I recently attended the State Candidates Forum sponsored by the League of Women Voters and was disappointed by Jason Conger’s unethical antics.

There were four candidates on the stage, two for the Oregon House and two for the Oregon Senate. Conger is Bend’s Republican incumbent in the House. The moderator posed a series of questions which each of the four candidates was to answer within 90 seconds. Time-keepers raised a yellow card when15 seconds remained and a red card when time was up. On his first answer, Conger talked past the red card; not a significant or unique violation, but a harbinger of what was to come.

While answering a later question, Conger pivoted from a legitimate reply to challenge Nathan Hovekamp about his so called “attack ad” that claimed Conger had voted for special interests. Conger stood self-righteously over a seated and fittingly silent Hovekamp, glaring down at him until his time ran out. Conger’s actions clearly violated the forum rules. The moderator should have told Conger “you’re out of order,” but he said nothing. Conger evidently realized that he could get away with cheating. He immediately blew off the next question and directly challenged Hovekamp a second time, standing over him and glaring down as a long silence dragged on.  Again, the moderator said nothing. Finally, Hovekamp responded by citing two bills Conger had voted for. At that point, the moderator mumbled something about this not being a debate and ended the discussion. I thought I was watching yet another NFL game with substitute referees. (By the way, if you think that Conger’s first challenge was spontaneous instead of calculated, then I have a bridge I want to sell you. Conger may be ethically challenged, but he is clever, and he is not stupid.)

Later on the moderator asked an unintentionally ironic question: “Why is there so little civility in the Legislature?”  He could have looked in the mirror and at Jason Conger to answer it for himself. Civility requires voluntarily adhering to rules of conduct, which are fairly administered by competent moderators, referees, or chairpersons. Civility, like fair play, is undermined when the media, supporters, and general public reward or ignore incivility or cheating, instead of holding the offender’s feet to the fire. The Bend Bulletin, which has endorsed Conger, rewarded him with headlines for his performance and nary a word about his unethical behavior.

Two weeks ago, on 60 Minutes, Mitt Romney and President Obama were each asked, “what are the essential qualities of a leader.” Both responded with remarks about a personal vision, which is important but secondary. Their answers provide clues to past triumphs and troubles in the Obama Presidency, and to the tragic course which a Romney Presidency would take. Allow me to explain.

The most essential quality of a great leader is an ability to recruit and effectively manage outstanding people, including his lieutenants. This conclusion was reached long ago by others besides me. For example, in The True Believer, Eric Hoffer says:  “The most decisive (quality) for the effectiveness of a mass movement leader (is)… above all, the ability to evoke fervent devotion in a group of able lieutenants” (p 115). The majority of leaders settle for mediocre and incompetent loyalists because they are easier to manage during a crisis.

Three decades ago, while CEO of Pro-Log, I wrote A Framework for Managing. It describes how quality people are the most strategic and important resources for sustained success and profits are the most tactical. It also explains that subordinates are a small subset of the people whom a top executive must recruit and manage. A chart from that essay is shown in Fig. 1.

No individual, particularly in politics, business or sports can lead by themselves. A college football coach cannot accept any old group of players and assistant coaches to develop a winning team; he must recruit and manage excellent people, including athletic directors and alumni. Complex systems, like football teams, companies or governments, require a network of capable lieutenants who provide information and advice, develop scenarios, and execute plans in specific specialties.  A great leader attracts, selects, and supports the most qualified people available, even those who don’t fully accept his vision or exhibit blind loyalty to his cause. A President who accepts retreads or limits himself to docile loyalists eventually brings disaster. George Bush the younger comes to mind. (By the way, being the “great decider” which Bush touted as important is, at best, a tertiary quality.)

