President Washington

George Washington, Father of Our Country, is often recognized as being central to our winning our independence, and his role as the first president – and first precedence setter – is also recognized – at least by historians. But, in large part he has fallen into a limbo of ancient symbol, but not a man who is respected as essential figure of our nation's finding, and arguably, as the single irreplaceable man of the last three centuries. And there is no place where this forgotten role is more pronounced then in his role as the President of the Constitutional Convention.

The fact is that leadership – that is, those positions where an individual has real authority over others – is often written about. But in most cases those who right about it have had little or no first-hand experience with actual leadership, that is they have rarely had authority over other, they have rarely held power. This lack of a frame of reference has led to there being little in the way of leadership discussions in which the debilitating nature of power is discussed, or to any discussion which reflects the real difficulties faced by those who have held power and managed to – somehow – behave in a truly superior, exemplary manner, one which can be used as a precedent for future generations, nor finally the very real difficulty of leading exceptional people, particularly when the direction chosen is truly uncharted territory.

It is in this final situation that our young nation found itself following our victory in Revolutionary War. We had our independence, but the Articles of Confederation left us with little in the way of an effective government and the need to form a new government was recognized by the leaders of the day. Central to the very idea that a new government could be formed was the notion that George Washington would be available in some way to lend his support to that new government. And Washington wrote and spoke of the need for a strong executive, one that had been avoided in the Articles of Confederation. In fact, it is fair to say that the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia would probably not have met at all if the participants did not include Washington. And while one might have eventually met, it would have been far different in fact.

What exactly transpired at the convention on a day-to-day basis has never been known, as the members kept private most specific word-for-word, day-to-day discussions – intentionally. Madison provided daily notes on the proceedings, and many of the members provided summations after the fact, and these provide a great deal of insight into the vigorous debates by the members. What is of particular note is that Washington's words were only noted once, in reference to representation in Congress and how to assign Congressman by census – an important point but not earth shattering.

But what is missed by most historians is what is not there: the convention did not come apart at the seams. This seems, at this date more than 220 years later, as a foregone conclusion. These were some of the greatest men who ever lived, and the names are a list of some of the truly most exceptional political thinkers – and leaders – of any era: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton – the list goes on.

But I look at the list of figures from a different perspective. Having been in the position of leading groups of very bright and very talented people (not to imply that anyone has ever had any other group as bright and as talented as those at the Constitutional Convention), particularly when we had to institute real change – where success would be difficult to define but failure would be easily identified, I submit that that can be as difficult a leadership task as one can imagine.

All of the men at the Constitutional Convention were brilliant, opinionated, strong-willed, and dynamic figures. All had in one way or another demonstrated that they could lead. All had very real concerns about where the young nation was headed and very real concerns about the laws, the foundation, on which it was to be built. All were aware that they were charting a course into 'seas' that had, in the previous 2500 years failed to produce any nation that had lasted more than a few generations. We have heard that leading is sometimes like 'herding cats.' But Washington was not herding cats. He was, if anything herding a room full of tigers.

And from this came the single most remarkable political document ever drafted, the

model for virtually every constitution drafted since, and the foundation of the greatest nation in history.

I cannot but wonder what would have happened if George Washington had not been

sitting with them, listening, providing the firm hand and fatherly guidance, the stern face and, rarely, the sharp word in private, that would have been absolutely essential to bring these brilliant men together. Yet there is in that behavior the very thing that would have prevented any of these men from writing about it. There own dignity, and Washington's, and their respect for Washington, would have forbidden any recognition of it. It was enough for them all to simply remember that Washington had been there, that in the end they had performed well and received his approval.

Washington performed in three truly remarkable leadership rolls: as the General who

brought victory over the British, as the President of the Constitutional Convention, and as the first – and most important – President of this nation. The first and third are, at least, remembered in passing, though we forget just how 'close run a thing' both the war and the first few decades really were. But we have all but forgotten his role as the man who presided over the Constitutional Convention, an act of leadership that I submit rivals the other two.

In our minds' eye we might see them, brilliant, pointed debate moving around the room, sometimes rancorous, sometimes threatening to stall on this or that point, whether from legal interpretation or regional predilection, but always moving forward, producing a document that would not only be approved by the separate states, but would also produce a nation that has survived longer then any other true democracy in history, and

has proven that government of, by and for the people is possible. And at the head table sits Washington, the silent conductor of the convention.

