The Disunion of 'Dis Union

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise -- with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

                                                               ---  Abraham Lincoln


It’s hard to imagine that President Grover Cleveland ordered the US Marshalls and the National Guard to put down an insurrection in this country. The year was 1894 and the insurrectionists were members of the American Railway Union. The troops killed 34 union members and wounded 57. The leader of the ARU, Eugene Debs, was arrested, convicted of violating a federal court order and was imprisoned for six months.

Trade unions have been around for a long time but it was the labor movement of the 1930’s that forged the cultural institutions that survive today vexing corporate executives and state governors alike. Laws signed by Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt gave impetus to larger unions banding together to bargain with employers. It was a period in which attacks against striking workers by US troops and hired thugs gradually came to an end. But, the unions were poorly run and infused with Communists. During the depression, with unemployment at 25% and workers unable to pay dues, they were not very effective.

After WWII, Walter Reuther became head of the UAW, purged Communists from their management to become well administered and powerful negotiators. He set an example for his peers to follow. The booming economy of the time coupled with higher wages and benefits created a middle class economy throughout the Midwest and northeastern US underpinned by union workers.

By the 1970’s, the impact of a new, more global economy called for a paradigm shift. The impetus for that shift was provided by Ronald Reagan who famously disemboweled PATCO, the air traffic controllers union. I think he did it to set a precedent and prove to industrial leaders that they could too.

But, ultimately, it was the market not politics that undid the union. Union wages and benefits added costs to the manufacture of finished goods that made US industry uncompetitive on a global scale. Foreign auto manufacturers seeking to neutralize the impact of volatility of the dollar built their US auto plants in the South where they were less likely to unionize.

I won't go through the history of unions for the past thirty years.  Nor will I reiterate the issues that are well covered in the news of late.  If you have read this far, you probably already know and have an opinion.  Instead, I would like to pose a business question. 

Union membership has declined precipitously. In 1950, 25% of American workers belonged to a union. Today, the percentage is half that. And, tellingly the percentage among employees of private companies is 7.5% while over 36% of public employees are union members.

Now, if a business had seen such a precipitously decline in its fortunes, it would have to transform itself or face liquidation.  Instead, unions have resisted change.  The unions won’t win this war. They might win a battle or two but I am here to tell you that their day is done. The model doesn’t work anymore.

What should they do? Give up? Close up shop? NO! They should transform themselves into 21st Century institutions. Why would anyone think that the 19th Century model honed to perfection 60 years ago will work now?

Unions should be transformed into Centers for Human Capital Development. Instead of an entrenched interest that fights progress; they should be training people for 21st century jobs. Manufacturing has become more high tech. Math and science skills are lacking.  Last year, the NY Times reported that a factory in Cleveland had over 3600 applicants for jobs to run a high tech machine used in fabrication.  Each applicant was tested to see if their math skills were at the ninth grade level.  The company was unable to fill the 100 job openings in a city that has lost over a million manufacturing jobs in the last decade.

If a manufacturing company could come to the union to find workers trained to work in this new environment, they would see a union contract as beneficial to their business rather than an obstacle to be overcome. This new model would work for public employees as well – including teachers.

If unions offered benefits – healthcare, 401K’s – to their members in addition to training matched to employers’ needs, they would find membership an attractive value proposition.  It would take the burden off the employers who contracted with them. 

If unions were to follow this model, everyone would be a winner: the employers, the employees and the unions.

But, entrenched interests have over a century of momentum. Quoting Lincoln again, “As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”

The only question is WHO WILL LEAD?

The Bulworth Solution: Try It Now!

All we need is a voluntary, free-spirited, open-ended program of racial deconstruction…. Everybody gotta start f***in’ everybody till we’re all the same color.

