Leadership Now!

There is a very good interview in the Wall Street Journal today (14-15 July 2012) with George Shultz, former Secretary of State, Treasury, and Labor. 

Shultz talks primarily about our countries devastating financial situation today.

On the economy, he states bluntly: "We have some big problems in this country."

But according to the interview "the policies for revival are obvious with the right leadership."

Shultz gives an example of former President Reagan (who I blogged about previously (24 June 2012) in It's The Right Thing To Do] as someone who had what it took to lead us out of difficult times. 

"It took long-term thinking...[Reagan] knew and we advised him you can't have a decent economy with the kind of inflation we've got...The political people would come in and say 'You've fot to be careful Mr. President...You're gonna lose seats in the mid-term election."

And as Shultz reminds us, what was Reagan's response?

"And he basically said, 'If not us who? If not now when?"

The article goes on that "it took a politician with an ability to take a short-term hit in order to get the long-term results that we needed."

Reagans words and deeds remind me of the Jewish teaching from the Book of Avot ("Ethics of Our Fathers") from more than 2,000 years ago which reads in 1:14--

"If I am not for myself, who will be for me?
And if I am [only] for myself, what am I?
And if not now, when?"

Reagan was in tune with this ancient wisdom of our forefathers, that we have an obligation to take the appropriate actions to care for ourselves and others and not to put off these actions unto others or for later. 

This is one of those true leadership qualities that made Reagan one of the most popular and favorite leaders on the 20th century. 

Reagan acted based on principle and not based on votes--the long-term health and outcomes for the country was more important than the minute-by-minute polling. 

Of course a leader needs to represent the will and wishes of the people, but he must do so with the bigger-picture and long-term view in mind for the nation to survive and thrive. 

Similarly Peggy Noonan writes today about how we need a "political genius" to get us out of the mess we are in as a nation. 

She too uses Reagan as an example and explains how he used to state about congress that: "when they feel the heat [from voters], they see the light," and it is the President's job to help the people understand and "galvanize them."

As Ms. Noonan states about a real leader: "he's direct and doesn't hide his meaning in obfuscation, abstraction, cliches and dead words."

A leader who knows and believes as in the wisdom of fathers, and like Ronald Reagan, "If not us who? If not now when?"

(Source photo: here with attribution to Tom Magliery)

Leadership Now!

The Broom Flag

This was a strange sight today...

A blue broom stuck in a flag pole holder from the second floor window of this building.

I wasn't sure if this was someone just trying to be funny (probably)--and hopefully they meant no disrespect to our honorable stars and stripes.

However, this being Washington, D.C., I wondered whether this blue broom standing in the pole holder was more of a (subtle) message about it being time to:

1) Clean up waste, fraud, and abuse and do the right thing for our citizens and our nation.
2) Wipe away our national deficit and right our fiscal ship.
3) Address our environmental and sustainability issues leaving our water, air, and land in "broom clean" condition.
4) Sweep through and resolve our sizable and challenging national and global problems.
5) Brush under our differences and partisanship and instead, unite together as Americans for the cause of freedom and human rights.
6) All of the above

Maybe I am reading too much into a blue-brushed broom flying over the skyline, but I like the message anyway and hope you do too.

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

The Broom Flag

To Die or Not

Yesterday, I read in the Wall Street Journal (7-8 July 2012) about end of life decisions. 

With healthcare costs spiraling out of control, driven especially by the care given to those in their final year of life, as a society we are confronted with horrible decisions.

When do you do "everything possible" for the patient's survival and when do you make the call to "pull the plug." 

The article was about one man specifically--age 41, I think--who needed a heart transplant--which was expensive but successful, but then infection and complications set in over the course of the year and resulted in doctors removing part of his lung, his left leg above the knee, his gallbladder, and with the patient eventually living off of a ventilator. 

The medical staff described the patients wincing in pain and the horrific image of at times with the tube down his throat, his screaming with no sounds coming out. 

Doctors and the hospital's ethical counselors spoke with the parents of the man (as his wife had divorced him prior) about discontinuing care.

Part of the conversation was about the practically futile attempts to keep the man alive, the pain of the patient, but subtly there was also the notion about the high cost of care and the patient having reached Medicare limits.

