Screening Agency Leaders

 

The transition to a new administration requires a close look at agency Senior Executives, many of whom already are flooding the transition team with endorsements from interest groups.

In addition to the usual reference checks, here are two suggestions for the transition team:

1. Ask the agency staff for input on managers’ leadership skills: (1) can they manage projects and people effectively; (2) do they support their staff; (3) are they innovative; and (4) are they fair. These few questions will expose both talents and faults rapidly.

2. Reject the conventional wisdom about how hard it is to remove poor managers. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which created the Senior Executive Service, gave the administration the tool: after the 120 day transition period, Senior Executives can be asked to relocate geographically, with two weeks’ notice. If they refuse, they have to leave the service, and revert to a lower GS position. A select number of such actions would send a powerful message to all executives.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

 

Hot buttons

 

In the last stretch of the campaign, Mr. McCain and his friends have been reaching for long discredited hot button slogans to energize his base. Just as his prior efforts to sling mud have not worked well, it appears that this new and desperate attack will fall short.

Still, one should note some of the problems with his language.

“Redistributing the wealth” is a bad thing, and sounds like “socialism.” Well, Mr. McCain, a progressive income tax has been part of our system for a really long time. You might even remember when it was established. At one time, the marginal tax rate on the very rich was 90%. More recently it was at 50% before reforms brought it down below 40%.

And why is progressivity reasonable? Our social compact and sense of mutual responsibility calls for those who can afford it to pay proportionately more than those who cannot. Do you really think that if multimillionaires paid a few hundred thousand dollars more in taxes, they would stop investing and trying to make more money? I doubt it. No, I suspect that you just are continuing the Republican tradition of trying to make the rich richer, at the expense of everyone else.

Extending the Bush tax cuts rewards the rich and punishes the rest of us. Is this how you fight for the regular guy?

Government itself is a mechanism for redistributing the wealth. We take income and reallocate it to national priorities, like defense, infrastructure, food safety, environmental protection and the like. Are you really a closet anarchist who wants no taxes and everyone on their own? If not, what level of taxes would be your bottom line? When would you stop cutting taxes? Would you limit the national government to the common defense and nothing else? If not, what else?

As for socialism, you certainly are aware of the Veteran’s hospital system. This is a government funded health care system, which competes with the private sector. One could call it socialism for the military. If you were consistent, shouldn’t you call for the abolition of this system? Will you? I doubt it.

In addition, isn’t the recent bail out of the financial system a socialist act? Getting the government into the heart of the business world? As one who believes in deregulation and the self-correcting nature of the free market system, shouldn’t you be calling to let the chips fall where they may, even if banks and companies go bankrupt in the process? The market will respond to consumer demand, even as individual companies fail, right?

As for Joe the plumber, whose name is not Joe and who is not a plumber, why do you continue the lie about Mr. Obama’s tax cuts, which you call a tax increase? If you simply say that meeting all his promises will require a tax increase, doesn’t this argument apply to you, too? Or, will you continue the Bush policy of spending money now by borrowing from the future, asking current voters to pay nothing more? Is this a responsible act, mortgaging our future, and burdening our children and grandchildren?

Enough. I’d respect the old McCain, who opposed the Bush tax cuts and supported some semblance of sound immigration policy. But that man has been eaten by the radical right of the Republican party. R.I.P.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

​

Questions for McCain

 

Mr. McCain, you supported the war in Iraq because you, like many others, thought that we were in imminent danger from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Well, he is gone, and there were no weapons of mass destruction. Are we still in imminent danger from Iraq? If not, what is our basis for staying there?

​

It is nice to want a stable democratic Iraq. Under international law, do we have a right to impose this on Iraqi citizens by force? How can tens of thousands of Iraqi dead and many more wounded be justified?How can thousands of American military dead and wounded be justified?

​

We know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. We know that Iraq is not the headquarters of Al Qaeda. The fight against terrorism is elsewhere: why do you want to continue this illegal and wrong-headed war?