           Senator Jay Bulworth, as played by writer-director Warren Beatty in the movie, Bulworth (1998).  (Listen to the whole speech HERE)

Last October, German Chancellor Angela Merkel denounced multi-culturalism at a meeting of young Christian Democrats (her political party).  She cited a study that found that 13 percent of Germans would welcome a “Führer” to run the country “with a firm hand.” Some 60 percent of Germans would “restrict the practice of Islam,” and 17 percent think Jews have “too much influence,” according to the study.

This past week, British Prime Minister David Cameron echoed her words, pointing to the failure of “multi-culturalism” in the UK as a factor in national security. He noted that home grown terrorism in the UK was not always the product of poverty. Terrorists, such as those who perpetrated the London bombings in 2005, were middle class. The failure, in Mr. Cameron’s view, is that “we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream.” He believes that the UK should strongly defend its values and culture and let it be known that those who don’t believe as does the mainstream should find someplace else to live.

Open borders and an influx of immigrants from the Middle East have challenged Western Europe in ways that we can only imagine. However, America has an extraordinary history of absorbing and integrating foreigners. Perhaps the so-called LEADERS of these great European democracies should study our success before giving up.

The Irish, Germans and Scandinavians who came here in the 19th Century were followed by Japanese and Italians in the 20th. All faced resistance from the establishment at first. However, they brought up their children here. By the second or third generation, the children and grandchildren of these immigrants had become as American as the Britons and Scots who revolted against the British crown at the birth of this nation. As a resident of South Florida, I can tell you that the children of the Cuban, Puerto Rican and South and Central American immigrants who predominate here want to act like their American peers by age 6, have unlimited texting on their cell phone by 12 and to be driving and dating by age 18.

One of the challenges of last year’s census was how to “classify” its respondents. The NY Times, this week, published the story of Michelle Lopez-Mullins who is of Peruvian, Chinese, Irish, Shawnee and Cherokee descent. How did the government classify her? It depends on which cabinet department you ask. The Department of Education classifies her as “Hispanic” so they can measure the educational progress of that “class”. Meanwhile, the National Center for Health Statistics classified her as Asian and Hispanic. But, if she had no “Hispanic” in her background, she will be classified in the “two or more races” category along with the children of black and white couples or Asian and American Indian parents.

While many here have been concerned that Latinos do not want to be integrated into our society, the College Board reported this week 14.6% (an increase of 2.6%) of US high school seniors who passed an Advanced Placement exam in 2010 were Latino. This, despite the fact that 41% of Latino’s over the age of 20 have no high school diploma.

One can only wonder how Mr. Cameron and Ms. Merkel would respond to that. Perhaps they should consider how the provincialism of European societies dooms multi-culturalism. Perhaps they should consider that their LEADERSHIP role requires them to address the challenge rather than to denounce its failure.

As for the US? Well, maybe it’s time to stop “classifying” people.

The forbears of Ms. Lopez-Mullins didn’t really care about their classification. Their multi-racial, multi-cultural multi-copulations were the product of sexual attraction, pheromones, whatever! Indeed, the Times story reported that one in seven births is the result of a multi-racial relationship.

So, it seems that we are taking Senator Bulworth’s advice. Maybe we’ll all be the same color someday.

From Zell to Fiscal Hell

“A college education should be more than an item of currency to be traded on the job market. To view it solely as an economic asset is to devalue it.” – Zell Miller, former Governor and US Senator representing the state of Georgia

I would like to welcome a guest blogger this week, my brother Christopher.  Chris has been actively involved in matters pertaining to public education for several years and has served as Chair of the Georgia House District 103 Education Advisory Board to Rep. David Casas.  A few weeks ago, the NY Times published an article titled, Georgia Facing a Hard Choice on Free Tuition.  I asked Chris for his view and here is what he wrote:


I have lived in Georgia since 1981. While the state has many things to boast about, public education is not one of them. For the past 30 years, student achievement has ranked at the bottom or near the bottom of state rankings. Every Governor comes into office vowing to make measurable improvements in education and most fall short. One significant exception was when Gov. Zell Miller fulfilled a campaign promise to institute a State Lottery and use the proceeds solely for public education.

