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.