Silence or Violence... May we have another choice please?

I received some interesting responses to my last post (BigNews! Elizabeth Warren and the Tea Party Agree) including more than a few from a serial harasser on Twitter.  The emotion that supports both the Tea Party and the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party is palpable.  The more thoughtful responses pointed out that, despite springing from the same dislike for the influence of money on politics, the solutions these disparate elements seek to deploy are far from similar. 

So, I went on a quest to see what Sen. Warren would do to make the federal government more effective.  Other than her well-known proposal to refinance student loan debt, I couldn’t find much that was specific.  She speaks of the importance of the role of government in supporting solutions to society’s challenging problems; however, she hasn’t really outlined how she would have us do that.

A similar quest to find Tea Party solutions was also frustrated, but for different reasons.  As one reader pointed out, it’s difficult to figure out which Tea Party is the real deal.  It’s a very fragmented movement. 

So, is there common ground?

I would like to see that government stop propping up failed banks and supporting corporate interests through subsidies and tax breaks.  I would guess that Sen. Warren’s supporters would agree, as would the Tea Party (I think).

I would also like to see the federal government stop meddling in the education system and stop reengineering the healthcare system from the top down.  I am not sure how that would come out on the Warren-meter.

But there is common ground.  Can that be leveraged into political compromise that would yield a positive result?

When I wrote about the Millennial generation last year (I think I’m turning liberal, I really think so), I expressed hope that the current crop of coming-of-age citizens would move us forward.  I wrote,

“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.”

The oldest of the Millennials turns 35 next year, about the age when they start to have influence on businesses and other institutions.  How?

A Millennial seeking to have an impact is Argentine political activist Pia Mancini, director of non-profit foundation DemocracyOS.  In a TED talk in Rio de Janeiro, she points out that today’s democratic governments are so unresponsive to the populace that we only have two choices – silent assent or violent protest.

Silence or violence – not much of a choice!

She postulates that the 18^th Century mantra “no taxation without representation” should be updated to “no representation without a conversation”. Technology has enabled us to have a global conversation on any topic.  Why not include our legislators in the dialog?  Or, conversely, why haven’t they included us?

 

Pia Mancini

Ms. Mancini and her colleagues have developed software, including a smartphone app that allows legislators to interact with citizens during debates on critical issues.  She has convinced the Argentine government to experiment with it.  She is hopeful.

My concern is that our politicians are too facile.  They use punditry to convince us that simplistic solutions will solve the big issues of the day. 

Do you believe that “income inequality” is a problem?  The President tells us that raising the minimum wage is the solution. 

It isn’t.

Government deficits and debt will burden our children and grandchildren.  Can we resolve those deficits only by cutting non-defense discretionary spending? 

No, we can’t.

Rising ocean temperatures threaten our coastlines.  Will government investment in green technology companies solve that problem? 

No. It won’t.

We have seen masses of people marching in the streets in the last few years – Hong Kong, Cairo, Tehran, New York.  What has it accomplished? 

In the absence of violent overthrow, not much.

Can technology that connects us to our institutional leaders offers the opportunity that Ms. Mancini describes?

I don’t know.

It’s certainly a good place to start.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Big News! Elizabeth Warren and the Tea Party Agree

I used to drink the Kool-Aid.  I was in the banking industry for the early part of my career. I always thought that the restrictions that prevented investment banks and commercial banks from operating under the same roof were arcane and unnecessary.  With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that I was wrong about that. 

The Glass-Steagall Act was passed during the Great Depression (1933) with the intention of preventing government insured depository institutions (banks!) from taking too much risk at taxpayers’ expense.  The elimination of Glass-Steagall approved by a Republican Congress with enough Democrats to provide a veto proof majority and signed by President Clinton in 1999 was, in the minds of many, on the critical path to the financial crisis in 2007.

The champion of re-implementing those safeguards was Elizabeth Warren who, in 2010, was Sen. Harry Reid’s appointee to the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP.  But, she was not alone.  Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) co-sponsored legislation to restore those regulations as did the bi-partisan duo of Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and David Vitter (R-LA) in the House.  In the end, we had to settle for the Volcker Rule that bans banks from using depositors’ funds for proprietary trading.

The Tea Party, a movement that has libertarianism roots, nevertheless agrees the restoration of the Glass-Steagall prohibitions would be productive.  The Tea Party Tribune recently featured a banner headline on the subject that reads “Bring Back Glass-Steagall” and mirrors Warren’s opposition to the Too Big To Fail (TBTF) banks.