The controversial Georgia Lottery law was written so that the funds could only be used for three specific purposes: Pre-K programs available to every family at no cost, technology for primary and secondary school systems, and the HOPE scholarship.

HOPE stands for Helping Outstanding Pupils Educationally. The program provides that any student who maintains at least a B average will not pay any tuition when attending a post-secondary program in a Georgia public college. The HOPE Scholarship is based on merit, not means.

A recent NY Times article talked about students at The University of Georgia driving “HOPEmobiles” which are cars given to students from families with means. The parents don’t have to pay tuition, so they reward their kids with cars. But, to talk about HOPE as giving money to families who don’t need it misses the point. The principle of HOPE is that it rewards hard work. You give something; you get something.

The HOPE Scholarship program has had many consequences for Georgia; both intended and unintended. Over the past two decades, many of our top high school students have stayed in-state for college when they may have otherwise gone out-of-state. This has swelled the rolls of many of Georgia’s colleges, created a demand for new colleges to be built, and increased competition for admission to the top schools. The University of Georgia, for instance, once was accessible to average students. Now, it’s the hardest public school in the state to get into.

The demand for HOPE money has increased as attendance in Georgia’s post-secondary schools increased. Then, as the economy declined and the state cut the education budget, colleges have had to raise tuition and fees. The result is that HOPE’s liabilities now far outstrip its funding mechanism. The newly elected Governor, Nathan Deal, has had to propose some tough and unpopular choices. Do we increase the GPA requirement, reduce the percent of tuition covered, or institute means testing?

Attempts to duplicate the success of HOPE at the national level have fallen short. Tax credits for education involve complex IRS rules and only rebate you after the money is spent. A federal education loan is good but it has to be paid back. A recently released government report indicates that the total outstanding education debt held by Americans is greater than that owed on credit cards. Has the ease of getting these loans created another economic “bubble” waiting to burst?

Few would disagree that a well-educated work force is key to our future success in this global economy. While we used to view a high school education as the door to opportunity, increasingly that is not enough. Persons without a college degree, on average, have seen lower pay and higher unemployment. Few parents would discourage their children from seeking a college degree, but more are having trouble paying for it.

America has the finest post-secondary educational institutions in the world. That’s one reason why colleges are bulging with enrollment of foreign students. Should the best and brightest Americans be excluded because it’s too expensive? For once, the politicians in Georgia got it right. While HOPE will certainly change with the current economic realities, it’s not going away. Good students in Georgia will continue to have opportunity regardless of their means. The question is why other states haven’t followed Georgia’s lead.

Since 1993, the Georgia Lottery has generated $5 billion for education. So, go out and buy a lottery ticket and feel good about it. We shouldn’t be “HOPE-less”, we need to invest in the next generation.

- Chris Calia

Christopher Calia graduated cum laude from the University of Virginia and received his Masters in Mechanical Engineering from M.I.T.  He was a national Fellow in Nuclear Engineering and now runs a small, private software company.  He clearly values the education he was fortunate enough to receive, and is a frequent activist on legislative issues related to education.


In my last posting, I repeated the oft spouted phrase that governing is about choosing.  Clearly, we are all facing some tough choices which will create controversy and disillusion many Americans.  The only question is:

WHO WILL LEAD? 

Adam Smith: Communitarian

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.



 Adam Smith, Scottish philosopher, economist and author



A colleague of mine – a college professor – describes herself as a Communitarian. She quickly quips that her husband says that’s the same as a Communist. But, while some Communists might be Communitarians and some Communitarians might be Communists, they are not the same. Wikipedia defines the term this way: “Communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and argues that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities”. Sounds pretty far from the common perception of Adam Smith. However, I think it’s fair to say that Smith might buy into that philosophy.