February 22nd is the 279th anniversary of George Washington.  Happy Birthday Mr. President.

Wisconsin: Democracy or Tyranny?

Thomas B. Reed was the Speaker of the House from 1889 to 1891 and again from 1895 to 1899. In 1890 Reed was responsible for ending a practice that had become common on the House floor, the practice of the disappearing quorum. Whenever the minority party (the Democrats for most of the era) wanted to block a vote, they would refuse to answer the roll call and thus, a quorum not having been met, no vote could take place.

Reed recognized that this was not at all what the Founding Fathers had intended, nor was it what the Constitution said. The rights of the minority are not protected by a refusal of elected officials to act as they have been elected to do; the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, and by the Courts. While there are rules in the Senate that allow debate to proceed virtually indefinitely, thus producing the filibuster, the intent was to generate sound and comprehensive deliberation, not prevent any action at all.

Reed noted that legislatures are not simply seated to discuss problems and then do nothing, that the people have elected them to act. And they must act according to democratic process, not by simply avoiding votes.

Reed fixed his particular problem by simply having the Master-at-Arms record who was present in the chamber at the time of a roll call, thus generating a quorum and moving forward with a vote. (It is worth noting that when Reed later had to preside over a vote in support of President McKinley’s move toward war against Spain, a war Reed had come to oppose, Reed was offered the suggestion that if he opposed it he could bend the rules and block the vote, because he knew that if it came to a vote the bill would pass. Reed refused to do, and later resigned from the position of Speaker and from Congress.

Yesterday we heard that the Democratic members of the Wisconsin legislature had walked off the floor and fled the state in order to prevent a vote by the majority of the Wisconsin legislature. That vote would reduce the overall benefits of the state employees and mandate that they would need to pay more for their healthcare.

The lesson of Speaker Reed – 120 years ago – speaks to us today. Legislatures are put in place to do the will of the people, locally, in state capitals and in Washington. They are not elected to avoid their duties or avoid the unpleasant tasks of a republic when there are dangers or difficulties. Wisconsin has fiscal problems. The citizens of Wisconsin have noted the same and elected the majority of its legislators, as well as its new governor and given them the mandate to fix these problems. That is what the majority has said. Now, in an effort to thwart that majority, a majority which is in no way threatening the fundamental rights of the individual, nor in any way threatening good order, the community as a whole, or the survival of the state, or in fact in any way threatening any of the rights and freedoms in either the US Constitution or the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin, the Democratic legislators have chosen to ignore the citizens of the state, thumb their collective noses at the democratic process, and violate their oaths of office that calls for them to uphold the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin (Article IV, Section 28), and instead are pandering to a small segment of their constituency.

It is worth noting that the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin (Article IV, Section 7 – quoted below in its entirety) suggests that except for standing rules of the Assembly, the present members could simply vote and be done with it.  Additional rules exist to ensure that there is representation from all parties whenever an important vote takes place.

“Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. SECTION 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide. “

But these particular legislators have chosen to disregard their Constitution. Why? Berhaps because they believe that the compensation package that state employees receive should not be amended so that they pay more for healthcare and retirement plans then they currently do.  Perhaps they are pandering to a particular voting block. There is certainly much to debate about healthcare costs and retirement plan costs. But the fact remains that the state is going broke. At some point the benefits of a minority segment of any society have to be weighed against the cost of those benefits. That is what the voters did last November. This is not going to be pleasant. But the fact remains that the state needs to put its fiscal plans in order, the citizens have recognized that fact, and the legislature must act on the will of the voters. What the Democratic legislators of Wisconsin are now doing is simply an attempt to usurp the authority of the voters of that state.

The Human Race

A well-known actress recently made a statement which is truly disturbing in its implications. It seems she felt a need to explain why – by way of what appears to be an apology (to use the words ascribed to her in the article I read) - she is ‘dating outside her race.’ The main-stream media doesn’t appear too bothered by it.

We have a nation founded on the principle that all men are created equal, we fought an incredibly destructive civil war to ensure that that principal was applied fairly to all, we as a nation have suffered through 150 years of civil strife since that war began, we have suffered through the civil rights movement for nearly 60 years. It seemed we had finally moved beyond such issues as who was dating whom – particularly in Hollywood.

