As I said in my previous piece about decision making, what’s essential is the quality of your understanding of the situations in which you find yourself. This is important because we always “decide” (that is, act) in accord with our understanding.
Two things can happen when you are confronted with a problem, especially a new problem. You can either try to fit that problem into your current understanding, flawed though that may be, and act. Or you can step back and recognize that you don’t have enough information or aren’t sure of the consequences of the different courses you might take. In this case, you then gather more information and consider the different paths you might take. Then you choose the one that most closely fits the facts. According to many observers, this characterizes the style and approach of Barack Obama.
In the Newshour review of how Obama makes decisions, one of his mantras is “no drama.” Drama usually comes from taking actions without fully thinking through what might happen. When you do that, it often results in unintended consequences and problems that could have otherwise been prevented. In other words, you create drama, and that’s often not a good thing.
David Mendell, who wrote a biography of Obama, says, “[Obama] would always try to bring all sides of an issue, if there were conflicting sides, into the room, into one room, sit them all down, and try to get them together. He came out what seemed to be with respect from both sides.” He also usually comes out with some consensus among the parties.
David Axelrod, his campaign chairman, says of Obama, “His hallmark, his style of leadership is to try and bring people together. His attitude is, ‘We may disagree on 90 percent of what we want on issues, but on those [other] 10 percent, how do we work together and move things forward?’”
A perfect example of the difference between McCain and Obama is the current debate over the bailout of Wall Street and Main Street now going on. McCain precipitously said he is suspending his campaign until a solution is found and even suggested delaying the long planned first presidential debate in Oxford, MS.
According to news accounts, Obama called McCain and suggested they deliver a joint statement about the crisis. McCain apparently agreed, but within the hour, without telling Obama, he announced the campaign suspension and that he was going to Washington to, in a manner of speaking, “save the day.” This is despite the fact that he had not spoken with either Senator Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee or Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House financial services committee, both of whom Obama had spoken to several times.
In the meantime, Obama issued a statement of principles of what the bailout plan should include. In contrasting what the two candidates did, Obama has remained calm and thoughtful, while McCain has been impetuous and unsure of what to do next.
Here’s how Time Magazine’s Joe Klein describes what’s been going on: “What McCain didn’t understand was that the legislative crisis was already receding when he made his melodramatic—and somewhat wild-eyed—suspension of campaign activities statement. (He didn’t understand this because he has had no input into the process and, indeed, is neither respected for his financial expertise nor desired in the process because of his combative, peremptory negotiating style.)”
Note Klein’s characterization of McCain’s combative and peremptory style in negotiations—not an approach that leads to consensus and definitely a style that leads to, yes, more drama. And as I write this, that is just what is going on, even as an agreement was close, McCain’s decision to interfere has, apparently, muddied the water and taken us further from a resolution of this financial crisis.
One other thing that characterizes good decision making is the ability to learn from your mistakes. Mistakes are when things don’t turn out like you expected and what happened instead was not in your best interest. In a Newshour piece on how Obama deals with adversity, it’s clear that he learns from his mistakes. David Axelrod recalls Obama telling his campaign team after losing two big primaries to Hillary Clinton: “I can think of a dozen things that I did wrong in these last couple of weeks. And I’m sure each of you can think of things that you would have done differently. I don’t want to review that. I want to think about what we’ve learned from this and how it affects what we do moving forward.”
I don’t know about you, but this is the approach to leadership and decision making that engenders confidence in me. As for McCain, everyday, by his actions and remarks, he seems to be—ironically—reinforcing the idea that “John McCain, not ready to lead.”
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Reflections on John McCain’s Decision-Making Style
Recently the Newshour on PBS has analyzed the decision-making styles of McCain and Obama. This was an insightful and useful presentation that can serve as an important consideration in choosing which candidate to support. Before reflecting on what we learned about, I want to talk a bit about the process of decision-making and how I think it works.
I believe that rather than make decisions, what we do is understand situations and act in accordance with our understanding. What I mean by this is as individuals, we encounter situations, we project our sense of order onto what’s happening, and then we act to preserve that sense of order. If we’re thoughtful and see that our sense of order isn’t adequate and that we don’t fully understand what’s going on, we collect more information to bring things into focus and then act.
