Does Syria matter? It matters to Israel… It matters to Russia… It matters to Iran

General Martin Dempsey

Syria was in the news again last week.  You may not have noticed.  What, with  more important news like a royal baby.  In case you missed it, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff presented the Senate Armed Services Committee with a three-page letter outlining America’s military options vis-à-vis Syria. 

Aren’t we all a little war-weary?  We still have troops in Afghanistan (105 casualties this year).  We have spent over $1Trillion on two wars and have yet to come to grips with either the social or financial impact of thousands of wounded warriors coming home.

So, why is the Obama administration wringing its hands over Syria?  Is it conceivable that we would add it to the list of countries where we have intervened militarily?

Syria, a former Soviet ally, serves as the western anchor for a potentially powerful Iranian coalition. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Arab running a Shia nation from a minority position, was an obstacle to the formation of that coalition.  Now Iran, whose paranoia was fed by having thousands of U.S. troops amassed in nations bordering them to the east and the west, has an opportunity. 

Stir Russia into the mix.  Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s sphere of influence contracted.  Russia now seeks to extend its influence to the Middle East and Southern Asia without using its military.  They have taken advantage of a financially weakened Europe by both making it dependent upon them for energy and by acquiring assets throughout the continent.  It is not in their interest for energy sources outside its control to be available to Europe.

International diplomacy is a game of maintaining a balance of power among competing strategic players.  The smarter of them will take advantage of world events to tip the balance in their favor.  Russia sees opportunity in an alliance with Iran by supporting the Assad regime in Syria.

The U.S. is typically an unsophisticated player on this stage.  Our geographic isolation and domestic concerns place international affairs way down the list on the matters that concern most voters.  Following a major military engagement, we hear the same old aphorisms.  “America can’t be the world’s policeman.”  “Someone else should step up.”  “We have problems here at home.”

The result is inconsistency and the risk is that potential allies do not see us as reliable partners.

Diplomacy – like nature – abhors a vacuum.  We have seen what happens when we don’t become involved.  Yugoslavia and Rwanda come to mind. 

And, it may be that our adversaries in the region see us as creating a vacuum by virtue of our inability to form a cohesive, consistent, successful foreign policy since the collapse of the Soviet Union.  The rush to fill the void may heighten the risk of war.

It’s in America’s interest to limit both Iranian and Russian power.  And, it must do so without considering its military power as its first option.  The U.S. can only afford to support those countries that take responsibility for their national security interests themselves.  We cannot be the first source of that security.  We need to develop a low-risk strategy that doesn’t rely upon knee-jerk military responses.

The entire world knows that the U.S. has neither the political will nor the resources to occupy and govern an Asian nation.  However, we can provide support through arms, training, air and sea power.  Coupled with trade, a sustainable alliance of this nature allows our allies to be secure in the idea that we will not abandon them.

So, what are our diplomatic options?  How do we create an alliance that will serve our interests and tip the balance of power in our favor?

The Caucasus region is where both the Russian and Persian empires converge with Turkey (the empire that collapsed as the Soviet empire emerged).  The nation at the nexus of that convergence is Azerbaijan.  A hundred years ago, half the world’s oil was produced in Azerbaijan. 

But, even when the royal baby isn’t in the headlines, we don’t hear about Azerbaijan, a tiny nation that has become a centerpiece of Israeli foreign policy.  Its government has longstanding grievances with Iran – over control of bordering territory primarily.  A secular Muslim nation (hard to come by), it accuses Iran of supporting Islamist, anti-government factions within its borders.

So, Azerbaijan has formed a substantial trading relationship with Israel, selling it oil and acquiring weapons and military materiel in exchange.  The U.S. should leverage this relationship for its benefit. Israel has “stepped up” as we have stood down.  It is imperative that we continue to support their efforts. 

Now that the royal baby has been named, maybe we can start paying attention to something that matters.

WHO WILL LEAD?

GM, Ford, Chrysler… Does the end justify the means?

Have you heard?  People everywhere (except Europe) are buying cars again.  Automotive News reports that June’s U.S. auto sales are up for six consecutive years. They project 16 million for the full year.  Further, they report that each of the Detroit Big 3 gained market share in the first six months of 2013. 

