Archive for category: Musings

“Are there issues where compromise is justified, but others where it is not?” That is a question that my friend Tom Tiahrt asked me in response to my most recent musing (Forfeiting Today for a Political Tomorrow).

It depends on what you mean by the word “compromise.” In my very first Blog musing (Compromise: A Good or Bad Idea in Politics?), I suggested that “compromise is a temporary yielding in an ongoing political process,” quoting with approval President Obama’s definition: “Compromise means yielding on something each of us cares about to move forward on something all of us care about.”

The recent action of Congress dealing with debt reduction and the raising of the debt limit enables me to provide a good concrete illustrative example of when I think compromise is a good idea in politics, in preparation for my response to Tom’s question.

Assuming for the sake or argument (or just for laughs) that I am a member of the Senate or House of Representatives, here is a summary of some beliefs to which I am deeply committed that pertain to this national budget issue.

•  The debt limit needed to be raised immediately to avoid the U. S. defaulting on its financial obligations.
•  Initial steps needed to be taken to cut the current level of spending to put government on a path to “living within its means.”
•  Actual cuts in spending should be such that necessary services for the most needy and vulnerable among us (e.g., the poor and elderly) are not decimated and all segments of society share fairly in whatever sacrifices need to be made.
•  Steps needed to be taken to reform the Tax Code so that all citizens and corporations are “paying their fair share” of the revenues needed for effective governing.
•  In the long run, the only viable solution to our debt problem is some variation of the “balanced” approach that President Obama has proposed, which includes a combination of a reduction in governmental spending and an increase in tax revenues brought about by appropriate tax reform (e.g., it is my understanding that the closing of tax loopholes and the elimination of special tax breaks could increase tax revenues while actually reducing individual and corporate tax rates).

In light of my strong commitment to these beliefs, would I vote in favor of the budget bill recently taken by Congress? If you are asking whether I believe that this bill, by itself, comports well with all of the beliefs I summarize above, my answer is definitely “no.” My first two beliefs seem to have been adequately addressed (for now); but steps to implement my last three beliefs are noticeably absent (for now).

But if you are asking whether I believe that, given the dynamics of the present “divided government” in Washington, this was an acceptable first step toward an eventual long-term balanced solution that could conceivably fit well with all of my beliefs, then my answer is “yes;”primarily because it does not preclude the possibility that the bipartisan Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction that will be carrying out the future second step could come back to Congress with proposed legislation that fairly shares the sacrifices that need to be made, that requires everyone to pay their fair share of the revenue needed, and that creates a reasonable balance between further expenditure reductions and increased tax revenues. And this may not be as pollyannish as it seems because of the good trigger mechanism that will create automatic drastic reductions in expenditures that those on both sides of the aisle will abhor if Congressional deliberations on the recommendations of the Select Committee reach an impasse.

So, if I were a member of the House or Senate, I would have voted for the budget bill that was just passed. Would such a positive vote on my part reflect a “compromise” of my deeply held beliefs on the budget issue, as sketched above? No, because I view my vote as being the best that could be accomplished in Congress at this point in time, while also taking a first step that keeps open the possibility of eventual legislation that will comport with all the relevant beliefs to which I am strongly committed. If this bill that included only reductions in spending with no increased tax revenues was the end of the story, rather than just a first step, then I would have fatally compromised my most deeply held beliefs by voting for it, and my vote would have been “nay.”

In light of the above concrete example, my response to Tom’s question is that there are particular issues where compromise is not justified, because such compromise deals a fatal irretrievable blow to my deeply held commitments, and there are particular issues where compromise is justified because the “half-a-loaf” (or less) that I am getting is judged by me to be the best that can emerge from the messy political process at this point in time, and the present compromise is such that it holds open the real possibility that there will eventually be legislation that comports more fully with my deeply held beliefs.

My illustrative example should reveal that I can offer no cook-book rules as to when compromise, as I understand it, is called for. It depends on the present political landscape and your sense of what first-steps can be taken now toward the realization of a future that you wish to strive toward in light of your most deeply held beliefs.

The airwaves are filled with charges and counter-charges as to which politicians are, or are not, providing leadership in attempting to resolve the impasse relative to the need to reduce the federal budget deficit. As we seek to sort through these contrasting voices, we do well to reflect on the nature of effective leadership.

An effective leader is driven by a vision, a dream as to how bad things can become good and good things can become better. To be always satisfied with the status quo is to settle for being a manager and not a leader. Rather than saying “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” an effective leader says “whether it’s broke or not, let’s work to improve it.”

A leader committed to improving on the present state of affairs does not wait around for others to take initiatives for change. He or she must be able to carefully articulate the need for change, a vision for the desired end result of such change, and a viable game plan for accomplishing that desired end.

