Being Presidential with no negative engagements

Being Presidential requires that one is the "adult in the room", operating without blame, rancor, twisting the facts or omitting relevant details.  (Obama has totally failed that test.)

A President must not get engaged in a rancorous exchange.  The Presidential person would not even look at the person who is accusing him of something, but should calmly assert what is true, referring to what "Mr. _____" says is not true and then giving the facts.  He must not engage or be engaged in any rancorous conversation, nor should he get heated up.  He can stand strongly for the truth and for what he believes and contrast himself with the other candidate.  He must always raise the level back to leading to a constructive end point. 

A President must be civil and direct and always progressive and principled. 

And a President (a future one) must set an absolute standard - and not be pulled down into the morass.

The Rational NonPolitician

P.S. The tackiest bit of the Republican debates was when Rick Perry twisted the facts plus continuing on an issue that was already fully answered.  He accused Romney of hiring illegals and being a hypocrite when he had asked his the company that does his gardening maintenance to remove an illegal (when it was discovered by a Boston paper) and thought the problem was solved.  When he found out later that there was an illegal working for that company a year later, he fired the company.  What else could he do? 

Based on that conversation, I would exclude Mr. Perry for consideration as a President.

Looking at the facts in this Presidency

Barack Obama is very likable and a very good guy, just not one who is in the right job.

You might wish to read Thank You, Barack Obama, For Trying Your Best.

Yes, I voted for Mr. Obama - and we must admit the mistake and not truly looking in more depth.  My vote was made without as in-depth an analysis as I would do now - and I allowed myself to be trapped by avoiding the other bad choice (see why, in the above article and in Evaluating The Republicans Overall).  

People should vote for effective leadership regardless of whether all the other issues align or not.

Will you support yourself and others looking at the facts and making a rational decision?

The Rational NonPolitician
(Not always right, but doing my best to stick to a rational process based on facts.)

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.

Mr. Mitt Romney, I See Your "Why"

I have studied the candidates and then looked more deeply into them.

And, I think, people do not get the powerful "why" for Mitt Romney. 

WHY does he want to be President?

In a simple statement it is, I think, "to use the abilities I have acquired so that I can direct this nation back to prosperity and strength for all Americans."   And a subtext is, I believe, "my heart is broken when I see the suffering and struggles that now exist in this country...and I want to do as much about it as I can."

For some reason, his "why" doesn't show up clearly.  He needs to (as we all do) consider the message in this TED talk (18 minutes) of Simon Sinek "How great leaders inspire action". 

I am hoping that Mr. Romney will get the "why" to be known, so that he can be the one to lead this nation.

We have learned, I think, that great rhetoric and wonderful motives are insufficient for the most important job in the world - and that it cannot be left to someone who does not have the capabilities, no matter how nice and good the person is.

You, Mr. Romney, are the only one who is immensely qualified to recreate a strong foundation and prosperity for America. 

So, please do what it takes to win the primary, and then go on to be President.  We cannot afford not to have you as President. And you need to make your "why" clear to all of us, so we can match it with your great abilities and elect you to restore the strength of this nation.

This is my rational opinion.  If you have a contribution to make in this regard, please do so.

Yours for rational decisions and prosperity,

The Rational NonPolitician

P. S. After my investigation, I have written several pieces.  You can find them via the Evaluation Of Romney page.

Cain For President - Republicans, do not repeat the errors of the past.

In the 2008 primaries, Republicans "voted with their hearts" (which they do have, despite the assertions of the Dems), instead of their minds.   They voted for what seemed to correspond with their beliefs, but not for what would create the best results. 

Even then the standout, though not yet as well seasoned politically, debatewise, and image-creating-wise, for who could do the right job was Mitt Romney. 

McCain, while being a good man with lots of legislative experience, was not the man for the job.

This is not the first case of "good man, wrong job", surely.  The effect of that was fully illustrated with our experience with Barack Obama's Presidency.  (See Evaluation of Obama's Presidency.)

The evangelists voted, at least at first, for somebody embracing something closer to their beliefs.  This time they need to vote for what will create the best results for all concerned, as the nation will not, in a practical sense, ever, ever, ever go over to voting for any of the more extreme positions - though, of course, they are backed up with good values and beliefs, but ones that differ too strongly from others.   While we must respect their beliefs, we also must balance that with respect for the beliefs of the other citizens, without imposing one set of beliefs on others - and that is one of the key elements of our fiber as a nation, so we cannot and will not violate that.

This is a "right of center" nation.  And that is where the ultimate laws will inevitably go.  Yes, they will sometimes go to some way-off-center laws when one political party dominates for a while, before they are thrown out of office in order to adjust the laws back toward the middle.   

