Swing voters - Read this to think deeper

Please pass this on to those who are independent or undecided voters in the swing states and to people who will pass it on to people in the swing states. 

__________________ 

Barack Obama, who I had voted for in the dearth of alternatives and in the hope for change, is a good, committed fellow but he has the misunderstandings typical to an idealist and a person with no grounding in the real world of economics and what actually works and doesn’t work (which is what one learns from actual experience where decisions and strategies must work in actual results).

Yes, we do need to make sure we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Yes, we do need to do those functions that can only be done from a centralized system to benefit all Americans. And that includes especially assuring that Americans are educated and productive, able to cover themselves and contribute to the overall good.

But there is an argument of how much further should we go along the continuum of practicality versus idealism.

The ultimate “further” is the ever appealing Socialism. (We are not there, but the question is how far to go.)

“We can do it together. We can provide for all. We can assure equality and that the rich and powerful do not take over.”

The argument in Socialism is fired up by choosing an enemy, or bad guy. The same goes for Saul Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals (which Obama taught in Chicago).

The argument is further fired up by the appealing concept of the government providing for all.

The danger lies here in “entitlement” or classic codependency where people are enabled to depend on rescue and security from another – and this results in less ambition and less self-esteem for the individual but it results in many fewer people contributing to the productivity and welfare of the nation.

The indicator of this that is concrete is the number of people depending on the government (exclusive of those who have paid into a system). (About 50% pay no federal income taxes. Is that reasonable?)

That indicator can creep up without our noticing it.

How much is too much?

Of course, we can’t get all capable people who are unproductive to be productive, but we should be able to limit those who aren’t to, say, 10% (this is in addition to those who are in fact not capable). Surely it would make sense for us to demand that they do whatever they can to carry their own load - and not reward them with any money beyond the slightest subsistence that is demanded by the humanitarianism of not letting anyone starve. But those people must be called on to be responsible – and to contribute– which will help us have more money for the good causes.

Ultimately, Socialism calls for “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” (Wikipedia)

And “we will take care of you” is the ultimate way to get people “fired up” – many people get excited by it.

But it falls short in that it fails to meet the final tests:

1. There is no clear path on how this is to be actually provided. We must not be misled into believing that the rich can provide it (from each according to his ability), because, though appealing, there is not enough wealth for the rich to be able to do that. If you increased taxes on them by 10%, exclusive of the economic effect on growth, only 1/5 of the current deficit would be paid for. Anyone using the argument that the rich can cover you is possibly doing the pied piper approach – for there is no substance to the argument, there is no way to make it work.

All the hope in the world will not make it work, for there is no proven way to make it work.

And note that Socialism has always failed.

And before it ultimately fails, the leaders have to start imposing their own authoritarianism to force people to comply, always.

The beginning is always with the idea of “doing the right thing” by providing for the people. They use their form of “executive orders” (leader orders) to implement “the right thing”, which, incidentally, does look like the right thing and it may be the right thing, but the consequences are not identified clearly(or we would seek a different balance, given that there are tradeoffs – and we must realize that the good fairy will not show up to make it all work).

The leaders fail to stick to the laws and go around them without working it out with the legislature, which is the entity to make the laws – after all, the leaders’ judgment is “superior”to theirs.

Yes, it appears innocuous at first.

Who cares if the budgets submitted to Congress are voted down 100% - by both parties!

Who cares that the immigration laws (which the leaders have determined are not right) are not enforced – and surely it is wonderful to not deport those who have never known another nation. I agree with the latter idea, but shouldn’t the lawmakers agree and be the ones who formulate the laws?

Who cares that the leaders impose regulations and restrictions that support their constituencies even though they are doing it by essentially creating their own laws or not waiting for them to be created by lawful means? No big deal, right?

No big deal, just lots of little changes – which gradually accumulate and catch you before you realize it.

And isn’t it wonderful that we impose these requirements on the evil profitmaking health insurance companies, where they are to provide “for free” certain benefits to all (yes, there appears to be a “good fairy” here). Free is good, and it is appealing, but do we have the right to dictate (as in orders from a dictator)? And without agreement in law?

