Presidential Leadership

The most effective leaders inspire others and lead by example. They listen to others - even those with opposing viewpoints - and find ways to build consensus. They focus on the team, not the self. They take responsibility and don't blame others.

President Obama inspired millions of Americans during the 2008 campaign with promises to bring Americans together: "there are no red states and blue states, just the United States." While he was an extremely successful campaigner, he's been far from an effective leader. Even fellow Democrats have noted that Obama always has to be "the smartest man in the room." A leader should inspire, not lecture. His speeches - and even responses in last month's debates - are loaded with 1st-person pronouns, unless the subject is the economy.

Obama frequently cites obstinate Republicans in Congress for blocking his jobs bills, and pinning the blame on them for the current economic slowdown, as well as "the failed policies" of his predecessor. There is no doubt that the economy was a mess at the end of 2008. However, he conveniently overlooks the fact that this recession officially ended in June, 2009. We are now 3 years and 4 months into a post-recession economy under Obama's leadership, and unemployment is worse than when he took office. Obama's solution to the economy, "the stimulus", has done nothing to put our economy back on track. Obama now wants to tax "the rich"; if he really believed that would help the economy then why didn't he push for tax increases when he had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, and why did he extend the Bush tax rates?

Regarding those "obstinate Republicans" in Congress, they control only one half of Congress. President Reagan faced a similar Congressional divide, with Democrats controlling the House. Reagan frequently invited Speaker Tip O'Neill to the White House to discuss matters of policy. Though they often disagreed, they were able to work together. How different would our country be today if Obama and Speaker Boehner had this kind of working relationship? Instead we now face a "fiscal cliff" that could send the economy into a depression. President Clinton had to work with a Republican House led by Newt Gingrich. Together they passed historic welfare reform. Are we to believe that John Boehner is a more obstinate non-negotiator than Newt Gingrich? Rather, it seems that Barack Obama is a more obstinate ideologue than Bill Clinton.

His own party has controlled the Senate since he took the oath of office, and yet the Senate rejected Obama's most recent budget proposal 99-0. In his recent book, The Price of Politics, Bob Woodward describes how then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, put the President on mute during conference-call negotiations regarding the 2009 stimulus bill, continuing to talk with other top Democrats while ignoring the President. Senate majority leader Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget in over three years. How can a President lead the country if he can't work with either house of Congress, even one led by his own party?

Obama's current campaign is the antithesis of "hope and change", and more a fulfillment of his 2008 comments: "If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things." Instead of inspiring Americans with new ideas, he focuses on tearing down his opponent and dividing Americans on small things like Big Bird, bayonets and now "voting for revenge".

In contrast, Mitt Romney has run a very positive campaign, stressing his executive experience as governor, business executive, and turnaround artist for the Salt Lake City Olympics. Much of his career has been outside of politics, and in the competitive world of business, he has learned to build consensus with those of opposing opinions, made difficult decisions, and demonstrated a proven track record of success. And rather than put himself in the spotlight, we hear from others about his many selfless acts of charity. Sounds like just the kind of leader our country needs right now.

Thoughts on SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare

Trying to keep up with all that's been written about last week's SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare has left me feeling a bit dizzy. One thing is certain - the ruling seemed to catch everyone off guard. Some folks on the left (see Chris Matthews) were decrying the "conservative SCOTUS" a few days before the ruling, and have since sung the praises of Chief Justice Roberts. Some conservatives (Krauthammer, Will) admire the cleverness in Roberts' ruling, seeing it as a Solomonic judgment which kept the SCOTUS above the fray of partisan politics, while others (e.g. Bozell) lament the ruling as a Judas-like betrayal.

Perhaps a more fitting comparison is Pontius Pilate, especially now that there are reports that Roberts initially ruled with the 4 dissenting Justices, but later changed his opinion. Like Pilate, Roberts seems to hold private convictions different from his official ruling. His words that it's not the job of SCOTUS "to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices" seem to wash his hands of the matter, returning the case to the people to make the final judgment.

And in one sense, perhaps that is as it should be. While I disagree with the decision & much of the logic of the ruling, wasn't it just a touch hypocritical for conservatives to pin their hopes on a SCOTUS ruling after railing against "judicial activism" for decades?