Conservative politicians have promoted the “invisible hand” of the markets quoting Adam Smith from his treatise, the Wealth of Nations. I doubt that many of them have actually read the 1000 page tome. If they had, they would know that Smith believed that efficient markets and general welfare resulted from local business owners bearing the cost of their enterprise and sharing the values of their communities.

Smith strongly disliked both governments and corporations. He viewed government primarily as an instrument for extracting taxes to subsidize elites and for intervening in the market to protect corporate monopolies. In his words, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” Certainly, that was an accurate description of 18th Century colonial America ruled by the British throne.

But, Adam Smith was a Scottish philosopher whose theories were not supported by data. A century and a half later, Friedrich Hayek developed the data to take Adam Smith’s philosophy to a new level. He advanced what would later be called Austrian Economics, a theory of monetarism that was embraced by his colleagues (including Milton Friedman) while he was part of the faculty at the University of Chicago in the 1950’s. Hayek believed that manipulation of interest rates distorted the price of capital leading to the boom and bust cycles we have seen throughout our history. In other words, the way to prevent the bust is to avoid the boom.

Like most students of economics of my generation, I lean toward the supply side theories that have been espoused by conservative economists, Hayek and Friedman. Their progeny like Arthur Laffer influenced Ronald Reagan whose response to an economic crisis was to return control of capital to those that earned the money. Lower taxes meant more money in your pockets, lower capital costs (without monetary distortions) and through the “multiplier effect” an expansion of the economy. He also coined the term “trickle-down economics” to describe the benefit to lower income families.

The expansion of our economy these last 30 years has been extraordinary. However, the promised trickle-down effect isn’t trickling. Over the last decade we have seen global corporations earning more money while the average real income for families has remained flat. Adam Smith would be appalled. Not only is the central government co-opting a significant share of our personal incomes but also it is reallocating our income to corporate interests in the form of subsidies and tax breaks. And, it has done so to the ill effect of the people who have elected that government.

Indeed, I know of no economic theory called trickle-down economics nor of any data to support its promise. It’s a political phrase. That’s all.

So, what would Smith and Hayek have to say about that?

Rarely do we hear of the other views expressed in The Wealth of Nations captured here: “It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.” Nor, do we hear much from his seminal work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, where he explored the nature of mankind in civil society. How’s this for an Adam Smith quote: “This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition, though necessary both to establish and to maintain the distinction of ranks and the order of society, is, at the same time, the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”

Hayek, who had the advantage of observing governments in action in the 20th Century (Smith lived his entire life in the 18th), also espoused the creation of a “safety net”. In his most read work, The Road to Serfdom, he said: "There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision."

So, where do we go from here? The threat posed by our national debt and its evil twin, the budget deficit, are real. If current trends continue, 100% of our tax revenue will go to paying interest on the debt within 10 years. That can’t happen. And, when something can’t happen, it won’t.

It is often said that governing is about choosing. We have rarely faced choices as difficult as those we face today.

Tuesday’s State of the Union Address will be interesting on many levels, political and otherwise. The President’s public pronouncements have recently focused on helping business in the name of lowering unemployment. He even took the extraordinary step of authoring an Op Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal. Will he announce that he will introduce the recommendations of his Fiscal Commission to Congress and ask that they make them law? Will he acknowledge the work of Rep. Paul Ryan who is carrying the Republican flag, toward a compromise that will balance our budget within a decade?

Will the next two years be marked by more partisan bickering? Or, to paraphrase my usual closing question, WILL HE LEAD?

How's This for a Healthcare Problem?

"Hundreds of residents had been seized by the disease within a few hours of one another, in many cases entire families, left to tend for themselves in dark, suffocating rooms."

Steven Johnson, from his book “The Ghost Map: The Story of London's Most Terrifying Epidemic - and How It Changed Science, Cities, and the Modern World”



Not much was understood about disease and how it spread in the early part of the nineteenth century. In London -- perhaps the most civilized of cities at that time -- the medical profession theorized that the black plague and cholera were spread through miasma, the foul smelling stench that emanated from factories and sewers. London’s population had more than quadrupled in the first half of the century and the city was unprepared for the impact of more than 2.4 million people.

