A Tale of Two Revolutionaries

This past weekend, the world witnessed the deaths of two very different men: Vaclav Havel and Kim Jong-il. Kim inherited a throne of tyrannical revolution from his Communist dictator father. Havel ushered in a peaceful democratic revolution against the forces of Soviet-influenced Communism in his native Czechoslovakia. Kim perpetuated the stark oppression of his people, and his inhumane crimes are widely recognized and demonized. Havel was an intellectual, playwright and activist/dissident who became the first president of Czechoslovakia, and then the Czech Republic.

I find it delightfully providential that these two men would leave this earth within one day of each other. Their beliefs, actions and legacies could not be more antithetical. This occurrence serves as a prodigious reminder that the gift of freedom is precious. There truly are forces of good and evil at work in this world. It is our solemn obligation, as human beings, to condemn and combat those who enslave while embracing and empowering those who liberate.

I recommend that you take the time to read Havel's essay "The Power of the Powerless", which you can find on his website here. (Note: the translated version contains some spelling errors). This famous manifesto begins with the memorable words "A specter is haunting Eastern Europe", which perhaps you recognize.

However, I'd like to share some compelling excerpts of that essay, written in 1978, eleven years before the Velvet Revolution which overthrew the Communist regime:

"If the main pillar of the system is living a lie, then it is not surprising that the fundamental threat to it is living the truth. This is why it must be suppressed more severely than anything else."

"The profound crisis of human identity brought on by living within a lie, a crisis which in turn makes such a life possible, certainly possesses a moral dimension as well; it appears, among other things, as a deep moral crisis in society. A person who has been seduced by the consumer value system, whose identity is dissolved in an amalgam of the accoutrements of mass civilization, and who has no roots in the order of being, no sense of responsibility for anything higher than his own personal survival, is a demoralized person... Living within the truth, as humanity's revolt against an enforced position, is, on the contrary, an attempt to regain control over one's own sense of responsibility." 

"For the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if, on the contrary, it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it around us and within us, and kept us from developing it?"

The Problem with Today's Leaders

I typically don't like to stick my neck out and embrace the RINO label, but the past 3 years have been extremely difficult for moderate Republicans. The Tea Party has hijacked the conversation and elevated Republican candidates (nationally and locally) that subscribe to an anti-intellectual ethos. Being well-educated and well-read does not imply liberalism, and I think that every moderate conservative must start pushing back.

There is a strong history of informed conservatism rooted in respect for intellectualism. Past leaders that fit this mold include Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, among many others. Believe what you will of their accomplishments and mistakes, but they did not systematically capitulate to the lowest common denominator.

Just take a look at the current race for the Republican nomination. Herman Cain's poor grasp of geography, Rick Perry's lack of understanding of federal agencies, and Michelle Bachmann's limited knowledge of history should scare us all. They rely on demagoguery to inspire support.

Thomas Jefferson once said: "A great planter descended from a line of great planters, if he is a boob, has no place in the leadership of government, whereas the humblest farmer, if he is naturally endowed with virtue and talent, may become a great legislator." (I'm not making this up, he actually wrote it.)

Can we have a WTF moment and reflect upon the ascension of Newt Gingrich to the front of the Republican pack? Here is a man who, although he has a deeper knowledge of issues and policy than many of the other candidates, is nothing more than a morally-aberrant sleazeball. His transgressions are numerous and well-publicized. He carried on an extra-marital affair while doggedly prosecuting Bill Clinton for the same iniquity. Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him during his time as speaker. After leaving Congress, Gingrich accepted millions of dollars for unregistered lobbying on behalf of Freddie Mac. The PACs that support him are funded by casino magnates. However, he has found success in the polls, like others, by embracing the ultra-conservative fear mongering which is in vogue. And scores of undiscerning Americans have been suckered in.

