Some thoughts on… Choosing Our Destiny

The Obama Administration is implementing controls over unprecedented areas of society for the United States. As the government extends its reach, diverse voices have raised objections to the visible hand of the State – judicial arguments are working their way up to the Supreme Court to challenge the mandatory extension of healthcare to all US citizens; economic arguments proliferate against financial reforms on Wall Street to prevent conflicts like Goldman Sachs taking both sides on the sales of Paulson’s synthetic CDO’s.. Undoubtedly, with an open deep sea spigot spewing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, once that problem is resolved, further restrictions will be placed on drilling.

But is it not hubris for the government to believe that it should control and regulate these things? The neo-classical economic argument is that governments should interfere only when there is a public good, i.e. it is not in an individual or organizational interest to solve a particular problem. Shouldn’t we just let the events play out and let either markets, companies or individuals resolve these matters? Let’s see what the Arts have to say about these questions.

Sherri Renee Scott’s new show Everyday Rapture introduces us to the wide-eyed story of a Broadway semi-star as she moves from small time Oklahoma to Manhattan. Strutting her vocals and legs, Scott endears us to a proverbial tale – a person struggling to break from the espoused ideals of her conservative upbringing and to reconcile them with the morals of an adopted, cosmopolitan home. AIDS, abortion and fame are a few of the cherished memories she weaves into what one assumes is a semi-biographical story.

At the beginning of the program, we find her balancing two contradictory ethics – “The world was created for me” versus “I am just a speck of dust”. The first ideal plays to the narcissism of New York – demanding self-determinism and unbridled passion to succeed. The second commands a recognition that we move forward only through the communal interplay and dependence on the greater populace. Alone we are blown aimlessly by the universal winds, together we form permanence. True happiness is not found in the glory of an ephemeral Broadway hit or of an afterlife filled with angels. Instead, we find it through daily interactions – the minute joys of being mindful to the raptures we discover everyday. Scott’s show transcends us to this epiphany with glamour, glee and gravitas. It’s a jeweled performance not to be missed.

The final season of Lost completed this past week. Over its six year run, the series tangoed with two primary arguments: 1) Should people be driven by faith or reason to understand the secrets of existence and 2) Are we bound by destiny or do we have the ability to choose the outcomes of our lives. Stranded on a desert island due to a plane crash, the characters warp and weft through the two themes determined to live together and eventually die alone. The mythology is grand with crooked mysteries resulting in humanistic revelations.

Through the episodes, we find ourselves also lost and eventually found in the intricate stories of science fiction, boundless evil and human kindness. At the end of the interlaced plots, the storytellers provide a clear answer to the two arguments – people must balance faith and reason in order to choose their destiny. Although selected by circumstance to arrive on the island, the characters purposefully struggle to be together and choose to overcome their fate by meeting in the next life to reach enlightenment. This is Nirvana – the realization that we thrive only because we are linked and ultimate happiness is not individual gain but collective mindfulness that we are connected.

The government’s role on regulating finance, health care and the environment is contentious because at face none of the underlying issues are legally wrong – banks repeatedly buy and sell the same assets; people can choose not to have insurance; companies need to recover resources to fulfill the population’s needs. Goldman Sachs and British Petroleum may not have done anything illegal, but their motives seem ethically wrong, because they somehow go against our sense of community and need for watching out for each other. The actions are too self-oriented without regard to the concerns of the society that supports these companies and individuals.

Our regulatory and legal landscapes have to catch up with our internal recognition that the world was not created for us alone—we are but specks dust. We can do this by moving beyond the focus on just our desires to connecting with individuals who also suffer or gain from our actions. Banks should not profit from selling an asset that they are also betting against. Energy companies should have an equal array of technology back-ups to halt oil removal as they do to extract it. An individual not carrying health insurance is similar to a driver not having car insurance – a liability to society. Unlike the characters in Lost, we will likely die alone, but we can choose how we live together.

May 31, 2010

Some thoughts on… Winning Hearts and Minds

This is a true story. On Saturday night of Christmas weekend, we were at Sag Harbor with my cousin, Narmeen. She was sleeping downstairs on the couch, and we were in the upstairs bedroom. At around 3am, I heard Narmeen clomping up the stairs. She opened the attic door across the hall and then opened the bedroom door. I looked up and asked her what she needed. She said, “Is this the Mayer’s?” I was confused and asked her in Bengali what she wanted. She responded again with the same question. At this point I realized this was not my cousin!