Our sense of the order things is really our paradigm. The better our paradigm, the more it conforms with how the world really works, the more likely our understanding of the situations we’re confronted with and the decisions and actions we take will result in something productive happening.
The contrast in the Newshour stories on the McCain and the Obama decision-making styles was startling. The paradigm, the understanding, from which John McCain operates is one of black and white, with few shades of gray. He will talk to those foreign leaders he considers to be America’s friends and won’t talk to those who he believes are not our friends. He seems less interested in facts than in impressions and personal ideology. He has a long history of deriding those who don’t agree with him. He is not one to seek additional information on a new situation because he quickly projects his already-held views (whether valid or not) onto it and discounts other points of view.
The choice of Sarah Palin is an example of this. He talked to her and saw that she too seemed to be someone who, at least superficially, was willing to take on entrenched interests, like McCain has in his career. Once he had that impression of her, that was enough. Forget about finding any information that might provide another point of view on the qualifications of neophyte Palin.
In interview after interview, McCain’s long-time friends and allies commented on his impulsiveness and shoot-from-the-hip style. McCain himself even acknowledges this style in his autobiography and admits it has frequently gotten him into trouble. Now this may be a relatively minor problem in his role as a senator where the consequences mainly reflect back on him. But as president, the consequences of his impulsiveness reflect back on all of us.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, David Brooks writes of the importance of prudence in the decision making of national leaders: “How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.”
Brooks was specifically writing about Sarah Palin, and no one would say that John McCain is inexperienced, though I think his sense of history is questionable. And I think it can be argued pretty convincingly that imprudence is a clear aspect of his character. Brooks is suggesting that a leader comes by his model (his paradigm, his understanding) of the world though experience, reflection, and study, and this serves as the foundation of what he or she chooses to do. From what I have seen and read, I question the quality of John McCain's model.
And keep in mind, the model from which we operate is not just an intellectual one—it also has important psychological components. In other words, we’re also talking about personality. John McCain readily admits that in his younger years he was a rebel, a troublemaker, who did not like to take orders.
By the age of 72, it’s easy to see that he has mellowed a lot, but these basic personality traits don’t go away. And there is ample evidence during his long senate career that these traits remain. He is still a contrarian who believes he already has the answers and is impatient with anyone who challenges his views. Given this approach to deciding and acting, I think we would be entering dangerous territory indeed should we wake up on November 5, 2008 and find John McCain is the next president.
In another piece, I will talk about Barack Obama’s decision style.
I believe that rather than make decisions, what we do is understand situations and act in accordance with our understanding. What I mean by this is as individuals, we encounter situations, we project our sense of order onto what’s happening, and then we act to preserve that sense of order. If we’re thoughtful and see that our sense of order isn’t adequate and that we don’t fully understand what’s going on, we collect more information to bring things into focus and then act.
Our sense of the order things is really our paradigm. The better our paradigm, the more it conforms with how the world really works, the more likely our understanding of the situations we’re confronted with and the decisions and actions we take will result in something productive happening.
The contrast in the Newshour stories on the McCain and the Obama decision-making styles was startling. The paradigm, the understanding, from which John McCain operates is one of black and white, with few shades of gray. He will talk to those foreign leaders he considers to be America’s friends and won’t talk to those who he believes are not our friends. He seems less interested in facts than in impressions and personal ideology. He has a long history of deriding those who don’t agree with him. He is not one to seek additional information on a new situation because he quickly projects his already-held views (whether valid or not) onto it and discounts other points of view.
The choice of Sarah Palin is an example of this. He talked to her and saw that she too seemed to be someone who, at least superficially, was willing to take on entrenched interests, like McCain has in his career. Once he had that impression of her, that was enough. Forget about finding any information that might provide another point of view on the qualifications of neophyte Palin.
In interview after interview, McCain’s long-time friends and allies commented on his impulsiveness and shoot-from-the-hip style. McCain himself even acknowledges this style in his autobiography and admits it has frequently gotten him into trouble. Now this may be a relatively minor problem in his role as a senator where the consequences mainly reflect back on him. But as president, the consequences of his impulsiveness reflect back on all of us.
