General Motors, perhaps the greatest symbol of American manufacturing and business, filed for bankruptcy this morning amid a firestorm of massive debt, union disagreements, federal bailouts and gross mismanagement. A company whose stock was once synonymous with risk-free investing has vanished from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, its shining blue and chrome nameplate now tarnished, hanging crooked above the wreckage of a vacant factory in middle America. In many ways, a bittersweet victory for the grand theory of systemicide.
It seems fitting on this occasion of corporate failure to release to the world the Systemicide principles of un-management: a manifesto of business that casts aside traditional notions of order and hierachy in favor of an organic, natural, and reasonable code of human productivity that reflects a desire to create a happy, sustainable, and hyper-productive workplace.
- Divide the work calendar into manageable chunks.
People like university schedules because they are comprised of finite units with tangible outcomes and a foreseeable ending. Upon completion, they know that they will have sufficient leisure time to recharge their intellectual curiosity, to reflect upon what they have learned, and to celebrate other, often more social, aspects of their lives. This seems to create an environment where people are motivated to produce interesting and useful work, where they can see the rewards of that work, and where those rewards are directly tied to the quality that work. If a student finishes a particularly difficult semester and is rewarded with exemplary marks, the positive reinforcement is immediate and gratifying. The student will take the skills and strategies learned during that semester and identify ways to leverage them toward further success. Conversely, a student whose grades have suffered because of faulty or inefficient strategies is likely to identify the causes of poor performance and work to improve them in the future. This assumes, of course, that the student is interested in receiving the reward of good grades. Though this may not always be the case in a university setting, when we replace academic success in the form of grades with financial success in the form of monetary compensation, we find that the person in question will almost always be interested in the reward.
Why the business community has chosen to abandon this construct in favor of a never-ending cycle of homogeneous toil makes little sense to the manager interested in maximizing the potential and sustainability of his employees' efforts. Just like a university schedule, the business calendar should be divided into manageable chunks with substantial scheduled leisure time between them. While the exact structure of the calendar will undoubtedly vary based on the type of enterprise, the ideal structure is four quarters with at least two weeks of time off between them. While the thought of giving employees eight weeks off will cause most American managers' heads to explode, I'd be willing to bet that such a schedule would yield more productivity than the traditional American schedule. With strategic goals set for each quarter, projects that require completion within specific timeframes, and evaluations at the conclusion of each time chunk, employees are naturally incentivized to work hard, meet deadlines, and care about performance.
- Pay for performance, not time.
This one seems so simple, and yet it may be the most grossly misunderstood principle of productivity. If you pay people for time, the are naturally inclined to work slower. This lowers the effort they need o expend while at the same time increasing the amount of compensation they receive. Creating a system that rewards employees for producing less lowers profits, bores employees, stagnates growth, and stifles innovation.
This doesn't mean that employees need to be paid like contract workers who receive compensation only when they finish a project - that arrangement may encourage employees to rush through projects in order to buy groceries for the week, degrading the quality of the finished product even if more projects are accomplished in a given time. It simply means that you let employees go home when they're done. In almost all work situations, some days are lighter than others. Making employees stay until an arbitrary time won't increase productivity. More often than not, peer pressure will dictate when employees head home anyways. A focused, productive, and efficient day of work should be rewarded with an early dismissal, not penalized by an arbitrary chronology. Creating a culture where work is done in teams will serve to organically eliminate slackers, or at least to highlight their incompetence. When they make themselves visible, under-performers should be fired immediately. No performance, no pay.
- Incentivize ownership and reward success
The more connected people feel to their work, the better their work will be. Whenever possible, give employees the chance to take ownership over a task or project. In particular, allow junior employees to take leadership positions on projects that include senior employees. This serves several distinct purposes. First, it encourages junior employees to work hard because they won't want to appear incompetent in front of their higher-ups. Second, it gives the most talented employees a chance to separate themselves from the pack organically, without the divisive and poisonous effects of traditional hierarchical promotion. Third, it forces managers and senior employees to understand the strengths and weaknesses of junior team members, allows them to leverage their experience at all levels of the organization, and fosters an environment in which everyone, regardless of rank, is continually pushed to improve their skills. Lastly, it allows young, ambitious employees to feel as if every project is a new chance for success. Those who take ownership of projects that turn out to be exceptionally successful should be rewarded financially, optimally with a fixed percentage of revenue generated by their work. Rewarding success with money is important, but the reward must be directly proportional to success. Adherence to that simple rule of bonuses might have saved more than one Wall Street hegemon.
- Don't fight the seasons.
Despite a highly-technical and impeccably-engineered work space, and despite America's insistence on an anti-natural economy, humans are fundamentally affected by the seasons. Daylight savings time was a step in the right direction, but businesses can do even more to reflect these seasonal changes to keep their employees happy and productive. Shifting hours back in the winter time and forward in the summer (say starting at 10:30 in the dead of winter and 6:30 in the heat of summer)makes perfect sense from a physiological standpoint. Before the advent of the industrial revolution, this took place naturally - the sunrise would dictate the start of the work day. Recreating this cycle attaches people to the natural world, allows them to spend daylight hours with their friends and families when the weather is nice, and breaks up the mental drudgery that and monotonous delirium that accompanies most corporate schedules.
The type of work being done can also be segmented by season. Save the more clerical, dense, and grind-it-out tasks for the winter, when distractions are fewer, and utilize the spring and summer months for the more creative, innovative, and hands-on projects. Strategy and planning are best held off until the fall, when the days get shorter and humans are naturally prone to prudence and practicality. The human animal has been around much longer than the modern workplace, so why not change the latter to suit the former, instead of trying to reverse three million years of evolution?
- Engage and leverage your employees' other interests.
This doesn't mean simply encouraging them to read books in their free time, nor does it mean that blatantly unrelated tasks should be tolerated during work. Instead, employees should be prompted to find ways their outside interests can be related to their professional lives. Is World of Warcraft related to Financial Accounting? Probably not. But the expansion of virtual communities like W.O.W. and the market for virtual goods certainly is. How do we calculate inventory of virtual goods? What happens to the cash cycle when no physical product exists? Is computer software an asset, or a cost? And how does one calculate the liability of a flaming lava sword?