A random stranger had walked into the house in the middle of the night through the unlocked, front door, and was stomping around asking for the Mayers. At first, I was confused and terrified. It is frightening to have someone you don’t know standing at your bedroom door. As she went back down the stairs, I put on clothes, woke Klaus and went down after her. She was at the front vestibule – a five-foot one-inch twenty-something, with pretty blond curls, a blackberry, a dazed look and fur-collared coat. I tremulously told her she had scared us, and asked what she was doing here. Her response was vacant (almost impolite). “Is this the Mayers?” she repeated. “I think you have the wrong house”. “Oh,” she said, “it must be the next house down”. She opened the door, drunkenly stumbled on the steps, and then walked off into the darkness, with me calling behind her, “Will you be OK?” No response.

I have been mulling the circumstances of that night over the past few days. Although she was an intruder and could have been dangerous, in retrospect she was just lost. Should I have offered more assistance? Should I be worried that she will return another night? Were there others with her staking out the house? The situation reminded me of our troops in Afghanistan. As we increase the number of soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghani people by stomping around their homeland, are we succeeding in our mission?

James Cameron’s Avatar presents an analogous set of circumstances. A group of ex-Army soldiers working for a multi-galaxy conglomerate are recovering natural resources from the distant planet of Pandora. To ally with the indigenous population, the Na’vi, the company has hired scientists to set-up schools and learn their ways. To interact with the Na’vi, the humanistic team develops DNA replicas of the blue, 9-foot tall Na’vi. Humans interact through these avatars by digitally sending brain impulses into the clones. The ingenious method works, and select individuals are able to observe, relate and experience the Na’vi world. Unfortunately, diplomacy gives way to aggression as the corporate leaders have little tolerance for patient progress.

Cameron set out to create the greatest movie ever made. It many ways it is hard to argue with his ambition – he has achieved it. This is momentous film-making, an immersion into a bio-luminescent world strained by the onslaught of foreign forces. In 3D IMAX, the film envelopes the viewer in the world of Pandora – only smell and taste are missing. The movie’s hero views Eden anew through his avatar and discerns a connection to this world truer than to his own. Only by literally seeing through the eyes of the enemy, does he comprehend all that he has not observed before. Cameron’s gift to the audience is to bring us on this wondrous journey as well. Film-making has changed forever.

The new Clint Eastwood movie, Invictus, stars Morgan Freeman as a reincarnation of Nelson Mandela. Relating the tale of the 1995 Rugby World Cup when South Africa hosted and against all odds won the games, the story traces Mandela’s efforts to use the games as a means of unifying a post-apartheid country. Traditionally a sport supported by white Afrikaners, the President partners with the team captain Francois Piennar to encourage the players to represent the entire country and not just the white minority. Matt Damon in a slight turn from Bourne, assumes Piennar’s avatar with vigor adopting a hefty rugby frame and blond hair.

The movie is timed to be another Eastwood holiday, Oscars grab – similar to Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby and Letters from Iwo Jima in years past. The story is grand – a great leader cajoling racial acceptance through positive reinforcement, kindness and sheer charisma. Mandela proves astute political maneuvering by refusing to change the name and colors of the national rugby team despite the request of the Black majority. He recognizes that this alteration will only play further into the fears of the white minority. The gamble pays off; the Green & Gold’s are embraced by the nation as they ascend to World Cup victory. While the final win of the South African team is thrilling, the movie falters short of the goal line because the transformation from racism to pluralism occurs too easily. Even the doppelganger performance by Morgan Freeman, can’t free the film from a sense that the triumph of the team is not truly earned.

To win hearts and minds, the gesture needs to be mutual. We as Americans have an obligation to help Afghanistan, and the people need to be open to the support. Stalwart, Afrikaners did not necessarily want a Black-African run government, but the fact that they stayed in South Africa – rather than leaving for another country – showed a willingness to try. In the Na’vi world, top warriors ride on dragon-like creatures which they must tame and then partner for life. The taming requires the warrior to recognize the dragon partner, and the partner to agree to be ridden. Each wins the heart of the other.