In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, David Brooks writes of the importance of prudence in the decision making of national leaders: “How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.”
Brooks was specifically writing about Sarah Palin, and no one would say that John McCain is inexperienced, though I think his sense of history is questionable. And I think it can be argued pretty convincingly that imprudence is a clear aspect of his character. Brooks is suggesting that a leader comes by his model (his paradigm, his understanding) of the world though experience, reflection, and study, and this serves as the foundation of what he or she chooses to do. From what I have seen and read, I question the quality of John McCain's model.
And keep in mind, the model from which we operate is not just an intellectual one—it also has important psychological components. In other words, we’re also talking about personality. John McCain readily admits that in his younger years he was a rebel, a troublemaker, who did not like to take orders.
By the age of 72, it’s easy to see that he has mellowed a lot, but these basic personality traits don’t go away. And there is ample evidence during his long senate career that these traits remain. He is still a contrarian who believes he already has the answers and is impatient with anyone who challenges his views. Given this approach to deciding and acting, I think we would be entering dangerous territory indeed should we wake up on November 5, 2008 and find John McCain is the next president.
In another piece, I will talk about Barack Obama’s decision style.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Dangerously Out of Touch
Am I the only one who’s noticing this? John McCain really seems out of touch. His so-called claim to expertise in foreign policy? I don’t believe it. He makes mistakes regularly and doesn’t even seem aware he made them. He clearly is confused about Shiites and Sunnis as we saw in that clip with Lieberman some time ago. The other day, when asked about whether he would meet with the president of Spain when being interviewed on a Spanish language radio program in Miami (in English), he simply said he would meet with our friends in this hemisphere and wouldn’t meet with those who are not. First of all, the question was about the leader of Spain, not about leaders in this hemisphere. Second, if you don’t meet with those with whom you disagree, how will you ever resolve disputes? If you treat people as your enemy, you ensure they will remain your enemy. McCain clearly doesn’t get that.
McCain long ago admitted he knows little about economics and how the economy actually works, this despite being chairman of the commerce committee for several years. During his tenure, deregulation was his watchword. We have all seen him these past few days claim the economy is strong, it’s not strong, we shouldn’t bail out AIG, we had to bail out AIG. And please note, every word he says publicly is scripted, and he seldom deviates from the script (when he does, it usually results in a gaffe).
And what’s really interesting to me is the lack of passion in his pronouncements. He’s given his lines, and he reads them. All the footage of him yesterday had him with his eyes down on the script. It’s discomfiting to watch. You’d think at this point in the campaign he’d be more comfortable and more familiar with his lines. But by his body language and his tone of voice, it’s clear he is not. About the economy, there has been this really obvious fake indignation. I don’t see how he can get anyone who is undecided to think he has the ability to deal with the complex problems we face. We should note that yesterday he did suggest with some animation that he would fire the head of SEC. It’s pretty clear he didn’t realize that the president has no authority to do that. In other words, whenever he deviates from the script, he blows it.
McCain’s pronouncements are usually very general and cliché-laden. Evil? Defeat it. We are all Georgians. Drill, baby, drill. Trust me. I know how to win wars. I know how to capture Bin Laden. Huh? How do you win wars, John? (And what does winning mean, anyway?) What’s your plan for getting this outlaw? Why don’t you share it with us or at least with your buddy, W? There is no nuance in McCain’s pronouncements or responses to questions. There is no indication of a grasp of the subtleties of different issues. It’s very disconcerting.
Here’s the bottom line for me: Forget about Sarah Palin not being qualified for the vice presidency and the impulsiveness of her selection in the first place. John McCain has not indicated in any way that I could trust him to be a president who can reverse the disastrous course we have been on for the past 7.7 years. You pick the area: health care, global warming, the economy, foreign relations, the occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the deterioration of relations with Russia, McCain’s ideas are hackneyed and ideological.