Abraham Lincoln understood the principles of great leadership. His Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation generated public support for Continue reading →

Mitt Romney should change his name to Myth Romney. He has amply demonstrated that his entire political world is myth-based rather than data-based. A few days ago I pointed out that Romney hadn’t done his homework on foreign issues. The recently released video of his private fund-raiser, in which he claims that 47% of citizens are (parasites) sucking off the government, demonstrates that he hasn’t studied domestic issues either. This myth about citizens isn’t even original… it comes from Grover Norquist’s book “Leave Us Alone” (published in 2008) in which he divides the public into “takers” and “leave us alones” with a mere handful of undecided. Both Romney and Ryan are disciples of Grover Norquist, who is apparently the brains of the outfit.

Maybe it’s just me, but I prefer a fact-based leader with whom I may disagree to a myth-driven follower who is too lazy, too shallow, or too dumb to use objective information.

It seems to me that Mitt Romney has failed to do vital homework on his foreign and economic policies. Prior to his presidential campaign, he had years of leisure-time in which to travel, study, consult and develop coherent and carefully developed strategies and policies. His performance on the campaign trail is evidence that he didn’t prepare himself. His trip to England and Israel earlier this year was pathetic as evidenced by his ham-handed remarks about the Olympics and the Palestinians. (During his visit to Israel, his old pal Netanyahu effectively endorsed him and has subsequently done his best to embarrass President Obama.)  Romney’s outburst about Libya and Egypt, before getting the facts, was tragic, desperate, and irresponsible for someone who wants to be President. His whining remarks about China smack of merely being against whatever President Obama does rather than stemming from a coherent strategy.

What would he do after he labeled China as a currency manipulator? How would he get them to play by the rules? Institute tariffs? Stop trade? Pay off our debts to them? Send in the Marines? He should be able to answer those questions if he has a strategy; otherwise he is just huffing and puffing for votes.

Certainly China is a currency manipulator. They’ve manipulated their currency and maintained tariffs since I did hi-tech business with them in the 1980s. They have cleverly used duties and currency manipulation to suck manufacturing jobs out of the US. However, I applaud their prudence. The responsibility of the Chinese government is to develop China, not to protect us against our own follies.

For more than two decades Continue reading →

My friend Dean is a recovering alcoholic. He uses the support of his family, his Catholic faith and AA to stay on the wagon. He has led a productive and inspiring life for the last 40 years. Long ago he told me this part of his story: “When I was drinking, my family and friends tried to rescue me; I took everything they did to help me and used it to sink lower. One day, I looked in the mirror and said to myself: I don’t want to do this anymore. From that moment on, all their love and support were critical to my recovery.”

His message was an “aha!” moment for me:  We cannot save other people! —no matter how much we care for them or how clearly we see their path to temporal or spiritual salvation. We can help them only when and where they chose to lead themselves.  The idea that we, as individuals or as a nation can “save” other people or nations is one of the most pernicious and destructive ideas floating around. If we could save others, they would be unnecessary for themselves, the ultimate in human degradation!

As clear as this reality is to me, it seems to be a truth hidden from those bent on saving unwilling people or nations.  We are mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Continue reading →

Grover Norquist is a 55-year-old, lightly bearded, chubby-faced, bespectacled, lobbyist with a Harvard MBA and an unusually keen sense of humor. However, his control of elected officials is no laughing matter. He is the most powerful Republican in Washington D.C. He is significantly more focused, cleverer, and more dangerous than his fellow conservative lobbyists Karl Rove and Dick Armey. He has labored behind the scenes for three decades to impose his own answer to Ronald Reagan’s silly sound-bite: “government is the problem.” He is systematically crippling government until it is too feeble to interfere with his life. This year, he can push the Federal government off a fiscal cliff!

He quietly manipulates a voting majority of 238 House Republicans and a blocking minority of 39 Senate Republicans, who have signed his Pledge to Taxpayers (see Fig 1). They dutifully follow his orders on taxes and other issues in return for mountains of money, conservative credentials, and Hero awards.