A cholera epidemic in the 1840’s had killed thousands and led to the creation of the General Board of Health. Despite the Board’s efforts, an outbreak of Cholera threatened London again in 1854. Inside of a week, over 100 people died and many more were sick. Seventy-five percent of the residents of Soho fled the city leaving factories with a dearth of workers. There were calls to shut down the factories as they were thought to be the primary cause of the miasma.

Dr. John Snow did not believe in the miasma theory and he set about to prove that contaminated water was the cause. The science of epidemiology was in its infancy and it wasn’t as simple as peering at water samples under a microscope. Rather, Snow acted more detective than physician. He famously mapped the cases and triangulated on a public well – the Broad Street Well -- that had been contaminated by sewage.

The city government shut down the well. How? By removing the pump handle. Wouldn’t it be great if all such problems could be solved so easily?

The following year, the General Board of Health drafted a bill for consideration by Parliament. The Nuisances Removal and Diseases Prevention Act threatened to curtail or shut down factories by regulating the foul odors that emanated through the city. Its proponents continued to promote the theory that miasma caused disease. Businesses objected vehemently. In their view, the bill jeopardized their ability to continue to do business.

In other words, the bill was a “job killing” healthcare law. Dr. Snow testified on behalf of industry, reasoning that since factory workers were no more likely to die of the disease than other residents of the city the smell could not be its cause. The bill was defeated.

I guess some things never change.

Today, congressional Democrats, who believe that the government should engage in economic intervention, argue that we are the only industrialized country that does not provide universal healthcare to its citizens. As though that is a good reason to do anything!

Meanwhile the Republicans have labeled Obamacare as “government controlled healthcare” and have promised to “repeal and replace” it. Huh? Replace it with what? If you think that government controlled healthcare is bad, then just repeal it! They point to the US Constitution as the proper construct and who can argue with that. It’s an extraordinary document and no other country has been able to improve upon it in the last 230 years.

In my view, all of the political rhetoric is a distraction.

The Brits don’t even have a constitution. And, whether the foul stench of 1850’s London was causing disease or not, it was probably a good idea to get rid of it. It’s not there today so something must have happened in the last century and a half.

There’s no question healthcare needs reform. The rising costs threaten our economic security.

Fifty years ago, the AMA feared Medicare and decried it as “socialized medicine”. Over the last two generations the program, which is a bottomless pit of taxpayer money, has made many a doctor filthy rich. Meanwhile, roughly 40 million Americans have no coverage. Many, who can afford it, can’t get it because of pre-existing conditions or some other nonsense. (I’ve been there, personally.)

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn’t address the core problem – cost. So, what should we do? Like most of you, I have opinions but lack expertise. However, I have read a number of studies including one by McKinsey and Co. which compares the embedded costs of our system to others in the industrialized world. McKinsey lays it down to three simple matters that need to be addressed: (1) the rapid growth of outpatient costs due to higher utilization, (2) higher pharmacy costs and (3) higher administrative costs (including malpractice claims). I won’t go into details. If you’re interested, you can read the study by clicking HERE.

Those who would argue for no change (let the market decide) are not coming to grips with reality. The current system is not free enterprise. And, anyone who doesn’t think it needs reform is simply nuts. The reason that government needs to be involved is that the industry is too fragmented. Unlike for example the auto industry, there is no dominant player who can drive standards and automation into the supply chain like GM did in the 80’s.

That said, the country simply cannot afford another entitlement program when the national debt threatens our financial security.

We will undoubtedly be treated to lots of posturing by politicians and blathering by pundits. Ignore it. It’s a distraction.

It really comes down to one question: WHO WILL LEAD?

