A primary leadership issue of today

A primary leadership issue today is lack of a clearly defined, consistent and holistic value system.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Whether in governments, corporations, institutes of learning, communities or families, labels divide thought and inhibit critical reasoning. Pejoratives, such as, capitalism, socialism, conservatism and liberalism, are used as weapons in combative argument as finite and well understood concepts without regard to nuances.

In the cognitive process of decision making, problem analysis precedes a final choice. Problem analysis involves evaluating evidence against a set of basic beliefs, ideology, principles and goals – in other words, a value system. Unless a value system is first established and recognized, problem analysis can be faulty, and decision making inconsistent.

PROBLEM ANALYSIS THROUGH EXAMPLES

Issue: “Full inclusion” of special needs children into the mainstream education system?

The answer, difficult as it is, begins to unfold depending on whether one’s value system is “greatest good for the greatest number” or “maximum individual rights regardless of greater good”. It should not be: “Lucy is such a sweet kid; she deserves the best.”

Issue: Free health care for those who cannot afford it?

The answer depends on whether one’s value system (a) supports free handouts for humane reasons, (b) holds individuals accountable under all circumstances for the choices they make, or (c) seeks economic expediency for collective good. It should not be: “Oh, those poor people! Who will look after them if the government doesn’t?”

Issue: Greater regulation of the finance industry?

The answer depends on whether or not one’s value system is one of unbridled capitalism where market forces reign supreme within ethical standards. It should not be “Today’s corporate leaders are greedy and need to be regulated.”

If one were to support full inclusion (hence, “individual rights”), would it be inconsistent to support free health care for the reason of “collective good” or support greater regulation of the finance industry that would curb the rights of corporate entities?

The objective of this essay is not to examine the above complex issues but merely to highlight the fact that if we engage with issues without reference to a uniform value system, inconsistencies are likely to occur.

THE QUESTION OF INTEGRITY

Today people take positions on issues without first recognizing the value system, because today’s leaders often do exactly that. This leads to inconsistent positions and ultimate lack of integrity across issues.

Integrity is one of the foremost qualities of leadership. This essay suggests that integrity in a leadership role demands first and foremost the establishment and the recognition of a reference value system.

The Audacity of the Peace Prize

The United States is -- like it or not -- thrust into the position of world leadership by its political, economic, scientific, technological, democratic and military might.

The leadership comes with the duty to lead.

9/11 gave the U.S. an unprecedented opportunity to lead the world against terrorism, but the U.S. squandered that opportunity with the foolhardy misadventure into Iraq and from then on, has led the world down the path of more conflict, less communication, greater arrogance, less tolerance and less peace.

President Obama halted the slide and reversed the process with open communication, less conflict, more understanding, some humility and a LOT OF HOPE.

Has Obama achieved World Peace? Signed any major peace accord? No.

Has his presence and actions (words?) greatly raised the hope and expectation of peace worldwide? Yes.

In fact, although he is yet to achieve quantifiable results, he has electrified the world outside the U.S. (I travel internationally; speak to people from various countries; and am writing this from India right now.)

In a world that has seen such escalation of strife, division, conflict and war in the past 8 years, Obama has brought a significant change to the world spirit and definitely reversed the trend towards Peace.

The Nobel Foundation has shown courage and vision in using the Peace Prize in recognizing this change, and -- as a result -- has actually used the prize as an instrument of peace augmentation.

Kudos to the Nobel committee for their decision.

We believe in Democracy, but so what if 69% approve of Obama

Sure, we believe in democracy. But so what if 69% approve of Obama, we shall still oppose him tooth and nail and at every turn of the dice. That is what Republicans appear to be saying.

 Rush Limbaugh is crying out against the "central planners, the statist tyranny crowd in Washington."

Glenn Beck (Fox news) calls Obama "a fascist" and wants Americans to launch a "revolution". Even though there is a democratically elected President! Hmmm.

Michael Savage rants day and day out about Obama turning the country into a socialist heaven.

Mark Levin warns listeners that Obama is surely coming after their "private property" and their "liberty".

They believe in democracy, but even before 100 days of the new administration are over, they must rant and rave over the coming of the "anti-christ". 

Obama has set the tone for a secular nation

I grew up in India, a country that is deeply steeped in religion and spiritualism, and yet it is a country that promotes itself as a secular nation where people of all religions and faith can happily co-exist.

In the United States, surprisingly, the word "secular" is often equated with "atheist". Yet that is farthest from the truth.

Secularism promotes freedom to practice any religion, or NOT practice a religion, if one so wishes. And, secularism promotes total separation of religion and state.

