juncker, European politician

The British leader Winston Churchill is quoted as saying that democracy is the worst form of government except for any other. Most of us agree that democracy provides the best check against dictators or elite groups establishing a corrupt government for their own benefit.

If we’re honest, we also admit that no form of government is perfect. Popular opinion is important, as it should be, to the policies decided by democratically elected leaders. But how do we allow for the fact that popular opinion is sometimes wrong?

The United States’ second war with Iraq, a majority of Americans now agree, was a mistake. But at the time, the congressional resolution favoring the war passed with a solid majority in both houses. Americans and their representatives, caught up in anger after the attacks of 9/ll, allowed themselves to believe unsubstantiated arguments that Iraq posed a danger to the United States.

We have access to more information than ever before but also to unfounded myths and rumors. The Internet drowns us in information without necessarily supplying truth.

The success of democracy depends on an informed electorate willing to read beyond the next sound byte and on politicians willing to do the right thing even if it means losing the next election.

 

Will Wonders Never Cease—Have I Found an Example of Civil Democracy?

My small hometown (population around 1100) is examining means of transport from its marina on Puget Sound up the bluff to the main section of town. At present a steep, narrow road with a sidewalk is the only means of transit between the two. Boaters must climb the hill if they wish to visit the restaurants and shops of the town and perhaps lug back groceries.

Bus or taxi or golf cart? Possible, but the curve to go down the road is iffy. Widening the road increases the possibility of disturbing unstable soil. What about liability and maintenance? Training and maintaining drivers? Handicapped accessibility of the vehicles?

Funicular? Elevator? Possible, but will this impact the bluff? Or the scenery?

Doing nothing? Okay, but again, those boaters. What about handicapped and elderly people who can’t negotiate the steep sidewalk?

And so on.

Our small town democracy has its moments of incivility, but a meeting to discuss issues packed the fellowship hall of a local church (often used for community gatherings). While discussion was frank it generally was polite. A large proportion of the city’s citizens attended. Many asked questions and expressed views.

How wonderful if our national democracy would practice this type of interaction. No, we can’t pack a national meeting center, but we can read even-handed analyses of where candidates stand on issues important to our survival as a nation. We can refuse to be a party to remarks that tend to belittle candidates, choosing instead to encourage the discussion of issues.

Oh, yes. It also helps if we vote.

 

Can Foreign Money Influence Political Campaigns in the United States? . . . and Other Concerns

More than 129 million dollars has already been contributed to the U.S. 2016 election, according to figures in a July 16 article in the Los Angeles Times. That’s in addition to money contributed to political action campaigns (PACS). They can raise unlimited contributions.

Like many Americans, I’m concerned about the amount of money given to U.S. political campaigns, as well as the lack of information about where some of it comes from. We don’t even know if all of it comes from U.S. citizens.

I emailed my concerns to my congressman. His reply listed several pieces of legislation that would attempt to reign in campaign finance abuses. Unfortunately, several appear to have died in Congressional committees or otherwise been derailed.

One of them appears still active:

H. J. Res. 34, the “Democracy is for People Amendment,” would amend the Constitution to establish that only individuals with the right to vote in elections can make political contributions, and affirms the right of government to regulate campaign finance. I take it this means Congress could then pass stricter legislation for campaign contributions and disclosure of donors.

Sounds good to me, at least for a starter. Why don’t you contact your own representative to express your concerns?

 

If McDonald’s Raises My Salary, Will They Eliminate My Job?

The minimum wage is shifting upward. Cities like Seattle are raising it. Employers like McDonald’s are raising it. Contractors for certain government jobs are raising it.

In the past few years, the number of middle class jobs with middle class salaries has decreased. Teenagers looking for part time or seasonal jobs now compete with adults for work that usually pays minimum wages.

Even as the computer revolution eliminates some middle class jobs, however, health care and retail trade employment is increasing, typically jobs that require more human interaction. But if salaries in these fields are raised to middle class levels, how often will profit-seeking employers seek to eliminate these jobs?

The economist Paul Krugman suggests that workers are not like commodities traded in a market that tends toward the cheapest price for them.

“… the market for labor isn’t like the markets for soybeans or pok bellies. Workers are people; relations between employers and employees are more complicated than simple supply and demand.”

He says, “. . . workers are not, in fact, commodities. A bushel of soybeans doesn’t care how much you paid for it; but decently paid workers tend to do a better job, not to mention being less likely to quit and require replacement . . .”