Even if they appear unrelated to core products or services, employees' interests can provide new and refreshing contexts within which to explore concepts and ideas that an organization encounters every day. Whether it's W.O.W., whitewater kayaking, knitting, or fiction writing, chances are there's a lesson or mantra that can be applied to whatever business you're in.
Ask employees to think about and look for these connections, however vague they may seem, and encourage them to present these 'case studies' of sorts, to their employees. Aside from getting them to think outside the box, it encourages team bonding and can be a nice way to break up a busy work week. And talking about what makes them happy makes people happy.
- Don't confuse ability with experience.
One is learned, one is innate. It's impossible to say which is more important, and valuable arguments can be made in favor of either. But they are distinct traits to be recognized and separated when possible. In sports, the difference between the two is easy to recognize. Sometimes a young superstar will blaze past an experienced defender on his way to the goal, or the endzone, or the basket. Other times, the experienced defender will take a better angle, or make a craftier play, and nullify the superior ability of his younger counterpart. Millions of examples of both instances exist. The winner is determined by circumstance, the equalizer. In business, the two are sometimes harder to differentiate. Experience can be the key to crafting a successful, stable deal, or finishing a project on time and on budget. Or it can be the blinders that prevent a manager from seeing the new and innovative methods his competitors are employing. Ability can be the incalculable intangible that pushes an stagnant company into the stratosphere, or it can be the hubris than plunges as sustainable one into debt.
The important thing is to realize that past experience doesn't always translate into future success, just as inexperience doesn't necessarily translate into certain failure. As with the sports, the results are largely situational. But remember, ability only gets experience when given the chance.
In retrospect, perhaps GM should have relied a little more on ability and a little less on experience. In the end, reliance on the tried and true formula turned out to be its failure. And as with the banks, it has taken a crisis to get the machine to stop moving long enough to assess its overall health. This is why the system is prone to crisis. Predisposed to catastrophe. Predestined to period failure. The successful and sustainable business of the future must take the time to pump the brakes and change the oil every few months. Just like the natural world in which it exists, it must recognize that seasons come and go, that cycles begin and end, and that value is neither created nor destroyed, but simply changes form.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
American Renaissance
A few months ago, the triggers were just starting set off alarm bells at systemicide and elsewhere. The edge of the financial crisis was just beginning to show its true colors, the presidential primaries were still at a fire pitch, and the depths of the Bush administration's mismanagement of the United States government prompted many to have simultaneous attacks of rage and panic. The America we had once imagined seemed far from reach, a distant and utopian cousin of the demented reality that lay around us.
And yet now, as we are beginning to get a fuller sense of the darkness which is about to enshroud our great nation in the form of economic suppression, there is a budding of optimism and renewal not often associated with the brisk winds of November. There cannot be a derision of the crisis we now face in the financial markets, markets that have reflected the childish and flippant attitude of policy makers and business people alike. The next administration will inherit a bevy of problems, all characteristic of a wholly unsustainable culture that will continue to face serious challenges in a rapidly changing world.
Barack Obama is poised to become the first black President of a country whose grandparent generation remembers segregation as commonplace and racism as policy. The false equation of progress and profit has revealed itself to be a great hoax, and the simple truths of ethics and humanity are proving themselves again to be the most important guidelines for our behavior. There was a great sense of guilty glee involved in the recent bubble, as young hedgefunders absconded with money they knew was essentially artificial and mortage giants continued to turn their backs on worst case scenarios and tested the limits of deregulation and modern market mechanics. The nature of this economic trend upward and downward will be taught in business classes for a long, long time.
Obama will, if he succeeds, have the unique and impossible task of leading a post-modern nation state embedded in a global economy into a new era of prosperity, sustainability, and dignity. Within this duty he will have to engage with and re-create nearly every major institution of our current systems of government and production, taking a mandate from the people of the United States. And he will be compensated with the most intense scrutiny ever directed at an executive figure in this country.
Because the nature of the task ahead is so gargantuan, so indescribably enourmous, Obama will be sure to fall short by the measures of some, and he will struggle at times to match the ideals of the public with the realities of their implementation. That all Americans believe in universal heath coverage as an ideal does not mean they are ready or willing to accept the fiscal and cultural implications of a working solution - higher taxes and the chance of a "socialist" tag.
Even in crises, however, there is opportunity. Rising from eight years of American deterioration, what we have stumbled upon in Barack Obama is a man of pragmatism and belief - a man whose judgment arises from a commitment to accurate information, prescient and competent advice, and a moral and ethical code that has been hardened and tested empirically and philosophically, in varied experience and careful contemplation. Yes, he is well-educated, in the traditional sense. He may even be guilty of the "intellectual" label often placed upon him by detractors and skeptics. But Barack Obama is a man who understands thorough preparation and vigorous study. He is also a man firmly grounded in the realities of American life, and as President of the United States his talents and methods will be employed in the service of the American people, and utilized to their fullest extent in the most pressing matters of our time.
On this election night, in this crucible of history, we will witness a change that has been too long coming. For those Americans who have been hurt, and wounded - you will be healed. To those Americans who have been swindled and lied to - you will be redeemed. To those Americans who have been marginalized and silenced - you will be heard. To those Americans who have been belittled, and disempowered - you will lifted up. To those Americans who have been disappointed and disenchanted - you will be vindicated. And to all of us - Americans - we will be gifted with a chance to recreate our nation in the image of its founders, to lift ourselves above the mire of warfare and the anxiety of recession, and to make for ourselves an America that once again may serve as a beacon of light and freedom that casts a reassuring, confident, and inspirational glow across our oceans and into the farthest reaches of the globe.
May God Always Bless America.
And yet now, as we are beginning to get a fuller sense of the darkness which is about to enshroud our great nation in the form of economic suppression, there is a budding of optimism and renewal not often associated with the brisk winds of November. There cannot be a derision of the crisis we now face in the financial markets, markets that have reflected the childish and flippant attitude of policy makers and business people alike. The next administration will inherit a bevy of problems, all characteristic of a wholly unsustainable culture that will continue to face serious challenges in a rapidly changing world.