That’s a far cry from the reports out of Detroit a few years ago.

More interesting is that foreign manufacturers are locating more factories here in the U.S.  Is that a good thing?  You bet.  When companies from another country invest here it creates jobs no matter what the nameplate on the car.  Indeed, Nissan, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, BMW and the rest are exporting cars from their U.S. factories to the rest of the world.

Bloomberg recently ranked the U.S. as the third most attractive country to locate a business behind Hong Kong and the Netherlands.  China? They’re number 19. 

How can that be?  Here’s how.  While it’s true that the weaker dollar has caused the effective labor cost to drop, what’s more important is that the U.S. is well integrated into the global economy through its transportation and communications systems, has the wealthiest consumer base and is a rules-based economy. 

Global investors – business owners, corporate executives, shareholders -- are more likely to put their money into a venture governed by a reliable set of regulations, taxes, policies, etc.  “The rule of law” is very important to them.

Rule of law is a confusing term and, used in other than economic contexts, can be construed as “rule according to law” or “rule under the law”.  Dictionary.com provides a concise definition thusly:  “the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.”

Was the rule of law abandoned a few years ago when the automakers were circling the toilet for the third time?  Fearful that hundreds of thousands of jobs would be flushed along with the shareholders money, the government intervened, first under the Bush administration, to loan TARP money the automakers and, then under the Obama administration, to engineer a restructuring of both GM and Chrysler through bankruptcy proceedings.

Critics howled but fear ruled the day.  So, what would have happened if the government hadn’t stepped in?  Many of my friends and colleagues have speculated that private investors would have acquired the assets through a Section 363 sale in bankruptcy court.  GM could probably have been had for about $10 billion, chump change for the private equity industry. 

But, I am not so sure.  We were all in a panic in the first half of 2009.  No one was quite sure what would happen next.  Investors like a stable environment in which they can place their bets.  2009 was anything but stable.   Mike Jackson, CEO of AutoNation (NYSE:AN) the nation’s largest auto dealer, has often said, “it’s pains me as a conservative Republican to say this…” but the U.S automakers would not have survived if the government hadn’t taken action.  He goes on to support the oft-reported view that the a GM liquidation would have unraveled the supply chain and brought down many other companies in the industry, causing not only job losses but also disruption of the global economy.  And, this was at a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve was still putting the Humpty-Dumpty financial services industry together again.

Principles are important.  Our leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, violated so many sound principles of capitalism during the nine-month span between the Lehman bankruptcy and the GM bankruptcy that it’s hard to keep track.  The most prolific of the Austrian school of economics, Friedrich Hayek, in his most important work The Road to Serfdom, said, “nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principles known as the Rule of Law”.

But, there is no line in the sand that can distinguish between actions that satisfy the principles of the rule of law.  Both the President and the Chair of the Federal Reserve are given a great deal of discretion.  Here’s what George W. Bush told CNN in December 2008, a month before he turned the reins of government over to his successor.  "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system, to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

We’ll never know what might have happened if the government hadn’t exercised its discretion.  But, no President wants to preside over the collapse of the economy.

WHO WILL LEAD?

It's Not Religion... It's Not Politics... It's Personal!

Peter and me

“Was it difficult to adjust to it?”  That’s what she asked me.  “Was it difficult to adjust to what?” I replied.  “To your son being gay.”

I am not sure anyone had ever asked me that question before.  I have become accustomed to answering the standard questions about family.  How many kids?  How old? etc.  We were at a weekend retreat for Vistage chairs.  So, even though we have only known each other for a few months, we knew each other well.  It’s an experience that really opens you up.  So, the question didn’t really throw me.  It just surprised me a bit.

Her question forced me to dredge up those long ago memories.  Yes, it was difficult.  And, it was difficult for years.

We have such extraordinary expectations of our children and, even if we can curb our tendency to impose them too harshly, they know what those expectations are.  Very few parents expect their children to be gay or envision their prospective spouse to be of the same sex.  I never expressed that to my son.  I didn’t have to.

The woman who asked the question is the mother of three teenagers (two boys and a girl).  So, I asked her two simple questions.

“Do you love your children?”  Yes, of course she does.

“Do you want them to be happy?”  The question answers itself. 