Where are the limits? And aren’t there signs of going around the law and the rules? How far should we allow that to go? It seems harmless, but we should be aware of it.

2. We are limited by what is real and practical and we should address that,, yes?

And if there are financial concerns shouldn’t we address those with a concrete plan? Or should we just ignore it and rely on hope –hope that it will solve itself in the long run – which of course does not work in the real world!

If we have promises of more and more and more, but we fail to set up a means of fulfilling current promises (currently behind by $100 trillion, per the Trustees reports!), aren’t we in for problems in the future?

But, no, it is easy to ignore that and easier to fire up the people with more promises, briefly alluding to “I’ll take care of that and yes it is serious but we’ll handle it” and “don’t vote for those who are mean and force us to face tradeoffs” (said more convincingly than that, of course).

I don’t like the idea that the “other” party has alternate values to my own, though I cannot prove mine are right, as they are only opinions. I respect theirs. But as I look at it, 72% of the people in the US approve of 1^st trimester abortions, so there will be no difference there regardless of who I vote for. And I know that it is not true that the other party will let people starve in the streets, nor do I think that they could impose that even if they wanted to, as the people would have a say-so in that and no one would let it happen. And gay rights will continue to improve.

I see no loss of basicsocial benefits, but I do see a greater ability to be effective plus a willingness to address the tough issues – not just the national debt but the $100 trillion of unfunded liabilities in Social Security and Medicare (still unaddressed by Obama after 3 ½ years; politically wise, but a sell-out on the American people).

One path, in my analysis, has no hope of succeeding, with a leader who has no practical capability and experience, though noble intent. The other will do no damage, because they can’t go beyond the will of the people, but it will at least seek to do what is right and workable and practical – with at least good solid potential.

There seems to be no contest here.

One path is virtually guaranteed not to work – there is no good fairy that will rescue us.

The other path is systematic, disciplined, with a capable proven leader and ‘rescuer’ of businesses, Olympics, and a state. (And in his famous op-ed that was titled by the New York Times and was misleading, he actually proposed to save Detroit by a managed bankruptcy to make each company safely viable and then, and only then, to have government guarantee the necessary loans, so that necessary capital could be obtained. Read the op-ed; don’t rely on the false representations made about this. Detroit.)

And if the people fail to realize that we must follow a path that works, in this world of imperfection and real limits, instead of one that literally has no hope except for the good fairy showing up and rescuing it all – if they fail to realize it, we will suffer greatly as a nation – and drop even further behind in being able to finance all that is good and beneficial in the world.

Those Corporations Are Greedy - And They're To Blame

"The corporations are greedy.  They just want to make a billion more by shipping jobs overseas.  They should not do that.  They should hire Americans here.  It is their moral obligation." 

That is what she said to me.

However, is it right for others to tell these people what to do and then get mad at them for not doing what we want them to do?  Was there any agreement made?   Who are we to determine what someone else should do?  Do we want to get into a totalitarian nation forcing things on others and controlling them?

Do we have the right to take money away from the shareholders of the company?  Are they the ones responsible for giving other people jobs here in the US and giving up their money?   Do we want pensions for workers to have less money in them from their investments so they can't retire as well?

If this is a moral obligation, does the person who said it strictly buy American?  If we all were careful to do that, there would be millions more jobs.   But it appears that we try to buy as cheaply as we can.  But don't we have a moral obligation to give up some of our bucks so that Americans can have more jobs?

Isn't this is the culture of blame and irresponsibility.  Isn't this also irrational thinking without a sound basis, based on assumptions that we are right and have the right to tell others what to do?  Though many people are making corporations wrong or bad, does that mean they are correct in asserting that as if it were fact?

If it was a master economist who said it, is he right?  Or is he guilty of fallacious thinking, making up assumptions, and insisting with no basis that others do as he wishes.  (Krugman and Reich do that.)

Yes, global competition does drive wages down and take jobs that Americans might want to have.  But it is not "greedy" corporations who are plotting against us, depriving us of wages and jobs. We cannot expect somebody else to be responsible for our jobs.   And how much profit is too much?  Isn't that the world of judgment and blame and resentment - which is part of the world of irresponsibility?  And isn't it irresponsibility that has caused alot of our problems?