Barack Obama is poised to become the first black President of a country whose grandparent generation remembers segregation as commonplace and racism as policy. The false equation of progress and profit has revealed itself to be a great hoax, and the simple truths of ethics and humanity are proving themselves again to be the most important guidelines for our behavior. There was a great sense of guilty glee involved in the recent bubble, as young hedgefunders absconded with money they knew was essentially artificial and mortage giants continued to turn their backs on worst case scenarios and tested the limits of deregulation and modern market mechanics. The nature of this economic trend upward and downward will be taught in business classes for a long, long time.
Obama will, if he succeeds, have the unique and impossible task of leading a post-modern nation state embedded in a global economy into a new era of prosperity, sustainability, and dignity. Within this duty he will have to engage with and re-create nearly every major institution of our current systems of government and production, taking a mandate from the people of the United States. And he will be compensated with the most intense scrutiny ever directed at an executive figure in this country.
Because the nature of the task ahead is so gargantuan, so indescribably enourmous, Obama will be sure to fall short by the measures of some, and he will struggle at times to match the ideals of the public with the realities of their implementation. That all Americans believe in universal heath coverage as an ideal does not mean they are ready or willing to accept the fiscal and cultural implications of a working solution - higher taxes and the chance of a "socialist" tag.
Even in crises, however, there is opportunity. Rising from eight years of American deterioration, what we have stumbled upon in Barack Obama is a man of pragmatism and belief - a man whose judgment arises from a commitment to accurate information, prescient and competent advice, and a moral and ethical code that has been hardened and tested empirically and philosophically, in varied experience and careful contemplation. Yes, he is well-educated, in the traditional sense. He may even be guilty of the "intellectual" label often placed upon him by detractors and skeptics. But Barack Obama is a man who understands thorough preparation and vigorous study. He is also a man firmly grounded in the realities of American life, and as President of the United States his talents and methods will be employed in the service of the American people, and utilized to their fullest extent in the most pressing matters of our time.
On this election night, in this crucible of history, we will witness a change that has been too long coming. For those Americans who have been hurt, and wounded - you will be healed. To those Americans who have been swindled and lied to - you will be redeemed. To those Americans who have been marginalized and silenced - you will be heard. To those Americans who have been belittled, and disempowered - you will lifted up. To those Americans who have been disappointed and disenchanted - you will be vindicated. And to all of us - Americans - we will be gifted with a chance to recreate our nation in the image of its founders, to lift ourselves above the mire of warfare and the anxiety of recession, and to make for ourselves an America that once again may serve as a beacon of light and freedom that casts a reassuring, confident, and inspirational glow across our oceans and into the farthest reaches of the globe.
May God Always Bless America.
A New American Manifesto
The Struggle Against the System
We must use the vantage point we have attained to look back upon our past and out further over our future, holding those most personal freedoms of life and liberty closest to the bosom in perfect union with the collective values of a human race. The day has come again when we must usher America into a new age of honesty and cooperation; we must see her through this transition with the utmost of collectivism and reassurance. We must open the floodgates of public discourse and shed the burdens of political correctness. We must talk openly and honestly about the problems between us and the problems beyond us. We must address our failures as a society and work towards mutually beneficial relations of security in peace, harmonious social interactions, and concordance with natural law. A day has dawned upon a new century of Americans, a people who will lead the world into a brightening epoch of collective human consciousness based on our commonalities and not our differences; when we become the most forward-thinking society in history, built upon the foundations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and conducted by the most basic rules of human interaction: honesty, empathy, and survival.
We must use the vantage point we have attained to look back upon our past and out further over our future, holding those most personal freedoms of life and liberty closest to the bosom in perfect union with the collective values of a human race. The day has come again when we must usher America into a new age of honesty and cooperation; we must see her through this transition with the utmost of collectivism and reassurance. We must open the floodgates of public discourse and shed the burdens of political correctness. We must talk openly and honestly about the problems between us and the problems beyond us. We must address our failures as a society and work towards mutually beneficial relations of security in peace, harmonious social interactions, and concordance with natural law. A day has dawned upon a new century of Americans, a people who will lead the world into a brightening epoch of collective human consciousness based on our commonalities and not our differences; when we become the most forward-thinking society in history, built upon the foundations of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and conducted by the most basic rules of human interaction: honesty, empathy, and survival.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Much Thunder, Little Rain
Sarah Palin speaks. And says nothing.
Despite the appearance of what is being lauded as a "home-run" speech by Sarah Palin last night, the truth of the matter is that she had little to say about anything that will matter to the American people in her possible role as vice president. Aside from mocking quips and underhanded shots at Senator Obama, Palin gave voters no reason to suggest that she is ready to run the nation in a time of crisis. In fact, for those concerned with her foreign policy record, the message was downright scary.
Political analysts seem to be in agreement about the changing nature of the Vice Presidency itself; and in the last two administrations it has been an office of considerably more influence than perhaps was originally intended. For good or ill, the VP has taken on the role of foreign policy front-person, dealing with crises and often being dispatched to volatile regions on short notice. Able to maintain a schedule that is more flexible than the chief executive's, the Vice President in the twenty-first century may often be the first point of contact for foreign leaders seeking U.S. assistance or shunning U.S. influence. After a speech in which she compared herself to a pitbull, emphasized her fear-stricken love of firearms, and actively embraced her simpleton, down-home Americanism, the prospect of sending Sarah Palin to the Middle East is terrifying.
What we should have learned from 9-11 is that our way of conducting business has brought the ire of millions across the world. Yes, there are extremists who seek only to destroy order. Yes, there are terrorists in the world whose plans are directed against all those who don't share their radical views, and these are not men who are likely to be dissuaded by a lovey-dovey approach to international relations. But to ignore the fact that our actions and patterned behaviors are alienating much of the developing world will only perpetuate the resentment that has been building for years. While I respect Gov. Palin's achievements and find her toughness and candor a refreshing departure from politics as usual, the thought of her brash and unrefined political tact being employed as the voice of American diplomacy is unsettling, to say the least.