She went on a bit about her eldest son and the girl he had brought home.  I gather she hopes for someone better or maybe different.  I understand where she’s at.  I’ve been there.  There was a time when my greatest worry was that my son would marry the young girl he dated in college.  His mother and I married too young and I didn’t want him to make the same mistake. 

Little did I know at the time …

Robert Holden, Ph.D. has done extensive work on happiness in children and adults.  He has surveyed mothers in 67 countries about their wishes for their children.  By far, the number one response no matter the culture, race or religion is that their children be happy.  Not wealthy or wise…  happy! 

Dr. Holden would suggest that our challenge as parents is to learn from our children as much as we teach them.   “… it's important to understand that you cannot make your children happy,”  he counsels.  “That said, there is plenty you can do to encourage them to be happy. The distinction between making and encouraging is a vital one. Parents who believe they can make their children happy are prone to making other mistakes like trying too hard to be a good parent, intervening too much, being over controlling and believing they always know what's best for their children.”

That the Supreme Court overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allowed the states to call the shots was foreseeable.  For the Justices, the issue is not a family matter but rather a

legal one.  A conservative court that hews closely to the Constitution as it was written was bound to abide by the 10thAmendment and the Equal Protection clause.  Preventing gays from marrying penalizes them in the whole host of matters from adoption/custody to health decisions to taxes. 

Following the announcement last week, the person-on-the-street interviews conducted by NPR ran the gamut from those who are elated like my son to those who think homosexuality is an abomination.  One that stood out for me was a young mother who expressed her views – not in religious or political terms – but in personal terms, saying that it was a “moral issue”.  She doesn’t want her children to be influenced by a society that condones gay marriage. 

I wish I could have asked her, “Do you love your children?”  “Do you want them to be happy?”  “And, what if one of them turns out to be gay?”

In the end, every parent learns that our children’s happiness is more important than our own aspirations for them.  What’s best for them is to support their dreams not our dreams for them.

I love my son.  I want him to be happy.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Is It High Tide on Main Street? Here’s One Man’s View on Global Warming

“Doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs.”  That’s what my mother would have called them.  It was her way of describing important people.  You know, the educated folks who present themselves well and become leaders of their community.  It describes most of the people I meet these days.  Not so many doctors but a lot of professionals and CEO’s. 

One such CEO stands out.  He is John Englander, the guy whom Jacque Cousteau picked to be his successor as CEO of the Cousteau Society.  I met him in my office a few years ago (I don’t remember who introduced us).  “I am writing a book,” he told me.  “I’ll send you a copy.”  And, he did.  I have an autographed first edition published in 2012.

I read a lot but nearly everything I read (and watch or listen to) is on my iPad.  So, John’s book, High Tide on Main Street:  Rising Sea Level and the Coming Coastal Crisis, sat on my shelf along with a dozen others – unread.

Then came Hurricane Sandy, which was soon followed by an email from John.  “Did you read my book?” he asked.  “I predicted this.”  And, so he did.  He discusses the impact of rising sea levels globally and uses chapter 12 to describe the impact on several cities.  As for New York, he asserts that the “broad arm of Long Island, the rivers around Manhattan that continue up the Hudson River Valley can, under certain circumstances, act as a funnel, amplifying storm surge effects for Manhattan.”  He cites a study done by the Army Corps of Engineers that identifies the conditions under which a “storm surge of nearly 30 feet at the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel” could flood subways and tunnels.  He points out that, in August 2011, Hurricane Irene was an inch short of doing so. 

And, that was a year before Sandy. 

But, I am getting ahead of myself.  What High Tide does best is describe the effects of CO² emissions on global temperatures and how slight changes can have a catastrophic impact.  A one degree difference in temperature can make determine whether snow melt will cause a rise in sea levels in any year.  He describes the methods by which scientists have identified the 612-foot range of sea levels over the past billion years and focuses our attention on how sea levels have been affected by glaciers. 

It’s a vicious cycle.  Rising temperatures cause glacial snowmelt, which in turn release more CO², which causes temperatures to rise which…  Well, you get the idea. 

The net of all this discussion is that “we are increasing carbon dioxide levels roughly 20,000 times faster than at any time in the last 540 Million years.  Temperatures … are now rising about 55 times faster than they did during the most recent cycle of glacial melting”. 