The two more moderate candidates, Romney and Huntsman, have failed to capture much fervent support. Romney has been inconsistent with his positions, trying to spin his moderate record as Governor of Massachusetts and reinvent himself. Huntsman does not hold the same social convictions as the party base and refuses to engage in vitriolic attacks that magnetize the conservative faithful who are enraged with President Obama. In my esteem, these men are not the most inspiring leaders, but they appear far more trustworthy and level-headed than the other candidates. However, there is a major dearth of talent from which to choose.

I lament the disappearance of the principled and cerebral leaders of yore such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Abraham Lincoln, and Teddy Roosevelt. These were Renaissance men. Many of them were military leaders, lawyers, authors, farmers, architects, businessmen, and inventors all rolled into one. They valued education and intellectual pursuits on their path to self-improvement. That caliber of character is missing from most political leaders, and those that possess it are marginalized. It is no longer advatageous to be a man (or woman) of noble pursuits. These leaders are too intimidated by the media, the lobbying system, or the partisan political process to seek higher office.

Today's Republican leaders attack spending plans on infrastructure and investments in alternative energy because they steadfastly want to reduce the federal debt. Deficit reduction is an admirable goal, but hardly anyone actually attempts to bird-dog anything more than minor cuts to federal spending that pander to a certain segment of their constituency. Most are unwilling to touch entitlements, which are the real looming hazards. Also, they have an extremely short memory. Many of the current crop of leaders have been in positions of power for the last few decades, during which they shaped regulations, taxes, and spending policies that have directly caused many of today's economic issues.

Conservative commentator David Frum opines: "Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn’t conservatism; it’s a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."

In order to ensure a competently managed nation and society, we must be cultivating the next generation of leaders who value intellectual enrichment and are versed in the art of compromise. Let us shape ourselves after the inspirational and multifaceted leaders of the past, because there are few models worthy of imitation these days.

Community Building

Here is a great article from PlaceShakers on how community organizations and connectivity have declined and how we must rebuild them. Community connections are directly affected by the pattern of our physical growth. Sprawl has contributed to a breakdown of our community strength because it distances us and isolates us in our daily activities. There are a lot of other disciplines which observe that a breakdown in community connectivity has created problems with poverty, education, family, faith, etc. In my opinion, it is foolish not to recognize that the physical manner in which we build our communities has an effect on these aspects of society.

Parents' Crucial Role in Education

It seems obvious to most of us that parents play the most important role in a child's education, more important than an individual teacher. In this article, Thomas Friedman examines new evidence from an international survey reported about parents' involvement in their children's education. It comes as no surprise that the more a parent reads to their young children or asks them about their schoolwork, the better that child will perform down the road.

While our lower performing schools and teachers do need major improvements in qualifications, curriculum and facilities, the professional improvements are continuously pursued, at least incrementally. What is more difficult to determine is how to fundamentally change the attitudes of uninvolved parents. My assertion is that this issue is an exponentially worsening problem. A parent that had little education and zero reinforcement from their parents is highly unlikely to pass good school/study habits on to their children.

In reality, it is probably too late to change the behavior of many parents to make them better academic coaches. So what truly can be done to counteract the lack of reinforcement at home? Many teachers have tried to provide a pseudo-parent role, but they realistically don't have the time or energy. Nor is it their job to be a stand-in parent for up to dozens of kids. Short of some miracle solution to turn public schools into genius-producing boarding schools, there is little that institutions can do to address this specific problem. Instead, it falls upon society at large and individual communities to hold parents accountable. There must be a cultural shift to not just say that we value education, but to actually follow through on that declaration. Relatives and friends must step in to help reinforce educational attainment. Those more fortunate in the upper socioeconomic strata can give their time to tutoring and mentoring and their money to organizations that assist children.

There are a couple things I think our schools can do: raise expectations and elongate the school year. Many charter schools for troubled or disadvantaged children succeed because they simply raise the level of seriousness, responsibility and expected achievement levels. Also, many other higher-performing countries have longer school years. There is really no purpose to the extended summer break, other than tradition. American students have less time in the classroom and less time for mental stimulation than our foreign competitors.