In the budget battles of 2011, his pledge-takers in the House and Senate stonewalled reforms, and accepted a one-year, not-repeatable postponement of fiscal disaster. They increased the legal borrowing limit in exchange for budget cuts and a temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts. Earlier this year, they delivered an ultimatum to the President and to the other members of Congress: either enact their drastic budget reductions and cripple government, or they will deadlock negotiations and let the default alternatives do it for them.

We’re in for a heap-of-hurt unless enough Republicans in the House and Senate repudiate their pledges, throw off Norquist’s shackles, and represent their fellow citizens like responsible individuals. The prospects for wholesale revolt are dim. The November election could make things even worse by putting pledge-taker, Mitt Romney, in the White House.

We will analyze the Pledge to Taxpayers and explore its manipulative and deceptive features. We’ll present a body of evidence that it is a pledge to Grover Norquist and not to taxpayers. We will explain the inducements which persuade rational adults to sign it. We will contrast it to the Congressional Oath of Office which Continue reading →

The US Constitution was designed by a diverse group of individuals representing the varied interest of 13 colonial governments. During the Constitutional Convention they negotiated, persuaded, and compromised as individuals and ad-hoc groups coalescing around specific issues. There were no political parties. They reached a consensus among themselves on how to balance Federal and State interests.  It turns out that their group consensus still needed tweaking. After submitting the Constitution to the States, they had to add the Bill of Rights as a necessary condition for ratification by Massachusetts, Virginia and New York.

Consensus is not unanimity
Every system, every regulation and every law is a compromise of some sort. The best compromises are consensus ones, which bring rich pools of perspectives and talents to the decision-making processes and produce trade-offs which sustain overwhelming and enduring public support. That is as true for business as it is for government. Consensus is vastly superior to autocratic fiat or to majority-votes manipulated by party loyalties, special interests, extremist views, or infantile pledges like the one made to Grover Norquist. When consensus decisions are compared to inaction or to special-interest alternatives, they provide more benefits to more people for a longer time.

Consensus is not unanimity; every consensus omits some constituents. There is no way around it. The Constitution left slavery intact to gain the support of Southern States. Nor, is it possible to reach immediate consensus on all issues. Sometimes, it is necessary to act on a timely basis and pick up the pieces later. However, the most effective and self-sustaining government produces enough consensus solutions to maintain overwhelming public support without coercion.

Laws enacted by majority-votes along party lines are not products of consensus, especially when votes are coerced by party loyalties or special interest lobbies. They create significant opposition and reduce the overall support for government itself.

A healthy government has a reservoir of good will, which enables its citizens to accept some clunker laws or expedient decisions as part of a compromise process. When too many win-lose decisions come out of government, a public backlash festers and grows. This is what we’ve gone through for the last 30 years or so, with the active participation of Republicans and Democrats. We’re now at a point where the system itself is in danger, and extremists are taking advantage.

The Constitution specifies a structure for government meant to sustain diversity, negotiations, and compromises. To that end it, it divides the Federal government into three branches, each with defined roles limited by checks and balances. It also defines checks and balances between Federal and State governments and between governments and citizens. It specifies a wall between church and state, which respects and supports a diverse community of competing religious and secular priorities. All of these checks, balances, and walls can be breached by a determined and organized political army supported by a frightened public seeking simple solutions to complex problems. Self-government, at its core, requires vigilance and a respect for compromise by citizens and elected politicians.

Political parties undermine consensus
The Constitution wasn’t designed for a nation with two political armies struggling for control of government. Its framers were overwhelmingly opposed to political parties because they understood, largely from England’s politics, that party loyalties frequently conflicted with the best judgments of individuals and the common good. Even so, they didn’t ban them. Human nature, the desire for expediency, and the comfort of the herd have left us struggling with two major parties since Jefferson’s Presidency.

Both parties, by their very existence, have altered and weakened constitutional government. They make it easier to pass laws with coerced party-line votes, but more difficult to reach consensus before doing so. To enhance their own stability, they gerrymander safe districts which shut out independents and centrists and over-represent extremists. These districts enable party hacks and party extremists to Continue reading →