Figures lie and liars figure.  Princeton Professor William Happer, writingin the Wall Street Journal, discussed the lack of temperature rise over thelast 10 years and cites the same United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as Englander.  The difference is that Happer uses the absence of complete data in the study to debunk global climate change while Englander writes a whole chapter about scientific methods and includes data from several other studies to describe the impact of rising CO² levels on glacial melting. 

Rather than ignore what doesn’t fit his point of view, Englander brings all of it into the discussion including the economic and national security impact.  Whether you support the view that mankind is causing global climate change or not, you cannot ignore its impact. 

New York can be protected according to Englander and last week’s announcement of a $20B plan by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg fits the bill.  But, New York sits on a granite foundation while such cities as Miami and Venice, Italy cannot be saved.  In place of granite bedrock, they sit on limestone, which acts like a sponge absorbing more water as sea levels rise. 

High Tide also offers solutions and describes the economic impact of doing nothing.  While Englander makes a hard sell, he doesn’t soft-peddle the challenges of the appropriate responses.  Solutions ranging from “retreat” to “defense” are explored while explaining that different geographies require different solutions. 

He also discusses the feasibility of technological advances that offer alternatives to burning fossil fuel. What I like most about High Tide is that it boils a lot of scientific information down to language that a non-scientist can understand.  In addition, the book doesn’t shy from any of the related topics including the politics of deploying solutions. 

Still there is one question that Englander doesn’t answer.

WHO WILL LEAD?

An Oxymoron: Future Conservatives

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post titled "I think I'm Turning Liberal...  I Really Think So".  The piece was a critique of the current liberal paradigm in this country and I got lots of responses.

Conservatives could benefit from some self-reflection as well.  To recapture a majority, they must evolve their approach to governing.  Is it an oxymoron to think of conservatism evolving to some future state? Conservatives focus on traditional values not evolution of their values.

Today’s American conservatives often quote the founders, using the U.S. Constitution as a construct for pursuing a 21^st Century policy agenda.  The Constitution reflects the philosophies of Spinoza, Locke and Voltaire.  A philosophy that promoted civil liberty, political freedom, limited government, the rule of law and free markets -- tenets that today’s conservatives continue to espouse.  The irony is that, during the Age of Enlightenment, the term that defined these tenets was “Classical Liberalism”. 

That what was liberal at our founding is conservative by 21^st Century standards is perhaps a measure of how societies evolve.  Can conservatives achieve any political gains with a public that seems to be moving in the opposite direction?  Do conservatives have to embrace some of the philosophical and political prescriptions of liberals to regain their electoral mojo?  I don’t think so.

People don’t vote on the basis of philosophical prescriptions; they vote for what resonates with them emotionally.  That’s why the President could be elected on the flimsy promise of “Hope and Change”. 

But Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” theme during the 80’s was no more substantive; and, no Republican has been able to connect with the emotional core of the public the way that Reagan did in the years since. 

The nation needs real reform.  Conservatives understand that our debt and deficits are not sustainable.  They understand that our entitlement programs need restructuring to survive.  There are big changes required to get the country on track. 

Reagan understood that big change requires big majorities.  You can’t persuade the majority by standing at one end of the political spectrum, hurling epithets at the other.  Reagan’s “Morning in America” pitch was optimistic about our future at a time when we were also in crisis.  It was the faith he expressed in America that sold the voting public on his vision. 

The public and the media have focused on the excesses of Wall Street and the failures of a capitalist economy to support its middle class.  While some of the criticism is deserved, what is undermining the middle class is not capitalism but a government that is undermining the value of the assets we have worked so hard to accumulate. 

At their core, Americans – no matter their race, gender, ethnicity or sexual preference – are aspirational.  That is, our culture fosters ambition and self-sufficiency.  Aspirational Americans may wish for their government to provide assistance to the most needy; however, they do not wish for a segment of the population to be motivated not to work. 

If you eyeball this chart, you can see that an individual making an annual salary of $25,000 receives the equivalent of $20,000 per year in government assistance.  It’s pretty hard to improve your annual income by 80% and it’s unlikely that many will try if they will lose the equivalent in government support.