When Obama said in his inaugural speech that "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers", it resonated deeply with me. I think it portends very well for the future direction of the country. The United States is the epitome of freedom in many ways. Yet of late we were witnessing a ridiculous and mindless trend in the name of being "politically correct" where everyone was so scared to refer to any religion for fear of offending someone or the other. I think the height of this was the effort to take Christ out of Christmas and call it by the generic name of "the Holiday Season". "Seasons Greetings" became more in vogue than the plain and simple "Merry Christmas".

Coming from a secular nation, I found it quite illogical. What's wrong in greeting a Christian on a christian holiday, a Muslim on a muslim holiday, a Jew of a jewish holiday and a Hindu on a hindu holiday?

Obama's reference to the "non believers" is a happy turn towards sanity and acknowledgment of our religious diversity and secular freedom.

Way to go, Obama.

*****

My friend Mike Schoeffler had this comment (via Facebook):

America has always struck a balance between the deep religiosity of her people and the freedom to worship as desired. While these characteristics appear superficially opposed, they actually reinforce each other. Religion grows in the absence of coercion and freedom (often) grows when protected by religious people. 

Your attention to this balance is striking - the similarity with India isn't often discussed. This common religiosity/freedom is one of the strongest reasons for the depth of the US-Israeli alliance. This factor may also explain some of the loosening of bonds with Europe.

This factor may point to an ever stronger alliance with India. History will record President Bush's outreach to India as one of the highlights of his foreign policy. Let's hope President Obama will enhance our relationship with the world's largest democracy.

Obama - What I expect from him

Jan 20, 2009 

Obama's inauguration comes at a time when the world badly needs HOPE and CHANGE, and Obama appears to stand for both. What he will actually do is yet to be seen, but he surely signifies a clear break from the "business of usual" of the past 8 years -- or even the generally unremarkable legacy of the past 16 years during which America and the world changed forever by stepping into the 21st century and experiencing highs and lows of various kinds, but we did not see any bold, distinctive step emanating from the White House.

Bush presided over one of the worst national and international downfalls in living memory, though he did correctly note that since 9/11 there hasn't been a single act of terrorism on U.S. soil -- and that cannot be just a coincidence. Clinton, on the other hand, presided over one of the most glorious economic highs in recorded history, but his misuse of his august office for petty personal picadillos destroyed the sanctity of the Presidency and underscored the moral degradation that the U.S. in general has been experiencing for decades.

Obama inherits the mantle of leadership today with perhaps the worst ever "baggage" that any President has ever had handed to him. What do I expect him to do? Surely not solve everything at the swign of a magic wand. He has already earned some respect from most quarters by forming a balanced, sensible and formidable cabinet. But nothing and nobody can solve today's mammoth problems rapidly.

What I hope and expect from Obama is, first of all, LEADERSHIP -- an element that has been in short supply for decades and which is the principal shortcoming that plagues American politics today. Give is leadership that is bold, balanced and progressive. Give us leadership that acknowledges the best values of conservative thinking and yet forges a new beginning in open-mided and reformist thought. Free us substantially from politics as usual and the degenerative cronyism that Washington is known for. Do not try to please everyone but do listen to everyone with attention and humility. Give us a new era of responsible governance and accountability.  Give us not just political leadership but moral leadership as well. And above all do not forget that you are empowered by the people of this nation and in spite of being the most powerful man in the world during the duration of your administration, you remain a servant of the people.

Country First? Hmmmmmmm!

McCain says "Country First".

But his pick of Sarah Palin was surely in the best strategic interest of his sagging campaign and NOT in the best interest of the country.

The induction of Palin into the ticket certainly served to re-energize the base and proved to be a shot in the arm for the campaign. But surely McCain cannot claim that in this great wonderful country of 300 million people, the very best V.P. candidate he could find was someone who did not even have a passport until a few days ago and had never met a single world dignitary.

"Me First. Country Next." That was McCain's clear message.

I asked my Republican friends a basic question...

The question was:

"Please suspend for the time being your belief that the Democrats can do no right, and that they are big taxing, big spending socialists, with unbalanced liberal ideas and little respect for family values.

The question for you is:

Would you be pleased if the United States rose out of the present mess and once again became a highly prosperous and secure, with arts, science, music and industry flourishing, strong family values came back in vogue, and democratic/personal freedom rising to a peak, BUT -- in your lifetime -- the Republicans never ever got the White House again?"

Below is an answer I received, which I am reproducing without comment.