The Declaration of Independence says that ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;’ the Constitution provided equal rights to all – and we fought a bloody war to preserve that Constitution and end slavery. We ended slavery (the 13th Amendment) and guaranteed equal access to the law (the 14th Amendment) more than 140 years ago, and we have continued to push the notion of equality ever since.

But somehow men and women should date each other based on, well, in fact, I’m not even sure what. What the heck does race mean anyway? The closest science can get in trying to classify humans by ‘race’ is to classify people by phenotypes, that is, by observable characteristics and traits. If you think that makes sense, try to accurately define the term ‘European’ or for that matter ‘Arab’ when used to define someone ethnically. Irish, Greek, Finish, Romanian, Portuguese – all are ‘European.’ Moroccans, Egyptians, Lebanese, Iraqis, and Omanis are all ‘Arabs.’ Are the Berber tribesmen of the Sudan ‘Arabs?’ I’ve heard folks from the Saudi Arabia argue that to be Arab your family has to be from the Arabian Peninsula. Which means Iraqis and Kuwaitis aren’t Arabs. Go figure.

And how accurate is this? And further, who cares? Should we only date people with the same nose? Jaw? Skin color? (That’s a good one: how many skin tones do you see walking down the street? Hundreds, a function of how much melanin you have – genetics – plus how much sun exposure you have had, and your diet and certain possible health issues.) It is worth noting that if you could trace everyone’s lineage back about 40 generations the family tree would reveal that we are all related (maybe there is some remote village in the upper Amazon that has been isolated for 40 generations, but I doubt it.)

Maybe we should date and marry based on shoe size or bowling scores.

‘Some guy’ once said that we should judge people not on the color of their skin but the content of their character. If someone is a wonderful man or woman shouldn’t we want to more closely associate with him or her? And if he or she is a jerk, or believes in things that we believe are wrong, can’t we just call him a jerk and ignore him? Best I can figure, the only ‘race’ that any of us are in is the human race. Let’s start looking at character and forget some of this nonsense.

Who was the guy who said that thing about character anyway? Just some dreamer I suppose.

Christina Aguilera and the National Anthem

Christina Aguilera flubbed the national anthem at the Super Bowl. She’s not the first and she won’t be the last. The list of folks who have had difficulty singing the anthem is long and filled with quiet a few notable performers: Robert Goulet at the Ali – Norton fight 4+ decades ago seems to stand out in my mind (I’m a fight fan), but take a short sojourn into the world of YouTube and you will find scores of botched anthems saved forever on film. 

I also seem to recall a noted Broadway song and dance man standing up and singing the anthem once at a major championship of some sort and getting halfway through and completely losing the words, humming through to the finish then walking off the stage looking like he was trying to find a place to slash his wrists.

And you’ll also find one of the best stories that ever came off the sports page, when Maurice Cheeks saved the day when he helped a young woman – Natalie Gilbert - who was singing the anthem. She forgot the lines and started to freeze up and Mr. Cheeks stepped forward and helped her finish – and showed his true self. (If you have never seen it, search for ‘maurice cheeks national anthem,’ it will pop right up.)

The point is this: no performer wants to put on a poor performance. At the same time there is no song that receives more scrutiny then the anthem. Literally, everyone is staring at you. The Super Bowl means an audience of 100 million or more. And that means more pressure still. Everyone is trying but sometimes even the best fumble under pressure. Ask Ben Roethlisberger about producing a perfect performance under the scrutiny of 100 million viewers and the pressure of a Super Bowl. So let’s give her a break.

Truths?

There were several articles in the paper the other day that discussed some of the thing we need to learn from what is happening in Egypt. One made the point that truth will always win out and that dictators can’t keep people suppressed. Oh, that it were true.

The fact is that history is overcrowded with countries that have suffered under one autocrat after another, for generations on end; despots who, in the name of this or that dynasty and this or that ideology have suppressed freedom and truth. Even in the case of most of the nations in history that have claimed to be democracies, the governments in question have used and abused their powers, limited the freedom of their people, manipulated the truth and denied basic rights. Even in the last 100 years the examples of elected governments running amok is long and sullied.