In Afghanistan, we are increasing troops to stabilize the government and train the domestic security officers. But in the end do they really want this? The schools we are building are undoubtedly appreciated by the villagers, but does the Afghani government place value on them? Does our constant bombing in the countryside bring more comfort or fear to the residents when they hear these sounds in the middle of the night. Not having been there, I have no easy answers. But, until Karzai’s government is willing to walk in the shoes of American soldiers, and see the world through an Afghan villager’s eyes, it seems unlikely we can be successful in our mission.

Similar to my late-night visitor, I can offer my help and try to make her more comfortable and at ease. But if she herself is either too bewildered or drugged to accept the offer, then how much longer does the obligation last? For Afghanistan, President Obama has declared June 2010. This seems a reasonable timeline to end a war that we started almost a decade ago.

In the case of my unintentional guest, after we went back upstairs, ten minutes later we saw her from the bedroom window, sitting on the deck chairs and circling the house with her cell phone on. Later there is a knock at the door, and by the time we get downstairs to open it, she is gone. We didn’t hear from her again.

Some thoughts on… Transparency

An electrifying young President sweeps into office promising change. He institutes broad legislation in the first few months of tenure. He moves mountains and the Hill stands in awe. Yet, one piece of legislation bogs him down, expends his political capital and stalls future change. Bill Clinton stalled on Gays in the Military – society was not ready.

Will Obama falter the same way with Health Care?

Fevered town hall meetings, Democrats refusing to fall in line, alarming allegations of “death panels” from Sarah Palin – it has become the intractable issue of the administration. Propping up failed banks, breaking apart GM, stabilizing the economy – are all Lilliputian tasks compared to the healthcare quagmire. Even the passing of Sen. Edward Kennedy may not be enough to rally politicians around this critical issue.

With Congress and the President on vacation, the issue will play out after Labor Day, a good chance for us to reflect on why the White House is losing this war.

Everyone recognizes the need. First, it is irresponsible for a developed society not to provide basic health care as a primary right for its inhabitants. Second, the current system is untenable with health care costs consuming a huge part of the nation’s GDP – resources that could potentially be used for other causes – primary school education, medical research, or climate control. So why are people so scared to implement this change when the need is so apparent?

Neill Blomkamp’s film District 9 is an electrifying portrayal of a society at odds with its own residents. An alien space ship docks above Johannesburg, filled with a derelict extra-terrestrial populace that eventually take up residence in the slums of the city. Shot on-location in Soweto, the allegory of the apartheid era is front and center. The citizens of Jo-burg – both black and white – allow the foreigners to reside initially but then turn against them. The aliens’ otherness is exploited by a multi-national corporation, reviled by humans, and forgotten by the government.

The human citizenry is unwilling to extend any rights or dignities to the strangers. They are essentially left to fend for themselves; cordoned off from the rest of the populace by high walls and barbed wire. Drawn in such stark contrast, the despicability of the act is apparent, and yet the analogy to our current circumstance becomes even more deplorable. Despite the fact that aliens almost look like humans, as a society we are willing to create a second class of citizens who are allowed to live amongst us, but for whom we choose not to expend our own money to afford the same rights.

Torchwood: The Children of Earth, the third in a series of BBC shows describes a covert quasi-government team that watch over a space-time rift in Cardiff, Wales. A spin-off from the show Doctor Who, the latest installment finds the Torchwood group resisting an invasion by extra-terrestrial creatures who demand a fraction of the planet’s children. The aliens’ plot is aided by the highest levels of government who make the trade-off in order to prevent a virus being unleashed on all the people of the world.

The story characterizes society’s ethical options when weighing one evil against another. The choices are not easy and no answer is “correct”. In the show, the government decides to sacrifice the poorer and less-educated children in the country, rather than make a random allocation across all strata. The answer is reprehensible to some and acceptable to others, but where the government universally falters is by making the choices covertly. The secrecy engenders distrust, and the purposeful distractions by the government reinforce the suspicion.

Given the sweeping regulatory changes that have taken place in the past few months, with health care the country may be saying it is too much to digest in one go. This is something that people need time to process. We know there is an inherent reluctance to extend healthcare to portions of the population that some consider are either undeserving or believe will unnecessarily usurp resources.

