Integrity

What should we think of politicians who cheat on their wives, people like Anthony Weiner, Newt Gingrich, Mark Sanford, orJohn Edwards?

Years ago I saw a quiz intended to measure people's attitudes toward some work issues and help them understand the importance of having the correct attitudes. One question asked, “If you found out that your boss was having an extramarital affair, would you think less of him as a boss?” The “right” answer was that no, that should not change how you regard him. Supposedly his personal life had nothing to do with his work life.

That “right” answer is nonsense.

To believe that a person can have high integrity at work while lacking integrity in personal life is to believe that the person is split into two different characters. It just doesn't happen. If someone cheats his spouse and not his employer there is a simple reason: at present he finds it attractive, convenient, and of acceptable risk to cheat on his spouse but not on his employer. What will happen when he finds it attractive, convenient, and of acceptable risk to cheat his employer? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to answer that question.

Integrity means honesty regardless of convenience or consequences. The person who is honest only when honesty is convenient or dishonesty dangerous lacks integrity. When the situation changes, he will cheat. That is true in family life, in business, and in government.

Anthony Weiner is only the latest congressman to get caught in a sexual scandal. However his power is being reduced by his own party. Of greater concern right now is Gingrich who wants to be president. Here is a man who cheated on two wives, divorcing both when they developed health problems. He made vows with those women, then flagrantly violated those vows. Can we trust him to keep any promise to the American people? What will he do when he finds it convenient or low risk to break promises to us?

Gingrich talks of Christian forgiveness. As a Christian I believe in repentance and forgiveness, but that is not the issue. In fact I am in no position to forgive him because he has not wronged me. His ex-wives and his children are the people who must deal with that. For me the issue is trust; and trust is not something we just give away; it must be earned. In fact while the scriptures repeatedly command us to forgive, I do not know of any scriptural admonition to trust the offender. Jesus instructed his disciples to be “wise as serpents.” Surely such wisdom would include care in whom we decide to trust.

Be it in our romantic lives, business or politics we must require that people be trustworthy. That integrity should be manifest by actions, not words. The husband or boyfriend who promises to change, then beats the woman in his life, lacks integrity and should be rejected. The politician who fails to demonstrate integrity by his actions should likewise be rejected.

How do we determine whom to trust? We have to start with small things and observe their actions. The man who demonstrates honesty and courtesy over months of dating will likely continue to show those characteristics in marriage. The politician who demonstrates integrity in personal life and while serving in local and state offices will likely continue to demonstrate integrity in higher office.

In all areas of life we should look for integrity in those we trust. That integrity should be demonstrated by actions over time.

Help Small Business?

You've seen the political ads. “I will help small business” is scattered over the airwaves and the mail you receive. Most every candidate wants voters to believe he or she will be the salvation of small business. However that raises two questions for those candidates:

1. How will you help small business?, and
2. Why only small business?

Let's deal with the second question first. Why should we only worry about small business? The answer is that we should worry about all business in this country. They are all interconnected. Take for example the small businesses near my home. There are restaurants. There are contractors who do plumbing, electrical work, painting, carpentry etc. There are clothing stores and other small retail establishments. They employ lots of people though in the current economic climate many have had to reduce employment.

What allows them to employ those people? In many cases it is big business, especially Intel which has several major facilities in the area. Intel directly hires many contractors. Intel employees eat at local restaurants and shop at the small retail establishments. Then the net spreads outward. The electrician who wires an Intel facility also eats at the restaurant and his wife shops at the clothing store. The restaurant and clothing store employees eat and shop locally providing yet more jobs, and on and on and on.

Nor is Intel the only such big business in the area. Several other major businesses provide employment not only for their own employees but for contractors, retailers, eateries etc. In some cases they even buy components from small businesses.

The small and big businesses are all interconnected. If big business were to vanish, most of the small businesses would soon disappear also.

We might also look at employees. Why is it better to work at a small business than at a big business? In most cases it is not. Some small businesses are great places to work, but so are some big businesses. The same can be said of bad places to work, some are small, some are huge.

We need both large and small business to provide employment for the people.

How about how the politicians plan to help? It's easy to say “I will help small business” but rather more difficult to actually do it. Most political ads are thin on how the candidate intends to help. The most I've heard is a promise to make loans available. In some cases that would help but banks already have money available. They are not lending because of uncertainty in the political climate.

That uncertainty harms business in two ways. First, entrepreneurs are reluctant to start businesses if they fear that changes in regulation will affect those businesses. Second, even if someone wants to start a business, banks are reluctant to loan money for the same reason.