"Probal:

I see democrats as a weak party that attracts: losers vs.. winners, women vs...men, most of the rank and file have room temperature IQ scores. They need Government to " take care of them." They are perpetual victims. They blame events and not themselves for being underlings.

Historically the large corporations and Robber Barons in the late 19 and early 20 th Centuries, that built this country and used them as near slave labor. Theodore Roosevelt is the era we are talking about.

Democrats exist because they need to be protected from the strong: Republicans.

To get something you have to produce. Democrats get theirs from moving it from the haves to the have knots. They create nothing but dependency. Unions got power from the owners of Industry. Republicans plugged into this and didn't need organized labor to get what they needed. They depended on their skills, cunning, preparation, strength, etc.

Democrats will never attack preemptively; they wait until they are before going to war. WWII is a prime example. Where would we be if the first Gulf war went uncontested? Our economy would not exist and Sadam would have had nukes by now, and then what?

Jimmy Carter was a miserable failure and so will Obama be if he gets his chance."

Call me a "socialist" - it disturbs me not

ExxonMobil has posted the highest ever quarterly profit in the the history of Corporate America: 

http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/30/news/companies/exxon_earnings/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

I, the capitalist, see nothing wrong - in these super-critical times (extraordinary circumstances) -- in imposing a Windfall Gain Tax on the oil companies to "spread the wealth around" a little bit. Windfall Gain essentially means "ensuing from events that were beyond the planning and control of the recipient". OPEC plotted to raise Oil Prices from $40 to $160. The Oil Companies made money hand over fist. I see nothing wrong in taking some of that windfall gain and using it for alternative energy projects or extend to small-businss as credit for creating more jobs.

 

If everything was hunky-dorey and prosperous -- like in the 90's -- then a Windfall Gain Tax would be out of the question. But these are extraordinarily critical times.

 

You want to call me a Socialist -- go ahead. It disturbs me not. What disturbs me much more is that the reigning capitalists have depleted my 401K by an obscene percentage while speaking the right language of capitalism.

 

I am not a Democrat. I am not a Republican. I call myself a Value-driven Realist. 

 

Want to call me a Socialist? Go ahead. It disturbs me not.

Obama is a socialist with very questionable ties...!!!

Received an email today, that said:

 

Obama is a socialist with very questionable ties and philosophy, carefully orchestrated so as not to reveal himself, light in  experience, flip-flopping all over the deck, sycophant to the blacks, who wills to destroy the economy through taxation that every financial expert decries as a destructive strategy, who did not vote in many of his Senate duties, who blatantly wants to be the black Robin Hood.

 

NOBAMA NOW!

 

My response to the email:

 

Warren Buffet is without doubt one of the most respected financial experts in the country. 

 

During the second 2008 U.S. presidential debate, when asked by debate mediator Tom Brokaw, McCain mentioned Warren Buffett as a possible future Secretary of the Treasury.

 

But Buffett has formally endorsed Obama and made campaign contributions to Obama's presidential campaign.

 

Is he a deranged socialist? Why does he not decry Obama's policies as a destructive strategy? 

 

Labels be damned

War-time needs war-time decisions. And I am not referring to Iraq. I am referring to the raping of the financial system by greedy capitalists and business owners, in collusion with politicians from both sides of the aisle.  I do not have the patience for labels like "socialism" in the short term any more. 

I am a capitalist. 100% so. I do not give to beggers or to the man who stands in the corner saying "Out of work". But I give to my employees the very last cent that is in the coffers, even if it means no salary for (me) the business-owner; I give to the vendors, even if it means no salary for (me) the business-owner; I pay my bills -- I will not use a credit-negotiating company to negotiate with the creditor and pay 30 cents on the dollar just because the law provides me with a loophole for doing so. I am proudly a capitalist.

I need pragmatic decisions to lift us out of this morass. I do not want an Old Boy's Network to reign supreme in the White House. I want more accountability. I want change.

Talk about "spreading the wealth around"...

How about "spreading the poverty around"?

I am a capitalist, but I am not scared by Republican scare tactics repeating Obama's comment about "spreading the wealth around". Because what President Bush has done a good job of "spreading the poverty around" at all levels of the society. You want me to forgive him just because he used the "right language"?

I don't like distribution of wealth or DISTRIBUTION OF POVERTY.

Healthy Democracy usually demands that the party that does not perform gets voted out

Democracy is a system that has built-in checks and balances.

The 4-year term provides that check and balance. 

Term limits provides that check and balance.

If a President screws up, you do not put him back in power. That is the power of the people. That is the power of democracy.

If a party screws up -- for 2 terms in a row -- you do not reward them by putting them back in power. If you do, then you send a wrong signal to the entire system -- that it is OKAY to screw up with people's lives and the country's future.

