Applewood's Blog

After 59 years of life and almost twenty years of military service I find my self very sad that our country has been reduced to what it is.  Initially, the thought that maybe I am just getting old and over reacting crossed my mind, but I really don't think that my age is the problem.

We have one candidate that has absolutely no business running for president based on his experience.  I do not care how eloquent he is, he has zero experience and has a pattern of being noncommittal on any issue that he could be pinned down on.  He is running his campaign on one choice that he made.  He had a 50/50 chance of being correct and in "his" eyes he was correct which makes him a self proclaimed expert.  How in the world is the public so blind as to think for one second that this man, no matter how wonderful he is, is qualified for the highest office in the land?  His personal record of beliefs for the past twenty years has only just now begun to come under scrutiny, and it is a a minimum remarkable.

The next candidate has many years of public service and has been close to one of the better leaders that we've seen over the past twenty years or so.  She has also been embroiled in numerous scandals, questionable ethics issues, and some of the most amoral behaviors ever seen in high office.  Nothing in the aforementioned relates to experience or qualification for the most serious leadership position in the land.  Further, with the way that the world is going, the term of office that we are looking forward to is probably going to be among the most trying terms ever seen including that of the world wars.

Both of these candidates are promising actions that they have absolutely no way to deliver.  This makes them both liars right out of the gate.

Finally, the last candidate is a war hero.  He has many years of Congressional experience.  He has demonstrated that he is able to forge agreements with the other party, but he has also demonstrated that the will of the people is subordinate to his own judgement.   Further, he has never governed anything.  None of the above qualify him for the presidency.

What is really disallusioning is that people are lining up behind each these people with a fanaticism that rivals lemmings.  Kids are in love with one because he says that he hates war and will get us out regardless of the consequences, and because he is promising free tuition.  He cannot deliver on either, but these very smart young ones just slobber over him like he is a god.

What the heck is wrong with our public?  Are we so selfish that we give the election process no more than a lick and a promise, and in the process get really stupid?  What is wrong with the parties that they can only produce candiidates that should be thrown out for being the scalliwags that they are?  Are we as a people without shame?  Have we become so jaded that we have just thrown in the towel and play along with the game like the Russians do?  We follow the guidance of the media like it is the paragon of wisdom.  Are we too stupid to know that we are being manipulated or is it that we just don't care anymore?

Good grief!

You know who  want to vote for??  I want to vote for the candidate who is willing to stand up and say, "let's get real.".

The candidate that is honest enough to say, "Let's get real, I have told you everything that want to do, but in reality I can't do any of it.  I promise to submit my ideas to the Congress and build as good an argument as possible to entice them to act on it, but I cannot do anything without them.  I will work with the Congress and do the best that I can to implement their ideas, but if they won't act, I cannot do anything that I've promised."

A candidate that is honest enough to stop making promises that they cannot keep would be refreshing and get my vote.  As I said in my "leadership" post, it will take a real leader to herd the cats that we call the Congress.  Has anyone seen a leader with that kind of talent in the race for the presidency????   If you have, vote for that person.

In this current time when we hear so many stating that they have the leadership experience to lead our country, I wonder if the definition of the word has changed.

My idea of a leader is a person who is accountable for their decisions.  This is a person who is capable of inducing others to do things in an efficient and orderly manner.  One who administrates a budget, makes decisions about how to administrate a budget and about how to hold others responsible for carrying out directives is a leader.  A leader is accountable for the results.

Governors, City Councils, Presidents, mayors, managers, and parents do this.  People in staff positions advise and provide information to those who make the decisions, they do not lead.

How is it that we have Senators touting their leadership experience based on their Senate records?  These records are not of leadership.  Senators do not administrate budgets.  They do not lead people or stand accountable for how a government is run.  They advise  and submit suggestions to the Executive Branch, and it is the Executive Branch that leads (gets it done).  An accountant's spouse is not an accountant, a lawyer's spouse is not an attorney.  If one such spouse suggested otherwise it would be laughable.

From what I can see, we do not have one candidate that is in the finalist tier that has any Leadership experience.  I have never seen a successful manager interview based on a person who applies for the job saying I know that I can do the job, just trust me.  How successful would a candidate for a managment job be if all that they could say is I'm qualified because I've been around managers all of my career?