But a common mistake made by would-be leaders is that once such a vision and game plan have been articulated, then it is the responsibility of the leader to “just do it,” effecting change from the top down. The fatal flaw in that command-and-control approach to leadership is that the quality of the change that is brought about will only be as good as the giftedness of the boss.

In stark contrast, consider the type of leadership that Parker Palmer suggests Jesus exemplified, a form of leadership that fosters community (The Active Life: A Spirituality of Work, Creativity, and Caring, p. 138)

Jesus exercises the only kind of leadership that can evoke authentic community—a leadership that risks failure (and even crucifixion) by making space for other people to act. When a leader takes up all the space and preempts all the action, he or she may make something happen, but the something is not community. Nor is it abundance, because the leader is only one person, and one person’s resources invariably run out. But, when a leader is willing to trust the abundance that people have and can generate together, willing to take the risk of inviting people to share from that abundance, then and only then may true community emerge.

The strength of this collegial approach to leadership, in addition to fostering community, is that it creates the potential for the end result to be as good as the combined giftedness of all members of the community being led.

That is the kind of leader I aspired to be during 22 years as an academic administrator in Christian higher education. Others will have to judge the extent to which I did, or did not live up to that lofty aspiration. In retrospect, I had my share of failures. But, to make all of this more concrete, let me share a strategy I found to work many times. My friends called this “Harold getting his oar in the water.”

When I had a vision for significant institutional change, I didn’t wait around for someone else to take the initiative. I did not hesitate to plant a first seed by suggesting to an appropriate faculty committee or task force the need to examine a particular academic program, policy, or procedure for which they had been delegated responsibility. However, I didn’t just suggest a topic for their consideration. I also had a second seed to plant. With my request for their consideration, I initially came to the committee/task force with a first draft of my present thinking about the issue at hand. What I would then say to the committee/task force was in effect the following: “Here is my present best thinking about this issue. It is now in your capable hands. I expect you to come up with a proposal for eventual faculty action that is better than what I have just given you, a proposal that reflects the best thinking of all of you, not just one person. If you come to the faculty with exactly my proposal, I will be disappointed.”

I then was careful to give the committee or task force the freedom to chew up my initial proposal and improve on it (possibly leading to a variation that I hardly recognized).  When the committee/task force eventually developed a draft that was ready for faculty discussion, their draft went to the whole faculty for an “open hearing,” during which the faculty could provide significant input. After the open hearing, the committee/task force went back to the drawing board, making revisions in their draft that reflected the best thinking of the entire faculty. When a final draft came to the faculty for a vote, it was no longer my proposal, nor was it the proposal of the committee/task force. The whole faculty had shaped it and owned it. How could they vote against a proposal they had so much input into shaping? Of course, this process involving seemingly endless conversations requires much time and patience, but the quality of the result justifies that commitment. To those readers of a more impatient bent, I leave you with a question we used to pose in the aerospace industry: “Why is there never time to do it right the first time, but always time to do it over again?”

There was a precondition that was met in these academic settings that explains the frequent success of this collegial leadership strategy. Neither I, as Chief Academic Officer, nor the faculty began the deliberative process with unyielding, fixed positions on the issue at hand. We were all open to the possibility of learning from one another so that the final result could reflect the best thinking of all members of the academic community.

Unfortunately, meeting that precondition seems to be a remote possibility in our current political climate. Unyielding, fixed positions seem to be so prevalent that my attempts at providing visionary leadership in the academy can be likened to a Sunday School Picnic when compared to the present task of our politicians seeking to find a resolution to our current budget deficit. But if you resonate with the above reflections about the nature of leadership, you can form your own views as to whether President Obama or congressional leaders are, or are not, providing political leadership. If you believe my views on effective leadership are all wrong-headed, or couldn’t possibly work in the political realm, then I welcome your comments.

The recent exchange between Israeli Prime Minister Netantahu and President Obama did not bode well for the possibility of renewing conversations toward the ultimate goal of a two-state solution in which a state of Israel lives in peace and security with a contiguous Palestinian state.

But against all odds, I believe that conversation can be resumed if both sides will commit to two pre-conditions for conversation. I don’t mean pre-conditions as to what the results of the conversation should be. That is anathema to me because you cannot predict beforehand the results of a genuine conversation. Rather, I refer to two pre-conditions that, if not met up-front, will make it impossible to have a fruitful conversation.

The first pre-condition is that there needs to be general agreement as to the purpose of the conversation. Both Israelis and Palestinians need to agree that the ultimate goal is to create two states that can live in peace and security with one another. It does not appear that this pre-condition has been met.