Shifting gears to domestic policy, Gov. Palin's message last night was full of the same misleading rhetoric the McCain camp has reverted to since it became obvious they could not win an issues-based campaign. Instead of discussing policies in specific detail and making comparisons to Sen. Obama's proposals, we heard a simple-minded scare tactic approach. "Obama will raise taxes," "Obama will take your jobs," "Obama has no experience." It's the oldest trick in politics, and it amounts to nothing less than a smear campaign that deliberately and knowingly misleads the public. The messages are aimed at those voters who will watch one or two speeches a campaign season, to those whose educational backgrounds prevent them from understanding the complexities beyond these vapid assertions, and to those whose fears about a black President make them ready and willing to latch on to any reason to oppose him. For all her jabs at the opposition candidate (whom she neglected to call by name), Palin failed to explain how her ticket might help the same people she sought to scare.
Yet despite all this low-minded rhetoric and lack of principled speaking points, it was something entirely different that outed Palin as a completely ignorant and downright stupid candidate. Alongside the vomit inducing "drill baby drill" chant that had Rudy Guiliani cackling like the soulless mongrel he is, Palin's promise to expand drilling and open more "clean coal" coal plants by the end of January in a McCain-Palin administration was infuriating for an environmentalist. This is fatalistic talk. Clean coal? Seriously? How can the most polluting and unhealthy of fossil fuels come anywhere close to being called clean? And the assertion that we've "got lots" of oil and natural gas on American soil misses the point entirely. "Lots" is an outright lie - the amount of oil on U.S. soil would be exhausted in less than 20 years at the current rate of consumption. And the thought that it's as easy as drilling a standard well to find it is a gross simplification of the level of exploration necessary to find oil and natural gas that may be nearly impossible to extract. The scale and scope of environmental destruction that goes along with this type of raping and pillaging cannot be underestimated. This is not the talk of a tree-hugging, bird-loving hippie but a practical and pragmatic assessment of cost versus benefit. In classic Republican style, if the costs outweigh the benefits, the course should be abandoned. It seems when Big Oil is involved, however, the equation changes. Drilling in ANWAR and other environmentally sensitive regions is not a surefire way to produce more oil, but is a surefire way to keep enormous profits flowing from government contracts directly into the pockets of oil profiteers. If Americans want to see us stuck in the twentieth century and want their grandchildren to suffer the effects of an administration that continued to destroy our natural environment until it was nearly unliveable, then by all means, they should vote McCain/Palin.
Though it's hard to imagine a presidential campaign lowering itself to the high-school prom committee level the McCain camp now finds itself staring at head on, something tells me we haven't seen the worst. Expect all-out attacks on Sen. Obama, outright lies about his past and experience, and more deriding attacks on his Ivy-League education and ability to talk without using the phrase y'all or stumbling over his own words like a blundering idiot. We have turned to corner on this election, and the homestretch will see the re-emergence of all the tactics of dirty politics. It is my prediction that the Obama camp is preparing itself a suit of fine rhetorical armour, and I can only hope that this time the American people will realize they are being duped by a republican party which has no interest in their most basic needs.
Despite the appearance of what is being lauded as a "home-run" speech by Sarah Palin last night, the truth of the matter is that she had little to say about anything that will matter to the American people in her possible role as vice president. Aside from mocking quips and underhanded shots at Senator Obama, Palin gave voters no reason to suggest that she is ready to run the nation in a time of crisis. In fact, for those concerned with her foreign policy record, the message was downright scary.
Political analysts seem to be in agreement about the changing nature of the Vice Presidency itself; and in the last two administrations it has been an office of considerably more influence than perhaps was originally intended. For good or ill, the VP has taken on the role of foreign policy front-person, dealing with crises and often being dispatched to volatile regions on short notice. Able to maintain a schedule that is more flexible than the chief executive's, the Vice President in the twenty-first century may often be the first point of contact for foreign leaders seeking U.S. assistance or shunning U.S. influence. After a speech in which she compared herself to a pitbull, emphasized her fear-stricken love of firearms, and actively embraced her simpleton, down-home Americanism, the prospect of sending Sarah Palin to the Middle East is terrifying.
What we should have learned from 9-11 is that our way of conducting business has brought the ire of millions across the world. Yes, there are extremists who seek only to destroy order. Yes, there are terrorists in the world whose plans are directed against all those who don't share their radical views, and these are not men who are likely to be dissuaded by a lovey-dovey approach to international relations. But to ignore the fact that our actions and patterned behaviors are alienating much of the developing world will only perpetuate the resentment that has been building for years. While I respect Gov. Palin's achievements and find her toughness and candor a refreshing departure from politics as usual, the thought of her brash and unrefined political tact being employed as the voice of American diplomacy is unsettling, to say the least.
Shifting gears to domestic policy, Gov. Palin's message last night was full of the same misleading rhetoric the McCain camp has reverted to since it became obvious they could not win an issues-based campaign. Instead of discussing policies in specific detail and making comparisons to Sen. Obama's proposals, we heard a simple-minded scare tactic approach. "Obama will raise taxes," "Obama will take your jobs," "Obama has no experience." It's the oldest trick in politics, and it amounts to nothing less than a smear campaign that deliberately and knowingly misleads the public. The messages are aimed at those voters who will watch one or two speeches a campaign season, to those whose educational backgrounds prevent them from understanding the complexities beyond these vapid assertions, and to those whose fears about a black President make them ready and willing to latch on to any reason to oppose him. For all her jabs at the opposition candidate (whom she neglected to call by name), Palin failed to explain how her ticket might help the same people she sought to scare.
Yet despite all this low-minded rhetoric and lack of principled speaking points, it was something entirely different that outed Palin as a completely ignorant and downright stupid candidate. Alongside the vomit inducing "drill baby drill" chant that had Rudy Guiliani cackling like the soulless mongrel he is, Palin's promise to expand drilling and open more "clean coal" coal plants by the end of January in a McCain-Palin administration was infuriating for an environmentalist. This is fatalistic talk. Clean coal? Seriously? How can the most polluting and unhealthy of fossil fuels come anywhere close to being called clean? And the assertion that we've "got lots" of oil and natural gas on American soil misses the point entirely. "Lots" is an outright lie - the amount of oil on U.S. soil would be exhausted in less than 20 years at the current rate of consumption. And the thought that it's as easy as drilling a standard well to find it is a gross simplification of the level of exploration necessary to find oil and natural gas that may be nearly impossible to extract. The scale and scope of environmental destruction that goes along with this type of raping and pillaging cannot be underestimated. This is not the talk of a tree-hugging, bird-loving hippie but a practical and pragmatic assessment of cost versus benefit. In classic Republican style, if the costs outweigh the benefits, the course should be abandoned. It seems when Big Oil is involved, however, the equation changes. Drilling in ANWAR and other environmentally sensitive regions is not a surefire way to produce more oil, but is a surefire way to keep enormous profits flowing from government contracts directly into the pockets of oil profiteers. If Americans want to see us stuck in the twentieth century and want their grandchildren to suffer the effects of an administration that continued to destroy our natural environment until it was nearly unliveable, then by all means, they should vote McCain/Palin.