Building on the reluctance, there is wide-spread distrust in a government program making decisions around health care provision –whether it be end of life choices or basic preventive care. People are worried that they won’t be able to get the care they want. In any legislated program, there will need to be some choices – an elderly alcoholic with cirrhosis should not be given a new liver, when that money can be used to purchase free Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccines for children. So are there similar choices hidden within this bill?

Our charming 70-year old, libertarian host at a B&B in Callistoga, CA expressed both issues quite simply. She is a hard-working lady who raised five children, cares about public service and came from a working class background. Her worry was that extending services to a broader population would only lead to a waste of her tax-payer resources on unnecessary procedures.

The administration is faltering because it is not addressing these two concerns of the populace. First, why it is critical to extend primary care benefits to the entire population and second, what implications this would have on the care being provided to people who are covered today. Similar to how Obama described the implications of his tax changes, i.e. people who make less than $250,000 will not see there taxes increase, he needs to make some clear and incisive statements on the implications of this legislation.

The sheer size of the bill – H.R. 3200 – which is over 1000 pages does not make it any easier to understand the two issues. The nation is asking for some clear answers, transparency around the decision-making and some time to digest. Let’s provide this and get this important bill passed.

August 30, 2009

Some thoughts on… Inaugurating Realism

The first African-American President of the US; an administration elected with the most number of votes; a withdrawal of troops from Gaza by Israel; the most disliked Presidency’s final day. January 20th 2009 was historic on so many dimensions, that the word “historic” seems almost trivial -- there is a feeling we are living in a fairy-tale.

Two million people came to the freezing Washington Mall to witness the peaceful transfer of power from a hobbled administration to one bringing new hope and change for the country. The picture of the former Vice-President, Dick Cheney, pushed around in a wheel-chair was emblematic of a fallen administration – history will tell if it can regain stature.

The elation felt by the nation and the world is well earned. We all want to feel good about our country again and to reshape the future towards the possibilities we each envision. And yet, President Obama’s speech wasn’t the feel good message that people thought it would be. It was sobering, tempered, pointed.

So was the inaugural address not inspirational enough and too much of a downer? Let’s look at what was actually said.

At the very beginning there is stark acknowledgment of the economic, military, and foreign relations challenges facing the nation, and a blunt statement to stop looking for whom to blame and start repairing the issues.

“Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms…On this day we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of
purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end
to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out
dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Everyone can help to ameliorate the situation, whether or not they are recognized for doing so.

“Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things – some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor – who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.”

In a scathing indictment to the W. era, there is a recognition that the war on terrorism is not an excuse to divert our attention to these challenges.

“We reject as false the choice between our safety and out ideals”

There is a statement that we all have an obligation to solve these problems, and we can not rely on just the government to fix the issues.

“For much as the government can do, and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which the nation relies.”

And finally, a promise that any solution to the economic, military and foreign relation challenges must extend to the poorest populations of the country and the world.

“…a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The
success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross
domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity.”

This is a call to action as inspirational as JFK’s inaugural speech “Ask not what the country can do for you but what you can do for the country”. The reason that it may seem like a downer is because we are not living out a Bollywood ending.

Over the past eight years, we were fed euphoric doses of cotton-candy truth – a declaration that we were “Mission Accomplished” on the Iraq war back in 2003; a system of “orange” level security alerts where we never see green or blue. This heightened reality reflected some truth, but like any TV show or movie, belied a false sense of comfort. By eating this candy in our virtual movie theater or living room, we tacitly accepted that other dimensions of our system would be ignored – declining levels of primary education, dilapidated trust of our fellow countries, over-reliance on foreign oil. But the candy tasted really good while we watched the show.

We ate that cotton candy willingly. But now that the show is over and the lights are on again, we are presented with some vegetables and protein and told to face the real world. We have to work hard and correct the course of the country and the world we have been ignoring for so long. The awakening is painful; the detoxification jarring.

As difficult as it is to swallow, the message is clear. “The world has changed, and we must change with it… this is the price and the promise of citizenship”


January 23, 2009

Some thoughts on… Bringing in the New

With the promise of a new year comes the thrill of making resolutions, which are typically cast aside by the end of February. In the spirit of creating messy resolutions that attempt success on multiple dimensions, what are some things I am hoping to achieve this year?