McCain, though I respect age, was too old to be able to be sure he could live long enough and, fatally, I think, too inexperienced in management.  Feisty and a good debater, yes.  And willing to fight the establishment (a maverick) to some extent.  But not the right man for the job.  And then he selected a good person who was a much more colorful maverick and which he thought would ignite the party and the woman's vote - he was partly right but disastrously wrong as it was soon apparent that she could not have a prayer of being a capable President if McCain died.

Good people, wrong job.  And it is a fatal mistake to hire someone for the wrong reasons!

Now Herman Cain is achieving high results in the polls.  As I look at that, I wonder what is happening and feel the urge to say "Are you kidding me?" or "What are you smoking?"

He is a good, proper, proven executive, but he'll have a big learning curve as to how to operate in government.  And we've seen what happened with the harmful effects of the current President, though a good and intelligent man, being unqualified and having go through a huge learning curve, which is actually virtually impossible to do even in four years.

You need to hire the right man for the right job.  I have no affiliation with Romney nor any prejudice for him, but I have investigated deeply enough to come to the rationally, factually-based conclusion that he is the best man, by far (similar to what Christie said in his endorsement). (See Evaluation Of Romney.)

Vote this time for the best man for the most important job in the world.  Please sit down and reason with the facts in order to make the best decision.  Please hire the most qualified man, not just the candidates who you find appealing or which agree most with your beliefs!. 

Yours for the greater good of this nation,

The Rational NonPolitician

Hiring A CEO For The Nation - Producing Prosperity

The job before us as citizens is to hire a CEO For The Nation, for producing prosperity, abundance, and a nation that serves us all. 

Of course, the CEO is not just focused on economics, but is focused more broadly on assuring that the citizens are better off overall:  more capable and happier, with rights and liberties fully installed.

As I look and go deeper on all the candidates, the standout is Mitt Romney, as a proven and effective CEO, with excellent values and consideration for all. 

This might look like a political position, but I assure you that it is my best attempt at looking at what is best for the nation.  See Evaluation Of Romney, Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, and Obama Vs Romney On The Issues, and Ratings Of The 2012 Candidates.

Hiring such a CEO is critical for the nation, as we can no longer insert "enemies, blaming, class warfare, fighting" and such into our thinking, as it displace problem solving and progress.  We need a CEOPresident who knows how to create results and cares for all the people. 

Now is the time.

The Rational Non-Politician

(Yes, I can be wrong/incorrect on some issues/facts, etc., so please provide factual and reasoning inputs.  I have no doubt, because of the very wide advantage of Romney over the others that he is the best choice, by far, for the nation!).

Rationally Evaluating Romney - Extraordinary

I decided to look deeper and to determine who would be the best for the United States.  I was very impressed about how extraordinarily capable and caring he is. 

If one puts aside biases for a moment and conflicts of beliefs, one will find that all citizens, on the left or the right, will be better off if Mitt Romney becomes the President. 

I would predict that he will be the best President ever, in terms of effectiveness in improving our economy and the benefits we derive from it.

From The Site, Evaluation Of Romney:

Among all the candidates for President for 2012, there is no competitor (with the exception of Huntsman) who even comes close as to the qualifications and ability to manage the United States government for the betterment of all, regardless of one's party affiliation.

If one reviews his background, in areas that are controllable, he has had extraordinary results, including these:

1. Taking all of the employees of the firm to locate a partner's missing young daughter (see video Mitt Romney Hero),
2.  Turning a $3 billion dollar deficit for Massachusetts into a $1 billion dollar surplus (see video on his governorship An Introduction).
3.  Rescuing the 2002 Olympics from disaster and fraud and making it highly successful and profitable (see documentary video Olympics Turnaround).
4.  Turned around a major management consultant firm and consulted with many businesses to improve their operations.
5.  Ran a business investment firm, buying and/or financing and then consulting or managing, with an extraordinary set of results, averaging an astounding return on investment of 113 per cent.  See documentary video The Businessman. 

He is fair and highly conscientious about protecting those who are in need (proven by his actual actions) and he is avid about creating opportunity and educating people so that they will prosper.

He has prepared a thorough plan (while Obama has never produced a thorough written plan) for jobs and economic factors:  See The Plan or The PDF Summary (at Mitt Romney, Jobs). 

Extraordinarily effective and caring to do what is right - this is a potent combination that could benefit this nation more than ever before.   With him in charge, I am certain that our culture and our country will prosper. 

Look at the evaluation and decide.   This is an important time.  (You might want to review the Evaluation Of Obama's Presidency, 10/11.)

The Rational Problem Solver

As always, I welcome corrections, additions, analyses and any comments.

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.