Read about the actual cause of the income and wealth inequality, but don't buy into the "therefore they're 'bad'" argument of the blamers.   I don't see any healthy thinking in taking money from others, though I do see the selfish reason for doing so.  Of course, we don't want the "fat cats" to be selfish.  (One I left off of this draft is that we allow illegal immigration, which brings in more people without educations, which in turn creates more poverty and more inequality of incomes!)

See The Actual Reason For Income And Wealth Disparity.

Note that the person quoted above is not using Rational Thinking and is also not operating from a Personal Responsibility viewpoint.     

Yours toward creating a cooperative nation based on rational thinking and decisions such that we do that which makes us powerful,

The Rational NonPolitician

"Occupy" movement - where is the limit on hurting other people?

I wrote about  "Occupiers Of Wall Street - Listening - And Educating" on October 18th.

Yes, they are expressing their free speech rights, but does that include hurting others and running up big bills?

They are asking for benefits and compassion, yet hurting businesses and costing them and the cities hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They even shut down the Port of Oakland, depriving fellow "99%ers" from their daily wages. 

Yes, there must be listened to and there must be free speech, but we must draw the line at other people being hurt and the damage that is being caused. 

I believe that a true leader is needed here, who will be the compassionate but wise adult in the room.  We should have a President who steps up to the plate, even if there is political advantage for him in repeating his 1% against the 99% theme and inciting voters to go to him.

He has an ethical choice here: 

To do what is best for the nation or
To do what is best for his election

A full blown speech and "talking to" is merited here - one that does not exploit the politics but encourages solution and cooperation.  The President has been light on both, although he advocated them in his campaign speeches, as is pointed out in the chronicling of the President's moves in Ron Suskind's book Confidence Men.

Such a speech would express compassion (a good thing to show to be reelected) and understanding, laying out their concerns and pointing out that particular races, creeds, and types should not be blamed but that the system has to be fixed to support what works.  And then he needs to lay out what will be done and can be done, calling on them to seek positive solutions and to be responsible for producing results as productive citizens operating without blame.

Is there an adult in the room?   Will we draw a line between where someone can flail their arms and where they are hitting us in the nose (beyond the boundary of no harm)?

Will we begin to have an adult conversation that is absolutely necessary and will lead us further to creating a strong America, with each citizen stepping up to pitch in?   If so, we can have a great future.  If not, then...

I hope there is a rational choice made here.

The Rational NonPolitician
(www.thenonpolitician.homestead.com )

I voted for Obama (see the site for why) and I had hoped he would do what he said he would do.  But now all fact finding points to his not following through on his promises plus being unable to govern nor to have the perspective to be able to make the right choices.  Unfortunately, "on the job training" is not effective for a President.  

Republicans will not do well in the elections, unless...

There appears, though I could be wrong, to be nobody running the political show overall for the Republicans - all this while the Democrats are doing a great job, as is their very politically able leader Barack Obama. 

The Republicans, as is one of their main tenets, bear 100% responsibility for this. 

They make statements that do not include compassion or concern for the non-rich, yet they are doing, with their actions, what is truly in the best interests of the citizens, while the Democrats are attempting to do the same but with strategies that do not confront the economic realities.  There appears to be integrity in the Republican actions, but it is not recognized nor properly communicated.

The Democrats are successful in labeling the Republicans:

As uncaring, 'uncompassionate' demons. 

The Republicans stand for being "tough" for the benefit of all, but they come across as harsh and uncaring - a real loser when dealing with human beings!  (This will lose the election, where it will be easy to say that the Republicans don't care, so vote for us - on an emotionally appealing level.)

The Republicans do not parry Obama's move to get the public to be against them, as they do not mention that the reason they don't vote for any "jobs related" bill is because each of them add new taxes - and Obama knows the Republican position about no new taxes.  (Sad commentary on a President's ethics.)

Caring only for the rich. 

The Republicans do not win points for claiming the idea that we do not want to tax the rich because "they are the small business owners" - well, they are not so small if they make more than $1,000,000 and they will not be much affected by an increase in taxes of 4% above a million of net income.  The Republicans should make it clear, in every discussion, that they are standing strong against any new taxes in order to force the government to stop its foolish spending and to be disciplined.