And what about temperament? McCain is known as a hothead, quick to anger, a person who shoots first and asks questions later. This is not the kind of person we need these days. I’m not sure it’s his age, but at 72, I would say that his habits of mind and behavior are pretty much set in stone. So what you see is what you’re going to get. Further, the actuarial tables for a person his age taking on this responsibility are not in our favor. And we know what that might portend. Enough said for today.
McCain long ago admitted he knows little about economics and how the economy actually works, this despite being chairman of the commerce committee for several years. During his tenure, deregulation was his watchword. We have all seen him these past few days claim the economy is strong, it’s not strong, we shouldn’t bail out AIG, we had to bail out AIG. And please note, every word he says publicly is scripted, and he seldom deviates from the script (when he does, it usually results in a gaffe).
And what’s really interesting to me is the lack of passion in his pronouncements. He’s given his lines, and he reads them. All the footage of him yesterday had him with his eyes down on the script. It’s discomfiting to watch. You’d think at this point in the campaign he’d be more comfortable and more familiar with his lines. But by his body language and his tone of voice, it’s clear he is not. About the economy, there has been this really obvious fake indignation. I don’t see how he can get anyone who is undecided to think he has the ability to deal with the complex problems we face. We should note that yesterday he did suggest with some animation that he would fire the head of SEC. It’s pretty clear he didn’t realize that the president has no authority to do that. In other words, whenever he deviates from the script, he blows it.
McCain’s pronouncements are usually very general and cliché-laden. Evil? Defeat it. We are all Georgians. Drill, baby, drill. Trust me. I know how to win wars. I know how to capture Bin Laden. Huh? How do you win wars, John? (And what does winning mean, anyway?) What’s your plan for getting this outlaw? Why don’t you share it with us or at least with your buddy, W? There is no nuance in McCain’s pronouncements or responses to questions. There is no indication of a grasp of the subtleties of different issues. It’s very disconcerting.
Here’s the bottom line for me: Forget about Sarah Palin not being qualified for the vice presidency and the impulsiveness of her selection in the first place. John McCain has not indicated in any way that I could trust him to be a president who can reverse the disastrous course we have been on for the past 7.7 years. You pick the area: health care, global warming, the economy, foreign relations, the occupation of Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the deterioration of relations with Russia, McCain’s ideas are hackneyed and ideological.
And what about temperament? McCain is known as a hothead, quick to anger, a person who shoots first and asks questions later. This is not the kind of person we need these days. I’m not sure it’s his age, but at 72, I would say that his habits of mind and behavior are pretty much set in stone. So what you see is what you’re going to get. Further, the actuarial tables for a person his age taking on this responsibility are not in our favor. And we know what that might portend. Enough said for today.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Earmarks: Not What They Seem to Be
Dear Paul Krugman,
John McCain says he is going to reform Washington and makes a very big deal about earmarks. So I decided to find out what the total cost of earmarks were in the federal budget in 2008. Fortunately that information is on the Internet. The total was $16,501,833,000. Or put another way, about 1 1/2 months of the cost of our misbegotten adventure in Iraq. I would love to see you write about this point: getting rid of all earmarks would be like dropping rose petals into the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo if they think this will make a whit of difference in federal spending.
It's a cruel joke that they spend all their time talking about this stuff. McCain's grizzly bear example is getting really stale. If this is what he thinks is important, then it's a huge problem that he thinks he's qualified to be president. To hear him in interviews, he often sounds as if he, like his impulsively selected running mate, is winging it. As a professor, I'm sure you've seen answers on essay tests where the student was trying to bluff his way through the question (first repeat the question and then throw in cliché after cliché hoping that you will think he said something). That's the way both McCain and Palin sound when interviewed and asked questions that require some mastery of government and the issues that confront us. I could go on and on, but you get the point. I hope you will talk about the inconsequentiality of earmarks in solving American problems. It's pathetic that people are fed this stuff as if it actually had nutritional value.