Why I LIke Ike

“Moderation shall rule in all things except exact sciences and morality”                         

 Dwight David Eisenhower

A friend recently asked me which President during my life was my favorite. Easy, I said, I like Ike. I usually get a blank stare when I say this and this time was no exception. Many of my contemporaries, Baby Boomers, have little memory of Eisenhower’s administration other than nostalgia – egg crèmes, tail fins, pastel colors, hoop skirts and the like. Those are my memories too. However, I love history and the 50’s provide some interesting perspectives.

Many people think of Ike as a “do nothing” President. By the end of his second term, he was old and ill having survived a heart attack while in office. Energetic and thriving, the WW II generation (“… born in this century…” as JFK put it) were anxious to move on. JFK’s “vigor” (or, “vigah” as he famously said it with his Boston accent) seemed like just the ticket. Ike’s image wasn’t helped by the televised White House tour hosted by Jackie Kennedy in 1962 in which she pointed out the damage to the Oval Office floor from Ike’s golf cleats. He apparently liked to practice his putting from time to time.

Do-nothing? Well, one thing he didn’t do is get us into Vietnam after the French were defeated by the Viet Cong in 1954. Also, he didn’t send troops to Hungary in 1956 to fight the Soviets as many conservatives wanted him to do.

Eisenhower was motivated to run for President because he wanted to ensure that international institutions created after WW II were preserved – NATO, the United Nations. The conservative wing of his party, led by Robert Taft, was "non-interventionist". I don’t know if there were rumors of black helicopters but the sentiment springs from the same well.

Here are some things that do-nothing Ike did. He ended the armed conflict in Korea. He initiated the development of the interstate highway system, joined the space race through the establishment of NASA, paid down the extensive debt from WW II and ran a balanced budget. He eschewed party politics, leaving that burden to his Vice President. Absent politics, how did he decide the best course? In his own words:

“I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem - and that yardstick is: Is it good for America?”

I had the extraordinary privilege of attending a dinner last week at which the guest speaker was US Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The event, arranged by good friend and colleague, Phil Bakes, and sponsored by The Strategic Forum was awe inspiring. Moreover, Justice Breyer gave us another reason to like Ike.

The Justice, who carries a copy of the US Constitution in his coat pocket, cited the Federalist Papers to provide context for the establishment of the Supreme Court. The framers were concerned about the court having too much power, it seems. They were finally persuaded that the Court represented no threat. After all, they had no power of the purse or to order military action.

The power of the Court was put to the test in 1830 when it found that the Cherokee Nation had rights to the land it occupied in Georgia. What did President Andrew Jackson do? He ignored the Court’s ruling and evicted the Cherokees anyway. Their journey west to Oklahoma along with other tribes, Creeks, Choctaw and Seminole, was called the Trail of Tears as roughly half the Native Americans didn’t survive the trip.

Now, I knew all that. What I didn’t know was that this was the first of many Court rulings that Presidents over the succeeding 125 years chose not to enforce. The Court having no military or financial authority was powerless. Until the 1954 Brown v. the Board of Education, that is.

The Court’s ruling led to the order to integrate the public schools in Little Rock. Governor Orval Faubus defied the Federal government. Southern congressman warned the President that if he sent in troops, he would have to “occupy” the entire South. Ike’s response? He sent in the 101st Airborne Division. Not only did he force the integration of schools, but he also firmly established the authority of the US Supreme Court by, finally, giving their rulings the force of law.

The Supreme Court is a lightning rod that attracts most of the electricity around emotional issues the Congress hasn’t the courage to address. Yet, that is the role envisioned by the framers. Someone needs to look at laws objectively with the objective of deciding if those laws comply with the intent of the Constitution. Eisenhower’s LEADERSHIP defied the politically expedient course.

Justice Breyer held the audience in the palm of his hand for about an hour. I think everyone took something different away from the evening. The history lesson for me was that it was Ike’s LEADERSHIP that gave the US Supreme Court the force of law.