Treating workers as things, as parts of equations about supply and demand, may not only be against many religious teachings, it may also be bad for businesses.

 

I’m Already Sick of Election Talk. Could We Change the Channel?

We already know what we need to know about most of the candidates. Why should we spend more than a year escaping attack ads, dodging phone callers and their canned spiels about candidates, and deleting massive numbers of political emails?

Perhaps we could begin a movement to ignore all news about the candidates until at least the beginning of 2016. Refuse to comment on the Internet about them. Flip the TV channel anytime a news story on the elections is broadcast. Advertisers might get the idea.

We might push to have one Extreme Tuesday in September, 2016, when all primaries are held. The parties would convene in October to choose candidates. The election would be held as usual in November.

Who knows, we might even make a dent in global warming without all that hot air.

 

A Model Senate: How a Legislature Might Actually Work

The Economist (April 11, 2015) reported on an undertaking at the Edward M. Kennedy Institute in Boston. The Institute has constructed a model Senate for teenage “senators” from various high schools to stage a mock Senate. The teenagers study how a proper legislative body might actually get things done.

It was, the article reported, “both uplifting and heartbreaking.” Uplifting because, while watching the young people produce legislation, “It is cheering to see the legislative branch stripped to its core principles, and to realize that the system can work.”

The heartbreak occurs when one realizes, the article said, that these senators “face no pressure to raise millions in campaign funds. No outside groups rank them on ideological score cards. . . . They need not fear primary challengers from hardliners who scorn the very idea that decisions with broad, nationwide support enjoy special legitimacy.”

As candidates declare for the 2016 presidential election, we brace for the absurdity of a campaign season that lasts over a year and a half. The absurdity goes beyond those political ads assaulting our psyches for that long. It means ever more money will be spent on political campaigning that ought to be used for better causes.

We have only ourselves to blame for our refusal to pass campaign finance legislation. And we are the ones who insist on screaming so loudly for our pet causes that we refuse to hear anyone else.

As the cartoon character Pogo said decades ago: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

 

Three Cheers for Inefficiency

A businessman in Seattle has made news by raising all salaries in his company to $70,000 a year. He’s temporarily lowering his own to the same amount until the company brings in enough profit to pay for the rise in salaries. Dan Price, founder of Gravity Payments, said he wanted to do something to address the issue of inequality.

“The market rate for me as a CEO compared to a regular person is ridiculous. It’s absurd,” Price was quoted in The Seattle Times.

Is Price against capitalism? Isn’t the goal of capitalism to be as efficient as possible? To produce the most goods or services with the least amount of cost to the producer? Isn’t that the Wall Street credo?

Perhaps the principle of the goose who lays the golden egg also applies. Kill the goose, and you have no more golden eggs. Treat your hired hands badly, and they will be uninterested in serving you. They will leave for another employer as soon as they can, forcing you to spend valuable time training someone else to take their place. And unhappy employees will be less productive.

A few employers may have read the Biblical warning to landowners not to reap crops to the very borders of their fields. Leave some, the passage says, for the poor, the widows, and the orphans. Capitalist ownership of land is not condemned. Too much capitalist efficiency is.

 

Why Our Politics Should Stop at the Water’s Edge

U.S. Senator Arthur Vandenberg is credited with the famous saying that our political differences stop at the water’s edge. He meant that though we may be on opposite sides of issues, we present a united front in our dealings with other nations. We do not let our differences impede our ability to carry out a strong foreign policy with diverse nations.

Americans have always celebrated ties to other countries. We are a nation of immigrants, after all. We talk of our special relationship with Britain. Though Saint Patrick’s Day is not a federal holiday, many Americans of Irish descent celebrate it. Mexican Americans celebrate Cinco de Mayo. Jewish Americans celebrate Passover. Muslim Americans celebrate Ramadan. Chinese Americans celebrate the Chinese New Year.

Basing our foreign policies on subservience to a particular country is a more serious matter. When I served in U.S. missions overseas in the Middle East, newly naturalized Americans with ties to those countries sometimes wanted us to work for their countries at the expense of our need to retain relations with many nations in the region.

Refusing to act solely for the interests of a particular country is based on our requirement to put the interests of our own country first. We also seek broader policies that benefit as many nations as possible.

The address of a foreign prime minister to the U.S. Congress at the invitation of one political party set an unwelcome precedent. This has never happened before. To tie the foreign policies of the United States so tightly to the policies of another nation is unprecedented and weakens our ability to choose options. We are part of a global community, and our goal should be working for policies that benefit both us and the community.