Hitler was elected and rose to power through manipulation of parliamentary procedure and Mussolini was elected to the Chamber of Deputies before leading a coup that installed him as Prime Minister, nominally the legal and selected leader of the country. For decades the various communist regimes held elections in which their leadership was elected by the people, and the list of ‘guaranteed’ rights under the Constitution of the USSR made the US Bill of Rights look cheap by comparison.

Many of the oppressive regimes currently oppressing their own people are in power based on manipulated elections. Whether Iran or Zimbabwe or Venezuela or a host of other nations, duly elected officials – in truly twisted elections – continue to abuse power and grind the people under their boots. But still they stand up and say that they are democracies. Even North Korea has an elected parliament.

So what are the real truths to be drawn from Egypt? And Tunisia?

1) The world is a dangerous place. After the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union there were many in the west who began to voice opinions that ‘everything had changed,’ that mankind had entered into a new era, that peace and prosperity would reign forever, and that mankind could now start enjoying an age of brotherhood and comity.

Those who felt otherwise and dared to voice their perspective that the Cold War had simply allowed us the perverse luxury of focusing on a single major problem and ignoring most of the others were labeled as cynics and worse yet, purveyors of ‘old think.’ However, the wishful thinking of those who believed that we were entering a utopian humanist age has yet to materialize into anything real. The world remains a very dangerous place, and perhaps less stable now then it was 30 years ago.

2) Democracy can be dangerous, particularly in either of the following cases: a democracy in a country with an enduring tradition of strong central rule – as in Russia (think of Putin) or Iran (the Shah, then Ayatollah Khomeini, then Ayatollah Khameni) – it lead to de facto dictators claiming to rule in the name of the people; or two, democracies in countries with constitutions that do not both provide for the rights of the individual and at the same time limit the scope of the government itself – this leads to denial of individual rights in the name of the people and the tyranny of the majority; where Algeria was headed in 1992 before the Army threw out the elected leaders, where Venezuela is right now, and Cuba.

3) Supporting democracies around the world is, all other things being equal, the right thing to do. And I fully support the effort to make Iraq a true, liberal democracy. But such efforts are both long and difficult. Nor should we be adamant that we would never reject the government of such democracies. US interests must come first. And if a duly elected government of some nascent democracy turns against the US and its interests the US must be prepared to seek US interests first and eschew support for democracies for democracy’s sake, to the detriment of our own interests.

4) The Internet and Facebook and Twitter and all the other social media do not and will never equal truth. Nor does 24-hour news coverage. Whatever is happening on the streets of Cairo, it is a certainty that there is more going on then meets the eye. It is also true that what people send around on e-mails and tweets and photos from cell-phone are, at best narrow, and often hasty, poorly thought out, views of very wide problems; more often they are biased and self-serving. They can be of great value in sharing news of a given event. But they should never be confused with truth.

5) All of which leads to one painful conclusion: despite hopes for being able to spend less on our security, the fact remains that the US safeguards democracy – liberal democracy – around the world. If we don’t do it, no one will. We also provide security for the global market place, for the international trade routes that make possible the improved standards of living world-wide. If we fail to protect those trade routes, others with less magnanimous and less gracious foreign policies will eventually take our place. And the world will be even less stable – and less pleasant. Investing in national security – the military, the intelligence community, and tailored support to key allies – is the primary – that is first and before all else - responsibility of our government because it is the primary guarantor of both our safety and our way of live. Other expenses must take a second seat to national security needs.

Four centuries ago Oliver Cromwell – himself a fairly brutal dictator – advised his army to ‘place your trust in God, but keep your powder dry.’ The advice remains as sound now as it did then. If there is one truth to be learned from what is going on in Egypt, that is it.

Egypt: Iran Redux?

As we watch Hosni Mubarak’s regime unravel, the image of the riots in Tehran and the collapse of the Shah’s government more than 30 years ago once again comes to mind. While the recent events in Tunisia were dramatic, they were both more spontaneous and of less importance to the US. What is worrisome about Egypt is the seeming presence of a plan, the orderly, un-armed rioters, the police and army who seemed to be playing a role in a well written play, appearing and disappearing, for the most part showing remarkable restraint.

It leads us to ask the question: if there were a plan, who were the planners? If Mubarak is being forced from office, who is behind the forcing?