John
Postscript: From Jonathan Alter's piece on which candidate represents change in the September 22, 2008 Newsweek:
The single domestic issue that McCain gets passionate about is pork-barrel politics ("earmarking"), the 200-year-old process by which members of Congress slip in goodies for their constituents outside the normal appropriations system. Earmarks account for less than 2 percent of the budget; the "Bridge to Nowhere" is offensive but amounts to the cost of a few hours in Iraq. McCain claims he has never sought earmarks for Arizona. This is mostly true. But the vast majority of all the bills he has sponsored in Congress have been favors for Arizona's Native American population. While the Indians deserve it, the difference from earmarks is procedural. Both amount to bringing home the bacon.
John McCain says he is going to reform Washington and makes a very big deal about earmarks. So I decided to find out what the total cost of earmarks were in the federal budget in 2008. Fortunately that information is on the Internet. The total was $16,501,833,000. Or put another way, about 1 1/2 months of the cost of our misbegotten adventure in Iraq. I would love to see you write about this point: getting rid of all earmarks would be like dropping rose petals into the Grand Canyon and waiting for an echo if they think this will make a whit of difference in federal spending.
It's a cruel joke that they spend all their time talking about this stuff. McCain's grizzly bear example is getting really stale. If this is what he thinks is important, then it's a huge problem that he thinks he's qualified to be president. To hear him in interviews, he often sounds as if he, like his impulsively selected running mate, is winging it. As a professor, I'm sure you've seen answers on essay tests where the student was trying to bluff his way through the question (first repeat the question and then throw in cliché after cliché hoping that you will think he said something). That's the way both McCain and Palin sound when interviewed and asked questions that require some mastery of government and the issues that confront us. I could go on and on, but you get the point. I hope you will talk about the inconsequentiality of earmarks in solving American problems. It's pathetic that people are fed this stuff as if it actually had nutritional value.
John
Postscript: From Jonathan Alter's piece on which candidate represents change in the September 22, 2008 Newsweek:
The single domestic issue that McCain gets passionate about is pork-barrel politics ("earmarking"), the 200-year-old process by which members of Congress slip in goodies for their constituents outside the normal appropriations system. Earmarks account for less than 2 percent of the budget; the "Bridge to Nowhere" is offensive but amounts to the cost of a few hours in Iraq. McCain claims he has never sought earmarks for Arizona. This is mostly true. But the vast majority of all the bills he has sponsored in Congress have been favors for Arizona's Native American population. While the Indians deserve it, the difference from earmarks is procedural. Both amount to bringing home the bacon.
Friday, September 5, 2008
John McCain's Not So Great Speech
I just listened to John McCain give his acceptance speech and heard several pundits say it was a great speech and that Barack is in for the fight of his life. Chris Matthews opined that McCain will likely be ahead in the polls tomorrow. I don't know if that will happen. However, from my perspective, this was a speech of platitudes. There were no specifics given (except to select judges who would not legislate from the bench, whatever that cliché means). I don't really have a clue what he would do if he were president. Senator McCain has a history of reaching across the aisle. He said he would do that as president. Yet he gives us hyper-partisan Sarah Palin as VP.
It seems candidate McCain has been captured by the right wing of his party (as John Kerry reminds us) and all their ideological claptrap. The only compelling part of the speech was his telling of his time as a POW, which we all honor. But that has nothing, nothing to do with his ability to be an effective president. Indeed, his loner approach is still problematic. He has a reputation for impulsiveness and for being disorganized and for showing anger and impatience with those who get in his way.
One other thing—executive experience should never be confused with leadership ability. There are many executives in this country who are lousy leaders, including the guy who lives in the White House right now. Thinking strategically is one aspect of leadership. However, what really distinguishes leaders is their ability to inspire people to follow them because they know it will be in their best interest to do so. This is one of Barack Obama's gifts along with great intellect and judgment and compassion. I am old enough to remember JFK very well. I long for a president who will inspire me like JFK did once upon a time. I think Barack has that ability.
John Woods
September 5, 2008
It seems candidate McCain has been captured by the right wing of his party (as John Kerry reminds us) and all their ideological claptrap. The only compelling part of the speech was his telling of his time as a POW, which we all honor. But that has nothing, nothing to do with his ability to be an effective president. Indeed, his loner approach is still problematic. He has a reputation for impulsiveness and for being disorganized and for showing anger and impatience with those who get in his way.