Now a US Senator from Massachusetts, Warren has attracted attention from the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, those who think of President Obama as a centrist.

How was a former professor and government bureaucrat able to leverage her limited experience into a Senate seat on her first run at political office?

She did so by tapping into the anger that Americans feel across the political spectrum. 

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

There seems to be alignment between the origins of the support for both Sen. Warren (and what is now being called the “Warren Wing” of her party) and the Tea Party. They agree on who to be angry with – Wall St. and other corporate interests that have their way with our political system; and, politicians that seem to be in their thrall. 

There’s even some alignment between the philosophical underpinnings of their respective platforms.  Here’s a quiz for you.  What is the source of this philosophy?

“Government … has three basic functions:

  

1.  Provide for the national defense.

2.  Put rules in place… that are fair and transparent.

3.  Build the things together that none of us can build alone – roads, schools, power grids….”

Sounds simply and basic.  Must be a libertarian, right?

Well, no.  It’s from Sen. Warren’s blog. 

I was trying to tantalize you with my headline and chose an issue where the far left and far right are aligned to back it up.  But, it’s fair to say that when it comes to solutions, those two extremes are far apart.

Unlike the Tea Party, the Warren Wing of the Democratic Party, as it is now called, as well as Democrats more generally believe in government solutions.

I could go on about how and why I think their approach will lead to failure.  Perhaps, that would be the subject of another post (or three).  However, that’s not my focus here. 

The Tea Party wing of the Republican Party has become an obstacle to progress.  Lacking seniority in the House and seeking more clout, they prefer to stand on principle rather than seek compromise to find solutions to the major structural problems we now face – tax reform, unsustainable entitlement programs, an undereducated workforce and so on.

Will the Warren Wing act the same way?  Will the rise of a hard left to counterbalance the hard right be nothing more than political intransigence positioned as unwillingness to compromise on values?

The common origins of our anger and frustration with Washington represent an opportunity to find common ground – even as it requires us to compromise some of our principles -- to address the big issues of the day.

We were promised a “grand bargain”.  I’m still waiting.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Without Purpose, Leadership is a Just a Tool

My personal journey in countless leadership roles has been a tumultuous one.  I have had successes and also some failures.  I’ve learned a lot about myself during a 40-year journey.  Some of the lessons were hard to take.

We’re all born with certain talents.  Some of us – including me – had the good fortune to have a family that provided lots of positive feedback or validation for those talents.  Mine were music and math.

School provides us the opportunity to develop skills so we can apply our talents.  If we have a passion for the pursuit of excellence in those areas, they become our singular purpose.  If my musical talent was the equal of Paul McCartney or Lady Gaga, I may have chosen music as my singular pursuit.  But my talent didn’t rise to that level and I gave it up when I was 14 years old.

Math also fell by the wayside. I was an ‘A’ student through my studies at the US Naval Academy.  However, I never pursued the subject beyond that level.  I simply had no passion for it.

With my diploma and my officer’s commission in hand, off I went to a US Navy ship.  There I discovered that I had a talent for leadership. I am not bragging when I say this.  I am certainly not alone in this talent; there are millions who have it and I never rose to a very high level in any organization of note.

The military provides a great opportunity to learn.  You are handed more responsibility at age 22 than any other organization will allow.  You learn to find your strengths and understand where you need help.  You learn to forge trust with your subordinates and your peers.  You develop the sense to ask good questions before deciding your next step.  You learn to perform under pressure and accomplish goals with scarce resources.  You also learn to solve problems when a plan goes awry. 

The military also gives you a sense of purpose.  When I was a midshipman, we often quoted Woodrow Wilson, who used the phrase “make the world safe for democracy” when he asked Congress for a declaration of war.  It may sound trite and you may object to its message.  But, we were young and idealistic.

When I left the military, my focus was on making a living so I could support a family.  Leadership skills were simply what I had to offer the job market.  And, employers were lined up to take advantage of it.  But, I lost a sense of purpose when I was handed my honorable discharge.

Writing in Forbes, Matt Myatt reminds us “purpose is the one thing all great leaders have in common….  Purpose fuels passion and work ethic….  The best leaders recognize a common purpose, shared values, and aligned vision are the hallmarks of any great organization.”

The hard truth is that leadership, in and of itself, is not purpose; it’s a tool like any other.  It’s a useful tool in many business situations and good leaders are rewarded for their skill if they also achieve business and financial results. 

Financial rewards are great!  But, there are many situations in life and even in business that require something else – empathy, for example -- or serenity.