While the obvious villains are the Muslim Brotherhood, it is probably not quite that simple. Are they involved? Certainly. But there must also have been orchestration from within, from the Egyptian Army, from the national police, and from key senior politicians who have yet to surface. Is Muhammed El Baradei involved in the scheme? Probably, though he may also be a pawn. Will a new government bring the Muslim Brotherhood into a power-sharing arrangement? Possible.

What is also possible is that this entire crisis was orchestrated by elements in the army that were concerned that Mubarak’s planned transition of power placed their power base at risk. The option therefore was to force him out through a ‘people power’ revolution. The plan probably entailed using the Muslim Brotherhood, wittingly or unwittingly. If they – the planners - are clever, the Brotherhood will be given some apparent elements of power in the new regime but no real authority. Mubarak and his erstwhile heir Gamal will be out of the way, a transition to a new regime will have been affected, and the Muslim Brotherhood will be neutralized, at least for a few years. There is of course a risk that someone misplays it and the plotters lose control. But the Egyptian army has been the de facto power base of the government for 68 years and they are not likely to give up that position.

What will all this mean to US interests? That, of course, is the ‘$64,000 question.’ Two key issues are central to those interests: the Camp David Accord, and the Suez Canal. The first, the Camp David Accord, has provided more than 30 years of peace between Egypt and Israel and has been the foundation for the belief that a negotiated settlement is possible. Anything that threatened that agreement would have dire consequences, stretching well beyond Egypt and across the entire Mid-East.

The second issue is the Suez Canal, a spot recognized as one of the few key strategic spots on the planet (convincingly argued as such by Mahan in 1900). The Suez Canal is a waterway of importance not simply to the West, but to the entire world. While more than 2 million barrels of oil move through the canal every day headed for Europe and the US, tens of thousands of tons of grains and foods move south through the canal, feeding the people of Arabia and East Africa. Interruption of food transport or even a brief price hike in food caused by concerns over access to the canal could cause more political damage to countries in that region then the hike in oil prices will cause either political or economic damage in the West. (Spikes in food prices were key to the unrest that brought about the regime change in Tunisia last month.) That kind of instability could threaten other governments and lead to even more regional unrest.

What is certain is that, despite the use of the word ‘democracy,’ we are not going to see anything like a Western democracy spring up along the Nile. We are likely to see another Army backed dictator, wrapped in the guise of someone bringing power to the people; less likely, we may see the rise of a radical Islamic democracy, similar in many ways (though different as well) to the one in Iran – though Sunni not Shia; least likely we may see an interim bureaucracy/kleptocracy rise to power during a ‘behind-the scenes’ power struggle.

Nevertheless, two points need to be kept in mind:

1) We could not have changed this outcome. Could we have applied pressure to Mubarak over the last 30 years to change the nature of regime? Certainly. And we did – both positive and negative pressure. But that pressure always had to take a back seat to other needs, in particular overall regional stability and the security of US interests. It is no good to say ‘yes, but in the long run that policy works against US interests in the long run’ simply because we would never get to the long run if we had been forced out of Egypt 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago. Presidents must play with ‘the cards they are dealt’ and Egypt has been one of those cards since World War II.

2) We cannot dictate who comes to power next. There are various ways that the US can try to apply pressure – openly or quietly, diplomatically, using both carrots and sticks. But in the end the internal machinations of the various factions – to include the Army and the Muslim Brotherhood – will decide who rules in Egypt.

So, what can we do? We can and must send a clear signal that we support the people of Egypt in their desire to move toward a real democracy. We need to continue to send the signal that we support true democracy and the rise of real freedoms, not pseudo democracy providing a cloak in which to wrap an oppressive regime, as is currently the case in Iran. And we need to take every opportunity to support pro-Western, pro-liberal democracy movements in the Mid-East and around the world. At the same time we need to remember that US interests come first. If that means we need to support governments that behave in ways we don’t necessarily like, then that is what we need to do. Egypt may soon find itself under another de facto dictator straight out of the Egyptian army. If he guarantees the Camp David Accord and the security of the Suez Canal, and isn’t engaged in over-the-top suppression of his people’s rights, then we need to grit our teeth, quietly apply pressure where we can, and move on.