It's Not Rocket Science

It's doesn't take much to ascertain the motivations behind Republican criticism of Susan Rice.  It's not that she is unfit to serve, although she is not necessarily the perfect candidate.  Clearly Ms. Rice's mis-statements pale compared to Condezela Rice's over Iran, and she was easily elevated to become George Bush's Secretary of State.   Perhaps, just perhaps, Republicans are trying to force President Obama into nominating John Kerry, the sitting Senator from Massachusetts.  Could all of this be over the opportunity to gain a Republican Senator in the election that would follow his selection?  Could it be?

Ethics is About Doing Not Training

The Secretary of Defense has ordered a review of ethics training for military officers in the wake of the Petraeus affair.  Ethical behavior, however, is not trained.  To be sure, everyone who takes the training will be able to cite chapter and verse of what is ‘expected’ of a military officer.  I'm also quite sure that officers will pay much more attention to the unwritten rules regarding behavioral expectations.

Sometime after the Iran-Contra affair, as the CIA’s Director for Training and Education, I was instructed by a senior CIA official to develop and ethics course of all CIA officers.  In reply I stated that the content of the 'ethics' to be 'trained' had to come from the seventh floor and that senior officials had to be careful in delineating the ethical guidelines they wished to be promulgated.  I pointed out that the first thing people were going to do was speculate whether the Agency’s senior leaders were walking the talk.  Not surprisingly, I never heard back from the requester.   In truth I would have loved to have received a mandate to oversea the generation of a set of ethical norms that could be blessed from the top.  In truth it is probably better to do without a set of written norms than to publish norms which are routinely violated without sanction.  Extramarital affairs by military officers would probably fall into this latter category.

 In the best of all worlds, organizational leaders would establish and maintain ethical norms by walking the talk and punishing transgressors.  Ethical norms do exist, and often these norms serve as the glue that binds and defines organizations.  These norms, however, are a subset of what is often put down on paper.  The review called for by the Secretary of Defense will likely be a paper exercise with little impact on the behavior of military officers.

The ethical rules governing the Petraeus are clearly stated.  The fact that General Petraeus sought to keep his position once the affair was exposed speaks to the divergence between ‘rules’ and acceptable behavior.  He decided to resign only after being told by another former general officer, James Clapper (The Director for National Intelligence) that ”resigning was the honorable thing for him to do", given his former rank and present position as Director of the CIA.

How Is America Looking in the Eyes of the World

 American “exceptionalism” was first trumpeted in 1831 by the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who lauded our emerging nation’s unique ideology based on limited government, liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, and populism.   America became the destination of Europeans tired of being politically and religiously oppressed by theocratic despots and economically oppressed by the privileged ruling classes.  America offered the opportunity for economic progress based on effort rather than class standing.  It was the ‘golden door’ as immortalized on the base of the Statue of Liberty.

In European eyes, America’s promise continued well into the twentieth century.  In 1941 FDR articulated to the world America’s support for four fundamental freedoms– speech and expression, worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.  Subsequent Administrations, with bipartisan support, endeavored to mitigate economic and political discrimination against minorities and to provide economic safety nets to the recently unemployed and to families with dependent children.  Steps were taken to ensure health coverage to the aged, the young and low income earners.

Over the last decade, however, government programs to secure ‘freedom from want’ have been increasingly called into question.  Many now feel that government economic guarantees serve as a disincentive to the personal industry and accountability they considered critical to America’s successes.  Concomitantly, the rapid increase in the share of income going to richest Americans has resulted in increased attention to ‘class warfare’.  Conflicts over the appropriate role for government currently now take center stage in the political arena.

West Europeans, in contrast, have remained widely supportive of a different social compact.  They are accepting of higher tax burdens and a relative leveling in incomes in order to assure economic well being and economic opportunity for all citizens.  Individual liberties are protected by institutionalizing the tolerance of differences. Governments are trusted to do the bidding of the people.

West European governments walk the talk when it comes to personal liberty and tolerance.  Throughout most of Western Europe, abortion is legal upon request, or exceptions are made for rape, health, mental illness, and fetal defects.  All West European countries have either legalized  gay marriage or same-sex civil unions.

West Europeans consider it essential to ensure that all of their fellow countrymen have access to a basic standard of living.   Access to health care is considered as a right not a privilege.    Minimum wages are set at levels that allow workers to stand on their own two feet.  West Europeans see an American income distribution heavily skewed in favor of the richest classes, an American middle class under siege, and lower classes unable to gain access to basic necessities.