Taking away benefits (Social Security and Medicare). 

The Republicans need to publicize the amounts owed clearly - people don't see it!!! - and then request that individuals go on a site explaining this and then to 'vote' as to what the citizens would recommend.  (See Medicare - Which Do You Choose?.) And then the results of the poll should be published and more people invited to visit the site to see why people voted this way.   

And they should say:  "Our only goal is to have these programs work for those who need it.  Those 55 and older will not see any changes.  For the rest of us, the public can choose whether it wants to pay in more to make it work or to start taking it later or not.  There is no legitimate choice to not deal with this."

Just being political

The big mistake, which, with good advice, should never be made:  "Our primary goal is to get rid of Obama."

That is not well-stated at all.  It is to get a new President who can be effective for the people.

There should be one clear site that people can go to, including the Republican politicians, to see the explanations and recommendations about what to do and how to do it, with no nastiness or "twisted" rhetoric - a site which all citizens can go to in order to understand.  (The Democrats should do the same.)  The Republican National Committee site is not updated, not organized well, and not easily understandable or usable by the public. 

Hopefully, we can reach a place where there is more clarity and rationality that is fact-based in our discussions for the benefit of ALL of the stakeholders in the USA, so we can create a great future - and we are clearly not doing that right now!

The Rational NonPolitician
The Site

Obama will beat Romney unless...

Clearly Romney would run the government for much greater benefit (see Romney Evaluation) than Obama, yet it looks like Obama will win the hearts and the personal interests of the base.  (See Obama Evaluation.  In that piece, I discuss why I had voted for Obama as the rational choice last time, but...)

An example, one of many, is “As to what to do for the housing industry specifically and are there things that you can do to encourage housing: One is, don’t try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom,” 

While technically correct probably, it appears heartless, especially in the state with the highest foreclosure rate in the nation.

I know Romney does care, but the voters need to know - if Romney makes it past the other Republican rivals.

If one is right plus doing what it takes to look tough to the 'right wing', one will not do well if he looks cruel and heartless - especially when that is the theme being used by the Democrats.  Being "right" is the booby prize if one does not win the overall objective.

In Advice For Romney, if he doesn't hire Frank Luntz, I suggest that the way of speaking be adjusted to a more balanced and human approach - and that there be on the website an easily referenceable explanation for any strategy (not buried in a long report). 

For example, in the mortgage discussion, the phraseology should at least include a "human" and/or "compassionate" statement - and a true one, of course. 

"I am very concerned for those who are being foreclosed on, especially those where it was no fault of their own.  I am committed to doing what is best for the greater good of all for the long term. I've thought long and hard about this.. The question here is what role government should take and what will work for the greater good for the long term.  If we interfere, then the problems get prolonged and there is actually more harm.   It is best to let the market work itself out, so we can recover more quickly. There is no magic solution.   I would of course encourage those of our citizens who wish to voluntarily contribute to a national fund to help those who need help where help is justified - it is not appropriate to force the burden on to other citizens, I believe.  I would encourage lenders to do what they can, but the Federal Government cannot force them to do this.   Otherwise, the safety nets are in place for those who need it.   I have a deeper explanation on MittRomney.com for those who are interested."

There is a greater moral issue here.  The future of this nation.  It is deteriorating for reasons on thenonpolitician.homestead.com site.  Mitt Romney's management and problem solving capabilities are needed to do a "turnaround", as we cannot afford to continue the path we are on. 

(Romney should also correct this, by adding a piece such as is included in Mortgages on the Rational NonPolitician site.)
Yours for rational, fact-based decisions,

The Rational NonPolitician

Occupiers Of Wall Street - Listen...And Educate

The expression of dissatisfaction from those "occupying Wall Street"  needs to be listened to by those "in power" and the problem of unemployment and the feeling of injustice need to be addressed. 

I personally would set up a large room for the protesters to come into, handing out a sheet of rules of using rational, healthy, fact-based discussion without heated hate, which they must agree to as a condition of entering this meeting -  and specifying that this would be an indication of their willingness to create positive results.

