05 May 2015

Edward Brooke: Why Republican?

I have heard many conservative media political commentators and entertainers claim the Republican Party has always been a conservative party. This is not so. At one time, the Republican Party was the moderate-liberal party in the United States when compared with the Democratic Party. One man who was part of that wing of the Republican Party was former Senator Edward Brooke.

Senator Brooke died earlier this year. The National Visionary Leadership Project interviewed Sen. Brooke shortly before he passed away. This video, below, is part of that interview. Here, he explains why he identified as a Republican. It is important to understand that originally, the Republican and Democratic Parties were not defined by conservative and liberal ideologies, but there was still a significant difference between the parties. Those differences come out in this interview.

14 April 2015

We may live in the land of Lincoln, but where is the party of Lincoln?

There is an excellent article about President Abraham Lincoln at CNN entitled, "We all live in the Land of Lincoln." President Abraham Lincoln​ is one of my favorite presidents. I found this to be a good article about his impact on US history. Ironically, I have heard many conservatives today claim Lincoln was a bad president because the Southern states had a right to leave the Union, and Lincoln suspended the right of Habeas Corpus. This is ironic because such conservatives tend to vote for Republican candidates. I argue that three items from the US Constitution may explain Lincoln's reasoning on these matters, which was the heritage of the Republican Party:

Article VI states: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
- Lincoln understood that the US Constitution, not a state in the Union, is the supreme law of the land. When the original 13 states ratified the Constitution, they made it the sovereign of the land. When a state joins the union, it makes the US Constitution the sovereign, the supreme law of the land.

Article IV, Section 3 states: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
- States cannot change their borders without the consent of Congress. Leaving the Union in effect changes the borders of sovereignty. The Confederacy was a confederation of rebellious states.

Article I, section 9 of the US Constitution states: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
- Lincoln suspended the right of Habeas Corpus because the Civil War was a war of rebellion.

Originally, the Republican party was the national party, whereas the Democratic party was the states-rights party. It is ironic that today many Republicans talk more like states-rights Democrats in the mode of Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.

So, what happened to the real Republican Party? Why are Lincoln Republicans called RINOS (Republicans In Name Only)? Where is that party of civil rights and national unity? Why have so many Republicans become states-rights advocates much in the way of the old Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party?

And concerning the upcoming presidential election, who represents the Lincoln wing of the Republican Party today among those running for president?

01 February 2015

Managers, Leaders, and the Future of the Organization

     Much has been written about differences between managers and leaders in organizations. While there are many differences, I argue that a critical difference concerns the person's orientation toward the future. That is, managers mostly focus on here-and-now organizational issues, while leaders have a strong sense of the future.
     For example, because of a manager's here-and-now focus, such a person often views strategic planning as a task to be accomplished. In contrast, because a leader has a future orientation in their thinking, such a person often properly approaches strategic planning as a plan to address the purpose and direction of the organization.
     It is important to remember that managers can develop leadership qualities, and at the same time, leaders must develop management skills to be successful. However, it is also important to understand that not every manager will become a leader. This is not necessarily bad in an organization because some individuals are needed to focus on the here-and-now problems to support the leaders of the organization. Such men and women are critical to the functioning of the organization.
     Likewise, leaders must focus both on the future and the present in order to to accomplish what is needed to progress toward future goals. Given this, managers can be a great benefit to leaders both in reminding them of present conditions and needs, and in helping leaders deal with such needs in accomplishing organizational objectives and goals. This means leaders must seek out and value those managers under their supervision.
     A critical problem organizations continually face occurs when managers are in leadership positions, and leaders are not promoted to positions of authority. This problem is an ancient one, as one only need read Plato's The Republic to see this problem addressed in ancient days. I have found that when managers occupy leadership positions, and such people do not develop leadership qualities, they often devalue strategic planning and devalue those who have a sense of the future of the organization. Likewise, when leaders are not promoted to positions of authority, they often leave the organization, or become discouraged and unmotivated.
     There is no magical formula to solve this problem. Plato recommended either developing a Guardian class of leaders in society (see The Republic), or rely on an informal "nocturnal council" of leaders in the organization to be the gatekeepers regarding promoting individuals to positions of authority (see Plato's The Laws). Although Plato would likely argue that both approaches are based on merit if he were alive today, in practice both approaches violate the merit system of promotion in government in the United States which is based on objective measures of performance. Such measures are not directly based on one's orientation towards the future.
     Still, these problems remains: how do we insure that managers are rewarded for accomplishing organizational goals and objectives, while at the same time insure such individuals are not promoted to positions of authority unless they develop leadership skills? Likewise, how do we make sure leaders are promoted to positions of authority and develop management skills along the way?
     Plato is correct that there is a systemic element that must be addressed in answering such questions. However, let me also recommend a character-based approach to addressing these questions: each individual must examine him/herself and answer the question:
  • "Am I oriented toward being a manager or a leader?" That is, "Do I have a future orientation in my work?" 
    • If a person concludes he or she is a manager, then such a person must ask, "Am I willing to develop leadership qualities that deal with the future of the organization?" 
      • If the answer is "No!", then that person must ask, "Am I content to remain a manager and support the leaders in the organization (including those presently under my supervision)?" If not, such a person can cause the organization to lose focus on its future direction, and therefore, not accomplish its mission.
    • If a person concludes he or she is future oriented, then such a person must ask, "Am I willing to develop management skills and value those under my authority who are managers?" If not, such a person can cause the organization to neglect addressing the here-and-now problems it must resolve in order to accomplish its mission.
     Answering such questions does not solve the human resource management problem of getting the right people into the right positions. Such a solution must include a systemic element in the organization. However, a character-based approach does help individuals understand their strengths and weaknesses and help them determine whether or not to be content with their management orientation, or work to develop needed leadership skills, including developing a future orientation about the organization.