Deleveraging Happiness. One of the morals of the current economic fiasco is that American individuals and companies must deleverage their financial debt. American companies have been borrowing debt on their balance books to finance activities which led to overextension and overvaluation. Individuals have acquired credit with minimal savings to obtain houses and goods which they can’t afford. And now, the government will have to issue debt to purchase a bailout of the economy. At the end, these actions can only be accomplished globally if others are willing to save and lend the money.

We all need to borrow at some point but the intrinsic promise of that desire is the ability to pay off the debt in the future. But now cash is once again king. Banks that before were keeping minimal stores of cash on their books, are now building up assets. Producing and creating services to sell them rather than borrow for greater acquisition is the old mantra that is new again.

Applying this philosophy to a personal level, I am going try and deleverage my sources of happiness. We are all seeking the elusive source of contentment. Some find it by traveling to a beach resort, others by purchasing new clothes. Rather than relying on other people or things to provide satisfaction, I am going to seek my own fulfillment. I am not looking to become ascetic, but to bring joy to myself and others around me through my own actions. Clark Gersner in his musical You’re A Good Man Charlie Brown based on the Charles Schultz comic strip points out, “Happiness is anyone or anything at all that is loved by you.”

Exporting Pride. In the past few years, the US’ standing in the world has fallen. On numerous measures this is true – investment in education, reduction in greenhouse gases, access to minimal health care. Visiting other countries abroad, one pronounced dimension is our moral standing. We were viewed internationally as a country that had realized great promise. Presidential visits were regaled affairs and boulevards were named after them – Palermo, Italy (John F. Kennedy); Bordeaux, France (Franklin Delano Roosevelt). We imported bright minds to attend universities and held our position as a country allowing any immigrant to become part of the American dream.

Similar to how a leader can be shunned by others for a lapse in principles, we have lost respect amongst our allies. But that trust can be restored, but it is not the duty of the Administration alone. All of us living in the country should have a responsibility for exporting our pride in the US to the people of other nations. To conduct this sincerely, we need to characterize what we are actually proud of – the historical resiliency of the US economy, the long-standing ability of our political system to self-correct, the dedication to public service of the citizenry, the excellent choices of Obama for his cabinet – and communicate those ideas.

We all want to believe in our country. The conveyed pride is not based on unchecked nationalism, or susceptibility to political spin, but a genuine consideration for why we wish to live in this country. Everyone who lives here is an ambassador for the country.

Investing in Family and Friends. With stocks in a tumble and the market willing to place large amounts of money in treasury bills that provide 0% interest, i.e. letting the Government just hold your money for a fee, it’s difficult to know where to spend. So why not invest with the people you know and trust?

This isn’t just financial investment – although helping to pay for your sister’s education or buying your friends dinner is never a bad thing – but about emotional and spiritual investment as well. Creating occasions to be with friends and expending effort to support their activities may be the most profitable venture you can make. Personally, I am going to make an effort to see our direct family more than once this year. This may seem a scant, but actually quite difficult given dispersion through Denmark, California, Dubai, India and DC.

OK, ok, so the last part of the resolution is a cop out, since there is a one-dimensional goal to achieve, but sometimes a little simplicity isn’t so bad (as long as we don’t retreat there). So what are you willing to initiate with the new year?


January 4, 2009

Some thoughts on… Out with the Old

Despite the market swoops and falls, the 2008 year had personal highlights – my sister Nausheen got married and moved to Dubai; Klaus turned 40 and started business school; Barack Obama was elected President. Nonetheless, it’s tradition to mark the year- end and welcome the New Year in anticipation of better times.

Custom dictates that we create resolutions to commemorate. Typically the declarations are one-dimensional goals with measurable endpoints, e.g. “I will go to the gym twice a week” or “I will stop smoking”.

What if instead we create messy resolutions and attempt success on multiple dimensions? Here’s my stab at describing the items I would like to leave behind this year.