And from that, as part of the above agreement, I would write up a summary of the key points and the solutions that they suggested.  Then I would go back and come up with (which would be one of the promises in the rules) a plan to address those issues.  (Depending on how the meeting goes, it would include a "greenlight" brainstorming session on solutions and/or a separate session where the group selecting, say, 15 members to participate in that meeting.)

Now, of course, with little experience in life and not yet alot of perspective on things, the young people would easily buy into not-so-well-thought-out conclusions.  But it will do no good to criticize anyone for not yet being aware of what works.  One can only address that with education - meaning facts and sound reasoning.   The education should not only be in written form(s) but also in brief videos, all linked together on a website the protesters could go to.


The issues:

Per surveys, 34% think the US is as bad as Al Qaeda.

Some say "replace capitalism with democracy" - which no one would say with perspective (as both exist side by side and are not contradictory).  Teaching simplified lessons in what capitalism and socialism are and how each has worked or not worked.

The 1% being unfair and harming the 99%.  (Most citizens in the US don't think they are not well off enough, but still the others who are not well off need to be educated and also given more insight into how to prosper.)

Those evil wall street people (even lumping in CEOs in general) are the cause of the problems (instead of looking at the many causes). 


Recalling, with empathy

When I was that age, I believed I knew more than I knew and I had several things out of whack. 

Ridiculing any group, as far as I can tell, never brought things to solution.  Only listening with empathy for how they feel, even if there is not agreement yet, is what works.  Only addressing the issues, with empathy and respect, is what works.  Only teaching, in a way that is compatible with the age group, is what works.  And collaborating further, until the sides come together in cooperation and compromise is what works.

I don't see that happening right now.


A President taking advantage of this

Although Presidents in the past have not been perfect examples of this, I believe a President must be an adult in this matter.  Though he could take advantage of this conversation to confirm how wrong others are and to create more dissension, for his political benefit, that would not be "in integrity".

This President has said he stands for, and has even promised that, getting rid of the dissension and resolving things in cooperation, but his actions have not matched his original rhetoric at all - in fact they have been a near opposite.  Whether his ideas are correct or incorrect is not the issue here - his behavior is.

If we are to resolve this "class warfare", we must use "what works", not do the opposite.

The "occupiers" must be fully heard and honored and respected - and a resolution arrived at.

This is not a question of which side of the argument you are on, but a question of whether we are to do what works.

Mr. Obama (and the rest of you), are you willing to put "what works" ahead of politics?

As always, rational inputs that are helpful are welcomed.

The Rational NonPolitician 

P.S.  I am sad to see the opposite sides use this for political gain, for make wrong, for blame, or for any other purpose than an ethical one that is aimed at resolution and cooperation.

Obama. Adult? Bringing people together?

In Ron Suskind's Confidence Men, a current history of the White House, etc., certain of Obama's main people state that working with Obama leaves them "home alone" with "no adult in the room", so they had to step up to fill the holes. 

Evilizing the Republicans for "wanting more pollution" while "we want to employ the teachers" - is that an adult conversation?  (A fuller version:  "You can't pretend that creating dirtier air and water for our kids and having fewer people on health care and less accountability on Wall Street is a jobs plan!"  I am deeply saddened to see our President tell such fibs, exaggerating, twisting, etc., as if politics and nastiness were an acceptable objective above making things work and causing cooperation.  )  

Will it lead to working together?  Is this unfair exaggeration and "coloring" things unfairly?  Is that the President we want to be the adult leader?

He neglected to say that the Republicans had already told him that no increase in taxes would be allowed and that it was part of his package that was to be accepted in whole (which even many Democats would not vote for).   To color Republicans as being against the American people and against jobs is clearly not true, yet the President states it strongly.  And he wonders why there is an atmosphere of non-cooperation.

Of course, the President blames others for the very same thing - as 'justification' for his not being an adult? 

Will the President turn around and behave as an adult?  Will he become effective so that the people who work with him will see that he is? 

As I read this, it sounds as if it is political.  But I am looking at it purely in what is logical, factual, and good for the country (not politics or winning elections).  If there is something here that needs to be corrected or enhanced, with no blame or oppositional talk, please do share that!