When the father was told that the nurses were having ethical questions about treating the man, the father wanting to keep his son alive at virtually all costs said, (rather than his son being taken off of the medical care he was receiving) maybe these nurses who had an issue with it shouldn't be working on his ward!

The patient died within the year and at a cost of something like $2.7 million dollars (and the man leaving behind a 9 year old son himself). 

There is no question that we want to provide the best care for our families and loved ones--they mean everything to us. 

But when does the greater cost to society (i.e. the greater good) outweigh the benefits to the individual?

Yes, can we come up with hard and cold actuarial calculations about what a person contributes into the system, how much value they bring the world, what the anticipated cost is to keep them alive, and what are the chances of success--and then we can draw a line of what as a society we are willing or able to spend to save this person. 

That is very matter-of-fact--objective, but practically devoid of feeling, compassion, and hope. 

What if the calculation is wrong and the person could've been saved, lived longer, at lower cost, and/or would've been a great contributor to society--how do we know how to really figure individual life and death decisions.

And what of the cost--the meaning--to the family that relies and loves this person and needs him/her--the cost is priceless to them.

But what about others who don't, can't, or won't receive proper care because others ended up taking more than their "fair" share--aren't they also human beings deserving as well of proper care--and to their families are they not also invaluable?

From an ethical standpoint, this is one of those horrible dilemas that plague our consciousness and to which answers do not come easy. 

An almost insane question-- but can we be, in a sense, too giving to an individual, too generous societally, and with some things trying too hard to be ethical? 

Like we are seeing now with the financial decline of the European Union and the frightening fiscal challenges ahead for America--how do maintain the traditional "safety net" (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and more) without bankrupting the system and underlying society itself? 

In essence, what happens when in our effort to be humane to people and give them a basic standard of living and care, keep our country safe, drive research and innovation, and secure human rights and democracy around the world--we overextend ourselves.  

Like many a great society before us that flourished and then declined and even disappeared--do we get overconfident, overly ambitious, and ultimately become self-defeating?

No one--a family member, a compassionate and caring human being, and especially an elected politician wants to say "no" when these decisions hang over us.

But the reality is we will soon be faced not only with the life and death decisions of today, but also generations of built-up overspending and borrowing to finance generous, and yes even corrupt, spending habits.

This will affect present and future generations requiring harder and longer work lives to get a lower standard of living and care, and could even result in our noble society's decline.  

The result is we not only face individual life and death decisions every day, but we also are facing a potential existential threat to our way of life.  

Expect gut-wrenching decisions over the next decade(s) and prepare for life to change in painful ways for all of us--on and off the deathbed.

While no one wants to face these questions and make the hard decisions, this is exactly what will need to happen--sooner or later. 

Fiscally-speaking, there is no longer one way to freedom, but through a collective fight to secure our nation's future. 

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

To Die or Not

Warnings: When It's Not Just "Crying Wolf"

There is a famous saying that "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana 

An editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal (10 April 2012) by French philosopher Pascal Bruckner called "The Ideology of Catastrophe" that accuses those who warn others of danger as having "tiny minds who wish us suffering."

This "philosopher" maligns both Jewish prophets and Christian "millenarian movements" for having "no function other than indignation...and [the Prophet] becomes intoxicated with his own words and claims a legitimacy with no basis."

Mr. Bruckner must be completely clueless of those throughout history that have sought to warn us of dangers that if the world would but have listened, untold numbers of millions could have been saved. 

From the earliest of times, there have been warnings about pending catastrophes and those that paid attention were able to make a difference. 

In the Torah (Bible), G-d warned Noah of the impending flood, and Noah was able to save humankind and animals--2 by 2 they went unto the ark for 40 days and nights of pouring rain that vanquished the earth.

In the Prophets, G-d has Yonah (after being swallowed by the whale) warn the the inhabitants of Nineveh to repent and prevents them and their city from destruction. 

In the 20th century, if only the world had paid attention to the genocidal desires of maniacs like Adolph Hitler (may his name be cursed) in books like Mein Kampf, how many tens of millions may have been spared. 

In terms of the advent of nukes and other weapons of mass destructions, to at least some extent people and governments have listened to warning and retreated from a philosophy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) to instead move toward anti-proliferation, arms reduction treaties, and other safeguards, and we have thank G-d been able to avoid major catastrophes from these dangers. 