But McCain is not Bush!!!! Why punish him for Bush's mistakes?

Well - as long as he represents the Party that nomited Bush and put him in power, he must inherit all the good and all the bad of that party.

McCain is not Bush!!!

McCain is not Bush!!!! Why punish him for Bush's mistakes?

Let me speak as a business-owner.

If my company failed to deliver their new software on (say) November 4th, can you go in as the new CEO of my company and say to the customer: "I am not Probal. He did not keep his promise. But I am the new CEO of the company. I cannot deliver on the old contract. But give me your next contract." 

What do you think would be the customer's reaction? "Oh I am so glad that Probal is gone. You are so wonderful. Let's forget about the $250,000 loss we just incurred. Here is a new contract for $300,000." ???

Did you just mumble "No"?

McCain is not Bush. Does he deserves our vote? You just answered that question.

Who is a more likely CHANGE-AGENT - Obama or McCain?

Are YOU happy with the way things are? Can you point out a single important area where things are as they should be? Can you say you do not want CHANGE, that you want status quo?

As a business-owner, I ask myself: If I wanted change in your company, who would you hire to lead the effort? A 70+ year old experienced hand or a 30-something person of new ideas?

I do not AT ALL mean that just because someone is 30-something or 40-something that person can be a GOOD CHANGE AGENT. But I do say -- let me repeat this: I DO say, that it will take a lot of convincing before I can believe a 70-something can be a good change agent. 

Just the other day I was chatting with friends and remarked -- with reference to one of our common friends that he was "too old to change" -- and the person I was referring to is only 38. I did not say that as a joke. I said that because that person has deep beliefs and habits which will never change.

The country needs CHANGE.

Who is a more likely CHANGE AGENT?

Email Subject:"We Gotta RALLY all Repubs and persuade the DEMS, less than 1 week left!!"

This is the SUBJECT-line of the email that hit my inbox 4 days before Election '08.

It appealed to the business-owner in me:

Hi Probal: For your erudition and reminder. You are a business owner, and we create 70 % of all jobs. Obama is no friend to you. Expanded government  doesn't create jobs. Government does NOTHING well!!.  Vote McCain/Palin on Tuesday, Nov. 4. God Bless USA!

And in enclosed an email from one Jerry Molen that said -- in brief:

In the event the junior Senator from Illinois becomes President and especially if the House and Senate are veto proof.

 

1).  Strict new gun laws will be enacted even though he promised he would not.

2).  The phrase 'In God We Trust' will be removed from all currency.

3).  He will back away from his pledge to Israel and leave them to the wolves of Islam.

4).  Hillary Clinton will be named to the Supreme Court.

5).  Tax rates will return to their highest levels in 30 years.

6).  The capital gains tax will be at least double current levels.

7).  Retired Army General Wesley Clark will be named Secretary of Defense.  This is the General who was fired for 'integrity' issues.

8).  The borders will be 'basically open' to all comers ... especially those from the Middle East and South America.

9).  Amnesty will be granted to all illegals now in the U.S. regardless of status or even gang members (MS-13).

10).  The war in Iraq will be brought to an abrupt end and the results will be tragic and the consequences to our military will be devastating.

 

I realize that my predictions may not sit too well with some people and the best we could all hope for is that I am totally wrong.  Any bets?

 

Jerry Molen

 

If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!

 

It is Time for Americans to Speak up.

I wrote back to the sender:

I am with you when you say "God Bless USA". In all my political emails to you I have said "I am for the United States".

But at the risk of losing your friendship I have not stopped myself from saying McCain does not stand for "Country First". His pick of Sarah Palin is a good political pick -- but surely she is not the "best person" he could find to become the V.P. in this wonderfully talented country of 300 million people. :)

I know politicans have to do "something" to win votes, but Palin is a blatant transgression of the integrity principle (in my private opinion).

But regardless of that, we are not voting for Palin/Biden -- we are voting for McCain/Obama.

There are many good reasons to vote for McCain. And some reasons not to vote for him.

Likewise, there are good reasons to vote for Obama and some good reasons not to vote for him.

There will never be a "perfect" candidate.

In my humble opinion, write-ups such as the enclosed are a great boost for Republicans who are already committed anyway to voting McCain/Palin. But it will not impress Undecided Voters because of the obvious bias of the writer.

If you need to persuade Undecided Voters then you have to start off by acknowledging there is good and bad with both candidates.

If I don't see that tone, I am not impressed. And I doubt if undecided voters are going to be impressed either.