The rhetoric that we are being subjected to is consistent across all of the candidates.  They are all promising to be successful at doing something that none of them has done, and that is leading.  None of them has ever been accountable for the results of their governmental decisions.  They are all masters at parrying the blame for things that didin't turn out so good and at taking credit for the things that turned out well.  In every case, however, someone else has had the job of getting things done.  Those someone else's are the leaders.

Whether it is Barak with his smooth sounding words, or Clinton with her "I've been everywhere the leader has been" message, or McCain with his senate record, none of them have leadership experience in government.  McCain at least does have military leadership experience, but that is a far cry from running the biggest business in the world which is the US government.

I do not care whether these candidates are left, right, conservative or liberal.  Their personal belief systems do not qualify them to lead.  Further, unless they are running for dictator their personal belief systems will not move the Congress to give them the tools to do what they want to do.  All of the palaver about who is a true conservative or who is the farthest to the left is off target at best.  Let's concentrate on who it is that can LEAD.  Which one is it that will stand up and willingly say, "the buck stops here." and mean it?

I find this election to be the most interesting of all the elections that I've seen in my 59 years.  It has truly been enjoyable to see so many debates and here so many interesting perspectives.

On the other hand this election has brought with it some troubling aspects that in my view have been rubbed into the faces of the voters.  It has never been so obvious that elections can be bought.

One case on point is the competition between Romney and Huckabee.  For months now Huckabee has bee neck and neck with Romney in the national polls.  His performance in the debates has brought him much attention without him having to have much money. 

Now he's virtually out of money.

Romney is spending 7 figures of his own money to canvas the nation with TV spots.  It's nice that he has earned this money, but it seems somehow unethical for one candidate to be restricted in how he can obtain funding whilst another (Romney) can be unrestricted in how much of his own personal wealth he can use.  The playing field is hardly equal. 

Further, now that he is ot of money, the media has relegated Huckabee to the "also ran" status even though is polling numbers still show him very much in the race.  Money equals electability?  When the voters indicate that a candidate is viable the media should respond by giving the voters more exposure to him or her.  Money should not define electability, nor should it dictate which candidate gets aire time.  

I ask you, where would Huckabee be in the polls if he and Romney were retstricted to the same funding rules?  It appears to me, that buying an election is not only legal, it's being encouraged, and all of this without regard to the voters.

Groupthink seems to be a word with negative conotation in any situation that it is applied.  Whether it is used to characterize the lock stepped support behind the  ill conceived strategies of people like Donald Rumsfeld or in a smaller group like a husband and a wife.  When ever people attach themselves to a belief or a process just because it is popular or because everyone else is seemingly supporting it, it is considered a recipe for failure of poor performance.  Groupthink is when people to not express or act on their feelings, beliefs, or concerns in favor of consensus.

Many businesses have gone down the wrong path or out of business completely because of groupthink.  Many marriaages have gone down because there is no discourse, just blind followership by one or the other spouse.

So I think that I am safe to say that "groupthink" is not a good thing.

So why is it that when a person in the Senate or House dares to get out of step with the party on an issue because they sincerely believe that where the party is going, it's the kiss of death with the party faithful???  I don't understand.  It seems to me that daring to differ and act on that difference is a rare and admirable quality in Washington that should be embraced not shunned or demeaned.  It is afterall the "groupthink" of the Democrats and the Republicans that has gotten us into the mess that  we are in today.

I am a Republican, I guess, but that doesn't translate to me to mean that I have to support everything that the party says.  It does means that I generally support the things that the party "says" that it stands for.

I hope that in this election, the public is looking for a statesman/woman rather than a party lacky.  It is way past time for our leaders (who were elected as individuals) to stand up for what they believe as individuals in context with party values instead of following the party lemmings over the cliff just so that they can be popular with the party righteous.

"Groupthink" = "partisan bickering and one upsmanship"  It means that bad policy is followed for no other reason than party affiliation.  It means that bad policy is adopted just because no one dares to inject common sense or confront a broken system.

Doing what is right in Washington is just not good politics anymore.  That would be just way to simple.

In the business environment, when the executive branch seeks to make a decision the leadership team collaborates.  Executives receive candid  feedback from the organizational departments of Finance, Operations, Marketing, Sales, and Risk etc.  Once the feedback or counsel is received the executive team has the information it needs to make wise decisions.

Wouldn't it be nice if our government worked the same way?