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

​

Two Words To Worry By

 

The words are "Adlai Stevenson." Intelligent, qualified, courageous, and a loser to a simple military man. What is needed is a comfort with jokes, an emotional capacity for outrage, and a willingness to use punch lines and sound bites, rather than nuance. Be a fighter, don't say you are a fighter. People want a personal connection, beyond eloquence.

​

Attack radical Republicanism, rather than Bush, since McCain is running against Bush, too.

​

Radical Republicanism squandered a budget surplus, and created huge new debts, passing on the costs of war and tax cuts to our children.

​

Radical Republicanism shredded the Constitution, tortured people, spied on Americans,

claimed executive privilege to hide its misbehavior, cancelled treaties and waged illegal wars.

​

Radical Republicanism stomped on state rights, whenever states tried to do more than the federal level on business regulation and the environment.

​

Radical Republicanism wants to regulate the bedroom, but not the boardroom.

​

Radical Republicanism strives to make the world safe for business, while making it more dangerous for Americans.

​

Radical Republicanism deregulates, then bails out big businesses as too big to let fail. OK, let's go back to another time, and break up the oligopolies. Then, they won't be too big to fail. The public has paid for the risks, while the private has pocketed the profits. This has to stop.

​

Radical Republicanism favors the super rich over everyone else, forgetting the American Dream of egalitarianism.

​

McCain has contradicted his maverick positions to satisfy his base. McCain is a radical Republican. Palin is even more radical, and out of step with main street America.

​

This election IS about change. Change from Radical Republicanism back to main street values. Back to common purpose. Back to shared sacrifice. Back to the democratic ideal. Back to a government that serves the people. This is what Mr. Obama should be shouting about!

​

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

 

Mr. Obama Loses His Principles

 

The day after clinching enough delegates for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Obama spoke to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC long has been perhaps the strongest supporter of Israeli interests in the U. S., virtually to the point of indifference to right or wrong on issues. It can be characterized as “conservative,” and certainly not representative of the broad range of opinions in Israel.

Mr. Obama chose this moment to align himself with the right-wing views of AIPAC. This was widely seen by the media as pandering, and unnecessary. A strong leader does not have to compromise principle, while respecting other views. In this case, he demonstrated weakness, not strength.

Some excerpts from the speech, with my comments:

“We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work.”

Israel’s establishment may have been necessary in a sense: at that time, most countries did not want to accept Jewish refugees in large numbers. However, it is cruel to say that it was a just act, when it involved displacing indigenous people who had lived there for so long. This one statement was an insult to Middle Eastern Arabs.

“Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”

Recently, Mr. Obama has made many such statements about the threat of Iran, joining the crowd marching unthinkingly toward a confrontation with Iran. This language undercuts his assertions that he would use diplomacy, rather than the military, to deal with regimes we consider threats. It also exaggerates the threat Iran poses to the U.S or to Israel, as do so many hard-liners in the Administration and the media. Why cave on this issue, when one could stand up for a more reasoned approach?

“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.”

“Unshakeable”??? This limits the leverage we could bring to the table to promote human rights in Israel, at the least.

“I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation.”

Committing to a decade of military assistance to Israel is hardly a nuanced and flexible approach to foreign policy. Again, why was it necessary to make such an extreme statement at this time?

“We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.”

Democratic elections and local self-determination are ideals not easily compromised, but here Mr. Obama aligned himself with the Bush White House in rejecting the results of a fair election. In many other countries, previous terrorists have been brought into the political process, as a means of reconciliation and peace-making. Why reject this possibility in the case of Hamas?

“Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.”

At last, a gentle nudge toward balance in his approach.

“…but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

Here Mr. Obama endorses a theocratic form of government, contrary to the tradition of separation of church and state so valued in the U.S. He could have supported at least consideration of the one-state, democratic, option, but he again he chose the hard line. As for Jerusalem, why not consider once again international supervision of this unique world heritage city?