Thankfully, with dire medical issuances about various diseases, pandemics, and even warning about the dangers of obesity, smoking, and drinking, we have been able to curb harmful behaviors, promote healthier living, and lengthen life spans.

Similarly, with environmental warnings, we have been able to create awareness and educate people on more sustainable living--through conservation, recycling, reuse, as well as renewable energy sources, and more. 

Moreover, warnings about runaway spending and the national deficit have been heard for decades, but having ignored these for the most part, we now face a $16,000,000,000,000 bill and growing rapidly--soon coming due to future generations of Americans.  And we are already witnessing the effects--inflation, unemployment, default, and perhaps succession from the Euro and the EU itself--of countries on the other side of the Atlantic that have made the similar errors in their wild spending ways.

While some corporate, religious, and political leaders do use fear tactics to gain power or whatever they are personally-seeking that does not make every warning false and malevolent. 

Certainly, at the other end of the spectrum, some people would rather live in denial of any issues and pretend that everything is just hunky-dory all the time. 

Bruckner does makes some superficial and one-sided arguments--denouncing warnings and claiming that:

- Warnings cause fear, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

- Warnings "though they try to awaken us...eventually deadens us."

- People who warn "do not [really] intend to warn us as much as to condem us."

- Leaders issue warnings "to dazzle us in order to make us docile."

Unfortunately, Bruckner has failed to distinguish between fear-mongering and fact. 

Bruckner missed the point of how real warnings can help people--which is through changing hearts, minds, and behaviors. 

1) Fear is not a self-fulfilling prophecy unless people do not act in time to change dangerous and irresponsible behaviors.

2) Genuine warnings do not deaden those who seek truth and a way forward--it only deadens those who are unwilling or unable to adapt. 

3) People who warn based on facts and with sincerity to help others do not wish to condem us--rather they wish to alleviate unnecessary suffering.

4) Leaders who issue warnings to alert people to very real dangers out there in order to seek safety or change course are not trying to dazzle and make docile, but rather they seek to save lives by creating awareness, educating, and empowering people to change before it is too late.

Some people understand well from history as well as from common sense that our behaviors have consequences--other do not. 

For me, when we stray into dangerous waters, I am glad for the true heros out there looking out for us and helping guide us live better and longer lives. 

While it is good to be critical of unfounded warnings and charlatans, it is necessary to have warnings that are grounded in fact, given sincerely, not forced on others, and help people stay successfully on the road to health, prosperity, and human rights.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Alex Peruso)

Warnings: When It's Not Just "Crying Wolf"

Those In The Know, Sending Some Pretty Clear Warnings

There have been a number of leaders who have stepped up to tell people the real risks we are facing as a nation. 

They are not playing politics--they have left the arena. 

And as we know, it is much easier to be rosy and optimistic--let's face it, this is what people want to hear. 

But these leaders--national heros--sacrifice themselves to provide us an unpopular message, at their own reputational risk. 

That message is that poor leadership and decision-making in the past is threatening our present and future. 

Earlier this week (15 May 2011), I blogged about a documentary called I.O.U.S.A. with David Walker, the former Comptroller General of the United States for 10 years!

Walker was the head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)--the investigative arm of Congress itself, and has testified before them and toured the country warning of the dire fiscal situation confronting us from our proclivity to spend future generation's money today--the spiraling national deficit.

Today, I read again in Fortune (21 May 2012) an interview with another national hero, former Admiral Mike Mullen, who was chairmen of the Joint Chiefs (2007-2011).

Mullen warns bluntly of a number of "existential threats" to the United States--nukes (which he feels is more or less "under control"), cyber security, and the state of our national debt. 

Similarly, General Keith Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) and the head of the Pentagon's Cyber Command has warned that DoD networks are not currently defensible and that attackers could disable our networks and critical infrastructure underpinning our national security and economic stability.

To me, these are well-respected individuals who are sending some pretty clear warning signals about cyber security and our national deficit, not to cause panic, but to inspire substantial change in our national character and strategic priorities.

In I.O.U.S.A., after one talk by Walker on his national tour, the video shows that the media does not even cover the event.

We are comfortable for now and the messages coming down risk shaking us from that comfort zone--are we ready to hear what they are saying?

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Vagawi)

Those In The Know, Sending Some Pretty Clear Warnings