The Race Is On – Again
It’s time for Labor Day and it’s an even numbered year in the U.S. This means not only is it time for football, new TV shows and the World Series, but we have another election to deal with.
The old saw about government being run more like a business was visited here recently and today another aspect is offered. Why isn’t government being run more like a business? Well, for one thing, what business do you know would let its dumbest, most unknowledgeable and psychologically infirm employees have a final vote on who will be allowed to execute the strategic decision process for the business? Not any I know, how about you?
Now, true enough, businesses ask for everyone’s input. Even a blind squirrel comes up with an acorn every now and then. But the folks who make their way up into the echelons where decisions are made have been through a qualifying process to be there.
In politics, one can hope the dumb people on one side are equal to the number of dumb people on the other side. One side cancels the other out, one would hope, and common sense and intelligence will end up prevailing.
The intent today is to speak to the politically unaffiliated with common sense and intelligence. Once again, these folks will be the ones who tilt the scales, not the zealots.
The basic advice to this group is as follows – Think like a business owner making a hiring decision.
Let’s say you are considering hiring an executive who had had some previous success, but gotten fired from their previous job for poor performance. As part of interviewing this executive, wouldn’t you want to know what caused the poor performance, what the executive had learned from their failure and what changes they intended to make in the future as result of the experience?
Let’s suppose you start asking questions and find out the following. The reasons for the executive’s difficulties in his previous position include the following: The executive was hired by people who either shared his operating philosophy or did not question the philosophy because he said he shared their religious beliefs. The assumption was because he shared their religious beliefs, then he was superior to the other candidate who seemingly did not share those beliefs. In truth, the operating philosophy was (and still is) incredibly flawed. The executive claims to be a fiscal conservative, but never brings in enough revenue to cover excessive expenditures.
There was once a well known and very effective Army General whose favorite saying was, “The organization does well those things the Boss checks.” By implication, of course, this means those things not checked the organization does not do well. The link is this. This executive and his management team do not believe in checking. They think the marketplace will cause things to work out on their own. This management or operating philosophy is what caused the massive failure at the executive’s last position. Given these facts, one would expect the executive to have learned from his experience and adjusted his or her philosophy.
Surprise of surprises, when you begin to interview the executive, no acknowledgement or even awareness of this point of view is evident. If anything, the executive (rather than moderating their philosophy) is more adamant than ever he should have gone the other way in his previous position and been even more hands off than he was. There is no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no incorporation of lessons learned anticipated going forward.
I would not hire this person. Would you?
What has just been described in the abstract, regrettably, is the Republican Party and its candidates – especially those whose roots lie in the Tea Party movement. Listen to what they have to say about the causes of the current economic mess. There is no remorse, no acceptance of responsibility, and no incorporation of lessons learned anticipated going forward. Just a promise to going back to doing things the way they did them before if they are elected. The failure is not, they contend, because they were extreme and hands off. The failure is because they were not extreme and hands off enough.
If you would not hire the person described above, then do not hire the Party and/or its candidates.
As a bonus today, here are three links to articles worth your time. The first is a dispassionate analysis of the arguments you’re going to hear from each side this election. The second is a look at who is behind the Tea Party movement and why. The third is an analysis of which party historically can truly claim the mantle of “fiscally conservative”.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/30/campaign-ad-wars-the-cliches-of-2010/
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=1
http://www.addictinginfo.com/apps/blog/show/4669552-republicans-are-not-fiscally-conservative