For example, suppose Bill wants to start a plumbing business. He knows how much it will cost to get a business license, buy equipment, and hire plumbers. However his jurisdiction is considering changes. If those changes take effect he will need different equipment. They may increase the cost of a business license as well as permits for any work he does. They may require expensive benefits for his employees. Will Bill start his business under that uncertainty? Probably not. Even if he wants to go ahead, will the bank loan him the money he needs to buy equipment that may soon become obsolete? Again probably not.

The best thing our politicians could do for small business, indeed any business, is to reduce unnecessary regulation and to make the business climate predictable. And they should not concentrate only on small business. Instead they should treat business as the interconnected entity it is.

Get Out the Vote?

It's that time again. News commentators, politicians and others are urging people to get out and vote. After the election many will bemoan a low voter turnout. They claim it is a civic duty to vote. In that they miss the mark – badly. They seem to think that just getting people to vote is somehow good. Clearly that is not the case and low voter turnout is more of a symptom of a problem than it is a problem itself.

The real problem is apathy. Too many don't bother to vote because they haven't bothered to learn about the candidates and issues. The “don't care” crowd does cause bad statistics on voter turnout but those statistics are harmless. In fact I would claim that those who fail to inform themselves have a civic duty not to vote. We don't need apathetic and uninformed voters. We need voters who have studied the issues, thought carefully about them and who then vote as wisely as they are able.

Consider what happens when an informed and wise voter goes to the polls. He will know not only what the candidates promise but the cost of those promises if fulfilled. He will know the record of the incumbent. He will have thought carefully about who is likely to be good for the state or country, not just who promises the most goodies. While there will always be some unknowns he will reduce that problem to the best of his ability. It will be difficult for a demagogue to fool him because he looks below the surface.

Now consider the apathetic voter at the polls. How will he vote? He cannot vote wisely because he lacks the knowledge required to do so. That means he will vote on the basis of name familiarity, charisma, looks or other irrelevant factors. His vote will dilute the votes of wiser voters. He is easy prey for the demagogue because he never looks below the surface or the promises. In fact he is likely to fall for the most impossible claims. He is the demagogue's best friend – to the detriment of himself and other citizens.

Everybody should study the issues and candidates. We should be at least as careful as a company is about hiring employees. We are hiring employees who have a great deal of power over our lives.

No, we should not urge people to vote just to get them out to vote. Instead we should urge them to inform themselves and to think carefully about the issues. In fact we should urge the apathetic and uninformed to avoid voting. "If you don't care enough to inform yourself and to think, do us all a favor and stay home on election day."

When Will the Party End?

Are we about to have a major change in political power in the United States? It's too early to say, but so far the Tea Party backed candidates have done better than anyone could have expected. The general election is yet to be held but it is clear that many are no longer regarding them as a fringe to be ignored. A measure of that can be found in Russ Feingold's claim to Tea Party backing. Nobody would accuse Feingold of being right wing but he sees political advantage in claiming association with them.

This is a major shift from just a couple of weeks ago when most politicians were trying to ignore the Tea Party. They claimed it was out of the mainstream, a fringe group, a passing fad. Of course it remains to be seen if that movement really has staying power, but both politicians and the news have now been forced to take it seriously. They have defeated several establishment candidates in primary elections and it would be surprising if they do not win at least a few congressional seats in the general election. If congress ends up narrowly divided that could give Tea Party people the swing vote on many issues.

Furthermore, the Tea Party's natural audience is growing. A large majority of voters no longer trust their government and want it pared back. People are upset about big government, high taxes, Obamacare and other issues. Voters favoring Tea Party candidates and other mavericks are much more enthusiastic about voting than are other voters.

What will be the outcome? Prophecy is dangerous so I am reluctant to make firm predictions. However I believe the Tea Party will be able to influence the next congress, either by controlling swing votes or by public pressure on representatives. If exercised wisely that power could slow or even reverse the trend toward ever bigger and more powerful government in this country.

The next question is if those people will have staying power. I remember the Republican “Contract With America” and how it put Republicans in charge of congress during the Clinton Administration. It was a well thought out plan which grabbed the attention and support of voters. As a result the Republicans took over Congress and promptly shot themselves in the foot. They started acting in an arrogant manner, several being caught in major scandals. They also continued to support pork barrel projects, changing only the beneficiaries. The result was that they quickly lost what they had gained. Should the Tea Party supporters duplicate those actions we can expect them to also duplicate the quick exit from power of the Contract With America Republicans. They need to do better.