Though it's hard to imagine a presidential campaign lowering itself to the high-school prom committee level the McCain camp now finds itself staring at head on, something tells me we haven't seen the worst. Expect all-out attacks on Sen. Obama, outright lies about his past and experience, and more deriding attacks on his Ivy-League education and ability to talk without using the phrase y'all or stumbling over his own words like a blundering idiot. We have turned to corner on this election, and the homestretch will see the re-emergence of all the tactics of dirty politics. It is my prediction that the Obama camp is preparing itself a suit of fine rhetorical armour, and I can only hope that this time the American people will realize they are being duped by a republican party which has no interest in their most basic needs.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Palin in the Face - The Long-Awaited Death of the G.O.P.
Boy Oh Boy.
As Sarah Palin prepares to speak at the RNC tonight, and as millions of people prepare to tune in an judge her, we are confronted with an appalling reality. Not since the selection of Dan Quayle as Bush 41's running mate have we seen such a bizzare twist of events, and not since Monica Lewinsky have we seen so much attention paid to the personal escapades of a political figure or his or her relatives. Such is the dirty game of politics.
So who is Sarah Palin?
The question of the hour, it seems. Why, in his wildest dreams, would John McCain have passed up Mitt Romney, who seems like the only viable candidate for a campaign that is mired in the filth of a dirty election, the legacy of an unpopular president, and the stigma of an elderly candidate? Despite what may be said about Gov. Palin herself, the move is at best reactionary, at worst desperate.
If the selection of Palin is meant to curry favor with supporters of HIlary Clinton, then the McCain camp failed to realize that her proponents were so staunchly loyal that they took great offense at the prospect of throwing support behind her party's own candidate. What makes them think they will be ready and willing to defect to a campaign that throws her most important issues under the bus? While Palin's appointment to the ticket was certainly aimed at quieting the anti-choice cohort, it appears as if the McCain campaign forgot that abortion rights are one of Senator Clinton's biggest issues, alongside healthcare reform and equal pay for equal work. As much as Clinton supporters can be said to represent perhaps the most annoying, aggressive, and abrasive contingents in the history of American politics, they are not stupid. They understand that the Republican party will stop at nothing to curry favor amongst the very populace they love to exploit. They understand pandering tactics when they see them, and they understand that Gov. Palin's nomination represents an attempt to categorically qualify all women as a single demographic. I have faith that they will reject this debasing and sexist assumption on the part of the McCain campaign.
Putting aside her gender, Gov. Palin's selection could be explained as a move to satisfy the social conservatives who so emphatically rejected the nomination of Tom Ridge (R-NJ) or Joe Lieberman (R - Conn.), the two figures it is widely reported were Senator McCain's first choices. And yet her limited track record and skimpy political resume make it uncertain what she would do if pressed into duty. The recent revelations about her family's personal life, including the completely botched handling of daughter Bristol's pregnancy, will call her conservative values further into question, even if we agree that such matters are of a baser nature that ought not to be considered. This is the American political machine, however, and if the McCain camp is going to use negative ads and Karl Rove -style tactics, it should expect nothing less of its opponents. Had the GOP nominee caught wind of an unfaithful Obama, there is no doubt that its subversive hit men would have staged nothing less than a complete character assassination before the verdict of truth could even begin to be examined. While some conservatives, particularly in the South, will be drawn to Gov. Palin's story and that of her daughter, there are opinions floating in the dark somewhere, being whispered in back rooms and private parlors. I suspect they will take on the same grotesque nature as the unmentionable but tangibly present characterizations about Barack Obama that go on behind closed doors. And in the voting booth, there are no censors, no politically correct gauges, no collective shame.
The third argument for Gov. Palin centers around her supposed reputation as a reformer, an agent of change. The party line paints a picture of a superstar mom who conquered the PTA en route to a fiery and aggressive mayoral stint that changed the nature of her hometown's politics. Once becoming governor, she pursued a reformist agenda that put Alaska back into the hands of its citizens and beyond the behest of special interests that sought to exploit it. Very convincing rhetoric. Really good stuff. Yet the McCain campaign managers didn't have the benefit of time in the task of preparing their remarks, and the media has punched a number of holes in this oh-so-appealing facade. Palin was once part of a movement to force a vote on Alaska's secession from the union. She was a key player in the Bridge-to-Nowhere debacle that saw Alaska's resources become a bargaining chip for corporate interests. She has repeatedly played to the whims of Big Oil, and is an avid proponent of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, even as the arctic ice shelf disappears on a new daily basis (News today shows an alarmingly large portion of the ice sheet has broken into the Arctic sea, a trend that not only confirms global warming but has the potential to accelerate it. Gov. Palin has said that "the jury is still out" on climate change). While these allegations don't necessarily mean that Palin isn't a reformer (she certainly is a "Washington outsider), it does cast a strange light on this year's Republican ticket, a ticket that is, in a word, fuckin' confusing.