30 December 2014

Defending Slavery in the 21st Century

NPR has an excellent article about a swamp in the Virginia and North Carolina area where slaves fled to escape brutality. Today, we read how ISIS, the Islamic State, defends and promotes slavery and the abuse of slaves (particularly women) in the 21st century. If this is shocking to you, I encourage you to use this to understand why slaves fled similar abuse in the United States. This is important because I have heard White Americans defend slavery in the United States in the 21st century.
Bottom-line: There is no excuse for this sort of ignorance or hatred of our neighbors.

13 November 2014

Taxation Without Representation for Churches and Clergy?

Apparently, some atheists want to tax churches. Some atheists also want the housing allowance for clergy to be taxed. Christianity Today has an article about this entitled, Court Overturns Atheist Victory on Housing Allowance, and it is worth reading.

Here's the irony: there is no taxation without representation in a free society. If churches are taxed, that means they must be represented for taxation purposes, which is what some atheists do no want. If clergy are taxed, they also must be represented as clergy for taxation purposes, which is also something some atheists do not want.

It also seems President Obama's administration also wants to tax clergy's housing allowance.

This is too bad because it ultimately means they support taxation without representation regarding churches and clergy.

Personally, I like the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment freedoms that prevents the government both from establishing a state church and from prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This makes for better religion and better government.

I wish these atheists and President Obama's administration would see the wisdom in this.

08 November 2014

Political Correctness

"By thinking about others and looking at things from other people's perspectives, there is much less time to feel that someone is picking on you or your interests."
- Dr. Ben Carson, MD. One Nation: What We Can All Do to Save America's Future, p. 16.

28 June 2014

Untangling Moral Absolutes from Ethical Certainty

Occasionally, I encounter strong reactions from individuals when I assert that there are absolute moral and ethical standards. While many people are fine with such statements, a few people seem to conclude that I am asserting that we can be absolutely certain about the morality and ethics of our decisions. In doing so, such individuals confuse moral standards with their application.

In truth, many of us who claim that absolute standards exist also know how difficult it can be to make an ethical decision. The reason for this is that applying a principle, rule, or standard in practice involves complex situations and complex people. There is always some ambiguity in such cases.

A good example of this can be seen in the A&E movie, Ike: Countdown to D-Day. In this dramatization, General Eisenhower must not only make the decision to invade Europe, he must also make decisions that may cost the lives of thousands of servicemen. If he makes the wrong decision, many more may die. Additionally, Ike must address issues among his commanders, including remarks made by Lt. General Patton, and a security breach by Major General Miller, both friends of his. Eisenhower had legal and personal ethical standards to guide his decision making. However, this dramatization clearly revealed the moral ambiguity he faced in applying such standards.