Elevating false heroes. For many, this year saw a Knight enter the election to parry, pounce and salvage the US Presidency. Obama has demonstrated promise and reasoning. But he is not superman; he is not a savior; he will not remove the arthritis in my left shoulder. As citizens, we have a responsibility to communicate our desires for change, to support him, and to work to achieve these goals ourselves. Passively waiting for others to fix our lives is a guarantee of failure. We should set the bar high, and put in place the catalysts for success. High expectations can be accompanied with a dose of realism and personal action

Yet, it seems we have a penchant for constructing perfect idols – composite projections of our desires – that we believe will solve our problems and then are troubled when they fall. Why do we care if Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie – two competent and pretty actresses – are fighting over a handsome boy? Or that Amy Winehouse, a Grammy award winning singer, is going back to rehab? Or that Plaxico Burress, a gifted football player, can not maintain control of his gun? We create these false heroes based on their talent, but we really don’t know these people. So why should we be surprised by their lapse in moral character?

In Christopher Nolan’s recent movie The Dark Knight, Batman demonstrates flawed judgment – eavesdropping on private conversations, taking justice in his own vigilante hands. The citizens of Gotham turn on Batman by the end, and Singer’s message is that “We don’t get the hero that we need, but the hero we deserve”. In our lives, we may need hypothetical characters without faults but instead let’s choose as our role models amongst people we know well – a motivational teacher, an altruistic neighbor, a dedicated volunteer. These are really the heroes we deserve and the ones that should be brought to the fore.

Loitering atop the pyramid. I live a privileged life, as do many of the readers of these postings. We all recognize that we are at the pinnacle of the world pyramid on most measures – purchasing power, clean food and water access, health care availability, commodity and resource usage. This is nothing to be ashamed of, most folks have labored to achieve this situation, and we should continue to strive if we envision being higher on the ladder. We should be embarrassed though if we are taking this position for granted – dawdling in this fortunate standing – not taking action to integrate or aid those in a less advantaged situation; or even worse, exploiting this prominence to look down upon others and to bully them into submission.

Over the past few years, the US as a country has taken our elevated position in the global economy for granted. We doggedly pursued a military resolution in Iraq at the cost of political disengagement from other corners of the globe – a resurgent Russia, a cholera-stricken Southern Africa, a human-rights suppressed Burma. We can extend our hand – not just raise our fists – to the others on the pyramid at both a country and personal level. This will involve getting off the proverbial couch and leaving behind the air-bubble surrounding our heads in order to interrelate with the global community.

Retreating to simple solutions. The neo-conservative ideologues (with Karl Rove and Dick Cheney as prominent members) have influenced the country over the past few years. The advantage of accepting any ideology whether conservative or liberal is that it provides doctrines and beliefs that starkly discriminate between right vs. wrong, insider vs. outsider, harm vs. benefit. Of course no situation is ever black or white, but the comfort of simple solutions is attractive in times of strain and stress. In a post- 9/11 world, sending troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein in a country that was never involved in the terrorist attacks is the simple and right thing to do. Landing the President on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 is a straightforward display of victory.

We mustn’t blame the ideologues for trying to convince us of these messages – they may actually believe them. Instead we should be embarrassed for being so gullible. In Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie, Tom Cruise delights as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg – who with a coterie of senior German officials conducts an assassination attempt on Hitler. A taut thriller, the movie conveys the significance of the story by simplifying the motivation – Colonel Schaufenberg is good and the Nazis are evil. Even in this story which seems to demand uncomplicated answers (we can all agree the Nazis were bad), there are some knotty questions: Why did the officers attempt resistance so late in the war? Were they really seeking protection of the German people or glorification of their own position with their allies so close at hand?

Asking the difficult questions doesn’t take away from the basic parable, but forces us to question the baked-up truth that is being provided to us. In the end, we may choose to believe them, but at least we have done so after our own questioning.

So what are you willing to put away with the old year? The next posting will describe the themes I’d like to initiate.


December 31, 2008

Some thoughts on… Doubt

The three US automakers – General Motors, Ford and Chrysler – have again applied to Congress for funds to sustain operations. They claim without a government bailout they may need to shut down in about three months. GM employs about 340,000 people world-wide – almost 10 times the number of people that have been laid off by any one company at the financial institutions. Shutting down these companies would be a severe punch to an already hobbled economy.