Aspirational Americans don’t wish for their hard earned wealth to be shared in this way.  All they want is an opportunity to succeed on their own merits.  They want access to a great education, equal opportunity for employment and civil liberties -- values that are consistent with classical liberals, our founders.  Conservatives preach these values but often don’t live up to them.

Instead, Republican politicians support corporate America.  Support that manifests itself in subsidies for ethanol, tax breaks for big oil and tax exempt bonds for corporate projects.  The founders never intended the government to be at the behest of corporations. It is supposed to serve the people.  Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave.

Conservatives like to quote Adam Smith’s work “The Wealth of Nations” and speak of the “invisible hand” of the market as a the cure for what ails us.  But, they should also remember Smith’s words about government. "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.”

They can regain their electoral mojo without sacrificing their values.  They just need to start practicing what they preach.   

WHO WILL LEAD?

The two Bobs are at it again…

I introduced you to the two Bobs a year ago (Kodak-town andthe Two Bobs).  They are kind of like one of those old cartoons.  You know…  the cartoon character is faced with a moral dilemma and up pops a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other.

It all started a couple of weeks ago.  Bob’s wife – my niece – invited me over for steaks on the BBQ.  While we were munching on hors d’oeuvres, Bob made a comparative statement about job safety that ended something like this “… or else we’d be just like Texas.” 

“What’s wrong with that?” I said.  “Texas is creating jobs!”

Bob was referring to the recent fertilizer plant explosion in Texas, which he speculates was the result of lax regulation.  I debated the point but not too forcefully.  (After all, I hadn’t had my steak yet.)  There needs to be some regulation, we agreed.  The question is how much is too much?

On the other shoulder, you’ll find the other Bob, an old friend. I had sent him a news item featuring an opinion by Vanguard founder John Bogle wherein he asserts that our 401K’s should be diversified so that unsophisticated investors won’t take too much risk.  So far, so good except that Bogle also suggests that the government regulate the holdings in these funds. 

It’s an interesting idea.  There is clearly a social cost to 401K investors failing to achieve their retirement goals.  More pressure on social security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps to name a few.  Why shouldn’t government require sound investment practices in exchange for tax-advantaged treatment?

I’m sure Bob would agree.  No, not that Bob.  The other one.

As for business regulation, it is legitimate to ask how much regulation is too much.

My answer is simple: when jobs are leaving the state (as they are in NY), it’s too much. Texas is creating jobs because they are at the other end of the pendulum swing (or sitting on the other shoulder if you prefer).

I’m sure Bob would agree.  No, not that Bob.  The other one.

I don’t feel strongly about Bogle’s idea one way or the other.  However, I love a good debate and, since Bob stands someplace to the right of Ron Paul on these matters, a great debate ensued.  What Bob believes is that people should have the freedom to choose -- to be rewarded by their good choices or pay for their mistakes. Bob identifies examples where industries have regulated themselves to the benefit of both businesses and their customers.  It’s a great model when it works.

An example of self-regulation in financial services is the rating agencies, S&P and Moody’s.  They are private companies paid by the industry they are rating.  During the real estate boom, their customers (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Lehman, etc.) convinced them that Collateralized Mortgage Obligations should be AAA rated.  The banks hired top mathematicians, paying them 7 figure salaries, to develop presentations to the poor dummies at the ratings agencies (5 figure salaries).  We all know what happened next.  Wouldn’t we be well served by a bit more oversight on these activities?

I’m sure Bob would agree.  No, not that Bob.  The other one.

Bob espouses a principled approach. “First, people must learn from their mistakes… One idea that applies here is don't put your money into something you don't understand. Stupidity will hurt. Repeated stupidity will bankrupt you.”

He makes a lot of sense.  However, former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan famously posited that financial institutions didn't need to be regulated because they wouldn't take risks that threatened their own existence. When questioned by Henry Waxman following the credit crisis he admitted that his "view of the world" was wrong.  Little solace for the rest of us. 

I am sure Bob would agree.  No, not that Bob.  The other one.

Bob tells me I have “way too much faith in government”. He would agree if he “thought they'd ever be good protectors”.  As bad as Wall Street has been, the  “government has been massively worse”. Further, the “complexity of today's world” argues “against a central decision-making authority with growing power to confiscate wealth”.