The Rational NonPolitician

See also Evaluating The Obama Presidency.

ENTITLEMENT, INTEGRITY, WHAT WORKS, AND LEADERSHIP

(Consider also reading and providing input to Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency 10/11.)

Are we taking a road to passiveness and the easy route?  Will a true leader let that happen?  Will we empower ourselves to create prosperity?

ENTITLED MEANS…

Entitled means to get the title to (own) something.  It is a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract.  Do we have a right to benefits with no exchange and no payment for it? 

Yes, we are entitled to get our social security benefits because we buy them based on a contract with the U.S. government.  The same with Medicare.   But if we don’t pay in enough to be able to get what we will get out of the other end, does it make sense that we should be entitled to something we haven’t purchased the right of the benefits to, where we haven’t paid in?

WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK

In socialism (which I am not saying we have) or communism, the social contract is that people have the right to have their needs taken care of – and that people must contribute based on their abilities.

The only problem is that humans have been proven to need incentives.  So socialism and communism go broke (but that is often put off through the mechanism of force, which requires an autocratic state and lots of harm).  They have been proven not to work, despite their appeal..

When people march to “get their share of the money” because it is “unfair” to have the rich have so much, they are not seeking to earn the money but to redistribute it.  The irony is that, if they win, people will no longer have the incentive to create wealth.  And that results in less wealth.  And less wealth results in not being able to afford to give so much to the poor.  

The solution lies, instead, in increasing the size of the pie rather than trying to slice it differently.  Those people marching for a “fair share” are actually marching out of the desire to live well (enough).  And they will live well by contributing and being paid for delivering value, which means they are earning the entitlement to certain benefits, not expecting something for nothing.  

Before anyone protests capitalism, they should learn about it:  Capitalism - How It Works.

GOING DOWN THE MIDDLE WAY THAT WORKS

Of course, any good system can have its excesses.  And, of course, we need to protect from any great harm that is directly caused there.  But how to do that is a matter of opinion – hopefully, informed opinion.  So, capitalism needs to be “controlled” from going to extremes that will harm society.  We need to determine where things can be excessive and then prioritize and then control only that which has a true payoff.

Hopefully, we would avoid the ignorance that is illustrated by Dick Durbin’s sponsorship of a bill that included limiting what banks can charge businesses when a debit card is used – essentially limiting their rights to run their business.  He apparently fails to see that markets work.  If a charge were too high, then competitors would come in at lower rates in order to get the profits.  Instead, one result is that Bank Of America is shifting to charge $5 for a month’s worth of use to the debit card holder if the card is used in a particular month (there is no extra charge for the number of times used, however, and no charge if it is only used at the atm). 

The great uproar about it being “unfair” is the typical protest/complaint of the unthinking, believing that they know what is “right”.   But the market will take care of this situation – if B of A is charging too much, one simply shifts one’s account to another business.  Unless there is a monopoly, which we have laws to protect against, the market (the people) is the judge, where people decide to purchase something if it is worth the price and where competitors come in and offer a lower price to get the business if there is still profit in it, and the price is driven down to closer to the costs – it takes care of itself. 

Overprotecting results in restricting.  Overtaxing results in more businesses doing their business elsewhere, so that there are fewer jobs for Americans.  Good business judgment must be used in order to strike the proper balance.

The question is not “what’s fair?” but “what will work that will provide the greatest overall benefits for those involved?”  No one knows what “fair” is.   Generally, we know that those who cry “unfair” more than in a few limited situations are those who don’t take responsibility for creating their own circumstances, for earning their own benefits. 

There are no “entitlements” except those that are purchased in one way or another (except for those are actually unable).  Being entitled where one does not exchange anything for it is strictly not a right, not a given, and perhaps a preposterous absurdity. 

A SOCIETAL CHOICE

However, people can choose to be charitable and to give to another.  And, in many ways, certain benefits that are chosen to give are only possible through the mechanism of government.  But surely it is not our right to take from others involuntarily.  There is a word for that – theft, robbery, stealing, unjust enrichment. 