What is this ticket? What does it represent? Experience, or New Blood? Is it Women's Rights, or Pro-Life? Is it for Tradition, or for Change? The choice of Palin as VP was a calculated gamble - and it has failed. What's left is a Party divided that doesn't know what it stands for, has no idea what it wants to be, and can't find an issue to stand on. A geriatric candidate and an unqualified vice-president seem to have little chance against the most impressive grassroots organizing machine ever seen. We have heard little if anything from the Obama camp since the announcement of Palin's nomination, and the silence is no mistake. Barack is hard at work on the campaign trail in Ohio, courting voters on a one to one basis, listening to the working people who the Republican party is targeting. But the G.O.P. is living up to only to the last two letters of its acronym, and have outed themselves as severely out of touch with what the nation wants. There is no time in 2008 to fuddle with political gimicks and radical gambles. The democratic party has presented a candidate who is viable, eloquent, and prepared. He has delivered a consistent and comprehensive message that appeals to voters of all ages, classes, and genders. We have seen the face of a candidate and a campaign that is organized, directed, and thoughtful. We have seen the rebirth of a politics that shuns the character assassinations, mudslinging, and interest lobbying of the recent past. We have seen a candidate with the ability to lead a new American into a new century - a century that will be defined by our collective integrity and conviction and marked by the unusual American capacity for innovation and evolution. No matter what Sarah Palin says tonight, she has been dragged onto a sinking boat - and brought with her some seriously heavy baggage.
If the RNC has seemed to you like a sideshow, you are not alone. A flat crowd, a slew of white, wrinkled faces, and a complete disregard for the issues at hand. The G.O.P. is crumbling before us, victim of an uncertain strategy, an unspectacular candidate, and a frightening adherence to the politics of the past. Like a washed up prize fighter struggling to his feet, the Republican Party is calling on the ghost of Reagan to win it one last fight - but this time it's too late. The inbred swine have failed to realize the folly of their ways, and they will sit be sitting at their television sets on November 8th with their bottles of swill when the new dawn shines on an America represented by hard work and integrity that is healthy, smart, and sustainable.
So enjoy your sideshow, G.O.P. - but the real deal is here to stay.
As Sarah Palin prepares to speak at the RNC tonight, and as millions of people prepare to tune in an judge her, we are confronted with an appalling reality. Not since the selection of Dan Quayle as Bush 41's running mate have we seen such a bizzare twist of events, and not since Monica Lewinsky have we seen so much attention paid to the personal escapades of a political figure or his or her relatives. Such is the dirty game of politics.
So who is Sarah Palin?
The question of the hour, it seems. Why, in his wildest dreams, would John McCain have passed up Mitt Romney, who seems like the only viable candidate for a campaign that is mired in the filth of a dirty election, the legacy of an unpopular president, and the stigma of an elderly candidate? Despite what may be said about Gov. Palin herself, the move is at best reactionary, at worst desperate.
If the selection of Palin is meant to curry favor with supporters of HIlary Clinton, then the McCain camp failed to realize that her proponents were so staunchly loyal that they took great offense at the prospect of throwing support behind her party's own candidate. What makes them think they will be ready and willing to defect to a campaign that throws her most important issues under the bus? While Palin's appointment to the ticket was certainly aimed at quieting the anti-choice cohort, it appears as if the McCain campaign forgot that abortion rights are one of Senator Clinton's biggest issues, alongside healthcare reform and equal pay for equal work. As much as Clinton supporters can be said to represent perhaps the most annoying, aggressive, and abrasive contingents in the history of American politics, they are not stupid. They understand that the Republican party will stop at nothing to curry favor amongst the very populace they love to exploit. They understand pandering tactics when they see them, and they understand that Gov. Palin's nomination represents an attempt to categorically qualify all women as a single demographic. I have faith that they will reject this debasing and sexist assumption on the part of the McCain campaign.
Putting aside her gender, Gov. Palin's selection could be explained as a move to satisfy the social conservatives who so emphatically rejected the nomination of Tom Ridge (R-NJ) or Joe Lieberman (R - Conn.), the two figures it is widely reported were Senator McCain's first choices. And yet her limited track record and skimpy political resume make it uncertain what she would do if pressed into duty. The recent revelations about her family's personal life, including the completely botched handling of daughter Bristol's pregnancy, will call her conservative values further into question, even if we agree that such matters are of a baser nature that ought not to be considered. This is the American political machine, however, and if the McCain camp is going to use negative ads and Karl Rove -style tactics, it should expect nothing less of its opponents. Had the GOP nominee caught wind of an unfaithful Obama, there is no doubt that its subversive hit men would have staged nothing less than a complete character assassination before the verdict of truth could even begin to be examined. While some conservatives, particularly in the South, will be drawn to Gov. Palin's story and that of her daughter, there are opinions floating in the dark somewhere, being whispered in back rooms and private parlors. I suspect they will take on the same grotesque nature as the unmentionable but tangibly present characterizations about Barack Obama that go on behind closed doors. And in the voting booth, there are no censors, no politically correct gauges, no collective shame.
The third argument for Gov. Palin centers around her supposed reputation as a reformer, an agent of change. The party line paints a picture of a superstar mom who conquered the PTA en route to a fiery and aggressive mayoral stint that changed the nature of her hometown's politics. Once becoming governor, she pursued a reformist agenda that put Alaska back into the hands of its citizens and beyond the behest of special interests that sought to exploit it. Very convincing rhetoric. Really good stuff. Yet the McCain campaign managers didn't have the benefit of time in the task of preparing their remarks, and the media has punched a number of holes in this oh-so-appealing facade. Palin was once part of a movement to force a vote on Alaska's secession from the union. She was a key player in the Bridge-to-Nowhere debacle that saw Alaska's resources become a bargaining chip for corporate interests. She has repeatedly played to the whims of Big Oil, and is an avid proponent of drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, even as the arctic ice shelf disappears on a new daily basis (News today shows an alarmingly large portion of the ice sheet has broken into the Arctic sea, a trend that not only confirms global warming but has the potential to accelerate it. Gov. Palin has said that "the jury is still out" on climate change). While these allegations don't necessarily mean that Palin isn't a reformer (she certainly is a "Washington outsider), it does cast a strange light on this year's Republican ticket, a ticket that is, in a word, fuckin' confusing.