Still, I think some degree of government involvement is necessary.  I mean, weren’t we well served by having federally insured deposits (FDIC) during the crisis?

I am sure Bob would agree.  No, not that Bob.  The other one.

Now, where’s my steak?

WHO WILL LEAD?

I think I’m turning liberal… I really think so

I was watching a remembrance of the Watergate affair on the Discovery Channel the other night.  It was a great show incorporating newsreels, interviews and film clips from “All the President’s Men”.  Among the commentators was Rachel Maddow who speculates that Richard Nixon would be considered a conservative Democrat by today’s standards.  It was Nixon, after all, who signed the EPA into existence.  Imagine a Republican doing that today. I think it may be fair to say that the country has become more conservative since Tricky Dick exited the national stage.

But, the reelection of Barack Obama suggests a counter trend.  Republicans and pundits offered lots of explanations (read excuses) of why Democrats held their ground in the last election, ranging from the Hispanic vote to women’s issues to gay marriage.  If you’re into statistics, you could use any of these examples to make that case.

However, I think a better explanation can be found in a demographic trend.  As of 2011, more than250 million Americans (nearly 80%) live in or near a major city. And, nearly all major cities, including four in Texas, voted Democratic in the last election.

So, do liberals move to the city or do cities make people liberal?  I am inclined to believe the latter.  As Josh Kron wrote in Atlantic magazine, “The difference is [not where but] how people live: in spread-out, open, low-density privacy -- or … in-your-face population density and diverse communities …”.  In simple terms, if you live and work in a diverse environment you learn that we all have the same basic needs, the same joys and sorrows and the same desire to connect with our community.  It doesn’t really matter what color our skin is, where we come from or who we sleep with.

The urban environment tends to open you up.  So, the hard right dialog (about immigration, gay rights, birth control) that dominates today’s conservative politics drives urbanites and suburbanites into the arms of the Democrat Party. 

Liberal vs. liberal

There is a difference between the definition of the word liberal -- which can simplistically be defined as open to new ideas and willing to set aside traditional values – and Liberal as it describes a contemporary political philosophy. 

The model of Liberal government embraced by today’s Washington Democrats still reflects the 1930s New Deal and the 1960s Great Society.  Liberals are supposed to be progressive – forward looking.  So, why do they continue to embrace an 8-decade-old political philosophy?

Today’s urban young professionals are joining small, entrepreneurial companies.  The organizations are unstructured; the jobs require creative energy; and, success is based on either first mover advantage or superior execution. 

Contrast that with the early experiences of the Baby Boom generation.  We found job opportunities in large companies whose organizations were modeled on a military hierarchy that was embedded in our elders’ experience in WWII. 

Graduate schools of business reflect this transition as well.  If you went to the top B schools in the 60s, 70s and 80s, you were well prepared to work in the marketing department of Proctor & Gamble, the product planning group in one of Detroit’s Big 3 or the finance group of a big bank.

Today, nearly every top B school has a program that fosters entrepreneurship. 

What’s that got to do with liberalism?   Liberalism morphed into its 20^th Century form driven by the abuses of large companies.  The movement gave rise to trade unions, a social safety net and government regulation.  Today’s hip, urban, liberal Millennial generation scoffs at the idea that the safety net will be there for them in their senior years and small entrepreneurial companies are unaffected by trade unions… and, they certainly don’t want to be regulated.

The 21^st Century economy will drive changes to how we are governed.  Today’s urban youth will continue to be socially liberal.  But, they are unlikely to tolerate the downsides of an unsustainable model that has its roots in the experience of their great grandparents.  A generation of Americans that grew up with the Internet isn’t going to tolerate public institutions that operate on a 19^th Century bureaucratic model. Nor will they tolerate a healthcare system that absorbs more and more of our national income without improving outcomes, a social safety net that will collapse of its own weight or an education system that doesn’t match graduates with jobs and careers.

Going forward, the national debate won’t be about spendthrift compassion vs. cold-hearted austerity.  It will be about developing a healthcare system that can care for our poor and elderly without bankrupting the country, restructuring education to deliver globally competitive graduates and ordered liberty that provides equal opportunity to all.

When that happens, I’ll be a liberal.

WHO WILL LEAD?