Events in the past ten years suggest that there is but one issue on which Americans agree: it is the economy. The 2008 recession generated consensus and action. While the action was not universally supported, the need for action was accepted.
Contrast the obsession with fixing the economy with any other topic in American politics and I would assert that there is no consensus and consequently no action. Meanwhile we have a racist President who cannot even own up to racist statements he makes in front of witnesses. He lies continually and has a majority party backing him. Virtually no one in the Republican party defends the racism or the lying. Why? The "Economy" is good, and that is all that matters.
"Economy" is a difficult word. In Wikipedia, a reference statement is: 'The economy is defined as a social domain that emphasizes the practices, discourses, and material expressions associated with the production, use, and management of resources'.
Americans use various indicators to justify their opinion about the economy. Is the unemployment number low? Are interest rates low? Is inflation low? Then there is the stock market. In general, Americans accept a judgment that the economy is sound or good if these boxes are checked properly. Now we are even getting into the next tier of numbers. Are wages up? Are healthcare insurance premiums 'reasonable' (we are conditioned to expect that they will always increase)? Are taxes low?
Notice the absence of discussion about related topics, including national debt, social spending, infrastructure repair. Yes, there is some discussion about income inequality. In San Diego, the homeless problem is at an all time high, and there has been no progress on it, even though it has been highlighted for many years. Wild fires, water scarcity, affordable housing, immigration, opioid crisis, education, all are subordinate to 'the Economy.' The underlying ethos is that we cannot address any problems unless 'the Economy' is sound. But this ethos runs deeper. It is the belief that when the economy is sound, all problems will be solved. The 'invisible hand' of capitalism will solve problems through market mechanisms, through supply and demand.
We have likely always been this way, and I am only now acknowledging this reality. Each culture brings its own beliefs into practice. Our culture is that the all-mighty dollar will fix all things. More abstractly, the free market will fix all things.
A case can be made that there is no general approach for all problems. Certainly the scale of a problem is related to the scale of the solution that is needed.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Leadership and Succession Planning in Politics
Trump's disastrous presidency elicits yelps from the electorate about how such a debacle could have occurred. The excuses are numerous: the flawed opponent, Russian interference, fake news, social media targeting both voter encouragement and voter suppression. How about blaming Obama's leadership?
What, you say? President Obama was a great President and leader. He had a remarkable eight years without scandal, with high economic growth, withdrawal from two wars, the Paris Climate Accord, a TransPacific Trade agreement, DACA and healthcare reform. Even the size of the deficit was shrinking.
Yes, I agree with these achievements. But Trump's election put the whole legacy at high risk, including some that were not previously at risk. Immediately, the Supreme Court changed, with other appointments a heartbeat away with the aging other justices. All of the Executive branch is in complete reversal. And I blame Obama.
You see, a forgotten feature of leadership is succession planning. It is an activity that was part of my management training back in the early eighties, but it seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Leadership development is seen as an essential function to the long term health of the organization.
In US history, the first succession planning occurred without any codification, but it worked out well. The Secretary of State would likely be the individual best known to foreign nations, so when President Jefferson declined a third term, Secretary Madison succeeded. Likewise, Secretary Monroe, and Secretary John Quincy Adams. Perhaps the electoral college understood the importance of foreign nations understanding and accepting the fledgling US government in this habit. Andrew Jackson's ascendency broke that tradition, perhaps signaling the electorate's sense that internal expansion and conflict was a more relevant priority, therefore creating the desire for a strong military leader. But this is a side discussion for the present.
US politics is replete with aging fossils prioritizing their own aggrandizement over the long term success of the Republic. California has Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein who have been excellent leaders in their time. But it is clear that succession planning is not part of their leadership agenda, and where will that leave their legacy? In the case of Obama, he hired Hilary Clinton for Secretary of State, harkening back to the early days of the Republic. But he should have sensed that foreign affairs was not the arena most at risk.
Looking at the rest of Obama's cabinet, except for John Kerry, who had already lost a bid for Presidency, there is no obvious successor, though I wonder why Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke would not have been a good choice to groom for succession. Perhaps it was the feeling of entitlement that Hilary should be the successor that prevented effective mentoring. But a good organization looks to recruit new people and groom them for all levels of leadership.
As the dismemberment of Obama's legacy continues, we may again learn the value of recruiting, mentoring, and planning for succession.
What, you say? President Obama was a great President and leader. He had a remarkable eight years without scandal, with high economic growth, withdrawal from two wars, the Paris Climate Accord, a TransPacific Trade agreement, DACA and healthcare reform. Even the size of the deficit was shrinking.
Yes, I agree with these achievements. But Trump's election put the whole legacy at high risk, including some that were not previously at risk. Immediately, the Supreme Court changed, with other appointments a heartbeat away with the aging other justices. All of the Executive branch is in complete reversal. And I blame Obama.
You see, a forgotten feature of leadership is succession planning. It is an activity that was part of my management training back in the early eighties, but it seems to have gone the way of the dodo. Leadership development is seen as an essential function to the long term health of the organization.
In US history, the first succession planning occurred without any codification, but it worked out well. The Secretary of State would likely be the individual best known to foreign nations, so when President Jefferson declined a third term, Secretary Madison succeeded. Likewise, Secretary Monroe, and Secretary John Quincy Adams. Perhaps the electoral college understood the importance of foreign nations understanding and accepting the fledgling US government in this habit. Andrew Jackson's ascendency broke that tradition, perhaps signaling the electorate's sense that internal expansion and conflict was a more relevant priority, therefore creating the desire for a strong military leader. But this is a side discussion for the present.
US politics is replete with aging fossils prioritizing their own aggrandizement over the long term success of the Republic. California has Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein who have been excellent leaders in their time. But it is clear that succession planning is not part of their leadership agenda, and where will that leave their legacy? In the case of Obama, he hired Hilary Clinton for Secretary of State, harkening back to the early days of the Republic. But he should have sensed that foreign affairs was not the arena most at risk.
Looking at the rest of Obama's cabinet, except for John Kerry, who had already lost a bid for Presidency, there is no obvious successor, though I wonder why Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke would not have been a good choice to groom for succession. Perhaps it was the feeling of entitlement that Hilary should be the successor that prevented effective mentoring. But a good organization looks to recruit new people and groom them for all levels of leadership.
As the dismemberment of Obama's legacy continues, we may again learn the value of recruiting, mentoring, and planning for succession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)