What is this ticket? What does it represent? Experience, or New Blood? Is it Women's Rights, or Pro-Life? Is it for Tradition, or for Change? The choice of Palin as VP was a calculated gamble - and it has failed. What's left is a Party divided that doesn't know what it stands for, has no idea what it wants to be, and can't find an issue to stand on. A geriatric candidate and an unqualified vice-president seem to have little chance against the most impressive grassroots organizing machine ever seen. We have heard little if anything from the Obama camp since the announcement of Palin's nomination, and the silence is no mistake. Barack is hard at work on the campaign trail in Ohio, courting voters on a one to one basis, listening to the working people who the Republican party is targeting. But the G.O.P. is living up to only to the last two letters of its acronym, and have outed themselves as severely out of touch with what the nation wants. There is no time in 2008 to fuddle with political gimicks and radical gambles. The democratic party has presented a candidate who is viable, eloquent, and prepared. He has delivered a consistent and comprehensive message that appeals to voters of all ages, classes, and genders. We have seen the face of a candidate and a campaign that is organized, directed, and thoughtful. We have seen the rebirth of a politics that shuns the character assassinations, mudslinging, and interest lobbying of the recent past. We have seen a candidate with the ability to lead a new American into a new century - a century that will be defined by our collective integrity and conviction and marked by the unusual American capacity for innovation and evolution. No matter what Sarah Palin says tonight, she has been dragged onto a sinking boat - and brought with her some seriously heavy baggage.
If the RNC has seemed to you like a sideshow, you are not alone. A flat crowd, a slew of white, wrinkled faces, and a complete disregard for the issues at hand. The G.O.P. is crumbling before us, victim of an uncertain strategy, an unspectacular candidate, and a frightening adherence to the politics of the past. Like a washed up prize fighter struggling to his feet, the Republican Party is calling on the ghost of Reagan to win it one last fight - but this time it's too late. The inbred swine have failed to realize the folly of their ways, and they will sit be sitting at their television sets on November 8th with their bottles of swill when the new dawn shines on an America represented by hard work and integrity that is healthy, smart, and sustainable.
So enjoy your sideshow, G.O.P. - but the real deal is here to stay.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Solid as Barack - The Candidate and Foreign Policy
"Obama's resume on foreign policy is thin."
True. But how does a junior senator gain an extensive resume in this arena? Without being appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, it's hard to imagine what experience he might cite to show how seasoned in these matters he is. And yet there are millions of political science professionals whose resumes are equally thin, and yet somehow manage to predict correctly the interactions of nation-states and international institutions. There are patterns to international relations (aka foreign policy) and a limited number of basic tools to be used when solving complex problems that occur between states and governments. Each situation is different and requires any number of myriad techniques to solve it. I find it hard to believe that just because Obama hasn't sat on the same number of congressional hearings as his opponent, his decision-making ability is any less adept. In fact, exactly because Obama isn't tied to a particular way of doing things, I think that he will be able to react in a more thoughtful, probably more effective and less violent manner.
Another thing to think about is the role that perceptions play in international politics. A state must act based on the information it has available ( i.e. intelligence reports, statistics, and historical tendencies), but it must also act on the basis of its perceptions of what the other state in question is likely to do. Gauging the level of action to be taken necessarily requires a calculation (or at least educated guess) of the reaction. Therefore, any state choosing to interact with America will gauge its actions based on its perceptions of how America will react to that action. Is it not safe to say that an Obama-led government will be perceived differently than a Bush/McCain-led America?
Take the example of the current situation in Georgia. The U.S. is coming down hard on Russia for invading a smaller, democratic neighbor whose strategic importance revolves largely around oil production and transportation. If not for the wafer-thin veil of democratization, the conflict in Iraq is exactly that - except that country is far from being our neighbor, and isn't full of people who identify themselves as "American." This is not a justification of Russia's behavior - I believe that the sanctity and sovereignty be respected at all times unless human rights are being violated on an immense scale. But Russia's behavior is clearly an attempt to show the world - and the United States - that unilateral action isn't a right reserved for the U.S. and only the U.S. I have a feeling that Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Georgia would reflect this reality, and take steps toward finding a compromise that was in the best interest of both Georgia and Russia. Ethnic Russians may very well desire to be part of Russia, and not Georgia. Despite the rhetoric of John McCain (who sounds like he would have already issued an Executive Order to start WWIII when he talks about this) there is more to this conflict, and to all others, than a simple response of "we must protect young democracies." Yes, we should aspire to promote democratic government across the globe. But we must realize first hat democracy doesn't always take an American form, and second, that sometimes democratic methods reveal unrest and division within a state like Georgia, one that has been drawn together and pressed into a single mold like glass lamp glued back together. It looks fine on the table as long as nobody touches it.
Just because Barack hasn't been immediately involved in the official decision making process doesn't mean he won't understand these intricacies. Furthermore, his only high-profile foreign policy experience is marked by his refusal in 2003 to vote for the Iraq war. Like Mike Tyson after his first fight, Obama's record may be thin, but the one thing on it is a knockout. And what's more, it seems apparent that Obama will realize the need to be thoroughly and independently informed when a crisis does occur. A more efficient Security Council, alongside a cabinet appointed on merit and not party affiliation will serve him well. While the President is ultimately charged with the success of failure of any diplomatic or military action, there are more than a few hands on every policy question, a plethora of opinions to be weighed and considered. Imagine that scenario in the White House for each candidate:
McCain, sitting in the Oval Office, grinding his teeth when Iran or some other nuclear power makes a push to invade some bullshit country or otherwise upset the established order. Fighting his gut instinct to fire the missiles, he begins to steam ever-more as advisor after advisor pushes into the office with his or her informed opinion. Like an autistic fourth-grader, I'm willing to bet that McCain will flip out, start shitting in drawers, and get so mad that his bulldog-esque jowells swell up like watermelons. Getting so mad and frustrated by this flood of information, McCain kicks all of his aids out and makes the decision on his own, cackling madly as he puts on his camouflage facepaint and prepares to invade North Korea and Iran simultaneously, setting off a round of nuclear retaliations that makes Hiroshima look like Newton Center. A little far fetched, perhaps, but you get the Idea.
Barack, on the other hand, has called all of his advisors in together, and stands in front of his desk in a contemplative but strong stance. Asking each of his consultants for all the information they can provide in their relative areas of expertise, he begins to formulate several possible response options. When each of his advisors has spoken, he dismisses them all but a few close aides and the joint chiefs. Together, they come up with between three and five possible responses, each of which utilizes a number of different approaches. Ranking them from most aggressive to least aggressive, they then present these options to the re-assembled specialists and ask them to identify the immediately obvious flaws in each proposal. Narrowing the options down to one or two hybrid responses, Obama dismisses the crowd, asks for one last opinion from each of his most trusted three or four advisors, and then makes the decision he sees fit, based on the evidence that has been provided. This is the difference between a thinking, articulate, well-trained lawyer and political science, and an entrenched politician and military man whose thinking is restricted by age, habit, and interests.