Such moral ambiguity has lead some people to conclude that there are no moral absolutes, a viewpoint which is called moral relativism. Ethics are seen as being relative to one's situation, or culture, or personal viewpoint. However, to state that there are no absolutes is, itself, an absolute conclusion. Therefore, at least one absolute must exist even from this viewpoint.

Indeed, I have found that moral relativism can lead to a "might makes right" basis for ethics. C. S. Lewis argued this in his philosophical book, The Abolition of Man. In this book, he noted that some moral relativists claim that morality is based on subjective emotional impulses. Lewis notes that if this is the case, then morality is about my impulse vs. your impulse. This can and has lead to some people trying to control other people's behavior through politics, psychology, technology...which involves the power of a few over the minds and bodies of the many.

Still, simply claiming that absolutes exist does not mean they exist. To untangle this web of confusion and escape the vortex of moral relativism, we need to first conceptually disentangle "absolute standards" from their application. Philosophy and theology has for centuries debated the existence and nature of moral absolutes. This is why there are several ethical schools of thought and differing theologies, which together Lewis calls the "Tao." Furthermore, the existence of such moral absolutes does not imply that they can be applied absolutely without error. Therefore, one can assert the existence of moral standards while at the same time acknowledging degrees of moral ambiguity in their application.

Next time someone claims that moral absolutes exist, check to see if they also claim that one can be certain about their application in every situation. You will likely find that many of us who believe in moral absolutes also find it necessary to be humble regarding their application because a lack of humility leads to moral arrogance.

Book suggestion: a good book about applying ethical standards in the workplace is Practical Ethics in Public Administration, Third Edition, by Dean Geuras and Charles Garofalo (2010, Management Concepts). The authors present a practical four-step process to apply ethical standards from four historical ethical traditions (consequences, principles, moral intuition, and character/virtue) to a problem or decision.

06 May 2014

A Management Principle - Evaluating Employees

It is far easier to tell someone what to do than to actually do it yourself. A manager needs to factor this into his or her criteria when evaluating an employee's performance. - Dr. Rob

17 April 2014

"The sign of a good society is..."

"The sign of a good society is the level and number of things acknowledged to be beyond market values -- and thus appreciated for their own sake and not for extrinsic, especially financial, rewards."
- Os Guinness, The Call: Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life. 2003, Thomas Nelson , Inc., p. 131.

08 March 2014

Republican Neo-Dixiecrats?

There is an excellent, balanced article in The New York Times entitled, "For G.O.P., Hard Line on Immigration Comes at a Cost," by John Harwood (March 07, 2014) that I encourage people to read...especially conservative Republicans. What may surprise many people is the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by 80% of Congressional Republicans compared to 60% of Congressional Democrats. It was, in essence, a long standing version of what Republicans traditionally believed and supported. Yet, contemporary Republican leaders rarely talk about this landmark piece of legislation as representing Republican principles. They seem to side with the few Southern Republicans in Congress at that time who voted with the Dixiecrats in the Democratic Party against this bill. This was a harbinger of things to come in the Republican Party.

In this New York Times column, Mr. Harwood describes how the Republican Party has alienated people of color since the passage of this important legislation. He notes that this has not always been the case. For example, Vice President Nixon received about 32% of the African-American vote as late as 1960, and I must note that President Eisenhower received 39% of the African-American vote in 1956.

However, the 1964 election was a turning point when Senator Goldwater ran for president and refused to support the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Beginning with that election, Harwood notes that the non-white Republican vote for president has significantly declined. To understand how the 1964 election was a turning point for the party, one must understand that African-American Republicans from Southern states, a community who had traditionally supported the party, were frozen out of the 1964 Republican Convention and replaced by "states-rights" (i.e. segregationist) Republicans at the convention (see Lea M Wright, "The Conscience of a Black Conservative: The 1964 Election and the Rise of National Negro Republican Assembly."). Republican and baseball great, Jackie Robinson, commented upon attending the 1964 Republican Convention that, "A new breed of Republicans had taken over the GOP.  As I watched this steamroller operation in San Francisco, I had a better understanding of how it must have felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany." Traditionally, the Democratic Party, not the Republican Party, was the party of states-rights, and the Republican Party was the national party of civil rights.