 West Europeans understand the importance of education to upward mobility, which studies have shown is now greater than in the United States.  The quality of public education is relatively standardized throughout each nation, while college tuition is either free or heavily subsidized:  many American students, however, are disadvantaged by inadequate public schooling or find themselves priced out of a college education.
Europeans look to and trust government to provide a wide range of services on their behalf, and accept a heavy tax burden to get the job done.  They view the American political system as being rendered ineffective by partisanship, noting that American confidence in its Congress is at record lows.  West Europeans also see the increased influence of American moneyed interests in engineering legislation and influencing electoral outcomes.  They read about actions taken by states to potentially limit voter access to the ballot box.
Americans tend to be dismissive of European attitudes across the board, and are loath assess our nation’s strengths and weakness vis-à-vis other countries.

Most Americans feel government has become too costly: many Americans believe there are limits as to what behaviors should be tolerated in order to maintain the American way.    The prospect of increasing taxes on the majority of Americans in order to address current financial problems, broaden entitlement programs, or substantially improve educational quality seems beyond the pale, regardless of the political party in power.

We are truly a great country, capable of great deeds.  We remain the richest and most powerful nation on earth. We are a warm, welcoming, and engaging people.  We are ‘can do’.  Although a 21^st century de Tocqueville would be quick to acknowledge America’s accomplishments and its unique role on the world’s stage, one wonders whether he would continue to characterize America as exceptional vis-à-vis West European countries.   West Europeans clearly have problems of their own, but –unlike here - they have resolved the conflicts over the appropriate role for government in ensuring economic security, educational equality, and individual choice.

The Right Misses a Key Point on Taxes

A number of pundits, particularly on cable TV, talk about the power shifting to a nation of takers.  The unstated part of this premise is that the rich will be burdened to satisfy the 'demands' of those who cannot fend for themselves.  Framed in this way it is all out class war.

There is, however, another paradigm.  Progressives believe that the state should ensure some standard of support to all citizens and they are willing to pay for this support in the form of higher taxes.  Although President Obama is currently pushing for higher taxes only on the rich, I do believe the middle class will also accept higher tax burdens.  This is a multi- step process (a) higher taxes on rich and cuts on spending, (b) tax reform which will, at worst, be revenue neutral, (c) review of Medicade, Medicare, Social Security, education with a decision as to the appropriate end state.

Tuesday's Choice

 President Obama’s performance over the last four years has been bittersweet:

• He did not take advantage of Congressional majorities when he had them.  Invoking reconciliation rules would have allowed the curtailment of the Bush tax cuts on the rich. 
• Simply put, he does not like conflict and the Republicans, sensing this, gave him more than he could handle.   He did not use the Bully pulpit to push through the programs he said he would push through when running for office.  The American people believe he would not compromise with the right to get bills passed:  why did he not trumpet the right’s intransigence at the time so he could run against Congress and seek a Democratic congress this time around.  Where was Lyndon Johnson when you needed him?  Did Obama put his passion in a jar once elected?  
• He did not explain things to the American voter: it is criminal that Obama care was so misunderstood.  He allowed the right to define his signature program.
• He did little to effectively end the misery of those whose houses were under water making them unable to refinance their homes at reduced interest rates.  Laws were passed, to be sure, but they clearly didn’t do the trick.  He should have stayed on top of the situation.  It would have been nice if the Federal government directly lent people funds rather than ‘work’ through recalcitrant banks who had little interest in refinancing high interest loans.
• He did not fight for the unemployed when his jobs bill became hung up in Congress.  This was an important bill and he should have taken his case to the American people.  People suffered because of his capitulation.

On the flip side, President Obama demonstrated his ability to make sound decisions, and accept the risk of political failure should things not pan out.   

• The Detroit bail-out was done quickly and effectively.
• He said he would be tough on terrorists and he was.  While restoring US credibility as a team player on most international issues, he was ruthless when it came to terrorists.
• He is well reasoned and calm when things get tough: witness the response to Sandy.
• I envision a re-elected Obama as taking a different tack with Congress, but frankly do not look for any landmark legislation over the next four years.  In order to get things done you have to be willing to go to the mat.  I think he will remain too cautious.  On the other hand, I am comfortable that things will not get out of hand internationally.  Washington’s central role in maintaining economic safety nets will continue.

It is hard to discuss Mitt Romney because I have no idea what he will do as President based on the total inconsistency of his rhetoric.