One solution is reasonable and logical and provides the best chance of a non-violent resolution; the other is a predictable , hair-trigger response designed to fit the needs of a out-dated and out-moded system of international relations that sees force as the basis of all relationships between states.
Which option sounds better to you?
True. But how does a junior senator gain an extensive resume in this arena? Without being appointed to the Senate Foreign Relations committee, it's hard to imagine what experience he might cite to show how seasoned in these matters he is. And yet there are millions of political science professionals whose resumes are equally thin, and yet somehow manage to predict correctly the interactions of nation-states and international institutions. There are patterns to international relations (aka foreign policy) and a limited number of basic tools to be used when solving complex problems that occur between states and governments. Each situation is different and requires any number of myriad techniques to solve it. I find it hard to believe that just because Obama hasn't sat on the same number of congressional hearings as his opponent, his decision-making ability is any less adept. In fact, exactly because Obama isn't tied to a particular way of doing things, I think that he will be able to react in a more thoughtful, probably more effective and less violent manner.
Another thing to think about is the role that perceptions play in international politics. A state must act based on the information it has available ( i.e. intelligence reports, statistics, and historical tendencies), but it must also act on the basis of its perceptions of what the other state in question is likely to do. Gauging the level of action to be taken necessarily requires a calculation (or at least educated guess) of the reaction. Therefore, any state choosing to interact with America will gauge its actions based on its perceptions of how America will react to that action. Is it not safe to say that an Obama-led government will be perceived differently than a Bush/McCain-led America?
Take the example of the current situation in Georgia. The U.S. is coming down hard on Russia for invading a smaller, democratic neighbor whose strategic importance revolves largely around oil production and transportation. If not for the wafer-thin veil of democratization, the conflict in Iraq is exactly that - except that country is far from being our neighbor, and isn't full of people who identify themselves as "American." This is not a justification of Russia's behavior - I believe that the sanctity and sovereignty be respected at all times unless human rights are being violated on an immense scale. But Russia's behavior is clearly an attempt to show the world - and the United States - that unilateral action isn't a right reserved for the U.S. and only the U.S. I have a feeling that Barack Obama's response to the crisis in Georgia would reflect this reality, and take steps toward finding a compromise that was in the best interest of both Georgia and Russia. Ethnic Russians may very well desire to be part of Russia, and not Georgia. Despite the rhetoric of John McCain (who sounds like he would have already issued an Executive Order to start WWIII when he talks about this) there is more to this conflict, and to all others, than a simple response of "we must protect young democracies." Yes, we should aspire to promote democratic government across the globe. But we must realize first hat democracy doesn't always take an American form, and second, that sometimes democratic methods reveal unrest and division within a state like Georgia, one that has been drawn together and pressed into a single mold like glass lamp glued back together. It looks fine on the table as long as nobody touches it.
Just because Barack hasn't been immediately involved in the official decision making process doesn't mean he won't understand these intricacies. Furthermore, his only high-profile foreign policy experience is marked by his refusal in 2003 to vote for the Iraq war. Like Mike Tyson after his first fight, Obama's record may be thin, but the one thing on it is a knockout. And what's more, it seems apparent that Obama will realize the need to be thoroughly and independently informed when a crisis does occur. A more efficient Security Council, alongside a cabinet appointed on merit and not party affiliation will serve him well. While the President is ultimately charged with the success of failure of any diplomatic or military action, there are more than a few hands on every policy question, a plethora of opinions to be weighed and considered. Imagine that scenario in the White House for each candidate:
McCain, sitting in the Oval Office, grinding his teeth when Iran or some other nuclear power makes a push to invade some bullshit country or otherwise upset the established order. Fighting his gut instinct to fire the missiles, he begins to steam ever-more as advisor after advisor pushes into the office with his or her informed opinion. Like an autistic fourth-grader, I'm willing to bet that McCain will flip out, start shitting in drawers, and get so mad that his bulldog-esque jowells swell up like watermelons. Getting so mad and frustrated by this flood of information, McCain kicks all of his aids out and makes the decision on his own, cackling madly as he puts on his camouflage facepaint and prepares to invade North Korea and Iran simultaneously, setting off a round of nuclear retaliations that makes Hiroshima look like Newton Center. A little far fetched, perhaps, but you get the Idea.
Barack, on the other hand, has called all of his advisors in together, and stands in front of his desk in a contemplative but strong stance. Asking each of his consultants for all the information they can provide in their relative areas of expertise, he begins to formulate several possible response options. When each of his advisors has spoken, he dismisses them all but a few close aides and the joint chiefs. Together, they come up with between three and five possible responses, each of which utilizes a number of different approaches. Ranking them from most aggressive to least aggressive, they then present these options to the re-assembled specialists and ask them to identify the immediately obvious flaws in each proposal. Narrowing the options down to one or two hybrid responses, Obama dismisses the crowd, asks for one last opinion from each of his most trusted three or four advisors, and then makes the decision he sees fit, based on the evidence that has been provided. This is the difference between a thinking, articulate, well-trained lawyer and political science, and an entrenched politician and military man whose thinking is restricted by age, habit, and interests.
One solution is reasonable and logical and provides the best chance of a non-violent resolution; the other is a predictable , hair-trigger response designed to fit the needs of a out-dated and out-moded system of international relations that sees force as the basis of all relationships between states.
Which option sounds better to you?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
An Ode To The Loop, 25 G, and the Legendary P
When we spoke it came out in waves, push after push of thought and expression without a hint of cynicism, critics of our world from the inside out. there was a distinct feeling that we were on the brink of something real, a constant aching for the engines of social change. there was no real explanation for our feelings - we had it all - but there was a strange and persistent twinge inside each of us, a splinter in our collective side that reminded us, somehow, of that which we could not account for. there were days ahead that we could not predict, and we were wary of the system they might place us in. the shackles of adulthood we becoming real, just as we were beginning to understand the expansive freedom of youth. so, naturally, we threw them aside with force and waded deeper into our lives, determined to emerge unscathed, as if walking through a waterfall dry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)