One other thing—executive experience should never be confused with leadership ability. There are many executives in this country who are lousy leaders, including the guy who lives in the White House right now. Thinking strategically is one aspect of leadership. However, what really distinguishes leaders is their ability to inspire people to follow them because they know it will be in their best interest to do so. This is one of Barack Obama's gifts along with great intellect and judgment and compassion. I am old enough to remember JFK very well. I long for a president who will inspire me like JFK did once upon a time. I think Barack has that ability.
John Woods
September 5, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Save Us John and Sarah, Save Us
Gail Collins writes of Rudy, Mitt, et al (the Sunshine Boys), who spoke on the third night of the Republican convention, "Reliving the golden days in which they managed to convince Republican voters that no matter what John McCain’s defects, he could not possibly be as bad a candidate as they were."
This sentence reminds me of how John McCain ended up winning the Republican primaries after everyone thought it was a lost cause last summer. Just look at the competition: Giuliani (noun verb 9/11), Huckabee (We're all descendants of Adam and Eve), Romney (I was for it before I was against it—oh you're not against it, OK neither am I), and so on. McCain looked good compared to them.
But this in no way affirms candidate McCain's competence in anything other than berating colleagues with appropriate epithets when they disagree with him. Oh yeah, he has great foreign policy credentials, as long as the situation is black and white. (Evil? Defeat it. Sunnis, Shiites, Al Qaeda—they're all Islamoterrorists, aren't they? Joe, where are you when I need you?)
And now we have Sarah, clearly the most carefully considered and vetted selection for VP ever. I’m wondering, however, whether my wife should have been in the running. She has executive experience as president of our neighborhood association, and she actually has an opinion on the Iraq war, Iran, and knows that when referring to the recent troubles Georgia, we're talking about a part of the former Soviet Union and not the state in the southern U.S.
And that bridge to nowhere she said thanks but no thanks to? Well so much for the bridge, but they kept the money anyway. But that's what we like in our politicians, isn't it? Zingers and flip responses to serious questions. Distortions and pandering are clearly the key to success. I mean what would Jesus do? Making big elections about small things? Sign me up.
John Woods
September 4, 2008
This sentence reminds me of how John McCain ended up winning the Republican primaries after everyone thought it was a lost cause last summer. Just look at the competition: Giuliani (noun verb 9/11), Huckabee (We're all descendants of Adam and Eve), Romney (I was for it before I was against it—oh you're not against it, OK neither am I), and so on. McCain looked good compared to them.
But this in no way affirms candidate McCain's competence in anything other than berating colleagues with appropriate epithets when they disagree with him. Oh yeah, he has great foreign policy credentials, as long as the situation is black and white. (Evil? Defeat it. Sunnis, Shiites, Al Qaeda—they're all Islamoterrorists, aren't they? Joe, where are you when I need you?)
And now we have Sarah, clearly the most carefully considered and vetted selection for VP ever. I’m wondering, however, whether my wife should have been in the running. She has executive experience as president of our neighborhood association, and she actually has an opinion on the Iraq war, Iran, and knows that when referring to the recent troubles Georgia, we're talking about a part of the former Soviet Union and not the state in the southern U.S.
And that bridge to nowhere she said thanks but no thanks to? Well so much for the bridge, but they kept the money anyway. But that's what we like in our politicians, isn't it? Zingers and flip responses to serious questions. Distortions and pandering are clearly the key to success. I mean what would Jesus do? Making big elections about small things? Sign me up.