The majority of us in the US, as far as I can determine, are committed to the values of:

1.  Protecting our citizens who are not able to provide for themselves from inadequate food and shelter and health care. 
2. Assuring that the able citizens are educated adequately to be able to contribute to society and to earn adequate food and shelter for themselves for their lifetimes.  This is not only for the benefit of the individual but for the collective whole, which benefits from the greater prosperity of the nation – which, in turn, creates a greater ability to protect its citizens.
3. Protecting property rights and protecting the citizens from harm, whether criminal, through nature, or any cause.
4. Assuring that the economic structure and freedoms are such that we produce a high level of prosperity without producing excesses that cause harm. 
5. Providing direction and education on values and character and how to operate in life so that citizens are aware enough to operate in their own interests and more able to contribute to others.  (This is a value that may not be seen at this point, but one that, if implementation around it is done, will more than pay for itself.)

(Implicit in a "responsibility, prosperity" society is our paying for what we get, to the extent of our abilities.  This would conceivably be handled via a Citizen Loan Account.)

Other than number 5 above, it is my judgment that both parties are committed to achieving those values.  They simply differ in their understanding of how to get there – and both make mistakes and are affected by conflicts of interest.  The Republican party cannot correctly be labeled as ‘heartless’.  The Democratic Party cannot correctly be labeled as being against business and capitalism. 

WHAT DOESN’T WORK FOR THE GREATER GOOD

The pity right now is that there are those in politics who are making others wrong in order to get more votes and to stay in office – who prioritize that instead of benefitting the country – who are lacking integrity and who are not congruent with what they say.

Those who speak of and implement cooperation and compromise are working toward the greater good.   Those who call others “the enemy” are creating divisiveness and warfare.  Those who speak of the “fat cats” are evilizing the rich and/or those in business, creating greater divisiveness and warfare – after all, isn’t that the mechanism that has been used to create wars with other nations, where the people of the other nation are made into “devils”, losing their humanity in the sight of those who wish war.  

Those who are not adequately educated in economics and what works in life should not be our representatives even if they are “on our side” in terms of beliefs, for they are more prone to bad decisions without adequate knowledge, reasoning, and facts. (See Educating Our Representatives.) Those who are dysfunctional, who rely on hate and “making others wrong” and distorting the facts to win votes, they are not who we want in office. 

AN EFFECTIVE LEADER IS...

Leadership is judged by its results. 

To the extent a leader blames “those other people” or his/her predecessors, he is not taking responsibility for bettering things – he is spending time in excuse making, in worthless/harmful politics.  To the extent he condones the uninformed behaviors of others, he is not leading toward the highest good for all.  To the extent he attempts to make “others” wrong, he is not leading – he is creating more divisiveness and at the same time recruiting the side he is on to feel they are more right in making the others wrong – and the focus is not on what will benefit for the greater good.  To the extent he distorts the facts on purpose to make others wrong, he is being harmful or at the very least dysfunctional.

A small, but illustrative, example is where there was a soldier who was relieved that there was no longer a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.  Perhaps two people in an audience of thousands booed, briefly, but stopped quickly, possibly for lack of support.  Perhaps they were against gay rights or perhaps they thought it impractical to have a policy based on “whatever”.  Some top leaders of the opposition attempted to lower other people’s opinions of the debaters on stage and their political party as being without moral character because they did not object to such behavior. (Note that the conclusion is not based on sound reasoning and uses generalization, while also relying on incorrect, blown up ‘facts’, greatly exaggerated – I believe this is something that is unacceptable for any leader, as a leader must be rational and fact-based and knowledgeable in order to lead our country productively and ethically.) 

Ironically, the leader of our country, a few weeks ago, followed the speech of a union leader who used foul accusations and labels and created others as enemies, yet our designated leader made no comment about what the union leader had proclaimed, with our leader not calling it unacceptable in politics.  To accuse others, and yet be guilty of the very same behavior, is inauthenticity at its least and lack of mature positive behavior and thinking at its best.

A leader must have integrity and authenticity to lead.  He must follow the values he espouses.  He must, to quote a current saying, be “the adult in the room.”  He is not a true leader if he claims to be the adult yet behaves in contrary, divisive ways as means to achieve political ends.