Before fellow conservatives go on a witch hunt against Roberts, keep in mind that the Affordable Care Act passed by just one vote. 17 Democratic Senators who voted for the ACA were newly elected in 2006 or 2008, while Republican voter turnout those years was not nearly as strong as in 2010. If ever there were an object lesson to disprove the oft-repeated mantra "my vote doesn't matter, all politicians are the same", this is it. Remember this November: your vote matters!

For What It's Worth

Well, the Kansas song is still one of my favorites, but I've decided that Miracles Out of Nowhere sounded a bit pretentious for a blog title. So I'm going with a phrase that sounds more like me: For What It's Worth. Also happens to be another song title (Buffalo Springfield).

Contraception Misdirection

Who would’ve thought that contraception would become a political lightning rod this election cycle? Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh strolled right into traps laid by allies of the Obama Administration, and unwittingly helped the President redirect the real argument about religious liberty (one that the Administration was losing) into a straw man argument about women’s health. Well-strategized by the left; misplayed by the right. For what it’s worth, here’s my take on what should be the conservative argument on the subject:

Conservatives are not objecting to the use of contraception, but rather the coverage stipulated for it in Obamacare, especially as it concerns religious organizations. The primary issue is one of religious liberty. If a religious organization conscientiously objects to certain services then what right does the government (or anyone) have to force them to pay for them? How would the reaction be if the government were forcing all employers to provide free pork chop dinners? Would mosques and Islamic organizations be wrong for objecting? Would Jewish organizations not be justified in objecting to a mandate to require employees to work on Saturdays? 

No-one is trying to deny access to contraceptives for employees of Catholic-run organizations, only to their coverage by employer-subsidized health insurance. Let the market work. If a Catholic-run hospital doesn't want to cover contraceptive services as part of the health insurance policies they provide for their employees, they have the right to make that choice. If the issue is so important to workers, then other hospitals not affiliated with Catholic organizations would have a competitive advantage in attracting employees.

Beyond the primary issue of religious-liberty are broader questions of proper scope of insurance and personal responsibility. Insurance provides a safety net to help deal with unforeseen events. We buy homeowners insurance hoping that we'll never need to use it, but resting assured that if disaster strikes we'll have some help to rebuild. I don't submit claims every time I buy filters for my furnace, repair my roof, or pay an exterminator to keep termites away. I can ignore these maintenance and preventive services and deal with consequences later, or I can accept these responsibilities that come with homeownership. 

Most health insurance policies have expanded well beyond catastrophic coverage, so we have become accustomed to more maintenance health services having some level of coverage, e.g. subsidizing costs of sick visits, prescriptions, etc. But where does one draw the line? If contraceptives should be free, why not toothpaste and dental floss? What next, toilet paper and soap? We don't expect anyone else to pick up the tab for these personal care items. We buy them and use them because we are responsible and want to take good care of our bodies. Why should it be any different for contraceptives? 

First post:
I'm not much of a writer. I've been told that I write well, no doubt thanks to the training of my high school English teachers, and in spite of my disdain for writing essays. But words usually don't come to me quickly, and it can take a long time for me to put thoughts in writing. At this season in life, with two children in high school and one in college, I don't have a lot of spare time. Yet I find myself thinking more philosophically than ever before, and wanting to write down thoughts if for no other reason than to help me work through them myself. So once in a blue moon maybe I'll find time to write down what I'm thinking.

The blog title comes from the Kansas song of the same name. Here's an excerpt from the song lyrics:

On a crystal morning I can see the dewdrops falling
Down from a gleaming heaven, I can hear the voices call
When you comin' home now, son, the World is not for you
Tell me what's you point of view
Hey there Mister Madman, wat'cha know that I don't know
Tell me some crazy stories, let me know who runs this show
Glassy-eyed and laughing, he turns and walks away
Tell me what made you that way

Here I am just waiting for a sign
Asking questions, learning all the time
It's always here, it's always there
It's just love, and miracles out of nowhere

These lyrics have resonated with me for a long time. I've always been driven by learning something new. And the more I learn, the more I realize there is to learn!