• Based on his Massachusetts experience, I see him as a moderate leader.  However, I am nervous about his ‘pliability’ and wonder whether he will stand up neoconservatives and those who call for major cutbacks in government roles. 
• I worry that pushing responsibilities back on the states will lead to permanent damage to the safety nets which have evolved.  [For me it is important that citizens be able to get medical care when ill and that children receive the support they need to develop the potential to succeed as adults.]  
• Lastly, Mitt Romney has demonstrated, at a minimum, an inability to relate to the concerns and needs of most Americans: at best he holds callous and dismissive attitudes toward those that struggle to make it.  This I personally cannot abide in a President.

 There you have it… Obama is the choice but not without some reservations.

Big Bird and the 47 Percent

Governor Romney’s statement that Big Bird would have to go, may turn out to have the same traction as his earlier discussion of the 47%.   There are a lot of government programs that may be of questionable value, but I don’t think Sesame Street sponsorship falls into this category.  Cancelling funding for PBS spotlights the depth of the Republican commitment to cutting government spending independent of any thoughtful cost-benefit analysis.  

President Romney’s comments about trickle down government stem from the right’s view that the national government role should be limited to national security – where a significant spending boost is promised- and to a limited set of functions required to ensure the effective operation of the private economy.  If people wish greater government involvement-say universal health care- than they should be addressing their concerns to their respective state governments. 

This narrow reading of the Constitution’s mandate for the federal government to “promote the general welfare” may have a philosophical attraction for many, but we are not starting from scratch.  For better or worse, people have come to expect the support of their national government when they are hit by disasters, or are having trouble in feeding, clothing, housing their families as well as obtaining adequate health care.  Until now, Republican and Democratic administrations have adhered to the social contract that has evolved out of President Roosevelt’s response to the devastating effects of the Great Depression.  

Suggesting that States should shoulder the burdens is, at best, naive.   It ignores the potential that stage governments will not choose to pick up the role currently played by Washington.  Just look at the number of States who choose not to expand Medicaid support provided by Obamacare, even though the federal government was picking up 90% of the tab.   Moreover, states do not have and will not be granted the ability to run deficits.  In the worst of times, when government is most needed, States will be forced to cut spending due to reduced tax revenues.

If the states are, in fact, united than perhaps it would be best to have national solutions to national problems.  Do we really want a country where people are treated differently depending on the state they live in?  Do we really want a country where states are loath to establish programs out of fear that the disadvantaged will be encouraged to relocate within state borders?  When our country was founded, moving between states was a life changing event, often requiring weeks if not months of travel.  Today most states are reached within three days of driving.

Big Bird will be safe no matter what.  The fact of the matter is that donations can make up the difference. The same cannot be said for the social contract that has evolved over the last century.    As much as they would like to, the right cannot walk back the clock.  It makes for a good sound bite and has the support of many who do not require federal assistance.  In practice it is impractical and incredibly divisive: the attempt would most certainly lead to a push back led by a populist leader focused on restoring if not expanding the federal safety net at the expense of the 53%.

What I wanted Obama to Say

President Obama seemed off his game last night.  I don't think he really enjoys conflict one-on-one in the first place.  He also forgot he was in a debate... facts don't win debates, debaters do.  If I were there I would have focused on a couple of provocations.

• Firstly I would have pointed out that Governor Romney plans to cut the Federal Budget by moving programs to the states.  The implication is clear: do you trust your state government to pick up the slack or are you afraid that once States have to pick up the bill that Medicare and Medicaid will fall fall short of what people will need and have come to expect.  I would have used examples of State Medicaid actions that have deprived individuals of certain types of health care, for example providing an otherwise healthy thirty-year-old with a Kidney transplant.  States cut budgets when times get tough: God forbid you get sick during a recession.  Provide evidence as to what states have done during this recession: laying off people, cutting services.  There is a point to be made here.   Bottom Line: who do you trust folks.
• Secondly, I would point out that national problems require national solutions.    States that are more 'generous' with Medicaid will find people flowing to their borders, business will migrate to non-regulated regions and the like.  At the end of the day 'competition' will cause a 'race to the bottom'.  
• Thirdly, I would have come up with a zinger, and repeatedly used it, every time Romney provided a solution that didn't add up.  President Obama slipped in a couple, but did not have the heart for it.  "There you go, waving your manic wand again, promising lower taxes, reduced deficits, increased defense spending, and substantially higher employment without one iota of evidence as to how all of this can be done. "  I did like the line about why -if their plans are so good- the Republicans are keeping them secret.  "Where's the beef" would also work for me!
• Lastly, I would harp on the fact that Romney doesn't get it when it comes to the average person.  Push the 47% issue, point out that he has no idea how hard it is for people to make ends meet, to struggle on a daily basis.

President Obama has to remember that he has to stand up to Governor Romney on behalf of the people he represents.  He may be disappointed in his performance during the first four years, but he can't show it.