For this second visit to DC, the proposed revisions to the business model are more detailed, and the extravagant arrogance previously displayed by the leadership is tempered. Instead of arriving in private jets, the CEO’s drove to DC in their most innovative products and have volunteered to accept a token salary of $1.00. With the rejection by the Senate of the bailout, President Bush has promised a temporary relief to the companies – demonstrating once again his own failure to lead his party.

The US automobile industry which was once a pinnacle of innovation, style and ingenuity, has in the past few decades transformed into a dinosaur. The company has been unable to adapt to the changing consumer landscape – fuel efficient and smaller cars with great design – and to strip the burden of costly wages for their workers. Sustaining these dinosaurs takes a large amount of resource, and there is no doubt, that it will be painful for the local workers, the state economy and the prestige of the country if these companies fail.

There are arguments that even though failure of these companies will have impacts on the broader economy, we are essentially a services-driven country now, and it is time to give up this sector of manufacturing. There are also arguments for revamping and restructuring the industry which will take concessions from both management and workers.

Assuming that we can’t let these companies completely fail, is there a compelling reason that we should trust this management team with taxpayer money to conduct the restructuring? After all, this is the same set of people that made the decisions for the past few years that put the company into this mess in the first place. Why should we believe that they can create a turnaround when we have doubts around leadership’s capabilities?

The themes of misplaced trust and questionable character are explored in John Patrick Shanley’s play Doubt, which recently opened in movie theaters with Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman. The original stage production with Cherry Jones and Brian F. O’Byrne, was a thrilling examination of how open questions constantly surround our lives. The head nun of a Catholic school in New York, begins to suspect that the Father’s interactions with one of the students is not appropriate. She has no evidence and is driven by her “convictions” to seek suspension of the priest who may or may not be guilty. A newly inducted nun torn around her viewpoint of the priest’s guilt and the child’s mother with a surprising argument in support of her son, are other major players complicating the viewer’s perspective.

The brilliance of the original stage play was that it provides no easy answers to the open questions. Is the priest really guilty of pedophilia? Is he just a caring soul whose actions are misinterpreted? Are the nun’s doubts of the Father’s character unfounded? Uncertainty lingers over the interactions as heavily as the emotion generated by the characters. The play ends with no clear resolution, no exposition on morality, no comfortable catharsis. In a world where uncertainty surrounds and engulfs our lives, the sin is not making the wrong decision, but not acting on our own convictions.

The bewildering hubris of Governor Blagojevich has raised the specter of dirty Chicago politics. In sharp contrast to the relatively clean campaign of Obama, the Governor’s actions to sell the President-Elect’s senate seat have disillusioned our renewed political hope. Blagojevich’s guilt seems indisputable and his reluctance to resign is contemptible. The uncertainty lies around the politicians that may have bid for the positions. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has been identified by the FBI as one of the potential bidders. His protestations of innocence seem too much. But given the specter of doubt around his character, instead of protesting, a better approach may be to clearly state what his interactions with the Governor has been.

Obama has called for the resignation of Blagojevich and is approaching the situation with the appropriate amount of distance and cooperation. Some strident voices in the GOP have tried to link Obama to the Governor’s actions. They may have doubts about his interactions, or they may be trying to build up a mole-hill. But the right course here is the one which is being taken – provide complete list of dealings between Obama’s staff and Blagojevich. The President-elect is demonstrating action according to his convictions, Jackson would do well to follow suit.

In the case of the CEO’s for the automobile industry, we’re not discussing the moral character of the CEO’s of the companies, but rather questioning their leadership capabilities. But perhaps in the face of the public’s doubt about their abilities, they can demonstrate both moral and leadership capabilities, by acting on their convictions.

The company heads seem to have the conviction that the auto industry can be restructured and made competitive, thus saving thousands of jobs and supporting the economy. If that is the case, then they should act on these convictions and secure the money needed to overhaul the companies. But then why not step aside and bring in a leadership team that can implement the changes needed? These individuals have not made these revisions in the past few years, why should we trust that they will be able to do so now with our public money. By removing their own ego from the equation and acting on these convictions, they also remove some doubt from the public’s mind of the potential success of a bailout.

December 14, 2008

Some thoughts on… Keeping Friends Close

Thanksgiving is one of the first National holidays instituted to appreciate all that we have and a time to be with friends and family. With Eid al-Adha also falling near this period we can be doubly thankful. The Muslim holiday is one of the holiest of the year, and commemorates Abraham’s potential sacrifice of his son Ishmael (as different from Isaac in the Bible). The day comes at the end of the Hajj pilgrimage and is spent with friends and family.