I just finished reading Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers. While the book was released three years ago and received heaps of praise, I just now got around to reading it. The book is an easy read, yet fascinating examination, of how circumstances, cultural/societal traditions and family values contribute to an individual's success. The insights in Outliers are certainly complementary to Friedman's article and this subject matter in general, and I highly recommend reading it.

Guest Column: Jess Joaquin Johnson on the Congressional Supercommittee and Political Discourse

It's hard to believe that I have not blogged in over a year. Quite a bit has happened in that time and this has taken a backseat to the rest of my activities. However, I couldn't think of a better way to relaunch than with a guest column from my good friend Jess Joaquin Johnson. Enjoy...

Many eyes are turned toward Washington this week as select members of the U.S. House and Senate attempt to reach a bargain on government spending, taxation policies, entitlement changes and other reforms designed to improve the economic fortunes of our nation and, God willing, restore our stability, long-term financial viability and the public’s faith in our system of government.

As I’ve followed the coverage, I’ve noticed how members of both parties and the media have discussed the proceedings of the so-called Super Committee as “negotiations.” I’m struck by the use of the term, because in my world, and in most usages of the word, negotiation connotes the strategy and tactics used by one or more parties to get what they want from another party, often through yielding on some issues in order to achieve greater value on issues held higher in importance. Negotiation implies that the parties of the negotiation want different things. In a simple example, my company represents entities that need real estate to support their delivery of services or goods while the landlords with whom (against whom?) we negotiate want a revenue stream for their investments. The parties in this case may need each other, but they are trying to achieve fundamentally different things.

In the case of Congress, I’d like to think all 535 members are trying to achieve the same things – a strong and united democracy, the preservation of freedom, a dynamic economy, and national security to name a few. Individuals and the two parties may have different views about how those goals are achieved, but the goals are shared. In this case, the more appropriate term would be “compromise.”

I can imagine a collective groan of the political pundits, politicians and other talking heads as I write the word. It seems this term has become… well, compromised… these days. A willingness to compromise is seen by some as a sign of weakness – weakness in heart, in conviction and in values.

Values. Now that’s ultimately what we’re talking about here, isn’t it? And is not effective compromise the balancing of what actions we can take, consistent with our values, that allow us to achieve shared goals? And, as we navigate those actions to ensure they are consistent with our values, are we not constantly having to weigh closely held values against each other? This happens all the time in our judicial system. In a simple example, a judge may weigh an individual’s right of privacy against national security interests or health, safety and welfare concerns when considering whether to issue a search warrant. In this case, the values aren’t weakened – they aren’t diminished in any way – they are just being weighed against each other as an acceptable and reasonable course of action is charted.

It seems that today’s political environment leaves little room for weighing values in the discussion of the nation’s prevailing economic challenges and the structure and size of government. It may be fair to say that Republicans value low taxes and limited government while Democrats value a stronger role for government in tackling societal challenges, for example, through entitlement programs. Indeed, members of both parties have been unwilling to “compromise” on either of these “values.”

But, is this really what we value? What values will the Super Committee, the Congress and the American people ultimately bring to this discussion? I hope that the balance will swing in favor of values that I believe are more weighty than party ideologies – even those ideas with which I strongly agree. For example, as strongly as I value limited government interaction in the private lives of citizens, I much more strongly value the American representative democracy – the ability of the American people to eventually “get it right” after all the wrangling, hand-wringing, and arguing.

Does it matter less what specific actions Congress ultimately decides to take and matter much, much more that it act at all, and act with boldness in the face of very serious challenges? Should the members of Congress compromise on taxes, compromise on spending, compromise on entitlement reform, compromise until there can be no more compromise? Would this demonstrate that, on balance, the value that we value the most is working together through a representative democracy?

Or would we consider our representatives weak if they were to reach agreement with the “opposing” side on any of these issues?