Eisenhower was a conservative at heart. A reading of history informs us that he saw government’s role as limited to national security, assuring equal justice under the law and responsibility for the basic prosperity of our country. That said, he refused to follow the reactionary course encouraged by some members of his party. He, also, worked against fellow Republican, Joseph McCarthy.

And, that’s why I LIKE IKE.

Which modern President is your favorite? I would love to hear from you. Please scroll down to leave your comments.

Time to Call the Plumber?

Loose lips sink ships.


 Advice given to service men and women during WW II



It’s kind of amazing to think about it but prior to World War II, there were no rules provided to members of our military on what they could and couldn’t communicate to people outside their unit.  I assume it was a little easier to be a spy before that time.

Espionage has been around for centuries, of course. There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians used agents to assess enemy forces. And, the very quotable Sun Tzu said, “It is essential to seek out enemy agents who have come to conduct espionage against you and to bribe them to serve you…. Thus doubled agents are recruited and used”.

Leaking is different than spying. Pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, famously published (leaked?) information about a secret alliance between the Americans and the French, which was news to the British at the time. He was forced to resign as secretary to a committee of Congress.

French revolutionary, Joseph Fouche, is often credited with establishing the first government institutions dedicated to espionage. He was a popular guy by the time Napoleon began his campaign.

During the Civil War, the Confederacy developed an extensive network of spies who were managed from an office in Richmond down the hall from Jefferson Davis. One agent brought a copy of the Philadelphia Enquirer to General Robert E. Lee outlining troop movements by Union General McClellan. Lee cancelled his battle plans and moved his own forces to counter the moves.

The CIA is perhaps more famous for its failures than its successes. (How would we know about their successes?) There was the Bay of Pigs, of course. And, the CIA missed important developments leading to India getting the bomb in 1974, the collapse of the USSR and the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.

While the Iraq war continues to have daily impact on the United States, those other events of the last 50 years are now part of history. It is unlikely that a Wikileaks event would have changed the outcome. There are inexorable forces at work that will affect our security long after this controversy becomes part of the history books. So, it strikes me that we need to take a long term view of Wikileaks.

It is important that we pay careful attention to the interests of Russia in Eastern Europe. During the Cold War, the Iron Curtain represented the western most boundary of the Russian sphere of influence in their entire history. Conversely, the current western border of Russia is set more to the east than it has ever been. Noting that Vladimir Putin is an “alpha dog” should surprise no one, least of all Vlad. What he might do next could surprise us all.

China’s economic growth rate is unsustainable in the long term. The cracks are already starting to show. Yet, they continue to be the single most important influencer in Asia. Are we prepared to deal with both the short term and long term developments?

The Arab world has been unstable for decades. Their only economic asset is oil. They have no middle class to speak of and the ongoing Jihad makes even our best allies suspect over the long term.

And, then there’s Korea……

Nothing that Wiki leaked will have a serious impact on these inexorable trends.

At the end of the day, it reminds me of when your high school teacher intercepted a note being passed around the class and read it out loud. A little bit of name calling and characterizations that are embarrassing to hear out in the open but no real harm done in the long term. (I suppose kids send text messages now. What’s a school teacher to do?)

There were two things that really struck me during the airing of all this gossip. When I was a young military officer, I had a Top Secret clearance. It was granted to me because I had access to encrypted messages. However, during my brief career in uniform, I never once saw any Top Secret information. Why? Because I didn’t have a “need to know”.

So, how is it that a private first class in the US Army had access to all this information? Did he really need to know what was being said between the Ambassador to Pakistan and the Secretary of State? What possible purpose could that serve?

My second observation has to do with LEADERSHIP. Despite our hyper partisan political environment, the opposition Republicans refrained from attacking the administration’s policies. It was a rare display of LEADERSHIP on their part.

“You don't lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not leadership.”
                                          ----  Dwight D. Eisenhower