John Woods
September 4, 2008
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
On Sarah Palin
This blog is not by me. I am posting a note my sister, Caralee Woods, sent me in response to long piece by a resident of Wasilla, Alaska (a place very few people had ever heard of until a few days ago) that chronicled the mixed record of Sarah. My sister lives in the small town of Kanab in southern Utah, a place with perhaps more than its share of ideologically bound right-wingers. With this as preface, here is what my sister had to say:
Since I've now lived four years in a small town of about 4,000, I can totally relate to this woman's essay. When our city council here in small town Utah adopted the Natural Family Resolution, it finally brought out in protest those people who had before remained silent and groused only in private in fear of retribution from the city leaders. Even I tried to stay under the rug because Jim and I still need to get annual permits to live on our land in a temporary building while we build the permanent house. The opportunities for harassment there are obvious to anyone who lives here. And of course there is great overlap between who is on what committee and everyone pretty much knows who everyone else is, so you can't hide. We aren't 6 degrees away from anyone here; we're about 2 degrees away. To make it worse, the likelihood that whoever you are talking about probably has a close relative in the room, so you have to be very careful. So I know what this woman is talking about. In fact, if the mayor of Kanab suddenly died, the net average IQ of the entire world population would have a measurable increase.
This Palin thing is very ugly and frightening. I have immersed myself in information about Palin and realize that who we're talking about is just a female George W. Bush. Bullying tactics; lacks knowledge but acts anyhow; doesn't listen to anyone but her small group of cronies; likes to shoot things; is a flat-earther. If you think McCain follows Bush's tactics and programs, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. If I prayed regularly (or at all), I'd pray that somehow the stars would align, that, as Bill Clinton said, “the right side of history” would come into play, that fate would take over and Obama will win in a landslide. Or even by 1 vote. Whatever it takes. Because if he doesn't, it means that the American voter no longer has the kind of heart it takes to want to help their neighbors in a meaningful way; that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes--or even recognizing them. Instead, they will have become mean-spirited, anti-intellectual, lost souls who can no longer have hope in their hearts but instead wish only to force their self-righteous beliefs on others because that's the only way they know how to deal with their cognitive dissonance over how screwed up the world whether it's the environment, invasions of other countries, health care, education, or the economy. They have decided that the Emperor is fully clothed and if you say it often and loud enough, the Big Lie will come true and prove them right—so THERE!
So all I know to do is send Obama money, make canvassing phone calls for him, and if not pray, at least hope that whatever is left of my optimism that the United States can right itself is warranted.
Since I've now lived four years in a small town of about 4,000, I can totally relate to this woman's essay. When our city council here in small town Utah adopted the Natural Family Resolution, it finally brought out in protest those people who had before remained silent and groused only in private in fear of retribution from the city leaders. Even I tried to stay under the rug because Jim and I still need to get annual permits to live on our land in a temporary building while we build the permanent house. The opportunities for harassment there are obvious to anyone who lives here. And of course there is great overlap between who is on what committee and everyone pretty much knows who everyone else is, so you can't hide. We aren't 6 degrees away from anyone here; we're about 2 degrees away. To make it worse, the likelihood that whoever you are talking about probably has a close relative in the room, so you have to be very careful. So I know what this woman is talking about. In fact, if the mayor of Kanab suddenly died, the net average IQ of the entire world population would have a measurable increase.
This Palin thing is very ugly and frightening. I have immersed myself in information about Palin and realize that who we're talking about is just a female George W. Bush. Bullying tactics; lacks knowledge but acts anyhow; doesn't listen to anyone but her small group of cronies; likes to shoot things; is a flat-earther. If you think McCain follows Bush's tactics and programs, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. If I prayed regularly (or at all), I'd pray that somehow the stars would align, that, as Bill Clinton said, “the right side of history” would come into play, that fate would take over and Obama will win in a landslide. Or even by 1 vote. Whatever it takes. Because if he doesn't, it means that the American voter no longer has the kind of heart it takes to want to help their neighbors in a meaningful way; that they are incapable of learning from past mistakes--or even recognizing them. Instead, they will have become mean-spirited, anti-intellectual, lost souls who can no longer have hope in their hearts but instead wish only to force their self-righteous beliefs on others because that's the only way they know how to deal with their cognitive dissonance over how screwed up the world whether it's the environment, invasions of other countries, health care, education, or the economy. They have decided that the Emperor is fully clothed and if you say it often and loud enough, the Big Lie will come true and prove them right—so THERE!
So all I know to do is send Obama money, make canvassing phone calls for him, and if not pray, at least hope that whatever is left of my optimism that the United States can right itself is warranted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