In case they are listening, here are my suggestions for any Tea Party candidates who get elected:

1. Stay humble. Put something on your mirror to remind you to avoid arrogance. That should be where you cannot miss it every time you shave or put on make-up. If you ever become arrogant it will be all over for you. Remember that you are fallible and the voters are your boss.

2. Institute a zero tolerance policy toward any behavior that could lead to scandal. If one of your people is unfaithful to a spouse, engaged in financially questionable activities, or anything else of that nature, give him the boot. Make it publicly known that he is no longer in good standing with the Tea Party movement. I mean immediately, once the evidence is in treat him like an outcast. I don't care how important you think he is to the movement, you cannot afford a scandal.

3. Do all you can to block pork-barrel projects, earmarks etc. That includes those any of your own people propose. Publicize those wasteful expenditures and how much they are costing the taxpayers.

4. Articulate constitutional principles and why they are important. Refuse to support any appointee or project that is even questionable constitutionally.

5. Avoid any taint of racism and be religious about rooting out anything that appears racist. Pay attention to both real Tea Party people and the agents provocateurs your enemies will try to insert into the movement.

If the Tea Party people will do that I believe they can provide a lasting influence for the better on our politics. If they fail in any of those areas they will be a short-lived phenomenon.

Politicians – Personality and Problems, Part 2

What kind of person becomes a successful politician? How does that personality type affect performance in office? Last time I discussed how being an extrovert gets people leadership positions but militates against good decision-making. However there are worse problems with the personality type that often acquires political power.

Too often politicians are power seekers, seeking that power because they like to control others. That is often combined with a tendency to listen to people who tell them how wonderful they are.

If we think about it this should be no surprise. Where else but politics can a control freak acquire the power to take people's money to spend on pet projects, to order people to do or not do things etc? Even the corporate CEO cannot force people to buy his product if they don't want to – but a politician can often do just that. Don't like General Motors cars? You're free to buy from Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, or even not buy a car at all. Don't like the public school system? Sorry you have to pay for it anyway, even if you send your kids to private school.

Of course not all politicians are of that type, but a political career has to be enticing to control freaks. That type of person is unlikely to seek a career in retail sales or engineering. Instead he is likely to try to either get into management or more likely into something like politics where he has the possibility of being able to tell others what to do. That means that initially those who enter politics are disproportionately of the type of individual who want to control others.

Even those who get into politics for other reasons find themselves tempted. Power is heady stuff and such people can get caught up in the ability to control others and spend huge amounts of other people's money. Political power becomes addictive. That addiction often includes a belief that those in power know what is best for others. They often have or acquire what Sowell calls the “unconstrained vision” in that they believe they can and should fix all the world's problems. This intellectual arrogance helps them justify the belief that they can and should control everything.*

That gets exacerbated by the fact that sycophants tend to cluster around the powerful. Anyone in a position of political power will attract a following of “yes men” who attempt to advance their own ends by flattery. Such people tend to infest the staffs of congressmen, presidents, governors etc. They tell their boss or friend what he wants to hear, reinforcing his already great tendency to think of himself as all-knowledgeable. As a result we have too many politicians who want to control all aspects of our lives, being encouraged by their employees and acquaintances. That is bad for the country, and for each of us individually.

Once again a good solution to this problem is to return to the constitional principle of limited government. We must stop congress from overstepping its bounds. We should become the control freaks, controlling and limiting congress instead of allowing congress to control us.

*See for example my review of Sowell's book, “The Vision of the Anointed” posted here September 4, 2009.

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

Politicians – Personality and Problems, Part 1

What kind of person becomes a successful politician? How does that personality type affect performance in office? I'm afraid the answers to those questions do not bode well for the country. The fact is that the requirements to get elected have almost nothing to do with the ability to do a good job and in fact often militate against good decision-making.

Consider for example two people. Joe is an extrovert, a real people person who knows how to get people to like him. Bill on the other hand is a contemplative type, given to thinking seriously about any significant decision, weighing the pros and cons and making careful decisions. Which is more likely to be attracted to politics? The answer of course is Joe. He will thrive on the glad-handing and other aspects of political life. His outgoing personality will attract supporters and voters who think they have a real connection with him.