In brief, in light of the recent reconciliation between the Fatah Party and Hamas, and the official position of Hamas that a state of Israel does not have right to exist, it remains to be seen whether the Palestinian Authority will recognize the right of Israel to exist as a state. To not acknowledge this right is tantamount to rejecting the goal of creating a viable two-state solution, rendering it impossible to re-start a conversation toward that end.

This was Netanyahu’s point when in his recent speech to the U. S. Congress, he said that he will accept a Palestinian state, but he is waiting for Mahmoud Abbas, the President to the Palestinian Authority,  to say, “I will accept a Jewish state.” Netanyahu went on to say that when he hears these six words, “Israel will then be prepared to make a far-reaching compromise.” That remains to be seen. But we will never know if that is possible until there is initial agreement that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist.

The second pre-condition is that each side not come to the table with fixed, unyielding positions on the issues that need to be discussed. There must be openness on the part of both parties to the possibility of revising one’s initial position on a particular issue in light of the initial position of the other.

Once again, it remains to be seen whether this pre-condition will be met. I illustrate by reporting on what I heard Netanyahu and Obama say relative to the possibility of starting a conversation about borders.

I heard President Obama propose that renewed conversation should start with the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, but with adjustments through mutually agreed upon land swaps to take into account Israeli settlements, pointing out that Israel and the Palestinians may have to swap territory on either side of this border to account for the large Jewish settlements that have taken root in the West Bank since 1967.

In his initial response to Obama’s proposal regarding borders, I heard Prime Minister Netanyahu say that for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders would make it “indefensible,” and, in addition, such a proposal does not take into account what has happened on the ground in the last 44 years.

In this initial exchange, Netanyahue and Obama were obviously talking past each other, because Obama did not say the pre-1967 borders were the end of possible negotiations. Rather, they were a starting point for conversation, with adjustments to be made (mutually agreed upon land swaps) based on what has happened on the ground for the past 44 years.

One journalist called Obama’s proposal for mutually agreed upon land swaps a “nuance” that “Netanyahu simply ignored” (Steven Lee Myers, “Divisions are Clear as Obama and Netanyahu Discuss Peace,” New York Times Reprints, May 20, 2011). But to be fair, I found that many journalists also ignored this nuance in their reporting on this Obama/Netanyahu exchange. Why is that?

It is my perception that nuance does not play well, either in politics or the media. Rather, unyielding fixed positions play well. To rally your political constituents around your position on a controversial issue or to sell airtime or newspapers, stark either/or contrasting fixed positions are taken, allowing little room for talking about nuances that that could lead to a viable middle-of-the road position.

The good news is that in his later speech to the U. S. Congress, Netanyahu did acknowledge this nuance. To be sure, it may be an impossible dream to think that Israel and Palestine can come to “mutual agreement” about such land swaps, and that they can then continue talking about other major areas of disagreement, such as the status of Jerusalem and the return of Palestinian refugees. But first addressing this nuance about borders could at least get the conversation started once again. And, once again, you cannot predict beforehand the results of a genuine conversation.

Despite the apparently intractable nature of the ongoing conflict, I hold tenaciously onto the hope that if both sides will acknowledge the right of both states to exist, and if they will avoid crippling either/or unyielding fixed positions and start talking about what some erroneously dismiss as mere nuances, fruitful conversations can yet begin toward the goal of creating two contiguous states that can live in peace. Hope springs eternal!

I don’t know Larry personally. He is one of many thousands living in American cities that once were the pride of the manufacturing world, but have recently been decimated by the outsourcing of jobs, leaving him jobless and his city littered with abandoned plants.

It is all too easy for academics, sitting around a seminar table discussing the pros and cons of globalization, or for politicians, debating the merits of a proposed trade agreement, to ignore the pain that Larry feels, and, therefore, not factor such a realization into their deliberations. So, although I don’t know Larry, let me imaginatively attempt to speak on his behalf.

The job that Larry lost was the same job that his father and grandfather also worked, and that he thought his son would one day work.  Larry didn’t just lose a job. He lost a way of life that was passed on through generations. Larry once had a reason to believe that this way of life was stable, likely to continue for generations to come, But that stability was displaced by disruption. And this disruption has had a devastating effect on Larry’s very sense of who he is. The story of his life has been broken. He feels the pain of no longer being sure of his personal identity and his place in the world.

So when Larry hears academics and TV pundits pontificate on the benefits of globalization, he easily responds the way we all are inclined to respond when our personal identity is threatened, by expressions of dissatisfaction that can morph into rage, including name-calling and demonization of those “experts” who have not walked in his shoes, who have not felt his pain. As sociologist John W. Hawthorne has pointed out, it is “the gap between the stories people have grown up with and the reality that they see around them” that easily leads to deep dissatisfaction

Now that Larry has had his say, so to speak, what can be done? Nostalgia is not the solution. While there is room for legitimate debate as to the advantages and disadvantages of globalization, a topic that goes far beyond the boundaries of my expertise, and how to “steer” globalization in a direction that will minimize the negative effects on Larry, it is impossible to go back to the good old days for the former citadels of American manufacturing.