Geofrey Kabaservice has written an excellent book that documents the decline of the moderate wing of the Republican Party and the rise of extremists in his book, Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation and the Destruction of the Republican Party, From Eisenhower to the Tea Party. He notes that the last election where the conservatives were not the guiding force of the party was the 1960 election, which is also the last time a Republican President received a significant number of African-American votes.

This was not inevitable, though. Although African-American voters have consistently supported Democratic candidates, other people of color have supported Republican candidates. For example, Harwood notes that many contemporary Republicans have received significant support from Hispanic voters (e.g. President George W. Bush). I also want to add that Republicans such as Jack Kemp have showed that Republicans can win elections with significant support from non-white voters when they provide alternative policies to public problems based both on a free-market basis and with effective government.

However, modern day conservatives often show contempt for those with whom they disagree, and this is not only towards Democrats, but also towards traditional Republicans. Such an attitude alienates many people, including people of color. Indeed, these conservatives claim to be "Reagan Republicans," but do not follow President Reagan's support of the so-called "11th commandment": Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican. Reagan was certainly a conservative ideologically, but he was also civil to his political opponents, and did not deride traditional Republicans.

In contrast, the prejoritave label, RINO (Republican In Name Only) is often used by modern conservatives against Republicans who show respect and consideration not only for Democrats, but also for those who are politically weak and vulnerable in society, such as immigrants. Conservative talk radio hosts often talk in an Orwellian way of Republicans as traditional supporters of states-rights (not true), and critical of civil rights measures (also not true), and label traditional Republicans who support both free-market economics and good government as RINOs. I cannot recall an exodus of Republicans from the party when Reagan was president, and yet we have seen such an exodus over the past decade as conservative activists continue to eliminate traditional Republicans from the party. If these Republicans eat their own, why would anyone trust them in power?

What motivates such conservatives? We can see how, beginning with the 1964 presidential convention and election, civility and respect, as well as concern for vulnerable people in society, is often looked down upon by an increasing number of conservative activists. One reason may be because many conservative activists admire the seductive morality of Ayn Rand, who said it was immoral to support the politically weak and vulnerable in society (keep in mind immigration policy), rather than Jesus Christ and His disciples who advocated supporting the poor in society. When a person despises such people, it is not hard to despise and look down upon their political opponents, as well. In many ways, Rand's morality is now the standard of conservative politics.

My Grandfather, a Texan born in 1899, and a common worker with a 10th grade education, told me that he became a Republican through his admiration of President Theodore Roosevelt. Contemporary conservatives often deride President Roosevelt for his progressive policies. President Abraham Lincoln, too, was criticized for expand the power of the presidency, and thus, violating the US Constitution. The way contemporary conservatives criticize Roosevelt implies that Lincoln was also a RINO because of his support for the supremacy of national power over state power regarding civil liberties and civil rights. However, Lincoln is too much of a national icon for conservatives to criticize, so they have tried to redefine Lincoln as a modern states-rights conservative.

Where is the party of modern Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and yes, real Reagan Republicans today? A Republican Party controlled by states-rights conservatives is not my grandfather's Republican Party. In many ways it is more like a neo-Dixiecrat Party.

08 February 2014

The Universe of GRAVITY

This is a short, excellent article about the universe of the movie, GravityGM=tc^3: The Universe of GRAVITY .

My favorite sitcom is The Dick Van Dyke Show. I also like the movie, Mr. Mom. The Dick Van Dyke Show took place in the early to mid-1960s. Mr. Mom took place in the early 1980s. Looking at the technology in both households, I noticed it did not change much in that 20 year period. Most households still did not have computers, and the computers available to most households did not have much capabilities compared to what we have today. However, technology drastically changed over the next 20 years, between the early 1980s and the early 2000s.

What will technology be like in space in the next 20 years, especially concerning outer space? Space taxis (don't laugh)? The above article discusses some of this focusing on the most excellent movie, Gravity. If you have not seen this movie, I highly recommend it.