Unfortunately, the Mumbai bombings and hostage situation were a rude beginning to the Thanksgiving weekend. During this holiday period, the discord between India and Pakistan is especially rancorous. Our sympathy for both the families affected and the lives lost is a sobering reminder that we should not take for granted our loved ones.

In the wake of the crisis, India has obliquely blamed Pakistan for supporting the radical group, Lashkar-e-Taiba. Condeleeza Rice in her remaining days to uphold a failed foreign policy has flown to the region to broker peace. The terrorists tarnish the name of Islam, and there may be some truth in India blaming Pakistan as a source of support for the terrorists. For some time, the United States has remained close with countries supporting a more conservative version of Islam, e.g. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, while distancing “enemies” like Iran. It may be high time to re-evaluate who we call friends.

But instead of casting aspersions which may lead to greater strife between India and Pakistan and may generate turmoil domestically, what can we and India learn about keeping our adversaries closer than our friends?

The Obama administration has demonstrated vision and strategy in its choices around the cabinet and senior officials. In an attempt to encompass contrasting perspective in order to hear unconventional voices, Obama has selected friends and rivals as his advisors. Hilary Clinton as Secretary of State and Bill Richardson as Secretary of Commerce - both major contenders for the Democratic Nominee position– are symbols of bringing together a fractured party. Choosing Timothy Geithner for Treasury Secretary and Lawrence Summers for head of National Economic Council, demonstrates a preference to fill positions with intelligence and excellence over cronyism. While maintaining Robert Gates as Defense Secretary exhibits a willingness to reach across the aisle and continue a steady hand on the rudder. By calling for Senator Joe Lieberman to remain the chair of Homeland Security and Government Reform, Obama has shown decency and astuteness – converting someone who actively campaigned against him into an ally.

People have asked if these choices really represent sufficient “change” given Obama’s platform during the election. Of course they do. We want smart people who know how to run a government at this time of crisis. The change is reflected in the caliber of the individuals chosen and the fact that the advisors are selected to provide conflicting and challenging perspectives on the direction of the country. These choices are significantly improved to the previous administration’s, where the inner circle contained a group of friends and allies who were “yes-men”. From failed FEMA Director Michael D. Brown who “misunderstimated” the effects of Hurricane Katrina to the nomination of his personal lawyer Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court, George W. Bush never showed an ability to learn from rivals and opposing voices.

Gus van Sant’s newest movie Milk depicts the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay person to be elected to a major public office. Sean Penn is thrilling in the title role, imbuing the flawed character with passion, wit and reflection. Penn is destined to receive an academy award nomination for the portrayal. Harvey Milk’s election to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was an opportunity for an unheard and mistreated minority to engage in city politics. The movie reveals Milk’s rise and his eventual entanglement with rival, Dan White who was also elected to the Board of Supervisors. Josh Brolin bristles as White, a staunchly conservative citizen from a blue-collar neighborhood in San Francisco.

The tight-laced White was a strong foil to the more flamboyant Milk. During the mid-1970’s, Milk toiled to defeat Proposition 6, a statewide measure to remove gay teachers from the school system. The Proposition was defeated. White recoiled at these attempts to maintain civil liberties, and resigned from the Supervisor position, but then later petitioned Mayor George Moscone to reinstate his position. At the urging of Milk and others, Moscone refused. In the end, White returned in secret to City Hall building and murdered both Milk and Mayor Moscone. Milk was never able to make White an ally, and though never an excuse for the subsequent events, it subsequently lead to a tragic outcome. One can argue that White though a rival to Milk is not really the enemy in the situation; the true enemies are the people campaigning for intolerance.

Similar to Milk/White, India and Pakistan have a common enemy – the people supporting intolerance. In the end, it is these insidious terrorists who play on the divisiveness of adversaries to achieve their own agenda. To overcome this treacherous cycle, is it not time for Pakistan to take responsibility and bring India closer through demonstrative action? We appreciate our loved ones this holiday season, but let’s also take the opportunity to treasure our rivals. In the end, they may help us more than we realize.