And, to return to the lead in to this piece, if a portion of his citizens are marching for entitlements, to make others wrong, etc. and etc., it is a leader’s job to intervene and to educate and to lead to productive attitudes.  It is malevolent to use those marches for his own political purposes. 

A leader is responsible for results.  And if the results are not good, he does not make excuses or blame others.  He, instead, asks what went wrong and now what can we do to get better results – and then he goes about it.   Yes, it is true that he might lose the election that he might have won by manipulating the people and using misinformation, but at least he will have done what is honorable – and not sold his soul to the devil, no matter how righteous he may feel, no matter how noble his goals.

Who shall we choose who is a true leader, in terms of actual capability and integrity rather than “appeal” or “empty promises” (even if the latter is sincerely made but made without a realistic assessment of the ability to deliver)? 

I would hope our existing leader would ‘see the light’ and work toward the greater good instead of being stuck on ideology or limited to his own understanding of economics and how things work – which, of course, can only be done through accessing lots of brains and lots of knowledge, in true cooperation.  Yes, I voted for this man for his potential to shake things up in the right direction and to lead with integrity. 

He has, based on results, not done that. 

Yes, there are conflicts, such as having to please his “base”, but he must, as soon as possible, get in gear to produce results asap instead of being governed by and diverted by his politics.  And he must do that in cooperation and compromise - for “being right”, as any adult knows, is not the ultimate workable stance. 

Yours toward using reason, facts, and knowledge to achieve better results,

The Rational Non-Politician

The site

P. S. Although there are many anti-productive behaviors on both sides of the aisle, I think it is worthwhile mentioning one big error that has been used against the person’s party.  That is where McConnell stated that his chief objective was to get Obama out of office.  He failed to make his true point, which was that the attitude of Obama was counterproductive for the nation and then to state ‘why’ and how it was.  He made the classic mistake in emotional intelligence which was to ‘condemn the sinner, rather than the sin.”  The statement he made is no better than Obama’s calling the Republican “the enemies”.  Both were divisive and harmful.

THE INTANGIBLES OF A CANDIDATE

As Tony Robbins chided Al Gore in the audience at TED, he would have been elected if he had more emotion behind his ideas and being.  See Video.

On Monday night at the CNNTeaParty sponsored Republican Presidential Debates, we were treated to a unique camera view of the candidates walking onto the stage.

Rick Perry walked in powerfully, appearing well-grounded and very strong, appearing to be a person who would stand strongly and not fold easily.

Mitt Romney walked in almost tippy-toed, as if he had ballet slippers on his feet, as if he was a good little boy, the All-American kid.  (He does have hugely high character, but he looks as if he is a people pleaser...)

Jon Huntsman walked in with softness and grace, disturbing nothing in his path, making no noise, almost appearing to be a "wimp" (which people do not vote for!). 

Perhaps Tony should coach the latter two - or even I could, but not as well, of course.  Do they not have people on their team who can coach in that way?

Mitt Romney has a "charisma deficit", so people are not very excited about him, despite the fact that he is one of the most qualified candidates in the last 50 years. 

Jon Huntsman is a sophisticated, kind-appearing, thoughtful appearing gentlemen who is of the highest character (as was his extraordinarily high-character father).   Although he has the best record of the governors, with a huge approval rating even when he left office, he is not noticed.  He must boldly proclaim, while still maintaining his excellent respectful behavior.

Both have put forth plans that are excellent, but they can't rely on people reading the plans and/or giving them much thought.  Few people nowadays do that very well.  They must emphasize the points and give illustrations, probably in a video format, educating but trying not to be as dry as Ross Perot (a great example of a businessman candidate, but without the other side that is necessary in terms of politics and charisma).  Huntsman Plan (good overview in it, should be featured more strongly on his site).  Romney Plan (this goes to free Amazon download; his website flashes between other items, so the plan is not always shown...)

Romney and Huntsman, the most workable experienced qualified candidates, must adjust their style or they will go by the wayside, sadly.  And, if by chance one of them wins the nomination, the charm and boldness of Barack Obama may win over the non-thinking voters in the middle.  This leaves the voters leaning toward Rick Perry if they want a strong contender against Obama in terms of impression.

What do you think?

The Rational Non-Politician