When a coporation gets out of balance or the counsel is less than candid the result is an Enron debacle.  The US auto makers are fast becoming examples of "out of balance" or disfunctional leadership teams.

Isn't this what is going on in our government?  Instead of practicing "trust and confidence" in each other, the branches of government are biting and devouring each other for political gain.  Instead of focusing on the responsibilities that each branch has, they jockey for position and desire to usurp the power of the others.  Accordingly, we see the people doing the same thing.

Wouldn't it be nice if republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives would realize that differing views come from different perspectives of the same issues?  Neither side is inherently evil or stupid or garbage as one blogger recently described republicans.

Wouldn't it be nice if our country had elders in the biblical sense, who would sit down and reason together? 

Stop for a moment and ponder upon the freedoms that are so often touted by our leaders.  We hear about the freedoms of speech, self-expression, the pursuit of happiness, health, prosperity, and so on and on and on………..

 A there is a greater freedom that has been lost and it is in the name of our country.  Bear with me while I build my case.

Religion

There are so many Christian denominations that it is hard to count them.  The Moslems are so divided that they are killing each other over their differences.  The Jews are divided into at least three very distinct groups.

 Business

 Businesses today emphasize team work within, but are totally focused on segmenting the market, even so far as down to the individual.

 Government

 The politicians are segregated into republicans, democrats, libertarians, then segmented into right wing, left wing, moderate, progressive, conservative and so on… Further, the rhetoric tends to force people to take positions within one of these segments.

 Social

 Society is segmented by education (with several segments within that), sexual orientation, race, religion, and ethnicity to name a few.

 Economic

 Classes: Prosperous, middle class, impoverished   

 Having done a marginal job of listing the ways that we are segmented/divided in this country, I would point out that the one thing that every one of the groups listed above depend on for success is polarization/segmentation.  I think that it is safe to say that any group of people that begin to show signs of unity is immediately labeled as extremist, unenlightened, intolerant, or in some way that tends to marginalize them

 Humans from the times of the hunter gatherer have only found strength in unity.  We as individuals are weak and generally ineffective.  Without unity it is safe to say that the predators of the animal kingdom would have made our appearance on earth brief.

 It is interesting to me to observe that whether it’s business, government, religion, or education the leaders of each group and paradoxically acting together have an interest in keeping us focused on individuality rather than unity.  In unity, people have strength.  As individuals, we can be controlled.

 I submit to you that the greatest freedom that we have lost is that of UNITY.  This cannot be an accident.  This country is morphing and it is doing so by keeping us, focused on ourselves and our individual rights.  While we focus on our individual rights, the rights of this country are being slowly but surely taken away.  This is quite a paradox, but the methodology is sitting right in front of us and yet we can't see it.

What has happened to our country?  When did the Bill of Rights become a tool for abuse and dishonor?

It is generally accepted that people have the right to pursue happiness in this country so long as that pursuit does not interfere with any other's right to do the same thing.  This common civility and mutual respect for others is generally accepted behavior.  Why does this same type of thinking not apply to the right of self expression?

Politicians and the media outlets are saying just about anything to achieve their desired goals.  Their speech includes innuendo, slander, and disrespect.  When a country sinks so far that legitimate debate about opposing points of view is put aside in favor of public accusation, falsehood, and disrespect then the citizens are left to form opinions without the benefit of the truth. 

If we continue to abuse the right of free speech by speaking in this way, then the loss of this right cannot be far behind.  The politicians who resort to name calling, innuendo, and distortion to make their points should know that there is a cost.  If they cannot act with honor, respect, and civility then they have NO right to expect to be treated any differently.  Citizens are no different. 

Resolving differences one on one is a thing of the past.  Resolving issues face to face requires courage.  It is actually easier to hang all the dirty laundry out in the public for all to see.  We wonder why our youth hold adults in contempt.  We are amazed that there is no respect for the military, the police, the fire departments, the churches.  It is because there is no honor or respect in the words being spoken by our media or our leaders.

I have no issue with politicians slugging it out in committee or on the floor of the houses  of congress, but why does it have to be done in the media?  Let the results speak for themselves.  I do not want, nor do I think most of the people (and the rest of the world)want to see our politicians acting like school yard bullies, tattle tails, and hoodums so that they can get their way.  This behavior undermines the respect that we once enjoyed in the world.  It isn't doing a whole lot for the next generation of Americans either.