Hawthorne, in a splendid unpublished paper titled “Broken Stories, Identity, and the Restoration of Civil Discourse,” suggests that the “broken stories,” of Larry and others, that were associated with particular social arrangements in the past, need to be replaced by new stories that are “rich enough” to handle the social changes that have taken place.

Of course, this is easier said than done. How does Larry forge such a richer story? Not by himself. That story can only be forged in conversation with others, including those who share his pain, those who don’t have a clue about his pain, and those who, intentionally or unintentionally, have contributed to his pain. Although it stretches the imagination, it is conceivable that such a “larger conversation” will lead to agreement as to aspects of our common humanity that can help to shape this richer story. Hawthorne dares to suggest that “when we come to recognition of commonality, the richer story is crafted.”

The above reflections have enormous implications for the political process. First, if the results of any potential political legislation can significantly impact the lives on non-politicians, which is the case for virtually all political legislation, then those who will be affected must have a voice at the table. It is simply not acceptable for those who legislate trade agreements with other countries to ignore the voices of those whose very identity will be threatened by those agreements.

A second political implication is to realize that when Larry is invited to the table, he will not be persuaded by a host of rational arguments. That is because his crisis is not intellectual but existential; it is tied to a deep identity story. Larry is dissatisfied or enraged because his very identity is being threatened. Politicians ignore that fact at their peril. In my wildest dreams, politicians will give Larry room to express his dissatisfaction and rage, and having heard Larry, will contribute positively to crafting that richer story that will reflect those common features of the humanity that they share with Larry.

Finally, these implications for the role that Larry should play in the political process can be generalized to all Americans. It is foolhardy to ride roughshod over any citizen’s sense of identity, whether that identity is formed by generations of continuous employment at the same plant, or by any other aspects of our stories, such as our particular religious or secular worldview commitments. The factors that shape our various identities need to be given a welcoming space for expression in the public square.

[For readers wishing to correspond with professor Hawthorne, he can be contacted at john.hawthorne@arbor.edu].

Now that both Paul Ryan and Barack Obama have unveiled their respective plans for our national budget, at least in broad outline form, the airwaves will be filled with talk of “good ideas” and “bad ideas.”

My experience suggests that if I wish to engage someone who disagrees with me on a given issue, the surest way to insure that our conversation ends abruptly is for me to hold tenaciously to the questionable proposition that all my ideas are good and all his ideas are bad. I have always tried to present a strong rationale for what I considered to be my good ideas. But, as I have listened respectfully to the ideas of someone who disagrees with me, I often found that some of my initial ideas were bad in comparison to some of his good ideas. And in the best of conversations, my partner also made adjustments in his initial views about good ideas and bad ideas.

So, in the heated budget debate that is upon us, it is reasonable for those on both sides of the aisle to present strong rationales for their respective proposals. But I hope, possibly naively, that each politician will be open to the possibility that those on the other side of the aisle have some ideas that are better than their initial ideas. Such openness will be necessary to attain bipartisan consensus.

In the book Mutual Treasure that Michael King and I edited, King calls this give-and-take between those holding opposing views the “seeking for mutual treasure.” Many will not want to embark on such a mutual quest because they are convinced that there is absolutely no treasure to be found in opposing views. But you can’t predict beforehand the results of a genuine conversation. If politicians on both sides of the aisle are willing to engage in respectful conversation, they may find some treasure in the opposing views, without sacrificing their own treasures.

As this budget debate heats up, I would like to reflect on one aspect of Obama’s comments when he unveiled the outlines of his budget plan, his pointing to the importance of both our “individuality” and our “connectivity” as Americans.

To be sure, much of our economic progress throughout our history can be traced to giving self-reliant individuals space to be creative and innovative. Such space needs to be maintained.

However our history also reveals strong elements of “connectivity” between individuals, wherein we embrace an obligation to care for those who are less fortunate than we are, including those who, for various reasons, cannot compete in a “free-market” economy. From my own Christian perspective, promoting such connectivity is central to the command of Jesus that we love others.

It is tempting, but false, to suggest that one of these emphases is the exclusive preoccupation of one of our major political parties, while the other party exclusively embraces the other emphasis. Besides, that presents a false choice. It has to be both/and, not either/or. I hope that persons of good will on both sides of the aisle will embrace the proposition that there are aspects of both our “individuality” and our “connectivity” that need to be embraced, so that the ongoing debate can focus on what those particular aspects are and on the challenging question of the “balance” that needs to be created between these two important emphases.