However in the unlikely event that Bill tries to get into politics he will have a hard time inspiring supporters. Regardless of how correct and well-thought-out his positions, people will think of him as dull compared to Joe. Without the excitement that a more charismatic candidate can inspire, Bill will have a difficult time getting volunteers and campaign donations. Worse, voters may regard him as lacking in leadership. Barring something like a major scandal on Joe's part, Bill has almost no chance of winning an election against him. An outgoing personality is a big advantage in politics.

In fact Timothy Judge of the University of Florida business school says that being an extrovert is correlated with being chosen as a leader, but not with being a good leader. “We go for these effervescent leaders when what's really needed is a dull, focused, plodding [type] building effective groups and organizations.”*

As a decision-making consultant I'm convinced that Dr. Judge is correct, not only in politics but also in business and other aspects of life. The charismatic extrovert attracts followers and gets them excited. However that excitement is often directed at the wrong goal or the wrong means to that goal. This personality type frequently fails to adequately evaluate what he is doing. Furthermore, his charisma often causes his followers to act unthinkingly as well. Too often the result is disaster. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Adolf Hitler come to mind as examples of this type of personality-driven leadership.

On the other hand, Dwight Eisenhower lacked a charismatic personality. Yet he successfully led the battle against Germany in World War II and later accomplished much as president of the United States. His style was to listen to his advisers, then make the best decision he could. While not all his decisions worked out perfectly that style was much more effective than was that of Montgomery, the flamboyant British field marshal. Eisenhower's more collaborative style led to better decisions than did Montgomery's self-aggrandizing personality.

In most cases, that is what good leadership requires: making good decisions and getting subordinates to carry out those decisions. The extroverted personality militates against those good decisions, though it does inspire followers to act. However enthusiastic action on a bad decision is usually counterproductive, often worse than no action at all. On the other hand, even half-hearted work on a good decision seldom causes harm and usually does at least some good. Furthermore, once followers see the effectiveness of the good decision, their enthusiasm is likely to increase and they are likely to work harder to implement that decision.

The solution is obvious, whether for the voters or the search committee seeking a new CEO or other leader. Seek first wise and collaborative decision-making skills and ignore the charisma and personality of the candidates.

However there are worse problems with the political personality. I plan to discuss a couple of them next time.

*U.S. News and World Report, November 2009, p26

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don't like it, please tell me.

Sleight of Word

If you like my blog, please tell others.
If you don’t like it, please tell me.

“Hey Mom, we want to climb Rooster Rock.*” My friend’s son was the adventurous type and she didn’t like the idea.

“You will not climb Rooster Rock today.” Her response left no wiggle room – or so she thought. He didn’t climb it that day, he climbed it that night.

Every parent of a teenager has probably encountered such verbal rationalization. Kids tend to look for any excuse to avoid the clear wishes of their parents; it’s part of growing up. However such twisting of clear meaning is not limited to the young.

Suppose you ask your boss for a 10% raise. The boss says he would like to pay you that much, but with the current economic problems he just can’t do it. Instead you get a raise of 5%. Did you get an increase or decrease in your pay? Of course most people would laugh at you if you complained about getting your pay cut, it wasn’t cut it just wasn’t increased as much as you wanted. That’s the way mathematics works – unless you are in government.

The legislature in my state finally wrapped up its 2009 session, after much moaning and complaining about having to cut spending. In fact they raised the budget over the previous biennium. The “cut” was that they couldn’t spend as much as they wanted to spend. That is a common tactic among politicians: propose a big increase over previous spending, pass a smaller increase than originally proposed and call it a cut. Somehow they often get away with it.

That is only one example of fast and loose use of language to mislead people. Those who do this claim they didn’t lie, but the effect is the same. Politicians, advertisers and others twist the language in order to hide or change meaning instead of to communicate clearly. That is still dishonest and the people who do it are liars.

Like politicians, advertising and sales people regularly hide the truth with such terms as “save up to $50” or “we can help you lose up to 10 pounds in a week.” Just what does “up to” mean? Clearly if a person loses half an ounce or saves one penny, he is included in the “up to” group. Though advertisers mislead people into thinking they will save $50 or lose 10 pounds, few if any people will lose or save that much. The great majority will probably save or lose almost nothing. The term “up to” is a weasel word (or weasel term) that sucks meaning from the words around it, much as a weasel sucks the nourishment from an egg while leaving the shell externally intact but empty.

Similar examples abound. You’ve probably received mail from some company indicating that, “in order to serve you better we are making the following changes.” The changes often include fewer services or charging for services previously provided without charge. How that serves us better is never explained.