“If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”

Once again, Mr. Obama chooses the hard line on Iran, hardly the stance of a peace-maker. One must question the judgement of someone who so easily accepts the charge that the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. What is the utility of such a label?

Overall, it is puzzling why Mr. Obama chose an approach which so contradicts the principles he spoke for during the primaries. Surely, it was not to promote fund-raising for the Fall?

​

Thursday, July 3, 2008

Notes For An Obama Presidency

 

It is important to start the first term with some dramatic changes in the tone of the Presidency. For the executive agencies, where morale has fallen so drastically, here is one thought:

Start by issuing an executive order, which voids every executive order issued by Bush. It can be accompanied by an offer for the executive agencies to petition the President to restore any which actually made sense, or which promoted the people's interests.

The second step would be to order a review of Bush's "signing statements," with the intent of rescinding the most radical and destructive provisions. Respecting Congressional intent and the rule of law would be the motive.

These dramatic moves would announce the arrival of change in a big way.

​

Thursday, July 3, 2008

​

Why Barack Obama?

 

This was developed as a script for the Moveon.org "Obama in 30 Seconds" contest, but not produced:

(Still photos with pans over the pictures. Obama making speeches, audiences listening attentively, and so on.)

They say he speaks too well: it can’t be real.

They say his vision is too good: it can’t be practical.

They say he won’t fight back: not tough enough.

They say he should abandon his friends: he won’t.

They say a Chicago politician can’t be trusted: he's risky.

They say judgement is not enough: he lacks experience.

Eloquence, vision, dignity, loyalty, character, judgement: The right kind of experience.

Obama for President

​

Monday, April 14, 2008

​

​

Why Not Hillary Clinton?

 

Iraq: Her initial vote to authorize the Iraq war can be understood: a large majority of the Senate voted the same way. What is harder to understand is her consistent defense of that vote for the next three years, long after it was apparent that Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, and that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Even today, during the primary campaign, she has resisted stating that her vote was a mistake, instead saying that the issue was more complex than people appreciated. And, after initially refusing to commit to troop withdrawal by the end of her first term (January 2013), she toughened her position to be closer to Obama’s. Stubbornness and reluctance to admit a mistake?

Iran: Her subsequent vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization is much harder to understand. It was clear to many in Congress and the media that the White House was trying to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment, with little substance to back it up. The resolution was an obvious step toward military action against Iran, but she went along with it. Afraid to look weak?

On Iraq and Iran, has she been a fighter, standing up to the White House? No.

On Bush: On the Bush tax cuts, on torture, on domestic spying, on habeas corpus, on extraordinary rendition, on Abu Graib, on Guantanamo, has she been a fighter and a leader, standing up to the White House? No.

On the primary campaign: For over one year in the primary campaign, she focused on her experience as the reason to vote for her: she failed to convince voters in many states. Having failed to sweep the primaries on her experience, she turned to attacking her opponents. Her campaign has subtly but clearly played the race card in recent months, too. The negative approach has helped her, but at a cost: is it Presidential to mock and attack one’s opponents? Is this the behavior of someone who wants to unify and lead the whole country?

On experience: She has claimed 35 years of experience, virtually every day since she left school. Was every day truly an experience qualifying her for the Presidency? She has claimed a major role in negotiating peace in Ireland: others now question the primacy of her role. She has claimed the lead role in enacting the State Children’s Health Insurance Program: others now question whether she really was the lead in Congress. More recently, her claim to have landed under sniper fire in Kosovo simply turned out to be false, a story she has used several times during this campaign. Has she tended to exaggerate her roles and experience? Yes. Does this promote trust and appreciation for her integrity? No.

So, why not Hillary Clinton? For all of the above, for a history of waffling on issues, for her sense of outrage that anyone would challenge her claim to the Presidency, and in the end, for her lack of good judgement: No.
 

Thursday, April 3, 2008