My current work at Vistage, a CEO membership organization, has provided me with a sense of purpose unlike any in my experience.  I work with a small group of business owners who strive to do better and be better. To get better business performance, you must be prepared to go deep.  You need to be pushed out of your comfort zone.  You need to be challenged at a very personal level.

When I started this work, I was prepared for the intellectual challenge but not the emotional challenge. I had to be pushed out of my comfort zone, too.  I had to be challenged at a very personal level to make it work.

There is some magic at work when our group gathers for its monthly meeting.  We challenge each other, for sure.  We also cajole, share, bare our souls and commit to act.  One of our group often says that he “can’t have these conversations anywhere else”.

In this work, I have found purpose.  To connect…  to help…  to give.

WHO WILL LEAD?

Our Future: Educated People or Just Educated Robots?

Have you seen the movie “Her”?  The 2013 Oscar nominee from Spike Jonze is a masterfully presented glimpse of a possible future in which our natural human thirst for connectedness is best met by having our own operating system (or OS) with whom to share our joys and sorrows.  More than the central dialog, which comes across like two hours of someone else’s therapy, I enjoyed the backdrop:  the cold, gray, lightly populated, urban landscape; the way in which people made their livings; and, the lifestyle of late 21^st Century professionals.

Of late, a lot has been written about the impact of robotics and artificial intelligence on society and the workforce.  Pew Research recently summarized the results of canvassing of over 1800 experts.  Half of their respondents were optimistic about the impact of automation and half were pessimistic.

The optimists suggest that technological advances have always displaced jobs but typically have been net creators of jobs.  How?  Well, we invent new kinds of work.  For example, no one would have predicted that search engine optimization would be a major job category just a few short years ago. 

The pessimists worry that the technology is advancing so rapidly that it will destroy more jobs than it creates in the next decade.  Tom Standage, digital editor of The Economist, points out that previous disruptions provided a longer period of adjustment.  He fears that the rate of change will “displace people into service roles, and the income gap between skilled workers whose jobs cannot be automated and everyone else will widen”.

Hasn’t this been happening for the last 40 years – or 300?

The introduction of Automated Teller Machines (ATM’s) in the 1960’s and 70’s threatened to put bank tellers out of work.  Yet, there are over 800,000 people employed in banking in the U.S. 

I recall using a calculator, a pencil and a thirteen-column spreadsheet to prepare my annual budget when I worked for a bank back then.  I rejoiced at the invention of spreadsheet programs like Lotus 1-2-3 and Excel.  They were supposed to put accountants and bookkeepers out of work.  But they merely positioned accountants to do more value-added analytical work.

More recently, we’ve been adjusting to an automated world at the airport.  We check in at kiosks or with our smartphones.  We carry our own luggage.  We buy tickets from websites. 

Other examples of technology putting people out of work abound -- transcriptionists, letter carriers, factory workers, elevator operators, blacksmiths, the iceman.  Oh, and whatever happened to those guys who used to light the oil burning streetlamps?  Did they find other work after Edison flipped a switch?

In “Her”, the protagonist, Theodore (played by Joaquin Phoenix), is a writer.  In the future digital world in which he lives, there is apparently a consumer demand for someone who is able to write heartfelt letters – love letters, apology letters, condolence letters, etc.  One can imagine this becoming a real job category as we are constantly presented with college graduates whose powers of composition haven’t advanced beyond texting (or sexting). 

However, the pessimists make a strong case of their own in the Pew study.  Slightly more than half (52%) believes that near-term developments will expand job losses from blue collar to white-collar jobs.  While certain, highly qualified individuals will be very successful in this new economic paradigm; others will be “displaced into low paying service jobs at best, or permanent unemployment at worst”.

This isn’t news. We can certainly see signs of this trend already.

Over the three centuries of the industrial revolution, our lifestyles have improved.  We have added more value to the economic progress of society by virtue of the productivity afforded us by every technological advance from the steam engine, airplanes, radio and automatic dishwashers to computers, smartphones and iPads. 

But, the pessimists make one very important observation.  Our education system is not preparing us for the future that technology can afford us.

In Washington, the battle over disparity in incomes has liberal politicians arguing for increasing the minimum wage and transfer payments to the underprivileged.  Meanwhile, conservatives argue for a more Darwinian libertarian system. 

The fight for better education is left to local bureaucrats, the teachers’ unions and proponents of charter schools.  The winners of that skirmish may determine our success as a society in very near future. 

WHO WILL LEAD?