Some politicians want to avoid the label “liberal” so they call themselves “progressive” without saying just what is so progressive about their ideas. If we examine those ideas we find that they are quite similar to the statist “big government is right” beliefs that give liberals a bad reputation among much of the population. The “progressives” want to give us a bigger, more powerful government, something we rejected in 1776. I would call that regressive, not progressive. However the term “progressive” sounds good so they get away with it.

Unfortunately I don’t foresee any end to such disguised lying. As long as there is a buck to be made or political power to be gained, people will attempt to deceive others. They will seek loopholes, use misleading language and otherwise try to avoid plain and open communication. The only solution is for each of us to make the effort necessary to really understand. We should not just follow the misleading impressions they deliberately create.

We can ask ourselves what is really behind statements from advertisers, sales people, politicians and others who might benefit from creating misunderstandings. Are there “weasel words” that suck meaning from other words? Are there other meanings for the words being used? Are they inventing new meanings for words? Yes, that takes effort on our part, and constant vigilance, but there is no other way to protect ourselves from being deceived.

We can even go a step farther when opportunity presents itself. We can publicly point out the misleading communications. If a sales person claims savings of up to $50, ask him what the average saving is and how that number is determined. Ask the politicians how they can call a budget increase a cut. Ask the company how cutting previously provided services is supposed to serve us better.

What I would really like to see is for schools to teach critical thinking, encouraging students to question such statements. Certainly there is no shortage of examples they could use to illustrate such a class. However I doubt that will happen so we will all just have to do our part. With enough questioning, especially public questioning, we can expose those misleading claims. That would be especially true if people regularly and publicly tell those fancy liars, “I think you are trying to mislead me and I’m not going to fall for it.” If that starts happening regularly it will encourage those fancy liars to start using plain and effective communication instead of trying to cover up what they really mean.

*Rooster Rock is a basalt column, rising well over a hundred feet from the bank of the Columbia River. Though not a difficult climb, it is spectacular enough to give a mother gray hair.

Supreme Court Appointments

Appointment of a Supreme Court justice calls for extreme care. Decisions of that court remain effective for an unlimited time and there is no appeal. It is also difficult to remove a bad justice so the president must chose wisely. Mark R. Levin in his book, Men in Black documents many justices who have caused problems over the years. That includes Abe Fortas who resigned to avoid impeachment in a bribery scandal. The potential mischief a bad justice can commit is a warning that they should be chosen wisely.

I submit the following as mandatory requirements for any Supreme Court justice:

1. Absolute integrity.
2. Commitment to the constitution and constitutional law.
3. Ability to subordinate personal belief and preference to the constitution and the law.

4. Intellectual ability to weigh issues and to decide wisely based on evidence, fact, and logic.

5. Sound knowledge of the law and the constitution.

Integrity is the first and most important characteristic. A justice must not be subject to bribery, blackmail, undue influence or anything that could interfere with good decisions. Intelligence and ability without integrity are dangerous; an intelligent but unethical justice can use his ability to hide misdeeds and to persuade other justices to support tainted decisions.

Second, justices must be committed to our constitutional form of government, and to constitutional law. We have a representative republic with carefully crafted protections against abuse of power and the court must uphold that form of government. Substitution of its own wisdom for the constitutional law of the land would put the court the position of a dictator. Legislation should be left to senators and representatives who are accountable to the voters; the court is not a super-legislature.

Third, justices must subordinate their own beliefs and desires to law and constitution. One mark of a good judge is to set aside personal preference and judge according to the law. To do otherwise would again be putting himself in the position of dictator, imposing his own will on the electorate. We need justices who can say, "I dislike this law. I think it is dumb. However it is the law and it is constitutional so I must let it stand." Justices must recognize that they are "hired hands," employed to serve the people according to the "contract" set forth in the constitution. They may think that a law is stupid, and in this they may be right. However they must recognize that voters and their representatives have a right to make laws, even stupid laws.

Forth, justices must have the intellectual wherewithal to deal with the issues they will face. This seems obvious. Not only are the issues themselves often complex, but there are smart lawyers arguing each side. A justice must be able to consider all aspects of a case, cut through the intellectual fog, and decide on the basis of fact, logic, law and constitution.

Fifth, and again rather obviously, judicial nominees must have a sound knowledge of the law and the constitution. They must know and understand the basis on which they are to decide.

The president must reject the temptation to appoint justices who will advance a political agenda, instead seeking those who meet the above requirements. Justices should be judges, not politicians.